Can we talk about marijuana?

[Dale D Dilly]

Let me bypass the issues of marijuana itself and go straight to the pedagogy:

These are "young adults" who I take it are supposed to demonstrate a level of academic achievement that justifies giving them a GED or equivalent document.

On top of that, you need to emphasize drug prevention as part of the curriculum.

The clear answer in my mind is to give no opinion whatsoever on drug use and only provide empirical data and some social context in which to understand it. Why?

1. Because young adults at that level are able to wrestle with that data and form their own conclusions, and learn better that way than by being told how it is--that's the cognitive stage they should be functioning at, and it's your job in this case to encourage that.
2. Because their "at risk" status means they're more likely to react against heavy-handed statements and generalities, while they might still be open to being treated like an adult for the first time in their lives.
3. Because the most effective prevention courses for adolescents and teenage students are those that are frank and stick to empirical data, not those that use scare tactics, personal experience, or unsubstantiated conjecture based on "common sense" or even, as much as we romanticize about it, an instructor's own passion.

Ignoring all other advice, just have them watch the

 

[Simo98]

How is it that we manage to shift the blame from the people who abuse drugs, to the drugs themselves. Humans really do a good job of shirking responsibility, don't they?

The fault is not the drugs, it is the users. If you get so addicted to heroin that you need to break into someones house and nick their TV, just to get another fix, then you personally are responsible for that, not a bunch of chemicals. Maybe use some intelligence and think before you get to the point of no return, don't get blindly addicted (unless you can afford it). Overdose? You shouldn't have been a ****ing idiot and maybe taken some preventative measures, like testing the dosage first.

Of course, if the government were to take all the money they waste on trying to prevent people from using drugs, and used it to educate people on how to use drugs safely, there wouldn't be the same problem with drugs. If people could actually believe what the government was telling them about drugs, if it wasn't just a bunch of blatant lies and propaganda, there is a chance that they might actually listen.

If they were to legalise them, regulate and quality control the manufacture of them, well there goes about 95% of their anti-drug advertising campaign. All I ever see is adverts telling me "You don't know what's in it". Well who's fault is that!?!? Of course, this is more related to other drugs than it is to cannabis, however I personally don't make a distinction between them, I believe all drugs should be legalised, no matter how dangerous or addictive something is, the individual should have the freedom to choose whether or not they are willing to accept both the risks and the consequences.


The biggest risks with drugs are that for one, you do not know EXACTLY what you are getting, you never know, you would need some pretty serious equipment to find out too. The second risk is that you do not know how the drug will effect you personally, or even have much in the way of reliable information on how it has effected everyone else who has ever taken it. These are both, in my opinion, fault of the government and direct consequences of certain drugs being outlawed. Example: If you could buy MDMA in capsules from the chemist, you would know exactly what is in it, because they would be in a box, in a little blister packet, un-tampered with, and have the dosage on the box as well as some information telling you what and what not to do while under the influence of the drug, for instance to keep well hydrated and avoid drinking in excess. If you go buy your MDMA caps from some guy down the street, who knows what you are getting, and more importantly, he probably isn't going to tell you to keep well hydrated or give you an emergency number to call if **** hits the fan. And he certainly isn't going to offer you any support or counselling or help you get into a rehabilitation program. Harm prevention should be the governments primary concern.

There are online communities who devote a lot of time and effort to at least providing good, accurate and fairly trustworthy information on the effects of most drugs, as well as the health risks, what and what not to mix the drug with, and what to do if things don't go to plan. Personally I find it completely insane that people have to go to a third party source in an attempt to get some actual information in order to make their experience safer, because the government won't provide any actual factual information and would rather just tell people they are not allowed to do it and support their view with some fearmongering propaganda ********.

 

[Sijjvra]

I smoked a lot in high school. A LOT.

And passed my classes with A's and B's.

Now, I don't believe minors should be smoking pot any more than they should be drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes.

But compared to the above two (cigs and alcohol), pot is usually a HELL of a lot safer in most aspects.

