Poll: We like recreational pot, don't like charter schools, can't stand idea of slots near Suffolk Downs

I would consider reeking of pot when entering the office just as fireable an offense as reeking of booze. In a corporate environment it isn't acceptable and legalization isn't going to change that. (Some people will learn this the hard way.) The only recreational drug that acceptable to take in the morning is coffee and even caffeine has limits.

I'm in favor of legalization but don't subscribe to the "it's harmless" dogma. With few exceptions, someone who's stoned is not efficient and isn't going to make trustworthy decisions.

I've never worked with a "wake and bake" type and I've never been one myself. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I don't think it's a good representation of people who partake in recreational marijuana. There are lots of levels of use.

Personally, I would think the same thing about someone who smoked in the morning as I would someone who drank alcohol in the morning. I would think they were sad.

I'm amazed by how many misconceptions about weed are out there. I've known tons of professional people who partake now and again (professors, doctors, you name it), and they are just as responsible and successful as those who don't. At least their marijuana use isn't what contributes to their success or failure as people.

Pot smokers regularly start up the day with a joint,

I didn't this morning. And I'm a regular smoker. Actually most mornings I don't because ya know. I got shit to do. Thanks for the generalization tho.

But if you knew someone who rolled out of bed and had a couple of beers or a scotch before heading into work, came in reeking of booze and a little wobbly

As someone who left a job because of an alcoholic boss (among other infractions I had against this man). I'll tell you this.. I'd rather deal with a stoned boss at 8am than a drunk one. That boss was unstable when drunk. A stoner.. he might giggle and head over to the snack machine. But he'd still work and be somewhat useful. The drunk boss... not so much.

I have only known of a couple of people who do that.

One is my disabled uncle who uses weed instead of oxy, which he hated but didn't previously have an alternative for.

The other was one of my husband's college roommates and he had serious mental illness issues.

That isn't recreational use in either case - it is self-medication.

When Waquiot Sr. was in middle school, the kids used to buy cigarettes all the time, even though one needed to be 18 to purchase them. When I got to high school, kids used to buy booze (albeit it through a third party) all the time, even though one needed to be 21 to purchase said beverages.

As it is now, we can not only point to the foolishness of smoking pot, but also to the fact that society as a whole (no, not everyone, but the body politic as a collective) has declared that it is not in the best interest to allow the purchase of marijuana and has hence made it illegal.

It's the thing the legalizers don't get- most arguments they give just hardens my point of view.

So you want Waquoit Jr. to buy $2 joints in middle school

Pot is the least of your childs concerns at school. I'd be worried about other things.

My sister and her two kids came to visit a few weeks ago. Greg is now 16 and in high school. I know Greg smokes pot.. not allowed around me.. but fine, it's my sisters issue, not mine.. But talking with him. He says its easier to get pills (oxy's, ativan, etc) at school than it is to get pot.

My point.. times have changed. It's not 1975 anymore.

Actually there is. Remember Eric Gardner? He was confronted by cops for selling cigarettes illegally.

"Youth" does not only mean tweens or high-schoolers. I really don't think you can call the 45 and under set "easy to manipulate" and "inexperienced". And that's the age range I think most people mean when they say they want the older generation to GTFO of these issues and have the younger one take over.

That article literally presents data and quotes where it came from and took quotes that support its conclusion.

But it doesn't jive with your idiom of "education = no poverty" so you ignore it. If you're provided numbers, they're all bullshit and the other person should try harder. If you're not provided numbers, "where are the numbers???". You're full of excuses and bogus interpretations of reality. You can't even fathom how someone who made $20,000 this year might be able to use an additional 5% of their salary (psst, that's $1000). They would use it by putting it back into the economy. Instead the Waltons have spent $1B (look it up yourself, or don't and call me a liar, or go fuck yourself and pretend you're a pretty pony, I don't care what your reaction to what I say is any longer) on ads and basically funding anything anti-union. That's not money going to those in need and the results will be fewer jobs worth shit employing people who don't give a shit teaching kids who might find out the next day the school just closed. Or moved to Norwood from Burlington. Or whatever the fuck some private organization wants to do with the public's money regardless of what it means for the kids.

And that's the bottom line on this: our public schools suck? That's on us. That's something we have to fix for everyone's benefit.

Our Charter Schools suck? That's on them, maybe parents will complain and enrollment will go down. Maybe not, maybe parents won't even be told how bad it is until it's too late. Maybe the charter owner pockets every third dollar because he is paying himself as the "management organization" responsible for paying the bills for the non-profit. Maybe ANYTHING. They aren't responsible to anyone. That's the best way to be sure our kids are getting the most from their education. Clearly.

I certainly couldn't have thought of an incisive rebuttal like that.

Thank you once again for showing us all how clever you are. I stand in awe at this, surely the best, application of an MIT education in the twin arts of logic and rhetoric.

and specify its error rates I'll have this discussion with you. Until then, I assert that souls are things that only humans have. My mind may be swayed by a radio signal from the sky, and even then I'd be skeptical.