|
Warchicken posted:Yes, you're still wrong. There is nothing about being high that stops you from being productive. If you don't want to be productive, you won't be, simple as that. It has nothing to do with being high. I tend to find that people who have these misconceptions about productivity & weed, are the same ones who have only ever smoked indica-dominant. Go vaporize a gram of a Haze-related sativa and get back to us.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Warchicken posted:Yes, you're still wrong. There is nothing about being high that stops you from being productive. If you don't want to be productive, you won't be, simple as that. It has nothing to do with being high. I'm not talking about productivity as that implies an end goal which can be anything I choose, so I can be really productive in making the best couch butt mark possible by sitting in my couch for a week all the while being really productive. Again, I'm talking about physical fitness, and my experience is that weed does make it more difficult to do serious physical work, like say, running a marathon, that would otherwise be easier or achievable with greater results. And yes I might be wrong about that, but just stating so doesn't make it so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I tend to find that people who have these misconceptions about productivity & weed, are the same ones who have only ever smoked indica-dominant. I don't really smoke that much anymore. If vaped a gram at once of anything good regardless of strain I'd just be doing nothing but eating two bags of potato chips with a 1lb of grapes on the side  But no, I agree with the point. Even exercise, I love riding my bike while high, I could ride that thing all day high. I loving love that thing when stoned, and I actually don't go that much slower than when not stoned.(I have a little speedometer so I can tell) Pot doesn't necessarily make you lazy or lack energy. I still don't think it's good to be stoned for most of the day on most days of the week though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Do you think the fact that smoking pot is illegal contributes to the fact that people mostly smoke at home? There would probably be public intoxication laws to deal with even if it wasn't completely illegal (I'm unsure about Washington's/Colorado's laws).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Fados posted:Again, I'm talking about physical fitness, and my experience is that weed does make it more difficult to do serious physical work, like say, running a marathon, that would otherwise be easier or achievable with greater results. And yes I might be wrong about that, but just stating so doesn't make it so. No, actually being wrong makes it so. You said yourself that your experience is mostly with hash, and I explained to you why that has influenced your perception of cannabis intoxication. Feel free to google and confirm my claims about THC/CBD. Also please note that hash is very resinous and affects short-term lung performance far more dramatically than smoking cannabis, and that the act of smoking itself is far less efficient in psychoactive delivery than something like vaporizing, which has virtually no effect on your physical state at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Fados posted:Ok, I give it that the breathing thing might be a personal thing. The point I was making more broadly was about physical fitness, and energy levels and according to you there is some types of plants that would allow me to be high all day and still go for a jog or to the gym without any fallout? I find that hard to believe given my experience, but I'll be on the lookout for some sativas then. One of my favorite activities is working out after smoking a sativa strain, I get a nice bit of extra energy to push through and don't tire as quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
mdemone posted:No, actually being wrong makes it so. You said yourself that your experience is mostly with hash, and I explained to you why that has influenced your perception of cannabis intoxication. Feel free to google and confirm my claims about THC/CBD. Also please note that hash is very resinous and affects short-term lung performance far more dramatically than smoking cannabis, and that the act of smoking itself is far less efficient in psychoactive delivery than something like vaporizing, which has virtually no effect on your physical state at all. Don't forget that hash is also basically just condensed and compressed kief. Kief (for you non-smokers) is the nickname for the loose crystals (AKA trichomes) that grow on the plant and contain THC/CBD/so on and have fallen off; usually to the bottom of the grinder used to grind up cannabis before smoking. While you'd be hard-pressed to find a plant that contains higher than 23% THC levels, it isn't uncommon for hash to have a 50%+ THC level. What I'm getting at is smoking hash will get you more heavily stoned faster than just smoking weed will. Anecdotal, but If I smoke a joint, I'm still alert and fine and ready to conquer the day. If I smoke some hash, I usually do it around when I go to bed because I know I'm not gonna want to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Yes, very true. I have a suspicion that in something like hash, the large dose of CBD winds up overwhelming the THC effect (despite the similarly large dose), such that you're really stoned but also couch-locked. Don't know if that is borne out by research, but hash/resin always has that effect on me, and most people I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I tend to find that people who have these misconceptions about productivity & weed, are the same ones who have only ever smoked indica-dominant. Nah, weed effects different people differently. I was a daily smoker for over a decade and smoked every kind of name brand hydro that came down the pike and it all did the same poo poo for me: zoned me the gently caress out. It's pretty much the same for most people I've talked to about their experience with pot, whether heavy user or casual, but I've known several people that get really amped, active, and talkative when they smoke. It just has a different effect on them than it does on most other people. I hate to get in to this lovely lovely derail but here's my worthless