It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vote for Pot!

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I'm talking about direct physical injury, not consequential and incidental accidents.

Specifically in comparison to alcohol, not involving any extraneous influences like driving cars, wandering into a busy road, playing chicken etc...

If a kid sat down with a bottle of booze and quietly drank it, there's a good chance that kid will be seriously injured or even die from a saturated blood-alcohol level poisoning him or her, causing them to chock on vomit, or causing swelling of the brain etc.

The same kid, under the exact same circumstances, but sans the booze and instead let's say our hypothetical kid smoked or munched his way through an entire kilogramme of pot...what is the difference?

The kid would not be harmed from the pot, they would fall asleep before they'd managed to get through a fraction of that amount of pot, and still would not receive anywhere near a LD50 dose required to be injurious to him.

The clearly safer option is to do nothing of course, however Human beings being what we are, doing nothing is rarely an acceptable choice and so, the clearly safer option between alcohol and pot IS going to be pot every single time.

I'd 'Vote for Pot' over booze every time.


edit on 3-11-2014 by MysterX because: added text




posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

You're right.

Just felt like being contrary...

I'm not a big fan of the stuff, or booze for that matter, is all.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Thanks seagull.

That's good of you.


edit on 3-11-2014 by MysterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   
================================

hopenotfeariswhatweneed wrote..



well most people are not necessarily right....any mind altering substance has the ability to harm

================================


Yes, you are right. It is actually what I was trying to say. Really.. legallise it..or tolerate it with plenty 'coffeeshops' like here in The Netherlands will not reduce crime .. The large scale trade will go on if not even worse because the demand will increase. Legalise it only for adults is fine but in the real world this will not keep away the kids from using it. When I was starting to smoke in the early eighties there were maybe 10 kids in the whole school doing the same. If I look at that same school now I will lose count.... all because of tolerating the sale to adults.

Do not understand me wrong, people can have a great wonderful time experimenting with the stuff but I think we must protect our kids where ever we can. Although I think that the recreational use of pot can be no harm for adults legalising pot is not the right direction if we want to protect the future and wellbeing of our kids.

And I think it is stupid to compare the use of alcohol and pot as being the same problem. Alcohol is a hard drug and pot is usually not.


=========================================


edit on 3/11/2014 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link   
legalization might cut down on the violent drug cartels on the border.
and the research into the medical uses are quite interesting
and I am pretty sure that if the drug is proven (may already have been) to help in pain management then the side effects doesn't even come close to the effects on society of the opiate pain killers they are perscribing..

www.cnn.com...



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I'm surprised the OP's video didn't discuss the votes in the states of Oregon and Alaska, and some cities in Maine, which are happening on the same day (tomorrow, November 4th) as the vote in the U.S. capital of Washington.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

To my mind, the main issue here is the fact that the laws are being changed, that is the big news item here. We all know what the potential benefits and pitfalls are, since they have been pretty well discussed here and elsewhere. This change toward a more tolerant and personal choice friendly approach to the matter however, is very interesting to me in terms of its timing. You have a situation here where a nation which has been spying on its people, and has had the fact revealed in fairly stark detail to the public, is now showing a trend toward the freeing up of certain legislation which will see a drug, known to cause folk to "chill out" to become more widely available, and with less legal risk to those partaking.

Although I personally believe that with specific regard to pot, a persons choice ought to be their own, rather than being a matter for the state to decide on ones behalf, I also distrust the timing of this increasing speed of relaxation of those laws, bearing in mind the wider political situation. Still, if it means that less people are put in prison with sentences which appear punitive at best, and draconian at worst, for simple possession, or growth of the plant from which pot comes, then it is difficult to know how to respond to this legislative change.

What will be interesting, from a research angle, would be to see what the effects of all this will be, ten, and twenty years down the line. You see, if they are legalising the growth of the plant, as opposed to the sale and purchase of the "product" shall we say, then that essentially takes the entire supply chain out. Most folk who have anything to do with the stuff at all, would probably like to grow their own, if only so that they have control over the content of the soil mix, the strain, the presence of pesticides, what kinds of conditions the plants are grown in, what methods are used to dry the stuff, and so on and so forth.

