In their latest desperate ploy for attention, CNN had medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta (who, in case you didn't know, still does neurosurgery in Atlanta when he's not on the air) "change his mind about pot" after studying the medical and legal implications of the War on Marijuana. Dr. Gupta even admitted that he has tried some himself in the past. What a shocking revelation! In a more sober vein, the doctor declared that he found the warnings about the effects of marijuana to be "overstated."
Since every remotely objective observer has reached the same conclusion, there is nothing to see here beyond the cachet of Gupta's medical credentials and public profile. Polling shows that barely 1/3 of the public (presumably old people) supports continued marijuana prohibition. It would appear that decriminalization at the federal level could happen in our lifetimes. And the best part about it is never again being cornered at a party by That Guy who lacks the ability to talk about anything other than legalizing pot.
online pharmacy xenical best drugstore for you
buy zithromax online www.mabvi.org/wp-content/languages/new/usa/zithromax.html no prescription
While no one this side of Bill Bennett or James Dobson takes the Dangers of Marijuana horror stories seriously, I still find "medical marijuana" ballot initiatives to be a half-assed and ultimately pointless approach. Legalization advocates tend to be rationalists, people who are repulsed by the dishonesty and bullshitting inherent to the Just Say No/War on Drugs movement. For that very reason I find it particularly hard to people talk about legalization based on the medical uses of marijuana.
buy cymbalta online www.mabvi.org/wp-content/languages/new/usa/cymbalta.html no prescription
I mean, come on. I support legalization, but let's just call it what it is: you want to smoke lots of weed and purchasing it legally would make your life easier. That's OK. Own it.
What percentage of people who have "cards" in Colorado or California (here's a great take on how it's nearly impossible to get denied when applying in LA) have a real, legitimate medical need to be prescribed marijuana? Certainly it must be dwarfed by the number who have bullshitted their way into it with the help, perhaps, of a particularly sympathetic physician – if that is even necessary. Perhaps this is a point that isn't worth making, but I don't see much difference between Bill Bennett trying to scare people with a bunch of lies about marijuana and some White Guy With Dreadlocks pretending that glaucoma is an important issue for him. These excuses and games grow tiresome. Let's just say what we mean. Conservatives love the War on Drugs because it lets them imprison black and Hispanic males, and marijuana is the volume seller of the drug trade. They hide behind their cheap "Someone think of the children!" rhetoric that fools fewer Americans by the minute. Liberals support legalization because they see the War on Drugs for what it is. And libertarian types who are single-issue fanatics about legalization usually smoke enough weed to sedate a rhino and decriminalization it would be advantageous. Cool? Let's all get comfortable in our own skin.
If you're going to make a farce out of a law, then there is no point in having the law and enforcing it haphazardly. There are no doubt some people out there who derive real benefits from Medical Marijuana laws, but for the public at large these laws are just a convenient way to get the good shit without the risk of arrest. I'm open minded to the possibility that legalization advocates are that passionate about treating glaucoma, but I have my doubts. We should stop treating the symptoms – coming up with ways to flank bad laws – and root out the useless laws at the core of this issue. Alternatively, we can continue to pretend that it makes sense to live in a country where Bacardi 151 is legal (Drink Responsibly!
online pharmacy lipitor best drugstore for you
) and marijuana is not.
OldBean says:
"And the best part about it is never again being cornered at a party by That Guy who lacks the ability to talk about anything other than legalizing pot."
Hey Ed, did you know that it's impossible to overdose on marijuana? Also, I have some fascinating stories about making rope during World War I or whatever the fuck…
Monkey Business says:
While there's evidence to suggest that marijuana does have medicinal benefits in certain circumstances, you're right on the money about the issue being that the main crux of the issue is that a decent number of people would like to be able to smoke without worrying about being hassled by the fuzz.
You forgot to mention that the War On Drugs keeps the prisons not just full, but overflowing, which created and sustains the Private Prison Industry, and they'll fight like hell to keep it that way.
