Get your Marijuana Card Here...

[Wishbone]

[QUOTE="Chris0nllyn]I for one believe that employers should have the right to drug test (which they do), but let's be honest, not every place involves construction, fabrication, etc. that are more prone to workplace accidents. [/QUOTE]


You'll be fighting it tooth and nail.

 

[Gilligan]

Ask those that feel they do. I personally do not enjoy the feeling of painkillers. My wife was in the hospital last week and when coming in with a pain of "4", the nurses immediately administered morphine. The morphine gave her a pounding headache the next day. While THC may be available in other forms (aka, Marinol, I assume?), some folks feel the need to use marijuana rather than synthetic pain killers or appetite drugs.

For example..

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Uh huh. Why do you suppose it is that every person pulled over and searched because a cop "smelled marijuana" turns out to have guns and warrants and other more serious stuff going on? Some coincidence, eh? Or am I going to have to spell that out for you?

An odor of marijuana was emitting from inside the vehicle. A probable cause search revealed marijuana over 10 grams and an unknown quantity of THC wax. _______ of California, MD and _______ of Great Mills were arrested and incarcerated at the Calvert County Detention Center.

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2017/21931.php

A passenger in the vehicle, ________, of Lusby, was found in possession of over 10 grams of marijuana. He was arrested and incarcerated at the Calvert County Detention Center. The driver was found in possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana and was issued a civil citation and released.

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2017/22002.php

No guns, no warrants. Just over 10 grams.

Speaking of honesty, police should be honest that the smell of marijuana allows them to go snooping.

Now you're just being foolish. I have experienced contact high first hand in a Jamaican marketplace, among other places. If the smoke is all over the place, and you breathe it in, guess what happens?

It's called the placebo effect.

The Johns Hopkins Study I mentioned earlier tested second hand smoke. It took 1 hour in an UNVENTILATED room with SIX people smoking before people had "detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine, minor increases in heart rate, mild to moderate self-reported sedative drug effects, and impaired performance on the digit symbol substitution task"
http://www.drugandalcoholdependence.com/article/S0376-8716(15)00160-X/fulltext

Six smokers and six nonsmokers spent an hour sitting side by side in a 10-by-13-foot, acrylic-walled room in two different experimental sessions. Each smoker was given 10 high-potency cannabis cigarettes to smoke. In one session, the room’s ventilation fans were turned on. In another session, the fans were turned off, and the room became smoke-filled. This was a realistic simulation of home ventilation conditions. At the end of the exposures, smokers’ and nonsmokers’ blood, urine, saliva and hair were tested at regular intervals for THC.

All six nonsmokers who spent an hour exposed to secondhand smoke in the unventilated room under extreme conditions had detectable amounts of THC in their urine and blood.

None of the nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke in the ventilated room tested positive for THC on either the more sensitive or the less sensitive urinalysis.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...dhand_cannabis_smoke_causes_mild_intoxication

Another study from 2014 in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology:

Three experimental cannabis sessions were conducted at weekly or greater intervals. Cannabis exposure sessions lasted 1 h, during which smokers consumed cannabis ad-libitum in the presence of non-smokers inside the closed chamber.

A total of 27 specimens (3 in Session 1, 22 in Session 2 and 2 in Session 3) had THCCOOH concentrations ≥15 ng/mL (confirmatory test cutoff concentration recommended by SAMHSA) (22). These specimens were produced by two participants (#13, #16) in Session 1, four participants (#23, #37, #38, #41) in Session 2 and one participant (#36) in Session 3.

Screening assays for cannabinoids at a 50 ng/mL cutoff concentration produced a single presumptive positive result (0.4% positivity rate) by the Lab Corp EMITII 5B3 THC Assay for Subject # 37 (4 h post exposure, Session 2). This result was the only presumptive positive produced by immunoassay from the five laboratories; the remaining four laboratories reported the same specimen as negative.

Cannabis potency and room ventilation were demonstrated to be two major factors in determining the extent of cannabis smoke exposure to non-smokers residing in close proximity to smokers. Short-term exposure to high-intensity smoke from combusted cannabis resulted in non-smoker inhalation of sufficient amounts of THC to produce positive presumptive urine tests by immunoassay with a 20 ng/mL cutoff concentration, but only a single positive occurred at higher cutoff concentrations (50 ng/mL).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342697/

Here's a photo of how thick the smoke would have to be (and was in this study) to make non-smokers test positive.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342697/figure/BKU116F2/

Now, are you telling me that the open-air markets in Jamaica are not only so poorly ventilated that they don't even exchange air at 11 ACH (air changes per hour - equivalent to your home A/C system), but so thickly pack with smoke that it looked like the above picture?

I'm not doubting people smoked in Jamaica, I'm doubting that you actually got high. Empirical and scientific evidence points to the contrary and as I said, you'd have to be "hot boxing" a car thick with smoke to get high from second hand smoke.


Why do you do this? Surely you have a better argument than insisting something that certainly is, isn't. You can cite all the pusher government statistics you want; I will go with what I know for fact first hand.

I'm pushing schloraly studies. You're the one who backed up Bernie P's article that cited the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a government agency dedicated to telling everyone how bad drugs are. Who's the one pushing government statistics here?

Now are you going to tell me that, oh no, they make this newfangled pot that doesn't get anyone high when they inhale the smoke?

It's called CBD. They probably didn't have that back in the Mesozoic Era (but they had hemp, you've heard of that oldfangled pot that doesn't get you high, right?), but I assure you there is pot that doesn't get you high.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You'll be fighting it tooth and nail.

I understand that you believe what you say. My previous posts say otherwse. Not that you'll care to find them or pay attention to the posts I make you don't want to bitch and moan about.

 

[Weems]

Now you're just being foolish. I have experienced contact high first hand in a Jamaican marketplace, among other places.

You are lying.

 

[Gilligan]

You act like this country is made up of productive people and the instant marijuana smoke hits the air we'll all become mindless zombies. Newsflash, half the country smokes weed now. I for one believe that employers should have the right to drug test (which they do), but let's be honest, not every place involves construction, fabrication, etc. that are more prone to workplace accidents. Especially detrimental ones.

We let our folks get stoned in the employee lounge and stare blankly at their computer screens, like mindless zombies, the rest of the day.

We do that to make up for not providing health insurance benefits. They seem to smile a lot...so I guess it's good for morale.

 

[stgislander]

We let our folks get stoned in the employee lounge and stare blankly at their computer screens, like mindless zombies, the rest of the day.

We do that to make up for not providing health insurance benefits. They seem to smile a lot...so I guess it's good for morale.

Hey... it beats chewing oxycontin like they're Skittles

 

[Gilligan]

Hey... it beats chewing oxycontin like they're Skittles

True. And there have been far fewer brawls in the break room too.

 

[vraiblonde]

You are lying.

Well, you - a stranger on the internet - would certainly know more about my experiences than I would.

Anyway, Chris, you are not going to get me to believe some "study" over what I have personally experienced. You're just not.

 

[Weems]

Well, you - a stranger on the internet - would certainly know more about my experiences than I would.

I certainly would not suggest that I do.

I do know, however, that in this case you are lying.

 

[Gilligan]

I certainly would not suggest that I do.

I do know, however, that in this case you are lying.

You one vewwy powahfull soul. I would bow in your general direction...if I knew where it was.

 

[Wishbone]

you one vewwy powahfull soul. I would bow in your general direction...if i knew where it was.

nnw

 

[Weems]

Ask Boomer about “contact highs”.

 

[Merlin99]

I think I can speak for the majority when I say that I'm pretty sure we do not want a bunch of mindless drug addicts running around with guns. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Second Amendment. (And if you are silly and uneducated enough to come back with, "Well all those guys were all potheads!" I am ready to give you the schooling that your dope smoking teachers apparently neglected.)

I have smoked pot numerous times and spent most of my high school years surrounded by pot smokers. For some "scientist" to insist that marijuana doesn't affect your judgment and spatial awareness is flat out bull#### and anyone who has ever gotten high will tell you this. It indeed induces paranoia in many users - that is a demonstrable truth. Which is neither here nor there; my main concern about a drugged up populace is....why make it easy on them to enslave you? You say you are a libertarian, and yet you willingly hold out your arms so politicians can chain you and do as they please. That makes absolutely no sense, and the main reason why I haven't joined the Libertarian Party. If they want to enslave me, they're going to have to work for it.

