Smoking weed

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

If the law wasn't retarded, for lack of a better word, wouldn't that increase respect for laws in general?

The only examples I can think of where laws are openly flouted are in cases where large numbers of people disagree with them. Smoking, speeding, jaywalking, etc.

Do you want to turn our country into a police state? How is that better than having fewer laws? And if we can't have fewer laws, isn't selective ignorance the next best thing?

By blindly following every law, you're saying that the government always knows best. That's most assuredly not the case.

I think that people here continue to misapprehend Jon, who has always been open about his beliefs. He is (and please correct me if I am wrong, Jon) a self-described Authoritarian. We don't encounter too many of those these days. In arguing about details, one misses the fact that the premises on which you base your ideas differ at a very fundamental level.

I would expect (and, again, forgive and correct me if I am wrong) that Jon believes, among other things,

(1) That the primary function of the state should be to use its police power to discourage behavior by its citizens that the majority of those citizens has agreed is criminally wrong, and

(2) That, leaving aside cases of obvious and severe mental illness, citizens operate as rational actors such that an increase in the frequency and severity of punishment will lead to a corresponding decrease in the behaviors that that punishment is designed to discourage.

Now, I personally disagree with both (1) and (2). Understanding, however, that that is where my disagreement lies helps me to focus on the issues and not get distracted by the details.

Again, I apologize if this mis-states Jon's position. I probably shouldn't try to put words in people's mouths. It just seems like a way to avoid some needless frustration back and forth.

My irony meter could not handle it if we all got really angry and tense in a thread about pot.

[lungs]

FWIW, the main reasons people give for not smoking pot that I've encountered:

1. Drug testing on the job
2. It puts them to sleep.
3. It's expensive.
4. Haven't tried it yet, why try it now?

I've never really heard legalities as a reason but I don't doubt that a large number of people do state that a reason. But I also would speculate that somebody that uses legality as a reason for not using marijuana is less likely to knowingly associate with anybody that does. Hence, I don't encounter these people often in a setting where the topic is discussed. I do have friends in law enforcement that know I smoke (obviously they do not) and it does not bother them one bit. I'm not quite sure why one of them would use me as a reference for a job though, .

Honestly, if they catch me and want to give me a $250 fine, I'll pay it. I'd consider it a tax. But I'd hope they'd put the said money into fighting something more worthwhile like methamphetamines. I've never done meth, but I know enough to never turn your back on a meth head.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by wade moore

As far as I can tell 23 of 163 people have tried it. Just as many (23) say that no one should ever try it.

So, then you have the 120 in the middle that say they are ok with others using it.

I think either me or you is mis reading the poll.
As I read it (and responded accordingly) we have 23 current users (of varying frequencies) and untold numbers of former users who do not use at all at this time.


I appreciate the input from Albion (if coorect) that JiMG viewpoints come from a strong Autoritarian view point. If so, then that explains greatly where our views separate.

I would say that my views lie outside of a standard classification, in that I believe personal morals and convictions determine the appropriateness of behaviors. I do not believe that everyone should do as they please, but I do submit that there are certain universally accepted creeds that apply to everyone. No one will argue that agregious crimes (murder, rape, enslavement, crimes against children, etc.) are appropriate behaviors for any member of society.

And certainly no one will argue that there are certain behaviors that are perfectly appropriate for any member of society. (Charitable acts, this list is really enormous, we dont need a law that says it is ok to walk on a sidewalk for example)

However where I depart from convention is that I feel a large portion of activities fall in to a gray personal area. A person's own beliefs, morals, or even past actions may determine what is appropriate behavior for them and what is not. One of many example here, would be alcohol consumption. Many people (myself included) can responsibly consume alcohol and never pose a threat to themselves, others, or society as a whole. However, quite a few people are so strongly impacted by the effects of alcohol that it controls their entire life. For these individuals I would say that consumption in general is inappropriate behavior.

Where my ideology runs into major problems is implimentation, most notably enforcement. I do not proport to have the answers on how it would be carried out in society, now do I spend copious amounts of time attempting to convert others to my view point. I do not hold true that my views are steadfastly superior to others, nor do I discredit others opinions without careful consideration. My questions and angles weren't meant to be a divergence from the issue at hand nor a personal attack on John. I was attempting to gain additional perspective on a subject that I find quite interesting. If that came across wrong, as it appears to from re-reading comments from both others and myself, I apologize.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think either me or you is mis reading the poll.
As I read it (and responded accordingly) we have 23 current users (of varying frequencies) and untold numbers of former users who do not use at all at this time.

