Jump to content

Massachusetts Ballot Initiative


Recommended Posts

You are also a future crack hoe, if you are calling me one. You are entertaining, but I can't take you seriously after reading the religion threads. You're like FCP's own version of Rush.
that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on this site.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, he meant that crappy Canadian rock band. Sorry.
A passage to Bangkok?It would be a much more effective insult on Rush if you were an actual aficionado of good music,but you listen to Radiohead...your insults are powerless
Link to post
Share on other sites
A passage to Bangkok?It would be a much more effective insult on Rush if you were an actual aficionado of good music,but you listen to Radiohead...your insults are powerless
Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Shit!

Cannabis Caviar: $1,400-an-ounce marijuana promises a bang for your buckSo you think you're a connoisseur, what with your cans of Beluga, Kobe steaks and stash of 1998 Dom Perignon? Think again if you haven't gotten your hands on cannabis caviar, a new kind of top-shelf marijuana popping up at Colorado dispensaries that sells for the astronomical price of $1,400 an ounce -- nearly four times the average price of other high-grade strains."This isn't stuff you are sitting around puffing all day," says Jake, general manager of the ReLeaf Center, a Denver dispensary that's selling caviar made in house for $60 a gram. "This is the definition of a one-hitter quitter."It ain't your grandpa's pot. Caviar is made by soaking marijuana buds in a potent stain of hash oil -- thick, sticky and concentrated liquid cannabis made from dissolving hashish or marijuana in solvents like acetone, alcohol or butane. Once the oil's soaked into the marijuana buds, the whole shebang is allowed to dry for several weeks or months.The result is a potent marijuana smorgasbord: high-grade marijuana, with between 5 and 20 percent THC, infused with 30 to 80 percent THC hash oil. It also burns for long periods of time, notes Jake, although he adds a word of caution about taste: "It's rough."People looking for a smooth-tasting product should look elsewhere, he says. "It's for people who want to smoke less, need longer effects, or have medical needs that absolutely require them to take large amounts of THC in. It's going to have a stronger medical benefit."That's putting it mildly. To try some for yourself, keep an eye out for "caviar" on the top shelf of your local dispensary. It's also been called "California Raisins," though as Jake notes, "That name is falling out of favor in the ongoing weed war between Colorado and California."And with stuff like caviar, we just might have one up on our marijuana-loving neighbors to the west.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm probably going to enjoy it once in a great while once it's legal. Basically, about as frequently as I drink to get drunk. Add a tick to whatever statistic you deem necessary.Never, ever going to touch anything harder, even if it is legalized. Heard too many sad stories, enjoy the way my brain works, etc.I expect it will hurt booze sales, but will be a net-positive for tax revenue.
This is pretty much my thinking on the subject.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, he meant that crappy Canadian rock band. Sorry.
You are dead to me.TORONTO — Progressive rock legends Rush and Quebecois singer Robert Charlebois etched their names into the nation’s cultural history on Sunday night as they were inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame.Rush and Charlebois, as well as a host of lyricists and composers, joined a vanguard of Canadian songwriters already enshrined in the hall, including Joni Mitchell, Gordon Lightfoot and Leonard Cohen.Sixteen songs — including Rush’s Tom Sawyer, Limelight, The Spirit of Radio, Subdivisions and Closer to the Heart — were inducted to the hall on Sunday.Of all the songs added, though, few resonate with Canadians as much as Vancouver native Dolores Claman’s Hockey Night in Canada theme song, which has heralded the beginning of hockey games for nearly as long as they’ve been on television.The stars were feted at a gala at the Toronto Centre for the Arts, where their music was performed by everyone from screamo stalwarts Alexisonfire and bass guitar virtuoso Les Claypool to the acoustic folk duo Dala and multi-instrumentalist DJ Champion.Geddy Lee, Rush’s singer and bass player, called it “the ultimate compliment” to be included with such luminaries, one made doubly sweet by the fact that he, guitarist Alex Lifeson, and drummer/lyricist Neil Peart were being recognized in their hometown for their songwriting talents and not just their considerable musicianship.“Songwriting’s not really something we’ve ever been celebrated for,” said Peart ahead of the gala. Despite never being that popular with critics, Rush has ridden a nearly four-decade career to more than 40 million records sold worldwide and a place in the hearts of air guitarists everywhere and anyone with a slightly dorky inner 15-year-old.As Lee put it before the gala: “nerds like us.”Peart said that being the first band inducted into the hall was something they were particularly proud of.