Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: Conrad on December 29, 2019, 09:11:28 AM
-
Just a couple more days and recreational marijuana will be legal here in Illinois.
I have mixed feelings about this.
I enjoy getting high occasionally and I'm looking forward to not having to worry that what I'm doing is against the law. It'll be nice to have ready access to it but in truth, I've never had much problem getting weed when I wanted it.
On the negative side, this won't be good for teens in Illinois. Not that they have problems in the past scoring weed I'm sure, just as they don't have any problems scoring liquor when/if they want it.
People who have a predisposition to substance abuse will have an even larger problem now I suppose.
I'd rather be sharing the road with folks that are high as apposed to folks who are drunk though.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
What say you?
-
now the difference is you'll pay more for it. look what it's like in Colorado.
-
:-\ :popcorn:
-
Sharing the road with tokers is not better than sharing it with drunks, by any means. Since Washington State made recreational weed OK, I have seen a number of zoned-out drivers weaving down the road, if on the highway, usually quite a bit UNDER the speed limit, sort of leaning against the window, just oozing along. Granted there are probably as many under the influence that I don't notice because they are not exhibiting any erratic behavior, just like some drunks. Sitting at a an intersection in traffic with the smell of pot smoke coming from a car ahead of you is not fun either. Reaction times and judgement are also slowed.
I now live in Bothell, and I can walk a couple of blocks into the downtown section, and stand on any street corner and smell it, which means I am inhaling at least a few molecules of it, which I do not wish to do, same as cigarette smoke.
If you want to do it, that's fine, just DO IT AT HOME.
-
Like you, I have mixed feelings. I have never consumed any illicit drug or alcohol, and never will. Control is important to me and I have no desire to ever be "altered." But as a libertarian, I believe people should be allowed to do anything to or put anything they wish into their bodies- as long as they can give informed consent, it isn't directly harming others, and they are adults.
Alcohol is a probably at least a hundred times more dangerous (to one's self and to society) than marijuana. It impairs coordination far less. It is not physically addictive (but is psychologically for at least some if not many). As long as it is ingested without combustion/smoking, it causes no known physical harm to adults (at least non-pregnant ones). One can't overdose on it. In some cases it can be useful, medicinally (I believe far less than many claim, and much of that can be isolated from the mind-altering components). It should never have been made a Schedule I drug, that is for sure. It should never have been higher than Schedule V. I believe it should be removed from the Controlled Substances Act, completely.
But I would be lying if said I am pleased at the thought of marijuana use increasing and "normalized" like alcohol is (and that WILL happen with broad legalization). There will be just that many more people who will be zombified. Being high puts others at risk when driving, operating machinery, working on/with dangerous things. That is on top of many users being non-functional, irritating, accident-prone, irresponsible, and generally "stupid." Some will waste all their time and money trying to escape reality, rather than face it. Others might use it as a gateway to much worse drugs.
Your being conflicted on such a topic just shows you understand this well. I, for one, admire that.
-
mkultra continues
-
Interesting discussion,
Ohio has finally given the green light to Medical use, which requires a doctor to apply for a card for patient use, and the clinics are open and operating here, for the last year. Problem was, the "supply" was regulated, and had to come from in state sources/growers, that were licensed... well, that created a long backlog to build a supply. A couple years back, Ohio "tried" to push thru a total decriminalization bill, so to cover both medical, and recreational use; that didn't work because the jist of the bill created an oligarchy of business people, with deep pockets, that controlled the grow houses. Again, they had to be state approved, and licensed.
All in all I think that was what "killed" the bill, and I wasn't happy that happened, but the other thing about "rich folks getting richer", left a bad feeling on the residents.
I can agree on one thing tho, I would rather have money circulate within my state, i.e. tax revenues, than to see it go to a foreign cartel.
I know I could benefit from the medicinal aspects, but the cost is so high currently, it makes it out of reach.
Currently the "medical products", cannot be "burned" or "smoked", but they can be vaporized, or rendered into edible forms, and even then, the law prohibits "people" from growing their own... so it kills the $$ factor again.
Having discussed the options already with 2 different doctors, that would sign off on a card for me, as the health issues I have are legitimate, I'm still waiting to apply, because I'm still not certain of the "downstream" legalities and being "branded" for using something. Being a gun owner for one thing, makes it hard to "decide", as in a year or so more, who really knows what records will be shared thru the system, creating criminals that were not criminals; but now are...
Tough decisions for sure.
Using any substance while driving is simply OUT... personal consumption in home is clear, I won't drive with even one sip of beer in my body, and if I consume any alcohol in quantity, i simply won't drive until my system is clean.
Kids will use whatever they can get their hands on, wherever and whenever they can.. we can't stop them. so the point taken about that is kind of foolish for people to "toss in", as a reason for legislation over rides.
Best of luck, I really would like to be able to do "what I want" also, and not have to bear legal persecution... would I on a daily basis? not likely; but having the choice is a good thing. 50 years ago, I never ever worried... and always hoped that in my lifetime, the laws would change.
-
I've been thinking, since I posted; I have some very good friends, some in COG, that have older parents with extreme health and pain issues. I have discussed this subject with them at times, as it seems doctors are all to quick to prescribe opioid pain meds, in endless quantities to them. Both of my in-laws are up in years, and taking very strong pain meds... I've gotten my M.I.L. to seek herbal products, and she finds great benefit from CBD creams, as a supplement for relief; I've been badgering my F.I.L. who is closing in on 90 now, and telling him to move here, and use cannabis.. he laughs, and says "sure...", that's his mindset, but at least he thinks about it.. both of them are in a non-use state currently...
