# Cannabis use on board



## MikeOReilly

Many of us enjoy some form of mood-altering drug while on board (and only while safely anchored or tied to a dock). For the vast majority of us this drug is alcohol, but I know there are a large number of folks who also enjoy marijuana. 

An increasing number of USA states are going down the decriminalization road, and Canada is poised to make recreational use legal across all its lands and waters. So, I’m curious how people currently use or view cannabis on board, and whether your patterns will change as it becomes more openly legal and acceptable?

I’m not much of a pot user. Booze is my drug of choice. I’ve puffed on a joint perhaps a 1/2 dozen times in the last 20 years. As a teenager I was more into it, but I really don’t like the smoke, so I’m not much drawn to it. But as edibles become more available, I might become more interested ...


----------



## sailforlife

Well weed makes you tired and hungry ... or so I have heard. So a lot more people at anchorage or eating?


----------



## eherlihy

The USCG is a Federal agency. Federal law prohibits the use of cannabis. By using a vessel in US waters you have already consented to the search of your vessel by state or federal agency. I believe that they would make a federal case of it.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.


----------



## Capt Len

Every thing is funnier when you're stoned ,. Even SN becomes bearable. But seriously ,folks, it's the vertigo from the edibles you have to look out for .And the smoke isn't good for lungs ,,So it's back to the wine.


----------



## RegisteredUser

God created sugarcane for a reason.


----------



## ImGary01

The Coast Guard Auxiliary is having this discussion as Massachusetts decriminalized. eherlihy is spot on in regards to Federal agencies. When in Boston Harbour you are under Federal jurisdiction. And don't forget there are boating while under the influence laws. Alcohol, weed or other drug of choice, you're under the influence. If you are at anchor, you are still in control of the vehicle so BUI applies even if the boat isn't moving.


----------



## MikeOReilly

eherlihy said:


> The USCG is a Federal agency. Federal law prohibits the use of cannabis. By using a vessel in US waters you have already consented to the search of your vessel by state or federal agency. I believe that they would make a federal case of it.
> 
> I don't like it, but that's the way it is.


True, you've got a bit of a mess in the USA with an increasing number of your states legalizing or decriminalizing, while remaining a now actively pursued criminal offence federally. And you're right, of course, the waters are federal. So legally speaking, it's clear what needs to be done.

Be that as it may, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggesting some people may be disregarding the law . Not asking anyone to out themselves. Just curious how people view the whole thing.



ImGary01 said:


> The Coast Guard Auxiliary is having this discussion as Massachusetts decriminalized. eherlihy is spot on in regards to Federal agencies. When in Boston Harbour you are under Federal jurisdiction. And don't forget there are boating while under the influence laws. Alcohol, weed or other drug of choice, you're under the influence. If you are at anchor, you are still in control of the vehicle so BUI applies even if the boat isn't moving.


This is another interesting fact. In Canadian jurisdictions it is perfectly legal to have a drink (and presumably to have a toke soon) while anchored. As long as the vessel meets certain requirements; basically it needs to be a cruising-type of vessel, then no problem. In Quebec it's even legal for the operator of a boat to be drinking. No where can the operator be impaired.

So you're saying you can't have a beer while anchored anywhere in the USA? Wow...


----------



## eherlihy

We have a bunch of messes in the USA right now. The inconsistency in Cannabis laws is the least of them.


----------



## titustiger27

eherlihy said:


> The USCG is a Federal agency. Federal law prohibits the use of cannabis. By using a vessel in US waters you have already consented to the search of your vessel by state or federal agency. I believe that they would make a federal case of it.
> 
> I don't like it, but that's the way it is.


When I saw the thread, this was my first thought...

it seems like there are so many complications. Like you have some pot on your boat, you go out on the way in the Coast Guard stops you, now you are not just in possession but you are a smuggler of what you were an exporter of an hour ago

irateraft:


----------



## RegisteredUser

IIRC, your boat will go on a permanent list if a dog hits/alerts on it.


----------



## Capt Len

After the students stand up and sort out their elders mess about the gun/political thing they can turn their attention to the canibis situation Woulda thunk this ten years ago. Maybe there is hope for the US of A yet. Because it IS a political and who buys them issue


----------



## mbianka

IMO marijuana or other drug use is something you do when you are young and stupid. Guess how I know.  As I'm getting older even having a drink is not something I feel an urgent need to have these days. With the relaxation of marijuana laws I will be more on the lookout for those anchoring near me who might be under the influence. I also wonder how they will react should say their anchor starts dragging. Sometimes the ability to perform an urgent action is required beyond a stoned out exclamation like "Oh wow!"


----------



## hellosailor

"Many of us enjoy some form of mood-altering drug while on board"
Wait, I'm not allowed to use drugs UNLESS I'm onboard?

Never heard to that before.


----------



## eherlihy

MikeOReilly said:


> ... In Canadian jurisdictions it is perfectly legal to have a drink (and presumably to have a toke soon) while anchored. As long as the vessel meets certain requirements; basically it needs to be a cruising-type of vessel, then no problem. In Quebec it's even legal for the operator of a boat to be drinking. No where can the operator be impaired.
> 
> So you're saying you can't have a beer while anchored anywhere in the USA? Wow...


It _*IS*_ legal to have a drink while anchored or on a slip while on a cruising boat in the USA. Otherwise i don't think that many boats would be on the water. The requirements, as I recall, are; the boat must have a cabin, it must have a fixed MSD (no removable porta-potties), it must have a galley.

:2 boat:


----------



## MikeOReilly

eherlihy said:


> It _*IS*_ legal to have a drink while anchored or on a slip while on a cruising boat in the USA. Otherwise i don't think that many boats would be on the water. The requirements, as I recall, are; the boat must have a cabin, it must have a fixed MSD (no removable porta-potties), it must have a galley.


That's the same for most Canadian jurisdictions as well, but I've heard different US states have different rules. No?



ImGary01 said:


> The Coast Guard Auxiliary is having this discussion as Massachusetts decriminalized. eherlihy is spot on in regards to Federal agencies. When in Boston Harbour you are under Federal jurisdiction. And don't forget there are boating while under the influence laws. Alcohol, weed or other drug of choice, you're under the influence. If you are at anchor, you are still in control of the vehicle so BUI applies even if the boat isn't moving.


So a more careful reading of Gary's message says you can drink at anchor, you just can't be over the legal limit. Is this correct Gary? Is this restricted to the operator? Can others drink beyond the limit as long as there's a DD?

In Canada, my understanding of the law is that anchoring is the equivalent to being afixed to land. It is the same as being docked. You can get as shyt-faced as you want . But you can't operate the boat. If you have to haul anchor and start moving, you're screwed (legally, and probably in reality). Which is why I would never support getting "shyt faced" (or stoned) on a boat - ever.


----------



## paulinnanaimo

We cruise in beautiful country with numerous island anchorages where it is a real treat to dinghy ashore and walk the trails through the woods. Contrary to the belief that it always rains here, the summer months can be extremely dry...this is why we experience countless forest fires. The islands are tinder dry.
I sincerely hope that we do not experience island fires due to cruisers getting careless with their pot as they stroll through the forest.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

No person who I think may use majuana has ever been on my boat.



Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser

MarkofSeaLife said:


> No person who I think may use majuana has ever been on my boat.
> 
> Mark


Before boarding your boat, do you require 'potential' guests to watch your dvd of Reefer Madness...

...i know what you mean


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

RegisteredUser said:


> Before boarding your boat, do you require 'potential' guests to watch your dvd of Reefer Madness...
> 
> ...i know what you mean


No, but I tell everyone I *will* be searching *all* their personal possessions. 
I haven't had a hesitant reply to that yet (and I haven't actually carried out a search).

Remember I sail to different countries and I know there's a death penalty in some countries but I don't know which.
Others I can have my boat confiscated and/or spend my retirement in some dirty jail.

So hear me: no drugos on Sea Life. ☺?☺?☺


----------



## MikeOReilly

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...Remember I sail to different countries and I know there's a death penalty in some countries but I don't know which. Others I can have my boat confiscated and/or spend my retirement in some dirty jail.
> 
> So hear me: no drugos on Sea Life. ☺?☺?☺


Does that include booze Mark? 

I completely agree. There's no messing around with that crap. In fact, I think it's important to always respect the laws of the lands we are visiting, and that includes the ones that I may not agree with. I'm a guest, and besides, I don't want to screw things up for those who come after me.

But the fact remains, cannabis is becoming more accepted AND legal in an increasing number of places. Canada is one place. Isn't Oz following suit soon? The USA will come along - eventually.

It's not my thing. My drug of choice is booze, and free salt air. But I don't have any problem with people who like to get their buzz from burning some leaves.


----------



## RegisteredUser

Booze...

From what I understand, some countries don't want you 'importing' booze and require a strict inventory when landing. And then some don't care so much.

Mark prob has experience with some muslim countries where it's ok to have but can not be brought ashore...or consumed in public....

I would try to be accurate about 'inventories/stores', booze, foodies and spares. You will carry your 'paperwork' over from port-to-port in some countries.


----------



## Jammer Six

eherlihy said:


> We have a bunch of messes in the USA right now. The inconsistency in Cannabis laws is the least of them.


Yup. We're concentrating on trying to get the life-and-death stuff fixed. Most of us have forgotten about pot.

Here in Seattle, your are absolutely the most vulnerable to trouble with weed on a boat in Puget Sound, because the Coast Guard is federal and you have no constitutional protection against search on Puget Sound.

One of the things my doctor said is that it may be legal, but your reputation could still take a large hit. Would you want to know your cardiologist or your surgeon is a stoner?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

MikeOReilly said:


> Does that include booze Mark?


Take your hand out of your trousers.


----------



## MikeOReilly

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Take your hand out of your trousers.


Must be Aussie humour, but it sounds amusing none the less.



Sebastian#2 said:


> M, O very good points in my thoughts, but would the eat to be stoned also be on the taboo list? "shyt" faced is "shyt" faced.
> 
> p.s. ...note to self, .....why do I get involved in these discussions?:crying


Of course, shytfaced is shytefaced, no matter how it's achieved.

&#8230; b/c you're bored, like me :wink


----------



## Ajax_MD

It's still a federal crime. I hold a high security clearance that would be null and void if I were ever caught with cannabis, and would lose my job and my ability to work in the entire industry. The odor of pot is not pleasant to me. For all these reasons, it is not allowed on my boat.

I have no problem with legalizing it. In fact, I wish the Fed would, just to eliminate all the legal ambiguity but I have no intention of ever partaking. It's just the rum for me.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

Two wrongs certainly have historically been shown to improve the human condition...... If I am going to be busted for something I think it will be a useful tool for self defense rather than some weed. 

Last month we installed the refrigeration equipment in a 10,000 square foot warehouse which was formerly used for drying "hemp". After a month at 0 degrees F it still stinks......


----------



## titustiger27

there was a joke in a skit with John Belushi on SNL

Where he shouts: "There are people in Texas serving life for a seed, one seed." or something like that.

it seems like it would be risky to put any marijuana on your boat, know if you don't get it all off, a drug dog will find it.

but this does remind me of.. Sailing Zingaro where the creator is occasionally smoking pot.. usually when he is in Jamacia or Mexican ports of call


----------



## MikeOReilly

I really wonder what the border plans are for Canada/USA with the coming legalization of cannabis in the Great White North. Has anyone heard anything?


----------



## Jammer Six

Well, as long as you let your border agents decide who to screen and who to run from, how can it matter?


----------



## Tanski

Neither but if I had to choose it would be weed. Don't want a bunch of fat, stupid beer swilling Homer Simpsons on my boat.
As far as stink, a drinker smells worse. Far worse. That sour reek of alcohol processing out of your system is disgusting from 10 feet away. Don't even get me going on close proximity beer breath.
Really don't care what anybody does, their choice. Just don't involve me.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Federal ban means pot is illegal in parts of Massachusetts | WWLP.com

Offshore, the U.S. Coast Guard has jurisdiction in all navigable waters of the United States, including Boston Harbor where the Coast Guard has a base in Boston's North End, and where Boston Police and State Police also share jurisdiction, according to Boston Police Lt. Mike McCarthy.

If the Coast Guard boards a boat and discovers marijuana on board the officers will confiscate it, *and if there is more than an ounce,* the suspected offender will receive a citation and fine, according to Cynthia Oldham, of the Coast Guard. Anyone deemed to be operating a boat under the influence of marijuana or other intoxicants will be taken into custody and turned over to law enforcement on shore, she said.

Opinion: I'll admit I've smoked on occasion. But I feel it is not really appropriate for sailing. I think if you want to go see Jimmy Buffet on Broadway, by all means hell yes! Watching Netflix and chill? Ok. But sailing? Why oh why would anyone want to get high sailing? This makes no sense to me. Maybe guests would like it, out on some big yacht for vacation, I can see that. I'd think the skipper would abstain.


----------



## SanderO

I don't care what people do to their bodies (brains) or their boats. I do care if their behavior is a danger or a potential danger to others.

I don't consume substances to alter my mind in any way (intentionally) such as alcohol or drugs. I prefer being fully present and fully aware... with no cognitive impairment.

I do very occasionally drink a beer for the taste with food... same with a glass of wine... but if I want to quench thirst I prefer water. I usually have beer or a bottle of wine on board for guests who enjoy. I don't like the company of drunk, high or stoned people.... nor do I want them operating boats or cars.


----------



## misfits

As someone that grew up in the late 60's, early 70's drinking & druggin, I'd much rather deal with some who's got a little buzz on from smoking weed than someone that's been drinking. Smoking pot, ya don't need to close one eye to line up the hood ornament on the car so you can drive home, ya don't wake up naked with some strange girl on the bathroom floor wondering where ya parked your truck 

There are many states that have decriminalized possession of pot under an ounce to a misdemeanor. Maine is also another North East state where it is legal to pocess & smoke weed. Like others I may have taken a toke when out with friends maybe a dozen times in the past 30+ years. The problem I see with edibles, when you take a toke, the effect is pretty quick. When you ingest an edible, the effect is slower so you may not want to be in that "place" couple of hours later. Ask me I how I know this......

Personally I much rather sprinkle bourbon over some ice in a glass than smoke weed.


----------



## titustiger27

I have been waiting for the day when pot was totally legal, but that has probably hit a set back.

Even if all 50 states legalize it, even if most Americans would like to see it legalized (in Oct 2017, 64% were for legalizatoin)

There is still Jeff Sessions. He is not so for it and I am sure, how ever independent the Coast Guard wants to be, I would guess there is NOT a look the other way policy
_
also, with the advances in marijuana growing... I am not sure if it is easy to get a 'little' high_


----------



## MikeOReilly

SanderO said:


> I don't care what people do to their bodies (brains) or their boats. I do care if their behavior is a danger or a potential danger to others.
> 
> I don't consume substances to alter my mind in any way (intentionally) such as alcohol or drugs. I prefer being fully present and fully aware... with no cognitive impairment.


That's great Sander, although I'm sure you know that almost everything we do alters the state of the brain's chemistry. Whether we ingest drugs or produce them ourselves, the brain is awash in mind-altering substances. That rush you feel from an exciting sail, for example, is just adrenaline and endorphins. Sex&#8230; big time mind-altering drugs at play. Many people do these things to achieve that kind of buzz. Heck, the basic food we ingest alters the brain.

The fact is, lots of mammals seek altered states of mind using 'drugs,' not just humans. Getting 'high' is as natural as tribalism, homosexuality or liking country music (OK, maybe this last one is questionable ). Seems pretty natural...

I'm not suggesting people _should_ get high (either with internal chemistry, or through ingesting special drugs), but it's a completely natural drive in much of the mammalian kingdom. It's why prohibition of these drugs never works - you're trying to fight Mother Nature.



SanderO said:


> I do very occasionally drink a beer for the taste with food... same with a glass of wine... but if I want to quench thirst I prefer water. I usually have beer or a bottle of wine on board for guests who enjoy. I don't like the company of drunk, high or stoned people.... nor do I want them operating boats or cars.


There is no question here. No one is suggesting boats should be operated while impaired. But most boaters I know enjoy a drink, or perhaps a toke, once the anchor is down and all is safe.


----------



## SanderO

MikeOReilly said:


> There is no question here. No one is suggesting boats should be operated while impaired. But most boaters I know enjoy a drink, or perhaps a toke, once the anchor is down and all is safe.


As I said as long as your not endangering others... none of my business.

Drinking is way too commonplace in my opinion... there are too many around is with impaired judgment.

No one should have to lose their life because of alcohol and pot... but they do.

Your explanation about normal brains is absurd... and does not apply. Release of hormones and so forth by a normal functioning brain is normal... and pretty much plays a "survival" function.... enabling the body to perform in stressful conditions.

I don't know many sailors but the few I know are drinkers. My sample space is too small but I don't expect sailors to be any different in this regard from plumbers.


----------



## MikeOReilly

SanderO said:


> ...Your explanation about normal brains is absurd... and does not apply. Release of hormones and so forth by a normal functioning brain is normal... and pretty much plays a "survival" function.... enabling the body to perform in stressful conditions.


My point was that drug use is "normal." Everything we ingest, from food to booze, is a drug. Eat too much sugar and you'll produce a high. Hot peppers will have mood altering affects. I'm just pointing out the rather arbitrary nature of calling one group of drugs bad and others good.

But the question here is simply about how people deal with mind-altering drugs such as cannabis and alcohol. And specifically, how people think the changing legal approach to weed will affect us all.


----------



## capttb

> I really wonder what the border plans are for Canada/USA with the coming legalization of cannabis in the Great White North. Has anyone heard anything


 Do not know, but between Wash. and BC should be like having a bag of apples, no ?


----------



## SanderO

MikeOReilly said:


> My point was that drug use is "normal." Everything we ingest, from food to booze, is a drug.


NO this is wrong

Wiki:

"A drug is any substance (other than food that provides nutritional support) that, when inhaled, injected, smoked, consumed, absorbed via a patch on the skin, or dissolved under the tongue causes a temporary physiological (and often psychological) change in the body.[2][3]"


----------



## MikeOReilly

SanderO said:


> NO this is wrong
> Wiki:
> 
> "A drug is any substance (other than food that provides nutritional support) that, when inhaled, injected, smoked, consumed, absorbed via a patch on the skin, or dissolved under the tongue causes a temporary physiological (and often psychological) change in the body.[2][3]"


I prefer to get my information from credible sources:

From Science Dictionary:
"Any substance, natural or synthetic, which has a *physiological* action on a living body, either when used for the treatment of disease or the alleviation of pain or for recreation and self-indulgence, leading in some cases to progressive addiction."

or from Oxford:
"A medicine or other substance which has a *physiological* effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."

Food has a physiological effect on the body.

&#8230; but this is all rather irrelevant. The point is not to split hairs about drug definitions. The point is to deal with a very real fact of cruising life - whether you agree with it or not.



capttb said:


> Do not know, but between Wash. and BC should be like having a bag of apples, no ?


I suppose so... but given the hysteria that often accompanies the topic, I sure hope the border folks are well prepared for the change.


----------



## MacBlaze

SanderO said:


> NO this is wrong
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> "A drug is any substance (other than food that provides nutritional support) that, when inhaled, injected, smoked, consumed, absorbed via a patch on the skin, or dissolved under the tongue causes a temporary physiological (and often psychological) change in the body.[2][3]"


Chocolate anyone?

Another cup of coffee perhaps?

Oh! I hear ginseng can help with that "little problem."


----------



## Capt Len

So on the way south to the border you eat an apple knowing you can't take into the states even if it grew in Spokane. You give the core to rufus and sloppy eater that he is, drops seeds under the cushion. At inspection the drug dog sniffs it out , Federal officials let it go, it's only seeds after all.


----------



## SanderO

MikeOReilly said:


> I prefer to get my information from credible sources:
> 
> From Science Dictionary:
> "Any substance, natural or synthetic, which has a *physiological* action on a living body, either when used for the treatment of disease or the alleviation of pain or for recreation and self-indulgence, leading in some cases to progressive addiction."
> 
> or from Oxford:
> "A medicine or other substance which has a *physiological* effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."
> 
> Food has a physiological effect on the body.
> 
> &#8230; but this is all rather irrelevant. The point is not to split hairs about drug definitions. The point is to deal with a very real fact of cruising life - whether you agree with it or not.
> 
> I suppose so... but given the hysteria that often accompanies the topic, I sure hope the border folks are well prepared for the change.


come on Mike... that is rubbish... My mind is not altered by the consumption of string beans.

Your thread began as consuming substances which alter your cognitive function to get some sort of altered state... which is what the wiki referred to

You're being silly argumentative accomplishing nothing. Believe what you will...


----------



## SanderO

MacBlaze said:


> Chocolate anyone?
> 
> Another cup of coffee perhaps?
> 
> Oh! I hear ginseng can help with that "little problem."


And your point?

Caffeine is a substance that is know as being addictive... I don't know anyone who will claim they are impaired from drinking coffee or tea.


----------



## MacBlaze

SanderO said:


> And your point?
> 
> Caffeine is a substance that is know as being addictive... I don't know anyone who will claim they are impaired from drinking coffee or tea.


The point is that your definition was a bit sketchy. But I get your point as well.

Caffeine is the "active" ingredient in coffee just like THC is in marijuana. As to "impaired" by drinking coffee, you only need to hang out at a college around finals to make you own judgement about whether caffeine is capable of impairing judgement. IMHO it takes a hefty amount but I have seen people popping caffeine pills that I wouldn't want anywhere near a motorized vehicle.

But just to be clear, I think people who are taking chemicals (natural or otherwise) with "any" side effects, people who are drinking, people ho are sleep deprived, people who are emotionally distraught or people who are just plain furious shouldn't be anywhere near a couple of tons of metal or fiberglass capable of killing or harming anyone else. Because they all suffer from some form of impairment...


----------



## MikeOReilly

Anywhoo… I think everyone agrees a boat should not be operated while impaired, no matter what the source of impairment. 

With regard to this, I’m still not 100% clear on the rules operating in the USA regarding anchoring and booze. Can someone who knows confirm that you can drink at anchor? 

The fellow from the coast guard auxiliary (who sadly has not come back), seemed to say drinking was OK, but being legally impaired (blowing over .08 for booze … not sure what the measure is for other intoxicants) was not. But does that mean everyone, or just the operator? And is this the same in all states? I’ve read differing standard for differing states.

In Canada the enforcement rules do differ slightly from province to province. The most glaring difference is that Quebec says it’s acceptable to have the driver drinking, as long as they are not legally impaired. In all provinces I believe it is legally fine to drink beyond the legal limit as long as you are anchored.


----------



## amwbox

MikeOReilly said:


> I prefer to get my information from credible sources:
> 
> From Science Dictionary:
> "Any substance, natural or synthetic, which has a *physiological* action on a living body, either when used for the treatment of disease or the alleviation of pain or for recreation and self-indulgence, leading in some cases to progressive addiction."
> 
> or from Oxford:
> "A medicine or other substance which has a *physiological* effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."
> 
> Food has a physiological effect on the body.
> 
> &#8230; but this is all rather irrelevant. The point is not to split hairs about drug definitions. The point is to deal with a very real fact of cruising life - whether you agree with it or not.
> 
> I suppose so... but given the hysteria that often accompanies the topic, I sure hope the border folks are well prepared for the change.


Have to disagree in principal to such a broad definition of drug. I mean, drinking a glass of water has a _physiological effect_. Why even have a word for "drug" if food and water is included as such?

Basically, drug as a word has connotations. When you point out that alcohol and nicotine and caffeine are drugs, people will roll they eyes and go, "Well yeah technically, but that's not really the _same_ is it?"

Pot, despite being far less harmful and far less addictive and far less socially destructive as something like nicotine or particularly alcohol is considered a "real" drug. It's arbitrary and nonsensical, but it's a bit extreme to make drug such a broad term that it includes a can of pepsi or a box of chocolates.


----------



## MikeOReilly

amwbox said:


> Have to disagree in principal to such a broad definition of drug. I mean, drinking a glass of water has a _physiological effect_. Why even have a word for "drug" if food and water is included as such?


I guess I just look at things from the technical, scientific perspective. Yes, food is a drug. It's all just chemicals which all have physiological effects on the body. Any chemical, taken to extreme, will cause negative effects. This includes water (and I'm not talking about drowning).

BUT CAN WE DROP THIS PLEASE. I'm sorry I raised it. It was a silly side note. It doesn't matter what you call a drug in the abstract. We're talking about specific drugs.


----------



## Scotty C-M

Back to the point.... We all agree that imparement is not acceptable for the skipper underway. What about crew? What about guests? My take is that I don't like that either. If I have a crew or a guest that overindulges alchhol while on my boat, they don't get asked back. One beer in an hour, OK. Two, not OK. Regardless of your own preferences, on my boat, no pot. Just not welcome. I have a good friend that eats pot cookies. We took him and his wife sailing once. He ws so loaded that he was fumbling around. Last time he was invited for a sail.

At anchor or at the dock, a degree of alcohol use is understandable, even a bit excess. More than that, I just don't ask them back. Again, my boat is a no pot zone. Sorry, just the way it is. What you do on your boat is your decision, but on my boat, no pot. An interesting aside, I was at a dock on a friend's boat when another guest went off for a while. He came back after smoking pot and had some random other guy with him to visit for an hour or so. I was not comfortable because the random guy was, well random. The other guest was pretty blotto. So even at dock, it can create problems.


----------



## MacBlaze

MikeOReilly said:


> BUT CAN WE DROP THIS PLEASE.


But...but... sigh. :|

I don't think cross border tokin' will be here anytime soon. Border agencies and federal institutions like the USCG operate under a whole different set of rules. But I would be interested to see how the individual states navigate the issue of drugs because afaik most U.S cruising grounds are federal waters. Shouldnt be an issue here in Canuckland.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Scotty C-M said:


> Back to the point.... We all agree that imparement is not acceptable for the skipper underway. What about crew? What about guests? My take is that I don't like that either. ...


On our boat there is zero consumption of booze while underway, by anyone. Even when we're on a multi-day passage, with a clear watch system - still not allowed by anyone. I usually sail with just my partner, but the rule would apply no matter who's on board.

Once we're secured to dock or anchor, and there is no foreseeable challenges, only then does the beer or wine come out.

BTW, there is no smoking on our boat, whatever the weed is. I just don't like the smell of burning weeds, be it cannabis, tobacco, incense, or whatever. I'm not really interested in cannabis for myself, but I'm certainly not opposed to others partaking if that is their thing. And I'd consider trying edibles if I knew what was in them.

I just don't like smoke.


----------



## amwbox

MacBlaze said:


> But...but... sigh. :|
> 
> I don't think cross border tokin' will be here anytime soon. Border agencies and federal institutions like the USCG operate under a whole different set of rules. But I would be interested to see how the individual states navigate the issue of drugs because afaik most U.S cruising grounds are federal waters. Shouldnt be an issue here in Canuckland.


I'm kind of curious about my own backyard. Oregon and Washington, both legal states, are divided by the Columbia River...which as a major navigable waterway has Coasties floating around on it. And I doubt they care much about Washington and Oregon being 4:20 friendly. Above the Bonneville Dam, it's all US Army Corps of Engineers controlled, because of all the hydro dams.

So basically...federal waterway acting as border between two giant clouds of pot smoke. Could be interesting if anyone pushes the issue.


----------



## P435

"mood alterning drugs" - and interesting term, at least for me.

Even when we are at anchor safe in a bay, I do not allow anyone to have more than a beer, max two, or a glass of wine or two. 

The reason is that there can always be a sudden storm and you need to have your crew being able to work. 

I had such an experience last summer in the Adriatic Sea. Safe at anchor (bigger then the original anchor of my boat) when we got in 30-60 sec winds of force 8-10 from 3 Thunderstorms starting simultaneously. Anchor got out of ground and then stuck somewhere else where it was difficult to get it out. I saved my boat only because I reacted immediately and had a well functioning crew.

In this storm, in other bays at least one ship was reported to sunk and others got badly damaged. 

Thus I don't allow anybody to "alter the mood" beyond above mentioned volumes and drinks.

Cannabis is not prohibited in Croatia.


----------



## MikeOReilly

amwbox said:


> ...So basically...federal waterway acting as border between two giant clouds of pot smoke. Could be interesting if anyone pushes the issue.


I'm surprised it hasn't already blown up in a puff of smoke . No police action or court cases at all?

I did a motorcycle trip a couple of years ago down the Pacific coast. I recall crossing from Oregon into California and having to go through what looked like a border checkpoint. They said they were looking for fruit, but I wondered if they were checking for weed. Oregon had legalized then, but not California.