I do, however, disagree with the idea that liberals see the War On Drugs for what it is. Most of the liberals we're talking about in this case are your middle to upper class whites that probably don't see a problem with the staggeringly absurd sentencing differences between powder cocaine (which many of them have either used themselves or been around people that have) and crack cocaine (which is primarily used by individuals in lower economic strata, who also happen to primarily be minorities), despite both being the same basic thing.
Pro-pot libertarians might be the worst of the bunch, mainly because they never shut up about it. While I understand how ending the War on Drugs fits into the Libertarian ideology, it always struck me as a bit of a feint to draw in disaffected white suburban college kids that didn't want to be Republicans but also weren't big fans of women, minorities, or the poor, and wanted to smoke a lot of pot.
No one on either side of the debate really gives a damn about the people whose lives are ruined by the War On Drugs, because Those People aren't them or their friends. The pro-pot side wants to make their own lives slightly more comfortable by giving them another avenue to numb themselves to the increasingly soul-crushing reality we all live in, and the anti-pot side wants to continue making tons of money at the expense of minorities and the poor.
middle seaman says:
The war on drugs serves as an important tool to control the population. Although, the Republicans declared war on the American people (minimum wage, prevent the limited Obamacare, have wars, etc.), the Democrats also support such tools. Muslim countries see evil in alcohol, Russia finds gays to particularly evil, etc.
Elites thrive to find and deploy tools to control, punish, direct and discriminate against the non-elite majority. Drugs is just one tool among many.
HoosierPoli says:
The Medical Marijuana gambit was a necessary way of bringing marijuana into mainstream society as something other than an intoxicant. It had the added advantage of making prohibitionists into enemies of cancer patients, and the politically unnecessary but feel-good aspect of being grounded in reality. It's telling that NORML and other such organizations fought prohibition for 30 years without so much as a shred of success until medical pot started getting put on the ballot.
Xynzee says:
Pot and other drugs are not my thing. I also do believe the science on some if the ill health issues (eg link between pot and schizophrenia) and call bullshit on anyone who says smoking pot is not as bad as tobacco.
I find potheads annoying to socialise w because all they want to do is sit there and stare at the tv. Working with them is worse, because I find I have to work 4X harder to make up their slack and fix their f***ups.
I also find the wanna be "Rastafarians" plus their kindred in the "medical marijuana" camp especially irksome, *because* of how disingenuous they are, for all the reasons you've mentioned.
The "war on drugs" is bullshit as well. If we were serious, we'd stand far, far, FAR to the right of Singapore. Suspected of using, quick blood test, if it's positive march you into room put a noose around your neck and be done with it. Not going to happen.
But doing things half-assed seems to be the American way.
Therefore, as you've pointed out let's just cut to the chase and end the bullshit. It's far better to regulate it and ensure quality, get some tax revenue. Make the bar to being a legitimate supplier far easier and more appealing than trying to circumnavigate the system and we're golden.
Greg says:
Monkey Business they don't have to care about the sentencing disparities because even the federal panel that defines sentencing found them staggeringly disproportionate and changed them a few years ago. Not that it helps the people locked up under the old ones. ..
Mingent Whizmaster says:
Almost on topic: I've been hearing an ad on a local radio station
for (I think) some kind of vodka, in which the copy contains the
following admonition:
"Day-drink responsibly!"
It reminded me of Geo. W. Bush's 1st inaugural address, in which
he referred to "persons of cover".
You never know when one of these phrases is going to catch on.
c u n d gulag says:
I'm all for legalization.
And not just for pot, but for everything.
Legalize drugs, QC the sh*t out of making them, and regulate sales like we do with beer, wine, butt's, cigars, and booze – and tax the proceeds.
But, in particular, the legalization of pot will be useless, a completely empty gesture, if companies are allowed to keep drug-testing for it – either to get, or to keep, a job.
Now, I can see positions where I don't want stoned people operating things like heavy machinery, or piloting a plane, or driving a bus or taxi.
So, yeah, testing people in those jobs makes some sense.
But the problem is, drug-screening's are pretty universal now, either to get or keep a job, and pot stays in people's systems, longer than most other drugs.
Do some lines of blow today? You'll be clean in 3 to 4 days.
