Marijuana (3 Viewers)

[bigdaddysaints]

That administration was genuinely deranged. Deluded, disgusting human beings. And they thought they were so damn patriotic.

The more things change, the more they stay the same..

 

[zeetes]

I'm surprised no one is talking about hemp derived THC being legal in Louisiana.

weed beers are awesome.

it takes about 5-6 of these to start feeling it, but good sheet if you are at a bar (unfortunately not a lot of them serve them though) and want something non-alcoholic.

this is the most common i've come across:

Crescent 9 THC Seltzer

Crescent 9 THC seltzer is a highly satisfying cannabis seltzer with hemp-derived THC. Federally legal. Lab-tested. US-grown hemp. Vegan. Natural flavors.

www.crescentcanna.com

 

[Brennan77]

weed beers are awesome.

it takes about 5-6 of these to start feeling it, but good sheet if you are at a bar (unfortunately not a lot of them serve them though) and want something non-alcoholic.

this is the most common i've come across:

Crescent 9 THC Seltzer

Crescent 9 THC seltzer is a highly satisfying cannabis seltzer with hemp-derived THC. Federally legal. Lab-tested. US-grown hemp. Vegan. Natural flavors.

www.crescentcanna.com

It's still a new category. A lot of bars are apprehensive of introducing thc to their environment. But the ones I deal with that have gotten on board couldn't be happier. People who would normally leave the bar to smoke are now buying a drink. People who quit drinking now have an option. The best feedback I've received was that the musicians at a music club are way better high than they are drunk. Since they couldn't smoke inside, many of them would drink and simply didn't play as well. Now they can get their usual buzz and perform well. Who knew?

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

weed beers are awesome.

it takes about 5-6 of these to start feeling it, but good sheet if you are at a bar (unfortunately not a lot of them serve them though) and want something non-alcoholic.

this is the most common i've come across:

Crescent 9 THC Seltzer

Crescent 9 THC seltzer is a highly satisfying cannabis seltzer with hemp-derived THC. Federally legal. Lab-tested. US-grown hemp. Vegan. Natural flavors.

www.crescentcanna.com

Does it take the same amount of time to kick in as an edible?

I could see people knocking these back, and then getting into a mess a couple of hours later after it has all started to hit.

 

[Tapxe]

Does it take the same amount of time to kick in as an edible?

I could see people knocking these back, and then getting into a mess a couple of hours later after it has all started to hit.

It's like any other substance in that the person will have to learn how it impacts them. They'll have a dose amount per drink. But essentially it's a moot point as alcohol is worse. THC vs alcohol is completely different in terms of impact. Too much alcohol makes you belligerent and can kill. Too much pot and you get a great nights sleep.

Also, ask a cop if he'd rather deal with a pot head or drunk.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

It's like any other substance in that the person will have to learn how it impacts them. They'll have a dose amount per drink. But essentially it's a moot point as alcohol is worse. THC vs alcohol is completely different in terms of impact. Too much alcohol makes you belligerent and can kill. Too much pot and you get a great nights sleep.

Also, ask a cop if he'd rather deal with a pot head or drunk.

Oh, i 100% agree.

I could just see some people overdoing it (especially if they aren't experienced with edibles) and creating something that the news could latch on to, because they love to shine a light on the dangers of reefer.

 

[Tapxe]

Oh, i 100% agree.

I could just seem some people overdoing it (especially if they aren't experienced with edibles) and creating something that the news could latch on to, because they love to shine a light on the dangers of reefer.

That's been happening for prolly a century now. It's being challenged and I think rather successfully now.

But your worry is definitely spot on because history shows that's exactly what'll happen.

 

[Brennan77]

Does it take the same amount of time to kick in as an edible?

I could see people knocking these back, and then getting into a mess a couple of hours later after it has all started to hit.

It depends on their extraction methods. Crescent 9 takes about 20-30 minutes to fully metabolize. It's not a huge amount of THC so most people are ok even if they drink a couple in a short period of time. The tropical flavor also has a small amount of caffeine. That said, I've seen petite women not feel much. And I've seen 250lb ex marines swear to never have another after just one.

Other brands such as Direct Hit metabolize much quicker. They deliberately have a lower amount of THC so you can drink like a beer without spinning.

