One trait that I've observed pretty regularly about both drunks and stoners is their narcissistic self-absorption and their willingness to bend the conversation to assure they become the "victim" of others' efforts to present actual facts and figures. They're always playing the victim card to rationalize their behavior. Tobacco users have been playing that same card for years, but with steadily diminishing returns. In another few decades after a database of factual evidence on the effects of pot are recorder, it's very likely that the mantra of "It's not as harmful as alcohol" will also be debunked.
JBP-OHIO jogged my memory about marijuana use and accidents. Back when I was in college in the electronics class we had some high school students in the class; accelerated program of some sort. In the lab we were all given the task of troubleshooting the flyback transformer circuit on a TV. They all had different problems and the task was to determine the defect and then write down what the procedure would be to correct the defect.
Now this being a community college in the late 70's there was a designated smoking area at the trades building where this happened. I was out there with a buddy of mine, former Army, and we were smoking before class started. A couple of the HS students were out there also. I suppose I should mention that this was a late evening class and it was dark. These two HS students lit up one cigarette and I immediately smelled 'not a cigarette smoke' from a 'left handed cigarette, and so did my buddy. And it should be noted this was the low octane stuff from the 1970s.
Back in the electronics lab, these two HS guys were slooooowly at work figuring out the problem. One of them made a mistake and got zapped by the high voltage from the flyback circuit and it knocked him on his keester HARD. He cracked his head on the concrete floor and the instructor called an ambulance. The hospital called the cops when they found 'Mary Jane' in his shirt pocket. Both these guys were thrown out of the program, and had some unwanted attention from the cops. High voltage and marijuana don't mix well. At least in this case it wasn't one phase of a three phase 6.9Kv 40 megawatt breaker that he contacted.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
Ah yes, the good old times! Got shocked by flyback circuits a time or two myself. Drew an arc off the plate cap of a horizontal output tube one time that left a blackened crater in my thumb. Man that hurt! "R.F. Burns"
-Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Ah yes, the good old times! Got shocked by flyback circuits a time or two myself. Drew an arc off the plate cap of a horizontal output tube one time that left a blackened crater in my thumb. Man that hurt! "R.F. Burns"
High voltage, and high voltage high frequency circuits sure teach you to be careful. Of course the old 40 mile capable electric fence will get your attention, too, especially if you're standing in water and wet leather boots when you make contact.
Probably the funniest ones that I ever saw was a guy working on a circuit in a 220v circuit that had some big capacitors in it. Circuit had just been unplugged and he started to check something and I asked, "Did you short the.................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZAAAAPPPP! OWWWWW! (Expletives deleted!)...................capacitors out yet? Guess not!"
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
Reminds me of a ground fault detection board in a HV power supply I was building/working on. It used something like 80 VDC to detect ground faults - and the capacitors would hold charge for days. I got zorched on it a couple of times. One Monday morning, my boss calls me on the phone - he was at our other facility working on this thing. "Put on your list of things to do to add a bleed down resistor on the ground fault board..." he tells me. "Oh, did you find it?" I asked. "Yea..." came his somewhat annoyed reply.
-Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
The most striking behavioral examples that THC and alcohol users have in common is that they both believe that their senses, personality, and maybe even their intellect are enhanced, when under the influence. In reality, it is nothing more than a drug-induced lowering of inhibitions and a relaxation of personal defense mechanisms that can make a person more receptive to 'new' suggestions.
As long as a 'recreational' user understands that, he can delight in the effects of his drug of choice, in moderation and under carefully controlled circumstances. The problem, of course, is that anything that gives a human being pleasure, or an illusion of well-being, is psychologically addictive, whether or not it is actually physically addictive. Being humans, we always believe that we know best, in determining what is good for us, or how much of 'a good thing' we can handle, without becoming obnoxiously over-confident. Any doctor will tell you that the only difference between a medicine and a poison is the dosage, in many cases, and even a doctor is not competent to prescribe the right dosage for himself.
My personal weaknesses are red meat, caffeine, and tobacco, all of which have ruled the greater part of my life, for decades. With some folks, it is sugar, or something else that the average person thinks of as being benign. The 'gas' that dentists used had a wonderful effect on me, as well - I thoroughly enjoyed a bloody, painful surgical procedure done under that influence, and I had always dreaded going to the dentist.
Drug and alcohol abusers usually start out, in just that way, before the really hardcore physical addiction grabs them, so they do not even realize the difference, or the damage that is being done to their physical and mental capacities. Truthfully, anything that a person cannot or will not walk away from, before it can harm him, is an addiction, of sorts. The only difference is in how much damage it can cause, and how long it takes for it to impact the other things in his life that he holds dear.
Marijuana (in the old days) was not considered physically addictive, and did not usually seem to cause aggressive behavior, in most people. That made it appear to be the 'perfect' recreational drug, for 'smart' people. There were still negative effects, though, even then. Some people (most, actually) found that beer and wine tasted better, not to mention food. Others just 'got off' on the ability to laugh at the predicaments they found themselves in, rather than solving the problems that caused them. It was OK to 'blow it off,' rather than agonize over a difficult decision, if you just stayed high. It was also much easier to forget bad decisions or outcomes, rather than accepting the guilt that might have actually prompted the average person to rectify a bad decision, or some other kind of failure. In short, it allowed the user to justify laziness, and grin about it.
