I know what you mean springmom, at my job we have some planters right out front. all the customers that smoke will go out and sit on the planters and smoke, so I moved the ashtray down to the end of the building and got my boss to buy a bench and put down there. (its even in the shade) they still sit right out front and smoke, then get up and walk to the end of the building and put out their smokes in the ashtray. I look at them like WTF!!! you will walk all the way down there to put out your smoke but you won't sit down there and give the non-smokers fresh air in the entrance.
Question 7 on the ballot in Nevada, what do you think?
- Thread starter 9mmsnoopy
- Start date
One other thought on that, which I would hope would alleviate your concerns on that, at least somewhat. One big difference between tobacco and cannabis is that by way of nicotine the tobacco is physically addictive and there is no corresponding physical addictive component to cannabis. What you encounter in front of malls, office buildings, restaurants, and such is not so much smokers who are smoking because it is pleasurable or because they like it or whatever, but smokers who are smoking a "quick one" in order to satisfy their addiction. I know, I used to be one of them (quit cold turkey back in '94). There wouldn't be that addictive urge driving those who use cannabis to do likewise.
See that's the point where I, as a boss, would tell people they can't smoke next to the entrance. They can smoke where the nice little bench is, they can smoke out back behind the dumpster, they can smoke in their cars but they cannot smoke next to the entrance. They don't like it they can find another job or not smoke while at work. Simple as that.
edit: oooh I just noticed that this was about the customers and not the employees
hell then he has even more discretion. "folks, you can't smoke next to the entrance. if you don't like it you can feel free to leave the property. thanks and have a nice day. "
Well i didn't really state what i did for a job though. I'm a IT Specialist for TWC (Texas Workforce Commission) the people i call customers are welfar recipents, food stamps, unimployment, RIO (reinagration of offenders rapist, muders, child molesters that kind of scum), people gettin their GED, People looking for Child Care, and that ever so often you find one that actually wants a job and not just a handout. So most of these people would tell who ever told them they couldn't smoke there to go F*** them selves. Believe me we have tried our best.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Have to say one more thing then I'll shut up. There are a great many people who are allergic to tabaco (cigarette) smoke. Yet we haven't put them on the black market (yet anyway)
Well interesting...... that being, not one soul from Nevada has came on and commented on this thread, except me at this time.
I am voting NO. Reasoning.... having see the effects of booze and "maryjane" on my oldest son, and how it effected him into a violent person. Thankgoodness, he's now a recovering addict; getting off both of the "drugs". He even had a good reason for it, that being, he's got more steel rods in his legs than bone, due to racing motorcycles, and having to live with the pain. But still, I didnt think that was a good reason for its use. Course, I dont want him to end up like ole Rush Limbaugh, hooked on Oxy pills either.
I know alot of people swear by its powers of pain relief, and for helping in the effects of Cancer patients, but still, "Dope is Dope".
And as to the tobacco smoke. I am an ex-smoker (Pipe) of +30 years, and been "clean" for 5 years, due to the fact that I came down with COPD, which isnt fun. I cant stand the smell of any smoke, no matter if it's tobacco, etc. To me, if someone is smoking anywhere I am eating, be it inside or out, I get up and leave. The effects of the smoke really effects my breathing. At this election period, there are 2 other ballot "Questions...4 & 5" which deal with smoking in enclosed buildings, casinos, etc. Pretty hottly debate going on. Question 4 is sponsored by the Casino's, and Question 5 by the American Heart Assn; American Lung Assn and others. I plan on voting for 5, myself.
I dont think the debate on this subject will ever be resolved in my lifetime, sorry to say. Again, I have my opinions and others, theirs.
John
I am voting NO. Reasoning.... having see the effects of booze and "maryjane" on my oldest son, and how it effected him into a violent person. Thankgoodness, he's now a recovering addict; getting off both of the "drugs". He even had a good reason for it, that being, he's got more steel rods in his legs than bone, due to racing motorcycles, and having to live with the pain. But still, I didnt think that was a good reason for its use. Course, I dont want him to end up like ole Rush Limbaugh, hooked on Oxy pills either.
I know alot of people swear by its powers of pain relief, and for helping in the effects of Cancer patients, but still, "Dope is Dope".
And as to the tobacco smoke. I am an ex-smoker (Pipe) of +30 years, and been "clean" for 5 years, due to the fact that I came down with COPD, which isnt fun. I cant stand the smell of any smoke, no matter if it's tobacco, etc. To me, if someone is smoking anywhere I am eating, be it inside or out, I get up and leave. The effects of the smoke really effects my breathing. At this election period, there are 2 other ballot "Questions...4 & 5" which deal with smoking in enclosed buildings, casinos, etc. Pretty hottly debate going on. Question 4 is sponsored by the Casino's, and Question 5 by the American Heart Assn; American Lung Assn and others. I plan on voting for 5, myself.
I dont think the debate on this subject will ever be resolved in my lifetime, sorry to say. Again, I have my opinions and others, theirs.
John
invention_45
New member
So, looks like if you have it your way, nobody in Nevada will be able to use a drug that nobody in their right mind thinks causes violence, even if they're in constant pain and it helps. And you base that, at least in part, on pot (and alcohol) "turning him into" a violent person.
Have you considered the possibility that your son, having become a violent addict and having seriously injured himself unnecessarily, simply suffers from a bad case of lack of personal responsibility, and that maybe the rest of Nevada outght not be punished for it?
Drugs and alcohol don't make people violent or irresponsible or criminals. They may lower inhibitions but they do not make a person do things they are not capable of doing without the substance. If someone is violent when drunk, that person is violent by nature. If someone is lazy when stoned, that person is lazy by nature. If someone is irresponsible when snorting coke, that person is irresponsible by nature.
No substance is capable of altering a person's personality, they merely bring suppressed attributes of a personality to the surface. An individual that does bad things and blames on it a substance is merely skirting responsibility.
No substance is capable of altering a person's personality, they merely bring suppressed attributes of a personality to the surface. An individual that does bad things and blames on it a substance is merely skirting responsibility.
Redworm, I have to disagree about the stoned thing cuz i'm a work horse when it comes to work and house work ect. but when i get stoned (havn't in a few years state employee drug test and all) but when i did wow i was so lazy. and if you get really good bud i could hardly move but i tell you this instead of drinking and driving and going fast there will be alot less high speed wrecks they will turn into low speed fender benders. you drive about 35 when stoned. IMO. no flaming please.
Possession of small amounts is now legal in Denver, and has been for about a year. Shockingly, there's no skunk-smelling cloud over the city, roving gangs of stoners are not raiding the stop-and-robs for munchies, and people aren't wandering the freeways in a blissed-out haze (more than before, anyway).
Once again, the hardcore anti-relegalization people are using the same scare tactics ("If you make this legal, everyone's gonna DIE!") as the anti-defense people in Florida, with exactly the same results. Funny how that works, yeah?
Once again, the hardcore anti-relegalization people are using the same scare tactics ("If you make this legal, everyone's gonna DIE!") as the anti-defense people in Florida, with exactly the same results. Funny how that works, yeah?
I should clarify. Being lazy while stoned is expected although many people are far more active when high than when sober. It also depends on the strain you're smoking.
I was referring to the idea that if a person smokes pot a couple times a week that person will invariably get lazier, even when sober. Those current antidrug commercials on the radio have the one antidrug kid explaining how all his friends just sit around and do nothing, get high all day while he has all the fun. It's not true. Smokers are going to be lethargic while intoxicated and that's natural because THC is a psychoactive with mild depressant properties but the point is that those effects do not inherently last beyond the point of inxotication. If a kid smokes a couple times a week and suddenly his grades start to fail or he loses his job it's the kid's fault, not the pot's.
Coming from a non-user
Living in Nevada, I do not support it. I would support it, if it was written differently:
1. Posession of 1oz would be fine with me. Hell, make it legal to get a cigarette box sized portion. Good for you.
2. Restrict it's use to home/private property. I don't think people should be allowed to go out in public and "toke it up." You can't get intoxicated by sitting next to a drunk, but I don't want to get contact high from some guys over at Bully's Sports bar.
3. Mandatory jail time for people who use and drive. DUI is DUI, and I believe anyone who drives under the influence of ANY chemical should do mandatory jail time.
4. No users under 18. Make underaged use penalties the same as alcohol use penalties. Simple.
If those rules were a part of safe, recreational pot use, I would vote to pass it in an instant. I believe mind altering chemicals are one of those things that "people" in general are too stupid to use and regulate on their own, so for this situation I welcome minor government regulation... Please don't kill me
lol....
Living in Nevada, I do not support it. I would support it, if it was written differently:
1. Posession of 1oz would be fine with me. Hell, make it legal to get a cigarette box sized portion. Good for you.
2. Restrict it's use to home/private property. I don't think people should be allowed to go out in public and "toke it up." You can't get intoxicated by sitting next to a drunk, but I don't want to get contact high from some guys over at Bully's Sports bar.
3. Mandatory jail time for people who use and drive. DUI is DUI, and I believe anyone who drives under the influence of ANY chemical should do mandatory jail time.
4. No users under 18. Make underaged use penalties the same as alcohol use penalties. Simple.
If those rules were a part of safe, recreational pot use, I would vote to pass it in an instant. I believe mind altering chemicals are one of those things that "people" in general are too stupid to use and regulate on their own, so for this situation I welcome minor government regulation... Please don't kill me
lol....Restrict it's use to home/private property
I can agree with that, it should be the same way for cigs.
