# now that it's mostly legal does anyone burn......



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

while riding?


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

I do on some rides - usually a Sativa heavy hybrid that leaves me more energetic. On long solo rides I will and on any ride with significant rain. The latter comes from an experience way back in '79 or '80. 

I was riding from Athens to Atlanta to visit my mom for Thanksgiving. It was raining pretty steadily all day and I was fairly miserable after having to stop once to fix a flat. I was riding along on a quiet rural road somewhere south of Bethlehem when an old pickup pulls up next to me and the driver calls out "Would you like a ride?" I answered that I was okay and he responded "Are you sure?" I looked over and he was holding a joint. I said, "Okay" and we loaded my bike in the back of the truck and drove off down the road smoking that joint. Our routes diverged after only a few miles but the rest of the cold rainy ride was a lot less miserable. Now when I am faced with a cold, rainy ride I will stop and smoke a little and then ride on with a much happier demeanor. It helps that I now live in Washington state where I can purchase legally in a store (for now).


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

^ i love that story! tell us another! please!

.

i will on occasion, especially if i'm riding to meet someone. i had a close call once when i wasn't altogether aware of my surroundings, so that kinda sticks in my mind. I'm certainly more energetic on my bike when going without.

an older friend of mine that i've done some rebuilds for has paid me in good stuff his son grows. it's a win-win.

he and i went on one 60 mile ride last year. we stopped several times to chill, eat, and hang by the river. each time, he smoked. and then hopped back on his vintage italian and hauled ass down the highway. it was rather impressive.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

While? No.

Before and after? Always.

:mad5:


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

MMsRepBike said:


> While? No.
> 
> Before and after? Always.
> 
> :mad5:



Well, in my college years a couple of friends and I tried to smoke a joint while riding. We quickly realized that the joint was burning way too fast due to the wind created by our riding pace. We decided to stop and finish it before continuing. Since then I have not smoked "while riding" but will take a stop on occasion for a quick hit before continuing with the ride.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

What a hoot. A thread on a respectable cycling site on cannabis! Who woulda known?

Smoking a couple of j's every day sure will cut into a rider's lung power. Then again, my lungs got hammered from 15 years of cigarettes. I do notice better lung power after a couple of weeks of not smoking weed, probably a measurable increase in VO2 max.

Back in ETX a couple of buddies and I used to ride all the time stoned. It was illegal, so we'd light up before the ride. We also had some interesting adventures into the cow pastures looking for mushrooms. The time we each ate one and then rode home was quite interesting. Energy levels were strong, along with heightened sensory perceptions.

Have never had any problems riding under the influence. In fact, aside from the slight VO2 max. handicap, cannabis enhances the experience. I hunker down and enjoy myself; situational awareness increases rather than diminishes, as long as I'm pay attention, which, stoned, ain't at all that hard. . Don't need to get blasted away, either. A couple of tokes will do it right.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

"Don't need to get blasted away, either. A couple of tokes will do it right."

And that is the joy of living in a state where it is legal. You can buy a gram of some decent weed and taking a toke or two before and/or during a ride gives you just the high you want - because you've been able to choose just the right strain. In college I would go through an ounce a month, now a gram lasts three months....


----------



## greatestalltime (Aug 20, 2012)

Damn. Another reason to miss firing up. My wife put an end to it because her brother gives it a bad name.


----------



## Devastazione (Dec 8, 2011)

I occasionally do with a stoner friend of mine. Problem is today's GMO weed is way too strong but in a bad way,so once I'm done puffing I'm done doing everything else for the rest of the day and that sucks,I'm basically turned into a zombie...


----------



## craiger_ny (Jun 24, 2014)

I used to but not much any more. The physical activity rides the buzz out so fast it doesn't seem worth it. Or maybe it's me getting older and being pickier about time, place and setting. Haven't actually burned in over a year though, everything gets vaporized now and I did notice a difference going from burning to vaping. I do partake on the more leisurely rides that I occasionally do with some older friends.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

factory feel said:


> while riding?


My company does work for the federal government so their position is that its illegal, period, no matter what state you live in and if you fail a test, you're fired


----------



## Upnorth (Jul 4, 2013)

Not only do we have to worry about stoned drivers on the road, we got the doobie brothers in the pack! Great......do us a favour and get jersey's with big leaf's on them.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

What am I missing

The thread starts with someone getting into a car with a driver smoking a joint, justified by the fact that it is legal to buy in Washington. Is it also legal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence? Explain how this is different from getting into a vehicle with a driver with an open beer.

With all of the comments about e bikers being dangerous because of a lack of handling skills, we now have posters talking about compromised skills like it is desirable


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

oh crap, stoned e-bikers terrorizing the M U T....


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Herbie said:


> What am I missing
> 
> The thread starts with someone getting into a car with a driver smoking a joint, justified by the fact that it is legal to buy in Washington. Is it also legal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence? Explain how this is different from getting into a vehicle with a driver with an open beer.
> 
> With all of the comments about e bikers being dangerous because of a lack of handling skills, we now have posters talking about compromised skills like it is desirable


 It is illegal to drive under the influence, just as it is to drive while drinking.


*Devastazione* wrote:
"I occasionally do with a stoner friend of mine. Problem is today's GMO weed is way too strong but in a bad way,so once I'm done puffing I'm done doing everything else for the rest of the day and that sucks,I'm basically turned into a zombie... "

Here is where legal weed becomes an advantage. You get to know not only what the strain is - indica tends to make you blotto while sativa tends to be an uplifting high (hybrids handle this best) - but you also get to know just how strong it is because the THC content is tested and listed. When you buy illegal cannabis you get what is there - and that tends to lean towards the indica heavy hybrids because that is what stoners want. However, people who just want a little buzz to help take the edge off their arthritis (or just the day) are helped extremely in legal states where they can buy a strain that serves just their purpose.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

i'm not debating whether legalizing is good or bad. However getting into a truck with someone and smoking while driving down the road is an issue. I've done some stupid things in my life, I just don't make it sound like it was a good experience. This is how I read your first post.

I would think it is pretty clear, riding while impaired is not something to be bragging about, legal or not.


----------



## harryman (Nov 14, 2014)

Define impaired. 

If I stay up all night and am a zombie, should I not ride my bike because I'm impaired? If I go to a brewery and have a single beer? Or one hit?

I live where it's legal, I don't use weed because I don't like the high, I don't like to smoke and edibles either do nothing or make me feel poisoned. To each their own though.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Herbie said:


> i'm not debating whether legalizing is good or bad. However getting into a truck with someone and smoking while driving down the road is an issue. I've done some stupid things in my life, I just don't make it sound like it was a good experience. This is how I read your first post.
> 
> I would think it is pretty clear, riding while impaired is not something to be bragging about, legal or not.


I was relating a story that happened in the 1970s. Deal with it. 

Cycling after taking a toke is not dangerous. Cycling while blotto is. If you don't know the difference, then we have nothing more to discuss. Those who do know the difference might enjoy the information.


----------



## Devastazione (Dec 8, 2011)

Well,maybe your mighty fine president won't keep it legal for long..


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

bradkay said:


> I was relating a story that happened in the 1970s. Deal with it.
> 
> Cycling after taking a toke is not dangerous. Cycling while blotto is. If you don't know the difference, then we have nothing more to discuss. Those who do know the difference might enjoy the information.


That's a bit like saying "I can hold my couple of beers really well, so what's the danger with me driving?". Just like with alcohol BAC, beyond a certain THC limit you are *legally* impaired- regardless if you think the MJ strain is benign or not.

Are you likely to get tested and busted for being high while biking? Very likely not unless you're involved in a serious accident, but there's no ambiguity about the legality of what you're talking about, even for states who have legalized recreational use.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

Define impaired 

Compromised. Statistically if you are a zombie from lack of sleep, you are impaired. There is no legal standard, but you are far more likely to be involved in an accident if you are driving. Truck drivers have limits on the number hours they can drive for this reason. 

Does one toke make you impaired? No, but do you stop at one toke, or do you continue until you feel the effects. Being impaired starts long befor being blotto. I will take you at your word about 1 or 2 tokes, but how many drivers have said, "I only had 2 beers, or I was barely buzzed.

Nothing more to discuss. You are correct. We understand each other quite well.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Devastazione said:


> Well,maybe your mighty fine president won't keep it legal for long..


Well, Trump's got his plate full chasing Muslim terrorists and Mexican rapists [and drug dealers!], so maybe he'll leave it up to the states to chase down pot heads driving under the influence. All the smokers I've known over the years generally drive like little old ladies or about the same as if they were straight. It is a little like learning a stick shift. Ya gotta pay attention, work with it, and don't get blasted away before going out. Alcohol never seems to work that way. 2 or 3 beers, and drivers don't give a sh!t. There's the problem, right there. Big difference. Portugal, Holland, and Colorado have had pretty good luck. The roads have not turned into killing fields since recreational pot got legalized.

I wouldn't want to ride a big event or race stoned, though. It wouldn't be much fun dealing with the unexpected all the time. But I wouldn't worry about someone else in the group being high. Exercise brings down the high to entirely manageable levels. So its not the big deal people may think it is.

The main thing is what the smoke and tar do to your lungs. It's counterproductive to the main reason most ride, physical fitness. Like any other drug, consume in moderation, know your capabilities, and it opens doors of perception enjoyable on a bike ride.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

I guess I'll trust that there's now a such thing as weed that doesn't impair. Back in the day that was known as fake and selling it was not conducive to keeping facial features in tact.

But anyway, what's the point of smoking weed that gives no impairment? 
I can't help but think anyone who says they smoke and aren't impaired is either wrong or for some reason wants to put smoke in their lungs for no apparent reason.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I guess I'll trust that there's now a such thing as weed that doesn't impair. Back in the day that was known as fake and selling it was not conducive to keeping facial features in tact.
> 
> But anyway, what's the point of smoking weed that gives no impairment?
> I can't help but think anyone who says they smoke and aren't impaired is either wrong or for some reason wants to put smoke in their lungs for no apparent reason.


Look up CBD.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

haven't smoked in ages, but when I did I distinctly recall not enjoying doing any type of sports while high.

tried running, cycling, swimming, basketball while high and the experiences were all pretty similar...the activity was not as fun and I wasn't as proficient as when I was straight.

tossing a frisbee around was ok...

riding on the road in traffic while stoned sounds irresponsible at best.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

MMsRepBike said:


> Look up CBD.


My wife wants ME to get a prescription so that I can buy CBD edibles for HER. She's in nearly constant (mild pain) from all of her running/training and would like something "natural" that doesn't affect her thinking.

I'm on the fence about it. My state allows medical use for a specific list of conditions of which I could *maybe* make a case for one (very painful muscle spasms in my upper back - pot DOES help with that) but I successfully manage that with exercise, stretching, and a new hot tub. 

The legit (but not legal) reason I think I'm a candidate for a prescription is that pot helps me with bouts of depression (ergo a lack of motivation and a voracious appetite for booze).

The REAL reason I use (prescription or not) is that it's fun for me and as a grown *ss man holding down a job and mortgage that's all the justification I need. 

I love to MTB and snowboard after a couple tokes as long as it's a sunny day. Not sure why that is. I do notice a generally enhanced feeling of being "in the zone" during physical activity (or even just staring at the yard while planning the next landscaping project).


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

How do you stand the skunky smell?


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

SauronHimself said:


> How do you stand the skunky smell?


Smell varies with the strain. Some smell like berries, etc. until you burn it.

I mostly use a vaporizer now and that helps A LOT with keeping the smell down. I keep the weed in the freezer and my bowls in the garage unless they're clean.


----------



## Cooper1960 (Oct 14, 2010)

I haven't smoked weed in thirty years, but...last year I hurt my hip moving a wood burning stove, lot's of pain and discomfort. A buddy of mine gave me a couple of morphine pills to help deal with the pain, he said they were very low strength. I took one and it stoned the hell out of me, I barely slept that night because I keep breaking out in sweats but the next day I got up and rode a century! The thing is I was still stoned, I felt OK as I was pedaling but every time I stopped I literally couldn't keep my eyes focused and was spaced out. Also I had trouble speaking, like my voice was stressed out. 

I ran into some riding buddies and they new instantly something was wrong with me, they wanted to call and get me a ride home but I wouldn't hear of it, I just went about my way. I most certainly was a danger to myself and probably a danger to anyone on the road.


----------



## Bikephelps (Jan 23, 2012)

I look at pot as a performance diminishing drug.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

Bikephelps said:


> I look at pot as a performance diminishing drug.


Swimphelps might disagree.

I bet it depends on the person and on the strain.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

dir-t said:


> I love to MTB and snowboard after a couple tokes as long as it's a sunny day. Not sure why that is.


yeah, skiing is the best. feels so liberating to smoke on the lift and then fly down the mountain in the bright, shining sun.

hiking high is fun too. but the trail needs to be smooth so you can really enjoy it.

i was thinking about the "sunny day" criteria yesterday after reading this thread -- agree completely.

when i went out yesterday, it was gusty and cold as hell. the last thing i wanted was a hightened sensation of the chill. brrrrrrr.


