Recreational Pot - Why no ballot initiative in CA? (Los Angeles: lawyers, buying)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Rkstar71

Here's the thing.


I'm not anti marijuana legalization. But I am very concerned about people driving while stoned. I remember back when I was a regular partaker of the weed. I could not drive while stoned!
I would stop at green lights, wonder what I should do at red lights and stop signs. Be so paranoid while I drove. And then finally get to my destination and not remember the drive there. It's like I just woke up after I parked.

Wait we are told weed has no negative impact on a person, so why ban it?
Humm, maybe the people saying that are ........ high on weed?

[I Love Buildings]

Coachella Valley will become the rising pot-culture capitol of California, wait no. The whole United States! The Desert Pot renaissance will outshine Denver's reputation as supreme green.

Essential California: Green rush is on in Desert Hot Springs - LA Times

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Wait we are told weed has no negative impact on a person, so why ban it?
Humm, maybe the people saying that are ........ high on weed?

No you aren't told weed has no negative impact on a person. Any substance that alters perceptions will have consequences to functioning performance while the user is affected. And that is not denied. In fact, however, that obvious reality is also true for any number of other medicines and foods and ingestibles - including sugar, caffeine, nasal sprays, a cornucopia of pharmaceuticals, and even a variety of animal secretions and bites from toads to insects. In fact, the principle even applies to a very broad range of behaviors not associated with external or internal chemical applications - such as sexual excitement and release, endorphine highs from aggressive exercise, anger, infatuation, and more.

Road rage ring a bell?

The issue is degree of affectation. Quantity. Timing.

And long lasting physical / emotional damage.

In the case of pot there is some long-term downside potential. But it is not much on a relative scale compared to alcohol and many other drugs. It is definitely less than long-term effects of eating a diet high in sugars and carbohydrates. Diabetes ring a bell?

People have always enjoyed and even craved altering their physical and psychological states of perception. There's nothing new in any of this. Marijuana is one of the milder and most benign opportunities to "take a break" from reality.

Just don't drive and operate machinery when high. On anything. Duh.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No you aren't told weed has no negative impact on a person. Any substance that alters perceptions will have consequences to functioning performance while the user is affected. And that is not denied. In fact, however, that obvious reality is also true for any number of other medicines and foods and ingestibles - including sugar, caffeine, nasal sprays, a cornucopia of pharmaceuticals, and even a variety of animal secretions and bites from toads to insects. In fact, the principle even applies to a very broad range of behaviors not associated with external or internal chemical applications - such as sexual excitement and release, endorphine highs from aggressive exercise, anger, infatuation, and more.

Road rage ring a bell?

The issue is degree of affectation. Quantity. Timing.

And long lasting physical / emotional damage.

In the case of pot there is some long-term downside potential. But it is not much on a relative scale compared to alcohol and many other drugs. It is definitely less than long-term effects of eating a diet high in sugars and carbohydrates. Diabetes ring a bell?

People have always enjoyed and even craved altering their physical and psychological states of perception. There's nothing new in any of this. Marijuana is one of the milder and most benign opportunities to "take a break" from reality.

Just don't drive and operate machinery when high. On anything. Duh.

You finally got to my point.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Wait we are told weed has no negative impact on a person, so why ban it?
Humm, maybe the people saying that are ........ high on weed?

Originally Posted by expatCA

You finally got to my point.

Well, expat. I don't think your point was limited at all to just the driving while stoned part. You said what you did facetiously. Indicating your disposition against legal pot.

And my point is no one should be driving under ANY kind of extreme influence. Including too much caffeine and anger. And definitely not while engaging in sex.

As for operating machinery, um, I guess I wouldn't extend that warning to include battery operated hand-held devices.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well, expat. I don't think your point was limited at all to just the driving while stoned part. You said what you did facetiously. Indicating your disposition against legal pot.

And my point is no one should be driving under ANY kind of extreme influence. Including too much caffeine and anger. And definitely not while engaging in sex.

As for operating machinery, um, I guess I wouldn't extend that warning to include battery operated hand-held devices.

That was my point as well as I said to another poster.

I would disagree about even Battery operated devices. Could be painful to oneself and others.

[Rkstar71]

Originally Posted by boulder2015

Total bs. All growers know of breeding. And in the places where it is illegal there is zero regulation of strength or bad growing practices. Sorry, but your entire post is ridiculous.

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts"

Just based on my experience. I haven't smoked pot in every part of the world, have you?
I've also talked to quite a few who agree that the pot in states where it's illegal is different than in states where you can get it at a dispensary.

I've smoked it in CA and in my opinion it stinks when it burns and made me paranoid as hell over nothing. I've also smoked it back east in a state where it's illegal. The smell is sweet when it burns and the 'high' is relaxing. I'll take illegal stash any day over the "grown properly" stuff. Just my opinion. No facts.

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by Rkstar71

Just based on my experience. I haven't smoked pot in every part of the world, have you?
I've also talked to quite a few who agree that the pot in states where it's illegal is different than in states where you can get it at a dispensary.

I've smoked it in CA and in my opinion it stinks when it burns and made me paranoid as hell over nothing. I've also smoked it back east in a state where it's illegal. The smell is sweet when it burns and the 'high' is relaxing. I'll take illegal stash any day over the "grown properly" stuff. Just my opinion. No facts.

It's all "grown properly" if it yields buds. You just have an extremely low tolerance. I however, do not and can smoke the highest potency strains without feeling any negative side affects (Unfortunately). You're also confusing Indica and Sativa as if they are new technology, when these are just different variations of the same plant that have been around for thousands of years.

Yes, nature made it...No, they are not putting super growth chemicals into your pot.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Who wants to order a pizza?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Who wants to order a pizza?

Anchovies, please. Oh, and, uh, dude? Chocolate shake with, please? And whoa! Chips! Doritos! Maybe a box of old time Jujubees too, for later .....

Now, where are my 3-D specs?