# Marijuana and hiring/employment.



## Rogergoodwin

Anyone aware of any policies with their department being adopted, since the legalization of marijuana, pertaining to the hiring process or current officers? My department has not addressed it at all, just wondering if that was the typical response.


----------



## pahapoika

We were told recently at in-service despite marijuana being legal in Massachusetts it's still a federal offense so don't get any ideas about lighting up   
The instructor said it half jokingly, but for some reason thought it needed to be said .


----------



## sgtmike1980

Its BS cops cant use marijuana if there is a legitimate medical purpose, despite that its no different than booze. I hope someone sues these asshole Chiefs!


----------



## Goose

Medical or Recreational Marijuana Means No Gun Rights - The Truth About Guns


----------



## Joel98

My department (and most others that I know of) have adopted new policies stating employees cannot use marijuana. I agree with these policies 100%.

I cannot wait until Trump's DOJ and DEA start raiding all these marijuana 'dispensaries' in states where it's legalized, including here in MA.


----------



## Joel98

sgtmike1980 said:


> Its BS cops cant use marijuana if there is a legitimate medical purpose, despite that its no different than booze. I hope someone sues these asshole Chiefs!


Huh? I'm not working alongside a freaking pothead.


----------



## kdk240

My dept. Has a zero tolerance policy on the use of Marijuana for all employees including the few civilians we have.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy

Think of it like the tobacco ban. Still totally legal, but plenty of departments don't allow the use of tobacco.


----------



## Joel98

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> Think of it like the tobacco ban. Still totally legal, but plenty of departments don't allow the use of tobacco.


Exactly, you nailed it brother.


----------



## Treehouse413

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> Think of it like the tobacco ban. Still totally legal, but plenty of departments don't allow the use of tobacco.


Smoking tobacco. Please leave the dippers alone.


----------



## Crazy Otto

I was told (by a reliable source) that federal law prohibits marijuana use by law enforcement. 
I'm with Joel98. I don't want my backup to be stoned. 

You wanna smoke some weed? Get a job at Burger King.


----------



## Bloodhound

Crazy Otto said:


> I was told (by a reliable source) that federal law prohibits marijuana use by law enforcement.


And everyone else for that matter.


----------



## Treehouse413

Crazy Otto said:


> I was told (by a reliable source) that federal law prohibits marijuana use by law enforcement.
> I'm with Joel98. I don't want my backup to be stoned.
> 
> You wanna smoke some weed? Get a job at Burger King.


Stoned or drunk what's the diff.


----------



## Crazy Otto

Treehouse413 said:


> Stoned or drunk what's the diff.


Might want to read the title of the thread, son. Kinda specific.

For the record, I do not want my backup to be stoned, drunk, distracted, dopey, bashful, sleepy, sneezy or grumpy. Happy and Doc are welcome to back me up any time.


----------



## Goose

Crazy Otto said:


> You wanna smoke some weed? Get a job at Burger King.


Police: Drugs sold at Epping Burger King drive-thru with code word 'fries extra crispy'


----------



## sgtmike1980

Joel98 said:


> Huh? I'm not working alongside a freaking pothead.


Neither do I, but then we should do the same with booze, I don't want my backup drunk. But if your smoking weed for a medical reason you shouldn't be working at all. Obviously it would be prescribed by a Dr. and follow all the same guide lines we would follow when using medications that would not allow us to be at work.


----------



## sgtmike1980

Crazy Otto said:


> I was told (by a reliable source) that federal law prohibits marijuana use by law enforcement.
> I'm with Joel98. I don't want my backup to be stoned.
> 
> You wanna smoke some weed? Get a job at Burger King.


No smartass I don't want to smoke weed. I want people to have it if they need it for medical reasons.


----------



## sgtmike1980

Crazy Otto said:


> Might want to read the title of the thread, son. Kinda specific.
> 
> For the record, I do not want my backup to be stoned, drunk, distracted, dopey, bashful, sleepy, sneezy or grumpy. Happy and Doc are welcome to back me up any time.


There is no difference son, its the same. Medications, Alcohol, and well Marijuana would obviously be treated the same. It would take a little common sense which says you can't either medicate while you on duty or driving, you know like drinking booze lol, Jesus is that so hard to understand. Legalize Marijuana all the way, I don't use it but its no different than beer.


----------



## sgtmike1980

Well don't go round waving your 


Goose said:


> Medical or Recreational Marijuana Means No Gun Rights - The Truth About Guns


Well I wouldn't suggest running around waiving your medical marijuana card, lol.


----------



## Goose

sgtmike1980 said:


> Well I wouldn't suggest running around waiving your medical marijuana card, lol.


What makes you think I have one? Last I checked, cops are supposed to be ethical.


----------



## Treehouse413

One of my closet friends on the job had cancer and fought hard but lost after 15 years. I watched the guy pop oxy like they were f-in Pez candies because of his constant pain. In my opinion I'd rather see someone smoke weed then have to be depdent on that shi$.Funny thing is he was old school and would've never smoked.


----------



## Treehouse413

Crazy Otto said:


> Might want to read the title of the thread, son. Kinda specific.
> 
> For the record, I do not want my backup to be stoned, drunk, distracted, dopey, bashful, sleepy, sneezy or grumpy. Happy and Doc are welcome to back me up any time.


My point is son weed and booze are the same.


----------



## Crazy Otto

Treehouse413 said:


> My point is son weed and booze are the same.


And my point is that they are NOT the same.


----------



## Crazy Otto

sgtmike1980 said:


> There is no difference son, its the same. its no different than beer.


I disagree.


----------



## Treehouse413

Crazy Otto said:


> And my point is that they are NOT the same.


Guess we'll agree do disagree.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Crazy Otto said:


> I was told (by a reliable source) that federal law prohibits marijuana use by law enforcement.
> I'm with Joel98. I don't want my backup to be stoned.
> 
> You wanna smoke some weed? Get a job at Burger King.


No one wants to be backed up by someone stoned. But calling everyone who smokes weed a stoner, is like calling everyone that has an occasional drink, a drunk.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Crazy Otto said:


> I was told (by a reliable source) that federal law prohibits marijuana use by law enforcement.


Your source might not be that reliable, because there's no federal law that specifically addresses law enforcement and marijuana use.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Goose said:


> What makes you think I have one? Last I checked, cops are supposed to be ethical.


I wouldn't necessarily consider someone with a difficult disease that uses marijuana to be unethical.


----------



## Joel98

Crazy Otto said:


> And my point is that they are NOT the same.


Agreed, they are nowhere close to being in the same category.


----------



## Joel98

Rogergoodwin said:


> Your source might not be that reliable, because there's no federal law that specifically addresses law enforcement and marijuana use.


No Chief is going to knowingly allow his officers to violate federal law.

Good luck with that one...


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> Agreed, they are nowhere close to being in the same category.


I agree. From an LE standpoint your going to deal with a lot more crimes involving alcohol use.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> No Chief is going to knowingly allow his officers to violate federal law.
> 
> Good luck with that one...


Please cite the law that specifically addresses LEO's and marijuana. 
Good luck with that...


