Home

ColoradoNative (anonymous) says...

Could you break down all the wonderful benefits of our legal drug Alcohol next?

November 30, 2007 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

corduroy (anonymous) says...

Alcohol has caused more damage to my family than pot ever possibly can.
Something that addictive and that unhealthy should be what's illegal. And cigarettes? Don't get me started on that either.

November 30, 2007 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

what about a lecture on the effects of tabbacco? Does all the tax money they offer up to the government pay back all for the lives it use takes? Why not do the same with pot? could it be that the stoners don't have as good a lobby up in washington? Why don't you do a lecture on the hyprocracy of our "war on drugs"? What's got you bonnet in a bustle, did you have to ride the lift with some pothead skiers?

December 1, 2007 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fish (anonymous) says...

Thats funny, you make the statement that very few locals can pass the drug test but you offer no statistics to support that claim. IS this just your opinion or do you have actual FACTS to back it up? That seems to be the problem with a lot of your arguements you confuse opinion with fact. How many employers did you interview and also how many locals did you poll?

December 1, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bubba (anonymous) says...

sbvor, aren't those war zones caused more by the government's failing war on drugs? Since you argue capitalism so well, I trust you have a fundamental understanding of economics- the government's war has thus far been to try and limit the supply without addressing the demand, which has never worked for anything. It is this policy that makes drugs so expensive to users, i.e. profitable to distributors and smugglers, and this is the reason why these towns are war zones. Limit demand for illegal drugs by providing treatment, and control the supply by some form of legal distribution channel, and the violent criminals are out of business, no more war zones. Since drug dealing is a crime, we could test the theory that 'crime wouldn't pay if the government ran it.' Not only would legal channels for distribution eliminate the crime associated with drug use, there could be registration requirements, which would provide some registration/tracking ability, to ensure that pilots or whomever aren't abusing drugs...

December 1, 2007 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fish (anonymous) says...

THanks for the nickname but I think that it would be a more suitable handle for yourself. As for your objective facts,apparently objective facts don't have to be based in truth, just facts aimed at obtaining your goals.

December 1, 2007 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Lovetricity (anonymous) says...

Do you think sheriff Paul Wall smokes weed? Or, is he just a drinker?

December 1, 2007 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Lovetricity (anonymous) says...

Here's a picture of sheriff Paul Wall:
http://www.mixtapetorrent.com/system/...

The Drank Epidemic

December 1, 2007 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fish (anonymous) says...

Here you go dodging the question once again you state "very few locals can pass a drug test." I have asked you time and again on what facts do you base this statement and instead of answering you try changing the debate. I am just waiting for you to back up your statement about locals. Not give my your studies and peer based reviews done somewhere else, back up your comment about locals. Talk about an "artful dodger you take it to a totally different level.

December 2, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

paddlefisher (anonymous) says...

i agree fish that is a very bold statement to make with no FACTS or statistics to back it up..sbvor put up or shut up show us your fact finding survey of employers in Steamboat..copy and paste it you seem to like doing that

December 2, 2007 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

Here's why I don't agree:
1. Abuse is abuse, some poelpe can use without abuse, not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic
2. Pot's effects are at least as hameless as alcohol some would argue less harmful, and less physically addictive
3. I agree with bubba, reduce demand, and remove the criminals from the supply line and this problem is solved.
4. Morally, see #3, then, What business is it of yours how i gratify myself, If I'm not out endangering myself or others, it's none of your business.

Now how about backing up your clain that noone can pass a drug test in this town... I may not be "clean" but "I bet i can pass your test..

December 2, 2007 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bubba (anonymous) says...

sbvor, your 'if not, why not' refers to a statement that you claim is undeniable, which I disagree. I will agree that everyone should have the moral responsibility to not contribute to war zones or whatever, (as long as they are US soldiers in a war zone, but that is a different topic) BUT drug use does not undeniably create these war zones, because they did not exist before the war on drugs started. I would guess that the Pot smoked by most people in this town is grown indoors in colorado, or British columbia or california, so it has nothing to do with the so called war zones down south.

