Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 oldsoul
Joined: 3/10/2007
Msg: 576
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?Page 24 of 77    (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
[I know I'd much rather date or get to know someone who has a habit/hobby/belief that I don't particularly agree with than I would someone who would cast off another person based on just one aspect of their life!/]

And thank you Msusnicknel! There's nothing left for me to say....
 msusnicknel
Joined: 3/14/2007
Msg: 577
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/19/2007 10:25:09 AM
To firefighter:

My kids (of which I have none, but I DO have several nieces and nephews whom I love very much) can start smoking pot at the age as they can start drinking. The age where they are mature and responsible enough to make choices for themselves.

Is that 16? 18? 21? 72? It really depends on the individual. I'm certainly not going to let a random government agency determine those ages for me. After all, I'm sure you've met 21 year olds who were in no way mature or responsible enough to drink. I've also met 16 year olds who sit and have a beer with their parents from time-to-time, and believe it or not, don't become alcoholics. It isn't like we magically transoform into adults on the eve of our 18th or 21st birthday.

I do talk to my nieces and nephews openly and honestly about the dangers and benefits (yes, I said benefits) of drug use. I COULD beat them over the head with "just say no" messages, but in the real world (where I tend to live) the choice is ultimately going to be up to them. I'd much rather they have had the opportunity to think the topic through, ask honest questions, debate, and make those decisions about their life intelligently, than to just have some slogan to blindly repeat. I plan on doing the same thing if/when I ever have kids.

Not trying to attack you or be disrespectful, just my $.02.

Live, let live, and let people make decisions about their own lives and bodies!

 Flyingace5
Joined: 1/15/2007
Msg: 578
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/19/2007 9:49:33 PM
Hey Raven maybe you know the details bedind this fact:Marijuanna was originally outlawed in the southwest (and the country) I believe after the construction of the Hoover Dam as a means to remove the large Mexican population that had migrated to the southwest at the beginning of the construction project (Overcrowding was an issue and at the time it was a favored means of obtaining a buzz by the Mexican/Southamerican Latino immigrants and it was used to legally deport them enmasse. Now, what I cannot remember is it may not have been the Hoover Dam Project; it could have been an earlier event such as the California Goldrush or one of the other mineral "rushes" in the southwestern states(i.e. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Etc.) I have had a few myself in my time and see it as a lesser evil than alcohol!
 Survivalism
Joined: 3/9/2007
Msg: 579
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/19/2007 9:54:08 PM
I absolutely cannot stand it, and, therefore, I won't even give druggies a chance, and it's for one simple reason. Potheads are the SINGLE most annoying people on the planet.


F**k all ya pot haters! Its way better than drinkin, and I do that as well, but I've never met an angry stonner. Maybe a hungry one, or one that cant stop laughin. Someone wrote that they wouldnt sink as low to talk to a pot head? Good! We dont want ta deal with yer anti-pot s**t stories anyways. If ya tried it ya probably be alot different. Not that I have anything against non-"smokers" . I hang around alot that dont inhale. So to all ya weed haters. GO F**K YOURSELVES!


I rest my case.
 RobinSingle
Joined: 12/1/2006
Msg: 580
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/19/2007 10:13:42 PM
the answer is no - I believe non's and do's have low success rates.
also....


fireman....


so at what age is it acceptable to let your children smoke pot????


any advice to those who don't have kids - or parents anymore for that matter - single adults with free choice?...doing something that is generally accepted even as close as Canada? and Mexico? people who are knowledgable of the actual history of hemp vs. cotton? something you can smoke that has never been linked to cancer and is actually used in its treatment? something that's medical benefits have only just began to be explored and realized? ..... if you have any kind of advice for "those" people - you must be quite the smoker...lol....love your posts...usually....(hope you take this well - as it was intended - to provoke conversation - not controversy).
 sweetriver4
Joined: 2/15/2007
Msg: 581
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/19/2007 10:15:06 PM
well i have to agree with strollz on that one me i have doing it sence i was 13 and hey i am still here and my brain is fine i still can read type and spell i am not fried and also just to ta let u know i dont drink much prefere to smoke put me in control and we r the best damn people to know so easy going and down to earth and we r not volient people who ever heard of one but u drink waht happens they go indian on u and i look at this way u dont like that i do it to f890king bad that what i am and i will change for now one take me as i am i will probaly die with a joint in my hand and hope to bury with one so that what i have to say so like lump it or fuxk urself tata for POT
 sweetriver4
Joined: 2/15/2007
Msg: 582
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/19/2007 10:16:44 PM
well i have to agree with strollz on that one me i have doing it sence i was 13 and hey i am still here and my brain is fine i still can read type and spell i am not fried and also just to ta let u know i dont drink much prefere to smoke put me in control and we r the best damn people to know so easy going and down to earth and we r not volient people who ever heard of one but u drink waht happens they go indian on u and i look at this way u dont like that i do it to f890king bad that what i am and i will change for no one take me as i am i will probaly die with a joint in my hand and hope to bury with one so that what i have to say so like lump it or fuxk urself tata for POT
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 583
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/19/2007 11:28:55 PM
"....i have doing it sence i was 13 and hey i am still here and my brain is fine i still can read type and spell i am not fried..."