Umm... read the poll...

all but 23 users voted an option that says "I don't smoke it"... I cannot account for those that didn't vote..

learn how to read polls.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The only examples I can think of where laws are openly flouted are in cases where large numbers of people disagree with them. Smoking, speeding, jaywalking, etc.

I again think you're misguided in comparing smoking pot to speeding, jaywalking etc...

A MUCH smaller % of the nation smokes pot than jaywalks, speeds, etc. In addition, a high % of those that do smoke pot go out of their way to hide it.

So, I dont' see how you can really compare them.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Umm... read the poll...

all but 23 users voted an option that says "I don't smoke it"... I cannot account for those that didn't vote..

learn how to read polls.

I have smoked in the past but chose the "I don't smoke..." option because there was no option for " I used to smoke"

I think 23 people who have "ever" smoked is probably inaccurate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that people here continue to misapprehend

Sidebar: is that the right word, "misapprehend"? I know "misapprehension" & so I suppose there could be the word you used too, but I'm thinking maybe "misinterpret" might have been what you meant. Doesn't matter, I just figured I would ask in case I could learn a new word today, because I'll admit that I don't recall seeing it used this way before.

Anyhoo, let's see how you did.

He is (and please correct me if I am wrong, Jon) a self-described Authoritarian.

Not wrong at all. Spot on, in fact.
Although "self-described unapologetic/unabashed Authoritarian" would have been even better

On the beliefs, I would probably soften "the primary" in point #1 to "a primary", or least make that modification depending upon whether we're broadly talking about federal government vs state/local government.
(I know in this case it's primarily sub-federal, but I figured the distinction should be made because I would at least put "protect against foreign enemies" ahead of the internal law enforcement role at the federal level).

I would expect (and, again, forgive and correct me if I am wrong) that Jon believes, among other things,

I would probably make a slight change in point #2, mostly to clarify that "corresponding" isn't necessarily a strictly linear effect. In other words, toward the end of the scale I know you're going to get some diminishing returns, there's always some deviant that simply doesn't care what you do to them.

Again, I apologize if this mis-states Jon's position. I probably shouldn't try to put words in people's mouths.

Actually, I thought you did a darned fine job of it. It may not be a good idea all the time, but you nailed this one.

And, while I'm thinking of it, is "mis-state" hyphenated? Or is it like "misrepresented" and it's all run together? I have no idea other than "misstate" doesn't look right at all, but I'm not sure about hyphenating it either.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sidebar: is that the right word, "misapprehend"? I know "misapprehension" & so I suppose there could be the word you used too, but I'm thinking maybe "misinterpret" might have been what you meant. Doesn't matter, I just figured I would ask in case I could learn a new word today, because I'll admit that I don't recall seeing it used this way before.

This is actually a correct usage for "misapprehend", and I for one am pleased to see someone busting out the fifty-cent words.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

This is actually a correct usage for "misapprehend", and I for one am pleased to see someone busting out the fifty-cent words.

Hey, I ain't knocking either. I just figured I ought to make sure before I, umm, "borrowed" the word

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hey, I ain't knocking either. I just figured I ought to make sure before I, umm, "borrowed" the word

Yep, didn't read any knocking into your question. Just got excited about one of those random spots of top-shelf articulation that occur around here once a year or so (more when Quik isn't slumming), and figured I'd add my praise.

[MrBug708]

I know Nuequa loves himself a nice bag of weed

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I have smoked in the past but chose the "I don't smoke..." option because there was no option for " I used to smoke"

Ditto

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I have smoked in the past but chose the "I don't smoke..." option because there was no option for " I used to smoke"

I think 23 people who have "ever" smoked is probably inaccurate.

Fair enough.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Umm... read the poll...

all but 23 users voted an option that says "I don't smoke it"... I cannot account for those that didn't vote..

learn how to read polls.

Not sure the reason for the smart ass nature of the reply, but...

23 say I DON'T smoke
You interpretted that to say:
I HAVE NEVER smoked

I think we can agree there is a difference. I for one voted I don't but dont care what others do.
In the past I have.

