Lathspell said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

THC is bad for your heart rate and blood pressure, destroys your circulatory system, and impairs brain function, development and repair.

Whether or not it is worse for you than alcohol is arguable. For some people, it most certainly is. Its silly to think its not.

---

And do you eat anything cooked in seed oils? What ingredients are in your food? How much water do you drink in a day? How much exercise do you get in a day?

These types of arguments are absolutely ridiculous. It literally doesn't matter what you think the negatives are, it's not your life. I swear, so many of you goofballs act like you live perfectly healthy lives and then hark on weed as this great evil. Get a life and stop worrying about what other people do.

---

Im just arguing that people should seek the truth, not make specious arguments just to make a political point.

THC is harmful, arguably as harmful as alcohol. That doesnt mean we should outlaw THC. But, we shouldn't lie about the tradeoffs just to legalize weed.

Tell the truth, make intellectually honest arguments, and err on the side of the government leaving people alone. When we dont know something for sure, admit that. But, don't lie just to try to try to win an argument. No one will believe you.

There are plenty of reasons why its stupid to outlaw THC. Arguing that the idea that alcohol is more damaging than THC, and that this is proven so well that the issue isn't even arguable, is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

---

The issue on regulation for any REASONABLE person is where does government draw the line, not whether the line gets drawn at all. Do we all agree that we regulate one or more of meth, coke, smack, and prescription drugs? If so, then encompassing MJ isn't unreasonable.

---

personally don't think its reasonable to compare MJ to the others, at least not until you get into the chemical extracts and synthesized products. A more apt comparison would be Poppy plants, Coca plants, and the like but i digress. One line that is clearly being drawn (for reasons that should be obvious) that shouldn't be, is only allowing mega corps to produce.

I can brew my own beer, but cant grow my own weed? A little consistency would be nice since everything else is just propoganda to serve ones self interest.

But muh hemp...

I would not be surprised if there are complications from use of weed. Tats a lot of chemicals in there.

I am curious how they dealt with the selection bias and confounding variables in this study. Thd population that does THC us self selecting and not a random Sample that reflects the same health and activity levels as the general population. There also may be confounding variables due to this.

Also, if the increase of relative risk is 50% but the absolute risk is 1%, your absolute risk only becomes 1.5%. Not as alarming.

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

Is it your belief that THC has documented impact on blood pressure, the circulatory system, brain development, brain system rewiring and repair?

I err on the side of government leaving people alone. No comment on the politeness / rudeness of weed or alcohol. We obviously need to regulate people's substance use when it becomes a public safety issue, including THC.

My entire point is that ignoring the science that is detrimental to a person's argument, and then pointing to the science that is helpful to a person's argument, is intellectually dishonest, and both sides of the alcohol vs THC argument do it.

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

Is it your belief that THC has documented impact on blood pressure, the circulatory system, brain development, brain system rewiring and repair?

---

THC has short term effects on blood pressure and the circulatory system. And if you're smoking it and not eating an edible, then well you're not the sharpest tool in the shed anyways.

As for brain development, yes. There are studies to show that it does have negative effects on teen cognitive factors although whether those are long term is TBD. But again, no one here is advocating for teens to get high.

Overall, it's not even close as to what's worse for you in the alcohol vs THC conversation.

But regardless, as an actual Conservative, what others do in there own homes is 95% none of mine, yours, or the nanny states business.

Quote:

---

Is it your belief that THC has documented impact on blood pressure, the circulatory system, brain development, brain system rewiring and repair?

---

like the above poster said, short term effects on BP and circulation. That much should be obvious to any avid consumer.

The most contentious issue is the long term effects on the neurology of a developed brain. Very conflicting information at this point, and I don't really trust Andrew Huberman cause i know how the system works.

Queso1 said:

---

Nothing inflames an alcoholic more than pot. Well, maybe their wife not having dinner ready.

---

My ***** knows what's good for her. Sandwiches for lunch; meatloaf for dinner.

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

Is it your belief that THC has documented impact on blood pressure, the circulatory system, brain development, brain system rewiring and repair?

---

THC has short term effects on blood pressure and the circulatory system. And if you're smoking it and not eating an edible, then well you're not the sharpest tool in the shed anyways.

As for brain development, yes. There are studies to show that it does have negative effects on teen cognitive factors although whether those are long term is TBD. But again, no one here is advocating for teens to get high.

Overall, it's not even close as to what's worse for you in the alcohol vs THC conversation.

But regardless, as an actual Conservative, what others do in there own homes is 95% none of mine, yours, or the nanny states business.

---

So, the impact on blood pressure don't increase risks of stroke? Stroke causes permanent damage.

