Marijuana laws- O/T

[veleno45]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Freedom is having the ability to choose without infringing on the rights of the others.

I am generally for anyone to do whatever the heck they damn well please, but I am undecided on the pot subject, but this quote is the problem I cannot get over.

If it is always done in the home, smoke away, have fun. But it does infringe upon my rights when taken to the streets. This statement will of course be compared to alcohol consumption which is not a proper comparison. I never got drunk while standing next to a man drinking beer.

SOmeone sell me on being a supporter of legalization without talking about rights infringement or the ridiculous "fewer criminals" and "end war on drugs" junk.

[Section103]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...ver-who-knows/


A thoughtful, measured insight into David's spurious link between legalized marijuana and rising homelessness here in Denver. Perhaps its not "enough said" after all.

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

They say that 83% of statistics are just made up.

That's on Monday. By Friday all numbers are subject to Thursday night....

[packs]

You are not getting high from standing next to someone smoking. Psychoactive elements of the drug occur when THC has entered the bloodstream. Second hand smoke does not contain THC.

Also, for anyone who is not educated about medical marijuana, it fully possible and in practice for medications with THC components to be controlled in such a way as the chemical reaction does not pass the blood / brain barrier.

In simpler terms, a child with a behavior disorder can be calmed down by the effects of a pill containing THC without experiencing any of the psychoactive side effects that smoking causes. So you get all the benefit and none of the "drug".

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by veleno45

I am generally for anyone to do whatever the heck they damn well please, but I am undecided on the pot subject, but this quote is the problem I cannot get over.

If it is always done in the home, smoke away, have fun. But it does infringe upon my rights when taken to the streets. This statement will of course be compared to alcohol consumption which is not a proper comparison. I never got drunk while standing next to a man drinking beer.

SOmeone sell me on being a supporter of legalization without talking about rights infringement or the ridiculous "fewer criminals" and "end war on drugs" junk.

That's kind of like saying "Sell me on why I shouldn't stick my hand into an active woodchipper without all the safety issues crap". I mean...when you narrow the scope of the rebuttal it doesn;t make for much of an effective debate.

Tom C

[brookdodger55]

FYI

Homelessness is up 150% in Denver as many head there for the free flow of weed costing the city a lot more money. Most shelters including the Salvation Army are funded by the city and the state along with private donations, cost have increased for all shelters. Most cities think about tax revenue but over look the added cost of treatment, homelessness and the decline of neighborhoods. Not for legalizing it.

Mike

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by brookdodger55

FYI

Homelessness is up 150% in Denver as many head there for the free flow of weed costing the city a lot more money. Most shelters including the Salvation Army are funded by the city and the state along with private donations, cost have increased for all shelters. Most cities think about tax revenue but over look the added cost of treatment, homelessness and the decline of neighborhoods. Not for legalizing it.

Mike

Don't forget about the link between homelessness and crime, and that the potential for crime increases if one has been homeless for an extended period of time.

[packs]

Well, what about if every state legalized it? Don't you think people seeking treatment would just remain where they are?

Your argument is confusing to me. You're basically saying that because treatment is available in one place and not others, that there is something surprising about people seeking treatment going to an area where they can receive it.

You are also saying anyone needing medical marijuana or looking to benefit medically from receiving treatment is homeless.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by brookdodger55

FYI

Homelessness is up 150% in Denver as many head there for the free flow of weed costing the city a lot more money. Most shelters including the Salvation Army are funded by the city and the state along with private donations, cost have increased for all shelters. Most cities think about tax revenue but over look the added cost of treatment, homelessness and the decline of neighborhoods. Not for legalizing it.

Mike

If this is true, it seems to me that Denver will have created something akin to a light gathering moths around it during the overnight hours. The attraction of legalized weed is a strong attaction for some whose sole purpose in life is to live off the government dole to begin with. The legalization, it would seem to me, did not suddenly create homelessness in Denver. Rather, it attracted those from elsewhere who were already predisposed in the first place. To me, there is no cause and effect relationship.

It is like saying the light at night created more moths in the world and thus if there were more lights everywhere we would be overrun by months. This is not true. It is called daytime. If marijuana were legalized everywhere, what you may be seeing in Danver is not what would happen everywhere. Those already predisposed would simply remain where they are and homeless populations would not skyrocket overnight.

Tom C

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by veleno45

I am generally for anyone to do whatever the heck they damn well please, but I am undecided on the pot subject, but this quote is the problem I cannot get over.

