There's no responsible way to recreationally use Marijuana

[MasterOfUsers]

You don't get to use your own definitions of words, characterizing yourself as "Liberal" or standing up strawmen as to what you claim Liberals believe, either.

Nor toss in naked assertion as fact, label it as psychology 101 rather than bullshit 101. Having cannabis be illegal does not buffer humanity from harder drugs, nor is that alone responsible for its continued popularity.

Look up the definition of a liberal you daft wise and beautiful woman. It's not a member of the democratic party of the USA necessarily. That you have used and perverted the meaning doesn't mean that *I* have a different meaning, it means that you do.

See you might think you are a liberal but you are nothing short of a fascist ready at all turns to limit peoples liberty if your party sees it fit and you will defend it at every turn.

That is not what a liberal does, he stand up for other peoples liberties even if the party they mostly agree with are denouncing those liberties.

I note that making one take the step into illegal drugs is a step taken once, every single study agrees with me on this and this is why cannabis quite rightly referred to as a gateway drug.

Granted, this admission speaks against what i previously proposed but being an honest man i still cannot help but diverge my findings on the subject.

However, it also means that the lot that don't want to get into illegal drugs won't get into cannabis and i'm fairly sure that even a retarded man like yourself is suggesting that cannabis should be something that MORE people should use, it is, after all, a drug with no known positive effects in healthy people and known side effects.

 

[himkhan]

daft wise and beautiful woman is OK I guess. I prefer r & b. Oh.. and I like vaping a little THC on days when I have a heavy OR schedule and lots of surgeries. Calms me down and helps with my glaucoma. :whiste:

 

[MrPickins]

I note that making one take the step into illegal drugs is a step taken once, every single study agrees with me on this and this is why cannabis quite rightly referred to as a gateway drug.

I won't get into the fallacy that is the gateway drug theory, I just want to point out that if cannabis was legal, a lot of people wouldn't take that first step into illegal drugs...

 

[shira]

I note that making one take the step into illegal drugs is a step taken once, every single study agrees with me on this and this is why cannabis quite rightly referred to as a gateway drug.

A very important point that is almost always overlooked is that the very fact that MJ is illegal means that people who want to purchase MJ are forced to interact with dealers of illegal drugs. Like any businessperson, these dealers always want to "up-sale" their customers to a more profitable product. So young people are introduced to "free samples" of barbiturates, cocaine, heroin - you name it, and buying these drugs requires no extra effort.

Legalizing MJ would remove the dealer of illegal drugs from the equation. No more up-sales. It's still possible that MJ is intrinsically a gateway drug, but I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of "conversions" would be greatly reduced.

 

[xj0hnx]

I don't even smoke Cigarettes or Drink Alcohol. This is just one more drug that will cause people problems later. MJ accumulates in the body and builds up in the body over time. Even if you quit smoking it the effects may take over 6 months or longer to go away if you are using it daily.

Just give your kids heroine. They will probably die faster that way.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[xj0hnx]

I agree with this but even more so than with alcohol, pot smokers that are under 25 are usually a lot more habitual in their smoking than people who use alcohol only at parties. Of course, this is a general rule and doesn't apply to everyone. It's also well known that people who smoke a lot during their youth pretty much remain children in their adult lives. It's like talking to a mental midget that got smashed in the head with a barn when he was 12.

People under 25 are a lot more habitual in their everything than people that "occasionally drink at parties", puberty to mid 20's is normal for people to go hard at whatever they are doing. As far as "remaining children", it's a load of bullshit.

Your personal observations differ from actual studied data and my personal experience: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-marijuana-use-alters-teenage-brain-structure If you go to google and do a search for it, read the actual studies in the scientific articles section there are a lot of good articles on the subject. I know people who are like children, these are people who smoked during their teens, they smoked several times daily and they are pretty much exactly where they were when they started intellectually. Talking to them is like trying to have a discussion with Nehalem or Incorruptible, they think they are clever but that's only because they have the mind of a child.

You know idiots, surprise, surprise, but then again, so does everyone. I know plenty of people that fit that description to a T, and have never once smoked pot, as well as knowing people that have been smoking daily for decades that you'd not have a clue from talking to them.

The data has been presented, I'm out of this discussion since it's like talking to a bunch of very defensive children on a subject they don't understand.

The only one that doesn't understand it seems to be you, especially when yu trot out bullshit like this ...

If Cannabis was legal then everyone would just look to the next one above it for the excitement because cannabis wouldn't be an exciting illegal drug any more. This is basic psychology 101

The pot as a gateway drug lie has been destroyed 8 ways to Sunday, and twice on Thursday. Anyone still using this pile of steamy dung as a point of fact is clearly clueless.

