Mj Is Legal In Colorado Washington

[stevediraddo]

Eeeeeeveryones got a weed opinion. Heres mine!

I have nothing against weed. But, I don't think it should be legalized for three main reasons:

ONE- Its not legal now, and the vast majority of people who smoke are never prosecuted. The fact that its illegal is stopping nobody from smoking

TWO- Stoner culture. Its fucking stupid. Weed is fun but its not a lifestyle. Maybe it wouldnt be illegal if it weren't associated with stupidity and laziness. And take down the goddamn bob marley posters if you dont listen to his music.

THREE- Government will ruin it by either find a way to tax it or saturating the market with their own cheap crap.

[Amiss]

Eeeeeeveryones got a weed opinion. Heres mine!

I have nothing against weed. But, I don't think it should be legalized for three main reasons:

ONE- Its not legal now, and the vast majority of people who smoke are never prosecuted. The fact that its illegal is stopping nobody from smoking

TWO- Stoner culture. Its fucking stupid. Weed is fun but its not a lifestyle. Maybe it wouldnt be illegal if it weren't associated with stupidity and laziness. And take down the goddamn bob marley posters if you dont listen to his music.

THREE- Government will ruin it by either find a way to tax it or saturating the market with their own cheap crap.

One- but there are people being prosecuted, not only for smoking it but also for selling, etc. Right now it's something that promotes gang and violence not only by criminals but by the government through the drug war. Luckily it has been decriminalized in many places. It also wastes our money prosecuting these people, and on the drug war. With it legalized we can tax it, the tax money from amendment 64 in colorado is all going to schools and the state.

Two- That's your opinion, not a valid point though. Mind your own business and relax.

Three- It already will be taxed, and that is a good thing (see #1), and just like tobacco/alcohol it will not be grown by the government or made by them.

[Tippey764]

100% drug free means no caffeine, no aspirin, no alcohol, no nicotine etc... Some people do that. Most people, at least in North America, use these drugs regularly. And they are drugs.

I'm probably one of the very few people you're referring to

rarely do i drink soda that actually has caffeine in it, i don't care if it does but i just don't drink the kinds that have it.

And i never take pills or medicine, if i feel sick or have a headache i just deal with it, i don't need to get hocked up on shit to make myself feel better.

[Amiss]

I'm probably one of the very few people you're referring to

rarely do i drink soda that actually has caffeine in it, i don't care if it does but i just don't drink the kinds that have it.

And i never take pills or medicine, if i feel sick or have a headache i just deal with it, i don't need to get hocked up on shit to make myself feel better.

What do you mean by hocked up on shit?
Tylenol and ibuprofen don't even have any effects other than being anti inflammatory, you can't get high off of them

[owequitit]

One- but there are people being prosecuted, not only for smoking it but also for selling, etc. Right now it's something that promotes gang and violence not only by criminals but by the government through the drug war. Luckily it has been decriminalized in many places. It also wastes our money prosecuting these people, and on the drug war. With it legalized we can tax it, the tax money from amendment 64 in colorado is all going to schools and the state.

Two- That's your opinion, not a valid point though. Mind your own business and relax.

Three- It already will be taxed, and that is a good thing (see #1), and just like tobacco/alcohol it will not be grown by the government or made by them.

What do you mean by hocked up on shit?
Tylenol and ibuprofen don't even have any effects other than being anti inflammatory, you can't get high off of them

1) Your point bears merit only if the tax revenue exceeds all of the other side effects, such as prosecuting those who drive while under the influence, etc. Likely they will, but time will tell what the ACTUAL cost of MJ legalization is. Most likely it will be higher than expected, if nothing else than in the fact that you will be more likely to find people operating under its influence as it becomes more prevalent. Until then, it is all just theory. Also, you neglect that if something is highly taxed, there may still be a market for unregulated, untaxed, and thus "illegal" MJ. Also, there will continue to be people prosecuted for it, it might just be in different forms.

2) His opinion is no less valid than yours.