All evidence to the contrary Sweetriver....
 FairieSprite
Joined: 3/3/2007
Msg: 584
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 12:09:58 AM
People always have some opinion or another...I myself feel that the Super Sensitives of the world smoke weed...for instance-see how Raven reacts so sensitively to what that man is provoking in him. I see Raven as a sensitive...dont let him jerk your strings...He's trying to use you as his puppet-
J
 WonkaBar
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 585
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 2:13:37 AM
And to those who say they couldn't date a person who smokes pot because it is illegal, would you refuse to date someone because they drove over the speed limit?


How much over we talking?

If someone I dated drives, say, five miles over I might not have a problem with it... but then again, five miles over the speed limit isn't going to get them thrown in jail if they get caught. Thirty miles over? Screw that, I'm not getting in the car with you, legal *or* illegal.


What about if they drove you home after having 2 beers (technically over the limit for most people/states)?


I will not get in the car with someone who's been drinking. That's what designated drivers are for - and since I don't drink much (if at all, and usually not socially) I'm often that safeguard.


How about a jaywalker **gasp**?


What are you, a crazy person? Next thing you know, you'll be littering!

Look, you're comparing things that result in a simple fine (oh noes, I lost some money!) to something that'll send someone to JAIL. Not only that, but something that *I* run the risk of going to jail WITH YOU for. If I'm in the car and you're speeding, I won't lose my license. If the cop finds a dime bag in the glovebox we're BOTH in trouble.

But the thing that cracks me up about potheads the most is...


Remember, if nobody ever broke the law, the U.S. would still be a part of great brittain, we'd still be owning slaves, and anyone who didn't actively participate in a strict Christian lifestyle could be burned at the stake. Blind ignorance to nonsensical laws is a primary step towards facism.


How they love to rant and rave on and on about how it's all a vast government conspiracy and they're some kind of freedom fighters sticking it to The Man by getting baked out of their minds. Hyperbolic, occasionally incoherent arguments and an intolerance for people who don't worship the ganj the same way they do - I mean, honestly... you expect me to tolerate your toking up but you won't tolerate my not wanting to have anything to do with it? Hypocrisy much?

Seriously. How you can even *think* of comparing destroying your brains with chemicals and the American revolution (or standing up to that mythical "fascism") in terms of political statements just boggles my mind. They're not even on the same planet, let alone in the same ballpark.

Here's a tip... you wanna get mary jane legalized, wearing potleaf baseball caps, ranting about textile industry conspiracies, and comparing the desire to get baked without being thrown in jail with a frickin' WAR is not going to get you taken seriously.

And since we're on the topic...


the U.S. would still be a part of great brittain


The declaration of independence from England was a political movement backed by force. It was no more "illegal" than any other war - especially since there was no United Nations back then.


we'd still be owning slaves


The Emancipation Proclamation was drafted by our government. Lincoln, if memory serves. How's that illegal, again?

Oh, and slavery wasn't legal in the north. That's one of the reasons we had that whole Civil War thing.


and anyone who didn't actively participate in a strict Christian lifestyle could be burned at the stake.


Separation of church and state as spelled out in the Constitution unless you're talking about the Inquisition, and that was the Catholic Church.

