Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

wallinbl · Jul 31, 2008, 09:08 PM

Would you change anything if it were legal?

- - e r i k - - · Jul 31, 2008, 09:11 PM

Nah. I'd probably smoke as much or as little as I do today. Which is very very rarely.

I don't doubt there would be a surge of people trying it if it became legal, like after the prohibition, but it'd soon even out to a state of normalcy.

ghporter · Jul 31, 2008, 09:26 PM

Too busy to bother getting messed up with alcohol more than a little bit and very infrequently. No way I'd start smoking something. Nor would I bother making brownies... Just not interested.

Randman · Jul 31, 2008, 09:31 PM

Even if made legal, I'd have to question if any companies would set anti-pot policies. Hate to flunk a drug test and miss a job. What are the legalities of that?

That said, I haven't smoked in more than a decade (living in Singapore was a major reason). I did have have pizza a la ganja (legal) in Cambodia a few years back.

lavar78 · Jul 31, 2008, 09:45 PM

I still wouldn't do it. I like to be in control.

- - e r i k - - · Jul 31, 2008, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by lavar78

I still wouldn't do it. I like to be in control.

So you don't drink then?

Chuckit · Jul 31, 2008, 10:17 PM

I used to smoke sometimes. I'm much more functional on pot than alcohol. I don't smoke anymore, but I probably would on occasion if it were legal and convenient.

BRussell · Jul 31, 2008, 10:20 PM

It's been a while for me, and a part of the reason is that it's illegal and it's just different when you're married and have kids. But if it were legal, I'd probably do it again.

lavar78 · Jul 31, 2008, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

So you don't drink then?

Not enough to lose control. Besides, drinking doesn't have the nasty side effect of smoke.

Helmling · Jul 31, 2008, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Nah. I'd probably smoke as much or as little as I do today. Which is very very rarely.

I don't doubt there would be a surge of people trying it if it became legal, like after the prohibition, but it'd soon even out to a state of normalcy.

Those people after prohibition were just publicly enjoying what they'd never stopped using. The same would be true of pot.

The laws against drug use don't actually keep anyone from using drugs, nor would legality encourage new users.

ort888 · Jul 31, 2008, 10:57 PM

I would start smoking again if it was legal and readily available. Not a lot... but I would.

@pplejaxkz · Jul 31, 2008, 10:57 PM

I use to be a heavy user a couple years ago. But I've found that to be extremely unhealthy and I wasn't at all productive. I can't remember the last time I did. I'm not totally against it, but it just doesn't fit my life at the moment. I'm trying to get into my field and worrying about drug tests should be the last thing on my mind.

I hope to revisit those days though sometime when I retire. Then I'll sit out somewhere on my ass in the country where there isn't anyone to bother me and grow in my garden. I've always liked growing my own plants and stuff like that so I'll just throw a couple seeds in there with the rest of my herbs.

For now though, I'd pass even it it were legal. A few drinks every now and then are enough for meh.

zombie punk · Jul 31, 2008, 11:49 PM

It's not legal? Where do you live? Why do you put up with nannying from the State?

BRussell · Jul 31, 2008, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by zombie punk

It's not legal? Where do you live? Why do you put up with nannying from the State?

Where do you live that it's legal?

zombie punk · Jul 31, 2008, 11:52 PM

Canada.

OldManMac · Aug 1, 2008, 12:29 AM

It's been about 15 years since I've smoked any, mainly due to a change in acquaintances, who knew where to get the stuff. Even then I did it rarely, so I don't miss it. If it were legal I'd probably try it again, but as rarely as I did before, which was typically once a year or so.

ort888 · Aug 1, 2008, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by zombie punk

It's not legal? Where do you live? Why do you put up with nannying from the State?

Er, isn't marijuana still illegal in Canada? You talk like you live in some sort of utopian society that thumbs it's nose at the unwashed barbarians and their terrible marijuana laws... when your country has the exact same laws.

Uh? Am I missing something? I know Canada has flirted with the idea of decriminalizing it, but it hasn't happened yet? Right?

Laminar · Aug 1, 2008, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by @pplejaxkz

For now though, I'd pass even it it were legal. A few drinks every now and then are enough for meh.

Feel free to use the word "me" when referring to yourself.

OT, I'd try it.

- - e r i k - - · Aug 1, 2008, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by lavar78

Besides, drinking doesn't have the nasty side effect of smoke.

Like a massive appetite?

zombie punk · Aug 1, 2008, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by ort888

Er, isn't marijuana still illegal in Canada?

Not that I've noticed

wallinbl · Aug 1, 2008, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by lavar78

Besides, drinking doesn't have the nasty side effect of smoke.

You mean hangovers? I think you have that backwards. You mean liver damage? I think you have that backwards. You mean alcohol poisoning? I think you have that backwards. You mean that you can die from it? I think you have that backwards.

