Prince of Pot extradited

[BubberMiley]

If there were no way for one to tell, why would one care?

[GostHacked]

So are you for outlawing tobacco and alchohol?

Actually there are ways of detecting the use of pot immediately after use.

My link

At least that's my understanding based on the above link.

That test will give many false positives as well. THC stays in your system for a month or so. Even if you partake in it once a week, there are still traces in your body that can be detected. I guess it would have to do with the amount they find. This test is not very reliable when it comes to determining sobriety for a road side test.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000157

While some tests seek to determine if the "parent drug" is in the system (such as THC), others test for drug metabolites 1, which are produced by the body's chemistry after a drug is ingested. This can present problems for some patients who test positive for THC metabolites, yet they may not have used marijuana for several weeks.

2 Hair testing detects "drug molecules permanently entrapped in the hair following ingestion."

[bush_cheney2004]

If there were no way for one to tell, why would one care?

Because we would want to know before the reactor core melts down, not after.

[Shwa]

Because we would want to know before the reactor core melts down, not after.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually there are ways of detecting the use of pot immediately after use.

My link

At least that's my understanding based on the above link.

Not really. In fact, not at all. From your link:

The U.S. Department of Justice states that a positive drug test result for the presence of a drug metabolite "does not indicate... recency, frequency, or amount of use; or impairment." 12/92 U.S. DOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The U.S. Department of Transportation states that while a positive test for drug metabolites is "solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event."

"tudies have found dark-haired people are more likely to test positive for drugs because they have higher levels of melanin, which allows drug compounds to bind more easily to their hair."

[BubberMiley]

Because we would want to know before the reactor core melts down, not after.

Well, in that scenario, a simple test for impairment would be all that's required. If the person is not impaired and can function perfectly well, I don't see why you would be concerned.

Unless, of course, it was just a personal concern.

[Wild Bill]

Well, in that scenario, a simple test for impairment would be all that's required. If the person is not impaired and can function perfectly well, I don't see why you would be concerned.

Unless, of course, it was just a personal concern.

Good point! Who the hell cares? If you're responsible then you're responsible!

It's not as if being drunk or stoned is a good excuse! You got yourself drunk or stoned, after all.

[BubberMiley]

Good point! Who the hell cares? If you're responsible then you're responsible!

Too often the issue of impairment is dominated by holier-than-thou sonsabitches who are only interested in persecuting people they don't like. The issue is impairment and nothing else. If someone is operating a nuclear reactor and requires a high level of cognitive functioning, a routine impairment test could catch that. That impairment could be from drinking, sniffing glue, or early-onset Parkinson's--it doesn't matter how it happened. What matters is they must be able to do their job.

This is always forgotten by those who are not so much interested in public safety as they are interested in getting revenge on the dopers who picked on them in high school.

[Oleg Bach]

Pot doesn't make you lazy, if your lazy now and you get high your just gonna really like being lazy.

Don't blame the drug blame the lazy guy, the guy could just not be lazy, it's his choice. Pot has never stopped me from achieving my goals.

By the way it's spelled stupefied not stupifed, but then again what do I know, I'm high right now.

I don't care how you live your life, I don't care if you like the choices I make with mine but you should at least respect my choices.

You used the phrase "I don't care" - twice...maybe you should put down the bong and care.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Not really. In fact, not at all. From your link:

Ah nevermind then, though if they can detect THC it should be possible to figure out a way to detect the amount in a persons system and how long ago they smoked. I would think it would have to be based on the Saliva test since that one has a short time period and it would be easier to do. Though I don't see anyone bothering as long as it is illegal.

Still if it doesn't work yet it doesn't work yet. Would a field sobriety test work though?

