Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sam on January 12, 2014, 05:37:00 AM
-
Should T&T legalized marijuana?
What allyuh feel go be de good and bad from this?
Everywhere starting to do it now and yuh know T&T is a follow fashion country.
-
Of course. Shoulda never been illegal in de first place.
It frees up police resources which can be redeployed to deal with violent crime. Stop jailing people fuh chupidness.
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
-
Legalise - I think it's actually safer to have it legalised, and to have the money funnelled to the Government rather than criminals. Given the great success in Europe in curbing smoking, I'm sure combined with a proper informational campaign you could manage to keep usage rates lower whilst profiting from it and putting that money to the public good.
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
very true
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
True dat. But it is a gateway drug!
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
heavy heart is true.!!!!
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
heavy heart is true.!!!!
Why the heavy heart? It's just a plant.
-
Why the heavy heart? It's just a plant.
...as is Coca, Poppy and Peyote.
-
Why the heavy heart? It's just a plant.
...as is Coca, Poppy and Peyote.
Exactly.
-
Legalise - I think it's actually safer to have it legalised, and to have the money funnelled to the Government rather than criminals. Given the great success in Europe in curbing smoking, I'm sure combined with a proper informational campaign you could manage to keep usage rates lower whilst profiting from it and putting that money to the public good.
Not sure I would wish for government to become embroiled post-legalization. Not a supporter of government becoming either a market participant or a fervent regulator.
-
Of course. Shoulda never been illegal in de first place.
It frees up police resources which can be redeployed to deal with violent crime. Stop jailing people fuh chupidness.
Agreed. We've been plodding along this resource nightmare for way too long. Beyond the police, beyond courts ... it's been a star-studded nightmare for a micro-state.
We should have been getting ahead of the curve and figuring out ways in which to benefit from a legalization policy.
Perhaps that was too much to ask of a post-colonial state/society in the early period ... but not so unreasonable from the 1990s.
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
True dat. But it is a gateway drug!
Catchy phrase ...
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
True dat. But it is a gateway drug!
How so? Yuh sure is not alcohol, cigarettes, or caffeine?
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
heavy heart is true.!!!!
Why the heavy heart? It's just a plant.
I knew some of the minds personally, wasn't a nice sight............especially when they escalated .........a small occasional spiff is one ting....an impressionable person knockin back ah 'post' several times ah day someting else....some ketch deyself an' come back... other ent so lucky who gone clear who escalate further den gone clear
weed like alcohol like cigarette come open a door the a very dark place.......not all does go dong dah road....but d road does appear regardless
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
True dat. But it is a gateway drug!
Catchy phrase ...
yes it catchy alright!!!! go ahead knock yourelf out.
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
True dat. But it is a gateway drug!
How so? Yuh sure is not alcohol, cigarettes, or caffeine?
Like you said, not everything is for everybody.
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
True dat. But it is a gateway drug!
Catchy phrase ...
yes it catchy alright!!!! go ahead knock yourelf out.
... and that's precisely it. Legalization doesn't mean that ppl who don't partake will rush to partake. Alcohol is on shelves, not everyone drinks. Cigarettes on stands, not everyone smokes. Right now you have ppl standing in legal medical marijuana queues ducking the cameras. Herb becomes legal, not everyone will go that route.
Decriminalization will go a long way ... perhaps not the perfect solution, but perhaps better than the present model.
Anyway, we'll probably be importing it legally from Colorado before long ... to add to the already distorted import-export equation. Or, they'll farm out consultants for which the local government of the day will pay exorbitant sums to learn how to run medical marijuana protocols. Maybe, the ganja farmer will become priced out under cost inefficiencies related to the latest prevailing economic protocols ... net benefit to Caribbean economies ... zilch.
-
Trinidad could easily grow Ganja itself and turn it into a profitable export...
-
We can't plant enough food but we surely can plant enough ganga to stem our hunger.
-
We can't plant enough food but we surely can plant enough ganga to stem our hunger.
We can certainly plant a lot more food, but that's a function of our agricultural infrastructure.
-
Well we can grow food on the parts of Guyana we're buying :p
-
Well we can grow food on the parts of Guyana we're buying :p
Since when Guyana is part of TT? Who say we buying part of Guyana. Or You mean Kamla buying part of Guyana?
-
Not in favor of legalization
But i am open to making it a non criminal offense or converting it to a ticket able offense or a misdemeanor with a fine for possession of small amounts.
Could have a similar effect of reducing the judicial cycles
-
Not in favor of legalization
But i am open to making it a non criminal offense or converting it to a ticket able offense or a misdemeanor with a fine for possession of small amounts.
Could have a similar effect of reducing the judicial cycles
Well, Bro as much as I have my doubts, I see it probably will be legal in the next couple of years. The US is slowly easing up on it. Then, so goes the other countries in this hemisphere. Funny thing is, many people in the US used to ridicule the Dutch for the same thing Colorado and Washington are currently doing.
-
I've seen it destroy its fair share of minds, but den cigarettes destroy its fair share of lungs..................and also that the people who are destroyed by it allow themselves to be destroyed by it......same as alcohol .................so I would say yeah drop d law for d very reason tallman stated above even if with a heavy heart
Not everything is for everybody.
There seems to be medical support for this ... thing is, of course, there's only one way to test the assertion. Yet, a similar slippery slope already applies to alcohol etc.
Raises the question: should public policy be made on the basis of the highest common factor or on the basis of the least common denominator?