“The fact is, of course, is that we do all write together, which is one of the unique things about us,” he said. And seeing a host of younger acts paying tribute to their careers made the night for the trio. “Bob Dylan once said ‘what else can you do for someone with your music but inspire them,’” said Peart. “There really is nothing else you can do, so if you manage that, you’ve done your job.”Charlebois, the francophone selection this year, boasts a career that began as a folksinger before evolving into a psychedelic rocker, author, and television star. Few people figure as prominently into Quebec’s musical fabric as Charlebois, whose songs Ordinaire, Fu Man Chu, and Lindberg gave a voice to generations of young Quebecers liberated from the conservative atmosphere of the early 1960s.High school classmates Lifeson and Lee first started jamming in 1968 as teenagers in the suburban Toronto neighbourhood of Willowdale. After a couple of lineup changes, the group released their self-titled debut album in 1974. Peart joined the band on drums that summer ahead of their first U.S. tour, and as he assumed songwriting duties, Rush grew from the fringes of a nascent heavy metal movement into a leading voice of progressive rock in the late 1970s.Lee’s sinewy basslines and distinctive upper-register wail, Lifeson’s intriguing chord selections and mind-melting solos, and Peart’s complex, sprawling compositions and technically astounding drumming secured their names in any “all-time best” discussions of their respective instruments.Peart, as the band’s principal lyricist, eschewed typical hard-rock fare about girls, booze, and the intersection of the two in favour of a more literary approach steeped in science fiction and Ayn Randian philosophy.The gala paid tribute to Canadian artists who died in the last year, in a film montage showcasing highlights that included folksinger Kate McGarrigle and world music artist Lhasa.Montreal’s DJ Champion, backed by enough guitars to nearly reduce the theatre to the smouldering ruins of a full-fledged arockalypse, delivered one of the night’s most scintillating performances with his cover of Michel Pagliaro’s 1973 anthem, J’entends frapper.After a rambunctious introduction from an old friend, actor Marcel Sabourin, Charlebois reflected on the names he’d be joining in the hall and thanked his family, friends, and colleagues for enriching his singular journey.“Whether you make beer, or fashion, or music, a career is the encounters (with) different people who bring you magic,” said Charlebois, who in addition to his artistic exploits owned a microbrewery. He then sat at a grand piano to perform his most famous song, Ordinaire, to which the audience responded with a standing ovation.After being introduced by Rheostatics guitarist and lifetime Rush fan Dave Bidini, the besuited trio took the stage upon which Peart delivered a speech recounting the band’s development as songwriters in the back of tour buses, in studios, and hotel rooms the world around."If it’s true that every song is a story," said Peart. "Every song has a story, too."The gala has been held since 1998, but 2010 marks the first time the awards will find a permanent home, as the Toronto Centre for the Arts will soon play host to the growing canon of Canadian songwriting excellence
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
But what about all the stoned drivers?It's something most seasoned pot smokers already know, but still it's nice to get more scientific confirmation: Marijuana doesn't make you wreck your car.Subjects show almost identical driving skills just before and just after smoking marijuana, according to a study published in the March issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. ​ Investigators from Hartford Hospital in Connecticut and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine measured the simulated driving performance of 85 people in a double-blind, placebo controlled trial.Volunteers responded to various simulated events associated with auto crash risk, such as avoiding a driver who was entering an intersection illegally, deciding to stop or go through a changing traffic light, responding to the presence of emergency vehicles, avoiding colliding with a dog who entered into traffic, and maintaining safe driving during a secondary (in-the-car) sound distraction.Test subjects performed the tests sober, and then again 30 minutes after smoking a joint containing wither 2.9 percent THC or a placebo joint with no THC.The volunteers performed virtually the same after smoking marijuana as they did sober and/or after smoking bunk pot. "No differences were found during the baseline driving segment (and the) collision avoidance scenarios," the scientists reported.One reason no increase in accidents is associated with marijuana may be the well known "little old lady" syndrome, in which pot-smoking drivers slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate for any slight impairment that may occur."Participants receiving active marijuana decreased their speed more so than those receiving placebo cigarette during (the) distracted section of the drive," the study reported.Authors suggested that test subjects' reduction in speed on this task could mean that they were compensating for perceived impairment."No other changes in driving performance were found," researchers concluded.A 2008 driving simulator <a href="http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7600" style="text-decoration: underline;">study published in the scientific journal Accident, Analysis and Prevention also found that drivers who smoked marijuana were more likely to decrease their driving speed."Average speed was the most sensitive driving performance variable affected by both THC and alcohol but with an opposite effect," investigators reported. "Smoking THC cigarettes caused drivers to drive slower in a dose-dependent manner, while alcohol caused driers to drive significantly faster than in 'control' conditions."The federal government's Department of Transportation (DOT) did research with a fully interactive simulator on the effects of alcohol and marijuana, alone and in combination, on driver behavior and performance ("The Effects of Alcohol on Driver-Controlled Behavior in a Driving Simulator, Phase I," DOT-HS-806-414). The study found that alcohol consistently and significantly caused impairment -- but that marijuana only had an occasional effect.A more recent federal study found that "THC [the active ingredient in marijuana] is not a profoundly impairing drug... It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving" ("Marijuana and Actual Performance," DOT-HS-808-078).The federal study says that "It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC... determined in a single sample."
Link to post
Share on other sites
awesome article, Henry.the substance behind most of the anti-pot arguments is rapidly disappearing.
