Dude needs a refund.

[BuffCyclist]

25.3605 one ounce shots in a 750mL bottle....

Yes, my point was, some bars pour 1oz shots to save money and short you. Some serve 1.25oz shots. Some serve 1.5oz shots.

At home, my shots are like 3oz

The point was, depending on the standard unit of measure, you can get a variety of different shots from one bottle of a given size. But, you'll know that you can get 24-1oz shots, 19.2-1.25oz shots, 16-1.5oz shots, etc.

[brutal]

Yes, my point was, some bars pour 1oz shots to save money and short you. Some serve 1.25oz shots. Some serve 1.5oz shots.

At home, my shots are like 3oz

The point was, depending on the standard unit of measure, you can get a variety of different shots from one bottle of a given size. But, you'll know that you can get 24-1oz shots, 19.2-1.25oz shots, 16-1.5oz shots, etc.

I use a coffee cup and a couple fingers.

[crays]

I use a coffee cup and a couple fingers.

Enough personal info....we're talking shots.

DOH!!! Friday!! DOH!!!

Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device

[wctriumph]

Shots! I have never shot anybody but I have been shot at. It's one of the reasons I left CA and came here, where the sane people are.


TEA

III

[Ronin13]

Okay- that was a fun read... Trot- I like your style! JM- you make some really good points... Nynco- wow, sorry about your GF, but also realize where a lot of us are coming from- after that MMJ law went into effect the happy little stoners came out of the wood work with faux injuries just to get their high on. Most MMJ card holders I have had the "pleasure" of meeting were not exactly legitimate... My GF's aunt used to be one, and she admitted, it was for a BS reason just so she could get high. Many others would lay claim that they really were "hurting", even when confronted about their so-called "injury." Shoot, I have a more legitimate reason to get my MMJ card, and I didn't because I don't think pot would help me, and I don't like the feeling when I was high in my youth, probably HATE it now. Not to mention the federal illegality, my line of work, and oh the whole guns and pot don't mix- legally and practically.

To shoot down your alcohol vs pot in terms of danger: Two different things, both not good for you. To say alcohol is worse than pot is much akin to saying shooting yourself in the face with a shotgun is worse than jumping headfirst off a cliff... Both are bad, just in different ways. Alcohol is metabolized based upon how much is consumed for the person, based on tolerance, weight, metabolism and other factors- usually it's safe to say 1 hour per drink (or so). But regardless, moderate amounts of alcohol won't really inhibit your abilities 10-15 hours later. Meanwhile, THC can intoxicate and inhibit your abilities for up to 24 HOURS. That part is science. Oh, but it's safer, right? False. For an average person, one joint (the quantity varies but on average amounts) is as bad for your health as 1/2 pack of cigarettes. Don't smoke it? No problem, you're still screwed. Multiple studies have been conducted on the long-term effects of THC on people- and it has been determined that it does play a negative role in brain function and motivation. Regardless of how it is brought into the body. One study found a patient that smoked pot from 16 (with parents permission to take part in the study) to 26 showed decreased brain function, decreased motivation, mood and behavior changes, and actually did worse on cognitive function tests after 5 years of using. This test was conducted on several people of differing physical and mental capabilities and proportions. All the results found that, to put it in lay terms, the subjects showed signs of being "dumber."

To say pot is harmless is a complete and total fallacy. It's BS no matter which way you slice it. However, I do see the benefits it has for medicinal purposes... I have a dear friend who's uncle suffers from MS and marijuana is pretty much the only thing that eases his pain without terrible side-effects. But different meds work for different people. I also see the benefits of ending prohibition and helping to slow the violence that comes with prohibition. But I foresee the ill effects of ending the prohibition on pot here in CO, as others stated with the influx of that kind of person moving here, and also with the idea that since it's legal, now the brazenness of pot heads with surge and they'll drive while high (I'm against legalization mostly for this reason), smoke in public, and out-of-state folks will try and bring some home, and that could become cause for a federal crackdown. Not to mention the gifting or sales of pot to kids (just like alcohol), that could cause for a crackdown with local LE. This is one of those instances where I can easily see the cons outweighing the pros. Just my $.02...

[streetglideok]

My wife's department interviewed someone for a job last year and the candidate was "chemically sensitive"....the candidate informed everyone at the interview that they would not be able to wear deodorant/perfume/cologne...needless to say, they hired a different candidate. Perfume isn't illegal and now weed isn't either.

Doesn't have to be illegal to be liable in a civil case. If they aren't taking any and all precautions to control their smoke, etc, then they could be held liable, unless there is a law that gives them immunity? Also, you're comparing apples to oranges as well. Perfume can be worn in public. Weed can not be smoked in public legally.

[Great-Kazoo]

1 hour per drink (or so). But regardless, moderate amounts of alcohol won't really inhibit your abilities 10-15 hours later. Meanwhile, THC can intoxicate and inhibit your abilities for up to 24 HOURS. That part is science. Oh, but it's safer, right? False. For an average person, one joint (the quantity varies but on average amounts) is as bad for your health as 1/2 pack of cigarettes. Don't smoke it? No problem, you're still screwed. Multiple studies have been conducted on the long-term effects of THC on people- and it has been determined that it does play a negative role in brain function and motivation. Regardless of how it is brought into the body. One study found a patient that smoked pot from 16 (with parents permission to take part in the study) to 26 showed decreased brain function, decreased motivation, mood and behavior changes, and actually did worse on cognitive function tests after 5 years of using. This test was conducted on several people of differing physical and mental capabilities and proportions. All the results found that, to put it in lay terms, the subjects showed signs of being "dumber."