Methinks you spent a little too much time toking up in History class.
 atlast
Joined: 2/25/2007
Msg: 586
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 4:26:53 AM
Sure, why not? Screw the rent, go score a key! I don't do any of this stuff, but I'd rather have people driving around stoned than drunk. If you want to keep a drunk off the road, you are going to have a fight on your hands. If you want to keep someone from driving stoned, just order a pizza!
 000firefighter
Joined: 12/25/2005
Msg: 587
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 4:49:31 AM
Msg 584,600....No offense taken,,and I did not mean to hijack this post,,,I just don't understand all the assumptions being tossed around,and I was just wondering if the people who did smoke ,if they would allow their children to indulge in it also...have a nice day everyone
 BengalLuvr
Joined: 3/5/2007
Msg: 588
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 5:25:05 AM
Well this one caught my eye and as a toker felt like I should comment; like many others I have seen many more problems caused by drinking alchohol than smoking weed. I did start at 13 but would definitely not like to see anyone's children starting that young... it was the 70s, things were different then, not necessarily worse.

I have two daughters, 23 & 21, they both know that I imbibe and they've both tried it but do not like it which I am glad of. However they both enjoy drinking more than I would like, college days - I'm hoping they grow out of it. They are responsible and always have an assigned designated driver but the quantities that they drink scare the heck out of me sometimes. So if I had any choice in it, which would I prefer them to use? Probably neither!

I'm really shocked by the strong views of some of the folks in this thread; like several others I know I hold down a decent job, pay my bills and have not even had so much as a traffic ticket in 25 years so I don't think I'm a problem for society. If law enforcement would concentrate on the hard stuff and leave the stoners alone, I think the world would be a safer place. Just my opinion.

Have a great day!!
 NocturnalPrincess
Joined: 8/26/2006
Msg: 589
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 5:38:08 AM
Personally, I believe pot should be no more illegal than alcohol. Some people argue that it leads to heroin and meth use, but I disagree.
Nevertheless, regarding the question of the post, a lot of people do not smoke pot for various reasons. Career-wise, I have too much to lose to smoke pot myself or to associate myself with illegal activites.
I think in the short-term, such a relationship could work, but in the long-term it is a relationship that will ultimately fail, due to irreconcilable differences.
 Art Vandolay
Joined: 2/28/2007
Msg: 590
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 5:49:59 AM
I find that there are a 2 types of non-smokers. And these 2 types work for anything simillar. For example, non-drinkers.

The two types are:
Non-
Don't-

A Non-Smoker, is someone who doesn't smoke, and doesn't want anyone else too.
(aka Moral Pusher)
A Don't Smoker, is someone who doesn't smoke, but understands that you might not be the same as them.
(aka Normal Person)

So yes and no to the question. I would be really surprised if a NON could get along with someone who subscribes to what they are against. However, a DONT, should be wise enough not to judge based on what a person smokes.

(heated topic none the less, and yes I smoke both the green and the tobacco, and for those of you who judge me, shame on you! Look into your closets, what skeletons do you have hiding I wonder. What do you have that would make you, 'bad'.
 msusnicknel
Joined: 3/14/2007
Msg: 591
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 6:24:00 AM
Wonka, man, I think you're drawing conclusions from my post that aren't warranted.


<div class="quote">you expect me to tolerate your toking up but you won't tolerate my not wanting to have anything to do with it?

I never said anyone should be forced or even encouraged to smoke pot. If you chose not to do it, then I, for one, am completely cool with that. I just don't think people should judge others based on one aspect of a their life, thats all.

In regards to my comparing pot to speeding, DUI, and jaywalking, I think you missed my point. The point I was trying to make, is that I'm not willing to let an arbitrary government entity dictate morality to me. Yes, partaking in illegal drugs is a bad idea (notice, I never said in my post whether or not I personally use.) I would never advocate breaking the law unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences, of which one could be jailtime. I WOULD advocate working to reform legislation that is nonsensical.

As far as seeing the legalization effort as a "freedom fight," I certainly do. If you don't believe me, ask Angel Raich of California. She suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, and other ailments. Her doctor's said marijuana is the only thing keeping her alive. Yet she is being prosecuted under federal drug charges. Is she a dangerous criminal? A threat to society? Or is she just a sick woman trying to relieve her suffering a bit? You could also ask the thousands of people every year who have their lives destroyed by this ridiculous war on drugs. Ask the people who are seperated from their families, ripped from their jobs, traumatized in a jail cell, and face stigma for life because they chose to smoke pot. I realize that they know that is a risk when they chose to partake, but if you honestly ask yourself what it was that destroyed their lives,was it the herb itself, or the government's policy on herb. Still don't believe me? Talk to the doctor's lawyers, teachers, police officers, musicians, artists, politicians, scholars, and priests who smoke in the privacy of their own homes. I've known at least one represntative from each of the above groups that smoked on a regular basis. Are these folks societal parasites because they smoke pot? Or are they productive, tax-paying members of society who are forced to hide a part of themselves because of a misquided government policy?

