PDA

View Full Version : Marijuana



Bos Mutus
11-25-2015, 10:24 PM
I think marijuana has some legitimate medical benefits.

But, I think 90% of the people fighting for/participating in/selling, or otherwise involved in "medical marijuana" are more or less inventing or exaggerating bogus conditions to participate in what is essentially recreational use. They just wanna smoke pot, sell pot, etc.

I support recreational marijuana legalization...I think it's minimally dangerous, probably less than alcohol is, and that making it illegal is what makes it surrounded by criminal elements.

I've never actually tried marijuana myself...but if it was entirely legal, I'm sure I would.

What say you?

efmbman
11-25-2015, 10:41 PM
I never bought into the gateway drug argument. I see nothing wrong with recreational use. The only thing in danger from someone smoking weed is the closest bag of Doritos or Cheetos. I agree that alcohol is far more harmful. At the same time, I am in favor of employers having random drug testing and making weed use a reason for termination. Then it becomes a choice on which is more important: using weed or your job. Just because weed is legal in your area should not give you an excuse to smoke up on the job or arrive impaired. It's OK to be fired for being drunk on the job - so it should be for weed.

Bos Mutus
11-26-2015, 01:41 AM
I never bought into the gateway drug argument.

I think it's only gateway in the sense that someone willing to do one illegal drug is probably more likely to try another one...but, I don't think it's gateway in the sense that doing marijuana makes you do other drugs.


I see nothing wrong with recreational use. The only thing in danger from someone smoking weed is the closest bag of Doritos or Cheetos. I agree that alcohol is far more harmful. At the same time, I am in favor of employers having random drug testing and making weed use a reason for termination. Then it becomes a choice on which is more important: using weed or your job. Just because weed is legal in your area should not give you an excuse to smoke up on the job or arrive impaired. It's OK to be fired for being drunk on the job - so it should be for weed.

Yes, of course being impaired at work is a no-no, same as alcohol.

My understanding is that is part of the problem against legalization, is that there is no scientific test for marijuana impairment...only a test if it's in your system, which only shows that you have used it in the past 30 days or so, but not if you are currently impaired by it...I could be wrong, just some stuff I've heard.

I'm not so sure about an employer being able to say "no marijuana use" as a condition of employment if it were entirely legal...would be like an employer saying you can't drink on your off-work hours.

garhkal
11-26-2015, 03:35 AM
I never bought into the gateway drug argument. I see nothing wrong with recreational use. The only thing in danger from someone smoking weed is the closest bag of Doritos or Cheetos. I agree that alcohol is far more harmful. At the same time, I am in favor of employers having random drug testing and making weed use a reason for termination. Then it becomes a choice on which is more important: using weed or your job. Just because weed is legal in your area should not give you an excuse to smoke up on the job or arrive impaired. It's OK to be fired for being drunk on the job - so it should be for weed.

I used to not believe in it either, until i had to go through a Captains mast with one of my Jr sailors getting done for Meth.. Dude said he only got into Meth cause of his use of weed. After that i looked into it, by checking with out base's DAPA administrator and by her stats, well over 70% of those who did get popped for stronger drugs mentioned they only did those drugs cause they also did weed..

Rusty Jones
11-26-2015, 11:58 AM
Yeah, I keep seeing all of these facebook posts and memes about cannabis curing every disease known to man, and everyone buys it. All we need is a meme that says it cures HIV/AIDS, and new cases will pop up everywhere. I'm sure that in some neighborhoods, there's a really hot chick no one will have sex with because she's infected. Tell the world that it weed cures HIV/AIDS, and these women will have all the men in their neighborhoods lined up outside of the house smoking a doobie.

There are actually two things that I ask before they legalize cannabis:

1. Do a comprehensive review of ALL illegal substances, and give ALL a consideration. I'm not of the libertarian mindset that all drugs should be legal. However... not all illegal drugs are equal, and some are weaker than others. Currently (at least to the best of my knowledge, and most other people's), cannabis is the least harmful of all illegal drugs. By legalizing it, another drug takes its place. Are people going to start fighting for THAT to be legal too? By the way, I think that substance is peyote. It has a high similar to cannabis, but also has some hallucination in there as well. Certain Native American tribes in the military are allowed to use it, as long as it's for ceremonial use. I could see peyote become the new weed, if cannabis is simply legalized without a comprehensive review of ALL illegal drugs.

