Marijuana poll

[detlef]

I used to toke for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And the BC Josh Gordon up here is/was potent stuff. I don't even like taking a hit if I'm out socially, it completely throws me out of my element.

+1

[Perchoutofwater]

For the most part I don't have a problem with legalizing it, though I do have one big issue I'd like for the legalize it crowd to address. As a business owner I'm responsible for people using my equipment and those that are on my job sites. Now it is easy to tell if someone has been drinking just by smelling their breath, and you can always do a breathalizer. Keep in mind in or litigious society that I am responsible for the actions of people driving my vehicles, and operating my equipment. How do I tell if some one is stoned, and how do I back it up when I send him home? Are his eyes being bloodshot enough even though we usually work in very dusty environments? I see the legalization of pot as a huge problem for businesses. Right now if someone fails a drug test, they are fired. If you legalize it, then I doubt that I can fire someone for using it on their on time. The problem is how do I know when they are using it on their on time and when they are using it on my time?

[WaterMan]

I'm convinced the stuff today is different than ~20 years ago. My last couple experiences many years ago now were not much fun. Much like Whomp's experience, I was very paranoid and blitzed to the bejeesus off of a hit or two.

 

you were paranoid b/c the supply was sh!t

 

you were blitzed because your tolerance isn't on par with average smokers

[detlef]

For the most part I don't have a problem with legalizing it, though I do have one big issue I'd like for the legalize it crowd to address. As a business owner I'm responsible for people using my equipment and those that are on my job sites. Now it is easy to tell if someone has been drinking just by smelling their breath, and you can always do a breathalizer. Keep in mind in or litigious society that I am responsible for the actions of people driving my vehicles, and operating my equipment. How do I tell if some one is stoned, and how do I back it up when I send him home? Are his eyes being bloodshot enough even though we usually work in very dusty environments? I see the legalization of pot as a huge problem for businesses. Right now if someone fails a drug test, they are fired. If you legalize it, then I doubt that I can fire someone for using it on their on time. The problem is how do I know when they are using it on their on time and when they are using it on my time?

That's actually a great point. It would be unfortunate if that was ultimately the sticking point but I can see why it would be.

[whomper]

I used to toke for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And the BC Josh Gordon up here is/was potent stuff. I don't even like taking a hit if I'm out socially, it completely throws me out of my element.

 

 

So true. I used to be able to function under any circumstance while smoking. Played gigs stoned , took tests stoned etc. The last time I smoked it was so different. I started focusing on a lot of negative stuff and didnt enjoy it. I remember smoking was the worst "drug" I ever did then I hit a short lived sporatic recreational time where I did a few drugs that kept you awake so bad that I was smoking to counter it so I could go to sleep

Edited March 16, 2009 by whomper

[evil_gop_liars]

For the most part I don't have a problem with legalizing it, though I do have one big issue I'd like for the legalize it crowd to address. As a business owner I'm responsible for people using my equipment and those that are on my job sites. Now it is easy to tell if someone has been drinking just by smelling their breath, and you can always do a breathalizer. Keep in mind in or litigious society that I am responsible for the actions of people driving my vehicles, and operating my equipment. How do I tell if some one is stoned, and how do I back it up when I send him home? Are his eyes being bloodshot enough even though we usually work in very dusty environments? I see the legalization of pot as a huge problem for businesses. Right now if someone fails a drug test, they are fired. If you legalize it, then I doubt that I can fire someone for using it on their on time. The problem is how do I know when they are using it on their on time and when they are using it on my time?

 

What is your policy for Cough and cold, pain, insomnia, and allergy meds. They should not be operating heavy machinery while on these. If these people can not show personal responsibility while they are employed with your company, then they should be canned. Same with the pothead.

[rajncajn]

I'm approaching this from the standpoint of someone who smoked a ton of pot despite the fact that it was illegal and now smokes it very, very rarely despite the fact that I can get it pretty much whenever I want.

 

I'm approaching this from the standpoint that I don't ever smoke cigarettes despite the fact that I can buy them everywhere.

That's because you don't smoke. If you smoked then you would be at the store every time you ran out. You do drink though & I think that would make a much better comparison as to how much more people would partake if it were made legal.

There are people who like to smoke pot and people who don't. Those who like to smoke pot figure out how to get it. The rest either don't bother or just occasionally do when it happens to be around and they're in the mood. Again, I can't recall any moment in the last 10 or so years where I've thought, "Damn, I would love to get stoned right now but I just can't find any." This despite the fact that, over that same period of time, I've partaken at least a few times per year. My guess is that most people would ultimately fit into that category.

