Pot and stuff

cdat said:

If you are going to refer to everyone that smokes a little pot as potheads, do you mind if I refer to everyone that drinks alcohol as  an "alcoholic"? Personally, I prefer the quiet laid back pot smokers to loud, rowdy, boisterous drunks.

Click to expand...

I for one can live without both.  However, as a light social drinker I would prefer that over the social smoker.  Mostly because my Hard Cider dose not stink up the place and get in everyones clothes so they stink up their rigs when they go home.  That and I have been parked next to a rig of pot smokers and the smell was sickening.  Camp host would not do anything about it.  Another unnamed camper called the LEO and told them about it.  A short visit from them and the air was clear.

On the point of the moderators here, I think they do a good job and yes, I have had an occasion that my post got a bit off track and the thread was locked down.  I know that it is hard sometimes when the right botton gets pushed to just stop and drop but that is part of being human.

Washington Post article:

Since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/


So, guess the OP's answer is that if the mods are nicer to those to whom he refers to as "potheads," it is because, well, the potheads are nicer people who cause fewer problems for everyone else.

Dan23 said:

Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/


So, guess the OP's answer is that if the mods are nicer to those to whom he refers to as "potheads," it is because, well, the potheads are nicer people who cause fewer problems for everyone else.

Click to expand...

I read it on the internet so it has to be true... Wonder how many he rolled and burned while writing that article. By inserting his graphs, it shows the rate of fatalities has been dropping every year for the last several years. Ever wonder why they call it dope???

Perhaps fatalities have dropped but I heard the other day on TV that, of the first month's DUIs, 50 percent were smokers as opposed to drinkers.

ArdraF

Smoke gets in your eyes .... no good, but the song is.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=smoke+gets+in+your+eyes+platters

Highway fatalities down, but now you don't even have to get in your car to die.
Good thing we all know that children could never get their hands on any of this candy.  :

http://news.msn.com/us/colorado-lawsuit-alleges-cannabis-overdose-from-fairground-candy

Be sure to read all the way to the end, especially the last sentence.

BobX2 said:

Highway fatalities down, but now you don't even have to get in your car to die.
Good thing we all know that children could never get their hands on any of this candy.

Click to expand...

Children are protected much better when a substance is legal. Black market dealers don't check for age requirements like they do in any dispensary in Colorado. It is now much harder for Colorado teens to score weed.

SeilerBird said:

It is now much harder for Colorado teens to score weed.

Click to expand...

I'll bet they are POed about that. LOL  IMO, that's a good thing; young brains are considered to be at some peril form intoxicants. Now, before others (not you, Bird) reflexively regurgitate your point of view, do any of you recall sneaking your parents' alcohol, and do you really think you are messed up now from it?

do any of you recall sneaking your parents' alcohol, and do you really think you are messed up now from it?

Click to expand...

I certainly did, and so did my daughter. I'll leave it up to you how "messed up" I am...

Dan23 said:

I'll bet they are POed about that. LOL  IMO, that's a good thing; young brains are considered to be at some peril form intoxicants. Now, before others (not you, Bird) reflexively regurgitate your point of view, do any of you recall sneaking your parents' alcohol, and do you really think you are messed up now from it?

Click to expand...

i didn't have to sneak anything. My parents gave me wine with dinner if I asked for it. My dad had a Michelob Pony Keg refer in the family room and I had access to it 24/7/365. I could not stand the taste and smell of alcohol so I never touched the stuff. I still don't drink to this day. But my two alcoholic parents are long dead and gone.

Gary RV Roamer said:

I certainly did, and so did my daughter. I'll leave it up to you how "messed up" I am...

Click to expand...

LOL... Too funny.
Gary. You are SO messed up.  ;D
Where can I get some of that "messed up". Jealous.....

SeilerBird said:

Children are protected much better when a substance is legal. Black market dealers don't check for age requirements like they do in any dispensary in Colorado. It is now much harder for Colorado teens to score weed.

Click to expand...

I doubt this highly.  Legal/medical marijuana will no more eliminate the marijuana black market any more than legal prescription pills, legal cigarettes, or legal anything else that is addictive/habitual has eliminate those various black markets.  There is an enormous black market for pills, and record-high painkiller addiction/abuse in America... mostly due to availability and doctors over-prescribing meds which can lead to patient abuse, followed by patient fraud to obtain more pills illicitly.  This trend is usually ignored except when a celebrity dies from an "accidental overdose" which in recent years is often due, in part or in whole, to abused/misused prescription meds.

No I am not trying to start the debate about whether marijuana is addictive in the same way as other drugs, and/or if a person can overdose and die from using it.  What I am saying is that drug legalization, in whatever form, will have no lasting impact on access to those who want the substance.  There will always be a black market of dealers who are willing to break the laws in place in order to provide said substance.  I don't think it's a good idea to give them any more legal loopholes than we absolutely have to. 

