# Blunt offerings in the marina



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

So when I was going all over FL looking for sailboats to buy I met some really cool loving people. I find the boating community folks very nice like a family. Anyways out of maybe 8 marinas I got offered a blunt in probably 4 of them. I don't really smoke so I politely declined but was wondering is the weed prevalent in the boating circles? Or the offerings were just representations of the marinas I was attending.



:2 boat::2 boat:


----------



## Jack Smith (Sep 25, 2017)

hell, i can hardly sail unblunted!


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Personally, we only use sharp tools. Blunt ones are rather ineffective, unless they are hammers.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

Stoners are worthless the world over....


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

Stoners may be worthless but they sure a lot of fun to be around. I'll take a stoner over a drunk any day !
The absolute worst is those Bible thumping Flag Waving hypocrites that want to impose their idea of morality on everyone else.
For a more in depth explanation of this just watch George Carlin's last performance. Maybe stoners aren't so worthless after all.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

That's interesting. I've never, ever been offered anything other than alcoholic beverages.
I have recently become aware that there is a growing drug problem in the marina that I used to live at though, which is sad and upsetting.

The attitude towards cannabis is changing though, so I suppose that this will become the new norm. Pot heads are not normally aggressive people from what I understand. If you don't partake, a polite refusal is all that is needed.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Ajax_MD said:


> That's interesting....
> 
> The attitude towards cannabis is changing though, so I suppose that this will become the new norm....


Ah... Some attitudes may have changed but rightly or wrongly, Federal Law concerning "Dope" hasn't nor has the approach of Federal Law enforcement authorities, including in connection with boats, the US Coast Guard. Moreover, in Florida particularly, a yacht stopped by the Coast Guard for a "safety check" that has the aroma of dope, is likely to get a very, very, thorough "inspection" involving, potentially, damaging partial disassembly at an impound dock while the crew cools their heels in a holding cell. Bringing dope aboard a boat, particularly in Florida, is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard lately, especially so as the Feds are stepping up Civil Forfeitures for "suspected" criminal activity and "Possession" is.

FWIW...


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I never have been offered one. I feel left out now.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I've never smelled it at our marina, nor know a single boater around me that smokes. One is the majority investor in a medical marijuana farm, but doesn't smoke. While I completely believe future generations will look back and know this was a mistake, I fully expect recreational marijuana to become legal almost everywhere. It's simply the self-indulgent slide of all prosperous nations throughout history.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Maybe your appearance is sending a message to the local boaters. Have you tried cutting your dreadlocks and shaving the beard. :devil


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Ajax_MD said:


> .....Pot heads are not normally aggressive people from what I understand.......


True story. I know the head of a local police department in a college town who was telling me how much his officers preferred to deal with a stoner than a drunk. However, he also believed that the drive toward pot was, in part, caused by the drinking age. It's much easier to smuggle in a bag of weed, than a keg of beer and the stoners sit still and typically don't get caught. The drunks are hanging from the street lights. For a number of reasons, he firmly believes the drinking age should be lowered. Same with every college President.

One of my fav funny descriptions.

A drunk driver will approach an intersection with a traditional octagonal stop sign and speed straight through it. A stoned driver will approach the same stop sign, come to a full stop, stare at it and wait for it to change to green.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Silly topic. 

Sailing is great without smoking anything. I just need wind in the sails, maybe a beer or two at anchor. I don't like being confused about wind direction or sail trim. I'm guessing anything goes in my marina as it is laid back and sort of sailor hippy - ish. I keep my boat in a sort of run down but cool marina, because its cheap and well protected from weather. It attracts the off beat types. 

But hey! At least people in the marinas are friendly! That's the point I got. I don't hang out much in my marina . Maybe bring them a nice bottle of procecco as a gesture. I hear tell that goes well with it. 

I've long thought the drinking age should be 18. , I always allowed my kids to drink wine or beer with dinner. As a result they didn't binge drink in college as the mystery was gone.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> True story. I know the head of a local police department in a college town who was telling me how much his officers preferred to deal with a stoner than a drunk. However, he also believed that the drive toward pot was, in part, caused by the drinking age. It's much easier to smuggle in a bag of weed, than a keg of beer and the stoners sit still and typically don't get caught. The drunks are hanging from the street lights. For a number of reasons, he firmly believes the drinking age should be lowered. Same with every college President.
> 
> One of my fav funny descriptions.
> 
> A drunk driver will approach an intersection with a traditional octagonal stop sign and speed straight through it. A stoned driver will approach the same stop sign, come to a full stop, stare at it and wait for it to change to green.


Funny and not altogether wrong. In 1980 Car and Driver magazine did two tests. First was drinking and driving and later a smoking and driving test.

For both tests they assembled a group of employees with various backgrounds, some that were regular partakers, some occasional, some teetotalers. Some professional drivers, some experienced amateurs, some just regular commute to work types.

The drinking and driving results were exactly as expected. The more they drank the worse the driving. Reaction times dropped dramatically. Perception worse. Aggression increased.

The smoking and driving results on the other hand were quite surprising. Across the board the results improved through the course of the test. No matter how stoned the reaction times improved, accuracy improved, etc. The unscientific and somewhat speculative conclusions drawn:

- Pot doesn't effect your reflexes or reaction time. That seemed pretty clear.

- The improvements everyone showed in the tests as they got more stoned were probably attributable to practice and familiarization with the tests and course.

BUT, all of the test subjects, even the hippy that worked in the mail room and confessed to smoking a joint in the car on the way home from work every day, agreed that driving stoned they were distracted and not not all that safe behind the wheel.

Approaching the stop light test they were thinking about how cool the red lights looked. Driving the course some of the guys were more focused on the cute secretary on the side of the track than driving the course (does that take being stoned to be an issue?). They felt less concerned and less focused on driving, more on daydreaming or looking around at things.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Sal Paradise said:


> Silly topic.
> 
> Sailing is great without smoking anything. I just need wind in the sails, maybe a beer or two at anchor. I don't like being confused about wind direction or sail trim.


You don't need to smoke anything but maybe a beer or two at anchor? Pot or ethanol, both are intoxicants.

Not judging either and saying either is good or bad. I used to smoke and occasionally have a drink.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> True story. I know the head of a local police department in a college town who was telling me how much his officers preferred to deal with a stoner than a drunk.


Similar story. My daughter is an ER doctor and says drunks are by far the worst patients to deal with; also the most common.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

For the Op, When in Rome...


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

I don't partake, but have been offered plenty in the boating world. Of course, I live in a place where you can just walk down to a corner store and buy anything you want perfectly legally, so it's not really much of a thing...


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

Appearances, A stranger wouldn't offer me pot if I was at a Grateful Dead concert holding an empty bong. My wife says "You still look like an off duty cop or fireman, even in civilian clothes it looks like you are wearing a uniform." Sounds like what you got is working well for you, I'd stick with it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Take it way down from being impaired and consider responsible social consumption. I’ve been around lots of people that have had a small amount of alcohol or a small amount of marijuana. 

I can always tell they’re stoned. Often can’t tell they’ve had any alcohol.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> TI can always tell they're stoned. Often can't tell they've had any alcohol.


What if someone was stoned and you couldn't tell? How would you know you're able to tell if you didn't know? 

I have had the opposite experience. Couldn't see any difference with someone moderately stoned but, except for a couple of friends that were serious alcoholics and had learned to compensate, I can always tell when someone is drinking.

Of course the smell of either pot or booze is a dead giveaway regardless of how impaired one is or isn't.



Minnewaska said:


> Take it way down from being impaired and consider responsible social consumption. I've been around lots of people that have had a small amount of alcohol or a small amount of marijuana.


This brings up the question of what is considered responsible consumption.

What is considered responsible, at least in the context of driving, is being reevaluated. In some countries there is zero tolerance for any alcohol and driving. The same of course applies to pilots, zero is the limit.

A lot of US states are considering reduction of the legal limit to 0.05% from 0.08%.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"I've long thought the drinking age should be 18."
Oh Sal, there you go giving away your age. Some of us would say:
"I've long thought the drinking age should HAVE STAYED 18."

We had a pub on campus. We drank beer, often with professors, on campus. And we didn't have to go out driving if we wanted a couple of beers, they were in easy walking distance. When the drinking age went up, the pub was closed. The kids are still drinking now--just not in the same safe environment.

Pot in Florida?! You mean, Randy Wayne White and all have been writing their novels creatively, when they set them in Florida marinas with pot smokers?! Who knew.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Here in Ontario and Quebec, herb seems to be fairly common amongst boaters. Go to a bonfire at the marina joint gets passed around, those who toke, toke, those who don't just wave it off. Easy. Even at the nicer down town Toronto and Montreal Marinas some folks smoke openly on the docks. It seems to be less popular at the more conservative yacht clubs, but at more laid back yacht clubs and pretty well all marinas, its there.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Lets face it even the most ardent of pot smokers or drinkers would agree with operating your vessel when under the influence of pot or booze. 

Why should any of you care or be able to act on wha I decide to do in the privacy of my own house or boat. 

Only a non smoker would make statements like,I can spot anyone whose stoned. BOth booze and pot are drugs period. BOth alter you’re state ... period. 

ITs not about the morality of which drug to use the current laws on pot use are created by a generation now heading for distinction using hysteronics like reefer madness to support their views. 

To me nothing worse than a drunk , even on their own boat. Either loud, belligerent, angry or throwing up . Over into ication on pot in my e patience doesn’t deliver that kind of antisocial individual. 

As the police how many domestic violence reports they have processed where the person was super high from smoking pot vs how many calls they have had where the man was drinking or intoxicated. 

Yet one drug is legal in your house and the other isn’t. Time to understand it’s the 21 century now. What I choose to do on my property is none of your or the states business unless I am affecting you. 