2. Who is going to make billions of off cannabis once it's legalized at the federal level? Most likely the big tobacco companies. These brands of marijuana behind the convenience store counters are going to be subsidiaries of today's tobacco companies. What about the people who've been locked up on felony convictions for selling it? I'm sure they'll all get pardoned but, if it were up to me, the federal government would start up regional companies and then transfer ownership to the convicts of each of the respective regions after the federal government makes its money back.

sandsjames
11-26-2015, 01:07 PM
Marijuana is not a gateway drug. I smoked a lot in prior to joining the military. I never felt the need to try anything harder. In addition, there were no withdrawals when I stopped. I've never known anyone, personally, who had either of those issues. I never met anyone who acted aggressively while high on pot. I never had a hangover on pot. Of course, just with any substance, if people are letting it take over their lives then it's an issue. But recreational use should be legal everywhere. There are still laws that relate to intoxication/impairment while working, driving, etc that should be followed.

sandsjames
11-26-2015, 01:10 PM
I used to not believe in it either, until i had to go through a Captains mast with one of my Jr sailors getting done for Meth.. Dude said he only got into Meth cause of his use of weed. After that i looked into it, by checking with out base's DAPA administrator and by her stats, well over 70% of those who did get popped for stronger drugs mentioned they only did those drugs cause they also did weed.. I don't buy it at all. That's like saying that people who become alcoholics started by drinking just one beer. Is it true? Sure, but it's the person who becomes the alcoholic, not the alcohol that makes them drink more. Same thing for drugs.

Mjölnir
11-26-2015, 01:28 PM
I don't buy it at all. That's like saying that people who become alcoholics started by drinking just one beer. Is it true? Sure, but it's the person who becomes the alcoholic, not the alcohol that makes them drink more. Same thing for drugs.

Yes and no. There are some drugs that will initiate an addictive reaction with one usage. Marijuana isn't one of those.

Soft drugs tend to not elicit that addictive response. One of the social aspects of the gateway drug theory is that the use of soft drugs begins a predictive cycle that leads someone to be more accepting of, tolerant and open to the use of harder drugs. For some people, this may be the case, for some it is not. I have heard of people who use marijuana consistently for decades and never progress to hard drugs, I have seen a friend or two who this was the case for. There is no 100% and people's character / social circles likely play a large part in the way this will turn out.

Too much medical evidence supports that long term marijuana use has adverse long term effect on the brain; specifically in adolescent / developing brains.

One of my big concerns in the legalization of marijuana is that marijuana (specifically high concentrations of THC) is the most common drug present in impaired drivers who are under the influence of drugs.

Driving while intoxicated -- already illegal.

People who I have heard expressing that driving under the influence of marijuana (THC) is no big deal: way too many.

sandsjames
11-26-2015, 01:47 PM
Yes and no. There are some drugs that will initiate an addictive reaction with one usage. Marijuana isn't one of those. Of course. I was talking about marijuana.


Soft drugs tend to not elicit that addictive response. One of the social aspects of the gateway drug theory is that the use of soft drugs begins a predictive cycle that leads someone to be more accepting of, tolerant and open to the use of harder drugs. For some people, this may be the case, for some it is not. I have heard of people who use marijuana consistently for decades and never progress to hard drugs, I have seen a friend or two who this was the case for. There is no 100% and people's character / social circles likely play a large part in the way this will turn out. Yup. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.


Too much medical evidence supports that long term marijuana use has adverse long term effect on the brain; specifically in adolescent / developing brains. Sure. No worse than anything else. Alcohol is also bad long term, specifically in the developing brains of adolescents.


One of my big concerns in the legalization of marijuana is that marijuana (specifically high concentrations of THC) is the most common drug present in impaired drivers who are under the influence of drugs.

Driving while intoxicated -- already illegal. Exactly. Nothing changes.


People who I have heard expressing that driving under the influence of marijuana (THC) is no big deal: way too many.Just as too many people claim they drive better after a few beers.

LogDog
11-26-2015, 06:28 PM
Interesting discussion. First off, let me say I've never used marijuana, nor do I intend to use it, but I've been to parties where it was used. I used to think marijuana was dangerous but over the last 10 years I've changed my mind. I do believe within the next 10 years, most marijuana laws will be eased or repealed.