Smoke a doobie today? And lights will flash and bells will go off – not from the pot, but from a test – for upwards of a month.
So, that airline pilot smoked a doobie a few days ago, and now has to fly back home, will test just as positive as that college kid at a concert.
Both could have shared an 8-ball of blow a week ago, and no one would know – except them, and their dealer.
Another factor, is the relative strength of what you smoked.
I've smoked some weed that I could barely get a high, like the stuff my buddy the college professor used to grow out back – and I've smoked some sh*t where I have to remind myself that I don't have to think about it, because breathing is an involuntary reflex.
Just like we don't want drunk people behind the wheels of cars, or sitting in the cockpit, we don't want stoned people doing the same things.
With booze, we know that a single can or bottle of beer, a single glass of wine, and a single shot of booze, take about an hour to get out of our systems.
But how long will your buddies home-grown, or that fab weed your rich friend has access to, take to get out of your system?
And just how stoned are you, three days later?
Probably not at all.
But if you're tested even a relatively long period of time after ingesting or smoking marijuana, red flags will go up, whether it was the weak sh*t, or the mind-bender.
So, it's great that there are efforts to legalize it!
But what good will that do if the only ones who can smoke it, are either kids, or adults with jobs where they're not tested, or who don't have jobs at all, and don't care if they pass a pre-employment drug-screening?
Me?
I'd love to smoke a doob or two a few times a week.
But I don't dare do that.
I don't dare, because of the off-chance that someone would want to hire my 50+ year old ass, and I don't want to lose my first job in years, before I even start it.
So, what good is legalizin' it, if 'The Man's" still gonna be analyzin' for it?
Just askin'…
Benny Lava says:
Legalization would defang about half of Ron Paul's loyal fanbase. So for that reason alone we should legalize :)
Seriously though I think the big reason we are seeing a push for legalization is that it is coming from someone other than hippies. Mainstream America hates the hippies. Their puff puff pass culture, blacklight posters, and gravity bongs. Their short memory for everything except pizza and video games. If anything set back NORML back 30 years it is high times mag and their cover photos.
Don't get me wrong I am all for legalization and I think hippies should be free to do what they want. But imagine if beer drinkers treated drink the way hippies treated smoking. Prohibition would never have been repealed.
sluggo says:
I am against any regulation of growing or possession. I hope that I can see the day that little old ladies grow pot between the tomatoes and pole beans and that it is sold in farmer's markets.
Regulation will be a mess, with large companies monopolizing the market, combining THC with HFCS so that Snickers can take over the world.
That said, pot and employment don't mix, so I'll wait til Medicare kicks before lighting up again. I don't like working with people that smoke up currently. I also don't like working with people that have never smoked up.
ladiesbane says:
The conspiracy theory tentacle in my brain lights up, if you'll pardon the phrase, when I think about the connection between for-profit prisons, the sentencing disparities between whites and people of color, the people who support permanent disenfranchisement for felons, and so on. But that's a separate gig.
I *love* the idea of overhauling the law to update outdated laws and eliminate unenforceable ones. Those laws weaken the whole system and undermine confidence in the law. But it always depends on who is doing the overhauling, doesn't it? We are living in the age of Citizens United and mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds and Homeland Security. I don't like the direction this is going.
But I really would love to see marijuana legalized and (in a way) industrialized, so long as private growers are unrestrained. (I also would like the same for alcohol. I can make beer, wine, cider, and mead; I'd like to try making gin.) Government dope could be the equivalent of bonded liquor, with homegrown more like artisanal small-batch product (regulated only if it claims to be organic, etc.)
We need to do medical research. We need the sales tax. Hell, we need the sales! And we need to decriminalize a huge segment of the population. That, or start jailing all the white teachers, preachers, cops, judges, baristas, office workers, and everyone else who gets high.
But for now, marijuana is a Schedule I drug — considered highly addictive and deemed to have no medical value. Methamphetamine is only a Schedule II drug. You don't have to be a doctor to know that is an outright lie.
