Marijuana (6 Viewers)

Should marijuana be legal?

  • Yes, it should be legal and taxed

    Votes: 683 87.7%
  • Yes, but only medically

    Votes: 27 3.5%
  • No, but the marijuana laws should be relaxed

    Votes: 24 3.1%
  • No, it should remain illegal.

    Votes: 45 5.8%

  • Total voters
    779
I might be wrong, but weed is more accepted and used be younger generations than alcohol. I don't think there's a new prohibition coming, but that industry is losing customers faster than they are gaining them. Transition to thc based mixers might be their best shot. Similar with tobacco.
good point
 
Yeah, but as is so often the case for over a century, marijuana hasn't always had the best spokespeople because at its worst, weed might be 10-15x less harmful, or less willing to make someone agressive, violent in general, what it does or has been perceived by some as doing in making people act silly, stupid, goofy, behave maybe in minor dangerous activities but if this behavior is witnessed by a large group of people, it's a big turn off and it's given weed a reputation as a mostly harmless drug but one that stoners, idiots, rednecks, people with inferior intelligence take. That's the reality, but if you're judgemental and observe some people who smoke weed occasionally, they do come across as borish, stupid, goofy, idiotic, dumb slackers or they seem to think everything is funny---behaviors that helped create those stereotypes which lasted for decades and damaged it's reputation. I don't do drugs or drink alcohol, I suppose I'm a square but if I was ignorant and had to hang around some Tommy Chong-esque like stoner and he exhibited some of these behaviors if we had to work together, I'd probably get annoyed with these types of people, too.
 
Does anyone know how much THC needs to be in someone's blood for them to be under the influence of that THC? I mean, if someone smokes a joint on Monday, they are not high on Tuesday but they still have THC in their blood.
 
Yeah, but as is so often the case for over a century, marijuana hasn't always had the best spokespeople because at its worst, weed might be 10-15x less harmful, or less willing to make someone agressive, violent in general, what it does or has been perceived by some as doing in making people act silly, stupid, goofy, behave maybe in minor dangerous activities but if this behavior is witnessed by a large group of people, it's a big turn off and it's given weed a reputation as a mostly harmless drug but one that stoners, idiots, rednecks, people with inferior intelligence take. That's the reality, but if you're judgemental and observe some people who smoke weed occasionally, they do come across as borish, stupid, goofy, idiotic, dumb slackers or they seem to think everything is funny---behaviors that helped create those stereotypes which lasted for decades and damaged it's reputation. I don't do drugs or drink alcohol, I suppose I'm a square but if I was ignorant and had to hang around some Tommy Chong-esque like stoner and he exhibited some of these behaviors if we had to work together, I'd probably get annoyed with these types of people, too.

While there are those stereotypes, most of the people
I know who smoke are driven professionals who do it to relax. You’d never know about it at work as they are some of the highest performers I know. But when Friday rolls around instead of getting drunk they smoke while they are enjoying. To each their own.
 
Does anyone know how much THC needs to be in someone's blood for them to be under the influence of that THC? I mean, if someone smokes a joint on Monday, they are not high on Tuesday but they still have THC in their blood.
My understanding is that the current urine tests don't even test for thc. They test for metabolites of it, hence the multiple false responses and legal questions.

Additionally, there's no universally accepted level in the actual blood tests as it's never been studied and impacts different people differently.

In short, the classification is hindering legitimate science on it's impact while pseudo science detects possible use in the last months is accepted as proof of use.
 

Northam proposed replacing arrests with a $50 civil penalty and said his legislation would also clear records for people who had prior convictions for possession. His other plans include funding new public defender positions, raising the threshold for felony convictions and ending suspensions of driver's licenses for unpaid fines and court costs.

Another state moving forward?
 
Does anyone know how much THC needs to be in someone's blood for them to be under the influence of that THC? I mean, if someone smokes a joint on Monday, they are not high on Tuesday but they still have THC in their blood.

It only stays in the blood for 1-2 days after smoking. THC Metabolites don't bind with blood for that long. THC mainly binds with your fat cells, which get used up and processed via Urine. Doesn't go back into the blood stream.
By the way, there is another topic that we can talk about https://dr-weedy.com/why-do-teenagers-smoke-marijuana/ :rolleyes:
For the most part, the only people in favor of adolescents smoking pot are adolescents who smoke pot.
 
Last edited:
It only stays in the blood for 1-2 days after smoking. THC Metabolites don't bind with blood for that long. THC mainly binds with your fat cells, which get used up and processed via Urine. Doesn't go back into the blood stream.
yep,and THC is fat soluble. You cant flush it from your system no matter how much water you drink. A person with high body fat will
test positive longer than a person with low body fat. The only way is father time
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom