By Ian Stewart
Nov 9, 2012
| I've already obviously painted myself as a pot smoker, but I'm a little disappointed by some of the other 'stoner' responses in here. Nick doesn't want to be around pot, and that's a completely valid decision to make. Why are you guys making it seem like he's anti-pot just because he doesn't like it? I always make sure to ask non-smokers around me before I light up if it bothers them...if it does, I try to go elsewhere or at least make sure they're not downwind of me. I loathe the smell of cigarettes and appreciate when I don't have to smell it just because it's somebody else's "right". My wife doesn't like pot, or my breath after smoking, so I'll do it outside or in the garage and chew some gum afterwards. There's a difference between having the right to do something and it being an acceptable thing to do. Everybody has the right to be a gay hating racist, but that doesn't make it OK, does it?
Also, just because pot is legal does not mean that your employer needs to allow it. If you show up to work on the influence of drugs and your employers decides to do a drug test and let you go, no law is going to protect you, just like showing up drunk probably won't fly, either. | 
FLAG |
By NickinCO
From Westminster, CO
Nov 9, 2012
| Ian Stewart wrote: I've already obviously painted myself as a pot smoker, but I'm a little disappointed by some of the other 'stoner' responses in here. Nick doesn't want to be around pot, and that's a completely valid decision to make. Why are you guys making it seem like he's anti-pot just because he doesn't like it? I always make sure to ask non-smokers around me before I light up if it bothers them...if it does, I try to go elsewhere or at least make sure they're not downwind of me. I loathe the smell of cigarettes and appreciate when I don't have to smell it just because it's somebody else's "right". My wife doesn't like pot, or my breath after smoking, so I'll do it outside or in the garage and chew some gum afterwards. There's a difference between having the right to do something and it being an acceptable thing to do. Everybody has the right to be a gay hating racist, but that doesn't make it OK, does it? Also, just because pot is legal does not mean that your employer needs to allow it. If you show up to work on the influence of drugs and your employers decides to do a drug test and let you go, no law is going to protect you, just like showing up drunk probably won't fly, either.
100% of the people I've met climbing have shared your viewpoint and have been very cool by either sitting far enough away, talking a walk, etc. So no worries, internet muscles are being flexed here =) |
FLAG |
By 20 kN
From Hawaii
Nov 11, 2012
| camhead wrote: Also, how are WA and CO going to deal with prisoners incarcerated for breaking former STATE (not federal) laws, especially for small-time possession?
That one is easy. They stay in jail (or whatever their sentence was). As you may or may not know, until early 2012 it was actually against the law to be gay while serving in the military. You wouldent get thrown in the brig for it, but anyone who was found to be gay was automatically kicked out of the military. Well recently the military lifted that law and now you can be gay while serving in the military and not get into trouble. So of course once the news got out, everyone who got the boot for being gay wanted some time in court to get their sentence vacated. The judges' response: "It was illegal when you committed the offense, and you knew it was illegal, end of story." The law is not going to care that smoking pot is legal now, all that matters is that it was illegal when the offenders got caught, so I doubt anyone will get their sentence vacated over the new law. |
FLAG |
By Mike McKinnon
From Golden, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Lynn S wrote: A majority of the people I work with started their using "career" with pot, just saying... Most moved on to other stuff but many are still trying to overcome their addiction to the hippie lettuce.
Alcohol is the gateway drug not weed. Think back to all the drugs you tried - you were probably drunk. In any case , alcohol encourages more reckless behavior than weed that is for sure. |
FLAG |
By Kirk Miller
From Golden, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| We've legalized it.
How will we sell it? Liquor stores (pot shops)? Tea houses (smoking dens)?
Will clubs have smoking areas? ...call them Tea Party rooms.
Will Colorado and Washington become Amsterdams of the US?
How will we advertise it?
How big will the economic impact of Marijuana tourism be?
What will Marijuana tourism look like?
Inquiring minds want to know! |
FLAG |
By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Kirk Miller wrote: We've legalized it. How will we sell it? Liquor stores (pot shops)? Tea houses (smoking dens)? Will clubs have smoking areas?
