I couldn't find one so.....high thoughts please post if you think of something that sounds amazing when you are high. To be determined later by everyo

[somebody2]

Yeah but weed isn't a drug. It won't make you sick if you go without it, like whiskey. I mean yeah I get what you're saying but it isn't a drug in that way. Work is way more fun if you do it knowing that your reward for doing all that bullshit is smoking marijuana when you're done, and in good jobs during.

My only friend who smokes *a lot* these days

Your friend probably has other things going on in his life. How can you pin it on weed? Maybe his life's quality and course would have been much worse without marijuana. I mean I don't know the guy but I don't know any societal dropouts that would have done so solely because of weed. Weed is definitely a symptom of the loserdome your friend has brought on himself but there is no reasonable argument for marijuana being the cause of his failure.

And over the years I've come across a number of other heavy pot smokers who were just totally whacked out, but couldn't conceive of the fact that maybe they were smoking too much. Like I say.. I'm not anti-pot per se, just in a rather long-winded way trying to point out that it's not a miracle drug.

Most modern people are whacked out no matter how you look at it. Some are whacked out and stoned. What is it about marijuana that is so whacky? Seriously the whacky people I know would be sooo much whakier if they didn't have weed to rely on. I'm grateful that people around me have weed to rely on. I'm not qualified to make the call but I think half of the people around me could kill at any moment. What was the joke about forgetting to kill your wife because you were stoned or whatever? I don't know but oh man I sure am glad pot is everywhere around me because these people are dangerous. I'm talking the people that anyone could come into contact with by just being in public. I'm glad there is a good way to sedate people. Was watching some show the other day and they had these futuristic, one time use vape things that were sold on the subway in a vending machine. The show was about a Utopia somewhere. Can't remember the title for some reason.

And I may be incorrect, but I have never heard of any human dying of marijuana overdose. Just saying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[another1]

Yeah you probably got that right rousseau but that could be said of almost anything to replace it. Personally I have an oral thing to begin with. Straws, suckers, gum, cigarettes. So whatever I take up is going to have to be around the mouth. Set you up perfect for a dumb joke there buy seriously what do people do if they aren't doing what they're doing? See what I mean, like I'd be doing something else if I wasn't smoking pot obsessively. If it is helpful to my body I should probably be smoking weed ya know. Everyone should.

Marijuana growing wildly in all urban areas. You agree that is the idea right? Creeper vine kinda bud plants could grow along every surface if you want. A climbing plant would be cool but as far as I know they don't grow like that. Buildings covered with it would make a nice sight. The populous is drugged past recognition already so this plan would only help. Less teenagers would turn to pills and crack because marijuana is growing on their school. It should be legally unacceptable to have a blood level below a certain limit. It should be illeegal to waste your feces because it is valuable compost. Oh hell. Weren't we talking about sanitation companies screwing us? Well, if not, that is what they do. And there would be less of that with a city like this. Pot grows fast. Hydo systems are just pvp pipe. This could happen as early as next year. Not sure who to contact about that but yeah that is such an amazing plan isn't it. Imagine if entire cities were psychologically dependent on something they could pick from the wall of an alley, dry and smoke. Is that worse than what people are already hooked on? And I don't mean just drugs. After a few years of pot being everywhere, other addictions would fade away. Computer games and selling out on social media would require too much effort to continue. Things that matter in the real world would have more importance. Masses of fish would die off in mysterious torrents less often. Birds would no longer drop from the sky. The reach would go way beyond human psychological dependence. I mean I'm happy with 2019 here in WV. A dispensary will do me fine but if you want my realistic opinion that was it.

 

[rousseau]

You guys might find this post interesting.

In the last couple weeks I've found mint teas to act as a good alcohol replacement. They take off the edge without putting me right to sleep. I still drink, but now I have something else to rely on to quiet my brain.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I don't mean to interrupt your fascinating conversation, but I just thought I'd reply to the original question, if I may ...

