Weed

[Suijin]

I think it’s enough to say that operating a vessel while under the influence of a mind altering substance is a bad decision and should be avoided. I have not read anyone disagreeing with that thus far so maybe we can leave it at that and move on.

I feel a bit guilty as it was my comparison of the effects of weed vs. alcohol that lit a match in this thread. I never meant to imply that it’s a good decision to smoke weed while operating a vessel or to an extent where it could endanger oneself and/or others in any circumstance.

[boatman61]

I find this 'Mind Altering' expression amusing.. sugar is 'Mind Altering'.. never heard of a Sugar Rush..
a MacDonalds burger can be considered 'Mind Altering' along with anything that triggers the pleasure nodes in the brain.
So ladies.. don't operate your vessels after eating chocolates..

[Calif.Ted]

Neither is a good idea when in a situation that requires fast response, clear decision making or other action to prevent or deal with a problem.

Exactly, That's why I never drink while racing until we hit the downwind leg.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I find this 'Mind Altering' expression amusing.. sugar is 'Mind Altering'.. never heard of a Sugar Rush..
a MacDonalds burger can be considered 'Mind Altering' along with anything that triggers the pleasure nodes in the brain.
So ladies.. don't operate your vessels after eating chocolates..

Well put .

We are biological beings, so everything we put in our body will affect that lump of cells riding around in our heads. Food, liquids, air … it’s all “mind altering.” The amount of rest and sleep, what other mental tasks we’re performing, whether we’ve just made love, or been in a fight with our spouse … everything “alters” the brain.

This is the problem with absolutist approaches to any problems — it ignores reality.

The issue isn’t whether a substance or activity is “mind altering.” The useful perspective in this case is whether there is sufficient functional impairment.

The case of alcohol and boating might be a useful case study. As we’ve learned here, some jurisdictions outlaw drinking at anchor, others do not. And at least one jurisdiction (Quebec) allows operators to be drinking alcohol while underway. These offer great opportunities to compare boating-related accident rates to see if there is any relationships to be found.

I can’t find any useful data on Quebec boating accident rates, but there is an excellent USCG database which is searchable by state. If someone can tell me which states don’t allow drinking at anchor (my quick search failed ), I’d be glad to run the numbers through the database and report back.

For the record, on my boat we don’t drink (or use cannabis) while underway. The beer only comes out once we’re securely anchored AND there are no foreseeable problems in the relevant future (crazy busy anchorage, weather, the need to leave shortly, etc…).

[Flagman101]

I can tell you that for Quebec, almost all boating accidents involve small watercraft. Such as aluminum row boats or small fishing boats.
Alcohol is a factor in most fatalities.
Fishmermen go out fishing, drink beer, don't wear PFDs and manage to fall overboard or capsize and drown.
We do get an occasional crash involving bigger boats. Usually it's people going to fast and or not paying attention to where they are heading.
Police do ramdom controls on the water, vey occasionally, but they almost never stop sailboats. ( They know that sailors are a responsible bunch of people )
From 2010 to 2014 they were 120 fatalities in Canada with boaters.
Of those 29 (24%) were with small water crafts.
A total of 61 people died while motor boating.
4 fatalities while sailing. There were twice as many fatalities with kayaks.
Surprisingly only 3 fatalities with seadoos.
Alcohol is a factor in 39% of those fatalities.
The typical scenario is falling overboard or capsizing and not wearing your PFDs.
82% of fatalities were not wearing PFDs.


I do not have any statistics as to how many people get prosecuted for operating a boat while impaired.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Malabarista

So, if i read this correctly ( and excuse me if I don’t as I’m British) but…the state can make a law that the federal government doesn’t agree with and therefore just ignores whatever rights have been given by the state. Sounds like state laws are not actually laws but just kinda recommended …er…advisements. This must get even more confusing than the French choosing to ignore EU legislation ‘cos at least they are a Separate nation …

Yes, the US is more a collection of competing jurisdictions than a single nation, truly a land of contrasts.*

Completely by design.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

The United States "war on drugs" has got to be the biggest joke ever put over the American people. Your prisons are full of folks that in any other country would get there hands slapped...Now you've built up this huge infrastructure at absolutely unbelievable costs and it's got to be fed. It's like a whirling dervish that just keeps accelerating.

Specifically intensified by Nixon to give cover for persecuting the anti-war students and black civil-rights activists.