I will agree that substance abuse is wrong, and I am not condoning it, but I fail to see how a guy sitting in his house in steamboat with a bongload of colorado grown weed is hurting anything except his own brainpower, and there are plenty of legal substances out there that make people dumb too, from cartoons to alcohol. Using pot, alcohol or television to excess will all make you dumber, so why don't you research the inherent dangers of video games or cartoons or something?

December 2, 2007 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fish (anonymous) says...

Still waiting for you to answer my question Master Dodger.

December 2, 2007 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fish (anonymous) says...

Still waiting for your answer Master Dodger (aka sbvor).

You always challenge others to debate you and when you are called on something in your posts you just tune them out. I guess that you are afraid of an honest dialog where you are called on to back up one of your statements.

Come on it can't be that hard, you either have studies or have talked to local businesses and locals that you can cite.

WIth your continued silence we can assume that you were just talking out your *ss on your comment about "very few locals."

December 3, 2007 at 7:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

corduroy (anonymous) says...

if you are addicted to alcohol it can kill if you decide to actually stop
if you are "addicted" to marijuana it can't kill you if you stop smoking, ever.

I believe on cracking down more on Drunk Driving (why is it every week there are more people getting DUIs? just because you only had 2 doesn't mean you aren't legally drunk), and the hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth and let the other things sort themselves out.

For a country founded on freedom, we sure want to take more and more freedoms away.. Remember prohibition?

December 3, 2007 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

paddlefisher (anonymous) says...

he's talkin out of his lower orifice...why he doesn't answer cann't copy and paste to back his statements up..and I bet kielbiesa is right he draws Social Security Checks but he doesn't respond to them either when you call him or her out then their is no responce..so sbvor put up or shut up..now you are deemed the artful dodger deluxe..I notice you post on other threads but not here anymore.show us your facts about local employers saying most locals can not pass drug tests..WHERES THE BEEF

December 3, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fish (anonymous) says...

So who are the local employers who have stated this to you, one or two employers or more. Since your comment was stated as it was wouldn't it be better if you simply stated that it is your opinion. Not a statement that leads one to belief that it is fact, but simply your very own personal opinion of the people that you live around.

I guess now we know why you don't post any information about yourself, your afraid someone might take offense at your attitudes and pop you in the mouth.

December 4, 2007 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

corduroy (anonymous) says...

I had a friend lose a job over a stupid drug test. Unfortunately it was the Sheraton who was the real loser, she was one of their best, but if you go home and enjoy yourself with a bowlpack, you aren't allowed to work there I guess

Why you think so many Steamboaters are alcoholics? They're allowed to drink (sometimes on the job) but they don't care how drunk you are as long as you pass a drug test? Doesn't add up right.

Maybe I wouldn't pass a drug test today. But I show up early everyday and work my little heart out, who cares what I do at home in private?

December 4, 2007 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fish (anonymous) says...

Sorry, but I have never really found links in any of your posts worth reading, just having some fun with you. Thanks for the entertainment! Its been fun.

December 4, 2007 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

paddlefisher (anonymous) says...

sbvor,
O.K. I can live with that but to make the general statement that you did was pretty profound...thats puts me in your generalization having had a CDL for over 20 years I can pass any drug or alcohol test any employer wants me too..not to say I didn't smoke pot at one time(I'll admit it unlike Bill Clinton) but that was way back when.I believe what you do on your own time is your own business as long as it doesn't affect your job,your family and friends or cause you to put others in harms way then go for it but once it does then its time to ask yourself some serious questions

December 4, 2007 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

agentofchange (anonymous) says...

Hey, It's 4:20 somewhere...

Cheers!

December 4, 2007 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

agentofchange (anonymous) says...

brother svbor, chill !!

If we can't laugh, what are we?