Kulkuri says:
Since Colorado legalized pot, local governments like counties are banning setting up marijuana dispensaries in their jurisdiction. So just because it's legal doesn't mean you can buy it legally.
Most of those that are still against pot (old and young) just don't want to admit they have been lied to all these years. Like the old saying, "It's easier to fool people than to get them to admit they've been fooled."
J.D. says:
Benny Lava – you say "imagine if beer drinkers treated drink the way hippies treated smoking."
There's plenty of ludicrously over-the-top glorification of beer culture out there. Turn on MTV during the month of "spring break" if you want a taste, or hell, look at any beer ad where opening a shitty light beer turns average people into supermodels wearing bikinis. The glorification of beer is far worse than High Times' cover photos, but nobody who matters seriously protests its inclusion in popular culture.
Xynzee says:
@sluggo: main interest in "regulation" is more for consumer knowledge.
If granny wants to grow some for herself and her guests, cool. If granny wants to sell it down at the local market then the consumer should have some idea what they're getting. This way someone can have an idea of "dosage". Just an after dinner toke, with an early start? Or is this for Friday night of a long weekend, so you don't care if you cannot move for the next three days?
By making the entry level to legally supply straight forward, affordable and easy like pay a small fee to register, have batches tested for quality/potency, and pay your business taxes (the testing has to be paid for some how). Make it easy to keep the licence (see above).
However, sell w/o a permit, sell after-dinner toke as super-duper-skunk, or supply to a minor… well you've got a problem don't you? We made it easy, but if you're that stupid, time to thin the herd.
NonyNony says:
"And the best part about it is never again being cornered at a party by That Guy who lacks the ability to talk about anything other than legalizing pot. "
And if this were more widely publicized, the percentage of people in favor of legalization would grow by another 5-10%!
Xynzee says:
I'm curious though. The WoD (marijuana), was an off shoot of a large well funded bureaucracy that suddenly found itself w/o a reason to be and a number of people to soon be out of a job w the end of prohibition.
So if the WoD is ended then what? Or is this a call for the end for mj only? Thus it's business as usual for the WoD on other drugs? Why not just make coke, meth and LSD available at the pharmacy?
If this is the end for the WoD, then what will they crack down on next? I can't imagine the WoD bureaucracy going peacefully into that good night.
Rosalux says:
Living in Colorado, it's been fascinating to watch the legalization process unfurl. In addition to no longer hiding behind the farce of medical marijuana, it's nice to think that we're really leading the country in figuring out a whole host of regulatory issues: quality-control, availability for minors, taxation, intoxication limits for driving, etc. There are also many people, in many sectors, who have realized that there is tons of money to be made and it's not just the weed itself, it's paraphernalia, weed social clubs, THC blood testing, THC quality testing, weed delivery, marijuana law (there are lawyers here who now specialize in this), etc., etc. Personally, I'm glad it's legal so there's one less excuse to incarcerate minorities, but that said I'm a little tired of smelling pot every time I walk around downtown. It's still illegal to smoke in public, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone.
jon says:
I'm for strict legalization without the ability to tax it. I want these drugs to be freely available and free of cost. The money drugs bring in already created huge problems across the globe, and far too much of it is American dollars. Make it legal as long as there's no money changing hands. Oh, is that too much of a problem? Then fucking go to Bolivia and buy your own. Maybe your friends will finance your sightseeing trip. Grow all the pot you want. I don't care. But the money is the problem. This "tax it" bullshit is as ridiculous as the "medical" marijuana facade. Just fucking make it legal and make it illegal to sell it here. Bring in all you like, but you can't sell it. Keep the money and the moneyed middlemen out of it. Those gangster fuckers can stuff it.
NonyNony says:
@jon
Your rant doesn't make any sense. At all. Are you also in favor of making it illegal to sell alcohol and tobacco, but people can distill their own spirits and grow their own tobacco all they want?
