Marijuana

[susanann]

No, it would be painfully obvious if marijuana users were causing havoc in society. It would be plastered all over our local news reports.

We have MAD : Mothers Against Drunk Driving.


We do not have mothers against marijuanna driving (MAMD).


AAA keeps track of alcohol related accidents. They have never found it necessary to relate accidents to marijuanna.

 

[Harlan Norris]

Marijuana is not addictive, sorry sir

Oh yes it is.I've got a friend that's been trying to quit for at least 10 years. No can do.He doesn't want his kids to find out. He thinks they don't know.

 

[nvxplorer]

Oh yes it is.I've got a friend that's been trying to quit for at least 10 years. No can do.He doesn't want his kids to find out. He thinks they don't know.

This means that your friend has an addictive personality, not that marijuana is addictive.

 

[Harlan Norris]

This means that your friend has an addictive personality, not that marijuana is addictive.

Denial is the cornerstone of addiction.Do you use pot?

 

[nvxplorer]

Denial is the cornerstone of addiction.

And your point would be? (In other words, how is this factoid related to what I wrote?)

Do you use pot?

No.

 

[xMinionX]

Denial is the cornerstone of addiction.

Maybe you should stop the commentary on other folks personal lives when you don't know anything about them outside of the little you see typed up onto this page. I don't see anyone inferring details about you (and if they have and I missed it, they shouldn't).

Do you use pot?

Whether he uses pot or not is entirely irrelavent to the discussion at hand.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Oh yes it is.I've got a friend that's been trying to quit for at least 10 years. No can do.He doesn't want his kids to find out. He thinks they don't know.

I think you need to lookup the word addiction in the dictionary. Seriously. People get addicted to being online all the time. Is the Internet a drug? No. Pot is a drug, just not an addictive one.

Here's where you are going off track. You think just being unable to quit means that the substance itself is addictive. That's just not true. If someone is doing a truly addictive substance like coke or heroin and they try to quit...they have *withdrawal symptoms.* If you just can't quit and there are no withdrawal symptoms, then you aren't physically addicted. Psychologically addicted maybe (just as you can be psychologically addicted to being online), but not physically. BIG difference.

The point about addiction is moot anyway. Cigarettes are *way* more addictive than pot ever could be. And yes, people spend money on cigarettes rather than buy their kids food. I saw this happen about a year ago with this lady I saw at the convenience store. She bought a carton of cigs and some booze (both perfectly legal by the way!) while her infant was sitting in the car outside baking in the sun crying his head off. I didn't smell any pot on her either. Point is people will do what they will no matter what. Keeping a thing like pot illegal just doesn't make any sense.

 

[PorcelainHeart]

anything can be a addiction.

 

[Harlan Norris]

And your point would be? (In other words, how is this factoid related to what I wrote?)

No.

Well, then I guess you don't really know anything about the weed, other than what you've read or heard on TV.A man has to make a few dope deals before he's got the true flavor of the drug culture.Back in my 20s,after my divorce,which was due largely to my drug use,I made some new friends.We all met at a certain bar.Sort of an Algonquin round table type thing. We all drank and many,myself included, were strong advocates of drug use.We were all about the same age give or take a few years.We had a great time,and were for the most part harmless.None of us thought that what we were doing would lead to any serious problems.However, now it's about 30 years later.Here's how it shakes out.One I'll call JB,drunken wife beater, and he comitted suicide.Another,RC,suicide,cocaine.Another GB, 8 years in canyon,vehicular homicide,booze&coke.RW, my brother in law,comitted suicide shortly there after,pot coke,booze.JA,died of liver failier,he just couldn't resist one last high on pain pills.His brother DA,also has a fragile liver,as do I.SE & DK,were married.SE,dead at 42,liver failier.DK,dead at 44,liver failier.The rest of us escaped with our lives more or less in tact. Now, I am not about to say that I believe that if pot had been legal that none of this would have happened.And clearly the law against it didn't prevent anything.However,everyone knows that when pot becomes legal it will all become legal.Frankly,it was the law that separated me from my use.Random testing made it difficult for me to continue to use and keep my job.I quit for the most part,only occasionally smoking dope on vacation. Random testing did not include alchohol though, and I continued to drink,as did virtually everyone else in my trade.My point is that the law can be and is a deterrant for some,and can prevent some from ever starting.This is why I say the law is good,and say dope is bad.