----------



## MaxKatt (May 30, 2015)

Fredrico said:


> Well, Trump's got his plate full chasing Muslim terrorists and Mexican rapists [and drug dealers!], so maybe he'll leave it up to the states to chase down pot heads driving under the influence. All the smokers I've known over the years generally drive like little old ladies or about the same as if they were straight. It is a little like learning a stick shift. Ya gotta pay attention, work with it, and don't get blasted away before going out. Alcohol never seems to work that way. 2 or 3 beers, and drivers don't give a sh!t. There's the problem, right there. Big difference. Portugal, Holland, and Colorado have had pretty good luck. The roads have not turned into killing fields since recreational pot got legalized.
> 
> I wouldn't want to ride a big event or race stoned, though. It wouldn't be much fun dealing with the unexpected all the time. But I wouldn't worry about someone else in the group being high. Exercise brings down the high to entirely manageable levels. So its not the big deal people may think it is.
> 
> The main thing is what the smoke and tar do to your lungs. It's counterproductive to the main reason most ride, physical fitness. Like any other drug, consume in moderation, know your capabilities, and it opens doors of perception enjoyable on a bike ride.



RE Trump. Between critical tweets, he's indicated where he stands on it.

<cite class="el-editorial-source" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: CNN, 'Helvetica Neue', Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700;">Washington (CNN)</cite>The White House said Thursday it expects law enforcement agents to enforce federal marijuana laws when they come into conflict with states where recreational use of the drug is permitted.

"I do believe you will see greater enforcement of it," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said regarding federal drug laws, which still list marijuana as an illegal substance.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

_


MaxKatt said:



RE Trump. Between critical tweets, he's indicated where he stands on it.

Click to expand...

_


MaxKatt said:


> The party of small government, state's rights, and personal responsibility.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

We are in the "General Cycling" forum- please leave the politics in it's proper forum.

Signed,
Everybody not interested in the politics forum


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Shel Silverstein


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

I stopped after my buddy developed moobs and had to have them cut out. Can't say for sure that it was the weed. Could have been from the heroin. Either way, I'm not taking any chances.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

cooskull said:


> We are in the "General Cycling" forum- please leave the politics in it's proper forum.
> 
> Signed,
> Everybody not interested in the politics forum


Yep. Don't matter to me. Its been illegal for so long, no big deal. We'll just revert back to the Mexican drug lords.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Cooper1960 said:


> I haven't smoked weed in thirty years, but...last year I hurt my hip moving a wood burning stove, lot's of pain and discomfort. A buddy of mine gave me a couple of morphine pills to help deal with the pain, he said they were very low strength. I took one and it stoned the hell out of me, I barely slept that night because I keep breaking out in sweats but the next day I got up and rode a century! The thing is I was still stoned, I felt OK as I was pedaling but every time I stopped I literally couldn't keep my eyes focused and was spaced out. Also I had trouble speaking, like my voice was stressed out.
> 
> I ran into some riding buddies and they new instantly something was wrong with me, they wanted to call and get me a ride home but I wouldn't hear of it, I just went about my way. I most certainly was a danger to myself and probably a danger to anyone on the road.


Come on man, morphine is serious stuff. You can't seriously be trying to say that pot will affect you that badly. 

To those who think that even one toke makes you dangerous on a bike - does half a beer make you so? One beer? Two beers? Knowing one's limits is a good thing. Some of us just like a light buzz - whether we get it from alcohol or pot. I don't do anything with large groups high, so I won't be out there is a big organized ride that way. But riding by myself or with a friend or two - that's my choice. The thread asked, I answered. You condemned... that's your issue, not mine.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

cooskull said:


> That's a bit like saying "I can hold my couple of beers really well, so what's the danger with me driving?". Just like with alcohol BAC, beyond a certain THC limit you are *legally* impaired- regardless if you think the MJ strain is benign or not.
> 
> Are you likely to get tested and busted for being high while biking? Very likely not unless you're involved in a serious accident, but there's no ambiguity about the legality of what you're talking about, even for states who have legalized recreational use.


It is more like the difference between drinking a 3.2% beer or drinking a double shot of Bacardi 151. One is going to put you over the limit while another might not. Know the difference.


----------



## harryman (Nov 14, 2014)

SauronHimself said:


> How do you stand the skunky smell?


That's actually my main complaint with weed in Colorado, the grows are terribly stinky and on a bike you can smell them riding by. It's a legit issue in commercial real estate, as well as with retail sales. It'll drive other tenants out.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

harryman said:


> That's actually my main complaint with weed in Colorado, the grows are terribly stinky and on a bike you can smell them riding by. It's a legit issue in commercial real estate, as well as with retail sales. It'll drive other tenants out.


Hmmm... this comment reminds me of a rider's comments in the last few miles of the Annual Assault on Mt Mitchell (I didn't know him - just another rider in a big event). As we were ascending up through the Canadian Fir zone I made the comment that I loved the smell of those trees. He took an exaggerated whiff and said "I know what you mean. It smells almost as good as pot!"


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bradkay said:


> Hmmm... this comment reminds me of a rider's comments in the last few miles of the Annual Assault on Mt Mitchell (I didn't know him - just another rider in a big event). As we were ascending up through the Canadian Fir zone I made the comment that I loved the smell of those trees. He took an exaggerated whiff and said "I know what you mean. It smells almost as good as pot!"


Heck yeah. 

The smell is the incense of understanding and love, just like back on Haight Street in '67. We compared it to Indians sitting down together sharing the peace pipe. This in marked contrast to the rutting, fighting, shouting, wild eyed, nasty, vomiting, beer boozers out crashing their cars wantonly into the power poles after an evening of drunken excess. Pot doesn't do that to people.


----------



## Bikephelps (Jan 23, 2012)

I'd always found it performance diminishing (although I didn't care) until I found Sativa.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

I am all in favor of people altering their consciousness in any way they see fit. 

However, in situations where a moment of distraction can lead to death, death caused by someone ELSE'S actions, I don't see the pay off being worth the risk.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> I am all in favor of people altering their consciousness in any way they see fit.
> 
> However, in situations where a moment of distraction can lead to death, death caused by someone ELSE'S actions, I don't see the pay off being worth the risk.


And riding a bicycle is likely to lead to someone else's death?


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

bradkay said:


> It is more like the difference between drinking a 3.2% beer or drinking a double shot of Bacardi 151. One is going to put you over the limit while another might not. Know the difference.


For the record I'm not condemning pot smokers. In fact I voted for legalization here in Colorado even though I don't use it, mainly because I do believe it is a less dangerous substance than alcohol.

Since MJ has so many unknowns because it can't be scientifically studied due to it's drug classification under federal law, Colorado has had a hard time defining what the THC limit for driving (and by extension bike riding) impairment should be. Anecdotally hospital reports seem to indicate a small percentage of new users suffer severe psychotic reactions at THC levels that are no problem for most other users.

I guess my point of all this is this: Colorado and a few other states have, with considerable risk and unknowns, legalized recreational use. As someone who voted for this "experiment" I expect users to obey the law we put into place, even if the laws seem a bit conservative at first until we get some data. In CO this means not smoking in public and keeping THC levels below a certain level when driving/bicycling. To me this is a bit like the bike riders who blatantly blow through stop signs and lights and give cycling a bad reputation to non-cyclists- don't ruin your chance to make a favorable impression!


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

bradkay said:


> And riding a bicycle is likely to lead to someone else's death?


Far less likely than driving a car. But it can happen. Force an emergency swerve that takes them off an embankment, for example.

However, I was talking about how someone else's action *in a car* could kill a cyclist, and how a distracted cyclist is less able to respond to such threats quickly.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

QuiQuaeQuod said:


> Far less likely than driving a car. But it can happen. Force an emergency swerve that takes them off an embankment, for example.
> 
> However, I was talking about how someone else's action *in a car* could kill a cyclist, and how a distracted cyclist is less able to respond to such threats quickly.


Then we can assume that you are also adamantly against the use of handlebar mounted GPS devices or cellphones using apps like "Map My Ride" or "Strava"? 

After all, a moment's inattention might cause someone's death.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

bradkay said:


> Then we can assume that you are also adamantly against the use of handlebar mounted GPS devices or cellphones using apps like "Map My Ride" or "Strava"?
> 
> After all, a moment's inattention might cause someone's death.


I don't think my tone was one of adamantium. 

I don't use GPS or Strava or a cell when riding. If I did, it would be for data collection, and any looking at them would be on the order of a glance at the speedo in the car. A brief glance as part of my general scanning of the situation. For anything longer, a second or two, I would assess when would be a good time to do that (straight section of road, no traffic.) If I had to do more, like download something or set something up, I would pull over.

Car accidents are caused by changing radio stations all the time. If people check traffic before changing stations, then the risk is reduced. Being situationally aware requires a degree of focus, focus which pot will affect. As I said, I don't see the pay off as being worth the risk.


----------



## Lrobby99 (Nov 10, 2014)

No, I have not. Would consider it with the Sativa one guy here speaks _highly _of. 
But gunk in your airways cannot be good.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

bradkay said:


> Then we can assume that you are also adamantly against the use of handlebar mounted GPS devices or cellphones using apps like "Map My Ride" or "Strava"?
> 
> After all, a moment's inattention might cause someone's death.


I don't use these, but if I did, I would only check the screen when it is safe to do so. That's the difference. With screens you can choose to be safe. When stoned you are eliminating the option of choosing to be safe.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

Wow - I go riding to get a natural high, I don't need to get high to go riding...


----------



## jasnooks (Feb 1, 2017)

TmB123 said:


> Wow - I go riding to get a natural high, I don't need to get high to go riding...


I admire you, sir


----------



## jasnooks (Feb 1, 2017)

I was gonna go for a ride, but..

https://youtu.be/WeYsTmIzjkw


----------



## jasnooks (Feb 1, 2017)

Just in case you guys don't know my opinion on this subject..

https://youtu.be/OFGgbT_VasI


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

TmB123 said:


> Wow - I go riding to get a natural high, I don't need to get high to go riding...


This :thumbsup:


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

TmB123 said:


> Wow - I go riding to get a natural high, I don't need to get high to go riding...


That only lasts for a few hours after the ride.

What about the other 21 hours of the day?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

TmB123 said:


> Wow - I go riding to get a natural high, I don't need to get high to go riding...


That is one enduring fact that stuck with me over the years! So true. Get the heart rate up, endorphins kick in, and the road is yours! :thumbsup:

MM, two tokes will loosen up the mind before the ride. It'll wear off in the next 20 minutes and you'll be in the zone. Save the stuff for later that night when you have to rehab those muscles. Cannabis has subtle pain relieving properties.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

_Wow - I go riding to get a natural high, I don't need to get high to go riding..._

I just read an article that claimed athletes have a better time smoking grass than non-athletes because we're already used to, and craving, the endorphin rush and that our repeated exposure to the rush results in an increase in our naturally occurring THC receptors.

Maybe you should try it.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

factory feel said:


> while riding?


I didn't realize that it was ever illegal to be stupid?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

bradkay said:


> Then we can assume that you are also adamantly against the use of handlebar mounted GPS devices or cellphones using apps like "Map My Ride" or "Strava"?
> 
> After all, a moment's inattention might cause someone's death.


Good point. What strain of weed is it that allows the user to control if he's stoned or not being glancing down or not?


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

TmB123 said:


> Wow - I go riding to get a natural high, I don't need to get high to go riding...


Why would you call it a 'need'?? Like you presume there exists some dependency or character flaw involved (ie prejudice). You also don't 'need' to use disc brakes either, nor ride on carbon, use Strava nor put electrolyte in the water bottle either.

never tried weed before a ride myslef. might be worth a try if I 'want' to some day, not because I 'need' to (heck have only tried the stuff twice in my life)


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

MMsRepBike said:


> That only lasts for a few hours after the ride.
> 
> What about the other 21 hours of the day?


Why do you need to be high all day? Is your life really that shitty and unfulfillng that you need to get high to escape from it?
I was just surprised at the number of comments where people seemed to need to have a smoke before enjoying a ride. Different strokes and all that I guess.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

TmB123 said:


> Why do you need to be high all day? Is your life really that shitty and unfulfillng that you need to get high to escape from it?
> I was just surprised at the number of comments where people seemed to need to have a smoke before enjoying a ride. Different strokes and all that I guess.


I must've missed those comments. I don't remember reading where anyone said they "need" to get high to do anything. 

Some of us just enjoy adding a little extra "oomph" to our fun experiences. Doesn't mean that we "need" anything to do them. I had a 3 year window where I didn't use marijuana and I continued with every other aspect of my life just as I did before and since.

How do you feel about people who drink coffee? It tends to make me jittery and lacking in focus. I usually don't drink it before bike rides but I don't denigrate the degenerate addicts that do.


----------



## FreeRojo (Apr 21, 2008)

So...rather than "couchlock" we now have a "bikelock"


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

.......


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

I feel like riding a bike after a few tokes or a beer or two is not dangerous.

Now, riding with an endorphin buzz could be lethal.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

TmB123 said:


> I don't need to get high to go riding...


do you also interrupt those having wine with dinner, letting them know you can enjoy a meal without *the need* to drink alcohol? does it make you feel good or superior? does that kind of behavior give you a "natural high"?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Good point. What strain of weed is it that allows the user to control if he's stoned or not being glancing down or not?


