The Marijuana Thread

[pgwenthold]

Brick stacking, huh? Of all of the "plenty of examples" you can think of, you come up with brick stacking. You're probably a Mason out to control me. Well, I'm not falling for it, pal.

I could leave out the bricks, but then it is only dangerous for the most uncoordinated of us. Still applies to me, but I thought standing on bricks would be obviously more risky than just standing on the driveway.

On a more serious note, I was merely pointing out that the analogy to alcohol is not apt. The activities are not equivalent. If you can think of plenty of examples of dangerous activities that have no good purpose, use those. Because alcohol use and pot use are not equivalent.

They are, because, as my example shows, the question of "what good is it" is not relevant when it comes to having something legal. Alcohol, marijuana, and brick standing all satisfy the criterion "I want do it." That is the only benefit that needs to be shown.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yeah I never made that claim

All I ever said is that all junkies, except maybe some insignificant number of them, smoked pot before they smoked whatever else.

And has been pointed out, you can probably say the same thing about caffeine or alcohol.

Really, how many people who smoke marijuana have never smoked regular cigarettes?

 

[pipelineaudio]

And has been pointed out, you can probably say the same thing about caffeine or alcohol.

Really, how many people who smoke marijuana have never smoked regular cigarettes?

well a LOT of people who smoke pot HATE tobacco

hate hate hate

 

[Darth Rotor]

So alcohol causes chirocciss of the liver and death, is very addictive and a major health hazrd. Why should mj be illegal, bacause african americans used to be the ones to smoke it.

What problems will marijuans cause that alcohol, gambling and driving over the speed limit don't cause.

Computers cause problems too, as does new technology, should we outlaw them becasue they might cause more problems.

marijuana was criminalized because of racial persecution, thems the facts. I say we outlaw the bible instead.

OK, who has been smoking their Bible? If you want a buzz, filch the communion wine, don't smoke the Bible! You'll get lung cancer.

Oh, wait, were you just using the blank pages in the back to roll your doobies with?

DR

 

[Dancing David]

OK, who has been smoking their Bible? If you want a buzz, filch the communion wine, don't smoke the Bible! You'll get lung cancer.

Oh, wait, were you just using the blank pages in the back to roll your doobies with?

DR

Those are splifs not doobies, unless it is a gideon's little bible.

I ain't rolling nothing. I stopped fighting in the war on drugs a long time ago.

 

[boooeee]

As a fellow Colts fan, I value and respect your opinion.

Likewise. We smart people should stick together.

However, I'd really be interested in finding out how of law enforcement's resources are actually taken up tracking down pot heads. If anything, it seems like something to tag on to an offense, like not wearing your seatbelt. I actually know/have known quite a few pot heads and not one has ever received a felony charge for possession. That's typically reserved for dealing. So... I would like to see how legitimate your concern actually is.

I honestly have no idea to what degree law enforcement resources are used to prosecute pot smokers. I think we do spend a lot tracking down the dealers. Under legalization, this would no longer be necessary.

To me, the potential adverse consequences of pot smoking do not justify the resources we spend trying to prevent it. Even if the amount of resources is not massive.

 

[Thanz]

They are, because, as my example shows, the question of "what good is it" is not relevant when it comes to having something legal. Alcohol, marijuana, and brick standing all satisfy the criterion "I want do it." That is the only benefit that needs to be shown.

Well, no. Maybe that's how you are using it, but most are using it in the sense of "Why can I get drunk but I can't get high?", as if the two products were simply interchangable. They are not. Alcohol has uses which pot simply doesn't have.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, no. Maybe that's how you are using it, but most are using it in the sense of "Why can I get drunk but I can't get high?", as if the two products were simply interchangable. They are not. Alcohol has uses which pot simply doesn't have.

But it is still legal to get drunk, which is separate from that issue. Alcohol may have other uses, but you are not required to restrict yourself to those uses.

Pot has uses that alcohol doesn't have. Pot can be used medicinally. However, pot isn't even allowed for _that_, much less for other uses.