Four types of licenses will be issued: Retail pot shops (similar to liquor stores); cultivation facilities (mostly warehouse grows); processing and edibles-making facilities; and testing facilities.
If you're registered to vote in CO, you most likely received a little blue book in the mail a month or two ago. That outlines the basics of the law very well.
Kirk wrote: Will Colorado and Washington become Amsterdams of the US? How will we advertise it? How big will the economic impact of Marijuana tourism be? What will Marijuana tourism look like? Inquiring minds want to know!
Only time will tell with these issues. I doubt a lot of people will fly to CO/WA just to get some herb considering how accessible it is in most states. But I think people that like to smoke marijuana that live within driving distance of CO/WA borders will most definitely be making regular trips to CO to stock up. It will be interesting to see how each state handles people coming into retail pot shops with out-of-state IDs. My guess is that they will be served, but told they are not allowed to leave the state with it. I'm sure states like ID, UT, AZ, OK, KS, NE, and WY are decidedly un-psyched about this. NM and OR will probably not be quite as concerned given their political and social persuasions, but that's purely a guess on my part. |
FLAG |
By J Q
Nov 11, 2012
| Tony B wrote: How about 600 ug of acid? (5 hard hits) It might dissolve the ego a bit. If it is a little much and scares you or makes you over emotional... well, that probably says a lot about you, but very little about the properties of LSD, and certainly nothing about me.
I totally agree. I didn't want to flame the fire too much but you have a completely valid point:
You can't really trust someone who has never used those parts of their mind. |
FLAG |
By handon broward
From Rochester, NY / Aspen, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Jonhy Q wrote: I totally agree. I didn't want to flame the fire too much but you have a completely valid point: You can't really trust someone who has never used those parts of their mind.
I 100% agree with you. It is pretty obvious that most people who have posted in this thread have very little real world exposure to drug culture. And no im not talking about lighting up with your friends once a month. The culture that surrounds pot and drugs like LSD or shrooms is not even close to anything most of you assume to know. These preconcieved notions that you are all knowing of drugs because of what you have read and heard from others is laughable at best. The most intelligent, successful and well rounded people I know are ones who have used copious amounts of drugs and have experimented with almost anything and everything at least once. Not the squares who have maintained their elitist holier than thou im better than you because I never touched drugs attitude for their whole life. You are not better, smarter or more likely to be successful than "those users" you look down on. In fact, I would bet that most of them make more money, have better, more true friends and climb harder than most of you ever will. You will never know what something is like until you try it. And yet you think your ignorance provides you a better position to pass judgement. Get out there and get exposed.
Lastly, I am psyched for 64. Not only does it legalize a drug that is less harmful than any other, it symnolizes our government starting to move in the right direction and seeing things in a realistic perspective. Bout fuckin time. Lets hope the movement sparks other states to do the same.
Now go find your best friend and spark that J. Thats what friends are for. |
FLAG |
By Mike McKinnon
From Golden, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Jonhy Q wrote: I totally agree. I didn't want to flame the fire too much but you have a completely valid point: You can't really trust someone who has never used those parts of their mind.
I always maintained this world would be a better place if everyone did ecstasy at least once in their life.
Talk about making you feel like you are part of something bigger |
FLAG |
By handon broward
From Rochester, NY / Aspen, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Mike McKinnon wrote: I always maintained this world would be a better place if everyone did ecstasy at least once in their life. Talk about making you feel like you are part of something bigger
I like to call that the "ant perspective" theory. Like whoa, man.
But seriously. I feell ya. |
FLAG |
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Brandon Howard wrote: I 100% agree with you. It is pretty obvious that most people who have posted in this thread have very little real world exposure to drug culture. And no im not talking about lighting up with your friends once a month. The culture that surrounds pot and drugs like LSD or shrooms is not even close to anything most of you assume to know.
So Brandon,
Which group am I in, since you are saying what most people here have or have not done? I refuse to climb with people who are altered... |
FLAG |
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Kirk Miller wrote: What will Marijuana tourism look like? Inquiring minds want to know!
