Cannabis smokers and their smugness

Snake Pliisken

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

medicinal smoking...i've heard it all now, are you serious?

The medicine is being delivered into their system, what's so hard to understand?

Taking burnt carbon into your lungs isn't great for your lungs but if you have MS or cancer or AIDS or glaucoma the problem isn't in your lungs is it?

kylith

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

medicinal smoking...i've heard it all now, are you serious?

Yes. It's being going on for years. It's by far the quickest and easiest way to administer cannabis. It can be smoked in joint form, either pure weed or mixed with tobacco, or from a vaporiser.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It makes their pain more tolerable, so would smack in fairness, it doesn't cure them and it degrades their general health at a faster rate then not smoking.
(it's not lost on me that official medicine has actually killed MS sufferers)

I'd like some links to research showing that their general health is degraded at a greater rate than their symptoms are alleviated, please.

Ash.J.Williams

Snake Pliisken wrote: »

The medicine is being delivered into their system, what's so hard to understand?

Taking burnt carbon into your lungs isn't great for your lungs but if you have MS or cancer or AIDS or glaucoma the problem isn't in your lungs is it?

If i suffered from AIDS, Cancer or MS I'm sure smoking weed would be a nice destraction alright but why would harming my lungs be seen as a good thing? you honestly think doctors would prescribe smoking for anyone other than people with no hope?

Junco Partner

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Smoking weed has no medical benefits

Neither do booze or fags yet they are freely available? It shouldn't have to have health benefits. We shouldn't have to justify Cannibis. It's a recreational drug like alcohol(with added awesome health benefits :P). Unlike alcohol or fags or many prescription pills (I'm looking at you benzos) it's essentially harmless. I use it because it makes me feel good. I come home from work,Spark a joint and relax. simples. Fags are essentially killing our lungs and with the binge drinking culture that exists in Ireland and the U.K it's a miracle anyone's livers survive their 20's yet I can walk into any shop and walk out with a pouch of drum and a six pack of carlsberg. Very few people develop the mental issues or get dependent and if you use a vape there ain't even smoke to give you cancer!
the only people benefitting from prohibition are the gangs.
why can't it be regulated and taxed. ? I'd much rather be able to walk into a spar and legally buy a pouch of grass thats been regulated and taxed
not every one who smokes pot is a waster on the dole who does nothing but smoke
i myself manage to hold down a 45- 50 hour a week job and enjoy a few spliffs when i'm off. I don't mix it with work in the same way that I don't work while drunk and i'm sure i'm in the majority.
small percentage get addicted/dependent in the same way that some people get hooked on booze yet 95% of people who enjoy a drink of booze don't become raging alcoholics.

It's not as if with legalization we'll decend into anarchy. No-ones gonna force you to smoke in fact like the pictures on fag boxes or the drink responsibly ads i'm sure we'll be plenty informed of the negatives. public smoking will probably be an offence just like drinking in public or smoking in bars is.

the reality is gangs will have one of their revenue streams severely hit. the government will make a tidy little sum. us smokers will feel much happier. and life will carry as normal for those who don't smoke.

Ash.J.Williams

Junco Partner wrote: »

Neither do booze or fags yet they are freely available? It shouldn't have to have health benefits. We shouldn't have to justify Cannibis. It's a recreational drug like alcohol(with added awesome health benefits :P). Unlike alcohol or fags or many prescription pills (I'm looking at you benzos) it's essentially harmless. I use it because it makes me feel good. I come home from work,Spark a joint and relax. simples. Fags are essentially killing our lungs and with the binge drinking culture that exists in Ireland and the U.K it's a miracle anyone's livers survive their 20's yet I can walk into any shop and walk out with a pouch of drum and a six pack of carlsberg. Very few people develop the mental issues or get dependent and if you use a vape there ain't even smoke to give you cancer!
the only people benefitting from prohibition are the gangs.
why can't it be regulated and taxed. ? I'd much rather be able to walk into a spar and legally buy a pouch of grass thats been regulated and taxed
not every one who smokes pot is a waster on the dole who does nothing but smoke
i myself manage to hold down a 45- 50 hour a week job and enjoy a few spliffs when i'm off. I don't mix it with work in the same way that I don't work while drunk and i'm sure i'm in the majority.
small percentage get addicted/dependent in the same way that some people get hooked on booze yet 95% of people who enjoy a drink of booze don't become raging alcoholics.

