Marijuana laws- O/T

[Leon]

Since this isn't Democrat or Republican based I will start a thread about the new, legal marijuana laws. It will be interesting to see what the Federal govt. does. I read that if completely legalized it could be a 100 billion dollar a year industry in the US. I don't know what exactly the alcohol industry is but I think it could be almost, if not as, that big. With over half of the population, in every poll I have ever seen in years, wanting it to be legal.....it seems it's only a matter of time.

[39special]

Wow! I guess it's time to get my Cheech & Chong albums out!

[tiger8mush]

should be legal, in my opinion.

[cubsfan-budman]

i have heard that those figures on how big the industry might get (and the taxes able to be levied from it) are pretty over-inflated. Not sure if that's true or not, but it should be legal and every little bit helps. Very strange that something like that wouldnt be left up to the states anyway.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

i have heard that those figures on how big the industry might get (and the taxes able to be levied from it) are pretty over-inflated. Not sure if that's true or not, but it should be legal and every little bit helps. Very strange that something like that wouldn't be left up to the states anyway.

I have never, and I mean NEVER, spoken with anyone that thinks pot is worse than alcohol, in almost any way. ....As for the revenue, if we count all of the money (41 billion?) it takes to enforce the laws against marijuana, then it seems the economy could benefit quite a bit from legalization. Who knows, but I think it's inevitable it gets legalized everywhere in the US eventually. Here are a few snippets-


Including lost tax revenues, a 2007 study found that enforcing the marijuana prohibition costs tax payers $41.8 billion annually, Forbes reports.

Marijuana growers account for $14 billion a year in sales in California, making it the state's most valuable cash crop, TIME reports.

It's estimated that illegal marijuana is a $36 billion industry in the U.S., MadameNoire reports.

Mendocino County, California's zip tie program aimed at regulating medical marijuana growing by charging permits for each plant raised $600,000 in revenue in for the Sheriff's department in 2011.

The city of Oakland, California raised $1.3 million in tax revenue from medical marijuana dispensaries in 2011, 3 percent of the city's total business tax revenue, according to The New York Times.

[HRBAKER]

All they need is a commensurate increase on the Doritos tax at the same time and tax revenue should skyrocket.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Leon

I read that if completely legalized it could be a 100 billion dollar a year industry in the US.

I'm sure that's the number being thrown around but it doesn't make sense. That would be $300 for every person in this country including children. If 30% use, that's $1,000 each. I'm pretty sure if I have a choice between spending $1,000 per year or just grow a few plants next to my tomatoes, I'm growing. And if I have a neighbor who doesn't have a garden, I'll grow a few more for him.

[Jlighter]

I'm not aware of a easy marajuana test similar to a breathalyzer, how could it be determined if a driver is under the influence? Many of the symptoms are similar to lack of sleep.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

I'm not aware of a easy marajuana test similar to a breathalyzer, how could it be determined if a driver is under the influence? Many of the symptoms are similar to lack of sleep.

Well, it stinks for one thing.

It could be left to the discretion of the officer, I imagine. Maybe they can do a residue test on the skin.

Not perfect, and opens the door to wrong place, wrong time, wrong people to be around.........but it's an option.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Well, it stinks for one thing.

It could be left to the discretion of the officer, I imagine. Maybe they can do a residue test on the skin.

Not perfect, and opens the door to wrong place, wrong time, wrong people to be around.........but it's an option.

Why not just do the same type, with a bit of tweaking, field sobriety test as they do on DWI's? If someone smoked a joint but has all of their faculties, enough to pass a field test, then so be it. If they look like they can't keep their eyes open or are dizzy then they can video them for proof. I believe almost every cop car has video now. Now if the driver just has the munchies but can still function, then directions to the nearest Taco Bell are in order ..

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Leon

Why not just do the same type, with a bit of tweaking, field sobriety test as they do on DWI's? If someone smoked a joint but has all of their faculties, enough to pass a field test, then so be it. If they look like they can't keep their eyes open or are dizzy then they can video them for proof. I believe almost every cop car has video now. Now if the driver just has the munchies but can still function, then directions to the nearest Taco Bell are in order ..

Then you bring the fatigue factor into the equation.. What's to differentiate normal fatigue from being high? Although, I think some states are starting to look a little more closely at fatigued driving.. Whether the fatigue is intentional(pot) or un-intentional(sleep-deprived), what's the difference? Why not lump 'em together?