If it is always done in the home, smoke away, have fun. But it does infringe upon my rights when taken to the streets. This statement will of course be compared to alcohol consumption which is not a proper comparison. I never got drunk while standing next to a man drinking beer.

SOmeone sell me on being a supporter of legalization without talking about rights infringement or the ridiculous "fewer criminals" and "end war on drugs" junk.

Why would it be legal to smoke openly on the streets? I believe that constitutes public intoxication and possibly disorderly conduct but I'm no lawyer. So if marijuana is being used in a legal way, how does this affect you? Tell me why it should be illegal?

[packs]

There are zero valid arguments against legalizing medical marijuana.

Anyone saying no is probably someone who would gladly take painkillers like Oxycontin for no other reason than because a doctor prescribed it. Well guess what? Medical marijuana is prescribed by a doctor!

You would without hesitation consume medical heroin because in your eyes a doctor gave it to you. But for some reason you would take issue with a doctor prescribing medical marijuana, despite the fact that Oxycontin and drugs like it kill people every day, while there has never been anyone whose life was taken by marijuana. Give me a break. There are no logical arguments against it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by brookdodger55

FYI

Homelessness is up 150% in Denver as many head there for the free flow of weed costing the city a lot more money. Most shelters including the Salvation Army are funded by the city and the state along with private donations, cost have increased for all shelters. Most cities think about tax revenue but over look the added cost of treatment, homelessness and the decline of neighborhoods. Not for legalizing it.

Mike

As I stated with some certainty, the cause of homelessness has almost nothing to do with marijuana. Out of thousands of homeless I have interviewed not one single person has told me it is because of marijuana. Not one. They have told me it's because of alcohol and other drugs, but not one person I have counseled has said it was marijuana that caused it. Nervous breakdowns, alcohol, hard drugs, mental disorders, a series of really poor choices...those are some of the reasons. But if anyone wants to use weed, roaming elephants, people playing guitar, or anything else they can imagine to say it causes homelessness, no one will stop you.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Why would it be legal to smoke openly on the streets? I believe that constitutes public intoxication and possibly disorderly conduct but I'm no lawyer. So if marijuana is being used in a legal way, how does this affect you? Tell me why it should be illegal?

I thought that I saw somewhere that after the SF Giants won the World Series on year, at their parade, you could smell weed in the air. I couldn't find an article on that, but I did find this one: Link

[packs]

But what does that have to do with anything? Have you ever been to a football game? Half the stadium is drinking in the parking lot.

Ever been to NYC on St. Patrick's Day? How about New Year's Eve? What do you think the streets look like?

Or even simpler. In your casual knowledge about marijuana and it's effects on people, would you say there are likely to be more or less violent crimes committed by people using marijuana or people getting black out drunk?

[glynparson]

are the wookies of the world. Many would have been following the Grateful Dead if this were 25 years ago. These are not the typical homeless even the reporter states that. These are people that came there for the weed, the weed did not cause the homelessness. For the record I have used cannabis under a doctors prescription, I felt it was absolutely helpful.

[tschock]

"SOmeone sell me on being a supporter of legalization without talking about rights infringement ..."

Seriously? There need be no defense beyond this. If it something infringes on someone's rights, that infringement is illegal. Or should be. Rights are something that can only be taken away. They are NOT granted to us by the state, contrary to what some modern statists (in "progressive" clothing) would have you believe.

[Jcfowler6]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Van Horn]

No thanks. I can just see I would end up behind one of the guys or women that would use it and decided to go driving. There are enough of those drivers already on the road in my area. I don't need a law allowing more even if there is "a legal limit" to how much they can have.

[bnorth]

I went from owning a construction company that made me very comfortable money wise in the area I live in to building a 40'X76' hydroponic greenhouse so I think my answer is easy to figure out.

It is not legal here yet but I am betting big that here they will enact laws that control it more like Washington than like the free for all in Colorado.

[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?

[barrysloate]

Legalizing marijuana isn't perfect, but I don't think anyone expects a perfect result by legalizing it. Sure, somebody somewhere is going to have an accident by driving stoned, but it can't be any more dangerous than all the people who text and drive. I'm much more afraid of texters than stoners.

But there are so many positives that can come from legalization. Patients who may receive tremendous relief from pain will be able to easily buy some. The prisons are filled with thousands of young men who were convicted and received multiyear sentences for possession, and whose lives were ruined, and that will thankfully come to an end. And there are huge criminal cartels who supply pot to Americans that will soon be rendered useless if they can start growing their own.