I was raised by my grandparents, and I really benefited from my Grandmother's wisdom, she was very open minded, but still had a difficulty understanding the "pot" thing, when I was a teen. Somehow I stupidly left a bag of weed, in a shirt pocket, which she found when doing the laundry... damn.... busted... I had to work up the courage to ask her if she threw it out.. $40 was a lot of money for a kid to "loose". She surprised me, pulled it out of her apron pocket, tossed it on the kitchen table, and went "searching" in a drawer, only to come back with a rolling machine, and a pack of ancient cig papers from the 40's.. she sat down, rolled 2 up, and we smoked them (I was speachless, and didn't dare ask why...),
She looked at me and said "I was going to give a big lecture, but figured it would be silly if I didn't try this, before...."
my response was "Well? are you high?", she just shrugged her shoulders and smiled, and said, "I don't think so... But now I know why you eat so much peanut butter and jelly... I'm hungry..." we smoked the second one, then she munched stuff from the fridge, and went out and walked around the back yard, and woods.. when she came back in she made me promise never to tell Dad. She ended up having part of her colon removed, many years later, and I would drop off "medicine" every other month, she always said natural is better than addicting pills. Bless her. She ended up having a stroke, years later, that was induced by a nicked blood vessel from a surgery, and the EMS responders gave her a strong opioid sedative on the way to the hospital, she was trying to come out of the stroke, but they suppressed her...she was allergic to the opioid meds, she went into a coma, and died.
My actual "mother", was introduced to the herb, by my younger sister and I, when we were in our 20's; and forced/coerced her to toke at my sister's house.. she also admitted that there was "nothing wrong with it, in my opinion, kind of a nice feeling"..
She died from migrated breast cancer, and cancer thruout her body in '93; my little sister made sure she got her "medication", as the prescriptions were so expensive, and didn't help her.. they just made her unconscious.
I really hate "modern medicine" at times, having lost so many loved ones...watching them try to endure pain, with no resolve, because of rediculous mindsets of legislators, has to end; sometimes simple plants, are the answer.
self medicate.
it's your right.
-
Pot is legal now in Canada, the stuff you smoke, but not edibles. There are some distribution problems as things evolve. As a non-smoker, I'm waiting for gummy worms.
-
I realy envy you, you are so lucky, to have a country wide status..
I would love to do edibles here... just as it is sooo nice.
here, we can get edibles, and even tho high priced, we can distill flower into oil...
read about extraction processors, grain alcohol and such, to remove the vital components.
the final results are he vital oils, and can be used in the manner you wish,
-
A resident of Colorado for +20 years...
1) Driving, or doing anything that requires critical thinking when impaired is felony stupid. Booze, pot/dope; anything.
2) Politicians love their electorate going to the polls stoned. "Yo, dude, I'm voting for him/her because they legalized whatever". Also known as "The Free Chit Coalition". May be a reason liquor venues are closed on votings days. I don't know, just saying.
3) Tax revenue from dope legalization is huge, but receipts never go 100% to the recipient(s) as stated in the law/amendment that legalized pot. Ask me why I need to vote on increasing school funding now that pot is legal in CO, which is where the millions in tax revenue from pot sales was supposed to go. Dafuk. Seriously, dafuk.
4) There's a reason it's also referred to as dope.
5) Valid medical use? I have no issue with that, absolutely none. But please define valid medical use for me. Your knee hurts? Back? You have no appetite? You're on chemo? You like Cheetos/girl scout cookies in mass quantities?
6) Are you fine with your cardiologist entering the operating room stoned? The pilot of a 777/A380/F-35? How will you know if they sparked one a few hours ago? A day ago? Is a day adequate to 'decompress' from a high?
Slippery slope, very slippery.
On the plus side, drivers for Uber-Eats and Door-Dash are making a fortune delivering munchies.
Rick
-
Sharing the road with tokers is not better than sharing it with drunks, by any means. Since Washington State made recreational weed OK, I have seen a number of zoned-out drivers weaving down the road, if on the highway, usually quite a bit UNDER the speed limit, sort of leaning against the window, just oozing along. Granted there are probably as many under the influence that I don't notice because they are not exhibiting any erratic behavior, just like some drunks. Sitting at a an intersection in traffic with the smell of pot smoke coming from a car ahead of you is not fun either. Reaction times and judgement are also slowed.
I now live in Bothell, and I can walk a couple of blocks into the downtown section, and stand on any street corner and smell it, which means I am inhaling at least a few molecules of it, which I do not wish to do, same as cigarette smoke.
If you want to do it, that's fine, just DO IT AT HOME.
Are you suggesting that you have such a good eye that you can tell the difference between drivers who have been smoking weed and drivers who have been drinking? LEOs can use an eye like that.
FYI, those impaired drivers who are WAY under the speed limit have almost certainly been drinking. It's a known fact that drunk drivers tend to drive under the limit. They also tend to forget to turn on their headlights. LEOs look for this.
Just so you know, I do not advocate driving impaired, in any way. Have I done it? Yep, in my younger years. Stupid? You bettcha. I'll say it again, IF I had to choose between sharing the road with someone high on weed vs someone drunk, I'll take the stoner. I'd prefer sharing the road with non impaired drivers no doubt.
My discussion is based on following the law where weed is concerned. If you're at an intersection and you smell pot coming from one of the cars near you, that person is not following the rules of law, at least not the laws in Illinois.
-
Like you, I have mixed feelings. I have never consumed any illicit drug or alcohol, and never will. Control is important to me and I have no desire to ever be "altered." But as a libertarian, I believe people should be allowed to do anything to or put anything they wish into their bodies- as long as they can give informed consent, it isn't directly harming others, and they are adults.
