2014 Colorado and Marijuana

David Sahalie wrote:this article from drug war LOSER William Bennett is good for a laugh cnn.com/2014/01/16/opinion/…

Certainly some of his points are debatable, but some of what he says is true; i.e., some portion of people who use pot are dependent ("addicted" is not a great word; too emotionally charged) just as some portion of people who drink are alcohol-dependent. But do we want to go back to prohibition? I don't think so.

There are trade-offs for everything. The question is not whether pot is "good" or "bad" (it's neither and it's both depending on the specific context); the question is whether we are willing to accept some level of definite negative consequences in exchange for some level of presumed benefits.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Edit part 2: And another thing. NIH research is bullshit? Yes, you need to do more research on the nature of research.

He probably didn't realize that about 1/2 of the studies he cited were NIH funded...
Should we cut him some slack?

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Certainly some of his points are debatable, but some of what he says is true; i.e., some portion of people who use pot are dependent ("addicted" is not a great word; too emotionally charged) just as some portion of people who drink are alcohol-dependent.

And furthermore that there are experiential corollaries that are predictive of which sub-groups are more likely to form a dependency. Those sub groups are small (3% ish if I recall correctly) but they are there. There are also some withdraw symptoms for some folks that others do not experience even given the same use.

Again, I voted to legalize it, and I am glad they did. And I'd like to see pretty much all of the hallucinogenics legalized, as little harm as they do compared to the harm of the war on drugs.

But the BS has got to stop. It encourages people dismiss or ignore rational data...

D.Buffum wrote: The only disagreement I have with this comment...

Well said. And I agree with your disagreement about the word "presumed". There are some clear benefits, as you mention, some not so clear.

For example, you bring up "incarceration and gang violence", which, the argument goes, will be reduced with the lifting of prohibition. Incarceration will certainly go down, which in and of itself is a huge benefit. For-profit prisons are just plain screwy. A major reduction in gang violence, though, would require everyone to be on board: all the states, the feds, and most particularly, our friends to the south.

Another potential issue is that of taxation. Here the argument is that this would be a free-for-all for local/state/national governments. It may or may not work out, but here in Colorado, there seems to be concerns about just covering the extra expense of regulating the stuff and, potentially, on a larger scale, covering the myriad costs related to abuse. You can't make a one-to-one comparison of pot to alcohol -- alcohol is an entirely different beast in many ways -- but it's worth noting that for every $1 the US government collects in alcohol-related taxes, it's been estimated that they spend ~$9 to clean up the mess.

I guess we'll see. Or not depending on how things go.

Edit: I voted to legalize as well. It just doesn't make sense not to given the pretty compelling arguments that alcohol is worse in many ways than pot. And I like beer.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Certainly some of his points are debatable, but some of what he says is true; i.e., some portion of people who use pot are dependent ("addicted" is not a great word; too emotionally charged) just as some portion of people who drink are alcohol-dependent. But do we want to go back to prohibition? I don't think so. There are trade-offs for everything. The question is not whether pot is "good" or "bad" (it's neither and it's both depending on the specific context); the question is whether we are willing to accept some level of definite negative consequences in exchange for some level of presumed benefits.

Nope you are wrong on the "people who use pot are dependent"
Change that to "people who use pot are enlightened"

And yes pot is "good" with no "bad" but then again how could you know. I have been a friend of pot for 46 years and know far more than you could ever learn given your <0 (less than zero) starting point. But we need people here that are wrong. Otherwise it would be just too one sided. Yup you don't know much.

Doug Pederson SpectateSwamp wrote: Nope you are wrong on the "people who use pot are dependent" Change that to "people who use pot are enlightened"

Too bad you misquoted him or you might have a point, but since you are fighting a straw man, you don't. reread what he said and if you feel the need to quote someone, please consider not chopping out key words.

Also, in refelection, your quote might be better phrased like his:
"SOME people who use pot are enlightened."
Others are just deluded.