Making things legal reduces the (direct) harm that the money coming from them can do. Money going to "legitimate" businesses instead of black-market criminal enterprises is tracked and fed into the national economy. Taxes from purchases get used generally for local needs. Taxes on luxury items like recreational weed would be far less harmful than keeping the sale of weed illegal while making possession legal – making sales illegal but possession legal is like the worst possible way to kill the criminal benefits of the drug war. It would continue to allow criminals to make lots of money while opening up the markets to people who are currently too scared to get caught with the stuff, but wouldn't be if possession was legal.
Best to cut the criminals off at the knees and make it legal and sold at state liquor stores or wherever your state allows sales of alcohol and/or tobacco products. And tax it at a reasonable rate about the same as tobacco and alcohol because there really isn't a difference in these things.
Doctor Rock says:
Re tax revenue. You must must must be careful of taxing pot too high. Tax it too high and you're just preserving the black market. Look at untaxed cigarettes and organized crime in New York. People laugh but it's no joke.
LanceThruster says:
I remember how angry I got after seeing the doc "In Pot We Trust." People were clearly being helped by medical marijuana but that made no difference as far as law enforcement and the legislators were concerned.
Gerald McGrew says:
Years ago when the medical marijuana movement was first getting started, PBS did a documentary on it, and one of the leaders made it very clear what the whole thing was about. He said, "I want to change the face of marijuana from this to this ." The goal of course being normalization and eventual public acceptance of marijuana use.
It appears to have worked.
jon says:
NonyNony,
I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but getting the money out of illegal drugs is the most important thing to do. I also don't think taxing marijuana is going to lead to anything other than an increased interest in gardening. The problem is that coffee and coca grow in similar places in similar ways, and it's the money that makes the coca farmers and the coca users have to deal with a bunch of greedy assholes in the middle. Let coffee have some extra kick or something, but the problem of kidnapped judges, death squads, and all the rest can be cut off at the knees best by just making it illegal for Americans in the US to buy that stuff. We can grow our own pot and poppies, and so many already do. If some can't find it, let them find some seeds. DIY addiction, I say.
Yeah, it's not exactly coherent, but it's a better thing to try than to continue the status quo.
mothra says:
As Ed says, how is it at all sensible that we live in a country where Bacardi 151, or Everclear or Ouzo is available for sale and marijuana is illegal? When was the last time you heard about a pothead driving the wrong way down an interstate and taking out an entire family? Or beating a loved one senseless because they were so wasted on pot? My guess is never.
But others bring up a good point: as long as employers still drug test, legalizing marijuana won't be a boon for a lot of people.
And Xynzee, I would argue that you are wrong that no one on either side gives a crap about the War on Drugs because it doesn't affect anyone they know. Because there are such harsh sentences, even your casual user can get caught or have done something stupid as a youth and be dinged. Yes, this happens to white people, too.
quixote says:
Way back in the day I wrote one of the earliest peer-reviewed papers on this (The Religious and Medicinal Uses of Cannabis) so I've been at this way too long.
So obviously I can't resist some podium-thumping here.
1) There is an outrageously good and recent study comparing the relative harms of almost every popular drug out there. Nutt et al., 2010, The Lancet (free login required for full text). Short version: yes, cannabis and its active ingredient, THC, are among the most harmless drugs out there. Yes, even straight THC is much less harmful than straight nicotine. Nicotine is one of the most physically addictive substances known. Its health effects (and I mean the alkaloid, not even the accompanying smoke) are neurologically much more severe than THC. Alcohol is much, much, much more harmful.
2) That said, anything with any pharmacological activity can be harmful depending on dosage. High constant doses of THC lead to a syndrome long recognized among users and technically called "pothead." Really. There's a measurable change in cortical neurological activity and cognitive decline. It's reversible until it isn't. Variable amounts of time are involved depending on individual susceptibility.
The most frightening aspect is the effect of high and consistent dosage on developing brains, such as adolescents have. An important part of that development is something called pruning, in which neuronal connections are optimized. Cannabis reduces pruning, which can be useful when there's been excessive pruning as in post-traumatic stress, but is not a good thing when it reduces brain function.
