I believe that marijuana should be legal (discussion)

[Bob Maxey]

That is my point, the law is nothing but a number. It doesn't take into account ones ability to actually function.

OK, so both of your children are killed by a drunk driver. When you go to court, the prosecutor says "we thought Jim, the driver, could handle his alcohol, so we will not be pressing charges. He always handled his liquor quite well so we do not think he was drunk, just an unfortunate accident."

Vs...

His blood alcohol content was above the legal limit, so we will be pressing manslaughter charges.

This is such a silly argument. You are wrong. We need limits or we have trouble.

 

[KingOfGreen]

OK, so both of your children are killed by a drunk driver. When you go to court, the prosecutor says "we thought Jim, the driver, could handle his alcohol, so we will not be pressing charges. He always handled his liquor quite well so we do not think he was drunk, just an unfortunate accident."

Vs...

His blood alcohol content was above the legal limit, so we will be pressing manslaughter charges.

This is such a silly argument. You are wrong. We need limits or we have trouble.

what if he was BELOW the legal limit but still not coordinated enough to operate a vehicle. you think then you would be ok with him not being charged? i believe numbers are less important than you keep pressing.

i had a friends get pulled over for a taillight being out, driving perfect. passes ALL the field sobriety tests but smelled of alcohol and failed the breathalyzer and was only 18. the cop told him to call a ride and didn't charge him because he was perfectly functional!!!

yes in a case where the driver left in an ambulance or whatnot a blood test would be crucial, but if you get pulled over i believe that most officers are experienced enough to make the call on whether or not you are sober enough to drive. they almost always have been in my dealing with them. and if you disagree be respectful and get another officer there.

 

[lordofthereef]

what if he was BELOW the legal limit but still not coordinated enough to operate a vehicle. you think then you would be ok with him not being charged? i believe numbers are less important than you keep pressing.

No, we wouldn't be happier with it. But as has been said, it is what it is, and statistically, those numbers are pretty damn accurate. That is to say we would be worse off without having a legal and testable definition of what it is to be intoxicated from consumption of alcohol.

i had a friends get pulled over for a taillight being out, driving perfect. passes ALL the field sobriety tests but smelled of alcohol and failed the breathalyzer and was only 18. the cop told him to call a ride and didn't charge him because he was perfectly functional!!!

The cop did the wrong thing here. There is a zero tolerance law under 21. Whether he was functional or not, he broke the law.

 

[tommy_ed]

as far as each person handling it differently, THIS IS THE POINT OF A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. what is the point if they can't tell if you can drive or not?

i agree with lordofthereef the we NEED a sure test, something to fall back on if we disagree with the officer administering the test. i don't think it's 100% necessary before we legalize, but i think it should be done first.

bob i think you misunderstood, he didn't mean that as "well i can handle my liquor, so i'll be fine" - he meant it as, what if someone blows just a little over, but they pass the field sobriety test with flying colors? the F.S.T. concludes they are fully capable to drive, that's the point of it!

 

[KingOfGreen]

The cop did the wrong thing here. There is a zero tolerance law under 21. Whether he was functional or not, he broke the law.

You think so, but personally i dont see anything wrong with people being 18 and drinking. You can go over seas to fight in a war at 18. Again he wasnt drunk, had he been 21 he would have been under the legal limit. Why does him being 18 matter? Cuz he broke the law? The law is far from perfect and police have the option of whether or not to ticket somebody. Ive seen police take it easy on people quite a few times. I see someone drininking at 18 in the same way as me getting high. Im not driving under the influence and nobody else is hurt because of those actions.

Ive had plenty of experience with the police some good some bad but overall i can say that i would trust them to make those calls. YES it would be better to have a standard that can be measured. But i dont think that legalization should have to wait on that. And i would think that there has to be some difference between the metabolized products and those still active but that wouldnt and couldnt account for somebodys TOLLERANCE and therefore would still be flawed.

 

[OutofDate1980]

No, not at all.

We already have two things that cause serious societal issues: alcohol and tobacco. We can't ban them without creating a problem. This we know. I do not think we need yet one more intoxicant that can be abused.

If it were to be legalized, I'll shut up.

I do not think we need another thing added to the mix that despite the views of many/most supporters, will cause problems. Legalizing the herb will not necessarily solve crime.

I find it surprising that hemp, with no, or small traces of THC is also prohibited. Hemp is a substitute for paper and cotton. I think examining the industries that benefit from the current or proposed laws leads to useful insights.

The alcohol and tobacco industries may also benefit that a potentially competitive product is proscribed.

