Hunh. That's a darned good question . . . how much IS an ounce of marijuana anyway?

[xiphias]

Ballot Question 2 in Massachusetts would turn possession of 1 oz or less of marijuana from a criminal offense to a civil offense.

Someone on my friends list, who is working out how she wants to vote, asked, "So, how much IS that, anyway? How many joints do you make from an ounce of marijuana?"

I realized that I have no clue, and that that could really be a significant question . . .

I did some Google searches, and what I turned up suggested that perhaps an ounce would be as much as a single pot smoker could reasonably be expected to consume in a week, but I don't know that for sure.

So . . . I'm pretty darned certain that SOME of you would have a better feel for this than I would. As always, anonymous commenting is allowed; IP tracking is off; if you don't want to explain how you know stuff, feel free not to explain.

But . . . how many joints are in an ounce? How many people would consume an ounce? How long would it take one casual user to go through an ounce, a heavy user, an occasional user?

I mean, I don't assume that there would be a one single answer -- I assume that there are lots of variables, from type of weed to type of smoker to all sorts of things -- but I just want a ballpark order-of-magnitude thing. Would one ounce make one joint? Would one ounce make a thousand joints? I have no way of knowing.

Comments

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

The people I knew who were highly productive, all had been diagnosed with ADHD and were self medicating. I lived with a friend like that and saw him on the days he didn't smoke. OMG. OFF THE WALLS HYPER. Smoking? Able to have a concentration and focus for several minutes at a time. Vast improvement.

I think a lot of folks who smoke regularly have diagnosed (or undiagnosed) medical issues. I know I did, at the time.

N.

[cbpotts.livejournal.com]

When I worked in Mental Health (a million years ago) they used to call that dual diagnosis: someone would use drugs or alcohol to combat what was happening inside their head. ADD/ADHD wasn't as prominent then, but lots of boderline personality disorder people said that smoking would help them control the feelings of being slighted or being oppressed that they got that were so problematical for them.

[dillonpuff.livejournal.com]

Ricky Williams (football players for the Dolphins) is a total headcase and smoking pot helps him a *lot*. There are plenty of valid uses as treatment for medical conditions in my book.

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

Mine too.

N.

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

But this promotes more the legalization of medical marijuana, which I am totally in favor of, than the legalization of carrying about a month's worth of marijuana, which I am not sure I am in favor of.

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

I'm sharing an observation based on experience. It would be nice to have medical marijuana - but without it - and for those who do not have health insurance - decriminalization seems a good way to go.

I'm not going to go into my personal medical history with you, however.

N.

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

I didn't, and certainly wouldn't, ask you to go into your personal medical history. It's none of my business.

Massachusetts has, at least in theory, healthcare for all, as it's a requirement. So while it's not 100%, it is available for close to 100%.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Nex0s is in New York, but, as this is a Massachusetts ballot initiative, this makes sense.

To me, though, it sounds like you're asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be, "Is decriminalization of posession of one ounce of marijuana better than allowing medical marijuana?" The question should be "Is decriminalization of posession of one ounce of marijuana better than NOT decriminalizing said posession?"

Medical marijuana will, in either case, remain illegal. It will, in either case, remain uncovered by insurance, whether or not a person has insurance. It will also, arguably, remain the best available treatment for certain diseases.

Under one scenario, a person taking that treatment will be subject to a fine, no prison or jail time, and no criminal record. Under the other scenario, a person taking that treatment will be subject to arrest and prison, and a criminal record.

From the point of view of a medical marijuana user, decriminalization, while not perfect, is certainly better.

What are some of the other points of view that you would find useful to consider?

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

Well, one of the things I don't want to do, is decriminalize the ounce because I believe in medical marijuana. I think that those are two very different questions. One allows the oversight of a doctor, like any prescription medication, and one does not.