So as not to fall afoul of the spam filter, I'll add a couple of cites on that in plain text. Remove spaces to make them into functioning urls.
htt p://w ww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301008210001310 "Adolescent brain maturation, the endogenous cannabinoid system and the neurobiology of cannabis-induced schizophrenia"
htt p://w ww.eurekaselect.com/90420/article "Cannabinoids: Between Neuroprotection and Neurotoxicity"
There's heaps more references. Search Google Scholar using "cannabinoids neuron pruning" (without the quotes, of course).
Benny Lava says:
J.D.,
You don't understand what I'm saying. It isn't glorifying pot that is the problem Americans have. It is the hippie pot culture. I have never heard of beer drinkers passing around a single glass of beer for everyone to sip. Or smokers getting together to pass around a single tobacco cigarette. Weed delves into lifestyle schlock more than any other recreational substance. And as we know, mainstream America hates alternative lifestyles.
Bill says:
Anecdata is for the birds…
witless chum says:
I voted for the Michigan medical marijuana bullshit initiative because I believe in not letting the perfect by the enemy of the good and because monkeywrenching can be a satisfying feeling. But, yeah, it's silliness.
Bernard says:
the major plus side of the War on Drugs is it keeps Black men from voting. and the Republicans hate voters who don't vote for them. so ending the War on Drugs will be fought tooth and nail by the Republicans.
and as someone upthread said, teh War on Drugs/Americans keeps the Prison Industry rich.
here in Louisiana the War on Drugs is what keeps our Counties/Parishes as we call them, flush with money from that BAD ole Government. Getting Private Business to jail "bad Guys, mostly Blacks" lets Government look good and feeds the "Blacks are out to get Whitey" meme that is Southern Politics.
so The War on Drugs, MJ included, won't go away until we bankrupt the Federal Government who is paying for all this. lol And the Republicans love them Wars and Guns and Prisons and all that Military stuff.
so don't hold your breath for legalization of MJ. too much money and too many Republicans stand in the way.
Xecky Gilchrist says:
It isn't glorifying pot that is the problem Americans have. It is the hippie pot culture.
This is the first time I've ever read or heard anyone saying they had a problem with these particular things.
afeman says:
Or Bacardi, period. Eech.
robotswillstealyourjobs says:
'Weed culture' is a natural consequence of the illegality of cannabis. It's not hard to see why. The illegality of cannabis gives pot smokers a camaraderie regardless of background and prevents weed from being enjoyed in more mainstream settings where there'd be more peer pressure to rein it in. Hence, a counterculture has developed around it. Additionally, the illegality in and of itself adds something of a rebellious glamour to it which attracts adolescents, who, being adolescent, play 'who-can-do-the-most' games with all kinds of things (see also adolescent drinking behavior).
Ten Bears says:
I'll own that. Everything else is new age hippy dippy voodoo doodoo.
No fear.
Khaled says:
I remember, at least a year ago, hearing that the big tobacco companies already had trademarks and the like on the books, ready to start capitalizing on legalization of MJ. So, yeah, will it happen? Sure it will- start out harder to get than alcohol, highly regulated, etc.
I think what will get drugs legalized in America is the drug war in Mexico spilling over the border. No one wants to see that- it's all fine when it's over there, but our cops dying to prevent dumb suburban kids from doing blow? Screw that.
moderateindy says:
Living in the Chicago area, I see the legalization of MJ to be a great step in reducing gang violence. The reason Chicago has so many shootings, is because of turf wars for selling drugs. MJ is the biggest seller, so taking that out of the market would help curtail the violence. Personally, I would rather see nearly all drugs legalized, taxed, and a huge portion of the tax revenue go towards setting up easy access to drug rehab facilities. I don't believe the use of the harder drugs, like heroin would increase that much. First, because of drug testing by employers, second, because ask yourself, if heroin was legal would you suddenly start using it?
If you really want to keep it away from younger people legalize it and then give harsh penalties for providing it to those that are underage. Ask any kid, which is harder for them to acquire, weed or beer? I guarantee you they'll say beer.
bb in GA says:
I have not smoked any serious weed since the late 70s. Am serious against the WoD and believe in "Legalize It!"