Doug Pederson SpectateSwamp wrote: And yes pot is "good" with no "bad" but then again how could you know.

I'm OK with pot, its the stoner religion I can't stand. To answer your question (which ended with a period) "same way you would, and a lot more ways besides." since he has more information and not a singular point of view. Did you ever think to ask him about his own experiences... or perhaps what he does for a living?

And to address your assertion that it is "good" with no "bad"
Do you mean to say that there is no cost when a person drives on that shit and kills people? That's just "good" and not ever "bad?"
I guess the people in the other car "had it coming?" or something?
EVERY intoxicant has a downside at some level. To say otherwise is fool-hardy and laughable. I have no idea why I am bothering to talk with someone who would even say it, other than a public scolding...

Impressed by the level of discourse.

Tony, this should clear up any doubt you have about the magic qualities of the sacred herb:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T2LeYdA52U

David Sahalie wrote: Tony, this should clear up any doubt you have about the magic qualities of the sacred herb:

^^^ Giggle... thanks.
Perfect parody of "I'm OK with pot, its the stoner religion I can't stand."

Why we won this war!

The Stoners fought with their hearts, cash and freedom for the Greatest plant on this Planet. THC has been called the Cinderella Molecule for good reason.

Only the Pot heads knew how incredible this plant is and resisted the greatest misinformation / propaganda campaign ever. But we didn't relent. Many were brainwashed and now they are starting to come around. If Governments would lie about such an important Medicine what else would they misinform us about. Everything.

The Bad Guys spent Trillions of Dollars and Our side doubled that. That's why some of us are poor. If we could have grown our own. We'd have a ton of money stashed away.

This war was fought and won for the Marijuana Plant and all the future generations who are smart enough to partake in it's blessing. Rejoice.

Watch this DEA agent shit his diapers about the legalization:
reason.com/blog/2014/01/17/…

Doug Pederson SpectateSwamp wrote: The Bad Guys spent Trillions of Dollars and Our side doubled that. That's why some of us are poor.

Again, I supported the legalization and all, but I think maybe some of you are poor because you are bad at math or have a hard time grasping reality.
Neither the collective you, nor anyone else, "doubled" any "trillions of dollars" in this effort.
Smoke them if you got them, but as I said before, the BS has got to stop - it gives a bad impression of the community.

Tony, that guy's account is a week old.
Amendment 64 passed with 55%. I would bet the smoker's share of that is maybe 2-3% at best. What the People really voted for here was to:

• End the always failed policy of prohibition; and with it the incentive for organized crime (The Libertarian aspect)
• Bring in some revenues (The Progressive aspect).

This is what an educated populace can produce when being allowed to form an opinion based on the logical evidence available.

Here in CO, there were no media blitzes throwing hyperbole around scattershot, no 'that side is evil' divisive horseshit. What there was was Mason Tvert fighting the good fight, getting his message out in print and on the airwaves every chance he could.

There was plenty of anti-64 pressure floating around, the Denver Post editorials, Chickenpooper, basically every elected official.

The 2 major political paradigms are against this all the way. And they will keep working to subvert this. The D's are more crafty, being populists they see the 55% as nothing to disregard. However, the re-assertion of the 10th Amendment is something they will not ultimately go with out a fight. The GOP still believes in legislating morality (which by enacting into laws means ultimately at the point of a gun), but their advisers are pleading with the SoCons to lay low so they can regain power. If they ever do, prohibition will come back in force.

So what to watch out for:
Arranged high-profile busts at the borders with other states. Same with our airports.
'Studies' showing how use among the children is skyrocketing
'Studies' claiming harmful health effects, suddenly realized.
Tax-evasion prosecutions.

Don't forget, the liquor/beer industry has a dog in this fight and $$$ to help.

To anyone driving towards Colorado from a neighboring state: Don't give the police a stupid reason to pull you over, and don't carry any cash.