Medical marijuana, IMO, does have some benefits but it is not a panacea for all conditions. I favor multiple government funded studies to determine its effectiveness on different types of diseases/ailments, at what levels the THC will impair someone (think alcohol/weight charts), and what the long-term effect will be.

Until the studies are concluded, I favor reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule V drug. Doctors will be able to write a prescription for medical marijuana use that can be filled at any local pharmacy (provided the pharmacy is willing to include marijuana in its inventory) or marijuana dispensary. The DEA can require pharmacies to provide them monthly with data indicating which doctors prescribe marijuana and how many prescriptions were written/filled (no patient information is to be included in this data to the DEA)to ensure doctors aren't abusing or over-prescribing.

When the studies are completed and if they show marijuana isn't as dangerous as some believe, then make marijuana an over-the-counter drug and treat it the same way as alcohol. Require marijuana be sold only to those who are 21 or older. Also, the DEA can limit the total amount of THC in the product. This will allow a standardization throughout the industry much like what is done in the liquor business. States will make the determination and write/change their laws determining the levels of THC in the system for someone to be considered under the influence as well as the laws concerning the types of businesses that can sell marijuana.

I think some people will agree with me and some won't, so please, let's start talking about where we agree and where we disagree and see if we can reach a compromise.

sandsjames
11-26-2015, 06:46 PM
Interesting discussion. First off, let me say I've never used marijuana, nor do I intend to use it, but I've been to parties where it was used. I used to think marijuana was dangerous but over the last 10 years I've changed my mind. I do believe within the next 10 years, most marijuana laws will be eased or repealed.

Medical marijuana, IMO, does have some benefits but it is not a panacea for all conditions. I favor multiple government funded studies to determine its effectiveness on different types of diseases/ailments, at what levels the THC will impair someone (think alcohol/weight charts), and what the long-term effect will be.

Until the studies are concluded, I favor reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule V drug. Doctors will be able to write a prescription for medical marijuana use that can be filled at any local pharmacy (provided the pharmacy is willing to include marijuana in its inventory) or marijuana dispensary. The DEA can require pharmacies to provide them monthly with data indicating which doctors prescribe marijuana and how many prescriptions were written/filled (no patient information is to be included in this data to the DEA)to ensure doctors aren't abusing or over-prescribing.

When the studies are completed and if they show marijuana isn't as dangerous as some believe, then make marijuana an over-the-counter drug and treat it the same way as alcohol. Require marijuana be sold only to those who are 21 or older. Also, the DEA can limit the total amount of THC in the product. This will allow a standardization throughout the industry much like what is done in the liquor business. States will make the determination and write/change their laws determining the levels of THC in the system for someone to be considered under the influence as well as the laws concerning the types of businesses that can sell marijuana.

I think some people will agree with me and some won't, so please, let's start talking about where we agree and where we disagree and see if we can reach a compromise.

It should be reclassified as everything else I can grow in my garden/green house. The only regulation should be for the pharmacies, as you stated. If it's a prescription, it can have certain standards. But there shouldn't be any laws about what THC levels, etc, if I'm growing my own. As long as I'm not selling it to kids, why should anyone care?

LogDog
11-26-2015, 07:32 PM
It should be reclassified as everything else I can grow in my garden/green house. The only regulation should be for the pharmacies, as you stated. If it's a prescription, it can have certain standards. But there shouldn't be any laws about what THC levels, etc, if I'm growing my own. As long as I'm not selling it to kids, why should anyone care?
I don't think it should be reclassified as "everything else" but I really don't have a problem if you want to grow it in your garden/green house for your personal use. It's really isn't anything different than brewing your own beer or wine.

Rusty Jones
11-27-2015, 12:57 AM
It should be reclassified as everything else I can grow in my garden/green house. The only regulation should be for the pharmacies, as you stated. If it's a prescription, it can have certain standards. But there shouldn't be any laws about what THC levels, etc, if I'm growing my own. As long as I'm not selling it to kids, why should anyone care?

The problem with this argument is that it can also be used to justify people having meth labs in their homes.

sandsjames
11-27-2015, 02:04 AM
The problem with this argument is that it can also be used to justify people having meth labs in their homes.

Except that meth is recognized by everyone as being harmful. Even so, as long as nobody breaks any laws, what does it really matter?

Rusty Jones
11-27-2015, 03:35 AM
Except that meth is recognized by everyone as being harmful. Even so, as long as nobody breaks any laws, what does it really matter?