Alcohol is a probably at least a hundred times more dangerous (to one's self and to society) than marijuana. It impairs coordination far less. It is not physically addictive (but is psychologically for at least some if not many). As long as it is ingested without combustion/smoking, it causes no known physical harm to adults (at least non-pregnant ones). One can't overdose on it. In some cases it can be useful, medicinally (I believe far less than many claim, and much of that can be isolated from the mind-altering components). It should never have been made a Schedule I drug, that is for sure. It should never have been higher than Schedule V. I believe it should be removed from the Controlled Substances Act, completely.
But I would be lying if said I am pleased at the thought of marijuana use increasing and "normalized" like alcohol is (and that WILL happen with broad legalization). There will be just that many more people who will be zombified. Being high puts others at risk when driving, operating machinery, working on/with dangerous things. That is on top of many users being non-functional, irritating, accident-prone, irresponsible, and generally "stupid." Some will waste all their time and money trying to escape reality, rather than face it. Others might use it as a gateway to much worse drugs.
Your being conflicted on such a topic just shows you understand this well. I, for one, admire that.
Well said Max, thank you.
-
mkultra continues
Paranoid much?
-
A resident of Colorado for +20 years...
1) Driving, or doing anything that requires critical thinking when impaired is felony stupid. Booze, pot/dope; anything.
2) Politicians love their electorate going to the polls stoned. "Yo, dude, I'm voting for him/her because they legalized whatever". Also known as "The Free Chit Coalition". May be a reason liquor venues are closed on votings days. I don't know, just saying.
3) Tax revenue from dope legalization is huge, but receipts never go 100% to the recipient(s) as stated in the law/amendment that legalized pot. Ask me why I need to vote on increasing school funding now that pot is legal in CO, which is where the millions in tax revenue from pot sales was supposed to go. Dafuk. Seriously, dafuk.
4) There's a reason it's also referred to as dope.
5) Valid medical use? I have no issue with that, absolutely none. But please define valid medical use for me. Your knee hurts? Back? You have no appetite? You're on chemo? You like Cheetos/girl scout cookies in mass quantities?
6) Are you fine with your cardiologist entering the operating room stoned? The pilot of a 777/A380/F-35? How will you know if they sparked one a few hours ago? A day ago? Is a day adequate to 'decompress' from a high?
Slippery slope, very slippery.
On the plus side, drivers for Uber-Eats and Door-Dash are making a fortune delivering munchies.
Rick
We're talking about LEGAL use here. How many of your points above speak of legal use?
Tobacco is legal, alcohol is legal. Do two wrongs make a right? No, but pot should be legal as well based on the logic of legal booze and tobacco.
Are you a tobacco user Rick?
-
Tobacco is legal, alcohol is legal. Do two wrongs make a right? No, but pot should be legal as well based on the logic of legal booze and tobacco.
That is actually not a fair comparison. Although tobacco (depending on how it is used and how much it is used) can greatly damage the health of the user, nicotine generally doesn't. But health impact really isn't the issue. Nicotine can be addictive, but it is not a "mind/reality altering drug" like marijuana and illicit drugs are. A much more valid comparison of nicotine is with caffeine (America's most popular drug).
Alcohol, however, is a very valid comparison, especially to point out the hypocrisy of the "drug war."
-
If we're on the subject of driving impaired, one cannot leave out cell phone usage. I'll take a stoner any day of the week vs alcohol impairment or hand held cell phone user. In fact, just this past Saturday, the President of our Riders Group nearly got severely injured by a stupid woman using her phone and not paying attention to what's in front of her. Fortunately she looked up in time to lock the brakes before hitting him from the rear. He had it all on camera and just about was going to ride into a field when she realized what she was doing. Punishments for driving impaired (any reason) should be harsh.
-
Punishments for driving impaired (any reason) should be harsh.
I couldn't agree more. Sleepy driving, trying to read a book, taking an over-the-counter cold medicine, screaming at the kids in the back seat, not wearing necessary glasses, applying makeup, messing with the stereo, texting, trying to tie a shoe. Bad decisions are just bad.
It has little to do with the cause of [voluntary] impairment and everything to do with the bad outcomes.
-
Paranoid much?
mmmm...maybe.....why do you ask? 8)
-
mmmm...maybe.....why do you ask? 8)
::) ::) ::) :D :'( :'( :P
it takes all kinds...
https://youtu.be/nununLAx2Ng (https://youtu.be/nununLAx2Ng)
http://youtu.be/nununLAx2Ng (http://youtu.be/nununLAx2Ng)
-
mmmm...maybe.....why do you ask? 8)
:rotflmao:
-
snip...
If we're on the subject of driving impaired, one cannot leave out cell phone usage. I'll take a stoner any day of the week vs alcohol impairment or hand held cell phone user.
Punishments for driving impaired (any reason) should be harsh.
snip...
I couldn't agree more. Sleepy driving, trying to read a book, taking an over-the-counter cold medicine, screaming at the kids in the back seat, not wearing necessary glasses, applying makeup, messing with the stereo, texting, trying to tie a shoe. Bad decisions are just bad.
It has little to do with the cause of [voluntary] impairment and everything to do with the bad outcomes.
100% agreement here! Don't forget eating and driving and all combinations of the above, such as. Eating while on the phone AND 'driving'. That's a winning combination right there. Look Ma, no hands.
-
That is actually not a fair comparison. Although tobacco (depending on how it is used and how much it is used) can greatly damage the health of the user, nicotine generally doesn't. But health impact really isn't the issue. Nicotine can be addictive, but it is not a "mind/reality altering drug" like marijuana and illicit drugs are. A much more valid comparison of nicotine is with caffeine (America's most popular drug).
