Utterly Amazing - Pot Use NOT a Fundamental Human Right?

jbg · January 13, 2008

No, like I said, I don't encourage anyone to acquire a bad habit. But not paying your taxes can be the worst bad habit of all.

Certainly pretty dangerous if you enjoy having any freedom of action.

jefferiah · January 15, 2008

I wouldn't encourage anyone to acquire a habit, but pot is a far healthier choice than nicotine. It's kind of foolish to rant about the dangers and evils of weed when you're puffing on something far worse.

If I were an employer---well actually I might not care too much about pot because I know many people who can function quite well on it. Nonetheless I would rather that an employee comes to work under the influence of nicotine than mary jane. One is an intoxicant. It's not about how healthy your employee's lifestyle is.

Edited January 15, 2008 by jefferiah

DrGreenthumb · January 16, 2008

If I were an employer---well actually I might not care too much about pot because I know many people who can function quite well on it. Nonetheless I would rather that an employee comes to work under the influence of nicotine than mary jane. One is an intoxicant. It's not about how healthy your employee's lifestyle is.

If you were a smart employer the healthiness of your employee's lifestyle WOULD be more important than whether or not he or she gets high on pot on his or her own time. Cigarette smokers get sick more than non-smokers and take more sick time. Alcohol causes hangovers that again mean more sick days. In fact sometimes people wake up still drunk from the night before, whereas no matter how much weed you puff on you will be completely straight again in 2-3 hours tops after your last toke. BTW pot is not an "intoxicant", even though it is mind altering. Intoxicant suggests toxicity and cannabis is non-toxic. That means it does not affect your mind by poisoning you like alcohol does. You cannot overdose on pot, you cannot get pot-poisoning. Pot affects the mind/body because it's cannabinoids bind with canabinoid receptors in our brain, causing our brain to release dopamine, and endorphins so we get a sense of general well being. Pot is also a vasco-dilator and a broncho-dilator, so it increases our bloodflow and the oxygen content of our blood. Also unlike tobacco, cannabis does not increase your risk of any Cancers. The active ingredient in Cannabis is a powerful anti-cancer agent, that has been clinically proven to kill many types of cancer cells, while leaving surrounding healthy tissue undamaged. THC has proven effective at killing glioma(brain cancer cells), breast cancer cells, and skin cancer(melanoma). Contrary to the assertions of the prohibition propagandists pot does not "fry your brain cells", in fact it has been proven to actually stimulate the growth of new brain cells in the hypothalamus.

jefferiah · January 16, 2008

If you were a smart employer the healthiness of your employee's lifestyle WOULD be more important than whether or not he or she gets high on pot on his or her own time. Cigarette smokers get sick more than non-smokers and take more sick time.

First off I said I probably would not care, myself. And I never said anything about smoking pot on your own time. I said in the case of being under the influence of either drug, I would rather an employee show up after a coffee and a cigarette than to be high at work. I think an employer has a right to be concerned about people being in "altered states" at work, if that makes him uncomfortable. That is the perogative of one who owns the business and thus supplies the position of employment, and can just as easily supply it to someone else he is more comfortable employing. If you don't like the terms of his employment you can work elsewhere. I understand what you say about private life and using pot on your own time. The problem with that is that there is no test for how long ago you smoked a joint. But because the testing we have is all we have, that means you can be terminated for having drugs in the bloodstream. And not all jobs do testing.

All these things you are telling me pot is proven to do, are mostly from pro-pot sites. It depends on what source your studies come from. Pot is smoked so there is no way it is healthier than cigarettes. In fact most people will tell you the smoke is much harsher and also the manner in which it is inhaled is harsher as well. The redeeming factor here is that no one smokes a pack of joints a day. Where one might say tobacco contains 4000 chemicals and pot contains this many. Thats immaterial. Because the quantity in which each chemical is present is also a big factor. Marijuana is pretty high on the tar, for instance.

Anyways, tobacco smokers make good employees. I am sure that many pot smokers do as well. The problem is, alot of employers do not want people at work with "altered-states of mind". Whether or not you agree with that or feel it is important within a company you own is your business. But if someone has a problem with employees showing up for work in mind altered states in a business they run, I think that is their business. So if you like to smoke pot you have to face the reality that many a trucking company will not hire you.

Cannabis is also linked to major depression in recent studies. Mind altering drugs usually work by affecting the production or the uptake of neurotransmitters in the brain---as you mentioned with dopamine. These are the same chemicals linked to most clinical mental problems. There are many studies which provide counter evidence to the pro-pot studies. But alot of these things you are saying are not really proven. The jury is still out. You might say that certain studies suggest pot may be good for this or that. But that is not the same as evidence being concrete. You could say that LSD has a low toxicity as well when the dose to get high is stacked against the dose needed to cause physical damage. Nonetheless, most employers dont want people showing up tripping.

Despite the pro-pot studies which say people drive better on marijuana and such, the mainstream of studies suggest that marijuana indeed slows reaction time. And at certain jobs where safety is a huge issue, I have no problem with the employer doing regular testing.