It just kinda sounds like a "Buffet Song", it's 4:20 somewhere !!

Cheers!

December 4, 2007 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

A whole marijuana cigarette is a lot of weed. I wonder how the affected ability 24 hours after compares to a BAC of .04 (legal in CO) or .07 (legal in many other states).
The terror described is a result of government policy. We had the same results here in America during prohibition, yet most of society still indulged. America decided it wasn't worth the terror here at home so it was repealed. The terror described in the narcotic trade doesn't affect mainstream America nearly as directly, so we decide our laws are worth it.
Does anyone know who provides all that "medical" marijuana for those shops in california?

December 4, 2007 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Scott_Wedel (Scott Wedel) says...

The obvious solution to the problems caused by trafficking in easily available drugs would be to legalize them. There is so much profit in illegal drugs that we have criminal enterprises able to smuggle in drugs with about a 10% loss.

Current drug laws are certainly not denying pot to those that want to use. So legalize the growing and sale, but tax and regulate to keep the price up.

The "war on drugs" will always be a joke (a slogan, not a war given whatever resources required in order to be won) as long as it includes pot. Society has largely accepted pot use as a vice among other vices such as alcohol or call girl prostitution.

December 12, 2007 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

id04sp (anonymous) says...

Tell ya what, kids. I was diagnosed with allergic asthma about a year ago as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke as a kid and occupational factors as an adult. It had taken a long time to progress to the point that I was being disabled by the long term, cumulative effects of all this stuff. I didn't realize how much lung capacity I had lost until I was measured and hit 62% on the spirometer. Now I'm back up to 85% after a year of inhaled steroids and immunotherapy.

When somebody at work goes outside, takes a smoke, and comes back in with the scent on their clothes, I can feel it hit me, and out comes the rescue inhaler.

Anything you inhale except for 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen is bad for you.

Anybody who thinks, "I'll worry about that when I'm old," really won't enjoy the experience when they get old, and will hate themselves as they gasp on their death beds, wishing they had stopped smoking when they were 19.

So, cigarettes take care of their own abusers in the long run. Banning pot, only because it is smoked, improves the value of life in our society, and we don't need something else to make the cost of smoking and respiratory disease worse than it already is.

December 13, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

so is it OK to eat Pot brownies?

December 14, 2007 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oofcboy (anonymous) says...

well I heard that william randolf hearst helped pass the laws to make marijuana illeagle because it cut into his paper mills production,and they admitt it was all lies that got the law passed,so who is lying to us now about the effect tobacco company, breweries,and distilleries.Have you seen the effects,

December 14, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnTheBusGus (anonymous) says...

Consuming "pot brownies" will not hurt your lungs but the THC will still have an effect on the rest of the body. Chow down if that's what you want! I guess will the additional fat consumed in the brownies you'll have more places to store that THC.

*Most* people in the USA know that cigarette smoking is bad for you. When I was in school I did a report and included in my research was an interesting bit of information.. over 70% of European lung cancer patients who were smokers had no idea that smoking cigarettes was bad for them and could cause cancer. Can you imagine how different Europe would be if the tobacco companies had to be forced to put warning labels on Euro products? Provide education/advertising campaigns about the dangers of smoking? I sure bet the tobacco companies like the fact that Europe and other countries haven't caught on to all that has happened here (lawsuits, etc). A money saver AND more naive customers!!

December 14, 2007 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bubba (anonymous) says...

mmmm..... Brownies.....

December 14, 2007 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mud (anonymous) says...

I recently watched some pot-head show where all these "sick" people would walk into a California shop and order the weed they liked the most .
AK, blueberry, straws....Does anyone know where this weed comes from?

December 18, 2007 at 1:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

popet (anonymous) says...

Hey, pot has never caused any damage to people in my family,me, or my friends, really isn't addicting, nor has it caused "violent outbursts" in fact it is a seditive and shouldn't be profiled as a bad thing. take a poll on the entire city of steamboat and i guarantee you that more than 50% of this town has tried the mary-jane. " wasted away again in marajuanaville!"