Edited May 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Actually it might be fun to get all the pot activists working on a push to renew alcohol prohibition. None of us need worry about our being targetted by police for advocating THAT. We could sell it as a "tough on crime" approach since alcohol is the only drug with an obvious link to criminality in its users. Assaults both domestic and otherwise are nearly all alcohol fueled. Drunk driving, the costs to the healthcare system from liver damage and general alcoholism. Get ready to get F&cked, all you anti-pot Booze guzzlers, Karma's a bitch .

Oh no!

What about those of us who like a glass of wine with our dope?

[Oleg Bach]

Ah nevermind then, though if they can detect THC it should be possible to figure out a way to detect the amount in a persons system and how long ago they smoked. I would think it would have to be based on the Saliva test since that one has a short time period and it would be easier to do. Though I don't see anyone bothering as long as it is illegal.

Still if it doesn't work yet it doesn't work yet. Would a field sobriety test work though?

Like booze it effects everyone in a slightly different manner. With the power wheel chair pot of today..a hang over might just consist of extreme irritablity along with a mild case of lingering mental illness--maybe we should have detectors for pharma product..once while experimenting in my youth I drove so slowly that I rear ended an old lady..she said "what the hell is wrong with you" _ I said - why dope of course. Legal perscribed tranquilzers that I had pill fered from some nuts med cab for recreational use...okay - so I did every bit of dope known to mankind - and all I can say in my old wisdom was it was fun - but a waste of life and time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Too often the issue of impairment is dominated by holier-than-thou sonsabitches who are only interested in persecuting people they don't like. The issue is impairment and nothing else.

Persecuting dopers is secondary to public safety. The problem is that the druggies gotta use their shyte at work...cause...like...you know....uhhhh....work stresses them out! That's how they are used to dealing with life's problems...getting drunk or stoned.

If someone is operating a nuclear reactor and requires a high level of cognitive functioning, a routine impairment test could catch that. That impairment could be from drinking, sniffing glue, or early-onset Parkinson's--it doesn't matter how it happened. What matters is they must be able to do their job.

Wrong....an employer has the right to weed out the dopers right up front, pun intended.

This is always forgotten by those who are not so much interested in public safety as they are interested in getting revenge on the dopers who picked on them in high school.

What? Dopers were the punks who routinely got their asses kicked. Make peace not war.....LOL!

[Oleg Bach]

Persecuting dopers is secondary to public safety. The problem is that the druggies gotta use their shyte at work...cause...like...you know....uhhhh....work stresses them out! That's how they are used to dealing with life's problems...getting drunk or stoned.

Wrong....an employer has the right to weed out the dopers right up front, pun intended.

What? Dopers were the punks who routinely got their asses kicked. Make peace not war.....LOL!

Praise the Lord and pass the amunition..the holy one from the south has risen! I agree with you on that..back a few decades ago I was at a rock festival that was our Canadian Woodstock..I sat with a bunch of hippies on a hill and hear the roar of Harleys coming up the incline - they were bikers - the sat down and had a few puffs of pot - picked up the bag that was about a pound and rode away - the hippies just stood there like idiots..not a peep - I would like to say to the chronic users here that if they and old I were put on a battle field - I would survive - they would not ...once hitch hiking as a kid - and old man said to me on the subject of dope..."you need all your noodles to survive" - that always stuck with me and I surived...One must have sober days to evaluate your situation - no sober days no evaluation - and no surival.

[BubberMiley]

Wrong....an employer has the right to weed out the dopers right up front, pun intended.

Uh...yeah, I know. My point was that this exercise is done more to satisfy personal grievances against a particular behaviour rather than to ensure safety. If the exercise were to ensure safety, it would be concerned less with the urine and more with the ability to do the job.

[Oleg Bach]

Uh...yeah, I know. My point was that this exercise is done more to satisfy personal grievances against a particular behaviour rather than to ensure safety. If the exercise were to ensure safety, it would be concerned less with the urine and more with the ability to do the job.

No one performs at their best while high on pot or booze..they THINK they do but thinking something does not make it so - If I were an employer - I would get rid of all the drunks and dopers and rule the roost.