I don't know much about meth, to be honest, as I've never known people personally who use it or has been affected by those who have. I live in the Ocean View area of Norfolk, so the only thing I really know is how to tell a meth addict when I see one (lots of street walkers up and down Ocean View Ave, with fucked up faces due to meth).

I can speak on crack, however. My mother got addicted to it when I was 14 years old. And, to be honest, I was lucky. I simply no longer got an allowance, and every now and then I would wake up in the morning to find Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo cartridges missing.

Crack came out when I was five. I've seen kids go days without eating, go without electricity or water, and all kinds of other stuff because of their parents' addictions.

I also learned of prostitution at the age of 7, when I found that the janitors of a housing project I lived in in New London were pimping some of the female residents... one of whom happened to be the mother of a friend. In the janitor's gear locker, they actually created a poster with naked Polaroid pictures of the women they were pimping. The mother of the friend? She was a crack addict.

I'm under the impression that meth has addicted parents doing similar things, but I'm not sure. Point is... legalization of all drugs solely on the basis of it being one's own body is a fail, in my opinion.

Rainmaker
11-27-2015, 05:45 AM
I think marijuana has some legitimate medical benefits.

But, I think 90% of the people fighting for/participating in/selling, or otherwise involved in "medical marijuana" are more or less inventing or exaggerating bogus conditions to participate in what is essentially recreational use. They just wanna smoke pot, sell pot, etc.

I support recreational marijuana legalization...I think it's minimally dangerous, probably less than alcohol is, and that making it illegal is what makes it surrounded by criminal elements.

I've never actually tried marijuana myself...but if it was entirely legal, I'm sure I would.

What say you?

It'd probably be ok if it just stopped with that. But, you know it won't be enough for the progressive horde of degeneracy which is invading our once great Western culture

garhkal
11-27-2015, 06:21 AM
I don't buy it at all. That's like saying that people who become alcoholics started by drinking just one beer. Is it true? Sure, but it's the person who becomes the alcoholic, not the alcohol that makes them drink more. Same thing for drugs.

True, its not the same, but of those i know of who did get popped for drugs (hard), very few claimed they only started WITH the hard stuff, compared to a lot who said they got into it after toking up with MJ.


I favor multiple government funded studies to determine its effectiveness on different types of diseases/ailments, at what levels the THC will impair someone (think alcohol/weight charts), and what the long-term effect will be.

Why should the govt be the ones financing the study?

sandsjames
11-27-2015, 11:13 AM
True, its not the same, but of those i know of who did get popped for drugs (hard), very few claimed they only started WITH the hard stuff, compared to a lot who said they got into it after toking up with MJ.





I don't doubt what your saying. I just don't consider it a cause and effect situation. Those on hard drugs would find their way there one way or the other. And one of the big reasons they get there is because of the difficulty of access to pot. If pot was readily available, I'd bet that there would be far fewer people who used the hard stuff.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2015, 12:50 PM
The problem with this argument is that it can also be used to justify people having meth labs in their homes.

Meth labs are dangerous and I sure as hell wouldn't want one in an apartment building.

The damn things are prone to exploding and some of the chemicals they use can produce deadly gases.

Heck, I wouldn't want a moonshine still in an apartment building either.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2015, 01:00 PM
The main reason I want to see marijuana legalized is to take away that income stream from organized crime.

I'd also like to see the income from cocaine, heroin and meth taken away from organized crime.

I'm not sure how that could be done with those three drugs because I don't see any company that would want to sell those three drugs legally.

UncaRastus
11-27-2015, 02:18 PM
Here's a study on brain damage, from using the more powerful kinds of marijuana:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/27/smoking-high-strength-cannabis-skunk-may-damage-nerves-brain

And here's an article about the new shake and bake meth:

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/new-shake-and-bake-method-making-crystal-meth-drug-laws-no-dangerous-article-1.397428

As to weed, I know a few dopers out here. It's hard not to know who does what in my little city. Those that favor doing some doobage, rather than being a tweaker, the difference is pretty obvious.

I have been here for almost 13 years. During those years, from what I have observed, the smokers, for the most part, are pretty much laid back individuals.

Those that choose to use meth are pretty much self destructive, and their physical appearances, over the past 13 years, have gone into a downslide. Their arms and faces look as if they have leprosy, from all of the tweaking that they do.

A few of the tweakers ended up in the 'residence' that I go to, to teach yoga. Their minds have certainly went from being normal, into paranoia, and in some cases, psychosis.

