Jeff Sessions: "Drugs Will Destroy Your Life," Recinds Cole Memo On Pot Legalization

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, if someone is looking to actually become "meaningfully" inebriated.

However, given certain circumstances from sensitivity and air volume to potentiation, even a small effect may be more than desired. That would still require pretty extensive exposure though, situations that would lead to it won't exactly be subtle and sneaky.

The point was more that from what I understand and have experienced, "contact high" is a "thing" and not a myth.

Like I said, I think actually discussing these things regardless of what approach one supports, is the best way to make progress. Eventually, hopefully, leading to better laws based in reality rather than moral righteousness or indignation.

a reply to: Serdgiam
Ah. Gotcha. That's a fair point. We're in agreement there then.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I still call bull#
Yes we could talk it out. That's an option.

Why would I though? What could you possibly tell me or show me that would cause me to abandon what I know from my personal experiences?

I have already told you all I feel I can. What could I possibly show you that would convince you 6jat you are wrong?

In the end it really does not matter.

So I will concede for this convo then

Yup. You can get a contact buzz. So what?
Had nothing to do with legalization and regulation

a reply to: TinySickTears

I wasn't really interested in changing your mind, but my own. Experienced users probably aren't the best test subjects for whether or not small concentrations can make you feel "high." Even so, I think its more a matter of whether it introduces active components into the bloodstream rather than if it subjectively makes someone feel "high." The latter simply has too many variables to be reliable.

I actually do feel it is pertinent though. In my experiences for fighting for this in Colorado, this specific topic came up more than you might think.

The argument, as spurious as it might be, was that legalization would lead to people becoming inebriated who did not wish to be inebriated in various circumstances and degrees of ridiculousness.

Like many such things, it was an extravagant extrapolation based on a small kernel of possibility. Those that claimed it was all BS damaged credibility when practices like shotgunning and hotboxing were brought up.

I think the importance of honest examination is even more critical when talking about nationwide actions. The "its so low it might as well be zero!" argument doesn't fly with those that are vehemently fighting against something, or anything for that matter.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Serdgiam

I don't need to ask others because I know already. If I had no idea because I was never around it I would research and ask your experiences.

I have been a regular enjoyer for 25 years. Both my parents. Various friends and such. Various situations. All that leads me to say as a fact with confidence that a contact buzz is bull#.

If course I am not talking extremes. If you sat in a car with Windows up for hours straight with people smoking then I suppose you could maybe feel a little something.

Sorry if you don't agree but nothing I read and nothing you say will convince me.
None of that can compare with 25 years of personal experience.

WTF are you on about?

Of course contact high is a thing. No one who has ever smoked MJ would deny that. It's down to your usage on how likely you will get a contact high. A heavy smoker won't get one but someone who doesn't smoke will most certainly get one. My 25+ years of (formerly) smoking tells me that.

EDIT: Yes you would have to be in an enclosed area like a car for this to happen. Not out in the open air. I'm not stupid.

I thought you Liberty-Patriots valued "State rights"

a reply to: NobodyToldMe

i didnt think i had to spell it all out though

im talking about those assholes that say they get a contact high cause they passed by someone smoking or because the people in the apartment next to them smoke and they get a contact high.

i didnt think i had to add the disclaimer of but if you are in a small enclosed space like a car for a long ass time then yeah maybe.

people are worried about the kids though

if little 15 year old johnny does not smoke but sits in a car long enough with people burning to get this supposed contact high then little johnny has other problems

a reply to: Archivalist

Utter bs.
No one has died from smoking pot alone.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
I thought you Liberty-Patriots valued "State rights"

Excepting social issues (IE abortion, civil rights, tranny laws).

It's odd that the Temperance movement of the late 19th/early 20th century had major support in both parties. Odd in that now the legalize crowd has support in both parties too. Maybe a lesson learned?

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NobodyToldMe

i didnt think i had to spell it all out though

im talking about those assholes that say they get a contact high cause they passed by someone smoking or because the people in the apartment next to them smoke and they get a contact high.

i didnt think i had to add the disclaimer of but if you are in a small enclosed space like a car for a long ass time then yeah maybe.

people are worried about the kids though

if little 15 year old johnny does not smoke but sits in a car long enough with people burning to get this supposed contact high then little johnny has other problems

Right on.