If everyone had the right to do so, then that would mean that a large percentage of the relevant demographic WOULD do so, and that in turn would mean that street dealers, and organised criminals, would loose out, no matter which way you spin it. Yes, sure, those growing it industrially would be somewhat emboldened by the initial relaxation on laws pertaining to pot growing, but it would be a matter of time alone, until people realised that they could grow the product themselves without legal risk, and without paying a premium to criminal gangs.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

we have a company in town that every month or so brings in about 30 new employees and well in about a month gives them drug tests. Over half of them fail and go back out the door. Do I think that over half of them are drug addicts? Now really but I know of one who I would bet my life on wasn't using anything illegal and walked out that door! What he did have was a knee that causes him problems and he does pop alot of ibprofen.
The companies gripe that they can't find good help and people more often than not fail the drug tests and maybe the gov't doesn't know just how faulty the tests are. So well they might be looking at it from that angle also. Making it more acceptable might lead to less problems economically?
Don't know but I do have a feeling that a person driving a car high on prescription drugs is probably just or even more dangerous than someone who has smoked a little weed!

and yes it would do a number on the dealers which would be a good thing along with being safer!


edit on 3-11-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I've heard, but don't know if its true, that computer companies in Silicon Valley in California don't drug test for marijuana, because so many of their employees would fail. If true, a very reasonable policy.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I believe that the testing protocols ought to be changed, to force employers and law enforcement to use only tests which can conclusively prove exactly what time the subject last consumed the substance, and whether they are still under its chemical influence, rather than whether or not they simply have it in their blood stream.

The psychoactive agent in pot smoke is not active for the entire period that it remains in the blood, and other bodily fluids, so simply saying that a person having it in their blood is grounds for dismissal from a job is preposterous, since with alcohol, one has to be actually DRUNK at work in order to get fired over it. This is because the active ingredients are metabolised differently of course.

The other problem is with the law on driving while intoxicated. NO ONE should be driving if they are even remotely chemically impaired, because whereas they have every right to risk their own death, they have no business what so ever putting others in danger by driving under the influence of any chemical additive. That said, the same rules ought to apply to pot as to alcohol, those being, that a certain benchmark of units ought to be set, under which a person may drive, and over which they may not, with a testing procedure which accounts for the difference between pot and alcohol, in terms of the way they move through the body.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

there was an article in our local newspapers about a year ago local employers are having trouble finding people who can pass the tests.

www.askdocweb.com...

ya they're all addicts!! right!!



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

It is the very testing protocol that you mention that will be the BIG money maker for whoever comes up with a dependable way to test for MJ impairment. Not that I want to see anyone making tons of money off of the legalization of MJ . But I even more so don't want to see people charged with OUI for having partaken of MJ the night before.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Well, quite. Unless of course the impairment can be proven to last that long. The crucial thing is, that the research needs to be done, and done independently, I believe, in order that law enforcement and employers alike have a solid framework in which they can operate. The reason I say that it needs to be done independently, as opposed to being done by government labs, is that government labs are prone to political influence in a way that independent laboratories are not. That is not to say that the people doing the research are not capable of being bribed to find in favour of a given position mind you, just that a government lab would not HAVE to be bribed in order to come out in favour of the billpayer, as it were.

I have no doubt that the lid being placed firmly and once and for all on this particular can of worms, is actually a fair way off yet, because of niggling details like testing accuracy and efficacy, amongst others. I will however, watch events with regard to the march of legalisation, with great interest. The implications and ramifications for a great many social conventions are vast, complex, and it is in such things where the most eye opening events tend to play out.

Another thing I am interested in, will be the status of parents who choose to adopt the legal growing of pot, how the government with specific regard to child services, will deal with the situations which may arise from that, if parents will be separated from their children, and under what legal basis, should they choose to take advantage of this legal change. Far reaching are the ripples here, make no mistake!



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: zatara

How does keeping Pot illegal protect our kids?

How?

The answer is it doesn't keep our kids safe...we as parents do that, not some childish and ineffective drugs policy.

