legalizing marijuana

[sandorski]

Ever since they legalized it here the THC percentages have gone way up, and now I have a serious tolerance issue. I mean, I need 40 mg in edibles for a decent high, and nothing below 40% is even worth bothering to smoke. I used to smoke like 25% THC and it was great. Anyone else having this issue?

Need to stop for a week or more. Too much tolerance has built up.

 

[woolfe9998]

Need to stop for a week or more. Too much tolerance has built up.

I did better than that. Last year I quit for 100 days, mainly to get rid of the tolerance. And it worked. The tolerance was gone.

It came back within 30 days.

 

[HomerJS]

This works as cheap solution can place in sealable plastic container. When water level gets low just refill.

 

[VashHT]

I did better than that. Last year I quit for 100 days, mainly to get rid of the tolerance. And it worked. The tolerance was gone.

It came back within 30 days.

How often do you smoke? I'm a regular user and even a bowl of low 20% stuff will still make me high. If I take a break for a couple weeks or so it's much more intense high but it's not like it does nothing now. Personally I've found the THC % not to be the end all for how it makes me feel, I've gotten stuff in the mid 30s (about as high as it gets here) and it didn't really feel like it got me more high than a strain I really like that's like 24%. I go way more for the strains I want nowadays, I don't base it on THC % at all.

 

[alien42]

I did better than that. Last year I quit for 100 days, mainly to get rid of the tolerance. And it worked. The tolerance was gone.

It came back within 30 days.

when i used to smoke, i found constantly mixing different strains would prevent tolerance.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am very curious about the effects of marijuana but not so much so that I would go across the street to buy any. Would it not be all about wondering if I can escape who I am. Would it not be seeking for some greater state of self contentment without asking what is behind that desire. It's all about seeking the unity we all once felt with the universe, God Consciousness in the guise of fixing knee pain.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I am very curious about the effects of marijuana but not so much so that I would go across the street to buy any. Would it not be all about wondering if I can escape who I am. Would it not be seeking for some greater state of self contentment without asking what is behind that desire. It's all about seeking the unity we all once felt with the universe, God Consciousness in the guise of fixing knee pain.

The goal can be whatever you want it to be. If that’s what you think it is for you, then ok cool whatever. The motivation for yourself is not necessarily the motivation for someone else

Drug prohibition in general is the exact opposite of the principles the United States was founded on.

 

[Moonbeam]

The goal can be whatever you want it to be. If that’s what you think it is for you, then ok cool whatever. The motivation for yourself is not necessarily the motivation for someone else

Drug prohibition in general is the exact opposite of the principles the United States was founded on.

So was the 2nd amendment. We know what. You think of that.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So was the 2nd amendment. We know what. You think of that.

What a weird reply. You could try considering the differences here and not be so emotional about your ammosexuality.

 

[Moonbeam]

What a weird reply. You could try considering the differences here and not be so emotional about your ammosexuality.

The goal can be whatever you want it to be. If that’s what you think it is for you, then ok cool whatever. The motivation for yourself is not necessarily the motivation for someone else

Drug prohibition in general is the exact opposite of the principles the United States was founded on.

You seem to think people know what motivates them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be more illogical than to proclaim that anti drug laws are anti American and laws against gun ownership aren’t. I’m suggesting you aren’t thinking clearly.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You seem to think people know what motivates them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be more illogical than to proclaim that anti drug laws are anti American and laws against gun ownership aren’t. I’m suggesting you aren’t thinking clearly.

I’m suggesting you’re comparing apples to oranges. There’s no amendments for drugs, if there was then your snide reply might carry some water. And on the flip side, if there was no firearm amendment, authoritarians would have taken your away long ago, if you were even allowed to own one in your lifetime.

 

[Moonbeam]

I’m suggesting you’re comparing apples to oranges. There’s no amendments for drugs, if there was then your snide reply might carry some water. And on the flip side, if there was no firearm amendment, authoritarians would have taken your away long ago, if you were even allowed to own one in your lifetime.

You are suggesting that the traditional American freedom to put into your body what you want is is not constitutionally grounded when it is. It isn't an apples to oranges argument. Nor was it intended to be flip unless somehow you have tied the possibility you have made a logical mistake to the feelings of inferiority we were inculcated with as children, that any error in judgment could bring the house down on us and you are projecting that fear on me. And sorry, the reason there is a specific amendment for guns is that our forefathers knew that would happen and that having arms would be one way to keep the government off telling you what you can smoke or eat.

