Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No they're not. I spent my entire life in business. I never drank during lunch and never heard of anyone who did, except alcoholics.
Potheads are just potheads.
Like alcoholics, they think they are doing just fine. In reality, they are going through life impaired; they just can't see it. Everyone else can, though.
There's a gulf of difference between smoking pot and being a pothead, just like there is a gulf of difference between enjoying alcohol and being an alcoholic.
I don't go through my life impaired because a few nights a week, after I finish my work, school, volunteer, self-care, and intellectual commitments, I indulge before bed. I can't say the same when I was taking sleeping pills and anxiety meds to combat PTSD from cancer treatment. And even if I *didn't* have that excuse, why would it matter? You would have absolutely no idea that I smoked pot if you met me. None.
Originally Posted by kdog Would you be OK with your surgeon having a shot or a beer before operating on you? If not, then you've answered your own question.
No I wouldn't. Which question of mine did I just answer?
This one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams
Does one beer/shot/glass of wine get you drunk?
You're admitting that a person is indeed impaired by one drink which is no different than a person who takes a toke of pot. You're both the same, it's only your choice of drug that's different.
I personally would not want a person in a critical situation to be impaired by any substance. However, what they do in their own time is none of my business as long as they're sober when it's important to be so. My point is that it's hypocritical to pretend that booze drinkers have an moral superiority over pot smokers.
There's a gulf of difference between smoking pot and being a pothead, just like there is a gulf of difference between enjoying alcohol and being an alcoholic.
I don't go through my life impaired because a few nights a week, after I finish my work, school, volunteer, self-care, and intellectual commitments, I indulge before bed. I can't say the same when I was taking sleeping pills and anxiety meds to combat PTSD from cancer treatment. And even if I *didn't* have that excuse, why would it matter? You would have absolutely no idea that I smoked pot if you met me. None.
I think you may be one of the exceptions. I'm sure they exist. Do you consider the majority of regular pot users to be like you are? I really don't. Those that I know have trouble working a full time job and keeping it or getting ahead in life financially. They complain a lot and they are my laziest friends. Do you know a lot of pot users that are comparable to you?
You're admitting that a person is indeed impaired by one drink which is no different than a person who takes a toke of pot. You're both the same, it's only your choice of drug that's different.
But it isn't that black and white. I can recall a time, after not drinking so much as even one beer for many years, one day I drank one bottle of Oklahoma watered-down 3.2% beer. I got a buzz from it. That had never happened before, or since. It depends so much on tolerance. The same is true with cannabis. Many are NOT impaired even at the supposedly accepted 5ng limit, while others may be quite impaired at Notme's 2ng limit. His plan to ruin a lot of lives by popping them because of a 2ng limit is insane. I would wager my house that if that gets implemented, and 1000's of drivers are removed from the roads, that the accident rate would not drop by even a small percentage. It is simply NOT the proper way to handle it.
Instead, impairment tests are needed. Just like with Prednisone, which carries a warning "Do not drive or operate machinery until you know how prednisone will affect you.", impairment tests needs to be used if you are suspected of driving under the influence of drugs. That way, not only will you catch those who actually are impaired by cannabis while driving, but you will also catch those who are impaired no matter what the drug is. You will also avoid ruining 1000's of lives by giving them a criminal record for no reason.
But it isn't that black and white. I can recall a time, after not drinking so much as even one beer for many years, one day I drank one bottle of Oklahoma watered-down 3.2% beer. I got a buzz from it. That had never happened before, or since. It depends so much on tolerance. The same is true with cannabis. Many are NOT impaired even at the supposedly accepted 5ng limit, while others may be quite impaired at Notme's 2ng limit. His plan to ruin a lot of lives by popping them because of a 2ng limit is insane. I would wager my house that if that gets implemented, and 1000's of drivers are removed from the roads, that the accident rate would not drop by even a small percentage. It is simply NOT the proper way to handle it.
Instead, impairment tests are needed. Just like with Prednisone, which carries a warning "Do not drive or operate machinery until you know how prednisone will affect you.", impairment tests needs to be used if you are suspected of driving under the influence of drugs. That way, not only will you catch those who actually are impaired by cannabis while driving, but you will also catch those who are impaired no matter what the drug is. You will also avoid ruining 1000's of lives by giving them a criminal record for no reason.
I'm confused. What is notme proposing? I admit I only skim his posts because his blather isn't worth my time. I agree with you that if there's probably cause of you driving under the influence of anything, the police have a right to test you. If you're in an accident, you better be sober or you're in trouble. Is he proposing something beyond that?
I do disagree with your assertion that there are people who can smoke pot and not be impaired. If that were true, why would they bother? I think people are fooling themselves if they think they can do drugs and not be impaired. They are impaired, it's just a matter of degree.
I think you may be one of the exceptions. I'm sure they exist. Do you consider the majority of regular pot users to be like you are? I really don't. Those that I know have trouble working a full time job and keeping it or getting ahead in life financially. They complain a lot and they are my laziest friends. Do you know a lot of pot users that are comparable to you?
I am not speaking for that poster, but speaking for myself, yes, a lot. The problem is that most are in the closet about it because of fear of government intervention, which would likely cause the destruction of their career. They won't even answer truthfully about it on polls, questionnaires, or interviews because of the draconian laws.
Think about this for a minute. Lets say you are right, and the majority of users are broke losers. How can those types possibly support a multi-billion dollar per year business? And that is just for one state, Colorado, and that was just for 2014. In 2015 recreational sales alone was over $900 million, with medical sales on top of that. Multiply that by 49 and you'll get an idea of how much money has been flowing into the black market for decades.