Ignoring the rest of this statement, this is the first time I've ever heard someone claim that more government regs is a libertarian goal.

 

[Merlin99]

P

Possession is a misdemeanor - not only do most pot smokers not get caught with personal amounts, the few that do don't get punished. You act like the prisons are filled with people who just had a joint or were getting high in the privacy of their own home, and that is simply not true. The reason someone gets busted for pot possession is because they in fact were affecting someone else.

In honesty, I don't really care about pot legalization; I care about the slippery slope and unintended consequences. You are correct when you say that smoking pot is no different than drinking a few beers, and our drug problem in this country has very little to do with pot smokers. HOWEVER:

The argument for legalizing pot can be used to legalize heroin, or meth, or cocaine, or any other more intrusive drug. Is that really what we want?

If we agree that alcohol abuse is a serious issue, why would we want to throw marijuana abuse in that mix as well?

Does anyone really *need* to smoke pot? The active ingredient that "sufferers" insist they want is available in other forms, and you can get a prescription from your doctor. So really, let's stop with the camouflage and be honest for a change.

Legalizing anything does indeed encourage use. That's a fact and anyone who disputes it is full of crap.

We're on a national vendetta against cigarettes and tobacco use, yet....we want to encourage the smoking of pot. Really? There are numerous studies that show marijuana is physically way worse for you than tobacco. Second hand smoke? Ha. How about contact high?

Not to mention, if we are equating pot smoking with beer drinking, drinking a beer doesn't get everyone around you drunk. So it would have to be regulated strictly, as in NO public consumption. Which means we're back where we started with pot smokers enjoying in their homes in private, and getting arrested if they're getting baked in public.



There's no point in legalizing marijuana, and legalizing will not reduce crime by one single case.

This is actually a very good argument...


for repealing the 21st amendment.

 

[vraiblonde]

Ask Boomer about “contact highs”.

...

Are you stoned right now?

 

[vraiblonde]

This is actually a very good argument...


for repealing the 21st amendment.

Hey, if they'd go OD and leave me out of it, I'd be way okay with it. But that's never - ever - the way it works out. These people's "personal choices" have an ugly habit (ha) of becoming my problem, whether financially or by increased crime.

Besides, I am unaware of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting drug use. Which one is it?

 

[Merlin99]

Hey, if they'd go OD and leave me out of it, I'd be way okay with it. But that's never - ever - the way it works out. These people's "personal choices" have an ugly habit (ha) of becoming my problem, whether financially or by increased crime.

Besides, I am unaware of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting drug use. Which one is it?

Same as people's drinking habit?
I'm not sure where the constitutional amendment prohibiting drug use statement came from or where you're going with it, so I'm going to ignore it for the nonce.

 

[vraiblonde]

Same as people's drinking habit?

Yep. We are not nearly tough enough on true drunk driving. We set these silly limits and some guy who's had two beers gets popped, but habitual drunk drivers don't lose their license. They don't spend a lot of time in jail. It's a money making scheme, and not a true public safety measure. But MADD can virtue-signal because they are "doing something " by targeting light to moderate drinkers. So since we don't punish destructive drunks in this country, now we shouldn't punish destructive druggies either?

I'm not sure where the constitutional amendment prohibiting drug use statement came from or where you're going with it, so I'm going to ignore it for the nonce.

You said "repealing the 21st Amendment", which I took to mean that the 18th would stand, and alcohol would essentially be prohibited.

 

[Merlin99]

Yep. We are not nearly tough enough on true drunk driving. We set these silly limits and some guy who's had two beers gets popped, but habitual drunk drivers don't lose their license. They don't spend a lot of time in jail. It's a money making scheme, and not a true public safety measure. But MADD can virtue-signal because they are "doing something " by targeting light to moderate drinkers. So since we don't punish destructive drunks in this country, now we shouldn't punish destructive druggies either?



You said "repealing the 21st Amendment", which I took to mean that the 18th would stand, and alcohol would essentially be prohibited.

I meant that your argument for keepin it illegal is a better argument for making liquor illegal than it is for making pot legal. Any argument you make for making your drug of choice legal is just as valid for any other drug. A couple of them have a slightly better excuse than the others just because of their historic roots, pot, mescaline, liquor and a few others, but too say one is less destructive than the others is hypocritical.