Marijuana proponents have always scoffed at any suggestion that it is a 'gateway' drug that exposes the user to other drugs. The mere mention of such a thing launches them into their canned arguments about the non-addictive properties of THC. They laugh off any suggestion that the same people who could provide access to all sorts of illegal substances, also provide the one they like. It is ridiculous to suggest that any entrepreneur, legal or otherwise, will not attempt to sell all of his products, or that he will not take advantage of a customer whose inhibitions have been lowered by smoking a 'free' joint. Funniest of all, a marijuana user will flip-flop on this subject, immediately, when it serves his argument for legalization.
The tired, old, long-winded, reefer madness explanation of the dangers of weed and its associates. Geez.
The last paragraph is really funny. It suggests the average pot seller has a closet full of all the other recreational drugs waiting to spring on the stoner. Like a 70's street movie.
When prohibitionists are confronted with the fact that retail cannabis stores aren't also selling cocaine in the parking lot, they default back to the "it's harmful" argument.
I've never argued that weed has some magical benefit (although it may); I've always argued that it is not dangerous enough to justify imprisoning non-violent citizens. Or worse, a SWAT raid @ 0-dark-30 ending with dead dogs, dead people, or grenades in cribs at the wrong house.
The well-intentioned prohibitionists think society will be better off with the pot heads (and other drug users) off the streets, but never consider the cost of enforcement. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives wasted to support a failed ideal.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
The tired, old, long-winded, reefer madness explanation of the dangers of weed and its associates. Geez.
The last paragraph is really funny. It suggests the average pot seller has a closet full of all the other recreational drugs waiting to spring on the stoner. Like a 70's street movie.
When prohibitionists are confronted with the fact that retail cannabis stores aren't also selling cocaine in the parking lot, they default back to the "it's harmful" argument.
I've never argued that weed has some magical benefit (although it may); I've always argued that it is not dangerous enough to justify imprisoning non-violent citizens. Or worse, a SWAT raid @ 0-dark-30 ending with dead dogs, dead people, or grenades in cribs at the wrong house.
The well-intentioned prohibitionists think society will be better off with the pot heads (and other drug users) off the streets, but never consider the cost of enforcement. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives wasted to support a failed ideal.
If your post is in response to my post, I'm at a loss to figure out how you jumped to all of your conclusions. I am still listening to all of the reasonable arguments being made from both sides, but they are few and far between, and yours is not one of them.
Everything I said in my post is from a fairly neutral position, although, at this stage, I would vote no on legalization, simply because I haven't heard any objective case being made for changing the status quo. I have no problem with treating the abuse of marijuana the same as the abuse of alcohol, but the case has not been made that it can or will really go that way, in actual practice.
For example, I am ignorant of the ways that law enforcement can determine, on-site, if there is physical impairment and mental confusion, and if the method can stand up in court. Also, will finding a 'roach' in the ashtray carry the same penalty as an open container of beer, which is damned rough, where I live. Texas State Troopers tend to enforce the laws that are on the books, whether or not they agree with them. I used to enjoy sipping a beer on my way home from work, before the open container laws, and I never drove drunk. I gave up that particular relaxation method, because it wasn't worth the risk, and it will have to apply to marijuana users, too, if I am to vote for it. I mostly ignore all of the breathless comments made from a political
point of view, because they are long on rhetoric and short on facts.
About the last paragraph, you are right about two things. (1) I am much longer-winded in my posts than I would be in a person-to-person conversation, because I am giving an opinion on the questions I would ask, instead of just responding to someone else's questions. My suggestion would be to simply ignore them, like everybody else. They please me, and that's the reason I write them. (2) My first-hand knowledge is based on experiences from fifty years ago, in Texas - not LA, in the present...where being stoned in public is apparently an unremarkable occurrence.
But, many Texas voters like me are going to have to be convinced, if it is ever to be legalized here, so you better dust off whatever critical thinking skills you have, if you're going to convince somebody who is actually listening. Austin will be a slam-dunk, with some of the big cities close behind. But Texas has a bunch of very large towns and a whole bunch of medium sized towns to balance some of that.
The only unsatisfactory results of legalization I see here are these two. 1) The tax revenues are obsorbed by a self perpetuating administrative bureaucracy.
2) There's been some instances of consumer confusion as to potency with catastrophic results.
The bureaucracy will likely prevail regardless. The potency confusion is being cleared up.
I'd like to see hard creditable data on corrections relief. If the numbers support significant relief from user violation, I'd be pretty much sold on the benefits of legalization.
Replies
― Douglas Adams
― Douglas Adams
― Douglas Adams
The last paragraph is really funny. It suggests the average pot seller has a closet full of all the other recreational drugs waiting to spring on the stoner. Like a 70's street movie.
When prohibitionists are confronted with the fact that retail cannabis stores aren't also selling cocaine in the parking lot, they default back to the "it's harmful" argument.
I've never argued that weed has some magical benefit (although it may); I've always argued that it is not dangerous enough to justify imprisoning non-violent citizens. Or worse, a SWAT raid @ 0-dark-30 ending with dead dogs, dead people, or grenades in cribs at the wrong house.
The well-intentioned prohibitionists think society will be better off with the pot heads (and other drug users) off the streets, but never consider the cost of enforcement. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives wasted to support a failed ideal.
Adam J. McCleod
1) The tax revenues are obsorbed by a self perpetuating administrative bureaucracy.
2) There's been some instances of consumer confusion as to potency with catastrophic results.
The bureaucracy will likely prevail regardless. The potency confusion is being cleared up.
I'd like to see hard creditable data on corrections relief. If the numbers support significant relief from user violation, I'd be pretty much sold on the benefits of legalization.