[E93]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

I'm not aware of a easy marajuana test similar to a breathalyzer, how could it be determined if a driver is under the influence? Many of the symptoms are similar to lack of sleep.

I am just laughing at the irony of your online name, "J lighter" .

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by E93

I am just laughing at the irony of your online name, "J lighter" .

Lighter is actually my last name.

Best name ever? Pretty close I say.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Lighter is actually my last name.

Best name ever? Pretty close I say.

Best name ever is Aardvark Von Yardstick. Don't steal that, it's going to be the name of my second kid, whether it is a boy, girl or miscellaneous.

[kmac32]

Really only an issue if they are using pre war cards as rolling papers.

[Exhibitman]

Legalize it. I don't partake--not something I enjoy--but I have no issue with those who want to. Prohibition has just driven it underground, taking the tax revenues with it. It has been de facto legal in CA for a while and there hasn't been any [extra] collapse of law and order. If anything it has made it safer for average potheads to score.

[Jcfowler6]

If it's legal it should be packaged with a baseball card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Section103]

Originally Posted by Jcfowler6

If it's legal it should be packaged with a baseball card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The terrible thing is that I would probably fall for that marketing gimmick.

[Fred]

I don't care if they leagalize it. The only thing I want are laws on the books, prior to the legalization of pot, that make driving under the influence something that's going to require a lot of dough (or jail time), especially if there is bodily injury caused due to an accident by someone under the influence. The last thing I want is some high idiot to cause an accident that costs lives. I realize that people drive high now, but I figure if you place some really strict laws into affect prior to legalizing pot then you cover your bases.

Go ahead, go smoke away, just make sure you do it safely. Also, it's not something I'd like to see in public. The last thing we need to do is expose really young kids to second hand smoke.

If the government can make a lot of money on this and reduce crime (as they think it will) then why not....?

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Fred

I don't care if they leagalize it. The only thing I want are laws on the books, prior to the legalization of pot, that make driving under the influence something that's going to require a lot of dough (or jail time), especially if there is bodily injury caused due to an accident by someone under the influence. The last thing I want is some high idiot to cause an accident that costs lives. I realize that people drive high now, but I figure if you place some really strict laws into affect prior to legalizing pot then you cover your bases.

Go ahead, go smoke away, just make sure you do it safely. Also, it's not something I'd like to see in public. The last thing we need to do is expose really young kids to second hand smoke.

If the government can make a lot of money on this and reduce crime (as they think it will) then why not....?

The "driving under the influence" aspect of marijuana is probably my biggest concern as well as I could honestly care less what people are doing in their own homes. The major problem with the situation it is that there is no quick/cheap/easy way to tell "how intoxicated" someone is, maybe they can come up with a test that doesn't require blood/urine and subsequent laboratory analysis but it isn't out there right now (at least not to my knowledge).

[rainier2004]

The are laws in all 50 states that make it illegal to use marijuana and drive. Within the last year the Supreme court in Michigan dismissed a medical marijuana case as he tested positive, legally with his card, but passed all field sobriety tests.
An officer can legally refrain you from operating your vehicle if they have probable cause to think you are unfit to drive, such as sleep deprivation or an acute medical condition. Basically, the same laws that are in place for alcohol pertain to marijuana use...this is exactly what permits it from infringing on others.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

The "driving under the influence" aspect of marijuana is probably my biggest concern as well as I could honestly care less what people are doing in their own homes. The major problem with the situation it is that there is no quick/cheap/easy way to tell "how intoxicated" someone is, maybe they can come up with a test that doesn't require blood/urine and subsequent laboratory analysis but it isn't out there right now (at least not to my knowledge).

It's call personal responsibility. And people should be held accountable for it. THAT, in my opinion, is the major problem with drunk driving laws now. It's not driving under the influence prior to the being caught, it is what is NOT being done after people are caught. How many accidents/deaths were cause by those with previous convictions?

Drunk driving laws are capricious anyway (a whole other discussion), but we have a "we have to do something" mentality, so let's set an semi-arbitrary limit as a compromise, which is what we do now. My personal view is that if we are REALLY going to be concerned with reduced capacity, then why aren't driving tests mandatory every 2, 3, 5 (pick a number) years? And in some states, why no driving test at all except to get your first license as a teenager?

