darkgable
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2012
- Messages
- 2,880
- Likes
- 840
Sounds like someone yet to access some parts of his brain, imo.
And to boot, I just visited a friend who moved to Colorado and now has a daughter that has gone from 20+. seizures everyday of her life for the last 6 years while undergoing pharma tests and treatments at places such as johns Hopkins and Baylor, to none while using transdermal medical marijuana patches, I ain't got no time for ignorance. And as a business owner for the last decade, not only have I not had to fire many people, but I sure wouldn't brag about doing it. Having to fire people means you suck at your job, imo. You either hired wrong or didn't manage/train/motivate correctly. Bragging about firing someone is basically admitting you suck.
You either have character or you don't. If a person likes to smoke a joint or have a drink when they are at home is fine. It's about being responsible. Potheads and alcoholics are irresponsible because they let the addiction run their life. Breathing polluted air damages brain cells .
And the largest problem this Country faces as far as addiction is pain pills. I''ll take a rec toker over a drunk, a tunnelvisioned and uptight sober person, or a pill popper eryday.
And the list of people that are flat out genius over many areas of art, music, writing, business, entrepreneurs, restauranteurs, scientists, etc that rec smoke as adults is too long to list to support brain damage arguments. Not children. Adults with developed brains.
Its a commonly held belief that it is "good" for you? It has benefits, but I dont think the general consensus is that its really "good" for you.
Exactly. Although it is healthier than other legal drugs that kill millions of people a year, marijuana can be really hard on your lungs if not used in moderation and can make you fat and lazy if you smoke too much too often. Ive never heard anyone say that smoking it is good for you. Smoking anything isnt good for you because its bad for your lungs.
Not sure what you're getting at with your questions. Would you want any of those listed to be drunk either?
Of course not and it is illegal for them to be drunk on the job. I am just asking the people who defend POT and claim its harmless when common sense shows it isn't harmless.
The difference is that its much easier to tell when someone has been drinking than it is to tell if they have smoked a joint.
Detection is one of the main issues in my opinion.
Intolerant to ignorance is more apt
Hmmmm
Well the next time a stoner pulls out in front me when I'm loaded out to 70k I'll be sure to plow his ass over instead of running of the road.
We can have the conversation again.
Drunks don't drive 35 in a 55.
Stoners are just as much of a risk on the high way as drunks.
That isn't ignorance Sparty.
I have no idea what that means.
And your suggestion that traffic deaths caused by drunks compared to people too high to drive is off by millions of deaths.
A little secret is most people smoking are fine chilling out while the drunk guy goes on a beer run or out to party and drive drunk home again later.
and you are telling me a stoned guy is as dangerous to you than a drunk?
Stoned guy is getting out of your way while admiring the size of the tires and checking out the rig while the drunk guy never sees you or doesn't care.
and of course friends
No. I'm telling you their reaction time is slow. Same as drunks. They are just as dangerous on the highway.
I deal with both daily.
The traffic death statistics say otherwise and your number is off my millions of people.
Not sure how you know if people are smoking from a 70k though. Because somebody drives slow? That's not a good assumption.
And yes, I am on the road. To the tune of @ 40k miles a year and have done that for a dozen or so years, though I try to stay off the road at night to stay away from the post work happy hour drunks.