I personally have done most recreational drugs, including a good handful of RC's. I believe anything can be done in moderation, and each individual should be cautious of their own tenancies and tolerances. That being said, I've noticed most RC's tend to have worse side effects than the oldies we all know (and dare I say love?). Why not just legalize what we already know so much about instead of driving others to do what could be considered a dangerous job? I've found that you can learn from any drug in multiple ways, and that psychedelics can teach you a lot about yourself and thus other people. In addition to tax revenue from legalizing drugs, drugs can also begin to be regulated for issues of purity so as not to risk buying a drug cut with something more harmful than the drug itself.
Relax a bit, okay? You seem to be taking this very personally for some strange reason. I'm just saying, I don't think it'd be allowed if pot became legal. If we did ever make that shift, I do believe the government would want total control.
Again. My opinion.
I'm not taking this personally. Simply put, the current evidence relating to homebrew and policing costs undermines your argument.
Again. My opinion.
Which doesn't have a leg to stand on. If it's going to be restricted it will be for environmental reasons far more than for this paranoid "waaa the greedy government want to oppress us" angle.
I didn't say the government was trying to oppress us. I said I believed they would want to have control over the whole thing. I don't know what this homebrew thing is, so if you'd like to share I'd be more than happy to hear it.
It is brewing at home, legally. No need for a licence, no need to pay duties, alcohol tax or anything like that.
[edit: It is basically the best model to reflect the probable legality of home grown cannabis if it was made legal in a wider sense.
The "government has to tax it", "The government must control it"? These are not problems for home brewed and personal use alcohol, so why would they be problems for home grown and personal use cannabis?
If you think that it won't match the rough idea of home brewing, you'd better give a good reason why.]
That could very well be a possibility in the future if cannabis was legalized. With that being said, I still think that initially it would be something that the government would want to contain. It's just too taboo of an idea right now(the whole it being legal, thing). If it were more socially acceptable then I wouldn't see that being an issue at all. I just feel that if it were to go public, it would need to be eased in and growing wouldn't be allowed off the bat.
I travel to London twice a year, I've seen how strict they are with all their drug dogs and things like that. But I live in NYC. I don't know if you've ever been, but people get put in jail over night here if you're caught with a joint. You can actually get five years in Florida for the same amount. My point is, I think our views come from two different cultures. I can't see my city doing or allowing that. You have to know the people and mayors and governors. It just won't compute in my mind
I travel to London twice a year, I've seen how strict they are with all their drug dogs and things like that
I assume that's sarcasm.. Admittedly most of my travel has been within Europe, but I really can't remember the last time I've seen a police dog away from football flashpoints.
It just won't compute in my mind
Part of that is because you're looking at this massive end-result and focusing on it almost to the exclusion of the steps in between. There's simply no way to bring in workable cannabis laws without a load of education through all tiers of society.
Independent study will (hopefully) do a lot to get rid of the stigma and paranoia surrounding cannabis use. Getting the idiots (the ones that prove the harmful stereotype) of the pro-cannabis movement to shut the fuck up is also a very important part of removing this stigma.
The louder those particular morons are, the harder it is to prove that cannabis is a neutral(ish) substance.
If you think about the mechanics of legalisation- isn't a limited home grown to get it out of the hands of criminal organisations more palatable than making it wide-scale legal and developing an entire industry and regulation.
For one, home growing means you've got to stay coherent enough to tend to your plants- it's also self regulating in a way.. you get too stoned to care for your plants, you lose your supply. Pick too much at any one time and you kill your supply. Putting it like that will help change the perceptions and is still quite a small change.
A slightly spaced out gardener is a healthier/more positive stereotype than the street-corner drug dealer or the stoner twat.
Yeah, we are coming from two different cultures so the view is a bit different. That said, I know some American Housing Associations actually have regulations on the species of lawn you have and other bizarre demands for living in an area- I suspect that even if the government made it legal to grow a few plants, there would be civil prohibitions and contract clauses all over the place.
Which, if you ask me, would be a good way to get a straw poll for the legalisation of an industry.
It's not, actually When Ben and I went to Kent they had police dogs there. And as you've seen here, Ben(Badtrash) does have a vast knowledge on the stuff so he's seen more than I have in and around the London area.
I do agree, though. We've got way too many people who really aren't educated on the topic in any way, shape or form preaching what should and shouldn't happen and it does really hurt the cause big time. Before any legalization happens, I do agree that self education is the way to go. Without it people will continue to believe the negative connotations cannabis has without any opinion of their own.
