Would you have been equally offended if they were smoking cigarettes or drinking beer? Is it OK for kids to see those activities but not smoking pot?

I only smoked once while climbing, and that was at the top of monkey face before raping.

Nah, skip all that and just measure the number and difficulty of FA's they've put up stoned or tripping and you'll have it in a nutshell...

Pharmacodynamics: THC binds to cannabinoid receptors and interferes with important endogenous cannabinoid neurotransmitter systems. Receptor distribution correlates with brain areas involved in physiological, psychomotor and cognitive effects. Correspondingly, THC produces alterations in motor behavior, perception, cognition, memory, learning, endocrine function, food intake, and regulation of body temperature. http://(http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm)

THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 mcg /kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. Standard deviation of lateral position in the road tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC's adverse effects. This is because road tracking is primarily controlled by an automatic information processing system which operates outside of conscious control. The process is relatively impervious to environmental changes but highly vulnerable to internal factors that retard the flow if information through the system. THC and many other drugs are among these factors. When they interfere with the process that restricts SDLP, there is little the afflicted individual can do by way of compensation to restore the situation. http://(http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/mjdrive.htm)

Solowij et al (1991; 1992; 1993) conducted a series of studies of the effects of long-term cannabis use on specific stages of information processing. In keeping with Miller and Branconnier's hypothesis, Solowij et al assessed the integrity of attentional processes in long-term cannabis users using a combination of performance and brain event-related potential measures. Event-related potential (ERP) measures are sensitive markers of covert cognitive processes underlying overt behaviour; the amplitude and latency of various ERP components have been shown to reflect various stages of information processing.

Solowij et al, (1991) studied a small and heterogeneous group of long-term cannabis users (N=9), aged 19-40, who had used cannabis for a mean of 11.2 years at the level of 4.8 days per week. The cannabis users were matched on age, sex, years of education and alcohol consumption with nine non-user controls who had either never used or had limited experience with cannabis (maximum use 15 times). Strict exclusion criteria were applied to any subjects with a history of head injury, neurological or psychiatric illness, significant use of other drugs, or high levels of alcohol consumption. The groups did not differ in premorbid IQ, as estimated by the NART score (Nelson, 1984).

Subjects were instructed to abstain from cannabis and alcohol for 24 hours prior to testing and two urine samples were analysed to ensure that subjects were not acutely intoxicated at the time of testing. Subjects completed a multidimensional auditory selective attention task in which random sequences of tones varying in location, pitch and duration were delivered through headphones while brain electrical activity (EEG) was recorded. They were instructed to attend to a particular ear and a particular pitch, and to respond to the long duration tones with a button press. This procedure enabled an examination of the brain's response to attended and unattended tones.

Cannabis users performed significantly more poorly than controls, with fewer correct detections, more errors and slightly longer reaction times. Analysis of the ERP measures showed that cannabis users had reduced P300 amplitudes compared to controls, reflecting dysfunction in the allocation of attentional resources and stimulus evaluation strategies. Further, cannabis users showed an inability to filter out irrelevant information, while controls were able to reject this irrelevant information from further processing at an early stage. These results suggested that long-term cannabis use impairs the ability to efficiently process complex information.

Solowij et al (1992; 1993) conducted a second study with a larger sample to examine the relationships between degree of impairment and the frequency and duration of use. Thirty-two cannabis users recruited from the general community were split into four groups of equal size (N=8) defined by frequency (light: ó twice/week vs heavy: ò three times/week) and duration (short: 3-4 years vs long: ò five years) of cannabis use. The mean number of years of use for the long duration users was 10.1, and 3.3 for short duration users (range three to 28 years). The mean frequency of use was 18 days per month for the heavy group and six for the light group (range: once/month to daily use). Subjects were matched to a group of non-user controls (N=16) as in the first study, and a similar methodology was employed.

Once again cannabis users performed worse than the controls, with the greatest impairment observed in the heavy user group, thereby replicating the earlier ERP findings. In addition, different cognitive processes were differentially affected by frequency and duration of cannabis use. The long duration user group showed significantly larger processing negativity to irrelevant stimuli than did short duration users and controls, who did not differ from each other. There were no differences between groups defined on frequency of use. A significant correlation between the ERP measure and duration of cannabis use indicated that the ability to focus attention and filter out irrelevant information was progressively impaired with the number of years of use, but was unrelated to frequency of use. Frequency of use affected the speed of information processing, as reflected in a delayed P300 latency in the heavy user group compared to light users and controls. There was a significant correlation between P300 latency and increasing frequency of use, while this measure was unrelated to duration of use. http://(http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubs-drug-cannab2-ch74.htm)

Choice reaction time tasks, in which the response is conditional not only upon the occurrence of a stimulus, but also the presence of some other discriminant (such as the pitch of a tone or the colour of a visual stimulus), have been administered to determine the effect of cannabis. In a number of these studies, reaction time was indeed slower after cannabis use (Borg et al, 1975; Block & Wittenborn, 1984; 1986), although there were some studies which found no change ...

Concurrent tasks. Most concurrent task studies use one task which requires almost continuous attention, typically tracking, and one in which significant stimuli occur sporadically, often within a larger number of non-significant stimuli. The tasks are often referred to as the central and peripheral tasks respectively. The performance of concurrent tasks is almost always affected negatively by cannabis, although the effects on the component tasks are not consistent. http://(http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubs-drug-cannab2-ch54.htm)

I agree , CrimpStrength .

I have a 3 year old daughter , and I would never let her be exposed to marijuana .I just wanted to point out that many people do smoke legally . When arguing the case of smoking pot with people who are against it , that is what they always fall back on , the legality issue . If marijuana ever becomes fully legal in the USA , it will be interesting to hear how people will argue against it .When compared with alcohol , its hard to justify it being illegal IMHO . And just to keep my post on topic , I would worry about being belayed by someone who was truly STONED . One or two hits to relax a little , thats debatable .

Marijuana is technically not legal anywhere. Federal statutes override any contradictory state laws, as evidenced by recent raids on some California cannibus clubs. Legal at the state level, but not at the federal level.

Being stoned and high is the same f---ing s---. When you smoke a spliff you're high aka stoned and if you smoke more you're either more stoned or more high. Maybe you should sort out the terms in your head or smoke more.

Yes. There is a legal/illegal context that a little child will not have the depth of experience to fully understand and place. I smoke. I do NOT smoke in front of children or those that would easily be offended if I am in public.

If I am on the top of a peak, ten miles in, and there is someone else there, I will usually ask or warn...but if someone is there with the kids - No. Not fair, not right, not good...