As for brain development, how do you know that alcohol is so much worse when we don't even have good clinical data on TCH either way, but there are a lot of limited studies out there that demonstrate risks? Brain development issues are being seen for people that started using THC chronically as late as 25 years of age. We haven't even looked at it during menopause for women and mid-life crises for men, where we are discovering that there is WAY more neurological rewiring taking place than we thought even 10 years ago.

This subject is still being studied and generally up for debate. Saying its not up for debate and is 100% political is just silly.

Also, I agree with you on the nanny state argument. It's just that I think making spurious scientific claims about THC to argue against nanny state does more harm than good. It's like the tobacco is good for you scientists moved from tobacco to Jack in the Box to COVID to THC.

Blood pressure risk and THC is a new one.

Some indication that LOW dosage and / or infrequent users may experience an acute "spike" of less than 10 "points". That ain't causing a stroke.

Heavier dosage and longer term use have the opposite effect on blood pressure.

As a daily user, I can tell you it does not raise your blood pressure and cause strokes. One is more likely to have a stroke obsessing about the dangers of THC and what a scourge on society it is.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Blood pressure risk and THC is a new one.

Some indication that LOW dosage and / or infrequent users may experience an acute "spike" of less than 10 "points". That ain't causing a stroke.

Heavier dosage and longer term use have the opposite effect on blood pressure.

As a daily user, I can tell you it does not raise your blood pressure and cause strokes. One is more likely to have a stroke obsessing about the dangers of THC and what a scourge on society it is.

---

You can't tell the reefer-madness people anything. They are completely ignorant to the effects of THC use or your personal usage, yet love to make giant generalizations and cite a single headline from some obscure source with no peer-reviewed research.

They also don't seem to grasp the point of the argument we make when talking about any detrimental effects to health when bringing up smoking and alcohol. We aren't saying taking THC is a great thing and everyone should do it. We're saying to zero-in on THC as some highly destructive boogeyman is laughable when they aren't also out there clamoring for nicotine and alcohol to also be removed.

These reefer madness nanny-staters are the same type of delusional people who think every problem in the world is because of Israel. Why do these types just love to hyper-focus on one boogeyman and remove any form of nuance from their thinking?

ETA: Just got back from a 2-day training at a major technology provider for the entire freaking world. At said training, while talking to most of the tech people during the happy hours, literally 80% or more of them ingest some form of THC regularly. These are people who are highly successful and incredibly intelligent. But, according to some of these blowhard nanny-staters, these are just useless potheads who contribute nothing to the world.

Also, I rarely ever drink and could tell you those mornings after only having a few drinks at the happy hours were rough. The morningsafter my gummies or dry-herb vapes? I feel great.

Using cannabis offset to the point of near elimination my intake of alcohol. Net positive for me.

It lowers my anxiety leading to reduction / elimination of SSRI. Net positive for me.

Just had foot surgery and barely took the opiate pain meds. Net positive for me.

Plus I take pride in supporting the Montana ag industry and the host of small independent business that make up retail side.

But some folks don't like the smell and believe the racist rhetoric of 80 years ago regarding the ills of the devils herb.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Plus I take pride.....

---

It's not June anymore.

BigRobSA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Plus I take pride.....

---

It's not June anymore.

---

That was last June in Breck! Now get back to meat processing…

Quote:

---

But some folks don't like the smell and believe the racist rhetoric of 80 years ago regarding the ills of the devils herb.

---

I am not a fan of the smell these days, I didn't mind it when I was 19 but really don't like it now.

What is the racist rhetoric of 80 years ago? Did reefer madness say only black people smoked the stuff or are you just throwing that card out there?

Tree Hugger said:

---

Quote:

---

But some folks don't like the smell and believe the racist rhetoric of 80 years ago regarding the ills of the devils herb.

---

I am not a fan of the smell these days, I didn't mind it when I was 19 but really don't like it now.

What is the racist rhetoric of 80 years ago? Did reefer madness say only black people smoked the stuff or are you just throwing that card out there?

---

See LaGuardia committee (and report), Henry Anslinger at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, his influence on the AMA counter report and the Army "study of marijuana" from 1944 / 1945. Fauci using medical expertise to push a political / social position is not a new construct.

History Channel magazine had a lengthy piece on the history of cannabis which included a long section on the racial history of marijuana laws and enforcement.

tl;dr - marijuana was debatable as to who was using, for what purposes, its addictiveness and its influence on "society". Folks like Laguardia tried to introduce common sense. Folks like Anslinger took aim at the black and brown communities, the more prevalent users of cannabis no doubt, and explained their lazy and thieverish ways as being a result of the cannabis use. As such, it must be declared criminally dangerous and significant penalties on anyone caught in possession and use.

