Yes. I think the current legal marijuana is much more potent than most of the black market marijuana before legalization.

Alcohol and prescription drugs have nothing to do with legalizing marijuana. If you have the measles and chickenpox, intentionally adding herpes does not seem like a reasonable solution to the other two problems.

I gotta side with the pathological liar here. There are so many weed products you won't believe it. How about some 420 hotsauce? Get high with nachos. Or how about some forbidden valley ranch? Popcorn, potroot beer? Or the gummy worms and rings. You can't smell anything from those products (so I've read online);) But you'll get pretty high and won't smell of pot and nobody will even be able to tell the person is baked if they do this alot and act the same.

But fint is wrong about how potent it is sure in the past it was 1% and the average weed today is around 12%. Probably the highest THC around in pot is around 26% in the flowers. You can only get so high smoking that stuff and you can't OD and die. You can eat a ton of weed cookies and get too high but all that will happen is you might have a panic attack or fall asleep.

You may have know whom to ask...but if they thought you might be a "narc" you would not have succeeded in making the purchase.

I could not find someone in a week. I could not buy marijuana in my neighborhood or at work if my life depended on it.

No. History shows us that prohibition did reduce drinking and it was corroborated by incidence of liver disease which is similar regardless if the alcohol consumed is legal or not.

Not true to my knowledge. As I mentioned before, potency was up already...significantly. You think this because data you've seen? Personal experience?

I have some experience in this matter...my senior year in HS =
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1515005160.jpg


Your analogy is only somewhat compelling because it lacks consistency. If the problem is addiction and abuse (I think it is), then we need to recognize that criminalization is not the answer. History proves that.

You are must be a secret pot head who knows this from personal experience or you're basing your non experience based on lies you make up. The crap from humbolt country could be smelt thru triple bragging and that flower was just as potent as what is out there today. My friend worked with people in Cali and they called the stuff 'clown' because after 1 hit they couldn't remember their first names at all.

The stuff was potent back in the day if you knew the right people but most didn't and smoke Mexican brown that was smuggled out of Mexico.

Why don't you drop a load in a ziplock bag and ask if your wife can smell it thru 1 or even 20 bags? You're so full of **** it would likely be chemical weapon and she'd need an NBC suit to try that.

Cool that you went out looking for drugs to take. Admitting that is a good step forward. Do you happen to sport a cop mustache and have a conservative hair cut? Some people can spot a narc a mile away.

Fint is not explaining that potency is a direct causation from the drug wars from the past 50 years.

Sentencing guidelines on personal possession was/is based on weight.
So smugglers can bring in something worth ten times more but will receive the same sentence from the law if caught.
Which haul will the smugglers choose?
That's a no-brainer. Right?
That is what created the crack cocaine epidemic which half-destroyed this country.
Then the law goes on to complain about pot being too potent...

^agree. this is what I've been trying to get across. we have a lot of history that proves this...

I'd have no problem buying pot if I wanted any...I drive by three or four shops on our weekly runs to play pool. Uh, another of those "been there-done that" things for Cindy & I. Hell, it used to be a sacrament of youth. Today? Not so much...

Today...don't want it.

I was more interested to discover that a Chevron station we drive by sells 92 octane "clear"...no alcohol.

Charles Freeborn, that is right on the money, could not say it any better.

I live in WA state, no change here just now the state is making money. it isn't going away and if it did, well, lets then make probation on alcohol happen again. We all know that was a failure.

A simple question, have you even seen or heard a stoner shooting anyone or starting a fight for the sake of a fight?

Potenccy? The good old days of Thai Stick and hash.

You are correct. It was far harder to get quality smoke in trhe 60's and 70's

That's right, eight years of a Progressive Administration that tortured the law by executive dictates and civil forfeiture is a conservative issue.

Watch this, Tom:

<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6M3P8sT4IFg" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have no faith in government agencies. It is not a conservative versus progressive issue. Stop trying to infer progressives are any less prone to abuse of power than conservatives.

Back to the OP: I smoked pot in HS and college, on and off, mostly during summers. This was in the 1970's, early 1980's. There were two instances in my life that had not fate intervened, I would have gone to jail.

So I am familiar.

I want zero impairment from alcohol, pot, Oxy, etc. from my employees when they are on my clock. Zero. That is my right.

I want relevant testing protocols that allow me to judge impairment fairly. It is up to me to decide how to act on that data.

But anyone who thinks smoking pot at work, prior to work in such a manner that the affects are lingering, is ok is in denial.

Driving under the influence, btw, needs to include pot. We are not there yet in terms of testing, but we need to be.

Sounds like folks are willing to trade more DUIs and traffic deaths...and lots of other problems for a few dollars.

Those of you who base your opinion on the effects of long term heavy use because of the effect on you/your life and your ability to pass it up now are using poor rationale...as you are likely not the folks that did have the problems.

Personally, I could not afford to give up the 5 IQ point loss (studies show) that is expected with folks who were heavy users in their youth. Life is hard, but it is harder when you are stupid.

It should be treated similar to alcohol. No work and no drive.

It is not like alcohol . The more you drink to more drunk you get. The more you smoke the more you cough.

There are people who smoke and drive on it and they might be a bit slower hogging the left lane and that's about it! You can't smoke or eat your way into a pot blackout. There will never be a way to test it like with booze.

I'd rather have potheads on the road driving slower stoned then drunk and people on their goddamn phones.

Fint, "Reefer Madness" was made for folks like you...

Yes. I have witnessed all types of inappropriate behavior/lack of judgement after using...particularly with synthetics.

i Understand and agree. Wouldn't do it now but I do remember several road trips in the 70's...

Don't go lumping synthetics in here. They are not part of the conversation.