You mean cancer? You're thinking of cigarettes. You mean it's not good for your lungs? Bake some brownies.

ghporter · Aug 1, 2008, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by zombie punk

Canada.

You live in Canada and complain about OTHER PEOPLE'S countries "nannying" them? Ooops! That was more PL material, wasn't it? So sorry.

But are you talking about how Ontario failed to adjust their law about marijuana to take into account medical uses, so the court threw the whole thing out? That's not "Ontario says pot is OK!" No, that's "Ontario's parliament can't make a simple adjustment to one law and managed to tick off the courts." Not the same as "legal" as far as I'm concerned.

Further, like all intoxicating substances, don't you think it should be regulated to the same extent that alcohol is? Illegal to operate a car while under the influence, and that sort of thing? I really don't care if you toke, but if you think it's OK for you to drive while high, then I have a big problem with THAT behavior...

wallinbl · Aug 1, 2008, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Further, like all intoxicating substances, don't you think it should be regulated to the same extent that alcohol is? Illegal to operate a car while under the influence, and that sort of thing? I really don't care if you toke, but if you think it's OK for you to drive while high, then I have a big problem with THAT behavior...

I think this will become an issue if any legislation gets any traction. AFAIK, there is no breathalyzer equivalent for THC. Cops can't really perform a blood test on the side of the road, and I'm not a big fan of laws that allow the cops to make a judgment call.

I had a roommate in college that you would want him to be high if he were to drive. He didn't function well if he hadn't smoked, and that applied to all areas of his life - sports, academics, anything.

ghporter · Aug 1, 2008, 08:33 AM

There is a huge body of literature on this, especially on the NORML web site. There ARE easy tests to look for the presence of intoxicants of all sorts of types. AFAIK, here in Texas, you can be "apprehended" and brought in for a blood test for alcohol without it being an "arrest". This is a major, if seemingly technical, distinction. Obviously a cop in a patrol car isn't going to be equipped to do any sort of blood test, but probable cause allows field tests for alcohol based on a smell of alcohol on the driver's breath, and typically (currently) for arrest for the smell of pot on the person. So codifying pot use similarly to alcohol's, it would be a simple matter to set things up to do blood tests for THC or its metabolites. It's not at all a technical challenge.

But I'd like to see our laws perform better at curtailing driving under the influence of ANYTHING than they do now, so personally I'd like to see such laws be pretty harsh. Automatic requirement for a blood test (screw the Breathalizer, which is at best an estimate anyway) for ANY potential intoxication issue, and automatic jail time for operating a motor vehicle if at all impaired. 'Course I'd like to see those drivers who eat/read/chat/text (sometimes all at the same freakin' time!) while driving wind up behind bars for a few days and walking for several months too, but that's just me.

A dangerously impaired driver is dangerous, whether he's impaired by the finest from Hawaii or a burrito, and I don't want him endangering me or anyone else.

Uncle Doof · Aug 1, 2008, 08:37 AM

Still wouldn't do it. It screws up one's memory something rotten.

However, it should be legal (as long as there's some kind of roadside toke/drive test). It's your memory, you can screw it up if you want to.

ghporter · Aug 1, 2008, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

Still wouldn't do it. It screws up one's memory something rotten.

However, it should be legal (as long as there's some kind of roadside toke/drive test). It's your memory, you can screw it up if you want to.

You bring up an interesting point. I personally think that the SOCIAL cost of tobacco use is way too high. My taxes already pay for taking care of way too many people who destroyed their bodies by smoking. Pot has been reported to be harsher on the lungs than tobacco, and it has psychological impacts that tobacco doesn't; what sort of social cost are we willing to put up with to allow people to "do their own thing as long as they don't directly hurt others while doing it"? I'm not sure I want to see clinics for the marijuana-muddled popping up left and right, but aside from memory and motivation, there are other negative effects from smoking anything. Would we see an increase in lung disease if pot were legal? Would we see an increase in other problems? Obesity is already a major problem; how would the munchies impact that really serious problem?

- - e r i k - - · Aug 1, 2008, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

I think this will become an issue if any legislation gets any traction. AFAIK, there is no breathalyzer equivalent for THC.

Bzzzzzt. WRONG.

Police here regularly do swab tests for THC, ecstasy and speed along their regular RBTs.

ctt1wbw · Aug 1, 2008, 09:31 AM

I'd smoke. I'd smoke the hell out of it. I just retired from the Navy yesterday, so yeah, I'd light up. While I was driving my honkin SUV to a sports game. All the while burning an .iso image of Ubuntu so I could install it in my newly partitioned laptop.

