Marijuana use - Give your input

[Spartana]

The military has quite an education program on their hands in states where marijuana is now legal.  It's all too easy for a servicemember to imbibe (accidentally or on purpose) and the urinalysis results will kill their career.

Of course for some of us former service members we had the constant "contact high" so testing positive wasn't too much of an issue :-)!

I'm not a fan of MJ myself.  Any drugs (including alcohol) either. But am not against legalization and regulation for adult use if they smoke (if smoked) in private areas where second hand smoke (and second hand high) doesn't effect anyone else. Also must abide by DUI and such laws. However, my opinion is that the chemicals in MJ can cause damage to the body (especially the brain) in long term users.

[GuitarStv]

Are you given breathalyzer tests on a regular basis at while away from your job to ensure you're they're not being undermined?  Or does testing for a recreational substance taken during non-work hours have nothing to do with the effect it may have on performance or judgement?

I'm sure they would test me for alcohol use if they thought they could get away with it.
 
I did have to do an extensive background check and intervew, both of which explicitly explored my past use of alcohol and other drugs in some detail.  Along with any history of relationship or mental health problems, gambling or debt problems, and previous or ongoing contacts with potentially shady characters like communists.
 
I don't think they believe pot use makes you a security threat, by itself, but it might be part of a larger profile of your character which is used to determine your susceptibility to subversion or coercion.  In that light, I don't mind being subject to testing.  I freely chose this line of work, and I could work somewhere else if it really bothered me. 

I wouldn't work for Dave Ramsey, for example.

Can you really not think of ANY job you would want a recreational pot smokers being prohibited from holding?

None that I'd be OK with a recreational alchohol user doing . . .

[Mr Mark]

I seem to recall reading an old post by MMM where he mentioned enjoying a bowl of Colorado herb....

moderation in all things?

[BFGirl]

I live in Washington state. My thoughts are:

1. It's still illegal, because federal law trumps state law
2. It's totally stupid that it's still illegal
3. But it's still illegal
4. I've never tried it
5. I want to try it at least once
6. The only thing stopping me from trying it is
7. It's still illegal

The only reason I haven't tried it is because it is illegal and I don't want to lose my law license.  I remember being in a hotel room with some people a few years ago and they pulled out a bong.  I was terrfied the whole time that someone would smell it and we would get arrested and I would lose my license.  I didn't try it then.  I have been offered it by 3 different people in the last 6 months (due to my stress levels) and still won't try it because it is illegal.

I think it should be legal.  An insane number of lives are ruined because of a failed drug test or a drug conviction.  If someone commits a crime while on a drug, they should be prosecuted for the crime, not the act of taking the drug.  If they are compromised on the job, then they should be penalized by whatever the policies of the company are.

My thinking on this has completely changed.  In high school, I broke up with a boy who wouldn't quit smoking MJ solely for that reason.  I was staunchly against MJ because "it would lead to doing other drugs."   Live and learn.

[Chloe358]

I personally don't care for it, but don't care if other adults use it.  IMO alcohol and cigarettes are way more deadly and they're legal, albeit taxed heavily.  Tax MJ heavily, don't sell it to kids, don't drive while high and it's a great tax revenue.  The laws are terribly archane......drink,drive and hurt/kill somebody, we will suspend your license, maybe some community service, little bit of jail time, and probation.  Have a ziploc of pot? you must sit in jail forever. 

[EricP]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

[daveydinner]

In California you can grow your own with a prescription and that makes it incredibly cheap.

[frugalnacho]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

How can you determine that for other people?  I consume weed and alcohol on a somewhat regular basis, and I would say it does add to my overall happiness.  I think I get my monies worth out of it, and plan to continue spending on both.

Alcohol impairs your abilities - to drive, but also to evaluate yourself to know if you are ok to drive.  Once you get alcohol in your system to can no longer accurately gauge your ability to drive, your judgement is clouded.

Weed does not impair your ability to accurately gauge your ability to drive.  You are fully aware of your impairment (or lack of).  It's not that it doesn't affect your coordination and motor skills (it does), but your inhibitions aren't gone and you don't have a false sense of self esteem about it. 