----------



## Goose

Rogergoodwin said:


> Please cite the law that specifically addresses LEO's and marijuana.
> Good luck with that...


Do cops carry guns? There ya go.


----------



## Treehouse413

Goose said:


> Do cops carry guns? There ya go.


So with that theory you can't get issued a LTC if you have a medical marijuana card or are the casual smoker in MA.


----------



## felony

It's bad enough the public is getting stoned and driving, we don't need cops doing the same thing.  Cops cant smoke butts either, but yet the public can. Smoking a joint, which is still smoking, is just as bad health wise as cigarettes. Like others have said, federally its still illegal and if you want federal grant money, I suggest your department keep it out of the hands of its officers.

The edibles are what really concerns me, odorless, and with potent THC, its a recipe for disaster. They will intoxicate you for hours. Once these pot shops go online in 2018, were going to have a epidemic with edibles. Right now its just black market weed or medical marijuana. Wait until its readily accessible.


----------



## Treehouse413

felony said:


> It's bad enough the public is getting stoned and driving, we don't need cops doing the same thing. Cops cant smoke butts either, but yet the public can. Smoking a joint, which is still smoking, is just as bad health wise as cigarettes. Like others have said, federally its still illegal and if you want federal grant money, I suggest your department keep it out of the hands of its officers.
> 
> The edibles are what really concerns me, odorless, and with potent THC, its a recipe for disaster. They will intoxicate you for hours. Once these pot shops go online in 2018, were going to have a epidemic with edibles. Right now its just black market weed or medical marijuana. Wait until its readily accessible.


at some point some department will have that guy/girl who will be the test case. It will be interesting and this is Mass so nothing will surprise me.


----------



## JD02124

A friend of mine a Veteran with PTSD was hitting the bottle hard for years after his deployment as most people do in my exporence, but eventually got his medical marijuana card for PTSD, Sleep or whatver else. Now he drinks very little and eats edibles. He has his shit togeather makes good money in his profession (not law enforcement). He has made comments here and there whenever I have a good story about work for him and he will comment like he sometimes wants to become a law enforcement officer but itsnt willing to drop the eddibles any time soon. You have to pick a side I guess. Once these stores are put in and its "recreational" I wonder how long till special units are going to be made to deal with it. I would say sign me up! But my department wont have anything todo with something like that if put in place…


----------



## Joel98

felony said:


> It's bad enough the public is getting stoned and driving, we don't need cops doing the same thing. Cops cant smoke butts either, but yet the public can. Smoking a joint, which is still smoking, is just as bad health wise as cigarettes. Like others have said, federally its still illegal and if you want federal grant money, I suggest your department keep it out of the hands of its officers.
> 
> The edibles are what really concerns me, odorless, and with potent THC, its a recipe for disaster. They will intoxicate you for hours. Once these pot shops go online in 2018, were going to have a epidemic with edibles. Right now its just black market weed or medical marijuana. Wait until its readily accessible.


This 100% ^^^^^


----------



## Kilvinsky

*EVERYBODY MUST GET STONED!*


----------



## Rogergoodwin

felony said:


> It's bad enough the public is getting stoned and driving, we don't need cops doing the same thing. Cops cant smoke butts either, but yet the public can. Smoking a joint, which is still smoking, is just as bad health wise as cigarettes. Like others have said, federally its still illegal and if you want federal grant money, I suggest your department keep it out of the hands of its officers.
> 
> The edibles are what really concerns me, odorless, and with potent THC, its a recipe for disaster. They will intoxicate you for hours. Once these pot shops go online in 2018, were going to have a epidemic with edibles. Right now its just black market weed or medical marijuana. Wait until its readily accessible.


No one disputes that driving under the influence is bad, but we're not talking about that. Just the occasional use off duty.

And taking a few hits on the weekend cannot compare health wise to smoking a pack a day.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

How many domestics, car accidents, fights, etc have to responded to where the involved individuals were drunk?

Now how many times were they high on weed? 
And people actually want to compare marijuana and alcohol from an LE perspective?


----------



## sgtmike1980

Relax, it was a joke.


----------



## USAF3424

Rediculous a guy can fail his drug test for whatever, keep his job, but smoke a butt and your fired.


----------



## Joel98

Rogergoodwin said:


> No one disputes that driving under the influence is bad, but we're not talking about that. Just the occasional use off duty.
> 
> And taking a few hits on the weekend cannot compare health wise to smoking a pack a day.


I don't know if you're a cop or not, but if you are a cop, and you're actively advocating for the violation of federal law on a public forum, I'd be very careful if I were you.

You don't want your chief or command staff to see this, or a defense attorney. Because the next time you make a drug arrest (any kind of drugs), you will lose all credibility in court and the defense attorney will call for a mistrial. These forums are public and are discoverable by a defense attorney or by a court. And if you don't think a defense attorney will pull something like that, you have a lot to learn.

If you're not a cop, then these forums are discoverable by a background investigator.

And if you think you're anonymous on an online forum.....you can keep believing that.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> I don't know if you're a cop or not, but if you are a cop, and you're actively advocating for the violation of federal law on a public forum, I'd be very careful if I were you.
> 
> You don't want your chief or command staff to see this, or a defense attorney. Because the next time you make a drug arrest (any kind of drugs), you will lose all credibility in court and the defense attorney will call for a mistrial. These forums are public and are discoverable by a defense attorney or by a court. And if you don't think a defense attorney will pull something like that, you have a lot to learn.
> 
> If you're not a cop, then these forums are discoverable by a background investigator.
> 
> And if you think you're anonymous on an online forum.....you can keep believing that.


Haha my personal opinion on a debate about whether or not marijuana should be allowed by LEO's in no way undermine's my ability to do the job. I can imagine how that would play out in court.
"Your honor, this officer believes that since marijuana is legal, LEO''s should be able to smoke"
Judge "so he has an opinion, who cares? Sit the fuck down"
Don't be afraid to have your own opinion.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> I don't know if you're a cop or not, but if you are a cop, and you're actively advocating for the violation of federal law on a public forum, I'd be very careful if I were you.
> 
> You don't want your chief or command staff to see this, or a defense attorney. Because the next time you make a drug arrest (any kind of drugs), you will lose all credibility in court and the defense attorney will call for a mistrial. These forums are public and are discoverable by a defense attorney or by a court. And if you don't think a defense attorney will pull something like that, you have a lot to learn.
> 
> If you're not a cop, then these forums are discoverable by a background investigator.
> 
> And if you think you're anonymous on an online forum.....you can keep believing that.


And when did I advocate for violating a federal law? By saying that LEO's should have the right to smoke, implies that I believe the laws/policies should reflect my belief.


----------



## felony

Rogergoodwin said:


> How many domestics, car accidents, fights, etc have to responded to where the involved individuals were drunk?
> 
> Now how many times were they high on weed?
> And people actually want to compare marijuana and alcohol from an LE perspective?