I absolutely see the legalization movement on the same level as any other quest for freedoms. Comparing it to the revolutionary war is entirerly appropriate. Those freedom fighters were most definitely breaking the existing laws of the land at the time they committed their acts. Remember reading about the Boston Tea Party? Illegal. Killing the soldiers of the government? Illegal. Refusing to pay taxes to Brittain? Illegal. Now I'm certainly not suggesting potheads rise up with guns to overthrow the government. I'm just saying, lets have an honest an open debate about it. It isn't right (IMHO), so why not work to change it?

As far as owning slaves, the comparison again holds. There were different states with different laws, under a common federal government. Through a process of change (in that case, a violent process) a political change was made. How is that different from the states that have chosen to decriminalize, or allow medicinal?

The whole burning non-christians at the stake; remember the Salem witch trials episode? Again, the legal system of the day was used to persecute those with views different from the views of those in the "majority." Our political system purports to place an empahsis on the rights of the individual over the desires of the many, so again I ask, where's the difference?

Change has to start somewhere, and none of the above changes occured overnight. The legalization movement is a question of politcal beliefs. I just wish that people would debate it openly and honestly. I don't go around wearing pot-leaf hats, playing bongos, and singing kumbaya. But if I did, would that make my points any less valid?

I respect your views, sir, and would fight to the death for you to be able to have them. All the while, though, I'm going to be encouraging you to think for yourself. If you chose not to toke, don't. Don't want to be anywhere around it? Then don't. Teach your children that you think it is wrong. Throw people in jail who get stoned and then drive (endangering others) or that sell drugs to kids. But how can you judge otherwise rational, intelligent adults based on one specific area of their lives? Personally, I think blind intolerance of personal choice is much more dangerous to American society than a plant with mild hallucinogenic properties.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread. This wasn't originally about legalization, but I just want people to think, be honest, and at least consider that there might be the possibility that there may be views other than their own. Then make an educated, informed decision and allow others to do the same.

Live and let live. I'll let someone else worry about judging other people. I've got too much else to do!

 nilegirl
Joined: 1/2/2007
Msg: 592
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 6:29:07 AM
[kerrymh - Pot smokers crack me up with all the reasons they have to justify it. I will never knowingly date someone who currently smokes pot, its immature, and stupid, lowers sperm count, and leads to memory loss, and once again is just plain stupid. I would even hesitate to date someone who has smoked pot in there life time. But thats difficult to do haha. I am very antismoking, but I would rather date a cigarette smoker than a pot head. I mean come on men in your 30's smoking pot GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

Oh for god's sake you should grow up. You state that someone who smokes pot or marijuana is immature, stupid, has a lowered sperm count, ends up with memory loss and you reiterate again that the person is just plain stupid, can you even spell the correct term or has alcohol damaged your brain too much. You want people to be honest on this, well stop being such bigoted uneducated idiots - (not all of you of course but most of you). Have any of you ever seen a baby that has alcohol fetal syndrome, well I hope you never have to, and no, a baby does not get this just by the mother consuming alcohol while pregnant, in fact a man who drinks excessively can corrupt his sperm for the rest of his life and create a baby with this terrible defect. I would rather have a man with a lowered sperm count than one who has ultimately damaged his for the rest of his life. Also the statistics for Domestic Violence, Rape and other crimes against women and children are linked with alcohol and not marijuana, in fact where alcohol is one of the main contributing factors, marijuana is rarely mentioned (and i'm not talking about man made or synthetically manufactured drugs). Less wars would be fought as well if more people smoked marijuana, it wasn't called passing the peace pipe for nothing. As long as you work, pay your bills first and keep it away from children, I would prefer someone to have a smoke with me than have a drink. And the fact that you would rather date a cigarette smoker than someone who smokes marijuana is enough of an indication of your mental ability and maturity, and you should be embarassed to spout out so much uneducated, ignorant propaganda as you have done here.
 strats4
Joined: 10/21/2006
Msg: 593
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 7:33:38 AM
Hey after reading this I kinda think the Question shoulda been can Smokers handle ppl who drink in excess.Now that is Boring I agree with some ppl who said boozin and smokin together can really mess somebody up Things done in excess -no good ,Moderation Kool
 WonkaBar
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 594
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 2:11:15 PM
Wonka, man, I think you're drawing conclusions from my post that aren't warranted.