 

I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be an increase but I am rather certain that, over the long haul, it wouldn't be as big a people assume and I really think you're quite off-base with your statement that a lot of occasional smokers would become habitual just because it would be easier to get. Again, if you really like pot. Like it enough to become a habitual user, you'll find it. It's just not that hard. The increase you'll see is that people who never do it will dabble now that they can get it at the store.

And people who have never tried it who will when it becomes legal and people who may do it only occasionally because it is not readily available and will turn to do it all the time. Just because you have a source doesn't make it easy to get per se. No where as easy as it would be getting it from your local 7-11 on the way home from work or buying a bag at the local supermarket right next to your ground arabica. And there is always risk in going out & buying it, carrying it, using it etc. which I would bet hinders the vast majority of smokers & potential smokers.

However, I really think you're overestimating the effect on how much people who already smoke it will increase.

 

Just curious, have you ever smoked much pot?

When liquor became legal did it make a small or large impact on usage, abuse and addiction? Granted alcohol may be more addicting, but is part of that because it is legal & available?

 

Yes, I smoked when I was in high school as did most of my friends. I wouldn't argue a point I know nothing about.

[detlef]

That's because you don't smoke. If you smoked then you would be at the store every time you ran out. You do drink though & I think that would make a much better comparison as to how much more people would partake if it were made legal.

And people who have never tried it who will when it becomes legal and people who may do it only occasionally because it is not readily available and will turn to do it all the time. Just because you have a source doesn't make it easy to get per se. No where as easy as it would be getting it from your local 7-11 on the way home from work or buying a bag at the local supermarket right next to your ground arabica. And there is always risk in going out & buying it, carrying it, using it etc. which I would bet hinders the vast majority of smokers & potential smokers.

When liquor became legal did it make a small or large impact on usage, abuse and addiction? Granted alcohol may be more addicting, but is part of that because it is legal & available?

 

Yes, I smoked when I was in high school as did most of my friends. I wouldn't argue a point I know nothing about.

There you go again, claiming as if it were a forgone conclusion that the only thing keeping people from becoming pot heads is the fact that they can't get it legally. Do you have any basis for this? Because I'm basing my speculation on sentiments that have been echoed by a number of people who have smoked a ton of Josh Gordon. That is, at some point, many people just don't want to.

 

Oh, and it's not like I've never smoked tobacco. I tried it a few times and pretty much didn't like it. So, the simple fact that I prefer not to feel the effects of tobacco is why I am able to resist the seemingly uncontrollable urge to consume it just because I'm allowed to. I suppose I'm giving others enough credit to simply choose not to get stoned all day just because they're allowed to. How many people stay drunk all day because they're allowed to? Not that much really. Would there be less if it were illegal? I'd imagine yes. But that's less than an already pretty small number and I'd be curious to know how much prohibition actually lessened the number of habitual drunks.

[i_am_the_swammi]

There are people who like to smoke pot and people who don't. Those who like to smoke pot figure out how to get it. The rest either don't bother or just occasionally do when it happens to be around and they're in the mood.

 

What about those of us that are dying to smoke it again but can't/won't, based on the fact that our wives will vice-grip our balls?

 

If it was deemed legal, the uptick in past users like myself who have now been given a legal green light would be much larger than you think. The number of friends of mine that don't smoke (or smoke very infrequently) because they are married with kids is very large...I can probably give you 30-40 friends of mine that have stopped smoking because they are now married with kids and society says they should have "outgrown" the college-aged habit. If the law were to change that perception, and it became mainstream again, I'd wager 80% of those that quit would partake again.

 

Further, if it was now socially acceptable, and smokers didn't have to worry about their neighbor's perceptions of knowing they liked to smoke (and the ramifications of his kids playing with the kids of a drug user), the number of re-newed users would also jump higher.

[detlef]

What about those of us that are dying to smoke it again but can't/won't, based on the fact that our wives will vice-grip our balls?

 

If it was deemed legal, the uptick in past users like myself who have now been given a legal green light would be much larger than you think. The number of friends of mine that don't smoke (or smoke very infrequently) because they are married with kids is very large...I can probably give you 30-40 friends of mine that have stopped smoking because they are now married with kids and society says they should have "outgrown" the college-aged habit. If the law were to change that perception, and it became mainstream again, I'd wager 80% of those that quit would partake again.