Alcohol, however, is a very valid comparison, especially to point out the hypocrisy of the "drug war."
Think about that for a moment... Tobacco, was a mainstay of economy, that founded the America's.. it's a deadly toxin, there can be no dispute, nothing about any use of tobacco, can be made acceptable in any means, shape, or form, under the guise as "safe"... what a load of b/s, and associated ignorance to try to say different.
The complete legislative history, against Cannabis, has been because of "molly hatchet" mentality, while even tho we had "prohibition", alcohol was brought back, and taxed, as was tobacco, from the start.. and the tobacco money went back to England, not the USA, as we weren't 'the USA" during that time.. the inception of all the Cannabis laws, are a direct result of racial discrimination, based upon a proposed "taxable product", when it came about, and never came to fruition, because even tho permits, tax stamps, and some semblance of government "attention", it was quashed, and still is.. level I drug? come on. We have long learned that McCarthy-ism laws, were ridiculous.. but we still base current law, on threadlike b/s.
really, research this, go back in timelines, see what "transpired" to make "pot" an issue today...
If everyone in the USA, sowed 5 cannabis seeds, this year, and grew 5 plants.. on any property... all these laws would be gone.
the matter of fact, of the reason the "war on drugs", utilizing pot, as a subject, has been, and always will be a reason to allow an "adjacent country" to prosper, invisibly, under the radar.. change the law, and mexico can only sell METH now... bust that line, leave the pot out of the equation... no more/shut off $$$ for south american weed... what a freaking concept.
Now, lets all go watch the lattest show of "Moonshiner's", smile, and laugh about just how "IN YOUR FACE", THIS ISSUE IS.. come on people, it's against the law, not that alcohol is, but MAKING IT IS< it's all TAX money... pay the GOV.. all good, don't pay the GOV, and just drink it, (and never sell it).. you go to prison... so...
GROW POT, GIVE IT AWAY, SMOKE IT IF YOU GOT IT... AT HOME.... DON'T DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE..... all cured.
Now I still have issues with people, that say "i never smoked pot, never drank" spouting off on the perceived conceptions in the mind they have, about what is right for everyone. I'm likely to respond, as an American, and a voter, to just respond "F/O", simply because the data they have is nill on the effects..
I never liked the fact that Clinton said "well, ye, I smoked pot, but I didn't inhale..." I would have bitchsmacked him if I went to school with him.. b/s/, but then, we watched his diatribe about "I never had sexual relations... etc., " when he got a hummer... tell that to poor old Hugh Jackson.. because he got hosed for the same damned thing.. but that "was different"
Back when helmet laws in Ohio, were abolished, I stopped wearing a helmet.. realized very quickly, it was STUPID to abolish.. and put my helmet back on, and geared up .. I see it all the time now, here, because we "won".. and against all that opposed it, none of which were active motorcyclists.. but, the law "won".. smoking weed, and decisions on it's legality, not the same thing.
-
A drugged populace is a biddable populace.
-
Think about that for a moment... Tobacco, was a mainstay of economy, that founded the America's.. it's a deadly toxin, there can be no dispute, nothing about any use of tobacco, can be made acceptable in any means, shape, or form, under the guise as "safe"... what a load of b/s, and associated ignorance to try to say different.
Not sure where that comes from. You are quoting me and then extrapolating something I didn't say or imply. I never said nor implied that tobacco use was "safe". I did say nicotine is relatively safe, however, on the level as caffeine. The two should not be mistaken for each other. I would appreciate clarification on your apparent argument with me... perhaps what I said triggered a straw man argument from you?
That aside, it is pretty well established that tobacco use harm is directly related to how it is consumed, what type, and how often. Pipe smoking (without inhaling, of course), for example, causes very little heath harm to most users. Some studies actually show a slight INCREASE in life expectancy, ironically. Cigar use is similar in only mildly higher danger. In both, harm mitigation is partially due to less frequent use (and is rarely addictive in this manner), partially due to lack of harmful processing/additives, and mostly due to not being lung-inhaled (where most of the health damage occurs). Further up the scale is chewing and other oral use (frequency of use is typically greatly increased, outweighing the benefits of the non-inhalation method of consumption). Then comes cigarettes, which are many, many orders of magnitude more dangerous. No use of tobacco is risk free or "safe." But all use is not the same. Consuming only nicotine, however, is a totally different story.
Smoking marijuana is likely to have similar danger/risk factors as smoking cigarettes (on a per use basis), as would [lung] smoking just about anything. The mitigating factors being it is usually consumed way less frequently and is less processed (additives, etc). Consuming only the active ingredients in other ways (pills, food, vaping) would be hugely less risky.
Now I still have issues with people, that say "i never smoked pot, never drank" spouting off on the perceived conceptions in the mind they have, about what is right for everyone.
Again, I hope you are not referring to me, otherwise, you didn't at all read what I wrote. I specifically said "I believe people should be allowed to do anything to or put anything they wish into their bodies- as long as they can give informed consent, it isn't directly harming others, and they are adults." Leading me, again, to ask if you are involved in another straw man argument.
-
max, I wonder if you are naive or just uninformed about the addictive qualities of nicotine? Do a bit of research on the relationship and interactions of nicotine and opioids.
-
max, I wonder if you are naive or just uninformed about the addictive qualities of nicotine? Do a bit of research on the relationship and interactions of nicotine and opioids.
I have researched this stuff far more than you would likely believe. What exactly did I say that makes you think I am uninformed about or "naive"?