 

[nvxplorer]

Well, then I guess you don't really know anything about the weed...

You asked whether I currently use pot, not whether I had ever used it in the past. I have plenty of experience with marijuana.

This is why I say the law is good,and say dope is bad.

My personal experience is entirely different than yours. No one I know has had your experience. This is why the law is bad.

 

[susanann]

Now, I am not about to say that I believe that if pot had been legal that none of this would have happened.And clearly the law against it didn't prevent anything.


Frankly,it was the law that separated me from my use.


Random testing made it difficult for me to continue to use and keep my job.I quit for the most part,only occasionally smoking dope on vacation. Random testing did not include alchohol though, and I continued to drink,as did virtually everyone else in my trade.

Go back and read your own post.

It was not the law that kept you from anything, it was random testing - by a private company.


What would have been of more help to you, would have been your company doing random testing for alcohol as well as drugs.


Making pot legal, would not stop private companies from continuing to do testing for drugs, alcohol, or tobacco - as some companies already do today.


You are making no case at all for keeping drugs illegal - rather, you are making a case for private companies to do more testing of its employees.

 

[Harlan Norris]

You asked whether I currently use pot, not whether I had ever used it in the past. I have plenty of experience with marijuana.

My personal experience is entirely different than yours. No one I know has had your experience. This is why the law is bad.

Well, I figured this was the case. Simple deductive reasoning pointed to your having been at least a pot smoker.Now, if I were to ask why you quit,what will you say? I think it's likely that you will say you quit because you just got tired of it,that you no longer had any interest in smoking. To which I will reply that simple deductive reasoning points to a different truth. You see we tend to remember only the good things about our addictions. That's the essence of addiction. I quit, just to keep my job. I suspect you did something similar. So, there is still a place in your heart for the drug, that causes you to defend the idea of legalisation.

 

[Harlan Norris]

Go back and read your own post.

It was not the law that kept you from anything, it was random testing - by a private company.


What would have been of more help to you, would have been your company doing random testing for alcohol as well as drugs.


Making pot legal, would not stop private companies from continuing to do testing for drugs, alcohol, or tobacco - as some companies already do today.


You are making no case at all for keeping drugs illegal - rather, you are making a case for private companies to do more testing of its employees.

Of course you know that if pot were legal then random testing would most likely never have been allowed to become policy. Construction work is dangerous in the best of circumstances. A drunk,stoned workforce makes it extremely so.So, if random testing was responsible for me quitting then so much the better for my crew.

 

[xMinionX]

Of course you know that if pot were legal then random testing would most likely never have been allowed to become policy. Construction work is dangerous in the best of circumstances. A drunk,stoned workforce makes it extremely so.So, if random testing was responsible for me quitting then so much the better for my crew.

Are people currently allowed to work construction drunk? Are they allowed to drive large freight trucks while drunk? Or fly airliners while drunk?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's going to be allowed everywhere.

 

[nvxplorer]

Of course you know that if pot were legal then random testing would most likely never have been allowed to become policy.

Drug testing is not government policy. It is not tied to marijuana law in any way. Drug testing is the policy of insurance companies. Drug testing is done to minimize civil liability prior to hiring, and to determine liability after an accident. It's about money, not criminal activity. It's because of the effects of drug use that testing is required, not because a drug may be illegal.

 

[Harlan Norris]

Are people currently allowed to work construction drunk? Are they allowed to drive large freight trucks while drunk? Or fly airliners while drunk?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's going to be allowed everywhere.

Can't say about freight trucks or airlines but construction,sadly yes. Now I'm not saying that one can be falling down drunk,but a hung over crewman is not unusual. Iv'e seen quite a few accidents that were a direct result of this. When an accident occours a drug test is administered. If the individual involved has not been smoking dope or doing some other illegal substance,insurance pays.Alchohol levels are not checked unless the person is obviously drunk. In other words just having booze breath that floats through all day after a night of drinking,will not generally be cause for a blood alchohol test.If the person is found to have drugs in their system,they have the choice to go to rehab,which is paid by inshurance Or be terminated. They are not allowed back on the job till they have sucessfully completed their rehab.Quite a few in these circumstances chose to leave rather than go to rehab.