Still other products have much higher amounts and are more directed towards getting high than giving a beverage experience.

 

[Bayouboy]

I wonder how those THC seltzers show up on a drug screen.

 

[superchuck500]

Agree! Just turning fitty this year, I did not know a lot about Nixon and some of their dealings until recently. Their entire operation was criminal (using it as a metaphor here). When I learned (thru the Burns Vietnam documentary) that Nixon purposefully torpedoed peace talks with the North Vietnamese for his political gains (i.e. sent thousands more Amercian GI's to their graves), I was incensed! I literally could not believe it. That crook should have been sent to prison. To hell with the optics of the scandal.

Yes, it's called the "Chennault Affair" - because Washington socialite and Republican-activist Anna Chennault (who was Chinese and came to the US after marrying famed US flight leader Claire Chennault of the 'Flying Tigers' in China) agreed to serve as a back channel between the Nixon campaign (for the 1968 election) and the South Vietnamese government. Basically after Tet and the turning of sentiment on the war in the US, the Johnson administration pushed for peace talks to explore how to bring the war to an end . . . which, of course, concerned Saigon that they would be sold out. While some think it was Nixon/Republican anti-communism that led to the push to disrupt the peace talks, the better, more modern view is simply that Nixon feared that a successful peace negotiation would bring a wave of approval for the Democrat, anti-war platform, and this could cause him to lose the election in November.

So through "secret" meetings and communications (that US intelligence became aware of), Nixon's representatives communicated to Chennault, who then communicated to the South Vietnamese ambassador to Washington to tell Saigon to drag their heels and otherwise disrupt the plans for peace talks - because Nixon supported them (the Saigon government) and if Nixon won the election, he would drop the peace initiative altogether. And that's basically what happened. And even worse, the Johnson administration knew it was happening - that what was in-effect a private citizen was deliberately influencing foreign actors to take action contrary to the federal government's foreign policy position. Johnson could have made it public or gone to the Senate with it but he thought the whole business would be a black eye for America at a very precarious time so he elected not to act on the intelligence at all.

From Jan 1, 1969 through the end of the war, more than 20,000 US troops were killed, and almost 600,000 Americans were drafted. It's probably not likely that the talks would have ended the war, but we really don't know. And Nixon definitely sabotaged them for what were almost certainly self-interested domestic political reasons.

Anna Chennault: The Secret Go-Between Who Helped Tip the 1968 Election

In the history of U.S. diplomacy, one private citizen rates a chapter all her own: Anna Chennault, who helped President Richard Nixon to win the presidency by scuttling Vietnam peace talks on the eve of the 1968 election.

www.politico.com

Just recently found out Agnew (Nixon's VP) was a legit crook as well.....independant of the Watergate scandal. A literal crook that was able to get away with high crimes because his boss was in as much hot water over Watergate. Somehow, they let him off the hook because he was next in line to the Presidency. All the while, I'm thinking the Trump fiasco was the first time we've experienced such upheaval. Nope.Crazy stuff.

I don't think Agnew was able to get away with anything due to Watergate. His criminality was totally separate - and basically he was running a bribery/kick-back scheme over government contracts. The heat originated from an investigation in 1972 by the US Attorney in Baltimore over government contract corruption - and it led to Agnew. The investigation eventually discovered substantial evidence that Agnew began taking kick-backs to steer government contractors to the winning firm back when he was governor of Maryland, and that he continued with this "pay for play" scheme as best he could as VP. We're talking literal hundreds of thousands of dollars (1960s and early 70s dollars) . . . most of which had been paid to him in briefcases full of cash, like a damn mob boss.

While I think Nixon initially pressured DOJ to head-off the probe into Agnew's activities, the evidence of serious unlawful conduct was just too great. Eventually the press got wind of the investigation - and as he as Nixon were cut from the same cloth, he denied the allegations and claimed to be the victim of a witchhunt. The evidence was so great that DOJ's criminal division chief wanted a prosecution, but ultimately they settled on Agnew resigning and pleading to a single count of tax evasion . . . which he did indignantly.