Make any drug intoxication in public or when operating illegal. LEave the mellow people who indulge at home alone


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

OH yeah, 

When Maryland decrininalzes marijuana and my company stops drug testing,

You’ll find me securely anchored on the Chester River with the rolling paper from the album the Big Bamboo blowing a fair sized doobie🌝🌝🌝🌝🌝🌝


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

Chef, remain calm, here have some of this killer fudge the wife learned to make when she was in chemo, and it just smells like chocolate.:wink


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

Why is it that stoners always immediately fall to the "better than drinking" argument? If you are an intelligent, honest, hard working individual why do you need any crutch? As an employer in the wonderful state of Colorado I can tell you from experience that neither is conducive to a productive employee. However, in my experience, someone with an alcohol issue is generally more productive than a stoner. Neither is a candidate for long term employment or success.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> Why is it that stoners always immediately fall to the "better than drinking" argument? If you are an intelligent, honest, hard working individual why do you need any crutch? As an employer in the wonderful state of Colorado I can tell you from experience that neither is conducive to a productive employee. However, in my experience, someone with an alcohol issue is generally more productive than a stoner. Neither is a candidate for long term employment or success.


Have done both, currently don't do either. No argument that both are intoxicants and both have negative health and other impacts. However I can tell you from my experience that the overall impact to individuals, family and society from alcohol is orders of magnitude worse than pot.

Ask any doctor that works in the ER. My daughter is one. Ask anyone that involved in social work or family counseling like my wife. I have a very large extended family and I would guess a majority of my cousins are pot smokers. Some own businesses, a couple are in medical fields, one corporate level financial manager, several in other professional fields and other areas that I would consider productive. Of course there are the also several that can't hold a job or take care of their family but you can't say all of the stoners are unproductive and at least in my personal experience quite the contrary.

Of course the above is all anecdotal but if you look at statistics death, disease, divorces and other serious health and societal problems are strongly correlated to alcohol abuse. If I recall only cigarette smoking has had a larger health impact than alcohol although the current opiate epidemic might now be displacing alcohol for second place.

Certainly we would all be healthier and better off in many ways without drugs or alcohol but they are a fact of live all over the world.

To relate this to boating, I prefer neither but if I had to chose I would rather face a stoned boater than a drunk one any day of the week.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Ok Mr High and Mighty sitting on your perch of judgement. I didn't see anyone here posting who I would consider a "stoner " as you described some here who were describing social use of marijuana or alcohol. Or do you view anyone who takes a puff a stoner or a drink an alcohol abuse 

Maybe you really are one of the 3% tea tottlers in the world. Are you? Ever have a glass of wine or beer? If so it doesn't make you an abuser of alcohol. If you haven't that's one for you I guess but bringing judgemental on those who have an occasional drink or joint ... Really....Who are you to judge. 

See my friend some of us just have a drink or a puff on occasion in a social situation. It isn't an abuse.but any use of any drug is to you. 

I have an occasional glass if wine. I like the taste of good wine. Love how it pairs with food. I have not smoked pot since 1982 since my daughter was born. Mainly cause it's illegal also I took seriously rai see if a child and was an example.



I have never been right with the illegality of it in your home. I don't think the govt has the right to legislate what happens there. So much money wasted. However if it was decriminalized I would occasional puff like I do occasionally drink wine. That doesn't mean I am abusing it. 

Are you that righteous that you do not drink at all? Stop the histrionics like I mentioned in my post. You are the classic refer madness person who calls some one who occasionly lights a joint a stoner obviously. Thats what you mean when you said " I like it when the stoners always fall into the better than drinking argument".,I don't see any stoners here where you see anyone who smokes us one. 

As far as productive employes in Colorado, I employ hundreds of employees. Abuse of any drugs including alcohol while working is not good. Not just in Colorado. However I am sure many if my employees may have a drink at home and maybe even a joint and it doesn't affect their productivity. 

Understand I am not recommending it, however I don't believe in forcing the government down people throats. My company drug tests for cause. One of the reasons I don't smoke. Ibwould never even consider doing it at work or operating a vehicle or boat.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Time to have a nice glass of Pinot Noir....Russian River variety😇😁🌴🍷
Anyone want to join?


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

^four hours and forty minutes til my happy hour...Will have a few G n T's to salute to the Blue Moon tonight.

I'm not hard working or responsible anymore..think I'll have that beer for lunch anyway.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

If someone who smokes weed ever is a stoner, doesn't it logically follow that someone who drinks alcohol ever is a drunk? I've known quite a few very successful, perfectly functioning folks who will smoke once in a while...and I've known a proportional number of folks who will drink once in a while. It's no problem.

There is a difference though:_* I've not seen anyone smoking weed descending into the sort of total self-destruction, violence and abuse towards others, and death that so often results from alcoholism.*_

There is simply no comparison here. This knee-jerk anti-weed thing has to be ideologically motivated. The usual suspects finding yet another way to try to use government to tell people what to do with their own bodies.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

As I suggested, in my observation, there is a difference between abusive consumption of pot/alcohol and responsible, tolerable consumption. It is true, any rational discussion of the relative impacts of these intoxicants, brings out the pot advocates in full battle mode. They're fighting for a cause.

I suppose calling someone a stoner makes them feel like they are being called an abuser. The occasional, responsible user of either pot or alcohol has no description and we probably shouldn't use one. 

That said, I maintain that in a mixed room of responsible drinkers and smokers, the two are distinct. Neither are out of control, so pushback on the devastating impact of alcoholism is not relevant to this point. I'm not referring to the impact of excessive abuse. 

I'm not going to put words to the observation, because I'm sure those that smoke would get very defensive. Nevertheless, in my personal observation, the typical person who had a couple of glasses of wine does not appear or behave any different before/after. I'm not suggesting the person who smokes in that situation is out of control, however, they do change to a degree that is noticeable. I'm not saying it objectionable, only noticeable over the glass or two of wine.

Maybe society isn't accustom to mixing the two. I mention this because, as pot is becoming more popular, this mixing of consumption (some drinking, some smoking) at the same small party is becoming more common. Most that I know are finding it difficult, even when they fully support legalization.

I will acquiesce to the legalization of marijuana, due to other societal issues and because it seems to be the will of the next generation. There comes a time, for better or worse, it's up to them. Hundreds of years from now, I predict it will be looked upon as a mistake.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

amwbox said:


> .....There is a difference though:_* I've not seen anyone smoking weed descending into the sort of total self-destruction, violence and abuse towards others, and death that so often results from alcoholism.*_......


Damn it. I was trying not to get into this debate. This counter is not true either, although violence and death are pretty extreme issues to try to make your point.

One of the devastating uses of pot is to self-medicate depression or anxiety disorders and it's remarkable how many people suffer from one or the other. One third of the population, by some measure. It's hard to know, as many do not seek treatment at all.

Self-medication of these does not always appear as abuse. The afflicted may only smoke alone at night to reduce their anxiety. However, long term repeated use of marijuana been shown to exacerbate these conditions, while the immediate use of the intoxicant feels like it is helping. Alcohol often makes the afflicted feel worse, which is the attraction of pot. The user often discontinues medical assistance, whether therapeutic or pharmacological, because they feel then can control it. I've seen it, twice, in my own family. One had a suicide attempt, after self removal from their anti-anxiety meds and their life started unraveling. That's about as self-destructive as it gets. The doc attributed it directly to the weed. Mental capacity and short term memory are slightly impacted. Whether that causes one functional issues depends on where they started on the curve. If they were highly anxious over their ability to preform, this is a problem.

While I understand the arguments in favor of legalization, I fully reject pot is as fully benign as advocates want to believe.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Minnewaska said:


> Damn it. I was trying not to get into this debate. This counter is not true either, although violence and death are pretty extreme issues to try to make your point.


It's not extreme at all. Just from quick googling:

90,000 deaths from alcoholism each year in the US alone.

Around 10,000 deaths from drunk driving each year, something like a third of all car accident deaths.

The vast bulk of all domestic violence is alcohol-related. It's so common its a cliche.

I'm not being extreme. It's simply that there is no comparison between the two...and they are being compared in this discussion.



> One of the devastating uses of pot is to self-medicate depression or anxiety disorders and it's remarkable how many people suffer from one or the other. One third of the population, by some measure. It's hard to know, as many do not seek treatment at all.
> 
> Self-medication of these does not always appear as abuse. The afflicted may only smoke alone at night to reduce their anxiety. However, long term repeated use of marijuana been shown to exacerbate these conditions, while the immediate use of the intoxicant feels like it is helping. Alcohol often makes the afflicted feel worse, which is the attraction of pot. The user often discontinues medical assistance, whether therapeutic or pharmacological, because they feel then can control it. I've seen it, twice, in my own family. One had a suicide attempt, after self removal from their anti-anxiety meds and their life started unraveling. That's about as self-destructive as it gets. The doc attributed it directly to the weed. Mental capacity and short term memory are slightly impacted. Whether that causes one functional issues depends on where they started on the curve. If they were highly anxious over their ability to preform, this is a problem.
> 
> While I understand the arguments in favor of legalization, I fully reject pot is as fully benign as advocates want to believe.


Okay...but this is a common problem with alcohol as well, and for the reasons already covered...alcohol is far worse news. Someone pouring a drink in response to depression, stress, or just a bad day is something else that's so common it's a cliche. More googling tells me that alcohol is related in a quarter of all suicides in the US, and alcohol abusers are 120 times more likely to attempt or commit suicide.

For my own part, I abstain from weed for personal reasons. I live in a state where it is perfectly legal, but I don't partake. It doesn't follow that I would try to push this personal choice off onto others.

I don't think it's fully benign. I think setting something on fire and breathing in the fumes is basically a dumb idea in any case. But I don't think it compares at all with alcohol in terms of how much it impairs you, how addictive it is, or the social problems it causes.