[bush_cheney2004]

Uh...yeah, I know. My point was that this exercise is done more to satisfy personal grievances against a particular behaviour rather than to ensure safety. If the exercise were to ensure safety, it would be concerned less with the urine and more with the ability to do the job.

Wrong again....they don't care how well Mr./Ms. Doper can do the job...insurance premiums and loss experience means it is not worth the risk. Substance abuse is the doper's problem...no reason an employer should have to put up with it. They can whine about it to their pipe.

[BubberMiley]

Wrong again....they don't care how well Mr./Ms. Doper can do the job.

Of course they do. You said yourself the nuclear reactor might blow.

I'm not even opposed to employers testing however they want. I'm just saying I don't think it's an effective method.

And the only one here who is whining is clearly you.

Edited May 15, 2010 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course they do. You said yourself the nuclear reactor might blow.

There are other employer considerations beside safe plant operation....dopers represent more risk at several levels.

I'm not even opposed to employers testing however they want. I'm just saying I don't think it's an effective method.

And the only one here who is whining is clearly you.

I got to operate the reactor...you didn't/wouldn't.

Edited May 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[williat]

These types of discussions always really make these types of forums interesting, what you essentially get is people on the left, the right and very few in the middle. Let me first clear up by saying YES I have smoked pot, and YES I will probably continue to do so. I think however though that this argument really has to be taken from each perspective.

Marc Emery essentially dared the DEA and US government to come after him, making it very clear he planned to "Overgrow" them. I'm not 100% sure why everyone is saying that an injustice has occured, Mr. Emery knew what he was doing, yes I conceid he did not break any Canadian laws, but how is the Government of Canada suppose to stand up for you when you clearly state that you plan to break the laws of another sovereign nation. Mr. Emery basically sought to hide behind Canadian law and he's now going to be bitten in the a** over it. Although some of us support his efforts, some in Canada do not, so we shouldn't group the entire population of Canada under one viewpoint.

I've actually had the opportunity to meet Mr. Emery, very nice man I do support his cause, I think the war on drugs has completely failed. I also truely believe that marijuana should just be legalized, I've lived in Amsterdam for an extended period of time, I've seen how legalization really has had absolutely no effect on the Dutch negatively, in fact they receive tax dollars from the sale. Look lets get serious for a minute, a good many of on this forum have smoked pot or currently smoke pot, throughout the world cigarretts are sold and we know for a fact they do nothing but kill you, at least with marijuana you get high. But again to reiterate Mr. Emery took on the US not Canada, do I agree with extraditing him? NO, he should be forced to face some form of charge in Canada, serve 1/3 of his sentence and learn that although freedom of speech is something we believe in, it doesn't always work out in your favor.

[BubberMiley]

I got to operate the reactor...you didn't/wouldn't.

They don't even have a reactor in Regina.

[ZenOps]

Pot, like any other drug does tend to put a strain on the body (or mind)

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Putting a strain on the body is what atheletes do every day. The use resistance training to put their bodies under stresses that no normal human would go under, and yes occasionally they do overtrain and sustain physical injury.

But - If you take a 14 gold medal winning athelete Michael Phelps, he trained his body by putting it under unnatural stress. But did he also train his mind by smoking a little bit of weed every now and then?

Would Obama be the same president if he hadn't "Inhaled frequently, that was the point"

[bush_cheney2004]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It's a bad thing if you have to perform complex tasks, need good short or long term memory, value a high sperm count or regular menstrual cycle, or dislike cardiac arrhythmias. It's also a bad thing for respiratory health.

Would Obama be the same president if he hadn't "Inhaled frequently, that was the point"

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[BubberMiley]

It's a bad thing if you have to perform complex tasks.

But a very good thing if it's a complex task you've practised while high. Just ask any jazz improviser.

[ZenOps]

I think Obama just wants to buy some Emery 14% THC Vancouver weed seeds for himself, lol.

Its like a prize winning orchid now.