 

[BoomerD]

Lynda Carter is now pushing 63, so you might want to re-think that decision. I'll go with a more contemporary model:

That's cute as hell...but a heroine she ain't.

(however, she can come rescue me any time.)

 

[DrDoug]

I'm in my mid 50's, happily married for 28 years to my first and only wife, have two wonderful kids with her, own my own computer business, play guitar, hike, ride motorcycle and turn my own wrenches on it and our Mustang. On our Mustang I am just finished rebuilding its C4 transmission and installing a new Milodon oil pan with a Melling HV oil pump. I also lowered the front sway bar and installed mew U joints and output yoke on the tranny. IOW, I'm not an irresponsible person and I lead a very active life.

Somehow I've done all of this stuff while 'irresponsibly' smoking pot for over forty years now. Lots of pot, and I mean lots. I've also tried lots of other 'stuff' but in the end pot was more than enough for me. I smoke it like an old steam train. :biggrin:

You pontificates of purity can shove it where the sun don't shine.

Regarding the "gateway drug" bullshit, back in the 70's the 'establishment' called it that because people were exposed to other drugs that dealers were selling while searching for some weed. Duh. Hell, many dealers back then sold coke, amphetamines, hash, black beauties, mushrooms, acid and anything else they could get high on. The gateway drug BS has morphed into 'smoke weed and you'll become a heroin addict!' Get pot out of the hands of dealers who sell other drugs and people will be less likely to be exposed to them.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Look up the definition of a liberal you daft wise and beautiful woman. It's not a member of the democratic party of the USA necessarily. That you have used and perverted the meaning doesn't mean that *I* have a different meaning, it means that you do.

See you might think you are a liberal but you are nothing short of a fascist ready at all turns to limit peoples liberty if your party sees it fit and you will defend it at every turn.

That is not what a liberal does, he stand up for other peoples liberties even if the party they mostly agree with are denouncing those liberties.

I note that making one take the step into illegal drugs is a step taken once, every single study agrees with me on this and this is why cannabis quite rightly referred to as a gateway drug.

Granted, this admission speaks against what i previously proposed but being an honest man i still cannot help but diverge my findings on the subject.

However, it also means that the lot that don't want to get into illegal drugs won't get into cannabis and i'm fairly sure that even a retarded man like yourself is suggesting that cannabis should be something that MORE people should use, it is, after all, a drug with no known positive effects in healthy people and known side effects.

Heh. If the ROTW says "cat" & you say "dog", you must be right, huh? Because only you know the true meaning of "dog".

And just because I point out that legalization of cannabis doesn't demand the legalization of all drugs now makes me a fascist? Really?

Marijuana is a gateway drug? only because it's illegal & must be obtained in the black market from, you know, dope dealers. OTOH, there's no gateway at the liquor store or the pot shop, either.

I'm confident that many people who wouldn't otherwise will try it when it's legal. We're already seeing that in Colorado. We saw it earlier with MMJ, as well. I see no significant harm in more people using it, responsibly, and I see it as beneficial if it helps them moderate alcohol consumption, relieve pain like a couple of aspirin or enhance their mood after a day at work.

Yes, many humans enjoy & use intoxicants responsibly, some of which are more harmful than others. Marijuana is demonstrably the least harmful of all widely used intoxicants.

Funny how a person who claims to be for legalization manages to bring up old & tired arguments against legalization, reaching for a different one as fast as the previous one failed to gain traction.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Now you don't even know what a strawman argument is.

Let me explain it to you in the simplest possible terms; when you take my argument, twist it to your own liking and argue against that misrepresentation you are making a strawman argument.

To avoid that you will have to argue against what i said, not what you can misrepresent into what i said.

Do you understand or do i have to type it again real fucking slow for you?

You don't actually argue, you just tell people how shitty their arguments are.

You're a troll. You don't believe what you're writing. You're just writing to troll others.

 

[MrPickins]

You don't actually argue, you just tell people how shitty their arguments are.

You're a troll. You don't believe what you're writing. You're just writing to troll others.

This is the truth.

And, like any number of other vitriolic trolls that have come though here, MoU will burn out in short order...

 

[dank69]

Look up the definition of a liberal you daft wise and beautiful woman. It's not a member of the democratic party of the USA necessarily. That you have used and perverted the meaning doesn't mean that *I* have a different meaning, it means that you do.