It's possible. I was rushing to get it typed before I fell asleep for the night.


I never said anyone should be forced or even encouraged to smoke pot. If you chose not to do it, then I, for one, am completely cool with that. I just don't think people should judge others based on one aspect of a their life, thats all.


Yep, you didn't say this part. I was speaking in more general terms before I moved on to your specific points. Sorry about that.


In regards to my comparing pot to speeding, DUI, and jaywalking, I think you missed my point. The point I was trying to make, is that I'm not willing to let an arbitrary government entity dictate morality to me.


Yea, but those things are not "Arbitrary" decisions made simply to annoy you. They're there to ensure the safety of motorists and pedestrians by mandating safe driving. If I blitz down the highway at a hundred miles an hour, I risk killing everyone in my car plus whoever I slam into when I misjudge a turn. If I jaywalk, I could become street pizza (especially when people disregard the speed limits.) Driving under the influence could also get people killed. The government didn't sit down one day and say "you know what? We're not making enough money off of parking fines. Let's outlaw speeding."


I WOULD advocate working to reform legislation that is nonsensical.


So would I. I'm pro-legalization and a number of my friends are pot smokers. I just don't see the current methods of raising public awareness working very well. For one thing, hazy and tenuous analogies. To wit;


As far as seeing the legalization effort as a "freedom fight," I certainly do.


(lots of other stuff snipped.)

Again, I am pro-legalization. Medical purposes? Go for it. Hemp? Love it. Make all the rope you want. I can't personally understand how cigarettes are on the market and joints are illegal. Makes no sense to me at all.


I absolutely see the legalization movement on the same level as any other quest for freedoms. Comparing it to the revolutionary war is entirerly appropriate.


Not even close. The impetus for the war for Independence was over taxes imposed by the English government on the colonies without the colonies consent, giving rise to the slogan "no taxation without representation." The colonies didn't care about the money - the taxes weren't even that high - but they did have a problem with having no control over their own economies... especially after having fought the French and Indian war on England's behalf.

Things got worse - vis a vis, the Boston Massacre.

I'm sorry if I don't *quite* see wanting to get baked on the same level as a country's political independence or the rights of individuals to not be shot by the army. But it's all relative, I suppose.

Still, we have a representative government in place now. So if you don't like the laws, by all means, lobby for them to get changed. I'm not against that - but you won't get anywhere saying that pot smokers are the equivalent of slaves.


Those freedom fighters were most definitely breaking the existing laws of the land at the time they committed their acts. Remember reading about the Boston Tea Party? Illegal. Killing the soldiers of the government? Illegal. Refusing to pay taxes to Brittain? Illegal.


See above. I do agree that one should protest and/or work to change laws that they don't agree with, but let's not kid ourselves, here. We're not even remotely on the same scale. And like I said, it was a war. Once you start talking about soldiers dying, the law of the land no longer really applies. I'm sure the US army killing Viet Cong was "illegal" according to the north Vietnamese government, too.


As far as owning slaves, the comparison again holds. There were different states with different laws, under a common federal government. Through a process of change (in that case, a violent process) a political change was made. How is that different from the states that have chosen to decriminalize, or allow medicinal?


It's different because you were advocating breaking the law in order to change the law (via protest), and slavery was not ended by the breaking of any laws. The Civil War was fought because the South seceded from the Union in protest over economic sanctions (sound familiar?) related to the plantations and, in part, their use of slaves. Once the war began, it was discovered that Union generals were not returning escaped slaves to their masters - not because said generals believed in the slaves' freedom, but because they considered them *war contraband*. Lincoln decided to use this to his advantage and drafted the Emancipation Proclamation, which later led to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. There was no protest or disobedience involved in these acts; the first was done to gain support (Lincoln hoped freed slaves would join the Union army, which they did), and the latter enacted because a movement was started (not a protest) to finish the job.