So beget 80+ years of locking blacks and browns up for an herbal remedy that has been used for several thousand years.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Using cannabis offset to the point of near elimination my intake of alcohol. Net positive for me.

It lowers my anxiety leading to reduction / elimination of SSRI. Net positive for me.

Just had foot surgery and barely took the opiate pain meds. Net positive for me.

Plus I take pride in supporting the Montana ag industry and the host of small independent business that make up retail side.

But some folks don't like the smell and believe the racist rhetoric of 80 years ago regarding the ills of the devils herb.

---

Just think if you could do all those things without a drug?

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

But you still piss hot making you a pothead.

Get in a car wreck or other legal dispute where a judge requires you to be tested for drugs and you become a certified pothead, doesn't matter if it came out of a can or a joint.

ts5641 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Using cannabis offset to the point of near elimination my intake of alcohol. Net positive for me.

It lowers my anxiety leading to reduction / elimination of SSRI. Net positive for me.

Just had foot surgery and barely took the opiate pain meds. Net positive for me.

Plus I take pride in supporting the Montana ag industry and the host of small independent business that make up retail side.

But some folks don't like the smell and believe the racist rhetoric of 80 years ago regarding the ills of the devils herb.

---

Just think if you could do all those things without a drug?

---

I guess for pain management I could read the Bible and exercise. Should help the foot for sure.

Anxiety is real. Exercise and mindfulness does help and I use those as well.

Cannabis is a plant, not a drug, though it possesses chemical compounds that have proven beneficial and been used by humans long before racist, pharmacists, chemists and alcoholists castigated it to the bowels of evil debauchery.

Why are some okay with daddy government telling them how to relax and with which chemicals to do so with.

5Amp said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

But you still piss hot making you a pothead.

Get in a car wreck or other legal dispute where a judge requires you to be tested for drugs and you become a certified pothead, doesn't matter if it came out of a can or a joint.

---

What benefits does being certified get you?

And there is more to "legal intoxication" than trace amounts of THC in your system.

Finally, if someone took a Tylenol with codeine and had a wreck, legally intoxicated or not, do you label them an opiate addict and ascribe to them all the shame and scourge you can deploy?

You have a pretty weak, poorly based take on what makes one a "pothead". It fails simple logical reasoning.

5Amp said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

But you still piss hot making you a pothead.

Get in a car wreck or other legal dispute where a judge requires you to be tested for drugs and you become a certified pothead, doesn't matter if it came out of a can or a joint.

---

Lol... another idiotic take. Certified pothead? What are you even talking about? You sound like you're a child or autistic.

If this thread taught me anything, it's the term "piss hot" and that once a new term is established, people will beat it to death.

I always thought the term mean overheating your wife's piss at the gas station on the way to the drug tester. Spilling hot piss is the worsts

So is explaining to your boss that you are a man capable of pregnancy based on your last drug test.

Lots of things to dodge in the land of certified potheadland.

Lathspell said:

---

5Amp said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

But you still piss hot making you a pothead.

Get in a car wreck or other legal dispute where a judge requires you to be tested for drugs and you become a certified pothead, doesn't matter if it came out of a can or a joint.

---

Lol... another idiotic take. Certified pothead? What are you even talking about? You sound like you're a child or autistic.

---

Really only matters to people that are high achievers but…... If you piss hot, you are a pothead.

THC stays in system for months, it's called pissing hot. If for whatever reason, you are drug tested, you will fail the test and be forever more, a pothead. On record, a paper trail, a certified pothead. Most job applications ask if you abuse drugs and some ask if you have EVER failed a drug test. Cops now test for that and a judge can order a hair follicle test.

Everyone that cares for you suffers because you have to use a substance to be happy, why risk everything to get high even one time? Cause UB a pothead.

For those worried about being a certified pothead with no hope of a future that includes high achievement, you can still get a security clearance if you have consumed cannabis, even if to have "pissed hot" on a drug test.

Way more important to be honest about it and to understand ongoing consumption is a disqualifier for most agencies / employers.

For instance, being clean for 1-year and you can go into the FBI or secret service. An additional year and you will have no issue in this regards getting clearances.

Ag87H2O said:

---

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

5Amp said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

But you still piss hot making you a pothead.

Get in a car wreck or other legal dispute where a judge requires you to be tested for drugs and you become a certified pothead, doesn't matter if it came out of a can or a joint.

---

What benefits does being certified get you?

And there is more to "legal intoxication" than trace amounts of THC in your system.

Finally, if someone took a Tylenol with codeine and had a wreck, legally intoxicated or not, do you label them an opiate addict and ascribe to them all the shame and scourge you can deploy?

You have a pretty weak, poorly based take on what makes one a "pothead". It fails simple logical reasoning.