 

Further, if it was now socially acceptable, and smokers didn't have to worry about their neighbor's perceptions of knowing they liked to smoke (and the ramifications of his kids playing with the kids of a drug user), the number of re-newed users would also jump higher.

For the record, my wife's vice grip on my balls had plenty to do with why I initially stopped smoking. Mind you, it had absolutely nothing to do with the legality and everything to do with the fact that she made it abundantly clear that she wanted nothing to do with me when I was a stoned and blubbering fool. So, unless the legality would somehow make it so that I wouldn't become a social retard when I got stoned, I don't really see why that dynamic would change.

 

In fact, that is one of the times when I do partake. When my wife is out of town or something and I have the place to myself. These days, that means hitting up one of my buddies who smokes for nugget. Were it legal, that would mean stopping by the store (assuming it was quality) or continuing to hit up one of my buddies who could get the good stuff if the legal stuff was crap. Not exactly sure how this is an increase.

 

Again, this is not the story for everyone and exactly why there would certainly be an increase. Of course, I have not argued that there'd be no increase.

Edited March 16, 2009 by detlef

[rajncajn]

There you go again, claiming as if it were a forgone conclusion that the only thing keeping people from becoming pot heads is the fact that they can't get it legally. Do you have any basis for this? Because I'm basing my speculation on sentiments that have been echoed by a number of people who have smoked a ton of Josh Gordon. That is, at some point, many people just don't want to.

 

Oh, and it's not like I've never smoked tobacco. I tried it a few times and pretty much didn't like it. So, the simple fact that I prefer not to feel the effects of tobacco is why I am able to resist the seemingly uncontrollable urge to consume it just because I'm allowed to. I suppose I'm giving others enough credit to simply choose not to get stoned all day just because they're allowed to. How many people stay drunk all day because they're allowed to? Not that much really. Would there be less if it were illegal? I'd imagine yes. But that's less than an already pretty small number and I'd be curious to know how much prohibition actually lessened the number of habitual drunks.

My basis is history, what happened after prohibition is a lot of people who didn't drink before or only did it on occasion because it was illegal and/or harder to get became regular drinkers. More regular drinkers = more alcoholics = more problems resulting from the use. Doesn't it stand to reason that the same would be true if pot were made legal? You're basing your theory on what you've heard from a bunch of pot heads.

 

Also, don't think comparing smoking pot & smoking cigarettes makes a very good argument. For one thing, cigarettes (to my knowledge) have never been illegal. So you have no basis for the implications of making it legal. For another, despite being way more addictive than most drugs, they don't have anywhere close to the inhibiting affect that alcohol or pot does. Though most scientific proof shows alcohol to be more detrimental to your health, there are methods to test one's immediate level of intoxication, which to me poses a big problem with Josh Gordon.

[bushwacked]

I think that whether there would be an immediate short term or longer term increase of pot smokers after legalization, is a secondary issue when you take everything in it's totality. When you consider the relative harmlessness (compared to other illegal and legals drugs), the absurd amount of taxpayer's money we spend on fighting it, the under-utilized medical benefits that would increase, and the amount of tax money our local, state, and fed govts, could use from it----Legalization of pot, is a no-brainer.

[detlef]

My basis is history, what happened after prohibition is a lot of people who didn't drink before or only did it on occasion because it was illegal and/or harder to get became regular drinkers. More regular drinkers = more alcoholics = more problems resulting from the use. Doesn't it stand to reason that the same would be true if pot were made legal? You're basing your theory on what you've heard from a bunch of pot heads.

 

Also, don't think comparing smoking pot & smoking cigarettes makes a very good argument. For one thing, cigarettes (to my knowledge) have never been illegal. So you have no basis for the implications of making it legal. For another, despite being way more addictive than most drugs, they don't have anywhere close to the inhibiting affect that alcohol or pot does. Though most scientific proof shows alcohol to be more detrimental to your health, there are methods to test one's immediate level of intoxication, which to me poses a big problem with Josh Gordon.

First off, though I assume you're joking, I'm basing my theory on what a bunch of former pot heads who now choose not to smoke often say about the situation. My guess is that is a rather accurate take on the situation and it basically just substantiates the opinion I have formed on my own.

 

There was one stage in my life when the legality/ testing issue became a factor. My use had already almost gone to never and I had been offered a job that tested. I figured, what the hell, they're asking me to smoke about 2x a year less than I am right now. I was not happy about it because I think it is wrong, but I owed it to my wife to take a good job more than I owed it to some ideals not to.