----------



## paulinnanaimo

That border is very strict regarding the import of fruit and vegetables...very simply, it isn't allowed.


----------



## amwbox

MikeOReilly said:


> I'm surprised it hasn't already blown up in a puff of smoke . No police action or court cases at all?
> 
> I did a motorcycle trip a couple of years ago down the Pacific coast. I recall crossing from Oregon into California and having to go through what looked like a border checkpoint. They said they were looking for fruit, but I wondered if they were checking for weed. Oregon had legalized then, but not California.


I've not heard of any issues about weed and the river. Just strikes me that interior waterways would be a place the feds would most likely make a stink over jurisdiction on. As for California, yes, they too are legalized as of this year. The whole fruit border thing was always hilariously stupid. California is pretty huge about agriculture, and they don't want anyone bringing in "foreign" insects and such...but it's all completely ineffectual and a waste of time and money. They are terrified of all sorts of pests: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/factsheets/BringingFruitsVeggies_to_CA.pdf


----------



## chef2sail

Sebastian#2 said:


> in the early 1970's I worked as a wild fire supresionist ... amazing how many fires were traced back to the source of rolling papers & sometimes bags of dope left behind. it does happen.


Give me a beak Smokey the Bear??

More than cigarettes, campfires? Where's you empiracle prooof for this illogical statement


----------



## hellosailor

"That border is very strict regarding the import of fruit and vegetables...very simply, it isn't allowed."
Customs men sometimes are human beings. At the close of a long gray day out of prime season, one of them allowed us to bring blueberries and potatoes into Canada from the US. "Just consume them aboard the boat, eh?" I think since we weren't in berry or potato country, he was willing to show a little common sense.

But wrt cannibus in the US? Really, classifying it as a category one controlled substance, right up there with heroin and cocaine?? When every objective panel has said "Ah, no, that's nowhere near right." ?

I don't want my taxi driver stoned on anything. In fact, I don't want that driver to be working while he's having a screaming fit with his ex, either. But American legislation rarely is intended to actually address root problems, the voters only want to get a free quick fix.

One reason why only 20% of US citizens were supposed to be allowed to vote, according to the folks who our charter. One has to wonder if they didn't know something....


----------



## amwbox

hellosailor said:


> One reason why only 20% of US citizens were supposed to be allowed to vote, according to the folks who our charter. One has to wonder if they didn't know something....


Wait...what?

The folks on your charter...were they perhaps partaking of the ganja at the time?


----------



## paulinnanaimo

hellosailor

Mike was talking about a trip from Oregon into California, not the other way around. I would be very surprised if the officials let you take your berries and spuds INTO California.


----------



## SanderO

I think if you are on your own property you can be drunk... with no legal consequence unless say it involved guardianship of minors.


----------



## hellosailor

"Wait...what? "
Yeah. Roughly 20%. Originally "the vote" was only given to white male landowners. Now, I don't say that was in any way right, but consider the demographics available in the 1770's. If you had to set a *simple* criteria for "Who is committed to the land they love on?" it would be landowners. Who, arguably, must have had some sense in order to become rich enough to purchase land. And some ties to the community. A that time (and up until around 1900) most Americans never or nearly never ventured more than 25 miles from "home" either. So again...With the tools of 1770's, how can you quickly pick the folks who have demonstrated some business sense and some commitment to remain in one place and probably improve it? At that time, most non-whites were either slaves, ex-slaves, or Indians, and a slim minority. As were women who were independent. So while the cut may be wrong--it was a simple litmus test that probably was often right. It gave them a basis to start with.

We think we've improved things, in some ways we have. In Australia voting is mandatory, you get a bill in the mail if you don't. Doesn't mean that you REALLY want every to vote, even if they feel they don't understand and don't want to, does it?

If you talk to a dozen voters at random (and I've objectively fielded questions while working the polls, yes) and ask them "Why is a bond bill better than a tax increase?" they will tell you because the BOND bill doesn't cost them anything. They really have no idea that every time someone floats a government bond, taxes have to be raised twice. Once to repay the bond, a second time to pay off the interest and costs. The taxpayers, the voters, think they are getting something for nothing and instead they pay double, literally. And the only folks who make out? Right, the bankers and brokers and select few who get to BUY the bonds and get paid interest on them.

Little things like that just prove the average voter is NOT qualified to run the country. Except into the ground. And that includes many white male landowners.

"Gee, whaddaya mean my mortgage in under water? They said I could get rich flipping it!"


----------



## hellosailor

Oregon to Cali? Oh, sorry, I thought he meant a real border, like US:CA.

Interstate squabbles et pretty serious. Somewhere out there...Arizona? Colorado? back maybe in the 1940's? they had such a disagreement about water rights, that literally two states called up State Militia and set up machine guns pointed at each other across a river.

I guess "throw out your fruit" is really a very polite request, compared to that.


----------



## amwbox

hellosailor said:


> "Wait...what? "
> Yeah. Roughly 20%. Originally "the vote" was only given to white male landowners. Now, I don't say that was in any way right, but consider the demographics available in the 1770's. If you had to set a *simple* criteria for "Who is committed to the land they love on?" it would be landowners. Who, arguably, must have had some sense in order to become rich enough to purchase land. And some ties to the community. A that time (and up until around 1900) most Americans never or nearly never ventured more than 25 miles from "home" either. So again...With the tools of 1770's, how can you quickly pick the folks who have demonstrated some business sense and some commitment to remain in one place and probably improve it? At that time, most non-whites were either slaves, ex-slaves, or Indians, and a slim minority. As were women who were independent. So while the cut may be wrong--it was a simple litmus test that probably was often right. It gave them a basis to start with.
> 
> We think we've improved things, in some ways we have. In Australia voting is mandatory, you get a bill in the mail if you don't. Doesn't mean that you REALLY want every to vote, even if they feel they don't understand and don't want to, does it?
> 
> If you talk to a dozen voters at random (and I've objectively fielded questions while working the polls, yes) and ask them "Why is a bond bill better than a tax increase?" they will tell you because the BOND bill doesn't cost them anything. They really have no idea that every time someone floats a government bond, taxes have to be raised twice. Once to repay the bond, a second time to pay off the interest and costs. The taxpayers, the voters, think they are getting something for nothing and instead they pay double, literally. And the only folks who make out? Right, the bankers and brokers and select few who get to BUY the bonds and get paid interest on them.
> 
> Little things like that just prove the average voter is NOT qualified to run the country. Except into the ground. And that includes many white male landowners.
> 
> "Gee, whaddaya mean my mortgage in under water? They said I could get rich flipping it!"


Ah, okay, you meant clear back in the 18th century. Understood. Was thinking maybe you had some conspiracy theorists or something.


----------



## MikeOReilly

hellosailor said:


> Oregon to Cali? Oh, sorry, I thought he meant a real border, like US:CA. ...


Yes, it was the state border, not CND/USA, which is why it struck me as so odd. Of course later on I ran into your 'citizenship checkpoints' in New Mexico and Texas. These were even bigger than most CND/USA border crossings. They were (are?) run by your ubiquitous border patrol folks, but what it made it really odd was I wasn't at the border.

Funny thing was, I'd drive up and ask me "Are you a citizen sir?" I'd usually answer something like "Yes, but not of your country. I'm Canadian." At that point I was always ready to pull out my passport, or provide whatever else was asked for. But every time I was just waived on without further scrutiny. "Oh, Canadian &#8230; well carry on sir, carry on&#8230;".

I began to get rather miffed after the third or fourth time - What's wrong with me! Don't I look dangerous enough!?! I'm a biker, after all (well, OK, my bike is a maxi-scooter, but still!). Who knows what I could have been carrying in my saddle bags. I might have been smuggling maple syrup or poutine .


----------



## hellosailor

Conspiracy theorists? Well...Our founding fathers were a rich minority, there's some question of whether they fomented a revolution for their own gain, and just how their descendants have done. And it is often said the majority of the colonists really weren't looking for a revolution. So...theorize away.(G)

Eh, Mike! They're not *my* customs men. I've got some serious disagreements with them, and I think anytime they're roaming around inland of the real border? Like more than a stiff walk away from it? They should be shot on sight, for treason.

You know, it is like a soccer game. You've got YOUR ZONE, STAY IN IT. Come into MY ZONE, and I'm not going to be happy about that. The ball does not belong my zone, my teammates do not belong in my zone, the other team definitely does not belong in my zone. So if the ball comes back here...I'm sending it back where it belongs, and anyone who gets between me and the ball...eh, collateral damage.

As Ricky said on "I Love Lucie": "Lucie, you got some splaining to do!"

There are other ways to deal with trespassers, I have no patience with bullies.


----------



## RegisteredUser

MikeOReilly said:


> ....but what it made it really odd was I wasn't at the border......


Road travel funnel points.


----------



## ianjoub

eherlihy said:


> It _*IS*_ legal to have a drink while anchored or on a slip while on a cruising boat in the USA. Otherwise i don't think that many boats would be on the water. The requirements, as I recall, are; the boat must have a cabin, it must have a fixed MSD (no removable porta-potties), it must have a galley.
> 
> :2 boat:


In FL everyone but the operator may have an 'open container' (be drinking), even while the boat is in motion.


----------



## ianjoub

MarkofSeaLife said:


> No person who I think may use majuana has ever been on my boat.
> 
> Mark


We'll have to have drinks on my boat if wee ever meet.


----------



## ianjoub

MarkofSeaLife said:


> No, but I tell everyone I *will* be searching *all* their personal possessions.
> I haven't had a hesitant reply to that yet (and I haven't actually carried out a search).


With your last guests: Are the batteries fresh in this 'massager'?\



> Remember I sail to different countries and I know there's a death penalty in some countries but I don't know which.
> Others I can have my boat confiscated and/or spend my retirement in some dirty jail.
> 
> So hear me: no drugos on Sea Life. ☺🙂☺🙂☺


I agree, not worth the risk.


----------



## capttb

That's interesting, 30 years a fireman and I never saw a fire started by a joint, don't they smoke them right down to nothing and isn't a good one so full of resins it will barely burn, let alone ignite a redwood ? Just guessing, of course. 
The California Agricultural Checkpoint just waves Canadians thru because they know you aren't smuggling homegrown oranges and bananas.
The city of Dana Point has outlawed tobacco in public places (basically everywhere), when someone complained to the county sheriff about second hand pot smoke on her boat he said. "Pot is legal on private property, someone on their boat tied to the dock is "private property", no laws against second hand smoke."


----------



## ianjoub

Sebastian#2 said:


> Way back when , when I live in Fla, Having an open beer while driving was ok, just as long as i wasn't over the line? (limit) or maybe that was in Texas. or maybe that was,


Yes, no open container laws in FL until 1988 or so.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Mike 

In the U.S., for the purpose of alcohol and I suppose marijuana regulation - a sailboat anchored for the night or tied to a dock is considered as a floating house. So you are having a drink in your home...

This doesn't negate CG jurisdiction, but - as far as the police are concerned, you are drinking at home. 


Once it starts sailing, it is a vehicle.


----------



## paulinnanaimo

The California Agricultural Checkpoint definitely does not just wave Canadians through. They do not permit apples, grapes, peppers, or anything else. They confiscated California grown oranges from us because we bought them outside the state.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

And people wonder why I don't want to trust every point in my life to the control of the government.....


----------



## capttb

> 30 years as structure fire?


Most of my time was on a type 1 engine but I drove a brush rig during the season during the years when I was an engineer and wild land fires are not unknown in California. And I was responsible for determining "point of origin" and "probable cause" for every fire (wildland, structure or chemical plant) where I was OIC when a captain. State certified arson investigator, State certified fire officer, state certified fire instructor, and NFIRS Manager (all fire incident reports in the nation) from the National Fire Academy. But if you think clumsy potheads are setting British Columbia ablaze I'll not try to disabuse you of that hypothesis, it should be reflected in your national fire incident reporting system soon. Personally, I've seen more fires started by the homeless sitting around a campfire.


----------



## chef2sail

Sebastian#2 said:


> Now here is food for thought :grin
> Nope, didn't say dope fires were more common than cigs or campfires..or even lightning fires. I just stated that some fires are caused by pot smokers carelessnes. As first person on the scene , sometimes I was able to pretty much determine this if a bag of pot, some zig zags or etc. was left laying around, the source of ignition was most likely a discarded roach or whatever . On other fires the cause of ignition was determined by trained Fire Investigators. Weather they or I provide empiracle proof could yet to be determined, but thanks for vote of confidence.:nerd So I think my statement is logical based on the information the actual experience has provided.
> 
> Love the Smokey critter emojoeys? :kiss
> 
> Ever have bear claws for breakfast?
> 
> Remember: ONLY U CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES
> 
> pls don't let Smokey down! :crying


Bear claws can mean many things to a former culinary chef?????

Almond Bear Claws Recipe - Allrecipes.com

However I have had real bear meat before in Alaska??


----------



## capttb

I live in a national forest next to a wilderness area, we were having a lot of bear problems in town, one lady had a bear in her kitchen drawn by the smell of baking cookies. Turns out the forest service was relocating problem bears from Sequoia to my backyard assuming they wouldn't cross the creek to our houses. Freakin' bears, I need both hands to open my trash can because it's "bearproof" and is like a Chinese finger puzzle.


----------



## capttb

NFA's in Emmitsburg, Maryland, part of FEMA, used to be a kind of grad school for Fire Officers. Probably most of the National Incident Management Teams have a couple guys out of the "holy trinity" ( IC, Logistics, Operations) that have gone there for stuff beyond ICS400. On my department an engineer was an "apparatus operator" Engines, Trucks, Crash Trucks, Pumps, Deluge Units, Boats anything with a motor and wheel, also a sort of non-com, and sometimes brush patrol.
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/training/nfa/
Cigarettes/smoking materials are a common cause in upholstered materials as you noted. In particular the "hot box" or glowing tip can burrow down into foam or other stuffing materials, smoulder for hours and not be detected in a smokey auto dealership until a large ass salesman sits down on it, true story.
Anyway it's a little harder to ignite grass and brush with a cigarette, especially if fuel moisture is over 10 % as you know. They are really rather cold, most fires required more effort on the part of the ignitor. Fires usually start by roads, trails etc. which are often littered with cigarette butts so sometimes hard to REALLY know, but there are cigarette butts all over, right ? Sometimes people feel that saying "undetermined" is weak, and even a less than 100% answer is better than saying "Hey, Sorry, I wasn't there when they lit it, I'm just looking at what didn't get completely burned "


----------



## SeaStar58

MikeOReilly said:


> Does that include booze Mark?
> 
> I completely agree. There's no messing around with that crap. In fact, I think it's important to always respect the laws of the lands we are visiting, and that includes the ones that I may not agree with. I'm a guest, and besides, I don't want to screw things up for those who come after me.
> 
> But the fact remains, cannabis is becoming more accepted AND legal in an increasing number of places. Canada is one place. Isn't Oz following suit soon? The USA will come along - eventually.
> 
> It's not my thing. My drug of choice is booze, and free salt air. But I don't have any problem with people who like to get their buzz from burning some leaves.


Drunk, buzzed, high in a vehicle with a motor even if its not running is still operating a motorized vehicle in an impaired state if you are the only one in the vehicle or you are the one in the group in possession of the keys or in possession of the controls/helm. Legalization of Medical Cannabis is quite different as its prescribed by a doctor, grow under regulation by licensed growers and inspected to ensure its medical grade.

Recreational weed/drug use is not allowed anywhere I have charge of and neither is drunkenness tolerated. We work hard to become intelligent responsible adults so I am not going to toss that away by getting drunk or high nor allow it on my watch. I want to give my children a good example (legacy) of how to have great fun and really enjoy life while being in full control of your actions and not by being lulled into a false sense of well being or joy due to being inebriated in any fashion.

Yes some countries have the death penalty for inebriation of any kind however others have more insidious punishments such as being driven 20 miles out of town with your wife and mother-in-law if your married or your parents if your single and forced to walk back together. Imagine being hung over and taking a lashing from your mother-in-law and wife! A fate worse than death!!!

Could seem like this for the entire 20 miles:


----------



## chef2sail

Waiting for someone to play Reefer Madness☠☠E


----------



## chef2sail

Save the morality play. I don’t think the government had any right involving themsslf in my personal business. What you do n your own space when it affects no one else is not up for any Leo’s and iOS a huge waste of resources. 

I am not advocating any use of any substances in operating any equipment or in public. Nor am I advocating pot use. 

Wonder how many high and mighty rollers who don’t do anything to alter their state , screw their neighbors wives or rip people off in business or speed by you going over the speed limit talking on their cell phones.


----------



## aeventyr60

chef2sail said:


> Waiting for someone to play Reefer Madness☠☠E[/QUOTE
> 
> This is much better, my old mates Chhech & Chong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Thai stick still kicks ass on the maui wowie..Mike probably smoking the Labrador..ha ha


----------



## Minnewaska

I haven't read every post carefully, but noticed some reference to starting fires. Cigarettes are the leading cause of house fires, killing thousands of people per year, in the US. This point will have to extend to smoking cannabis, as well as extend toward a fire hazard in a marina. If you burn it down, you could kill or injure others inside, let alone one's neighbors. It happens. Frequently. In fact, hundreds/thousands more times than mass shootings (not that I'm opposed to fixing those too).

In the end, I'm willing to bet we outlaw smoking..... period. We should. Ironically, I can't think of a single cigarette smoker in our marina. I don't even recall seeing anyone smoking in the parking lot. Maybe it's a sport occupied by outdoors, healthier types. I think it's more likely a social economic thing. 1 out of 3 people living in poverty will smoke (imagine how they pay for it). 1 out of 10 people making $100k per year currently smoke. Among the 1%ers, it's virtually non-existent. No one, in poverty, owns a boat.

Eating a food product, laced with an intoxicant, just makes no sense to me. It's akin to pill popping, just for the buzz. Zero appeal. Vaping may become more popular, but some states are already banning that in public too.

https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/2763


----------



## capttb

National estimates for the leading causes of fires in residential
buildings for 2015, the most recent year for which data are
available, are:
1. Cooking: 193,400 fires.
2. Heating: 41,200 fires.
3. Electrical malfunction: 24,500 fires.
4. Other unintentional, careless: 24,500 fires.
Smoking is the third leading cause of Deaths in residential fires.
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/res_bldg_fire_estimates.pdf


----------



## MikeOReilly

Sal Paradise said:


> Mike
> 
> In the U.S., for the purpose of alcohol and I suppose marijuana regulation - a sailboat anchored for the night or tied to a dock is considered as a floating house. So you are having a drink in your home...
> 
> This doesn't negate CG jurisdiction, but - as far as the police are concerned, you are drinking at home.
> 
> Once it starts sailing, it is a vehicle.


Makes sense, but does this mean I can get drunk at anchor like I can at home. Can everyone on board become legally and functionally impaired? (not that I do, or that this is a good idea).

The early message from the Coast Guard Auxiliary fellow suggested otherwise. And I keep hearing conflicting information from different sources depending on which state we're talking about. In Canada it's pretty clear: yes you can (get plastered). But you can't then move the boat at all.


----------



## MikeOReilly

SeaStar58 said:


> Drunk, buzzed, high in a vehicle with a motor even if its not running is still operating a motorized vehicle in an impaired state if you are the only one in the vehicle or you are the one in the group in possession of the keys or in possession of the controls/helm.


And herein lay my confusion. In the USA, is a cruising-style boat considered a "home" while anchored (as Sal says), or is it still an operating vessel as SeaStar says? In the former case, you can theoretically get as drunk as you want, as long as you don't do anything stupid like drive your car. But in the latter case, drinking over the legal impaired level (0.08 blood-alcohol count in most jurisdictions) would be illegal since you're still operating a vessel.

I'm not advocating or suggesting people should ever be drunk on board to the level of significant impairment. I'm just trying to understand the American law. In Canada it's pretty clear a boat at anchor is considered to be the same as being tied to a dock. So you can drink till you drop, as long as you don't afoul of any other laws in doing so.



chef2sail said:


> Save the morality play. I don't think the government had any right involving themsslf in my personal business. What you do n your own space when it affects no one else is not up for any Leo's and iOS a huge waste of resources.
> 
> I am not advocating any use of any substances in operating any equipment or in public. Nor am I advocating pot use.


+1
Kinda sums up my view on these matters. I'm in the 'legalize everything' camp when it comes to recreational drugs. I think prohibition of any sort always leads to more social negatives vs the benefits it is trying to achieve. As long as you're only harming _mostly_ yourself (there's no way to avoid all collective harm when we live in communities), then I say fill your boots, or your veins, or whatever.


----------



## Minnewaska

capttb said:


> National estimates for the leading causes of fires in residential
> buildings for 2015, the most recent year for which data are
> available, are:
> 1. Cooking: 193,400 fires.
> 2. Heating: 41,200 fires.
> 3. Electrical malfunction: 24,500 fires.
> 4. Other unintentional, careless: 24,500 fires.
> Smoking is the third leading cause of Deaths in residential fires.
> https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/res_bldg_fire_estimates.pdf


The global study I quoted was from 1998. Yours is more recent, contains only US data and make the following point:



> Although smoking was the third leading cause of residential fire deaths in 2015, there was a 36 percent decrease in residential smoking fire deaths


If you look at the 10 year data, while it shows a declining trend, I'm not sure the t-score would allow this to be a statistical conclusion. The high and low were met more than once over the 10 year period.

In any event, it's a significant problem that only exists because people light up in their homes. I'm only suggesting that what one does in the privacy of their own home, is not without consequences for others, just like in public.


----------



## capttb

Notice it also says "Estimates" ? That's because the Federal government requires state governments to report their fire incidents, so the states require fire departments to report to them. However there is no funding and no penalty for not reporting, so it's difficult to justify spending money to report what you do instead of spending the money towards providing the services. As late as 2000 I had to send the reports to the state fire marshal on floppies, couldn't do it online or by CD, budgets have not increased since then. Anytime you pass a law or reg. then you gotta figure a penalty and who gets to enforce it, and then they have to think it's worth enforcing, even if there are better uses for their time.
Trying to legislate personal behavior seems fruitless to me, who wants to be a cop writing cigarette tickets ?


----------



## Jammer Six

hellosailor said:


> Little things like that just prove the average voter is NOT qualified to run the country. Except into the ground. And that includes many white male landowners.


Winston Churchill said the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.


----------



## Jammer Six

Sebastian#2 said:


> Remember: ONLY U CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES
> 
> pls don't let Smokey down! :crying


By now, everyone has heard of the rock group U2.

But there was a time, back in the day, when they weren't U2. Back then, the two main stars, Bono and The Edge, were just a couple of guys, one with a great voice and the other with a pick.

During this time, Paul Hewson, (Bono) or "Paulie" as he was known to those of us who knew him well, started playing casually with David Evans, (The Edge) but before they ever took a gig for money together, they did quite a bit of traveling. (No, not that kind of traveling-- they travelled about together, without ripping anyone off.)

One night, after traveling across Ireland, they stopped in a hostel and picked and grinned for a while, then made jokes about playing professionally together. Paulie asked Dave what they should call their group, and Dave answered "You choose." A few beers later, this got translated into "You", as the name of the group. So the original name of U2 was not U, it was You, and U2, which came much later, was actually a pun, based on more beer, and Paulie and Dave calling the group "You", and each other "You One" and "You Two".

Later that week, Paulie and Dave crossed the Irish sea, and stopped at a monastery, in northern England, where the good friars grew flowers. The monastery was renowned across England for the variety of color they brought to roses.

Unfortunately, it was spring.

Drawn to the roses by that which nature commands, honeybees were present on the grounds by the thousands. The tens of thousands. Perhaps the hundreds of thousands.

As luck would have it, Paulie was allergic to honeybees, and was stung once. Not being a particularly brave lad, he promptly panicked, and raced into the monastery. Unfortunately, his path took him directly through one of the largest patches of roses, and he received another dozen stings before he made the monastery.

Of course, the good friars were beside themselves. They called for an aid car, and made Paulie as comfortable as they could.

Paulie and Dave, of course, went on to world wide fame.

The friars, on the other hand, proved themselves truly contrite. Starting the next day at dawn, they closed their rose business, and tore every last rose up by the roots, and laid the entire monastery fallow, to prevent attracting honeybees. Never again would their actions be the cause of such an accident.

All of which just goes to show.

Only You can prevent florist friars.


----------



## MikeOReilly

What’s interesting in the whole cannabis legalization discussion is to understand who the real addicts are, and why it is so hard to give it up. There are huge (or is it yuge ) financial and power vested interests in maintaining the status quo “war on drugs.” 

On one side are criminals and their massive organizations which use the easy money made in the drug trade to fund their operations. 

On another are the massive law enforcement, judicial, and penal systems that are funded and supported to fight this perpetual and unwinnable war. 

And of course there are the politicians, bureaucracies and business interests who gain and maintain power by feeding people’s fear, insecurity and ignorance (as our troll demonstrates).

As the line goes: Just Say No — no to this insanity called the war on drugs. The world is catching on. More and more jurisdictions are walking away from this scam. Proof there is progress in the world.

So have another toke, or drink, or whatever your drug of choice is. Just don’t move your boat while doing so :ship-captain:


----------



## Sal Paradise

Mike

I did a little poking around the ol' internet. Do you know what country produces almost all the world's heroin? Afganistan!! A country under the control of and occupied by the United States. And its not like they are hiding it. They have 22.5 million acres of poppys under cultivation! 22,500,000 ---acres!!! You can google pictures of U.S soldiers " guarding " the poppy fields. Look - https://www.google.com/search?q=us+...v7MTZAhWptlkKHZMtBA8Q_AUICigB&biw=683&bih=331

The largest share of that heroin comes to the U.S. and is responsible for thousands of overdose deaths a year. We imprison our own people for decades for using it and selling it. We have SWAT teams kicking down Americans doors to get the heroin. And yet we do nothing about it being grown in country controlled by us.

Why?


----------



## paulinnanaimo

I don't disagree with you Mike, but I'm sure that you are aware that entrepreneurs are investing millions into the legal pot business in Canada...my understanding is that some of our politicians are right in there on the leading edge, I'm sure the lobbying is well under way. 
The cynical side of me is sceptical of all the anticipated positive outcomes.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Sal Paradise said:


> Mike
> 
> I did a little poking around the ol' internet. Do you know what country produces almost all the world's heroin? Afganistan!! A country under the control of and occupied by the United States. And its not like they are hiding it. They have 22.5 million acres of poppys under cultivation! 22,500,000 ---acres!!! You can google pictures of U.S soldiers " guarding " the poppy fields. Look - https://www.google.com/search?q=us+...v7MTZAhWptlkKHZMtBA8Q_AUICigB&biw=683&bih=331
> 
> The largest share of that heroin comes to the U.S. and is responsible for thousands of overdose deaths a year. We imprison our own people for decades for using it and selling it. We have SWAT teams kicking down Americans doors to get the heroin. And yet we do nothing about it being grown in country controlled by us.
> 
> Why?


Yes &#8230; why??? It would be hilariously funny if it didn't have such horrible results. Shows who the real addicts are in all this.



paulinnanaimo said:


> I don't disagree with you Mike, but I'm sure that you are aware that entrepreneurs are investing millions into the legal pot business in Canada...my understanding is that some of our politicians are right in there on the leading edge, I'm sure the lobbying is well under way.
> The cynical side of me is sceptical of all the anticipated positive outcomes.


Oh I'm completely with you on the cynicism Paul. But my view is not so much that we're going to see a positive outcome, per-say. It's more like the outcomes will become _less negative_ than they already are. It's a bit like choosing the least-worst possibility.


----------



## Jammer Six

I dunno, that's beyond my expertise, but now I'll have to add it to the end of my joke. (That's my best joke, which is why I frequently have trouble recruiting crew.)


----------



## chef2sail

Sal Paradise said:


> Mike
> 
> I did a little poking around the ol' internet. Do you know what country produces almost all the world's heroin? Afganistan!! A country under the control of and occupied by the United States. And its not like they are hiding it. They have 22.5 million acres of poppys under cultivation! 22,500,000 ---acres!!! You can google pictures of U.S soldiers " guarding " the poppy fields. Look - https://www.google.com/search?q=us+...v7MTZAhWptlkKHZMtBA8Q_AUICigB&biw=683&bih=331
> 
> The largest share of that heroin comes to the U.S. and is responsible for thousands of overdose deaths a year. We imprison our own people for decades for using it and selling it. We have SWAT teams kicking down Americans doors to get the heroin. And yet we do nothing about it being grown in country controlled by us.
> 
> Why?