-
I certainly do not doubt the medical benefits of mj. I definitely has a calming (soothing effect if you may). I have been told by some of my medical friends that it by and large a sedative. But the way some people uses it makes one wonder. If you have to smoke something everyday, then you have issues. Just like a man must have a stiff drink everyday. It eventually leads to dependency and a next set of issues.
I want to know if allyuh will fly in a plane if they make it legal for pilots to take ah smoke?
-
I certainly do not doubt the medical benefits of mj. I definitely has a calming (soothing effect if you may). I have been told by some of my medical friends that it by and large a sedative. But the way some people uses it makes one wonder. If you have to smoke something everyday, then you have issues. Just like a man must have a stiff drink everyday. It eventually leads to dependency and a next set of issues.
I want to know if allyuh will fly in a plane if they make it legal for pilots to take ah smoke?
Pilots aren't allowed to fly under the influence of any drug, so it's not a question really
-
We can't plant enough food but we surely can plant enough ganga to stem our hunger.
But ganja makes you hungrier. We need to plant even more crops.
-
Pilots aren't allowed to fly under the influence of any drug, so it's not a question really
Common sense really isn't common. Just answer the man's question. Olympians aren't allowed to use PEDs either, yet they getting ketch with it in they blood year after year.
-
Pilots aren't allowed to fly under the influence of any drug, so it's not a question really
Common sense really isn't common. Just answer the man's question. Olympians aren't allowed to use PEDs either, yet they getting ketch with it in they blood year after year.
I'm not sure why ask the question? No I wouldn't get on a flight with a pilot was high, nor would I get on if they were drunk or under the influence of any drug - I'm not sure what the question proves?
-
Pilots aren't allowed to fly under the influence of any drug, so it's not a question really
Common sense really isn't common. Just answer the man's question. Olympians aren't allowed to use PEDs either, yet they getting ketch with it in they blood year after year.
I'm not sure why ask the question? No I wouldn't get on a flight with a pilot was high, nor would I get on if they were drunk or under the influence of any drug - I'm not sure what the question proves?
If people think that mj should be legal, then why can't a pilot smoke and fly? A substantial among of people swear that it eh harmful.
Do you think after smoking mj, one may have impaired judgement?
-
Pilots aren't allowed to fly under the influence of any drug, so it's not a question really
Common sense really isn't common. Just answer the man's question. Olympians aren't allowed to use PEDs either, yet they getting ketch with it in they blood year after year.
I'm not sure why ask the question? No I wouldn't get on a flight with a pilot was high, nor would I get on if they were drunk or under the influence of any drug - I'm not sure what the question proves?
If people think that mj should be legal, then why can't a pilot smoke and fly? A substantial among of people swear that it eh harmful.
Do you think after smoking mj, one may have impaired judgement?
A pilot consuming alcohol or prescription drugs is subject to being impaired. Both are legal. That's probably not the best way to structure your argument.
Bringing things back to ground level ... same applies to conducting a motor car or boat etc.
-
(https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/t5/50496_230336988238_2344279_n.jpg)
-
I'm not sure why ask the question? No I wouldn't get on a flight with a pilot was high, nor would I get on if they were drunk or under the influence of any drug - I'm not sure what the question proves?
He didn't say the pilot in his hypothetical was 'high' he said he was "allowed to take ah smoke." Your answer imperfectly answers the conundrum surrounding marijuana use. Most of us would be okay with flying with a pilot who took a drink an hour before the flight. Many would not feel the same if instead of a drink the pilot smoked a joint. Why? Because THC affects individuals in ways different from alcohol, and is less predictable from individual to individual, and stays in the bloodstream a great deal longer... up to 30 days in many cases. This means that the individual is "under the influence" longer, having used marijuana.
This discrepancy is also reflected in the way the two substances are treated where it comes to DUI laws (at least in the US and the UK) where one is allowed to drink and drive as long as the blood alcohol content (BAC) does not cross the legal threshold of .08. Even so, there are tiered levels of impairment (above .08 but less than .10. Greater than .10 but less than .16. Greater than .16), with heightened penalties accordingly. Compared to the way marijuana is treated, where it is per se illegal to have it in your system and operate a motor vehicle. This bias in treatment came about after studies showed that THC impairment was less predictable than alcohol impairment and that even at low levels, psychomotor skills were severely impacted. This, more than anything, invalidates the comparison between marijuana and alcohol.
If I wanted I could even get into my own personal experience in working with addicts and the fact that marijuana acted as a gateway drug in the vast majority of case, leading to addiction to another substance, originally introduced to the addict by "lacing" the weed with the substance.
-
I'm not sure why ask the question? No I wouldn't get on a flight with a pilot was high, nor would I get on if they were drunk or under the influence of any drug - I'm not sure what the question proves?
He didn't say the pilot in his hypothetical was 'high' he said he was "allowed to take ah smoke." Your answer imperfectly answers the conundrum surrounding marijuana use. Most of us would be okay with flying with a pilot who took a drink an hour before the flight. Many would not feel the same if instead of a drink the pilot smoked a joint. Why? Because THC affects individuals in ways different from alcohol, and is less predictable from individual to individual, and stays in the bloodstream a great deal longer... up to 30 days in many cases. This means that the individual is "under the influence" longer, having used marijuana.