---

It's a very cruel world when it comes to failing a drug test, specifically marijuana. It's also unfair, smoke it for a weekend and it's in your system for weeks if not months. Drink like a maniac and it is out of system in hours.

I am a nobody, my definition of a pothead means nothing but our society is very unforgiving and I have witnessed what a failed drug test does to responsible people who had a weekend of fun. Telling people a drug test can be beat is irresponsible and harmful.

Some reading this may have a lot to lose if busted, hope I have helped them understand that once you fail a drug test, you are a tagged calf and your life changes forever. It's a bad paper, DUI like.

Alcohol can be tested for long after you have sobered up.

flown-the-coop said:

---

For those worried about being a certified pothead with no hope of a future that includes high achievement, you can still get a security clearance if you have consumed cannabis, even if to have "pissed hot" on a drug test.

Way more important to be honest about it and to understand ongoing consumption is a disqualifier for most agencies / employers.

For instance, being clean for 1-year and you can go into the FBI or secret service. An additional year and you will have no issue in this regards getting clearances.

---

You have to prove you are clean and get letters of recommendation from others who know your past. Your failed drug test is still part of your history.

I was in HR, you will be put through hoops and your advancement will be slow, there is always exceptions but tht is just the way life is. Very competitive world we live in, stay clean.

5Amp said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

5Amp said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Weed is likely way less harmful than many of it's detractors claim. It is likely on par or even a little less damaging than alcohol. It also has significant pain management and other benefits, especially for geriatric and palliative patients.

Weed is likely way more harmful than many of it's defenders claim. It is not a harmless substance. There are significant physiological and psychological side effects. These should not be ignored. They should be studied and quantified to the best of our ability, and the public should be educated of those risks.

Most people see the issue primarily through a political lens, and not a scientific one.

---

Weed is significantly better for you than alcohol and it's not even debatable. And yes, every substance does have its downsides, hell even caffeine is an addictive drug.

And most people who are against this simply enjoy being an HOA board member and telling others what they can and can't do.

---

Yes. It's debatable.

---

No. It's really not. I can drink a 10mg THC seltzer, with 10 calories. Zero liver work, no dehydrated issues, no "potheads are losers" while having a far beer gut, and no hangover no matter if I consume 10 mg or 30 mg. But keep on being scared of the devils lettuce and its penchant to make the Mexicans lust after your wives and daughters. For the last 100 years THC has been a scapegoat for the alcohol and tea-totaler NIMBys. And that's historical fact.

---

But you still piss hot making you a pothead.

Get in a car wreck or other legal dispute where a judge requires you to be tested for drugs and you become a certified pothead, doesn't matter if it came out of a can or a joint.

---

Lol... another idiotic take. Certified pothead? What are you even talking about? You sound like you're a child or autistic.

---

Really only matters to people that are high achievers but…... If you piss hot, you are a pothead.

THC stays in system for months, it's called pissing hot. If for whatever reason, you are drug tested, you will fail the test and be forever more, a pothead. On record, a paper trail, a certified pothead. Most job applications ask if you abuse drugs and some ask if you have EVER failed a drug test. Cops now test for that and a judge can order a hair follicle test.

Everyone that cares for you suffers because you have to use a substance to be happy, why risk everything to get high even one time? Cause UB a pothead.

---

Who the hell cares?!

This is why you sound autistic. Why are you so obsessed with this idea of applying for a job with a security clearance and repeating the phrase "pissing hot" and "pothead". This is so strange to read. The majority of employers don't care, anymore. You are either over 70 or just really weird...

5Amp said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

For those worried about being a certified pothead with no hope of a future that includes high achievement, you can still get a security clearance if you have consumed cannabis, even if to have "pissed hot" on a drug test.

Way more important to be honest about it and to understand ongoing consumption is a disqualifier for most agencies / employers.

For instance, being clean for 1-year and you can go into the FBI or secret service. An additional year and you will have no issue in this regards getting clearances.

---

You have to prove you are clean and get letters of recommendation from others who know your past. Your failed drug test is still part of your history.

I was in HR, you will be put through hoops and your advancement will be slow, there is always exceptions but tht is just the way life is. Very competitive world we live in, stay clean.

---

Sorry, that's not reality. Sounds like it's the HR bubble you exist in.

I ca. assure as an active user I could get the highest security clearances. The only question is how bad they need me to look at something and access my brain.

Career potential, security clearances, participation in law enforcement are all negotiable and highly specific to the individual. You are disqualifying everyone based on some arcane perception of cannabis that likely is not even shared by your other HR team members and management.

You do you bro, but it's not giving people bad advice by letting them know of facts and not an individual anecdote.