Pot legalized in MD

[PsyOps]

Why can't someone just smoke enough to take the edge off, or unwind after 8 hours of work - y'know, the same reasons someone would have 1 or 2 beers.

I will concede your point that they can. If they smoke about a ¼ of a joint. But, in my experience this is just not the case. I grew up through the 60s and 70s and see what’s going on today. People want to try to educate me on this and think I live under a rock – I don’t care!

People are acting like I have some sort of bone to pick with this. Everyone is so obsessed with attacking my opinion while ignoring the fact that I am not in this to assert that pot should be banned. I am a libertarian in these instances. People can do what they want, as long as they aren’t endangering anyone else.

 

[PsyOps]

You can, and many people do, smoke, not to get HIGH, but to simply "take the edge off", or take the pain away, etc. Which is essentially what people who don't "drink to get drunk" do.

You are trying to equate these substances into two seperate realms, when, in reality, the objective of doing both in moderation is to simply get buzzed.

By basically saying that all people who smoke, smoke to get 'high', then it's the same thing saying people who drink, only do it to get 'drunk'.

You win. I'm wrong.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You win. I'm wrong.

You are entitlied to your opinion. I'm not trying to put you down, "attack your opinion", or anything like that. Just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

Regardless of the amount of either substance, do you agree that, in moderation, both things are used to take the edge off and not necessarily to get 'high', or 'drunk', because we both agree that those two terms are the "highest" point of their respective consequence of overuse, or abuse?

 

[Toxick]

I will concede your point that they can. If they smoke about a ¼ of a joint.

Well, there you go then.

But, in my experience this is just not the case. I grew up through the 60s and 70s and see what’s going on today.

Different times, different behaviors.

I'm going to guess that most of the hooch being sucked back in the 20's was not to "take the edge off" either. Native Americans probably didn't smoke um peace-pipe either to relax nor enhance their Pink Floyd experience.

I think that once the taboo nature of this thing finally wears off, you'll see a lot of that type of thing fade back to the fringe where it belongs. When a man or woman can come home from work, and smoke a quarter of a marijuana cigarette (or one Marlboro THC Lite - or whatever...) to decompress before Monday Night Football (or whatever chicks watch on Monday Nights), you're going to find that moderate behavior will become the mainstream - not a bunch of teenagers sucking back dooby after dooby listening to Jefferson Airplane.

Not to say there won't be abuse or stoners, but I don't see them as the norm any more than drunks and hobos are the norm.

People want to try to educate me on this and think I live under a rock – I don’t care!

I'm not trying to educate anyone. You said something I didn't agree with, and I chimed in on it. That's it.

People are acting like I have some sort of bone to pick with this.

That's the vibe you're putting out. Sorry.

 

[rmorse]

I will concede your point that they can. If they smoke about a ¼ of a joint. But, in my experience this is just not the case. I grew up through the 60s and 70s and see what’s going on today. People want to try to educate me on this and think I live under a rock – I don’t care!

You do know that, just like beer, not all joints are created equal, right? You surely know there's a difference between a 1/4 of a Bud Light and 1/4 of a Dogfish Head 120 minute IPA, right? Why would it be any different?

 

[Toxick]

You surely know there's a difference between a 1/4 of a Bud Light and 1/4 of a Dogfish Head 120 minute IPA, right?

Pfft..


That's like saying there's a difference between a plate covered in maggoty pig feces and a perfectly coooked steak dinner with all the trimmings.

 

[PsyOps]

You are entitlied to your opinion. I'm not trying to put you down, "attack your opinion", or anything like that. Just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

Regardless of the amount of either substance, do you agree that, in moderation, both things are used to take the edge off and not necessarily to get 'high', or 'drunk', because we both agree that those two terms are the "highest" point of their respective consequence of overuse, or abuse?