SirCastor · Aug 1, 2008, 09:34 AM

Like lavar78, I prefer having my mental faculties. I wouldn't smoke it. (or drink for that matter)

Uncle Doof · Aug 1, 2008, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

You bring up an interesting point. I personally think that the SOCIAL cost of tobacco use is way too high. My taxes already pay for taking care of way too many people who destroyed their bodies by smoking.

I don't know about there, but here the tax on fags is propping up our entire national health system. If it wasn't for fag tax, the whole system would collapse and nobody would get free healthcare.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Pot has been reported to be harsher on the lungs than tobacco, and it has psychological impacts that tobacco doesn't; what sort of social cost are we willing to put up with to allow people to "do their own thing as long as they don't directly hurt others while doing it"?

That's the age-old conundrum. How do we let people do what they want to do without making others pay for the consequences?

The only thing I can think of with regard to weed use is to sell it via chemists and anyone buying it has to sign a disclaimer against future use of public mental health facilities. But then that'd require a huge government database so doesn't sit well with me at all.

ctt1wbw · Aug 1, 2008, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by SirCastor

Like lavar78, I prefer having my mental faculties. I wouldn't smoke it. (or drink for that matter)

Ahhh, I am having an Amstel Light right now. It's almost 10 in the am.

SirCastor · Aug 1, 2008, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

I don't know about there, but here the tax on fags is propping up our entire national health system. If it wasn't for fag tax, the whole system would collapse and nobody would get free healthcare.

I loved reading this from my American point-of-view/lexicon BTW.

Chuckit · Aug 1, 2008, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

That's the age-old conundrum. How do we let people do what they want to do without making others pay for the consequences?

The only thing I can think of with regard to weed use is to sell it via chemists and anyone buying it has to sign a disclaimer against future use of public mental health facilities. But then that'd require a huge government database so doesn't sit well with me at all.

There isn't any good evidence for a link between smoking marijuana and use of mental health facilities.

Uncle Doof · Aug 1, 2008, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

There isn't any good evidence for a link between smoking marijuana and use of mental health facilities.

I can only go on personal experience. An awful lot of people who I know who used to toke like chimneys are now gibbering wrecks with no short term memory.

analogika · Aug 1, 2008, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

I can only go on personal experience. An awful lot of people who I know who used to toke like chimneys are now gibbering wrecks with no short term memory.

Nearly all the people I know who used to toke like chimneys and are now gibbering wrecks with no short term memory consumed a substantial amount of other substances along with marijuana.

Uncle Doof · Aug 1, 2008, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

Nearly all the people I know who used to toke like chimneys and are now gibbering wrecks with no short term memory consumed a substantial amount of other substances along with marijuana.

Most of the ones I know didn't.

BRussell · Aug 1, 2008, 11:28 AM

I know people who smoke pot and then jump off buildings because they think they can fly.

paul w · Aug 1, 2008, 11:34 AM

Some of the smartest and most successful people I know are regular pot smokers. I haven't smoked in years, though I'd probably smoke from time to time if the available quality was good. Which it undoubtably would be.

@pplejaxkz · Aug 1, 2008, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Feel free to use the word "me" when referring to yourself.

OT, I'd try it.

"me"

BlueSky · Aug 1, 2008, 12:24 PM

I've been smoking for years and there's been no short-term memory loss. Additionally, I've been smoking for years and there's been no short-term memory loss.

lavar78 · Aug 1, 2008, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Like a massive appetite?

No, I worded it awkwardly. The nasty side effect to smoking is the smoke itself. I hate smoke.

olePigeon · Aug 1, 2008, 12:48 PM

"Besides, marijuana is a gateway drug. It leads to other things."
"Yeah, mostly junk food."

ghporter · Aug 1, 2008, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw

I'd smoke. I'd smoke the hell out of it. I just retired from the Navy yesterday, so yeah, I'd light up. While I was driving my honkin SUV to a sports game. All the while burning an .iso image of Ubuntu so I could install it in my newly partitioned laptop.

Congrats on that retirement. Feels GOOD, doesn't it?

I last shaved (most of my face anyway) on my last duty day. Got my ears pierced ('cause it was against the rules while I was on active duty), and basically stopped being "productive" for about four months. I guess I showed them!

But seriously, I can understand your point. Being on active duty means that at any time one can be ordered to provide a urine, blood or other sample, regardless of whether this is incriminating or not. And it's not a violation of one's Fifth Amendment rights, either. That takes some seriously weasely lawyer talk, but it holds water. So not having to worry about "second hand pot smoke" at a concert and the like holds quite a strong appeal for me as well.

I don't know about that Ubuntu thing though... It doesn't sound rebellious enough to me.

ghporter · Aug 1, 2008, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

I don't know about there, but here the tax on fags is propping up our entire national health system. If it wasn't for fag tax, the whole system would collapse and nobody would get free healthcare.