With weed, one can go along stoned and happy and immediately "go straight" when an emergency comes up. The mental equipment is not impaired. One can easily apply himself to meet the challenges. I drive really well "under the influence." Senses open up and situational awareness is enhanced. 

Alcohol works exactly the opposite. Drunks don't give a damn. They get dopey, lose motor control, and crash. If a stoner smoked that much weed, he'd fall asleep on the couch and wake up hours later refreshed, no hangover. Weed is right above caffeine in addictive properties. It just isn't that big a deal.


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

bradkay said:


> Well, in my college years a couple of friends and I tried to smoke a joint while riding. We quickly realized that the joint was burning way too fast due to the wind created by our riding pace. We decided to stop and finish it before continuing.


You need(ed) a bicycle bong, mounted on the handlebars.


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

bradkay said:


> Then we can assume that you are also adamantly against the use of handlebar mounted GPS devices or cellphones using apps like "Map My Ride" or "Strava"?
> 
> After all, a moment's inattention might cause someone's death.


Totally opposed to anything distracting me from enjoying my ride. 
Stuff that Garmin/Strava/mapping app/cellphone in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

DaveG said:


> My company does work for the federal government so their position is that its illegal, period, no matter what state you live in and if you fail a test, you're fired


 Yup, that's my case as well. And my company loves to do drug tests on people.


----------



## dougfresh (Aug 3, 2015)

Devastazione said:


> I occasionally do with a stoner friend of mine. Problem is today's GMO weed is way too strong but in a bad way,so once I'm done puffing I'm done doing everything else for the rest of the day and that sucks,I'm basically turned into a zombie...


Today's weed is not GMO. It's simply the product of selective breeding.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> I drive really well "under the influence." Senses open up and situational awareness is enhanced.


Even by your standards that's a real gem. Its a fact that weed impairs cognitive functions. Either you're an exception to science or you're posting stupid stuff on the internet.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)




----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

I find that I have much better control of my driving after a six pack of good beer. It wakens my senses and allows me to focus on my driving.


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

*.... and another story*



blackfrancois said:


> .....and i went on one 60 mile ride last year. we stopped several times to chill, eat, and hang by the river. each time, he smoked. and then hopped back on his vintage italian and hauled ass down the highway. it was rather impressive.


i once rode with a guy I thought was a thin lightweight lightweight on a riverside road. At the 1/2 way point (and the only town) we stopped for a lite lunch and a beer. The dude had a hollow leg for the beer and 32-48ozs later we 'walked' out. With cold cycling legs i had to make old-man excuses for 'processed beer stops' while i sobered, and he coulda powered all of the last 30miles. It's enough to drive a man to smoke!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Even by your standards that's a real gem. Its a fact that weed impairs cognitive functions. Either you're an exception to science or you're posting stupid stuff on the internet.


Never tried it, eh? . I'm talking about two tokes, man. Leave the bong at home. :yesnod: THC is a psychotropic substance, an upper. Alcohol is a downer. It literally shuts off the brain and cognitive ability. 

Yes, driving slightly high takes discipline and concentration. I wouldn't recommend it. Just sayin' LEO hasn't had big problems since recreational pot was legalized in CO, precisely for the reason I cite above. Much safer than booze or painkillers.

Ok?


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Even by your standards that's a real gem. Its a fact that weed impairs cognitive functions. Either you're an exception to science or you're posting stupid stuff on the internet.


not in the same way as alcohol does. it is a different drug, different effect. a couple puffs affecting the brain is like how a helium kids balloon affects the trajectory of a jetliner. It is not a binary . high-vs-not high thing. dose dependent.

Consider *cognitive impairment*, which is conscious intelligent info processing and has nothing to do with action-reaction time. Now cycling is not an activity that requires much cognition or intelligence. In fact it is a pretty dumb thing to engage in. Half the planet have less than average cognitive function too. So a physics prof might have to smoke a doobie or two to just get his cognition functioning down to near average human.

However, consider alcohol, which has a more direct effect on *reaction time* than THC - which is a different thing than cognition. Reaction time is subconscious, a deeper reptilian brain function we all depend on in traffic. But THC does not have this same effect, as per this NIH study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/600655

also alcohol has a completely different effect on inhibitions too, as we all know. Weed is known to heigten inhibitions whiile alcohol definitely always reduce inhibitions - more likely to make rash/risky decisions/choices on alcohol. It is a different drug.. different as in not the same and of a different category.

there. my psych degree not a complete waste of effort I guess, LOL


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Never tried it, eh? . I'm talking about two tokes, man. Leave the bong at home. :yesnod: THC is a psychotropic substance, an upper. Alcohol is a downer. It literally shuts off the brain and cognitive ability.
> 
> Yes, driving slightly high takes discipline and concentration. I wouldn't recommend it. Just sayin' LEO hasn't had big problems since recreational pot was legalized in CO, precisely for the reason I cite above. Much safer than booze or painkillers.
> 
> Ok?


What you said and what I was responding to was: I drive really well "under the influence." Senses open up and *situational awareness is enhanced.* 

The fact that booze is worse doesn't make you right. 

and yeah I've tried it which is why I think only a complete moron or someone immune to science would think it's effects results in improved driving ability.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> What you said and what I was responding to was: I drive really well "under the influence." Senses open up and *situational awareness is enhanced.*
> 
> The fact that booze is worse doesn't make you right.


straw man. binary logic error again. seems you don't care to understand human physiology?

alcohol does not enhance any human skills like awareness or reaction time. Does the opposite. THC is different. Does not affect awareness or reaction time much, it alters a person's perspective, plays with emotions. However doing heavy dosage is like anything we ingest (heck even water)... harmful to our physiology.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

BCSaltchucker said:


> straw man. binary logic error again. seems you don't care to understand human physiology?
> 
> alcohol does not enhance any human skills like awareness or reaction time. Does the opposite.


So I quote what someone else said about weed and you respond as if it's something I said about booze.....and I'm the one who isn't understanding something? um, okay.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

The bigger question relates to the need to use substances to get high on life. I'd recommend that we start a "losers" forum for those who do.

I am in favor of legalization of all drugs. The money collected from taxes and endangerment fines could be used to build the prisons and asylums needed to permanently house those who endanger responsible people.


Herbie said:


> Define impaired
> 
> Compromised. Statistically if you are a zombie from lack of sleep, you are impaired. There is no legal standard, but you are far more likely to be involved in an accident if you are driving. Truck drivers have limits on the number hours they can drive for this reason.
> 
> ...


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> The bigger question relates to the need to use substances to get high on life. I'd recommend that we start a "losers" forum for those who do.
> 
> I am in favor of legalization of all drugs. The money collected from taxes and endangerment fines could be used to build the prisons and asylums needed to permanently house those who endanger responsible people.



And the even bigger-than-that question is, drugs or no drugs, why do people feel the need to get high from life at all?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

BCSaltchucker said:


> not in the same way as alcohol does. it is a different drug, different effect.


yes booze is different and isn't the topic of the thread. 
Two wrongs still don't make a right and using the fact that booze is worse doesn't make driving stoned a good idea.

Angel Dust is worse the booze. That's why I figure pounding a 12-ey and going out for a ride is okay.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> ...THC is a psychotropic substance, an upper. Alcohol is a downer. ...


This is why it's important to carefully titrate one against the other to optimize efficacy for a particular activity.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

looigi said:


> This is why it's important to carefully titrate one against the other to optimize efficacy for a particular activity.


Well, it would be nice if more fun lovers would give up booze, now that pot is becoming a viable alternative. Getting boozers to switch over to cannabis would be difficult, though. Alcohol is highly addictive. So better if cultural influences come into play, like they did for a time in the 60s. It didn't last due to driving pot smokers into the closet so to speak, for fear of being arrested and sent to prison.

The experiences in Holland and Portugal were much different. They didn't stubbornly stick to criminalizing users, hence it developed into a socially acceptable activity. Once people found out pot wasn't that big a deal, they didn't flock to it as naysayers expected. 

We have a huge problem with heroin, all from the opioid pain killers prescribed legally by doctors. Pot smokers don't generally go over to these downers, unless they brought their own mental problems to the party, and then most found pot inadequate to drown out their sorrows. So pot use didn't turn out to be the gateway drug feared by control freaks.

Pot is about as addictive as coffee. Users generally don't mix booze and pot. The highs aren't compatible. So they aren't nearly as likely to be driving drunk. Pain killers and the blizzard of drugs for every problem under the sun, including anxiety and depression, are the gateway drugs to opioids, not pot. So what's the problem? Puritanical guilt over anything that gives pleasure.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

xxl said:


> And the even bigger-than-that question is, drugs or no drugs, why do people feel the need to get high from life at all?


Because it's a once in a lifetime experience and If you don't ef it up, it's an awesome journey. The beauty is, most of us chart our own course.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Because it's a once in a lifetime experience and If you don't ef it up, it's an awesome journey. The beauty is, most of us chart our own course.


And no better place to say that but in a road bike forum! :thumbsup: 

Life has indeed been an awesome journey. The challenges overcome while riding a bike, the suffering, the accomplishments you didn't think you had in you, the ability of the body to handle intense stress and come back stronger, carried over into generally great health. 

Most of my fellows are either dead by their early 70s, or are overweight, full of cholesterol, diabetic, and well on their way out of this awesome journey. For me, cycling has become the metaphor of life itself: move it or lose it! Never give up. The body is superbly conditioned, ready to suffer through the adversities! When getting depressed from the aches and pains of old age, I glance over at the bike. It's like Jesus on the Cross, "Yes you can! It ain't over 'til its over! Ride the bike!"

A couple of tokes before the ride just enhances the experience, works the endorphins the body naturally produces riding the bike.

Everything in moderation, as Ben Franklin said. But don't lock yourself in a closet. Get out and taste the pleasures life offers! It'll be over before you know it! Yes, we chart our own courses. They take many turns. It's how well we deal with these turns that keeps us on the road. Yessir. I've learned a hell of a lot, made many mistakes, but have no regrets. Regrets won't get me to the top of the next hill.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SantaCruz said:


> i once rode with a guy I thought was a thin lightweight lightweight on a riverside road. At the 1/2 way point (and the only town) we stopped for a lite lunch and a beer. The dude had a hollow leg for the beer and 32-48ozs later we 'walked' out. With cold cycling legs i had to make old-man excuses for 'processed beer stops' while i sobered, and he coulda powered all of the last 30miles. It's enough to drive a man to smoke!


hey, man. glad to see ya checked in.

and you bring up a good point. i think it's a lot more enjoyable to ride when smoking a little rather than drinking a lot!

good times. B^)


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

blackfrancois said:


> hey, man. glad to see ya checked in.
> 
> and you bring up a good point. i think it's a lot more enjoyable to ride when smoking a little rather than drinking a lot!
> 
> good times. B^)


Or the guy with the hollow leg could hold his liquor!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I think you're confusing "tasting life's pleasures" with masking reality. 
Try facing life head on once. You may find sobriety and self respect more rewarding than the stupor.


Fredrico said:


> And no better place to say that but in a road bike forum! :thumbsup:
> 
> Life has indeed been an awesome journey. The challenges overcome while riding a bike, the suffering, the accomplishments you didn't think you had in you, the ability of the body to handle intense stress and come back stronger, carried over into generally great health.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think you're confusing "tasting life's pleasures" with masking reality.
> Try facing life head on once. You may find sobriety and self respect more rewarding than the stupor.


You're making some erroneous judgments on my character based on my approval of cannabis, and no doubt my espoused fealty to my vintage steel Italian road bikes from a time when bikes were fully manual instruments. 

THC does not mask reality, sorry. Its an upper, like coke. Not a downer like alcohol or opioids. You got that wrong. Just don't get blasted away. Enjoy the endorphins. Everything in moderation! 

Self respect is an entirely other issue. My self respect is intact, thank you. Amazing the social transformation in CO upon decriminalizing weed. Do you think the gentlemen at the local sidewalk cafe sipping a glass of wine from the Tuscany hillsides have no self respect? That's what its like in CO with pot smokers. The overwhelming majority are productive citizens just like you. Everyone is cool with it. This may be news to those who associate pot with down in the dumps failures about to score heroin and give it all up. Much different crowd.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

blackfrancois said:


> do you also interrupt those having wine with dinner, letting them know you can enjoy a meal without *the need* to drink alcohol? does it make you feel good or superior? does that kind of behavior give you a "natural high"?


Thanks for the negative rep numbnuts.
When exactly did I say that I interrupt people from having a smoke and tell them they shouldn't do it, let me know, ok?
And yes, people seem to *need* to have to smoke so they can get high and get MORE enjoyment out of an activity. They can't get the high without having a smoke, so yes, they NEED to. They may WANT to get high, but they NEED to smoke to get it, make sense?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

TmB123 said:


> Thanks for the negative rep numbnuts.
> When exactly did I say that I interrupt people from having a smoke and tell them they shouldn't do it, let me know, ok?
> And yes, people seem to *need* to have to smoke so they can get high and get MORE enjoyment out of an activity. They can't get the high without having a smoke, so yes, they NEED to. They may WANT to get high, but they NEED to smoke to get it, make sense?