Well, we just took a left turn on this thread. The marijuana vs alcohol argument, has been going on for decades. I have encountered numerous occasions, where suspects were drunk and disorderly and the booze is the primary factor. OUI crashes, fights, domestics etc. I have also participated in several narcotic investigations, where marijuana is almost always present, when I find coke, pills, heroin etc. The suspects in possession of the marijuana, while possessing those other illegal narcotics, almost always have firearms, ABDW charges, distribution charges, etc. Alcohol vs marijuana to me, is apples and oranges.

As far as the smoking cigarettes vs smoking marijuana argument, it has been medically proven that smoking a "blunt" is just as harmful, if not more harmful then smoking a cigarette. You're still putting a foreign substance into your lungs, that will cause cancer/ lung disease, decrease lung function etc. Granted if you were a cigarette smoker, you would smoke far more cigarettes in a day then blunts.

IMHO, if you medically need marijuana, then your doctor should be able to prescribe THC pills or some type of edible for your pain. Would your doctor recommend you take up smoking cigarettes to deal with your stress? Then why would they recommend you smoke marijuana? Its hypocritical.

To put the issue to rest, for me I can't smoke cigarettes because I wasn't hired in the 80's, but the public can. It is against Federal Law to possess/use marijuana, so for that reason I don't see any police departments allowing its officers to use it. End of my rant.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

felony said:


> Well, we just took a left turn on this thread. The marijuana vs alcohol argument, has been going on for decades. I have encountered numerous occasions, where suspects were drunk and disorderly and the booze is the primary factor. OUI crashes, fights, domestics etc. I have also participated in several narcotic investigations, where marijuana is almost always present, when I find coke, pills, heroin etc. The suspects in possession of the marijuana, while possessing those other illegal narcotics, almost always have firearms, ABDW charges, distribution charges, etc. Alcohol vs marijuana to me, is apples and oranges.
> 
> As far as the smoking cigarettes vs smoking marijuana argument, it has been medically proven that smoking a "blunt" is just as harmful, if not more harmful then smoking a cigarette. You're still putting a foreign substance into your lungs, that will cause cancer/ lung disease, decrease lung function etc. Granted if you were a cigarette smoker, you would smoke far more cigarettes in a day then blunts.
> 
> IMHO, if you medically need marijuana, then your doctor should be able to prescribe THC pills or some type of edible for your pain. Would your doctor recommend you take up smoking cigarettes to deal with your stress? Then why would they recommend you smoke marijuana? Its hypocritical.
> 
> To put the issue to rest, for me I can't smoke cigarettes because I wasn't hired in the 80's, but the public can. It is against Federal Law to possess/use marijuana, so for that reason I don't see any police departments allowing its officers to use it. End of my rant.


I see what your saying. I just think smoking one blunt on a weekend is no where near as bad as smoking a pack a day. But regardless, if we're talking banning unhealthy habits, start with diet and lack of exercise. 
As far as weed being discovered on dealers, your examples didn't really indicate marijuana had a causal effect on them committing their crimes. It's like saying "every drug dealer I've ever arrested had pants on, therefore we should ban pants"


----------



## Danusmc0321

I don't see the problem with adults smoking occasionally at their residence, or with a medical condition that warrants the use. As long as their life doesn't revolve around it. I've also seen plenty of OUI marijuana, and believe it absolutely affects your ability to react and think quickly. With LE, fact of the matter is your never really off duty that much. If shit hits the fan, you can get called in. If your drunk, you will probably say something and stay home. If you stoned, your probably not going to say anything. If something ever happens "off duty" and you have to use deadly force, good luck with explaining the TCH in your blood and not being civilly sued. And yeah, there's booze but it wears off quicker and a BAC test determines exactly how affected you are. There is also no way to really tell how long after you smoke it still has effects on your brain. So having your blood pulled Monday after smoking on Saturday for a shooting, you are holding yourself liable. Look at the deputy who shot the guy at the Taunton mall "off duty". If his blood wasn't clean you better believe he would held liable even for a good shoot. If cops could smoke, the public and media would have a field day trying to get every case and every fuck up attributed to "stoned cops", and good luck with drug arrests. It's easy to tell if someone is drunk on the job for the most part, being stoned is opening a door for abuse for on the job use and another shitstorm for LE.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Danusmc0321 said:


> I don't see the problem with adults smoking occasionally at their residence, or with a medical condition that warrants the use. As long as their life doesn't revolve around it. I've also seen plenty of OUI marijuana, and believe it absolutely affects your ability to react and think quickly. With LE, fact of the matter is your never really off duty that much. If shit hits the fan, you can get called in. If your drunk, you will probably say something and stay home. If you stoned, your probably not going to say anything. If something ever happens "off duty" and you have to use deadly force, good luck with explaining the TCH in your blood and not being civilly sued. And yeah, there's booze but it wears off quicker and a BAC test determines exactly how affected you are. There is also no way to really tell how long after you smoke it still has effects on your brain. So having your blood pulled Monday after smoking on Saturday for a shooting, you are holding yourself liable. Look at the deputy who shot the guy at the Taunton mall "off duty". If his blood wasn't clean you better believe he would held liable even for a good shoot. If cops could smoke, the public and media would have a field day trying to get every case and every fuck up attributed to "stoned cops", and good luck with drug arrests. It's easy to tell if someone is drunk on the job for the most part, being stoned is opening a door for abuse for on the job use and another shitstorm for LE.


If you got called in while you were high, you wouldn't say anything? If that were me there's no way I'm going in. And I agree that no one should be smoking and driving.


----------



## Crazy Otto

Danusmc0321 said:


> I don't see the problem with adults smoking occasionally at their residence, or with a medical condition that warrants the use. As long as their life doesn't revolve around it. I've also seen plenty of OUI marijuana, and believe it absolutely affects your ability to react and think quickly. With LE, fact of the matter is your never really off duty that much. If shit hits the fan, you can get called in. If your drunk, you will probably say something and stay home. If you stoned, your probably not going to say anything. If something ever happens "off duty" and you have to use deadly force, good luck with explaining the TCH in your blood and not being civilly sued. And yeah, there's booze but it wears off quicker and a BAC test determines exactly how affected you are. There is also no way to really tell how long after you smoke it still has effects on your brain. So having your blood pulled Monday after smoking on Saturday for a shooting, you are holding yourself liable. Look at the deputy who shot the guy at the Taunton mall "off duty". If his blood wasn't clean you better believe he would held liable even for a good shoot. If cops could smoke, the public and media would have a field day trying to get every case and every fuck up attributed to "stoned cops", and good luck with drug arrests. It's easy to tell if someone is drunk on the job for the most part, being stoned is opening a door for abuse for on the job use and another shitstorm for LE.


I agree with this. Thing is, if I have a couple of cold ones on my day off, I'll be "sober" in a few hours. THC stays in your system for something like 30 days. What's the THC intoxication level at 12 hours out? Three days? Three weeks? No one knows and there really isn't a way to tell. 
So, the whole "having a toke is the same as having a beer" doesn't really hold water as far as I'm concerned. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Danusmc0321

Rogergoodwin said:


> If you got called in while you were high, you wouldn't say anything? If that were me there's no way I'm going in. And I agree that no one should be smoking and driving.