opinion: If you are intoxicated all day every day, you probably have an issue or two that should probably be addressed. However, if you are judging people you don't even loving know for how much weed they smoke based on posts they make on an internet forum, you are an rear end in a top hat. You don't know them, you don't know their situation and it isn't your place full stop. I gave up drinking (and smoking, mostly) about 8 years ago because I was using it to self-medicate depression and anxiety. When I quit, I made it a point to never, ever judge anyone for their use of alcohol or drugs because I knew that it would be too tempting to overlay my experience on to others. Even close friends who I would like to think I know well. You simply can't know anyone well enough to make those kinds of judgments about them unless they are willing to confide in you that they feel like there is a problem. You certainly can't make those judgments about strangers on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Fados posted:Ok, I give it that the breathing thing might be a personal thing. The point I was making more broadly was about physical fitness, and energy levels and according to you there is some types of plants that would allow me to be high all day and still go for a jog or to the gym without any fallout? I find that hard to believe given my experience, but I'll be on the lookout for some sativas then. I am gonna pile on the anecdote express. I hosed l4/l5 in the base of my spine. Cannabis gives me enough distance from the pain to exercise enough that I have lost 160 pounds and for the first time in my life not be a huge hambeast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Basically if you smoke just huge blunts of indica all the time, yeah you're gonna not want to exercise, or do anything else. But small amounts of cannabis, especially sativa strains? Yeah, those just make exercise desirable and awesome. Don't believe me? Go ask some alpine skiiers, professional cyclists, skateboarders, golfers, swimmers, tennis players, basketball players, or.... pretty much anyone other than joggers. Because for some reason every jogger/runner I know personally is super lame and as such believes weed is the devil (not passing judgement on you in particular though). Likewise, my experience with all of those other athletes shows that they actually have increased rates of cannabis use compared to the regular public, and often credit it with making them more apt to workout after smoking. It's real, it's awesome (the effect it has on exercise at any rate), deal with it. To be fair, the mentality you need is not "let me smoke this weed and it will make me want to exercise" but rather "I want to go exercise, let me smoke a tiny bit of weed before doing so." Also to echo the physicists/astrophysicists in the thread: in my experience, it seems like about 50% of the people in these fields smoke weed. Which totally makes sense, given the kind of thinking required. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
I smoke lots of indica before I go lift most of the time. Lets me zone out and forget that I'm getting tired. I have the best workouts when I'm baked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Skiers love their weed. It makes me wonder if any resorts in CO/WA will find a way to do cross promotional stuff when the retail sales are up and running.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
It would have to be limited to resorts wholly on private property, as most ski areas out west are on national forest land. National forest land = federal forest rangers = weed is a felony. In the current climate, the resort would definitely lose its lease if they so much as acknowledged that people smoke weed while skiing. Which is of course extremely ironic. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:It would have to be limited to resorts wholly on private property, as most ski areas out west are on national forest land. National forest land = federal forest rangers = weed is a felony. In the current climate, the resort would definitely lose its lease if they so much as acknowledged that people smoke weed while skiing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
The point is that the resorts lease the land from the forest service, which means anything federally illegal that happens on that land jeopardizes the lease. Without a lease, you can't operate your resort, and you go under. That is something that they are not willing to risk, which is why you see resort towns accepting weed with open arms at the same time as the actual resorts turn a blind eye and kick anyone caught red-handed out. I'm just saying it'll probably be a while until you see Vail Weedfest (c).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
The resort probably won't kick people they catch out, but they probably will kick anyone the forest rangers kick out. I can't imagine a resort telling someone they have to go home and stop spending money because they catch them with weed. Do you get kicked out with no warnings for other rule violations? I understand they can't condone weed on the premises, but there's a big range of actions they could take between "ignoring it" and "kicking you out first offense". I would think the latter would get them a lot of chargebacks with little gain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:The resort probably won't kick people they catch out, but they probably will kick anyone the forest rangers kick out. I can't imagine a resort telling someone they have to go home and stop spending money because they catch them with weed. Do you get kicked out with no warnings for other rule violations? I understand they can't condone weed on the premises, but there's a big range of actions they could take between "ignoring it" and "kicking you out first offense". I would think the latter would get them a lot of chargebacks with little gain. I have heard of the local forest rangers in Utah actually patrolling the parking lots and the hill at the ski areas looking for weed, and citing/arresting folks. Within the community that's considered highly unusual/aggressive enforcement. In general, most resorts won't hesitate to revoke a day pass for any major rule violations. bawfuls fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Opening day at Keystone a few years