Addictive personalities will become addicted to whatever it is they're involved with. Video games, gambling, alcohol, porn, whatever. A responsible person can certainly have a beer after work, smoke a joint after work, and still pay the bills, have their lives completely under control and do no harm to others.

And pot IS actually a lot safer than most over the counter medicines, so yep. It has valid medical value too.

For the record, I haven't smoked pot in well over 10 years. Why? I just don't want to. I quit cold turkey, never looked back. It's my personal choice. I also don't drink or smoke cigarettes... but it is NOT my place to tell another adult, who is hurting no one, what they should be able to put into their bodies. Hell, would you want me telling you not to eat that Big Mac because it's loaded with sodium, high fructose corn syrup, preservatives and beef that has had a ton of antibiotics dumped into it when it was a living cow? No? Same thing. It's -your- choice. It should -remain- your choice.

 

[Texan]

For me it had the same effect as alcohol, just consumed in a different manner. I was never addicted to either. I think it should be legal. In my experience, if you have an addictive personality, you will substitute on addiction for another. I do not believe that is a gateway drug or more addictive than alcohol. It is the person who uses it that decides their level of addiction. There is a saying, guns don't kill people, people do. If you can blame the pot for addiction, then Oreos are the most addicting substance on the planet and should be banned.

 

[LaklandBass]

Ill just say this....
Ive never seen someone get stoned and beat the hell out of their wife.
My friends that get stoned do not go out looking for fights.
Ive never heard of someone dying 30 years early due to a life of smoking pot.

Yet in the name of the almighty profit... alchohol is legal and readily available.

 

[LaklandBass]

Also it has great medical benefits because you can take a mild pain killer and then smoke up and youre all good. You CANT mix pain killers with booze though and sometimes the pain killer isnt enough so you have to be prescribed a higher dose which can lead to major dependency.

 

[Ziltoid]

Maki nailed it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Lee H]

Ill just say this....
Ive never seen someone get stoned and beat the hell out of their wife.
My friends that get stoned do not go out looking for fights.
Ive never heard of someone dying 30 years early due to a life of smoking pot.

Yet in the name of the almighty profit... alchohol is legal and readily available.

just because you have not seen it, do not presume it does not happen...
I have seen someone get stoned, and then pick fights. In fact I have lost count of how many hundred times I have seen it happen. It is one of the "perks" of being a bar bouncer that I often see people at their worst.
The last guy who I saw get messed up and decide to abuse his wife got a trip to the hospital on his way to jail. I told him that if he touched her again, I was going to drop him. He decided to try me
as for someone dying...there is a local case pending for murder by intoxicated driver... a stoned driver killed a kid. Would you like to discuss the harmlessness of marijuana with that girl's parents? I really can arrange that if you like.

and make no mistake that I can not tell the difference. I have done this long enough that I can pick out who is drunk and who uses drugs without ever missing it

 

[LaklandBass]

Lee, I think you really misunderstood me. I was talking about people that I personally know. I KNOW what those people do when they are sober vs. high. You dont. You have no clue how many of those dudes have been picking fights their whole life or how often that guy beat his wife or why he beats her.
The girl that died? Sucks that she died but driving impaired is not what any of us were talking about. Nice that you tried to rope that in there to make your point. I never called weed harmless.
Let me ask you this, how many people have walked out of your bar after drinking and gotten into their cars for a nice ride home?

 

[superbassman2000]

just because you have not seen it, do not presume it does not happen...
I have seen someone get stoned, and then pick fights. In fact I have lost count of how many hundred times I have seen it happen. It is one of the "perks" of being a bar bouncer that I often see people at their worst.
The last guy who I saw get messed up and decide to abuse his wife got a trip to the hospital on his way to jail. I told him that if he touched her again, I was going to drop him. He decided to try me

Were they smoking weed at the bar? That's a pretty liberal bar.

as for someone dying...there is a local case pending for murder by intoxicated driver... a stoned driver killed a kid. Would you like to discuss the harmlessness of marijuana with that girl's parents? I really can arrange that if you like.