Well since we are putting words in each other's mouths, I wouldn't tell people your smoking heroin. People Might get the wrong idea.


----------



## sgtmike1980

In regards to the Marijuana being in your system after using it, I think it would be pretty silly not to treat it as you would any other prescription that you took for a legit medical condition. Which means you can't use it while working because you have a medical condition, which means you are on sick leave and can't come back unless you have been medically cleared by a Dr. The only thing I am not sure about is if you would have to take a certain amount of time off, medicate and then wait till a Dr cleared you for work or what. The idea that weed and booze is apples and oranges is ridiculous. The weed stays in your system longer, yes, something like 30 days, but your not intoxicated for 30 days, lol.


----------



## samadam78

Crazy Otto said:


> I was told (by a reliable source) that federal law prohibits marijuana use by law enforcement.
> I'm with Joel98. I don't want my backup to be stoned.
> 
> You wanna smoke some weed? Get a job at Burger King.


But hungover from drinking a gallon of vodka till 2am is ok?


----------



## Rogergoodwin

There's always potential for drug abuse, whether it be alcohol, thc, pain killers, etc. If your in LE and cant exercise good judgement on how to use a recreational drug responsibly, then you probably don't belong in that field to begin with. But considering how few incidents actually arise from people that are high compared to drunk, we're outlawing the wrong drug. Eventually we'll all look back at these days where marijuana is illegal much like we view the prohibition era. It's silly to lock people up for possessing a plant, lets focus on real crimes with actual victims.


----------



## Danusmc0321

I agree with what your saying, for the most part. But even when weed was illegal, a lot of cops usually just used it as an "in" to further investigate the person because criminal activity and weed goes hand in hand in alot of cases. If your willing to break the law, it usually doesn't stop at just having "weed". 

I don't think weed is harmless like a lot of people, but for different reason. Especially for kids in the 17-25 year range, and that what makes me worried about having it around more. At an age when you should be bettering yourself with college, learning a skill, meeting people and networking. Some, once they are introduced, and especially now having it become more socially acceptable, end up smoking weed everyday and playing video games and being a shut in in your parents basement. They wake up at 26, and are still smoking daily, living in their parents basement but they are ok with it because the weed makes them feel ok with being lazy. Crime goes up, medical costs go up and taxes go up from this. I've seen this story play out over and over. Yeah, alcohol problems are usually worse to deal with for police than weed and maybe one day the appearance of weed and booze will flip, but we are not there yet, and the public shouldn't view police, making life or death split second decisions using a mind altering substance. Because as I've said before, there is no way to tell how long after you smoked/ate the TCH still affects you.

But saying it's just a natural plant, is bogus. Psychedelic mushrooms are a natural fugus and opium is just a plant. I don't put weed in the same category as opium, but neither do the Feds. Do you believe that for a crime to occur there must be a "victim"?


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Danusmc0321 said:


> I agree with what your saying, for the most part. But even when weed was illegal, a lot of cops usually just used it as an "in" to further investigate the person because criminal activity and weed goes hand in hand in alot of cases. If your willing to break the law, it usually doesn't stop at just having "weed".
> 
> I don't think weed is harmless like a lot of people, but for different reason. Especially for kids in the 17-25 year range, and that what makes me worried about having it around more. At an age when you should be bettering yourself with college, learning a skill, meeting people and networking. Some, once they are introduced, and especially now having it become more socially acceptable, end up smoking weed everyday and playing video games and being a shut in in your parents basement. They wake up at 26, and are still smoking daily, living in their parents basement but they are ok with it because the weed makes them feel ok with being lazy. Crime goes up, medical costs go up and taxes go up from this. I've seen this story play out over and over. Yeah, alcohol problems are usually worse to deal with for police than weed and maybe one day the appearance of weed and booze will flip, but we are not there yet, and the public shouldn't view police, making life or death split second decisions using a mind altering substance. Because as I've said before, there is no way to tell how long after you smoked/ate the TCH still affects you.
> 
> But saying it's just a natural plant, is bogus. Psychedelic mushrooms are a natural fugus and opium is just a plant. I don't put weed in the same category as opium, but neither do the Feds. Do you believe that for a crime to occur there must be a "victim"?


I'm going to have to disagree with you on the part about being willing to break the law not stopping at just weed. Most people that I know that smoke weed are good, law abiding, contributing members of society that just happen to smoke an occasional bowl on the weekend. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that since someone is willing to violate the law in that regard, then they 'usually' are willing to engage in worse criminal behavior. 
As far as whether or not there needs to be a victim for something to be considered a crime, that's a complicated matter. But no, there doesn't need to be a victim the way our current laws are set up. The FBI refers to certain crimes as Crimes against society or victimless crimes, like prostitution, illegal alcohol, narcotics, gambling, etc. 
If someone is driving drunk and doesn't hit someone, the victims are the people in that community that had their lives endangered. They would be indirect victims.
But someone who grows his own marijuana and smokes it responsibly, has committed a crime where there really is no victim. In fact, the only negative that could possibly come from that is a criminal record which inhibits his ability to be a contributing member of society. Jimmy Carter once said that the penalties of possessing a drug should be no more damaging to the individual than the use of the drug itself. Concerning marijuana, that's what was happening before the decriminalization.


----------



## santana

Rogergoodwin said:


> No one wants to be backed up by someone stoned. But calling everyone who smokes weed a stoner, is like calling everyone that has an occasional drink, a drunk.


Agree.


----------



## Edmizer1

Danusmc0321 said:


> I agree with what your saying, for the most part. But even when weed was illegal, a lot of cops usually just used it as an "in" to further investigate the person because criminal activity and weed goes hand in hand in alot of cases. If your willing to break the law, it usually doesn't stop at just having "weed".
> 
> I don't think weed is harmless like a lot of people, but for different reason. Especially for kids in the 17-25 year range, and that what makes me worried about having it around more. At an age when you should be bettering yourself with college, learning a skill, meeting people and networking. Some, once they are introduced, and especially now having it become more socially acceptable, end up smoking weed everyday and playing video games and being a shut in in your parents basement. They wake up at 26, and are still smoking daily, living in their parents basement but they are ok with it because the weed makes them feel ok with being lazy. Crime goes up, medical costs go up and taxes go up from this. I've seen this story play out over and over. Yeah, alcohol problems are usually worse to deal with for police than weed and maybe one day the appearance of weed and booze will flip, but we are not there yet, and the public shouldn't view police, making life or death split second decisions using a mind altering substance. Because as I've said before, there is no way to tell how long after you smoked/ate the TCH still affects you.
> 
> But saying it's just a natural plant, is bogus. Psychedelic mushrooms are a natural fugus and opium is just a plant. I don't put weed in the same category as opium, but neither do the Feds. Do you believe that for a crime to occur there must be a "victim"?


I got a chance to see a well-known marijuana anti-marijuana doctor who has done tons of studies. Basically, she said that weed has less short term acute effects than alcohol. She said that longer term effects of weed are much worse for people who have a weed habit. Alcoholics are significantly more able to graduate from school, be successful at work, and lead a normal life. People with weed habits have serious issues with everyday life.


