Are we not engaging more in semantics than anything else? If you feel that having a glass of wine with dinner is using drugs, then that's your opinion and I'm not saying you are wrong to think that. I am saying that I don't agree with that assessment, that's all. By your definition, I am a drug user and am foisting drugs upon my guests when I include nutmeg in my bread puddings or sauces. Who am I to change your opinion? That's fine. I am not contradicting myself, however. The chardonnay-with-dinner person is not drinking their wine to catch an immediate (or any, unless they're chugging it or having two quickly) buzz, they're drinking it because they like the flavor and it goes well with their planked salmon. Therefore, they are not a "drug user".. they are not using the chardonnay as a drug. The fact that something CAN be used as a drug does not mean that it has to be used as a drug; taken in small quantities, it need not have the effect of a drug. If you take a hit or two from a joint, you will feel an almost immediate effect.. that's why you took the hit. You used a drug in order to get the effect from that drug.No bueno.
You contradict yourself here, seeming to compare them equally... but you wrote
"I still wrestle with the fact that, and it IS a fact, marijuana is a drug, and NOTHING but a drug, while alcohol is a byproduct contained in many delicious beverages that simply can not be made alcohol-free. I simply can't equate someone sipping a single glass of Chardonnay with someone taking a few hits on a blunt. One is a drug user, and one is not. "
You are all over the place. If they are both drugs then both are bought by drug users. I'm okay with different opinions, just not contradictory opinions held by one person.
Some good points. Sailing, and other adrenaline-inducing activites, are about "what can we do with our bodies and our minds," rather than "what can we do TO our bodies and our minds."So to put a sailing twist on this thread, we have discussed the mind altering effects of cannabis and chardonnay. They are both very real. You get a mild buzz off a single glass of wine, i do any ways, sometimes more, some times less, but you feel it.
Does sailing not create a mind altering effect? Okay, I know some cruisers are not that into sailing and view it as an efficient transportation method. I am not one of those people, thats not why I sail. I sail because its fun. There is an adrenaline rush when a hull flies, when a boat heels suddenly, when the boat accelerates through a gust, when you pull through a squall. Its an adrenaline rush caused by external stimulus and it keeps us coming back for more.
There are adrenaline junkies out there, people that need to take a risk for love of the rush. Most of us keep a lid on it, we will fly a hull, but know to cut it out before we flip. We'll go out in 25 knots, but think twice about 35 and forget about a hurricane. Its a well known phonomenon amongst Vendee sailors, they talk about the need to get back out there to fight nature, and it is a primary reason I gave up big boat sailing, it just isnt exciting enough and mistakes are too costly when you push them too hard. There are sailors who push it too far, not as common as motorcyclists, but it happens.
Certainly we wouldn't outlaw sailing because it can result in a mind altering effect? Is it not a mind altering effect caused by external stimulus that makes sailing "fun".
In that light, what activity isn’t “mind altering”? The brain is just a bunch of cells operating in a wet sack of drugs (hormones, neurotransmitters and other biochemicals). Pleasant or vigorous actives, like sailing, will encourage the release of endorphins which, amongst other things, “produce a feeling of euphoria very similar to that produced by other opioids.”...Certainly we wouldn't outlaw sailing because it can result in a mind altering effect? Is it not a mind altering effect caused by external stimulus that makes sailing "fun".
The vast majority of people who drink are not just savoring a fine scotch or wine either though... A significant portion of people who drink do not fall into that category. I would guess it is a small portion in the grand scheme of things.if what you're describing is a significant portion of marijuana aficionados, I'm surprised I haven't run into anyone fitting your description in real life. The guys I know roll one or fill a bowl and enjoy the buzz. It's just different than savoring a Remy. It just is. Different is NOT a value judgement or condemnation of anything.
Yes, I think so. The world of wine, I agree, is more culinary. I see that point. But I don't think it could be extended to scotchka.Are we not engaging more in semantics than anything else? If you feel that having a glass of wine with dinner is using drugs, then that's your opinion . I am not contradicting myself, however. The chardonnay-with-dinner person is not drinking their wine to catch an immediate (or any, unless they're chugging it or having two quickly) buzz, they're drinking it because they like the flavor and it goes well with their planked salmon. Therefore, they are not a "drug user".. they are not using the chardonnay as a drug. .
If you're happy, then I'm happy for you. We socialize with a lot of different people. A lot......I just don't socialize with anyone.
From what I have observed in others, yes, very different. It seems some folks could have the exact same stuff and one person might get kind of dopey, while the other person mght become highly focused on a task- like cooking and do very well at it. Some athletes seem to have better flow.Bottom line is, there are some alcohol consumers I like to be around and some I really don't. It's obvious the latter are the aggressive ones. I have to admit, hoping not to offend, but I struggle with the social interaction with my adult friend's who are high. These are friends and I don't hold them in judgement. It's the change that I find hard to interact with. Are there different impacts on different people?
If there is an argument for addiction, it's this alone. Personally, I object to this being a good reason to legalize anything. The money always becomes a dependency to government. What would they do, if everyone stopped smoking and drinking the next day? It's argued that the funds will be devoted to abuse and rehabilitation, but if anyone believes that where it all goes, I have a bridge to sell them.........and paying taxes- lots of them.
I would agree that smoking pot is primarily for the buzz although I have to say, some is quite tasty. If legal I would grow a couple of plants for the wonderful smell, they are quite aromatic.Two questions..
1. If pot didn't get you stoned, would you smoke it just for the taste?
2. Did the pot you smoked that tasted good truly taste good, or did you enjoy the taste because it was a harbinger of the buzz to come?
Honest answers to those two questions will probably result in a confirmation of my statement, but it's possible I'm wrong. People like all kinds of things. Check out the commercials about folks who still like cable tv...
Someone feeling the effect of cannabis is generally more self-aware of the mood-altering effect, especially someone who does not use it often or who has taken more than intended. So such a person may be quieter in a social situation, or may seem distracted or withdrawn, probably more so when in the company of others who have not used any cannabis (the self-aware/self-conscious part). Some may go off on a tangent in a conversation and seemingly not realize it. That's about all you'll ever notice in my experience. It's very rare for someone to start acting inappropriately or to say or do things they wouldn't otherwise do, unlike some people under the effect of alcohol.My question is, are there people who display different social reactions to light to mod smoking, once the reaction is noticeable? Let's exclude those that some may claim show no signs. In this discussion, all booze and smoking users are lightly buzzed.
There is a real problem with governments getting hooked on so-called sin taxes: booze, cigarettes, gambling are all biggies. Now add cannabis. But as they say, the alternative is worse. Prohibition only costs societies.If there is an argument for addiction, it's this alone. Personally, I object to this being a good reason to legalize anything. The money always becomes a dependency to government.