"I realize that people drive high now, but I figure if you place some really strict laws into affect prior to legalizing pot then you cover your bases."

This is wishful thinking, and we already see how well that works, don't we (see drunk driving above). It also doesn't take into consideration the effect of strict laws either (can't remember the name of the theory off hand). For example, if you make robbing a bank punishable by death, the idea that this will reduce bank robberies doesn't account for the other end of the equation. That it just makes injuring/killing someone during a bank robber less of a disincentive to injure/kill someone.

Yes, some bank robbers wouldn't kill/hurt people anyway. But it gets back to personal responsibility for what someone actually DID. This also ties into making crimes of what people think, and not what they do (also, another discussion).

It is very questionable how much drunk driving LAWS themselves have actually reduce drunk driving. Similar to smoking, society has made driving under the influence unacceptable.

Unless we are keeping people actually RESPONSIBLE for their actions, the laws aren't going to be as effective as the could or should be.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

The "driving under the influence" aspect of marijuana is probably my biggest concern...

And it should be a huge concern. But there are literally millions of other aspects to look at too. Do you want to be the resident next door to the chemical company that just accidentally released a plume of toxic fumes because some process operator decided he wanted to get high 30 minutes before his shift and opened the wrong valve? Do you want to be a passenger on that cruise ship or jet airplane whose captain just lit one up before taking the wheel? Do you want to be standing anywhere around that high rise crane suspending a huge piece of equipment and he drops it because the lift operator decided he wanted to spark one up on his lunch break?

[SteveMitchell]

Many (most) of the remarks on this topic remind me of the feeling I get when passing by certain areas along Highway 99 in Shoreline/Seattle: I get a sick feeling. All the "green cross" and "MMJ" signs me want to puke. I believe we have only seen the beginning of problems in Washington State. If the nation goes with way of Washington and Colorado (and others), it won't be pretty.

[Jeffrompa]

Ive seen too many lives ruined by substance abuse lawful and unlawful .

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by SteveMitchell

Many (most) of the remarks on this topic remind me of the feeling I get when passing by certain areas along Highway 99 in Shoreline/Seattle: I get a sick feeling. All the "green cross" and "MMJ" signs me want to puke. I believe we have only seen the beginning of problems in Washington State. If the nation goes with way of Washington and Colorado (and others), it won't be pretty.

So how does the "liquor" and other alcohol signs that are atop convenience stores makes you feel?

[SteveMitchell]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

So how does the "liquor" and other alcohol signs that are atop convenience stores makes you feel?

Not especially proud. I'm reminded of a phrase used politically for decades. It goes something like: "If only one life is spared..." It never seems to come up in arguments for legalizing pot. I'm guessing because it's usually a one-sided argument.

This is a baseball-oriented site and since you brought up the subject of alcohol, I have seen a number of pre-war ballplayers who could not hold their liquor. It wasn't pretty and a few of them led lives that ended sadly. I'm sure the same could be said for pot, too, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for either substance.

[Eric72]

The legalization of marijuana seems to have taken a foothold on the shoreline of this battle. While Washington and Colorado are the only states which have yet "legalized" it, there are other governmental organizations which have changed their stance.

For instance, the municipality of Philadelphia, PA has, "decriminalized" the possession of marijuana, provided that the amount possessed is under a certain threshold. Personally, I think this might be a good model to follow. If you choose to partake, then it should not be (in and of itself) criminal behavior.

However, if you then go out and drive, commit a crime, expose someone else to second hand smoke, etc., there should be consequences. And I believe these should be handled in a similar manner to DUI, committing a crime while intoxicated, or serving alcohol to someone who later gets in a car wreck leaving one's house after drinking at a party. BTW - the latter is a law on the books in some states...in the area where I live, it's NJ.

Just my two cents. I'm not condoning marijuana use...just positing that it's not much different than alcohol use. Whether people prefer apples or oranges, let them enjoy fruit. Whether people prefer a beer or a toke, let them enjoy a buzz.

Best regards,

Eric

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Eric72

The legalization of marijuana seems to have taken a foothold on the shoreline of this battle. While Washington and Colorado are the only states which have yet "legalized" it, there are other governmental organizations which have changed their stance.