And as you've seen here, Ben(Badtrash) does have a vast knowledge on the stuff so he's seen more than I have in and around the London area.
I'd take his opinion with more than a little pinch of salt. He appears to be very polarised about the issue and is happy to heap blame on the unsure/cautious while arguing like a harmful stereotype. Like I say, I've only seen police dogs in places where there is likely to be violence- they could be drug dogs, they could be crowd control, and I suspect the ones you see over the olympics will be explosive sniffers.
I'm sorry, but if you demand that medicinal cannabis should not be treated like other pharmaceutical drugs you lose a shitload of credibility.
I am being kind to the pro-cannabis group by ignoring him.
Without it people will continue to believe the negative connotations cannabis has without any opinion of their own.
And the pros who argue that it's harmless, that they drive better when high or pull out logical fallacies like "well, alcohol's really harmful, and that's legal" enforce these negative connotations and demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to be responsible.
It's not just about self education. There's a mire of experimental "evidence" that's contradictory and confusing. The prevalence of cherry picking means that you can't really get to the truth- so we need a decent base for information starting in impartiality and working out.
We also need to hammer in that anecdotal evidence is not 'true' evidence- and this goes for both sides of the fence.
Yes, let people screw themselves over let them die the world is over populated. Lets hope they can begin killing themselves and others around them lower the population.
Why is it that people that spout this kind of nonsense never go ahead and set the right example?
That's herd- normally I wouldn't correct that kind of thing but, I believe it's appropriate, considering the context of the comment.
The problem with just letting people OD or do other things that constitute a significant burden on other people.
Who's going to clear up the puke and the dead body. How long will people have to put up with the stench of death before they can break down the door of someone they don't know well enough to miss. What if the OD fails, should we try to save them or let them suffer- if we try to save them, then we take resources away from other people. What if they "can drive better when high" and kill peeople?
What about when you're just a massive, lazy twat- not incompetent enough to get fired, not technically intoxicated at work, just forcing your colleagues to take up your slack?
Like it or not, drugs are a social issue- you can't just use them in a bubble and not affect others.
Now legalize Marijuana, shrooms, anything natural and not man-made
Including recreational Hemlock?
imagine going outside for a "dope break" and you pull out a high-grade potent marijuana cigarette, or have a coffee with a light dose of some magic mushrooms
I wouldn't insist on an alcohol break at work- and it's a very rare occasion when I have a pint during my lunch break (birthdays, christmas... with food and only if others are).
Weed does not impair your thinking or motor co-ordination. I picked up everyone else's slack, I did the work of at least three people..no joke.
Because I wouldn't accuse someone of taking drugs (or being drunk) while at work unless I was 100% sure- after all, that's a sackable offence in most places.
Those that I'm sure of (who were flagrant about it) were crap to work with- making mistakes, not pulling their weight. Of course it's a chicken and egg situation, are they getting high at work because they're irresponsible. Or they irresponsible because they're getting high at work.
TBH- I think the answer is both.
Stop blaming the drugs, and focus on the people. Some people are worthless.
Ok- justify being intoxicated at work.
But no, your bias, and inability to let go of stereotypes in favor of something that more accurately resembles reality is kind of...charmingly quaint.
All I've been given is subjective accounts from users themselves. The statement "I take drugs and it doesn't affect me" begs the question "why bother".
"Hey imagine being able to get high on your breaks." demonstrates questionable work ethics.
Besides, I'm perfectly happy to accept that some people aren't massive twats on various drugs. However, I'm going to go for them being the minority.
"it doesn't impair" argument is complete bollocks. I've been around enough high people to have seen the effects and hear that claim again and again.
It's no different to the lies spouted by a 'functional' alcoholic.
Breaks are my time by the way.
Does the drug miraculously vanish out of your system at the end of your break- or are you working while under the influence?
Your breaks are a break, but you still go back to work high.
If my work was "mediocre" why did I get so many hours, and earn more than my managers? The answer is: that's just your bias speaking, to even suggest such a thing.
Lots of reasons. Most obviously- because you'd do the extra hours.
There is some bias and I'm willing to admit that. However "I take mind altering drugs all the time and I don't notice anything" is a crap justification.
I don't really have to, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it made me a lazy worker.