See you might think you are a liberal but you are nothing short of a fascist ready at all turns to limit peoples liberty if your party sees it fit and you will defend it at every turn.

That is not what a liberal does, he stand up for other peoples liberties even if the party they mostly agree with are denouncing those liberties.

I note that making one take the step into illegal drugs is a step taken once, every single study agrees with me on this and this is why cannabis quite rightly referred to as a gateway drug.

Granted, this admission speaks against what i previously proposed but being an honest man i still cannot help but diverge my findings on the subject.

However, it also means that the lot that don't want to get into illegal drugs won't get into cannabis and i'm fairly sure that even a retarded man like yourself is suggesting that cannabis should be something that MORE people should use, it is, after all, a drug with no known positive effects in healthy people and known side effects.

Gateway drug? Are you a fucking retard? You have to be to still think that myth is legitimate.

 

[hal2kilo]

A very important point that is almost always overlooked is that the very fact that MJ is illegal means that people who want to purchase MJ are forced to interact with dealers of illegal drugs. Like any businessperson, these dealers always want to "up-sale" their customers to a more profitable product. So young people are introduced to "free samples" of barbiturates, cocaine, heroin - you name it, and buying these drugs requires no extra effort.

Legalizing MJ would remove the dealer of illegal drugs from the equation. No more up-sales. It's still possible that MJ is intrinsically a gateway drug, but I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of "conversions" would be greatly reduced.

I love all these stories about drug dealers givng away drugs. Where do you find them?

 

[Jhhnn]

I love all these stories about drug dealers givng away drugs. Where do you find them?

Dunno about today, but dope dealers weren't specialists years ago- they sold what they could get, and had a variety of sources. So if I went to Willie in search of pot but all he had were 'luuds, I might just buy some because I just wanted to get high. I already knew that the govt was lying about pot, anyway, figured they might be lying about the rest of it, too.

With Colorado's retail pot, all they have is pot, and they're never out of stock. No substitutions.

 

[dank69]

I love all these stories about drug dealers givng away drugs. Where do you find them?

Doncha know first one is always free

 

[SlitheryDee]

I love all these stories about drug dealers givng away drugs. Where do you find them?

I've heard of that but never seen it. I think it's a myth that's perpetuated by people wanting drug dealers to be more nefarious and diabolical than they actually are. The idea of a drug dealer giving away product to rope people in feels evil, like something the devil might do in pursuit of your soul, so the myth persists.

The truth of the matter is that the product sells itself so well without any help that drug dealers would have no reason to give it away just to drum up sales. It's more likely that they wouldn't even indicate that they sold drugs to someone who hadn't been vouched for by someone else they already knew.

 

[BoomerD]

Heh. If the ROTW says "cat" & you say "dog", you must be right, huh? Because only you know the true meaning of "dog".

And just because I point out that legalization of cannabis doesn't demand the legalization of all drugs now makes me a fascist? Really?

Marijuana is a gateway drug? only because it's illegal & must be obtained in the black market from, you know, dope dealers. OTOH, there's no gateway at the liquor store or the pot shop, either.

I'm confident that many people who wouldn't otherwise will try it when it's legal. We're already seeing that in Colorado. We saw it earlier with MMJ, as well. I see no significant harm in more people using it, responsibly, and I see it as beneficial if it helps them moderate alcohol consumption, relieve pain like a couple of aspirin or enhance their mood after a day at work.

Yes, many humans enjoy & use intoxicants responsibly, some of which are more harmful than others. Marijuana is demonstrably the least harmful of all widely used intoxicants.

Funny how a person who claims to be for legalization manages to bring up old & tired arguments against legalization, reaching for a different one as fast as the previous one failed to gain traction.

Even though I'm not a pot smoker, I've advocated for legalization (and regulation like alcohol) for decades...HOWEVER, my biggest objection to its legalization is in the drug testing regimen. Currently, there's no accurate way to discriminate between the joint you smoked last weekend in the comfort of your own home...and the joint you smoked 30 minutes ago while driving down the freeway.
"Dirty is dirty" as far as the drug testing goes...until the test hits whatever the lower threshold of detection happens to be. (and that varies by lab, law, company policy, etc.)
Alcohol metabolizes out of the system fairly quickly, so you can go on a bender...get totally shit-faced tonight...and tomorrow...you test clean. Not the case with marijuana. That shit remains detectable...and often at levels that will cause you to fail a test...for up to 30 days. (or beyond with some of the more expensive tests.)