Nicotine is not very harmful, and can be very addictive, depending on the individual, and method, speed, and frequency of use. The harmful part of tobacco use is not nicotine, it is most of the other chemicals consumed, especially when combusted, and most especially if inhaled into the lungs.
-
New Year guys....let's not let this degenerate into something I need to lock. Happy New Year.
-
I have researched this stuff far more than you would likely believe. What exactly did I say that makes you think I am uninformed about or "naive"?
Nicotine is not very harmful, and can be very addictive, depending on the individual, and method, speed, and frequency of use. The harmful part of tobacco use is not nicotine, it is most of the other chemicals consumed, especially when combusted, and most especially if inhaled into the lungs.
"Nicotine is not very harmful, and can be very addictive." This statement is in itself makes me think you are confused.
From your reply #4... " Control is important to me and I have no desire to ever be "altered." If you are addicted you are not in control. Is this not harmful by your self-imposed standards?
@Jim... just a discussion...Happy New Year to all.
-
"Nicotine is not very harmful, and can be very addictive." This statement is in itself makes me think you are confused. From your reply #4... " Control is important to me and I have no desire to ever be "altered." If you are addicted you are not in control. Is this not harmful by your self-imposed standards?
Ah, then it is just semantics. Interesting angle, though. When I said "harmful", I was talking about harmful to health, and nothing else. I don't consider addiction, itself (more properly thought of as "dependence") as harmful. Asserting it is would be more of a moral position. There is evidence to support that some athletes become "addicted" to exercise, for example. Dependence can lead to destructive behaviors (like exercising to the point of causing damage to joints and such), but that isn't the same thing as itself causing the damage. It is why I used the example of caffeine- it is also addictive, but in and of itself, not very harmful. Nicotine dependence can be satisfied without the harmful effects that tobacco impose.
But linking it back to my personal desire to maintain control is a good observation. Again, I wasn't talking about control from addiction, but control of my mental perception of reality from being altered. Thus, I have no desire to want to get or be "high", ever, regardless of if a substance is addictive or not. But that is my own moral standard, not one I would impose/enforce on anyone else.
Unfortunately, the human brain is very able (and some might even say "eager") to become addicted to/dependent on many different chemicals (some as outcomes from behaviors).
@Jim... just a discussion...Happy New Year to all.
Indeed!
-
Ah, then it is just semantics. Interesting angle, though. When I said "harmful", I was talking about harmful to health, and nothing else. I don't consider addiction, itself (more properly thought of as "dependence") as harmful. Asserting it is would be more of a moral position. There is evidence to support that some athletes become "addicted" to exercise, for example. Dependence can lead to destructive behaviors (like exercising to the point of causing damage to joints and such), but that isn't the same thing as itself causing the damage. It is why I used the example of caffeine- it is also addictive, but in and of itself, not very harmful. Nicotine dependence can be satisfied without the harmful effects that tobacco impose.
But linking it back to my personal desire to maintain control is a good observation. Again, I wasn't talking about control from addiction, but control of my mental perception of reality from being altered. Thus, I have no desire to want to get or be "high", ever, regardless of if a substance is addictive or not. But that is my own moral standard, not one I would impose/enforce on anyone else.
Unfortunately, the human brain is very able (and some might even say "eager") to become addicted to/dependent on many different chemicals (some as outcomes from behaviors).
Indeed!
So you don't consider mental health and physical health intrinsically bound?
-
So you don't consider mental health and physical health intrinsically bound?
Deep! Yes, there is a relation. But it is difficult to objectify and quantify "mental" health, especially in such cases. Mental health can have many other co-factors and casual relations that link back through time. And what one person might consider healthy, another might consider unhealthy, and conditions can vary wildly. This is why many don't consider psychology a "science" like physical health branches. The mind is the ultimate complexity. I don't believe negative mental health can cause negative physical health, though. But it can lead to making poor choices that, themselves, cause physical harm.
Along the same lines- my mother believes that a positive attitude causes good things to happen. I agreed with some qualifications. It isn't the positive attitude that causes good things to happen, but having a positive attitude leads to better problem solving, better social interactions, more resiliency, and other things that, themselves, lead to more positive outcomes. She means it in more of a direct/spiritual way, as if the positivity physically changes the universe around you in some way. I won't go for that :) I tend to put a more pragmatic view on "karma."
Here is an interesting counter-question: is being "high" (chemically mentally altered) damaging to mental health (in and of itself)? Not an easy question to answer. I would say "it depends" and/or "possibly" because it is too broad of a question.
-
I have friends in their 40's, 50's and 60's who have toked nearly every day for all their adult lives and have no mental issues. They hold down jobs, pay their rent, and are functioning adults.
I know quite a few ex-friends in their 40's, 50's and 60's who do the same but expect the world to provide for them, and will use and abuse those around them to get what they want.
I classify the first as friends and the second as assholes. Whether people toke or not seems to be irrelevant. Assholes are assholes.
On the other hand, 2 of my best friends got themselves addicted to coke and both ended up taking their own lives due to the effect the drug had on their perceptions of reality. One left behind a (separated) wife and 3 children, the other a wife and 4 children.
In my experience, weed makes assholes worse, but has no long term effect on decent people.
Coke makes good, loving, caring people so f**ked up that they end up killing themselves.
Me, I stopped taking any drug other than occasional hit of alcohol over 15 years ago, and have even beaten my nicotine habit now.
My drug of choice now is adrenaline with a side of dopamine every so often. Most call it motorcycling ;D
-
Very well said indeed!
-
I have friends in their 40's, 50's and 60's who have toked nearly every day for all their adult lives and have no mental issues. They hold down jobs, pay their rent, and are functioning adults.