It's not as if with legalization we'll decend into anarchy. No-ones gonna force you to smoke in fact like the pictures on fag boxes or the drink responsibly ads i'm sure we'll be plenty informed of the negatives. public smoking will probably be an offence just like drinking in public or smoking in bars is.

the reality is gangs will have one of their revenue streams severely hit. the government will make a tidy little sum. us smokers will feel much happier. and life will carry as normal for those who don't smoke.

i know...i'm a recreational smoker...and so if i want it legalised it's for smoking...not some miracle health benefit that nobody really gives two f**s about

Snake Pliisken

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i know...i'm a recreational smoker...and so if i want it legalised it's for smoking...not some miracle health benefit that nobody really gives two f**s about

They're part of the same argument.

brokenarms

ScumLord wrote: »

The Canadian system isn't great, none are because they're trying to let people who need the drug medically use it without changing the legal status of the drug for anyone else.

It's not surprising people try to take advantage of the system, we see it all the time in every sector, people passing one fruit of as another to avoid tax, selling horse meat and beef. As long as there's profit to be made some people will abuse the system.

We shouldn't follow Canadas example but learn from their mistakes.


When I talk about legalising cannabis I am nearly always referring to recreational use. I think the medical debate is over, cannabis works and should be available to those that need it. To withhold it from the people it would help is cruelty IMO.

Kids are already getting it. Cannabis is freely available in our society. Either we send thousands of people to jail for no good reason or we could up with a new way of dealing with cannabis use and abuse.

Do you know how regulated butter production is? Ireland has extremely high standards when it comes to food production. I use the food industry as it's a good example of one hampered by regulation yet one that can still go on to be very productive and profitable.

I did not know the butter thing was so serious..


If it was ever to get my vote, it would be on the grounds of medical use only.
I don't think it should be legal for the general public.

People can link and argue till the cows come home , but from my experience, its much worse to smoke joints in moderation than have a beer when you come home from work. I used to smoke weed everyday until I caught myself on a bit.
It left me empty headed and forgetful , with i nice does of paranoia to top it all off.
Have a beer and one is still completely functional . Not so with cannabis.

I will still have a joint the very odd time and have a load of it in the attic in jars from my last grow, but I can't agree with it being sold like a packet of cigs. It will lead to just more problems in our society.

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm specifically talking about smoking ....in which case the benefits do not out weigh the side affects

How have you come to that conclusion? While smoking isn't the best way to administer the drug it's the most convenient. If you're out and about bringing vapourisers with you, especially if you're in a wheelchair may not be too easy. It goes beyond simple pain relief too, it increases appetite allowing for better recovery in some diseases. Nutrients are key to recovery and if you can't bring yourself to eat it's only going to make your condition worse.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

If i suffered from AIDS, Cancer or MS I'm sure smoking weed would be a nice destraction alright but why would harming my lungs be seen as a good thing? you honestly think doctors would prescribe smoking for anyone other than people with no hope?

They never prescribe smoking they prescribe cannabis and it's up to the patient to decide how they want to administer it.

brokenarms wrote: »

People can link and argue till the cows come home , but from my experience, its much worse to smoke joints in moderation than have a beer when you come home from work. I used to smoke weed everyday until I caught myself on a bit.
It left me empty headed and forgetful , with i nice does of paranoia to top it all off.
Have a beer and one is still completely functional . Not so with cannabis.

That's just you, you're damning everyone else because of your reaction to the drug. Other people don't end up like that, as I've always said it's made me obsessive and focused on a task. The only paranoia I've suffered is from being caught, cannabis doesn't make me paranoid.

but I can't agree with it being sold like a packet of cigs. It will lead to just more problems in our society.

Simple solution, don't sell it like a pack of cigarettes. There are many ways to bring about legalisation we don't have to pick the worst option.