We were talking about marijuana not heroin,
Apples and oranges
Throwing heroin into the discussion is a red herring
No one is taking about anchoring and shooting up


----------



## SeaStar58

I do know this - that its not as harmless as the proponents make it out to be. I was working in a low lever supervisory capacity in a factory that gave out an extra weeks pay to every employee at the end of the month when we made our quota and all the custom products were delivered safely and accepted by the clients and if we superseded that by a large enough percentage then everyone received an extra 2 weeks pay that month. 

We spent years where it was a rare occurrence to not get the 2 weeks of extra pay and unheard of to not at least get the 1 week bonus however it was happening. Equipment, vehicle and product damage was up and clients were complaining of quality escapes. 

Wells Fargo our insurance carrier without telling us sent an investigator to vet out the root cause of the damages they were paying out on and he found the drop was due to a few that were covertly handing out pot to those they thought would be inclined to use it and then once hooked started charging them for it. He then brought in an undercover team to do a full scale investigation. The photo and video evidence was undeniable. The cannabis users were without a doubt the root cause behind all the losses. Once hooked, the after hours use was not enough and they could not make it through the work day without it. Since it was a no smoking facility they found areas where they could congregate and smoke joints covertly. They were operating machinery, driving folk lifts where workers/equipment were present and driving delivery trucks.

The leaders were fired for misconduct without benefits and turned over to the DEA while the followers were given the choice of going to counseling and free assistance to kick the habit or losing their jobs. 

Mandatory testing was then implemented to prevent another outbreak and people who had a clumsy day were spot checked. The cannabis users really changed the way we looked at our workers since their negative impact was so great. Most appeared to truly believe that it did not impair them until they were shown the photos and videos of themselves. Most claimed that they were not addicted either yet they could not make it though the day without a joint and would get irritable and argumentative if they didn't have an occasional joint to ease their way through the day.

When anyone tells me its low risk, that they read a study, etc, etc its meaningless since I have been though it already and know its not as harmless as some may want everyone to believe. 

I did not read about this on the internet but was there in person when and where this happened. It was a very sad day for many of us to realize that people we trusted had done so much to endanger our means of making a living and our very lives because of cannabis. No rebuttal painting a rosy picture of cannabis use is possible here and all should now have a clear understanding of why I am against the recreational use of it anywhere.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

I don't agree with it but the reason the poppies are allowed to grow in Afghanistan is that is their only cash crop, which was actually started by the British when they took their turn at being ground down in Afghanistan. If you are stupid enough to inject heroin then I believe that you are stupid enough to kill yourself freely, as long as you do not leave anyone else on the hook for any offspring you may have accidentally produced, expect free needles or syringes from others, or expect them to pick you up and dry you out enough to get high again.

Mike: I would guess that you don't have any children or close family members.


----------



## br3nt

That's a long thread to read all at once... Especially stoned.


----------



## midwesterner

SeaStar58 said:


> I do know this - that its not as harmless as the proponents make it out to be.......... Most claimed that they were not addicted either yet they could not make it though the day without a joint and would get irritable and argumentative if they didn't have an occasional joint to ease their way through the day.
> 
> When anyone tells me its low risk, that they read a study, etc, etc its meaningless since I have been though it already and know its not as harmless as some may want everyone to believe.


It's not really addictive, not in the way you are thinking, like heroin or crystal methamphetamine. It's a psychological addiction, like the people who get addicted to gambling, and shopping on the Home Shopping Channel.


----------



## Jammer Six

Seastar, is this your first fiction?


----------



## Minnewaska

Sal Paradise said:


> Mike
> 
> I did a little poking around the ol' internet. Do you know what country produces almost all the world's heroin? Afganistan!! A country under the control of and occupied by the United States. And its not like they are hiding it. They have 22.5 million acres of poppys under cultivation! 22,500,000 ---acres!!! You can google pictures of U.S soldiers " guarding " the poppy fields. Look - https://www.google.com/search?q=us+...v7MTZAhWptlkKHZMtBA8Q_AUICigB&biw=683&bih=331
> 
> The largest share of that heroin comes to the U.S. and is responsible for thousands of overdose deaths a year. We imprison our own people for decades for using it and selling it. We have SWAT teams kicking down Americans doors to get the heroin. And yet we do nothing about it being grown in country controlled by us.
> 
> Why?


Sal, where did you read all this? We're far from in control of Afghanistan. In fact, the largest producing regions of opiates are specifically Taliban controlled areas. Picture of troops in poppy fields is dramatic, but does not prove we're protecting them all.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/23/world/asia/afghanistan-us-taliban-isis-control.html

Also, the vast majority of opiates in the US do not source from Afghanistan, it's Mexico now. 94% according to this article.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-03/america-s-heroin-epidemic-starts-in-mexico

I am surprised that we don't defoliate the Talibans cash crop, but as mentioned above, it's the country's only real source of trade. As sick as that sounds. There seems to be a very fine line between the good guys and bad guys there. Further, if the drug is really going elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprised we are trying to keep pressure on those countries to be part of the solution. Not sure what's going on there, all I know is the facts of the matter are different.

Talk about a forgotten war.


----------



## SeaStar58

Jammer Six said:


> Seastar, is this your first fiction?


The only fiction is from folks in a state of dreamemium believing there can't have an addiction problem with cannabis and that they can't present a danger to those around them.

My account is factual, we fired those people turning them in as pushers and offered amnesty to those that went into addiction counseling.

Why make things up when I have my own honest eyewitness account that I lived through being one of the potential victims of the cannabis users?

Drug clouded minds can't perceive things clearly or rationally.


----------



## Tanski

LMAO! Put down the crack pipe buddy. Biggest piece of fantasy fiction I've read in years! To be honest not really surprised at the source...
Not exactly a fan of impaired people in general but I sure am NOT about to make crap up to try and make a point.



SeaStar58 said:


> I do know this - that its not as harmless as the proponents make it out to be. I was working in a low lever supervisory capacity in a factory that gave out an extra weeks pay to every employee at the end of the month when we made our quota and all the custom products were delivered safely and accepted by the clients and if we superseded that by a large enough percentage then everyone received an extra 2 weeks pay that month.
> 
> We spent years where it was a rare occurrence to not get the 2 weeks of extra pay and unheard of to not at least get the 1 week bonus however it was happening. Equipment, vehicle and product damage was up and clients were complaining of quality escapes.
> 
> Wells Fargo our insurance carrier without telling us sent an investigator to vet out the root cause of the damages they were paying out on and he found the drop was due to a few that were covertly handing out pot to those they thought would be inclined to use it and then once hooked started charging them for it. He then brought in an undercover team to do a full scale investigation. The photo and video evidence was undeniable. The cannabis users were without a doubt the root cause behind all the losses. Once hooked, the after hours use was not enough and they could not make it through the work day without it. Since it was a no smoking facility they found areas where they could congregate and smoke joints covertly. They were operating machinery, driving folk lifts where workers/equipment were present and driving delivery trucks.
> 
> The leaders were fired for misconduct without benefits and turned over to the DEA while the followers were given the choice of going to counseling and free assistance to kick the habit or losing their jobs.
> 
> Mandatory testing was then implemented to prevent another outbreak and people who had a clumsy day were spot checked. The cannabis users really changed the way we looked at our workers since their negative impact was so great. Most appeared to truly believe that it did not impair them until they were shown the photos and videos of themselves. Most claimed that they were not addicted either yet they could not make it though the day without a joint and would get irritable and argumentative if they didn't have an occasional joint to ease their way through the day.
> 
> When anyone tells me its low risk, that they read a study, etc, etc its meaningless since I have been though it already and know its not as harmless as some may want everyone to believe.
> 
> I did not read about this on the internet but was there in person when and where this happened. It was a very sad day for many of us to realize that people we trusted had done so much to endanger our means of making a living and our very lives because of cannabis. No rebuttal painting a rosy picture of cannabis use is possible here and all should now have a clear understanding of why I am against the recreational use of it anywhere.


----------



## Jammer Six

SeaStar58 said:


> The only fiction is from folks in a state of dreamemium believing there can't have an addiction problem with cannabis and that they can't present a danger to those around them.
> 
> My account is factual, we fired those people turning them in a pushers and offered amnesty to those that went into addiction counseling.
> 
> Why make things up when I have my own honest eyewitness account that I lived through being one of the potential victims of the cannabis users?
> 
> Drug clouded minds can't perceive things clearly or rationally.


There's very little in your account that I believe.

Have a nice day!


----------



## jtsailjt

I realize that technically speaking, there are all kinds of things that can be considered mood altering drugs, including caffeine and alcohol and marijuana and prescription drugs, as well as some foods, and I'm fine with everyone making their own choices on their own boats, especially when they are in remote areas where nobody else is around and they don't expect anyone to risk their life trying to rescue them if they do something stupid. But drugs that are illegal anywhere the boat might ever end up are a bad idea because traces of them hang around for a very long time and penalties can be severe. So, like Mark mentioned earlier in this thread about his policy, NO illegal drugs are allowed aboard my boat under any conditions, even if in a sealed container with no plan to use them. I make that clear whenever anyone new comes aboard and f I ever caught anyone aboard my boat with even one joint in their possession, I would throw it overboard and put them off at the next possible chance to get to a dock and never allow them aboard again. On second thought, I might not even wait to get to the dock....:batter


----------



## P435

Heroin production makes me always thinking what happens with Coca Cola if the US (and maybe the world) would stop drinking it?


----------



## capttb

Good Story, Was that at the Hoverboard factory ?


----------



## chef2sail

SeaStar58 said:


> The only fiction is from folks in a state of dreamemium believing there can't have an addiction problem with cannabis and that they can't present a danger to those around them.
> 
> My account is factual, we fired those people turning them in a pushers and offered amnesty to those that went into addiction counseling.
> 
> Why make things up when I have my own honest eyewitness account that I lived through being one of the potential victims of the cannabis users?
> 
> Drug clouded minds can't perceive things clearly or rationally.


No one is discounting your first hand account last of all me.

I wouldn't really get judgemental with others offering differing opinions with their own first hand observations.

Many things can be addictive.

I would hope you also rail on those items we all know are. Alcohol for one. Cigarettes for another.

Just curious we all know alcohol is addictive right., so would you go against anyone enticing another employee to go out after work and encouraging them to have a drink. Isn't that enabling behavior akin to "pushing" . How about cigarettes. Please don't get some high and mighty attitude about known addictive substances while you stand by and support or allow others. That shows a lack of consistency

The real reason I think you load up on pot is not because it's addictive, because you are willing to allow other addictive items. , but because it's illegal. And of course there's a whole history on why it's illegal and booze or cigarettes isn't. It created a whole underworld connection, just like booze did during prohibition when people outlawed it.

When one group in society decides to allow the government to dictate what goes on in people's private houses it's a recipie for disaster IMHO and the usual driver is money interests.

Fact is this is changing and decrimibalization has become the majority opinion.

Understand I am in no way suggesting people operate vehicles, equipment or use on their jobs.

What a waste of money and resources it is to become Don Quixote and chase people for recreational use of marijuana.

At least be consistent in your beliefs and rail against all addictive items. Number 1 on the list.....alcohol


----------



## Sal Paradise

Just a reminder of the reason we are here -


----------



## capttb

New boat with no Radar reflector, PFD, tether or jacklines, if that guy drinks a beer and gets out of sight of land he's a dead man.


----------



## MikeOReilly

> *chef2sail*: Fact is this is changing and decrimibalization has become the majority opinion.


Thanks Chef, well put. No matter what your personal view of cannabis, the decriminalization/legalization train is now rolling fast. People are waking up to the fact that they've been fooled. It will be hard to stop this change, despite the status-quo powers lined up to prevent it.

As Abraham Lincoln is purported to have said:

_"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, 
*but you cannot fool all the people all the time. *" _​
But clearly as cruisers, especially when visiting foreign lands (like the USA), we must follow the laws of that land regardless of what we think of them. We are guests, after all. And no one should ever be significantly impaired while operating any vehicle, including a sailboat. That's just poor seamanship.


----------



## Ninefingers

Sal Paradise said:


> Just a reminder of the reason we are here -


What boat is that?


----------



## capttb

It's an Elan


----------



## Sal Paradise

capttb said:


> New boat with no Radar reflector, PFD, tether or jacklines, if that guy drinks a beer and gets out of sight of land he's a dead man.


And if he uses canabis that boat will be found abandoned drifting in the ocean, completely stripped of any and all cheetos and chocolate bars.


----------



## Jammer Six

chef2sail said:


> No one is discounting your first hand account last of all me.


Actually, I was and am.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sal Paradise said:


> _WIKIPEDIA......_


_

Wikipedia is your source? Did you read the references in that entry?

How about NPR, do you trust them? They reported, just last month, that the DEA genetically tested heroin samples in the US and 93% were grown in the Guerrero region of Mexico. The US does not source much of it's heroin from Afghanistan, although, the rest of the planet seems to.

Admittedly, this has absolutely nothing to do with Cannabis and it certainly has nothing to do with the current administration, as the article shows the Mexican production has doubled over the past 5 years.

Put the joint down, Sal. You're getting paranoid.  [kidding, don't burst a vein]

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...es-in-mexico-americas-biggest-heroin-supplier_


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

For those of you who do not think pot can lead to greater drug problems I will refer you to Robert Downey Jr. as he has stated multiple times that he was started on pot by his father but once experienced with the pot high yearned for stronger and longer lasting highs which led him to a continuous battle with drug addiction. Don't believe me, because I have not smoked pot, although I had several friends while I was in trade school who really threw their lives into a downward spiral beginning with heavy pot use. Fortunately, one of them was able to get his head back on straight with the help of a good woman and went on to a very successful career as a Mold Maker in the miniature medical device business.


----------



## SeaStar58

chef2sail said:


> No one is discounting your first hand account last of all me.
> 
> I wouldn't really get judgemental with others offering differing opinions with their own first hand observations.
> 
> Many things can be addictive.
> 
> I would hope you also rail on those items we all know are. Alcohol for one. Cigarettes for another.
> 
> Just curious we all know alcohol is addictive right., so would you go against anyone enticing another employee to go out after work and encouraging them to have a drink. Isn't that enabling behavior akin to "pushing" . How about cigarettes. Please don't get some high and mighty attitude about known addictive substances while you stand by and support or allow others. That shows a lack of consistency
> 
> The real reason I think you load up on pot is not because it's addictive, because you are willing to allow other addictive items. , but because it's illegal. And of course there's a whole history on why it's illegal and booze or cigarettes isn't. It created a whole underworld connection, just like booze did during prohibition when people outlawed it.
> 
> When one group in society decides to allow the government to dictate what goes on in people's private houses it's a recipie for disaster IMHO and the usual driver is money interests.
> 
> Fact is this is changing and decrimibalization has become the majority opinion.
> 
> Understand I am in no way suggesting people operate vehicles, equipment or use on their jobs.
> 
> What a waste of money and resources it is to become Don Quixote and chase people for recreational use of marijuana.
> 
> At least be consistent in your beliefs and rail against all addictive items. Number 1 on the list.....alcohol


I do not tolerate substance abuse of any kind.

Any thing/place I have control of is a Zone where there is no Drunkenness (a shot of hard liquor, a beer or a 4/5 oz glass of wine is fine), Smoking of Any Kind, Prescription Drug Abuse or Recreational Drug Use.

Also Gratuitous Profanity or Course Adult Humor is also not tolerated and will get you escorted out the door.

That's how I live and my associates all know how steadfastly I adhere to this. I have no one in my close association who does otherwise since if they did they would no longer be close associates.


----------



## MikeOReilly

SeaStar58 said:


> I do not tolerate substance abuse of any kind.
> 
> Any thing/place I have control of is a Zone where there is no Drunkenness (a shot of hard liquor, a beer or a 4/5 oz glass of wine is fine), Smoking of Any Kind, Prescription Drug Abuse or Recreational Drug Use.
> 
> Also Gratuitous Profanity or Course Adult Humor is also not tolerated and will get you escorted out the door.
> 
> That's how I live and my associates all know how steadfastly I adhere to this. I have no one in my close association who does otherwise since if they did they would no longer be close associates.


Well then, party on :devil.

Rocky, no one has said pot can't lead to greater drug problems. You really gotta stop reading your own interpretations into what people write. Pot is clearly addictive. So are a lot of chemicals and activities. But just like a scratch is not the same as having your hand chopped off, there are gradations to the thing in question.

I'm a freedom loving kinda guy. I think all of it should be decriminalized. But I recognize that cannabis is not heroin, and there are valid arguments to drawing the line somewhere.


----------



## Jammer Six

SeaStar58 said:


> I do not tolerate substance abuse of any kind.
> 
> Any thing/place I have control of is a Zone where there is no Drunkenness (a shot of hard liquor, a beer or a 4/5 oz glass of wine is fine), Smoking of Any Kind, Prescription Drug Abuse or Recreational Drug Use.
> 
> Also Gratuitous Profanity or Course Adult Humor is also not tolerated and will get you escorted out the door.
> 
> That's how I live and my associates all know how steadfastly I adhere to this. I have no one in my close association who does otherwise since if they did they would no longer be close associates.


You remind me of that guy Newt who said he didn't tolerate sex on his boat except between him and his wife.

Of course, like you, he didn't say how he'd enforce that...

If I have a script for vicodin or oxy and decide I want an extra one, you'd never know. Matter of fact, if I have the pills _without_ the script, you wouldn't know about it, either.

So get a grip. You don't escort anyone out the door at sea. The only way you enforce your braying is if you go to sea alone.

And I'm betting that wouldn't be the first time you found yourself without crew who'd put up with you.


----------



## midwesterner

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> For those of you who do not think pot can lead to greater drug problems I will refer you to Robert Downey Jr. as he has stated multiple times that he was started on pot by his father but once experienced with the pot high yearned for stronger and longer lasting highs which led him to a continuous battle with drug addiction. Don't believe me, because I have not smoked pot, although I had several friends while I was in trade school who really threw their lives into a downward spiral beginning with heavy pot use. Fortunately, one of them was able to get his head back on straight with the help of a good woman and went on to a very successful career as a Mold Maker in the miniature medical device business.


Robert Downey Jr. is a great example of how pot is addictive for people who have an addictive personality. He was also addicted to alcohol and sex.

Here in Missouri we have people who have really thrown their lives into a downward spiral beginning with casino gambling. It's so bad, that we have a toll free number, 1-888-Bets-Off , where gamblaholics can register to be blocked access to gambling casinos. (I'm for real, try it).

Incidentally, the majority of people who are addicted to gambling admit to starting with lottery scratch-off tickets and that they drank milk as children. Both of these activities are being researched as "gateway" activities.

Unlike you, the past four presidents of the US have admitted that they smoked pot in college (well one of them said he only ate it in pot brownies), and they still made it to the White House. Of all of the problems that some of those presidents have had, the problems don't appear to be due to the pot they smoked in college.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Minnewaska said:


> Wikipedia is your source? Did you read the references in that entry?
> 
> How about NPR, do you trust them? They reported, just last month, that the DEA genetically tested heroin samples in the US and 93% were grown in the Guerrero region of Mexico. The US does not source much of it's heroin from Afghanistan, although, the rest of the planet seems to.
> 
> Admittedly, this has absolutely nothing to do with Cannabis and it certainly has nothing to do with the current administration, as the article shows the Mexican production has doubled over the past 5 years.
> 
> Put the joint down, Sal. You're getting paranoid.  [kidding, don't burst a vein]
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...es-in-mexico-americas-biggest-heroin-supplier


LOL... no problem. I deleted that post because I want to be less focused on drug stuff and more on sailing, not because I was mad.

But since you brought it up - the thrust of my deleted post was basically tan answer your earlier question -

Wikipedia is not a perfect source, but they are good enough for posting on a forum. Quite a bit better than most commercial or politically oriented sources. They don't give you an opinion, but you can look up facts there and elsewhere -all of these articles say basically the same thing - 
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37743433
https://www.globalresearch.ca/afghanistan-the-worlds-largest-opium-producer/5596034
https://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-opium-production/4083875.html
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...h-the-roof-why-washington-shouldnt-overreact/
http://www.businessinsider.com/opium-and-heroin-production-in-afghanistan-has-increased-2016-10
https://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-...ds-to-all-time-high-heroin-production/5358053

Afganistan is the worlds largest producer of heroin, producing 90%. It would be ridiculous to assume none gets to the U.S. They have 22.5 million acres under cultivation, so its all over the country.. The country has been occupied by the U.S for the last 17 years, during which time opium production has increased. There are youtube videos of U.S. colonels saying yes we do protect those fields and even help them and give them support. I can post them if you don't believe me. At the same time we have our own federal government essentially saying they will lock up Americans for smoking pot in their own homes. So while their legal authority is not in question, the morals and motivation are.

None of this is far fetched or in dispute. You can look up this information for yourself, anyone can. 
I think the efforts by the federal gov to "crack down " on our own people while allowing, and yes protecting the world's production of heroin speaks volumes.

All of this is out there for anyone with a computer to look up and form their own opinions. And no, I do not totally trust NPR. What I do personally - is look at a selection of articles and reference materials across many sources.


----------



## SanderO

MikeOReilly said:


> Well then, party on :devil.
> 
> Rocky, no one has said pot can't lead to greater drug problems..


The issue is not greater drug problems... but potential dangerous behavior if impaired... and impairment can have any underlying cause... lack of sleep is an example.

So if you are just sitting in your boat and not operating it or doing anything that can endanger anyone including yourself.... it's a non issue.

Getting high can lead to loss of inhibitions and this can manifest in anti social behavior... not dangerous but inconsiderate... such as loud music for example.

The consideration should always be: respect the rights of others when you do ANYTHING.


----------



## SeaStar58

Jammer Six said:


> You remind me of that guy Newt who said he didn't tolerate sex on his boat except between him and his wife.
> 
> Of course, like you, he didn't say how he'd enforce that...
> 
> If I have a script for vicodin or oxy and decide I want an extra one, you'd never know. Matter of fact, if I have the pills _without_ the script, you wouldn't know about it, either.
> 
> So get a grip. You don't escort anyone out the door at sea. The only way you enforce your braying is if you go to sea alone.
> 
> And I'm betting that wouldn't be the first time you found yourself without crew who'd put up with you.


Couples would have to be Married before they'd be invited on board and on a boat with no private berths it would be the rule of decency to have "No Sexual Activity on Board" apply to All Married Couples there.

I would not have people on board that I do not already know quite well and had not already vetted out 100%. My crew supports this 100% and would not put out with me if I did not share this view. A substance abuser would not have made it on board as they would have been shown the door well before that. If a active Substance Abuser was known to have slipped by and been included in an outing most if not all of my friends would refuse to come along. Yes there are a good many sober people out there that do not tolerate this garbage in themselves or their close associates.

Its a good thing I do not bet as you would have lost that one and it would have been very easy money for me.

This thread was asking how different members viewed the use of Cannabis on board and my view for good reason is "No Way!".


----------



## Sal Paradise

A study once found that 50% of heroin users started with pot. It's true.

But 100% started with milk.


----------



## SanderO

Sal Paradise said:


> A study once found that 50% of heroin users started with pot. It's true.
> 
> But 100% started with milk.


that is a logical fallacy no sequitur...

the purpose for milk is nutrition... the purpose for the substances we are discussing is to alter one's mental state... ie impairment to some extent.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sal Paradise said:


> ...... It would be ridiculous to assume none gets to the U.S. ......


Let's let it go. I'm sure you realize I never said none comes from Afghanistan, but you're getting defensive. I said 93% of US consumption does not, therefore, algebraically, the vast majority (virtually all) of Afghan poppy goes elsewhere.

No point duking out a conspiracy theory. I didn't notice above what you did or didn't delete. I'm happy to purge the record, if you prefer.

I wonder where poppy is grown for worldwide medical morphine.


----------



## paulinnanaimo

When I smoked pot over 50 years ago it made me cough etc. and so I began smoking cigarettes temporarily to enable the pot smoking. I smoked weed for a couple of years but the lousy cigarettes entrapped me for decades.


----------



## mbianka

and then there is this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...super-strength-cannabis-could-driving-mental/


----------



## Tanski

Minnewaska said:


> Let's let it go. I'm sure you realize I never said none comes from Afghanistan, but you're getting defensive. I said 93% of US consumption does not, therefore, algebraically, the vast majority (virtually all) of Afghan poppy goes elsewhere.
> 
> No point duking out a conspiracy theory. I didn't notice above what you did or didn't delete. I'm happy to purge the record, if you prefer.
> 
> I wonder where poppy is grown for worldwide medical morphine.


Last I heard it was government growers in India.
I believe Coke still imports coca leaves for flavoring. The cocaine component is/was processed out and used for medical purposes


----------



## Sal Paradise

Minnewaska said:


> Let's let it go. I'm sure you realize I never said none comes from Afghanistan, but you're getting defensive. I said 93% of US consumption does not, therefore, algebraically, the vast majority (virtually all) of Afghan poppy goes elsewhere.
> 
> No point duking out a conspiracy theory. I didn't notice above what you did or didn't delete. I'm happy to purge the record, if you prefer.
> 
> I wonder where poppy is grown for worldwide medical morphine.


Yes, okay. I'm certainly not accusing you of saying any particular thing, or being defensive. I think I made a very good point - and I am happy enough to remake it - but I don't think anyone here cares all that much. I am really just turning my thoughts back to sailing and less toward this sort of discussion. That is the only reason I deleted my earlier post.


----------



## MacBlaze

SeaStar58 said:


> Couples would have to be Married before they'd be invited on board and on a boat with no private berths it would be the rule of decency to have "No Sexual Activity on Board" apply to All Married Couples there.


Wow, living in the dark ages much? I have been happily "not married" for over 25 years so I guess we wouldn't be welcome. Of course you said "Married" not "married" so I am guess even if I had the gov't issued piece of paper I still wouldn't qualify...

:angel


----------



## MacBlaze

mbianka said:


> and then there is this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...super-strength-cannabis-could-driving-mental/


Not sure what your take on it is, but this is one of the biggest reason from decriminalization and enforced standards. The **** on the streets these days is the result of a lot of unregulated, undocumented breeding with little or no care. 18th century dog breeders cared more about what they were doing than pot growers over the last 20 years. And let's not ever talk about what the dealers are adding to the mix...

You wouldn't find me touching the **** on the streets, not because I object to it, but because it scares the crap out of me.

PS...

Wow! Who knew SN changed sh*t to ****. Cool.


----------



## SeaStar58

MacBlaze said:


> Wow, living in the dark ages much? I have been happily "not married" for over 25 years so I guess we wouldn't be welcome. Of course you said "Married" not "married" so I am guess even if I had the gov't issued piece of paper I still wouldn't qualify...
> 
> :angel


No unmarried couples allowed in my close association so that would not be an issue since only close associates would be invited. When all your close friends are like minded on morals, decency, substance abuse, etc all these potential issues evaporate and life becomes truly easy.

Kids have been using that "Dark Ages" excuse for ages however it still does not work. In a simpler time before government registration of marriage it was just the public event of going to your brides house in front of all onlookers and having a procession to your home to make it known that you were in taking a wife and she was accepting you as husband in a marriage arrangement, a publicly known covenant between the couple however they were still married.

The law of the land requires that marriages be registered now so the good citizen registers the marriage. One factor that lead to government registration of marriage was due to men lacking integrity skipping out on wives and children claiming there was no proof that they were married and the need to have a more wide spread record of marriages beyond just a village, community or a single parish.

The new morality is really just the old immorality whitewashed so it don't look as bad in the community. The Roman Empire went down this route with morality which is one of the factors that ultimately led to its slow decay and failure. History does tend to repeat itself.


----------



## MacBlaze

SeaStar58 said:


> No unmarried couples allowed in my close association so that would not be an issue since only close associates would be invited. When all your close friends are like minded on morals, decency, substance abuse, etc all these potential issues evaporate and life becomes truly easy.
> 
> Kids have been using that "Dark Ages" excuse for ages however it still does not work. In a simpler time before government registration of marriage it was just the public event of going to your brides house in front of all onlookers and having a procession to your home to make it known that you were in taking a wife and she was accepting you as husband in a marriage arrangement, a publicly known covenant between the couple however they were still married.
> 
> The law of the land requires that marriages be registered now so the good citizen registers the marriage. One factor that lead to government registration of marriage was due to men lacking integrity skipping out on wives and children claiming there was no proof that they were married and the need to have a more wide spread record of marriages beyond just a village, community or a single parish.
> 
> The new morality is really just the old immorality whitewashed so it don't look as bad in the community. The Roman Empire went down this route with morality which is one of the factors that ultimately led to its slow decay and failure. History does tend to repeat itself.