It's not about being lazy.
in·tox·i·ca·tion (n-tks-kshn)
n.
1. Stupefaction or excitement by the action of a chemical substance.
Justify being intoxicated at work.
Of your co-workers, you simply assume it is because they were high that they were not working. The fact is, there are as many straight edge people out there that also do not do their work. The deciding factor is most likely NOT going to be weed.
Doesn't need to be a deciding factor.
Justify being intoxicated at work.
this is simply your bias dictating your entire perception of something that you, admittedly, have no first hand knowledge of.
I've said I don't touch the stuff. I did not say that I've never touched the stuff.
Just because one is not impaired does not mean it "does nothing", and I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that.
I've seen enough impairment to justify asking that question.
Your claims, are unfounded on anything aside from your own bias and bad experiences
Actually, this is less on my own bias. My bad experiences are as valid as any anecdotal evidence you present.
again, this will have more to do with the person in question than what they may or may not have smoked. And again, this is simply your bias dictating your entire perception of something that you, admittedly, have no first hand knowledge of.
Make a general rule for intoxication without making generalisations.
You pose the easiest question in all of the land, sir.
Self medication is known to distort experiences and is a very tricky thing to judge. I have difficulty believing that is true and there are no harmful side effects.
But fine, I'll assume that the situation as you perceive it is the absolute, definitive, unadulterated truth.
What about everyone else who goes to work intoxicated?
So, my question to you, is this, why should I be punished for the lazy and irresponsible people of the world, when I actually do AS WELL, and sometimes genuinely a little better*?
Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously when they state that not being allowed to be high at work is a punishment.
What about someone who is like you, works as hard, doesn't have all this rage that you project against any doubters, and is quietly picking up errors made by an intoxicated person?
Surely that's more of a punishment than being asked to stay off the drugs while at work.
stop suggesting that people are lazy when high
It's not about being lazy.
I'm saying that people have altered mentality and judgement when intoxicated. You may be lucky and completely immune to any of the downsides of being off your face on drugs, but those downsides exist.
"Make a general rule for intoxication without making generalisations. "
Bob is lazy, Ted is not.
So, no general rule then. (BTW, masturbation at work tends to be considered a disciplinary offence... so the "innocent" person in your little play is actually guilty of misconduct)
What about the guy who's in the top 50% of productivity and would be higher if he didn't have to deal with the mistakes of someone who's high and insisting that he works better that way.
Your basis is on heresay, supposition and you also do not know what those people were thinking, or if and when they were actually high. Except perhaps on a statistically tiny basis, so small as to be meaningless.
You, as before, are making a judgment call that you have no real basis for, other than some vague idea about how you think things are that you do not bother to correlate with facts or your external environment. Based on your statements.
Nope, try again.
You have no real reason to believe this to be the case, aside from a personal prejudice that you seemingly project on to the world in order to try and categorize people and events in a way you can tolerate.
How about: because I've seen it happen?
I've not asked people when I've been in doubt if they're high, but that does not mean I've not known that people are high. I know that cannabis isn't as harmless as everyone says, because it really fucks me up and the comedown lasts much longer than a hangover.
(because of that my informed opinion is that it's not as innocent as people claim and by extension I will always treat people's claim of harmless/beneficial with a lot of suspicion- it's not my business if you get fucked up, but if you're going to claim it's beneficial, you'd better have some really solid evidence)
I have also said "just because you can, it doesn't mean that everyone can".
It borders on character assassination, and is beneath a genuine debate.
Try reading it as a general you rather than a personal you.
For example- if we take your word for it- you're in the top 2% which means you can lose over 40 percentage points and still be "better than average" (thus praiseworthy. Even a 25% drop will still leave you much better than average). Someone who is average and loses 40 percentage points is now working in the bottom 10%
You have already admitted that you're rare. If you're willing to take that for both good and bad, then so be it. However if you don't, you read like this:
"I'm hyperbrilliant when sober and being high just takes the edge off dealing with incompetent people- so everyone should get high at work"
Have you ever thought that being as high as a kite just takes you down a few levels so you are no longer burdened by the vast difference between your abilities and an average person?
Also, you have stated that you "thought" they were high, or that at the very least you were guessing some of the time, based on hearsay, as to the nature of their sobriety or lack thereof.
I've also said that there are people I know who were high on the job. And they were noticeably shit at it compared to their usual ability.
The ones that I'm not sure about.. that was just me saying that I'm not going to implicitly accuse someone of gross misconduct- especially if the working relationship is anything by great.
So on one hand, I've got people who were a bit rubbish, making dodgy mistakes and possibly high (who I didn't confront). On the other I've got people who were a bit more rubbish, making dodgy mistakes and absolutely high.
The point was- people not asking you if you were high does not mean that they do not notice.
Pick a stance, if someone else says something down this line you state that their perception is flawed.
If it's recall of something while under the effects of mind altering drugs- It is fair to assume that their mind is altered. Or their perception could be altered.. considering that's the point of taking these kinds of drugs.
So please, elaborate on how you come to the conclusions you have, especially regarding me.
I've been using a theoretical and general you- I was rather hoping that I made this quite, quite clear. We're talking about rules and how they should be applied
Applying it to your scenario I have given examples of how perception can be read in a different manner. I have heard your statements from people who it was an obvious lie. I have experience with functioning addicts and they're not half as great or as immune from the effects as they claim.
I don't know if it's an objective truth in your case, I don't really care. However, I've heard the same thing, loads of times, from stereotypical stoners. It's not a claim that should go unexamined.
You've already admitted that you're an outlier so, I'm just applying your statements to an average person.
Stop directly applying your reasoning to statements I am making about myself and I will.
I bow to your ultimate and amazing knowledge. You are the everyman and the ideal to which all rules should be applied. There is no need to analyse or query your statements and they can be painted in such broad strokes that they can even be applied to the plebian arseholes who are morons compared to your majesty.
Because you can do it, it automatically means that everyone else can. Which obviously makes a fairly lax rule like "don't get high at work" the sign of an absolutely oppressive regime created by fear rather than practical concerns.
Or- you can accept that your statements of being in the top 2% are being taken at face value and that I'm more interested in a rule that could be applied to the poor and feeble 98% that's left.
Also, it may do you some good to recognise that thousands of functioning addicts hide behind those kinds of statements and justifications every day- even if they're not true. (note- I'm not accusing you of being an addict)
Your experience is atypical, and from the basis of having actual first hand experience, it's most likely psychological.
You expect that it will "fuck you up" more than something legal, and so it does.
No.
You could even test this if you'd like, but you'd have to get high again, and distract yourself from the idea of "being high"...just go do stuff like normal..it won't be just like "normal", but if you're not thinking you're impaired...you likely won't be.
As for the placebo effect? I'd already covered that extensively in my A levels, the ways to counter it and so-on.. experimenter expectation was a solid basis of my studies. Guess what- it was not a placebo effect.
I didn't have the expectations you think I had. If you wish to whine about me pulling random crap out of my arse, then at least acknowledge when you're doing it.
I won't get high again just to prove a point. I don't like it. I don't like the crappiness I feel the day after (or however long it will last now my general rebound is less). I don't like the person I turn into (that's a subjective- I may be fine on cannabis, but I do not feel it).
Also, I've seen similar kinds of effects with others. I'm willing to admit that anecdote is not evidence- However, there's enough there to make the "it's harmless, I'm a better person on it" a questionable statement. I've heard it countless times before, and more often than not it's bullshit.
I've had enough experience to know that it's not for me and been around enough stoners to know that there's an accompanying responsibility.
No, but hearing shocked responses when you tell them that you are, kind of does right?
No.
The middle of your post isn't even worth responding to.
So it is right for me to assume that your statements boil down to because super special you can, everyone can.
And that statements like "I'm a better person on...." or "I need to get high to cope at work" are not commonly used by substance abusers, those with dependencies or as flimsy justification by addicts who are blind to the pain and suffering they cause?
That anyone saying that should just simply be believed. Even if they've come from people who used to be fairly intelligent and generally decent are- in reality- complete dicks when on drugs? (not just while high, but also between highs)
No.
I can be persuaded that you could be telling the truth- but not that it is a universal truth.
Addicts of all kinds say exactly the same things as you have while they are oblivious to the lives they are destroying or the pain that they are causing, or just the fact that they have become their addiction.
Yes, I've seen it many times, and I can probably dredge up some corroborating evidence if I can feel motivated to.
My drug education wasn't all teh ebill!!!! that everyone else seems to have had.
I am probably in the minority for bad reactions, and on reflection knowing what I know about psychology and nature/nurture I'm fairly sure it's through genetic predispositions. However. I do not know where in the spectrum my experience lay. I know I'm not as rare as the prolegalisation lot insist.
