Your plans for 4/20?

[stuckincincy]

if you wanted to take away all the power from the cartels, and stop those deaths, you simply legalize it.

 

 

Don't be naive.

 

And for the time being - every time you light up, you are a contributory cause of those hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction of nations.

 

Do your part - NOW.

[Fingon]

It's also decriminalized in NYS. Anything under an ounce is a $100 fine.

[CarolinaBill]

you need to visit Oakland. or as they call it, "Oaksterdam". California and Colorado are almost there. or at least much closer than anywhere else.

 

but you dont argue against the fact that those deaths are being CAUSED by it being illegal?

how do you test for it in terms of driving? like a DUI breathalyzer, there's a sticking point

 

most deaths involving pot stem from the cartels, but what about the DUI related deaths, thats why i said contributing factor, its still important to acknowledge that aspect, pot affects reaction time, theres no doubt about that

[LeviF]

how do you test for it in terms of driving? like a DUI breathalyzer, there's a sticking point

 

most deaths involving pot stem from the cartels, but what about the DUI related deaths, thats why i said contributing factor, its still important to acknowledge that aspect, pot affects reaction time, theres no doubt about that

They can test hair follicles and urine to determine if you've been smoking recently.

[CarolinaBill]

They can test hair follicles and urine to determine if you've been smoking recently.

hair goes back months, urine weeks, if not months, based on body fat %, unless they've devised new tests in the last few yrs, this still isnt any way I know of to test for it within a reasonable period to warrant a Breathalyzer style test

[LeviF]

hair goes back months, urine weeks, if not months, based on body fat %, unless they've devised new tests in the last few yrs, this still isnt any way I know of to test for it within a reasonable period to warrant a Breathalyzer style test

Misunderstood your question.

 

They can do a blood test, as THC will only stay in your bloodstream for a few hours, while habitual smokers will have it in their blood for 12-24 hours. In fact, I believe my blood was screened like this after my accident last May. Still not quite as accurate/precise as a breathalyzer though.

[CarolinaBill]

Misunderstood your question.

 

They can do a blood test, as THC will only stay in your bloodstream for 12-24 hours. In fact, I believe my blood was screened like this after my accident last May. Still not quite as accurate/precise as a breathalyzer though.

ok, so if im high and pulled over, pass a field sobriety, they ask for the blood test here's the response

 

"sir under no circumstances can you get a blood sample from me, I am a hemopheliac, and that could potentially kill me"

also this response could warrant an automatic DUI, as it does with alcohol

 

blood tests arent the answer, to this point there is no precise test that I am aware of that could confirm positive MJ use within a reasonable time frame, and if one of the major arguements to "legalize it" is reducing the courts costs all around, then you better devise a good dui test.

[LeviF]

ok, so if im high and pulled over, pass a field sobriety, they ask for the blood test here's the response

 

"sir under no circumstances can you get a blood sample from me, I am a hemopheliac, and that could potentially kill me"

also this response could warrant an automatic DUI, as it does with alcohol

 

blood tests arent the answer, to this point there is no precise test that I am aware of that could confirm positive MJ use within a reasonable time frame, and if one of the major arguements to "legalize it" is reducing the courts costs all around, then you better devise a good dui test.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you on that. They do need a better way to test for marijuana use, although I'm not sure what time frame you mean by a "reasonable time frame."

[Magox]

ok, so if im high and pulled over, pass a field sobriety, they ask for the blood test here's the response

 

"sir under no circumstances can you get a blood sample from me, I am a hemopheliac, and that could potentially kill me"

also this response could warrant an automatic DUI, as it does with alcohol

 

blood tests arent the answer, to this point there is no precise test that I am aware of that could confirm positive MJ use within a reasonable time frame, and if one of the major arguements to "legalize it" is reducing the courts costs all around, then you better devise a good dui test.

There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

 

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box”. New York. (1995):36.

 

Swan, Neil. “A Look at Marijuana’s Harmful Effects.” NIDA Notes. 9.2 (1994): 14.

 

Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1982. 7.

 

Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. 265.

 

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

 

 

It will get legalized, you can count on it. Just a matter of time. And yes, it will bring in more tax revenues, lessen the burden on our court systems with frivilous marijuana possession related drug charges and significantly reduce the power of the Mexican Drug Cartels.

 

Time to get on with it, the sooner the better.

[bbb]

I'm not getting in a car when I know the driver is stoned.

[stuckincincy]

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

 

 

It will get legalized, you can count on it. Just a matter of time. And yes, it will bring in more tax revenues, lessen the burden on our court systems with frivilous marijuana possession related drug charges and significantly reduce the power of the Mexican Drug Cartels.

 

Time to get on with it, the sooner the better.

 

Have someone take a video when you are high. Review that. Decide if you are capable. Decide if you would hire that person.

 

There are laws against driving under the influence of alcohol - a legal product. Obviously, folks do - in untold numbers - daily.

 

Now make drugs legal - do you think that people won't drive under their influences? Or are drug users just special people who wouldn't hurt a fly, if only if they were legal?

 

Drugs are pleasurable. Everybody knows that. Drugs take the place of reality. Everybody knows that.

 

You make them legal, be prepared for a society flooded with huge numbers of people who don't use drugs out of respect for the laws, changing their tune.

 

 

The thought that legalization will stop something like the Mex. cartel is ludicrous. They would like nothing better.

[Magox]

You make them legal, be prepared for a society flooded with huge numbers of people who don't use drugs out of respect for the laws, changing their tune.

 

 

The thought that legalization will stop something like the Mex. cartel is ludicrous. They would like nothing better.

I don't believe that to be the case what so ever. People who are inclined to smoke marijuana are doing so regardless of it's illegality. To suggest otherwise is just poppycock.