Edited January 16, 2008 by jefferiah

White Doors · January 16, 2008

And at certain jobs where safety is a huge issue, I have no problem with the employer doing regular testing.

Agreed, however the test should be for if they are high at work - not if they ever get high on their own time.

Currently the tests are for the latter and I fundamentally do not agree with that.

jefferiah · January 16, 2008

Agreed, however the test should be for if they are high at work - not if they ever get high on their own time.
Currently the tests are for the latter and I fundamentally do not agree with that.

But there is no such test. In the interests of keeping sober environment, this is all they have.

White Doors · January 16, 2008

But there is no such test. In the interests of keeping sober environment, this is all they have.

They claim they can test for sobriety by drivers that are stoned. Why could this not apply here?

You can't arrest someone for DUI for being stoned within the last 14 days.

DrGreenthumb · January 16, 2008

They claim they can test for sobriety by drivers that are stoned. Why could this not apply here?
You can't arrest someone for DUI for being stoned within the last 14 days.

Well a performance test would not be hard to administer, if they fail the performance test then fine, fire them. A test that measures the actual ability to perform certain tasks I have no problem with. I'm sure that some kind of electronic device could easily measure hand/eye coordinatioon as well as reation time. If someone is impaired there should be no need for a blood test to prove it. A performance evaluation done by a computer, not a biased third party could show evidence of impaired performance, then the substance does not matter, prescription drug, alcohol, and even sleep deprivation impairment would all have an equal chance of causing a failure. I highly doubt that anyone would fail a performance test if they were only under the "influence" of cannabis. Pot people like myself generally beat the pants off the non-stoners on xbox live. In fact the makers of the racing game "burnout revenge" tested heads vs straights in head to head racing action and found that us "stoners" won over 80% of the time, because we had faster reaction time and better hand eye coordination than the non-tokers. So bring on all the performance tests you want, cuz we will pass any of them even 10 minutes post bongload.

Now Jefferiah, the claims I have made regarding pot's actual effects come from respected medical journals, university studies, and my own research. Pot sites do not do clinical studies, they only link to them to prove their points. There has never been a case of lung cancer in a cannabis only smoker. There has never been a single death attributed to cannabis in history. Compare that to the stats on cigarettes or basically any other substance on earth and pot comes out safer.

I'm all about freedom, including freedom to hire/fire who we choose, I am an entrepreneur after all. I'm just saying that only a very stupid human being would believe that pot use, especially on one's own time, is a good reason to deny employment. I'd much rather we could fire people based on the results of an IQ test than a drug test, but then there would be an awful lot of unemployed conservatives.

jefferiah · January 16, 2008

Pot people like myself generally beat the pants off the non-stoners on xbox live. In fact the makers of the racing game "burnout revenge" tested heads vs straights in head to head racing action and found that us "stoners" won over 80% of the time, because we had faster reaction time and better hand eye coordination than the non-tokers. So bring on all the performance tests you want, cuz we will pass any of them even 10 minutes post bongload.

:lol:

Well yes and I am sure Vincent LeCavalier could beat me at one on one ice hockey if he were stoned too.

BubberMiley · January 16, 2008

There is no exercise that requires greater reaction time, manual dexterity, and focus than jazz improvisation, and all the best jazz improvisers were chronics. Explain that one.

jefferiah · January 16, 2008

There is no exercise that requires greater reaction time, manual dexterity, and focus than jazz improvisation, and all the best jazz improvisers were chronics. Explain that one.

Depends on what you consider the best first off. Secondly, since jazz people smoked pot and non-jazz people did not, it would stand to reason that jazz people play better jazz then people who dont play jazz at all. Don't you think. And skill wise, that is certainly not true anymore.

M.Dancer · January 16, 2008

....and all the best jazz improvisers were chronics. Explain that one.

It's a myth.

jefferiah · January 16, 2008

It's a myth.

And I don't think the jazz community does drug testing anyways.

You know Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder were quite capable musicians as well, but I won't hire them as cab drivers.

jbg · January 16, 2008

There is no exercise that requires greater reaction time, manual dexterity, and focus than jazz improvisation, and all the best jazz improvisers were chronics. Explain that one.

Could be a self-selecting population that performs jazz improvization. Maybe they'd play even beter without the drugs.

jbg · January 16, 2008

You know Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder were quite capable musicians as well, but I won't hire them as cab drivers.

I don't see eye to eye with either of them on much, and didn't even when both were alive.

DrGreenthumb · January 16, 2008

Like I said, you come up with ANY test of actual dexterity, coordination, or reaction time, and I'm confident that any pot smoker can pass it even 10 minutes after a session, and potsmokers will likely do perform better as a group than the non-tokers will. Be it playing guitar, table tennis, archery, video games, or walking a balance beam, we as a group will kick your ass at it. Pot does not impair.

BubberMiley · January 17, 2008

It's a myth.

I guess denying reality with unsubstantiated assertions is the only way to answer that one.

BubberMiley · January 17, 2008

Could be a self-selecting population that performs jazz improvization. Maybe they'd play even beter without the drugs.