Camping in the hills with a bunch of friends, we'd all have been in our late teens-early 20s at the time. After setting up the tents, campfire, etc., we got down to some serious relaxation. Probably some Nepalese or Afghan, there was a lot of that around at the time, good hash. Anyway, after a few spliffs, we're sitting on the brow of the hill we were next to, and the one guy who had a camera (this was the early 1980s, folks, we didn't carry a camera everywhere we went on our mobile phones. Or even have mobile phones.) whips it out and starts getting us set up for a group photo. The full moon was behind us above the hill, and he thought it would make a good pic. In fact, with it being just around head-height from his perspective, he came up with the brilliant idea that we should all pose with our heads behind the moon, which would make for a more unusual, and aesthetically pleasing, image. Everybody thought this was a great idea, and we were just starting to sort out the logistics of it, when the realisation hit us all, more or less simultaneously - short of being 384,000 km tall, there was no realistic way to actually get our heads behind the moon. Much hilarity ensued as we realised our stupidity, more joints were rolled, and the evening continued.

Of course, these days, we'd have just photoshopped it, but back in the day, you had to be this tall to get your head behind the moon ...

 

[somebody2]

So I'm thinking a scary movie about those picker guys going deep into hillbilly country and they have to survive the pick. Directed by Eli Roth. Or comedy/ Coen Brothers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[somebody2]

You guys might find this post interesting.

In the last couple weeks I've found mint teas to act as a good alcohol replacement. They take off the edge without putting me right to sleep. I still drink, but now I have something else to rely on to quiet my brain.

Thanks for the tip, bc I've had trouble sleeping. I've just recently quit drinking Diet Coke. Traded for iced tea.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[LordKiran]

Yeah but weed isn't a drug. It won't make you sick if you go without it, like whiskey. I mean yeah I get what you're saying but it isn't a drug in that way.

It absolutely is. You can withdraw from weed just as you can any other intoxicant. The difference is one of degrees. If you ever passed out from smoking and then wake up the next day with your head feeling foggy and your body sedated (NOT in a good way!) then congrats, the THC has detached from your brain and your brain is missing it.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Marijuana growing wildly in all urban areas. You agree that is the idea right? Creeper vine kinda bud plants could grow along every surface if you want. A climbing plant would be cool but as far as I know they don't grow like that. Buildings covered with it would make a nice sight. ...

Actually Cannabis sativa is in the same family (Cannabaceae) as the hops vine used in making beer, Humulus lupulus.

 

[somebody2]

So if we all have self driving cars and there is an accident, who is responsible? Car company, owner of car, insurance????


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[another1]

but weed isn't a drug. It won't make you sick if you go without it, like whiskey. I mean yeah I get what you're saying but it isn't a drug in that way.

It absolutely is. You can withdraw from weed just as you can any other intoxicant. The difference is one of degrees. If you ever passed out from smoking and then wake up the next day with your head feeling foggy and your body sedated (NOT in a good way!) then congrats, the THC has detached from your brain and your brain is missing it.

Yeah, I withdraw that comment. And mixing with hops kills the THC. Dunno if that was what you meant, but yeah it kills the THC dead.

A real stoned thought. Pirates can tell a joke while in floating isolation. When they step off the boat, they hear a joke they made up while at sea. How does this happen? Inventions spring up at the same time. Musical tunes are created at the same time. I think imaginations sync. That has been wrung out I'm sure but it is interesting to me, and probably someone else across the world at this moment. Is there a term for linked thoughts like that?

Another stoned thought... I am going to make a contraption that saves cats in sewer drains. It may already exist, I don't know. I'm still going to make one from a bike brake and a reinforced pool net. And a can of tuna. I can already hear the jingle for sewer-kitty net. Bud the goddamn linked thoughts seems to get me every time. Every time I think of something cool, BAM the phenomenon kicks in and my procrastination puts someone else ahead, even if I thought of it years ago. I definitely shouldn't tell any internet people about this.

 

[TV and credit cards]

So if we all have self driving cars and there is an accident, who is responsible? Car company, owner of car, insurance????


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read any stories lately of how the insurance companies are fighting the advancement of self driving cars?
Me neither.

You'd think the last one who could possibly be responsible would be the person sitting in the car not in control and had absolutely no part in manufacturing the controls.
But I'll bet you doughnuts to dollars it'll be that very person.

 

[somebody2]

So if we all have self driving cars and there is an accident, who is responsible? Car company, owner of car, insurance????


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read any stories lately of how the insurance companies are fighting the advancement of self driving cars?
Me neither.