No man. When out of weed, I jump on my bike and get the endorphins by riding that sucker. Always works great. Absolutely no "need." 

Weed is no longer the guilty pleasure scored from the shady drug dealer watching his back for the cops. Its more like a good cup of coffee or glass of wine with dinner, like blackfrancois sez. :yesnod: 

Fat people I've known "need" a bag of potato chips every day. Others can't face the day without a strong cup of coffee. Its all in the mind. Pot is not physically addictive.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Pot is not physically addictive.


It may not be physically addictive, but people still chase the high.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

TmB123 said:


> It may not be physically addictive, but people still chase the high.


Sure. It gives a better psychotropic buzz than wine, a cigarette, or coffee. But users aren't climbing the walls when their stash is gone. 

The only problem with daily users might be getting to sleep at night. They can substitute a Tylenol PM. The high doesn't take over. One can work with it. Its the only recreational drug users lay down after a few tokes and forget where they put it!


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

TmB123 said:


> Thanks for the negative rep numbnuts.


i didn't give you a negative rep. i have never given negative rep to anyone.

so you're either lying, confused, or there is some other problem that a mod might need to know.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

TmB123 said:


> And yes, people seem to *need* to have to smoke so they can get high and get MORE enjoyment out of an activity. They can't get the high without having a smoke, so yes, they NEED to. They may WANT to get high, but they NEED to smoke to get it, make sense?


no, it doesn't.

you have a narrow mentality to something you don't participate in.

don't worry. it's not uncommon.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

blackfrancois said:


> i didn't give you a negative rep. i have never given negative rep to anyone.
> 
> so you're either lying, confused, or there is some other problem that a mod might need to know.


no you didn't, sorry, my apologies, it was BCSaltchucker, replied to the wrong person, rest of the post stands though.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

TmB123 said:


> no you didn't, sorry, my apologies, it was BCSaltchucker, replied to the wrong person, statement still stands though.


so does mine.

and thanks for the apology.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

blackfrancois said:


> no, it doesn't.
> 
> you have a narrow mentality to something you don't participate in.
> 
> don't worry. it's not uncommon.


Ive tried it, been there, done that. 
Care to explain how you can get high on weed without needing to smoke it first?


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

blackfrancois said:


> so does mine.
> 
> and thanks for the apology.


no probs, but where did I say that I interrupted people and told them not to do it?


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

TmB123 said:


> no probs, but where did I say that I interrupted people and told them not to do it?


post #69 came off a little more snarky than i wanted. sorry.

it was a question, not a statement. it referred to your use of "need." there's a big difference between need, want, and just "why not?"

i rode today. i didn't smoke. I don't need to smoke to enjoy my ride. if i did smoke before, that doesn't mean i needed to. it just means i did.

smoking is not the same as vomiting. when one vomits, he usually very much needs to do so. it's a necessity. it can't be helped.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

blackfrancois said:


> post #69 came off a little more snarky than i wanted. sorry.
> 
> it was a question, not a statement. it referred to your use of "need." there's a big difference between need, want, and just "why not?"
> 
> ...


Thats fine, internet forums are a shocking place to try and have a conversation at the best of times.

To me it was question that didn't make sense, a question to a scenario that I hadn't presented because at no stage did I say you shouldn't do it, it just surprised me that so many people did. My use of the word "need" is that you need to smoke to get high, not that it was an addiction that you "had" to do.

I understand the diference between want and need, but reading through the first few pages of this thread (which is about smoking and riding) showed numerous people lighting up to make various activities (cycling, skiing, hiking etc) more enjoyable. The context of the posts was very much about smoking to enjoy something more than what you might otherwise, or "more oomph" as someone said, not that you couldn't do or enjoy those activities without.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Because it's a once in a lifetime experience and If you don't ef it up, it's an awesome journey. The beauty is, most of us chart our own course.


Sure, so why do you feel the need to "get high" just to enjoy it?


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

TmB123 said:


> Ive tried it, been there, done that.
> Care to explain how you can get high on weed without needing to smoke it first?


A useful metaphor might help: I _need_ to eat. I _want_ a lobster tail. 

For stoners: I _need_ to enjoy life. I _want_ to smoke pot.

YMMV.

Plus, in this day and age of edibles, "dosing" and such, non-combustible marijuana products are really catching fire. I just saw a short clip on a Cali winery that markets a marijuana-infused wine--which is really going to stretch the boundaries of "drug" abuse.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

TmB123 wrote:
"I understand the diference between want and need, but reading through the first few pages of this thread (which is about smoking and riding) showed numerous people lighting up to make various activities (cycling, skiing, hiking etc) more enjoyable. The context of the posts was very much about smoking to enjoy something more than what you might otherwise, or "more oomph" as someone said, not that you couldn't do or enjoy those activities without."


So you have a problem with people deciding that a little buzz makes an activity more enjoyable? Why does that bother you?

The vast majority of my rides or hikes - and life, for that matter - is enjoyed without the use of pot, alcohol, caffeine or anything. However, on occasion I find that a little buzz from a toke is also enjoyable and I have found that it mixes well with cycling and hiking. It especially works on really long rides or rainy rides where other discomforts might turn the day miserable - a light buzz helps me ignore those discomforts and pay attention to the joys of the ride. 

And those who keep posting these self-righteous "you need to try sobriety" should just get over themselves. From what I can surmise from the posts, those mentioning that they like a little toke now and then on a ride are people who live full, productive lives - otherwise they couldn't afford the nice bikes and time off to take those long rides.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

bradkay said:


> TmB123 wrote:
> 
> So you have a problem with people deciding that a little buzz makes an activity more enjoyable? Why does that bother you?


No, it doesn't bother me, at all, as long as it doesn't effect me you can light yourself on fire for all I care if that's what floats your boat.

BTW, there are a lot of rich, successful people with productive lives who are nothing but sad depressed individuals. Don't confuse successful with fulfilling.


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

No one posted a picture of Jeff Spicoli on a bike?


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

blackfrancois said:


> and you bring up a good point. i think it's a lot more enjoyable to ride when smoking a little rather than drinking a lot! good times.


Riding and laughing
And telling some jokes,
Along the _____ (Skagit) river rapids
Always fun, & good 
For burning some tokes!


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

^ haha.

today's springtime weather (and toke) made me feel the same sorta way -- wanting to write sing-songy poems of riding the 1960 paramount in sweater, scarf and cap!


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

This thread brought back some old memories. What a great song to be listening to on same said ride!
https://youtu.be/3XqyGoE2Q4Y


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

redondoaveb said:


> This thread brought back some old memories. What a great song to be listening to on same said ride!
> https://youtu.be/3XqyGoE2Q4Y


And in this Age of Opiods, John's message is ever so topical!

"...the dealer is a man with the love grass in his hand, oh but the pusher is a monster, he's not a natural man...."


----------



## TheYoungConnoisseur (Jan 17, 2017)

don't think this was asked but isn't that DUI?


----------



## charliethetuna (Jul 11, 2009)

7 more years. subject to random testing at work.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

TheYoungConnoisseur said:


> don't think this was asked but isn't that DUI?


is riding after having a single glass of beer a DUI?


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

BCSaltchucker said:


> is riding after having a single glass of beer a DUI?


That probably depends on where you live.
Around here, booze has a DUI limit of .05, drugs like hooch and meth etc are zero tollerance, so yes, legally, drugs are DUI, booze isn't.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

TmB123 said:


> That probably depends on where you live.
> Around here, booze has a DUI limit of .05, drugs like hooch and meth etc are zero tollerance, so yes, legally, drugs are DUI, booze isn't.


The original post was asking about places where the states have legalized recreational marijuana. AFAIK, all these states have a legal limit on THC in an attempt to make it relatively equal with alcohol. So a non-regular user who is cycling with a slight buzz is not likely to be DUI. The problem for regular users is that while the effect of THC wears off relatively quickly the measurable amount in your body doesn't, so you can register as DUI even if you haven't smoked any that day.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

TmB123 said:


> That probably depends on where you live.
> Around here, booze has a DUI limit of .05, drugs like hooch and meth etc are zero tollerance, so yes, legally, drugs are DUI, booze isn't.


I guess some places are tyrannical and unfair then. Mostly middle east countries, and some similarly backwards US states


----------



## RobotGuy (Mar 15, 2017)

Not legal near me, but I 'hear' that a little toke after big running efforts (like 18+ miles) really does feel nice. Nice, mile pain killer / muscle relaxer effect. Or so I hear.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers

https://cyclitis.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/freaks.jpg


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

xxl said:


> Sure, so why do you feel the need to "get high" just to enjoy it?


Enjoyment is the ongoing "high" you feel as you work you way along the continuum of constant and never ending improvement of various aspects on your life. That includes providing opportunity for others to engage as well.

Intoxicants, while providing temporary enjoyment, take users in the opposite direction on that continuum.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

SwiftSolo said:


> Enjoyment is the ongoing "high" you feel as you work you way along the continuum of constant and never ending improvement of various aspects on your life. That includes providing opportunity for others to engage as well.
> 
> Intoxicants, while providing temporary enjoyment, take users in the opposite direction on that continuum.


Ah yeas, the American puritanical attitude towards life. Everything must be aimed at getting ahead - at "improving yourself" (as long as the methods of "improving yourself" meet with their approval). There is no room for just taking a little time off and enjoying the moment - you have to be working at "improving". Nose to the grindstone and all that... 

Thanks, but no thanks. Life is too short to live that way.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

SwiftSolo said:


> Intoxicants, while providing temporary enjoyment, take users in the opposite direction on that continuum.


except for the fact that . you are plain wrong on this. It is like saying that sex takes user in the opposite direction 'on that continuum' whatever that means. Example: an orgasm is essentially just a shot of powerful intoxicant going off in the brain in very temporary fashion. Same with extreme exertion endorphins, pleasurable sensations from laughter etc. There is a chemical component to these sensations very much like some 'intoxicants.' It's why 'intoxicants' work they stimulate our pre existing chemical receptor sites we get intoxicated with even if we never take man made intoxicants.

As for the drug as a self-help aid idea consider this: comrades getting together for a few drinks is undeniably a very healthy and helpful way to bring people together, reduce some of their social inhibitions to make it easier to bond, to laugh and build relationships. Heck it also helps to ensure procreation and reduce sexual starvation. Artists have been known to come to great new visions and innovations under the influence of drugs like absinthe and LSD. The innovators of Jazz (and the Bebop geniuses especially) is known to have flourished in the presence of a lot of marijuana. Finally, just having good wine or beer with dinner massively enhances the taste pleasure centres too, making a meal more balanced, interesting, satisfying and memorable.

I agree with Bradkay, hedonism within reason is generally a good thing. Puritanism is inherently a mean and bitter worldview imho. social and legislative puritanism is tyranny


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

bradkay said:


> Ah yeas, the American puritanical attitude towards life. Everything must be aimed at getting ahead - at "improving yourself" (as long as the methods of "improving yourself" meet with their approval). There is no room for just taking a little time off and enjoying the moment - you have to be working at "improving". Nose to the grindstone and all that.


thanks. that reminds me of a fine song:

ambition by smog from the album supper



bill callahan said:


> Well I've got to get there
> Now don't I
> And when I get there
> I've got to sleep well
> ...


----------



## Aadub (May 30, 2015)

WHILE riding?

Some of you need to seek professional help to figure what the problem is that would cause you wanting to get high whilst out riding your bike.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Aadub said:


> WHILE riding?
> 
> Some of you need to seek professional help to figure what the problem is that would cause you wanting to get high whilst out riding your bike.


It's like ketchup on a hot dog, it enhances the flavor.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

velodog said:


> It's like ketchup on a hot dog, it enhances the flavor.


Thing is, ketchup got no place on a hot dog.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

velodog said:


> Thing is, ketchup got no place on a hot dog.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bradkay said:


> Ah yeas, the American puritanical attitude towards life. Everything must be aimed at getting ahead - at "improving yourself" (as long as the methods of "improving yourself" meet with their approval). There is no room for just taking a little time off and enjoying the moment - you have to be working at "improving". Nose to the grindstone and all that...
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks. Life is too short to live that way.


Yeah well, I've taken the last 20 years off to enjoy myself (I retired at age 51). It's part of the constant and never ending improvement. Until then it was work hard and play hard. Why kill time when you'll have an eternity to kill soon enough.

You'll be hard pressed to get me to want to have done it any other way.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

It must be every druggy's ambition to lay on his death bed wishing he'd pissed away more of his life?

This state of stupor is a pretty pathetic devolution back to chimpanzees--only with academic indoctrination. It's unfortunate that the numb brained hippies from the 60's so thoroughly infiltrated the education system.


blackfrancois said:


> thanks. that reminds me of a fine song:
> 
> ambition by smog from the album supper


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

who is this 'druggy' and who is in a stupor? nobody's talking about being a lousy drunkard, perma-stoner or heroin junkie down the wrong side of the tracks, as you assume all MJ users are.

