What good is legalizing weed if you can't use it?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by RSBob

You sir are an excellent candidate for PARF said the typical liberal Washington voter who retired early from a Fortune top ten company. I must have screwed up somewhere. The broader the brush the narrower the perspective.

...and you consider yourself typical? Isn’t WalMart at the top of the Fortune top ten?

[ckelly78z]

I used to partake quite often in my younger daze. I got to the point where my ambition for doing anything but smoking weed was lacking, and started to affect my life in a negative way. I had a bad experience with weed/drink/food one night, and swore off smoking anything for ever. I haven't touched it in the 35 years since that happened, and I never will.

I suppose it would allow the creative juices to flow for musicians, and artists, but anyone who needs to hold down a responsable grown-up job shouldn't smoke weed....legal or not.

[dewolf]

^ I was the opposite in my youth as a smoker. I wanted to do things. Work on my car, build stuff around the house etc.
Not everyone has the same reaction to weed as some people here seem to think.

[fintstone]

I think the current potency now is so far beyond what was available to most folks here in their youth that they would not even recognize it. Most studies show that heavy use among younger folks is very detrimental. It seems that heavy use of a legal recreational drug is much more likely and the increased potency will likely compound the effect.

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I think the current potency now is so far beyond what was available to most folks here in their youth that they would not even recognize it. Most studies show that heavy use among younger folks is very detrimental. It seems that heavy use of a legal recreational drug is much more likely and the increased potency will likely compound the effect.

My wife, who has run drug treatment clinics for ~10 years, agrees.

Personally, I've never used it; in fact I've never used any illegal substance other than ATE Blue which was only relatively recently outlawed. When I was in the "experimenting years" I didn't have any money, and now I'd rather spend the money on car parts. I feel the same way about other expensive experiences, like overpriced concerts.

However, I was in favor of legalization because I was tired of seeing the huge amounts of money and the law enforcement power grab in the war on drugs. Like a COPs episode where there's 10 officers pulling over a car for a crooked license plate and finding .002 ounces of weed and hauling him in. The other travesty of justice which I hear nothing about from the Conservatives - probably because they're profiting from it - is civil forfeiture. "I think smell weed in your car; it belongs to us now" or "You have a large amount of cash on your person, it belongs to us now" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

[fintstone]

I agree on the issues you mention, but find them unrelated. One does not necessitate the other. Personally, I lean libertarian and supported legalization in my youth, but recent studies make it very clear that the associated problems are much mire significant than once thought. Legal recreational use will create a permanent underclass. Maybe that is the intent as we transition to a service economy. Someone had to flip the burgers.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by widebody911

My wife, who has run drug treatment clinics for ~10 years, agrees.

Personally, I've never used it; in fact I've never used any illegal substance other than ATE Blue which was only relatively recently outlawed. When I was in the "experimenting years" I didn't have any money, and now I'd rather spend the money on car parts. I feel the same way about other expensive experiences, like overpriced concerts.

However, I was in favor of legalization because I was tired of seeing the huge amounts of money and the law enforcement power grab in the war on drugs. Like a COPs episode where there's 10 officers pulling over a car for a crooked license plate and finding .002 ounces of weed and hauling him in. The other travesty of justice which I hear nothing about from the Conservatives - probably because they're profiting from it - is civil forfeiture. "I think smell weed in your car; it belongs to us now" or "You have a large amount of cash on your person, it belongs to us now" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

That is EXACTLY my experience and view. I have never spent one penny on illegal drugs of any sort. As a youth I was broke and busy buying a house and working two jobs to get ahead of the bills.
When I was in my early 20s I went to several parties with other young adults. At virtually every one someone brought the stink weed. I always hated the smell of the stuff even more that cigarettes. If the joints were too thick, I left with a raging headache and burning lungs.
At one party one host brought out a shoe box full to the brim with Quaaludes. Everyone but me grabbed a few and ate them. I just got up and left right then.
I have never cared much for wine or hard liquor. I do love beer. I started working at age 16 when I got a car. In all my years I never once had to call in with the Monday morning "flu" or some other lame excuse because of over indulgence in chemicals of any sort, alcohol, THC, or the millions of other drugs both legal and illegal.

I am "friends of a friend" that knew a guy that had 30 grand cash on him on his way to Kansas to buy a car. He was stopped by the police and they seized his cash and the car. He spent over 40 grand in legal fees to get the cops to even acknowledge the case and even more to get his cash back and the value of the car after many long years. The guy owns a small business that it 100% legit and he does not use drugs or sell them.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I think the current potency now is so far beyond what was available to most folks here in their youth that they would not even recognize it. Most studies show that heavy use among younger folks is very detrimental. It seems that heavy use of a legal recreational drug is much more likely and the increased potency will likely compound the effect.

never touched the stuff and never will but it is true current potency is up quite a bit. the way it works is batches get tested by labs. the lab, among other things, tells you xx% THC and dispensaries can then advertise this figure.

the irony of the idea that this industry is some quasi medical/holistic natural homeopathy cure all is comical. everyone in the biz is anticipating getting bought out by big pharma.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by widebody911

However, I was in favor of legalization because I was tired of seeing the huge amounts of money and the law enforcement power grab in the war on drugs. Like a COPs episode where there's 10 officers pulling over a car for a crooked license plate and finding .002 ounces of weed and hauling him in. The other travesty of justice which I hear nothing about from the Conservatives - probably because they're profiting from it - is civil forfeiture. "I think smell weed in your car; it belongs to us now" or "You have a large amount of cash on your person, it belongs to us now"

If you haven't seen "Breakfast in Collinsville" you should take 15 minutes and watch it. It'll really piss you off.

[onewhippedpuppy]

This is really a stupid argument. Employers still can dictate what you do during working hours as per the terms of your employment. Don’t like it? Find a new job. I can’t drink at work, be under the influence of whatever I drank last night at work, or smoke at my desk. Many in our shop are subject to frequent and random drug testing per FAA regulations because they are a repair station for aircraft components. Do you want some stoned dude overhauling parts for an aircraft that you may fly on?

[Deschodt]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Employers still can dictate what you do during working hours as per the terms of your employment. Don’t like it? Find a new job. I can’t drink at work, be under the influence of whatever I drank last night at work, or smoke at my desk. Many in our shop are subject to frequent and random drug testing per FAA regulations because they are a repair station for aircraft components. Do you want some stoned dude overhauling parts for an aircraft that you may fly on?

I believe (from the radio report this morning, since this is in the news) that weed is detectable in your system for 6 weeks or whatever...

So let's say Joe blow is a technician at a hospital or works on airplane engines. Drug tested at hiring time. Random after that... He can buy and smoke legally on a friday night at his friend's house... and monday, if tested, it will show and he gets fired..

Why ? Anyone here really believe that a friday night joint will impair someone on monday anymore than knocking down a few beers on friday night ? There's a high level of hypocrisy at work here... at least no degree of legality or punishment

I don't think anyone disagrees with Zero tolerance during work hours, or while driving, or as long as someone is "impaired"- whatever that duration is. But other that, it's rather stupid and not legislated enough as far as level/consequences. I've seen a lot more people destroyed by booze than by weed, not to mention the medical benefits for some people.

Amusingly I neither smoke nor drink - but I object to neither as long as it's on your private time and you're not driving right after... Right now it's a legal cluster-F though... My employer tests, I can't wait for the first lawsuit....

[Rtrorkt]

Nipton Trading Post – Nipton

Click the American Green tab

[cstreit]

I don't really have a stance on this... ...but curious for those opposed and for:

1. If employers test for MJ because of heavy equipment operation, etc.. ...should they also test for sobriety (booze)?

2. Since MJ can remain detectable in your system for weeks - is the test really valid for performance and reliability at work?

[Starless]

Originally Posted by Deschodt

I believe (from the radio report this morning, since this is in the news) that weed is detectable in your system for 6 weeks or whatever...

So let's say Joe blow is a technician at a hospital or works on airplane engines. Drug tested at hiring time. Random after that... He can buy and smoke legally on a friday night at his friend's house... and monday, if tested, it will show and he gets fired..

Why ? Anyone here really believe that a friday night joint will impair someone on monday anymore than knocking down a few beers on friday night ? There's a high level of hypocrisy at work here... at least no degree of legality or punishment

I don't think anyone disagrees with Zero tolerance during work hours, or while driving, or as long as someone is "impaired"- whatever that duration is. But other that, it's rather stupid and not legislated enough as far as level/consequences. I've seen a lot more people destroyed by booze than by weed, not to mention the medical benefits for some people.

Amusingly I neither smoke nor drink - but I object to neither as long as it's on your private time and you're not driving right after... Right now it's a legal cluster-F though... My employer tests, I can't wait for the first lawsuit....

Yup. This is how I see it also. You can be drunk out of your mind Saturday and go to work Monday and will not get fired. If you smoked even 1/2 joint on the same day, or even a week earlier and have no effects on Monday and you get tested, you're out of a job for something you may have done a week earlier and is not affecting your job.

[Starless]

Originally Posted by Aurel

It does not matter for the typical liberal voters who are on welfare and do not hold real jobs that they could lose if their employer found out thet smoke weed.
And the more stunned they are, the more democrat they will vote...A win win .

I know plenty of conservatives that smoke pot. Possible more than liberals. Same holds true for being on state aid of some sort. Why do you assume liberals don't work?

[gtc]

Yeah, i know a few lazy conservatives who don't work because "Obama took our jerbs!"

[doug_porsche]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Short lawsuit. It is still a federal crime to possess or use.

Showing my frustration with stupid laws in the US.

Its against federal law to possess weed, except in Washington DC, which is governed by only federal law.

Come on Washington. Make it league or illegal, not both.

[scottmandue]

You guys all know if you smoke a joint after work and show up the next day sober you will still test positive? And get blasted drunk, show up the next day for work but will test with no alcohol in your system.

There is still a long way to go for legalized weed, MM was the first step, now recreational, it is only going to get bigger.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Legitimate question, from a medical standpoint is there a defined threshold to test for "under the influence" of marijuana vs simply finding trace of its use?

I still stand by my "find another job" statement if pot is that important to your life. I doubt many heavy smokers work for companies that have a tobacco free campus. I also, btw, support legalization because I think we waste a huge amount of law enforcement resources on pot enforcement, and that we could tax the hell out of it like liquor and tobacco.

[scottmandue]

Video games have probably created more slacker 20-30 year olds that still live at home.

FWIW I smoked in my 20's and held a job, and I have no desire to pick up the habit again.

Also FWIW I have several friends that work their azz off eight hours a day five days a week and regularly come home, crack open a beer, and fire up a doobie.