I completely understand. I should also point out that in my less enlightened homeland, there's only one typically understood meaning for the word "fag," and using that meaning, your post is hysterical.

Just thought I'd let you know...

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

That's the age-old conundrum. How do we let people do what they want to do without making others pay for the consequences?

The only thing I can think of with regard to weed use is to sell it via chemists and anyone buying it has to sign a disclaimer against future use of public mental health facilities. But then that'd require a huge government database so doesn't sit well with me at all.

The problem I see with this has as much to do with obesity as pot smoking. There are literally millions of Americans on some sort of disability compensation who would be far less impaired if they just gave up gorging themselves on all manner of horrible-for-you foods and actually walked a little bit. They victimize themselves and make me and all the other taxpayers pay for it. Can't you just see how bad it would be with potheads doing the same thing? It boggles the mind how bad it could be. Not only through the cost, but through their clogging the medical providers' ability to see non-potheads.

olePigeon · Aug 1, 2008, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw

I'd smoke. I'd smoke the hell out of it. I just retired from the Navy yesterday, so yeah, I'd light up. While I was driving my honkin SUV to a sports game. All the while burning an .iso image of Ubuntu so I could install it in my newly partitioned laptop.

I know you're being sarcastic, but smoking pot while driving is almost as bad as drinking. I hope you never do that.

ctt1wbw · Aug 1, 2008, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Congrats on that retirement. Feels GOOD, doesn't it?

I last shaved (most of my face anyway) on my last duty day. Got my ears pierced ('cause it was against the rules while I was on active duty), and basically stopped being "productive" for about four months. I guess I showed them!

But seriously, I can understand your point. Being on active duty means that at any time one can be ordered to provide a urine, blood or other sample, regardless of whether this is incriminating or not. And it's not a violation of one's Fifth Amendment rights, either. That takes some seriously weasely lawyer talk, but it holds water. So not having to worry about "second hand pot smoke" at a concert and the like holds quite a strong appeal for me as well.

I don't know about that Ubuntu thing though... It doesn't sound rebellious enough to me.

Well, I thought I'd start another FOSS argument!

Plus, I thought I'd try to start another argument about Linux... Plus, I thought I'd try to get cash involved about the SUV thing, but he didn't hear me. Probably driving that girly Honda around.

And yeah, it feels good to have that new "old style" id card that says retired on it. Now can I join the AARP?

Uncle Doof · Aug 1, 2008, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

The problem I see with this has as much to do with obesity as pot smoking. There are literally millions of Americans on some sort of disability compensation who would be far less impaired if they just gave up gorging themselves on all manner of horrible-for-you foods and actually walked a little bit. They victimize themselves and make me and all the other taxpayers pay for it. Can't you just see how bad it would be with potheads doing the same thing? It boggles the mind how bad it could be. Not only through the cost, but through their clogging the medical providers' ability to see non-potheads.

I hear ya. It's the universal problem, ain't it? Applies to pot, obesity, folks breaking their arms because they're skiing... ...all sorts.

zombie punk · Aug 1, 2008, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

They victimize themselves and make me and all the other taxpayers pay for it. Can't you just see how bad it would be with potheads doing the same thing? It boggles the mind how bad it could be. Not only through the cost, but through their clogging the medical providers' ability to see non-potheads.

Are you prepared to use that line of logic with all the other things that are potentially harmful?

wallinbl · Aug 1, 2008, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

They victimize themselves and make me and all the other taxpayers pay for it. Can't you just see how bad it would be with potheads doing the same thing? It boggles the mind how bad it could be. Not only through the cost, but through their clogging the medical providers' ability to see non-potheads.

Just like those crotchety old guys running up their blood pressure about the young hipsters on their lawns? They end up needing heart surgery and I've got to pay for it.

ghporter · Aug 1, 2008, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by zombie punk

Are you prepared to use that line of logic with all the other things that are potentially harmful?

When the potential harm is as significant, as serious, and as preventable, most likely I am. Care to throw out an example?

I just spent the last two months researching all the various ways medical and other therapeutic professionals try to help people lose weight. The mechanism is simple: eat fewer calories (preferably in a well-balanced diet) and be more active so you use more calories. Getting people to do that, even when they're highly motivated to do it, is not terribly easy sometimes because we tend to overeat for a lot of reasons. But the reason for wanting (or needing) to lose weight is the same no matter what method you use: carrying too much weight puts more strain on your circulatory system, increases your chances of atherosclerosis, high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack, digestive maladies from failure of the gallbladder to iliitis to erosive reflux, reduces your pulmonary capacity, increases the incidence of sleep apnea, and oh by the way can lead to type 2 diabetes and all of ITS risks and side effects. So I probably have a personal point of view on this that may make me a little less objective than I might be over something like alcohol use...