I know quite a few ex-friends in their 40's, 50's and 60's who do the same but expect the world to provide for them, and will use and abuse those around them to get what they want.
I classify the first as friends and the second as assholes. Whether people toke or not seems to be irrelevant. Assholes are assholes.
On the other hand, 2 of my best friends got themselves addicted to coke and both ended up taking their own lives due to the effect the drug had on their perceptions of reality. One left behind a (separated) wife and 3 children, the other a wife and 4 children.
In my experience, weed makes assholes worse, but has no long term effect on decent people.
Coke makes good, loving, caring people so f**ked up that they end up killing themselves.
Me, I stopped taking any drug other than occasional hit of alcohol over 15 years ago, and have even beaten my nicotine habit now.
My drug of choice now is adrenaline with a side of dopamine every so often. Most call it motorcycling ;D
Assholes are assholes, no matter what.
My experience matches yours. If you're an asshole and you smoke weed, you're just an asshole who is now high. If you're an asshole and you're drunk, well, you get the idea.
BUT, in my experience folks who smoke weed do not undergo a personality change as a result of being high. Unlike some people when they drink booze. I'm sure that you all know THAT PERSON who, when drinking, turns into a belligerent asshole, right? My brother is like that but only when he's been drinking rum. If he's been drinking rum, stay out of his face. Better yet, it's time to leave.
-
My experience matches yours. If you're an asshole and you smoke weed, you're just an asshole who is now high. If you're an asshole and you're drunk, well, you get the idea.
That does seem to match my observations, also.
BUT, in my experience folks who smoke weed do not undergo a personality change as a result of being high. Unlike some people when they drink booze. I'm sure that you all know THAT PERSON who, when drinking, turns into a belligerent asshole, right?
Actually, yes. My family (both sides) has a long history with alcoholism. Which is one of many reasons I have never consumed alcohol. My mother, when she drinks, gets belligerent, rude, loud, and says whatever is on her mind (which is usually hurtful). One friend of mine is exactly like my Mom when she drinks. Another friend of mine, he actually gets giddy and quiet, and MORE agreeable. Someone else I knew got violent. Everyone seems to get stupid and uncoordinated, though (I really do not enjoy being around people drinking beyond a very small amount).
I don't have much experience being around people high on marijuana, but from what I have seen, people appear to be just slow, silly, and generally stupid, pretty equally. Never rude or belligerent.
-
That does seem to match my observations, also.
Actually, yes. My family (both sides) has a long history with alcoholism. Which is one of many reasons I have never consumed alcohol. My mother, when she drinks, gets belligerent, rude, loud, and says whatever is on her mind (which is usually hurtful). One friend of mine is exactly like my Mom when she drinks. Another friend of mine, he actually gets giddy and quiet, and MORE agreeable. Someone else I knew got violent. Everyone seems to get stupid and uncoordinated, though (I really do not enjoy being around people drinking beyond a very small amount).
I don't have much experience being around people high on marijuana, but from what I have seen, people appear to be just slow, silly, and generally stupid, pretty equally. Never rude or belligerent.
Would this not be a personality change or maybe just exposes a person as they truly are?
-
That does seem to match my observations, also.
Actually, yes. My family (both sides) has a long history with alcoholism. Which is one of many reasons I have never consumed alcohol. My mother, when she drinks, gets belligerent, rude, loud, and says whatever is on her mind (which is usually hurtful). One friend of mine is exactly like my Mom when she drinks. Another friend of mine, he actually gets giddy and quiet, and MORE agreeable. Someone else I knew got violent. Everyone seems to get stupid and uncoordinated, though (I really do not enjoy being around people drinking beyond a very small amount).
I don't have much experience being around people high on marijuana, but from what I have seen, people appear to be just slow, silly, and generally stupid, pretty equally. Never rude or belligerent.
There's a HUGE difference between the way some people act when they're high vs the way some act when they're drunk.
You will never hear of someone smoking a bunch of weed (only) and then beating up their wife and/or their kids. Booze is a different story altogether.
-
Would this not be a personality change or maybe just exposes a person as they truly are?
Yeah, that makes total sense G. Their true personality is hidden away till they get high? I think that maybe you had better try some yourself and see...
-
Actually it could be both. As none of us here are researchers into that kind of thing it would be difficult to speculate how alcohol or drugs affect personalities. I've seen perfectly good intelligent people turn into complete aholes after drinking. Can't say I've seen that with MJ, though. Could affect different areas of the brane.
-
. Could affect different areas of the brane.
8)
That is correct.... alcohol directly seeks the part of the brain, where "aggression" lives, the pre-frontal lobes... where the "decision making" as to be violent, or passive (again, I say "decision") comes from... so the signals from the Amygdala to the lobe, are "hyper exaggerated"...
THC does "it's thing", mid brain, and associated receptors mainly, and "buffers", or reduces the hyper effects, slowing down the nuro transmitting, so violence is not an outcome, and the brain's happy zones (Hypothalamus) can abound, (dopamine, and Oxytocin, and Vasopressin)
PFL's and ElectroShock therapy was the "common" cure for aggressive behavior in institutions 50 years ago.. :'( :'(
https://www.quora.com/What-part-of-the-brain-controls-emotions-and-how (https://www.quora.com/What-part-of-the-brain-controls-emotions-and-how)
-
Yeah, that makes total sense G. Their true personality is hidden away till they get high? I think that maybe you had better try some yourself and see...
Conrad, you have no idea who I am, where I've been, what I've done or not done in life but here you are deciding what you believe would be in my best interest. Typical. If you want to smoke dope, do heroin, drink yourself in oblivion knock yourself out but your sanctimonious attitude wearing thin.
-
let's play nice, I find this discussion very interesting... mellowwwwww....