This discrepancy is also reflected in the way the two substances are treated where it comes to DUI laws (at least in the US and the UK) where one is allowed to drink and drive as long as the blood alcohol content (BAC) does not cross the legal threshold of .08. Even so, there are tiered levels of impairment (above .08 but less than .10. Greater than .10 but less than .16. Greater than .16), with heightened penalties accordingly. Compared to the way marijuana is treated, where it is per se illegal to have it in your system and operate a motor vehicle. This bias in treatment came about after studies showed that THC impairment was less predictable than alcohol impairment and that even at low levels, psychomotor skills were severely impacted. This, more than anything, invalidates the comparison between marijuana and alcohol.
If I wanted I could even get into my own personal experience in working with addicts and the fact that marijuana acted as a gateway drug in the vast majority of case, leading to addiction to another substance, originally introduced to the addict by "lacing" the weed with the substance.
No I wouldn't ever get on a plane knowing that a pilot had taken even a single shot before flying - any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane. Likewise, the definition of a drug is a substance that alters your body or mind, and any drug that has the potential to negatively impact your ability to pilot should absolutely be banned - you're playing with the lives of hundreds of people on board an aircraft whose most dangerous periods are take-off and landing - the parts that require the most concentration.
Drivers endanger typically single-figure individuals, rarely double figures. Pilots always endanger hundreds on a passenger plane, and double figures on the ground in a cargo plane. I genuinely can't believe anyone would be like "sure lets get on this plane with a pilot who has done a shot" - i mean what type of person thinks "yup definitely need a shot to fly this thing" - clearly their judgement is impaired sober let alone with a shot!
I find no conflict between the two - my position is consistent, hence why I couldn't understand the question. Are there people who'd be ok with their pilot taking a shot before flying?
-
No I wouldn't ever get on a plane knowing that a pilot had taken even a single shot before flying - any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane. Likewise, the definition of a drug is a substance that alters your body or mind, and any drug that has the potential to negatively impact your ability to pilot should absolutely be banned - you're playing with the lives of hundreds of people on board an aircraft whose most dangerous periods are take-off and landing - the parts that require the most concentration.
Drivers endanger typically single-figure individuals, rarely double figures. Pilots always endanger hundreds on a passenger plane, and double figures on the ground in a cargo plane. I genuinely can't believe anyone would be like "sure lets get on this plane with a pilot who has done a shot" - i mean what type of person thinks "yup definitely need a shot to fly this thing" - clearly their judgement is impaired sober let alone with a shot!
I find no conflict between the two - my position is consistent, hence why I couldn't understand the question. Are there people who'd be ok with their pilot taking a shot before flying?
This is simply not true... and I specifically said an hour before to allow for the acohol to dissipate from the body. Your position is "consistent" because it's detached from reality.
-
No I wouldn't ever get on a plane knowing that a pilot had taken even a single shot before flying - any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane. Likewise, the definition of a drug is a substance that alters your body or mind, and any drug that has the potential to negatively impact your ability to pilot should absolutely be banned - you're playing with the lives of hundreds of people on board an aircraft whose most dangerous periods are take-off and landing - the parts that require the most concentration.
Drivers endanger typically single-figure individuals, rarely double figures. Pilots always endanger hundreds on a passenger plane, and double figures on the ground in a cargo plane. I genuinely can't believe anyone would be like "sure lets get on this plane with a pilot who has done a shot" - i mean what type of person thinks "yup definitely need a shot to fly this thing" - clearly their judgement is impaired sober let alone with a shot!
I find no conflict between the two - my position is consistent, hence why I couldn't understand the question. Are there people who'd be ok with their pilot taking a shot before flying?
This is simply not true... and I specifically said an hour before to allow for the acohol to dissipate from the body. Your position is "consistent" because it's detached from reality.
In my experience... If I had to choose, I rather drive with a man who now smoke, than a man who drink.
Drunk drivers more prone to be reckless imo
-
In my experience... If I had to choose, I rather drive with a man who now smoke, than a man who drink.
Drunk drivers more prone to be reckless imo
That might be true, but in my hypothetical the pilot isn't 'drunk'... he had 1 drink an hour ago. Would you fly with a pilot who smoke a joint an hour ago?
-
In my experience... If I had to choose, I rather drive with a man who now smoke, than a man who drink.
Drunk drivers more prone to be reckless imo
That might be true, but in my hypothetical the pilot isn't 'drunk'... he had 1 drink an hour ago. Would you fly with a pilot who smoke a joint an hour ago?
yeah why not? Denzil Washington fly ah plane upside down under the influence of all kinda substances ;D
At the end of the day, you ent supposed to come to work drunk or under the influence of any drug and that will remain the same.
Now if smoking a joint one hour before renders you unable to perform your duties, then no. But this will have to be determined in the same way it was determined that 0.08 blood alcohol was the limit. Wherever the limit may be set, fair or not, the populace will have to abide by it.
ETA and to answer your question... a whole joint by heself? nah not me nah. Same ting for 2 shot of puncheon. not me... too close to takeoff, one of the most dangerous parts.
-
yeah why not? Denzil Washington fly ah plane upside down under the influence of all kinda substances ;D
At the end of the day, you ent supposed to come to work drunk or under the influence of any drug and that will remain the same.
Now if smoking a joint one hour before renders you unable to perform your duties, then no. But this will have to be determined in the same way it was determined that 0.08 blood alcohol was the limit. Wherever the limit may be set, fair or not, the populace will have to abide by it.
ETA and to answer your question... a whole joint by heself? nah not me nah. Same ting for 2 shot of puncheon. not me... too close to takeoff, one of the most dangerous parts.