[GuitarStv]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

The occasional beer every few weeks adds to my overall happiness.  :P

[Beridian]

Lately I have been watching the reality series COPS (cameras follow actual police officers).   One thing really stands out to me while observing this show, it seems that something like 9 out of 10 of the arrests made are related to illegal drugs, and a great many of these are related to pot.   I found myself wondering why they could not just leave the drug abuser alone?  Obviously if they are driving a car while stoned or causing some other public menace they must be dealt with, but it appears that a large segment of these folks are more or less minding their own business.   Personally I would prefer that the police expend their efforts on violent and dangerous criminals who pose a threat to my family.

I certainly do not condone substance abuse, but I have come to grips with the reality that we are powerless to stop it.   Why expend our wealth and resources fighting a losing battle?   Also by keeping the drug distribution channels criminalized, we are encouraging gangs and other unsavory criminal activity.

I have long thought we would actually be doing ourselves a favor by providing dope to the stoners free of charge.   Set up camps at closed military bases where the stoned can stay stoned all day while being supervised and not posing a threat to the public.   Most will eventually die off, which is what will happen to them anyway under the current system, it's just with our present methods we expend a lot of wealth and effort beating a dead horse.

[frugalnacho]

I have long thought we would actually be doing ourselves a favor by providing dope to the stoners free of charge.   Set up camps at closed military bases where the stoned can stay stoned all day while being supervised and not posing a threat to the public.   Most will eventually die off, which is what will happen to them anyway under the current system, it's just with our present methods we expend a lot of wealth and effort beating a dead horse.

You do realize drug users and abusers usually have a life outside of the drug? (Yes I know in some cases it totally consumes them - but that's in the minority). You think alcoholics just lay about 24/7 drunk off their asses? And literally don't do anything else, so they would just be happy to stay confined in a military base camp until they die off?

My mind is boggling at some of the comments in this thread.

[Beridian]

I have long thought we would actually be doing ourselves a favor by providing dope to the stoners free of charge.   Set up camps at closed military bases where the stoned can stay stoned all day while being supervised and not posing a threat to the public.   Most will eventually die off, which is what will happen to them anyway under the current system, it's just with our present methods we expend a lot of wealth and effort beating a dead horse.

You do realize drug users and abusers usually have a life outside of the drug? (Yes I know in some cases it totally consumes them - but that's in the minority). You think alcoholics just lay about 24/7 drunk off their asses? And literally don't do anything else, so they would just be happy to stay confined in a military base camp until they die off?

My mind is boggling at some of the comments in this thread.

If you read my whole thread I more or less indicated that people who imbibe in recreational drugs without endangering the public should be left alone.   My comment about providing drugs for free and letting them die off pertains to the hard core folks who are already lost causes.

[AssetGrinder]

To me Weed is no more harmful than alcohol and I think of them pretty close to the same. Actually I think alcohol is a bit worse. I wouldn't mind seeing weed legal as long as they have in place similar regulation and enforcement like alcohol. I personally dont drink alcohol or smoke weed as a personal choice. I don't judge people for using both and its their own personal decision. many people abuse both drugs and its sad to see but if you have your head on straight I dont see anything wrong with having a beer here and there and a joint or two. There are many negative benefits to both and also under looked positive benefits. Moderation is key when it comes to recreational drugs but often its a slippery slope for most people as people often have a problem with self regulating the amount.

[EricP]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

How can you determine that for other people?  I consume weed and alcohol on a somewhat regular basis, and I would say it does add to my overall happiness.  I think I get my monies worth out of it, and plan to continue spending on both.

Alcohol impairs your abilities - to drive, but also to evaluate yourself to know if you are ok to drive.  Once you get alcohol in your system to can no longer accurately gauge your ability to drive, your judgement is clouded.

Weed does not impair your ability to accurately gauge your ability to drive.  You are fully aware of your impairment (or lack of).  It's not that it doesn't affect your coordination and motor skills (it does), but your inhibitions aren't gone and you don't have a false sense of self esteem about it.

For the same reason that having fancy cars shouldn't add to your overall happiness.  If you think it does, then you probably need to be a little more Mustachian and realize where real happiness comes from.

Edit:  Just because you are aware that you are impaired, doesn't mean that you still won't make an irresponsible decision and go drive stoned.

[Russ]

For the same reason that having fancy cars shouldn't add to your overall happiness.  If you think it does, then you probably need to be a little more Mustachian and realize where real happiness comes from.

ITT people who value different things than me don't understand happiness?