Ash.J.Williams

Smoking hinders recovery, what you are saying is false. There are no benefits to smoking, unless you are terminaly ill

mikom

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

There are no benefits to smoking, unless you are terminaly ill

Tell that to the salmon and the ham.

kylith

mikom wrote: »

Tell that to the salmon and the ham.

Yep. Smoking definitely cures them.


Mr. Williams, we're still waiting for anything other than your own opinion about your claims that the negatives outweigh the positives. Is this because you can't find anything to back up your opinion?

Ash.J.Williams

kylith wrote: »

Yep. Smoking definitely cures them.


Mr. Williams, we're still waiting for anything other than your own opinion about your claims that the negatives outweigh the positives. Is this because you can't find anything to back up your opinion?

you honestly need proof that the administration of medicine through smoke inhalation causes more good then harm?

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Smoking hinders recovery, what you are saying is false. There are no benefits to smoking, unless you are terminaly ill

How does smoking weed hinder recovery? We're not talking about them smoking 40 fags a day here, we're talking about maybe 3-10 spliffs of pure weed over the course of a day or maybe few days. You're body is capable of processing small amounts of smoke without too much negative side effects.

If it's something where they need to eat to get better and they do get better they can stop using the drug and the amount of smoke they inhaled won't have any long lasting effects.

kylith

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

you honestly need proof that the administration of medicine through smoke inhalation causes more good then harm?

If your claiming that the smoke does more harm than the THC does good then, yes, I'd like to see the research that backs that up. I find it hard to believe that a doctor would prescribe a medication which would do more harm than good.

Ash.J.Williams

ScumLord wrote: »

How does smoking weed hinder recovery? We're not talking about them smoking 40 fags a day here, we're talking about maybe 3-10 spliffs of pure weed over the course of a day or maybe few days. You're body is capable of processing small amounts of smoke without too much negative side effects.

If it's something where they need to eat to get better and they do get better they can stop using the drug and the amount of smoke they inhaled won't have any long lasting effects.

Weed doesn't make you "better" it helps with the pain. I suffer chronic pain, weed does assist with the pain, it helps me tolerate it, will it make me better? course not

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

you honestly need proof that the administration of medicine through smoke inhalation causes more good then harm?

Many medications come with serious side effects where the short term negative effects are accepted because of the long term benefits. IE: Chemotherapy and opiates most drugs aren't targeted enough to attack just the disease and often do damage throughout the body. As long as the drugs use is limited we accept those risks.

Ash.J.Williams

kylith wrote: »

If your claiming that the smoke does more harm than the THC does good then, yes, I'd like to see the research that backs that up. I find it hard to believe that a doctor would prescribe a medication which would do more harm than good.

you know a doctor that recommends smoking?

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Weed doesn't make you "better" it helps with the pain. I suffer chronic pain, weed does assist with the pain, it helps me tolerate it, will it make me better? course not

Jury's out, cannabis has been shown to reduce cancer growths. Pain relief has been accepted but it goes much further than that.

Ash.J.Williams

ScumLord wrote: »

Jury's out, cannabis has been shown to reduce cancer growths. Pain relief has been accepted but it goes much further than that.

I'm talking specifically about smoking, and smoking to cure cancer is nonsense

kylith

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

you know a doctor that recommends smoking?

That's got nothing to do with what we're talking about, and no-one has ever claimed that smoking is not harmful. However, you're claiming that smoking cannabis to alleviate symptoms, eg. MS, is more harmful than beneficial. I wish to know how you've arrived at this conclusion and what research you've come across to back it up, because right now it seems to be solely your opinion.

kylith

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm talking specifically about smoking, and smoking to cure cancer is nonsense

Lung cancer, maybe, but cannabinoids have been found to hinder the growth of cancer cells. Smoking is only one way to administer cannabinoids.

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm talking specifically about smoking, and smoking to cure cancer is nonsense

Cannabis is especially good at targeting lung cancer.

Smoking isn't the best way of using the drug but as we keep pointing out, smoking is a personal choice. The fact that smoking is bad is no reflection on cannabis.

scamalert

If it was legalized for recreational use,the whole new library of law would have to be written and re-written on law.How long does it take to leave the body,how long do the traces stay in the system,how functional one can be related to work ?
ex:someone has a car crash,guy kills someone and blood tests reveal he had been smoking day or two ago whats then ?
If most kids these days find ways to get their hands on weed hash,it would only sprout more troubles,as how would you control growth if it was legal for person to have a plant or two,who would stop him from growing another 10 between his family and relatives houses.
Al tough US started legalizing it in the states,but amounts coming from Mexico and surrounding countries are staying the same.

mikom

scamalert wrote: »

ex:someone has a car crash,guy kills someone and blood tests reveal he had been smoking day or two ago whats then ?

Someone has a car crash, guy kills someone and blood tests reveal he had been drinking a day or two ago, what then?

scamalert wrote: »

If most kids these days find ways to get their hands on weed hash,it would only sprout more troubles,as how would you control growth if it was legal for person to have a plant or two,who would stop him from growing another 10 between his family and relatives houses.

Who stops them now?

kylith

scamalert wrote: »

If it was legalized for recreational use,the whole new library of law would have to be written and re-written on law.How long does it take to leave the body,how long do the traces stay in the system,how functional one can be related to work ?

It would probably be viewed as similar to alcohol; i.e. it would be unacceptable to appear for work under the influence.

scamalert wrote: »

ex:someone has a car crash,guy kills someone and blood tests reveal he had been smoking day or two ago whats then ?

Cannabis is detectable in your system for some time, but the actual effects dissipate rapidly after smoking. For example, a person can still be drunk on Monday morning after drinking heavily on Sunday night, however the effects of even a heavy night of smoking would have worn off within 2 or 3 hours. It would certainly not effect you in any way after a couple of days.

Ash.J.Williams

scamalert wrote: »

If it was legalized for recreational use,the whole new library of law would have to be written and re-written on law.How long does it take to leave the body,how long do the traces stay in the system,how functional one can be related to work ?
ex:someone has a car crash,guy kills someone and blood tests reveal he had been smoking day or two ago whats then ?
If most kids these days find ways to get their hands on weed hash,it would only sprout more troubles,as how would you control growth if it was legal for person to have a plant or two,who would stop him from growing another 10 between his family and relatives houses.
Al tough US started legalizing it in the states,but amounts coming from Mexico and surrounding countries are staying the same.

From what i've heard, if weed is legalised then forget about driving. THe same law will apply as with drink. ie if it's in the system then the law will apply. Which means you'll be over the limit for a few days after a few smokes!

Wattle

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

From what i've heard, if weed is legalised then forget about driving. THe same law will apply as with drink. ie if it's in the system then the law will apply. Which means you'll be over the limit for a few days after a few smokes!

Maybe it is in your system but if the last time you've smoked was a few days before there is no way you'll be intoxicated when you're stopped. Common sense would surely apply.

Ash.J.Williams

kylith wrote: »

It would probably be viewed as similar to alcohol; i.e. it would be unacceptable to appear for work under the influence.


Cannabis is detectable in your system for some time, but the actual effects dissipate rapidly after smoking. For example, a person can still be drunk on Monday morning after drinking heavily on Sunday night, however the effects of even a heavy night of smoking would have worn off within 2 or 3 hours. It would certainly not effect you in any way after a couple of days.

That is true, but how do a bunch of right wing boggers legislate driving laws for that? they i heard one of them on the radio discussing it was fairly black and white...if it's in your system you shouldn't be driving.

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

From what i've heard, if weed is legalised then forget about driving. THe same law will apply as with drink. ie if it's in the system then the law will apply. Which means you'll be over the limit for a few days after a few smokes!

The current test isn't for the active ingredients, it's for other ingredients in cannabis. So while the test will show traces of cannabis in your system for days it's not the active ingredient and you're not stoned.

kylith

Possibly by using a sobriety test, like in the states.

Also, I wouldn't be paying much attention to right-wing boggers. Chances are they're not too informed on the issues.

Boskowski

I know I'm coming in here rather late and this probably has been said already, but...

...for starters THC is not toxic, alcohol is. That's a pretty strong start.