I would wager that many smoke during high school/ college and then as responsibilites increase along with potential consequences probably tail off.

I tried to phrase my question is a polite way and leave room that maybe I was mis-interpretting it.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Fair enough.

Started my reply then got called into a meeting. I now see that you have already addressed my point.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I have smoked in the past but chose the "I don't smoke..." option because there was no option for " I used to smoke"

I think 23 people who have "ever" smoked is probably inaccurate.

Same here. The third choice accurately reflects me today, but several years ago it would have been the last option.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Started my reply then got called into a meeting. I now see that you have already addressed my point.

So we can all agree that Karli botched the poll options ...

Either way, I think that many stats can show that it is a clear minority of the US that has even tried it once, let alone has ever smoked it regularly.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by wade moore

So we can all agree that Karli botched the poll options ...

Either way, I think that many stats can show that it is a clear minority of the US that has even tried it once, let alone has ever smoked it regularly.

I didn't botch the options! I don't care about what people used to do! I care about the here and now! I used to shit in diapers, but I don't now. I don't go on a date and say "I used to shit my pants!". Ok now I admit I'm just typing nonsense.

(by the way, I'm talking about when I was a baby...just to make things clear)

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I didn't botch the options! I don't care about what people used to do! I care about the here and now! I used to shit in diapers, but I don't now. I don't go on a date and say "I used to shit my pants!". Ok now I admit I'm just typing nonsense.

(by the way, I'm talking about when I was a baby...just to make things clear)

uh-huh, sure ...

I see validity in both ways of doing the poll fwiw.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Either way, I think that many stats can show that it is a clear minority of the US that has even tried it once, let alone has ever smoked it regularly.

According to this webiste (National Institute on Drug Abuse), about half of 12th graders who say thay've used it once in their lifetime.

hxxp://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

And here it talks about a government study that says over 83 americans over the age of 12 have tried it at least once.

hxxp://parentingteens.about.com/cs/marijuana/a/marijuana10.htm

I can't find links to any specific survey or study, but about 5 minutes of googling and reading links is about as much time as I am willing to devote to this topic.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by sabotai

According to this webiste (National Institute on Drug Abuse), about half of 12th graders who say thay've used it once in their lifetime.

hxxp://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

And here it talks about a government study that says over 83 americans over the age of 12 have tried it at least once.

hxxp://parentingteens.about.com/cs/marijuana/a/marijuana10.htm

I can't find links to any specific survey or study, but about 5 minutes of googling and reading links is about as much time as I am willing to devote to this topic.

I would argue that using current 12th graders as a gauge is at least somewhat flawed...

As for the over 83 million americans, again, that seems to be drawing conclusions from studies over teh last 5 years or so to high schoolers.. Very flawed method for drawing that conclusion.

I'm trying to find other data, but not a lot of luck yet.

[wade moore]

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/harriso...s.03.html#surv

This seems as good of a summary as any. Breaks down using ever, semi-regular use (in the last year), or regular use (in the last month)... This seems more with what my expectations are - A clear minority (1/3) have tried it, with a VERY small minority smoking it with any regularity (9% and 4.3% for the regular uses)...

I'll grant you that this is from 1993, but I would submit that it has likely not changed dramatically in the last 10 years.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'll grant you that this is from 1993, but I would submit that it has likely not changed dramatically in the last 10 years.

I would agree, though I believe it increases every year.
Most of the deaths in a given year occur in the 60+ demographic.
Going back 60 years or more from today, marijuana use was much less prevelant and widespread. Given the pop culture movements of the 60s and 70s. I wouldd say that by the time we reach a population consisting on only (or primarily) those born after 1950 (I.E teens in the 60s and 70s) that number will escalate to much closer to 50%.

One other thing that has to be factored (in both polls) is answer integrity. I would submit that many professionals, executives, or law enforcement types today would never admit, even in an anonymous survey, that they had ever partook (Is that a word? or is it partaken or what the hell ever) in such activities. But I feel that number is balanced slightly by the high schoolers who would say they had even if they had not just to think it was cool or funny.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I would agree, though I believe it increases every year.
Most of the deaths in a given year occur in the 60+ demographic.
Going back 60 years or more from today, marijuana use was much less prevelant and widespread. Given the pop culture movements of the 60s and 70s. I wouldd say that by the time we reach a population consisting on only (or primarily) those born after 1950 (I.E teens in the 60s and 70s) that number will escalate to much closer to 50%.