[thepokercab]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

How can you determine that for other people?  I consume weed and alcohol on a somewhat regular basis, and I would say it does add to my overall happiness.  I think I get my monies worth out of it, and plan to continue spending on both.

Alcohol impairs your abilities - to drive, but also to evaluate yourself to know if you are ok to drive.  Once you get alcohol in your system to can no longer accurately gauge your ability to drive, your judgement is clouded.

Weed does not impair your ability to accurately gauge your ability to drive.  You are fully aware of your impairment (or lack of).  It's not that it doesn't affect your coordination and motor skills (it does), but your inhibitions aren't gone and you don't have a false sense of self esteem about it.

For the same reason that having fancy cars shouldn't add to your overall happiness.  If you think it does, then you probably need to be a little more Mustachian and realize where real happiness comes from.

Edit:  Just because you are aware that you are impaired, doesn't mean that you still won't make an irresponsible decision and go drive stoned.

Huh?  How are you the arbiter of what overall happiness is for anybody? 

Also, humans have been doing some form of cannabis, and or alcohol consumption for basically thousands of years, so the car comparison isn't quite apples to apples. 

[frugalnacho]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

How can you determine that for other people?  I consume weed and alcohol on a somewhat regular basis, and I would say it does add to my overall happiness.  I think I get my monies worth out of it, and plan to continue spending on both.

Alcohol impairs your abilities - to drive, but also to evaluate yourself to know if you are ok to drive.  Once you get alcohol in your system to can no longer accurately gauge your ability to drive, your judgement is clouded.

Weed does not impair your ability to accurately gauge your ability to drive.  You are fully aware of your impairment (or lack of).  It's not that it doesn't affect your coordination and motor skills (it does), but your inhibitions aren't gone and you don't have a false sense of self esteem about it.

For the same reason that having fancy cars shouldn't add to your overall happiness.  If you think it does, then you probably need to be a little more Mustachian and realize where real happiness comes from.

Edit:  Just because you are aware that you are impaired, doesn't mean that you still won't make an irresponsible decision and go drive stoned.

Actually that's exactly what it means.   

[brewer12345]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

How can you determine that for other people?  I consume weed and alcohol on a somewhat regular basis, and I would say it does add to my overall happiness.  I think I get my monies worth out of it, and plan to continue spending on both.

Alcohol impairs your abilities - to drive, but also to evaluate yourself to know if you are ok to drive.  Once you get alcohol in your system to can no longer accurately gauge your ability to drive, your judgement is clouded.

Weed does not impair your ability to accurately gauge your ability to drive.  You are fully aware of your impairment (or lack of).  It's not that it doesn't affect your coordination and motor skills (it does), but your inhibitions aren't gone and you don't have a false sense of self esteem about it.

For the same reason that having fancy cars shouldn't add to your overall happiness.  If you think it does, then you probably need to be a little more Mustachian and realize where real happiness comes from.

Edit:  Just because you are aware that you are impaired, doesn't mean that you still won't make an irresponsible decision and go drive stoned.

What are you?  The happiness police?

I spend money on beer, whiskey, a full size pick-up (bought new), things that go bang when I pull the trigger, etc.  All of these things add considerably to my happiness.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is asking to be the recipient of an anatomically impossible suggestion from me.

[YK-Phil]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

How can you determine that for other people?  I consume weed and alcohol on a somewhat regular basis, and I would say it does add to my overall happiness.  I think I get my monies worth out of it, and plan to continue spending on both.

Alcohol impairs your abilities - to drive, but also to evaluate yourself to know if you are ok to drive.  Once you get alcohol in your system to can no longer accurately gauge your ability to drive, your judgement is clouded.

Weed does not impair your ability to accurately gauge your ability to drive.  You are fully aware of your impairment (or lack of).  It's not that it doesn't affect your coordination and motor skills (it does), but your inhibitions aren't gone and you don't have a false sense of self esteem about it.

For the same reason that having fancy cars shouldn't add to your overall happiness.  If you think it does, then you probably need to be a little more Mustachian and realize where real happiness comes from.

Edit:  Just because you are aware that you are impaired, doesn't mean that you still won't make an irresponsible decision and go drive stoned.