No, I know you’re not. You, rmorse and Tox are very respectful and make awesome points (unlike thatguy). Funny what walking away and a 45 minute commute will do…

I was actually (yes guy, I admit this to you too) being pretty closed off to the probability that some do just smoke enough to ‘take the edge off’. My experiences are far different, but I can’t go on arguing that EVERYONE smokes it to get high – in the strict definition of being HIGH.

So I have to humble myself and back off. My apologies to all of you for my stubbornness and dragging you through an unnecessary debate and ruining the thread. I do get carried away sometimes.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

You are entitlied to your opinion. I'm not trying to put you down, "attack your opinion", or anything like that. Just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.

Regardless of the amount of either substance, do you agree that, in moderation, both things are used to take the edge off and not necessarily to get 'high', or 'drunk', because we both agree that those two terms are the "highest" point of their respective consequence of overuse, or abuse?

No, I know you’re not. You, rmorse and Tox are very respectful and make awesome points (unlike thatguy). Funny what walking away and a 45 minute commute will do…

I was actually (yes guy, I admit this to you too) being pretty closed off to the probability that some do just smoke enough to ‘take the edge off’. My experiences are far different, but I can’t go on arguing that EVERYONE smokes it to get high – in the strict definition of being HIGH.

So I have to humble myself and back off. My apologies to all of you for my stubbornness and dragging you through an unnecessary debate and ruining the thread. I do get carried away sometimes.

I very respectfully called your position ignorant. I didn't attack you, I simply said you didn't know what you were talking about, and made lots of valid points.


To the original point ofthe thread, I say within 5 years we will either see the co and WA laws overturned or we will see this open up nation wide. I am for nation wide.

 

[PsyOps]

I very respectfully called your position ignorant.

As you always are

 

[MMDad]

From a legal standpoint if you are caught driving under the influence of pot you are DUI.

That is not true. There has to be some evidence of impairment. If the officer cannot testify that you were glassy eyed, had problems focusing, were constantly looking for that Dorito you dropped because you had to eat it, there can be no conviction.

No different than with alcohol. Even a low BAC can be prosecuted if there is evidence of impairment. In fact, it is the impairment that is illegal. BAC over the limit is just prima facie evidence that impairment exists.

 

[Toxick]

I very respectfully called your position ignorant.

Funny how people always seem to take that the wrong way.




















Yeah, that was sarcasm.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

I very respectfully called your position ignorant.

Funny how people always seem to take that the wrong way.




















Yeah, that was sarcasm.

Meh, you got to admit it was a pretty ignorant position to argue.

 

[PsyOps]

Meh, you got to admit it was a pretty ignorant position to argue.

You suck at accepting apologies.

 

[Gilligan]

funny how people always seem to take that the wrong way.




















yeah, that was sarcasm.

lmao!

 

[stockgirl]

Puff puff give mother ####ers!

 

[Hank]

The full legalization bill is being reintroduced in Maine.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Meh, you got to admit it was a pretty ignorant position to argue.

You suck at accepting apologies.

Since this was the beginning of your "apology" I'd say you suck at giving them

No, I know you're not. You, rmorse and Tox are very respectful and make awesome points (unlike thatguy).

 

[Gilligan]

Wirelessly posted



Since this was the beginning of your "apology" I'd say you suck at giving them

I really liked this part...made me smile

are very respectful and make awesome points (unlike thatguy).

 

[PsyOps]

Since this was the beginning of your "apology" I'd say you suck at giving them

Reading comprehension is routinely NOT your friend.

My apologies to all of you for my stubbornness and dragging you through an unnecessary debate and ruining the thread. I do get carried away sometimes.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Since this was the beginning of your "apology" I'd say you suck at giving them

Reading comprehension is routinely NOT your friend.

My apologies to all of you for my stubbornness and dragging you through an unnecessary debate and ruining the thread. I do get carried away sometimes.

My reading comprehension is just fine. You started your "apology" by insulting me, that negates everything you said after. At least for me.


It's like telling our wife "you are fat, and I am sorry I left the seat up on the toilet."

Like I said, you suck at apologies if that's how you choose to start it.