Wow. Just... wow.

***

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic.

Isn't ironic that gov't regulations have created the current problems with cannabis use and yet the gov'ts refuse to get together and actually regulate (sensibly) the manufacture, distribution and cross-border transport of it? I mean there are some crazy liquor transportation laws out there but at least they are all logically based on the gov't's need to grab its piece of the tax pie. You would think the same greed/logic would apply to cannabis but decades of misinformation and hysteria have made it such a boogieman.

I have seen pot ruin lives. I have see alcohol ruin more. Why can't we just be logical about this.


----------



## jtsailjt

MacBlaze said:


> Wow, living in the dark ages much? I have been happily "not married" for over 25 years so I guess we wouldn't be welcome. Of course you said "Married" not "married" so I am guess even if I had the gov't issued piece of paper I still wouldn't qualify...
> 
> :angel


I was also happily not married for many years and never found it to be a problem when I visited someone else's home or boat to comply with whatever their "house rules" were. Even if I was in a long term relationship, if I sensed that the host would be at all uncomfortable with us sleeping together for whatever reason, we'd comply without even a hint of an objection. It was never a problem and I never considered it a question of ME being welcome or unwelcome but rather just the hosts personal preferences, and far be it for me to do my own amateur psychoanalysis on his/her motivations.

I've also been a military or professional pilot for the past 40 years so all during that time could have NO exposure to illegal drugs so all during that time I've had the same zero tolerance policy towards them and that's also never been a problem either.


----------



## jtsailjt

MacBlaze said:


> Wow. Just... wow.
> 
> .


I'm guessing that you won't be applying to get on SeaStars guest list anytime soon and that's fine but I actually find his perspective refreshing and if I were to be invited aboard his boat would be happy to comply. My own personal rules are not exactly the same as his but are pretty close. I'd be a LOT more comfortable with someone like him who had clear and strict ground rules than being on someone's boat where pretty much anything goes. I particularly like his NO drugs and very little alcohol rules and I see no reason why he should allow unmarried couples to sleep together if it makes him even slightly uncomfortable, no explanation required.

Trying to justify bringing marijuana on someone's boat using ANY of the arguments we've seen in this thread wouldn't be too impressive when it's your "lucky" day and you get boarded by a LEO with a drug sniffing dog and finds your stash so the whole boat gets confiscated and if I happened to be a passenger or the boat owner, even though I had no personal knowledge of the drugs aboard, I'd suddenly be in an expensive legal fight to avoid losing my career. So, for anyone who thinks it might be OK to sneak just one joint hidden away or any amount of an illegal substance, that's among the most unethical and hateful things you can do to any boat owner. Even with no LEO"s present, if I ever learned that someone did that on my boat, I'd seriously have to restrain myself from not making them swim ashore from the spot where I discovered it and under NO circumstances would they ever set foot on my boat again.


----------



## MacBlaze

jtsailjt said:


> I'm guessing that you won't be applying to get on SeaStars guest list anytime soon and that's fine but I actually find his perspective refreshing and if I were to be invited aboard his boat would be happy to comply. My own personal rules are not exactly the same as his but are pretty close. I'd be a LOT more comfortable with someone like him who had clear and strict ground rules than being on someone's boat where pretty much anything goes. I particularly like his NO drugs and very little alcohol rules and I see no reason why he should allow unmarried couples to sleep together if it makes him even slightly uncomfortable, no explanation required.


We disagree. A lot. But I'm done with it...



jtsailjt said:


> Trying to justify bringing marijuana on someone's boat using ANY of the arguments we've seen in this thread wouldn't be too impressive when it's your "lucky" day and you get boarded by a LEO with a drug sniffing dog and finds your stash so the whole boat gets confiscated and if I happened to be a passenger or the boat owner, even though I had no personal knowledge of the drugs aboard, I'd suddenly be in an expensive legal fight to avoid losing my career. So, for anyone who thinks it might be OK to sneak just one joint hidden away or any amount of an illegal substance, that's among the most unethical and hateful things you can do to any boat owner. Even with no LEO"s present, if I ever learned that someone did that on my boat, I'd seriously have to restrain myself from not making them swim ashore from the spot where I discovered it and under NO circumstances would they ever set foot on my boat again.


I basically agree with your opinion but dispute the basic premise. Illegal is illegal. Don't do it.

But why is it illegal?


----------



## MikeOReilly

Love this free range discussion, and I appreciate that while a few posts may be on the testy side, for the most part it has remained civil and interesting. This is why I appreciate SN. There is a wide tolerance for these kinds of discussions, and for the most part, participants are respectful and level-headed. 

Back on the farm… I too find SeaStar58’s attitudes disturbingly antiquated. Clearly we would never be crew members, nor likely friends. But if by some weird happenstance I found myself on his boat (I assume he’s a he), I would absolutely respect his rules and his wishes. And I’d expect the same respect shown to me if the reverse happened and SeaStar58 somehow ended up on my boat. 

In fact, I don’t see anyone saying anything different. Those of us who have no ethical problem with people using cannabis are not saying they would sneak it onto someone else’s boat, in opposition to the captains wishes. Nor do I see people demanding to have sex with their unmarried partners on vessels which explicitly forbid it ... how the heck did we get to that non-sequitur anyway .

These straw men arguments can be amusing, but they’re rarely useful. In answer to the original question, it’s clear some people have a zero-tolerance approach to cannabis on board, while others are more flexible. I don’t mind cannabis use on board, but I dislike smoke, so on my boat you are banished to the bow if you must puff up. And I may even join you there for a drag or two, but I much prefer my mind-altering drugs to come in liquid form; preferably as a fine single malt, interesting beer, or nice wine.


----------



## ScottUK

SeaStar58 said:


> The Roman Empire went down this route with morality which is one of the factors that ultimately led to its slow decay and failure. History does tend to repeat itself.


Got agree with you. It took over a hundred years of slow decay after the adoption of Christianity for the Empire to fail(though some would argue it moved east). It appears your position is another reiteration.


----------



## SeaStar58

MacBlaze said:


> Wow. Just... wow.
> 
> ***
> 
> And now back to our regularly scheduled topic.
> 
> Isn't ironic that gov't regulations have created the current problems with cannabis use and yet the gov'ts refuse to get together and actually regulate (sensibly) the manufacture, distribution and cross-border transport of it? I mean there are some crazy liquor transportation laws out there but at least they are all logically based on the gov't's need to grab its piece of the tax pie. You would think the same greed/logic would apply to cannabis but decades of misinformation and hysteria have made it such a boogieman.
> 
> I have seen pot ruin lives. I have see alcohol ruin more. Why can't we just be logical about this.


Its not government regulations that created the problems, it was people who created the problem while regulators just reacted to public outcry and set regulations to deal with the problem. The current generation is just so far removed from the origins that they have this false alternative history colored by those with a drug problem. If they deregulate, it will likely in time come full swing and then public outcry will shift in the other direction to have it regulated again and impose stiffer penalties for its non-medical use. As it is many communities are enacting laws against simply being impaired in public regardless of the cause be it liquor, drugs, staying up late to watch the Tonight Show/etc and not getting enough sleep and even addiction to texting or playing PokémonGo so that they become a danger to those around them.

I do remember high school and who was smoking weed. They were the same ones blowing up toilets with metal jacketed fire crackers, assaulting other students with knives, brass knuckles and Chinese Stars. They were most often the worst students and most likely to be caught breaking into cars and homes or driving their cars over sidewalks, into trees, living rooms, etc. You saw good students getting solid grades get sucked into that crowd and their grades started dropping, appearance got more slovenly and attitudes more belligerent. I didn't have to watch the Hysteria films that the potheads all made fun of, all I had to do was look at the pot smokers in the classroom and you could usually pick them out with almost 99% accuracy it was so obvious. I lived through the 60's as a student and fully recall what it was like when dealing with someone who smoked Cannabis. I already related what the reality of it was like in the workplace in the late 70's and early 1980's and it had not changed much except that it could harder to pick out the mature pot smoker who was more adept at hiding it.

People forget what is was like to have unrestrained pot smokers in the schools and workplace. I haven't forgotten and can tell you it was much worse before the DEA took a hard lined approach to dealing with it.

Yes we do need regulators to become sensible and deal with these self induced impairments as the same crime against the community that the really are and not come down harshly on one kind and turn a blind eye to another depending on what special interest group is making the most waves.

Mind you I look at this as a former Police/Prison Consultant along with having worked with the Joint Chiefs in the past. You have to pass constant scrutiny and review when working in those venues and I still hold to that standard. Some in the Military will understand more fully what this entails along with the level of granularity at which it is vetted out.


----------



## Jammer Six

seastar58 said:


> couples would have to be married before they'd be invited on board and on a boat with no private berths it would be the rule of decency to have "no sexual activity on board" apply to all married couples there.
> 
> I would not have people on board that i do not already know quite well and had not already vetted out 100%. My crew supports this 100% and would not put out with me if i did not share this view. A substance abuser would not have made it on board as they would have been shown the door well before that. If a active substance abuser was known to have slipped by and been included in an outing most if not all of my friends would refuse to come along. Yes there are a good many sober people out there that do not tolerate this garbage in themselves or their close associates.
> 
> Its a good thing i do not bet as you would have lost that one and it would have been very easy money for me.
> 
> This thread was asking how different members viewed the use of cannabis on board and my view for good reason is "no way!".


*newt! You're back! Hi, buddy!*


----------



## Jammer Six

SeaStar58 said:


> Couples would have to be Married before they'd be invited on board and on a boat with no private berths it would be the rule of decency to have "No Sexual Activity on Board" apply to All Married Couples there.
> 
> I would not have people on board that I do not already know quite well and had not already vetted out 100%. My crew supports this 100% and would not put out with me if I did not share this view. A substance abuser would not have made it on board as they would have been shown the door well before that. If a active Substance Abuser was known to have slipped by and been included in an outing most if not all of my friends would refuse to come along. Yes there are a good many sober people out there that do not tolerate this garbage in themselves or their close associates.
> 
> Its a good thing I do not bet as you would have lost that one and it would have been very easy money for me.
> 
> This thread was asking how different members viewed the use of Cannabis on board and my view for good reason is "No Way!".


*NEWT! YOU'RE BACK! HI, BUDDY!*

Tell you what, if I hit on your cook, we'll go below. If you come below, we'll assume you want to watch.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Jammer Six said:


> *newt! You're back! Hi, buddy!*


The newt I remember was never this anally weird.

SeaStar58 &#8230; I'm beginning to think you're just trolling. You can't be serious.



> _ "They were the same ones blowing up toilets with metal jacketed fire crackers, assaulting other students with knives, brass knuckles and Chinese Stars." _


You realize, these were just Hollywood movies that you were watching. Say it with me slowly: "*They're Not Real*." Or better yet, try getting out in the real world for a while.

&#8230; too funny


----------



## Sal Paradise

SeaStar58 said:


> mind you I look at this as a former Police/Prison Consultant along with having worked with the Joint Chiefs in the past. You have to pass constant scrutiny and review when working in those venues and I still hold to that standard. Some in the Military will understand more fully what this entails along with the level of granularity at which it is vetted out.


Suddenly the thread takes an ominous turn. You might be interested in the sailing to Cuba thread. Tell us -Are the toilet bowls in state and federal prisons much different?


----------



## Jammer Six

MikeOReilly said:


> The newt I remember was never this anally weird.


Oh, I do. He was just as adamant about no sex, for exactly the same reason, no marriage. I say it's newt in all his glory (or lack thereof.)

Haven't heard from him since he got run ignominiously out of Sailing Anarchy. He showed up, swore he was going to tough it out, and was gone by the next day. Didn't even last 24 hours.


----------



## capta

In 2 words, the USCG policy on this is *ZERO TOLERANCE*, which means they can take the boat and incarcerate folks pretty much at will. There are international agreements that allow them to board any vessel of nearly any nationality, even on the ocean well beyond US waters, if they suspect drug trafficking. Period.
"Do you feel lucky, punk?"


----------



## MikeOReilly

capta said:


> In 2 words, the USCG policy on this is *ZERO TOLERANCE*, which means they can take the boat and incarcerate folks pretty much at will. There are international agreements that allow them to board any vessel of nearly any nationality, even on the ocean well beyond US waters, if they suspect drug trafficking. Period.
> "Do you feel lucky, punk?"


I know this is the case, but which countries have these agreements Capta? There must be a list of countries somewhere?

If Canada is on that list, as I suspect it is, it's going to get rather interesting since we're set to legalize recreational cannabis this year. I believe Australia is heading down the same path rather rapidly, and a number of countries have decriminalized it.

I'm not arguing that it is currently illegal in the USA waters, since my understanding is that is federal turf. And I wouldn't suggest anyone do anything other than respect the law, but things are changing in many parts of the developed world.


----------



## chef2sail

SeaStar58 said:


> Its not government regulations that created the problems, it was people who created the problem while regulators just reacted to public outcry and set regulations to deal with the problem. The current generation is just so far removed from the origins that they have this false alternative history colored by those with a drug problem. If they deregulate, it will likely in time come full swing and then public outcry will shift in the other direction to have it regulated again and impose stiffer penalties for its non-medical use. As it is many communities are enacting laws against simply being impaired in public regardless of the cause be it liquor, drugs, staying up late to watch the Tonight Show/etc and not getting enough sleep and even addiction to texting or playing PokémonGo so that they become a danger to those around them.
> 
> I do remember high school and who was smoking weed. They were the same ones blowing up toilets with metal jacketed fire crackers, assaulting other students with knives, brass knuckles and Chinese Stars. They were most often the worst students and most likely to be caught breaking into cars and homes or driving their cars over sidewalks, into trees, living rooms, etc. You saw good students getting solid grades get sucked into that crowd and their grades started dropping, appearance got more slovenly and attitudes more belligerent. I didn't have to watch the Hysteria films that the potheads all made fun of, all I had to do was look at the pot smokers in the classroom and you could usually pick them out with almost 99% accuracy it was so obvious. I lived through the 60's as a student and fully recall what it was like when dealing with someone who smoked Cannabis. I already related what the reality of it was like in the workplace in the late 70's and early 1980's and it had not changed much except that it could harder to pick out the mature pot smoker who was more adept at hiding it.
> 
> People forget what is was like to have unrestrained pot smokers in the schools and workplace. I haven't forgotten and can tell you it was much worse before the DEA took a hard lined approach to dealing with it.
> 
> Yes we do need regulators to become sensible and deal with these self induced impairments as the same crime against the community that the really are and not come down harshly on one kind and turn a blind eye to another depending on what special interest group is making the most waves.
> 
> Mind you I look at this as a former Police/Prison Consultant along with having worked with the Joint Chiefs in the past. You have to pass constant scrutiny and review when working in those venues and I still hold to that standard. Some in the Military will understand more fully what this entails along with the level of granularity at which it is vetted out.


Funny I grew up about the same time I think and I never remember it like you do

I remember the government ( CIA) giving normal people LSD like Dr Mengele testing their reactions.

I removed the Klan rounding people up

I remember a cracker named Wallace trying to prevent blacks from going to college orceom Ed n voting

I remember the in charge generation coming home from work and drinking watch Donna Reed and Ozzie ( not Osborne) and Harriet, Lassie.

I don't ever remember the country being taken over by pot heads. Maybe by Jim Jones or that group who claimed the spaceship hiding behind the sun ( they did NO drugs)

People who have addictive personalities will find something to addict themselves too.

While I would allow someone now to light up a joint on the boat, no it's illegal. If it it ever became legal I might at Anchorage myself. However there is no danger me becoming addicted....Even psychologically to pot.

I would honor the law in other countries.

The winds of change....They are a comming..... .Gusting by the sensibilities of the majority.


----------



## capta

MikeOReilly said:


> I know this is the case, but which countries have these agreements Capta? There must be a list of countries somewhere?
> 
> If Canada is on that list, as I suspect it is, it's going to get rather interesting since we're set to legalize recreational cannabis this year. I believe Australia is heading down the same path rather rapidly, and a number of countries have decriminalized it.
> 
> I'm not arguing that it is currently illegal in the USA waters, since my understanding is that is federal turf. And I wouldn't suggest anyone do anything other than respect the law, but things are changing in many parts of the developed world.


I believe it will all hinge on how the UN handles the decriminalization of pot on a federal level in those countries. There are international agreements on this that may supersede the rights of individual countries' citizens, beyond their territorial waters.
Dominica and St Vincent were contemplating growing and exporting pot on a legal, commercial level, since neither has much other income, but the UN shut them down rather harshly. 
At least you have a Prime Minister who will work for the best interests of all his citizens, not just the wealthy ones, so he could create quite a scene should the UN try to get heavy handed about this Canadian law change. SVG and Dominica don't exactly have much weight in the UN.


----------



## MikeOReilly

capta said:


> I believe it will all hinge on how the UN handles the decriminalization of pot on a federal level in those countries. There are international agreements on this that may supersede the rights of individual countries' citizens, beyond their territorial waters.
> Dominica and St Vincent were contemplating growing and exporting pot on a legal, commercial level, since neither has much other income, but the UN shut them down rather harshly.
> At least you have a Prime Minister who will work for the best interests of all his citizens, not just the wealthy ones, so he could create quite a scene should the UN try to get heavy handed about this Canadian law change. SVG and Dominica don't exactly have much weight in the UN.


Yes, extricating ourselves from the weave of international agreements on cannabis is, in part, what is taking our government so long to act on its campaign promise. There's rumour it will now be delayed beyond July 1st (Canada Day). But it is a snowball that is rolling and will not be stopped.

Our PM talks a good talk on working for all Canadians. His actions are less impressive, but at least on this file he may actually live up to his promises. We'll see&#8230; And maybe Canada can help lead the way internationally out of these prohibition dark ages.


----------



## jtsailjt

MacBlaze said:


> I basically agree with your opinion but dispute the basic premise. Illegal is illegal. Don't do it.
> 
> But why is it illegal?


I don't know why it's illegal but it is and there's such a huge risk (permanent loss of your boat) to have it on your boat that there's no wonder that most boaters stay far away from it.

If you wanted to discuss, in a theoretical way, whether it makes sense for it to be illegal, I'd have a very hard time thinking of a logical reason for a cannabis prohibition. I tried it as a young teen back in the early 70's and didn't enjoy feeling sleepy and have no interest in using it now, but I don't think it's the governments place to say what anyone can do in their home with a weed they grew in their backyard. Alcohol does MUCH more harm partially because it's use is so widespread so maybe that's an argument against legalizing marijuana. Maybe if it's legalized all across the US, after awhile it will be as commonly used as alcohol and cause as many problems. I don't know. Also, my wife is a nurse and a cancer survivor and she tells me that smoking marijuana is really awful for your lungs. But that's all sort of irrelevant to this discussion because this is a sailing forum and the subject is "cannabis use on board" and that's a whole different issue than what you and think the law "should be" if we were King.


----------



## MacBlaze

jtsailjt said:


> ...and that's a whole different issue than what you and think the law "should be" if we were King.


Nobody, and I mean nobody, I know wants me to be King. :eek

But laws don't change on their own. Discussions like these might actually lead to some sense being made out of the mess you just described...and no, can't stand being stoned either. Haven't touched it since I was a young idiot.


----------



## paulinnanaimo

The Canadian government has various reasons for legalizing pot but one of the main ones given was the claim that it would keep it out of the hands of youth. I do not agree with this premise at all; a pot store on every corner will not accomplish this.


----------



## MacBlaze

paulinnanaimo said:


> The Canadian government has various reasons for legalizing pot but one of the main ones given was the claim that it would keep it out of the hands of youth. I do not agree with this premise at all; a pot store on every corner will not accomplish this.


I agree (sort of) - but it will keep Canadian youth out of jail and clear of criminal records...


----------



## MikeOReilly

paulinnanaimo said:


> The Canadian government has various reasons for legalizing pot but one of the main ones given was the claim that it would keep it out of the hands of youth. I do not agree with this premise at all; a pot store on every corner will not accomplish this.


Probably won't do much to keep it away from kids. Will be about as effective as liquor age restriction laws. But of course anyone at just about any age can currently get cannabis without much trouble. What it will do is improve quality control, and ensure youth are no longer saddled with criminal records (like MacBlaze says).


----------



## capta

jtsailjt said:


> I don't know why it's illegal but it is and there's such a huge risk (permanent loss of your boat) to have it on your boat that there's no wonder that most boaters stay far away from it.
> 
> If you wanted to discuss, in a theoretical way, whether it makes sense for it to be illegal, I'd have a very hard time thinking of a logical reason for a cannabis prohibition. I tried it as a young teen back in the early 70's and didn't enjoy feeling sleepy and have no interest in using it now, but I don't think it's the governments place to say what anyone can do in their home with a weed they grew in their backyard. Alcohol does MUCH more harm partially because it's use is so widespread so maybe that's an argument against legalizing marijuana. Maybe if it's legalized all across the US, after awhile it will be as commonly used as alcohol and cause as many problems. I don't know. Also, my wife is a nurse and a cancer survivor and she tells me that smoking marijuana is really awful for your lungs. But that's all sort of irrelevant to this discussion because this is a sailing forum and the subject is "cannabis use on board" and that's a whole different issue than what you and think the law "should be" if we were King.


It is my understanding that The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, effectively making possession or transfer of marijuana illegal throughout the United States under federal law, was instigated by the tobacco and alcohol lobbies in the US. It had nothing to do with public health or welfare, but the almighty American dollar. These companies realized that mainstream use of marijuana would seriously dampen their sales, as it can be grown by almost anyone, anywhere, while their products required a bit more effort to produce.
Apparently, the US forced a UN resolution to follow suit, some years later.
Interestingly, possession of marijuana is not the federal crime, but not paying the tax on it is. Every doctor must have a tax license to prescribe opiates, cocaine and marijuana from the feds, but the tax to prescribe marijuana is exorbitant. Next time you visit your doctor, ask to see his/hers.
State legalization does nothing to alter this law, and anytime the feds wish, they can prosecute anyone with marijuana for the tax violation. It is on this basis they raid the shops selling medical marijuana.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Tax is easier to bust someone. 

Remember it was 1931 that Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion... Not racketeering.


----------



## Sal Paradise

capta said:


> In 2 words, the USCG policy on this is *ZERO TOLERANCE*, which means they can take the boat and incarcerate folks pretty much at will. There are international agreements that allow them to board any vessel of nearly any nationality, even on the ocean well beyond US waters, if they suspect drug trafficking. Period.
> "Do you feel lucky, punk?"


I don't doubt that, but as things are in a state of change around the country, and as we can safely assume Mike won't be trafficking -the CG themselves put this out -

Federal ban means pot is illegal in parts of Massachusetts | WWLP.com
"If the Coast Guard boards a boat and discovers marijuana on board *the officers will confiscate it, and if there is more than an ounce, the suspected offender will receive a citation and fine,* according to Cynthia Oldham, of the Coast Guard. Anyone deemed to be operating a boat under the influence of marijuana or other intoxicants will be taken into custody and turned over to law enforcement on shore, she said.

So, there are three levels of response in that quote. Less than an ounce - they just take your pot. An ounce or more - you get a ticket. Stoned and operating the boat - taken into custody. I didn't see anything in there about seizing your boat. I have a coworker in the CG reserves and he tells me that they routinely tow boats in and give them a fine if they don't have enough PFD's. That in itself to me seems worse than simply confiscating someone's pot.The sailor with a half ounce just goes on with his day.


----------



## john61ct

Marijuana use was associated with blacks and the evils of dancing, drinking and jazz. 

Preventing white women from being seduced by black men was the main motivating factor for the original prohibition getting pushed through. 

Nixon's domestic policy advisor John Ehrlichman is on record that his late 60's founding of the "War on Drugs" was a political tactic to allow Hoover and other law enforcement to harass and suppress the antiwar student movements and blacks campaigning for civil rights and anti-poverty measures. 

And to this day continues to be used to disproportionately imprison poor minorities, helping to suppress and disenfranchise close to half the population in many key voting districts and states.

99% of the ill effects from drug use, on individuals but especially on society, is a result of the prohibition, rather than preventing the root causes, treating it as a criminal activity rather than a public mental health issue. 

Of course there is horrible immorality at work here, but it's not on the side of those getting stoned.


----------



## Jammer Six

Have a seat, Sal. Nobody believes anything you say about where you work and who you work with after those whoppers you told earlier.


----------



## john61ct

Dug up the original Harper's report

https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."


----------



## Sal Paradise

Jammer Six said:


> Have a seat, Sal. Nobody believes anything you say about where you work and who you work with after those whoppers you told earlier.


What?? The FF?? Moi???:devil


----------



## Jammer Six

Sorry, Sal, it was seastar. I got my keyboard circumnavigators mixed up, and I do apologize.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Actually, it doesn't matter. That's the beauty of working at Dunning-Kruger. None of our best customers ever believe it, and no one can change their minds. So thanks again.


----------



## mbianka

MikeOReilly said:


> Probably won't do much to keep it away from kids. Will be about as effective as liquor age restriction laws. But of course anyone at just about any age can currently get cannabis without much trouble. What it will do is improve quality control, and ensure youth are no longer saddled with criminal records (like MacBlaze says).


and of course give the Governments the ability to tax it. $$$


----------



## MikeOReilly

mbianka said:


> and of course give the Governments the ability to tax it. $$$


Of course&#8230;


----------



## MikeOReilly

Sal Paradise said:


> Actually, it doesn't matter. That's the beauty of working at Dunning-Kruger. None of our best customers ever believe it, and no one can change their minds. So thank you.


You're trouble :devil


----------



## capta

Sal Paradise said:


> Actually, it doesn't matter. That's the beauty of working at Dunning-Kruger. None of our best customers ever believe it, and no one can change their minds. So thank you.


Dunning Kruger;
A small bar in Brunswick East, Victoria serving small and independent producer goods, ranging from craft beer to single vineyard wines and showcasing independent distillers on our cocktail menu. Don't forget killer cheese and damn good pie.
or
In the field of psychology, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.


----------



## Sal Paradise

I am seriously thinking of changing my title to Armchair Circumnavigator. Its not often you get such a great one one thrown at you.


----------



## Sal Paradise

capta said:


> Dunning Kruger;
> A small bar in Brunswick East, Victoria serving small and independent producer goods, ranging from craft beer to single vineyard wines and showcasing independent distillers on our cocktail menu. Don't forget killer cheese and damn good pie.
> or
> In the field of psychology, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.


Capta-

Both of those sound like they would be great for canabis users. Especially the pie.


----------



## capttb

> the Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.


Used to work with a guy with Dunning-Kruger and we just kept asking "WTF is wrong with him", a superior told him "Most people work their way up to the level of their incompetence, you've exceeded all of them". We didn't know the condition had a name.


----------



## MikeOReilly

capttb said:


> Used to work with a guy with Dunning-Kruger and we just kept asking "WTF is wrong with him", a superior told him "Most people work their way up to the level of their incompetence, you've exceeded all of them". We didn't know the condition had a name.


Cute&#8230;.

Also known as the Peter Principle; that people rise to their own level of incompetence.


----------



## jtsailjt

capta said:


> or
> In the field of psychology, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.


So that's what it's called! As a commercial airline pilot I get to fly with all kinds of people and I thoroughly appreciate and enjoy about 95% of them. But I flew with this one copilot who somehow managed to slip into every conversation that he had been a full time model and still did a little modeling on the side. After about the first 5 times of hearing this it became obnoxious/amusing trying to guess how he'd manage to announce this to the next group of flight attendants we flew with. His piloting skills were just OK, but he seemed very impressed with them. Oh well, comes with the territory of being a captain. But the most fun part of the 4 day trip together came when we arrived at the layover hotel in Cancun. We arrived in mid afternoon and arranged to meet a few minutes later out in front of the hotel on the beach to relax and have a beer at the bar before dinner. But soon after we met on the beach he took off his shirt (of course) and announced that he was going for a swim and asked if I was coming with him. The surf was way up and there were temporary signs all along the beach urging caution and advising against swimming during the current surf conditions. I declined his invitation and urged him to reconsider and pointed out the reef about 50 yards out that the surf was breaking over and mentioned the risk of rip tides in these conditions. I also told him that I was a scuba diver and have spent quite a lot of time in and on the ocean and really didn't think he should ignore the signs and go in swimming. His "famous last words" spoken with great disdain were, "Don't worry Jeff, I know my limitations" and off he went into the surf. I watched as he dove through the first wave and swam about 10 yards out and suddenly started racing down the beach at a pace I had trouble keeping up with on foot. He was facing away from shore so didn't notice that he was moving swiftly down the beach. After about a minute of that his motion changed from parallel to the beach to heading out to sea through a break in the reef, fast! Eventually he noticed and turned back towards shore but there was no way anyone could swim against that rip tide current so he stopped swimming and started waving frantically to me but I wasn't about to join him in the rip. Luckily, there were some young locals who hang out on this beach with surfboards just to rescue tourists who get caught in this rip and one of them jumped on his board and paddled out to rescue him. They don't work for the hotel, just hang out and when they rescue someone they ask for $25. He paid the fee to the surfer and we repaired to the beach bar where, "in consideration of his recent unnecessary expense," I insisted on picking up the bar tab, and I may even have been guilty of asking him to "tell me more about your limitations" several times over our remaining time together....:laugh Never knew it was called Dunning-Kruger though.


----------



## john61ct

You know the idea, when learning complex topics, that the more you learn about it, the more you realize you don't know?

Like as your circle of knowledge expands, the perimeter touching the unknown does as well.

Well, when you're a noob, first starting out in a given topic area, you don't know enough to realize how ignorant you are.

That can lead to noobs' embarrassing overconfidence, arrogantly spouting on as if they're already experts.

Of course only the self-aware get embarrassed, and then only later on as they climb the learning curve high enough so that they can see how much further they have to go.


----------



## denverd0n

jtsailjt said:


> Alcohol does MUCH more harm partially because it's use is so widespread so maybe that's an argument against legalizing marijuana.


No, actually, that's an argument for prohibiting alcohol.

Except that we already tried that, and quickly realized that the problems created by prohibition were far worse than the problems created by the alcohol use. Sadly, we (the collective "we") are too stupid to realize that exactly the same situation applies to marijuana.


----------



## MikeOReilly

denverd0n said:


> No, actually, that's an argument for prohibiting alcohol.
> 
> Except that we already tried that, and quickly realized that the problems created by prohibition were far worse than the problems created by the alcohol use. Sadly, we (the collective "we") are too stupid to realize that exactly the same situation applies to marijuana.


+1

It's clear, though, that some segments of our societies know exactly what the collective costs are - and they are very happy about it.

Criminals and organized crime, law enforcement, prison system & judiciary, some businesses, politicians and bureaucrocies&#8230; Lots of groups and individuals are well aware of the cost of prohibition - and they love it!

It's great that an increasing number of jurisdictions have caught onto the con that is the "war on drugs." But from a boater's standpoint, we still need to operate within the existing laws. So while I have no issue with cannabis as a drug-of-choice, I certainly won't be messing around with it when sailing in areas that still legislate against it.


----------



## SanderO

MikeOReilly said:


> +1
> 
> Criminals and organized crime, law enforcement, prison system & judiciary, some businesses, politicians and bureaucrocies&#8230; Lots of groups and individuals are well aware of the cost of prohibition - and they love it!
> 
> It's great that an increasing number of jurisdictions have caught onto the con that is the "war on drugs." But from a boater's standpoint, we still need to operate within the existing laws. So while I have no issue with cannabis as a drug-of-choice, I certainly won't be messing around with it when sailing in areas that still legislate against it.


War on Drugs has been a disaster... that seems apparent.

Drugs are largely an illicit business and it demands some manner of enforcement (that costs money)... but has been rather ineffective.

Education may be money better spent... and treatment is another need for those who have gone down the drug rabbit hole.

The national security state never saw an enforcement program that they didn't love along with all the corporations which supply the natsecstate.

We don't need an either or solution. We need an intelligent one. Drugs coming from Pharma should not be hard to control.

Medical marijuana is should be legal... should be prescribed.

recreational use is more tricky for me. Same with alcohol. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I don't want that resulting in anti social or dangerous behavior putting innocents at risk.

I find people who are high very annoying, obnoxious... But getting a buzz is why people drink and smoke pot. DO it at home please... don't drive... don't operate planes and boats and so forth. Seems simple... but stoned people lose the ability to think clearly and don't realize it.


----------



## MikeOReilly

SanderO said:


> ...I find people who are high very annoying, obnoxious... But getting a buzz is why people drink and smoke pot. DO it at home please... don't drive... don't operate planes and boats and so forth. Seems simple... but stoned people lose the ability to think clearly and don't realize it.


For all my talk, I don't have much experience using cannabis, or even being around people who do. Sure, as a teen I used to smoke pot and hash, as did my friends. I'm sure we were obnoxious at times - we were teenagers after all .

Since then I've been around pot smokers perhaps a couple dozen times in 35 years. These would be in social circumstances, mostly with people I call friend, or at least good acquaintances. I can't think of a single such occasion where I found any of these pot users to be annoying or obnoxious. If I did, then they would quickly cease being my friends.

The same goes with drinking. I enjoy raising a glass with friends, but my friends are not annoying or obnoxious when drinking. Again, if they were, they would cease to be friends. Life is too short to hang around with a-holes.

I think it's perfectly possible to enjoy a beer or a joint socially, without becoming a jerk. If you can't, then you shouldn't use the stuff.


----------



## denverd0n

MikeOReilly said:


> It's clear, though, that some segments of our societies know exactly what the collective costs are - and they are very happy about it. Criminals and organized crime...


Yes. I was about 16 the first time I saw the movie "Key Largo," starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, and Edward G Robinson. The movie -- for those sad, unfortunate souls who have never seen it -- is set shortly after the end of prohibition and is about a group of gangsters who take over a hotel in Key Largo, just as a hurricane is approaching. In one scene the gangsters are talking and they start saying things like, "Soon we'll have prohibition back, and this time we'll make it stick. Yeah. Those no-good busybodies ruined it all when they repealed prohibition. We won't let them do that to us again."

As a naive 16-year-old I thought to myself, "Wait! That's not right! They have it backwards. The bootleggers would WANT prohibition repealed. Wouldn't they?"

And then it hit me. Of course not! They were making a fortune so long as alcohol was illegal. Making it legal again destroyed their business. If they got the chance, OF COURSE they would try to bring back prohibition and this time "make it stick."

It was a real "AHA!" moment for me at that young point in my life.


----------



## SanderO

MikeOReilly said:


> I think it's perfectly possible to enjoy a beer or a joint socially, without becoming a jerk. If you can't, then you shouldn't use the stuff.


Fine... I only drink a beer with some meals... and maybe on a very hot day... to quench my thirst. I realize people eat and drink with friends as something to do aside from chat or whatever. Nothing wrong with this.... Italians go to the coffee bar... many Americans now go to Starbucks... some go to the corner Bar...


----------



## RegisteredUser

Up tight is...up tight.
Vivid can be fun and very interesting.
Over the fence is...too far.

Pick your time and place.


----------



## MikeOReilly

SanderO said:


> Fine... I only drink a beer with some meals... and maybe on a very hot day... to quench my thirst. I realize people eat and drink with friends as something to do aside from chat or whatever. Nothing wrong with this.... Italians go to the coffee bar... many Americans now go to Starbucks... some go to the corner Bar...


Maybe it's the Irish in me &#8230; I prefer a nice quiet pub. :2 boat:


----------



## Jammer Six

Uhm... I've never seen a nice, quiet Irish pub.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

You fanboys cannot use the argument that restrictive pot laws are the same as Prohibition. Pot does not have, and never has had, a public market with licensed establishments purveying a majority of the public. Big difference...

If Sal's claim of milk being a gateway product and you are still not laughing then why aren't all of us addicted to drugs, alcohol, or narcotics? Try to at least be logical and not a complete non-sequitorial buffoon if you prefer to have a bit of credibility. You can enjoy unhealthy things, as I also do, but try not to rationalize your weakness to justify it.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Jammer Six said:


> Uhm... I've never seen a nice, quiet Irish pub.


You've probably never been to real pub then. Not the basterdized "Irish pub" found in too many places in North America. Not a "bar." I'm taking a real community pub. You know &#8230; one where everyone knows your name .

One with lots of dingy old-wood booths, counters and stools, real pumps, friendly local folk, and no music or TV blaring from the speakers. It's a place you can sit and have a pint in peace. Read a book, or chat with your pals. That's a real pub.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> Pot does not have, and never has had, a public market with licensed establishments purveying a majority of the public. Big difference...


Yeah except for










Is There A Limit To Colorado?s Dispensary Market? - Marijuana Retail Report


----------



## MikeOReilly

Fun&#8230; thanks Sebastian 

One of my favourite druggie songs is _Captain Jack_ by Billy Joel. Of course, it could easily apply to cannabis as well as booze: Captain Jack (Daniels). I especially like the version on one of his live albums where, in the penultimate chorus, he inserts "_Captain Jack can make you DIE tonight&#8230;_"

A good warning, especially for those considering boating while impaired: DON'T!


----------



## midwesterner

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> You fanboys cannot use the argument that restrictive pot laws are the same as Prohibition. Pot does not have, and never has had, a public market with licensed establishments purveying a majority of the public.


.

Sure we can the similarities of the analogy are many. During prohibition alcohol did not have a public market with licensed establishments. There was a huge government effort with an extensive organization devoted to preventing people from using it. That effort was ineffective and people at all socioeconomic levels used it anyway. It supported a huge underground economy and mostly only poor people were penalized for it. Meanwhile rich white people could do it as freely as they wanted with little consequence.


----------



## bletso

"It supported a huge underground economy and mostly only poor people were penalized for it. Meanwhile rich white people could do it as freely as they wanted with little consequence."

Not much changed there! Still the norm 100 years on.


----------



## aeventyr60

MikeOReilly said:


> Fun&#8230; thanks Sebastian
> 
> One of my favourite druggie songs is _Captain Jack_ by Billy Joel. Of course, it could easily apply to cannabis as well as booze: Captain Jack (Daniels). I especially like the version on one of his live albums where, in the penultimate chorus, he inserts "_Captain Jack can make you DIE tonight&#8230;_"
> 
> A good warning, especially for those considering boating while impaired: DON'T!


I was thinking this might be more apt for todays..opiate ppill madness culture:


----------



## midwesterner

bletso said:


> "It supported a huge underground economy and mostly only poor people were penalized for it. Meanwhile rich white people could do it as freely as they wanted with little consequence."
> 
> Not much changed there! Still the norm 100 years on.


One of the people who was instrumental in convincing legislators to repeal prohibition was Pauline Sabin. During prohibition, she liked to throw lavish parties at her estate for politicians. Of course cocktails were routinely served and she would point out the hypocrisy, that they were doing something that they had made illegal, and for which less-privileged people were being thrown in prison.

One of the things that has driven the decriminalization of marijuana in our country, is when it was no longer just used by Mexicans and black Jazz musicians but started being used by white prep school kids. When rich white men started having to spend a lot of money to get their kids off from charges that were sending poor people's kids to prison, people started wanting to do something to end the stupidity.

A good example, is our own former Governor here in Missouri, Jay Nixon, a Democrat, who ran on a strong anti-drug platform, twice had to bail his own kid out from under charges of possession of marijuana.

Jay Nixon, when he was our attorney general, gained attention for passing a law allowing the state to take away the license of any beautician or embalmer who smokes a little weed on their day off. Like I really care if my hair stylist gets a buzz on occasionally on her day off. And the people who work pumping dead bodies full of formaldehyde? I think they deserve to get stoned on their free time.


----------



## MikeOReilly

midwesterner said:


> ...One of the things that has driven the decriminalization of marijuana in our country, is when it was no longer just used by Mexicans and black Jazz musicians but started being used by white prep school kids. When rich white men started having to spend a lot of money to get their kids off from charges that were sending poor people's kids to prison, people started wanting to do something to end the stupidity.


So true. It's easy to demonize or believe in one-dimensional stereotypes about other people, but when it gets personal previous hard-nosed folks tend to learn that most issues are not simply black & white. The real world is mostly shades of grey when it comes to these kinds of social issues.


----------



## john61ct

It's so ironic that anti-regulation conservatives (even some calling themselves libertarians!) are so anti-freedom when it comes to victimless drug use, sex work and women's health issues.


----------



## Olivershamm

I think some people have taken the whole legalization of marijuana totally off the deep end. People have been driving drunk, sailing drunk and flying...yes flying drunk for years. To assume things will get worse simply because marijuana is made legal is nonsense. It will not increase the number of pot users because people who smoke pot, in many cases, always have and always will, regardless...the same can be said for cigar smokers. There are less cigarette smokers in the U.S. than there has been in forever. I doubt these peolple are gonna bounce to the nearest weedmart simply because it's legal. It will simply be regulated like our number 1 and 2 killers; cigarettes and alcohol... no one ever makes a deal about those 2. But it's obviously titillating to some to post their rediculous thoughts online. I personally won't worry about a drug that simply makes people happy and/or hungry...I worry about the people doing shots of Tequila all day and then become a hazard to themselves and all those around them. There are tons of worse drugs that can be purchased right across the counter. People need not be concerned about pot which, has been getting people (including at least 2 former Presidents) stoned for decades!


----------



## mbianka

MikeOReilly said:


> Fun&#8230; thanks Sebastian
> 
> One of my favourite druggie songs is _Captain Jack_ by Billy Joel. Of course, it could easily apply to cannabis as well as booze: Captain Jack (Daniels). I especially like the version on one of his live albums where, in the penultimate chorus, he inserts "_Captain Jack can make you DIE tonight&#8230;_"
> 
> A good warning, especially for those considering boating while impaired: DON'T!


Here's a great song from the late Key West writer Shel Silverstein that IMO kind of sums up how too much smoking pot gets in the way of life:





"I ain't makin' no excuses for so many things I uses
Just to brighten my relationships and sweeten up my day
But when my earthly race is over and I'm ready for the clover
And they ask me how my life has been I guess I have to say
I was stoned and I missed it..."


----------



## MikeOReilly

Well said Olivershamm. There is plenty of actual evidence from some Scandinavian countries which have long ago gone done the decriminalization route. The evidence shows there is a small uptick of use after laws are relaxed, but this quickly subsides back to the same level as before. There is no swell of users or addicts. But it does come out of the shadows, which is a good thing.

In any case, Canada is committed to not just decriminalizing, but legalizing recreational cannabis use this year. When our society _doesn't_ descend into a zombie apocalypse hellscape of reefer madness, hopefully it will be a lesson others can learn from.


----------



## john61ct

Portugal and Switzerland are making great progress on their public health substance abuse issues.


----------



## Olivershamm

mbianka, I would imagine too much of anything can get in the way of life. Chef2sail, you need to run for office! As a former Paramedic, Army Paratrooper and Medic (+ Laboratory Tech) I have never seen, treated or rendered assistance to anyone because of too much marijuana...just a fact. People assume it bad because the government says it is and we know everything the government says is spot on. Nevermind the atrocious history this country has had in every category one can name. How many billions have been spent on the so-called War on Drugs that could have otherwise helped or assisted those who needed it? Mbianka, I believe it is wrong to assume everyone who uses pot is "young and stupid." Most of those I've seen who used it were old and had college degrees working great jobs; probably why they could afford it. Many young people don't smoke at all! Another gentleman mentioned that he hoped no one would burn down the forests with their weed-smoking...seriously? No mention of the millions of people who smoke cigarettes 'eh...the forest will burn simply because someone smoked a joint. I am LMAO!


----------



## paulinnanaimo

Olivershamm

I have to respond, I'm the gentleman who expressed concern about forest fires. It was in direct reference to the islands in the Straight of Georgia where many boaters row ashore and hike in the bush. These woods are beyond dry, it's easy to imagine a fire starting from a single spark. I did not mention the millions of people who smoke cigarettes. Firstly, most are not walking around on these islands. Secondly, it's pretty obvious that these people could also start a fire...the discussion is about pot.
British Columbia loses many millions of dollars to forest fires every year, some years it is billions, hundreds of homes lost; you should not make light of it.


----------



## RegisteredUser

People also say peyote is great.
Never been there myself.


----------



## capttb

RegisteredUser said:


> People also say peyote is great.
> Never been there myself.


After you puke,


----------



## Capt Len

Back awhile the rage was 'Mellow Yellow' Remember Donovan ?,Lived across the street from him in Glasgow. M Y was ported to be bannanna skins, dried and toked. So every body had to try something new in`their adolescent search for kicks. Just in case some of you adolescents want to try a cheap buzz, I might warn you it's not quite fatal but you might wish it were.


----------



## Sal Paradise

SanderO said:


> that is a logical fallacy no sequitur...
> 
> the purpose for milk is nutrition... the purpose for the substances we are discussing is to alter one's mental state... ie impairment to some extent.


Ahh my dear friend SanderO - the purpose of this is not scientific. It is not at all meant to be a prima facie argument. It's aim is only to force the reader to think about a basic logical contradiction; either that correlation does not equal causation, ergo marijuana does not lead to hard drugs, or - milk is an addictive substance that eventually leads to heroin. Which of course is ridiculous!

However, you called it a fallacy - a fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief. Neither I nor the original writer of that joke mistakenly believed that milk causes heroin addiction, or that pot leads to heroin.


----------



## contrarian

If only Henry Wallace would have remained Roosevelts VP instead of that nincompoop Harry Truman we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. 
How's that for stirring up some political crap? 
That'll probably get those people who bought into the Truman propaganda all riled up and start spouting off about what a great man he was dropping the atomic bomb and all.
Oh well, must be time for me to get back to my Yellow Submarine. That's where I hang out with my buddy George..... George Dickel that is. I'll just wait there for the history lesson that will soon befall me............................................provided no doubt by those who simply regurgitate the rhetoric that they have been brainwashed with. 
BIOB


----------



## contrarian

Just filler up agin. Emteeinit is the fun part. Ye ever git down this way I'd be happee to share some widja.


----------



## contrarian

I hang out with some old boys from Kentucky and they're always harping about Makers Mark but for my money George Dickel is the ticket. I do have to give those hillbillies some credit when it comes to there " NOT WINE " though. That's some powerful stuff, no wonder it's illegal. As the hillbillies always say: there's more than one way to have an "Illegal Smile"


----------



## SanderO

I am not interested in the issue of what leads to what... that is another discussion. My own concern is respect for the rights of others regardless of what you are doing... practicing guitar or smoking weed. As long as it is "invisible" to others... go for it.


----------



## Jammer Six

SanderO said:


> As long as it is "invisible" to others... go for it.


The problem with that logic is increasing the risk of others without their consent. (Or knowledge.)

Hard core, fringe Libertarians, for instance, believe that driving impaired should not be a crime unless it creates an incident, that until and unless an incident occurs, the impairment is "invisible", and nobody else's business.


----------



## SanderO

Jammer Six said:


> The problem with that logic is increasing the risk of others without their consent. (Or knowledge.)
> 
> Hard core, fringe Libertarians, for instance, believe that driving impaired should not be a crime unless it creates an incident, that until and unless an incident occurs, the impairment is "invisible", and nobody else's business.


NO that is not what I mean by invisible... driving while under the influence whether you cause an accident is illegal and should be.


----------



## ScottUK

I have no dog in this race but there appears to be a bit of unsupported supposition in this thread. I googled " Colorado DUI Marijuana". Throwing out the state sponsored sites on the first page I got:

Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence - NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws

"Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence."

"The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-still-seek-a-reliable-dui-test-for-marijuana

This second link evidences the difficulty determining impairment.

It appears to me a quest to prove an impairment rather than if an impairment exists or that the effects could even be positive. I can't answer myself but do question the scientific foundation to the methodology for this line of thinking.


----------



## MikeOReilly

ScottUK said:


> ...It appears to me a quest to prove an impairment rather than if an impairment exists or that the effects could even be positive. I can't answer myself but do question the scientific foundation to the methodology for this line of thinking.


Thanks for interjecting actual research and data into this discussion Scott. Too bad facts now seem passé when it comes to some of these social discussions.


----------



## Jammer Six

SanderO said:


> NO that is not what I mean by invisible... driving while under the influence whether you cause an accident is illegal and should be.


Then it sounds like "invisible to others" is an insufficient requirement.


----------



## Explorer

NSW, Australia now tests car drivers for use of amphetamines, cannabis and some other drugs, as well as for alcohol. Since late 2017 they also test boat skippers. It is illegal to drive a car or boat with those illegal drugs in your system at a detectable level. Heavy pot smokers are rarely clear
I expect other jurisdictions will also commence this testing if they have not already adopted it, particularly after any incident.
If you are at fault in an incident and fail a test you may have real problems with insurnce both for your boat and for other boats and possibly also or injury of damage to third parties or the public. 
A bad accident while under the influence could bankrupt you or your estate.


----------



## Jammer Six

Where do people get these ideas?


----------



## Arcb

Guests on my boat are generally free to do as they please. I dont invite strangers sailing on my boat, so guests are generally freinds or family. One exception to this rule is if I will be in or near US waters where there are strict rules governing recreational herbs, then its an absolute no no. As far as Im concerned, in the US most navigable waters are federal and laws are often enforced by federal agents. Was boarded just recently by USCBP, they were very freindly and professional, but I would not have wanted any illegal contraband on board.


----------



## jtsailjt

Arcb said:


> Guests on my boat are generally free to do as they please. I dont invite strangers sailing on my boat, so guests are generally freinds or family. One exception to this rule is if I will be in or near US waters where there are strict rules governing recreational herbs, then its an absolute no no. As far as Im concerned, in the US most navigable waters are federal and laws are often enforced by federal agents. Was boarded just recently by USCBP, they were very freindly and professional, but I would not have wanted any illegal contraband on board.


I think that's a very reasonable approach that I would adopt if not for the laws in the US and various other countries. But I'd have to add the caveat that marijuana was only allowed on deck all the way aft while at anchor because I don't want to inhale any of it. However, I don't allow any illegal drugs on my boat, even out of the US or in a remote location where there's no chance of it being noticed by anyone because I'm afraid that a joint or a single pill or bit of powder could get misplaced and lie unnoticed behind a cushion or any other place where it wasn't visible and could be found by a dog if I got boarded and searched and at that point the person who was responsible would be long gone and I'd be the one trying to convince the authorities that I knew nothing about it. I prefer to avoid any chance of that happening.


----------



## caberg

The vast majority of U.S. federal law enforcement agents could care less about possession of a small amount of marijuana that is clearly for personal consumption, if you are truly not doing anything else you shouldn't be doing. It partly depends on the law of the state you are in, because the feds will just refer it to the state for prosecution if they do anything. The US Attorneys offices are not prosecuting small marijuana possession at the federal level, so it's just a waste of time and resources for the federal agents out in the field to even bother referring it to federal prosecutors.


----------



## jtsailjt

caberg said:


> The vast majority of U.S. federal law enforcement agents could care less about possession of a small amount of marijuana that is clearly for personal consumption, if you are truly not doing anything else you shouldn't be doing. It partly depends on the law of the state you are in, because the feds will just refer it to the state for prosecution if they do anything. The US Attorneys offices are not prosecuting small marijuana possession at the federal level, so it's just a waste of time and resources for the federal agents out in the field to even bother referring it to federal prosecutors.


You're probably right about the vast majority but there's' always that one with a hair up his **** and I'm an airline pilot and my employer has a zero tolerance policy for any illegal drugs. Not worth taking the risk. Also, twice a year I have to take a FAA flight physical and they ask about using drugs and if you have any criminal record other than things like parking tickets or speeding.


----------



## caberg

jtsailjt said:


> You're probably right about the vast majority but there's' always that one with a hair up his **** and I'm an airline pilot and my employer has a zero tolerance policy for any illegal drugs. Not worth taking the risk. Also, twice a year I have to take a FAA flight physical and they ask about using drugs and if you have any criminal record other than things like parking tickets or speeding.


I was actually thinking of the federally regulated airline industry when I wrote my last post above. I'm willing to bet that thousands of people per day put their personal cannabis stash right under the nose of a federal agent (TSA) for inspection without thinking anything of it. Again, I think the biggest risk is being referred to state officials for prosecution (if it's illegal under state law, which is a risk that is rapidly diminishing), and the next biggest risk is having it simply confiscated. But with the growing acceptance and prevalence of cannabis these days, especially in flights originating out of states like CO, WA, OR, CA and some others, it really can't be worth the time and effort of any TSA agents.

But I completely get that other factors such as employment will influence what anyone decides to do. That makes perfect sense.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Given the numbers of people in US jails for various levels of cannabis use, I’d definitely not want it on board while crossing the border. But beyond that, it’s not my country. I think it’s important for cruisers to obey the laws of the land they’re visiting, even if those laws seems asinine and outdated. We Canadians expect the same when our American friends visit regarding guns, and I’m sure to some (many?) Americans our gun laws appear equally asinine.

But I do wonder how things are going to change when Canada legalizes pot this year. Boats are going to smell of the whacky weed, even if there is nothing on board. Millions of Canadians cross into the USA each year. Not sure how many boaters, but in the Great Lakes alone it must be in the many 10s of thousands each year. 

Wanna take bets on when the first ignorant Canadian, or over-zealous US border agent, is going to cause the first international stink over all this?


----------



## caberg

I don't think anything is going to really change for border crossings, at least not at many of the crossings. My in-laws live in WA just south of the Canadian border, and I lived there for a time as well. Cannabis is legal in WA and has been virtually legal in B.C. and Vancouver for decades. There is a ton of cannabis for personal use going back and forth there every day. No one's asking, no one's telling -- no one cares.


----------



## caberg

As for obeying the law, yes, definitely. But all laws are not created equal. How many people drive 5 mph over the speed limit and think it's ok? How many cops actually pull someone over and write a ticket for 5 mph over?


----------



## MikeOReilly

caberg said:


> As for obeying the law, yes, definitely. But all laws are not created equal. How many people drive 5 mph over the speed limit and think it's ok? How many cops actually pull someone over and write a ticket for 5 mph over?


I guess that's what I'm wondering about. Border folks, like all law enforcement, have discretionary power to make reasonable and rational decisions in the moment. Sure, it's technically illegal to jaywalk or speed a small amount, but thankfully few police will enforce this. I'm sure the same will (and is) happening with cannabis. But with legalization, surely the numbers of interactions are going to increase dramatically.

You west-coasters are probably a good model for the rest of Canada/USA. As you say, BC and Washington have lived this for a long time. But that's not the case for the Great Lakes or the east coast.

I'm not saying the sky is going to fall. But I do think there will be interesting times ahead.


----------



## hellosailor

Speeding on the highway is a bad thing to compare to most everything else. For instance, the US Interstate and Defense Highway System, commonly called "The Interstate" had a military design criteria that among other things required all proposed road to be safe for courier vehicles at speeds of 90mph, and safe for armor and transports at a somewhat lower speed. "Safe" by law and Congress.
So when Nixon reduced that from a common 65 to 55....really? Drive at 55 on a road that was built for 90? On a sunny day with no other traffic to endanger? One could question the logic of that. It is not a law "for the public good", so ignoring it is not really criminal behavior. Speed limit laws get way more complex than that...and then we have the case of Maryland state, where they declared three "school zones" in commercially zoned areas, where there are no residences or schools allowed. You see, the state doubles speeding fines in a school zone. So logically....gee, just put them anywhere?

I'm curious to know if Oz is invasive, i.e. mandatory blood draws for testing? without probable cause or other justification for intrusion? And then what do they do about sleepy drivers? Statistics say falling asleep at the wheel (especially on the longer trips driven at speeds unreasonably lowered) kills as many people as alcohol. Mandatory nap breaks?


----------



## Arcas Rover

The right solution to the matter is elimination of the legal fiction that floating your boat in US waters constitutes consent to warrantless search. Get rid of that insult to justice, and the rest follows.


----------



## Jammer Six

Arcas Rover said:


> The right solution to the matter is elimination of the legal fiction that floating your boat in US waters constitutes consent to warrantless search. Get rid of that insult to justice, and the rest follows.


There's nothing about consent in the warrantless search of a boat. Consent is not required for a warrantless search of a boat, and sailing in US waters does not constitute such consent.


----------



## MikeOReilly

hellosailor said:


> ...I'm curious to know if Oz is invasive, i.e. mandatory blood draws for testing? without probable cause or other justification for intrusion? And then what do they do about sleepy drivers? Statistics say falling asleep at the wheel (especially on the longer trips driven at speeds unreasonably lowered) kills as many people as alcohol. Mandatory nap breaks?


I bet sleepy driving will become the next great social evil. More than that, I actually believe I will live to see the day when driving starts to become illegal, what with the rapid development of driverless cars. The fact is, almost all accidents are human-caused, so taking the human out of this risky activity is the logical end.

Of course, life is a risk. But more and more people seem to want to bubble-wrap everything and everyone. Not a life for me&#8230;

But back to the topic, I know Canadian law enforcement is having catnipfits over their lack of easy roadside testing for cannabis. It's why they keep calling for legalization to be delayed. _Bunkum_ I say. But it would be interesting to learn more about what Oz is doing.


----------



## RegisteredUser

Seems like there is 'a lot' of concern/interest here in weed...


----------



## Arcas Rover

Jammer Six said:


> There's nothing about consent in the warrantless search of a boat. Consent is not required for a warrantless search of a boat, and sailing in US waters does not constitute such consent.


It's imputed in US law, I'm afraid. Therein lies the injustice.


----------



## Jammer Six

No, it was the direct, specific result of a SCOTUS decision. There's no one in that chain, from the Supreme Court to the Coast Guard Bosun's Mate who boards your boat who gives a small puddle of runny poodle **** whether or not you consent. They train, in fact, and sometimes hope you decide to _push_ the fact that you don't consent.


----------



## Minnewaska

It's absolutely a fact that the US Supreme Court has upheld the USCG's right to board and search and vessel at will. The 4th amendment absolutely does not require a search to have consent, it only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Of course, the operative word "unreasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. However, by process of law, the SCOTUS is charged with settling that dispute. They did. They consider random searches upon our seas as reasonable. Random searches of your house on land are not.

This concept was originally put in place for anti-smuggling and tax evasion, but by extension applies to other illegal activity that are easier to conceal on the seas. A boat moves and has nearly unlimited access to uncontrolled shorelines. Your house stays put. Therefore, it's reasonable to search the moving vessel. To be dramatic, that ship may be importing a dirty bomb for a terrorist. You can't import one with your house, only hide it.

I'm not saying anyone has to like it. If you don't, run for Congress and try to get an amendment to the Constitution, because the way it was originally written has been settled.


----------



## Arcb

Warrantless searches (inspections) of vessels is not unique to the US. Its pretty standard world wide. Minnewaska hit the nail on the head, its unreasonable search and seizure that folks are protected from. Courts have determined that for a vessel under way, inspection for the purposes of safety or customs issues is not unreasonable. These are not unrestricted searches though. We have a similar system up here. However, our CG has essentially no enforcement powers, so they wont be the ones boarding your boat. CBSA or RCMP though...


----------



## Arcas Rover

Minnewaska said:


> I'm not saying anyone has to like it. If you don't, run for Congress and try to get an amendment to the Constitution, because the way it was originally written has been settled.


Well, nothing ever is settled, not even by the Supremes. Readings, practices, and everything else change, and it wouldn't take an amendment to USC to do it. This one's probably untouchable as long as the state is partying so hard in security n' surveillance, though. I suspect it's just something we have to live with until an opportunity to correct it may come along.


----------



## john61ct

That opportunity does not seem in line with current trends.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> Warrantless searches (inspections) of vessels is not unique to the US. Its pretty standard world wide. Minnewaska hit the nail on the head, its unreasonable search and seizure that folks are protected from. Courts have determined that for a vessel under way, inspection for the purposes of safety or customs issues is not unreasonable. These are not unrestricted searches though. We have a similar system up here. However, our CG has essentially no enforcement powers, so they wont be the ones boarding your boat. CBSA or RCMP though...


Arcb, thanks for the Canadian perspective. I've looked into this question, and while it seems clear the USCG has the absolute right to stop and board any vessel in US waters, and apparently any US flagged vessel anywhere (without probable cause), I've never been able to confirm our water police have the same wide latitude.

The law says our police (who are not the Canadian Coast Guard), must have some sort of reasonable suspicion before halting. Roadside check stops have been found to be legal in Canada (by a logic I don't quite understand, but regardless...). But I haven't found similar legal cases with regard to water checks; the so-called "safety check."

It's not hard for police to achieve 'probable cause'. Someone without a visible lifejacket is probably sufficient. But I've yet to find official legal precedent that says our water cops can stop someone without some sort of pretext of probable cause.

But I may be wrong, and I figure if anyone knows of the cases, then you would.


----------



## MacBlaze

MikeOReilly said:


> Arcb, thanks for the Canadian perspective. I've looked into this question, and while it seems clear the USCG has the absolute right to stop and board any vessel in US waters, and apparently any US flagged vessel anywhere (without probable cause), I've never been able to confirm our water police have the same wide latitude.
> 
> The law says our police (who are not the Canadian Coast Guard), must have some sort of reasonable suspicion before halting. Roadside check stops have been found to be legal in Canada (by a logic I don't quite understand, but regardless...). But I haven't found similar legal cases with regard to water checks; the so-called "safety check."
> 
> It's not hard for police to achieve 'probable cause'. Someone without a visible lifejacket is probably sufficient. But I've yet to find official legal precedent that says our water cops can stop someone without some sort of pretext of probable cause.
> 
> But I may be wrong, and I figure if anyone knows of the cases, then you would.


In Canada, your usage of "water cop" is a bit misleading. I can't answer your question, but I was chatting with a Canadian Coast Guard ... boatswain maybe?... at Sullivan Bay in the Broughtons off Vancouver Island. He was just chilling by their rib (which was based off the monster cutter we could see cruising off in the channel) while the Fisheries guys did inspections. According to him, their lack of enforcement powers means they act as a ferry for other services: RCMP, Fisheries, even CBSA. He said they don't even do safety inspections, that's the RCMP. So there is no singular "water cop," but between the bunch of them they pretty much have an excuse to board...especially the Fisheries guys.

But is boarding legal without pretext? Who knows...


----------



## Minnewaska

Arcas Rover said:


> Well, nothing ever is settled, not even by the Supremes. Readings, practices, and everything else change, and it wouldn't take an amendment to USC to do it. This one's probably untouchable as long as the state is partying so hard in security n' surveillance, though. I suspect it's just something we have to live with until an opportunity to correct it may come along.


Not trying to nit pick, I get your point. However, I'm compelled to say there is nothing to correct. The document was never written with the desire to eliminate random searches of vessels on the seas, so it is correct, as intended.

I totally understand that one's right to freedom and privacy could be at a higher level, but that requires a change to our laws, not a correction.

I only offer this as a point of view of what needs to be done to see a different outcome. Yes, things can take twists over time, but for the SCOTUS to specifically opine on the interpretation of the 4th amendment, isn't going to be overturn by the change in times and attitude. I believe it will require a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, with the extreme polarization of our politics these days, I don't expect to see another constitutional amendment in my lifetime. Sad.


----------



## MikeOReilly

MacBlaze said:


> In Canada, your usage of "water cop" is a bit misleading. I can't answer your question, but I was chatting with a Canadian Coast Guard ... boatswain maybe?... at Sullivan Bay in the Broughtons off Vancouver Island. He was just chilling by their rib (which was based off the monster cutter we could see cruising off in the channel) while the Fisheries guys did inspections. According to him, their lack of enforcement powers means they act as a ferry for other services: RCMP, Fisheries, even CBSA. He said they don't even do safety inspections, that's the RCMP. So there is no singular "water cop," but between the bunch of them they pretty much have an excuse to board...especially the Fisheries guys.
> 
> But is boarding legal without pretext? Who knows...


Hmmm, I didn't intend "water cops" to be misleading. As I said, the coast guard are not police. I used "water cops" to include all police who do operate on the water - we have many, from local police forces to the national RCMP. But Canadian Coast Guard are not police.

But as you say, my actual question is about the specific legality of stopping and searching without just cause. The USCG has this power, and I know this is functionally how it operates here in Canada (mostly via so-called "safety checks").

I know arbitrary stops have been Okayed in Canadian courts for road vehicles, but I've not seen a specific case as applied to water vehicles. It may exist, but I haven't found it when I've gone looking.


----------



## Arcb

As far as I understand boardings that may occur in Canada should probably not be considered searches, but inspections to verify compliance with a regulation by an officer who has the authority to verify compliance with a regulation. For example, a water based mountie may have the authority to verify compliance with the small vessel regulations, however, once that compliance has been verified, its time to go. He cant go rooting around in the bilge of your canoe looking for your automatic bilge pump, because you proved compliance with bilge pumping arrangements when you showed him your cut off juice jug.

Customs inspections should work the same, if you are entering the country, you are voluntarily submitting to a search of kinds. If youre hanging around the border, they may go as far as they need to determine if you entered the country legally or not, but once they determine you have always been in home waters, its time for them to move along.

As far as I know, the US works the same way, the big difference is, the broad inspection powers of the USCG combined with their law enforcement powers the line may seem to blurr a bit.

However, when I was boarded last week by USCBP, the line wasnt blurry at all, they were very professional and by the book. They questioned us only until they determined we had entered the country legally, then not only sent us on our way, but wished us luck as well.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Thanks Arcb. My understanding of the Canadian law regarding vehicle stops are that since driving is a privilege granted by the state, it must be done in compliance with the regs. That gives officers broad authority to stop drivers, but even that is limited in such a way as it must be equally applied (no profiling, for example). This is why drunk check stops are legal — they apply to everyone who drive by. But a cop can’t randomly stop individual cars to check for safety violations. Some sort of just cause must be given for a stop.

It seems to me the same principle is being applied to water stops checking for regulatory compliance. But in this case it seems like it is harder to prove the stops are being applied equally unbiasedly to every boater. I’ve been in situations where water police have targeted power boaters around me for boarding and checks, but have left me and other sailors alone.

I’m sure this is b/c cruising sailors tend to be safe and compliant with regards to the regs, but still feels disturbingly invasive and arbitrary to me. 

I’ve only been stopped twice in my boating life. Once was by Ontario Provincial Police for a lifejacket check. The other was by an border service/RCMP boat, except in this case all they guy really wanted to know about was our windvane — turned out he was a fellow sailor and wanted to get one.

I understand the desire to protect people, but I am uncomfortable with arbitrary power to stop and search any boater without some sort of just cause. We don’t allow this kind of stop on the street, or to enter a home. In the case of a house there are many more “safety” regs at play that could be “checked”. Why is it illegal on land but OK in a boat?

Border crossings are a different thing entirely. There you voluntarily submit yourself for an inspection.


----------



## Jammer Six

Arcas Rover said:


> Well, nothing ever is settled, not even by the Supremes.


That's why the term "settled law" is used. The term settled law doesn't mean it's actually settled, or settled for all time, it means challenging a given issue in this day and age would be way beyond the resources of any reasonable endeavor.

In theory, anything can be challenged, anything can be overturned. In reality, there is a point where it's just not feasible. At some point, you have to get elected President, load up Congress with a two thirds majority and replace the Justices with a majority. That's the easy way. The hard way is amending the constitution, which is also possible, but is basically settled law.


----------



## hellosailor

The current USCG is a bastard hybrid of many agencies with many roles, many charters, over many years. Among them the old "Revenue Service" IIRC, which was legally authorized to inspect shipping to make sure all relevant import taxes and duties were being paid. So if the USCG really wants to know how many bottles of rum you are carrying...Yeah, once upon a time their predecessor was chartered to do that. Legally I'd call the USCG a mess, but the government has been quite happy to keep their roles and their authority in a nebulous place that allows for all sorts of things which couldn't be allowed in a more formally reorganized agency.
"Well, boats are expensive, so let's put all the stuff that needs boats under the USCG aegis."


----------



## Arcb

MikeOReilly said:


> Hmmm, I didn't intend "water cops" to be misleading. As I said, the coast guard are not police. I used "water cops" to include all police who do operate on the water - we have many, from local police forces to the national RCMP. But Canadian Coast Guard are not police.
> 
> But as you say, my actual question is about the specific legality of stopping and searching without just cause. The USCG has this power, and I know this is functionally how it operates here in Canada (mostly via so-called "safety checks").
> 
> I know arbitrary stops have been Okayed in Canadian courts for road vehicles, but I've not seen a specific case as applied to water vehicles. It may exist, but I haven't found it when I've gone looking.


Not sure you need the case law, its in a statute. Reference the Canada Shipping Act 2001 196 (4).


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> Not sure you need the case law, its in a statute. Reference the Canada Shipping Act 2001 196 (4).


Thanks. I knew you'd know&#8230; This does seem to make it clear.

Actually, after reading this section of the Act, I'm now rather amazed and disturbed at the sweeping arbitrary powers this grants officials. As I read it, they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want to do. This includes rifling through your computer, copying any files, and indeed, they "may seize and detain anything&#8230;".

Wow &#8230; so much for freedom from arbitrary state action. I had no idea it was this bad.


----------



## Jammer Six

The reason the case law is quoted is because your law is from 2001. The case law is from more than a century earlier. It's been settled law for a very long time.

And it's always been that bad. Read the decision. The reason it's that "bad" is from the lack of communication between ship and shore when the decision was written. The reason it's still that bad is because of stare decisis, and the fact that power accumulates.

In the U.S., a boat that isn't tied to a dock is the place with _the_ highest legal risk when it comes to pot.


----------



## danvon

amwbox said:


> I'm kind of curious about my own backyard. Oregon and Washington, both legal states, are divided by the Columbia River...which as a major navigable waterway has Coasties floating around on it. And I doubt they care much about Washington and Oregon being 4:20 friendly. Above the Bonneville Dam, it's all US Army Corps of Engineers controlled, because of all the hydro dams.
> 
> So basically...federal waterway acting as border between two giant clouds of pot smoke. Could be interesting if anyone pushes the issue.


I doubt there would be any question of what would happen. In this climate I am pretty sure the Feds would come after them hard.


----------



## danvon

ScottUK said:


> I have no dog in this race but there appears to be a bit of unsupported supposition in this thread. I googled " Colorado DUI Marijuana". Throwing out the state sponsored sites on the first page I got:
> 
> Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence - NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws
> 
> "Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence."
> 
> "The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-still-seek-a-reliable-dui-test-for-marijuana
> 
> This second link evidences the difficulty determining impairment.
> 
> It appears to me a quest to prove an impairment rather than if an impairment exists or that the effects could even be positive. I can't answer myself but do question the scientific foundation to the methodology for this line of thinking.


I'll add to that that I did a couple of years as a public defender. I personally handled dozens of DUI cases involving alcohol and various drugs, and discussed probably hundreds of others with my colleagues. I NEVER saw a case where a driver was busted because of bad driving solely due to marijuana. Alcohol and pot, sure, but the alcohol itself would account for the impairment. Here in Washington, I don't think that there has been any significant increase in impaired driving reported since we legalized, and people are not dying like flies on the roads.

See https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-no-stoned-mayhem_us_597e361ee4b06b305561d1fc and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-car-accident-rates/?utm_term=.e7ea98edc686.

I also reviewed some of the papers on pot and driving, and don't recall that any of them seemed to show marked impairment in driving skills.

Having said all that, i don't allow any pot on my boat (don't smoke it myself) because of the Federal attitude towards it and the possible consequences if someone gets caught with it. Once the ridiculous Keebler elf that we currently have as an attorney general is out of office maybe they'll ease up.


----------



## Jammer Six

He doesn't look like an elf to me, he looks like a badly constipated Presbyterian who is angry because he's still a virgin and is starting to suspect that sex is really us getting away with something.

He's just not sure what.


----------



## ScottUK

I looked at the links provided above. The second link was to a WP article that had this sentence (below) with a part of the sentence highlighted to link to the article it was citing. That article had the second quote below referring to a NHTSA study. I thought it was kind of amusing.

"Indeed, federal research has shown that while *smoking weed before driving does indeed elevate your risk of crash*, it's nonetheless far less impairing than alcohol, which dramatically increases the likelihood of a crash even at small doses."

"And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving."


----------



## Minnewaska

danvon said:


> ......I don't think that there has been any significant increase in impaired driving reported since we legalized......


How would law enforcement know? As I understand it, there is no reliable test to confirm marijuana impairment of the driver. Even the tests that detect THC can't only infer that one is impaired, but could simply be the residual from having been impaired earlier in the day. As a PD, I bet you would have had a field day with that and there would be zero convictions. This is a a major problem.


----------



## Jammer Six

It's the Washington Post reporting on science. 

Don't wind your panties too tight over it. It's like my dog reporting strategy move by move in a chess game. Fun to read, but don't use it as a basis for your education in chess. The way a knight moves still confuses him.


----------



## john61ct

Jammer Six said:


> In the U.S., a boat that isn't tied to a dock is the place with _the_ highest legal risk when it comes to pot.


I think a lot of minority smokers would disagree.


----------



## RobGallagher

Jammer Six said:


> He doesn't look like an elf to me, he looks like a badly constipated Presbyterian who is angry because he's still a virgin and is starting to suspect that sex is really us getting away with something.
> 
> He's just not sure what.


Q: Why don't Presbyterians have sex standing up?

A: They are afraid people might think they are dancing. Ba dum-bump CHhhhh


----------



## danvon

Minnewaska said:


> How would law enforcement know? As I understand it, there is no reliable test to confirm marijuana impairment of the driver. Even the tests that detect THC can't only infer that one is impaired, but could simply be the residual from having been impaired earlier in the day. As a PD, I bet you would have had a field day with that and there would be zero convictions. This is a a major problem.


You are correct - there is no reliable test based on THC levels because there does not appear to be any consistent coordination between THC level and ability to drive. What Washington did do was to put a per se THC limit in the law, just as for alcohol (the thinking was that the voters needed to see this to allay fears of marijuana-crazed animals driving recklessly all over the place). If you have 5 ng/ml or more THC in your blood, that is considered proof of guilt whether or not you are actually shown to be impaired. The problem is that unlike alcohol, any given level of THC doesn't really tell you anything. They do look at THC (the active form and Carboxy-THC (the inactive metabolite that is present later) to try to determine the timing of use, although I am not sure that this really solves the problem.

We also have officers who are specially "trained" as drug recognition "experts". Their job is to look at arrested subjects and give an opinion as to whether they are impaired. As far as I can tell they pretty much always make a finding of impairment.

As I said, I have not heard of a significant increase in either DRE findings of impairment or in descriptions of bad driving since legalization.

I agree there is a hole in our knowledge about how to tell who's impaired. I have always thought the right answer is a Whack-a-Mole type machine on the dash. Hit 5/6 moles the first try or the car won't start. Tests vision, reflexes, coordination, and reaction time. And it would work whether you are drunk, high, old, tired, too uncoordinated to drive, etc.


----------



## Jammer Six

john61ct said:


> I think a lot of minority smokers would disagree.


More white smokers disagree, simply because there are more white smokers.

The only ones who don't react with "oh, no, the Bill of Rights applies _everywhere_" are sailors, and they're a truly small minority. Even among sailors, as this thread demonstrates, the ones who actually both know and understand the law are few and far between.


----------



## ScottUK

danvon said:


> I agree there is a hole in our knowledge about how to tell who's impaired. I have always thought the right answer is a Whack-a-Mole type machine on the dash. Hit 5/6 moles the first try or the car won't start. Tests vision, reflexes, coordination, and reaction time. And it would work whether you are drunk, high, old, tired, too uncoordinated to drive, etc.


I would also include how hard you hit the mole on your list. I believe aggressive driving is a leading factor impeding road safety.

I question the bias of a lot of these studies. It appears to me there is an assumption of "impairment" (there could be) and not on if there is an effect and whether the effect is harmful or beneficial. It is interesting that despite these biases none has been conclusive to the negative, hence your ability to have "field day(s)" in court examining the evidence. Whatever outcome, I hope it is based on sound science and logic rather than ignorance as appears to be happening now.


----------



## Minnewaska

ScottUK said:


> ......Whatever outcome, I hope it is based on sound science and logic rather than ignorance as appears to be happening now.


That would be refreshing, but it's not the case with anything from environmental regulation to impaired driving. They are written in what sells to the lowest common denominator in intelligent thought. Emotion sells, not intelligence. Both sides, pro and con, having equally unintelligent supporters who want to believe what they believe. Pro-cannabis, anti-cannabis, both wrong.


----------



## Minnewaska

danvon said:


> .....voters needed to see this to allay fears of marijuana-crazed animals driving recklessly all over the place.......


Good one. That's your old PD coming out. 



> We also have officers who are specially "trained" as drug recognition "experts". ......
> 
> I agree there is a hole in our knowledge about how to tell who's impaired.


Trained? Should be a simple life test. I'm sure an Amish Bishop couldn't tell if someone was impaired, without training, as everyone outside his parish probably looks impaired. 

However, as a former frat boy smoker myself, I can certainly tell. The pro-cannabis crowd pushes back on this, but I can tell when someone has been smoking. I can see it in their eyes, even fairly small amounts. I think it takes one to know one (at least formerly). I haven't smoked in over 30 years and have no desire to start again.


----------



## danvon

ScottUK said:


> I would also include how hard you hit the mole on your list. I believe aggressive driving is a leading factor impeding road safety.


That's a great idea! Never occurred to me that we could also screen for road rage this way.


----------



## MikeOReilly

danvon said:


> ...I agree there is a hole in our knowledge about how to tell who's impaired. I have always thought the right answer is a Whack-a-Mole type machine on the dash. Hit 5/6 moles the first try or the car won't start. Tests vision, reflexes, coordination, and reaction time. And it would work whether you are drunk, high, old, tired, too uncoordinated to drive, etc.


That test would probably cut the number of legal drivers in half. This is the funny thing about impairment - it all depends on the definition of impaired. Old age is a serious impairment, as is sleep, eating/drinking (coffee) while driving, even talking.



ScottUK said:


> I would also include how hard you hit the mole on your list. I believe aggressive driving is a leading factor impeding road safety.


True. Studies have shown one of the most common causes of preventable (operator-caused) road accidents are due to erratic or aggressive driving. It's not speed per sey, it is the weaving, the tailgating, the relative speeding &#8230; these are more important than simple speed.


----------



## Jammer Six

The biggest danger I see on the roads, bar none, is all those other drivers.

But I'm near the end and I just ain't got the time
And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> Trained? Should be a simple life test. I'm sure an Amish Bishop couldn't tell if someone was impaired, without training, as everyone outside his parish probably looks impaired.
> 
> However, as a former frat boy smoker myself, I can certainly tell. The pro-cannabis crowd pushes back on this, but I can tell when someone has been smoking. I can see it in their eyes, even fairly small amounts. I think it takes one to know one (at least formerly). I haven't smoked in over 30 years and have no desire to start again.


Oh jeeze, where to start.

I am sure that the way frat boys got high 30 years ago is very different from how many people are using cannabis today, especially in states with legalization and a retail market providing access to many options for moderate and responsible consumption. While it may be easy to spot someone who has just smoked a lot of weed and who presents as the stereotypical stoner of the past (i.e., Slater from Dazed and Confused), the adults I know who use take very low dose edibles and it's usually impossible to detect any change at all in that person.

But more troubling is the attitude that anyone -- even a "a former frat boy smoker" -- is qualified to declare someone else as impaired by cannabis and charge him or her with a crime. According to Minnewaska, who needs training to do that? Being a former frat boy 30+ years ago is all that's needed.

There are a lot of wrong and outdated misconceptions about cannabis use and its effects ingrained into the heads of Baby Boomers, which are a relic of the Reefer Madness propaganda that was still circulating when they grew up. I am very confident that cannabis will be no big deal at all and widely socially acceptable in the near future. One reason I know, is that if alcohol could gain social acceptance, with all the significant health and social costs that go with it, not to mention it makes many people look and act like complete morons, then the much milder and tamer cannabis can't be far behind once it is fully legalized.


----------



## Minnewaska

As I said, the advocates push back. I didn’t say refer madness was needed, so one can see, the oushback is being exaggerated. I have 50 year old friends, who are smoking in social situations. I can defintely tell and it’s not like we were kids again. It’s just that having been there helps one have an eye for it.


----------



## MikeOReilly

caberg said:


> ...But more troubling is the attitude that anyone -- even a "a former frat boy smoker" -- is qualified to declare someone else as impaired by cannabis and charge him or her with a crime. According to Minnewaska, who needs training to do that? Being a former frat boy 30+ years ago is all that's needed. ...


Yes, I sure hope Canada comes up with better road side testing than the "frat boy" inspection.

We've heard evidence presented here of how cannabis may not lead to driving/boat operating impairment. Is there the opposite? Is there actual research data that show cannabis DOES cause operator impairment?


----------



## Jammer Six

caberg said:


> I am sure that the way frat boys got high 30 years ago is very different from how many people are using cannabis today, especially in states with legalization and a retail market providing access to many options for moderate and responsible consumption.


Why does every generation think they invented sex?

Here's a clue: your mother and your father were gettin' it done at least nine months before you showed up. That's _why_ you showed up.

The idea that pot goes great in brownies is new to you, not to us.


----------



## caberg

Jammer Six said:


> Why does every generation think they invented sex?
> 
> Here's a clue: your mother and your father were gettin' it done at least nine months before you showed up. That's _why_ you showed up.
> 
> The idea that pot goes great in brownies is new to you, not to us.


I don't claim to have invented anything, but I'm pretty sure it's a relatively new phenomenon to walk into a retail store and buy edibles that are made in regulated and food-grade facilities with precisely measured doses of THC right down to the exact mg. That's just _slightly_ different than the brownies that people were throwing together decades ago, which the consumers had zero idea as to what or how much of anything was in them.

Coming from Seattle, you must know this?!?! And brownies are definitely a minority of the edibles on the market today. Again, how do you not know this?? My in-laws live in Bellingham and we love visiting the pot shops on our trips to see family.


----------



## skipmac

Jammer Six said:


> But I'm near the end and I just ain't got the time
> And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.


Blind Faith. One of the best albums ever. Sold my first edition copy of the original LP just a couple of years ago.


----------



## Jammer Six

skipmac said:


> Blind Faith. One of the best albums ever. Sold my first edition copy of the original LP just a couple of years ago.


In one of the first live versions, the one filmed in London in 1968, his voice cracks. He wrote the song. I've always wondered why, in a song over which he had complete control, he wrote music so near the top of his range.


----------



## Jammer Six

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ndhand-marijuana-smoke-early-science-says-yes


----------



## capta

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...r-Madness-Engulfs-California?detail=emaildkre


----------



## aeventyr60

Maybe these libations will replace booze?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/marijuana-soda-startup-california-dreamin-220914094.html


----------



## MikeOReilly

Just came across this example of Canada's new roadside cannabis testing. Maybe it can be adapted for boats:






:devil


----------



## hellosailor

Roadside Cannabis testing? 

"So, Officer Dude, is this weed righteous or was I ripped off, huh? What do you say?"

We don't get that kind of service down here. :-(


----------



## mbianka

I've been following this fellow and his boat from time to time. He seems to run into all kinds of issues. It's like knowing a train wreck is going to happen at some point.  Here is the latest one after they left JAMAICA. Don't know if Ganja had any part in this. Just sayin'


----------



## Arcb

mbianka said:


> I've been following this fellow and his boat from time to time. He seems to run into all kinds of issues. Like knowing a train wreck is going to happen at some point.  Here is the latest one after they left JAMAICA. Don't know if Ganja had any part in this. Just sayin'


Hey, but they are real cruisers, really out there doing it...


----------



## MikeOReilly

mbianka said:


> I've been following this fellow and his boat from time to time. He seems to run into all kinds of issues. Like knowing a train wreck is going to happen at some point.  Here is the latest one after they left JAMAICA. Don't know if Ganja had any part in this. Just sayin'


:eek

OK, I'm convinced. After watching that - NO whacky weed on my boat! 
(at least not while underway )


----------



## jephotog

My wife is a card carrying pot smoker. In her previous job she was drug tested and her job was in danger if they find out if she didn't smoke.:smile
Now that we don't live in California she is back supporting the black market with her habit.

When we went sailing in Canada she did not bring any with her but considering how anxious just the two of us sailing a big boat together made her, she needed it. Fortunately the drug laws in BC are just a bit lax.

The dispensary was right next door to the court house.
The "pharmacists" were literally packing bongs for the customers to smoke from.
They said it was Sunday so they could get away with it but if you smoke in public you might get asked nicely to put it out by a police officer.

Except for alcohol I've been clean and sober for decades, but don't see why pot should be illegal in civilized countries?


----------



## titustiger27

mbianka said:


> I've been following this fellow and his boat from time to time. He seems to run into all kinds of issues. Like knowing a train wreck is going to happen at some point.  Here is the latest one after they left JAMAICA. Don't know if Ganja had any part in this. Just sayin'


I really like this guy
and Kim, she seems to be a pretty good editor

The only think that is problematic with the vlog (for me) is they keep going back and forward in time and using old videos out of timeline

I think Kim has said: "We could have died" about five times
with the guy (James) responding, "Well not die"

About half the time in these Zingaro videos I am thinking: "This is what goes on before they make the porn video."


----------



## mbianka

Arcb said:


> Hey, but they are real cruisers, really out there doing it...