MJ is as normal and acceptable and definitely non-wasteful thing to partake in. it is similar to having wine with dinner or beer after a ride.

one thing is for sure, this world has a lot of judgmental uptight presumptuous asshoels whom would improve themselves and the world immensely if they toked up once or twice a week and acquired some perspective and understanding from the experience.

Can easily waste too much of life riding a bike, just as easily as watching too much TV, getting drunk too often or doing too many post-docs, LOL.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yeah well, I've taken the last 20 years off to enjoy myself (I retired at age 51). It's part of the constant and never ending improvement. Until then it was work hard and play hard. Why kill time when you'll have an eternity to kill soon enough.
> 
> You'll be hard pressed to get me to want to have done it any other way.


Nobody is forcing you to do anything that you don't want to do, but "enjoying the moment" isn't "killing time" - it is making the most of that time. I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to smoke marijuana, just as I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to drink alcohol. I do have a problem with those who decide that because they don't like something then no one else should either. That, to me, is the height of arrogance.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

BCSaltchucker said:


> who is this 'druggy' and who is in a stupor?


it's called a strawman.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> It must be every druggy's ambition to lay on his death bed wishing he'd pissed away more of his life?
> 
> This state of stupor is a pretty pathetic devolution back to chimpanzees--only with academic indoctrination. It's unfortunate that the numb brained hippies from the 60's so thoroughly infiltrated the education system.


Shucks, man. You just figured it out. Always wondered where the political correct goody two shoes, granola munching, socialist, unwashed, university professors, parsing such things as "what, actually, IS racist?" ["Am I a racist and don't know it? "] I know who you're talking about. :yesnod:

Their brains are fried from years of smoking pot, eating mushrooms, popping LSD, and grooving on Beatles songs. I wouldn't go as far as "chimpanzees," but I know what you mean. Sh!t! :frown2:

The ideal family would be just like Trump's. He may grab 'em in the crotch but has deciduously avoided drugs and alcohol, disciplined to play it straight. That's what ya gotta do if you want to retire at 51, right?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Your perspective would be marketable if I hadn't been an employer for the past 35 years. The correlation between the lack of ambition and pot smoking is far too pervasive to be a coincidence.

Admittedly, I have no idea which was the cause and which the effect.


BCSaltchucker said:


> who is this 'druggy' and who is in a stupor? nobody's talking about being a lousy drunkard, perma-stoner or heroin junkie down the wrong side of the tracks, as you assume all MJ users are.
> 
> MJ is as normal and acceptable and definitely non-wasteful thing to partake in. it is similar to having wine with dinner or beer after a ride.
> 
> ...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Yes, it is arrogant "to have a problem with" people who cause roughly have of the traffic and gun violence deaths in the US. 

If we'd all just smoke more pot and drink more, our minds would realize that fundamental truth. Nothing leads to clear thinking and good outcomes like hallucinogens and intoxicants.


bradkay said:


> Nobody is forcing you to do anything that you don't want to do, but "enjoying the moment" isn't "killing time" - it is making the most of that time. I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to smoke marijuana, just as I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to drink alcohol. I do have a problem with those who decide that because they don't like something then no one else should either. That, to me, is the height of arrogance.


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

could you imagine swiftsolo at parties....


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Enjoyment is the ongoing "high" you feel as you work you way along the continuum of constant and never ending improvement of various aspects on your life. That includes providing opportunity for others to engage as well.
> 
> Intoxicants, while providing temporary enjoyment, take users in the opposite direction on that continuum.


Sounds like stoner talk to justify the need to get "high" to enjoy your life.


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

Reading this thread with amusement - some things never change.

Maybe a relevant article from Runner's World - 
*Is Marijuana the Source of a New Runner's High?*

Is Marijuana the Source of a New Runner's High? | Runner's World


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Z'mer said:


> Is Marijuana the Source of a New Runner's High? | Runner's World


pretty good article. thanks.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yes, it is arrogant "to have a problem with" people who cause roughly have of the traffic and gun violence deaths in the US.
> 
> If we'd all just smoke more pot and drink more, our minds would realize that fundamental truth. Nothing leads to clear thinking and good outcomes like hallucinogens and intoxicants.


Pot smokers cause roughly half the traffic and gun violence deaths in the US?? You must be using the same alternative facts as Jeff Sessions. The good thing is that fewer and fewer people are being suckered by those misconceptions.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bradkay said:


> Pot smokers cause roughly half the traffic and gun violence deaths in the US?? You must be using the same alternative facts as Jeff Sessions. The good thing is that fewer and fewer people are being suckered by those misconceptions.


The trouble with drugs and alcohol is that they make a person forget what they posted a little while earlier.

To help you out, it was your statement I was responding to that went something like this:
 "I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to smoke marijuana, just as I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to drink alcohol".

To which I responded"
*Yes, it is arrogant "to have a problem with" people who cause roughly have of the traffic and gun violence deaths in the US.*

Not to worry, confusion is part of the substance abuse problem.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

I haven't had anything to smoke in weeks, but that quote still doesn't justify your comments. Why? Because I said that I have *no problem with someone who doesn't want to or like to drink alcohol*. 

Your arrogance is in demanding that no one ever do either at any time. People can use alcohol in moderation and never be involved in those issues you mentioned. We tried the prohibition of alcohol in the nation, remember? All it did was create a new, enlarged criminal society. 

If you don't want to do either, fine. But that does not make you superior in any way to someone who uses either of those intoxicants in moderation. 

BTW: that is awfully nice of you to hint that someone here has a substance abuse problem. It borders on a posting violation...


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yes, it is arrogant "to have a problem with" people who cause roughly have of the traffic and gun violence deaths in the US.
> 
> If we'd all just smoke more pot and drink more, our minds would realize that fundamental truth. Nothing leads to clear thinking and good outcomes like hallucinogens and intoxicants.


well now it's just trolling, making up crazy illogical stuff


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

I can see at least one person here who could benefit greatly from a large dose of hallucinogens, maybe some LSD or something. Highly recommended. Does wonders for eliminating that pesky ego and narrow-minded thinking.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> The trouble with drugs and alcohol is that they make a person forget what they posted a little while earlier.
> 
> To help you out, it was your statement I was responding to that went something like this:
> "I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to smoke marijuana, just as I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to drink alcohol".
> ...


Go back to English class. You said, half the traffic and gun homicides are caused by stoners. Where do you get that? ut:

It's drunks committing homicides on the roads, and gangsters killing each other for a piece of the action in a lucrative market driven underground, like happened during Prohibition. Colorado and Washington, Portugal and Holland, have had no uptick in criminal activity upon legalizing cannabis.

The problem is of opioid addictions. They're the "gateway" drug to addictive behavior pushed by the drug companies. Doctors prescribe them because they work great. Addicts go on to heroin when the prescriptions run out.

The drug companies foster a culture of drug dependency. Doctors prescribe medicines for every ailment on the books. I just gave up a year's dependency on this heart medicine that did nothing, and a drug that old men with enlarged prostates think they have to depend on to pee, and an over the counter stomach acid inhibitor that started making me dizzy, my pee cloudy, and known to destroy the kidneys. Haven't felt better in years! I thought I was getting old!

Cannabis is a great pain killer. It works very well. The oils and edibles are long lasting, don't make you dopey, and non addictive. What's not to like about that? Cannabis is a great alternative to booze or opioids.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

MMsRepBike said:


> I can see at least one person here who could benefit greatly from a large dose of hallucinogens, maybe some LSD or something. Highly recommended. Does wonders for eliminating that pesky ego and narrow-minded thinking.


Yeah. Here ya go:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/sear...=6c5ffbbcfd2b5e9a8fb34c46e3e43595&action=view


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Yeah. Here ya go:...


and then there is this old classic, which some folks here apparently still take seriously


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

If you read my earlier posts in this thread you'd see that I favor legalization of all drugs. But with that comes the need to imprison those who lack the personal responsibility to keep from harming others while under the influence. 

Every single human deserves the right to ef up their own life and face the consequences. It's expecting others to pay the price for their behavior that's troubling.

When driving or committing other crimes while under the influence becomes a felony with mandatory multiple year imprisonment, I will have no issue. 

The question I asked relates to the need. I think most of us are beyond high school now and it should be time to grow up and face life head on?


bradkay said:


> I haven't had anything to smoke in weeks, but that quote still doesn't justify your comments. Why? Because I said that I have *no problem with someone who doesn't want to or like to drink alcohol*.
> 
> Your arrogance is in demanding that no one ever do either at any time. People can use alcohol in moderation and never be involved in those issues you mentioned. We tried the prohibition of alcohol in the nation, remember? All it did was create a new, enlarged criminal society.
> 
> ...


----------



## jasnooks (Feb 1, 2017)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think most of us are beyond high school now and it should be time to grow up and face life head on?


 Should is the key word in this sentence..
With that said, my chores are done, and I'm done riding today, and just had 2 (yes, only 2) tokes of some green apple stuff that my buddy put in my e pen the other night .
Now to the basement to clean up a few more parts for my 78 Schwinn "restoration", then off to bed.
Or maybe just slam a bag of pork rinds and watch Slingblade, who knows.
But I'll be at work tomorrow, so I'm ok with my addictions​.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Go back to English class. You said, half the traffic and gun homicides are caused by stoners. Where do you get that? ut:
> 
> It's drunks committing homicides on the roads, and gangsters killing each other for a piece of the action in a lucrative market driven underground, like happened during Prohibition. Colorado and Washington, Portugal and Holland, have had no uptick in criminal activity upon legalizing cannabis.
> 
> ...


First off, when your vision clears go back over the following which is what was actually said:

"I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or like to *smoke marijuana*, just as I have no problem with somebody who doesn't want to or *like to drink alcohol*".

*To which I responded"
Yes, it is arrogant "to have a problem with" people who cause roughly have of the traffic and gun violence deaths in the US. *

I think you'll find both marijuana and alcohol included in that statistic.

Second, the notion the cannabis doesn't make you dopey would be marketable to second graders: Family Research Council

Marijuana is used recreationally for its psychoactive effects. Many claim these are positive, but a growing list of negative psychiatric effects have been documented. These are supported by new forms of brain scanning studies that show serious problems. Even casual use of marijuana by young adults has been shown to reduce the size of specific regions of the brain important for emotion and motivation. While these changes have not been found in all studies, this may be due to differences in the study methods. An April 2014 study involved several different ways of measuring this effect and found that the effect on brain structure was clear and dose-dependent. [25] One of the principal investigators concluded, "This study raises a strong challenge to the idea that casual marijuana use isn't associated with bad consequences."[26] Based on this and other published studies, the researcher went on to state, "I've developed a severe worry about whether we should be allowing anybody under age 30 to use pot unless they have a terminal illness and need it for pain."


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

Your lies runeth over, SS. You can't just label everyone who smokes MJ or drinks wine as causing road accidents. The truth is we do not cause any such thing. You are saying having one drink at home with dinner is equivalent to have 10 drinks then driving. This is the kind of illogic that makes you come across as extremely silly person, on par with the Taliban or the Westboro bunch. Either than or we are being taken in by an actual bald facing lying troll

here's an idea, don't smoke marijuana too often SS. Though I get the impression you are one of the few people who wold actually deeply benefit from it more than the rest of us.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

family research council? wtf? no bias there. lol.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Z'mer said:


> and then there is this old classic, which some folks here apparently still take seriously


Whattaya think, Swifty? . Pretty much nails it, right?


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

blackfrancois said:


> family research council? wtf? no bias there. lol.


I also clicked on that FRC site - Really? 
Decidedly biased operation, full blinders on to anything happening in the real world today. 
If you wanted to, you can probably also easily find "research" from "doctors" from the 50's, 60's and 70's who report on the health benefits of cigarette smoking. 

Frequently there is hidden money sources funding "independent" research, to find it you need to look closely. Many times, for certain drugs, it is our "friends" the big pharma guys. 

They have driven our modern medical practice into thinking their are but 2 solutions to every major medical condition or complaint - 
1) First and foremost - a prescription. You need a Drug. And if that does do it, 
2) Surgery - you need an operation


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

blackfrancois said:


> family research council? wtf? no bias there. lol.


Yeah, I caught that, too. :lol: Shoulda taken out the footnote brackets, Swifty.

Agree, there are quite a few kids who smoked bud, rebelling against adult authority, finding their way to maturity. Most gave up their enthusiasm when they started jobs and raising families. A few got lost, headed into coke, meth, booze, whatever, and destroyed their lives. They were not normal. Those failures were already on their way down and searching for salvation. A normal person with self respect doesn't lose control or become psychologically addicted. 

Colorado has shown legalizing it has encouraged smokers to use it responsibly. It's no longer quite the rebellious pleasure enjoyed in "Reefer Madness."


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

BCSaltchucker wrote: "This is the kind of illogic that makes you come across as extremely silly person, on par with the Taliban or the Westboro bunch."