December 23, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

popet (anonymous) says...

Oh! hey sbvor, have smoked weed?

December 23, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

popet (anonymous) says...

sorry, have YOU smoked weed?

December 23, 2007 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

Noone so afraid of it's effects has tried it. Plus, it's really hard to get a joint lit from so high up on that soapbox.

December 26, 2007 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

id04sp (anonymous) says...

Just got to add in here again that this noxious weed's survival strategy depends on getting the (so called) highest form of life on the planet to be willing to give up life and liberty to cultivate and obtain it.

Pretty sad.

And yeah, it's the same for alcohol.

Or is that "alsohol."

If your pitiful little life is so GD painful that you have to be stupid on some drug to get through it, then I'm afraid pot has passed you on the pyramid of life and YOU are now the lower life form.

December 26, 2007 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

that's a pretty complex survival strategy for a plant.

December 27, 2007 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

id04sp (anonymous) says...

Yeah, and think how dumb you have to be to fall into it.

The plant makes you want it more than anything else. What gives you more joy than smoking pot? The answer must be, "Nothing," because otherwise you'd have found a better use for your time.

And it's the same for alsohol.

Evolution is responsible for making the plant able to survive despite concerted efforts to wipe it out. Evolution is also responsible for making people dumb enough to fall into a trap set by a plant.

It's an addictive substance. If you think it's not, then why do you crave it to the exclusion of more productive and fulfilling activities?

You'll never understand what I'm saying, because the plant got you. That's a pretty smart plant.

December 27, 2007 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

twostroketerror (anonymous) says...

What if they legalized pot? Then the 20-nothing pseudo hippies would have nothing to talk about. Grow up and get a coke habit like the rest of this town. I need a Claritin. Happy New Year!

December 27, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Hadleyburg_Press (anonymous) says...

id04sp,
Your "theory" works for religion as well:

"Yeah, and think how dumb you have to be to fall into it.

The (religion) makes you want it more than anything else. What gives you more joy than (religion)? The answer must be, "Nothing," because otherwise you'd have found a better use for your time.

And it's the same for alsohol.

Evolution is responsible for making (religion) able to survive despite concerted efforts to wipe it out. Evolution is also responsible for making people dumb enough to fall into a trap set by a (religion).

It's an addictive substance. If you think it's not, then why do you crave it to the exclusion of more productive and fulfilling activities?

You'll never understand what I'm saying, because (religion) got you. That's a pretty smart (religion)."

Interesting don't ya think?

December 27, 2007 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Hadleyburg_Press (anonymous) says...

Just a quick disclaimer for the above. For the record, I don't believe in either theory. It was just an "evolution vs religion " jab at my honored friend id04sp. No malice ment towards anyone of religious belief(s).

December 27, 2007 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stompk (anonymous) says...

Thanks for the laugh!

Are you on crack?

December 27, 2007 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

id04sp (anonymous) says...

Hadley,

Guess what? I'm going to spend my time doing something better than responding to your comment . No offense taken.

December 27, 2007 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stompk (anonymous) says...

sbvor, don't smoke it then!

There, problem solved.

Oh, wait.

You want to push your beliefs on others.

Steamboat's always had a lot of pot smokers, and always will.

Towns kinda mellow, ya know.

Pot's been around for 1000's of years, and will probably always be around.

The plant is not actually a weed.

And the benefits outway the harm, imo.

But, another reason for cops to bust down the doors
of otherwise law abiding citizens, in most cases.

What a joke. Have a smoke.

December 27, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtroach (anonymous) says...

I would inagine Xanax or someother prescription medicine, (I think he posts when off his meds) they are legal and morally correct to use/abuse. Just ask Rush or the millions of Americans addicted to substances they get from their pharmacy. A plus with pharm meds is that they are covered by insurance, Free Addiction.

December 28, 2007 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )