Forum Post: X'ers know about smoking weed
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 8:44 p.m. EST by PartyX
(202)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I could not imagine someone landing an F15 high on drugs on top of an Aircraft carrier; or better, knowing someone who got wasted the night before about to cut my kidney out. While smoking weed might be fun who can smoke it and preform functionally is the question one might want to ask if cannabis was ever allowed. So many people bring this up on this site and I wonder if this is going to be another commodity for wall street to get there hands on?
Old joke " Drunk drivers run stop signs....High drivers stop and wait for them to change"
LMAO! Been there done that!
Remember cheech and chong driving down the road with a cloud of smoke pouring out the window, crusing about 20mph. I find people on cell phones are worse.
"I could not imagine someone........ knowing someone who got wasted the night before about to cut my kidney out."
Lots of doctors smoke weed, especially surgeons. It relieves the stress of having someone's life in your hands.
I suppose it might be silly to think doctors are not abusing drugs; however, I had a good friend get hurt working on the railroad and the insurance company made him take a piss test and he failed. And so sorry to say but he got fired. I know doctors have to take piss test too. Maybe it comes to who can function while on drugs and who can not.
PartyX...I grew up listening to Cheech & Chong records they were great! You are correct , people on cells while driving suck.
Ah yes, another Xer....I'm not against weed by no means, I'm looking for honest answers to argue hard questions in front of a group of people that would not share the sentiment of those among us that feel smoking weed is the lesser evil.
Okay...so go find them...
I work in the Legal feild and im telling you most doctors are high on Cocaine, alot of the time. The fact is drugs are available in any western country on DEMAND one phone call is all it takes why not regulate them and tax them imagine the amount of money saved from fighting them and jailing people that use them. If its regulated then you know who is using them where they live, you dont know if the carpenter fixing your roof is high or the teacher teaching your kids is high but if you regulate them you do.
explain how you know if your kids teacher is high?
Thats the problem you dont, if drugs were regulated you would
you act as though I understand what you mean if they are regulated we would know who was high? could you explain this type of regulation you are talking about
My regulation would be giving Dr's have the ability to precribe drugs just like they already do to people with the intention of using them ? If you think hard enough we already have this process in place, medical marijuana is being trialed already. Methadone is given to people with heroin addictions, Morphine is given to people with chronic pain we just simply rename them. I could go to my doctor and say i cant sleep and he will precribe me with a drug to assist me in sleeping. Why not go to the Dr and ask for an Ecstasy tablet to go out on a Saturday night this can be traced through its chemical makeup so it does not end up in the hands of children and if it does can be traced. Cocaine was widely legal until the early 1900's. Like i said we already have a regulated drug industry we just have to add the drugs that fuel the black market. You would have to be a brave man to take on this industry because it would more than likely make you a marked man.
you know I have dealt with my share of insurance as well as spent time in the government and as Ideal as you make this sound all it takes is some pissed off mother wanting bleeding hearts to identify with the death of her baby because someone used drugs and accidentally killed her beloved child. As you probably remember MADD mothers helped expand a lot of laws that screw up lives of those who have made bad choices after one night on the town.
So your trying to say that by making drugs legal, you place the blame squarely on Government. That is, if they were regulated the way i propose?
you did not explain, still waiting for your explanation.
Explain what ?
regulation is more than just taxes and crime. The bottom line is give people what they want, deal with problems as they come along...is that what you are trying to say?
The problems associated with illegal drug use range from Murder to kidnapping and everything in between the problems they have on society in general is disgusting. Would the benefits of Regulating them and taxing them be better than the current way of dealing with it well i say yes. You will always have problems with Drugs legal or illegal but atleast they will be minimized and taken out of school yards.
Not sure how you have that figured out, but I hope you are right. I tend to be on the side that human behavior is the bigger cause.
Legalize all drugs regulate them, and then tax them , it would be the best thing that ever happened to the country, the fact is they are already available on demand. You cant stop them and imagine the new schools and hospitals that could be built from the revenue raised...
so if I'm a doctor and i want to get high will you be my patient?
As long as you don't do it on the job. This is a tired argument that holds no water, but continue by all means.
Pilots drink all the time. That's rubbish.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/10/national/main1786964.shtml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226803/Drunk-United-Airlines-pilot-arrested-Heathrow-minutes-flight-Chicago.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/drunk-delta-pilot-arrested-cockpit-airline-captain-planning/story?id=11637035#.TrHodkOAo8k
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487665,00.html
Well that guy that wrecked the Valdez was fucked up in Alaska, do you think it is worth destroying the environment?
Legalization of marijuana would not make it legal to smoke prior to or on the job, just like alcohol.
A pathetic attempt.
how would you know if someone is high or not?
Because I've been high before.
How would you know if someone was drunk on the job?
slurred voice, smell, if you are however a functional drunk and stay drunk all the time and no one can detect it, I suppose I would not be able to tell. However, would you let me take your blood to insure any losses if an accident occurs? This is what it will come to another intrusion by big brother.
Funny, I can spot a high person by their smell and eyes, and their actions. So there is no difference.
You did not answer how you insure that my company is not going to have to pay millions in law suits because someone forgot to turn the gas off and static electricity just blew up the plant. Weed impairs memory to some and for others it takes days to think straight after a long weekend of smoking.
