Me? I'm all for it. For lots of reasons. I should mention that I haven't smoked recreationally for decades - even after I retired. That could change, at any time. It just hasn't.
Other stuff going on, that occupies my time.

But I have zero problem with it - for adults. Even though I smoked as a teen, I don't think it's a good idea for most, as their systems haven't matured. I subscribe to the notion that it could impair brain growth. (Some people will have a field day with that one. Fair enough. But I never smoked as much as my friends until much later, since I just didn't have the funds, and was unwilling to sell it in order to finance my partying.)

I believe it should be regulated and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol. I also believe the main problem that people have with it being legalized is that everyone thinks that everyone else doesn't want it to be legal.
Back in the 1970s, my father's cardiologist even said that "he would try it if it was legal." Riiight.

Medically? There are volumes of stories of positive results. Relief from seizures and PTSD symptoms are only the tip of the iceberg.
I use Delta 8 gummies to help me sleep. I have never found them "intoxicating", although there was a slight grogginess when I woke up in the morning, which ceased to occur after a few days.

So, what do y'all think?
Since we have a wide spectrum of folks and backgrounds here, the opinions should be interesting. Some, I'm guessing, will be surprising.


"Yeah... I think the main reason that marijuana is having such a hard time being legalized is that nobody can remember where they left the petitions." - George Carlin

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 12-21-2025).]

I am for its medical use. It should be closely monitored, especially for anyone in the 18-25 range that still have their brain developing. I personally know a twin who had schizophrenia triggered by using pot as a teen. His twin brother never used it and has not developed schizophrenia. He is a nice guy but occasionally he has to stay home for a couple weeks and have his mother monitor him because he hears voices.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I am for its medical use. It should be closely monitored, especially for anyone in the 18-25 range that still have their brain developing. I personally know a twin who had schizophrenia triggered by using pot as a teen. His twin brother never used it and has not developed schizophrenia. He is a nice guy but occasionally he has to stay home for a couple weeks and have his mother monitor him because he hears voices.

Thanks for your input.
This is pretty much why I specified "adult".
I'm guessing the person you knew was smoking before the 18-25 window. Does he still partake? Or has he given it up?
I wonder, though, which was the cause, and which was the effect?

This is only because I have known/seen a rather large number of musicians (some were personal friends) who also became addicted. (This is far and beyond the MJ discussion, but probably still applicable.)
I suppose the question is whether the "substance" - whatever it is - helps to enable the part of the brain that provides musical creativity. Or whether a certain "creative" persona makes you lean toward substance abuse and/or addiction. Personally, I think that - similar to alcoholism - a lot of that behavior (musical aptitude AND substance dependency) is genetic/hereditary.
But I also believe that being musically talented tends to place you in an environment (situations and other persons) where substance use and abuse is commonplace. So who knows?

Careful there Jeffery, partaking may cause unintended consequences.
' Nice Marmot '
' Is This Your Homework Larry? '
The Condition I'm In..
' Man, I've had a rough night.. '

[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 12-24-2025).]

While I think reclassifying is a smart move, I don't think legalization for recreational use is wise.

Weed isn't at all like it was even 15 years ago, it is incredibly more potent.

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 12-21-2025).]

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Thanks for your input. This is pretty much why I specified "adult". I'm guessing the person you knew was smoking before the 18-25 window. Does he still partake? Or has he given it up? I wonder, though, which was the cause, and which was the effect? This is only because I have known/seen a rather large number of musicians (some were personal friends) who also became addicted. (This is far and beyond the MJ discussion, but probably still applicable.) I suppose the question is whether the "substance" - whatever it is - helps to enable the part of the brain that provides musical creativity. Or whether a certain "creative" persona makes you lean toward substance abuse and/or addiction. Personally, I think that - similar to alcoholism - a lot of that behavior (musical aptitude AND substance dependency) is genetic/hereditary. But I also believe that being musically talented tends to place you in an environment (situations and other persons) where substance use and abuse is commonplace. So who knows?

