Beer, Cigarettes & Marijuana -- What's the difference?

[Oscar Wao]

One deranged Leftist here just claimed it's "Racist" to keep Marijuana illegal. More proof that pot does have an adverse effect on the human brain. It's true people. Yikes!

The origins of weed criminalization are racist. Look it up.

 

[Some Guy]

I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.

The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole. Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.

However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours. Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning. And there will be no blood alcohol detected.

Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be. And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol. For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.

I know it stick around in your system but what's the real effect? I've never smoked pot before but i've never seen someone smoke up and then be stoned the next day. So while it may be in their system, i highly doubt it affects them 24 hours after having done it. Alcohol, while maybe clearing from your system in 24 hours, can definitely have effects beyond that time frame. I've 2-3 day hangovers before after drinking way too much, and those would definitely affects my reaction time.

You'll probably be hard pressed to find anyone who would be in favor of letting people who smoke pot fly planes or operate heavy machinery, so companies who employ such people would definitely need to be allowed to enforce their own rules, and if that's monthly drug tests requiring a perfectly clean system, then i'd be all for it. When i said controlled like alcohol, i meant requiring someone to be of a certain age, with obvious DUI ramifications, etc etc. Obviously you couldn't use the exact same protocols but surely you could put some pretty effective protocols in place that would be a lot easier to enforce than just making it universally illegal.

 

[JBeukema]

"I can see no other reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal." My God,what has happened to our country? So it's all about "Racism?"

This is what's happened? You cite the facts about why it was made illegal and idits like Lib get hysterical?

 

[JBeukema]

I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.

The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole. Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.

However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours. Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning. And there will be no blood alcohol detected.

Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be. And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol. For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.

'remains in the body' =/= 'still high'

all it means is that it can be detected because THC is fat-soluble, while alcohol is water-soluble

 

[geauxtohell]

One deranged Leftist here just claimed it's "Racist" to keep Marijuana illegal. More proof that pot does have an adverse effect on the human brain. It's true people. Yikes!

Actually, the roots of MJ being made illegal very much had racist motivations behind them.

The disparity in the sentencing guidelines for drug possession do as well, which is why many state high courts are changing the sentences of people convicted for crack to be more in line of someone who was convicted for cocaine.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.

The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole. Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.

However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours. Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning. And there will be no blood alcohol detected.

Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be. And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol. For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.

I know it stick around in your system but what's the real effect? I've never smoked pot before but i've never seen someone smoke up and then be stoned the next day. So while it may be in their system, i highly doubt it affects them 24 hours after having done it. Alcohol, while maybe clearing from your system in 24 hours, can definitely have effects beyond that time frame. I've 2-3 day hangovers before after drinking way too much, and those would definitely affects my reaction time.

You'll probably be hard pressed to find anyone who would be in favor of letting people who smoke pot fly planes or operate heavy machinery, so companies who employ such people would definitely need to be allowed to enforce their own rules, and if that's monthly drug tests requiring a perfectly clean system, then i'd be all for it. When i said controlled like alcohol, i meant requiring someone to be of a certain age, with obvious DUI ramifications, etc etc. Obviously you couldn't use the exact same protocols but surely you could put some pretty effective protocols in place that would be a lot easier to enforce than just making it universally illegal.

From what I've been taught, the fact that it is detectable in the body does not necessarily mean the person is impaired. Once the psychological/physical effects wear off, the person probably isn't significantly impaired even though cannabis is still detectable in the body.

The problem is, there is no way to know how recently the person used the substance and therefore no way to know how impaired he or she is likely to be or not be. And it is for that reason that there is a risk short of a zero tolerance policy.

I'm not saying don't make the stuff legal. I am saying support strong and enforceable policies by employers and regulatory agencies for zero tolerance re cannabis use.

 

[JBeukema]

health affects. Even the ancients such as our ancient Native Americans here even knew that you were not supposed to smoke these plants on a daily basis.

They smoked these plants sporadically and on special occasions such as religious ceremonies and such. Even they knew then that if you sat around all day smoking these plants,you would likely die.

see my earlier posts about the total lack of any medical evidence supporting your lies

 

[Father Time]

The federal government wants to regulate your sugar and salt intake. Marijuana is certainly a reasonable substance to regulate by that standard.

First of all why should we use that standard?

Second the government doesn't even want to ban all salt or all sugar so that standard would still demand it be legalized.

The premise of the thread is false. It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue. It is illegal for good reason.

Which is?

Take your energy and passion using it to end cigarette use and limit alcohol use. That would be far more helpful and productive.

I think we can decide what causes we're going to fight for, free speech and all that. Also who says we can't do both?

 

[JBeukema]

Refute what you like, I honestly don't care.

We know- you've never cared about facts.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interestingly enough, the effects of continued heavy drinking last for up to 5 years after stopping drinking.

Takes about 2 weeks to completely detox off alcohol addiction.

Takes about 6 months to a full year for the body to get back to complete normal.

Cannabis doesn't have those ill effects, nor does it stay in you for over a month, and that is if you are mostly sedentary and fat, because THC is fat soluble.

 

[Father Time]

The federal government wants to regulate your sugar and salt intake. Marijuana is certainly a reasonable substance to regulate by that standard. Your weak arguments about marijuana not killing you it was the fall or the car crash is laughable. Sort of like saying the heart attack killed you, not the excess weigh, smoking, lack of exercise and so on. They are called contributing factors folks.

The premise of the thread is false. It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue. It is illegal for good reason. Take your energy and passion using it to end cigarette use and limit alcohol use. That would be far more helpful and productive.

