Hey! Was that aimed at me? :lol:

No not really , but on second thought if the shoe fits--------

:lol: :lol:

 

I know engineers, doctors, and lawyers who all get high. That's a stereotype and a dumb one at that.

 

There could be a 'few' that are in the categories you list, but for the majority of dopers, they are individuals that have major problems in their lives. I know people who have smoked, but grew up and quit.

There could be a 'few' that are in the categories you list, but for the majority of dopers, they are individuals that have major problems in their lives. I know people who have smoked, but grew up and quit.

 

The point is that marijuana is a lot more prevalent than most would imagine and a lot of people (smokers & non-smokers) could benefit in multiple ways from legalizing the plant.

The point is that marijuana is a lot more prevalent than most would imagine and a lot of people (smokers & non-smokers) could benefit in multiple ways from legalizing the plant.

 

:thumb:

 

I've yet to hear a good arguement as to why it shouldn't be leagalized.

:thumb:

 

I've yet to hear a good arguement as to why it shouldn't be leagalized.

 

There are arguments against legalization (or decriminalization), but many (if not most) of them are based on myths & false beliefs.

 

In reality, the most cited argument is probably "well, it's illegal so it should stay illegal."

There could be a 'few' that are in the categories you list, but for the majority of dopers, they are individuals that have major problems in their lives. I know people who have smoked, but grew up and quit.

I think you would be very surprised.

There could be a 'few' that are in the categories you list, but for the majority of dopers, they are individuals that have major problems in their lives. I know people who have smoked, but grew up and quit.

You'd be VERY surprised.

There are arguments against legalization (or decriminalization), but many (if not most) of them are based on myths & false beliefs.

 

In reality, the most cited argument is probably "well, it's illegal so it should stay illegal."

That's my favorite and very indicative of the problem. The people who want it to stay that way are narrow-minded and not opent to change.

No not really , but on second thought if the shoe fits--------

:irked: :lol:

Might as well have this policy for states that allow it, but it should never be allowed in the first place. Pilots were used in Canada in a test of marijuana once and they still suffered effects from being high almost 2 days after they finished smoking. Legalized marijuana= more fatalities on highways. The main reason it's not legal now is there is no quick way to check "how high" someone is when they drive. You can't do a breathalyzer at this point, I am completely against legalization but if you want to get it legalized work on inventing something that will allow it to be regulated.

 

Also I would never go to any doctor/lawyer/engineer that I knew smoked dope.

Might as well have this policy for states that allow it, but it should never be allowed in the first place. Pilots were used in Canada in a test of marijuana once and they still suffered effects from being high almost 2 days after they finished smoking. Legalized marijuana= more fatalities on highways. The main reason it's not legal now is there is no quick way to check "how high" someone is when they drive. You can't do a breathalyzer at this point, I am completely against legalization but if you want to get it legalized work on inventing something that will allow it to be regulated.

 

The inability to test "how high" you are is probably the best argument against legalization; however, marijuana is "special" in the sense that a person will test positive for it in a urinalysis for approximately 30 days after smoking.

 

Example: I go home today (10/20/09) and smoke pot for the 1st time ever. I don't enjoy the high, so I choose not to smoke again. I get in a car wreck in 2 weeks (11/3/09). I'd still test positive for marijuana, although it had absolutely no bearing at all on the accident.

 

I do not believe that the pilots were still high 2 days later. That sounds like one of the myths that I mentioned earlier. I'd love to see that "study." Can you provide a link?

 

Also I would never go to any doctor/lawyer/engineer that I knew smoked dope.

 

That's fine. Just don't ask your 60 year old lawyer, doctor, or engineer who has been practicing for 30+ years and is well-established in the community (both locally and professionally) what he did in the 60's. :sssh:

 

I'm curious as to know why you would never go to one who smoked dope, though. After all, it is their services & knowledge you're paying for, not their morals.

The inability to test "how high" you are is probably the best argument against legalization; however, marijuana is "special" in the sense that a person will test positive for it in a urinalysis for approximately 30 days after smoking.

 

Example: I go home today (10/20/09) and smoke pot for the 1st time ever. I don't enjoy the high, so I choose not to smoke again. I get in a car wreck in 2 weeks (11/3/09). I'd still test positive for marijuana, although it had absolutely no bearing at all on the accident.

 

I do not believe that the pilots were still high 2 days later. That sounds like one of the myths that I mentioned earlier. I'd love to see that "study." Can you provide a link?

 

 

 

That's fine. Just don't ask your 60 year old lawyer, doctor, or engineer who has been practicing for 30+ years and is well-established in the community (both locally and professionally) what he did in the 60's. :sssh:

 

I'm curious as to know why you would never go to one who smoked dope, though. After all, it is their services & knowledge you're paying for, not their morals.

 

I wouldn't go to one that presently smokes dope, what someone did as a teenager is one thing we all have our mistakes and I won't judge for past. I'm talking about doctors/lawyers/engineers that presently still do dope.

 

As for the study it was on a discovery channel program I saw maybe 5 to 10 years ago I don't even know what year I saw it. But the gist was these pilots landed on target in simulators 90% of the time before smoking marijuana and two days later they were still missing the target by 2 to 3 feet 100% of the time.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/11/1325

 

There is a link to a similar study. I don't believe it's the same one though, seems like the one I saw was affects two days later. Although afters years I could be mistaken and it was just 24 hours.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/11/1325

 

There is a link to a similar study. I don't believe it's the same one though, seems like the one I saw was affects two days later. Although afters years I could be mistaken and it was just 24 hours.

 

Interesting article (and also very short.)

 

I'd argue that using only 1 day's worth of landing is not a large enough sample size to determine if it was the marijuana affecting them or if they just had an "off day."

The thirty days in your system is for someone that smokes regularly. We had someone tested we were sure was high and when it came back negative we said no way. The fellow at the hospital that did the test said if you don't do it on a regualr basis it's like most other drugs and out of your system in 3 days.