Marijuana's effects wear off within a few hours, not days.
Would you be insured if someone who wasn't under the influence at that time caused the accident?
mary j stays in your system. and as far as I know it can not be detected' for example, he has THC in his system and he smoked 1 hour ago... Rather, he has THC in his system (period) correct me if I'm wrong
You're going to have to reword that.
The THC is stored in your fat, it does not continue to have effects.
Marijuana Detection Time and Half-Life of TetraHydraCannabinol The half life of THC concentration is about 10 days. There is way too much variation to even approximate how long THC will be detected in the urine of an individual. Infrequent users with a fast metabolism will have the shortest detection time. Frequent or chronic users with a slow metabolism will have the longest detection times. The only way to estimate a detection time is to consider the lower and upper bounds (3-50 days), and estimate based on the factors outlined here.
I was under the impression that a great deal of more affluent individuals enjoy alcohol. Not that they are one in the same, but I feel they should be treated about as equal as possible.
You know alcohol has cause so many problems that dwarf weed, it is crazy to argue about liability; however, it always comes up and you would think that whether it be alcohol are weed that it should be used in a responsible way.
Why would they be the only ones who would be able to smoke it?
liability, there are degrees of inherent risk when it comes to occupations
True, I don't understand where you're going with this.
We both agree that marijuana should be decriminalized, however, the only people who will be able to smoke it as I see it would be the service industry / low paying jobs. I guess that is ok with me but I think more science needs to be taken into consideration with the detection of using so everyone can partake if it is to become legal.
For me its not about the future availability of pot, but about the current negative results of drug policies. We are not only missing out on a huge tax revenue stream, but directly supporting terrorists like the cartels. I am all for strict laws on what you can and cannot do while high, but our current attempts to legislate morality will fail, just as prohibition did.
Our current regulation of alcohol is woefully lacking, minors obtain it as a matter of course, drunken drivers, alcohol enhanced domestic issues...
So much concern over a mind altering drug being legalized when there are plenty of legal mind altering drugs available...
Considering that cannabis is easily grown in green house type situations(grow lights), in 'gardens' heck, grown in fields with corn and okra, just how much tax revenue could be expected from legalization?
I find it odd that there is so much disapproval of tobacco products yet there is so much promotion of legalizing cannabis.
tobacco is pushed by advertisers every year and sales are declining. Pot smokers are arrested every year and black market sales have never been higher (lol) something is wrong.
Probably because tobacco kills 5 million people per year.
Actually the potential for tobacco to kill is there, cannabis has more carcinogens than tobacco.
The only place that is studying cannabis is in Israel and many of their findings have not been substantiated by other studies (which would be done at other facilities).
Again how much tax revenue would be expected from the legalization of cannabis, given the fact that it is easily grown by the individual?
People could grow corn and tomatoes pretty easily too but they prefer not to.
Please, anyone with the reason to do their own research knows that marijuana doesn't cause cancer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/03/national_cancer_institute_adds.php
Neither does tobacco, just that both contain carcinogens, and cannabis contains more of them.
As for growing cannabis, people who desire it would be more likely to grow it simply because it would be the 'in thing' to do. So the potential of increased tax revenues would be delayed.
IF cannabis were to be sold OTC as alcohol etc is, the same strictures would apply to cannabis as do to tobacco, most likely with the same warnings or like warnings as alcohol and tobacco carry today.
To promote the legalization of cannabis based on the tax revenue generation is not a valid argument since the premise is immediate realization of that revenue.
You're claiming that tobacco doesn't cause cancer?
I don't have to claim it. Please do some reading, carcinogens have the potential to encourage cancerous growth.
I merely point out the facts which are easily verified tobacco contains carcinogens as does cannabis.
I am not about to do the research for you.
Nice on avoiding the question though.
...you didn't ask me a question.
You can get cancer from smoking tobacco. You can't get cancer from smoking cannabis.
Pretty simple.
You do understand the word carcinogen don't you?
Yes. Both contain carcinogens. However only one of them is linked to cancer.
Very True. I concur, although this is what the powers that be discuss when it comes to legalizing weed. They can not control the people who cause harm nor insure the liability. How can one figure out how long weed has been in your system. Get high on sunday evening and then blow everyone up at work the following morning. Who is insured?
look, in denmark, after legalization, smoking rates went up temporarily, then went back down, at least among citizens. Making it legal would remove that cool edge of illegality and probably decrease use in the long term.
Americans abuse the fuck out of everything...What are the statistics of crime compared to the US
much lower in denmark, but they also dont label innocent kids criminals.
If you had the chance to regulate how and when it is ok to use, I will be glad to hear a sane and responsible answer.
Isn't that the idea behind legalization?
You know if you want to be taken serious, we have to come up with honest answers to why weed should be legalized. So far it is not going so well.
Because the current status of marijuana is absurd (studies show that marijuana is nowhere near a Schedule 1 drug) and benefits cartels directly.
It makes "criminals" out of people minding their own business and is costing Americans billions in tax dollars.
I agree, but it side steps the issue of liability. think of how different we are than denmark and draw the lines of similararity
Along with that, Portugal is the only other example we have to look at.
We have a more oppressive government than Denmark does, what else is different?
never been to Denmark, but we do have some disfunctional laws that disqualify good people which I think needs a really hard look at. I would like to see weed decriminalized.