 

[Harlan Norris]

Drug testing is not government policy. It is not tied to marijuana law in any way. Drug testing is the policy of insurance companies. Drug testing is done to minimize civil liability prior to hiring, and to determine liability after an accident. It's about money, not criminal activity. It's because of the effects of drug use that testing is required, not because a drug may be illegal.

Well, now you are saying that drug testing is required because of the effect of drugs. Clearly this indicates that drug use is detremental to the health and welfare of the tested employees.You see legalising drugs will not get rid of the effect of drugs.The law changes but the drugs effect stays the same.

 

[nvxplorer]

Well, now you are saying that drug testing is required because of the effect of drugs.

Uh...yes?

Clearly this indicates that drug use is detremental to the health and welfare of the tested employees.

While performing job functions, yes. Employers bear responsibility for employees.

You see legalising drugs will not get rid of the effect of drugs. The law changes but the drugs effect stays the same.

Of course this is true. Legal status, including criminalization, has no bearing on the effects of drugs. What is your point?

 

[xMinionX]

Can't say about freight trucks or airlines but construction,sadly yes. Now I'm not saying that one can be falling down drunk,but a hung over crewman is not unusual. Iv'e seen quite a few accidents that were a direct result of this. When an accident occours a drug test is administered. If the individual involved has not been smoking dope or doing some other illegal substance,insurance pays.Alchohol levels are not checked unless the person is obviously drunk. In other words just having booze breath that floats through all day after a night of drinking,will not generally be cause for a blood alchohol test.If the person is found to have drugs in their system,they have the choice to go to rehab,which is paid by inshurance Or be terminated. They are not allowed back on the job till they have sucessfully completed their rehab.Quite a few in these circumstances chose to leave rather than go to rehab.

Maybe there should be more BAC tests then? I definitley think that jobs like that should have random testing for all substances, marijuana included (although not testing for THC metabolites, as that is meaningless). Making marijuana legal shouldn't stop jobs from keeping their employees and jobsites safe.

I'd hate to have to go to rehab just because I had a minor accident and they found the THC metabolites in me from a joint smoked two weeks ago.

 

[JustJack!]

One I'll call JB,drunken wife beater, and he comitted suicide.

Sounds like he should have stuck with the pot. Not as many potheads beat their wives in a psychedelic rage.

Another,RC,suicide,cocaine.

Again, should have stuck with the pot. Coke makes your head too big.

Another GB, 8 years in canyon,vehicular homicide,booze&coke.

Drunk driving. Fortunately for me, I'm too busy getting high to drink and drive.

RW, my brother in law,comitted suicide shortly there after,pot coke,booze.

Pot doesn't make you commit suicide.

Now the coke and booze, that's another story.

JA,died of liver failier,he just couldn't resist one last high on pain pills.

Good ol' FDA approved prescription meds, bet he wouldn't have ODed if he'ld been tokin up instead of popping pills.

His brother DA,also has a fragile liver,as do I

And guess what, that wasn't the pot. I too probably wouldn't have a healthy liver if I hadn't found a suitable alternative to alcohol.

.SE & DK,were married.SE,dead at 42,liver failier.DK,dead at 44,liver failier.

Half your friends die from alcohol alone, and you're on here bashing pot, spreading misinformation, and slandering anyone who sees the truth about drug laws as an abuser, and turn around and call them ignorant about the subject when they deny it.

Well guess what, I am a user, and your friends were just stupid, no disrepect. And you don't sound much smarter than them either, just a bit luckier. I'ld never poison myself to the degree that you have, and I do experiment. I wouldn't end up like you, or your friends, because I don't drink, I don't do coke, I don't get addicted to hard things, and I know my limits. I don't mess with things that I don't think I'm ready to handle, or want to handle.

There's a lot to learn in your stories, but if your think that any of your tales apply to us, then that just goes to show what all the poison you ingested can really do to the brain.

Random testing did not include alchohol though, and I continued to drink,as did virtually everyone else in my trade.My point is that the law can be and is a deterrant for some,and can prevent some from ever starting.This is why I say the law is good,and say dope is bad.

So, you've got liver problems, and you still drink alcohol, the very substance that you claim drove many of your friends to their graves, but "dope is bad".