It's not totally benign..._but it's not even close to being as bad._ So the hyperbole in this thread about "stoners" strikes me as extremely uninformed and arbitrary.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> That said, I maintain that in a mixed room of responsible drinkers and smokers, the two are distinct. Neither are out of control, so pushback on the devastating impact of alcoholism is not relevant to this point. I'm not referring to the impact of excessive abuse.


Agree that there's a huge difference between use and abuse of either and it seems like you're in agreement that the use or regulation of either should be equal. And certainly there is a very distinct difference in the effect on users but I still have to disagree that there is no observable change in a drinker's demeanor after moderate use.

My career involved attending a lot of conferences and conventions over the years. All at some point in time involved receptions, cocktail parties, dinners or casual meetings at a bar or pub where a drink or two was consumed. Most of the time I would abstain, mainly because alcohol frequently gives me a splitting headache and I couldn't afford to be incapacitated at these functions. As one of the very few, sometimes only, person in a group not drinking the change in others was very noticeable and the change became more heightened as consumption continued. Voices became louder, conversation more animated, more laughter and a usually more focus on one's own conversation and less on that of others. Basically a reduction in inhibitions.

I'm sure there is a corresponding change in pot smokers but it's been many years since I've been around much of that and when I was I was usually participating so the changes were not as obvious. As well as I recall, the differences were much more subtle and more varied both between individuals and in different situations. Generally people became quieter and somewhat introspective; more easily distracted by sounds, lights, music or happenings around them, but again the effects varied a lot from person to person and situation.

Also I observed that smokers were able to compensate and modify their behavior to fit a situation. A drunk if stopped by the police is going to be drunk. A stoner pulled over is not going to stare at the police car and go "wow man, what cool lights" but he/she will still have red, glassy eyes.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

amw, you are missing the impact of the denominator. Think about the multiplier for the number of people that drink alcohol vs smoke pot. It's like saying general aviation is safer than driving a car, because 1000 times more people die in car accidents. I get your point, it's just not as obvious as the numbers you quote and smoking pot has some of its own devastating side affects. 

I'm not going to try to get you to agree, if you don't.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

skipmac said:


> .....I still have to disagree that there is no observable change in a drinker's demeanor after moderate use......


I think our only disconnect is on how much is moderate use. I've not seen what I consider moderate use at a convention bar. That's usually where folks are letting their hair down. No problem with it, but not the scenario I mean.

I mean the dinner part at a house, with professional networking colleagues. No one is going to let their hair down, just enjoy a drink or two. Pot has made it into that equation from time to time, in each case, because the host was smoking now/again. The differences in demeanor are noticeable.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Damn it. I was trying not to get into this debate. This counter is not true either, although violence and death are pretty extreme issues to try to make your point.
> 
> One of the devastating uses of pot is to self-medicate depression or anxiety disorders and it's remarkable how many people suffer from one or the other. One third of the population, by some measure. It's hard to know, as many do not seek treatment at all.
> 
> ...


All very valid points. There are negative effects to the use of any drug (and alcohol is a drug in this context). I understand your objection to this discussion leading into comparisons of the extremes but I think to some degree you headed the conversation in that direction.

As far as future generations looking back at legalization as a mistake, I think not. The effects on individuals and society by prohibition are clearly worse that the effects of legalization.

How many young people have had their lives and careers ruined by an arrest for possession? Look at the huge criminal cartels and their impact on society; the result of forcing drugs into the criminal market. A comparison, alcohol prohibition turned the mafia from small time, neighborhood criminals into a megawealthy, global criminal organization. Thousands and thousands of drinkers were poisoned and died from drinking illegal booze contaminated with methanol and worse. Similarly, drug prohibitions created the horribly violent, fantastically wealthy drug cartels in Colombia and Mexico, drug gangs in most of our inner cities and contribute to a general distrust and disrespect for the law.

Final thought. I know of not a single death from marijuana overdoes ever nor do I know of any significant problem with deaths from any secondary effects. How many die directly and indirectly from alcohol every year?

No drug used recreationally is beneficial nor do any contribute in a positive way to physical or mental health. However it seems clear that the negatives of marijuana are dramatically less than that of alcohol.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I think our only disconnect is on how much is moderate use. I've not seen what I consider moderate use at a convention bar. That's usually where folks are letting their hair down. No problem with it, but not the scenario I mean.


Not at the conventions I attended. Some were more like trade shows but at all the great majority of attendees were there to conduct serious business, not off on a company paid party weekend. The minimum investment for someone to attend was a few thousand dollars and some of the companies I worked and met with spent hundreds of thousands to send a dozen or more people, set up large displays, rent meeting rooms, etc. Excessive drinking was not tolerated.

In this context, the effects I noticed from drinking were not based on excessive consumption but observable after the first glass of wine at a business dinner, and observable consistently. The effects of even moderate alcohol use are easily tested and quantifiable.



Minnewaska said:


> I mean the dinner part at a house, with professional networking colleagues. No one is going to let their hair down, just enjoy a drink or two. Pot has made it into that equation from time to time, in each case, because the host was smoking now/again. The differences in demeanor are noticeable.


If you're saying smoking or smokers acted differently than drinkers, certainly. But to say that drinking moderately produced no change in demeanor, not so in my experience.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

aeventyr60 said:


> ^four hours and forty minutes til my happy hour...Will have a few G n T's to salute to the Blue Moon tonight.
> 
> I'm not hard working or responsible anymore..think I'll have that beer for lunch anyway.


That long? Sounds like a lot self restraint.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

skipmac said:


> .....If you're saying smoking or smokers acted differently than drinkers, certainly. But to say that drinking moderately produced no change in demeanor, not so in my experience.


Perhaps we can settle on them being different changes, but can we agree that drinking alcohol at a hotel/convention bar is a different demeanor than the actual example/experience I gave: having a professional dinner at someone's house? I believe one's own intent to regulate their behavior is different between the two. In my experience, the light alcohol drinker fairs better at that, than the pot smoker.

The rest of the discussion on what will happen in the future of deregulation is all speculative, so no point in repeating my respective point of view.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I predict that 100 years from now there will be many more medicinal uses of cannabis and its use socially will be no big deal, about as big a deal has having a cup of coffee. Oh wait, the latter is already the case for the vast majority of people under 40.

Maybe future generations will look back and wonder why it was socially acceptable to down 3 glass of chardonnay and an Ambien every night.


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

skipmac said:


> Maybe your appearance is sending a message to the local boaters. Have you tried cutting your dreadlocks and shaving the beard.


Hmm, that's only one profile. There are others. When I took my family to Costa Rica apparently there's a profile that the ganja dealers down there have for certain American tourists. Apparently frequent users are soccer dad looking tourists who would have gone to high school in the 70s. Whenever the rest of the family wandered away from me in town squares some Rastafarian looking guys would come up to me and whisper quietly, "Hey Mon, would you like some ganja?" My daughter would come over and ask why these cool looking guys were talking to her very uncool dad. I told her that they were offering to serve as our tour guide and show us interesting places.
I did not have dreadlocks and my beard was trimmed suitable for appearance in corporate meetings.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

Ugh. So much useless debate. I'll answer the initial question posed: I sail in Southern California and I have never even once been offered a hit. I don't look very 'conservative', so I don't know whether my appearance is a factor (shaved head, goatee). 
I live in Nevada, boat there some, too. So, my anecdote is that, in the two states where recreational marijuana purchase is legal, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.


----------



## Caribbeachbum (Feb 23, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> Why is it that stoners always immediately fall to the "better than drinking" argument? If you are an intelligent, honest, hard working individual why do you need any crutch? As an employer in the wonderful state of Colorado I can tell you from experience that neither is conducive to a productive employee. However, in my experience, someone with an alcohol issue is generally more productive than a stoner. Neither is a candidate for long term employment or success.


It's not a crutch. Like sailing, billiards, watching TV, and sex, getting a buzz is something fun to do. If you don't like sailing, don't go. If you don't like having a drink, or smoking a blunt, take a pass.

I'm an employer in Tennessee who just fired two employees for smoking pot at work. Don't smoke pot at work; don't have sex in public; don't try to sail on Interstate 40. I 'm not inclined to support the criminalization of an activity just because some people do it inappropriately.


----------



## ThereYouAre (Sep 21, 2016)

Don't smoke the Devil's Lettuce you'll never amount to anything.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I think this must vary massively by region. Some countries have a war on drugs, some countries permit employers to perform random drug tests on employees, other countries weed is legal or at least decriminalised and the Constitution protects employees from random drug testing. I assume this must result in very different attitudes towards cannabis both in terms of personal use and willingness to talk openly about it.

Nearly any marina in Ontario that has a fire pit, one could expect a joint to come out with the guitars and I think it would almost be perceived as impolite if some one were to sit around a fire and not offer to share. Nobody has to smoke any, I don't, but it's just a question of good manners to offer, isn't it?


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Two Toronto cops apparently suffered from hallucinations after eating cannabis brownies they stole during a raid. Currently on CBC

The grass of today ain't the same stuff granma smoked in the day.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I'm not a stoner. But, one of things I said before getting into sailing was that I was going to sail out into international water, get naked and smoke dope.

But then I learned that it was all that practical and that you can lose you boat over it, or worst depending on where you are.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Sebastian#2 said:


> Nearly any marina in Ontario that has a fire pit, one could expect a joint to come out with the guitars and I think it would almost be perceived as impolite if some one were to sit around a fire and not offer to share. Nobody has to smoke any, I don't, but it's just a question of good manners to offer, isn't it?