You just nailed it on the head, neighbor. His quoting of the Family Research Council as a scientific source proves it. They are a right wing "Christian" organization dedicated to protecting America from the homosexual and transgender scourge. They are well known for fabricating their own "facts" and disseminating them in support of their hateful agenda. Apparently they are using the same methods to fight against the "evil weed". It must really gall them that in their home state of Colorado the voters ignored their lies and legalized the stuff.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

BCSaltchucker said:


> Your lies runeth over, SS. You can't just label everyone who smokes MJ or drinks wine as causing road accidents. The truth is we do not cause any such thing. You are saying having one drink at home with dinner is equivalent to have 10 drinks then driving. This is the kind of illogic that makes you come across as extremely silly person, on par with the Taliban or the Westboro bunch. Either than or we are being taken in by an actual bald facing lying troll
> 
> here's an idea, don't smoke marijuana too often SS. Though I get the impression you are one of the few people who wold actually deeply benefit from it more than the rest of us.


^But there could be interactions with other meds.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I think you may need to wait a while and then come back and read what I actually said (as compared to what you'd like to believe I said). Nowhere did I say or even imply what your current state of mind has led you to believe.


BCSaltchucker said:


> Your lies runeth over, SS. You can't just label everyone who smokes MJ or drinks wine as causing road accidents. The truth is we do not cause any such thing. You are saying having one drink at home with dinner is equivalent to have 10 drinks then driving. This is the kind of illogic that makes you come across as extremely silly person, on par with the Taliban or the Westboro bunch. Either than or we are being taken in by an actual bald facing lying troll
> 
> here's an idea, don't smoke marijuana too often SS. Though I get the impression you are one of the few people who wold actually deeply benefit from it more than the rest of us.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Do show me any federal research that indicates anything different regarding the impact long term pot use has on behavior.

Now I'll be the first to admit that marijuana smokers often believe that pot puts them in a heightened state of enlightenment (witness some of the posts here suggesting that smoking pot is a way to get in touch with reality). But consider that stupor and enlightenment are not necessarily synonymous in the minds of the non-impaired. -


Z'mer said:


> I also clicked on that FRC site - Really?
> Decidedly biased operation, full blinders on to anything happening in the real world today.
> If you wanted to, you can probably also easily find "research" from "doctors" from the 50's, 60's and 70's who report on the health benefits of cigarette smoking.
> 
> ...


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

SwiftSolo said:


> Do show me any federal research that indicates anything different regarding the impact long term pot use has on behavior.
> 
> Now I'll be the first to admit that marijuana smokers often believe that pot puts them in a heightened state of enlightenment (witness some of the posts here suggesting that smoking pot is a way to get in touch with reality). But consider that stupor and enlightenment are not necessarily synonymous in the minds of the non-impaired. -


that's lsd that does that.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Next time I'll look for research done by those enlightened (on pot). There should be a lot of it considering the current state of academic "enlightenment". 

It does hurt to be called "silly" by those who use marijuana to get in touch with reality. I'm looking for a safe space to cry in but they all seem to be full of Snowflakes.

So here's a government produced study https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

These people may not have been using hallucinogens while researching for the study so I can't speak to their level of "enlightenment".


bradkay said:


> BCSaltchucker wrote: "This is the kind of illogic that makes you come across as extremely silly person, on par with the Taliban or the Westboro bunch."
> 
> You just nailed it on the head, neighbor. His quoting of the Family Research Council as a scientific source proves it. They are a right wing "Christian" organization dedicated to protecting America from the homosexual and transgender scourge. They are well known for fabricating their own "facts" and disseminating them in support of their hateful agenda. Apparently they are using the same methods to fight against the "evil weed". It must really gall them that in their home state of Colorado the voters ignored their lies and legalized the stuff.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

factory feel said:


> that's lsd that does that.


mmmm, aciiiiiid...!

good stuff. a little goes a long way...


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

It's not legal where I live, but I guess I wouldn't do it regardless. I don't have a problem with people that do, although if it affects their riding I wouldn't want to ride with them while they are on it. I honestly don't care if you toke or drink, I just don't like it when it interferes with me going about my daily life. If I have to smell it (I think weed smells disgusting) or deal with stoned people trying to steal my Doritos then there may be a problem. I have tried smoking it a few times in my past, and I don't like the way it makes me feel, I much prefer real life highs like riding downhills waaay too fast.

Either way in a free society some of our choices may influence others whether we intend them to or not. I guess I would be okay with legalizing weed Federally, it's certainly not as bad as alcohol imho when it comes to destroying people's lives or the effects it has on a society.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

How do you guys feel about riding with headphones?

I just ask because I'd like to see the 14 pages that this thread would reach if started beating that dead horse again.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

dir-t said:


> How do you guys feel about riding with headphones?


if you're on a closed trail with very little traffic, i think it's great.

if you're sharing the road with cars, i think it should be avoided for a few reasons.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

dir-t said:


> How do you guys feel about riding with headphones?
> 
> I just ask because I'd like to see the 14 pages that this thread would reach if started beating that dead horse again.


I never wear headphones. It totally destroys rider's auditory sensory input. Hearing the sounds around you enhances the pleasure of the ride. Why distance yourself from being there with a funky musical soundtrack? ut:


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Help Mr. Wizard!


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

dir-t said:


> How do you guys feel about riding with headphones?
> 
> I just ask because I'd like to see the 14 pages that this thread would reach if started beating that dead horse again.


Man, ain't nuthin' like smokin' a doobie, listenin' to some good tunes with the ear buds and cruisin' the roads on the bicycle. 

Only thing ruinin' it is all those flies over by the dead horse.


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

this thread has burned down to a roach.

not much left.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

dir-t said:


> How do you guys feel about riding with headphones?
> 
> I just ask because I'd like to see the 14 pages that this thread would reach if started beating that dead horse again.


I notice in the last few days one of the India Pacific racers reports he;'s been watching movies on his phone while wearing earphones and riding at night 200-500km/day. Of course that is very empty desert, but still public road and many trucks.

most of the India Pacific racers are wearing headphones of course.

I have worn headphones, but not recently. It does interfere with my ability hear traffic, but not as much as riding in a car, or on a motorcycle w full helmet. In a car or on moto, you cannot hear traffic period, so that huge sensation to lose. Headphones on a bike helps reduce the annoyance of wind noise, and riding on gravel noise. 

Now I have tried a set of bone-conduction headphones. They leave the ears open to hear everything around you. But the sound quality is not that great.


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

factory feel said:


> this thread has burned down to a roach.
> 
> not much left.


Here, use my zircon encrusted tweezers


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

this thread needs some stats, Stat.

it's burning my fingers!


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

factory feel said:


> this thread needs some stats, Stat.
> 
> it's burning my fingers!


Just use a pipe... it's less wasteful and won't burn your lips or fingers. :thumbsup:


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

gonna order up a new proto pipe tomorrow.


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2005)

Z'mer said:


> Here, use my zircon encrusted tweezers


Lemme sterilize em first. Gimme your lighter...


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2017)

factory feel said:


> this thread has burned down to a roach.
> 
> not much left.


More fuel for the fire. 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/stroke-heart-failure-linked-marijuana-143600325.html

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/woody-harrelson-quits-pot-30-192439360.html


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

nobody likes a quitter...


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

bradkay said:


> Just use a pipe... it's less wasteful and won't burn your lips or fingers. :thumbsup:


Anyone using a vaporizer? I recently got a Pax 2 and I'm starting to think it's a bit wasteful of my "material" and also a bit less obvious when I've consumed as much as I would like for the desired effect.

It is really convenient though, especially on the chairlift or while riding the bike.


----------



## kbhenze (Apr 12, 2009)

ogre said:


> Lemme sterilize em first. Gimme your lighter...


Zappa fan ...me like...


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

dir-t said:


> Anyone using a vaporizer?


no, man. i gotta use fire, as is the traditional, indian way.



> It is really convenient though, especially ... while riding the bike.


ha! B^)


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

frons said:


> More fuel for the fire.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/stroke-heart-failure-linked-marijuana-143600325.html
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/woody-harrelson-quits-pot-30-192439360.html


Some food for thought:

_It is not clear why exactly cannabis use would be linked to a *higher risk of heart failure,* Kalla said. However, previous research has suggested that heart muscle cells have certain receptors that may be affected by use of the drug, and these receptors play a role in the heart's ability to contract, she said. When a person smokes marijuana, the *heart's overall ability to contract may decrease,* leading to heart failure, Kalla said._

Stoners sitting around munching on Cheetos are going to get overweight and out of shape.

Ride the bike. Get those heart rates up. Best thing a stoner can do combatting the above mentioned side effects. :thumbsup: Watch where you're going!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Very interesting!

A study found teenagers in CO actually are smoking slightly LESS weed than they did when it was illegal. 

Another study found weed is not the gateway drug to opioids, alcohol [beer] is. In fact, in states where pot was legally obtainable, opioid overdoses shrank by as much as 25%. Other studies are looking into cannabis as a pain killer alternative to opioids, especially for chronic pain management. It actually works quite well.

Want more? Driving stoned is as safe or slightly safer than driving straight, a fact most heads have known for years.

Teens Smoke Less Grass in Legalized Colorado

Opioid overdose rate drops in medical marijuana states - Smell the Truth


----------



## n2deep (Mar 23, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Some food for thought:
> 
> _It is not clear why exactly cannabis use would be linked to a *higher risk of heart failure,* Kalla said. However, previous research has suggested that heart muscle cells have certain receptors that may be affected by use of the drug, and these receptors play a role in the heart's ability to contract, she said. When a person smokes marijuana, the *heart's overall ability to contract may decrease,* leading to heart failure, Kalla said._
> 
> ...


Could it be related to holding your breath for 5 minutes every toke??


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

It's pretty apparent that something is making some folks here less than astute. With minimal reading and deductive capabilities, these folks should have been able to see that the study in question was not done by the Family Research council but rather by Donal O'Mathuna . The lack of ambition associated with users is apparent to most coworkers and observers by the level of effing off done by their pot using associates while on the clock. Drug testing requirements indicate that these observations are shared by most employers.

And yes, I am aware that the pot users here on RBR are more enlightened than employers and other successful folks. 



Z'mer said:


> I also clicked on that FRC site - Really?
> Decidedly biased operation, full blinders on to anything happening in the real world today.
> If you wanted to, you can probably also easily find "research" from "doctors" from the 50's, 60's and 70's who report on the health benefits of cigarette smoking.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terrasmak (Jan 8, 2015)

Have to wait till it's federally legal, not giving up my military career to get high. When it is federally legal, I will probably indulge about as much as I use alcohol


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

n2deep said:


> Could it be related to holding your breath for 5 minutes every toke??


Naw man, gunking up the lungs would train the heart to work even harder. Well ok, maybe then it would fail if untrained in the first place.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SwiftSolo said:


> It's pretty apparent that something is making some folks here less than astute. With minimal reading and deductive capabilities, these folks should have been able to see that the study in question was not done by the Family Research council but rather by Donal O'Mathuna . The lack of ambition associated with users is apparent to most coworkers and observers by the level of effing off done by their pot using associates while on the clock. Drug testing requirements indicate that these observations are shared by most employers. And yes, I am aware that the pot users here on RBR are more enlightened than employers and other successful folks.


*w t f ?*

was your "gotcha" finding out the research was done by a christian fundamentalist/anti-abortionist from ireland?

your overt use of elementary sarcasm doesn't do a lot for your message of professionalism.

and your link doesn't work!


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

SwiftSolo said:


> First off, when your vision clears...
> Family Research Council


From this article, interesting history 
"The United States Pharmacopeia (USP) is the official register of legitimate medicinal products for the US; marijuana was added in 1851. It was recommended in those days for pain relief, muscle relaxation, appetite stimulation, and sedation."

For 86 years, it was legal in the USA for uses as stated above. Politics of the time, in the same decade as prohibition (1930's) made marijuana illegal. 

The continued assumption that anyone posting an opinion contrary to yours is under the influence is very troll like. 
Which makes one wonder, is that how *you* get your kicks?


----------



## Cooper1960 (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm heading out to Colorado next week for a bit of a vacation, weed is legal there. I haven't smoked pot in over thirty years....but I'm thinking about it. lol


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

Z'mer said:


> From this article, interesting history
> "The United States Pharmacopeia (USP) is the official register of legitimate medicinal products for the US; marijuana was added in 1851. It was recommended in those days for pain relief, muscle relaxation, appetite stimulation, and sedation."
> 
> For 86 years, it was legal in the USA for uses as stated above. Politics of the time, in the same decade as prohibition (1930's) made marijuana illegal.
> ...


Swift was kidding, he was mocking the anti-pot hysterics


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

BCSaltchucker said:


> Swift was kidding, he was mocking the anti-pot hysterics


in which of his many holy roller posts in this thread was he "kidding"?

or are you also "kidding"?


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

i think he is kidding in the same way Trump is kidding every time he says something. All a big ruse, cause nobody could possibly be that nettlesome?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Cooper1960 said:


> I'm heading out to Colorado next week for a bit of a vacation, weed is legal there. I haven't smoked pot in over thirty years....but I'm thinking about it. lol


When in Colorado, do what the Coloradans do! . 

Better drive your stash over the border on the interstates, though. Not sure how successful it'll make it through security at the airport. They have to be aware huge amounts are leaving the state. Maybe airport security doesn't care. 

I do know this: if you aren't disobeying traffic laws, the cops can't legally stop you. For a while, Nebraska state troopers were following suspects on I-80. Kansas was doing it too. They would follow suspected cars with out of state license plates, and stop them if they turned off the highway presumably to evade capture. They stop them for anything, not using turn signal when changing lanes, stuff like that. 