Ash.J.Williams

Wattle wrote: »

Maybe it is in your system but if the last time you've smoked was a few days before there is no way you'll be intoxicated when you're stopped. Common sense would surely apply.

Indeed, but how do the legislaters and cops figure that one out? It would required a urine sample at least, but all that tells you is the biology of the situation, your head may well be fine!

Ash.J.Williams

kylith wrote: »

Sobriety test, like in the states.

Also, I wouldn't be paying much attention to right-wing boggers. Chances are they're not too informed on the issues.

informed they are not...but they make the laws

scamalert

kylith wrote: »

It would probably be viewed as similar to alcohol; i.e. it would be unacceptable to appear for work under the influence.


Cannabis is detectable in your system for some time, but the actual effects dissipate rapidly after smoking. For example, a person can still be drunk on Monday morning after drinking heavily on Sunday night, however the effects of even a heavy night of smoking would have worn off within 2 or 3 hours. It would certainly not effect you in any way after a couple of days.

So then we would have constand drug tests like US has already in most companies,pissing in the cup whenever management decides.
True about alcohol it takes depending on person from 1-2h per unit to leave the body,but as law is implemented already you can had drink two days ago and if found in some dangerous situation if any higher level would be detected you would be at fault,and most insurance companies wouldn't even bother with defending you.Same with someone who would use cannabis,effects might last 2-3h but if your driving 5h later,what way you prove you weren't still high.
As said it would be huge pressure on guards,not only checking alcohol levels but doing drug tests,theres a lot more then people think when it comes legalizing something.Ive never used the drug nor do intend,dont have issues with those who use it as it renders them harmless from what i read anyway,and as it seems now if kids can get their hands on it easier then smokes or alcohol and anyone who wants to smoke has no problem locating someone who sells it wheres the problem ?smart people grow it in their gardens or basements without anyone knowing it,and i dont think anyone who does it for their own purposes have ever been in trouble with the law.

Wattle

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Indeed, but how do the legislaters and cops figure that one out? It would required a urine sample at least, but all that tells you is the biology of the situation, your head may well be fine!

As someone just said sobriety test.

kylith

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

informed they are not...but they make the laws

Well, I'm sure that they could ask the Dutch, the Portuguese, or the governers of Alaska, California, Colorado, Conneticut, Maine, Nevada, or some of the other US states which have either legalised or decriminalised cannabis how they deal with the problem of assessing the whether or not someone is fit to drive.

mikom

scamalert wrote: »

As said it would be huge pressure on guards,not only checking alcohol levels but doing drug tests,theres a lot more then people think when it comes legalizing something.

The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.

Plenty of time for all that when resources are diverted away from the prohibition element of policing.

Ash.J.Williams

kylith wrote: »

Well, I'm sure that they could ask the Dutch, the Portuguese, or the governers of Alaska, California, Colorado, Conneticut, Maine, Nevada, or some of the other US states which have either legalised or decriminalised cannabis how they deal with the problem of assessing the whether or not someone is fit to drive.

If it was waste disposal techniques or what not, our government would have no issue sending a junket of 12 people to mexico to discuss the issue, however the chances of our government sitting down and talking sense on this matter is slim and none.

kylith

scamalert wrote: »

So then we would have constand drug tests like US has already in most companies,pissing in the cup whenever management decides.

I don't see why. A test would be useless as cannabis would be legal, therefore having it in your system would mean nothing. If management felt that you were unfit for work then they would be able to take the same disciplinary actions as if they felt you had come in drunk.

True about alcohol it takes depending on person from 1-2h per unit to leave the body,but as law is implemented already you can had drink two days ago and if found in some dangerous situation if any higher level would be detected you would be at fault,and most insurance companies wouldn't even bother with defending you.

I've not heard of this. So, if I go on the tear on a Saturday night my insurance wouldn't cover me if I was involved in a car crash on Monday evening? Got any links for that?

i dont think anyone who does it for their own purposes have ever been in trouble with the law.

I've known cops to say 'no-one ever had ten joints, then went home and beat up their wife'.

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Indeed, but how do the legislaters and cops figure that one out? It would required a urine sample at least, but all that tells you is the biology of the situation, your head may well be fine!