But the fear of reefer madness and now the terror of guns has made us turn to the nearest authoritarian provided to trade safety over freedom. Cowards always project their fear for their own lives as a way to take freedom from others. Now it's no longer about the fear of drugs because the masses want to have them but now too they don't want others to have any guns. Fear makes people profoundly shallow. War is piece and slavery is freedom.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You are suggesting that the traditional American freedom to put into your body what you want is is not constitutionally grounded when it is. It isn't an apples to oranges argument. Nor was it intended to be flip unless somehow you have tied the possibility you have made a logical mistake to the feelings of inferiority we were inculcated with as children, that any error in judgment could bring the house down on us and you are projecting that fear on me. And sorry, the reason there is a specific amendment for guns is that our forefathers knew that would happen and that having arms would be one way to keep the government off telling you what you can smoke or eat.

But the fear of reefer madness and now the terror of guns has made us turn to the nearest authoritarian provided to trade safety over freedom. Cowards always project their fear for their own lives as a way to take freedom from others. Now it's no longer about the fear of drugs because the masses want to have them but now too they don't want others to have any guns. Fear makes people profoundly shallow. War is piece and slavery is freedom.

Ok, present the drug amendment. Firearms is amendment 2, so go.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ok, present the drug amendment. Firearms is amendment 2, so go.

You don’t need me for this.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/drug-legalization-right-control-body

 

[ch33zw1z]

You don’t need me for this.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/drug-legalization-right-control-body

lol, so in other words, you can’t cite the amendment.

 

[Moonbeam]

lol, so in other words, you can’t cite the amendment.

Lol, I said that the ownership of firearms and the right to use drugs are historical American constitutional values and because one is specific as a separate amendment the other is constitutionally implied making them not a matter of apples to oranges because both are traditionally protected by the constitution. The operative logic is that both are supposed to be constitutionally traditionally protected, not that both are identically defined.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Lol, I said that the ownership of firearms and the right to use drugs are historical American constitutional values and because one is specific as a separate amendment the other is constitutionally implied making them not a matter of apples to oranges because both are traditionally protected by the constitution. The operative logic is that both are supposed to be constitutionally traditionally protected, not that both are identically defined.

And my argument was already stated. “Supposed to be” doesn’t mean shit, duh. It’s simple, show me the amendment that protects drug use. I mean, we have one for firearms and that’s what people look to when legislation time comes.

 

[Moonbeam]

And my argument was already stated. “Supposed to be” doesn’t mean shit, duh. It’s simple, show me the amendment that protects drug use. I mean, we have one for firearms and that’s what people look to when legislation time comes.

The constitution has enumerated rights and unenumerated rights that protect rights. Any legal challenge to government intrusion on those rights will depend on whether the rights are one class or the other. The right to sovereignty over one’s body is no less traditional and constitutionally American because it is unenumerated than 2nd amendment is because it is.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find it amusing you are jazzed that an unenumerated right is being restored after being removed by authoritarian fear mongers but welcome the destruction of a traditional enumerated one for the same reason, an enlightened freedom of the fear of reefer madness, but a terror of people owning guns. Short, I would say on introspection.

 

[ch33zw1z]

at this point your the pigeon kicking pieces over on a chess board and claiming victory.

You're repeating what I said at the very beginning like it was somehow not something I agreed with.

My point is simple. Drug use and Firearms are treated different because one has an amendment, the other doesn't. It's not a difficult concept, and I never even had to mention guns, you did in some dimwitted quip. My original post was straight forward, not everyone ingests drugs for the same reason.

Nice to see you haven't let go of your emotional attachment to guns yet. Wonder if you moved to a state to get that drum mag and silencer yet, lel. maybe you can join the ya'llqueda while you're there. (don't really care )

 

[Moonbeam]

at this point your the pigeon kicking pieces over on a chess board and claiming victory.

You're repeating what I said at the very beginning like it was somehow not something I agreed with.

My point is simple. Drug use and Firearms are treated different because one has an amendment, the other doesn't. It's not a difficult concept, and I never even had to mention guns, you did in some dimwitted quip. My original post was straight forward, not everyone ingests drugs for the same reason.

Nice to see you haven't let go of your emotional attachment to guns yet. Wonder if you moved to a state to get that drum mag and silencer yet, lel. maybe you can join the ya'llqueda while you're there. (don't really care )

Sorry I missed this because you didn’t quote me. You originally said that drug laws are the exact opposite of the principles the US was founded on. I said the same is true for attempted gun bans which I believe tou support making your claim to t traditional American values suspect.