I did not ask what his exact age was when he first started smoking pot. I was told by step-father about it during one of his episodes as to an explanation why he was not at our gathering. I did not want to pry into the subject.

It is my understanding that mind altering substances can trigger things that a person is already predisposed to. Twins in general are predisposed to certain mental illnesses. In my personal life I saw my father and his brothers all become alcoholics. I knew that if I drank there was a strong chance that I too would become an alcoholic. So I choose not to drink at all.

I have a former friend who went that route. He got a medical marijuana card a few years ago. We had served together in the army and became close friends. He told be 30 years ago that he hated pot because he grew up poor and his parents wasted the family's money on buying pot. He had to get a part time job just to buy food to eat. So hated pot because he saw his parents wasting their lives away and neglected him and his siblings. That all changed when he started smoking himself. He rationalized that he did not hate pot, he hated that his parents spent all of their money on it. That was when I knew he was hooked. He was toking up every night and all weekend when he was off. He once confided in me that his weekends flew by in a haze. He had become a functional addict. He still held a 9-5 job but his money and free time was all spent getting high.

IMO taking mind altering substances, even alcohol or cannabis, should not be done lightly. You need to know your family history. You need to know the risks. While cannabis is generally thought to not cause physical addition, a person can become mentally addicted to just about anything. There are lots of gambling and sex addicts. There are people mentally addicted to getting high off pot. They dismiss that addiction with the claim that physical addiction cannot happen. There are plenty of people who just waste their lives away getting high.

Given all of that, I can accept that there is a medical use for it. That is why I believe there should be monitoring by a doctor. I don't mean the joke that California has where you can find a doctor who will fill out the paperwork for a medical marijuana card for a fee and any excuse you can come up with. It should be part of an ongoing treatment plan.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: ... IMO taking mind altering substances, even alcohol or cannabis, should not be done lightly. You need to know your family history. You need to know the risks. While cannabis is generally thought to not cause physical addition, a person can become mentally addicted to just about anything.

Agree. Completely.
There are people who are predisposed to addiction, to one thing or another. I've known several alcoholics, who also had alcoholic parents.

I alluded to musician friends, earlier. One in particular was a best friend for many years, from my mid-teens. He was a musical genius. Could sight-read a complicated piece of music, pick up his horn (sax player) and nail it.
But in later years, he had to be high, as part of his day-to-day existence. What really opened my eyes was when he went to jail for a few months. He called me one night, when he had some "phone time" available. He said that he hadn't smoked anything in... however long he had been there. He described being "not high" as sort of being "like a 'high', in itself".
Addiction (to other things) is what eventually did him in, in his 30s. I'll spare you the details. (He was adopted. Late in his life, he was able to connect with his biological mother. She had been an addict, too. Surprise.)
So yeah... physiology - and family history - both have an awful lot to do with it.

So, where do I stand? What's my viewpoint?
I was never physically addicted to anything, except nicotine. Quitting cigarettes, when I was 31, was the hardest thing I have ever done. I replaced that with alcohol for (thankfully) a very short time. Mostly because I was bored and just needed something to do with my hands. IYKYK.
But when I was hanging out with my musician friend, I smoked sh!t-tons of weed. I smoked until my lungs hurt. (He was also a seller. He had lots...)
When I was not, I smoked a lot less. I never really missed it when it was not available.

I never really got into other stuff - only because I was a bit "chickenshit" in that regard - and never any needles.
I waited, and stood back, and watched what happened to people when they did... other stuff. I found that they made really bad decisions (and tended to wreck a lot of cars) when they were whacked. Yeah... sign me up for that!

Now? I haven't smoked any in probably 20 years, and was a very light smoker for a long time, even prior to that. I was looking forward to retirement (and the absence of random drug screenings) so that I could, without worry. But I've been retired for nearly four years now, and still haven't. Because, meh. Priorities.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 12-22-2025).]