If this is an argument against marijuana, then you are probably against alcohol and cell phones too because those can increase chances of an accident too. Stupid people do stupid things and you can't take away everything that might allow them to cause harm.

I think the current argument is that weed is no worse than alcohol, which is legal, so why is it not legal?

 

[Lee H]

OK, I do not know the exact people you do, but I have been bouncing in bars on and off for about 20 years. I DO know very well how many many people act stoned as opposed to sober. I have seen it over and over. I have even had people take swings at me because I told them they could not smoke in the bars or that they could not sell drugs in my bars. I usually tell smokers that they need to walk down the road where I cannot see them smoking, and I will ignore it. There are those who have to be tough guys though...

The point is that you cannot use the argument that everyone is effected differently, then say that effects are non violent. Either it is a consistent high for all who smoke, or everyone is effected differently. You do not get it both ways, as will support your own interests best

EDit...as to the intoxicated driver issue... I wish the ****** would have died. Anything is better than killing a kid. That is the worst thing possible. I have known a lot of people who have done it, and it never fails to bother me

 

[LaklandBass]

I never said that everyone is affected in their own way so I am not serving my own interests. Also, I understand what you are saying about how many stoned people you see acting a fool. However they are in a bar, is it not safe to say that they are drinking? Yes, I too saw a stoned guy just punch a friend in the face for no reason... he is a regular smoker.....AND an alchoholic.
Of course someone can smoke weed and throw a punch but in the almost two decades that I have been friends with regular smokers and drinkers I can say with confidence that alchohol has brought out far more violence than marijuana. Some people are simply violent regardless of any substance they may or may not be on. All of your examples are coming from a bar though. Im going to assume that your bar does not sell weed and if it does I can read what you wrote and assume that smoking pot is not allowed in your bar. So it is safe to gather that all of the "stoned" guys that you have had issues with are not only drinking but mixing drugs and alchohol which I already stated was a very bad idea.
On a side note I really am sorry about the girl that you spoke of that died in the car wreck. I absolutely hate people that drive impaired. There is nothing more selfish than risking the lives of strangers because someone is too stupid to call a cab or ask a buddy for a lift home.

 

[sandmangeck]

I think more lives have been ruined from the prosecution of marijuana then the actual smoking of the marijuana.
Right now they make more money off it being illegal, then if it were legal. That's why it's illegal.

 

[Simo98]

and make no mistake that I can not tell the difference. I have done this long enough that I can pick out who is drunk and who uses drugs without ever missing it

Yeah, I'll bet you can tell exactly what drugs someone has taken just by looking at them. You probably have a good idea of what sort of person they are sober too, right?

Not trying to be a dick or anything, but there is no way you can know what drugs someone has or hasn't taken just by looking at them. Hell, half the time you can do a blood test, saliva test, and physically assess the subject and still only really have a vague idea of what they have taken, if any.

just because you have not seen it, do not presume it does not happen...
I have seen someone get stoned, and then pick fights. In fact I have lost count of how many hundred times I have seen it happen. It is one of the "perks" of being a bar bouncer that I often see people at their worst.

So as a bar bouncer, would you say cannabis users are likely to engage in this sort of bevahiour? Would you say it is more likely for them to engage in this sort of bevahiour after smoking than it is for them to do so after drinking? Or any other drug? And would you consider the demographic you are working with the be a good overall representation of society?

I mean, hundreds of times? You see someone get high and then pick a fight? Haven't drunk any alcohol, and you know for a fact that they are not under the influence of any other drug? Really? Because in my experience, it is quite the opposite, infact, exactly the opposite.

I'm fairly interested to know if you have actually seen first hand someone who is generally a fairly reasonable person get high and then beat up his girlfriend or go pick a fight with someone without taking any other drugs. I guess it happens, everyone reacts to drugs differently and it is bound to cause at least one person on the planet to become a big macho wanker and go get in a fight, but it just seems so ridiculously unlikely that I'd like to say there are external factors coming into play in your experiences, namely, alcohol.

as for someone dying...there is a local case pending for murder by intoxicated driver... a stoned driver killed a kid. Would you like to discuss the harmlessness of marijuana with that girl's parents? I really can arrange that if you like.