Law enforcement is upset about this new law because it will undercut their ability to seize assets from citizens (usually without even charging them with a crime). Asset forfeiture has long been a cash cow for law enforcement budgets. Thankfully, we have reached the beginning of the end of those days.

The other reason law enforcement is upset is rather obvious. Who would you rather get paid to arrest, somebody with a joint or a violent criminal?

VaGenius wrote: Now, everyone toke up and pity me because I woke up at 5 am and packed to go climbing today. Also did the dishes before the sun came up. That kind of action isn't common among "bruthas of tha treez". Kudos to those who function well while faded. I wasn't one of those after a while.

Goody Two Shoes you are. Many of Our Pot Warriors are wasting away in a jail cell. You got paranoid and scared like many of us or are lying

Glad you liked the T-Shirts

VaGenius wrote:Paranoid and scared? "Us"? You couldn't be more off. But that kind of childish fear response fits pretty well with my categorization of a large chunk of potheads as unevolved adolescents, who easily could become paranoid and scared because they felt they were doing something wrong. I never did. I smoked openly, frequently, and successfully. I went to Amsterdam and found I'd had better weed in the green room of the 930 club in DC with some tour buddies. I smoked six bowls before onsighting my first 5.10. Weed may be keeping you in paranoia and fear, and for sure bad taste in t shirt art, but all it was doing for me after a decade was interfering with alpine starts and my ability to be focused and accountable. I made more money selling weed than I ever have in a legal career, so selling out isn't a reality-based accusation either. Some of us just move on. Google Warren Hollinger and see what the best aid climber on the planet did when it was time to change gears. Might be enlightening. Or interfere with reruns of Alf. Depends on your preoccupation, methinks. And I will pass on to the community at large that they are now to refer to me as Goody Two Shoes or The Artist Formerly Known As VaGenius. Because I do dishes and pack gear, y'all. Overachiever that I am...

I couldn't be more ON.

There is no paranoia where Pot is legal. None. I almost quit a couple times because my heart was beating so fast from the paranoia. Eventually one gets really good at handling paranoia and it is almost a measure of the quality.

You quit because you didn't want to lose your future life and were afraid of that (I can't blame you for that) but some of us kept up the fight. In 45 year plus I have seen many quitters along the way, so I know B.S. when I hear it.

I am 'The Greatest Programmer on Earth' having written the #1 and #2 computer programs of all time. That challenge has been out there for a while with no takers. The marijuana made all the difference.

Google "nobody shares knowledge better than this"

#1 is the personal learning tool / search engine / multimedia player - with random - so great I even found new life forms when playing video in slow motion. Check (faster than sight)

#2 is a customer file dump program that I wrote versions of 500+ times (during customer billing conversions for Telco and CableSystems). It's dirt simple and way better starter program than the "Hello World" that is often used to train newbie computer programmers.

Most true pot people love these t-shirts; especially if they have a ToKin stone all fired up. No I haven't sold any of them. If you have a problem with that then boo to you again. Most of these designs are over 30 years old. I'm not new to this fight.

Our side fought with our wits and money to win a war that cost Trillions on both sides. But it was worth it for our beloved Cannabis.

Nope you know very little about pot and are a sellout to the cause and liar. When I went to Amsterdam it was for the Hash. Some of the pot was crap and still had the Fertilizers so it sparked.

You want to deny us our freedom and those that can be healed by this plant to suffer. Nope you are an idiot and evil to spread such lies.

Doug Pederson SpectateSwamp wrote: I couldn't be more ON.

Uh, I am beginning to believe that you, personally, could not be more on, but that does not make you correct. Other people get much much more on.

Doug Pederson SpectateSwamp wrote: There is no paranoia where Pot is legal. None.

Factually incorrect. There is.
People afraid they are talking too loud, afraid that they took too much, afraid that...
The paranoia is not necessarily related to L.E.

And now that heroes like you have legalized pot, start working on mushrooms, Mescaline, salvia, peyote, X, LSD, 2CB, 2CI, and 2CT7, will ya?!?!