I good with one drink... two drinks/shots is another story. The determination has already been made with regards to weed and operating a motor vehicle, no amount is safe, according to the law. But the hypothetical issue is whether the law should be repealed and what happens then. Proponents of legalization are saying it wouldn't matter, weed just like alcohol. Hence the hypo about the pilot.
-
No I wouldn't ever get on a plane knowing that a pilot had taken even a single shot before flying - any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane. Likewise, the definition of a drug is a substance that alters your body or mind, and any drug that has the potential to negatively impact your ability to pilot should absolutely be banned - you're playing with the lives of hundreds of people on board an aircraft whose most dangerous periods are take-off and landing - the parts that require the most concentration.
Drivers endanger typically single-figure individuals, rarely double figures. Pilots always endanger hundreds on a passenger plane, and double figures on the ground in a cargo plane. I genuinely can't believe anyone would be like "sure lets get on this plane with a pilot who has done a shot" - i mean what type of person thinks "yup definitely need a shot to fly this thing" - clearly their judgement is impaired sober let alone with a shot!
I find no conflict between the two - my position is consistent, hence why I couldn't understand the question. Are there people who'd be ok with their pilot taking a shot before flying?
This is simply not true... and I specifically said an hour before to allow for the acohol to dissipate from the body. Your position is "consistent" because it's detached from reality.
Where did you learn that it dissipates after an hour? Not doubting yet, but not heard that. Either way, it doesn't require such a comment - please be more polite and have some manners.
Again my point still stands - if you're drinking before flying an aeroplane then I doubt your judgement, sober or not. It's about how you conduct yourself when you have the lives of several hundred people in your hands
-
Where did you learn that it dissipates after an hour? Not doubting yet, but not heard that. Either way, it doesn't require such a comment - please be more polite and have some manners.
Again my point still stands - if you're drinking before flying an aeroplane then I doubt your judgement, sober or not. It's about how you conduct yourself when you have the lives of several hundred people in your hands
Alcohol steadily dissipates from the system, beginning the minute after it's consumed. The rate of dissipation depends on the individual, and more specifically on their metabolic rate. For most people having consumed one glass of alcohol, the rate of dissipation over an hour means that the individual would still have alcohol in their system, but not be under the influence of alcohol. If you still having doubts then Google is your friend.
As for the rest of this shit about being more polite and having manners... look fella, make ah f**king turn yes. If you don't like my tone then just feel free to bypass my comments. I was being polite when I said "your position is detached from reality"... if I wasn't being polite ah woulda tell yuh yuh talking shit, plain and simple.
-
Where did you learn that it dissipates after an hour? Not doubting yet, but not heard that. Either way, it doesn't require such a comment - please be more polite and have some manners.
Again my point still stands - if you're drinking before flying an aeroplane then I doubt your judgement, sober or not. It's about how you conduct yourself when you have the lives of several hundred people in your hands
Alcohol steadily dissipates from the system, beginning the minute after it's consumed. The rate of dissipation depends on the individual, and more specifically on their metabolic rate. For most people having consumed one glass of alcohol, the rate of dissipation over an hour means that the individual would still have alcohol in their system, but not be under the influence of alcohol. If you still having doubts then Google is your friend.
As for the rest of this shit about being more polite and having manners... look fella, make ah f**king turn yes. If you don't like my tone then just feel free to bypass my comments. I was being polite when I said "your position is detached from reality"... if I wasn't being polite ah woulda tell yuh yuh talking shit, plain and simple.
Look it's cool to have a conversation with you, but if you ain't got no manners then it can't go anywhere - if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, you don't have to accuse me of being detached from reality. If you seriously can't understand that it's common manners not to insult a guy in a conversation then you have the problem, not me.
Anyway. It takes an hour to get rid of a unit - shots in Trini (I know to my detriment) and America are 50 ml, which is 2 units - so a shot would take 2 hours give or take by that metric. Either way, my point (ignored in the last post) still stands - why is a pilot doing a shot before their flight? Be completely 100% sober and rested if you're going to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of people. Anything else and they're not weighing the risks well enough.
-
Look it's cool to have a conversation with you, but if you ain't got no manners then it can't go anywhere - if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, you don't have to accuse me of being detached from reality. If you seriously can't understand that it's common manners not to insult a guy in a conversation then you have the problem, not me.
Anyway. It takes an hour to get rid of a unit - shots in Trini (I know to my detriment) and America are 50 ml, which is 2 units - so a shot would take 2 hours give or take by that metric. Either way, my point (ignored in the last post) still stands - why is a pilot doing a shot before their flight? Be completely 100% sober and rested if you're going to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of people. Anything else and they're not weighing the risks well enough.
"...any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane."
That statement is founded on opinion, not fact. There is no factual basis for it, take offense if you want but it doesn't square with reality.
The reality is that one can safely operate an airplane with alcohol in one's system. Whether is wise or appropriate (or incompliance with company policy) to do so is another matter, but from a physiological standpoint it is entirely safe, whether it is trace amounts, small amounts or whatever- provided that the person's perception and psychomotor skills are not impaired.
As for the rate of dissipation, it depends on the individual, particularly the gender, height/weight of the individual and their body mass index and metabolic rate. You cannot make blanket comments about it takes 1 hour/unit. That simply isn't supported by the science.
Blood Alcohol Concentration Calculator (http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/blood-alcohol-bac-calculator)
-
Look it's cool to have a conversation with you, but if you ain't got no manners then it can't go anywhere - if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, you don't have to accuse me of being detached from reality. If you seriously can't understand that it's common manners not to insult a guy in a conversation then you have the problem, not me.