The libertarian side of me is totally OK with it and thinks the Government has no business regulating something like this.

The more right-minded side of me says that as we start to loosen the rules on things like marijuana, it can lead to the ruin of society... making people lazy, lacking drive, etc.


I don't know, but would appreciate an honest response on the comparison to alcohol and marijuana...

Alcohol can seem to be more dangerous in moderation than marijuana in the short term... (like driving drunk versus stoned).
But in the long term, it seems that marijuana can result in coating the brain cells and permanently retarding neural synapsis over time, while with alcohol, it can cause sclerosis of the liver, for example.

I suppose for medical testing, and such, can't really be a big issue, so I don't see the problem with it.

*********Drugs are DRUGS*********


To me, I avoid 'drugs' as possible including prescriptions from a healthcare professional if I really don't need them....

Can you say side effects?

I hope that with this reclassification that it will open other avenues as well. Paper, clothing, lots of things that could be made from a crop that is fast growing and multiple yields a year.
Perhaps we will one day see the decline of plastics in our homes.

As for drug use, I would like to see it classified the same as booze and controlled in the same manner. But this is a good start.
FYI I do not use, even if I was inclined I have responsibilities that would fall apart if I did.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The libertarian side of me is totally OK with it and thinks the Government has no business regulating something like this. The more right-minded side of me says that as we start to loosen the rules on things like marijuana, it can lead to the ruin of society... making people lazy, lacking drive, etc. I don't know, but would appreciate an honest response on the comparison to alcohol and marijuana...

I will try to be as honest as possible. 5 years ago, my left arm became useless with extreme pain shooting from my neck to my hand. Xrays showed nothing wrong, Orthopedic Dr. prescribed muscle relaxers saying it was most likely a pinched nerve, these made the pain even worse. After a week of these not working I asked my primary for something, his response was have you tried marijuana (he could not write the script). Now the last time I used weed was 1993. So I obtained a joint from one of my coworkers and gave it a shot, not going to say it was a miracle but the pain was greatly reduced. It took about a year to get full mobility back, and through that I also smoked weed. In that year, I stopped drinking, was 3-4 24 oz beers a night after work to relax, now I take a puff. Here 5 years later, still smoke (or edible), have lost over 100 lbs, and still enjoy a beer now and then, albeit Heinken 0. There was a study that showed, marijuana smokers were actually more likely to be more athletic, not just lazy. Just my experience, others may differ.

dan

PS. I also agree this should be for adult use only. However legalization hasn't really stopped the local dealer, just made his stuff cheaper.

quote Originally posted by bonaduce: I will try to be as honest as possible. 5 years ago, my left arm became useless with extreme pain shooting from my neck to my hand. Xrays showed nothing wrong, Orthopedic Dr. prescribed muscle relaxers saying it was most likely a pinched nerve, these made the pain even worse. After a week of these not working I asked my primary for something, his response was have you tried marijuana (he could not write the script). Now the last time I used weed was 1993. So I obtained a joint from one of my coworkers and gave it a shot, not going to say it was a miracle but the pain was greatly reduced. It took about a year to get full mobility back, and through that I also smoked weed. In that year, I stopped drinking, was 3-4 24 oz beers a night after work to relax, now I take a puff. Here 5 years later, still smoke (or edible), have lost over 100 lbs, and still enjoy a beer now and then, albeit Heinken 0. There was a study that showed, marijuana smokers were actually more likely to be more athletic, not just lazy. Just my experience, others may differ. dan PS. I also agree this should be for adult use only. However legalization hasn't really stopped the local dealer, just made his stuff cheaper.

This is pretty much the reason why I support it... examples like this.

Of course, I think to myself those one or two people I knew as I was growing up, who smoked pot every day and basically became losers... so that's stuck in my mind. But your example is the perfect reason why I think Trump changed the classification for it...