Or are those bad but pot good in your book?
I know there are multiple denominations of your religion, but I'm not sure which one you are in. We have receptors for all of that stuff, you know. And at least on acid, people can get shit other than watching TV done.

Tony B wrote: Uh, I am beginning to believe that you, personally, could not be more on, but that does not make you correct. Other people get much much more on. Factually incorrect. There is. People afraid they are talking too loud, afraid that they took too much, afraid that... The paranoia is not necessarily related to L.E. And now that heroes like you have legalized pot, start working on mushrooms, Mescaline, salvia, peyote, X, LSD, 2CB, 2CI, and 2CT7, will ya?!?! Or are those bad but pot good in your book. I know there are multiple denominations of your religion, but I'm not sure which one you are in. We have receptors for all of that stuff, you know. And at least on acid, people can get shit other than watching TV done.

You didn't see any paranoia on the faces of those fighters in the Colorado lineups. None in Amsterdam.

For sure all natural substances should be legal. Lets just fight one battle at a time. We have them on the run. Let's not scatter our forces. Take those Bast***s down.

How did the new law effect workplace drug screening? Can employers still fire you for testing positive for marijuana?

s.price wrote: Yes they can. I will not test my employees but have a strict no use at work policy.

If I caught someone stoned at work I'd have the same reaction to if they were drunk or whatever. Someone coming in drunk actually has happened. Sent the guy home and told him he seemed sick and to come back when he was pretty sure he was better and reminded him of the various benefits offered by our health care coverage. I think anybody that comes into work like that DOES have a problem, but people make mistakes and if they can learn from one when it is critical to do so, then that is good enough for me.
If it had happened again, it would have been an HR/Legal/Liability issue. That means the person is a slow learner or too dependent to count on - and needs to be replaced.

The big question from a reasonable employer should be the quality and reliability of the work. MOST employers are focused on that. I know I always have been, and don't give 2 hoots what someone does on their free time if they are producing (consistently) at work.

My major concern if I was a smoker, would be that some genuinely freak and unrelated accident occurred, which would spurn testing... and that would come back positive (even if irrelevant) for a semi-regular user. After that, it would be a matter for the HR/Legal/Insurance/The Courts, etc... and then I think there would be real fall out. Life-changing fallout. As in can't get a job again and career down the tubes.
Shame, but that is the present reality.

Doug Pederson SpectateSwamp wrote: You didn't see any paranoia on the faces of those fighters in the Colorado lineups. None in Amsterdam. For sure all natural substances should be legal. Lets just fight one battle at a time. We have them on the run. Let's not scatter our forces. Take those Bast***s down.

The paranoid people are not in the line-ups... goes without saying, doesn't it?
? About your "all natural substances" stance:
Is modern weed grown in modern strains really that "natural"?
And what is the problem with a synthetic reproduction of that or analog?
Should they be any less legal? They are probably purer (or would be if legalized and lab-made not bathtub/coffee mug made).
Heroin and Coke have natural origins... LSD and MDMA are synthetic. Which would bother you more to hear your kid was using it?
DMT and 5MEO-DMT are natural in their origin as well. Should extracting them be legally superior to manufacturing them?

The whole "natural" thing kinda disturbs me, but perhaps there is a better argument than I have really heard from the pot-preachers.

s.price wrote: Yes they can. I will not test my employees but have a strict no use at work policy.

You can bet that those Pot Shops have a strict Use Pot Policy. Those that are against Marijuana need not apply.

Another true life pot story:
In 1974 I was going for my 2nd interview in the Comptrollers department of the largest Public Utility in Alberta. The interviewer asked. Do your drink. I said yes and probably more than I should. Next He asked have I ever tried Pot? I said yes a couple times.

I left shaking my head. I had never been asked those questions before or since. I got the job. He wanted a drinking buddy and needed a pot contact. We worked extremely well together. Getting a write-up in the company flyer for saving them over 100,000 dollars per year.

You win some you lose some.

Go Broncos