back, I was by myself and hopped on the gondola at the bottom with about five other people. Before the doors even closed they asked if I minded them smoking some bud, to which I said not at all (they offered to let me join in, but I was looking for a job at the time.) They whip out a pre-rolled joint and finish before we get to the mid-load station about eight minutes later; the doors open to allow people on if we have room (we had room for one more person), the liftie leans in, takes a huge couple of whiffs of the interior, and exclaims, "WHOOOO buddy!", turns to the next guy in line, and asks, "Think you can handle this, bro?" to which the guy responds affirmatively and hops on. The other people light another joint and share it with the new guy. I guess the point of this anecdote is that most of the lift operators don't care at all, I've had this kind of scenario happen many, many times. At most they might ask us to do it in the woods rather than on the lifts. Also, every ski area I've been to has had handmade smoke shacks made from fallen trees in the trees between runs (one at Breckenridge was two stories, even!); every now and then ski patrol will tear one down to make a show of force, but for the most part, they're completely left alone. It's really hard to understand the weed culture at Colorado ski resorts until you've been to one, but yeah, it's pretty rampant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There would probably be public intoxication laws to deal with even if it wasn't completely illegal (I'm unsure about Washington's/Colorado's laws). The way Washington treats it is like smoking cigarettes. You can't smoke within x feet of the entrance to a building or inside of bars/restaurants/etc. As far as I know, there isn't anything on the books that specifically deals with public cannabis intoxication.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Not to break up baked-chat, but this is pretty astonishing:quote:The Obama administration has pressured landlords, banks and credit card companies to cut off services to medical marijuana dispensaries. Now the administration may have found a new target: armored car companies that carry cash for the pot clubs. http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/U-S-heat-on-armored-car-firms-to-drop-pot-clubs-4758848.php The backdoor and ever-widening targeting of dispensaries so that they can't legally hold bank accounts or conduct business legitimately--even though they're registered with the state and pay taxes--has become breathtaking in its scope. Why does the same agency that can't find a way to make a banker do a perp walk spend so much time, money and energy trying to destroy tax-paying businesses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Why does the same agency that can't find a way to make a banker do a perp walk spend so much time, money and energy trying to destroy tax-paying businesses? Republicans! Right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Not to break up baked-chat, but this is pretty astonishing: Because the banks are funding every politicians election fund whereas the medical lobby is tiny and insignificant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
If there is violence and large amounts of money stolen because of money having to be hand delivered by dispensaries the government will get to be all 'see?? Even the legal sellers create violence in ARE COUNTRY!!'. They're literally trying to create situations where armed robberies and murders happen because of pot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
Wow, Barack Obama might be the dumbest politician in history. Like, he's doing everything in his power to make sure his most likely voters stay home in 2014. We're all going to die 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Are there any stories of negative events or behaviors occuring where medical marijuana use is robust? Aside from the federal government being lovely and fascist?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Not to break up baked-chat, but this is pretty astonishing: It's the other approach rather than fighting it out in court, even if they feds can't directly block the sales they can find lots of passive aggressive ways to make life miserable for people trying to run the business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Not prosecuting the individual users instead of the distribution system might be a "step" in the right direction but it still feels like an empty gesture intended to please voters more than make any real progress on rectifying the ills of the drug war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Speak for yourself, I've known plenty of people who blast through more than an ounce every three weeks and I've done the same myself. I don't smoke cigarettes and never, ever will. But if weed was in the gas station with it I'd be smoking fifteen joints a day. Not to be all TCC but its called butane hash oil, and if you want to spend your life high that's the way to do it. As to why tobacco companies don't support legalization, I suspect it has something to do with a cottage industry of Marijuana growers, and how quickly it becomes economically viable to grow your own. You can set up a decent grow for the cost of a single ounce, there are numerous educational resources out there, and if you grow your own you have all the trimmings and whatnot to manufacture with if you are so inclined. If marijuana were legal to grow, most of the heavy smokers I know would at least grow some.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Which block of the voting public is supposed to be placated by this enforcement? 37% of republicans support marijuana legalization, 30 percent of republicans think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist commie-fascist dictator; is he really trying so hard to appease that 33% of republicans that hes willing to alienate every rational democratic voter on the left? It makes no sense from any political angle I can come up with. There are no democratic single-issue anti marijuana voters that would not vote democrat simply because Obama was not hard enough on enforcement. I mean, there might be, the same way there are people who think they are married to the Eiffel tower, but I don't think that's the well you go looking in for electoral votes.