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is pretty much the reason why I support it... examples like this. Of course, I think to myself those one or two people I knew as I was growing up, who smoked pot every day and basically became losers... so that's stuck in my mind. But your example is the perfect reason why I think Trump changed the classification for it...

I think that most everyone knows of those "one or two people who became losers". But I think there are some personality types who are just looking for the path of least resistance, and who will find it - whatever it may be - eventually. If it hadn't been weed, it quite possibly would have been something else.
Of course, there are always exceptions to this statement.

I'll also mention that some of the most intelligent people I have ever met were smokers. They just didn't let it grab hold of them and rule their lives like some others did.
Regarding medicinal applications, I truly believe that the good far outweighs the bad. Once science is allowed to openly experiment, I think that new and exciting things may happen.

Also, this goes back to my long time belief that anything in moderation can be a good thing. If the "moderation" part is ignored, it can be hugely detrimental. (Too much water or even oxygen can be lethal.) The problem is that some things - like opiates - cause physical dependencies, even in people who are not "addictive personalities", and moderation goes out the window. But that's probably a topic for another discussion.

I should mention... I apologize if this topic (addiction) hits too close to home for some people who may be reading. As I posted, earlier, I have lost at least one friend directly to addiction, and have known others who have died, largely as a side-effect of drug use. I am not attempting to trivialize anyone's loss. I get it.
I will ask you, sincerely, to get help - or even just talk to someone - if you need to.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I think that most everyone knows of those "one or two people who became losers". But I think there are some personality types who are just looking for the path of least resistance, and who will find it - whatever it may be - eventually. If it hadn't been weed, it quite possibly would have been something else. Of course, there are always exceptions to this statement. I'll also mention that some of the most intelligent people I have ever met were smokers. They just didn't let it grab hold of them and rule their lives like some others did. Regarding medicinal applications, I truly believe that the good far outweighs the bad. Once science is allowed to openly experiment, I think that new and exciting things may happen. Also, this goes back to my long time belief that anything in moderation can be a good thing. If the "moderation" part is ignored, it can be hugely detrimental. (Too much water or even oxygen can be lethal.) The problem is that some things - like opiates - cause physical dependencies, even in people who are not "addictive personalities", and moderation goes out the window. But that's probably a topic for another discussion. I should mention... I apologize if this topic (addiction) hits too close to home for some people who may be reading. As I posted, earlier, I have lost at least one friend directly to addiction, and have known others who have died, largely as a side-effect of drug use. I am not attempting to trivialize anyone's loss. I get it. I will ask you, sincerely, to get help - or even just talk to someone - if you need to.

That is true... Elon Musk (who's very successful and intelligent) smokes pot now and then.

On the last statement, I lost my only brother to a drug overdose. Just one of those things. He didn't really use drugs, especially not growing up. He was hanging out with a girl who did, and he tried it (wasn't marijuana obviously), and he had a heart attack and died at the age of 28. Of course, that has nothing to do with the conversation about pot... but you mentioned it (and no, I definitely did not take you trivializing anything)... I'm just kind of an open book and there you go.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... I lost my only brother to a drug overdose. Just one of those things. He didn't really use drugs, especially not growing up. He was hanging out with a girl who did, and he tried it (wasn't marijuana obviously), and he had a heart attack and died at the age of 28. Of course, that has nothing to do with the conversation about pot... but you mentioned it (and no, I definitely did not take you trivializing anything)... I'm just kind of an open book and there you go.

I'm truly sorry to hear that. That, sadly, is becoming more and more common these days. People are buying what they believe to be "pharmaceutical" drugs - pain relievers and such.
Then they find out - usually too late - that it's really fentanyl. Or at least "embellished" with fentanyl. (Of course there are other scenarios, but this one comes to mind.)
Based upon the situation and time frame, I'm certain your brother got hold of something different. But still a similar situation. Peace.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 12-23-2025).]