I've been in almost every marina of any size in the Great Lakes over the last 30 years and have been offered a joint once. You must run with a different crowd


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

boatpoker said:


> You must run with a different crowd


I would bet the farm on it


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Sebastian#2 said:


> Nearly any marina in Ontario that has a fire pit, one could expect a joint to come out with the guitars and I think it would almost be perceived as impolite if some one were to sit around a fire and not offer to share. Nobody has to smoke any, I don't, but it's just a question of good manners to offer, isn't it?


in the interest of being a polite neighbor from the south, I first have ask about the current laws in Ontario. Is pot legal or not? If legal, then I think an offer of sharing is very polite. Thank you very much. if not legal, than I think an offering might not be so polite as accepting a complementary toke may lead to my unwanted relation with the mounties or other of the Queens enforcers. So then no thank you very much for the inpoliteness of the offer for me to be uncomfortable! In the future, sailing Lake Superior, Michigan ,Ontario , Huron & Erie is in my plan so a visit to Provinance of Ontario is a possibilty. Am looking forward to the day.[/QUOTE]

So it has been decriminalised nationally for quite a while (ticketable offence), totally legal for medical use at both a national and provincial level. As of July this year will be fully legal nationwide at both Federal and Provincial Levels and sold in government operated weed stores. The citizens of Canada voted overwhelmingly in favour of this.

So if you are visiting, don't spark up until July, unless you have a prescription. The US Coast Guard can not enter Canadian waters and raid a boat for having weed on board.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Seems like lots of people are excited about the new herb laws - it being accepted.
I stopped toking 30 years ago. Maybe I'll try it again...dunno.
Really, I don't care if you toke, drink, clean your ear canals with an ice pick, or wash your eyeballs with a moist scotchbrite pad.
Just don't bother and impose yourself on other people. 

Moderation...don't jump the fence. 

Responsibility to manage ourselves is on each of us.
Act like an ass...be treated like an ass...


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

I am actually clean cut , shaved and wear polos most of the time with Sperry boat shoes ... So you can say conservative, I don't think is my look , perhaps my age. I do look younger than most.

:2 boat::2 boat:


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

'The citizens of Canada voted overwhelmingly in favour of this'. Really? I don't remember a vote being taken.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

midwesterner said:


> Hmm, that's only one profile. There are others. When I took my family to Costa Rica apparently there's a profile that the ganja dealers down there have for certain American tourists. Apparently frequent users are soccer dad looking tourists who would have gone to high school in the 70s. Whenever the rest of the family wandered away from me in town squares some Rastafarian looking guys would come up to me and whisper quietly, "Hey Mon, would you like some ganja?" My daughter would come over and ask why these cool looking guys were talking to her very uncool dad. I told her that they were offering to serve as our tour guide and show us interesting places.
> I did not have dreadlocks and my beard was trimmed suitable for appearance in corporate meetings.


Well of course the original comment was in jest but I guess there is some truth that even the street dealers are profiling their potential customer base. Last time I went to Jamaica I had no facial hair and a short cut but was still targeted. I was younger so maybe my age? Or just anyone that looked like a tourist was a target?


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

skipmac said:


> midwesterner said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, that's only one profile. There are others. When I took my family to Costa Rica apparently there's a profile that the ganja dealers down there have for certain American tourists. Apparently frequent users are soccer dad looking tourists who would have gone to high school in the 70s. Whenever the rest of the family wandered away from me in town squares some Rastafarian looking guys would come up to me and whisper quietly, "Hey Mon, would you like some ganja?" My daughter would come over and ask why these cool looking guys were talking to her very uncool dad. I told her that they were offering to serve as our tour guide and show us interesting places.
> ...


I believe that it was profiling of American male tourists of a certain age. I got approached three different times in three different cities but neither my wife nor either of my teenage kids were ever approached.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

paulinnanaimo said:


> 'The citizens of Canada voted overwhelmingly in favour of this'. Really? I don't remember a vote being taken.


Your legislature voted for it...overwhelmingly..if it actually happens by July 1, 2018 is a different story.

https://www.mtlblog.com/news/canadian-politicians-are-delaying-marijuana-legalization-past-july-2018


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

The Liberal Party voted for it, they are not the 'citizens of Canada'.


----------



## rpludwig (Mar 13, 2017)

Simple recent observation:
I never encountered a disagreeable slobbering loud obnoxious drunk, nor any reckless bicycle riders whilst in Amsterdam. A very gentile happy productive intelligent society with very little crime.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

I've read most of this thread, but bogged down by the fifth page, so forgive me if someone else has made this distinction previously. I don't recall seeing it.

Many, MANY, and probably even the vast majority drink alcoholic beverages because they like the TASTE. How many of us get actually DRUNK enjoying a fine single malt, a beautiful bottle of unfiltered hand-crafted IPA, a carefully cellared and decanted Amarone, or any number of other amazing sensual flavorful treats? I admit that there are times when I might have TWO or, on a very long drawn out evening with friends, maybe three over the course of many hours, and maybe even experience a slight feeling of increased relaxation, but drunk?!? No.. not in decades.

People smoke weed to get buzzed, period. It happens instantly. You smoke to get stoned. You don't savor the flavor, or "sip" the smoke.. you get as much in your lungs as you can, clamp down, hope you don't cough your guts out of your nose, then enjoy the result.

Yes, they are both drugs. Yes, they are both bad for you, although some medical research has said that one or two drinks a day can actually help prevent a stroke and be good for you, although there is certainly debate there. Here's a quick Google result of a "benefits of alcohol" search:

7 Health Benefits Of Drinking Alcohol

A search for "benefits of daily marijuana use" turned this up. It's MUCH more equivocal..

Marijuana Benefits and Risks: 10 Things to Know - Health

I have yet to hear of a study that says that marijuana is good, at any "daily dose," for a person without any health issues, but I'm sure they're out there. You can find a study that "proves" almost any point of view these days.

Personally, I'd like to see the government get increasingly out of our private lives and am not opposed to legalization of marijuana. I DO understand and mostly agree with the arguments re/ the hypocrisy of alcohol being legal and marijuana being illegal. I still wrestle with the fact that, and it IS a fact, marijuana is a drug, and NOTHING but a drug, while alcohol is a byproduct contained in many delicious beverages that simply can not be made alcohol-free. I simply can't equate someone sipping a single glass of Chardonnay with someone taking a few hits on a blunt. One is a drug user, and one is not. Now, someone pounding three glasses of wine, regardless of quality, in 20 minutes.. that's using a drug, too. Even having said that, as long as we are in our own homes, or not in a position where we could be of any harm to anyone else, I still think we should have the right to abuse ourselves as we wish. I wish not to go that extreme, but that's just me.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

bblument said:


> People smoke weed to get buzzed, period. It happens instantly. You smoke to get stoned. You don't savor the flavor, or "sip" the smoke.. you get as much in your lungs as you can, clamp down, hope you don't cough your guts out of your nose, then enjoy the result.


I disagree with this. I have smoked some very good tasting pot, some very bad tasting pot, and points in between. If it was legal, I would enjoy smoking some good tasting pot once in a while as I now enjoy a fine cigar a couple of times per week.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

ianjoub said:


> I disagree with this. I have smoked some very good tasting pot, some very bad tasting pot, and points in between. If it was legal, I would enjoy smoking some good tasting pot once in a while as I now enjoy a fine cigar a couple of times per week.


Two questions..

1. If pot didn't get you stoned, would you smoke it just for the taste?

2. Did the pot you smoked that tasted good truly taste good, or did you enjoy the taste because it was a harbinger of the buzz to come?

Honest answers to those two questions will probably result in a confirmation of my statement, but it's possible I'm wrong. People like all kinds of things. Check out the commercials about folks who still like cable tv...


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

bblument said:


> Many, MANY, and probably even the vast majority drink alcoholic beverages because they like the TASTE.


Ha ha ha ha ha! That's one of the funniest pro-alcohol things I've ever read in the alcohol vs. marijuana debate and I've read a lot!

The taste.... ha ha ha! That's a real good one!


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

bblument said:


> 1. If pot didn't get you stoned, would you smoke it just for the taste?


No, of course not.

Just like no-alcohol beer is drank by virtually no one.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

bblument,

Nicely written, and a reasonable tone, but complete b.s. 

Alcohol is a drug. Come on. And it is now quite common for some to eat some delicious and enticing edible, just enough perhaps for a slight effect. 

There is no moral issue here. What is truly different is your opinion of them.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

bblument said:


> Two questions..
> 
> 1. If pot didn't get you stoned, would you smoke it just for the taste?
> 
> ...


I would prefer to smoke good tasting pot that didn't get me stoned. Yes, it really tasted good (to me). I certainly don't smoke my cigars to get stoned. I am sure that there are many people who would not believe that some people enjoy cigars and pipes (with normal tobacco).


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

caberg said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha! That's one of the funniest pro-alcohol things I've ever read in the alcohol vs. marijuana debate and I've read a lot!
> 
> The taste.... ha ha ha! That's a real good one!


Umm... not sure why that's so funny. If it wasn't for the taste, why in the world would we have such a vast selection of artfully brewed, vinted, and distilled beverages that command such incredibly high prices? If it was simply and only a drug, surely the "generic" versions would be the only thing that sold, given the much cheaper access fee. If the only alcohol available to me was Bud Light, Chymes Whiskey, and Night Train Express, I'd never touch a drop. No point.

For the record, I'm not pro-alcohol. Not for one millisecond would I recommend or suggest alcohol consumption to someone opposed to doing so. I am pro personal decision, assuming your decision affects no one else negatively. Period.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

ianjoub said:


> I would prefer to smoke good tasting pot that didn't get me stoned. Yes, it really tasted good (to me). I certainly don't smoke my cigars to get stoned. I am sure that there are many people who would not believe that some people enjoy cigars and pipes (with normal tobacco).


Fair enough. I certainly have no idea what tastes good to you, and I accept your word. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

Sal Paradise said:


> bblument,
> 
> Nicely written, and a reasonable tone, but complete b.s.
> 
> ...


Guess I should go read my post again; I don't recall saying anything was immoral, and I did say I felt that the current laws as they pertain to alcohol and marijuana were hypocritical. Not sure what I wrote to earn the "complete b.s." statement.. just stating my opinions on the subject, that's all. If we do disagree, and I'm not sure that we do all that much, does that mean that one of us must be full of "b.s.?" I don't see things that way.