I respect peoples rights to smoke if thats what they want to do, but not where it pollutes the air for non smokers, esp. in restaurants. Anyone who cant sit thru an hour long meal without lighting up has serious issues.
I can agree with that, it should be the same way for cigs.
I respect peoples rights to smoke if thats what they want to do, but not where it pollutes the air for non smokers, esp. in restaurants. Anyone who cant sit thru an hour long meal without lighting up has serious issues.
Last time I checked, minors weren't overseas fighting in Iraq.
I'm refering to certain laws that state a 16 year old arrested for DUI should have his license suspended til age 21. I think the legal drinking age should be 18 personally, but that's not what this thread is about.
invention_45
New member
EXACTLY !!!
It's time to start removing the government's excuses for poking their noses into our private business, a process that has gone WAAAY overboard of late.
Edit:
See the Sudafed thread for what I think "legalization" should be (i.e., not a free-for-all paid for by insurers or taxes).
Last edited:
Wild Horse
New member
I voted YES on 7, it's time Nevada moved into the modern World.
The latest stats I have are that 7 will pass.
The latest stats I have are that 7 will pass.
"The latest stats I have are that 7 will pass"
I hope your right, but they already tried this a few years ago and it failed.
It will be VERY interesting if it does indeed pass. Once these licensed pot dealers get up and running, i would expect the D.E.A. to be promptly knocking on the door. Or kicking it in most likely.
I hope your right, but they already tried this a few years ago and it failed.
It will be VERY interesting if it does indeed pass. Once these licensed pot dealers get up and running, i would expect the D.E.A. to be promptly knocking on the door. Or kicking it in most likely.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Okay guys one more thing. I believe that pot should be legalized for the following reasons.
The war on drugs has done more harm then it has ever done good. We can barely comprehend the amount of money wasted and we will never be able o tally the lives lost o fight this war. All of this spent money and wasted lives yet why do people still get pot? Appearently people have a hard time learning from the past and in the case Prohibition to be specific. It did not stop alcohol why should we expect a different result on any other substance?
2. I have seen all the propaganda on TV and it has crossed the line from annoying. I do not smoke pot or cigarettes or anything of the sort. But I find it ironic that we have placed an exmption clause on the Constituton that more or less says "All men have unalienable able rights.....Subject to the approval of the legislature."
3. The question has been asked does pot lead to other dugs? My answer is does drinking lead to other drugs? I can't remember where I read this but it said at least in a communist rule we can smoke.
4. Regardless of what happens in this case I feel that the very fact that it is on the ballot shows progress.
The war on drugs has done more harm then it has ever done good. We can barely comprehend the amount of money wasted and we will never be able o tally the lives lost o fight this war. All of this spent money and wasted lives yet why do people still get pot? Appearently people have a hard time learning from the past and in the case Prohibition to be specific. It did not stop alcohol why should we expect a different result on any other substance?
2. I have seen all the propaganda on TV and it has crossed the line from annoying. I do not smoke pot or cigarettes or anything of the sort. But I find it ironic that we have placed an exmption clause on the Constituton that more or less says "All men have unalienable able rights.....Subject to the approval of the legislature."
3. The question has been asked does pot lead to other dugs? My answer is does drinking lead to other drugs? I can't remember where I read this but it said at least in a communist rule we can smoke.
4. Regardless of what happens in this case I feel that the very fact that it is on the ballot shows progress.
I hope it passes, and I hope the DEA kicks up a huge feces-storm, and ends up looking like morons. But this really may not be the best way to go about it.
I prefer the approach that Medocino County, CA took, with their "Measure G." That ordinance directed all law-enforcement agencies in the County to place the arrest and prosecution of individual pot smokers and private non-selling growers last ono their list of priorities. I think they were also forbidden to spend any money on it. The law defines "personal use" as up to 25 plants, or an equivalent amount of dried pot. Selling it will still get you busted, but using it, no.
This sidestepped the Federal / local supremacy questions, because they didn't challenge the legality of pot. They (the voters) simply directed local law enforcement to change the priorites of which laws get enforced, and how. Something that local citizens clearly have a right to do. IIRC, the law wasn't even challenged by the Feds, because they knew they couldn't win.
--Shannon
I prefer the approach that Medocino County, CA took, with their "Measure G." That ordinance directed all law-enforcement agencies in the County to place the arrest and prosecution of individual pot smokers and private non-selling growers last ono their list of priorities. I think they were also forbidden to spend any money on it. The law defines "personal use" as up to 25 plants, or an equivalent amount of dried pot. Selling it will still get you busted, but using it, no.
This sidestepped the Federal / local supremacy questions, because they didn't challenge the legality of pot. They (the voters) simply directed local law enforcement to change the priorites of which laws get enforced, and how. Something that local citizens clearly have a right to do. IIRC, the law wasn't even challenged by the Feds, because they knew they couldn't win.
--Shannon