I don't think they're all that keen on catching pot buyers anymore. That's not really their job. As more states legalize it, catching users crossing state lines becomes impossible. Its illegal for them without a warrant to stop cars only to search for drugs. If you're stopped, they'll ask if they can search your car. You have the right to refuse. If they're convinced you're lying, they can get a dog to establish "probable cause."

Have fun!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Very interesting!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The trouble is that the guy who did the study was stoned. Here are the facts for Washington (the first state to legalize).

Washington opioid stats 

And yes, I'm aware that Seattle and the University of Washington are hotbeds for right wingers.


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

I don't use it any more



















































or any less


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Z'mer said:


> From this article, interesting history
> "The United States Pharmacopeia (USP) is the official register of legitimate medicinal products for the US; marijuana was added in 1851. It was recommended in those days for pain relief, muscle relaxation, appetite stimulation, and sedation."
> 
> For 86 years, it was legal in the USA for uses as stated above. Politics of the time, in the same decade as prohibition (1930's) made marijuana illegal.
> ...


Yes, it is a fact that the medical communities knowledge has moved backwards since the 30's. Hell, they're even against smoking cigarettes now and we all know what BS that is.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

blackfrancois said:


> *w t f ?*
> 
> was your "gotcha" finding out the research was done by a christian fundamentalist/anti-abortionist from ireland?
> 
> ...


The thing I enjoy most about pot users is their highly developed debate skills. I was a little disappointed however that nobody dug up research that proves employers do drug testing to eliminate *non-users*. Surely, somebody here knows a guy who did a study with the evidence.


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

wasn't it hearst the news paper guy who started the anti marijuana campaign way back when...?

here it is...

https://www.massroots.com/learn/the-man-responsible-for-marijuana-prohibition


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

factory feel said:


> wasn't it hearst the news paper guy who started the anti marijuana campaign way back when...?
> 
> here it is...
> 
> https://www.massroots.com/learn/the-man-responsible-for-marijuana-prohibition


One thing for certain. Nobody can dispute that there could not be a better, more clear headed, purveyor of the facts on pot than those who sell the stuff!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> The trouble is that the guy who did the study was stoned. Here are the facts for Washington (the first state to legalize).
> 
> Washington opioid stats
> 
> And yes, I'm aware that Seattle and the University of Washington are hotbeds for right wingers.


You may have a point there about the journalist being stoned!  

A cursory glance at stats shows opioid overdoses increased about the same in states where pot is still illegal, so again the jury is out on pot as a gateway drug. 

People who want to escape from their problems go for downers, booze, pain killers, opioids. They try weed and move on. It has mild pain killing properties not much better than Tylenol, but its psychotropic properties distract from the desired downer, so these people drink a beer or two to get them back in the right mood, so they can feel sorry for themselves. I've seen this many times. Pot heads shy away from downers. Wrong "high."

I do have to wonder why so many Americans get addicted to opioids. I took Percocet two years ago for an entire 8 months for chronic pain and subsequent surgery. I was surprised how easy it was to get off it. If I'd had some weed at the time, "detox" would have been even less anxiety ridden. I told myself, "You don't need these pain killers!" And sure enough, a couple of days later, I didn't!

Portugal experienced no uptick in use of other drugs when weed was legalized. They seem to be doing ok with it. So is CO, according to Guv Hickenlooper. With a name like that, he better be!


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> The trouble is that the guy who did the study was stoned. Here are the facts for Washington (the first state to legalize).
> 
> Washington opioid stats
> 
> And yes, I'm aware that Seattle and the University of Washington are hotbeds for right wingers.


I think the whole "gateway drug" issue may be tougher to correlate with "traditional" illegal drugs now that both prescribed and non-prescribed synthetic opioids have become so prevalent. I am much more worried about the over prescribing of opiods than I am about pot. I realize its not a simple issue and there are a lot of factors involved here: drug manufacturers are making a lot of money here and they have to know that many of the drugs they manufacture are ending up in the illegal market; doctors are way too eager to prescribe these drugs; there are moral bankrupt doctors making money off of prescribing these to people that dont legitimately need them.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SwiftSolo said:


> The thing I enjoy most about pot users is their highly developed debate skills. I was a little disappointed however that nobody dug up research that proves employers do drug testing to eliminate *non-users*. Surely, somebody here knows a guy who did a study with the evidence.


fuuuuu .... at this point, you're just trolling at a very base level.

on the bright side, your lack of awareness and basic logic is doing users a bit of a service, similar to the classic propaganda film, reefer madness.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

DaveG said:


> I think the whole "gateway drug" issue may be tougher to correlate with "traditional" illegal drugs now that both prescribed and non-prescribed synthetic opioids have become so prevalent. I am much more worried about the over prescribing of opiods than I am about pot. I realize its not a simple issue and there are a lot of factors involved here: drug manufacturers are making a lot of money here and they have to know that many of the drugs they manufacture are ending up in the illegal market; doctors are way too eager to prescribe these drugs; there are moral bankrupt doctors making money off of prescribing these to people that dont legitimately need them.


That would explain the recent uptick in addictions to opioids as well as meth. 

When weed became popular in the 60s, the other drug of choice was booze. Heroin and coke were still off the table. Morphine was standard with surgery patients. Opioids were prescribed for recovery, but over too short a time period, a couple of days, to become addictive, so there wasn't a problem. 

Over prescribing opioids for every ache and pain gets unsuspecting people addicted, especially those with low self-esteem. The law is not kind to these people, either. They get captured in the legal system, GPS ankle bracelets, monthly fees to probation officers, mandatory counseling. The guilt associated with breaking the law drives addicts back into it once they're free.

The pot laws are even more insane. The punishments are nuts, all because law makers thought it was the gateway drug to heroin. Hah! Go after Anheuser-Busch! Go after the drug companies. They've got a pill for everything and they want your money.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> The pot laws are even more insane. The punishments are nuts, *all because law makers thought it was the gateway drug to heroin.*
> 
> 
> > Actually it was mostly because the consequences that pot had on the work ethic and level of ambition of users had become obvious. Employers were refusing to hire users and the downward spiral was obvious to most non-users.
> ...


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SwiftSolo said:


> Pot users and other substance abusers are en masse advocates of an ever expanding government tit.


the hits just keep comin'.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Another example of astute and well reasoned debate. Good job


blackfrancois said:


> fuuuuu .... at this point, you're just trolling at a very base level.
> 
> on the bright side, your lack of awareness and basic logic is doing users a bit of a service, similar to the classic propaganda film, reefer madness.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Actually it was mostly because the consequences that pot had on the work ethic and level of ambition of users had become obvious. Employers were refusing to hire users and the downward spiral was obvious to most non-users.
> 
> The advent of the Nanny State was, in part, the result of this and other substance abuse problems and the resulting loss of both self sufficiency and the sense of personal responsibility. Pot users and other substance abusers are en masse advocates of an ever expanding government tit. The stereotype of the useless, freeloading stoner has likely placed a disproportionate level of blame on pot use. Nonetheless, it remains one of several ways to sabotage upward mobility.


Sure, there are people with low self esteem or other personality disorders who are the first to jump onto a drug if they perceive it'll soften the pain. With pot, these are the guys you're talking about: losers in search of escape. IME, they don't stop at pot. It doesn't really do the job. They want downers. Pot is not a downer. Users can drive under the influence without crashing into telephone poles. If they have doubts about their ability, they still have the intelligence to wait a few minutes and pull themselves back together. Many of the troops in VN smoked the strong pot available over there, but there was no way we could have won that war, straight or stoned. Pot wasn't softening the blows, though. Some 30,000 troopers came back with serious heroin habits by the 70s. Amazingly, 95% gave it up once they were back with families and couldn't get it outside the network of criminals.

The hippies grandstanded with pot, the thinking man's answer to booze, the drug of expanding consciousness and luv the one you're with. They weren't interested in holding down jobs, and the ones who did were rebellious anyway. And yes, dumb workers will do dumb things, and being stoned would give them an excuse, or their boss an excuse for letting them go. Most users can straighten up in a heart beat if the situation demands it. Most also don't feel the need to toke up before going to work because the pot high isn't all that much different from being straight.

I was pleasantly surprised when visiting CO, discovering pot no longer carries the stigma associated with opioids and heroin in states that legalized it. Users no longer feel that twinge of guilt scoring it off the streets. They use it responsibly, no problem. Pot stores are more like Starbucks than the local liquor store. A far cry from the hippie revolutionaries of the 60s. 

I'll wager you can't tell if someone is stoned unless he purposely acts it out. Users learn to work with the high. They'll perform just as well, sometimes better. Downers don't do that. 

IOW, pot didn't cause loss of respect for the work ethic, the hippie lifestyle did, the realization that life extends beyond the workplace, a fact common to the world's populations, lost in Puritanical America, where any activity done for pleasure is sinful, a character flaw, and "unproductive" as you assert.

And please, the nanny state still takes pot users from their homes and locks them up in prisons with hard core criminals, right there teaching them how to survive when they get out. Their "criminal history" follows them to their dying bed, and they won't get a job.

IOW, removing pot from schedule 1 drugs, heroin, opioids, meth, would be a great step turning over responsibility to the individual for his behavior and taking it away from the state. 

Like the reports say, no uptick endangering public safety in states that legalized pot, largely because pot doesn't make drivers and workers "three sheets to the wind" and do dopey things. The higher up executives do that when they get back from their 3 martini power lunches. Talk to them.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Fredrico, have a look at the study conclusion from Stanford Medical Clinical Chemistry. 

Cannabis Effects on Driving Skills | Clinical Chemistry



Fredrico said:


> Sure, there are people with low self esteem or other personality disorders who are the first to jump onto a drug if they perceive it'll soften the pain. With pot, these are the guys you're talking about: losers in search of escape. IME, they don't stop at pot. It doesn't really do the job. They want downers. Pot is not a downer. Users can drive under the influence without crashing into telephone poles. If they have doubts about their ability, they still have the intelligence to wait a few minutes and pull themselves back together. Many of the troops in VN smoked the strong pot available over there, but there was no way we could have won that war, straight or stoned. Pot wasn't softening the blows, though. Some 30,000 troopers came back with serious heroin habits by the 70s. Amazingly, 95% gave it up once they were back with families and couldn't get it outside the network of criminals.
> 
> The hippies grandstanded with pot, the thinking man's answer to booze, the drug of expanding consciousness and luv the one you're with. They weren't interested in holding down jobs, and the ones who did were rebellious anyway. And yes, dumb workers will do dumb things, and being stoned would give them an excuse, or their boss an excuse for letting them go. Most users can straighten up in a heart beat if the situation demands it. Most also don't feel the need to toke up before going to work because the pot high isn't all that much different from being straight.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

_Summary: Differences in study designs frequently account for inconsistencies in results between studies. *Participant-selection bias and confounding factors attenuate ostensible cannabis effects*, but the association with MVA *often retains significance.* Evidence suggests *recent smoking* and/or blood THC concentrations 2–5 ng/mL are associated with substantial driving impairment, particularly in *occasional smokers.*_

Remember when your dad said, "Son, I can handle by booze! Gimme the keys." Alcohol induces stupor, violent behavior, carelessness, total absence of fear or contemplating the consequence of actions taken. Pot is nothing like that. Motor skills are still in complete control, users will perceive dangerous situations as well as if they were straight. 

The main point, implied above, is that pot smokers learn how to drive while buzzing on pot. Hence "Participant-selection bias and confounding factors attenuate ostensible cannabis effects." Users learn how to "straighten up" when behind the steering wheel. They give a sh!t. 

I've never had an accident when driving on weed. I get in the groove, am less susceptible to distractions, and am paying full attention to what's happening around me. It's great fun to anticipate what the other drivers are going to do and act accordingly, moving with the flow like a computer game. 

Driving straight, I've been much more likely to get pissed when another driver seems to diss me, or make bad assumptions about the other drivers because i'm impatient and in a hurry. I've had two accidents when straight.

But yes, if a person hasn't figured out how to handle being stoned, they could do stupid things driving a car, sure. Alcohol is the killer, not pot.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Here's more:

_Both [alcohol and pot] are central nervous system depressants, and alcohol activates the cannabinoid CB1 receptor pathway; however, different effects on driving behavior were noted at the THC doses evaluated. *Alcohol* consumption led to *faster driving,* whereas the *cannabis* doses typically studied *reduced driving speed.* Alcohol *inflates self-confidence,* causing underestimation of impairment . In contrast, *cannabis-influenced drivers* occasionally appear more *cautious* in experimental settings._

What seasoned heads are gonna tell you. They should know.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Sorry I hope you get arrested for DUI... that's just wrong. You "getting in a groove" sounds like over confidence to me. I hope you don't kill or harm someone one day.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

You seem to pick and choose that portion that justifies use. You overlooked what happens in testing where users are in controlled environments.

What's more significant deals with pots impact on ambition and the motivation for personal improvement. That has been the obvious issue from the beginning. It has led to the lazy, unmotivated, and unprincipled stereotype that pot users seem to embrace. Consider that, eventually, we will all be dead enough to not have the choice of being productive. In the interim, some will choose to be alive enough to enjoy being self sufficient, productive, and personally responsible.