We agree that alcohol is a drug, and that marijuana is a drug. 
We may disagree that sipping a single glass of wine makes one a drug user. I do not believe it does, in the typical usage of the term "drug user," meaning one who uses a drug to alter their consciousness. You may disagree, and have a different interpretation of what a drug user is. Cumin and nutmeg in large quantities can cause hallucinations; am I a drug user because I use a bit in my recipes? If so, then by your definition a person enjoying a Pinot Noir with a nice plate of pasta primavera is a drug user. Book'em, Dano.

Another example about the difference... what do folks mean when they say, "Hey, I just scored some GREAT weed!" or whatever the vernacular is these days. Chances are, they mean it's really strong.. high THC content.. it gets you REALLY stoned fast. Contrast that with, "I just scored a great bottle of Chateauneuf"... it has nothing, and I mean NOTHING to do with the alcohol content or how fast it'll get you drunk, and all about the flavor profile, nose, mouthfeel, etc.

YES, unequivocally, alcohol is a drug. That's not why many people drink it. YES, marijuana is a drug. that IS why most (and I still say all, but in deference to ianjoub's post, I'll keep open to the idea that an isolated few may do it for just the taste) aficionados partake of it.

Note that not once did I say that either was immoral or make any judgements about those who partake of either.

We good?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Man, I must be squarer than even I thought &#8230; I was ignoring this thread b/c I assumed "blunt offerings" were either rounded piers or abusive advice offered by marina jerks. Who knew "blunt" was a euphemism for joint??

Everyone but me I guess .

Haven't read all the insightful and measured wisdom of the previous seven pages , but just wanted to add (once again) that Canada will show why we are _the land of the free_ when we legalize pot this summer. Yet another reason to visit the Great White North, or to stay away, depending on your view of this.

There is no rational reason to have cannabis use be illegal, while also allow a whole slew of other drugs, not least of which is alcohol. Caffeine, nicotine, not to meant the long list of narcotics available via prescription, are all easily accessible and fully legal. Personally, I think we should legalize everything.

BTW, I would use cannabis for the buzz. Some might like the taste. Me, I hate smoking, so it would be edibles, and I've never noticed much extra taste in my special brownies. Yum, yum .

Use of mind-altering drugs is as normal as homosexual or liking country music (ok, maybe that last one is questionable ). Many other mammals do the same thing. There's nothing special about **** sapiens using drugs to create altered mental states. It's part of who we are as natural critters.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

bblument said:


> Umm... not sure why that's so funny. If it wasn't for the taste, why in the world would we have such a vast selection of artfully brewed, vinted, and distilled beverages that command such incredibly high prices? If it was simply and only a drug, surely the "generic" versions would be the only thing that sold, given the much cheaper access fee. If the only alcohol available to me was Bud Light, Chymes Whiskey, and Night Train Express, I'd never touch a drop. No point.


There are probably as many variations of cannabis as there are types of alcohol.

And I do apologize for my tone. As Sal pointed out, you were very reasonable and level-headed in your writing.

But c'mon. Even 1 drink gives you a slight altered warm buzzy feeling and it's total baloney to say that that has nothing to do with why you drink an alcoholic beverage.

Cannabis has come a long long way from what most people remember from their reefer madness indoctrination days. Most people I know who use it recreationally don't like getting "stoned" any more than you don't like getting drunk. It's very easy now to take a precisely measured dose of edibles down to the mg of THC and get a slight altered buzz feeling just like from that 1 drink you like to have.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

bblument said:


> Another example about the difference... what do folks mean when they say, "Hey, I just scored some GREAT weed!" or whatever the vernacular is these days. Chances are, they mean it's really strong.. high THC content.. it gets you REALLY stoned fast.


Well, last time I purchased cannabis was in a retail store in Washington state when out visiting my in-laws there. I had a nice conversation with the rep about finding a mild edible to enjoy while out hiking, with a subtle mood-altering effect, and not something that would make me want to sit on the couch with the munchies. She steered me toward these little mints with 5 mg/THC each and they were very enjoyable. I felt slightly relaxed and more creative and just kinda happy for the few hours after I took one.

The ingrained bias against cannabis as shown by bblument is pretty interesting, but so completely wrong.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

bblument said:


> People smoke weed to get buzzed, period. It happens instantly. You smoke to get stoned. You don't savor the flavor, or "sip" the smoke.. you get as much in your lungs as you can, clamp down, hope you don't cough your guts out of your nose, then enjoy the result.


It sounds like you are describing a teenager at a frat party here, this in no way aligns with how responsible adults are consuming herb. Getting stoned is rarely the objective and taking a 2 lung fulls of harsh smoke probably would not be the least bit enjoyable for the average casual toker.

I would argue, that like alcohol the taste and the ritual are just as important to the casual toker as they are to the average alcohol consumer.

Have you seen the elaborate offerings available to increase enjoyment and reduce the unpleasantness of the experience. You can go out and drop $700 on a water bong with features like percolator stems, splash guards 32 percalators divided between multiple chambers followed by a glycerin super coolers. The folks I know who smoke herb can be just as picky as their scotch sipping counter parts in both what herb they choose to smoke and how they choose to smoke it. Have you seen the price of good quality vaporisers and the maintenance steps involved in their use.

Then their is the whole edible and tea world out there. If the process is all about filling lungs with harsh black smoke to get messed up, then why do folks go to such effort to cultivate, decarboxylase, experiment with different teas and recipes.

The folks I know are not generally trying to get super baked, they are aiming for a mild pleasant buzz most of the time. I don't use the stuff myself, largely because it is still illegal, but the folks I do know who use it (including a couple of veterans-emergency services workers who have been prescribed it), just do not use it at all how you describe it. In fact, I suspect you wouldn't even be able to identify them as users and I also doubt earlier comments about non pot smokers ability to recognise a very mild dose more easily than identifying somebody who has had a single drink.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Altho' some would disagree, I like my mind the way it is, no need for altering. 
I am in favour of legalization just so the tokers can pay all those extra taxes and relieve my tax bill a little


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

caberg said:


> Well, last time I purchased cannabis was in a retail store in Washington state when out visiting my in-laws there. I had a nice conversation with the rep about finding a mild edible to enjoy while out hiking, with a subtle mood-altering effect, and not something that would make me want to sit on the couch with the munchies. She steered me toward these little mints with 5 mg/THC each and they were very enjoyable. I felt slightly relaxed and more creative and just kinda happy for the few hours after I took one.
> 
> The ingrained bias against cannabis as shown by bblument is pretty interesting, but so completely wrong.


Obviously, living in NYS, the interaction you described with a store rep and obtaining a measured dose of THC is out of my realm of experience. I still am not sure what I wrote that shows an inherent bias against cannabis. I'm assuming you ate the mints so that you felt slightly relaxed, more creative, and just kinda happy for a few hours. You used a drug to achieve that. No judgement or bias, just an observation. That's not why I drink a glass of cab, an IPA, or a finger of Laphroig. Even if it WAS, I'm still not making a value judgement, but just an observation.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

bblument said:


> I'm assuming you ate the mints so that you felt slightly relaxed, more creative, and just kinda happy for a few hours. You used a drug to achieve that. No judgement or bias, just an observation. *That's not why I drink a glass of cab, an IPA, or a finger of Laphroig.*


I think that liking the taste of alcoholic drinks has a lot to do with the brain liking the pleasant relaxing effect -- whether you realize that or not. A person who has never taken a drink of anything with alcohol will take a sip of any alcohol drink and think it tastes terrible. Because it does. It's only through experience that the brain develops a positive association between the pleasant effect of alcohol with the taste. Same thing with coffee/caffeine.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

A very interesting post. Suffice it to say I'm learning a LOT about marijuana use!! More inserted below..



Arcb said:


> It sounds like you are describing a teenager at a frat party here, this in no way aligns with how responsible adults are consuming herb. Getting stoned is rarely the objective and taking a 2 lung fulls of harsh smoke probably would not be the least bit enjoyable for the average casual toker.


As someone who went to college in the late 70s/early 80s and who's spent his life as a professional and primarily jazz musician, I've been around my share of drugs and users of all ages, mostly early 20s through late 80s in age. The use you describe above is pretty typical of what I've seen.. long drags on joints or pipes or big hits on bongs. One guy was particularly fond of doing "pitchers." Funny to watch.



Arcb said:


> I would argue, that like alcohol the taste and the ritual are just as important to the casual toker as they are to the average alcohol consumer.


Ritual.. well, yeah, I guess. Dim the lights, put on some good tunes. Taste.. again, not as I observed over the decades, but it's a big world and I certainly haven't seen or experienced all of it.



Arcb said:


> Have you seen the elaborate offerings available to increase enjoyment and reduce the unpleasantness of the experience. You can go out and drop $700 on a water bong with features like percolator stems, splash guards 32 percalators divided between multiple chambers followed by a glycerin super coolers. The folks I know who smoke herb can be just as picky as their scotch sipping counter parts in both what herb they choose to smoke and how they choose to smoke it. Have you seen the price of good quality vaporisers and the maintenance steps involved in their use.


No, I haven't. I really did NOT have any idea. Honestly. Learn something new everyday.  The folks I knew over the years enjoyed it, but they enjoyment was the buzz. The smoking (and occasional brownies) seemed to be enjoyed because they led to the buzz. Never saw anything other than joints, pipes, bongs (most homemade), and brownies. The times they are a-changin', I guess!



Arcb said:


> Then their is the whole edible and tea world out there. If the process is all about filling lungs with harsh black smoke to get messed up, then why do folks go to such effort to cultivate, decarboxylase, experiment with different teas and recipes.


I don't know. Is your assertion that it does NOT have anything to do with getting messed up? That the tastes of the teas and recipes are so desirable that people who do not wish to feel the effects of marijuana consume these products? I don't know the term "decarboxylase".. I'll have to look that up!