----------



## Fuzzywuzzy




----------



## Rogergoodwin

Edmizer1 said:


> I got a chance to see a well-known marijuana anti-marijuana doctor who has done tons of studies. Basically, she said that weed has less short term acute effects than alcohol. She said that longer term effects of weed are much worse for people who have a weed habit. Alcoholics are significantly more able to graduate from school, be successful at work, and lead a normal life. People with weed habits have serious issues with everyday life.


You have to consider causation as well. Are people unsuccessful because they smoke marijuana? Or is it that unsuccessful people with mismanaged priorities are just more likely to engage in illicit drug use? For example, I could say "living in the projects cause you to earn less money". While that may be true, its probably more likely that they live there BECAUSE they make less money.

Also, it doesn't take a Dr to look at graduation statistics among marijuana users. And how does she define a "normal life"? This "well known dr" seems to be fictitious.


----------



## Edmizer1

The expert is Bertha k Madras ph. Her most noted work is tracking people in the same positions in life who were alcoholics and people with used marijuana with the same frequency. The alcoholics were able to manage significantly better than the marijuana users. Graduation rates and employment rates were significantly higher for alcoholics than marijuana users.


----------



## pahapoika

Danusmc0321 said:


> I don't think weed is harmless like a lot of people, but for different reason. Especially for kids in the 17-25 year range, and that what makes me worried about having it around more.


+1
If you going to make it in this world you better hit the ground running when you get out of high school..
They called it "smoking dope" for a reason 
It's hard enough trying to make the transition from teenager to adult. Being stoned half the time is not going to help 

"rant off "


----------



## Rogergoodwin

pahapoika said:


> +1
> If you going to make it in this world you better hit the ground running when you get out of high school..
> They called it "smoking dope" for a reason
> It's hard enough trying to make the transition from teenager to adult. Being stoned half the time is not going to help
> 
> "rant off "


Being stoned half the tone would make anyone's life difficult. But having an occasional smoke or occasional drink won't deter a motivated person from accomplishing their goals. 
Either way, people who can't control themselves with a drug that has very low addictive qualities, shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us. Plus, why waste money fighting the drug war when we can tax it?


----------



## Kilvinsky

Edmizer1 said:


> The expert is Bertha k Madras ph. Her most noted work is tracking people in the same positions in life who were alcoholics and people with used marijuana with the same frequency. *The alcoholics were able to manage significantly better than the marijuana users. Graduation rates and employment rates were significantly higher for alcoholics than marijuana users*.


I am living 80 Proof!


----------



## JD02124

This doctor clearly never studied Bostonian's. Every pot smoking former or current drug addict/alcoholic I grew up with all make more money than I do thanks to unions. I'm living paycheck to paycheck meanwhile they're buying houses. . .


----------



## Joel98

Rogergoodwin said:


> Being stoned half the tone would make anyone's life difficult. But having an occasional smoke or occasional drink won't deter a motivated person from accomplishing their goals.
> Either way, people who can't control themselves with a drug that has very low addictive qualities, shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us. Plus, why waste money fighting the drug war when we can tax it?


You're still responding to every post you don't agree with, I see.

We get it, you want to be a pothead, that's fine, do whatever you want to do, this is America and you have that right. You also have the right to NOT be a cop if you partake in that.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, there are plenty of jobs available at Burger King for potheads.


----------



## USAF3424

JD02124 said:


> This doctor clearly never studied Bostonian's. Every pot smoking former or current drug addict/alcoholic I grew up with all make more money than I do thanks to unions. I'm living paycheck to paycheck meanwhile they're buying houses. . .


Very true. I always think I should have tried to get in to 103 or sprinkler fitters union.


----------



## JD02124

USAF3424 said:


> Very true. I always think I should have tried to get in to 103 or sprinkler fitters union.


A friend of mine was in the sprinklers. He quit because he didnt enjoy getting shit housed at lunch time and was hassled for it. Bahaha!


----------



## Danusmc0321

I heard the elevator union is where it's at. 6 figures all day long and you can worked stoned.


----------



## pahapoika

Danusmc0321 said:


> I heard the elevator union is where it's at. 6 figures all day long and you can worked stoned.


Local 4 ?
Oh, yeah ! Big Money


----------



## pahapoika

Rogergoodwin said:


> Being stoned half the tone would make anyone's life difficult. But having an occasional smoke or occasional drink won't deter a motivated person from accomplishing their goals.
> Either way, people who can't control themselves with a drug that has very low addictive qualities, shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us. Plus, why waste money fighting the drug war when we can tax it?


Agreed.
I don't care if somebody lights up after work. Just hate seeing kids smoke that crap or doing any drug for that matter.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> You're still responding to every post you don't agree with, I see.
> 
> We get it, you want to be a pothead, that's fine, do whatever you want to do, this is America and you have that right. You also have the right to NOT be a cop if you partake in that.
> 
> As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, there are plenty of jobs available at Burger King for potheads.


Haha the drunk speaks...


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> You're still responding to every post you don't agree with, I see.
> 
> We get it, you want to be a pothead, that's fine, do whatever you want to do, this is America and you have that right. You also have the right to NOT be a cop if you partake in that.
> 
> As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, there are plenty of jobs available at Burger King for potheads.


Opposing opinions are not something to be afraid of, Joel. 
And I love how people that smoke are now destined to work fast food. Most people that I know that smoke are 'high' performing professional's, making more money than us lowly civil servants.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> I don't know if you're a cop or not, but if you are a cop, and you're actively advocating for the violation of federal law on a public forum, I'd be very careful if I were you.
> 
> You don't want your chief or command staff to see this, or a defense attorney. Because the next time you make a drug arrest (any kind of drugs), you will lose all credibility in court and the defense attorney will call for a mistrial. These forums are public and are discoverable by a defense attorney or by a court. And if you don't think a defense attorney will pull something like that, you have a lot to learn.
> 
> If you're not a cop, then these forums are discoverable by a background investigator.
> 
> And if you think you're anonymous on an online forum.....you can keep believing that.


I still laugh at this post on occasion. You must be a complete buzz kill to partner with.


----------



## patrol22

Danusmc0321 said:


> I heard the elevator union is where it's at. 6 figures all day long and you can worked stoned.


That's a great job. It has it's ups and downs but you can get into some high places!


----------



## Danusmc0321

Rogergoodwin said:


> Opposing opinions are not something to be afraid of, Joel.
> And I love how people that smoke are now destined to work fast food. Most people that I know that smoke are 'high' performing professional's, making more money than US lowly civil servants.


Are you basing your experience with weed off of dealing with it on the street as a cop? or just with you and your friends smoking weed. Your point of view is, your view, but one sided if it's the latter. You also hinted at the idea that for a crime there needs to be a victim, or "that's complicated" as you put it... Im a little confused by you, especially when you say "we lowly civil servants", because you sound more like a sovereign citizen then the police.


----------



## Joel98

Rogergoodwin said:


> I still laugh at this post on occasion. You must be a complete buzz kill to partner with.