Seriously?!?! You can blame cars just as much as you can blame drugs, and no matter how much you blame either of them you will be wrong. The driver is at fault, not the drug, not the car.

 

[Lee H]

no, it is not safe to presume that drug users are drinking just because they are in a bar. You would be surprised how many do not drink, or do not have the money to drink until the make a sale..
CA's medical marijuana laws have made a whole new class of drug dealers. It only costs $150 to get a prescription for marijuana. The Medical marijuana collectives even hire their own DRs, so almost any list of made up symptoms makes one eligible. Wellfare recipients get this, and it gives them a legal right to grow their own "medicine", which they sell for a tax free profit...

This is why all the local dispensaries/collectives will be closed as of Jan 1st. The voters got tired of it

 

[LaklandBass]

Thank you Simo for getting what I have been saying. What kind of bar is still in business after hundred of potheads show up and start fights without even buying a drink?

 

[LaklandBass]

Lee, why on earth are people in your bar without making a purchase? You seriously expect me to believe that hundreds of people have shown up stoned to your bar and just hung out and sold pot while fist fighting? Sounds like your bar needs a new bouncer.

 

[MJ5150]

Seriously?!?! You can blame cars just as much as you can blame drugs, and no matter how much you blame either of them you will be wrong. The driver is at fault, not the drug, not the car.

No doubt the use of the substance contributed to the driver impairment, resulting in the crash? I didn't know we still had people who would argue that substance abuse leading to impairment causes accidents. Maybe you guys in Australia see it differently?

-Mike

 

[Lee H]

Yeah, I'll bet you can tell exactly what drugs someone has taken just by looking at them. You probably have a good idea of what sort of person they are sober too, right?

Not trying to be a dick or anything, but there is no way you can know what drugs someone has or hasn't taken just by looking at them. Hell, half the time you can do a blood test, saliva test, and physically assess the subject and still only really have a vague idea of what they have taken, if any.



So as a bar bouncer, would you say cannabis users are likely to engage in this sort of bevahiour? Would you say it is more likely for them to engage in this sort of bevahiour after smoking than it is for them to do so after drinking? Or any other drug? And would you consider the demographic you are working with the be a good overall representation of society?

I mean, hundreds of times? You see someone get high and then pick a fight? Haven't drunk any alcohol, and you know for a fact that they are not under the influence of any other drug? Really? Because in my experience, it is quite the opposite, infact, exactly the opposite.

I'm fairly interested to know if you have actually seen first hand someone who is generally a fairly reasonable person get high and then beat up his girlfriend or go pick a fight with someone without taking any other drugs. I guess it happens, everyone reacts to drugs differently and it is bound to cause at least one person on the planet to become a big macho wanker and go get in a fight, but it just seems so ridiculously unlikely that I'd like to say there are external factors coming into play in your experiences, namely, alcohol.



Seriously?!?! You can blame cars just as much as you can blame drugs, and no matter how much you blame either of them you will be wrong. The driver is at fault, not the drug, not the car.

I know that you do not WANT to believe this, but I see pot smokers pick fights all the time.
Let me make this clear, so you understand. Bloodshot eyes+ stinking of marijuana= stoned pot smoker. That is not just something that works out occasionally, but all the time. I have been bouncing in bars for longer than some members here have been alive, and after a while picking out drug users is as easy as picking out who uses some type of hair product

Now if you claim that pot smokers become violent because of other substances you lose a certain degree of validity. Either marijuana is a gateway drug, and leads to other intoxicants, Pot smokers are prone to mixing intoxicants, or everyone is effected the same, and the idea that it effects everyone differently is invalid. You decide which, but each is a trap

 

[LaklandBass]

MJ5150.. I totally agree with you. Like I said before, I HATE impaired drivers. But I think that Simo was making the point that the driver as a person was at fault because he is the one that chose to drive the car while impaired so ultimately it was on him.
There have however been cases where someone was at fault in an accident but the other driver was impaired so they were found at fault instead. But thats just because there's an exception to everything.