The rest of the meth addicts go to prison, as well as smokers. Out here, this town has a zero level of tolerance for any type of drug abuser, either smokers or methheads.

1st strike, probation. Second strike, prison.

The reefer guys usually get the message. Tweakers? Nope.

Getting smoke or getting meth are pretty much tied, for the users. It seems that getting into meth, for most, becomes their choice of getting high, just as blowing a j is the high of choice for the smokers.

There are a few crossovers, if their drug of choice is not available.

Coke users? For some reason, coke isn't used out here.

As to getting caught? The cops out here pull over a vehicle and find either bongs, and/or baggies of smoke. With the crank users, it is a bag, and/or a meth pipe. It seems that neither type of drug is that good at driving.

Why do they keep bongs or pipes, or the drugs in their cars? The only answer that I can come up with is that drugs make people stupid.

UncaRastus
11-27-2015, 02:18 PM
Double post

UncaRastus
11-27-2015, 02:30 PM
I must have been tweaking on my mouse!

;)

sandsjames
11-27-2015, 03:09 PM
Why do they keep bongs or pipes, or the drugs in their cars? The only answer that I can come up with is that drugs make people stupid.Yep, and of course that only happens with drugs. You never find people with illegal guns or open alcohol containers in a car. Good thing it's only drugs that make people stupid.

Rusty Jones
11-27-2015, 03:42 PM
Meth labs are dangerous and I sure as hell wouldn't want one in an apartment building.

The damn things are prone to exploding and some of the chemicals they use can produce deadly gases.

Heck, I wouldn't want a moonshine still in an apartment building either.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here (I am NOT for legalizing meth or meth labs), but SJ's argument is based on personal use of private property. In the scenario of the apartment building, no meth labs would be landlord policy. Of course, using SJ's argument... you can't stop a homeowner from running a meth lab on their property if we can't stop someone from growing cannabis in their backyard.

sandsjames
11-27-2015, 03:52 PM
I'm just playing devil's advocate here (I am NOT for legalizing meth or meth labs), but SJ's argument is based on personal use of private property. In the scenario of the apartment building, no meth labs would be landlord policy. Of course, using SJ's argument... you can't stop a homeowner from running a meth lab on their property if we can't stop someone from growing cannabis in their backyard.

That's exactly my argument, though growing a plant presents nowhere near the same danger that a meth lab offers.

Full disclosure, my only knowledge of meth lab operations is based off of "Breaking Bad". My main argument is that pot is no more dangerous or harmful than alcohol is, and far less dangerous to a persons health than cigarettes are.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2015, 04:36 PM
I'm just playing devil's advocate here (I am NOT for legalizing meth or meth labs), but SJ's argument is based on personal use of private property. In the scenario of the apartment building, no meth labs would be landlord policy. Of course, using SJ's argument... you can't stop a homeowner from running a meth lab on their property if we can't stop someone from growing cannabis in their backyard.

I understood you were playing devil's advocate, I was expanding on the idea.

I think it is dangerous to have a meth lab in a single family home too.

I sure as hell wouldn't want one next door to me.

Although I wouldn't be worried about a few pot plants growing next door to me, I do think it should be regulated to some degree.

It isn't like we are talking about growing tomato plants and bell peppers.

Although there are home owner associations that prohibit that too.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2015, 04:50 PM
This isn't a serious idea, but I do wonder how it would effect drug use and attitudes about drug use.

What if the government set up hard drug use zones inside cities?

Or drug colonies were heavy drugs are free?

A person is free to enter and do all the drugs they want, for as long as they want.

But the only way to leave is to go through detox and treatment. Then they have to serve a one year tour as a guard or sanitation person at the colony.

I just wonder what percentage of people would keep doing drugs until it killed them, and how many would rehabilitate themselves?

Mjölnir
11-27-2015, 05:04 PM
This isn't a serious idea, but I do wonder how it would effect drug use and attitudes about drug use.

What if the government set up hard drug use zones inside cities?

Or drug colonies were heavy drugs are free?

A person is free to enter and do all the drugs they want, for as long as they want.

But the only way to leave is to go through detox and treatment. Then they have to serve a one year tour as a guard or sanitation person at the colony.

I just wonder what percentage of people would keep doing drugs until it killed them, and how many would rehabilitate themselves?