Still used that way, read "The New Jim Crow"

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes, the US is more a collection of competing jurisdictions than a single nation, truly a land of contrasts.

Yup, just like the other large federal states out there like Canada, Australia, Russia … quite a few.

Map of federal states (green):


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Specifically intensified by Nixon to give cover for persecuting the anti-war students and black civil-rights activists.

Still used that way, read "The New Jim Crow"

It has created an entire for profit industry where profits depend on incarcerating as many people as possible, to grow and continue profits, to keep happy their investors. No doubt they lobby elected officials as well.

Private Prisons Lock Up Thousands. They Need More Oversight | Time

Just google privatized prisons.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by Malabarista

So, if i read this correctly ( and excuse me if I don’t as I’m British) but…the state can make a law that the federal government doesn’t agree with..

This is an old legal dispute: just how much power the Federal government has over States. Because the Feds are in charge of many aspects of say, interstate commerce, they can use that power to prohibit things (like refuse to provide funding for highway construction in states unless the state passes certain laws) Some say that "states rights" should trump federal law but note that the same argument has been used to justify racist discriminatory policies (opposing desegregation) by some states in the face of Federal efforts to promote racial equality (1960s civil rights movement.)

It is not relevant in this case because the Coast Guard is a Federal police force that enforces Federal law, and most waterways in the US fall under federal jurisdiction. So this is not a question of state law.

According to Coast Guard statistics the greatest reasons for deaths and injuries are alcohol consumption and inattentiveness. MJ would only add to that.

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

This is an old legal dispute: just how much power the Federal government has over States.

Abraham Lincoln solved this. States have no power. Disagree and the Feds will shoot you.

[Group9]

It does seem that if there was a way to stop drug users from using drugs, that we would gave found it by now.

Fear of arrest doesn't stop them.
Fear of being injured or killed making a buy doesn't stop them.
Fear of losing their money doesn't stop them.
Fear of losing their job doesn't stop them.
Fear of dissapointing their family doesn't stop them.
Fear of ruining their marriage or relationships doesn't stop them.
Even fear of losing their freedom doesn't stop them.

What the hell is left other than to admit the drugs have more power over them to continue using them, than society or the government will ever have to stop them. It was a noble effort, but it was doomed from the start. Why waste the money and time to continue to try?

[boatman61]

Have you learnt nothing from the Republicans and NRA...???
The more you tell em they should not have something..
the more they want to have it..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Group9

...What the hell is left other than to admit the drugs have more power over them to continue using them, than society or the government will ever have to stop them. It was a noble effort, but it was doomed from the start. Why waste the money and time to continue to try?

Yup, reality bites sometimes .

I like your general view, but I would say the effort has been anything but noble. Foolish, flawed, deceitful and simply wrong are some of the terms I would apply.

The fact is that lots of animals seek altered states of mind, not just humans. Getting ‘high’ is as natural as tribalism, homosexuality or liking country music (OK, maybe this last one is questionable ).

The reason prohibition of drugs keep failing (first alcohol, now cannabis) is b/c we’re evolutionarily predisposed to seeking altered states. Anyone who gets a rush from sailing understands this. The euphoria one feels is simply a flood of endorphins and adrenaline; you know, drugs.

As the saying goes: You can’t fight Mother Nature.

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by Group9

It does seem that if there was a way to stop drug users from using drugs, that we would gave found it by now.

Fear of arrest doesn't stop them.
Fear of being injured or killed making a buy doesn't stop them.
Fear of losing their money doesn't stop them.
Fear of losing their job doesn't stop them.
Fear of dissapointing their family doesn't stop them.
Fear of ruining their marriage or relationships doesn't stop them.
Even fear of losing their freedom doesn't stop them.

What the hell is left other than to admit the drugs have more power over them to continue using them, than society or the government will ever have to stop them. It was a noble effort, but it was doomed from the start. Why waste the money and time to continue to try?

Obviously, their is huge amounts of tax free money to be made by keeping it illegal. From cartels, to government bribes, to rebels funding their missions, to governments funding their counter missions, justification for private security contracts, private for profit incarceration, private for profit addiction services, justification for the confiscation of real and monetary property from civilians, government (local, state and federal) defense budgets.....

If they only viewed it as a commodity, such as oil or soy beans, regulated and taxed the profits as such? Some ways of doing business would disappear, other businesses would appear. It's the people earning profits from it's illegal status that want to keep it illegal, and they have enough money to buy our politicians and advertising.