I generally understand what you are trying to say, but your comment should be edited to read "Using it is not going to add to MY overall happiness". Ditto about the car. A car for me is an utilitarian tool, even if for most of my life, cars and motorcycles meant fun, success, and a number of other things. For that reason I can understand the pleasure some have when driving a car, or a motorcycle, or a speed boat.

What constitutes happiness for you is not what it is for someone else.

[EricP]

Isn't that what this blog is all about?  How stuff doesn't get you happiness?  And that you don't need anything other than the essentials to get happiness?  Or did I read a different blog?

[matchewed]

Isn't that what this blog is all about?  How stuff doesn't get you happiness?  And that you don't need anything other than the essentials to get happiness?  Or did I read a different blog?

Forest from the trees buddy. It's not about how nothing but essentials gives you happiness. It's about effectively or rather efficiently getting your happiness. Find that which makes you happy and pursue it in a cost effective and efficient manner which gains you maximum happiness. This ain't no bread and water monk joint we're at around here.

[EricP]

Isn't that what this blog is all about?  How stuff doesn't get you happiness?  And that you don't need anything other than the essentials to get happiness?  Or did I read a different blog?

Forest from the trees buddy. It's not about how nothing but essentials gives you happiness. It's about effectively or rather efficiently getting your happiness. Find that which makes you happy and pursue it in a cost effective and efficient manner which gains you maximum happiness. This ain't no bread and water monk joint we're at around here.

Can't imagine a recurring cost would be the most efficient way.  But if you want to convince yourself it is, I guess that's your prerogative.

[Eric]

EricP, arbiter of all things that bring happiness, I was wondering if you thought it'd be okay to if I went out to eat this weekend.  May I also have a beer afterwards?  Thanks in advance for your ruling.

[Russ]

Everything has a recurring cost if you do it more than once.

And if you want to make a point or have a discussion new guy, I don't think being condescending is the most efficient way (but if you want to convince yourself it is, that's your prerogative). Please see Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in the Forum Information section

[matchewed]

Isn't that what this blog is all about?  How stuff doesn't get you happiness?  And that you don't need anything other than the essentials to get happiness?  Or did I read a different blog?

Forest from the trees buddy. It's not about how nothing but essentials gives you happiness. It's about effectively or rather efficiently getting your happiness. Find that which makes you happy and pursue it in a cost effective and efficient manner which gains you maximum happiness. This ain't no bread and water monk joint we're at around here.

Can't imagine a recurring cost would be the most efficient way.  But if you want to convince yourself it is, I guess that's your prerogative.

/eyeroll

Weren't you just arguing that all happiness is derived from essentials? What telling you it isn't wasn't enough? Now we have to talk about all the other recurring costs which make bring people happiness? Internet, heat, electricity, phones...etc. There are plenty of recurring costs out there which bring happiness. Why don't you just call a spade a spade and say no to pot (for yourself) as you already have and leave it at that. Boom done. You started with a bad premise. "Activity X doesn't add to happiness." As long as it isn't harming you and they say it does, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that it does give them happiness if they say so?

On the other hand what if they grow it? /shock gasp

[EricP]

Everything has a recurring cost if you do it more than once.

And if you want to make a point or have a discussion new guy, I don't think being condescending is the most efficient way (but if you want to convince yourself it is, that's your prerogative)

You've clearly decided it is by calling me "new guy"

[PeteD01]

It is not things that bring us happiness, it is our view of things that brings us happiness. (to not quite paraphrase Epictetus) And yes, a few things to contemplate might be helpful in the endeavor. (A nod to Aristotle here)

On topic: I have never met a pothead who doesn't get FIRE. In fact, one toke is all the average person needs to get the concept. If you find one who doesn't get it, report right back with the details so we can write it up as a case report.

[Nords]

On topic: I have never met a pothead who doesn't get FIRE. In fact, one toke is all the average person needs to get the concept. If you find one who doesn't get it, report right back with the details so we can write it up as a case report.

Clearly I'm going to have to do comprehensive in-depth research on this issue...

[Willbrewer]

That's not hypocritical at all. The tax code has always required you to pay income taxes on all sources of income, even if those sources are illegal. I specifically remember seeing a section in an IRS publication explicitly stating that you had to pay taxes on bribery income.

Kansas "requires" tax stamps to be purchased by dealers for illegal drug sales.

http://www.ksrevenue.org/faqs-abcdrugtax.html

[BFGirl]

Isn't that what this blog is all about?  How stuff doesn't get you happiness?  And that you don't need anything other than the essentials to get happiness?  Or did I read a different blog?