No, it isn't actually, the point of the drugs, not specifically. Also, this is a very thin defense, as you well know, people's perceptions are equally fallible whilst sober.
Not equally. Although- if you wish to pretend it is equally. Fair enough.
Now I could go through all the stuff about why eyewitness testimony is questionable and how it gets distorted. Which would mean that my recollections of my experiences would be more pleasant than they are.
You've got the schema stuff and all of that prejudice thing. Hmm.. possible. However, I do my best to ignore the obvious fuckwits when it comes to these kinds of discussions- because they are proving the stereotype and the way to overcome is to find people who don't fit that image of stoner moron.
And it is important that stoner morons stay out of the legalisation debate because they only prove that the "majority's" prejudices were founded.
I'm trained to analyse, minimise and understand my bias.
You can't genuinely know you can counter the effect in a drug that actually does do things
However, I can state with a high level of confidence that I didn't have the preconceptions that were required to create my reaction as a placebo effect.
So your claim that it couldn't have been that seems a bit spotty.
And this highlights why it's a waste of time to talk to you about this any further, you have a negative bias that is not representative of most newer, less biased facts.
Your argument and justifications are those of an addict. I do not believe you because you have asked "why should I be punished" in relation to not getting high at work.
Being asked to remain sober at work is not a punishment. Unless you have a problem with drugs.
Your subjective experience is obviously more reliable than anyone elses.
Yours can be used as evidence, mine cannot?
This is basically your stance, correct?
Nope.
Drugs alter perceptions. Just like beer can make you think you're witty and marvellous when you're not- cannabis can make you think you're profound and intelligent when you're just spouting bollocks. These are perceptions that are altered by the drug.
A third party is a better witness to the difference between high and sober. And since I hate the way cannabis makes me feel, I've been that third party enough to make it impossible to take your statements at face value.
If that's not good enough how about:
Your personal experiences under the influence and mine have the same weight. Which means they cancel each other out.
Which means I'm either more reliable (due to being a third party) or I'm just as reliable (due to my personal experience).
I wouldn't want my fiance to start doing them again because they're legal and I certainly will not support people being like my mother who was too high to worry about anything, including me.
Notice the contradiction here. "drinking coffee is more dangerous than smoking weed." Yet I've never heard of anyone being too "high" on coffee to worry about anything, including their child...
Actually most of the people I know who do smoke were already mentally ill in one way or another and are more "normal" and "functional" when they do smoke.
Which gives more power to the idea that it should be researched for pharmaceutical use rather than recreational.
Clinical use of drugs is (and should be) treated differently to recreational use.
I have no problems in life caused by me smoking weed.
However you do come across as the single most unhappy person I've ever encountered on VF, and while the cause of that unhappiness might not be the cannabis, it does raise the question of whether the weed is hindering your recovery from those other factors.
Actually, no, addiction is characterized by having problems maintaining a normal life while using some substance or other.
Actually, yes. You have used the language of addicts and the exact same thing that they use to justify fucking other people over.
I notice, you just drop the subject when I point out when you are factually incorrect, or you simply say "no" without bothering to give any valid reasons to anything.
Bias, not worth responding to.
Guess what, you do that even more.
Logical fallacy.
Nope. There are times when I've been an observer to people I know pretty well. There are times when I've got high.
My statements about when I'm high have the same validity as your statements about when you're high.
My statements as a third party to people getting have the same validity as moderately biased third party.
Perhaps if you were an actual third part WITNESSING events in my life, your OPINION may carry some weight, but, you have never witnessed me working high or sober, yet you make heavily biased suggestions about how things must be.
Actually... again... I've been talking in generalisations. You may be fine, not everyone is. (paranoid, much?)
You may be telling the truth when you use all the excuses that addicts use to justify their substance abuse. Not everyone is.
It's the same as if I would say," well, you like an occasional beer, so you must be abusive,, violent loud and obnoxious while drinking".
I guess I should nominate myself as a good judge of what you do while drinking too. I'm at least as good a judge of your activities as you are as well.
Nope. It's like me asking "why should I be punished if I want to get pissed at work?" saying "I'm a better person when I'm off my tits" "nobody notices I'm off my tits at work" "I'm so much better than everyone else when I'm pissed"... and then you questioning my relationship with alcohol and the objective truth of those statements.
