Marijuana-shaped candy alarms parents, officials

[Rosebud]

I guess that's one of the differences between the US and Canada. I'm not pulling over every hour so I can step outside along the highway and smoke a cigarette. That's just absurd, imho.



-nasty

It is not absurd if the person beside you is allergic or has asthma.

 

[getnasty]

If that person is allergic or has astham, chances are they aren't going to be riding in my vehicle. Just saying.

I want to edit this and also state that, I, personally, do not carpool with non smokers. I believe I should have the freedom to smoke anywhere I so choose. However, another person's right to not have to take in the second hand smoke exists and clashes with my right to smoke, so laws are being put in place that no longer give me that freedom, because health is an important issue in our society and in our government. So, since studies have proven that cigarette smoke is toxic and carries with it carcinogens, the government is supressing one side's rights by imposing those laws... atleast in my eyes. I have the right to smoke, but I, technically, do not have the right to smoke wherever I so choose.

Having said this, I will say that I am respectful of others' preferences in addition to my own. Yes, in real life, I'm somewhat of a di*khead, and don't respect many people until they've earned it, but if I were a nonsmoker, I wouldn't want to have to breathe in someone else's smoke, simply because it's their right to smoke it. So, taking that into account, I don't smoke around nonsmokers, or if I'm going to, I ask if it's okay first.

-nasty

 

[dman1234]

It became law in 2009 and there was a minor fuss and now its just the norm,

it is simply intended to protect the health of a minor that may not normally have any say in the matter, i have a hard time finding fault in that.

Sorry didnt mean to hijack the thread.

 

[getnasty]

Hey, it's cool, man. IMO the thread needed to be hijacked. We're all frolicing around in circles with this debate, I think. Can't fault that law, either. Though I wouldn't follow it. Don't really need to worry about it though, as I don't hang out with anyone who is younger than 18 anymore. It's just a safe practice to get into.


-nasty

 

[SmokinMom]

Smokin Mom,

I don't think it's unrealistic. Yes, the media is everywhere, but so are children when theyre with their parents. We have family filters on numerous technological products to prevent our children from viewing certain things. I can filter out any and all pornographic or non rated G material from my internet connection, television, etc. I can control what music CD's my child purchases. I can control what magazines they read, so on and so forth. We let our children grow up without any control in their lives, and we get a society like we have today, full of arrogant know-it-all youth that want to sag their britches down to their knee caps and spit ebonics and other slang at anybody they see. Yes, not all children are like this, but I doubt the one's with supervised structure in their life turned out this way. I didn't.

In regards to the potheads comments, I can't see them being successful either, using the term. Not with its negative connotation throughout the better part of 80-90 years. The image would have to be turned around. That's not the point I was addressing, though.

Some forms of social media and marketing we can't control as parents- adverts on the sides of busses, tshirts random people wear, displays at the mall, in the store, etc. We are bombarded by media everywhere. To think we can shelter our kids from it is purely unrealistic. But ya know, this is kinda way off as far as Joe from Ohio or where ever he is, selling lollipops from his little ma and pa store on the corner. IMO.

I think you're beginning to understand a little bit about how ridiculous it is to say Pothead lollipops positively advocate for marijuana legalization. You just said yourself that you can't see it being very successful. I highly doubt the dude that made the candy really had any desire to raise mj awareness, it was simply a cop out. It's fine by me, he can do what he wants, I'm just saying the comment was a bunch of **, and scratching my head at folks who took that comment he said as serious. Of course I know I'm a stoner, a pothead or whatever phrase you'd like to use. I just don't want to be labeled a menace to society by ignorant folks who are unaware of the wonderful benefits of mj. You're young still, and haven't started a family yet. Your stance on this might change in the future. Time will tell I guess.

As far as smoking rights go- the kids have rights too. They just can't speak up for themselves so we have to do it for them.