-
That does seem to match my observations, also.
Actually, yes. My family (both sides) has a long history with alcoholism. Which is one of many reasons I have never consumed alcohol. My mother, when she drinks, gets belligerent, rude, loud, and says whatever is on her mind (which is usually hurtful). One friend of mine is exactly like my Mom when she drinks. Another friend of mine, he actually gets giddy and quiet, and MORE agreeable. Someone else I knew got violent. Everyone seems to get stupid and uncoordinated, though (I really do not enjoy being around people drinking beyond a very small amount).
I don't have much experience being around people high on marijuana, but from what I have seen, people appear to be just slow, silly, and generally stupid, pretty equally. Never rude or belligerent.
Would this not be a personality change or maybe just exposes a person as they truly are?
Yeah, that makes total sense G. Their true personality is hidden away till they get high? I think that maybe you had better try some yourself and see...
Conrad, you have no idea who I am, where I've been, what I've done or not done in life but here you are deciding what you believe would be in my best interest. Typical. If you want to smoke dope, do heroin, drink yourself in oblivion knock yourself out but your sanctimonious attitude wearing thin.
Are you replying to what I wrote above or to something else? I'm a bit confused because of your overaction. Where did I imply that I knew who you are, where you've been, or what you've done or not done in your life? And just how in the hell do you come up with thinking that I'm trying to decide what's in your best interest?
From this? "Yeah, that makes total sense G. Their true personality is hidden away till they get high? I think that maybe you had better try some yourself and see..." :o
-
Are you replying to what I wrote above or to something else?
Same thing I was asking MOB, earlier. I was (still am) confused.
From this? "Yeah, that makes total sense G. Their true personality is hidden away till they get high? I think that maybe you had better try some yourself and see..." :o
Well, that won't work. Can't exactly observe one's own personality when reason is altered. Might as well ask someone blindfolded to describe a unknown photograph. That is one problem with all mind-altering drugs (of which alcohol very much is one)- most users users simply have no grasp as to how altered or incapacitated they are. It is through sober observation of others, and outcomes, that such realizations can be made.
I made a logical argument with someone, before- so exactly what is "drunk"? At what point of being altered does it pass from non-drunk to drunk (as if there is some line in the sand)? He couldn't answer that question in any reasonable way.
-
Oooh, ooooh, this is really getting good now..
Drunk
adjective. [/size]being[/color][/size] in a temporary state in which one's physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink; intoxicated: The wine made him [/color][/size]drunk[/color][/size]. overcome or dominated by a strong feeling or emotion: [/color][/size]drunk[/color][/size] with power; [/color][/size]drunk[/color][/size] with joy.[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Personally I think impairment starts with the first drink regardless of what the drinker thinks, at least with me it does.[/color]
-
"in a temporary state in which one's physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink"
Dictionaries often use words that are not concrete to define other words that are not concrete. In this case the word "excess" is key. If we can't define at what point drunk is, how do we define what "excess" is?
Personally I think impairment starts with the first drink regardless of what the drinker thinks, at least with me it does.
It does. I tend to think the word "drunk" is pretty much meaningless for many purposes.
-
drunk
VERB
past participle of drink.
-
I was going to add more to that post but something shiny caught my eye and my concentration wavered and left..
I think drunk is in the eye of the breathalyzer. My version of drunk is that my wife has to drive me home or the room is spinning around when I try to go to sleep.
-
I think drunk is in the eye of the breathalyzer.
Even that isn't very meaningful. Like with all drugs, people react differently to them and they can build tolerance. So an [estimated] blood concentration [based on exhaled gases] doesn't really measure actual impairment. What might be trashed for one person might be only mild for someone else. Ironically, field sobriety tests, although subjective, are more meaningful in that regard. What is really needed is an objective measurement of actual impairment- perhaps a standardized machine that can measure hand-eye coordination and reaction time. That also means it would be useful no matter what the drug or situation.
My version of drunk is[...] the room is spinning around when I try to go to sleep.
Since I have vertigo (BPPV), I can experience that with no drug needed, assuming the crystals in my inner ear decide to be in the wrong place. Thank God for the Epley maneuver.
-
"Drunk" is usually defined by the what the person in question is doing.... such as driving. Or at least the consequences of 'being drunk'. And of course, the numbers are rather arbitrary but hey, they have to set the line somewhere. Drunk driving in the US is usually defined as 0.08% blood alcohol content, unless one possesses a commercial driver's license (CDL), at which point drunk occurs at 0.04% BAL (even if driving a regular car that does NOT require a CDL in the first place). The FAA claims that a commercial pilot is drunk also at 0.04% but adds the additional restriction that the pilot cannot have consumed ANY alcohol w/in the 8 hours before going on duty (not actually flying).
As I said, someone has to set a somewhat arbitrary line somewhere that hopefully makes sense. And it all depends on what society (or at least those setting the rules) whats to define and how draconian they are- after all, one could make a reasonably valid argument that one should not operate machinery, perform surgery, etc., etc. with any detectable amount of a debilitating substance in him / her. I am not suggesting that, merely saying that it could be reasonably be argued as a rational position.
Honestly, at this time, I believe cell phones and young people having little- to- no respect for or awareness of their surrounds while driving poses a bigger problem than probably all the state altering drugs of all types in drivers. It is frankly amazing to me to watch how cavalier some young people, and it seems to be more females than males in my own observations, drive as though they were the only ones in the world to do so- honestly, doing 40+ MPH in a parking lot, between rows of cars and pedestrians...... how did you think that was going to turn out?