None of which was done illegally.


The whole burning non-christians at the stake; remember the Salem witch trials episode? Again, the legal system of the day was used to persecute those with views different from the views of those in the "majority."


Not quite. The Salem witch trials weren't about religious persecution. Religion was used as an excuse. Analyses were done of many of those who were persecuted under said trials, and it was found that many of the accusations of witchcraft were either revenge based (the accuser didn't like the accused and so pointed the finger) or economically based (the accuser wanted the accused's land, or some such). It was never about systematic religious persecution, although it did help mask the issue.


Our political system purports to place an empahsis on the rights of the individual over the desires of the many, so again I ask, where's the difference?


The difference is, we don't execute jaywalkers. My point was, there are levels of offense. Obviously, possession of marijuana is a much higher level of offense in the eyes of the government than those who partake wish it to be. That's a valid concern on the part of those what partake. But you are not going to win me over to your side by comparing yourself to political prisoners or slaves.


I don't go around wearing pot-leaf hats, playing bongos, and singing kumbaya. But if I did, would that make my points any less valid?


Well, that depends. The rational people who say "I think the studies you based your decision to make pot illegal on are inaccurate. Here's new research explaining why", have my ear. The nuts who swear your brain is like a herd of buffalo do not.

The way I see it, is this. If you are so obsessed with pot that you feel the need to wear it on your clothes, print newspapers about it, champion "smoking a bowl" as the solution to all life's ills, and launch into a tirade about the criminalization being "a conspiracy" at the drop of a hat, it's going to make me wonder about your ability to discuss the issue rationally and impartially. People have, on a few rare (*snicker*) occasions, bent a fact or two in order to further their own agendas on any topic. Heck, if you listen to some pot activitists, the folks who made the stuff illegal did it by doctoring tests and using flawed research. So why wouldn't someone so passionate about legalization do likewise? Am I to assume their intentions are all innocent and pure simply because it's not The Ebil Government, and they're not just really, really keen on being allowed to get stoned at will, using all the purported medical benefits as a smokescreen, to use a pun? We won't even go into the fact that I would wonder how firmly grounded in reality someone who professed to snorf hallucinogenics on a recreational basis would be.

I respect your views, sir, and would fight to the death for you to be able to have them.


And I yours.


But how can you judge otherwise rational, intelligent adults based on one specific area of their lives?


The real question is, do those rational, intelligent partakers of marijuana outnumber the burnt-out nuts that live in their mom's basement and watch Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle for all eternity? I don't know the answer, but I have run into more people like sweet river up there, who swears up and down pot didn't fry her brain while being unable to spell two words correctly in sequence, than I have the former. That's not exactly making me jump on the "pot is harmless" bandwagon.


Personally, I think blind intolerance of personal choice is much more dangerous to American society than a plant with mild hallucinogenic properties.


The question is, where do we draw the line on choice? Is it my choice to drive drunk or to jaywalk? Is it my choice to snort Drain-O?


Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread. This wasn't originally about legalization, but I just want people to think, be honest, and at least consider that there might be the possibility that there may be views other than their own. Then make an educated, informed decision and allow others to do the same.


Amen. Be informed.
 RobinSingle
Joined: 12/1/2006
Msg: 595
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/20/2007 5:36:49 PM
I am too stoned to follow any of this..........lol
 nilegirl
Joined: 1/2/2007
Msg: 596
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/21/2007 4:08:30 AM
Robin, U make me laugh lol
 dirtcake
Joined: 3/8/2007
Msg: 597
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/22/2007 4:34:07 AM
well said....i hate narrow minded people too!!!
 EpisodeIV
Joined: 6/28/2006
Msg: 598
view profile
History
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/22/2007 8:39:53 AM
Can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers? Well the answer should be obvious... it's entirely up to the individuals.

This is a great question with a rather simple answer...

...so at what age is it acceptable to let your children smoke pot???? another can of worms to be opened!!!!