No, most of that money is coming from responsible, common working folks, professionals earning high incomes, and entrepreneurs. Those who know you would never admit it to you, because they are likely as aware as I am of your prejudice. They know that you would from then on look down on them and think less of them, no matter how accomplished of a coworker they may be.
I can come up with information on high tech companies drug policies, but I don't have it readily available. However I can direct you to a link that details the FBI's frustration when they wanted to hire the cream of the crop computer hackers to help them fight cyber crime. It turns out they can't get the best of the best unless they relax their cannabis use policy:
I think you may be one of the exceptions. I'm sure they exist. Do you consider the majority of regular pot users to be like you are? I really don't. Those that I know have trouble working a full time job and keeping it or getting ahead in life financially. They complain a lot and they are my laziest friends. Do you know a lot of pot users that are comparable to you?
I can't say I share your experience, but I also surround myself with good people. Many of my friends smoke pot and almost all have graduate degrees (or working toward them), good jobs (although not always the most lucrative), creative and charitable outlets, and are good people. I can't say I have lazy friends - my friends are rabbis, entrepreneurs, nonprofit founders/CEOs, doctors, lawyers, and writers and some of them smoke pot. Others may, but I don't know for sure. Most of my friends don't know that about me. Do you think maybe you only know of people who do poorly while smoking pot *because* they're not doing well?
Trouble working a full time job? If you mean that they have trouble *just* working one full time job without other things to motivate them (like volunteering, side gigs, grad school), then yes, my friends who smoke pot have trouble working a full time job.
Honestly, if anything it's video games that leave me more concerned about a handful of my friends.
I'm confused. What is notme proposing? I admit I only skim his posts because his blather isn't worth my time. I agree with you that if there's probably cause of you driving under the influence of anything, the police have a right to test you. If you're in an accident, you better be sober or you're in trouble. Is he proposing something beyond that?
Yes, he is wanting to impose a 2ng limit, and bust them with dwid, no impairment test needed. There are some that may not have used it for a week or more that could fail that test, and he wants to call those people impaired and destroy their life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog
I do disagree with your assertion that there are people who can smoke pot and not be impaired. If that were true, why would they bother? I think people are fooling themselves if they think they can do drugs and not be impaired. They are impaired, it's just a matter of degree.
Whoa. That is a telling statement.
I use it daily, and have for over 40 years. I do NOT use it to get impaired. As I have mentioned in pervious posts, one of the easiest to understand examples of how it can be used, not abused, is when writing complicated computer code. I used to do a lot of coding, and the right strains can improve focus considerably. At the same time that focus helps keep distractions tuned out. It helped a lot with taking what would normally be the drudgery of computer programming and transforming it into something that is actually fun. It is one of the reasons why its use is so prevalent in the high tech industry, and has been since the late 1970's. It is also one of the reasons why the FBI is struggling with finding exceptional talent in the computer field.
I worked at a disk drive manufacturing plant (later to become Seagate) in the late 70's and early 80's, and most of the best technicians there were regular users, including going out to the parking lot during breaks. The company wasn't about to let all the best talent go, so if they knew about it, they just looked the other way.
High tech types like myself do not use it to get impaired, which makes the prohibitionist's argument "You can take a drink and not get buzzed, but that isn't true with pot, it is used ONLY to get blasted" quite absurd.
You're admitting that a person is indeed impaired by one drink which is no different than a person who takes a toke of pot. You're both the same, it's only your choice of drug that's different.
I personally would not want a person in a critical situation to be impaired by any substance. However, what they do in their own time is none of my business as long as they're sober when it's important to be so. My point is that it's hypocritical to pretend that booze drinkers have an moral superiority over pot smokers.
I admitted no such thing. All I said was that I wouldn't want the surgeon to drink before operating on me. I never said that the surgeon is unable to perform the operation after one beer.
Also I am not saying that people shouldn't be able to drink and smoke on their own time, that is their prerogative. All I said was that regular users, people who drink to get drunk or smoke to get stoned on a regular basis, are more than likely not going to be productive members of society.
Yes, he is wanting to impose a 2ng limit, and bust them with dwid, no impairment test needed. There are some that may not have used it for a week or more that could fail that test, and he wants to call those people impaired and destroy their life.
I don't know about ng limits. But if the test can't tell whether you're currently impaired then it's bad and most likely won't hold up in court.
Quote:
Whoa. That is a telling statement.
I use it daily, and have for over 40 years. I do NOT use it to get impaired. As I have mentioned in pervious posts, one of the easiest to understand examples of how it can be used, not abused, is when writing complicated computer code. I used to do a lot of coding, and the right strains can improve focus considerably. At the same time that focus helps keep distractions tuned out. It helped a lot with taking what would normally be the drudgery of computer programming and transforming it into something that is actually fun. It is one of the reasons why its use is so prevalent in the high tech industry, and has been since the late 1970's. It is also one of the reasons why the FBI is struggling with finding exceptional talent in the computer field.
I worked at a disk drive manufacturing plant (later to become Seagate) in the late 70's and early 80's, and most of the best technicians there were regular users, including going out to the parking lot during breaks. The company wasn't about to let all the best talent go, so if they knew about it, they just looked the other way.
High tech types like myself do not use it to get impaired, which makes the prohibitionist's argument "You can take a drink and not get buzzed, but that isn't true with pot, it is used ONLY to get blasted" quite absurd.
I think you're taking my use of the word impaired the wrong way. How about "altered"? Although it's really the same thing. You just said it helps you concentration and creativity. I don't doubt that. I know lots of brilliant computer scientists who smoked a little weed now and again. It's a popular pastime with creative folks of all disciplines.
But just because you feel there are some tasks that you do better stoned, that doesn't mean all tasks are better. Would you be OK with your surgeon toking up before he operates on you? Your airline pilot? Your kids teachers?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