It would have been impossible for Louis Armstrong to have played better. He practically invented modern music and he executed all his complex innovations perfectly. He also smoked weed every single day of his adult life.

M.Dancer · January 17, 2008

. He also smoked weed every single day of his adult life.

Non-Moonbean citation?

Drea · January 17, 2008

Like I said, you come up with ANY test of actual dexterity, coordination, or reaction time, and I'm confident that any pot smoker can pass it even 10 minutes after a session, and potsmokers will likely do perform better as a group than the non-tokers will. Be it playing guitar, table tennis, archery, video games, or walking a balance beam, we as a group will kick your ass at it. Pot does not impair.

Does so.

No matter that you personally think you are "better" at eye to hand coordination (you are probably young and young people have good eye-hand dexterity 'cause of all the time playing vid games!)

-- I certainly am worse at everything that requires concentration when I am high. I smoke to relax, if I want to win a marathon I ain't gonna smoke.

Cheers!

BubberMiley · January 17, 2008

Non-Moonbean citation?

Every single biography of his life, as well as a million anecdotes, including this one:

In his recent biography Laurence Bergreen summed up Armstrong’s relationship with the drug; "He loved marijuana too. He smoked it in vast quantities from his early twenties until the end of his life; wrote songs in praise of it; and persuaded his musician friends to smoke it when they played. He planned to call an unpublished sequel to his autobiography Gage, his pet name for marijuana, but once his manager found out about the title and the subject of the work, he suppressed the manuscript, trying to protect Louis's reputation. Sections of the work that survived the censorship show that he regarded it as an essential element in his life and beneficial to his health." (from Louis Armstrong: An Extravagant Life, page 4) Armstrong maintained marijuana to be a thousand times better than whiskey and that it relaxed him while also keeping him clear headed. He pointed out that, though he smoked marijuana, during the entire forty-five years he had been blowing trumpet he had never let his public down, claiming that they had a reverence for each other.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/23717.html

Edited January 17, 2008 by BubberMiley

BubberMiley · January 17, 2008

-- I certainly am worse at everything that requires concentration when I am high.

You're smoking too much.

DrGreenthumb · January 17, 2008

You're smoking too much.

I don''t really think its smoking too much, makes no difference how much I smoke. It affects different people differently but it is common for non-regular users to feel nervous or paranoid while they adjust to their hightened senses. I'd say its pretty unlikely that drea would go and drive a car though while feeling "unable to concentrate" or self identifying as "high". People tend to over estimate their "impairment" on pot, quite the opposite of alcohol's inhibition lowering effect. People are, if anything, hyper-aware of all the possible dangers around them when they are "high" on pot. Alcohol, by comparison, mostly makes people feel like they are invincible.

Alcohol is the most common drug used to take advantage of women, the most common drug involved in domestic and non domestic assaults, one of the most impairing drugs available, legal or otherwise. Alcohol causes a thousand times more grief than pot ever could. The younger generation has chosen pot over alcohol, and that choice should be applauded, not punished. The older generation should not force the young to make the same stupid choices that they made. We should be free to choose a less harmful alternative to booze.

Drea · January 17, 2008

I don''t really think its smoking too much, makes no difference how much I smoke. It affects different people differently but it is common for non-regular users to feel nervous or paranoid while they adjust to their hightened senses. I'd say its pretty unlikely that drea would go and drive a car though while feeling "unable to concentrate" or self identifying as "high". People tend to over estimate their "impairment" on pot, quite the opposite of alcohol's inhibition lowering effect. People are, if anything, hyper-aware of all the possible dangers around them when they are "high" on pot. Alcohol, by comparison, mostly makes people feel like they are invincible.

Truer words have never been spoken

Alcohol is the most common drug used to take advantage of women, the most common drug involved in domestic and non domestic assaults, one of the most impairing drugs available, legal or otherwise. Alcohol causes a thousand times more grief than pot ever could. The younger generation has chosen pot over alcohol, and that choice should be applauded, not punished. The older generation should not force the young to make the same stupid choices that they made. We should be free to choose a less harmful alternative to booze.

Hear hear!

When a person is young pot gives them the gigglies and they may do silly things. I recall sitting in the lazyboy with my best friend after we had stolen and smoked my brothers "tie stick" (amazing stuff for the 70's!!!). We sat there squished together and laughed our faces off. I remember the day I smoked a doob with my mom for the first time... she laughed so much... after that she bought her own and smoked it whenever she felt down or didn't feel like eating (she had cancer -- she died ten years ago, but at least she got some relief throughout it all)

Edited January 17, 2008 by Drea

jefferiah · January 17, 2008

Alcohol, by comparison, mostly makes people feel like they are invincible.

I agree that this is a common effect of alcohol---loss of inhibition. And having smoked pot in days gone by, I am well aware that a high person is generally more capable in motor skills than one who is drunk. Nonetheless, that does not change the fact that I fully believe pot does have some degree of impairment, and I fully respect that many employers do not want people high at work (nor do they want them drunk for that matter).