As an aside, we all know that government(s) are generally incapable of running almost any large-scale public program efficiently, for an extended periods of time anyway.  California's prescription marijuana programs are a nationwide joke, with common knowledge that you can make up any bogus medical claim and be handed a marijuana card.  Unfortunately those who may really benefit medically have been overshadowed by all the scammers who want legal weed.  Denver has an influx of young homeless males at shelters this year, who came to the state for nothing other than legal weed.  No jobs, no plan, nothing to offer other than draining public resources that are taken away from someone else as a result.  The push to hand over control to government for the tax advantages is also blown out of proportion, statistically speaking.  Colorado's tax income from legal marijuana sales barely even scratches the surface of their overall annual tax burden... something like less than one-tenth of one penny on a dollar scale.  I can find the exact figures if anyone is interested.

scottydl said:

As an aside, we all know that government(s) are generally incapable of running almost any large-scale public program efficiently, for an extended periods of time anyway. 

Click to expand...

I'm thinking this idea originated within the same group of people who eagerly make an exemption for overseas military adventures.

Having some experience within government, I think it is at least as good as the private sector.

Dan23 said:

I'm thinking this idea originated within the same group of people who eagerly make an exemption for overseas military adventures.

Having some experience within government, I think it is at least as good as the private sector.

Click to expand...

I agree.  The main difference is who gets the money.

Since the private sector is seldom (if ever) tasked with running "a large scale public program", the real comparison is government run or letting the 'public' spend their own money, or not.  The government always adds an inordinate amount of bureaucratic overhead to any program they run.

A recent example is the newly implemented beach driving permit requirement on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore beaches.  The NPS claimed they needed the revenue from sale of permits ($120 per year or $50 per week) to maintain their beach management.

When implemented, the projected required hiring additional people to sell the permits and collect the fees.  This, of course, required hiring more people to watch the people handling the money.  Then there were people to be hired to patrol the beaches to enforce the permit requirement.  The result was (is) that there was no money left to make any improvement in their beach management.

Typical government program IMHO.

Molaker said:

I agree.  The main difference is who gets the money.

Click to expand...

Do you mean who gets the money government spends? Or that private industry spends? Or both?

Most government spending goes to corporations.

Dan23 said:

I'm thinking this idea originated within the same group of people who eagerly make an exemption for overseas military adventures.

Having some experience within government, I think it is at least as good as the private sector.

Click to expand...

I am a government employee, on a mid-size municipality level.  My city seems decent in terms of efficiency and budgeting programs.  Statewide or nationwide federal government social programs however?  That's what I was referring to by large-scale, and the unnecessary levels of bureaucracy previously mentioned seem to be just part of the problem.  My criticism of such programs come from a statement by the U.S. Health & Human Service director some years back (less than 10), in which she acknowledged that there is at least 50-75% fraud and misuse of national welfare dollars.   

I'll throw in the U.S. Postal Service and Amtrak as well, two separate industries run by the federal government that have consistently lost money year after year.  If UPS, Fedex, or Greyhound operated like that, they would go bankrupt and disappear from the marketplace.  But the federal government always seems to justify spending more and more money into the red for programs that are not working.

  But the federal government always seems to justify spending more and more money into the red for programs that are not working.

Click to expand...

That always happens when you let the folks who made the mess, try to fix the mess, with the tax payers money.

Don't much about Amtrak, but the U.S.Postal service isn't directly run by the Federal Government and does not spend any Federal tax dollars.  True, it is losing money, but in a big part because of the way Congress burdened it with rather unreasonable retirement funding.  UPS and FedEx wouldn't fair much better if they had to send their trucks or agents out to nearly every household just to see if the customer might want to send something. 

As for Amtrak and what little I know about it, it took over a service ALL other rail services dumped because it was unprofitable.  I don't know how anyone could expect a blossoming profit from that prospect.

I won't argue that many if not most government programs are run poorly and inefficiently.  But, much of that is because the private sector wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole or would charge so much for the service you would scream much louder than you do about the government's handling of it.

Maybe if the voters would educate themselves a bit before voting, even government ways and means would get more in line.

I guess we can all play that game. Here's a study that says pot-related deaths have gone UP while alcohol-related deaths have stayed the same.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/08/traffic-fatalities-marijuana-positive-drivers-rise-colorado/

Stupid to put ANYTHING into your body that screws with your perceptions and then try to get behind the wheel.

I wonder how many of the pot-users lie whenever they apply for jobs, gun permits, or anything else where a positive answer to having used illegal drugs would mean a denial? If you have to lie to get something, it speaks poorly of your decision-making ability and trustworthiness. Illegal is illegal, no matter what spin you put on it.

I have seen the lives of half my older siblings ruined in direct relation to pot use. And before anyone argues otherwise, or says maybe there were other factors, I've watched it happen, you didn't.