I resent how you (Ed) characterize libertarian types as single issue fanatics while you characterize Liberals as serious thinkers against the WoD. There's a bunch of old boomers who believe just like I do. We've never believed in putting people in jail for this non-issue.
Google Henry J. Anslinger and the FBN. Yeah, it looks like it was another way to harass the Brothers.
//bb
Big dog says:
I think the arguments about medical marijuana being usury of like the Carmel's nose under the tent are right on. Progress has been made and more is coming down the road. Why rant against incrementalism? It seems to be the way things get done in a democracy.
I seriously do not understand the snarks about "hippie culture" when the only supporting evidence seems to be that people share their joint. Didn't you ever have a bite of someone's Alfredo? How about sharing a glass of wine?
Big dog says:
My spelling checker is running amok. Please read "sort" rather than "usury". Pleas read "camel" rather than "Carmel"…thanks.
Gordon says:
The thing is–your comment about people smoking marijuana medicinally is just an excuse to get loaded–that's bullshit. There are more people in this argument than just you, and no amount of your self-righteous proclaiming of yourself to be the expert on what ALL medical marijuana users think, or are motivated by–is going to deliver any insight, and remains–just more bullshit. Thanks for playing, but your opinion, in my opinion, is just bullshit.
Get it?
Solar Hero says:
Lovely concern-trolling but you should get your facts straight: Colorado did legalize it, not just medically….
1douchebag says:
As an Angeleno, my personal favorite of the card carriers is the guy who will ask "Mind if I burn one?" then light up and proceed to tell you how he only smokes weed because he has back problems or anxiety or a bum knee from high school football. He wants you to know he wouldn't be caught dead smoking weed if he didn't have this problem.
Big dog says:
Hey,Douchebag, if your looking to snark a bullshitter, why don't you try a banker or hedge fund operator?
J R says:
Just FYI,
Actually, there's an Octoberfest each fall in my neighborhood where beer is passed around, and scored for flavor, clarity, head, etc. Judges take a somewhat amusing test before getting their glass. We used to all sip from the same mason jar, but now use individual tiny glasses, because of infectious diseases.
There are a couple of entries that are ringers – one is a terrible home-brew, and any judge that gives it a high score has all their scores thrown out. One is a Coors, and anyone who scores that highly is also disregarded. Trophies are awarded for several categories. Live music is played, and great food is shared. People come from several states to participate and see friends.
Regarding "hippies" passing joints in circles, there are several things going on there; firtst, no one can smoke a whole joint of modern pot, second, most pot smokers want a few minutes between tokes of pot, and lastly, it is a more communal thing than a glass of scotch on the rocks.
I don't smoke pot any more, even though I do have glaucoma and my Opthalmologist agrees that smoking pot would help control my intra-ocular eye pressure.
Even tho I smoked a whole lot for 30 years, on my annual physical lung capacity test I usually score a "lung age" of 25 or 35, even though I'm in my mid-sixties. So I don't think marijuana is nearly as harmful as tobacco is to smoke. My MD doctor friends agree. Many of my ancestors died young of lung diseases (COPD, black lung and cancer) but they all smoked tobacco, Pall Malls and Camels mostly.
I think making all drugs available under reasonable regulation, and prohibiting the advertisement for anything that's addictive would be ideal. No more casino or lottery ads, tobacco ads, or beer commercials – sweet!
But I'm also a realist… so I know how likely that is. I'll settle with not putting people in jail for getting high if high people don't cause harm to others.
Big dog says:
In my youth, I, like many of my kinfolk, was a belligerent drinker. If I got high on booze or beer, I would be ready to do battle. Since discovering dope some forty odd years ago, my highs have been laid back if not serene. Consuming dope definitely does not lead to aggressive behavior. Does dope disable the user? Like alcohol that depends on the dosage, but in many ways, getting high on dope is enabling. When I get high, I tend to focus down a great deal more. Some jobs that I do when straight taking me five minutes or so, may go on longer, ten or twenty minutes, but the results of the added time are usually beneficial. Much of my current work has to do with making art, but the above holds for even cleaning the kitchen. I have reluctantly driven while high, and for the most part it made me very, very careful, not at all like booze.