 

And to your second point, huh????

 

No one said stop, I said reduce, and if you don't believe that legalizing marijuana would reduce the amount of underground trade/dollars that the Mexican Cartels are receiving then you are simply mistaken.

 

If Marijuana was legalized, would there be more production in the U.S or less?

 

If there is more production of it in the U.S, would there be more marijauna trafficking or less from Mexico?

 

If it was legalized, would there be more companies in Mexico looking to cultivate it or less? How would this impact the underground trade from the Cartels, would this be a boon for their industry or a net negative?

 

It's really not that difficult to understand.

[Magox]

I'm not getting in a car when I know the driver is stoned.

I'm not getting in the car if someone is drunk.

 

So what's your point?

 

[Chef Jim]

Sure I can.

 

Alcohol is the 3rd leading preventable cause of death in the US at 75,000 people a year

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353

 

 

Marijuana has never killed anyone.

 

Hell, it doesn't even cause cancer

 

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/2006...-to-lung-cancer

 

There is not one confirmed death from the use of marijuana. Not one.

 

So not one person had died of lung cancer from smoking pot? Look at the inside of your bong and that's what it's doing to your lungs. Don't be naive.

[DrDawkinstein]

Have someone take a video when you are high. Review that. Decide if you are capable. Decide if you would hire that person.

 

Drugs are pleasurable. Everybody knows that. Drugs take the place of reality. Everybody knows that.

 

id be willing to do this. id be willing to do a number of different tests regarding everything from solving math problems in a certain amount of time, to performing motor skill tests, to driving.

 

i guarantee i do better high, then most people would do sober. and i guarantee a minuscule drop from my own sober scores. i can not say the same thing about using alcohol.

 

i never said it would completely shut down the drug cartels, but it would take away over half of their business. which takes away half of their power. it would be the largest blow, in the constant war the government fights, that they have ever seen. much more effective than what the government is doing, now which really does nothing at all seeing as how it is still very easy to get drugs anywhere, anytime.

 

you tell me "dont be naive" then carry on with a stance that might as well be from 1950s propaganda films. youre going to tell me how it effects people, and what it does, yet im guessing youve never tried it yourself?

 

You make them legal, be prepared for a society flooded with huge numbers of people who don't use drugs out of respect for the laws, changing their tune.

 

this is simply false. id be willing to be there are less than 1000 people in the USA who would say "I'd smoke pot, if it werent illegal". here's some news, anyone who wants to smoke pot, IS smoking pot, whenever they want. there may be some people who dont and wont because their job would still outlaw it. but we're not discussing that level. To think that there is a huge group of people out there that would be doing something that is already cheap and readily available, if it just werent for some crazy law, is the most naive thing posted in this thread. America is FULL of MILLIONS of pot smokers. People have already decided they will do this regardless of what the law says. This is why there is so much discussion about over-turning that law.

[DrDawkinstein]

So not one person had died of lung cancer from smoking pot? Look at the inside of your bong and that's what it's doing to your lungs. Don't be naive.

 

this i can accept as being a health effect. it's ridiculous to think that there isnt SOME long term damage being down to your breathing system. but marijuana smoke does not contain the poisons and pollutants that get added to cigarettes, so the damage is much less than even smoking cigarettes. and neither holds a candle to the financial and physical drain on society that is our beloved alcohol.

 

i can also agree with CarolinaBill that a major problem would be testing for it at traffic stops and whatnot.

[Stl Bills]

Have someone take a video when you are high. Review that. Decide if you are capable. Decide if you would hire that person.

 

There are laws against driving under the influence of alcohol - a legal product. Obviously, folks do - in untold numbers - daily.

 

Now make drugs legal - do you think that people won't drive under their influences? Or are drug users just special people who wouldn't hurt a fly, if only if they were legal?

 

Drugs are pleasurable. Everybody knows that. Drugs take the place of reality. Everybody knows that.

 

You make them legal, be prepared for a society flooded with huge numbers of people who don't use drugs out of respect for the laws, changing their tune.

 

 

The thought that legalization will stop something like the Mex. cartel is ludicrous. They would like nothing better.

 

On an unrelated note the thing that pisses me off about drunk driving most lies in the hands of the government. There is a 100% fool proof solution out there to almost completely rid the roads out there of drunk drivers....they are called ignition interlock devices. Why they are not mandatory on every vehicle is beyond me. If driving is considered a privledge and not a right why not make it mandatory that these devices be place on all new cars produced. Its a simply, inexpensive technology that would save thousands of lives. The only reason I can think of that they are not mandatory is the govt. doesn't want to lose all the revenue generated from drunk driving convictions. If that's the case, it is completely irresponsible to let drunks drive and risk lives to generate money. If its not the case, somebody explain to me why these devices aren't mandatory on all new vehicles.

[Magox]

you tell me "dont be naive" then carry on with a stance that might as well be from 1950s propaganda films. youre going to tell me how it effects people, and what it does, yet im guessing youve never tried it yourself?

No, I'm thinking he learned about it

[Fingon]

So not one person had died of lung cancer from smoking pot? Look at the inside of your bong and that's what it's doing to your lungs. Don't be naive.

Yes, because "being naive" is not doubting the results of the largest long term study ever done on marijuana? The statistical probability that a large amount of people that have smoked up to 22,000 joints in their life, and have those people not develop cancer at an abnormal rate is extremely low, if it is true that marijuana causes cancer.

[Fingon]

Let's hear what the Federal government has to say on whether or not Marijuana causes cancer.

 

"Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time."

 

Even with the huge bias that the Federal Government has against marijuana, they still have to admit that the overwhelming evidence is toward it not causing cancer.

 

http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html