In fact, the illegality makes it actually more harmful for kids, as the shady dealers will often adulterate Pot with either 'fillers' to bulk out the Pot and pile on the weight (fillers can be anything, but it's common in the UK to adulterate herbal Pot with powdered glass, plastic and other noxious substances), the Pot could be substandard and dangerous in other ways too, like fungus and mold growing on it that can cause lung problems.

And you know what?

Kids will still get it from dodgy dealers, and there will be zero quality control or authority oversight on growers and suppliers.

With regulated and legalised Pot, the quality and cleanliness of the product is maintained, and no adulterants and bulking agents are going to find there way into it.

Any legislation passed on Pot reforms should of course bar children and young teens from using recreationally, but make it allowable, under a paediatric Doctors direct supervision, for medical purposes, as it has been proven to help children with terrible conditions feel better or control their symptoms.

All keeping Pot illegal does, is create demand for a dodgy, unregulated (and untaxed) black market which children will and do navigate to get illicit Pot.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: dawnstar

I believe that the testing protocols ought to be changed, to force employers and law enforcement to use only tests which can conclusively prove exactly what time the subject last consumed the substance, and whether they are still under its chemical influence, rather than whether or not they simply have it in their blood stream.

The psychoactive agent in pot smoke is not active for the entire period that it remains in the blood, and other bodily fluids, so simply saying that a person having it in their blood is grounds for dismissal from a job is preposterous, since with alcohol, one has to be actually DRUNK at work in order to get fired over it. This is because the active ingredients are metabolised differently of course.

The other problem is with the law on driving while intoxicated. NO ONE should be driving if they are even remotely chemically impaired, because whereas they have every right to risk their own death, they have no business what so ever putting others in danger by driving under the influence of any chemical additive. That said, the same rules ought to apply to pot as to alcohol, those being, that a certain benchmark of units ought to be set, under which a person may drive, and over which they may not, with a testing procedure which accounts for the difference between pot and alcohol, in terms of the way they move through the body.



understood but the technology still is not here for a test to see if your high on pot.
they can test the micro levels but say you smoked last night your micro levels will be high
while your not.. im with you though but i also see the side where the concern is..



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: starfoxxx

Well that is why the research needs doing. You see, it has been financially expedient for certain elements of the criminal justice system, to incarcerate individuals who have been caught in possession of pot, or with pot in their bloodstreams while driving. As we know, fines and incarceration can actually drive up the worth of a counties judicial branch, in the States certainly, as some recent news articles have attested to.

The reason we have never seen a test which can accurately discern the difference between the presence of a substance in the blood, and its actual level of effect on the subject, is because up until now there has never been a concerted, well backed effort to develop one. There will be a need for that test to be developed in time to come however, since it will now be as necessary as blood alcohol testing is.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
they can't even be sure that the positive result isn't the result of a kidney problem or is diabetic. That was a pretty long list of drugs and such that can cause a false negative for various drugs..
joy detergent?? Really??

My question would be should our need for employment and thus the need to pass these stupid tests really outrank people's need to alleviate so many different illnesses? Should someone be labeled a drug abuser when their only crime was they allowed themselves to be subjected to a drug test when they unknowingly had a kidney infection? Really? oh and should we really forget about the antibiotics when it is discovered?

The first thing they need to do is to come up with more accurate testing and drop all testing till they come up with it.. not accept expand it to include drivers.


edit on 3-11-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
don't know if mentioned...

will people who rely on it as a medicine;

go unnoticed?

will they be lumped together with 'recreational pot-heads' and begin suffering all over again because they can't afford their overly-taxed medicine? will their prescription be covered under insurance...

why can't we vote against getting nickel-and-dimed for every little thing???



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: semperfortis

ATTENTION



From this point on, discuss the thread topic

NO MORE Discussion of the Terms and Conditions

NO MORE Discussion of Staff Actions

If you have a problem, file a Complaint and it will be looked at and dealt with accordingly

ANY further posts, not on topic, will be removed and the Member warned..

Thank you for your time

Semper




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join