Spoken by the person who has no clue what I'm talking about, and it shows pretty glaringly. But that's okay, you can learn the hard way.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Danusmc0321 said:


> Are you basing your experience with weed off of dealing with it on the street as a cop? or just with you and your friends smoking weed. Your point of view is, your view, but one sided if it's the latter. You also hinted at the idea that for a crime there needs to be a victim, or "that's complicated" as you put it... Im a little confused by you, especially when you say "we lowly civil servants", because you sound more like a sovereign citizen then the police.


I don't let my career define every thought that I have. Marijuana has been decriminalized in mass. If you don't agree with that, your more than welcome to leave the state.

And yes, my point of view is one sided. Who's point of view isn't?


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> Spoken by the person who has no clue what I'm talking about, and it shows pretty glaringly. But that's okay, you can learn the hard way.


You were right, Joel. I was testifying in court the other day and it was terrible. The defense brought up my posts on masscops. Since I, like the majority of people in mass, believe that marijuana should be legal, was ripped apart on the stand. The dealer went free unfortunately. I wish I had listened to you earlier...


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Danusmc0321 said:


> You also hinted at the idea that for a crime there needs to be a victim, or "that's complicated" as you put it...


 "that's a complicated matter. But no, there doesn't need to be a victim the way our current laws are set up. The FBI refers to certain crimes as Crimes against society or victimless crimes, like prostitution, illegal alcohol, narcotics, gambling, etc. "

An actual quote with a definitive answer.


----------



## Kilvinsky

patrol22 said:


> That's a great job. It has it's ups and downs but you can get into some high places!


It sucks though when the guy you're working with's elevator doesn't hit all the floors. Then you have to use the stairs.

I know a cook who's wages were paid in garnishes. Good thing he figured out how to sell parsley to pot heads.  He's since opened a medical parsley dispensary.


----------



## wwonka

Treehouse413 said:


> Stoned or drunk what's the diff.


Or high on pills?

I don't want to work with someone who is impaired, I don't really care what the substance is.

I do find it amusing how everyone looks down on Marijuana but drink and take pills excessively

It's all the same just a different option IMHO.

Peace

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Danusmc0321

_"I got my card in 2016, not the department I was waiting for. 
I don't know how you could think that a guy turning down the MSP 4 times with an 83 wasn't a little odd."_

Roger your wicked clever, you pick and choose my questions to answer and telling me "I can leave mass". I explained my position just fine, learn reading comprehension, your going to need that one day for this line of work. You never answered my first question, because your a bullshiter. You done a lot of testifying if court since you got your card in 2016 have you? Can't wait for your super smart and funny response that follows. But keep pissing people off here, you told another guy he must be a fun partner. You must be a fun know it all boot to have on FTO. Happy Easter


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Danusmc0321 said:


> _"I got my card in 2016, not the department I was waiting for.
> I don't know how you could think that a guy turning down the MSP 4 times with an 83 wasn't a little odd."_
> 
> Roger your wicked clever, you pick and choose my questions to answer and telling me "I can leave mass". I explained my position just fine, learn reading comprehension, your going to need that one day for this line of work. You never answered my first question, because your a bullshiter. You done a lot of testifying if court since you got your card in 2016 have you? Can't wait for your super smart and funny response that follows. But keep pissing people off here, you told another guy he must be a fun partner. You must be a fun know it all boot to have on FTO. Happy Easter


My reading comprehension must be worse than I thought. How does my desire to lateral to a different department mean that I get assigned another FTO? When I said "not the department I was waiting for" that meant I didn't take it. Just so you know, when you get a card for another department, your current department does not assign you another FTO.

At least I hope they don't, because as a current FTO, I don't want to have to deal with the added paperwork associated with training myself. Plus I'm a slow learner.


----------



## Joel98

Danusmc0321 said:


> _"I got my card in 2016, not the department I was waiting for.
> I don't know how you could think that a guy turning down the MSP 4 times with an 83 wasn't a little odd."_
> 
> Roger your wicked clever, you pick and choose my questions to answer and telling me "I can leave mass". I explained my position just fine, learn reading comprehension, your going to need that one day for this line of work. You never answered my first question, because your a bullshiter. You done a lot of testifying if court since you got your card in 2016 have you? Can't wait for your super smart and funny response that follows. But keep pissing people off here, you told another guy he must be a fun partner. You must be a fun know it all boot to have on FTO. Happy Easter


Yeah he is a bullshitter, and the more he posts the more his bullshit gets exposed.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> Yeah he is a bullshitter, and the more he posts the more his bullshit gets exposed.


"You don't want your chief or command staff to see this, or a defense attorney. Because the next time you make a drug arrest (any kind of drugs), you will lose all credibility in court and the defense attorney will call for a mistrial"

A bullshitter that at least knows this is not how our courts operate...


----------



## jt92

I don't get why any cop would disagree with marijuana use for officers when tons of cops are seeking mental health help for ptsd and weed has been proven to help with it in service members including myself and friends of mine. 

How many booze bag cops are out there whose addiction was created from work stress/trauma? How many of those addictions wouldn't exist if they could've got off their shift and cleared their mind and relaxed with marijuana instead of drinking and adding to their symptoms? How many divorces avoided?

And if you say you "don't want your backup to be stoned", frankly you're a fucking idiot because any cop could be drunk or high on cough medicine or shrooms or something but they don't, or if they do they get fired, so what's the fucking difference? Would cops be more tempted to be stoned at work or something? Probably not.

Idk man I guess there's too many cops out there with the drug war mindset thinking smoking weed is some criminal behavior or unlawful sin while blindly disregarding the benefits, butt-fuckit it's the way she goes I guess you're either gonna agree or disagree. I just think it's a bummer that there are cops out there in a mental prison and using alcohol to deal with it giving them an elevated risk of suicide when there's healthier means of dealing with it :l poor dudes.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

jt92 said:


> I don't get why any cop would disagree with marijuana use for officers when tons of cops are seeking mental health help for ptsd and weed has been proven to help with it in service members including myself and friends of mine.
> 
> How many booze bag cops are out there whose addiction was created from work stress/trauma? How many of those addictions wouldn't exist if they could've got off their shift and cleared their mind and relaxed with marijuana instead of drinking and adding to their symptoms? How many divorces avoided?
> 
> And if you say you "don't want your backup to be stoned", frankly you're a fucking idiot because any cop could be drunk or high on cough medicine or shrooms or something but they don't, or if they do they get fired, so what's the fucking difference? Would cops be more tempted to be stoned at work or something? Probably not.
> 
> Idk man I guess there's too many cops out there with the drug war mindset thinking smoking weed is some criminal behavior or unlawful sin while blindly disregarding the benefits, butt-fuckit it's the way she goes I guess you're either gonna agree or disagree. I just think it's a bummer that there are cops out there in a mental prison and using alcohol to deal with it giving them an elevated risk of suicide when there's healthier means of dealing with it :l poor dudes.