Hobohemian fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
How many "rational democratic voters" are there out there who you actually think are against his actions? I think it's probably similar to the amount of analogous "rational republican voters". Marijuana is not a wedge issue for most people. EDIT: Okay I see what you are saying now, how many on each side would flip based on his actions here. I don't know, maybe it's more of a general approval rating thing that he is worried will slip. It doesn't make that much sense to me either. I don't think most voters will feel alienated by it, they won't even hear about it. I suspect resisting marijuana reform won't reach the mainstream voter, while supporting it will and might very well be negative for him. No way to go but down. I don't understand why he would bother doing anything unless it is to get some political capital from some DEA schmuck. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Hobohemian posted:Which block of the voting public is supposed to be placated by this enforcement? The ones who want weed legalized and see Obama not prosecuting medical users as de facto legalization. I think you underestimate the ignorance of the general populace surrounding most issues like this. That's why you hear a lot of great things from them but don't see much actual action.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
I'm looking at the numbers in this Pew poll from April, and I don't see where the negative comes from. At this moment, even 57% of republicans think the federal government should not enforce the law in states that have legalized it, and 67% think marijuana laws cost more than they are worth, that's republicans again. The only way it makes any rational sense is if other lobbying groups opposed to legalization are pressuring the administration with threats to scale back funding, or Obama has a personal moral opposition to marijuana, which would be too  to comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Blind Melon posted:As to why tobacco companies don't support legalization, I suspect it has something to do with a cottage industry of Marijuana growers, and how quickly it becomes economically viable to grow your own. You can set up a decent grow for the cost of a single ounce, there are numerous educational resources out there, and if you grow your own you have all the trimmings and whatnot to manufacture with if you are so inclined. If marijuana were legal to grow, most of the heavy smokers I know would at least grow some. Eh, I agree that lots of people would grow, but don't underestimate the factor of convenience. If it were federally legal, I'd have a couple plants, but also I'd be buying it frequently just as a matter of ease. And also because you gotta have something to smoke while the plants are growing, because running a cycled grow operation takes a bit more time and effort than I would probably be willing to invest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Hobohemian posted:I'm looking at the numbers in this Pew poll from April, and I don't see where the negative comes from. At this moment, even 57% of republicans think the federal government should not enforce the law in states that have legalized it, and 67% think marijuana laws cost more than they are worth, that's republicans again. The only way it makes any rational sense is if other lobbying groups opposed to legalization are pressuring the administration with threats to scale back funding, or Obama has a personal moral opposition to marijuana, which would be too X% of people don't think it should be enforced but Y (Y < X) % of people would actually not vote for the candidate based on this issue alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's the other approach rather than fighting it out in court, even if they feds can't directly block the sales they can find lots of passive aggressive ways to make life miserable for people trying to run the business. The approach of making it hard to move money securely is a perfect distillation of the lovely ineffective nature of the drug war. What happens to money when you can't move it securely? It gets stolen. So the government has decided to divert money away from banks into the hands of criminals in an attempt to curtail medical marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Yah; it's recriminalization of the industry, and an attempt to counter the legitimacy deferred by state laws. Don't forget that the feds also have instructed the IRS to reject standard business deductions for the industry, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
He is giving Hilary something to run on? Hopefully? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yah; it's recriminalization of the industry, and an attempt to counter the legitimacy deferred by state laws. Don't forget that the feds also have instructed the IRS to reject standard business deductions for the industry, too. Oddly, I don't have a problem with the IRS denying business deductions. Federal taxes, federal law, you don't get a deduction for illegal activities, anything else would cause all sorts of unworkable precedents. I think y'all are assigning to malice what can be easily explained by institutional inertia. All it takes is one armored car company (or one armored car company's insurer) having one lawyer who's worried enough about potential liability to write a letter to the feds asking for clarification, and every armored car company could get a reply letter saying "don't do this or you could lose your certification/coverage/etc.", because that's technically the law, even if it's unlikely to be enforced. And keep in mind that in this context worrying about things that could go wrong legally is literally the job of most in-house corporate lawyers. Similarly, if you send a letter asking the IRS "hey can I get a business deduction for this," the legal answer is clear (no, it's an illegal business under federal law) and changing that not only would necessitate horrible legal precedents ("pimping is my business") but would also be against the IRS's actual job, which is to collect money; there's no reason for the IRS to allow bogus deductions when it has good reason not to. I strongly doubt that any of these kinds of rules-errata decisions are in any way Official Obama Policy. They have all the hallmarks to me of just raw institutional inertia. If you're the in-house counsel for a bank and you send a letter to ANY federal bureaucrat, at any level, asking "hey, can I knowingly store money from the sale of illegal drugs?" you're going to get a raging HELL NO back, even if the drugs in question are only illegal under federal, not state, law. That kind of thing doesn't take policy guidance from the top -- it just takes bureaucrats consistently applying prior precedent, which is what bureaucrats do. Especially when any other policy would create who-knows-what kind of bizarre legal precedents and risks. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
The DEA sets those policies and is explicitly controlled by Obama.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 21:45
|
|