I just thought it dangerous to state unequivocally that contact high does not exist full stop. That is fuel for those opposed to say "Fake News" and make the movement look bad. Their are enough losers out there making normal users look bad just as the sloppy, hateful drunks make all people using alcohol look bad.

a reply to: NobodyToldMe

the "Liberty" to tell people what should be "legal"/"Illegal" because they don't agree with it

originally posted by: NobodyToldMe

I just thought it dangerous to state unequivocally that contact high does not exist full stop. That is fuel for those opposed to say "Fake News" and make the movement look bad. Their are enough losers out there making normal users look bad just as the sloppy, hateful drunks make all people using alcohol look bad.

yeah youre right for sure
im just so tired of the argument you know.
not this conversation but just in general and i dont mean me personally.

just people who enjoy it and want it legal. some are like me and basically just bitch about it and sign # of someone brings it to me. others are out there are the front lines of advocacy and debate.

its tired.
just tired of even having to argue for it.

in the end the next 25 years will be like the first 25 years for me so nothing will change really but it will change for others.

another thing these polls do not show are all the people that do not do it strictly because it is illegal. there are more people than you may think that will burn when it is legal.
my mom was a big burner when she was a teen and early 20's when i was a kid. she started to worry about work and # like that and stopped for like 20 years. she just recently started again.
she said for all those years that if it is legal she would do it and its bull# the situation is what it is.

that does not mean that everyone is going to be come frequent.
a lot of people just want to relax on the weekend or when they whatever flares up.

i think people have this notion that it is going to become the wild west where everyone i gonna be all turnt.

Reminder...

16e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities, specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, discussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any Post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.

i) Narcotics and illicit mind-altering substances, legal or otherwise: discussing personal use or personal experiences as the result of such substances is not allowed in any form.

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review


You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: TinySickTears

I think talking about your mom's situation brings up an interesting point: drug testing. Even if/when its legalized, the same concerns are there regarding employment.

Personally, I believe its none of my employers business what I do in my own time in such matters. But, legalized or not, that is exactly what a drug test determines.

I think these are all related issues that need to be worked out, but the problem, or one of them, is that fighting against it becomes habitual and essentially a matter of principle. While not exclusive to cannabis legalization, its such a detrimental approach.

I think its easy to feel that something that is common sense, or common knowledge, to ourselves is naturally common for everyone else too, but that isn't the case.

That's why its so absolutely 100% important to spell things out, like "contact highs." In some cases, we are dealing with folks that literally believe things like "Reefer Madness" are true to life documentaries. However, in most cases, people that are on the fence are simply ignorant on the topic.

So, when they hear from the pro side that its all BS, yet they also shotgun hits or hotbox, it moves them off the fence a bit in the other direction. They are trying to decide who to believe and contradictions are problematic.

The same goes for the topic of deaths and cannabis use. For people who are knowledgeable or experienced, its blatantly obvious what is meant when someone states that "no one has died from smoking pot alone." However, to someone who is completely unfamiliar, that claim begins to appear suspect when the anti side starts to point out events like traffic deaths, complications arising from health issues, or even someone "freaking out" and doing something fatal.

The same goes for blanket claims like cannabis being more a more effective medication in all situations than current options. There are nuances there that seem so obvious that they don't need to be pointed out, but for someone who knows nothing about it, its far from reality.

Its easy to think that these distinctions are so obvious they don't need to be spelled out, but that's not the case for folks that have little to no experience or knowledge on the subject. Someone who was uncertain about, say, all the people on a street getting ripped because one of them is smoking starts to lean towards wild claims because the people claiming otherwise appear contradictory while the anti side remains consistent regardless of the absurdity to someone who is knowledgeable. It all adds up over time.

All that said, one of the biggest changes I am personally happy about is finally getting legitimate, widespread research into cannabis. I suspect there are still some surprises in store and look forward to progress. Especially if it broadens its scope to include replacing cotton, paper, food supplements, etc.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: TinySickTears

I think talking about your mom's situation brings up an interesting point: drug testing. Even if/when its legalized, the same concerns are there regarding employment.

.

we dont know this though
legalized federally makes it an entire different situation

Also, addiction wise it's far less addictive than alcohol and most pharmaceuticals, medically it isn't very impactful on the body and is virtually impossible to overdose on, unlike alcohol or many pharmaceuticals. Moreover, far more crimes of passion or car crashes are caused by alcohol.

Basically, those who are still shrilly anti marijuana or pretend it's status is logical are either liars with ulterior motives or ignorant.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Washington DC is destroying my life more than Marijuana ever could. #ReplaceJeffSessions

Jeff Sessions re-criminalizes cannabis nationwide… the full TYRANNY of Washington D.C. lunatics is now on display

a reply to: thepixelpusher



What do you mean Washington DC lunatics?!?!

The left has been trying to end the war on drugs for decades..

This is and has always been a gop/conservative policy..

a reply to: thepixelpusher



What do you mean Washington DC lunatics?!?!

The left has been trying to end the war on drugs for decades..

This is and has always been a gop/conservative policy..