You then went on to claim a difference in the quality of those two traditions based on the fact that one is enumerated and one isn’t. They are still both traditionally American with the difference of no importance to the level of enlightenment that generated them in the first place., in my opinion. Your views differ by what you believe is good in one case and bad in the other. I believe equally in both and have the logically and morally sound position. I find your point of view hypocritical. I wanted to point that out. An argument based on the value of tradition is not persuasive if other similar traditions are ignored.

You need to defend one tradition and show why another is wrong.

And as to why people take drugs, please prove that people do not act out of unconscious motivations. You probably think you possess free will.

Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will

You may think you chose to read this, but Stanford scientist Robert Sapolsky would disagree. He says virtually all human behavior is beyond our conscious control.

www.latimes.com

 

[hal2kilo]

Even in states where it's legal there are still some stupid regulations on the books. Specifically the first one for WA state is no personal grows, second I found out this morning while picking up my monthly Sunday Oz 30% off deal, I tried to also buy a couple g's of some concentrate. Sorry, I cannot fulfill that order. You can only purchase an OZ once a day. Stupid silliness. I find 0 logic of what they are trying to prevent.

 

[dlerious]

Even in states where it's legal there are still some stupid regulations on the books. Specifically the first one for WA state is no personal grows, second I found out this morning while picking up my monthly Sunday Oz 30% off deal, I tried to also buy a couple g's of some concentrate. Sorry, I cannot fulfill that order. You can only purchase an OZ once a day. Stupid silliness. I find 0 logic of what they are trying to prevent.

It's 28g limit for flower here. Concentrate doesn't seem to affect that - I've seen oz plus a couple g's go thru. Never asked about whether limit is daily or longer, I just wanted to take advantage of 35% off that happens occasionally and stock up.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Sorry I missed this because you didn’t quote me. You originally said that drug laws are the exact opposite of the principles the US was founded on. I said the same is true for attempted gun bans which I believe tou support making your claim to t traditional American values suspect.

You then went on to claim a difference in the quality of those two traditions based on the fact that one is enumerated and one isn’t. They are still both traditionally American with the difference of no importance to the level of enlightenment that generated them in the first place., in my opinion. Your views differ by what you believe is good in one case and bad in the other. I believe equally in both and have the logically and morally sound position. I find your point of view hypocritical. I wanted to point that out. An argument based on the value of tradition is not persuasive if other similar traditions are ignored.

You need to defend one tradition and show why another is wrong.

And as to why people take drugs, please prove that people do not act out of unconscious motivations. You probably think you possess free will.

Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will

You may think you chose to read this, but Stanford scientist Robert Sapolsky would disagree. He says virtually all human behavior is beyond our conscious control.

www.latimes.com

My stance has nothing to do with my perception of good or bad. I’ve made my stance quite clear.

You brought guns up in your reply due to your emotional attachment to them. I was merely replying to your questioning of motivations for MJ consumption, as an enlightened person, you certainly don’t seem to get it.

Based on this reply here, I suggest you evaluate the tea leaves you're reading and stop allowing your own bias to cloud your judgement.

 

[Moonbeam]

My stance has nothing to do with my perception of good or bad. I’ve made my stance quite clear.

You brought guns up in your reply due to your emotional attachment to them. I was merely replying to your questioning of motivations for MJ consumption, as an enlightened person, you certainly don’t seem to get it.

Based on this reply here, I suggest you evaluate the tea leaves you're reading and stop allowing your own bias to cloud your judgement.

I brought up guns because you claimed that drug laws are inconsistent with traditional constitutional values, an opinion that I agree with, but is actually a position full of hypocrisy if it does not equally apply to attempts to ban guns. The rights, both enumerated and unenumerated, spelled out or implied in the constitution, rights the constitution either specifically tells you you have, or imply the government must not make illegal, are all there in the constitution and thus embodied in our American constitutional tradition.

I did not mention this out of any emotional attachment to guns. I mentioned it because there are so many people cheering the demise of the imbecilic war on drugs, recognizing how deviant it is constitutionally, while at the same time now pushing for a government effort to go to war against guns. I find it comic. People can’t seem to get past viewing the world and their belief system based solely on whether or not it is their ox that gets gored. All you have to do these days to generate hostility in others is to tell the truth.

As for lacking an appreciation for why others may think they wish to take drugs, did you read the link I posted. Very interesting stuff even if I have known it, let’s say, a very long time.

I could describe enlightenment as the sudden realization that the seeker is a figment of imagination.

I have all of these dreams that on drugs my situation will change, that I will be in a better place so I dream these dreams of change. And that’s all fine and dandy until I have to make some effort to obtain them. Then it’s, why the fuck bother with that. Then it’s lily and sparrow time. “Far out, man”is right here.

Now if drugs could just magically appear in the mail, now that might be tempting especially if a match were included.