Marijuana is always a weird one to me. Fears about its impact on developing brains don't seem to extend to:
Alcohol -which has a similar, but much worse, risk profile for developing brains
Nicotine -which has an even worse risk profile for developing brains than alcohol
Caffeine -which has a similar risk level to brain development to marijuana
It seems a very arbitrary place to draw a line, or to get sanctimonious about the children. Nicotine use is massively worse in every conceivable way -especially among minors- but I don't often see those same people advocating the banning of all cigarettes.

Same thing for the "weed is too strong now" argument. Marijuana is 3-5x stronger than it was in the 70s, and concentrates are more available that are 20-30x stronger....but Everclear 190 is 40x stronger than a Budweiser Select; does that mean we should ban all alcohol too? Weed still isn't overdosing people, and the long-term effects of even very high consumption are much lower than those of casually drinking.

I feel like too many people mentally lumped marijuana in with some very nasty drugs just because the government told them to. On paper, objectively, it is very hard to justify cigarettes, alcohol, or Red Bull being legal while marijuana is not. However, the government lumped it in with heroine and meth 70 years ago and now we cannot break that idea. It's "drugs" and my beer and cigarette are not.

Anyway, I certainly don't need a nanny state to regulate my recreational substance use -be it alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, or saturated fats- just for my own good, and I certainly don't need them to classify substances in a way that makes 0 actual sense in order to do that.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I'm truly sorry to hear that. That, sadly, is becoming more and more common these days. People are buying what they believe to be "pharmaceutical" drugs - pain relievers and such. Then they find out - usually too late - that it's really fentanyl. Or at least "embellished" with fentanyl. (Of course there are other scenarios, but this one comes to mind.) Based upon the situation and time frame, I'm certain your brother got hold of something different. But still a similar situation. Peace.

Yeah... he is my older brother, so it was kind of rough when I passed the same age that he died. It was over 20 years ago... but you know, it just sucks. With him it was heroine. The girl promised him the world, but he ultimately made the decision to try it. It's what it is.

I'll see him again eventually... hah.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: That is true... Elon Musk (who's very successful and intelligent) smokes pot now and then. On the last statement, I lost my only brother to a drug overdose. Just one of those things. He didn't really use drugs, especially not growing up. He was hanging out with a girl who did, and he tried it (wasn't marijuana obviously), and he had a heart attack and died at the age of 28. Of course, that has nothing to do with the conversation about pot... but you mentioned it (and no, I definitely did not take you trivializing anything)... I'm just kind of an open book and there you go.

JUST A REMINDER

POT IS NON-TOXIC 100% THERE IS NO KNOWN OVERDOSE
[short of a falling bail's impact on your head]

sorry about your bro but the heart failing is NOT an OD = too much
it is semi-common reaction to excess coke [a sudden reaction like an allergy]

I think only non-toxic drugs should be 100 % legal
but stuff that is toxic should be pure of a known strength/dose

quote Originally posted by NewDustin: Marijuana is always a weird one to me. Fears about its impact on developing brains don't seem to extend to: Alcohol -which has a similar, but much worse, risk profile for developing brains Nicotine -which has an even worse risk profile for developing brains than alcohol Caffeine -which has a similar risk level to brain development to marijuana It seems a very arbitrary place to draw a line, or to get sanctimonious about the children. Nicotine use is massively worse in every conceivable way -especially among minors- but I don't often see those same people advocating the banning of all cigarettes.

So... my thought on these things is that Marijuana has a much "longer term" effect on neurological development... in that it kind of retards the ability for someone to learn and can even result in a long-term psychological change. I started reading the NIH article you posted on caffeine, but it didn't really get into specifics. It said caffeine had a more significant psychological effect on the brain, but it didn't really explain what that meant. The website was a little messed up (didn't render properly), and short of reading 100s of pages... I'm trying to understand exactly what that means.