Yeah you could say that. I'm just not sure for how long.  Though he has become quite good at rudder and dagger board rebuilding from a previous grounding.


----------



## MikeOReilly

jephotog said:


> My wife is a card carrying pot smoker. In her previous job she was drug tested and her job was in danger if they find out if she didn't smoke.:smile
> Now that we don't live in California she is back supporting the black market with her habit.
> 
> When we went sailing in Canada she did not bring any with her but considering how anxious just the two of us sailing a big boat together made her, she needed it. Fortunately the drug laws in BC are just a bit lax.
> 
> The dispensary was right next door to the court house.
> The "pharmacists" were literally packing bongs for the customers to smoke from.
> They said it was Sunday so they could get away with it but if you smoke in public you might get asked nicely to put it out by a police officer.
> 
> Except for alcohol I've been clean and sober for decades, but don't see why pot should be illegal in civilized countries?


Glad to hear your wife was treated well by our system jephotog. Cannabis enforcement has always been rather variable in Canada, depending on which part of the country you are in. B.C. and Quebec have always been more flexible and reasonable. Less so in areas of Alberta or Ontario. Also helps is you're not Native Canadian or poor.


----------



## Sal Paradise

mbianka said:


> I've been following this fellow and his boat from time to time. He seems to run into all kinds of issues. It's like knowing a train wreck is going to happen at some point.  Here is the latest one after they left JAMAICA. Don't know if Ganja had any part in this. Just sayin'


That girlfriend is insanely hot!


----------



## mbianka

Sal Paradise said:


> That girlfriend is insanely hot!


and I bet she gets hotter with every toke.


----------



## hellosailor

Somewhere out there, there must be an Electric Kool-Aide Acid Test boat.

But, hey, they look happy. Can't say that about the average WalMart shopper.

"Cheech and Chong Go Sailing?!"


----------



## Jammer Six

She's only hot if you like blondes. If you don't, you defer to those that do. I don't. I'll take your word for it.


----------



## titustiger27

just started watching "Adventures of an old Seadog" and noticed he had connected up with Sailing Zingaro

not sure if it is cannabis related or now, I am sure there was some beer drinking


----------



## Jammer Six

Weird perspective. Looks like someone tore her arm off and re-attached it to his elbow.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Jammer Six said:


> Weird perspective. Looks like someone tore her arm off and re-attached it to his elbow.


That's what you see? What have you been smokin'? :laugh


----------



## mbianka

Yeah like the Old Sea Dog. Looks like he has had enough of the San Blas Islands but, can't seem to get away. Now he no longer has the ability to keep his beers cold (refrigeration issues). Yep it's not all palm trees and beaches.


----------



## titustiger27

mbianka said:


> Yeah like the Old Sea Dog. Looks like he has had enough of the San Blas Islands but, can't seem to get away. Now he no longer has the ability to keep his beers cold (refrigeration issues). Yep it's not all palm trees and beaches.


Maybe some cannabis is in order?


----------



## hellosailor

Good beer is like good whiskey: Quit palatable when room temperature. When everyone else complains the beer is warm, you can just sit back and say isn't that a shame. And have one.

Now some things that are called beer, often pale yellow rice beers with no flavor to start with, serve no purpose unless they are cold beverages. But a good beer...


----------



## MikeOReilly

hellosailor said:


> Good beer is like good whiskey: Quit palatable when room temperature. When everyone else complains the beer is warm, you can just sit back and say isn't that a shame. And have one.
> 
> Now some things that are called beer, often pale yellow rice beers with no flavor to start with, serve no purpose unless they are cold beverages. But a good beer...


So true. We are in a golden age of beer making, and beer drinking! There's a vast a growing spectrum of interesting beers out there now. There's no reason to be drinking that old mass-market crap that all basically tastes the same. That's why it has to be drunk cold - it's the only way to make it palatable uke

Personally, I'd much rather enjoy a dark chewy coffee porter, or a _suck-your-face-in_ IPA bitters, than a hit of marijuana. But to each his own...


----------



## hellosailor

A one-liter pot-infused double espresso chocolate porter....that should slow the action down.(G)


----------



## Jammer Six

I like my beer so cold ice is starting to form in it.

Nothing like it.

Liking warm beer has always struck me as an excuse for forgetting the fill the ice box.


----------



## titustiger27

this is the golden age of beer. All the small breweries are hard to keep up with

I am amazed I drank the old Milwaukee in my innocent days, of course, if there was great beer back then at $10 a six pack, I would probably have passed on it.

More a statement on my disposable income at the time, than my taste buds.

and from what I hear the same could be said of cannabis and quality.

o if Bob Marley was still alive


----------



## S/V Artemis

titustiger27 said:


> this is the golden age of beer. All the small breweries are hard to keep up with
> 
> I am amazed I drank the old Milwaukee in my innocent days, of course, if there was great beer back then at $10 a six pack, I would probably have passed on it.
> 
> More a statement on my disposable income at the time, than my taste buds.
> 
> and from what I hear the same could be said of cannabis and quality.
> 
> o if Bob Marley was still alive


I can personally vouch for the quality of todays cannabis...It's outstanding!! We are definitely in the golden age of cannabis production...at least here in California anyway. Legal though it may be, I stash mine elsewhere when I sail. USCG won't specifically go looking for it if boarded, but they won't overlook it if they happen to find it.


----------



## titustiger27

S/V Artemis said:


> I can personally vouch for the quality of todays cannabis...It's outstanding!! We are definitely in the golden age of cannabis production...at least here in California anyway. Legal though it may be, I stash mine elsewhere when I sail. USCG won't specifically go looking for it if boarded, but they won't overlook it if they happen to find it.


how do you know if we aren't just on the foothills of the golden age?

I am not disagreeing... because maybe when the federal government accepts legal cannabis (you know so they can tax the hell out of it) it might really drive everything whacky (as in tobacky)


----------



## danvon

Actually Bob's legacy apparently lives on:

https://www.marleynatural.com/


----------



## S/V Artemis

titustiger27 said:


> how do you know if we aren't just on the foothills of the golden age?
> 
> I am not disagreeing... because maybe when the federal government accepts legal cannabis (you know so they can tax the hell out of it) it might really drive everything whacky (as in tobacky)


We may very well be on the foothills of the golden age...I hope we are.


----------



## unitoo1

This really is one of those topics where as im sure there is a large majority of people not speaking up about pot because of the stigma so many people have against it and ergo, them.


----------



## john61ct

Actually, the majority may well disapprove, but realize they'd be on the losing side of history trying to resist.


----------



## MikeOReilly

unitoo1 said:


> This really is one of those topics where as im sure there is a large majority of people not speaking up about pot because of the stigma so many people have against it and ergo, them.


Yes, although I bet that is highly specific to the region, culture and nation. Since an increasing number of nations and regions are moving towards at least decriminalization, in not complete legalization, the numbers of people who need to hide in the dark are dwindling fast.

It's an obvious comparison, but there was a time when alcohol was stigmatized - quite intentionally, just like cannabis. I think many countries and many regions no longer have to worry about the stigma.



john61ct said:


> Actually, the majority may well disapprove, but realize they'd be on the losing side of history trying to resist.


I really think you have to localize the question. There may be a majority in some regions or countries who disapprove. But I'm sure there are others where the numbers go the other way. I'd be wiling to bet the largest demographic is in the: "I don't really give a darn"


----------



## Damon Gannon

I haven't heard much about this recently, but the USCG had a "Zero Tolerance" policy and, presumably, still does. Under this policy, they would seize vessels that had any amount of illegal drugs aboard, regardless of who owned those drugs. So if you had a guest or crew member aboard who possessed a half-ounce of pot, and the Coast Guard discovered this during a routine boarding, you could lose your boat. And, as mentioned above, law enforcement has the right to search your vessel.

This made a lot of news back in the 1980s. I haven't heard much about it recently. Perhaps someone here knows more about recent USCG enforcement policy on this matter. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that any mariner holding credentials from the USCG is subject to drug testing. Having THC in your system (i.e., marijuana) would lead to the suspension of your OUPV/master's license.


----------



## john61ct

Oh yes at the federal level, LEO in many blue state jurisdictions still seizing assets and tossing people in jail. Mostly brown and poor people of course.

Corporate Amerika and gov employers are very big on testing, to the point it really makes it hard to attract the best and brightest. Border Patrol especially!

And Sessions would love to see history pushed back in that regard, but that lot won't be in power long enough. . .


----------



## CalebD

Ok, so you don't bring along a half ounce of weed on your nice friends boat. You bring along 1 (or two) joints already twisted which can be eaten or pitched if not smoked before the CG boards you. 
Never been boarded, always been cautious.
I'm not really keen on navigating while high. In sight of our anchorage for the night though I am game.
Ask me out on your boat.


----------



## titustiger27

unitoo1 said:


> This really is one of those topics where as im sure there is a large majority of people not speaking up about pot because of the stigma so many people have against it and ergo, them.


this is a wonderfully perfect take on this.

but you could say the same for sex... so many people are against it, but because of the sigma, no one wants to admit it :devil

or alcohol...

or gambling

but that would also go against people not speaking up because they see the research of how many people actually partake in the practice of sex  .. I mean marijuana https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-poll-finds-majority-americans-have-smoked-pot-n747476 or https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...truly-gone-mainstream/?utm_term=.f6ef1ce40836

I think it is sort of like homosexuality.... even if you think being gay is wrong, you don't see any problem with it.... I dare say you ... or very few people have thought their life has been hurt by people who smoke pot.

and to the contrary, people who see their state profit from the sale of pot are not complaining.

My guess, only a guess, states who legalize marijuana are better off than states that have legalized gambling.


----------



## titustiger27

I think one of the problems with marijuana use is --> the federal government.

I don't know how much I would partake at $300, but as long as all the states have different laws... the popularity will be skewed. My employment doesn't do drug testing, still, I would never go to Colorado and smoke, where it is legal because it is still illegal in NYS... 

If the Federal government backed off or legalized it, and it was legal in my state.. instead of a couple gin and tonics, I might have taken a couple hits tonight.


----------



## unitoo1

Anything in life is risk vs reward.... Risk of being boarded by drug-sniffing dogs at night during a surprise drug raid on a 35 foot sailboat going 4 knots. VS the adult use of a substance that causes us to relax and enjoy for a max of a hour or so, which smell dissipates quite fast in the open ocean and can be hidden in air tight containers the size of a pill bottle.... 

Have you guys looked at what could happen even by getting pulled over with it in your car? car could be taken, house could be searched, jailed, money lost, reputation. YET... millions upon millions are doing it right now  and every day. The risk is small, yet the life long reward be great matey.... 

I see too many people who are either older or just set in their ways of thinking its the devils cabbage, and people who use are totally irresponsible. I wish I could somehow know how many small sailboats have been boarded by drug sniffing dogs in the past year who found their hidden airtight stash in some small bilge hose...


----------



## unitoo1

I think I am misunderstood. I believe the majority are not speaking up in favor of smoking on boats... For fear of the minority who still believes it is bad. The issue is the demographics of the people on this board. That is who we are " studying" here.


----------



## Jammer Six

If you had any of the credentials (and, therefore, the knowledge and skill) to "study" this boards population, the reason(s) doing so is a waste of time would be self evident.


----------



## Sal Paradise

How many are even experiences cannabis users? Few of the people who comment, I guess.


----------



## MikeOReilly

As the OP I can say the thread was prompted by the fact that Canada is about to legalize recreational cannabis use. Given that our closest watery neighbours still take a rather regressive view on the subject (at least at the US federal/USCG level), I was interested in how cruisers are currently managing the whole subject.


----------



## unitoo1

Sal Paradise said:


> How many are even experiences cannabis users? Few of the people who comment, I guess.


I think that was my point. my humble opinion is that more use marijuana than speak up and say so.


----------



## unitoo1

Jammer Six said:


> If you had any of the credentials (and, therefore, the knowledge and skill) to "study" this boards population, the reason(s) doing so is a waste of time would be self evident.


please share what your self-evident conclusions are?


----------



## Sal Paradise

Used correctly it is truly a wonder drug. First surprising effect is how it helps you relax. You don't notice intoxication, just a lack of aggravation and stress. I'm talking very low dose here. Just a bit, on a friday evening at home,with a glass of pinot noir . Second is it relieves pain very well. I've used it after a root canal, with a stiff drink. No opioids for me. Third, it certain enhances appetite. And surprisingly, it makes athletic actives easier and more pleasant. You have more endurance and stamina. Weirdly, it seems like you can run longer. And it has other miraculous effects.

I want to emphasize something here - VERY LOW DOSE. Maybe some people can hang with Snoop Dog, if not - heed my advice. If you are feeling paranoid and "stoned", you just took too much. Look at it this way - when you were 19 you might drink half a bottle of rum, and that had terrible effects. Now you are older and wiser. You have 3 drinks. Its the same thing here. No one told you, now I'm telling you. Moderation. I find that even in low doses I prefer not to drive or operate machinery.

The other thing that a cannabis user will notice is how completely brainwashed people are and we just get tired of telling people to try it. I have a co worker wiht pain and parkinsons... and I can't tell her to use pot because the second I mention it, she immediately launches into a diatribe. I am also aware that in my jurisdiction, the police and judges are " zero tolerance " zealots who push for full marijuana convictions and also print your name in the paper upon arrest.In other towns, it is $100 ticket with no arrest. 40 miles further away in Mass , its legal.

It is one of the things, like guns and climate change that people are brainwashed about. I find it to be on par with coffee and alcohol. I'm usually too busy with work, or sports or something else to use it or think about it. I like to be 100% to be more focused. Most of the time. But there are rare times and occasions where it is good. Sailing is not one of those time for me.

Look at this video for a remarkable marijuana cure of parkinsons


----------



## titustiger27

I am not an experienced user but from 40 years ago. I don't remember smoking a lot. I do remember buying (being able to afford) an ounce or two int he late 70's/early 80's.

But there are some things I don't know if you need experience...to have an opinion or the lack of experience. If you look at the research or listen to what the medical profession says.. I think most says, at worse, it is not harmful.

I guess one of the things that factors in --- is morality. There are a religious sense it might be immoral, much the same way assisted suicide is immoral. 

I totally disagree with that, but understand their point


I do find it funny we - as a nation - are okay to have legalized tobacco


----------



## Minnewaska

I find it interesting that both advocates and opponents seem to exaggerate their case and accuse the other of being blind. As usual, both are wrong and both are right. It just depends on a more rational analysis to get to the truth in between.


----------



## titustiger27

both are right: I think people tend to exaggerate their point by cherry picking.. but I don't believe they do it to be malicious..

Sure there is a bit of "I want to be right" reasoning for exaggerating, but I really think there is a lot of 'outweighs' that goes into this.

Often what the 'other side' says as a talking point for their argument, you think isn't important, or your point outweighs something you aren't concerned with.

While that might seem like semantics, it is a valid point. For example: if you are in favor of recreational use of marijuana and the argument is there are health risks (I believe all kinds of smoking elevates your chance of lung cancer), you say that point is insignificant.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Cannabis is like so many other aspects of life; comes with positives and negatives. Compared to other recreational drugs it is better than most, worse than a few. It’s hypocritical to attach moral value to this specific drug while turning a blind eye to the swath of recreational and pharmaceuticals most people use routinely. 

The rational reason cannabis is prohibited, while stuff like nicotine or alcohol is not, is due to political and economic issues. Those who benefit from prohibition are politically and economically stronger than those who want legalization. But (thankfully I say) this is swinging to the other side. The tide has turned/is turning.


----------



## Sal Paradise

There must be a special place in hell for those who stand on the sidelines and spout platitudes while their fellow Americans are carted off to jail.


----------



## Minnewaska

Seems like someone didn't have their low dose relaxing whatever today.


----------



## Sal Paradise

I mean its a bit similar to the whole God and sailing thread. Definitely not what I came here for. I feel like I shouldn't argue for it, but I can't help it if I know a lot about the bible! LOL

Maybe someone should start a thread on the female orgasms,. I apparently know something about those as well.God knows what!


----------



## titustiger27

Sal Paradise said:


> I mean its a bit similar to the whole God and sailing thread. Definitely not what I came here for. I feel like I shouldn't argue for it, but I can't help it if I know a lot about the bible! LOL
> 
> Maybe someone should start a thread on the female orgasms,. I apparently know something about those as well.God knows what!


do tell, I am always looking to perfect my skills

:devil


----------



## svsonora

I personally have no problems whatsoever, though I don't smoke weed.
But it isn't worth the risk for me. I've seen police pull up ashore near anchorage and look through binoculars. Boat neighbors will call other boaters in if they smell cannabis.
Seems that vape pens are getting huge for this reason, but it won't save you from a police dog finding it.


----------



## Minnewaska

The social friends I have that are back in the game, all vape. I know edibles are the rage, but recreational use is not legal here and I haven’t seen them around. Everyone I know is still acquiring illegally.


----------



## caberg

Retail sales start in Massachusetts as soon as July 1. I predict it won't be long for other New England states to follow suit when they see all the tax dollars they are missing out on. MA is a good place to start, however, since it is so centrally located for Northeast. 

I also predict that the sky won't fall and that most opponents will simply forget why they ever had a problem with legalization, or even give it a try and realize that it has some great safe benefits for their health and well being.


----------



## MikeOReilly

caberg said:


> ...I also predict that the sky won't fall and that most opponents will simply forget why they ever had a problem with legalization, or even give it a try and realize that it has some great safe benefits for their health and well being.


Agreed. Full national legalization is supposed to happen here in Canada sometime this summer. All the evidence shows the sky won't fall, civilization won't collapse, and there will not be a huge uptick in pot users.

Our governments (fed and provincial) are not counting on a big tax windfall, although I'm sure there will be a decent amount taken in. Where society could really benefit is if we can find the political will to shift resources from law enforcement, courts and prison systems, and into more productive (and rehabilitative) areas.


----------



## Arcb

Today the senate voted in favour of legalisation of Marijuana in Canada, reversing 95 years of prohibition.


----------



## midwesterner

Arcb said:


> Today the senate voted in favour of legalisation of Marijuana in Canada, reversing 95 years of prohibition. Shaka.


Meanwhile, here in the us, our Attorney General expresses attitudes toward marijuana that make him sound like he has lived somwhere isolated from society since about 1955.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/jeff-sessions-who-marijuana-review/


----------



## RichF28

midwesterner said:


> Meanwhile, here in the us, our Attorney General expresses attitudes toward marijuana that make him sound like he has lived somwhere isolated from society since about 1955.
> 
> https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/jeff-sessions-who-marijuana-review/


But it is a good thing for legalization that Sessions is so opposed to it.. The Cheeto in chief will support legalization just to spite Sessions.......


----------



## Sal Paradise

Re: Sessions. I have to wonder if that guy has even the slightest moral compass. Is everything he does just a political move? Does he always leave a turd in the bowl for the next person to flush for him? What are they going to do? 

This is the same guy who used to round up black people in his home district on election day and bus them in mass to the FBI office for questioning. Great guy.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> Today the senate voted in favour of legalisation of Marijuana in Canada, reversing 95 years of prohibition. Shaka.


About time.

Came across this recent CBC item on the subject. Seems pretty clear while it will be legal in Canada, and many places in the USA, bringing cannabis across the border will still be illegal.

Keep your weed away from border, Canada and U.S. officials warn | CBC News


----------



## john61ct

> Sessions. I have to wonder if that guy has even the slightest moral compass.

Same with Arpaio.

Many believe that what we call racism is actually a moral imperative, saving the human race from what we call tolerance and progress.

IMO the main driving force of what happened in 2016


----------



## Sal Paradise

MikeOReilly said:


> About time.
> 
> Came across this recent CBC item on the subject. Seems pretty clear while it will be legal in Canada, and many places in the USA, bringing cannabis across the border will still be illegal.
> 
> Keep your weed away from border, Canada and U.S. officials warn | CBC News


That will teach you Canadians for burning the White House.


----------



## bigdogandy

Sal Paradise said:


> That will teach you Canadians for burning the White House.


Wow - I've been out of touch and hadn't heard that news. That's awesome - please tell me Trump was there at the time?


----------



## paulinnanaimo

I think the White House was burned in 1812, by the British. Canada was not a country until 1867.


----------



## Scotty C-M

Sessions. This is the man who has developed the system of separating children from their families when the families ask for amnesty. The children are placed in cages. This is not a lack of moral compass. This is pure evil.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Well, no tokin' this summer, but it's official.

Trudeau says pot will be legal as of Oct. 17, 2018 | CBC News


----------



## Yorksailor

I recently spent 4 months cruising in Japan...it was routine, on entering a marina, that the local customs would 'drug swab' the boat with the warning that a positive test would result in arrest and confiscation of the boat.

Phil


----------



## MikeOReilly

Yorksailor said:


> I recently spent 4 months cruising in Japan...it was routine, on entering a marina, that the local customs would 'drug swab' the boat with the warning that a positive test would result in arrest and confiscation of the boat.
> 
> Phil


Guess you'll just have to come to Canada Phil. Recreational cannabis will be legal as of October 17, 2018.


----------



## Yorksailor

Mike, The problem lies with buying a used boat where cannabis has been smoked regularly. Should be part of the seller's declaration.

Phil


----------



## MikeOReilly

Yorksailor said:


> Mike, The problem lies with buying a used boat where cannabis has been smoked regularly. Should be part of the seller's declaration.


I suppose so, especially if the boat is going to Japan.

It remains unclear how the US will be responding to this new Canadian reality, which is the real issue for Canadian boaters who routinely cross the US/Canada border. I sure hope they don't follow Japan's lead on this.


----------



## caberg

Yorksailor said:


> I recently spent 4 months cruising in Japan...it was routine, on entering a marina, that the local customs would 'drug swab' the boat with the warning that a positive test would result in arrest and confiscation of the boat.
> 
> Phil





Yorksailor said:


> Mike, The problem lies with buying a used boat where cannabis has been smoked regularly. Should be part of the seller's declaration.
> 
> Phil


I don't know anything about Japanese law, but I have to imagine that only the most repressive and harshest form of government is going to arrest a person and confiscate their boat based only on a positive 'drug swab' resulting from a prior owner having smoked marijuana in the boat some number of years and ocean crossings before. I mean, I guess it's good to exercise caution, and to research this issue in more depth before visiting Japan, but c'mon. Common sense says this is a bit hard to believe.

Now if said "prior owner" (wink wink) happened to leave a couple pounds of weed in the bilge which is discovered after the positive drug swab, well then maybe you will have an actual problem to worry about.


----------



## Arcb

Yorksailor said:


> I recently spent 4 months cruising in Japan...it was routine, on entering a marina, that the local customs would 'drug swab' the boat with the warning that a positive test would result in arrest and confiscation of the boat.
> 
> Phil


Curious how they do this. Do they use ion scan technology on the dock (machine about the size of a photocopier pushed around on a cart) or do they use a chemical test kit?


----------



## Yorksailor

They took about 10 swabs per visit which they bagged and took to the customs office. 

In 4 months and 5 marinas, I was boarded by 33 officials mostly customs.


----------



## Arcb

Sounds expensive, really expensive. But I know the Japanese take their drug laws pretty seriously.

I can't imagine this approach would be very sustainable in a country with a high volume of visiting yachts (North America, Western Europe etc.).


----------



## john61ct

Plenty of states in the US imprison people for traces in car, luggage etc. 

Plenty of countries imprison based on traces left in your bloodstream. 

They do not care that you have come from a place where it is legal. 

Do not imagine "being rational" comes into it at all. 

Same with homosexual activities or even sex outside of marriage.


----------



## travlin-easy

I think the only reason Canada is making pot legal is they want those tax revenues to support all their other social programs. Gotta love it when someone says something is free - someone is, obviously, paying for all those freebees.

For me, I'll just stick with booze - less expensive and less side effects.

Gary


----------



## MikeOReilly

travlin-easy said:


> I think the only reason Canada is making pot legal is they want those tax revenues to support all their other social programs. Gotta love it when someone says something is free - someone is, obviously, paying for all those freebees.
> 
> For me, I'll just stick with booze - less expensive and less side effects.
> 
> Gary


Actually, I think the main reason is basic common sense Gary. It is ludicrous to maintain prohibition against an intoxicate that has such a high demand from the public. We tried that before&#8230; it didn't go so well . It's not like people interested in getting high are not getting their weed. It's just that they are getting it from the black market, which is bad on many levels.

It's definitely expected to be a tax revenue source, but the major financial benefits will be the savings that is expected to come in the reduced cost of healthcare, policing, enforcement, judiciary and incarceration expenditures. It will also remove a significant revenue source from organized crime, which should have spill over benefits that should further reduce public costs.

It's a no-brainer as far as I can see &#8230; and this from someone who much prefers his mood to be altered via booze than weed.


----------



## travlin-easy

Mike, back when I worked in cardio-pulmonary medicine, at the Johns Hopkins Hospital they did a study on the effects of weed on human lungs - that stuff was horrendous. Not only was it a carcinogen, but the tar levels from the smoke were beyond belief. If I recall correctly, there were about 385 toxic chemicals in weed smoke, which was far higher than ordinary cigar and cigarette smoke. So, I suspect that those health costs will increase proportionally with the increase in smoking pot. Now, I got to see the inside of many lungs that were resected from heavy pot smokers - it was not at all pretty. I would sure like to see the bottom line in Canada after a couple years of legalized pot. Unfortunately, I most likely will not be alive to see it.

For me, nothing is better than an glass of ice cubes covered with Jim Bean Honey Bourbon. 

All the best,

Gary


----------



## MikeOReilly

travlin-easy said:


> Mike, back when I worked in cardio-pulmonary medicine, at the Johns Hopkins Hospital they did a study on the effects of weed on human lungs - that stuff was horrendous. Not only was it a carcinogen, but the tar levels from the smoke were beyond belief. If I recall correctly, there were about 385 toxic chemicals in weed smoke, which was far higher than ordinary cigar and cigarette smoke. So, I suspect that those health costs will increase proportionally with the increase in smoking pot. Now, I got to see the inside of many lungs that were resected from heavy pot smokers - it was not at all pretty. I would sure like to see the bottom line in Canada after a couple years of legalized pot. Unfortunately, I most likely will not be alive to see it.


Pot smoking is not expected to increase with legalization, after the initial euphoric bump. At least this is what has been found in other jurisdictions which decriminalized weed. Here is an obviously biased source, but the article is well and credibly cited. There have been numerous examinations of this question, and the evidence shows rates of use do not go up significantly after decriminalization:

Marijuana Decriminalization & Its Impact on Use - NORML - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws

Those who seek cannabis as an intoxicant are already getting it from the black market. The only difference is that there will now be quality controls, so that users will know what they're getting. It will also be taxed, as booze is, and will result in significant savings in all the other areas I mentioned. The incarceration costs alone to society are well worth the move.

If we are to consider public harm, then booze is by far the more dangerous drug. Weed is bad &#8230; absolutely. But booze, by any measure, does far more harm that cannabis. So to be consistent you should be arguing for the prohibition of alcohol, which as we know has already been tried.

BTW, the reason I dislike cannabis is exactly for the same reason I've never smoked tobacco. I like the buzz, but I hate what it does to my lungs. I might try some edibles once they become legal though (another year from now) .


----------



## caberg

travlin-easy said:


> Mike, back when I worked in cardio-pulmonary medicine, at the Johns Hopkins Hospital they did a study on the effects of weed on human lungs - that stuff was horrendous. Not only was it a carcinogen, but the tar levels from the smoke were beyond belief. If I recall correctly, there were about 385 toxic chemicals in weed smoke, which was far higher than ordinary cigar and cigarette smoke. So, I suspect that those health costs will increase proportionally with the increase in smoking pot. Now, I got to see the inside of many lungs that were resected from heavy pot smokers - it was not at all pretty. I would sure like to see the bottom line in Canada after a couple years of legalized pot. Unfortunately, I most likely will not be alive to see it.
> 
> For me, nothing is better than an glass of ice cubes covered with Jim Bean Honey Bourbon.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


The jury is still way out on whether and the extent to which cannabis smoke is harmful to the lungs. Of course, any smoke is an irritant but the long term health effects of cannabis smoke on the lungs are largely unknown, and some studies actually correlate cannabis use with _improved_ lung function! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072387/

But no worries for those who worry about the harmful effects of smoke - which is really a legitimate concern. Legalization has allowed a lot of pent up entrepreneurial ingenuity to flourish and we now have many ways to consume cannabis and obtain the desired effect without any smoke at all.