I don't think Agnew "got away" with anything because of Watergate. The record is pretty clear that Nixon kept a very close circle of people that actually had any real power in his administration and Agnew was certainly on the outside - Haldeman didn't like Agnew and it's probably true that Nixon didn't care for him much either. And Nixon and his cronies never really thought that impeachment was going to happen, and resignation even less likely - they were just that confident. The notion that they went light on Agnew to try to keep him around in the event of a need for succession to the presidency isn't persuasive. Agnew's crimes and investigation operated on their own timeline, and just coincided with much of Watergate. Agnew was just a damn criminal and fit well within that criminal administration.


All of this is really well detailed in the outstanding recent book Watergate by Garrett Graff (chief editor at Politico) - which takes a pretty wide scope in detailing how the Watergate activities were actually just part of a broader pattern of criminal behavior and cover-up in the Nixon team, all in the name of defending what they believed was in America's interests (which is delusional code speak for what was in Nixon's personal interest). The book is not only brilliantly written, it also collates a number of important sources and revelations about the events that have come about in the 21st Century, after most of the primary Watergate era sources were written. But it includes the Chennault Affair and a number of other pre-Watergate capers that Nixon was not only aware of, but fully endorsed . . . because he thought his enemies were doing it all to him, he might as well do it back (they weren't - he was paranoid).

It's also an excellent audiobook if you're into that - narrated by award-winning narrator Jacques Roy. I have listened to it twice, it's just such a fascinating story.

Watergate: The Scandal That Never Goes Away (Published 2022)

Garrett M. Graff’s “Watergate: A New History” is a thorough account of everything that is known about the epic events of Richard Nixon’s last year in office.

www.nytimes.com

https://www.audible.com/pd/Watergate-Audiobook/1797131060

 

[bigdaddysaints]

I wonder how those THC seltzers show up on a drug screen.

i would assume it shows up the same as if you took drops.

 

[Brennan77]

I wonder how those THC seltzers show up on a drug screen.

It's THC. You'll fail.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

There are so many things now that are "legal", like Delta8 and all the variants, which would cause you to fail a drug test, that I can't see how it would be enforcable.

Anyone could just say that they bought something at a gas station that had CBD on the label, and claim that is why they failed the test.

It shouldn't be the employee's problem if the drug test they use isn't precise enough to determine if they were using something that was prohibited or not.

 

[Bayouboy]

I don't think Agnew was able to get away with anything due to Watergate.

I was referring to the other criminal behavior (bribes, kick backs). When the DOJ made the deal with him to step down, one of Agnew's conditions was no jail time. So, even though the DOJ had a "smoking gun" and could clearly put Agnew in prison, they instead made a deal for him to step down and take a small tax evasion charge (with no jail time). I don't think he even had to pay back any of the bribe money!!! To me, that's definitely "getting away with it". Clearly, the Watergate scandal and all of the mess around Washington influenced this deal. America couldn't impeach a sitting President and put an actual crook (Agnew) in his seat. I just learned of all of this on a podcast. Never knew it existed until then. The parallels to the current political turmoil is surreal.

Thanks for the audiobook recommendation. The Watergate story and all that surrounds it is fascinating to me. I'll definitely check it out.

 

[superchuck500]

There are so many things now that are "legal", like Delta8 and all the variants, which would cause you to fail a drug test, that I can't see how it would be enforcable.

Anyone could just say that they bought something at a gas station that had CBD on the label, and claim that is why they failed the test.

It shouldn't be the employee's problem if the drug test they use isn't precise enough to determine if they were using something that was prohibited or not.

Depends on what is prohibited and how it is worded. I think that most well-drafted drug policies probably give the company a basis for action including termination simply upon a test that shows positive for X substances. It's not that the test is evidence of the use, it's that the failure of the test is the prohibited act.

I think for casual users of CBD and D-8, they may find challenging this on the basis of CBD and D-8 being "legal" remains difficult. But for those employees who have a demonstrable medical need for them (most strongly in the form of a proper prescription), they can argue that the rule on the positive test is insufficient to accommodate their medical need under the ADA.

There's a fairly recent case from the federal court in New Orleans on that very issue.

Summary: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/excusing-false-positive-drug-test-8989608/

Case Decision: https://casetext.com/case/huber-v-blue-cross-blue-shield-of-fla-inc