Anyway. It takes an hour to get rid of a unit - shots in Trini (I know to my detriment) and America are 50 ml, which is 2 units - so a shot would take 2 hours give or take by that metric. Either way, my point (ignored in the last post) still stands - why is a pilot doing a shot before their flight? Be completely 100% sober and rested if you're going to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of people. Anything else and they're not weighing the risks well enough.
"...any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane."
That statement is founded on opinion, not fact. There is no factual basis for it, take offense if you want but it doesn't square with reality.
The reality is that one can safely operate an airplane with alcohol in one's system. Whether is wise or appropriate (or incompliance with company policy) to do so is another matter, but from a physiological standpoint it is entirely safe, whether it is trace amounts, small amounts or whatever- provided that the person's perception and psychomotor skills are not impaired.
As for the rate of dissipation, it depends on the individual, particularly the gender, height/weight of the individual and their body mass index and metabolic rate. You cannot make blanket comments about it takes 1 hour/unit. That simply isn't supported by the science.
Blood Alcohol Concentration Calculator (http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/blood-alcohol-bac-calculator)
I think we got crossed wires - my argument isn't dependent on the physiological condition of the pilot, but rather what type of person would drink before flying. I've conceded that they might not be under the influence with a unit (but pointed out that a 'shot' was 2 units), although it still 'feels' wrong (without evidence to support that) that a pilot should imbibe any type of drug that has the potential to impair their judgement regardless of quantity
-
I think we got crossed wires - my argument isn't dependent on the physiological condition of the pilot, but rather what type of person would drink before flying. I've conceded that they might not be under the influence with a unit (but pointed out that a 'shot' was 2 units), although it still 'feels' wrong (without evidence to support that) that a pilot should imbibe any type of drug that has the potential to impair their judgement regardless of quantity
My wires are fine... which is why I stated that your comment was a matter of opinion (aka "it 'feels' wrong"), how we perceive things and how they are are two separate issues, hence my use of "reality" and my puzzlement as to why you would take offense to it.
At any rate, I think you're getting too far down into the weeds... it was a hypothetical situation that Deeks offered. For proponents of legalization, especially those who say that weed is no different from alcohol, let them ponder the situation. You gave your answer, I gave mine.
-
Look it's cool to have a conversation with you, but if you ain't got no manners then it can't go anywhere - if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, you don't have to accuse me of being detached from reality. If you seriously can't understand that it's common manners not to insult a guy in a conversation then you have the problem, not me.
Tirerais, from a Bakesian worldview, this exchange is the epitome of politeness. Be happy that he was not polite. ;)
-
Tirerais, from a Bakesian worldview, this exchange is the epitome of politeness. Be happy that he was not polite. ;)
Just Cool said something about you some months back and I'm starting to realize it's true... actually is a while now I realize it's true. For a grown ass man, with damn near adult, if not adult children, you love to engage in little gyul behavior. You forever throwing basket like ah little instigating-ass bitch. Is like you take over wherer West Coast leave off. Doh bother responding.
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.
when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.
when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......
If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.
-
how practical is it to draw the line at just weed? what happens for weed laced with other drugs? legalization will open door for other drugs. it's like saying "drink yuh coconut water but not a dropa scotch". won't work.
-
how practical is it to draw the line at just weed? what happens for weed laced with other drugs? legalization will open door for other drugs. it's like saying "drink yuh coconut water but not a dropa scotch". won't work.
I know right, people will want lsd, cocaine, and then the welfare crew will want crack, and the makers will want prescriptions removed, wait, they own it so laws don't apply to them.
Yuh right, just as how they allowed LGBT crew to be legally married and now yuh cyah walk down the road with out ah gay hitting on yuh and watching yuh bamsee.
-
now yuh cyah walk down the road with out ah gay hitting on yuh and watching yuh bamsee.
You can't fault gay men for watching yuh bamsee when you walking down the road with your pants under your bamsee
-
The slippery slope argument is total trash - we've mostly stopped at alcohol for a couple thousand years so I guess it doesn't apply for alcohol? Ironically, alcohol is considered more harmful by the academic community than weed - The Lancet did that famous comparison a couple years back. No free access to the paper, but wiki has a diagram of the findings; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.
when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......
If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.
not use but the neverCcomeC abuse...........it's inevitable just like alcohol and the great job being done to at least try to keep it under control in T&T.
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.
when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......
If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.
not use but the neverCcomeC abuse...........it's inevitable just like alcohol and the great job being done to at least try to keep it under control in T&T.
I don't think so as weed is not taboo in T&T. Weed is a "normal scene" for most people in T&T and as such a weed flex will be no scene really.
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.
when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......
If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.
not use but the neverCcomeC abuse...........it's inevitable just like alcohol and the great job being done to at least try to keep it under control in T&T.
I don't think so as weed is not taboo in T&T. Weed is a "normal scene" for most people in T&T and as such a weed flex will be no scene really.
no it's not a normal scene for most people.......
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.
when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......
If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.
not use but the neverCcomeC abuse...........it's inevitable just like alcohol and the great job being done to at least try to keep it under control in T&T.
I don't think so as weed is not taboo in T&T. Weed is a "normal scene" for most people in T&T and as such a weed flex will be no scene really.
no it's not a normal scene for most people.......
Strange, because the normal scene is that it's diverting too many resources. :devil:
-
If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities
Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.
when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......
If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.
not use but the neverCcomeC abuse...........it's inevitable just like alcohol and the great job being done to at least try to keep it under control in T&T.