Increased focus and attention are also "psychological effects," but not negative. So, I was trying to determine if it was being a little disingenuous. I didn't really see the "similar risk to brain development" in there, but again, I might have missed it, I didn't read the entire thing. I'm with you on Marijuana, so I don't need to be sold on the fact that it's over-regulated. But I do question the caffeine conclusion here.

I don't really know anything about nicotine, but I would say that based purely on my perception (non-scientific, of course), I've not seen the same kind of behavior from long-time smokers (traditionally) as I am used to seeing from those who smoke pot (in the full-judgement DARE-raised narrative). I see both cigarettes and marijuana as equals when it comes to the cancer risk.

On alcohol... I think it absolutely impairs you more, and equally bad (or worse) if abused. But I'm not sure if it has the same kind of long-term effect as someone who drinks regularly. Equally bad... but I wonder if there is a 1:1 equivalent to smoking 1 joint a day and drinking 1 beer a day, or what that looks like. My bias would probably equate 1 joint to a 6-pack (per day), but maybe I'm off on that.


On me personally, I try to find time to drink, but I'm just too busy, unfortunately. I have more bottles of alcohol that I've bought thinking I'm going to find a nice quiet time to drink in the closet, and it never happens. If I'm lucky, I get maybe 1 drink a month.

quote Originally posted by ray b: JUST A REMINDER POT IS NON-TOXIC 100% THERE IS NO KNOWN OVERDOSE [short of a falling bail's impact on your head] sorry about your bro but the heart failing is NOT an OD = too much it is semi-common reaction to excess coke [a sudden reaction like an allergy] I think only non-toxic drugs should be 100 % legal but stuff that is toxic should be pure of a known strength/dose

I pretty much concur with this. I think it's OK to tax these things, like we do cigarettes and alcohol... but most of this stuff is overregulated. The issue becomes when such an action then affects others (like driving drunk).

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 12-23-2025).]

quote Originally posted by NewDustin: Marijuana is always a weird one to me. Fears about its impact on developing brains don't seem to extend to: Alcohol -which has a similar, but much worse, risk profile for developing brains Nicotine -which has an even worse risk profile for developing brains than alcohol Caffeine -which has a similar risk level to brain development to marijuana It seems a very arbitrary place to draw a line, or to get sanctimonious about the children. Nicotine use is massively worse in every conceivable way -especially among minors- but I don't often see those same people advocating the banning of all cigarettes. Same thing for the "weed is too strong now" argument. Marijuana is 3-5x stronger than it was in the 70s, and concentrates are more available that are 20-30x stronger....but Everclear 190 is 40x stronger than a Budweiser Select; does that mean we should ban all alcohol too? Weed still isn't overdosing people, and the long-term effects of even very high consumption are much lower than those of casually drinking. I feel like too many people mentally lumped marijuana in with some very nasty drugs just because the government told them to. On paper, objectively, it is very hard to justify cigarettes, alcohol, or Red Bull being legal while marijuana is not. However, the government lumped it in with heroine and meth 70 years ago and now we cannot break that idea. It's "drugs" and my beer and cigarette are not. Anyway, I certainly don't need a nanny state to regulate my recreational substance use -be it alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, or saturated fats- just for my own good, and I certainly don't need them to classify substances in a way that makes 0 actual sense in order to do that.

I can't really disagree with much of anything that you said. Except for alcohol and nicotine being readily available to young teens. So is weed, for that matter. All are technically illegal for anyone under 18, in most places, but it doesn't stop them from getting them with ease. (Everybody knows somebody...)

Caffeine? Sure it's habit-forming, but nobody has ever definitively shown that it is harmful - at least if it's not used to excess. Every so often, a study comes out, and then a few years later, another study comes out that essentially nullifies the first one. I've been watching that for decades.
I have to quit drinking caffeinated coffee every couple of years. It starts to mess with my nerves. After I quit, I'll have headaches for a couple of days, and then I'm good. A few months later I'll start back again, for another few years.
This does not account for Red Bull and other energy drinks. I know they are everywhere, but I have never bothered with them, knowing my situation with coffee. I can't speak intelligently about them, other than by saying I don't like to be "on edge".