One other thing that has to be factored (in both polls) is answer integrity. I would submit that many professionals, executives, or law enforcement types today would never admit, even in an anonymous survey, that they had ever partook (Is that a word? or is it partaken or what the hell ever) in such activities. But I feel that number is balanced slightly by the high schoolers who would say they had even if they had not just to think it was cool or funny.

Agreed on all aspects. I think it probably has gone up, just not dramatically. And I agree about the skewing of results and what they likely are.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

One other thing that has to be factored (in both polls) is answer integrity. I would submit that many professionals, executives, or law enforcement types today would never admit, even in an anonymous survey, that they had ever partook (Is that a word? or is it partaken or what the hell ever) in such activities. But I feel that number is balanced slightly by the high schoolers who would say they had even if they had not just to think it was cool or funny.

I believe (having not looked at the link provided) that they normally factor this in. When I see numbers for something like this it normally states such.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My irony meter could not handle it if we all got really angry and tense in a thread about pot.

[Raiders Army]

On a board full of text-sim geeks, I'd say the probability of pot users being in the majority would be pretty high. On the other hand, on a message board full of cool cat-lovers, I'd guess the probability of pot users being in the majority would be pretty low.

[path12]

Well I must have been stoned when this whole thing started,
'Cause I just can't seem to think straight anymore.

Can't figure out where I'm at, maybe Memphis, maybe Mexico.
I think you're swell but I ain't gonna tell you so.
I think you're great but it's late and I'd better go.

Hitchhike to Rhome. Take the Greyhound to Fredericksburg.
Well I'm flat broke, I've been smoking butts for days.

You say, "Maybe you can stay with me." I say, "Lady, that's a dangerous plan."
You're quite a woman, but I don't wanna be your man.
You're quite a kisser, but listen close and understand.

Take a letter to God. "Dear Sir: I'm dissatisfied.
Well it ain't your fault they keep pouring salt on my heart.

All I need is a brief reprieve. I keep leaving. I ain't gettin' nowhere."
Won't you linger, let me run my fingers through your hair?
Won't you stay? I can't play like I don't care.
I think you're dope, and I hope I'm making myself clear.
I think you're fly and that's why I'm getting out of here.

Well, I must have been stoned.
Good Lord, I wish I'd been stoned.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Paranoid? Nah, that shit don't make anybody paranoid.


http://www.accessatlanta.com/enterta...le_Popper.html

SPOKANE, Wash. — Blues Traveler singer and harmonica player John Popper was arrested after the vehicle he was riding in was clocked going 111 mph, the Washington State Patrol said Wednesday.

Popper, 39, was arrested Tuesday afternoon on Interstate 90 near the Spokane/Lincoln county line, the Washington State Patrol said.

Inside the black Mercedes SUV, officers found a cache of weapons and a small amount of marijuana, the Patrol said. A police dog searched the vehicle, finding numerous hidden compartments containing four rifles, nine handguns and a switchblade knife. Authorities also found a Taser and night vision goggles. The vehicle was seized.



Popper, who lives in Snohomish, Wash., is the owner of the vehicle, which was being driven by Brian Gourgeois, 34, of Austin, Texas, said state patrol Trooper Jeff Sevigney. The vehicle also had flashing emergency headlights, a siren and a public address system, the Patrol said.

"Popper indicated to troopers that he had installed these items in his vehicle because (in the event of a natural disaster) he didn't want to be left behind," the Patrol said in a news release. He also told officers he collected weapons, the Patrol said.

The two men were booked administratively into the Adams County jail and released on their own recognizance. Authorities plan to charge them with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Gourgeois will also face a charge of reckless driving, the Patrol said.

[lungs]

I think it's pretty safe to say that this is a paranoid human being with or without marijuana.

[Butter]

Bad publicity in advance of Popper's next Blues Traveler release: "Shit, Did You Hear That?"

[Subby]

WEED DAY AT FOFC!

PING: RICHARD WEED

[lighthousekeeper]

this poll needs a smoked trout option

[Noop]

I smoke almost every other day.

[korme]

I SMOKE ROCKS