Let's start telling our children the truth... after we spend some time to learn the truth. Despite the religiously motivated governments' efforts to suppress research it is becoming clear that any substance that has the ability to alter the way the brain works, whether temporary or otherwise, is detrimental to the physically developing brain. Research tells us that the human brain does not reach full physical development until about the age of 20-21. Before the brain has finished that physical development, the human's abilities of reasoning and especially future reasoning including scenerios regarding possible consequences of our actions and likewise decision making are not fully developed. Using substances that alter brain function before the brain is fully developed is more likely to cause development to "get stuck" and not develop into it higher capability. So we should explain to our children that because we love them and want them to develop into the best they can be we much prefer they not experiment with such substances before then. If we are a loving, attentive and supportive parent and have been consistently though our child's development this is really about all it takes. With a little tweaking on an individual basis of course as all children are individuals.

The "can of worms" is when we start forcing the preverbial can of Reefer Madness on them. Fear, threats and loathing only tend to work so long and have a huge tendency to backfire. It's when the kids develop and start learning on their own, which is inevitable, that the confusion begins. My parents taught me "x" but the truth looks like "y." Why would my parents teach me something different? Who should I believe? If my parents misled me on this or that what else was I misled on? And that leads kids toward a tendency to explore "z", the other extreme and the dangers that often leads to.


This observation/experience also struck me...

...had 2 partners who where smokers n it ended up causing arguements n the sex time decreases with pot now my bfs stopped smokin hes like the energizer bunny...


For a lot of us arguments alone tend to decrease "sex time." So if the frequency and length of arguments are increasing then it stands to reason the "sex time" would be decreasing. If the subject of the argument is the method one get's their pleasure, the avenue of pleasure with the partner's participation will often naturally be reduced.

It can also depend on the type of marijuana used too. Were your bfs using more indica or sativa? Do you know? Did they know? All marijuana is not the same. Indica strains tend to have the effect of knocking someone out similar to alcohol. Too much and you're wasted. You don't want to do anything including "sex time." Sativa strains on the other hand give more of an intellectual high. More of an energetic "lets do something" and creative effect (or affect... whichever word is correct here.) Indica is the most available on the street because it is the fastest growing and maturing thus works best or is more profitable in the black market the U.S. government perpetuates.

As for me, I could probably live with an occasional pot smoker. If, that is, she is using primarily sativa and probably no more that once or twice a week. More than that and I would consider it a problem. If she could only enjoy "sex time" while high then that could be a problem. Even a turn-off. If she is using indica then maybe only if once or twice a month. To me, occasional recreational use is o.k. As a constant escape or coping mechanism it is troubling and I would steer clear.
 Art Vandolay
Joined: 2/28/2007
Msg: 599
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/22/2007 3:16:54 PM
My god, the ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Who cares if someone smokes pot. If you don't like it you can move on. But to belittle them and call them stupid, well that does show that someone is stupid. *wink wink* If anything the 'pot smoker' would be good to be rid of you. No one likes to be "changed" or "nagged" so if YOU don't like pot then YOU don't be around it.

And for all you people who use the 'illegal' crutch. I think its time you learned how to walk. If you want to bash on someone, start with your inability to keep your shovel out of other peoples s*it.

And for those of you who discount the fact that doing other illegal activities are lesser than smoking pot (running a red light for example). ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL there is no 'kinda illegal' or 'semi illegal'. The traffic law was broken period.

I guess I will have to dust off my truth gathering efforts on the greenery. Like I typed a few pages ago, do some real research. For example, weed doesn't get you high. It's the keef (sp?). So if anything keef should be illegal not weed. Oh yeah, thats right its called HEMP! The only thing bad about Pot is that it is smoked. Carcinogens are bad from anything, including your SUV's and Volcano's. So when the earth stops farting, and people start driving smokeless cars, I will worry about my smoking habits. Until then, puff puff pass, or pass-out, depending on if you believe in lies :D
 Art Vandolay
Joined: 2/28/2007
Msg: 600
can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 3/22/2007 4:05:16 PM
For those of you who say its baaaad for your health, or that it compares to alcohol here is an excerpt from the wiki on marijuana...


Unlike tobacco, cannabis has not been shown to cause emphysema, lung cancer, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.(55)(56)(57) Other studies have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.(58)(59) According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.(60)


That's just a small chunk of TRUTH. Check out the entire wiki article for more info. So as you can see, not dating because of a chance that they may get sick from it is no go. I will keep my search up, but gonna need some more posts from others before I will post again (sorry for the rule breaking this time, but this was a tasty paragraph and people were taking too long to type in here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis
(link to source)
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?