 

Also, I understand that tobacco is less inclined to hinder your ability to function than either pot or booze but that's not the point. The point is this: People will choose not to get high all the time because they won't want to be high all the time. It's the same reason I don't smoke tobacco. I don't want to do so just because I'm allowed to.

[WaterMan]

What about those of us that are dying to smoke it again but can't/won't, based on the fact that our wives will vice-grip our balls?

 

If it was deemed legal, the uptick in past users like myself who have now been given a legal green light would be much larger than you think. The number of friends of mine that don't smoke (or smoke very infrequently) because they are married with kids is very large...I can probably give you 30-40 friends of mine that have stopped smoking because they are now married with kids and society says they should have "outgrown" the college-aged habit. If the law were to change that perception, and it became mainstream again, I'd wager 80% of those that quit would partake again.

 

Further, if it was now socially acceptable, and smokers didn't have to worry about their neighbor's perceptions of knowing they liked to smoke (and the ramifications of his kids playing with the kids of a drug user), the number of re-newed users would also jump higher.

 

Yeah, society is one big mass of zombies.

[Perchoutofwater]

What is your policy for Cough and cold, pain, insomnia, and allergy meds. They should not be operating heavy machinery while on these. If these people can not show personal responsibility while they are employed with your company, then they should be canned. Same with the pothead.

 

Problem is there has is testing for pot, and the first time someone that smokes does something stupid, a lawyer is going to bring up a drug test and then because he enjoys a little Josh Gordon at home, I'm going to be on the line for another 5 Million.

[WaterMan]

For the most part I don't have a problem with legalizing it, though I do have one big issue I'd like for the legalize it crowd to address. As a business owner I'm responsible for people using my equipment and those that are on my job sites. Now it is easy to tell if someone has been drinking just by smelling their breath, and you can always do a breathalizer. Keep in mind in or litigious society that I am responsible for the actions of people driving my vehicles, and operating my equipment. How do I tell if some one is stoned, and how do I back it up when I send him home? Are his eyes being bloodshot enough even though we usually work in very dusty environments? I see the legalization of pot as a huge problem for businesses. Right now if someone fails a drug test, they are fired. If you legalize it, then I doubt that I can fire someone for using it on their on time. The problem is how do I know when they are using it on their on time and when they are using it on my time?

 

If you see them on the Huddle while at work.

[Kid Cid]

For the most part I don't have a problem with legalizing it, though I do have one big issue I'd like for the legalize it crowd to address. As a business owner I'm responsible for people using my equipment and those that are on my job sites. Now it is easy to tell if someone has been drinking just by smelling their breath, and you can always do a breathalizer. Keep in mind in or litigious society that I am responsible for the actions of people driving my vehicles, and operating my equipment. How do I tell if some one is stoned, and how do I back it up when I send him home? Are his eyes being bloodshot enough even though we usually work in very dusty environments? I see the legalization of pot as a huge problem for businesses. Right now if someone fails a drug test, they are fired. If you legalize it, then I doubt that I can fire someone for using it on their on time. The problem is how do I know when they are using it on their on time and when they are using it on my time?

 

This is a legit question perch and I honestly don't have an answer. As of right now, I don't know of any test that can say if you're high right now, just if you've partaken within the last 3 weeks or so. With that in mind, I'm sure some businesses will adopt a zero tolerance policy regardless given that they do have to cover themselves from lawsuits.

 

I would imagine that there will be a push to come up with something more immediate in the medical community (what a great business opportunity!) to come up with a reliable test for immediate notification or perhaps there is a threshold of impairment we're not aware of such as the .08 limit for alcohol.

[rajncajn]

First off, though I assume you're joking, I'm basing my theory on what a bunch of former pot heads who now choose not to smoke often say about the situation. My guess is that is a rather accurate take on the situation and it basically just substantiates the opinion I have formed on my own.

 

There was one stage in my life when the legality/ testing issue became a factor. My use had already almost gone to never and I had been offered a job that tested. I figured, what the hell, they're asking me to smoke about 2x a year less than I am right now. I was not happy about it because I think it is wrong, but I owed it to my wife to take a good job more than I owed it to some ideals not to.

 

Also, I understand that tobacco is less inclined to hinder your ability to function than either pot or booze but that's not the point. The point is this: People will choose not to get high all the time because they won't want to be high all the time. It's the same reason I don't smoke tobacco. I don't want to do so just because I'm allowed to.