I fully appreciate the desire to eliminate small marijuana use from showing up on a CORI. I work for an agency that has access to everything on a CORI, even what others normally don't see. And any CORI history, even juvenile, dismissals, and acquitals can make a difference in the families we work with.

But also within my work, I see the damage that even a small amount of marijuana use can have on children and families. I work with adults and children who use. If the impetus to stop changes from jail to $100 fine, will they stop using?

And I wonder, if this is decriminalized, what does that mean for the ability to report it and for us to open cases based on marijuana usage. After all, we can't make a finding of abuse or neglect because a parent smokes cigarettes around their child, even though we know the damage it causes. If it is decriminalized and made a civil offense, what impact does that have on our work and our ability to determine families in need.

These are the questions I consider, and the more I think about it, the more on the fence I become.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yep. You're looking at a different side of the question than I am, so it's quite reasonable that you might be coming up with a different answer.

Obviously, someone who smokes around their kid is not going to stop because the penalties are less severe. The worry would be -- are there people who are going to START smoking around their kids if the penalties are less severe?

And I can only make wild speculations about what that would do to your work. I'd guess that, since it is still illegal, it wouldn't affect your work THAT much . . . but I don't know that, and you'd be in a much better position to guess than I would.

As a bartender, I like people to have the right to use certain mind-altering chemicals recreationally. That's my job, after all. But I'm also deeply aware that the mind-altering chemical I work with is probably the one which causes the most damage that YOU work with.

That influences how I look at this question, too. My job is providing alcohol, recreationally. Alcohol is the drug which causes the most damage to families. Marijuana is a far less damaging drug -- but it still causes damage. And it's more illegal than alcohol.

That's an imbalance. I want to see that imbalance rectified by moving the legal status of marijuana closer to that of alcohol, rather than by moving alcohol closer to marijuana -- because the latter situation would put me out of a career that I love.

But you deal with a different part of the system, and your perspective will probably be different.

Here's the question I hear you asking: How many people are CURRENTLY deterred from using pot in ways that will negatively affect their families, who will NO LONGER BE deterred if the penalties of posession are reduced?

My gut feeling is that the number of such people is very small. I suspect that the people whose pot use is going to harm their families are people whose decision-making is already skewed enough that the criminal penalties aren't affecting their choices very much.

But then, I WOULD have that gut feeling. Having that gut feeling fits right in with the course of action I already have decided I want to take. You've dealt with people in that situation more than I have, and have a better perspective to know if that's true.

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

Thank you for putting my thoughts in order. You've helped alot!

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

You're very welcome.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

There are so many cases in which state-sanctioned medical procedures or preparations cannot do what marijuana does for an ill person, though. Saying "Decriminalisation is pointless because we have state health care which will provide therapies to ill persons" doesn't really address the fact that there are conditions that respond well to marijuana and not to anything else.

As Ian says, though, that's not the right statement. What's better, decriminalisation, or continuing to lock people up because there was a seed in their pocket or a joint in their purse or a baggie in their car, and ruining their lives? There are users of alcohol out there who go on driving after committing vehicular homicide while intoxicated. Many of them never do a day in any kind of jail. Some of them go on to kill again. But if there's a seed in your pocket you go to jail for the mandatory minimum, and are never again not a drug offender, which affects everything about your life? How does this make sense?

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

Saying "Decriminalisation is pointless because we have state health care which will provide therapies to ill persons" doesn't really address the fact that there are conditions that respond well to marijuana and not to anything else.

Oh, that's not what I am saying at all!! But decriminalization does not create the medical oversight that legalization of medical marijuana would, so I believe they are very separate issues. In that argument (and there are many others, as I don't think self-medicating is the primary reason for marijuana use) it's like making marijuana an OTC instead of a prescription, and I'm not sure I'm ok with that.

As for your scenario, it doesn't make sense. I'm not a drinker either, but I do believe that alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes should all be regulated the same. Question #2 does not do that, and I'm not sure that taking a baby step is the right answer.