You'd think the last one who could possibly be responsible would be the person sitting in the car not in control and had absolutely no part in manufacturing the controls.
But I'll bet you doughnuts to dollars it'll be that very person.

Agreed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bilby]

Read any stories lately of how the insurance companies are fighting the advancement of self driving cars?
Me neither.

You'd think the last one who could possibly be responsible would be the person sitting in the car not in control and had absolutely no part in manufacturing the controls.
But I'll bet you doughnuts to dollars it'll be that very person.

Agreed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, right now, if a car crashes, the driver is responsible if (and only if) he is shown to be at fault. At which point, if he has comprehensive insurance, the insurance company is the one that pays the bills (less deductible/excess).

If a self-driving car crashes, then a court will need to assign responsibility. They seem unlikely to assign blame to a passenger, any more than they would to a passenger in a car today - unless the passenger did something to cause the driver (human or robot) to lose control.

If the fault is determined to be with the car, then the manufacturer (or the manufacturer's insurance) would pay; If a passenger did something - like deliberately block the driver's view, or deliberately block the sensors a self-driving car uses to scan its surroundings, or deliberately interfere with the controls - then the passenger would be at fault, and would have to pay. But as passengers are not typically insured, the actual outcome, most of the time, would be that the injured parties would be able to claim on any 3rd party insurance they have, and that the 3rd party insurer (or the injured party if uninsured) would then have to pursue the at-fault individual in court.

None of this is particularly new - we have had potentially dangerous automated systems for decades, and occasionally people have been hurt by them. There's no real problem here - insurance and fault are important NOW, because car crashes are common, and often cause more damage than the at-fault entity can afford. But self driving cars will rarely cause crashes, and when they do, the majority of incidents will be traceable to design faults, and the at-fault party will be a large corporation with a large public liability policy (and/or deep pockets).

We need to avoid trying to find objections to new technology that are based on assumptions that no longer apply. You could just as well have a conversation 150 years ago, asking what will be done to ensure the safety of the boys collecting manure from the highway, once motor cars are allowed to travel at dangerous speeds on those highways. The problem is real, only if we assume that the technology isn't going to transform the way things are done - but it is, so it isn't.

In short, we need not care who will be liable, because existing legal precedent means it won't be a passenger who has no control over the vehicle; and because crashes will be rare, will mostly be very well documented, and will mostly be the responsibility of organizations who can afford to pay for any damage done, or the responsibility of the injured party, in which case, tough shit.

If you step into the road and get hit by a car today, and the courts determine that your own negligence was to blame, then it's tough on you, but you should have been more careful. That won't change when the car you step out in front of is driving itself - but such a car will be much more likely to take effective action to miss you without hitting anyone else than a human driver would be; so the number of such incidents should be FAR lower than they are today.

 

[somebody2]

Agreed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, right now, if a car crashes, the driver is responsible if (and only if) he is shown to be at fault. At which point, if he has comprehensive insurance, the insurance company is the one that pays the bills (less deductible/excess).

If a self-driving car crashes, then a court will need to assign responsibility. They seem unlikely to assign blame to a passenger, any more than they would to a passenger in a car today - unless the passenger did something to cause the driver (human or robot) to lose control.

If the fault is determined to be with the car, then the manufacturer (or the manufacturer's insurance) would pay; If a passenger did something - like deliberately block the driver's view, or deliberately block the sensors a self-driving car uses to scan its surroundings, or deliberately interfere with the controls - then the passenger would be at fault, and would have to pay. But as passengers are not typically insured, the actual outcome, most of the time, would be that the injured parties would be able to claim on any 3rd party insurance they have, and that the 3rd party insurer (or the injured party if uninsured) would then have to pursue the at-fault individual in court.

None of this is particularly new - we have had potentially dangerous automated systems for decades, and occasionally people have been hurt by them. There's no real problem here - insurance and fault are important NOW, because car crashes are common, and often cause more damage than the at-fault entity can afford. But self driving cars will rarely cause crashes, and when they do, the majority of incidents will be traceable to design faults, and the at-fault party will be a large corporation with a large public liability policy (and/or deep pockets).