I don't think so as weed is not taboo in T&T. Weed is a "normal scene" for most people in T&T and as such a weed flex will be no scene really.
no it's not a normal scene for most people.......
Strange, because the normal scene is that it's diverting too many resources. :devil:
and that is the truth :beermug: but with freed up resources it go still be salt
-
Tirerais, from a Bakesian worldview, this exchange is the epitome of politeness. Be happy that he was not polite. ;)
Just Cool said something about you some months back and I'm starting to realize it's true... actually is a while now I realize it's true. For a grown ass man, with damn near adult, if not adult children, you love to engage in little gyul behavior. You forever throwing basket like ah little instigating-ass bitch. Is like you take over wherer West Coast leave off. Doh bother responding.
Sorry to disappoint, I am responding
Your point is taken. I should not engage in posting these snipes or taking pot shots at you in this manner. I realize that I am like a moth drawn to a flame. I find it difficult to resist making tongue-in-cheek, acerbic or sarcastic comments to certain posters. I realize I tend to do this most often with you, JC and TT (when the latter two were active posters – incidentally, you and JC replies are quite similar; TT responded differently). Rather, I should engage directly or learn to ignore posts in which I am not an active participant.
In the future, I will refrain from these snipes or what you call “little gyul behaviour” which by the way, is no different than what you just posted.
But let me be clear in my opinion and not hide behind “little gyul behaviour”. I find that the persona you adopt on this forum to be abrasive. Tireais was very generous when he described your response as “impolite” or “bad manners”. I would describe it as “bullying”. I have challenged you on this before and you have countered with comments such as “Take that as ah insult if yuh want to... take it as a "personal insult" if it make yuh happy.”
What I find peculiar is that you have no need to adopt this persona. Your arguments are almost always spot on, articulate, thoughtful and logical. Yet you feel the need to throw in disparaging or belittling comments to underscore your point. Maybe in your profession, this is a useful characteristic. But on this forum? I don’t get it.
But that is my opinion and no one is forcing me to read your comments.
-
Your point is taken. I should not engage in posting these snipes or taking pot shots at you in this manner. I realize that I am like a moth drawn to a flame. I find it difficult to resist making tongue-in-cheek, acerbic or sarcastic comments to certain posters. I realize I tend to do this most often with you, JC and TT (when the latter two were active posters – incidentally, you and JC replies are quite similar; TT responded differently). Rather, I should engage directly or learn to ignore posts in which I am not an active participant.
In the future, I will refrain from these snipes or what you call “little gyul behaviour” which by the way, is no different than what you just posted.
But let me be clear in my opinion and not hide behind “little gyul behaviour”. I find that the persona you adopt on this forum to be abrasive. Tireais was very generous when he described your response as “impolite” or “bad manners”. I would describe it as “bullying”. I have challenged you on this before and you have countered with comments such as “Take that as ah insult if yuh want to... take it as a "personal insult" if it make yuh happy.”
What I find peculiar is that you have no need to adopt this persona. Your arguments are almost always spot on, articulate, thoughtful and logical. Yet you feel the need to throw in disparaging or belittling comments to underscore your point. Maybe in your profession, this is a useful characteristic. But on this forum? I don’t get it.
But that is my opinion and no one is forcing me to read your comments.
How is it "bullying" or "impolite" or "bad manners" for me to tell him that his POSITION is detached from reality? What about that was "disparaging" or "belittling" that it forced you weign in from the sidelines?? How else do you describe an opinion that is not supported by facts? He took my comment as a personal attack on him:
I'm wrong then I'm wrong, you don't have to accuse me of being detached from reality.
I rather suspect that you suffer from the same malaise that affected Tireasis, an initial failure to comprehend what was written.
-
Your point is taken. I should not engage in posting these snipes or taking pot shots at you in this manner. I realize that I am like a moth drawn to a flame. I find it difficult to resist making tongue-in-cheek, acerbic or sarcastic comments to certain posters. I realize I tend to do this most often with you, JC and TT (when the latter two were active posters – incidentally, you and JC replies are quite similar; TT responded differently). Rather, I should engage directly or learn to ignore posts in which I am not an active participant.
In the future, I will refrain from these snipes or what you call “little gyul behaviour” which by the way, is no different than what you just posted.
But let me be clear in my opinion and not hide behind “little gyul behaviour”. I find that the persona you adopt on this forum to be abrasive. Tireais was very generous when he described your response as “impolite” or “bad manners”. I would describe it as “bullying”. I have challenged you on this before and you have countered with comments such as “Take that as ah insult if yuh want to... take it as a "personal insult" if it make yuh happy.”
What I find peculiar is that you have no need to adopt this persona. Your arguments are almost always spot on, articulate, thoughtful and logical. Yet you feel the need to throw in disparaging or belittling comments to underscore your point. Maybe in your profession, this is a useful characteristic. But on this forum? I don’t get it.
But that is my opinion and no one is forcing me to read your comments.
How is it "bullying" or "impolite" or "bad manners" for me to tell him that his POSITION is detached from reality? What about that was "disparaging" or "belittling" that it forced you weign in from the sidelines?? How else do you describe an opinion that is not supported by facts? He took my comment as a personal attack on him:
I'm wrong then I'm wrong, you don't have to accuse me of being detached from reality.
I rather suspect that you suffer from the same malaise that affected Tireasis, an initial failure to comprehend what was written.