Legalization may not be perfect, but the positives so outweigh the negatives that it seems pointless for it to remain illegal. And as John Lennon once sang: "smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot." I always wondered what he meant by that.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

What does legality have to do with qualification? It's illegal to pilot a ship while drunk, yet drinking is legal. It's illegal to pilot a plane within a certain time period of your last drink, yet drinking is legal. And people still break those laws as well.

Is your implication with this is that if it became LEGAL to smoke weed, it would be legal to do all of the what you mentioned while high??? Or are you concerned that people will break the laws of being high while flying/piloting/operating machinery/etc, since of course, they don't break the laws when using alcohol??? That argument is just illogical, if not downright silly.

[Texxxx]

If the homeless are packing there bag and going to Colorado because of the pot then I'm all for there legalization. Maybe all the homeless in my town will leave and go to Colorado also.

[chernieto]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Legalizing marijuana isn't perfect, but I don't think anyone expects a perfect result by legalizing it. Sure, somebody somewhere is going to have an accident by driving stoned, but it can't be any more dangerous than all the people who text and drive. I'm much more afraid of texters than stoners.

But there are so many positives that can come from legalization. Patients who may receive tremendous relief from pain will be able to easily buy some. The prisons are filled with thousands of young men who were convicted and received multiyear sentences for possession, and whose lives were ruined, and that will thankfully come to an end. And there are huge criminal cartels who supply pot to Americans that will soon be rendered useless if they can start growing their own.

Legalization may not be perfect, but the positives so outweigh the negatives that it seems pointless for it to remain illegal. And as John Lennon once sang: "smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot." I always wondered what he meant by that.

+1 !!!

[veleno45]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That's kind of like saying "Sell me on why I shouldn't stick my hand into an active woodchipper without all the safety issues crap". I mean...when you narrow the scope of the rebuttal it doesn;t make for much of an effective debate.

Tom C

I understand, but I feel those are weak arguments. If we legalize pot drug dealers disappear? No. Only the pot drug dealers...well, no again, of course not. Dealers are capitalist and will always grow/blend better stuff. So what is the argument for legalization? Purely our infringing on my rights? My rights are infringed every day because something isn't socially acceptable or isn't deemed safe. So what is the next discussion, taxes? Maybe I can agree with that at least.

[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?

[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

[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.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

My mistake, I meant homelessness. Homlesssness up 153% over the last two years. And as far as medicinal purposes, yeah, all those people in the video looked like they were in a lot of pain

Thank you, David, for providing a perfect example of the post hoc fallacy for all of Net 54's budding lawyers.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning "after this, therefore because of this."

Marijuana was legalized in Colorado. The homeless rate in Colorado has increased by 153% over the last two years. Therefore, the legalization of marijuana in Colorado has caused a 153% increase in homelessness over the last two years.

[mark evans]

I think the homelessness is largely attributable to the large influx of folks seeking jobs in the marijuana industry, as opposed to long-standing Colorado residents who decided to smoke pot under the new law and then, for some reason, stop paying their mortgage or rent.

As I understand the facts, many of the new residents are unable to locate jobs in the industry due simply to the insufficient number of positions and the strict Colorado law that prohibits those with felony convictions from working in the industry.

[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.

[toledo_mudhen]

Having been a long time marijuana user back in the 70s - 80s I have the following observations :

1.) Smoking pot takes an inordinate amount of time and, while under the influence, promotes unproductivity (not sure thats a real word).

2.) Smoking pot is not necessarily a "gateway" drug - although it was in my case.

3.) Marijuana possession laws are, currently and previously, ridiculous and waste way too many resources for prosecution and incarceration.

4.) It is a sad commentary that the country has come to this - where marijuana taxation is becoming almost a necessity in order to salvage struggling state revenues and economies.

5.) Pot smoking is not addictive nor does it destroy brain functionality. However, the time I spent messing with it would have been better spent promoting my career - which was put on the back burner.

6.) Pot smokers, in my experience, do not want their younger children to know that they do it. They will, however, drink a beer in front of them.

7.) Legalization will do nothing to stop the constant stream of drugs coming across the border. Colorado has an approximately 33% tax on the product. Black market will always be more economical.

8.) When it is all said and done - there will be 49 states (or 57 in Mr Obama's case) that have legalized marijuana. Texas will not.

[clydepepper]

I have read several of the post on this thread and it is, indeed, a complicated issue. I do not have a clear enough opinion to offer it, though I could make an argument for both sides.

Many times, my fallback position is simply put:

No right is worth having if not accompanied by an equal amount of responsibility.