Of course it was formatted by someone stoned, so we'd have to live with that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they legalize maryjuanda you guys want them to make it legal to smoke while you drive?There's this thing called slippery slope, most of the time it's a smokescreen, this time, it's your future.Anyone who's been really stoned will admit..you don't want me behind a wheel after 3 bowls of Afghan weed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they legalize maryjuanda you guys want them to make it legal to smoke while you drive?There's this thing called slippery slope, most of the time it's a smokescreen, this time, it's your future.Anyone who's been really stoned will admit..you don't want me behind a wheel after 3 bowls of Afghan weed.
Here's a guy that obviously knows a lot about weed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If they legalize maryjuanda you guys want them to make it legal to smoke while you drive?There's this thing called slippery slope, most of the time it's a smokescreen, this time, it's your future.Anyone who's been really stoned will admit..you don't want me behind a wheel after 3 bowls of Afghan weed.
I dont want anyone behind the wheel after 8 beers either but we still let people drink beer. And we have a billion studies showing alcohol and driving = bad.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont want anyone behind the wheel after 8 beers either but we still let people drink beer. And we have a billion studies showing alcohol and driving = bad.
You do know I was reacting to the 'story' H posted that said people on pot can drive a car with no difference?You see why your response isn't making any sense when I am responding to someone saying pot doesn't make any difference?You might also note that I never said since H wants to let pot heads drive through the drive through at White Castle without fear that I think it would be reasonable to allow drunk drivers to be decriminalized?Come one Cane, you are better than this. Next your going to start defending All_in
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know I was reacting to the 'story' H posted that said people on pot can drive a car with no difference?You see why your response isn't making any sense when I am responding to someone saying pot doesn't make any difference?You might also note that I never said since H wants to let pot heads drive through the drive through at White Castle without fear that I think it would be reasonable to allow drunk drivers to be decriminalized?Come one Cane, you are better than this. Next your going to start defending All_in
No, it's just one more reason why pot should be legal. The argument about stoned drivers is per se ridiculous but this study makes it even more ridiculous. And your anecdotal evidence re: afghan weed is not as persuasive as the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. I think.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If they legalize maryjuanda you guys want them to make it legal to smoke while you drive?There's this thing called slippery slope, most of the time it's a smokescreen, this time, it's your future.Anyone who's been really stoned will admit..you don't want me behind a wheel after 3 bowls of Afghan weed.
I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want that doesn't harm others. This study says that driving while stoned does not increase the risk of accidents. Certainly this is a surprising result, and the study is limited by the fact that it was done with simulators rather than in real world situations, but if it is replicated showing that stoned people are no more dangerous than other people on the road, what could your objection be other than some puritanical anti-drug irrationality?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want that doesn't harm others. This study says that driving while stoned does not increase the risk of accidents. Certainly this is a surprising result, and the study is limited by the fact that it was done with simulators rather than in real world situations, but if it is replicated showing that stoned people are no more dangerous than other people on the road, what could your objection be other than some puritanical anti-drug irrationality?
You can tell me all day that being stoned doesn't effect your ability to drive. I've been stoned, I know that it does.Pretending that you would be cool with a truck driver with a joint hanging from his lips while he downshifts as he approaches heavy traffic on I-94 weakens your case.And it makes me start to think that maybe more of these studies are flat out lying.In fact you have weakened your case in my eyes, showing that you are willing to completely ignore the obvious as long as any study tells you what you want to hear.We should do a poll of how many people think that anyone who smokes pot is the same as the same person when he doesn't smoke pot. I mean there must be a reason they are smoking the pot...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it, though? Manic road ragers are the dangerous ones out there.
You sure they are the dangerous ones?Or are the ones impaired by ingesting mind altering substances the ones causing the deaths?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Really positive?Or anecdotally positive?
I can't get that link to open where I am, but I'm comparing to stoned drivers to manic drivers. I have a feeling that marijuana didn't make that list. Did it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can tell me all day that being stoned doesn't effect your ability to drive. I've been stoned, I know that it does.Pretending that you would be cool with a truck driver with a joint hanging from his lips while he downshifts as he approaches heavy traffic on I-94 weakens your case.And it makes me start to think that maybe more of these studies are flat out lying.In fact you have weakened your case in my eyes, showing that you are willing to completely ignore the obvious as long as any study tells you what you want to hear.We should do a poll of how many people think that anyone who smokes pot is the same as the same person when he doesn't smoke pot. I mean there must be a reason they are smoking the pot...
I'm okay with the guy smoking a joint driving a truck, as long as he's not impaired. You seem to imply that smoking any amount of pot at all would impair a driver enough to cause the inability to control a motor vehicle safely. Is that what you are implying?Henry said he's okay with anyone doing anything as long as it doesn't hurt others. Your example of the truck driver doesn't imply that he's hurting anyone else. I find it pretty funny that you act like an expert because you've smoked pot before.:club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't get that link to open where I am, but I'm comparing to stoned drivers to manic drivers. I have a feeling that marijuana didn't make that list. Did it?
That link doesn't work for me either.edit:http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/07/2...ile_crashes.htm1. Distracted Drivers2. Driver Fatigue3. Drunk Driving4. Speeding5. Aggressive Driving6. Weather
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...