It does suck when I see it go to the extreme. Listen to this- a major healthcare company in my city now gives blood tests that not only check for drugs but for tobacco as well and won't hire you if you fail. The tobacco test only applies for new hires. They don't care if existing employees smoke as long as it's not on company grounds and you don't come in smelling of cigarette smoke. This really pi$$ed me off actually, as I felt violated and I quit smoking 14 yrs ago.

I am glad there's a lot of places that are smoke-free. I don't have to see all the nasty cigarette butts on the ground, most bars I can go to and not come out smelling like an ash tray, and I can take my kids to most restaurants and know they aren't exposed.

But do I get freaked if they do get exposed on occassion? Nah, they're healthy, I'm pretty damn lucky.

 

[getnasty]

Some forms of social media and marketing we can't control as parents- adverts on the sides of busses, tshirts random people wear, displays at the mall, in the store, etc. We are bombarded by media everywhere. To think we can shelter our kids from it is purely unrealistic. But ya know, this is kinda way off as far as Joe from Ohio or where ever he is, selling lollipops from his little ma and pa store on the corner. IMO.

You're right, but it's our job as parents to rectify those things. If we, as parents, know that these things are going on, which we should, they should be addressed on the spot, so our kids know that we do not approve.

I think you're beginning to understand a little bit about how ridiculous it is to say Pothead lollipops positively advocate for marijuana legalization. You just said yourself that you can't see it being very successful. I highly doubt the dude that made the candy really had any desire to raise mj awareness, it was simply a cop out...

My stance on it will not change in the future. I've thought about it quite a bit growing up. I guess you could say I wasn't a normal teenager growing up. It'd be an accurate statement. I was also well on my way to starting my family when my fiance decided she wasn't happy anymore, and opted to leave me for a 19 year old online gamer... one of her friends she was constantly playing video games with on her xbox. We were soon to be's with her daughter, and one on the way. However, shortly after the miscarriage, she split.

I didn't say that Pothead lollipops, or this candy, is a positive way to campaign for the legalization of marijuana. I said it was an innovative idea, and that I support it. It gets the message out. As far as the guy who made the candy in question, he's a marijuana legalization advocate. The article shows this in plain text. I don't view it as a cop out at all because of this. He manufactures product to sell. That is his career. He also happens to be a marijuana advocate and has chosen to incorporate that advocacy in his company. While it may not be the most effective way to market our campaign, it is certainly serves as a means to bolster our cause. It may not have much effect, sure, but the message is in plain sight: Legalize it.

Also, I said using the label Pothead, with its current negative connotation, would not make it very successful. The reason it's earned it's current connotation is because of people like Cheech and Chong. I can be blazed off my *** and still maintain a professional appearance and demeanor. If everybody "under the influence" were able to do so, the term wouldn't have a negative connotation today.

... a major healthcare company in my city now gives blood tests that not only check for drugs but for tobacco as well and won't hire you if you fail. The tobacco test only applies for new hires. They don't care if existing employees smoke as long as it's not on company grounds and you don't come in smelling of cigarette smoke. This really pi$$ed me off actually, as I felt violated and I quit smoking 14 yrs ago.

That's called discrimination. They can be sued for it on legal grounds. If a company wants to take on that policy, has to be applicable to all employess. The only reason they're asking current employees who smoke to not come into work smelling of it, is because they can't fire them for being smokers.

I am glad there's a lot of places that are smoke-free. I don't have to see all the nasty cigarette butts on the ground, most bars I can go to and not come out smelling like an ash tray, and I can take my kids to most restaurants and know they aren't exposed.

Most bars around here don't abide by the laws. They charge for ashtrays so they have funds for fines, or ask you to use empty beer cans.


-nasty

 

[KBM]

The same stores sell things like energy drinks to kids were I live which is much worse in my opinion then candy shaped like a pot leaf. I think the fact it contains refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup is much worse to the health of kids then something shaped like a pot leaf.

 

[Locked]

The same stores sell things like energy drinks to kids were I live which is much worse in my opinion then candy shaped like a pot leaf. I think the fact it contains refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup is much worse to the health of kids then something shaped like a pot leaf.