Pot, it's not just for bored oil workers

[Gyro/T69]

"so a 'lid' is like a quarter"

In my neck of the woods. a lid was 3/4 of an ounce. A nickle bag was a quarter.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Airhead
We used to measure "lids" by the finger- a two finger lid was roughly a half ounce, a four finger lid was closer to an ounce- a scale was never necessary, but this was back in the 60s, in San Francisco.

Exactly.

[GreenCloud]

mane a quick note on that pic..

the picture isnt the clearest quality..but the ak-47 seems to have a bit of powdery mildew present.

It tends too look like crystals ..but you see it built up on leaves-stems and the actual pods...

Friends of mine claim that powdery mildew was released from the Gov as a way to Biologically screw with indoor growers.
Its kinda funny.....


PM has been dormant for decades...but for some reason I see it attkaing many growers in the last couple years...PM has defnlty been around on outdoor,, and regular house plants for many moons tho..

I always laff at the conspiracy theories...hahah Gov released powdery mildew...lololo


btw I always thought a lid was supposed to be around an ounce...but hell I was born in the mid 70s..so i missed all that lingo..lolol

wastoid reefer addicts

Love
BiGB
xoxo

[lazs2]

I have no problem with making pot legal so long as being on it at work gets you fired and driving with it in your system gets you a DUI.

lazs

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by lazs2
I have no problem with making pot legal so long as being on it at work gets you fired and driving with it in your system gets you a DUI.

lazs

agree 100%

[Munkii]

Originally posted by lazs2
I have no problem with making pot legal so long as being on it at work gets you fired and driving with it in your system gets you a DUI.

lazs

Only problem with that is the way THC lingers in your system.  Unless there is a way to determine the exact time and amount present (i.e. a breathalizer) it would be hard to determine.  Although drug testing is generally only administered in the event of an accident or blatant intoxication now, I'm assuming it would carry over.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Munkii
Only problem with that is the way THC lingers in your system.  Unless there is a way to determine the exact time and amount present (i.e. a breathalizer) it would be hard to determine.  Although drug testing is generally only administered in the event of an accident or blatant intoxication now, I'm assuming it would carry over.

Over here if the cop smells weed in your car you get a DUI- if you have weed in your car, but haven't been smoking it, he MAY take your weed, but that's about it- my nephew is a cop and he doesn't dick with small quantities, and usually will return bags of weed.

I have yet to hear of anyone being convicted of being under the influence of pot based upon a urinialisis, for exactly that reason. Observation by the cop is generally enough for a DUI conviction.

[mora]

I don't see a problem in this. You can set a limit for THC blood level just like in the case of alcohol. If you are over the limit then it's a DUI. Of course the level has to be set sufficiently high to eliminate false negatives. Remember that it's a proven fact that a moderate dosage of cannabis doesn't impair your ability to drive nearly as bad as alcohol. If this issue would be researched properly, it would be possible to define a time, after which you would be in a condition to drive after taking the drug. THC can be easily tested from saliva.

[mora]

Originally posted by Airhead
I have yet to hear of anyone being convicted of being under the influence of pot based upon a urinialisis, for exactly that reason. Observation by the cop is generally enough for a DUI conviction.

Actually there isn't any THC is urine, there are metabolites(sp?) of THC, which are not psychoactive. In blood there can be both active THC and  it's metabolites, and there's no way to tell their difference when tested. It can take up to 24h for the blood to be completely clean.  Are theese people blood tested after "observation" or can they be convicted with just that?

[rpm]

I'm willing to bet they COULD develop a test to determine the level of ACTIVE THC, but doing so would cost them DUI convictions. Right now any marijuana use is illegal. Why would they want to reduce the amount of convictions? There is no incentive to do so by law enforcement and procecutors. They want easier convictions, not acquittals.

[lazs2]

I am willing to have it be that  if you smoke pot you simply give up your right to drive or take your chances..   If it stays in your system then tough.   Is it more important to smoke pot or to drive?

if the cop suspects you of driving badly and you flunk the pot test..... DUI.

lazs

[B17Skull12]

Originally posted by vorticon
you do realize you are referring to a suprisingly large amount of people...

why exactly would i care?  People who do that stuff are morons and prove obviously don't know right from wrong.

[SOB]

Enlighten me.  What is "wrong" about smoking marijuana?

[Regular]

People who do not smoke just dont know where to obtain it.


Otherwise they secretly desire the lovable effects of MJ.

[rpm]

Originally posted by B17Skull12
why exactly would i care?  People who do that stuff are morons and prove obviously don't know right from wrong.

Let me guess. You went to elementary school during or after the Reagan Administration. What they failed to tell you in D.A.R.E. is prohibition is a lucrative business. They also failed to tell you of the corruption in the D.A.R.E. program.

I agree nobody should drive impaired, but someone that smoked a joint 3 - 10 days ago but still has the metabaloids (?) in their system and has no active effects should not be arrested. The same for on the job. As long as they are not under the influence they should be left alone. Now if you are pulled over and have a smoking joint in the ashtray or you slip off and smoke a joint during lunch or right before work, yes you deserve to face the concequences of your actions.