I think the blog is more about how you don't need to "keep up with the Joneses" or modern consumerism concepts of success to be happy.  I don't believe it is about choosing to only have the essentials of life to be happy.  If that were the case, MMM wouldn't take vacations or even make his own alcohol, because neither of those are essential to life.

To take your interpretation to an extreme, we should all be happy living on the street and going to a night shelter.

[rtrnow]

Lately I have been watching the reality series COPS (cameras follow actual police officers).   One thing really stands out to me while observing this show, it seems that something like 9 out of 10 of the arrests made are related to illegal drugs, and a great many of these are related to pot.   I found myself wondering why they could not just leave the drug abuser alone?  Obviously if they are driving a car while stoned or causing some other public menace they must be dealt with, but it appears that a large segment of these folks are more or less minding their own business.   Personally I would prefer that the police expend their efforts on violent and dangerous criminals who pose a threat to my family.

Sadly the answer here is money. Local govts make a fortune off busting people for pot, and having a for profit jail system just encourages jailing as many people as possible.

[greaper007]

Lately I have been watching the reality series COPS (cameras follow actual police officers).   One thing really stands out to me while observing this show, it seems that something like 9 out of 10 of the arrests made are related to illegal drugs, and a great many of these are related to pot.   I found myself wondering why they could not just leave the drug abuser alone?  Obviously if they are driving a car while stoned or causing some other public menace they must be dealt with, but it appears that a large segment of these folks are more or less minding their own business.   Personally I would prefer that the police expend their efforts on violent and dangerous criminals who pose a threat to my family.

Yet crime is down around 10% (depends on source) in Colorado post legalization and we've collected $11 million in taxes in the last 6 months.    Enough to pay for a regulating authority and pour some money into the general fund.

Seems like a win win to me.

Other states are going to have a difficult time keeping cannabis illegal in the future when it can pour over the state lines from CO and WA.     I imagine that most states are going to ok some form of legalization in the coming decade, just like they did with gambling in the 90s.
Sadly the answer here is money. Local govts make a fortune off busting people for pot, and having a for profit jail system just encourages jailing as many people as possible.

[sly]

I don't really care whether anyone use MJ or not, but its prohibition is another violently racist policy that disproportionately affect young black men, saddling them with criminal records for the rest of their lives. It's all a giant scam.

[greaper007]

I don't really care whether anyone use MJ or not, but its prohibition is another violently racist policy that disproportionately affect young black men, saddling them with criminal records for the rest of their lives. It's all a giant scam.

Agreed, our prison and judicial system as a whole is as damaging to large swaths of people as much if not more than Jim Crowe and slavery were.

[grantmeaname]

The fact that if you choose to commit a crime and get caught you may be imprisoned for it is worse than the system by which the circumstance of your birth was enough to make you the property of the white aristocracy, sentenced to a short life of hard labor, poor nutrition, and physical abuse? That might be a bit hyperbolic.

[libertarian4321]

Lately I have been watching the reality series COPS (cameras follow actual police officers).   One thing really stands out to me while observing this show, it seems that something like 9 out of 10 of the arrests made are related to illegal drugs, and a great many of these are related to pot.   I found myself wondering why they could not just leave the drug abuser alone?  Obviously if they are driving a car while stoned or causing some other public menace they must be dealt with, but it appears that a large segment of these folks are more or less minding their own business.   Personally I would prefer that the police expend their efforts on violent and dangerous criminals who pose a threat to my family.

They'd make more money if the LEGALIZED AND TAXED it.  To say nothing of the money they'd save if they'd stop chasing and incarcerating marijuana smokers.

The insane "War on Drugs" is a dismal failure, just as "Prohibition" was a dismal failure in the 20's and 30's.

It only took us 13 years to smarten up and end Prohibition, which caused more problems than it prevented.

Why is it taking us so long to end the ridiculous prohibition of marijuana- a massive, expensive, failed program?

Why does Barack Obama, a guy who ADMITS to smoking weed (and using stronger stuff) persist in jailing and ruining the lives of Americans who do the same thing he did?  Does Mr. Obama think his life would have been better if he'd been caught and imprisoned for smoking weed?

Obama is a massive hypocrite on this issue (though he's hardly the first).