Well, if things go south you could always send in Plissken ... Snake Plissken.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTUzMTY0Nzg0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDU3MzQxMDE@._ V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2015, 05:38 PM
Well, if things go south you could always send in Plissken ... Snake Plissken.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTUzMTY0Nzg0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDU3MzQxMDE@._ V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg

I remember that movie, but I was thinking more along the lines of the Pleasure Island scene from Pinocchio.

You know, where they turn into donkeys.

UncaRastus
11-27-2015, 05:48 PM
Snake Plissken and donkeys with open containers of alcohol and illegal guns would be an Oscar winning movie, I do believe!

Rusty Jones
11-27-2015, 05:53 PM
This isn't a serious idea, but I do wonder how it would effect drug use and attitudes about drug use.

What if the government set up hard drug use zones inside cities?

Or drug colonies were heavy drugs are free?

A person is free to enter and do all the drugs they want, for as long as they want.

But the only way to leave is to go through detox and treatment. Then they have to serve a one year tour as a guard or sanitation person at the colony.

I just wonder what percentage of people would keep doing drugs until it killed them, and how many would rehabilitate themselves?

That's basically a sentence given to them upon eventually getting caught or, in this case, needing to tend to matters outside of the hard drug use zone. I'm not sure that would change much.

If you get rid of the one year tour as a guard... it's basically a red light district, only it's for drugs.

retiredAFcivvy
11-27-2015, 07:51 PM
Marijuana is not a gateway drug. I smoked a lot in prior to joining the military. I never felt the need to try anything harder. In addition, there were no withdrawals when I stopped. I've never known anyone, personally, who had either of those issues. I never met anyone who acted aggressively while high on pot. I never had a hangover on pot. Of course, just with any substance, if people are letting it take over their lives then it's an issue. But recreational use should be legal everywhere. There are still laws that relate to intoxication/impairment while working, driving, etc that should be followed.
Interesting. If my memory serves me right, there was a time that an airman could be discharged if found they had used illegal drugs prior to enlisting.

garhkal
11-27-2015, 08:54 PM
The main reason I want to see marijuana legalized is to take away that income stream from organized crime.

I'd also like to see the income from cocaine, heroin and meth taken away from organized crime.

I'm not sure how that could be done with those three drugs because I don't see any company that would want to sell those three drugs legally.

By that logic, shouldn't you be all for legalizing prostitution?

Rusty Jones
11-27-2015, 09:23 PM
By that logic, shouldn't you be all for legalizing prostitution?

When I read his post, talking about legalizing these drugs to stick it to organized crime... I'm kinda curious about the effects on marijuana use. Sure, people who haven't tried it before because it was illegal will try it because they can without breaking any laws... so there'll be a boom in the beginning.

However, I also can't help but think that part of the appeal is the thrill someone gets from doing that's illegal. Do you think that making it legal will ultimately reduce use because of it?

When diplomatic relations with Cuba were restored, people were excited about Cuban cigars. Now that the novelty has worn off, no one gives a fuck about the nationality of cigars anymore.

sandsjames
11-27-2015, 10:15 PM
Interesting. If my memory serves me right, there was a time that an airman could be discharged if found they had used illegal drugs prior to enlisting.

When I joined, they asked if I ever had, and I said yes. The only way to get in trouble would be if I said "No", then it was found out later that I had. And I joined in '93, so that's not a new thing.

sandsjames
11-27-2015, 10:16 PM
By that logic, shouldn't you be all for legalizing prostitution?Sure. Both parties willing, it shouldn't matter. Of course trafficking would still have to be illegal.

efmbman
11-27-2015, 10:18 PM
Interesting. If my memory serves me right, there was a time that an airman could be discharged if found they had used illegal drugs prior to enlisting.

I did quite a few years (unfortunately) in recruiting. MEPCOM (the Lord of all that is enlistment) does test for weed, but the time table is the key. Show up at MEPS and pop hot - you're done for life (that was the policy when I was recruiting). Disclose it on your medical pre-screen... that's basically a get out of jail free card.

I was doing 100% officer recruiting (medical field) so it was a double edged sword. Disclosure would protect you from the wrath of MEPCOM standards, but the selection board for new officers has access to all physical exam documents (including the pre-screen) so they can see if you claimed prior drug use. Seeing that was pretty much a guaranteed non-select. Not even the ace in the hole Eagle Scout could rescue that packet.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2015, 10:44 PM
When I read his post, talking about legalizing these drugs to stick it to organized crime... I'm kinda curious about the effects on marijuana use. Sure, people who haven't tried it before because it was illegal will try it because they can without breaking any laws... so there'll be a boom in the beginning.