Gallagher had it right decades ago: the manufactures of cars should take the airbag out from the driver's steering wheel and replace it with a machete. It would not solve the problem but it would assure the major damage almost always arrives in the correct location. ;D but only sorta'
Brian
<snip>
I think drunk is in the eye of the breathalyzer.
<snip>
-
...
The FAA claims that a commercial pilot is drunk also at 0.04% but adds the additional restriction that the pilot cannot have consumed ANY alcohol w/in the 8 hours before going on duty (not actually flying).
Mostly correct, except that it's any licensed pilot. Or any licensed pilot with a current medical. Or any licensed pilot with a current medical, and/or any required flight crew member. Three basic groups of pilots. Private (me), Commercial (can fly for compensation), ATP (the big iron guys and gals)
Further, any required crew member can refuse carriage of any passenger for any reason that may compromise safety of flight. Sounds simple and prudent; but there have been "administrative reviews", and loss of pilot privileges. Let's say someone sparked a fat one, got the munchies, went to the kitchen to grab a bag of Cheetos. On the way, fell and broke both legs and an arm. EMT arrives in 7 minutes, "Flight for Life" requested. Chopper pilot lands, says nope, patient is in a state of diminished mental capacity. Haul him/her off the mountain in an ox cart.
It HAS happened, but now these patients have to be under care of a flight surgeon or nurse, and reasonable procedures have to be in place to prevent the zonie from interfering with the flight.
Which begs the question, how did Keith Richards or Joe Cocker ever get on a plane?
Rick
-
They probably flew in 'private' aircraft for the most part. But then again, in the past it wasn't under the scrutiny that is present now.
-
Well, my point was (is) that there are basically arbitrary rules set because we need a solid, definable, repeatable and testable line or quantity for society to function well. Or at least reasonably well.
Just like speed limits: why 60 MPH and not 65 MPH? No reason really, but again someone or some agency had to choose an absolute number to eliminate the endless arguments in court as to the definition of speeding or every single case of DUI would be an open- ended debate about exactly what 'drunk' is.
Back to the topic: I do have a question though.... is there even a threshold for the level of cannabis consumption or it is simply any amount with an LEO claiming the driver is 'impaired'?
Brian
Mostly correct, except that it's any licensed pilot. Or any licensed pilot with a current medical. Or any licensed pilot with a current medical, and/or any required flight crew member. Three basic groups of pilots. Private (me), Commercial (can fly for compensation), ATP (the big iron guys and gals)
<snip>
Rick
-
Well, my point was (is) that there are basically arbitrary rules set because we need a solid, definable, repeatable and testable line or quantity for society to function well. Or at least reasonably well.
Back to the topic: I do have a question though.... is there even a threshold for the level of cannabis consumption or it is simply any amount with an LEO claiming the driver is 'impaired'?
Brian
Yes.
Each state that has entered into the "legality" zone, and sets the limit, of what is "considered" influenced.. just like alcohol in some respects; I have to check Ohio, but I did see "figures" noted when I looked at Illinois, and also Canada statutes.
it varies by state (or country/province, i.e. Canada), but is measured in nanograms/ microlitre of blood (or urine),at the time of "suspicion", and companies are now trying to "create" a reliable breath test...(good luck with that one..), so physical blood (urine) tests are required.
update, here is Ohio's
https://norml.org/legal/item/ohio-drugged-driving
-
In the UK we get a breath test at the side of the road.
If you blow more than 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath, then you get a free ride to the Police station where they either use a calibrated, certified breath-test, or you can opt for a blood test (80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood).
Once confirmed as over the limit you are considered to be driving impaired and are instantly banned from driving. Once it goes to court, depending on the circumstances and how drunk you were, the driving ban will be extended to 12 months (minimum) and can be extended up to 5 years. You will almost certainly also get a large fine and could get time in jail if anyone got hurt, or if it's not your first DWI.
The law doesn't care if you have developed a tolerance or not, nor does it care if you were actually impaired or not.
You should not be drinking AT ALL prior to driving.
The only reason for the 80mg minimum is that some people can have a naturally high blood alcohol level.
In the EU the limit is 50 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.
The penalties vary from country to country, but some give a 1 year driving ban on 1st offence and a lifetime driving ban on a 2nd offence.
I don't know the guidelines for drug-driving, but they are AT LEAST as stringent as those for drink-driving.
-
Tried to get some weed from my normal source, my buddy who has a medical card. He's at the medical dispensary right at this moment. Sold out of flower!
It figures. Illinois makes weed legal for recreational use and now medical patients can't get any. This is the first time in years that I wanted to get some and was unable to do so.
And no, I'm not going to drive for 45 minutes and then wait in a line for two hours at the recreational weed dispensary. Oh well.
-
Tried to get some weed from my normal source, my buddy who has a medical card. He's at the medical dispensary right at this moment. Sold out of flower!
It figures. Illinois makes weed legal for recreational use and now medical patients can't get any. This is the first time in years that I wanted to get some and was unable to do so.
And no, I'm not going to drive for 45 minutes and then wait in a line for two hours at the recreational weed dispensary. Oh well.
hehehehh
yeah, I figured that would happen, just as I say happened here....
Interesting discussion,
Ohio has finally given the green light to Medical use, which requires a doctor to apply for a card for patient use, and the clinics are open and operating here, for the last year. Problem was, the "supply" was regulated, and had to come from in state sources/growers, that were licensed... well, that created a long backlog to build a supply. A couple years back, Ohio "tried" to push thru a total decriminalization bill, so to cover both medical, and recreational use; that didn't work because the jist of the bill created an oligarchy of business people, with deep pockets, that controlled the grow houses. Again, they had to be state approved, and licensed.
-
I have been there!