As for there being less side effects with booze, I'm sorry, but clearly you have not used cannabis in modern times with a precisely measured dose. For the average person, a 5-10 mg edible will provide a few hours of relaxation and a great night's sleep. That's it. I know for me, a few drinks at night can leave me feeling pretty crappy a few hours later, with a headache, and sometimes poor sleep.


----------



## outbound

Alcohol suppresses REM sleep. People who use alcohol as a soporific are noted to have little or no REM for the first ~4 hours of sleep then REM rebound. Alcohol is also a mild diuretic. Net result is early AM waking in some due to vivid dreams ( most dreams are unpleasant) or HA and non restorative sleep in others due to dehydration and disturbed sleep architecture.
Psychotropic agents in pot are fat soluble. Clearance is quite slow. Cognitive slowing occurs is chronic significant users. Current formulations are more potent than in the past. Illicit supplies maybe tainted with manufactured synthetic agents and incur risk.
For present it’s reasonable to imbide very modest amounts of ETOH or use cannabis on rare occasion. However, when underway my boat(both captain and crew) is sober with no intoxicants use in any form. Personally may have <6 beers a month and <4 single malts and a rare gin.
Find the world pretty interesting. Fairly comfortable with myself so don’t need anything to relax.have done very rare pot where’s it’s legal. My wife in my arms, a bone in the teeth of the boat, a sky free of light pollution is enough for me when I want to get high.


----------



## caberg

outbound said:


> My wife in my arms, a bone in the teeth of the boat, a sky free of light pollution is enough for me when I want to get high.


I don't disagree with that at all! I get a lot of happiness and satisfaction from many different activities and experiences. I'm a runner, and 4-5 days/week get "high" first thing in the morning (runner's high is a real thing for sure). I also get a lot of pleasure from sailing, hiking, skiing, watching a good sunset, and of course sharing these experiences with family and friends.

But I'm also very comfortable with using cannabis on a relatively regular basis (few times/week), at a very low dose, as a way to relax in the evening for a couple hours before getting a great night's sleep. I'm not a doctor or psychologist and I can't explain from a medical/psychological standpoint what it does for me, but I can tell you that it elevates my overall feeling of happiness and well being without any side effects that I can perceive.

I drank alcohol for many years, basically from age 16 until quitting it altogether at age 36, and looking back I really have nothing good to say at all for alcohol and what it did for me from a health and well being standpoint. It helped my social life in college and through my 20s, but that's about all the good I can come up with.

Just one guy's experience.


----------



## MikeOReilly

outbound said:


> ...For present it's reasonable to imbide very modest amounts of ETOH or use cannabis on rare occasion. However, when underway my boat(both captain and crew) is sober with no intoxicants use in any form. Personally may have <6 beers a month and <4 single malts and a rare gin.
> Find the world pretty interesting. Fairly comfortable with myself so don't need anything to relax.have done very rare pot where's it's legal. My wife in my arms, a bone in the teeth of the boat, a sky free of light pollution is enough for me when I want to get high.


Same as me; 6 beers a day 

No one drinks (or smokes ) on our boat while underway. Once the hook is securely down, and there are no expected weather or other issues to deal with - only then do the drinks get poured. On multi-day passage there is no drinking, even for the off-watch crew.


----------



## PhilCarlson

MikeOReilly said:


> It remains unclear how the US will be responding to this new Canadian reality, which is the real issue for Canadian boaters who routinely cross the US/Canada border. I sure hope they don't follow Japan's lead on this.


I suspect the USCG will continue to enforce US federal law. I guess you just have to respect the laws of the country you are entering.


----------



## MikeOReilly

PhilCarlson said:


> I suspect the USCG will continue to enforce US federal law. I guess you just have to respect the laws of the country you are entering.


If you've read this thread you'll know this has never been the issue.


----------



## Jammer Six

MikeOReilly said:


> Those who seek cannabis as an intoxicant are already getting it from the black market. The only difference is that there will now be quality controls, so that users will know what they're getting.


Neither of these statements are correct.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Jammer Six said:


> Neither of these statements are correct.


Care to explain?

I'm not talking medical cannabis. I'm talking recreational. As far as I know, it is still illegal in Canada. So if you're currently using it recreationally, you're getting it via the black market. And you have no way of knowing what's actually in it.

What am I missing?


----------



## capttb

MikeOReilly said:


> Same as me; 6 beers a day
> 
> No one drinks (or smokes ) on our boat while underway. Once the hook is securely down, and there are no expected weather or other issues to deal with - only then do the drinks get poured. On multi-day passage there is no drinking, even for the off-watch crew.


Sounds more like rehab than a pleasure cruise, Captain Bligh might flog you to death but he wouldn't stop your rum ration, pretty harsh Mike, count me out.:devil
I understand it's not that hard to grow if you know what you are doing.


----------



## hellosailor

"Cognitive slowing occurs is chronic significant users."
Oh please. Cognitive slowing also occurs among all sailors. Sometimes from trying to helm the boat in heavy weather (20 minutes max, then you're already decaying) sometimes simply from watching sundogs glinting on the water and the boat gently rocking all day. Yes, it is proven to be "intoxicating".
And then you've got cognitive slowing in the general population. About three years ago one of the major burger chains ran some focus groups, planning to test market a 1/3 pound burger at the same price that the competition sold quarter pounders for.
Same price, 1/3 pound or 1/4 pound, which is the better deal, the bigger burger? The general burger-buying public in the US overwhelmingly said the 1/4 pounder was the bigger burger. Because, 4 is more than 3, so it must be bigger, right?
The campaign was scrapped.

Cognitive impairment is a very relative thing. Some folks can be stone cold sober fully rested, pumped full of caffeine, and you STILL wouldn't want them playing with sharp objects anywhere near you.

I still think any establishment serving liquor should be required to be like a 1700's public house: Whores and beds available on premises, or in the barn. And no cars parked closer than 1000 yards. So if you're not sober enough to walk that far...you've got incentive to call a cab. At least a horse is smart enough to find its own way home, whether the rider is cognitively impaired or not.


----------



## longjonsilver

Its amazing how many squeaky clean hyper obedient citizens we have here on this thread. i can surmise that most don't want to self incriminate, or all the partiers don't post on sailnet. Because that is not the impression that i have had in my time on the water. Alcohol flows like the water and pot blows like the wind. Looking at yacht club websites, many (most?) have a big section on the bar. Alcohol and pot go with boating like the wind in the willows. 
jon


----------



## RegisteredUser

hellosailor said:


> ......... Some folks can be stone cold sober fully rested, pumped full of caffeine, and you STILL wouldn't want them playing with sharp objects anywhere near you.
> ........


Long sig line worthy...:grin
So true.


----------



## RegisteredUser

Natural basic human behaviour.
Buck it and regulate it to...your frustration.

All people want their Happy Place...and always will.


----------



## MikeOReilly

capttb said:


> Sounds more like rehab than a pleasure cruise, Captain Bligh might flog you to death but he wouldn't stop your rum ration, pretty harsh Mike, count me out.:devil


Don't worry. It's only while underway. While the boat is in motion it makes no sense to compound other impairments (sleep deprivation, physical tiredness, irregular eating, etc.) with intentional intoxication.

But once the hook is safely down, the grog starts to flow :grin.



capttb said:


> I understand it's not that hard to grow if you know what you are doing.


Ah yes &#8230; I suppose. Most users don't grow, dry and process their own though. So it's the black market for most people right now. Which is why legalization make so much sense. It's not the taxes. It's the shift from black to open markets that is the real benefit to society.


----------



## Jammer Six

MikeOReilly said:


> But once the hook is safely down, the grog starts to flow.


Because everyone knows that then there's no danger.


----------



## Arcb

Jammer Six said:


> Because everyone knows that then there's no danger.


I guess it depends who is setting the hook.

If you do not trust your own ability to anchor, then keep it a dry boat.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Jammer Six said:


> Because everyone knows that then there's no danger.


Are you just trolling here? This is your second one-liner with no explanation. What's your point? Make it, if you have one. Join the conversation.

With regard to drinking on my boat, yup; once secure, and with no imminent threats, the grog comes out. Do I know with absolute certainty there are no dangers - no, of course not. But if you need 100% certainty about the future you'll never leave the dock - heck, you'll never leave your safe room.

Living is a risk. I prefer to live. I'm inferring you have a different approach. Please, share.


----------



## boatpoker

I have no interest in smoking weed and have nothing against those who do. However ...... my home slip is about 150' from the spit in a public park that is a favourite local hangout. It's a low key, no problem kind of place except that it has become a preferred spot for weed smokers in the evening.

The stench of burning skunk that invades my home (boat) every night is sickening and I am plotting a deterrent that I think will be effective. I'll keep that part secret for now.


----------



## MikeOReilly

boatpoker said:


> ...The stench of burning skunk that invades my home (boat) every night is sickening and I am plotting a deterrent that I think will be effective. I'll keep that part secret for now.


I'll be interested to hear your plan. Personally, I find tobacco smoke more offensive than weed. But I really don't like any smoke - the stink lingers in any upholstery, and beside, it messes with my lungs.

BTW, I've had friends who smoke cannabis. I ask them to toke only outside, in the cockpit, or preferably at the bow.


----------



## boatpoker

MikeOReilly said:


> I'll be interested to hear your plan. Personally, I find tobacco smoke more offensive than weed. But I really don't like any smoke - the stink lingers in any upholstery, and beside, it messes with my lungs.
> 
> BTW, I've had friends who smoke cannabis. I ask them to toke only outside, in the cockpit, or preferably at the bow.


I don't like tobacco smell either but don't find it covers the area the way weed does. I spent a day sitting on a beach with pot smoking friends, the next day, 24hrs. later, I met some other friends and their first words were ... Have you been smoking pot?

I am offended that people can send that stench into my home. Can't wait to see what happens in apartment and condo buildings.


----------



## caberg

boatpoker said:


> The stench of burning skunk that invades my home (boat) every night is sickening and I am plotting a deterrent that I think will be effective. I'll keep that part secret for now.


Sounds like you have something vengeful in mind. Why not first trying to go talk to the people and let them know that the smoke and smell is impacting you? Who knows, you may be surprised with a polite and courteous response, and maybe make a few new friendly acquaintances.

I see bitter and vengeful people every day in my line of work and think that it must be a really difficult way to live a life. I think so many people could be surprised at how much easier interactions with others can be if people just talk to one another and exhibit some reasonableness.


----------



## caberg

boatpoker said:


> I don't like tobacco smell either but don't find it covers the area the way weed does. I spent a day sitting on a beach with pot smoking friends, the next day, 24hrs. later, I met some other friends and their first words were ... Have you been smoking pot?


I do find this very hard to believe unless your buddies were blowing smoke all day directly into your clothing. I've been smoking pot for many years and in many different environments and situations, and this just is not a thing I could ever imagine being true.

Cigarette smoke lingers way more on clothing and in furniture than pot smoke, although it is true that pot smoke has a sharper and stronger odor in the minutes after it is burned.


----------



## MikeOReilly

caberg said:


> ...Cigarette smoke lingers way more on clothing and in furniture than pot smoke, although it is true that pot smoke has a sharper and stronger odor in the minutes after it is burned.


Personally, I find it way easier to smell a heavy tobacco smoker vs a heavy weed smoker. And it's far more offensive to my nose. But personally, I don't like either in my boat.

I don't mind the vaporizers though, but I admit, I don't know much about them. Seems to me these things are far more friendly when it comes to smoking around others.


----------



## boatpoker

caberg said:


> Sounds like you have something vengeful in mind. Why not first trying to go talk to the people and let them know that the smoke and smell is impacting you? Who knows, you may be surprised with a polite and courteous response, and maybe make a few new friendly acquaintances.
> 
> I see bitter and vengeful people every day in my line of work and think that it must be a really difficult way to live a life. I think so many people could be surprised at how much easier interactions with others can be if people just talk to one another and exhibit some reasonableness.


So you think I should walk around to the park (1/2 mile) every night to ask different people not to smoke there ? not very practical.
No I am not vengeful I just don't think they have the right to invade my home with that stench. What I have in mind will hurt no one but I don't think anyone will want to sit on those rocks anymore.


----------



## boatpoker

Here is a photo of the spot from my cockpit .... it's more like 100' now that I look at it.


----------



## capttb

The Rite Aid stores down here have started playing Barry Manilow 24/7 to discourage homeless people camping on their sidewalks, I was at a restaurant across the street and it annoyed me. 
The City (Dana Point) where my boat is housed outlawed smoking or vaping in public last year, neighboring beach city San Clemente just followed suit. Come to think of it, it's now illegal to smoke in public from Laguna Beach to Oceanside.


----------



## MikeOReilly

capttb said:


> The Rite Aid stores down here have started playing Barry Manilow 24/7 to discourage homeless people camping on their sidewalks, I was at a restaurant across the street and it annoyed me.
> The City (Dana Point) where my boat is housed outlawed smoking or vaping in public last year, neighboring beach city San Clemente just followed suit. Come to think of it, it's now illegal to smoke in public from Laguna Beach to Oceanside.


Ha&#8230; blasting Barry Manilow would keep me away as well 

I'm no fan of smoking (weed or tobacco), but outlawing outdoor use seems a bit draconian. Indoor, sure. But outdoor? Seems a bit much for a legal product.

And what's wrong with vaping? Isn't it just (or mostly) just water vapour that comes out? I may be dead wrong on this b/c I'm not a vaper, or smoker. But I've been around people vaping, and I don't smell anything.


----------



## outbound

1/3 of Americans believe the sun orbits the earth. Yes, it’s a bell shaped curve. Cognitive impairments are not directly additive. Add two you well may get more than twice the impairment. With exposure to one possible source of impairment the individual may still be functional but as shown on multiple tragic occasions there often is the straw that breaks the camels back. Your argument doesn’t hold water and I still wish to keep the water out of my boat so no intoxicants while underway. I also don’t allow individuals with poor judgment, inadequate intelligence, abrasive personalities to crew on my boat. Those who require intoxicants also need not apply. I have no issue with their occasion use in appropriate settings but continue to believe in a sober boat while underway. Occasions of alcohol use are most unusual but do occur. Would note on a calm day with a benign forecast see no harm to a single glass of wine or a beer with dinner as my concern is absence of impairment effecting safety but even then it’s for the off watch. Our schedule and pattern permits a relaxing dinner when you are off watch. We set up individual precooked meals so this isn’t difficult to achieve.
Nicotine and caffeine may cause some individuals to be more rather than less functional. I will not allow anyone to smoke anything in the boat ever. I will allow a cigar, pipe or cigarette on occasion down wind of everyone only if ash and smoke will immediately leave the boat. 
I view this all much in the same manner as anti seasickness meds. If you need them please take them early and at adequate dose. But if they impair you you are off watch. 
For a boat underway the discussion should be safety first not morality or need to party. If you need to party it will not be on my boat during any passage be it offshore, ocean or coastal. I believe the statistics bear me out with 50% of boating accidents involving intoxicants.


----------



## MikeOReilly

The question of whether cannabis causes a functional "impairment" with regard to automobile operation is an interesting one. In my brief review of the research literature the question seems to be an open one &#8230; at least with regards to driving.

Here's a summary from an obviously biased source, but it is very well cited. The bottom line is: _"To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol."_

Driving may not be a direct proxy for boat operations, especially in tough conditions, but it shouldn't be dismissed either.

But I still would not allow it on my boat while underway 



> *Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence
> Cannabis and Driving*
> 
> STATE DUID LAWS
> It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana's culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing.
> 
> Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.
> 
> Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, "Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes." This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.
> 
> Today, a large body of research exists exploring the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills and actual driving performance. This research consists of driving simulator studies, on-road performance studies, crash culpability studies, and summary reviews of the existing evidence. To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol. Below is a summary of some of the existing data.


----------



## Arcb

Saw this in the news today. The Cdn Military has issued new guidelines for marijuana consumption. Looks like in most cases it wont be permitted withn 8 hours of the start of the shift. Similar to their rules with booze.

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-p...idelines-for-recreational-marijuana-to-troops


----------



## Jammer Six

84.68% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


----------



## MikeOReilly

Arcb said:


> Saw this in the news today. The Cdn Military has issued new guidelines for marijuana consumption. Looks like in most cases it wont be permitted withn 8 hours of the start of the shift. Similar to their rules with booze.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-p...idelines-for-recreational-marijuana-to-troops


I notice the reportage says pot will be banned completely when our forces operate in foreign lands/seas. Seems reasonable.


----------



## Jammer Six

A lot of skippers use their authority to make their boats and cruises safer or more enjoyable.


----------



## fireblade274

my buddy has a flying scott, and sometimes we puff on it, we're in Maryland. I don't smoke a lot in one session anymore, been my drug of choice for just under a decade, but for some reason it makes me anxious and uncomfortable after a certain point now. Its like my tolerance completely vanished, idk. Interestingly as I smoke less I drink more lol, and I've never been a heavy drinker. 

But yea you need to be careful. its decriminalized in md up to 10oz, but from what I see above you could get charged federally? I mean that makes sense if the coast guard gets you, but if its NRP (Natural Resources Police) they are a branch of DNR of Maryland which is state run. So my 2 cents would be, your more likely to run into them or your own state/more local law enforcement smelling it then the coast guard. Just check over your shoulders lol. My opinion; many opinions are changing. I know guys who have been caught on land and rather then writing a ticket they just let it slide if there's nothing harder in the car and they treated the cop with respect. Id like to think the same would apply to water po-po too.

Granted, another thing to keep in mind is Sessions rolled back the Obama era policy of directing federal resources to shy away from prosecuting users in states where its decriminalized or legalized, idk if its been changed back yet. I'm confident sooner or later it will be.

you always take a risk, but you can mitigate it by being smart, being aware of your surroundings, and using it responsibly (dont get stoned out of your mind while in motion).


----------



## Jammer Six

Exact opposite on Puget Sound, you're a _lot_ more likely to run into Coast Guard than locals.


----------



## RichF28

travlin-easy said:


> I think the only reason Canada is making pot legal is they want those tax revenues to support all their other social programs. Gotta love it when someone says something is free - someone is, obviously, paying for all those freebees.
> 
> For me, I'll just stick with booze - less expensive and less side effects.
> 
> Gary


Keep fooling yourself..........


----------



## Minnewaska

While I find there are some good legalization arguments, the most insidious reason to legalize anything is to collect taxes. It simply addicts the government to the revenue and the public to whatever that revenue provides. Everyone is living off others addiction/affliction. 

I've heard it proposed that these taxes be segregated and only allowed to be used for affliction related matters, such as education, rehabilitation, regulatory oversight, etc. Makes some sense. However, greedy, elect-me, politicians always find a clever way to use it for the general good. It's an evil spiral. Legalize it, if you must. Don't benefit from it, that just make the government the drug lord. I strongly predict that future generations will regret our self-indulgent course.


----------



## ScottUK

Minnewaska said:


> politicians always find a clever way to use it for the general good.


I can see how nobody would want that.:grin


----------



## Minnewaska

ScottUK said:


> I can see how nobody would want that.:grin


I know you're focused on the general good, but think about it. We become reliant upon the revenue from the consumption of alcohol and marijuana to fund our government. IOW, if consumption declines, government and society suffer. Insidious.


----------



## boatpoker

Minnewaska said:


> While I find there are some good legalization arguments, the most insidious reason to legalize anything is to collect taxes. It simply addicts the government to the revenue and the public to whatever that revenue provides. Everyone is living off others addiction/affliction.
> 
> I've heard it proposed that these taxes be segregated and only allowed to be used for affliction related matters, such as education, rehabilitation, regulatory oversight, etc. Makes some sense. However, greedy, elect-me, politicians always find a clever way to use it for the general good. It's an evil spiral. Legalize it, if you must. Don't benefit from it, that just make the government the drug lord. I strongly predict that future generations will regret our self-indulgent course.


I think that in Canada, legalization will be a huge success in that it will create a large bureaucracy of highly paid government union employees which is good for our slowly creeping up unemployment numbers. The downside will be a continuous money loser as our government predicts prices to be 30 to 50 percent higher than the illegal street market. The traffickers will go about their business.


----------



## outbound

Sin taxes of one sort or another have been around for ever. Can be applied to to most “victimless crime”(prostitution, drug, alcohol use, gaming). Can be taken to the extreme (Netherlands) and increase personal freedom or can criminalize anything outside the state religion (Saudi Arabia) and enslave large segments of the population. Given choice would accept the sin tax but with caveat sinner accept personal responsibility for the downstream consequences of the sin. Such victimless crime isn’t victimless in my view. Even something as benign as pot smoking will lead some to waste their lives and be parasitic slackers. I can’t see how prostitution is good for either party, nor addictive gaming,or drinking.
However, freedom implies the ability to make bad decisions. The disconnect in the ma ma state is in not allowing the negative consequences to act as a deterrent to such behavior. Yes there’s much scientific support to justify the medicalization of additive disorders and it’s rational to view them as disease not moral weakness. But some degree of operant conditioning should be allowed to apply.


----------



## Minnewaska

Freedom, government, money and taxes do not naturally exist in nature, to be consumed like natural resources, as the mob pleases. They go away, if you screw them up, if you over burden them, and you end up with nothing.


----------



## MikeOReilly

OB's view hits close to mine on this. Freedom means the right to do stupid things. But with rights should come responsibilities, which is something too many of us seem to have forgotten. In the case of doing stupid things, it should come with the responsibility of accepting the consequences of our choices.

The use of mood altering drugs has always been part of human cultures. And indeed, is not unique to the human animal; other animals exhibit similar behaviour. Criminalizing an intrinsic behaviour has never met with success.

The whole tax-dependancy thing is interesting. It's very true some governments can become the real addicts in this regard. So-called sin taxes (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, now cannabis) are significant in some jurisdictions, and do seem to be growing. I think these things should be kept in check, but I also think it is hard to see how this can ever be a worse problem than funnelling the money through the black market.

Sin taxes have also been used to change consumer behaviour around certain products. All the tobacco education never did as much to change consumer behaviour compared to simply raising the taxes (cost) of cigarets. Same for fuel costs and the sales of fuel efficient vehicles. Of course, it's a fine line; raise it too high and the black market comes back.

Legalizing cannabis in Canada is fundamentally a harm-reduction move. It will divert revenue from the bad hombres. It will reduce the huge societal costs currently spent to manage the problems _created_ by making drug use illegal. And it will bring greater safety to cannabis users who can now have greater assurances about what they're actually ingesting.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> I know you're focused on the general good, but think about it. We become reliant upon the revenue from the consumption of alcohol and marijuana to fund our government. IOW, if consumption declines, government and society suffer. Insidious.


You make an interesting and noteworthy point but it's not really as bad as it sounds. Current alcohol and cigarette taxes are a very minuscule part (less than 1 percent) of overall tax revenues. I think cannabis taxes are expected to yield less than those two. And I'd imagine that alcohol and cannabis consumption will be relatively stable over time with up and down trends that move slowly. Think about how cigarette use has declined drastically over the past few decades and it hasn't led to any catastrophic tax revenue losses. Actually, I think that governments have just hiked taxes on cigarettes significantly which has further deterred use, and effectively taxes people who still smoke more, and who tend to be lower income anyway, but that's a whole nother topic.


----------



## Minnewaska

A sin tax is an interesting concept, but it's a red herring, IMO. Are we taxing to deter behavior? You ultimately can't do so, without making it indirectly illegal again. Can I open a casino in my basement? Can me and 100 of my friends grown acres of marijuana for personal consumption, or open a distillery for the same? The personal use exclusions are general restrictive enough that one is generally forced to pay the government, so the tax can be a deterrent. And we're back to the black market. 

The bottom line with sin taxes is the new spendable revenue. It's what sells them every time. A black market is alive and well for gambling, prostitution and will remain for marijuana. If you tax a product, you add an artificial cost that will never be incurred by the black market. By definition, they have a competitive advantage. 

Many other arguments are plausible, if not proven. They are each attainable without taxing the product. Think about the odds of legalization passing, with zero revenue associated. You think? Those who look forward to legal access are being asked to pay for the freedom. That ain't free.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> The bottom line with sin taxes is the new spendable revenue. It's what sells them every time. A black market is alive and well for gambling, prostitution and will remain for marijuana. If you tax a product, you add an artificial cost that will never be incurred by the black market. By definition, they have a competitive advantage.


I don't think there's a black market for alcohol, even though it's about as easy (maybe easier) to home brew beer in your basement than to grow a cannabis plant. The reason why is that consumers want a good, consistent, safe product. The same will happen with cannabis. Obviously, there is a balance to find with taxation, and if taxes are high enough then a black market will remain. But I expect the illegal black market for cannabis to dwindle away once consumers can simply walk into a legal store and select from 100s of safe, tested and regulated cannabis products at a reasonable cost.

For what it's worth, I'm very much in favor of allowing and encouraging people to grow and gift their own cannabis, and to keep the retail production and sales industries small and local within state borders. I do not want to see big corporations buying up all the marijuana businesses and operating them like the big international pharma and alcohol companies.


----------



## Minnewaska

Interesting point about alcohol. There remains a moonshine industry, but I think it's pretty insignificant. I know that liquor is still bootlegged from State's with lower taxes to higher taxed States. Same with cigarettes. 

It is very difficult to create the same quality of alcohol at home, which I suspect is also why consumption is focused on mass producers.  

I say, if the majority of the electorate wants it to be legal, then don't tax it. If one needs the taxes to gain a majority, we're not ready.


----------



## MikeOReilly

I’m not clear what you’re arguing Minnewaska. There’s plenty of evidence that raising the cost on an item, either through taxation or other means, can result in lower usage of said item, be it tobacco, booze or gasoline. The critical factor for taxation is to make sure the level is below the threshold for the creation of a viable black market. 

Canadian governments have said they don’t expect significant revenue from cannabis taxation. I’m sure it will be more than that, but as caberg says, sin taxes currently constitute a very small revenue stream for Canadian governments. I can’t see cannabis changing this.


----------



## outbound

Seems all western societies have embraced a concept that wasn’t present 100 years ago. That being using taxation as a means to influence behavior rather than as solely a mechanism to raise revenue. Tax structure encouraging some behaviors (capital investment, R&D, savings etc.) and discouraging others ( luxury gas tax, sin taxes, receiving money as salary or ordinary income etc.). This has resulted in a great distortion of democracy. Should this concept be disavowed lobbying, dark money, revolving door careers, the excessive expense of tax lawyers and accounting would not be as prevalent as at present. Whole industries of a non productive nature would wither. 
Sin taxes represent the most obvious example of trying to influence behavior but not the most perilous rather I view income/capital gains/corporate taxes in there current forms as having much more impact on society.


----------



## Sal Paradise

You can make up whatever political theory you like. None of this means as much as having the police arrest you, and being in jail awaiting trial. The whole point of legalization is to just stop doing that to our peaceful pot smoking citizens. The lack of arrest and fine changes everything. I was just in Vermont last weekend at a B&B , where pot is 100% legal. Basically. Wifey didn't want any so we just had a couple of gin and tonics. But I would have indulged for sure. Its just our private behavior, we are just a middle aged couple from NY spending money..and the police can ( and did ) just leave us in peace. In general, Vermonters, like New Yorkers just want to be left alone to do as they please and that apparently includes smoking pot. Amen Hallelujah. .No theory required.


----------



## caberg

Sal Paradise said:


> You can make up whatever political theory you like. None of this means as much as having the police arrest you, and being in jail awaiting trial. The whole point of legalization is to just stop doing that to our peaceful pot smoking citizens. The lack of arrest and fine changes everything. I was just in Vermont last weekend at a B&B , where pot is 100% legal. Basically. Wifey didn't want any so we just had a couple of gin and tonics. But I would have indulged for sure. Its just our private behavior, we are just a middle aged couple from NY spending money..and the police can ( and did ) just leave us in peace. In general, Vermonters, like New Yorkers just want to be left alone to do as they please and that apparently includes smoking pot. Amen Hallelujah. .No theory required.


You are right, Sal. I live in Vermont and we did legalize cannabis through the legislature (first state to do it that way), and we have no retail market - at least for the time being. So there is no tax revenue to be generated. Currently, cannabis is legal to possess and grow within defined limits. There are many here who would like it to stay this way, but it won't last. We will have a retail market in the next few years I'm sure. Once the MA stores open any day now just to our south, it won't make any sense to disallow retail sales here.

You shoulda PM'd me before coming here and I could've hooked you up! Gifting is currently legal as well, which has led to some interesting new businesses. ($50 t-shirt anyone?)


----------



## Arcb

Saw this government of New Brunswick recreational cannabis store front this morning. This is Sackville, at the North end of the Bay of Fundy. Interesting times.


----------