I think that if more states follow Colorado and Washington into the legalization fray, better testing will follow. If not...pot smoking people will put down their munchies and revolt! :biggrin:

 

[Jhhnn]

Even though I'm not a pot smoker, I've advocated for legalization (and regulation like alcohol) for decades...HOWEVER, my biggest objection to its legalization is in the drug testing regimen. Currently, there's no accurate way to discriminate between the joint you smoked last weekend in the comfort of your own home...and the joint you smoked 30 minutes ago while driving down the freeway.
"Dirty is dirty" as far as the drug testing goes...until the test hits whatever the lower threshold of detection happens to be. (and that varies by lab, law, company policy, etc.)
Alcohol metabolizes out of the system fairly quickly, so you can go on a bender...get totally shit-faced tonight...and tomorrow...you test clean. Not the case with marijuana. That shit remains detectable...and often at levels that will cause you to fail a test...for up to 30 days. (or beyond with some of the more expensive tests.)

I think that if more states follow Colorado and Washington into the legalization fray, better testing will follow. If not...pot smoking people will put down their munchies and revolt! :biggrin:

Anybody who can invent a non-invasive test to determine cannabis intoxication rather than non-psychoactive cannabis residue will have a gold mine.

Actual THC levels can be determined by blood tests, but the current regimen won't even let people volunteer for that as mitigating evidence. The only thing that current testing verifies is that the subject is a lawbreaker. If cannabis is legalized at the federal level as well as State, that particular backdoor law enforcement technique will necessarily have to be abandoned. That's all it really is- the "guilty" don't lose their freedom, but rather their jobs.

 

[MongGrel]

Look up the definition of a liberal you daft wise and beautiful woman. It's not a member of the democratic party of the USA necessarily.

I'm a Democrat myself, and pro gun, and a Former Marine.

People seem to get the whole Liberal thing all messed way up, I'm, way more Conservative than liberal I'd think.

People seem to try to badge things in ways that are shallow with little knowledge to often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

 

[kage69]

I'm starting to think it's impossible for Rubio to say anything without looking like a pandering fool and/or complete moron.

Latin Romney fails again. Waa waaaaaaaaaa......

 

[crashtech]

We're not here to do what Marco Rubio thinks is "good for the country." That's not how free societies work. It's not anybody's business what other people do in the privacy of their own homes as long as they're not infringing on anyone else's freedoms. It's not any more complicated than that. Freedom should mean more to people than it does, especially to those who wrap themselves in the flag. Such hypocrisy is sad and sickening.

 

[BoomerD]

I'm a Democrat myself, and pro gun, and a Former Marine.

People seem to get the whole Liberal thing all messed way up, I'm, way more Conservative than liberal I'd think.

People seem to try to badge things in ways that are shallow with little knowledge to often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

Me also. I'm a very un-liberal Democrat. Perhaps more liberal in some areas than the true conservatives, but a fuck-ton more conservative than the true liberals.

 

[shira]

That's cute as hell...but a heroine she ain't.

(however, she can come rescue me any time.)

She can do anything with my light saber she wants to.

 

[shira]

it is, after all, a drug with no known positive effects in healthy people and known side effects.

"No known positive effects?" How about "enjoyment" and "pleasure?"

People do all sorts of things simply because they're enjoyable. So why does using MJ simply for the pleasure of it not count as a "known positive effect?"

You have a rather constipated view of reality. And your grammar and word-usage suck, too.

 

[Darwin333]

Even though I'm not a pot smoker, I've advocated for legalization (and regulation like alcohol) for decades...HOWEVER, my biggest objection to its legalization is in the drug testing regimen. Currently, there's no accurate way to discriminate between the joint you smoked last weekend in the comfort of your own home...and the joint you smoked 30 minutes ago while driving down the freeway.
"Dirty is dirty" as far as the drug testing goes...until the test hits whatever the lower threshold of detection happens to be. (and that varies by lab, law, company policy, etc.)
Alcohol metabolizes out of the system fairly quickly, so you can go on a bender...get totally shit-faced tonight...and tomorrow...you test clean. Not the case with marijuana. That shit remains detectable...and often at levels that will cause you to fail a test...for up to 30 days. (or beyond with some of the more expensive tests.)

I think that if more states follow Colorado and Washington into the legalization fray, better testing will follow. If not...pot smoking people will put down their munchies and revolt! :biggrin:

As far as driving goes, it would be absurdly easy to design a device that tests the important factor which is impairment, regardless of what caused said impairment.

Besides being impaired while performing some sort of task that requires you not to be impaired (work, driving, etc) I don't see how its anyone elses business so testing if someone is impaired or not should be perfectly sufficient.