[libertarian4321]

And another thing.  The "Drug Warriors" who claim that people who use drugs will "amount to nothing" are complete jackasses.

Aside from the fact that our last 3 Presidents (as well as nominees Al Gore, John Kerry, Gary Johnson, etc) have admitted to being drug users at some point in their lives, there are thousands of examples of high profile, successful people who have been recreational drug users at some point in their lives.

I've never smoked marijuana, but I realize that the "Drug Warriors" are dishonest, moralizing, controlling jackasses- we have no place for them in the land of the (allegedly) free.

Oh yeah, my wife, who has a PhD in chemistry, is a research chemist, is a multimillionaire, and holds a ton of patents is one of those "drug users who will never amount to anything."  Yeah, she smoked a little weed in college. 

Oooh, crime of the century.  Surely, she, and America, would have been better off if she'd been arrested, tossed out of school, and sent to prison for smoking weed, right?

The insane War on Drugs is really nothing more than a War on Freedom...

[libertarian4321]

Regardless of any ethical/moral concerns, I see it as a waste of money.  Using it (or alcohol) is not going to add to your overall happiness and thus money should not be spend on it.  If you want to spend money on it, I guess that's fine; but it's only delaying FI.  My only problem with weed use is that there is no good way to determine if someone is too stoned to drive.  We don't have a BAC equivalent for weed, so that makes me worried that it could lead to more deaths from irresponsible users who drive while using.

How can you determine that for other people?  I consume weed and alcohol on a somewhat regular basis, and I would say it does add to my overall happiness.  I think I get my monies worth out of it, and plan to continue spending on both.

Alcohol impairs your abilities - to drive, but also to evaluate yourself to know if you are ok to drive.  Once you get alcohol in your system to can no longer accurately gauge your ability to drive, your judgement is clouded.

Weed does not impair your ability to accurately gauge your ability to drive.  You are fully aware of your impairment (or lack of).  It's not that it doesn't affect your coordination and motor skills (it does), but your inhibitions aren't gone and you don't have a false sense of self esteem about it.

For the same reason that having fancy cars shouldn't add to your overall happiness.  If you think it does, then you probably need to be a little more Mustachian and realize where real happiness comes from.

My wife likes her fancy car.  I'm perfectly happy driving a beat up old Chevy truck, but she's not me.  She really loves driving a nice car with good power and handling.  Sure, she could probably get from point A to point B in a 2002 Honda Accord, but she prefers driving a nice car.  It really DOES make her happier than driving some old heap.  She loves to drive it, in a way that she never loved driving the 18-year old Toyota she drove when we first met.

Are you telling us that we can't spend $40k on a nice car, even though we are multi-millionaires?

Who the Hell are you, and who made you dictator?

By the same token, if someone CHOOSES to drink alcohol, or smoke weed, who the Hell are you to tell him he can't?

You may suggest that he not do it, which is fine- express your opinion all you like.  But it's another thing entirely to PROHIBIT it. 

In a free country you don't get to PROHIBIT fancy cars.

So why should you get to PROHIBIT marijuana?

Shouldn't (allegedly) free, adult citizens get to make their own choices, even if you disapprove of them?

If you don't like marijuana, don't use it- I never have.  But you shouldn't get to force your personal tastes/opinions on everyone else. 

[boy_bye]

The fact that if you choose to commit a crime and get caught you may be imprisoned for it is worse than the system by which the circumstance of your birth was enough to make you the property of the white aristocracy, sentenced to a short life of hard labor, poor nutrition, and physical abuse? That might be a bit hyperbolic.

Poor black people live in a police state to an extent that most white people can't even fathom. I'm not sure if it's "as bad" as Jim Crow but it is certainly fucked up and ruins enough lives that it registers at a societal (and not just individual) level. Certainly the folks who cycle in and out of prison, who must avoid family parties and churches and funerals because they have warrants, who break bones and can't go to the hospital without getting popped, are experiencing short lives full of hard labor, poor nutrition, and physical abuse.

The sad thing is that as a middle aged white lady, I can do basically whatever I want and no one will notice. Not so for poor black folks, who are watched and baited and manipulated at every step.

Reading a great, devastating book about this now called "On the Run" -- work checking it out.

Decriminalizing weed would help, but I'm not sure it would solve the problem of the racist ghetto police state.