[glynparson]

I have not heard one person complaining about people driving on prescription drugs which actually impair a driver considerably more than cannabis does. I hear lots of opinion, see very little facts from the contingent that is advocating the continued prohibition. Pharmaceutical Drugs prescribed by doctors legally kill many americans daily just through accidental overdose. Cannabis has killed 0 people due to overdose. Violence due to its illegal status is more likely to impact an innocent person than getting stoned from second hand smoke outside when it is illegal to smoke it in public. Not seeing the big call for making the world a Grateful Dead concert. Like I said previously, and my friends in Denver have confirmed, these homeless were homeless prior to the legalization .They just came to Denver, many are nomadic Rainbow gathering style people. They are not homeless because of weed but they are in Colorado because of legal weed. When it starts getting cold they will migrate somewhere else and some will be back when the weather changes. As for the gateway argument again studies have debunked this myth, alcohol and prescription drugs have in fact been proven to be true gateway drugs. As I stated above I was prescribed cannabis and it helped me greatly. I am thankful to the doctor that prescribed it and do not really care if those that do not like it think less of me. I think others should be afforded the same opportunity I was. Lets let doctors prescribe medicine as they see fit. I have no medical degree nor do I pretend to have one. Let's get science from scientists, medical opinions from doctors and nurses, and education from teachers, seems logical to me.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by glynparson

I have not heard one person complaining about people driving on prescription drugs which actually impair a driver considerably more than cannabis does. I hear lots of opinion, see very little facts from the contingent that is advocating the continued prohibition. Pharmaceutical Drugs prescribed by doctors legally kill many americans daily just through accidental overdose. Cannabis has killed 0 people due to overdose. Violence due to its illegal status is more likely to impact an innocent person than getting stoned from second hand smoke outside when it is illegal to smoke it in public. Not seeing the big call for making the world a Grateful Dead concert. Like I said previously, and my friends in Denver have confirmed, these homeless were homeless prior to the legalization .They just came to Denver, many are nomadic Rainbow gathering style people. They are not homeless because of weed but they are in Colorado because of legal weed. When it starts getting cold they will migrate somewhere else and some will be back when the weather changes. As for the gateway argument again studies have debunked this myth, alcohol and prescription drugs have in fact been proven to be true gateway drugs. As I stated above I was prescribed cannabis and it helped me greatly. I am thankful to the doctor that prescribed it and do not really care if those that do not like it think less of me. I think others should be afforded the same opportunity I was. Lets let doctors prescribe medicine as they see fit. I have no medical degree nor do I pretend to have one. Let's get science from scientists, medical opinions from doctors and nurses, and education from teachers, seems logical to me.

+1

[packs]

There is just so much misinformation in this thread. From the guy who thinks cannabis has more carcinogens than tobacco (which is processed in poison), to the guy who thinks you'll get unwittingly high from standing next to people theoretically smoking outside.

It seems as though the people who are against legalization really have no idea what legalization means, much less a real understanding of marijuana in the first place.

Legalization would mean greater access to medically prescribed marijuana, the ability to carry and purchase medical marijuana, and the ability to medicate yourself at home.

Your visions of some kind of free for all where the country is now free to smoke wherever and whenever they want are way off base. The same regulations would apply as they do for alcohol: you must be a certain age to purchase, you will get fired for reporting to work on drugs, it will be illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence, it will be illegal to smoke in public, just like it's illegal to carry an open container.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Taking all of this into consideration, I am interested in hearing the worst case scenario anyone can think of when it comes to a person smoking marijuana in their house.

Then re-read post #225

[packs]

I did all you said was what if....

Your post is based on the assumption that legalization means you have full authority to smoke whenever and wherever you want and you are ignoring all of the positive aspects of medically prescribed marijuana and the people whose quality of life would go up exponentially. Your views are old world. The people who need medical marijuana are not teenagers in a tree house. They are cancer patients, patients with issues like anxiety or insomnia and people in pain who would prefer not to get addicted to dangerous medications like Oxycontin (medically prescribed heroin).

We can treat these people with a medication that is natural, cheap and devoid of any harmful side effects, which is exactly the opposite of all the medications we are currently prescribing. Read the side effects label of any anti-anxiety, sleep aid, or painkiller medications. I don't want to put that into my body.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

I did all you said was what if....

But guess what? What if that person was drunk or on prescription pain medication? What if that person didn't get enough sleep the night before?

Why in your mind does legalizing medication equate to people immediately putting other people's lives in danger? Are you aware of the many medications that are legal? And their effects on your cognitive functions? You shouldn't even be taking allergy medication at work.