And yeah, marijuana was demonized decades ago, in order to control the most common users (black people and immigrants.)

How would you feel about banning sugar ?

[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 12-24-2025).]

quote Originally posted by Valkrie9: How would you feel about banning sugar ?

I don't know about "banning" sugar, but people need to be better informed... and it's not like the negative effects of refined sugar are a recent discovery.

Fifty years ago, back in 1975, I read the book, Sugar Blues. I was 20 years old at the time. It had quite an impact on me. I don't think I've used white refined sugar since. Sure, there's refined sugar in various foods that I eat... but I don't have a "sweet tooth", I don't eat candy and/or fancy desserts, so my intake of refined sugar is quite limited. Not surprisingly I suppose, I've never had a problem with being overweight. 6'3", 190 lbs.

My opinion regarding recreational drug and/or alcohol use is much the same. Education is the key. However, I'm also painfully aware that not everyone acts in their own best long-term interest.

I haven't smoked dope for 45 years, and I'll have a glass of wine these days maybe once a month. No, I'm not exactly a choir-boy. If I could acquire some pharmaceutical grade LSD, I'd try tripping again. I did it half a dozen times in my early 20's, and it was truly a pleasant, mind-expanding experience for me each time. No, LSD isn't "harmless" for everyone... but then, neither is grass or booze... or driving fast for that matter.

[EDIT 1] I wanted to add that anyone who smokes cigarettes in this day and age has gotta be brain-dead.

[EDIT 2] Rarely ever ever ever drink pop... and if I do, nothing as caustic as Coke.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-24-2025).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I don't know about "banning" sugar, but people need to be better informed... and it's not like the negative effects of refined sugar are a recent discovery. Fifty years ago, back in 1975, I read the book, Sugar Blues. I was 20 years old at the time. It had quite an impact on me. I don't think I've used white refined sugar since. Sure, there's refined sugar in various foods that I eat... but I don't have a "sweet tooth", I don't eat candy and/or fancy desserts, so my intake of refined sugar is quite limited. Not surprisingly I suppose, I've never had a problem with being overweight. 6'3", 190 lbs. My opinion regarding recreational drug and/or alcohol use is much the same. Education is the key. However, I'm also painfully aware that not everyone acts in their own best long-term interest. I haven't smoked dope for 45 years, and I'll have a glass of wine these days maybe once a month. No, I'm not exactly a choir-boy. If I could acquire some pharmaceutical grade LSD, I'd try tripping again. I did it half a dozen times in my early 20's, and it was truly a pleasant, mind-expanding experience for me each time. No, LSD isn't "harmless" for everyone... but then, neither is grass or booze... or driving fast for that matter. [EDIT] I wanted to add that anyone who smokes cigarettes in this day and age has gotta be brain-dead.

Holy sh!t. I can't say that I disagree with anything you posted above

I can't say that I'm quite as careful regarding refined sugar consumption, but I do kick it to the curb every so often, and always lose a few pounds in the process.
I do consume caffeine (as I posted above) and some alcohol - pretty much daily. Nothing to excess, however. And probably less caffeine than most other coffee drinkers.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So... my thought on these things is that Marijuana has a much "longer term" effect on neurological development... in that it kind of retards the ability for someone to learn and can even result in a long-term psychological change. I started reading the NIH article you posted on caffeine, but it didn't really get into specifics. It said caffeine had a more significant psychological effect on the brain, but it didn't really explain what that meant. The website was a little messed up (didn't render properly), and short of reading 100s of pages... I'm trying to understand exactly what that means. Increased focus and attention are also "psychological effects," but not negative. So, I was trying to determine if it was being a little disingenuous. I didn't really see the "similar risk to brain development" in there, but again, I might have missed it, I didn't read the entire thing. I'm with you on Marijuana, so I don't need to be sold on the fact that it's over-regulated. But I do question the caffeine conclusion here.