3) You might want to go do a little bit more learning about drugs. Tylenol and ibuprofen are anti-inflammatory, but they also alter the responses of your CNS to dull any nerve transmission of pain. While addiction might be rare, there ARE fairly severe potential side-effects to their usage. First, ibuprofen is hard on your stomach and your kidneys if used in large dosages without enough water. Any more than 800MG is hard on your renal and digestive systems even with enough water. Also, there are people that over time develop allergies to the medication as is the case with many other chronic exposures to chemicals. I have a friend who Motrin religiously because of a bad shoulder and knees. One day he took it and had a severe allergic reaction. He can't use them anymore.

As with any chemical that is introduced into the body as a foreign agent, there are potential and long term side effects to usage, especially if the usage is chronic. Just because you can't get "high" off of a drug, doesn't mean it doesn't effect your body chemistry. You would probably find it enlightening to learn about stimulants, depressants and analgesics.

[owequitit]

That makes perfect sense.
I actually wonder how or if these policies will change if marijuana actually reaches federally legal status. Since it stays in your system for so long, you're going to have to cash in some vacation time to smoke a joint!




100% drug free means no caffeine, no aspirin, no alcohol, no nicotine etc... Some people do that. Most people, at least in North America, use these drugs regularly. And they are drugs.

No. They won't. There is no need to change them. Unless the individual smoking weed wants to absorb the millions of dollars in liability associated with its use, then there will be no changes whatsoever.

Case in point. The legal mandate in my industry is no more than a .04 BAC, a minimum of 8 hours since the last consumption of alcohol, and a catch all of not being able to be "under the influence" (which technically includes a hangover of any sort) while our company policy is a BAC of less than .04, no consumption within 12 hours, and no "under the influence" side effects. Since they are the ones absorbing the liability, they have the right to dictate what I can do, regardless what the law states. And yes, it is a terminable offense. In fact, they can actually terminate me with a non-work related DUI if they feel so suited. However, in that case, you usually get 1 second chance.

[Amiss]

3) You might want to go do a little bit more learning about drugs. Tylenol and ibuprofen are anti-inflammatory, but they also alter the responses of your CNS to dull any nerve transmission of pain. While addiction might be rare, there ARE fairly severe potential side-effects to their usage. First, ibuprofen is hard on your stomach and your kidneys if used in large dosages without enough water. Any more than 800MG is hard on your renal and digestive systems even with enough water. Also, there are people that over time develop allergies to the medication as is the case with many other chronic exposures to chemicals. I have a friend who Motrin religiously because of a bad shoulder and knees. One day he took it and had a severe allergic reaction. He can't use them anymore.

As with any chemical that is introduced into the body as a foreign agent, there are potential and long term side effects to usage, especially if the usage is chronic. Just because you can't get "high" off of a drug, doesn't mean it doesn't effect your body chemistry. You would probably find it enlightening to learn about stimulants, depressants and analgesics.

I am talking about using the recommended dosage. Tylenol has a 4gram (or somewhere around there) max daily dose with no real harm for an adult. Ibuprofen is something around 2grams, obviously that doesn't mean you should take 4grams a day of either, but there are no real long term effects to doing it once. Now if you're drinking on them, thats a different story. Please inform me how many people who use tylenol by the recommended dosage throughout their life become allergic to it.

When did I mention chronic use? He mentioned being "hocked up" on them, which implies he meant something like being high or intoxicated from them. Which is why I asked what he meant. I never said it didn't effect body chemistry, and most of your post was irrelevant to what I was talking about.

and as to that last comment: lol

[deevergote]

No. They won't. There is no need to change them. Unless the individual smoking weed wants to absorb the millions of dollars in liability associated with its use, then there will be no changes whatsoever.

Case in point. The legal mandate in my industry is no more than a .04 BAC, a minimum of 8 hours since the last consumption of alcohol, and a catch all of not being able to be "under the influence" (which technically includes a hangover of any sort) while our company policy is a BAC of less than .04, no consumption within 12 hours, and no "under the influence" side effects. Since they are the ones absorbing the liability, they have the right to dictate what I can do, regardless what the law states. And yes, it is a terminable offense. In fact, they can actually terminate me with a non-work related DUI if they feel so suited. However, in that case, you usually get 1 second chance.

That's understandable. I couldn't imagine being hung over and having the necessary focus to fly a plane.
And anyone with the lack of judgment and foresight to get a DIY outside of work might display such shortcomings AT work, when the lives of many others are at stake.

I wonder if they'll take into account the timeframe that marijuana effects the body, rather than the mere presence of it. The chemicals can be detected in your system long after the effects have worn off. If, say, I smoked weed 2 weeks ago... I'd still likely fail a drug test today, but the effects of the drug are long gone.
With the laws as they currently are, the presence of the drug in your system is enough to justify termination... as it proves illegal activity. If it were to be legal, the presence wouldn't be a problem, as long as the effects have worn off.
With alcohol, the presence of the drug is pretty much directly related to the extent of its effect... so a BAC of a certain percentage is a clear indicator of intoxication. THC levels in the blood/urine/etc... don't directly indicate intoxication at the time of testing.

[deevergote]

I am talking about using the recommended dosage. Tylenol has a 4gram (or somewhere around there) max daily dose with no real harm for an adult. Ibuprofen is something around 2grams, obviously that doesn't mean you should take 4grams a day of either, but there are no real long term effects to doing it once. Now if you're drinking on them, thats a different story. Please inform me how many people who use tylenol by the recommended dosage throughout their life become allergic to it.

When did I mention chronic use? He mentioned being "hocked up" on them, which implies he meant something like being high or intoxicated from them. Which is why I asked what he meant. I never said it didn't effect body chemistry, and most of your post was irrelevant to what I was talking about.

and as to that last comment: lol

A drug doesn't have to get you high to be a drug.
And any drug has side effects. Most common pain medication (aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, naproxen) cause damage to the stomach and liver. Used infrequently, in small, regulated doses, the damage is minor enough to be unlikely to ever affect the person taking the medication. However, that doesn't mean they don't have harmful sides to them.
One could argue that the infrequent use of moderate amounts of recreational drugs is similarly "harmless". I could do a small amount of cocaine tonight, and never touch it again. It wouldn't kill me. It wouldn't make me addicted. It wouldn't cause significant damage to my body. Doesn't mean it's safe, or that it's a good idea. The only real differences are that cocaine is illegal and socially unacceptable.
I'm not saying Tylenol and cocaine are comparable... just that a low-dose, infrequent usage of either one of them can be "harmless"... but that is not a valid argument for using either.


Also, many of the drugs on the market today are fairly new. Pharmaceutical companies are forever growing, creating new products, adjusting old products... The science behind what is "safe" is imperfect at best. Look at all the drug recalls that have been issued over the years. The FDA makes things safer, but not they're not infallible. Just because something is FDA approved doesn't mean it can't be harmful to the body, even when used as directed.

[Amiss]

A drug doesn't have to get you high to be a drug.
And any drug has side effects. Most common pain medication (aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, naproxen) cause damage to the stomach and liver. Used infrequently, in small, regulated doses, the damage is minor enough to be unlikely to ever affect the person taking the medication. However, that doesn't mean they don't have harmful sides to them.
One could argue that the infrequent use of moderate amounts of recreational drugs is similarly "harmless". I could do a small amount of cocaine tonight, and never touch it again. It wouldn't kill me. It wouldn't make me addicted. It wouldn't cause significant damage to my body. Doesn't mean it's safe, or that it's a good idea. The only real differences are that cocaine is illegal and socially unacceptable.
I'm not saying Tylenol and cocaine are comparable... just that a low-dose, infrequent usage of either one of them can be "harmless"... but that is not a valid argument for using either.


Also, many of the drugs on the market today are fairly new. Pharmaceutical companies are forever growing, creating new products, adjusting old products... The science behind what is "safe" is imperfect at best. Look at all the drug recalls that have been issued over the years. The FDA makes things safer, but not they're not infallible. Just because something is FDA approved doesn't mean it can't be harmful to the body, even when used as directed.

I didn't say it had to get you high to be a drug? I'm not even talking about being that, what I'm saying is the chances of any real damage from apap/ibuprofen is so small that it's ridiculous not to take them because you're worried about your liver failing etc as long as you go by the recommended dosage and dont take them with alcohol

[deevergote]

Right. But some people choose avoid the use of anything classified as a drug whenever possible.