At some point you have to have faith in people to make reasonable decisions.

You're right, all I said were a bunch of "what ifs?"

But that's what you're saying as well. Your posts make as many assumptions as mine.

AND your posts are full of false information. You say you can't get THC from second hand smoke. That's absolutely false. It usually don't show up in urine tests or, if it does, it's trace amounts that usually won't make you fail, but it absolutely will be detected in a hair follicle test and you will fail.

You don't think second hand smoke can make you fail a drug test? Google Cheryl Hale of Washington and read her story. There are millions more just like it.

Here's another "what if" for you. What if all these medical marijuana patients you talk about take another kind of pain reliever? Problem solved.

[packs]

Listen, I'm no scientist but athletes use the "second hand" excuse all the time to explain away their failed tests. Maybe you have more faith in them than I do.

And like I said in my edited post, read the side effects label on prescription pain medication and tell me if you'd rather put that into your body than a natural alternative devoid of any harmful side effects or addictive properties. You may not be aware, but people overdose and die on prescription painkillers every day.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Then re-read post #225

Here's post #225:

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?

No offense David, but this is a very uninformed "worst-case-scenario" for several reasons:
1. It would still be illegal to fly while impaired or smoke at work or operate heavy machinery while impaired. Marijuana is essentially a mild form of alcohol.
2. A person who is willing to do a high risk job while impaired on weed is probably already doing so illegally. Just because alcohol is legal does not give a pilot the incentive to get loaded before a flight.
3. A person who "lights one up" does not suddenly become a bumbling idiot incapable of decision making or basic motor skills. An example, Doc Ellis throwing a no-hitter on LSD.

The worst case scenario would be unknown medical side effects (such as lung cancer) that have not been found as of yet.

I'd much rather have people give their money to American small businesses than drug cartels and the government. I've always been an advocate for a smaller federal government and more responsible spending, so legalization is right up my ally.

Jason

[steve B]

I've also never used, but was sort of the safety guy for my HS friends who did. Designated driver, voice or physical restraint of reason....No, you really shouldn't climb that tree when walking is a challenge. NO you're NOT going swimming to see if you can smoke through the snorkel......Somebody had to do it.

I've become somewhat ambivalent about it, if someone is having real medical issues and it helps, sure go ahead. Of course there will be those who find a doctor who'll rubber stamp some excuse, that was done for alcohol during prohibition.

I recently read an article about the very different experiences of Colorado and Washington. Colorado put pot growing/selling/etc under the same agencies that already cover other stuff - I think agriculture? Don't recall the exact department. The result was excellent organization of licenses, permits etc, and the whole local legal system being consistent. Washington basically just opened it up at the state level with little organization. And has had a load of problems with the confusing "legal in Wa, but not federally" issue. And the federal justice system has been inconsistent, some areas they basically go with local law, others take the hard line on the federal laws. The opener for the article was a person legally allowed to grow for medical reasons even before legalization being busted federally for allowing his relatives - also allowed to grow legally - to grow on his land because they lived in the city.

Here in Mass, as I understand it DUI is under the influence of anything. So it's covered. I think we've also decided not to pursue cases for possession of small ammounts.

Like anything else, some people will overdo it.

I don't buy the "it's harmless" argument. People around fires are taken to the hospital every day for smoke inhalation. If you want to do that deliberately, well ok I suppose. I'll pass.

Determining when someone had had "enough" of anything is hard. With alcohol I've seen the legal limit reduced from .10 to .08, and they're considering making it even lower. Some people are somewhat impaired at .08, for some it's not apparent. And personality is very different. Some drinkers get feisty, some mellow, some think they're "better drunk" when they're not. (I usually get mellow, when I actually drink more than one which isn't often lately. ) I have a friend who shows few outward signs of being drunk until way after the point where I've decided I'm not leaving the recliner. Another is pretty much done after one beer.

That's why we've fallen back on a technical number after field tests.

I'd imagine pot is the same way, affects people differently. There will no doubt be a few years of figuring out how to tell, and maybe eventually a simple test.

Steve B

[tschock]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Here's another "what if" for you. What if all these medical marijuana patients you talk about take another kind of pain reliever? Problem solved.

You obviously know nothing about chronic pain management. The same drug may not work for different patients with the same pain source. And there are some who get relief with only a single specific drug. Medical fact.

While I completely agree that some are using medical marijuana as an excuse, I will wager anything you like, that just like other pain medication, there are quite a few who get relief ONLY through marijuana.