Agree 100%


----------



## Crazy Otto

jt92 said:


> I don't get why any cop would disagree with marijuana use for officers when tons of cops are seeking mental health help for ptsd and weed has been proven to help with it in service members including myself and friends of mine.
> 
> How many booze bag cops are out there whose addiction was created from work stress/trauma? How many of those addictions wouldn't exist if they could've got off their shift and cleared their mind and relaxed with marijuana instead of drinking and adding to their symptoms? How many divorces avoided?
> 
> And if you say you "don't want your backup to be stoned", frankly you're a fucking idiot because any cop could be drunk or high on cough medicine or shrooms or something but they don't, or if they do they get fired, so what's the fucking difference? Would cops be more tempted to be stoned at work or something? Probably not.
> 
> Idk man I guess there's too many cops out there with the drug war mindset thinking smoking weed is some criminal behavior or unlawful sin while blindly disregarding the benefits, butt-fuckit it's the way she goes I guess you're either gonna agree or disagree. I just think it's a bummer that there are cops out there in a mental prison and using alcohol to deal with it giving them an elevated risk of suicide when there's healthier means of dealing with it :l poor dudes.


The idiocy of this post is astounding.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Crazy Otto said:


> The idiocy of this post is astounding.


Considering the medical profession disagrees with you, do you have a counter-argument?


----------



## Crazy Otto

Rogergoodwin said:


> Considering the medical profession disagrees with you, do you have a counter-argument?


I think I stated my position pretty well earlier in this abortion of a thread. I feel no need to further bicker with you over what we disagree on.


----------



## Kilvinsky

Crazy Otto said:


> The idiocy of this post is astounding.


It confused the living shit out of me. Maybe if I was stoned I would understand it, but I don't smoke so, I'll forever be in the dark.
I for one am not ANTI-Pot. I'm certainly not PRO-Pot either. I'm totally indifferent (within the parameters of legal/illegal) People want it legal? Great, now it is. It's been around forever anyway, why not. For small amounts, I've never arrested a soul, and working at an institution of HIGHer education, I've come across a lot. It's not because they were 'our kids' because there have been plenty of non-affiliated people I've caught with small amounts and it's always the same thing, dump it out, grind it into the dirt, you go away with a warning.
I would never advocate a cop using it only because of the stigma attached, but if a colleague does use it on his time off, so long as I can count on him when the bell rings, so be it. Since it IS legal (at the state level) I can clearly see a law suit by someone denied a job based on it being found in a blood test. It will happen and then, the courts can argue it out.


----------



## Kilvinsky

I have to add one comment and a short story. A LARGE amount is a different situation. But I've really never caught anyone with a large amount.

One guy did several years ago. He went to a dorm room on a noise complaint. His sole intent was to tell them to turn the music and their voices down and leave. When the kid opened the door (this was long before it was 'legal'), he threw it wide open and immediately began to spout off about his rights and how cops couldn't just walk into his room without a warrant and what right did this cop have banging on his door and...

In the room on the table was a hell of a lot of pot, scales, baggies, pipes and a few other bits of paraphernalia. He called it in and we arrested the kid for poss. intent to dist. and did field interviews on all his friends letting them know that summonses would probably be forthcoming.

My partner said to me after, "If he had only opened the door just a little, listened to me, lowered the music, I'd have been out of there in two minutes. I even told the kid that. The look on his face was priceless."

I've always wondered, was the pot all over the table the basic reason behind his incredible arrogant stupidity? Had he NOT been stoned, he might very well have had a corpse he was dismembering and no one would be the wiser. Funny how things work out.


----------



## BxDetSgt

Rogergoodwin said:


> Haha my personal opinion on a debate about whether or not marijuana should be allowed by LEO's in no way undermine's my ability to do the job. I can imagine how that would play out in court.
> "Your honor, this officer believes that since marijuana is legal, LEO''s should be able to smoke"
> Judge "so he has an opinion, who cares? Sit the fuck down"
> Don't be afraid to have your own opinion.


Has nothing to do with weather or not you think it is right, just the seed of doubt it could put in a juries eyes is enough to throw a whole case. Anything you post, that can be attributed to you, can be introduced at trial. I don't know where you work, or what your position is, but these posts could negatively affect ANY trial you are involved in. First officer on a drug involved homicide, DOA from an impaired driver, simple possession charge are all instances where your posts could affect the outcome. Just think and be careful. It is not just your work or cases that could be affected.


----------



## BxDetSgt

Rogergoodwin said:


> You were right, Joel. I was testifying in court the other day and it was terrible. The defense brought up my posts on masscops. Since I, like the majority of people in mass, believe that marijuana should be legal, was ripped apart on the stand. The dealer went free unfortunately. I wish I had listened to you earlier...


Roger, it is not as if a defense attorney is going to let you articulate your views. He is going to bring them up in a way that you can only acknowledge that they are yours, but not express you opinions. If you try and express your opinions you will be going into a rabbit hole that can only end badly. You are entitled to your opinions, just don't post them like you are. They may affect your hard work, or the work of others.


----------



## Fuzzywuzzy

I can't believe so many of you guys, with a massive number of combined total law enforcement years under your belts, have not learned arguing with a pothead is a waste of time and effort.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Fuzzywuzzy said:


> I can't believe so many of you guys, with a massive number of combined total law enforcement years under your belts, have not learned arguing with a pothead is a waste of time and effort.


Alcoholics love to argue I guess.


----------



## Crazy Otto

Is that the ban bus I hear warming up?


----------



## pahapoika

This is awesome
It's like a deputy sheriff or uniform thread


----------



## Rogergoodwin

BxDetSgt said:


> Has nothing to do with weather or not you think it is right, just the seed of doubt it could put in a juries eyes is enough to throw a whole case. Anything you post, that can be attributed to you, can be introduced at trial. I don't know where you work, or what your position is, but these posts could negatively affect ANY trial you are involved in. First officer on a drug involved homicide, DOA from an impaired driver, simple possession charge are all instances where your posts could affect the outcome. Just think and be careful. It is not just your work or cases that could be affected.


Anything posted on a public forum could be used in court, but my opinion that the federal drug laws should change to reflect the current laws of our state, would never come in to play in court. Regardless of anyones feeling on the law, citizens have a duty to obey it. 
Regardless, these antiquated drug laws and mandatory sentences will be a relic of the past pretty soon.


----------



## Kilvinsky

Rogergoodwin said:


> Alcoholics love to argue I guess.


It's more a case of, we get drunk, we either become totally passive and happy, or aggressive and want to fight someone. Tough to throw a punch online. 

Now, excuse me, my glass is near empty.


----------



## Joel98

Kilvinsky said:


> It's more a case of, we get drunk, we either become totally passive and happy, or aggressive and want to fight someone. Tough to throw a punch online.
> 
> Now, excuse me, my glass is near empty.


He is calling anyone (the majority of us) who is arguing against him an alcoholic....for some reason. It's just his way of deflecting.


----------



## Rogergoodwin

Joel98 said:


> He is calling anyone (the majority of us) who is arguing against him an alcoholic....for some reason. It's just his way of deflecting.


I was responding to the person who said anyone who smokes is a pothead, much like anyone who drinks is an alcoholic. Attention to detail, son.
Also, no need to get butt hurt over a forum. You won't make it far in this field like that.