To say pot is harmless is a complete and total fallacy. It's BS no matter which way you slice it. However, I do see the benefits it has for medicinal purposes... I have a dear friend who's uncle suffers from MS and marijuana is pretty much the only thing that eases his pain without terrible side-effects. But different meds work for different people. I also see the benefits of ending prohibition and helping to ...

Science also said the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, people of color were inherently unable to grasp things the way Caucasians could.
How much a stimulant can inhibit your abilities depends on numerous factors. Myself 1 beer can literally render me incapacitated for 2-3 hours. Forget about the next day. So that dismisses your "science"

As for the study with the 16-26 . How much was smoked per day, quality / THC content, how thick or thin was the joint, Was it smoked out of a pipe, bong, vaporizer, etc. ? ? ? ? Too many undisclosed variables to be a "Valid" study with scientific 'results"

Regarding smoking pot vs. cigarettes. Unless the weed is laced with something it does not have the artificial stimulants cigarettes do. Or i doubt the "SCIENCE" of 1 joint = 1/2 pack of smokes.

To say alcohol is harmless, is absurd and an utter fallacy. Puts both "addictive" items on equal footing.

I agree, different meds work for different people.

Personally ANY STUDY done by any group can skew the results the way they want. A classic example it any anti-gun org. They use the same BS as "drug" mongers do.
MORE CHILDREN ARE KILLED BY GUNS THAN xxxx Without disclosing (to their base) CHILDREN are classified up to 21 years of age, For their study results.

Allowing CCW will have the streets run with blood, FALSE On & on & on

To me the only reality, as oft posted in this thread is. COLORADO has now become a mecca for every swinging dick liberal, freeloading, mooching breathing body.
THAT is my objection to the whole Pot Brewhaha. We have become a liberal SANCTUARY STATE. How that plays out in november will be interesting, while sad to watch.
Hopefully this last attack on sanity will bring every R & I voter to the polls, hopefully.

[Gman]

They are both still depressants. They both are intoxicants. With alcohol it's easy to tell how much is in an individuals system. With THC, not so easy.

THC is fat soluble while alcohol is water soluble. Different mechanics involved for getting the intoxicant out of your system.

When it comes to studies of "children killed with guns", the CDC shows just how to skew such statistics. A "child" = any individual up to the age of 25. This includes adult gang members and my-oh-my does that make a more convincing argument.

With mail-in voting, the hopes of the habitual pot smokers staying out of the election goes way down.

What this has to do with anything, this is known only to God and cauliflower.

[Ronin13]

Science also said the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, people of color were inherently unable to grasp things the way Caucasians could.
How much a stimulant can inhibit your abilities depends on numerous factors. Myself 1 beer can literally render me incapacitated for 2-3 hours. Forget about the next day. So that dismisses your "science"

Regarding smoking pot vs. cigarettes. Unless the weed is laced with something it does not have the artificial stimulants cigarettes do. Or i doubt the "SCIENCE" of 1 joint = 1/2 pack of smokes.

Point 1- Talking in general terms, for the average adult... so no, doesn't dismiss the actual science that is used for nationwide training for Drug Recognition Experts in Law Enforcement- basically an associates degree worth of information and training crammed into two weeks.
Point 2- Pot vs cigarettes- doesn't matter the artificial stimulants, the smoke from pot smoke is more harmful than cigarettes... you can doubt the science all you want, doesn't change it, though.
You are right on with the CO becoming the pot/liberal mecca of the nation... Don't hold your breath on the R and I voters coming to the polls... they didn't in 2008, and it wasn't much better in '12. As we could see from Obama, Hick, and the various Dems that managed to win at the state level. I miss the days of CO being a red state.

[Great-Kazoo]

Point 1- Talking in general terms, for the average adult... so no, doesn't dismiss the actual science that is used for nationwide training for Drug Recognition Experts in Law Enforcement- basically an associates degree worth of information and training crammed into two weeks.
This has been discredited by LE's in the past.
Point 2- Pot vs cigarettes- doesn't matter the artificial stimulants, the smoke from pot smoke is more harmful than cigarettes... you can doubt the science all you want, doesn't change it, though.
You are right on with the CO becoming the pot/liberal mecca of the nation... Don't hold your breath on the R and I voters coming to the polls... they didn't in 2008, and it wasn't much better in '12. As we could see from Obama, Hick, and the various Dems that managed to win at the state level. I miss the days of CO being a red state.

I have personally witnessed folks, high as kites, walk through road side testing. How did they do it? Not looking / Profile of a stoner.

You being in the academy and quoting book & verse does or shows nothing valid. Outside it's material geared towards LE instruction.
If there was no WOD, i doubt much of the "science" would be a blip on the LE radar.