Arcb said:


> The folks I know are not generally trying to get super baked, they are aiming for a mild pleasant buzz most of the time. I don't use the stuff myself, largely because it is still illegal, but the folks I do know who use it (including a couple of veterans-emergency services workers who have been prescribed it), just do not use it at all how you describe it. In fact, I suspect you wouldn't even be able to identify them as users and I also doubt earlier comments about non pot smokers ability to recognise a very mild dose more easily than identifying somebody who has had a single drink.


I appreciate your post, and I still think that somehow folks are reading more into my posts than is there. I'm not of the opinion that using marijuana makes you a waste of a human being, unproductive, or immoral. Like any drug, both marijuana and alcohol can be ABused and cause great pain and suffering to you and/or those around you. We probably all know "stoners" who spend most of their waking hours baked, don't do much, and have lost jobs or dropped out of school. We also probably all know "drunks" who spend way too many hours drinking every day and have lost their jobs or families because of it. Sadly, we all probably know one or two folks who've had heart problems caused by alcohol OR by pot. On the other side of the coin, I know we all know folks who drink responsibly, and we know folks who use marijuana responsibly. In my experience, most folks who use marijuana use it for the buzz and the taste/ritual/whatever is a side effect. Most folks who drink (Ok, "use") alcohol enjoy the flavor of whatever their favorite beverages are, and the buzz is the side effect if you enjoy more than one or one strong one very quickly. That's my experience.

Those that DON'T enjoy the flavor the their alcohol and still drink it.. yeah, we've come full circle.. those are the teenagers at frat parties or folks at the local watering hole doing shots of whatever and grimacing afterwards, or chilled fruity shots just to get a buzz. I'm not saying that side of alcohol doesn't exist. It sure does. Based upon your post, I guess there's more in common between the two. As an admitted enjoyer of fine scotches, bourbons, and whiskeys, IPAs (primarily), and wines (primarily big reds) and an admitted abstainer from marijuana, I know not of the higher eschelons of cannabis exclusivity you described. I hardly live in a vacuum... if what you're describing is a significant portion of marijuana aficionados, I'm surprised I haven't run into anyone fitting your description in real life. The guys I know roll one or fill a bowl and enjoy the buzz. It's just different than savoring a Remy. It just is. Different is NOT a value judgement or condemnation of anything.

Thanks for the window into a different world. Best to you.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

bblument said:


> Guess I should go read my post again; I don't recall saying anything was immoral, and I did say I felt that the current laws as they pertain to alcohol and marijuana were hypocritical. Not sure what I wrote to earn the "complete b.s." statement.. just stating my opinions on the subject, that's all. If we do disagree, and I'm not sure that we do all that much, does that mean that one of us must be full of "b.s.?" I don't see things that way.
> 
> We agree that alcohol is a drug, and that marijuana is a drug.
> We may disagree that sipping a single glass of wine makes one a drug user. I do not believe it does, in the typical usage of the term "drug user," meaning one who uses a drug to alter their consciousness. You may disagree, and have a different interpretation of what a drug user is. Cumin and nutmeg in large quantities can cause hallucinations; am I a drug user because I use a bit in my recipes? If so, then by your definition a person enjoying a Pinot Noir with a nice plate of pasta primavera is a drug user. Book'em, Dano.
> ...


No bueno.

You contradict yourself here, seeming to compare them equally... but you wrote

"I still wrestle with the fact that, and it IS a fact, marijuana is a drug, and NOTHING but a drug, while alcohol is a byproduct contained in many delicious beverages that simply can not be made alcohol-free. I simply can't equate someone sipping a single glass of Chardonnay with someone taking a few hits on a blunt. One is a drug user, and one is not. "

You are all over the place. If they are both drugs then both are bought by drug users. I'm okay with different opinions, just not contradictory opinions held by one person.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

caberg said:


> I think that liking the taste of alcoholic drinks has a lot to do with the brain liking the pleasant relaxing effect -- whether you realize that or not. A person who has never taken a drink of anything with alcohol will take a sip of any alcohol drink and think it tastes terrible. Because it does. It's only through experience that the brain develops a positive association between the pleasant effect of alcohol with the taste. Same thing with coffee/caffeine.


You're for sure correct about the "acquired taste" aspects, although I'm not convinced it's based, especially solely, on the brain's registration of the effect of alcohol. Lots of things are acquired tastes.. my wife used to hate raw oysters, blue cheese, and yes, scotch. She loves them all now. My daughter-in-law described one of my favorite bourbons as tasting like "paint thinner." Good.. more for me!  Another future family member is actively teaching herself to like foods that she has avoided most of her life because she knows they're good for her (and because her fiancee is probably teasing her about being a picky eater). She's overcome her distaste for tomatoes and know likes them.

I drank too much Southern Comfort in college once. To this day I can't stand the taste of it and won't drink even a drop of it. That was almost forty years ago. Works both ways, I guess!

You definitely have a point.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

bblument said:


> I drank too much Southern Comfort in college once. To this day I can't stand the taste of it and won't drink even a drop of it.


I think that's a true story for greater than 50% of the population


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

Sal Paradise said:


> No bueno.
> 
> You contradict yourself here, seeming to compare them equally... but you wrote
> 
> ...


 Are we not engaging more in semantics than anything else? If you feel that having a glass of wine with dinner is using drugs, then that's your opinion and I'm not saying you are wrong to think that. I am saying that I don't agree with that assessment, that's all. By your definition, I am a drug user and am foisting drugs upon my guests when I include nutmeg in my bread puddings or sauces. Who am I to change your opinion? That's fine. I am not contradicting myself, however. The chardonnay-with-dinner person is not drinking their wine to catch an immediate (or any, unless they're chugging it or having two quickly) buzz, they're drinking it because they like the flavor and it goes well with their planked salmon. Therefore, they are not a "drug user".. they are not using the chardonnay as a drug. The fact that something CAN be used as a drug does not mean that it has to be used as a drug; taken in small quantities, it need not have the effect of a drug. If you take a hit or two from a joint, you will feel an almost immediate effect.. that's why you took the hit. You used a drug in order to get the effect from that drug.

AND.. one more time. I am not making a judgement about whether or not doing so is good or bad. That's up to the person doing so.


----------



## roper99 (Dec 29, 2011)

Booze is both the Original and Ultimate gateway drug. Not innocent.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Isn't life enough of a pleasant buzz without the need to bump it up with hyped up mints ?


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

So to put a sailing twist on this thread, we have discussed the mind altering effects of cannabis and chardonnay. They are both very real. You get a mild buzz off a single glass of wine, i do any ways, sometimes more, some times less, but you feel it.

Does sailing not create a mind altering effect? Okay, I know some cruisers are not that into sailing and view it as an efficient transportation method. I am not one of those people, thats not why I sail. I sail because its fun. There is an adrenaline rush when a hull flies, when a boat heels suddenly, when the boat accelerates through a gust, when you pull through a squall. Its an adrenaline rush caused by external stimulus and it keeps us coming back for more.

There are adrenaline junkies out there, people that need to take a risk for love of the rush. Most of us keep a lid on it, we will fly a hull, but know to cut it out before we flip. We'll go out in 25 knots, but think twice about 35 and forget about a hurricane. Its a well known phonomenon amongst Vendee sailors, they talk about the need to get back out there to fight nature, and it is a primary reason I gave up big boat sailing, it just isnt exciting enough and mistakes are too costly when you push them too hard. There are sailors who push it too far, not as common as motorcyclists, but it happens.

Certainly we wouldn't outlaw sailing because it can result in a mind altering effect? Is it not a mind altering effect caused by external stimulus that makes sailing "fun".


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

LOL.. probably should have answered the original poster's question before "holding forth."

Offered any? Never. Came across one guy, 60-something-year-old, hunkered down underneath his bimini nursing a small pipe as the odor wafted across the dock. I stopped to ask him a question about how he had his reefs rigged (no pun intended), and he sheepishly hid the pipe. I told him I had no problem with it, but he didn't offer either, not that I would have accepted. Wouldn't have been offended, either.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

Arcb said:


> So to put a sailing twist on this thread, we have discussed the mind altering effects of cannabis and chardonnay. They are both very real. You get a mild buzz off a single glass of wine, i do any ways, sometimes more, some times less, but you feel it.
> 
> Does sailing not create a mind altering effect? Okay, I know some cruisers are not that into sailing and view it as an efficient transportation method. I am not one of those people, thats not why I sail. I sail because its fun. There is an adrenaline rush when a hull flies, when a boat heels suddenly, when the boat accelerates through a gust, when you pull through a squall. Its an adrenaline rush caused by external stimulus and it keeps us coming back for more.
> 
> ...


Some good points. Sailing, and other adrenaline-inducing activites, are about "what can we do with our bodies and our minds," rather than "what can we do TO our bodies and our minds."


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> ...Certainly we wouldn't outlaw sailing because it can result in a mind altering effect? Is it not a mind altering effect caused by external stimulus that makes sailing "fun".


In that light, what activity isn't "mind altering"? The brain is just a bunch of cells operating in a wet sack of drugs (hormones, neurotransmitters and other biochemicals). Pleasant or vigorous actives, like sailing, will encourage the release of endorphins which, amongst other things, "produce a feeling of euphoria very similar to that produced by other opioids."

So we're all doing drugs, all the time.

And speaking of that, it's almost beer time. A fine IPA awaits!


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

bblument said:


> if what you're describing is a significant portion of marijuana aficionados, I'm surprised I haven't run into anyone fitting your description in real life. The guys I know roll one or fill a bowl and enjoy the buzz. It's just different than savoring a Remy. It just is. Different is NOT a value judgement or condemnation of anything.


The vast majority of people who drink are not just savoring a fine scotch or wine either though... A significant portion of people who drink do not fall into that category. I would guess it is a small portion in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Everybody who drinks and/or tokes is looking for their Happy Place.
....a release, a brain stress dump...
There are some that think it makes them 'better' in certain situations.

Manage, manage.....

There, of course, some who feel more secure always being with a buzz. So they don't have to deal with life...unbuzzed..aka crutch.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

This thread has me reaching for a Dark & Stormy and a blunt rolled with these RAW papers I recently discovered through another boater.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I haven't smoked, since college, and have no desire to start again. Eating a food product that causes intoxication has no appeal. But I do remember what everyone was like when smoking. Very different from drinking.

I have a question for the adult smokers now. Let's stick to the light to moderate, totally controlled consumption of either, not the abusers. Alcohol has varying effects on people. There are those that get happy or lose inhibition. There are those that get aggressive, which everyone hates being around (one theory is they suffer from depression and the alcohol makes it worse). There are those where this level of consumption is not noticeable at all, although, I know some won't accept that. In other words, a pretty wide spectrum of social reactions.

I've only been around a few adults now that have taken up the habit again. They've all had the same response, as best I can tell. I suspect there would be pushback, if I fully described it, so I won't. Let's say it's mellow and leave it at that. 

My question is, are there people who display different social reactions to light to mod smoking, once the reaction is noticeable? Let's exclude those that some may claim show no signs. In this discussion, all booze and smoking users are lightly buzzed.

Bottom line is, there are some alcohol consumers I like to be around and some I really don't. It's obvious the latter are the aggressive ones. I have to admit, hoping not to offend, but I struggle with the social interaction with my adult friend's who are high. These are friends and I don't hold them in judgement. It's the change that I find hard to interact with. Are there different impacts on different people?


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

bblument said:


> Are we not engaging more in semantics than anything else? If you feel that having a glass of wine with dinner is using drugs, then that's your opinion . I am not contradicting myself, however. The chardonnay-with-dinner person is not drinking their wine to catch an immediate (or any, unless they're chugging it or having two quickly) buzz, they're drinking it because they like the flavor and it goes well with their planked salmon. Therefore, they are not a "drug user".. they are not using the chardonnay as a drug. .


Yes, I think so. The world of wine, I agree, is more culinary. I see that point. But I don't think it could be extended to scotchka.

It seems the marijuana world is catching on to that aspect, and indeed has it's own appeal.

In some sense we are talking apples and oranges. But I concede the culinary aspect of wine is worlds above pot. However you should try just a bit of sativa with a nice persecco and someone you love in front of a roaring fire after a day of skiing, or with duck for dinner. The appeal is there.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sebastian#2 said:


> .....I just don't socialize with anyone.


If you're happy, then I'm happy for you. We socialize with a lot of different people. A lot.

My question was not about me, but about whether smokers will exhibit different social traits from each other, when buzzed. I've not seen much variability, like I do with drinkers, but my sample set is a half dozen or so.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> Bottom line is, there are some alcohol consumers I like to be around and some I really don't. It's obvious the latter are the aggressive ones. I have to admit, hoping not to offend, but I struggle with the social interaction with my adult friend's who are high. These are friends and I don't hold them in judgement. It's the change that I find hard to interact with. Are there different impacts on different people?


From what I have observed in others, yes, very different. It seems some folks could have the exact same stuff and one person might get kind of dopey, while the other person mght become highly focused on a task- like cooking and do very well at it. Some athletes seem to have better flow.

Remember Ross Rebagliati? If you are a snowboarder you do, because he won the first ever Gold in Olympic Mens Giant Slalom Snowboarding and nearly had his medal revoked for testing positive for Marijuana, which sparked the debate in the Olympic community, is marijuana a performance enhancing drug. Ultimately he kept his medal, but not every one was happy about it.

There are also a huge variety of strains some of which dont really have any mellowing effect and some of which dont have really any hallucinogenic effect.

Not my town, but one of the next towns over has had its economy helped out by this thing too. There was a large manufacturing facility that shut down several years ago, leaving no manufacturing jobs in the area. A cannabis producer purchased the facility and turned it into a very large legal cannabis cultivation facility. Those were all "jobs" that were previously held by bikers producing plants with ever increasing potency, no quality control and paying no taxes. Now the company is doing R&D, producing multiple strains, both medical and recreational, providing jobs to the community and paying taxes- lots of them.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Minne

Like most things, it is how _you _manage it. At a fancy dinner party where conversation is key, no way. I want full cerebral cortex working so I can converse . At a music venue where its about loud music , dancing and laughing it up with spouse and friends, maybe. Its too loud to talk much anyway and some of our friends are a lot of laughs when the band takes a break. Cuddled up with wifey in front of the fire at home, or swimming in the pool on a Saturday evening...why not? Even, then...rarely and in moderation, moderation. What my friends might burn up in a month, would last us years.

I don't ever want anyone else, besides my wife and closest friends , to know I'm not 100%. After all I'm a 50+ year old man and I don't like to appear intoxicated. If I'm sailing, driving, any sports,motorcycling or work.... no bueno and no thanks. No way. I don't need the stupidity.I see the negatives.It is not important to our lifestyle but managed in a smarrt way, its not a negative. Not to splashing in the pool or just a relaxed time.

As I get older, I feel like my brain is getting slightly wiser, but definitely slower. This is age. Will the former win out over the latter? Will it matter at all? Hard to say....but making finer distinctions and less black and white pronouncements seems to be in the future.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> ........and paying taxes- lots of them.


If there is an argument for addiction, it's this alone. Personally, I object to this being a good reason to legalize anything. The money always becomes a dependency to government. What would they do, if everyone stopped smoking and drinking the next day? It's argued that the funds will be devoted to abuse and rehabilitation, but if anyone believes that where it all goes, I have a bridge to sell them.

These taxes create dependency. They create a foundation under a society that can no longer choose.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

bblument said:


> Two questions..
> 
> 1. If pot didn't get you stoned, would you smoke it just for the taste?
> 
> ...


I would agree that smoking pot is primarily for the buzz although I have to say, some is quite tasty. If legal I would grow a couple of plants for the wonderful smell, they are quite aromatic.

However drinking alcoholic beverages only for the taste, maybe for wine, possibly for a nice craft beer but for whiskey, even a very nice single malt (which I can appreciate) no one would start drinking that because it tastes good. I can clearly remember my first tastes of distilled spirits and it was not tasty in any way to me.

Heard this before and in my opinion it's nothing more than a drinker's rationalization.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> My question is, are there people who display different social reactions to light to mod smoking, once the reaction is noticeable? Let's exclude those that some may claim show no signs. In this discussion, all booze and smoking users are lightly buzzed.


Someone feeling the effect of cannabis is generally more self-aware of the mood-altering effect, especially someone who does not use it often or who has taken more than intended. So such a person may be quieter in a social situation, or may seem distracted or withdrawn, probably more so when in the company of others who have not used any cannabis (the self-aware/self-conscious part). Some may go off on a tangent in a conversation and seemingly not realize it. That's about all you'll ever notice in my experience. It's very rare for someone to start acting inappropriately or to say or do things they wouldn't otherwise do, unlike some people under the effect of alcohol.

The way cannabis is going, it's going to become easier and easier to take a precisely measured dose and to have much more control over the effects, much like a drinker can have only 1 beer, or 2 beers, whatever they decide is the amount they are comfortable with. When this is the case with cannabis, and a person is comfortable with the effect, there's not really any noticeable difference in the person other than they may seem relaxed and happy, but normal relaxed and happy, not what I would call impaired/fake/fleeting relaxed and happy which is more how I would describe the effects alcohol.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> If there is an argument for addiction, it's this alone. Personally, I object to this being a good reason to legalize anything. The money always becomes a dependency to government.


There is a real problem with governments getting hooked on so-called sin taxes: booze, cigarettes, gambling are all biggies. Now add cannabis. But as they say, the alternative is worse. Prohibition only costs societies.

At least by legalizing and then taxing, the public at large can start to benefit from an activity many choose to do, regardless of legality. The alternative is to continue to fund criminals, and waste money on silly 'war on drugs' approaches.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

caberg said:


> Someone feeling the effect of cannabis is generally more self-aware of the mood-altering effect, especially someone who does not use it often or who has taken more than intended. So such a person may be quieter in a social situation, or may seem distracted or withdrawn, probably more so when in the company of others who have not used any cannabis (the self-aware/self-conscious part). Some may go off on a tangent in a conversation and seemingly not realize it. That's about all you'll ever notice in my experience. It's very rare for someone to start acting inappropriately or to say or do things they wouldn't otherwise do, unlike some people under the effect of alcohol.
> 
> The way cannabis is going, it's going to become easier and easier to take a precisely measured dose and to have much more control over the effects, much like a drinker can have only 1 beer, or 2 beers, whatever they decide is the amount they are comfortable with. When this is the case with cannabis, and a person is comfortable with the effect, there's not really any noticeable difference in the person other than they may seem relaxed and happy, but normal relaxed and happy, not what I would call impaired/fake/fleeting relaxed and happy which is more how I would describe the effects alcohol.


I have seen quiet, which I interpreted exactly as you describe. They knew, if they spoke, it would be awkward, because they aware they are lightly stoned (to whatever degree). I've also seen what I will stipulate is, in your words, happy and relaxed. But it's more happy and relaxed than the alcohol drinkers and hasn't mixed well socially. I think you pushed back on this point above, but in this light consumption setting, the vast majority of drinkers exhibit no discernible change in behavior. I have noticed all smokers to get more "relaxed and happy".

I don't buy the reference to either a smoker or drinker acting inappropriately, with the consumption levels I'm inquiring about. Folks keep wanting to draw the drinker into a mod-heavy zone to make a point, but we're talking about a very light, professional setting, buzz.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I quit drinking completely almost 2 years ago and since then have noticed that I get annoyed by the changes in behavior I do see in some people when drinking even very moderate amounts in social settings. Prior to then, I was always having drinks if anyone else was, and never really noticed the behaviors that I now find annoying. It can be very subtle, but also very noticeable to me now. Grandiosity is the best word that comes to mind, and however slight, it does seem to emerge from some people in their mannerisms and speech after just a drink or two. I also notice in a group of drinkers that people are always jumping in and one-upping something someone else said and it can become a very disjointed conversation without a lot of substance.

Obviously this is painting with a very broad brush and really not a fair assessment, but that's coming from my own personal observation and experience. Ultimately, I like to surround myself with good, fun people and whether they use or drink anything doesn't really matter to me as long as we enjoy each other's company.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

caberg said:


> I quit drinking completely almost 2 years ago and since then have noticed that I get annoyed by the changes in behavior I do see in some people when drinking even very moderate amounts in social settings. Prior to then, I was always having drinks if anyone else was, and never really noticed the behaviors that I now find annoying. It can be very subtle, but also very noticeable to me now. Grandiosity is the best word that comes to mind, and however slight, it does seem to emerge from some people in their mannerisms and speech after just a drink or two. I also notice in a group of drinkers that people are always jumping in and one-upping something someone else said and it can become a very disjointed conversation without a lot of substance.
> 
> Obviously this is painting with a very broad brush and really not a fair assessment, but that's coming from my own personal observation and experience. Ultimately, I like to surround myself with good, fun people and whether they use or drink anything doesn't really matter to me as long as we enjoy each other's company.


It's natural you would notice this.
You and they are on parallel tracks, going in the same direction, but now riding in different cars....if that makes sense.

Drunks bore me, but I do love my evening brain-dump time.
So, I'm not looking to quit...


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

MikeOReilly said:


> There is a real problem with governments getting hooked on so-called sin taxes: booze, cigarettes, gambling are all biggies. Now add cannabis. But as they say, the alternative is worse. Prohibition only costs societies.
> 
> At least by legalizing and then taxing, the public at large can start to benefit from an activity many choose to do, regardless of legality. The alternative is to continue to fund criminals, and waste money on silly 'war on drugs' approaches.


There is more at stake. California is allowing people convicted under cannabis prohibition to apply to have their records cleared. But there are people right rotting in jail, losing their houses, being raped and threatened by criminals, their families forced onto food stamps for something which is now legal, under state law. In my town the police department puts the name of every one , convicted or innocent, in the paper and on their facebook page. They tax us and get paid to stop people, search them and prosecute them. You can't get a civil service job, you fail background checks, maybe lose your professional license,...maybe get shot or beat up if you cross paths with the wrong cops. And then there are all the people who are stopped and frisked. Treated like a criminal. It is no joke. My friend who is a LEO once caught the 18 yo pizza delivery guy in town selling pot. Then he made him a witness and used his testimony to prosecute other people. The officer makes $165,000/year and he is bragging to me about his big case. I'm thinking what a joke. Bunch of idiot kids in town getting stoned and eating pizza. Now they have records.

So, its not really a tax issue, although I guess that is a benefit.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Completely agree with your comments Sal. The tax question is secondary. It’s just that right now there are only costs to society. At least by legalizing and taxing, societies in general can recoup some of these losses.

But you’re absolutely right, the costs to society run far deeper than financial. The costs to community, to families, to peoples’ lives are far more serious. 

I was about to type that it is sheer insanity how our countries have treated pot use, but then I stopped myself. It actually makes perfect sense if you’re in law enforcement, in border interdiction, if you’re in the legal or incarceration businesses. The so-called “war on drugs” is really just one massive government-sponsored industry, which is why it is so hard to change. So many vested financial interests ...

Sebastian#2: It is a sad reality that your country, and mine, still criminalizes simple pot use. It’s great to see some of your states moving to more rational approachs. And as has been pointed out, cannabis use is schedule for legalization in Canada come this summer. 

I do wonder how Canada/USA border interactions are going to go following this change.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

What's interesting to me is that so much of the US has already legalized (or at least decriminalized) weed to the point where you can walk into a store and buy basically anything you want anytime you want it, edibles, beverages, candy, every variety of the plant itself, etc etc.....BUT it continues to be illegal at the federal level. Basically there are countless businesses throughout the Pacific Northwest where they are growing, processing, and selling pot perfectly legally...except that the feds could kick in the door and raid it as if it were illegal at any time if they wanted. Because as far as the feds are concerned, it's still illegal.

So far, they've chosen not to create a giant political crisis by putting the federal government into direct conflict with the states. So far. But for how long?


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

There is no going back now.
If operating within State regs, and not be 'politically disruptive', they will thrive.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Sebastian#2 said:


> Mike O" : a sad reality to some, but not to every one. Rational approaches? So ignore laws and there will be no problem?
> amwbox: by your map, only 6 out of 50 states have leagal rec. pot? maybe 16 medical use only, which means rec.use & selling is still a state violation?
> 
> back to the ? shall we legalize the popular opioids , or ignore the laws because it's just common sense, and well fun comfortably numb?


Here we go. 
Was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to try and connect more powerful drugs to pot. No one is suggesting decriminalize opiods


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

So is weed the devils grass or Gods medicine? 


:2 boat::2 boat:


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

If they start selling and taxing weed we can get rid of this National Debt with the revenues in just a couple of years.....


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

amwbox said:


> What's interesting to me is that so much of the US has already legalized (or at least decriminalized) weed to the point where you can walk into a store and buy basically anything you want anytime you want it, edibles, beverages, candy, every variety of the plant itself, etc etc.....BUT it continues to be illegal at the federal level. Basically there are countless businesses throughout the Pacific Northwest where they are growing, processing, and selling pot perfectly legally...except that the feds could kick in the door and raid it as if it were illegal at any time if they wanted. Because as far as the feds are concerned, it's still illegal.
> 
> So far, they've chosen not to create a giant political crisis by putting the federal government into direct conflict with the states. So far. But for how long?


If you haven't noticed, most cops - are state, county or local. The AG isn't exactly Patton controlling an army. What is he going to do? Send the Coast Guard out onto the streets of Albany NY? There are 40,000 police officers just in the NYPD and they can't stop marijuana sales on one small island. Know how many DEA agents there are??? About 4,000 in the entire country! All Sessions can really do is direct the U.S. Attorneys to prosecute - one case at a time. If the state thumbs it's nose at the Federal law, there may be political consequences, but they don't have to start arresting people en masse.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Their are a lots of opioids being sold as prescription pain killers nearly every where, if not every where. Pharmaceutical companies do make money from them. Governments do make money from them. Doctors do make money from them. Opioids have long been more legal than pot in many situations. Visit a palliative care ward if you don't believe me.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Sebastian#2 said:


> Thanks chef2sail: hi power, low power , drugs is drugs. the pot of years ago is not what the big kick stuff of today is, I;ve read that here. I better stop before I get any deeper, if no one is suggesting decriminalizing opiods, just wait till the politicians evolve and the drug/ lobbiests/ what the people want /need to keep them quiet movement takes place. In the mean time , I ask why not?


So if, as you say "drugs is drugs," then I assume you're arguing for the criminalization of alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc. They are all drugs which alter the users mental state. Seems to me this has been tried before&#8230; Now, what were the results&#8230;? 

As Arcb points out, most opioids are already legal. My personally opinion is that we should decriminalize *all* recreational drugs. Legalize it all. Set up private, but strongly regulated, industry to service the need. And tax it all to the maximum to pay for the social costs of the few, while benefiting the many.

But for now legalizing cannabis, as Canada is doing and some of your states have done, is a good first start.


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

Minnewaska said:


> Arcb said:
> 
> 
> > ........and paying taxes- lots of them.
> ...


Yeah, but I like our interstate highway system,....and bridges, and parks, and airports, and air traffic control, and USDA meat inspectors. So I like taxes for some things.


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

You Tube





You Tube








"]Family Guy - Bag of Weed [Original Video] - YouTube[/URL]


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Sal Paradise said:


> If you haven't noticed, most cops - are state, county or local. The AG isn't exactly Patton controlling an army. What is he going to do? Send the Coast Guard out onto the streets of Albany NY? There are 40,000 police officers just in the NYPD and they can't stop marijuana sales on one small island. Know how many DEA agents there are??? About 4,000 in the entire country! All Sessions can really do is direct the U.S. Attorneys to prosecute - one case at a time. If the state thumbs it's nose at the Federal law, there may be political consequences, but they don't have to start arresting people en masse.





> Amendment X
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


When is some local government going to man up by arresting and prosecuting federal agents who violate the rights of citizens by enforcing illegal laws? If pot is legal in CO, the federal government has no right to make laws which contradict that.

A few DEA agents serving 10 year prison sentences for arresting people on drug charges (false imprisonment) would get the message home.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

ianjoub said:


> When is some local government going to man up by arresting and prosecuting federal agents who violate the rights of citizens by enforcing illegal laws? If pot is legal in CO, the federal government has no right to make laws which contradict that.
> 
> A few DEA agents serving 10 year prison sentences for arresting people on drug charges (false imprisonment) would get the message home.


Wishful thinking, because that would end in the Federal agents being release. Then, every complicit member of the local government that did so would be behind bars for illegal detention.

This was decided with finality in Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government can regulate this under its interstate commerce authority, which is enumerated in the Constitution.



> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.


The tricky part is that, as long every bit of the commerce remains within the State that has declared it legal, one can argue the Federal Government's powers do not apply. However, that extends to absolutely everything the grower/seller buys, every seed, every piece of paper, every baggie, every cash register, even their banking accounts and monetary transactions. Even bitcoin is interstate and then some. That's all but impossible and is the rub that makes federal law apply.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

??? Not really, just a hobby sailor like most of us on this site. I ask my share of silly questions.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Hey If you_ are_ a doctor, I feel a bad case of anxiety coming on.....


----------