Concrete floor, steel bars, fancy uniforms on short men. |
FLAG |
By handon broward
From Rochester, NY / Aspen, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Tony B wrote: So Brandon, Which group am I in, since you are saying what most people here have or have not done? I refuse to climb with people who are altered...
Im not sayon you gotta climb with people while theyre altered. Thats your own decision not to and probably a safe/smart one. I agree with you. Trying to belay while tripping balls would probably lead to death. In no way am I advocating climbing while on drugs. You wanna have a few beers or toke up beforehand fine but I probably wouldn't get on a rope with you. But climbing on heavy drugs probably = yer gonna die. |
FLAG |
By Jon Zucco
From Denver, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Mike McKinnon wrote: I always maintained this world would be a better place if everyone did ecstasy at least once in their life. Talk about making you feel like you are part of something bigger
I'm not saying that I haven't done my fair share of psychotropic & psychedelic drugs, but you don't have to be in an altered state to realize and appreciate the vast nature of the universe.
In my opinion, we are talking about perspective and yes, maybe for some people, drugs can force them into the now, into seeing more. For for others, drugs just aren't needed; they can naturally see and feel the unity and vastness that is time and space.
I'll agree that drugs break the patterns and thought processes formed by societal habits; the daily grind, but meditation can serve as an equally (if not more) potent form of transcendence.
I see a lot of folks using drugs as a part of their daily habit... This, in my opinion, is where drugs become a hindrance to enlightenment and awareness of one's self and the universe as a whole. Some become reliant on the drug and adopt it as just another part of the pattern that keeps their ego indulged and unchecked. In reality, we do not need anything but to look within for freedom. I feel like some people are just escaping reality by doing drugs instead of using them as a tool to further understand it.
Drugs can be a blessing for some (they open new doors to new thoughts and perspectives) and a terrible barrier for others (a crutch that could serve to keep them in one room, so to speak).
But, I'll say again, I am glad that this passed. It shows how mature we are becoming about our priorities as a nation: MJ just isn't worth all the fuss/costs it's been causing in the legal and correctional arena... In fact, it's a cash crop, and could really help this economy out if regulated correctly.
But don't ever belay me if you're too high to do it safely. |
FLAG |
By frankstoneline
Nov 11, 2012
| Jonhy Q wrote: I personally feel that everyone over the age of 25 should be exposed to Marijuana smoke at least every five years to keep society from being close minded, bigoted, and subscribing to ideologies that are complete nonsense. Those who vehemently oppose THC and have not had their bi-centennial THC checkup need only one thing: to not be taken seriously. If your bodies chemistry rejects THC and it makes you paranoid and retarded, that probably says a lot about you, but very little about the properties of THC, and certainly nothing about me. How about this as an analogy: when I smoke THC it is not hurting you, except perhaps your feelings, and those I don't give a flying fuxx about. It hurts my feelings to see people defend their psychotic behavior through religion, yet this happens. I am not asking religion to be banned, though it is obviously one of the most destructive forces over the last thousand years, way more so than THC. Man, I hate free thinking. Kind of like I hate hippies.
|
FLAG |
By Sir Wanksalot
From County Jail
Nov 11, 2012
| Dude said wrote: if you know of a better kind of flesh to pair with bath salts, please, let me know.
NickinCO wrote: someone once told me... the blacker the berry the sweeter the juice hahaha
Dude... That is effing racist! So stoners, gays and blacks?
Edit added |
FLAG |
By Jon Zucco
From Denver, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Randy W. wrote: Dude... That is effing racist! So you hate stoners, gays and blacks?
The way you process information is interesting, if not somewhat baffling, and no; I don't hate anyone! Not even you. |
FLAG |
By Sir Wanksalot
From County Jail
Nov 11, 2012
| Jon Zucco wrote: The way you process information is interesting, if not somewhat baffling, and no; I don't hate anyone! Not even you.