For instance, the municipality of Philadelphia, PA has, "decriminalized" the possession of marijuana, provided that the amount possessed is under a certain threshold. Personally, I think this might be a good model to follow. If you choose to partake, then it should not be (in and of itself) criminal behavior.

However, if you then go out and drive, commit a crime, expose someone else to second hand smoke, etc., there should be consequences. And I believe these should be handled in a similar manner to DUI, committing a crime while intoxicated, or serving alcohol to someone who later gets in a car wreck leaving one's house after drinking at a party. BTW - the latter is a law on the books in some states...in the area where I live, it's NJ.

Just my two cents. I'm not condoning marijuana use...just positing that it's not much different than alcohol use. Whether people prefer apples or oranges, let them enjoy fruit. Whether people prefer a beer or a toke, let them enjoy a buzz.

Best regards,

Eric

We pretty much think alike here, Eric.

Let me just say that I support the legalization of marijuana 100%. I don't use it, never have (unless you count getting high from second hand smoke at various rock concerts), and probably never will. That's just a personal choice. But I very much believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. Stop wasting tax payer money fighting the production of marijuana. Provide education as to the possible side effects of its use, and let adults make up their own minds. Then tax the legal sales of marijuana. Doing so almost immediately starts taking a huge chunk out of the federal deficit.

As for those that are concerned about people getting stoned, and then driving their car, I feel you have every right to express yourself. However, I suspect that many of the people who are most likely to exhibit this kind of terrible judgement are already doing so. They are already getting their marijuana, or drinking, and getting behind the wheel. Yes, there will be more people that exercise poor judgement if marijuana sale is legalized. To combat this, I feel more needs to be done by our legislators.

The laws in place to punish those who drive under the influence are woefully inadequate. If you get behind the wheel, and your blood alcohol is above the legal limit, you should go to jail for six months. Period. Your license should be taken away for a year, and that begins the day you get our of jail. If you do it a second time, your license should be revoked permanently, and you should go to jail for three years. If you injure someone, you should do jail time commensurate with the bodily harm you've inflicted. If you kill somebody while driving under the influence, you should be put away for life. No exceptions. I'm all for personal freedoms, but if you abuse those freedoms, and hurt somebody else in the process, then justice should be swift, and the punishment harsh. The news here in Texas is littered with stories of people who have had several duis later killing somebody while driving drunk. I'm talking people who have had 3, 4 of 5 duis. That's ridiculous. They shouldn't be able to drive. They should be in jail. With the legalization of marijuana, you're going to have more room in prisons. Fill them up with people that turn their vehicles into lethal weapons.

Now, I'm going to blow your minds, chaps. While we're on the subject of decriminalization, I also feel prostitution should be legalized. It would go a long way towards removing the stigma from prostitution, and regulated escort services would be a first step towards ensuring that only the men and women of legal age, who wish to be employed as escorts, are doing so. Regulated escort services will ensure that testing is done, reducing the rates of sexually transmitted diseases. I also believe that legalized prostitution will reduce crime. One report I read about prostitution and sex crimes from the Independent Institute theorized that rape in the United States would drop by 25% if prostitution were legalized. Now, that paper was from 2004. I compared more recent data from the United States and the Netherlands. In 2011, there were over 84,676 rapes reported in the United States, more than any other country in the world. In the Netherlands which, granted, is a much smaller country, there were 1,530 rapes in the same year. However, by reported rape cases per million, the United States ranked ninth at 274 cases per million. The Netherlands reported 92 cases per million, which ranked them 25th. Now, to rely on these numbers alone would be an oversimplification of a significant problem. There is much more to it. One would need to also consider things like violence in media, views on sexuality in the different societies, etc. But it does show that, in the abstract, there are more rapes in the United States, a country where prostitution is not legalized, then in the Netherlands, a nation where prostitution is legalized. At the very least, these numbers are compelling. And then, there is also the financial impact of legalized prostitution. Taxing the service would create more revenue for the federal government.

Imagine if marijuana and prostitution were both legalized in America. The tax dollars from both would greatly reduce the debt. I also feel certain that fewer people would be going to jail. Prisons across the United States are overpopulated. If prostitution is legalized, escorts and their clients are no longer going to jail. If marijuana is legalized, those dealing marijuana exclusively, and those using it, are not going to jail. And the incidence of rape in the United States could drop drastically. This frees up the police to focus on real criminals.