However, I also can't help but think that part of the appeal is the thrill someone gets from doing that's illegal. Do you think that making it legal will ultimately reduce use because of it?

When diplomatic relations with Cuba were restored, people were excited about Cuban cigars. Now that the novelty has worn off, no one gives a fuck about the nationality of cigars anymore.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't want cartels making all that drug money.

More importantly I want to get rid of the violent street-level distribution networks of these drugs.

But that was just a whimsical idea about establishing drug colonies.

Taking the marijuana income stream away from organized crime will make a dent.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-27-2015, 11:00 PM
By that logic, shouldn't you be all for legalizing prostitution?

Why are you saying that with the tone that you've caught me in a contradiction? You are off on a tangent, Mannix.

I don't care about prostitution in most of its forms. However, one should consider that prostitution takes on many different forms.

In the case of street walkers in big cities, many do it to fuel drug habits. It can be an ancillary symptom of drug use.

I think business owners and home owners would have a valid complaint if there are hookers trolling for Johns on the street outside their property.

But the concept of selling sex doesn't bother me.

MikeKerriii
11-28-2015, 06:49 AM
I used to not believe in it either, until i had to go through a Captains mast with one of my Jr sailors getting done for Meth.. Dude said he only got into Meth cause of his use of weed. After that i looked into it, by checking with out base's DAPA administrator and by her stats, well over 70% of those who did get popped for stronger drugs mentioned they only did those drugs cause they also did weed..

You will find that the Young sailor probably had consumed alcohol and consumed a caffeine, does that make them gateway drugs?

Do you really believe that someone in a anti-drug positions is a reliable source? That is like asking a Baptist minister for advice on science.

MikeKerriii
11-28-2015, 06:57 AM
Why should the govt be the ones financing the study? Because government regulations have made it almost impossible for others to do even moderate scale studies. MJ is considered as dangerous as heroin by the DEA, of course jobs and power at the DEA depend on keeping as many drugs illegal as possible,

retiredAFcivvy
11-28-2015, 04:31 PM
When I joined, they asked if I ever had, and I said yes. The only way to get in trouble would be if I said "No", then it was found out later that I had. And I joined in '93, so that's not a new thing.
I guess I should have caveated that with "unless declared on their application". Wasn't sure how they treated an applicant that declared they had. Thanks.

sandsjames
11-28-2015, 05:06 PM
I guess I should have caveated that with "unless declared on their application". Wasn't sure how they treated an applicant that declared they had. Thanks.

Though recruiters do't seem to care. I wasn't told specifically to lie, but I was told "Don't forget, the answer to everything is 'NO'." They just care about their recruiting numbers, not the well being of the recruits. I wonder if that would hold up as an argument by someone who didn't declare, then was found out to have lied.

Mjölnir
11-28-2015, 05:44 PM
Though recruiters do't seem to care. I wasn't told specifically to lie, but I was told "Don't forget, the answer to everything is 'NO'." They just care about their recruiting numbers, not the well being of the recruits. I wonder if that would hold up as an argument by someone who didn't declare, then was found out to have lied.

I have seen more than one person NJP'd for violating Art. 83: Fraudulent Enlistment. Most involved drug issues. A few used the "my recruiter told me to say that" defense; it worked for none of them. Two were separated from the military over it. No idea if anything happened to the recruiter.

I imagine it would be hard to prove in an isolated manner since it would be a 'he said vs. he said' type argument and we are biased toward the guy we 'know' (the recruiter) vice the guy we don't (the recruit). If a particular recruiter had a high percentage of recruits who fraudulently enlisted there may be something more to go on.

sandsjames
11-28-2015, 07:00 PM
I have seen more than one person NJP'd for violating Art. 83: Fraudulent Enlistment. Most involved drug issues. A few used the "my recruiter told me to say that" defense; it worked for none of them. Two were separated from the military over it. No idea if anything happened to the recruiter.

I imagine it would be hard to prove in an isolated manner since it would be a 'he said vs. he said' type argument and we are biased toward the guy we 'know' (the recruiter) vice the guy we don't (the recruit). If a particular recruiter had a high percentage of recruits who fraudulently enlisted there may be something more to go on.