I wasn't referring to your comment. I used it for context quoting nick. How do you hate through the interwebs... Can't really hate anyone you haven't met, right? |
FLAG |
By Marc H
From Lafayette, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Randy W. wrote: Can't really hate anyone you haven't met, right?
I've never met Rex Ryan, but... |
FLAG |
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Brandon Howard wrote: Im not sayon you gotta climb with people while theyre altered. Thats your own decision not to and probably a safe/smart one. I agree with you. Trying to belay while tripping balls would probably lead to death. In no way am I advocating climbing while on drugs. You wanna have a few beers or toke up beforehand fine but I probably wouldn't get on a rope with you. But climbing on heavy drugs probably = yer gonna die.
Thanks. My actual point was that a lot of people here who are against climbing while altered seem to be misread as people who are straight edges. I think a lot of people who have a lot of experience doing a lot of things are discrete. That's how they stay out of trouble. I prefer to be ready for something to go terribly wrong to my party or one near by, when I am climbing. It has happened and I can't imagine doing a rescue with a buzz on. But that level of capacity is what I promise a partner when I say 'on belay' so it's not for me. Have I ever climbed stoned? 20 years ago in college a pal and I went and did about 50 pitches in a day poaching TR's at Devil's lake, baked... yes. I had the experience and it was fun. I'm not sure I'd bother doing it again.
When I'm not sober and people suggest one thing or another to me that 'sounds like fun' my normal response is: "I don't think that's for me right now."
Some old pals and I used to be in a lot of interesting situations with interesting people. Once in the middle of an absolute giggle fest about everything, he points out something that someone should not be doing and asks if I should stop it. "I'm in no condition to be talking to anyone else about their behavior right now." He looked on for a second and turns to me, looks straight in the eye, feigns a shudder, breathes deeply and says:
"I want to tell you my secret now..."
(OK?)
"I see dumb people... walking around with regular people. They only see what they want to see.
"They don't even know that they are dumb."
(The 6th Element: "I see Dead People")
I guess that was where I was headed with that.
In any case, I'm not sure I'd go as far as you went towards paining psychedelic users as being top tier, but I would say that no tier of society is without them. It certainly doesn't DQ anyone from being top tier. As a sober GF of mine once said when I told her about my history: "You know, it's not for me, but most of the highly intelligent people I know have at least tried a lot of that stuff... I think it is their natural curiosity and intelligence that makes it attractive to them, and their composure that keeps them from being afraid of it."
So call us 75% in agreement. |
FLAG |
By tenpins
Nov 11, 2012
| Micahisaac wrote: I voted for Colorado constitutional amendment 64 BECAUSE I'm right wing. Does that blow your mind? It shouldn't.
Im glad to see that. What with all the "get guvment out of our lives" from the right, their argument falls apart when it comes to stuff like this. government or no government. No a la carte |
FLAG |
By NickinCO
From Westminster, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| Randy W. wrote: I wasn't referring to your comment. I used it for context quoting nick. How do you hate through the interwebs... Can't really hate anyone you haven't met, right?
Funny because that is a tupac quote LOL |
FLAG |
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Nov 11, 2012
| tenpins wrote: Im glad to see that. What with all the "get guvment out of our lives" from the right, their argument falls apart when it comes to stuff like this. government or no government. No a la carte
It's just like the people on the left. They are pro-federal on most stuff, and argue against states rights issues... until this one comes up.
Both parties are generally issue oriented and unprincipled in their reasoning. They take the arguements they like and include them where they feel it suits them.
It was the Democrats/Liberals who supported the notion of eminent domain forietures for corporations being justified under the banner of 'increased tax revenue' in the case of Kelo Vs New London. The conservatives were against it.
Everyone has their pet issue and price I guess. |
FLAG |
By Ryan Williams
Administrator
From London (sort of)
Nov 11, 2012
| Tony B wrote: Both parties are generally issue oriented and unprincipled in their reasoning. They take the arguements they like and include them where they feel it suits them.
Ahh - reading that was like a breath of fresh air. |
FLAG |
|
RSS Feed