Your problem Bakes is that you don't let your argument stand, you instead have to resort to attacks of some sort or the other, usually in the final sentence. Your arguments stand and fall on their merit, yet you must belittle other positions that do not match up with yours. This is part of the parcel of bullying, and if you can't see what me and pecan are saying then I suggest you look back through your previous posts and delete all sentences that involve comments that could reasonably taken in offence.
-
Let's dissect the comment on being "detached from reality". While it may be accurate within the context of available facts, and you yourself have no intention on being impolite and bullying, I would argue that many people, if told directly that they are "detached from reality", would view that as an insult or if not an insult, then a "put down" or condescending jibe. You ask, "How else do you describe an opinion that is not supported by facts?" How about" "Tireais, you are misreading the facts, here is what I mean".
It all comes down to how you deliver the phrase. I suppose it is a "touchy feely" aspect that I have become aware of in dealing with HR issues in the workplace as well as attempting to resolve conflict between family or friends. Truly, many of us should have no emotional capital tied up in the Forum; for the most part, it is a faceless and anonymous environment. So why bother to apply social conventions that hold more weight in face-to-face interaction?. The problem with this is that most people read more into email, text msg or social media comments than they actually need to. I suppose it comes down to a matter of style. I am not likely to use the phrase "you are detached from reality" unless I wanted to deliver a barb or I was using it in a humorous fashion.
Even your statement that I suffer from "the same malaise that affected Tireasis" can be construed as a personal attack. That may be the reality in the true sense of the words when dissected, but my perception (wrong or right) is a reality. I have come to realize that that is your style. But even a statement of fact can be misconstrued as an insult. I suppose that asking posters to be sensitive to delivery style is unrealistic on my part - I have often been accused of being naive.
Seriously Bakes, I have concluded that you operate on a higher intellectual level than most on the forum. And the very nature of your intellect leaves no room for the more sensitive on the forum.
-
Let's dissect the comment on being "detached from reality". While it may be accurate within the context of available facts, and you yourself have no intention on being impolite and bullying, I would argue that many people, if told directly that they are "detached from reality", would view that as an insult or if not an insult, then a "put down" or condescending jibe. You ask, "How else do you describe an opinion that is not supported by facts?" How about" "Tireais, you are misreading the facts, here is what I mean".
Seriously Pecan, what is your deal? Can you appreciate the difference between "your POSITION [...] is detached from reality" and "YOU are detached from reality"? Did you even follow the dialogue leading to the exchange in question? Clearly you did not... or if you did you didn't understand what you were reading. The example you give makes no sense, this wasn't a situation where he was misreading facts, the man plain and simple said:
"any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane."
From a physiological stand point this simply isn't true and this was pointed out to him prior. He then stated that his position was "consistent", prompting my response. This is why I took issue with your comment, it seemed you were just too eager to jump in and take a pot shot as you called it, rather than having anything to add to the conversation. And now it seems clear that not only did you NOT have anything to add to the conversation, you clearly didn't even read what was taking place before jumping in, throwing words.
It all comes down to how you deliver the phrase. I suppose it is a "touchy feely" aspect that I have become aware of in dealing with HR issues in the workplace as well as attempting to resolve conflict between family or friends. Truly, many of us should have no emotional capital tied up in the Forum; for the most part, it is a faceless and anonymous environment. So why bother to apply social conventions that hold more weight in face-to-face interaction?. The problem with this is that most people read more into email, text msg or social media comments than they actually need to. I suppose it comes down to a matter of style. I am not likely to use the phrase "you are detached from reality" unless I wanted to deliver a barb or I was using it in a humorous fashion.
If you can quote me where I said this then maybe I would have something to answer to. The fact that you're here repeating something that I clearly did not say, and not only did I NOT say it, I even elaborated to tell you in my previous post what I DID say, and it still made no impression on you. You're still here repeating this inaccurate charge. I'm not even going to respond to the rest, as it goes off on some irrelevant tangent about online/offline decorum. People here who lime with me in person will tell you I am the same way whether online or offline, so no need for me to address this.
Even your statement that I suffer from "the same malaise that affected Tireasis" can be construed as a personal attack. That may be the reality in the true sense of the words when dissected, but my perception (wrong or right) is a reality. I have come to realize that that is your style. But even a statement of fact can be misconstrued as an insult. I suppose that asking posters to be sensitive to delivery style is unrealistic on my part - I have often been accused of being naive.
Seriously Bakes, I have concluded that you operate on a higher intellectual level than most on the forum. And the very nature of your intellect leaves no room for the more sensitive on the forum.
It has nothing to do with higher or lower intellect, simple common sense would suffice. How should I respond to you, since you didn't take the time to read the discussion in the thread, or you read it and misunderstood my comment... on the basis of that misunderstanding you decide to take an unsolicited "pot shot" at me... I point out to you that you are mischaracterizing my comment, I clarify for you that comment... and STILL you come back with the erroneous charge that I told this fella that HE is detached from reality? And I am not supposed to respond in an offended way I suppose?
No I wouldn't ever get on a plane knowing that a pilot had taken even a single shot before flying - any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane. Likewise, the definition of a drug is a substance that alters your body or mind, and any drug that has the potential to negatively impact your ability to pilot should absolutely be banned - you're playing with the lives of hundreds of people on board an aircraft whose most dangerous periods are take-off and landing - the parts that require the most concentration.
Drivers endanger typically single-figure individuals, rarely double figures. Pilots always endanger hundreds on a passenger plane, and double figures on the ground in a cargo plane. I genuinely can't believe anyone would be like "sure lets get on this plane with a pilot who has done a shot" - i mean what type of person thinks "yup definitely need a shot to fly this thing" - clearly their judgement is impaired sober let alone with a shot!
I find no conflict between the two - my position is consistent, hence why I couldn't understand the question. Are there people who'd be ok with their pilot taking a shot before flying?
This is simply not true... and I specifically said an hour before to allow for the acohol to dissipate from the body. Your position is "consistent" because it's detached from reality.
-
It has nothing to do with higher or lower intellect, simple common sense would suffice. How should I respond to you, since you didn't take the time to read the discussion in the thread, or you read it and misunderstood my comment... on the basis of that misunderstanding you decide to take an unsolicited "pot shot" at me... I point out to you that you are mischaracterizing my comment, I clarify for you that comment... and STILL you come back with the erroneous charge that I told this fella that HE is detached from reality? And I am not supposed to respond in an offended way I suppose?
I re-read the post and I see that you did state that his "position was detached from reality". I now realize that I was quoting him and not you. In truth, I had nothing of substance to add to the original debate - that is why I did not engage in the marijuana debate per se. I jumped in prematurely when I read Tireais comment about being you being impolite. Maybe my past disagreements with you have coloured my opinions.
But on a lighter side, your last reply was non-offensive even though I was clearly wrong with the reality comment.
-
I re-read the post and I see that you did state that his "position was detached from reality". I now realize that I was quoting him and not you. In truth, I had nothing of substance to add to the original debate - that is why I did not engage in the marijuana debate per se. I jumped in prematurely when I read Tireais comment about being you being impolite. Maybe my past disagreements with you have coloured my opinions.
But on a lighter side, your last reply was non-offensive even though I was clearly wrong with the reality comment.
:beermug:
-
It has been interesting to observe how decriminalization in Uruguay operates on ground level. Among other things, people get to grow up to 6 plants for personal consumption. In the meantime, the military is cultivating a crop that will be dispensed by the government. In the main doh, yuh doh walk dong de street and smell cannabis in any kind of rampant way.
It was intriguing to watch some ex-Israeli soldiers blaze ah fire normel sitting dong outside Subway a few yards away from a judiciary building following munching on 30cm sub combos. A couple 20 something aged locals raised eyebrows, but everyone else carried on normally. Business as usual seems to be the deal.
Never heard this version until this week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrBoASOj1oQ
-
Seeing that we navel string tied so tightly to the U.S., I would advise them not to at the moment. There Is confusion in the US between some states and the Feds. A Trini will go Colorado and feel at home among the weeds of wisdom, but end up in detention in DC.
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/RI471vxsoyc&feature=youtu.be
New video.
-
Legalize the herb and save the economy. The amount of industry that will be created will be a huge benefit. Especially for the petro based economies.
-
Jamaica not playing. Lawmakers in JA passed legislation decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CB_JAMAICA_DECRIMINALIZING_POT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CB_JAMAICA_DECRIMINALIZING_POT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
-
One man's ganja campaign
Susan Mohammed (Trinidad Express)
If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
So said self-proclaimed 'ganja activist' Kendell Mathura who has made a public declaration for the legalisation of marijuana, and has led a one-man demonstration hoping to catch the ear, and moreso the eye, of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
Mathura, 32, of Moruga, first emerged at a United National Congress Monday night forum in Khanhai Road, Barrackpore, where he held up a placard among an audience of hundreds which read "Legalise weed Tanty Kamala".
On May 24, he again took his demonstration to the People's Partnership fifth anniversary celebrations in Macoya, and stood close to the front of the stage holding another placard which read : "Legalise it and raise revenue".
"I got a lot of stigmatisation in the meeting. A lot of people came and told me 'put down that, they will lock you up'. But if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. I want to stand firm in this fight. There are a lot of people who will sign petitions that marijuana does good", he said.
Mathura told the Express in a telephone interview last Tuesday that he intends to attend as many political meetings where Persad-Bissessar will be speaking.
Mathura argued that there is a strong case for the decriminalisation of marijuana.
He believed that by the State doing that it will lead to solving some of the country's problems, to name a few, curb the crime rate, free up the bogged-down court system, increase the country's revenue, and spark entreprenuership.
"We could create a lot of young entrepreneurs, boost agriculture in the country, as well as its import/ export. There is a market for it, and we could cut unemployment. We could get chemical companies involved and launch the idea", said Mathura. "We have to have regulations, stipulations and control its use. We won't just have people walking down the road with a joint in their mouths. That is lawlessness. People should have only a certain amount on them for use, such as an ounce, and if they have more then lock them up", said Mathura.
He lamented that persons who are held with "one or two grammes of weed" are clogging the courts system and prisons, since their cases take a long time to complete.
He suggested that regulations such as an age limit for users, and designated areas for use, such as cafes, from reputable distributors should be put in place in its decriminalisation.
"People want to say marijuana is bad. But if someone does not like it, they will simply stop it. It's the same like alcohol. The only people who use alcohol are those who want it. And since cigarettes are not sold to persons under 18 then it should be similar for marijuana and for persons over 20", said Mathura.
Mathura promises to return to the next meeting where Persad-Bissessar will be speaking with "bigger and double sided placards" to impart his message.
-
Let Faris proceed accordingly. Don't be afraid to call the shot Mr. PM. Time to move on to more worthy issues of public policy.
-
Legalize the herb and save the economy. The amount of industry that will be created will be a huge benefit. Especially for the petro based economies.
Not sure that will survive the scrutiny of economic reality.