He's right though.

muso wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 10:11am:



I take issue with a couple of points, the first being that drug use is apparent to everyone else, that most certainly does not need to be the case, and unless people expect all who indulge in drug use to appear like stereotypical stoners from the movies, they would be very mistaken.
Lawyers, Doctor's Nurses, etc. can indulge, and because people do not stereotype them as potential users, they are never suspected, unless they display "strong" signs of intoxication, and if they do, then they are over indulging, and behaving irresponsibly, which for most, would be out of character.
As far as Brain Dysfunction goes, I guess it comes down to what parameters are set, I mean if you are smoking pot and not seeing your brain react differently, then it is dud dope.
I think that point is important, because the assumption that different means worse, flies in the face of all drug therapy, and as we have already said, for many drug users, their patterns of use do fall into a category that strongly resembles self medication, and they actually function at a better level when doing so.

I do not want to be seen as trying to promote the use of illegal drugs, but I am firmly convinced that the lack of understanding about drugs and their effects is also very damaging, with the prohibition of drugs being a case where I believe the negatives outweigh any positive outcomes by a huge margin.

I always have, and always will believe that a far more medical approach needs to be taken, and some forms of drug use need to be legitimised so as to satisfy the basic human desire which will always be there, while steering people towards a way they can meet their desires, while producing the minimum harm to themselves, and society.

muso wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 10:16am:


I think you misunderstood me.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 10:20am:


Mozzaok - if you aren't under the influence of anything of course you notice if someone else is.

There is no way that you can smoke grass in a subtle way and not have some people notice it. If you haven't noticed a change in their speech - you can certainly notice a change in their eyes.

If you're oblivious to the above - then there's the smell on their body and clothing.

As far as someone not noticing the affect of grass on themselves - that's because they've built up an immunity and need more - and stronger stuff to achieve the desired affect.

Unless I was dying I would notice if a doctor or nurse was stoned - but the thought of these people being irresponsible enough to smoke while doing precision work gives impetus to the reason why it should never be made legal. I'm not condoning alcohol either.

There is only a small fine for growing one or two plants and that should keep the recreational users happy.

Quote:


True.
It might imply that they are also using around kids, but not neccessarily.

Quote:


True again. A little bit of visine and nobody would have the faintest idea in the case of most experienced users.



As far a s brain damage is concerned, I couldn't see it being any worse than alcohol, or age itself.
I know a few very heavy users who have consistenly kicked everyone's ass at Tony Delroy's quiz for the past 20+ years, and they continue to do so.
Over that length of time I've seen no change in their capabilities, however, they do seem to be far more introspective and interesting than most.

Emma wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 12:12am:


It seems you're the one who's jumping to all sorts of assumptions about people who argue against the legalisation of pot.

I have said I don't have a problem with recreational users, but you can't expect everyone to agree with you. I know that plenty of people smoke it around the clock and I'm just pointing out that they would be healthier if they didn't - and so would the rest of us. I don't want any services I employ to be performed by someone who is impaired.

How many people want healthcare workers, taxi and bus drivers, builders etc. to be stoned while working? Not too many of us.

If as others have pointed out "professional" smokers are not discernible to the rest of us - that is a worry - although I think that's just a defensive statement. We know when someone is drunk and they're usually relieved of their duties if it becomes a habit, yet your posts indicate that we're supposed to tolerate those who are affected by cannabis - if we don't, then according to you we're deadheads.

That's the problem with addicts who don't give their brain enough time to recuperate after smoking before they're onto their next bong - their views become so clouded they can't see anyone else's point of view.

You are the one who is coming across as being self righteous Jalene.

Mantra, I think it's your attitude that get's up the nose (no pun..haha) of those experienced with using marijuana.

So many of your statements make it so very blatantly obvious that you have not experienced, and therefore have no real idea of what you are talking about.
You are speaking in non-sequitor terms in reference to the subject.

Let's say for example that smoking is harmful.
So..smoking what is harmful?
Is smoking anything harmful? And to what extent?

You don't need to smoke dope. It can be eaten or vapourisd as a far more healthy method of ingestation.
There are plenty of available methods to ingest dope which would practically negate any personal health risk. Does that make it better for you?

Probably not, because you have also alluded to some fanciful fact that you can become a "Marijuana addict". No need for me to quote you there, because you know that you said it.

That's absolute bs. It's not true at all. There is no such thing as a marijuana addict...debate me on that if you wish, I'll find all of the facts for what I know is true.


The next point that you raise is concerning service workers.

Who would want a stoned builder building?
Who would want a stoned taxi driver driving?
Who would want a stoned surgeon operating on them?

It all depends upon how well they are able to perform their task.
And here's where you are assimilating alcohol with marijuana. They are very different influences indeed.

It's likely that a person influenced by marijuana will be more conscionable than a person that has had even only one beer.
In fact, it's more likely that a person influenced by marijuana will be far more conscionable than that of their ordinary state.

As I've stated before: A person under the influence of marijuana will usually underestimate their capabilities rather than overestimate them in respect to their ordinary capabilities.

That is a fact.