No, I wasn't joking... well, busting your balls about your example that you're basing your theory on. But in all seriousness, wouldn't you think the legalization of alcohol would be a much more sober view of what to expect?

[westvirginia]

That's because you don't smoke. If you smoked then you would be at the store every time you ran out. You do drink though & I think that would make a much better comparison as to how much more people would partake if it were made legal.

And people who have never tried it who will when it becomes legal and people who may do it only occasionally because it is not readily available and will turn to do it all the time. Just because you have a source doesn't make it easy to get per se. No where as easy as it would be getting it from your local 7-11 on the way home from work or buying a bag at the local supermarket right next to your ground arabica. And there is always risk in going out & buying it, carrying it, using it etc. which I would bet hinders the vast majority of smokers & potential smokers.

When liquor became legal did it make a small or large impact on usage, abuse and addiction? Granted alcohol may be more addicting, but is part of that because it is legal & available?

 

Yes, I smoked when I was in high school as did most of my friends. I wouldn't argue a point I know nothing about.

 

 

What about those of us that are dying to smoke it again but can't/won't, based on the fact that our wives will vice-grip our balls?

 

If it was deemed legal, the uptick in past users like myself who have now been given a legal green light would be much larger than you think. The number of friends of mine that don't smoke (or smoke very infrequently) because they are married with kids is very large...I can probably give you 30-40 friends of mine that have stopped smoking because they are now married with kids and society says they should have "outgrown" the college-aged habit. If the law were to change that perception, and it became mainstream again, I'd wager 80% of those that quit would partake again.

 

Further, if it was now socially acceptable, and smokers didn't have to worry about their neighbor's perceptions of knowing they liked to smoke (and the ramifications of his kids playing with the kids of a drug user), the number of re-newed users would also jump higher.

 

Something that seems to come to the forefront of the folks arguing against legalization is that they see pot as bad in and of itself. The Josh Gordon isn't necessarily bad, it's the behaviors. Just the same as with alcohol. Yes, there are physical consequences with both, but the only proven way to reduce the use of either significantly is to treat the user.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that one would see an uptick in use after legalization, but I think over the long term that uptick would be statistically insignificant. I know more than a few people who smoke at least weekly and are still fine upstanding members of society. They go to work regularly and take care of their families. A lot of these folks own their own businesses (lawyers and accountants) so they have as much or more on the ball than the average bear.

 

It's my body, why can't I put into it whatever I choose, as long as your rights are not affected? That would include driving under the influence, etc.

[Perchoutofwater]

This is a legit question perch and I honestly don't have an answer. As of right now, I don't know of any test that can say if you're high right now, just if you've partaken within the last 3 weeks or so. With that in mind, I'm sure some businesses will adopt a zero tolerance policy regardless given that they do have to cover themselves from lawsuits.

 

If it is made legal, do I have the right to drug test employees, and dismiss them for using pot on their own time even though it is legal. Does that not just open up business owners to one more type of lawsuit?

[Kid Cid]

If it is made legal, do I have the right to drug test employees, and dismiss them for using pot on their own time even though it is legal. Does that not just open up business owners to one more type of lawsuit?

 

I'm pretty sure you have that right. Much like the terms of use here at the Huddle, if you made zero tolerance a known factor as a condition of employment and the employee signed an agreement that they would abide by that standard (either individually or via a collective bargaining agreement) then yes, use of Josh Gordon off of company time would constitute grounds for dismissal.

 

That being said, I think you would have to both pay and charge a premium in order to run a work place under that rather stringent requirement. Also, you probably have to have written standards of probable cause to perform an at work test as well as a continuous random testing of the entire staff. It may be prohibitively expensive.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Kid Cid

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I have an uncle with the last name Hemp.

[Yukon Cornelius]

If it is made legal, do I have the right to drug test employees, and dismiss them for using pot on their own time even though it is legal. Does that not just open up business owners to one more type of lawsuit?

what do you do if you think they are drunk??

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I'm pretty sure you have that right. Much like the terms of use here at the Huddle, if you made zero tolerance a known factor as a condition of employment and the employee signed an agreement that they would abide by that standard (either individually or via a collective bargaining agreement) then yes, use of Josh Gordon off of company time would constitute grounds for dismissal.

 

That being said, I think you would have to both pay and charge a premium in order to run a work place under that rather stringent requirement.

 

Wait a minute, can you do that? I mean, don't you have to be drunk/high on the job to be dismissed?

[Yukon Cornelius]

I have an uncle with the last name Hemp.

hemp should be legal, there is no reason it should not be