We need to avoid trying to find objections to new technology that are based on assumptions that no longer apply. You could just as well have a conversation 150 years ago, asking what will be done to ensure the safety of the boys collecting manure from the highway, once motor cars are allowed to travel at dangerous speeds on those highways. The problem is real, only if we assume that the technology isn't going to transform the way things are done - but it is, so it isn't.

In short, we need not care who will be liable, because existing legal precedent means it won't be a passenger who has no control over the vehicle; and because crashes will be rare, will mostly be very well documented, and will mostly be the responsibility of organizations who can afford to pay for any damage done, or the responsibility of the injured party, in which case, tough shit.

If you step into the road and get hit by a car today, and the courts determine that your own negligence was to blame, then it's tough on you, but you should have been more careful. That won't change when the car you step out in front of is driving itself - but such a car will be much more likely to take effective action to miss you without hitting anyone else than a human driver would be; so the number of such incidents should be FAR lower than they are today.

I definitely have no objections to self driving cars. My husband does, he believes they will be hacked and cause terrible accidents with loss of life.
I realize that car accidents with human drivers don't have a good track record so...i believe less loss of life with self driving cars.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DolphinDynasty]

Well, right now, if a car crashes, the driver is responsible if (and only if) he is shown to be at fault. At which point, if he has comprehensive insurance, the insurance company is the one that pays the bills (less deductible/excess).

If a self-driving car crashes, then a court will need to assign responsibility. They seem unlikely to assign blame to a passenger, any more than they would to a passenger in a car today - unless the passenger did something to cause the driver (human or robot) to lose control.

If the fault is determined to be with the car, then the manufacturer (or the manufacturer's insurance) would pay; If a passenger did something - like deliberately block the driver's view, or deliberately block the sensors a self-driving car uses to scan its surroundings, or deliberately interfere with the controls - then the passenger would be at fault, and would have to pay. But as passengers are not typically insured, the actual outcome, most of the time, would be that the injured parties would be able to claim on any 3rd party insurance they have, and that the 3rd party insurer (or the injured party if uninsured) would then have to pursue the at-fault individual in court.

None of this is particularly new - we have had potentially dangerous automated systems for decades, and occasionally people have been hurt by them. There's no real problem here - insurance and fault are important NOW, because car crashes are common, and often cause more damage than the at-fault entity can afford. But self driving cars will rarely cause crashes, and when they do, the majority of incidents will be traceable to design faults, and the at-fault party will be a large corporation with a large public liability policy (and/or deep pockets).

We need to avoid trying to find objections to new technology that are based on assumptions that no longer apply. You could just as well have a conversation 150 years ago, asking what will be done to ensure the safety of the boys collecting manure from the highway, once motor cars are allowed to travel at dangerous speeds on those highways. The problem is real, only if we assume that the technology isn't going to transform the way things are done - but it is, so it isn't.

In short, we need not care who will be liable, because existing legal precedent means it won't be a passenger who has no control over the vehicle; and because crashes will be rare, will mostly be very well documented, and will mostly be the responsibility of organizations who can afford to pay for any damage done, or the responsibility of the injured party, in which case, tough shit.

If you step into the road and get hit by a car today, and the courts determine that your own negligence was to blame, then it's tough on you, but you should have been more careful. That won't change when the car you step out in front of is driving itself - but such a car will be much more likely to take effective action to miss you without hitting anyone else than a human driver would be; so the number of such incidents should be FAR lower than they are today.

I definitely have no objections to self driving cars. My husband does, he believes they will be hacked and cause terrible accidents with loss of life.
I realize that car accidents with human drivers don't have a good track record so...i believe less loss of life with self driving cars.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I once thought the original rendition t the newest commercial for a pregnancy test was the funniest, most honest piece of writing ever from an advert. They made it seem like a piece of technology to rival the space station, and then ended with the line "The most sophisticated thing you will ever pee on".

Also . . . I'd like a self-driving car since my health is such that it's not the best idea for me to drive longer than advised, which is local, and what a prion that makes of my tiny, shit, run-down town I live in.

But then, because we will always have nearly all humans out for whatever benefit they think they can tae advantage of or abuse or use to abuse others with, yeah, they'll probably never happen.

Of course on the other side of it again, people have been actively trying to keep back or take away nearly every other tech/social advancement or tech/social benefit too, and most are still around just altered to hopefully omit at least a few of the mistakes we had when they first were developed.