----------



## Kilvinsky

Joel98 said:


> He is calling anyone (the majority of us) who is arguing against him an alcoholic....for some reason. It's just his way of deflecting.


I drink. You want to, great. You don't want to, great. I'm saying, I don't like to argue over stuff I don't have a strong opinion on. I'm saying that, with drunks (I've dealt with so many, it's scary!) they either........oh shit, who cares.

Please don't interpret my posts. I can do it marginally better than anyone.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy

A lot of us, myself included for a long time, thought that "weed" was bad because it was illegal, and "you'd get in trouble" for having/using it etc. Kind of the mantra that they teach you growing up, right? 

Fast forward to now. Now let me preface this by saying I'm far too physically active to have the time for weed, I don't even really drink anymore (waking up with two kids at 0630 with a hangover? Hard pass) 

I see marijuana as the enemy of the pharmaceutical industry and lobby, one of the most powerful in the country. Seems that there's a lot of beneficial properties that can be found here, but I would also state that more research/testing should be done. 

In the midst of an opioid epidemic, pot doesn't seem to bad right now. It's a far better alternative to pills, but the difference is one is legal (made from some of the same ingredients as heroin, and I think we can all agree that's poison) and one has an illegal taboo stuck to it. 

It's all about mindset. Guarantee if some scientist found ultra strong pain relieving properties in weed, and could extract it for pill form the pharma lobbies would be shoveling money towards politicians to get weed legalized nationwide.


----------



## HistoryHound

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> In the midst of an opioid epidemic, pot doesn't seem to bad right now. It's a far better alternative to pills, but the difference is one is legal (made from some of the same ingredients as heroin, and I think we can all agree that's poison) and one has an illegal taboo stuck to it.


I did discuss this with my pain management specialist. Take this as you will, I trust the woman so I believe her, but her experience with patients that have switched to medical marijuana is that it's not terribly effective when it comes to pain management. She said she's seen patients with anxiety find relief, but patients without anxiety don't report any benefit. I guess it comes down to what the actual source of the pain is. If it's got a psychological component; then, it might work. I'm just not so sure it would work for someone who's pain is from something physical. I don't know how they'd actually study this though considering pain and anxiety are intertwined. Many doctors still believe chronic pain is caused by anxiety/depression while others believe that being in chronic pain caused the anxiety/depression. The only thing I know for sure that it works for is to increase appetite. I've had doctors recommend a drug (think it was Marinol) that's got some property of pot in it for older relatives who had decreased appetites and couldn't keep their weight up.

As far as recreational pot, I'm not a fan. The thing that most people seem to be forgetting is that the pot today isn't the same as the pot we could get in high school. It's a hell of a lot stronger. It kind of annoys me when I see people my age making comments about doing it high school and "look how we turned out".


----------



## Rogergoodwin

HistoryHound said:


> I did discuss this with my pain management specialist. Take this as you will, I trust the woman so I believe her, but her experience with patients that have switched to medical marijuana is that it's not terribly effective when it comes to pain management. She said she's seen patients with anxiety find relief, but patients without anxiety don't report any benefit. I guess it comes down to what the actual source of the pain is. If it's got a psychological component; then, it might work. I'm just not so sure it would work for someone who's pain is from something physical. I don't know how they'd actually study this though considering pain and anxiety are intertwined. Many doctors still believe chronic pain is caused by anxiety/depression while others believe that being in chronic pain caused the anxiety/depression. The only thing I know for sure that it works for is to increase appetite. I've had doctors recommend a drug (think it was Marinol) that's got some property of pot in it for older relatives who had decreased appetites and couldn't keep their weight up.
> 
> As far as recreational pot, I'm not a fan. The thing that most people seem to be forgetting is that the pot today isn't the same as the pot we could get in high school. It's a hell of a lot stronger. It kind of annoys me when I see people my age making comments about doing it high school and "look how we turned out".


It may be stronger, but due to regulation it's also safer. You don't have to worry about it being laced with anything.
I know the states not perfect, but prior to this law, drug dealers regulated the market. At least now we can see if the state can do a better job. Maybe keep weed money out of dealers pockets and put in into state programs.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy

HistoryHound said:


> I did discuss this with my pain management specialist. Take this as you will, I trust the woman so I believe her, but her experience with patients that have switched to medical marijuana is that it's not terribly effective when it comes to pain management. She said she's seen patients with anxiety find relief, but patients without anxiety don't report any benefit. I guess it comes down to what the actual source of the pain is. If it's got a psychological component; then, it might work. I'm just not so sure it would work for someone who's pain is from something physical. I don't know how they'd actually study this though considering pain and anxiety are intertwined. Many doctors still believe chronic pain is caused by anxiety/depression while others believe that being in chronic pain caused the anxiety/depression. The only thing I know for sure that it works for is to increase appetite. I've had doctors recommend a drug (think it was Marinol) that's got some property of pot in it for older relatives who had decreased appetites and couldn't keep their weight up.
> 
> As far as recreational pot, I'm not a fan. The thing that most people seem to be forgetting is that the pot today isn't the same as the pot we could get in high school. It's a hell of a lot stronger. It kind of annoys me when I see people my age making comments about doing it high school and "look how we turned out".


I'm no scientist, and I guess I'm just forming hypothetical scenarios relative to pot use vs pills. If the pain relieving properties aren't there, it is what it is... I'm just saying that there could be more studies put into any type of positive use.

If it abates anxiety, cool, maybe it can be used instead of xanax? I dunno.

Point is, people tend to think of it as "bad" because we're conditioned to, from a young age. Because politicians outlawed it, thus the police have to enforce it.

If someone thinks I'm going to dictate what I do, based on the opinions of politicians, they're fuckin' insane. Look at the 2nd amendment and places like Cali, Mass and NY. The idiots that run those places think they're gonna tell me I can't have xyz gun, and can only have xyz size magazine??

Yeah, fuck right off. If I was into pot, I'd have the same mentality.


----------



## HistoryHound

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> I'm no scientist, and I guess I'm just forming hypothetical scenarios relative to pot use vs pills. If the pain relieving properties aren't there, it is what it is... I'm just saying that there could be more studies put into any type of positive use.
> 
> If it abates anxiety, cool, maybe it can be used instead of xanax? I dunno.
> 
> Point is, people tend to think of it as "bad" because we're conditioned to, from a young age. Because politicians outlawed it, thus the police have to enforce it.
> 
> If someone thinks I'm going to dictate what I do, based on the opinions of politicians, they're fuckin' insane. Look at the 2nd amendment and places like Cali, Mass and NY. The idiots that run those places think they're gonna tell me I can't have xyz gun, and can only have xyz size magazine??
> 
> Yeah, fuck right off. If I was into pot, I'd have the same mentality.


If they came up with some studies that showed it worked that would be great and I'd give it a shot in heartbeat. God knows I've tried some ridiculous and expensive alternative therapies. I just don't think medicinal marijuana is the panacea that the supporters want us to think it is. Don't get me started on the politicians. The day I trust anything any of them tell me is the day I have my husband check me into the looney bin.


----------