I grew up when the straightedge movement was in full swing. There were a number of drugs that were avoided by anyone that adhered strongly to that mentality.
I was never terribly strict, but I still do avoid most medications when there isn't a great need for it.

[owequitit]

I am talking about using the recommended dosage. Tylenol has a 4gram (or somewhere around there) max daily dose with no real harm for an adult. Ibuprofen is something around 2grams, obviously that doesn't mean you should take 4grams a day of either, but there are no real long term effects to doing it once. Now if you're drinking on them, thats a different story. Please inform me how many people who use tylenol by the recommended dosage throughout their life become allergic to it.

When did I mention chronic use? He mentioned being "hocked up" on them, which implies he meant something like being high or intoxicated from them. Which is why I asked what he meant. I never said it didn't effect body chemistry, and most of your post was irrelevant to what I was talking about.

and as to that last comment: lol

He used the recommended dosage. Even using the recommended dosage for long periods of time can have severe consequences. Like I said do a little bit of research. It is a perceived myth that because drugs are OTC, they do not have potentially bad side effects.

The rest of your post has no merit, and you know it.

[owequitit]

That's understandable. I couldn't imagine being hung over and having the necessary focus to fly a plane.
And anyone with the lack of judgment and foresight to get a DIY outside of work might display such shortcomings AT work, when the lives of many others are at stake.

I wonder if they'll take into account the timeframe that marijuana effects the body, rather than the mere presence of it. The chemicals can be detected in your system long after the effects have worn off. If, say, I smoked weed 2 weeks ago... I'd still likely fail a drug test today, but the effects of the drug are long gone.
With the laws as they currently are, the presence of the drug in your system is enough to justify termination... as it proves illegal activity. If it were to be legal, the presence wouldn't be a problem, as long as the effects have worn off.
With alcohol, the presence of the drug is pretty much directly related to the extent of its effect... so a BAC of a certain percentage is a clear indicator of intoxication. THC levels in the blood/urine/etc... don't directly indicate intoxication at the time of testing.

Short of a new form of test, I don't know. Like I said, the metabolization of the THC is not the employer's issue, it is the employees. If alcohol were in the reverse position (slow metabolization) then it would be likely much more terminable for a longer period of time, because the employer doesn't have to show affect, they simply have to show presence when it is not allowed. The fact that THC just so happens to leave the system so much slower is largely irrelevant to the cause. Perhaps, they would trace another chemical, or do a motor skills test, but most likely, they will just fire you under the presence of THC as they do now.

A drug doesn't have to get you high to be a drug.
And any drug has side effects. Most common pain medication (aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, naproxen) cause damage to the stomach and liver. Used infrequently, in small, regulated doses, the damage is minor enough to be unlikely to ever affect the person taking the medication. However, that doesn't mean they don't have harmful sides to them.
One could argue that the infrequent use of moderate amounts of recreational drugs is similarly "harmless". I could do a small amount of cocaine tonight, and never touch it again. It wouldn't kill me. It wouldn't make me addicted. It wouldn't cause significant damage to my body. Doesn't mean it's safe, or that it's a good idea. The only real differences are that cocaine is illegal and socially unacceptable.
I'm not saying Tylenol and cocaine are comparable... just that a low-dose, infrequent usage of either one of them can be "harmless"... but that is not a valid argument for using either.


Also, many of the drugs on the market today are fairly new. Pharmaceutical companies are forever growing, creating new products, adjusting old products... The science behind what is "safe" is imperfect at best. Look at all the drug recalls that have been issued over the years. The FDA makes things safer, but not they're not infallible. Just because something is FDA approved doesn't mean it can't be harmful to the body, even when used as directed.

Scientific drug fact vs recreational drug "fact." People often neglect that the entire purpose of drug use (even in the case of mild pain killers) is to alter the body's chemistry for the purpose of creating or dulling a physiological response.

[SPLCB7]

who wants to have a meet in wa now!

[AAPOQ]

who wants to have a meet in wa now!

I do I do!!!
(You lucky basterd)