So it seems to me if that is their question, "why can I get drunk and not get high?" is appropriate. Heck, you could restate it: "Why am I allowed to abuse alcohol, but not allowed to abuse marijuana?" just to show that it is being used for purposes outside of its supposed benefits?

 

[Snide]

But it is still legal to get drunk, which is separate from that issue. Alcohol may have other uses, but you are not required to restrict yourself to those uses.

Pot has uses that alcohol doesn't have. Pot can be used medicinally. However, pot isn't even allowed for _that_, much less for other uses.

So it seems to me if that is their question, "why can I get drunk and not get high?" is appropriate. Heck, you could restate it: "Why am I allowed to abuse alcohol, but not allowed to abuse marijuana?" just to show that it is being used for purposes outside of its supposed benefits?

Exactly. And before someone chimes in with, "Well, the medicinal uses of pot can be accomplished through different means," I would like to add that the other uses of alcohol can be accomplished through different means as well (e.g., soda, tea, etc.).

 

[slingblade]

well a LOT of people who smoke pot HATE tobacco

hate hate hate

My personal observations lead me to the opposite conclusion. In 48 years on the planet, I have known many, many people who smoked pot, and all but one of them smoked tobacco, too.

This is why anecdotal evidence seems compelling, but isn't. I use it, but I try to always say that it's anecdotal, and I know such observations made outside scientific controls are suspect and unreliable.

I've seen lots of people who smoke both things. You've seen lots who don't.
What's it mean?

 

[Thanz]

Exactly. And before someone chimes in with, "Well, the medicinal uses of pot can be accomplished through different means," I would like to add that the other uses of alcohol can be accomplished through different means as well (e.g., soda, tea, etc.).

The difference is that, as has been argued by others, the exact medicinal ingredient in pot can be delivered in other means. There is no way that a nice 85 Bordeaux with your Prime Rib can be equated with a soda.

 

[steverino]

I've seen lots of people who smoke both things. You've seen lots who don't.
What's it mean?

It means there are already too many smokers in our society, and we do not need to greenlight another smokable substance. It's disgusting.

 

[pgwenthold]

The difference is that, as has been argued by others, the exact medicinal ingredient in pot can be delivered in other means. There is no way that a nice 85 Bordeaux with your Prime Rib can be equated with a soda.

I've never had special brownies, but I am guessing that they have a flavor that cannot be delivered in other means.

 

[Thanz]

I've never had special brownies, but I am guessing that they have a flavor that cannot be delivered in other means.

Well, that is a great argument. A guess about the taste of something that you have never tasted. Now if you could seriously suggest that anyone has a special brownie for that unique flavour, you might have the beginnings of the germ of something that is not quite yet a point.

 

[Snide]

The difference is that, as has been argued by others, the exact medicinal ingredient in pot can be delivered in other means. There is no way that a nice 85 Bordeaux with your Prime Rib can be equated with a soda.

I don't doubt people really believe that, but if that's what it boils down to as an argument to keep pot illegal and liquor legal, it is extremely weak.

 

[Trantor]

Very interesting thread. I couldn't read it all, but I read the first page and last couple of pages. I am in the HR profession, so I deal with the issue of illegel drugs very often. My company requires drug tests for a variety of employment-related issues; including hiring, accidents, suspicion, and certain promotions. I would say that 90% of the terminations that I do for drug use, are marijuana cases. In most cases, the employee is not under the influence at the time of testing. Marijuana is detectable much longer than most other drugs. In fact, the hard drugs, such as cocaine and crystal meth leave your body very quickly. Some other types of hard drugs, such as ecstasy are almost impossible to detect, even shortly after the person uses it.

I can tell you that the most wildly used drug that has the most negative impact on on our operation is alcohol. More people miss work and get into trouble at work due to alcohol than any other drug; not because they are doing it on the job, but because they are doing it excessively after work and it creates great havoc in peoples personal lives. As long as you are not using alcohol on the job, you will be ok on any drug test. You smoke a joint three weeks ago, and have a small accident on the job - your job is finished.