I suggest you read what you post and revise it.
1. The federal government did not ban sugar or salt. Buy as much as you want at the market and stuff yourself.
2. MJ is not regulated (as is alcohol); MJ is a schedule I drug.
3. A queston is not a premise.
4. As a non-stoner, you also seem to be unmellow.
5. List the good reasons for it being 'illegal'.

I never said sugar or salt was banned. You read okay? Marijuana certainly is regulated, just what is a schedule drug, if not regulated? The question was phrased in a premise format. You don't have the slightest idea of my disposition. There are many good reasons, go find them yourself, don't waste my time.

NAME ONE!

You're the one who said there's good reasons, it's not our job to back up your points. That's your job.

 

[Oscar Wao]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iifGYnffrBI"]YouTube - Drug War's Racist Roots? - Ethan Nadelmann[/ame]

To prove that we aren't talking out of our butts with this point

 

[ABikerSailor]

health affects. Even the ancients such as our ancient Native Americans here even knew that you were not supposed to smoke these plants on a daily basis.

They smoked these plants sporadically and on special occasions such as religious ceremonies and such. Even they knew then that if you sat around all day smoking these plants,you would likely die.

see my earlier posts about the total lack of any medical evidence supporting your lies

Wonder if A Pack of Lips Howling knows that the tomahawk used by the Native Americans was quite often a pipe?

Wonder if he also knows that they smoked DAILY?

Keep up the good works A Pack of Lips Howling.........Your ignorance is continuous and strong.

 

[JBeukema]

The premise of the thread is false. It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue. It is illegal for good reason.

Which is?

oil

paper

and those ******* mexican pieces of shit ******* offbrand brown people smoke it and they're evil brown people so anything they do must be of the devil, you mexican-loving communist bastard, don't you know China gave marijuana to the Mexicans so they could DESTROY AMERICA!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sknoKWsVlAA&feature=related]YouTube - Grass: The History Of Marijuana[/ame]

 

[Gunny]

Interestingly enough, the effects of continued heavy drinking last for up to 5 years after stopping drinking.

Takes about 2 weeks to completely detox off alcohol addiction.

Takes about 6 months to a full year for the body to get back to complete normal.

Cannabis doesn't have those ill effects, nor does it stay in you for over a month, and that is if you are mostly sedentary and fat, because THC is fat soluble.

Yeah, right. You can pop positive for THC for up to 6 months.

 

[California Girl]

Refute what you like, I honestly don't care.

We know- you've never cared about facts.

You never finished that quote, btw.

Are you gonna be a moron all your life? Just curious. What I care about is stating my opinion, if necessary, I'll back it up with evidence but mostly it isn't necessary. That you cannot distinguish between fact and opinion is not surprising.

 

[Father Time]

I drink about three times a year, if that. And by 'drink', I mean I have a couple - never get get hammered.

What the **** do you do then?




THANK SWEET LORD JESUS. There's no telling how many lives you've saved already. Keep it up!

Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for any driver who kills someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.

Because when people kill out of negligence - they should be put down like dogs

When corporations kill out of negligence - we should buy more of their products to help them out.

I am happy with my life, I don't need to 'escape' from reality with drink or drugs.

Driving under the influence is not 'negligence', it is premeditated murder.

You must be high or drunk it's hard to tell.

It's manslaughter and nothing even close to premeditated murder because they don't kill people on purpose. Hell they may not even kill someone when they drive drunk.

 

[geauxtohell]

Lots of sleazy Lawyers got rich while lots of poor tobacco farmers were put out of business.

Oh yeah, everyone hates sleazy lawyers until they need one. Big Tobacco acted on bad faith for decades and suppressed information that they knew their product was harming people and highly addictive. What did they do? Suppress it and try and market to younger crowds to cover their clients who were going to invariably die at a younger age.

They deserved what they got. I am sympathetic to the farmers, but it doesn't change the fact that they were on the supply end for the most carcinogenic consumer product on the market.

Bladder cancer is rare. One of the few associations with lifestyle and bladder cancer is smoking. How does something you inhale end up being oncogenic to your bladder? Beats the **** out of me, but it goes to show how poisonous tobacco is.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a puritan on it. I enjoy a smoke here and there, but when I smoke I know it's bad for me.

That has been the resulting reality of your Socialist/Progressive crusade against the "Evil Tobacco Companies."

That and morbidity/mortality behind smoking as well as the massive healthcare costs the taxpayers incur to treat medicaid/medicare patients who smoked.

In fact, in light of those much greater societal harms, I'd say that the trial lawyers were of fairly low consequence.

Now you guys want to legalize Marijuana? I'm sorry but i just can't trust you guys at this point. You should support real Freedom & Liberty all the time and not just when it's convenient for you. Your motives have to be questioned on this. It is what it is.

When has anyone's freedom and liberty been hindered? People just want corporations to act in good faith and give the FDA the good, bad, and ugly behind their product. When they cover that information up, it's a civil wrong and their asses deserve to be sued.

 

[geauxtohell]

I think that anyone who feels so insecure that they need to dissect a post word for word to respond is a little bit pathetic.

lol


anyone who gets so upset by having their claims refuted that they result to such lame attempts at an attacks shouldn't bother posting in the first place

Yeah! It's not like "words" have meaning or anything silly like that!

 

[Father Time]

If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them. To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.

Your handle is 'saveliberty' - what a ******* hypocrite you are. What you mean is "save MY liberty and **** everyone else's"

Your liberty to function at a diminished capacity while driving or at work? To have health related issues from its use that I get to pay for? The crime that is commited in the name of a "harmless" drug? You over stepped your liberty pal.

That's right we should totally keep alcohol illegal.

Oh wait I thought it was still 1931. What were we talking about again?