It's really kind of screwed up, especially for those with no life experience. I was 18 at the time, just out of high school, and really didn't know any better. The only thing that really kept me from saying "NO" when asked if I'd ever smoked pot was the way the guy at MEPs asked it. If he wouldn't have pushed, I would have said "NO" because I trusted my recruiter.

Mjölnir
11-28-2015, 08:14 PM
It's really kind of screwed up, especially for those with no life experience. I was 18 at the time, just out of high school, and really didn't know any better. The only thing that really kept me from saying "NO" when asked if I'd ever smoked pot was the way the guy at MEPs asked it. If he wouldn't have pushed, I would have said "NO" because I trusted my recruiter.

Yes and no.

I can forgive an 18 year old lying about a traffic violation, a few of them ... minor drug use etc.

I would be a bit less forgiving of a recruit lying about who was involved with drug dealing, heavy drugs or a lengthy arrest record.

Bos Mutus
11-28-2015, 10:32 PM
Though recruiters do't seem to care. I wasn't told specifically to lie, but I was told "Don't forget, the answer to everything is 'NO'." They just care about their recruiting numbers, not the well being of the recruits. I wonder if that would hold up as an argument by someone who didn't declare, then was found out to have lied.

I remember that conversation with my recruiter, too. Before he asked the question, he pre-briefed me to "think about this...like if you did something sometime in the past, but never got arrested or caught...then, there is no record of it anywhere; so, there would be no way of it ever coming back to you."

sandsjames
11-29-2015, 01:22 AM
I remember that conversation with my recruiter, too. Before he asked the question, he pre-briefed me to "think about this...like if you did something sometime in the past, but never got arrested or caught...then, there is no record of it anywhere; so, there would be no way of it ever coming back to you."

Yeah...that must be how they were "unofficially" briefed to ask the question at the time. I don't know if it's still like that or not. Honestly, I don't even know why it has ever been a question. They didn't ask me if I'd ever had alcohol, and I was underage.

Rainmaker
11-29-2015, 02:35 AM
It's really kind of screwed up, especially for those with no life experience. I was 18 at the time, just out of high school, and really didn't know any better. The only thing that really kept me from saying "NO" when asked if I'd ever smoked pot was the way the guy at MEPs asked it. If he wouldn't have pushed, I would have said "NO" because I trusted my recruiter.

Get a job Spicoli.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdX522pMjio

garhkal
11-29-2015, 03:54 AM
When I read his post, talking about legalizing these drugs to stick it to organized crime... I'm kinda curious about the effects on marijuana use. Sure, people who haven't tried it before because it was illegal will try it because they can without breaking any laws... so there'll be a boom in the beginning.

However, I also can't help but think that part of the appeal is the thrill someone gets from doing that's illegal. Do you think that making it legal will ultimately reduce use because of it?

When diplomatic relations with Cuba were restored, people were excited about Cuban cigars. Now that the novelty has worn off, no one gives a fuck about the nationality of cigars anymore.

True, often in my HS when we had a speaker on the 'dangers of drug use", the speaker would mention that a lot of teens and college age young adults do get into drugs cause of the fact it IS illegal, so it's seen as them being rebellious..


Sure. Both parties willing, it shouldn't matter. Of course trafficking would still have to be illegal.

My thoughts exactly. The way i see it, there are 3 main key good points to legalizing Prostitution.
1) the gals who DO it, will be safer as they are certified and licenced. Many don't report jons who rape them cause OF their illegal status.
2) the johns will feel safer as well, cause to get/keep those licenses they know the gals are getting checked medically every quarter (or month)..
3) While yes it won't weed out ALL trafficed gals, it WILL help to reduce them.


Why are you saying that with the tone that you've caught me in a contradiction? You are off on a tangent, Mannix.

I wasn't trying to come off sounding harsh.. Sorry.

PS What exactly is Mannix???? I keep seeing you use that phrase/word in relation to me.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-29-2015, 07:57 AM
garhkal

Mannix is a private eye from a 1970s TV show.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannix

It's what I've been calling you since you busted that fat lady who was scamming coupons at the fabric store.

garhkal
11-29-2015, 06:25 PM
garhkal

Mannix is a private eye from a 1970s TV show.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannix

It's what I've been calling you since you busted that fat lady who was scamming coupons at the fabric store.

Ahh... Thanks. Guess i will take it as a compliment.