That's a reasonable call out. We know caffeine is bad for developing brains, but the mechanism by which it does damage is very different than marijuana. I wanted to make a point about the comparative danger marijuana poses to developing brains, but I chose that article out of expedience (it directly compares the two) and the conclusion that caffeine is "as bad" is dangerously close to hyperbole.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I don't really know anything about nicotine, but I would say that based purely on my perception (non-scientific, of course), I've not seen the same kind of behavior from long-time smokers (traditionally) as I am used to seeing from those who smoke pot (in the full-judgement DARE-raised narrative). I see both cigarettes and marijuana as equals when it comes to the cancer risk.

From my experience, cigarette smoking is much more correlated with low professional performance and poor reward system regulation than marijuana is. Then again, I've worked heavily with systems engineers and devs for most of my career, and only a fool would drug test that group for marijuana -I'd have to fire almost every good dev I've ever worked with.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: On alcohol... I think it absolutely impairs you more, and equally bad (or worse) if abused. But I'm not sure if it has the same kind of long-term effect as someone who drinks regularly. Equally bad... but I wonder if there is a 1:1 equivalent to smoking 1 joint a day and drinking 1 beer a day, or what that looks like. My bias would probably equate 1 joint to a 6-pack (per day), but maybe I'm off on that. On me personally, I try to find time to drink, but I'm just too busy, unfortunately. I have more bottles of alcohol that I've bought thinking I'm going to find a nice quiet time to drink in the closet, and it never happens. If I'm lucky, I get maybe 1 drink a month.

What we have found out so far shows that alcohol is far worse for mental impairment (both long and short term). It's not just "more impaired in the moment" it's "has a considerably more pronounced and damaging long-term impact." The lazy stoner stereotype is a product of the same era that had marijuana classified as being as dangerous as heroin and meth. It's government propaganda justifying their wacky regulation of a substantially lower-harm product that was going to cut into the liquor sales that drove a huge portion of that era's graft.

[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 12-24-2025).]

quote Originally posted by Raydar: I do consume caffeine (as I posted above) and some alcohol - pretty much daily. Nothing to excess, however. And probably less caffeine than most other coffee drinkers.

I forgot to mention coffee. For about seven years, I used to roast coffee on an industrial scale for a living. I had unlimited access to the best, most expensive coffee to drink on a daily basis... but had to limit my consumption to just two cups a day. Anything more on a regular basis, and my stomach wouldn't be happy. However, I do enjoy the two cups a day that I allow myself. I don't get a "buzz" from it, but I find that coffee (probably the caffeine) does help to reduce allergy symptoms... which at one time were much more of a problem for me than they currently are.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Holy sh!t. I can't say that I disagree with anything you posted above

I like to believe that political opinions don't define us. We're all just people, with many similar wants and needs.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-24-2025).]

I'm not informed on the OP's source of content, but I will say that I personally have friends that had a medical exception for MJ use simply because they are pot heads, they have no medical condition that MJ would help, actually no medical conditions at all, by it's a loop hole many, many exploit.

quote Originally posted by jelly2m8: I'm not informed on the OP's source of content ...

You may see different news when you search, in the great white north. But it's all over the place, here.

https://nypost.com/2025/12/...f-full-legalization/

Oh geez man, The crazies / liberals won on that promise, we had a pot head in charge, and it's been a down hill slope ever since.

You search the news from Caukistan, it's all how terrible Trump is and how great Crooked carney is............

Are you blaming that on the weed?
Or just the type of people who got elected due to the promise of legalization? Asking because I think that if you strip off all the "protective layers", you'll find out that there are people partaking that you never would have even considered - on both sides of the political aisle. (Clinton and Obama? No surprise there. But I'm certain there are many others.)

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 12-29-2025).]

I remember some one asking about tax, in NY it is roughly 15%.