Life is a fantastic adventure. Make the most of it and realize that it is too valuable to piss away stoned.


Fredrico said:


> Here's more:
> 
> _Both [alcohol and pot] are central nervous system depressants, and alcohol activates the cannabinoid CB1 receptor pathway; however, different effects on driving behavior were noted at the THC doses evaluated. *Alcohol* consumption led to *faster driving,* whereas the *cannabis* doses typically studied *reduced driving speed.* Alcohol *inflates self-confidence,* causing underestimation of impairment . In contrast, *cannabis-influenced drivers* occasionally appear more *cautious* in experimental settings._
> 
> What seasoned heads are gonna tell you. They should know.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

spdntrxi said:


> Sorry I hope you get arrested for DUI... that's just wrong. You "getting in a groove" sounds like over confidence to me. I hope you don't kill or harm someone one day.


Over confidence? Not at all. Booze makes drivers overconfident. As the above says, stoners typically drive more cautiously. That's why I've never had accidents while driving on the endorphin high induced by a few puffs of THC. It brings on the same consciousness level as riding a bike, only you're dealing with much larger spatial relationships and velocities, so you have to continually update further in advance than you have to on a bike. But the principles are the same.

I learned to drive by riding a bike around the city for many years. City traffic is as predictable as recreational traffic on a MUT, and a bike rider can keep up with the flow a lot of the time, instantly able to change his direction and speed. 

That's the groove I'm talking about. The endorphins enhance situational awareness and you're less likely to screw it up.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

spdntrxi said:


> I hope you get arrested for DUI.


yeah, we would hope law enforcement destroys your life too, but we're not complete âssholes.

hope this thread goes to 100 pages. we're solving so many problems!


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SwiftSolo said:


> pots impact ... has led to the lazy, unmotivated, and unprincipled stereotype that pot users seem to embrace. Consider that...


yeah, consider that, people!



> eventually, we will all be dead enough to not have the choice of being productive.


for more, read his thesis on death's impact on productivity.



> Life is a fantastic adventure. Make the most of it and realize that it is too valuable to piss away stoned.


but not trolling pot users on a bicycle message board! that's really living!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> You seem to pick and choose that portion that justifies use. You overlooked what happens in testing where users are in controlled environments.
> 
> What's more significant deals with pots impact on ambition and the motivation for personal improvement. That has been the obvious issue from the beginning. It has led to the lazy, unmotivated, and unprincipled stereotype that pot users seem to embrace. Consider that, eventually, we will all be dead enough to not have the choice of being productive. In the interim, some will choose to be alive enough to enjoy being self sufficient, productive, and personally responsible.
> 
> Life is a fantastic adventure. Make the most of it and realize that it is too valuable to piss away stoned.


You're talking about students fresh from home, and mentally challenged losers. Most of the students eventually hit the road, get a job, get married, make a living. They use it discreetly in the evenings and at parties, or give it up. The losers move on to alcohol and die when their livers give up. You're thinking about them. And it ain't the pot.

I admire your appeals to following out your dreams, making something of your life, and accomplishing stuff. We all do it to survive. Some are better at it than others. Some seize power, others don't. But that's ok. Different strokes for different folks. 

Artistic people like cannabis, have for a long time. It fires the imagination. Does it soften the edges in life so users lose their grit and creativity? I invite you to check out the very sophisticated marketing strategies popping up as cannabis becomes the latest thing. No grit or creativity lost on them. Those guys are slick.

Some folks just don't dig it. Fine.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

i love my bike an my routes. i get high riding my bike, i don't need to smoke anything


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> You're talking about students fresh from home, and mentally challenged losers. Most of the students eventually hit the road, get a job, get married, make a living.


I remember a study from the 90s, college students. They looked at entrance scores, and predicted grades from those scores. They then looked for any effect of weed smoking on actual grades compared to non-smokers. They also looked at other issues, such as drinking behavior, obviously.

They found that moderate use of weed had no negative effect on actual GPA in college.

And they defined moderate use as 6 or fewer times a week. So pretty much, daily users suffered issues, but less than daily didn't. 

And these days, you really have to be careful about the daily users too. Medical doses are ideally minimally effective dose, so many use cannabis products daily, but don't even get high from it. 10mg edibles, a hit of lowTHC/highCBD weed. They use it to GET THINGS DONE during their day.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Thanks for your reasoned and ambitious contribution to the discussion. Your tireless determination to "remove all doubt" has taken it to a victory for the proponents of getting high.


blackfrancois said:


> yeah, consider that, people!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

Trek_5200 said:


> i love my bike an my routes. i get high riding my bike, i don't need to smoke anything


you can use edibles if smoking isn't your thing.


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

DaveG said:


> I think the whole "gateway drug" issue may be tougher to correlate with "traditional" illegal drugs now that both prescribed and non-prescribed synthetic opioids have become so prevalent. I am much more worried about the over prescribing of opiods than I am about pot.


Yes, a much larger worry is how prescribed opiods become the gateway to illegal opiods, including heroin and other pills laced with deadly doses of fentanyl.
This stuff kills in miniscule amounts. People making illegal drugs are not careful in dosing fentanyl, and many good Americans are dying from "one hit".


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

SwiftSolo said:


> The lack of ambition associated with users is apparent to most coworkers and observers by the level of effing off done by their pot using associates while on the clock. Drug testing requirements indicate that these observations are shared by most employers.


Most would acknowledge - drinking alcohol occasionally does not make one an alcoholic. And so, well adjusted adults using cannabis occasionally does not turn them into useless zombies. 

Per a recent poll, 52% of Americans have tried marijuana at some point in their lives. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-poll-finds-majority-americans-have-smoked-pot-n747476

I'm certainly not seeing 52% of Americans "having no ambition and being a drag on society". That survey also shows most parents are more concerned with their kids _smoking cigarettes_ than pot. 

Probably most of those 52% bought it illegally. The bigger problem is how this untaxed, unregulated massive underground activity encourages criminal activity/crime. Quality and dosing are huge variables for users with illegal pot. And the same guy selling pot may also be selling worse stuff, which is NOT the case in states where it can bought legally. 

Employers absolutely should (and do) monitor employee productivity, and take care of people that can't or won't do their job. 

I tend to think it's unfair to single out folks that may use cannabis occasionally on their own time. And by making testing a "policy", it indirectly endorses use of "legal" alcohol which may be far more detrimental than marijuana.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Z'mer said:


> Yes, a much larger worry is how prescribed opiods become the gateway to illegal opiods, including heroin and other pills laced with deadly doses of fentanyl.
> This stuff kills in miniscule amounts. People making illegal drugs are not careful in dosing fentanyl, and many good Americans are dying from "one hit".


In Bensalam PA, the town is suing drug manufacturers for their role in the opioid crisis. I don't know if that is a winnable case but it an interesting approach. If I had any condition where the doctor suggested an opioid for pain I would think twice about filling that prescription. I have enough issues with my cycling addiction


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

in some ways it is dumb to be suing docs and drug makers for the outcomes of opioid proliferation in the 00s. The science of drug addiction to those meds when Rxed for chronic pain was not very well known, while the pain killing effectiveness is very well established. In hindsight we now know better, but for sure a lot of people's pain was better controlled using these meds, and the docs and pharmaco did not realise that addictions would become pandemic also. Biological beings (especially psychologically) are complex, and there is some measure of individual responsibility involved also. We can't have a society which sues for every unfortunate turn of events! it really was an accident, and the medical community has changed the standard of care for opioid Rx for some time now.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Two things. 

1. I don't think anyone is suggesting that pot is a switch that suddenly turns off all ambition. Further, it is not clear whether pot is the cause or people who lack ambition are simply attracted to pot. The real question relates to how pot affects ambition. I think it is clear that there is a spectrum of levels of ambition and a correlation between ambition and successful movement towards setting and attaining goals.

2. I think more than 52% have been burned by touching something they had been told was hot. The more significant metric would be the percentage of casual to frequent users. Finally, it would be my guess that less than 25% of the population have a high level of ambition. Part of that may be related to the marketing of victimization and the likely negative impact it has on subscribers.


Z'mer said:


> Most would acknowledge - drinking alcohol occasionally does not make one an alcoholic. And so, well adjusted adults using cannabis occasionally does not turn them into useless zombies.
> 
> Per a recent poll, 52% of Americans have tried marijuana at some point in their lives. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-poll-finds-majority-americans-have-smoked-pot-n747476
> 
> ...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

BCSaltchucker said:


> in some ways it is dumb to be suing docs and drug makers for the outcomes of opioid proliferation in the 00s. The science of drug addiction to those meds when Rxed for chronic pain was not very well known, while the pain killing effectiveness is very well established. In hindsight we now know better, but for sure a lot of people's pain was better controlled using these meds, and the docs and pharmaco did not realise that addictions would become pandemic also. Biological beings (especially psychologically) are complex, and there is some measure of *individual responsibility *involved also. We can't have a society which sues for every unfortunate turn of events! it really was an accident, and the medical community has changed the standard of care for opioid Rx for some time now.


Individual Responsibility!!!

What kind of talk is that?


----------



## jasnooks (Feb 1, 2017)

factory feel said:


> while riding?


https://youtu.be/Qu_rItLPTXc


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

BCSaltchucker said:


> in some ways it is dumb to be suing docs and drug makers for the outcomes of opioid proliferation in the 00s. The science of drug addiction to those meds when Rxed for chronic pain was not very well known, while the pain killing effectiveness is very well established. In hindsight we now know better, but for sure a lot of people's pain was better controlled using these meds, and the docs and pharmaco did not realise that addictions would become pandemic also. Biological beings (especially psychologically) are complex, and there is some measure of individual responsibility involved also. We can't have a society which sues for every unfortunate turn of events! it really was an accident, and the medical community has changed the standard of care for opioid Rx for some time now.


I am not advocating suing them, just reporting. However, I do think that drug makers have to be part of the solution. I am sure they are well aware than a decent percentage of their products are being abused and sold through illegal markets. To date, they haven't done much about it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

DaveG said:


> In Bensalam PA, the town is suing drug manufacturers for their role in the opioid crisis. I don't know if that is a winnable case but it an interesting approach. If I had any condition where the doctor suggested an opioid for pain I would think twice about filling that prescription. I have enough issues with my cycling addiction


Last time I was prescribed pain killers after intestinal surgery, the doc gave me non-opioid pills that did the job 90% as well. She saw I'd been on opioids for months and opted to play it safe. Forgot the name, but the new pills did the job and I wasn't anxious when going off them. 

I would guess responsible drug companies are searching for alternatives to opioids. High CBD low THC pot just happens to be a pretty good one.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/auto-crashes-are-on-the-rise-in-marijuana-states.html

https://www.civilized.life/articles/car-accidents-legal-marijuana/


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/auto-crashes-are-on-the-rise-in-marijuana-states.html
> 
> https://www.civilized.life/articles/car-accidents-legal-marijuana/


_Colorado started selling recreational marijuana only 6 months before Washington, but its 16 percent rise in car accidents is more than double the rate in the Evergreen State. Meanwhile, Washington's 6.2 percent increase in traffic accidents is only 1.7 percent higher than Oregon's 4.5 percent, even though Oregon began selling recreational marijuana over a year after its northern neighbor._

Verry inter es ting! :idea:


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

yeah but is that claim $ or is it claims in terms of number of claims? If it is number of claims then we have to look at severity of the accidents I think. Correlations can be nasty for having other variables, as the article notes.

Could even be the changing west coast culture. We have not had legalized pot here and usage hasn't changed. But our prov car insurance claims are outstripping premiums by 30% - we're likely to see a 30% rise in insurance costs here in a couple years just due to so many other factors - I suspect the rise in text-driving.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

BCSaltchucker said:


> yeah but is that claim $ or is it claims in terms of number of claims? If it is number of claims then we have to look at severity of the accidents I think. Correlations can be nasty for having other variables, as the article notes.
> 
> Could even be the changing west coast culture. We have not had legalized pot here and usage hasn't changed. But our prov car insurance claims are outstripping premiums by 30% - we're likely to see a 30% rise in insurance costs here in a couple years just due to so many other factors - I suspect the rise in text-driving.


And then there's texting while driving while stoned. Oh Boy.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

which is what I call text-driving above


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

BCSaltchucker said:


> yeah but is that claim $ or is it claims in terms of number of claims? If it is number of claims then we have to look at severity of the accidents I think. Correlations can be nasty for having other variables, as the article notes.
> 
> Could even be the changing west coast culture. We have not had legalized pot here and usage hasn't changed. But our prov car insurance claims are outstripping premiums by 30% - we're likely to see a 30% rise in insurance costs here in a couple years just due to so many other factors - I suspect the rise in text-driving.


Sure, text messaging ramped up in about the same time span. 

Won't it be great when automated cars become viable? It would be another layer of protection against idiot drivers! I believe the robotics react to objects as small as pedestrians. Just think of the games a cyclist could play!


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Won't it be great when automated cars become viable? It would be another layer of protection against idiot drivers!


More like another layer of irresponsibility.


----------