Years ago I used to work for a large construction company where I was in charge of the HR Department. On one of our projects, our clients decided that even thou the project was underway and the crew was hard at work, they wanted the crew tested for illegel drugs. The outcome was predictable -the entire crew, including the crew supervisors were terminated. All were marijuana positives. Sad, but true.

 

[steverino]

Very interesting thread. I couldn't read it all, but I read the first page and last couple of pages. I am in the HR profession, so I deal with the issue of illegel drugs very often. My company requires drug tests for a variety of employment-related issues; including hiring, accidents, suspicion, and certain promotions. I would say that 90% of the terminations that I do for drug use, are marijuana cases. In most cases, the employee is not under the influence at the time of testing. Marijuana is detectable much longer than most other drugs. In fact, the hard drugs, such as cocaine and crystal meth leave your body very quickly. Some other types of hard drugs, such as ecstasy are almost impossible to detect, even shortly after the person uses it.

I can tell you that the most wildly used drug that has the most negative impact on on our operation is alcohol. More people miss work and get into trouble at work due to alcohol than any other drug; not because they are doing it on the job, but because they are doing it excessively after work and it creates great havoc in peoples personal lives. As long as you are not using alcohol on the job, you will be ok on any drug test. You smoke a joint three weeks ago, and have a small accident on the job - your job is finished.

Years ago I used to work for a large construction company where I was in charge of the HR Department. On one of our projects, our clients decided that even thou the project was underway and the crew was hard at work, they wanted the crew tested for illegel drugs. The outcome was predictable -the entire crew, including the crew supervisors were terminated. All were marijuana positives. Sad, but true.

OK. So? Do you think marijuana should be legal? IOW, if it were legal, the employees at your company who would have tested positive, would, of course, not be tested in the first place. Are you saying such testing is important for safety issues, or that such testing is pointless?

 

[jimlintott]

My personal observations lead me to the opposite conclusion. In 48 years on the planet, I have known many, many people who smoked pot, and all but one of them smoked tobacco, too.

This is why anecdotal evidence seems compelling, but isn't. I use it, but I try to always say that it's anecdotal, and I know such observations made outside scientific controls are suspect and unreliable.

I've seen lots of people who smoke both things. You've seen lots who don't.
What's it mean?

I used pot to quit smoking tobacco. It satisfied the smoking urge and got me high, sort of a reward.

Not being physically addictive (but certainly can be habit forming) pot is easier to quit. No withdrawals unlike tobacco, which is why a pot smoker can go through a day without smoking while tobacco users start jonesing about every three hours. Of the people I know who smoke pot about half smoke tobacco as well. I do know some who will allow pot smoking in their house but you have to go outside for tobacco.

So much for anecdotes I guess.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah, me too. And it didn't work for either of us. He didn't get sober through Al-Anon. He got sober after I left him and he almost went to prison on a murder-for-hire scheme.

I've had some life, folks.

Anyway, I don't like the absolution of personal responsibility in AA. "Powerless over alcohol," "A higher power could restore me to sanity..."

Right. Santa can take your booze away too. As can the tooth fairy. Why would one trust their lives, families, and sanities to a program that espouses help from an imaginary being?


Sorry. Don't buy it.

My cousin is an atheist. He's been clean and sober since 1983-ish. AA got him out of it. He now helps others who are in alcohol trouble

For some people it works, for some it doesn't. What's with this tooth fairy deal, sling? Is your objection to this based on a distaste for the cult of the victim?

DR

 

[steverino]

I see it as a sort of internal bargain you make in order to get well. It is not so much giving up your free will to God.

More like, "Until now I was a self-riteous S.O.B. who has pissed on the lives of everyone around me who gives a crap about me, plus I climb into my SUV drunk and get out of my way or else, and today I am not this thing, as I will trust others and allow myself to be vulnerable to the world outside my wall."

Breaking through the stubbornness.My take, anyway. It was my ex-fiance. Sober 3 years and now is helping her wacked out friends.