A urine or blood test is the only way to tell whether it be cannabis or alcohol. The road side test is only a preliminary test there is always a urine or blood test to follow as far as I know.

scamalert wrote: »

As said it would be huge pressure on guards,not only checking alcohol levels but doing drug tests,

They already do these tests. If necessary I'm sure the breathalyzer can be adapted to do this test. You can buy a drug test over the counter that takes at most 15 minutes. This is a cheap and disposable test a commercial version could speed thigns up. The test will only tell you the person has used cannabis recently they will have to go in for a further test to see if they were over the limit. But as far as I know this is what's already happening with alcohol.

theres a lot more then people think when it comes legalizing something.

There is of course but we're not starting from a blank sheet here. We already control other dangerous drugs. Other countries have already had cannabis legalised for years and have undoubtedly had to deal with these issues, these are European countries like Prtugal and the Netherlands. We can just do what they did. .

kids can get their hands on it easier then smokes or alcohol

And you're happy to let this continue? The only way to reduce that number is to legalise it, legitimate businesses don't sell drug to kids.

and anyone who wants to smoke has no problem locating someone who sells it wheres the problem ?

The problem is the money goes onto fund crime. The problem is those people are considered criminals for no good reason and could face jail.

smart people grow it in their gardens or basements

That's not smart, it's economical but dangerous. You've gone from an end user to a supplier.

Ash.J.Williams

as regards work drug testing, it could be an issue that it may be legal, but we don't want you working here.

InTheTrees

It was legalized here in Seattle (and Washington State) last year. We are currently in a one year adjustment period where the details of retail sale and taxation will be worked out. There's already shops and growers applying for licences.

Think of it like beer. Show up to work smelling of it or visibly impaired and someone's going to ask questions.

Also employer's can specify employees don't smoke tobacco so I suppose they could also specify employees don't consume (you don't have to smoke it) cannabis, but as I said think of it as beer, its more trouble than its worth to try and enforce complete abstinence. Anyway if someone's high all the time, fire them. In washington state you dont have to give a reason.

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

as regards work drug testing, it could be an issue that it may be legal, but we don't want you working here.

It would depend on the job I guess. If you're a doctor you probably don't have the time to smoke but if you're a designer you're boss probably assumes you're stoned as it is.

If you're working at a job where other peoples safety is an issue then you should be at your best during working hours. If you have a legal smoke outside of working hours but are productive during working hours it's none of the companies business what you do in your free time.

Ash.J.Williams

InTheTrees wrote: »

It was legalized here in Seattle (and Washington State) last year. We are currently in a one year adjustment period where the details of retail sale and taxation will be worked out. There's already shops and growers applying for licences.

Think of it like beer. Show up to work smelling of it or visibly impaired and someone's going to ask questions.

Also employer's can specify employees don't smoke tobacco so I suppose they could also specify employees don't consume (you don't have to smoke it) cannabis, but as I said think of it as beer, its more trouble than its worth to try and enforce complete abstinence. If someone's high all the time, fire them.

yeah i'd imagine smoking on the job will never be the norm

kylith

Then that would probably be a matter for unfair dismissal. Unless it were stipulated in your contract I don't see how using a legal substance could, legally, lead to you being fired, provided it did not impact on your ability to do your job. Just like alcohol.

InTheTrees

Wattle wrote: »

As someone just said sobriety test.

Yup.

And if they think you're high then its a blood test.

There's various elements to the test. They can now tell when you consumed cannabis within 8 hours I believe.

Obviously having a system of identifying impaired drivers has been key to the legalization.

Ash.J.Williams

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yup.

And if they think you're high then its a blood test.

There's various elements to the test. They can now tell when you consumed cannabis within 8 hours I believe.

Obviously having a system of identifying impaired drivers has been key to the legalization.

so do we really need it legalised then?

kylith

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

so do we really need it legalised then?

What reason is there for it to be illegal?

hyperborean

Moderate use is fine, everyone needs an outlet for chilling and relaxing on thier free time but only idiots/fools smoke and drive or have to use when they are at work.

mikom

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

so do we really need it legalised then?

Yes we do.
To stop the needless criminalisation of normally law abiding people.