[Thegoblinchief]

Generally for the legalization of all street drugs. The ones that are harmful, the harmful physiological effects are bad enough. The criminal prosecution is just piling shit on top of shit.

With marijuana in particular, I have zero interest in trying it. I'm trying to rid my life of altering substances, not add one in.

[Scooter]

I've often wondered how it would shake out if you went to Colorado,  smoked some weed (legally), went home and failed a drug test at work what would happen.

Employers don't test you because they want to know if you're breaking the law.  They test you because they want to know if you're using drugs that might affect your performance or judgment.

This is true. However, I question the value of such testing. If your performance at work is determined to be sub-standard, then I think it would make sense to let those people go. Whether or not they smoke pot during their off time should be irrelevant.

[Sofa King]

If you don't like marijuana, don't use it- I never have.  But you shouldn't get to force your personal tastes/opinions on everyone else.

I concur!!!! but there are plenty of people who know what is good for them and they know what is GOOD FOR YOU TO!!! ALL OF THEM ARE FUCKING HYPOCRITES.

[greaper007]

The fact that if you choose to commit a crime and get caught you may be imprisoned for it is worse than the system by which the circumstance of your birth was enough to make you the property of the white aristocracy, sentenced to a short life of hard labor, poor nutrition, and physical abuse? That might be a bit hyperbolic.

Hmmm, people of color make up 30% of our population and 60% of those incarcerated.   One in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.    Students of color receive harsher punishments in schools than their white peers.    Low income neighborhoods have essentially been stripped of any source of income except for service work or selling drugs.    Couple this with an ineffective school system and  guess where the high functioning "entrepreneurs" decide to work (hint, it's not McDonalds)?   Then just for fun take a look at the amount of drug cases that actually do make it to trial instead of a plea bargain, mandatory minimums, and the much harsher sentences that are handed out to people that decide to take their cases to trial.   Also, don't forget that felons aren't allowed to vote, which silences large swaths of minority citizens.

Or prison system is racist, based on punishment instead of rehabilitation, ineffective and expensive.    It's an embarrassing stain on our country that people from more enlightened countries should make fun of us for.    And yes, drug laws and the prison system are as damaging to minority communities as Jim Crowe, the Chinese Exclusion Act, The Trail of Tears and every other racist legislation we've enacted in the history of this country.   

[greaper007]

I've often wondered how it would shake out if you went to Colorado,  smoked some weed (legally), went home and failed a drug test at work what would happen.

Employers don't test you because they want to know if you're breaking the law.  They test you because they want to know if you're using drugs that might affect your performance or judgment.

This is true. However, I question the value of such testing. If your performance at work is determined to be sub-standard, then I think it would make sense to let those people go. Whether or not they smoke pot during their off time should be irrelevant.

Yes, what if I think that someone that listens to Rush Limbaugh or attends comic cons shows a severe lack of judgement?    Should I be allowed to fire them?   

By all means, I think employers should have the right to fire employees that come to work under the influence of any substance.   Be that alcohol or other drugs.    But an employer shouldn't have the right to determine what an employee does in their private time if it doesn't directly impact their job.    Especially if that activity is legal in the state that they live in.

[sol]

But an employer shouldn't have the right to determine what an employee does in their private time if it doesn't directly impact their job. 

When you are an employer you can make that decision.  When Uncle Sam is the employer then he gets to.

There are LOTS of things a person could do in their free time, unrelated to their job, that employers will not tolerate.  Sexual assault.  Child abuse.  Serial murder.  It's a long list, and people are routinely fired for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with their job performance.

Before anyone gets too bent out of shape, no I am not equating smoking weed with pedophilia or murder.  I'm merely reminding this poster that employers do indeed get to use criteria other than job performance in deciding who to fire, and if a particular employer chooses to disallow marijuana use then I respect their right to make that (maybe misguided) decision.

Hell, Anthony Cumia got fired from the Anthony and Opie show after 20 years of good job performance, all because he sent someone an ugly tweet.  A tweet!

What you do in your personal time does impact how your employer sees you.  If you don't agree with an employer's value judgments, feel free to work somewhere else.  Nobody is forcing you to take a job that won't let you smoke weed.  All this talk about people who "know what's good for them and they know what is good for you too" is exactly backwards, if you're trying to tell someone what employees they must be forced to hire or fire. 

We each get to choose our own path in life.  If you want to smoke marijuana, don't work for someone who doesn't want you to.  If you want to only hire people who don't smoke marijuana, then go ahead and require drug testing.  How about we all just live and let live on this one?

[greaper007]

But an employer shouldn't have the right to determine what an employee does in their private time if it doesn't directly impact their job. 

When you are an employer you can make that decision.  When Uncle Sam is the employer then he gets to.

There are LOTS of things a person could do in their free time, unrelated to their job, that employers will not tolerate.  Sexual assault.  Child abuse.  Serial murder.  It's a long list, and people are routinely fired for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with their job performance.

Before anyone gets too bent out of shape, no I am not equating smoking weed with pedophilia or murder.  I'm merely reminding this poster that employers do indeed get to use criteria other than job performance in deciding who to fire, and if a particular employer chooses to disallow marijuana use then I respect their right to make that (maybe misguided) decision.

Hell, Anthony Cumia got fired from the Anthony and Opie show after 20 years of good job performance, all because he sent someone an ugly tweet.  A tweet!

What you do in your personal time does impact how your employer sees you.  If you don't agree with an employer's value judgments, feel free to work somewhere else.  Nobody is forcing you to take a job that won't let you smoke weed.  All this talk about people who "know what's good for them and they know what is good for you too" is exactly backwards, if you're trying to tell someone what employees they must be forced to hire or fire. 

We each get to choose our own path in life.  If you want to smoke marijuana, don't work for someone who doesn't want you to.  If you want to only hire people who don't smoke marijuana, then go ahead and require drug testing.  How about we all just live and let live on this one?

Can they? Yes.    But should they?    Especially in a state where it's legal?    This will be challenged, just like sodomy laws were challenged in the late 90s.    The same arguments were made before that about employers rights to fire people based on their sexual orientation.   After all, if you're gay you don't have to have sex with someone of the same gender.    You can just suffer in silence.   

Beyond that, pot is still in a strange grey area.    Once it's legal in a majority of states there's no way conventional drug testing will be able to stand up in court.     I've yet to hear of a case of testing someone for alcohol use that occurred weeks or even months before the test outside of workplace hours.   

My wife and I are business owners and I don't think we'd ever dream of drug testing employees.   Granted, we don't have any employees that have less than a masters and most have doctorates so it's a different group than most employees that are drug tested.    Still, I've yet to see data that says casual drug users are worse employees than teetotalers.    So I don't really understand the reasoning in the first place.

I'm fine with employers checking employees for actual intoxication on the job site.    That's not what's happening though.

[grantmeaname]

Or prison system is racist, based on punishment instead of rehabilitation, ineffective and expensive.    It's an embarrassing stain on our country that people from more enlightened countries should make fun of us for.    And yes, drug laws and the prison system are as damaging to minority communities as Jim Crowe, the Chinese Exclusion Act, The Trail of Tears and every other racist legislation we've enacted in the history of this country.

"Thing X is less bad than two hundred years of slavery" != "Thing X is not bad"

[hybrid]

[
I say this is a big case of YMMV and for those who enjoy in this thread I say more power to you. But please don't project your experiences on everyone else and assume it's the same.

Same would go for your son's experiences.

While you continue to rant on in your all-caps about how people know what is better for others I kindly suggest you reread the part in bold above and bring it down a peg or two.

[Ftao93]

Since we're in CO, I do occasionally imbibe.    Mostly on days where I just want to zone out, or the very few nights where insomnia still gets me.  I found it hits much less now that I am leaning toward Mustachianism.

My friends often pass along a little, so it costs me nothing but a handshake or a beer most of the time.

I do see a lot of people that can't get by a day without it, and I think they're impairing themselves.  Or as I like to call it, 'my 20's'.

There's also a lot of people who smoke and drive (and text, beat their kids, watch movies...), but that's a  subject for another tangent.

[MelodysMustache]

I don't imbibe, but not because I think the substance itself is a terrible thing for responsible adults.  I object to financing criminal activity and causing harm to those who get in the way.  The drug cartels in Mexico are horrible and destructive to the populace, and are one example of how very bad it can get.

I am in Washington where it is now legal to possess up to a certain amount, but they are still sorting out the stores for legitimate sales.  Stores are opening soon, but they probably won't be able to meet the demand for a while.  I think it should be legal and taxed.