I found this from a study in Alaska, "One such study has been completed. In Sen, et al. (2002) an empirical study of 6,748 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 16 was undertaken for the purpose of identifying a "gateway" effect between cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. Ironically, it was discovered that initiation of marijuana use decreased the likelihood of subsequently using the other two. This was statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence."

p.26, last paragraph; http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/FinalBatesreport.pdf

 

[Bob Maxey]

what if he was BELOW the legal limit but still not coordinated enough to operate a vehicle. you think then you would be ok with him not being charged? i believe numbers are less important than you keep pressing.

i had a friends get pulled over for a taillight being out, driving perfect. passes ALL the field sobriety tests but smelled of alcohol and failed the breathalyzer and was only 18. the cop told him to call a ride and didn't charge him because he was perfectly functional!!!

yes in a case where the driver left in an ambulance or whatnot a blood test would be crucial, but if you get pulled over i believe that most officers are experienced enough to make the call on whether or not you are sober enough to drive. they almost always have been in my dealing with them. and if you disagree be respectful and get another officer there.

I believe there is a legal limit and if you are caught over the limit, you go through a stark reality: the DUI charge and associated costs.

It does not matter if you can function while loaded. What matters is you are over the limit.

Not sure I can address the incompetence of the typical driver. If he is below the legal limit, then OK. No arrest unless he breaks the law. As for your friend, apparently, he did not break the law.

I find it surprising that hemp, with no, or small traces of THC is also prohibited. Hemp is a substitute for paper and cotton. I think examining the industries that benefit from the current or proposed laws leads to useful insights.

So we use hemp to replace cotton. Why? We already understand cotton, so why bother with hemp?

Costs perhaps? Bob does not know. Perhaps yield per acre is too low compared to cotton or some other reason it is not more widely used. There is that federal law, I suppose. Again, Bob is not a hemp head.

There are some natural materials that can replace many plastics, but they are dangerous and/or costly to make. For example, Casein and Celluloid. I recently read a post on another list that mentioned these specific polymers and the writer simply had ZERO idea about these alternatives.

Casein can take a year to produce in a size suitable for making items like fountain pens and duck calls, and Celluloid from cotton is explosive.

Can you provide a link that looks at the costs of hemp Vs. cotton?

 

[JnEricsonx]

The best test for recent marijuana use is as follows:
1. place a snickers, cheetos, and ice cream on a table in front of the suspected toker.
2. If he grabs all three he is high, only grabbing one constitutes as a pass.

Crunchy or puffy cheetos? Cause I only like the crunchy kind, and I don't like snickers. heh

 

[nlsme]

OK, so both of your children are killed by a drunk driver. When you go to court, the prosecutor says "we thought Jim, the driver, could handle his alcohol, so we will not be pressing charges. He always handled his liquor quite well so we do not think he was drunk, just an unfortunate accident."

Vs...

His blood alcohol content was above the legal limit, so we will be pressing manslaughter charges.

This is such a silly argument. You are wrong. We need limits or we have trouble.

What exactly am I "wrong" about? I made a statement. One in wich you already agreed to. NOWHERE did I say there shouldn't be a limit. People are saying we need a more accurate test, while ignoring the fact that the test that is already there is JUST as accurate as the one for alcohol. BTW, for the fifth time, there is no test for the million other drugs.

No, we wouldn't be happier with it. But as has been said, it is what it is, and statistically, those numbers are pretty damn accurate. That is to say we would be worse off without having a legal and testable definition of what it is to be intoxicated from consumption of alcohol.

There is no legal and testable limit for xanex, aderol, zoma, perciset, or the million other drugs that can impair.

as far as each person handling it differently, THIS IS THE POINT OF A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. what is the point if they can't tell if you can drive or not?

i agree with lordofthereef the we NEED a sure test, something to fall back on if we disagree with the officer administering the test. i don't think it's 100% necessary before we legalize, but i think it should be done first.

bob i think you misunderstood, he didn't mean that as "well i can handle my liquor, so i'll be fine" - he meant it as, what if someone blows just a little over, but they pass the field sobriety test with flying colors? the F.S.T. concludes they are fully capable to drive, that's the point of it!

So the field sobriety test is good enough for alcohol, but a twat that can tell if it has been 20 minutes, an hour, or eight hours since you smoked a bowl, a joint, or a session with Ziggy Marly is not exceptable. Btw, the test that is out is sure.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Can you provide a link that looks at the costs of hemp Vs. cotton?

Hemp is illegal, so your question is not germane.

The issues over the intoxicant effects of marihuana and hemp are smoke and mirrors.

The main reason for the current state of the law is that hemp and marihuana are substitute products for pulp, textiles, alcohol, tobacco, etc, and these respective industries have a financial interest to suppress a competitive product.

 

[Frisco]

The main reason for the current state of the law is that hemp and marihuana are substitute products for pulp, textiles, alcohol, tobacco, etc, and these respective industries have a financial interest to suppress a competitive product.

Good old Hearst empire of decades ago.. what a legacy, eh?

 

[lordofthereef]

You think so, but personally i dont see anything wrong with people being 18 and drinking. You can go over seas to fight in a war at 18.

I completely agree with you. The problem is, the cop shouldn't be bending the law to fit what he thinks is right. What if the cop didn't have a problem with drunk drivers, PERIOD. It is not his opinion that matters. He should be expected to act within the confines of the law at all times. When that starts being allowed not to happen on ANY issue, we see abuse all around the board, and that is not ok.

 

[nlsme]

I completely agree with you. The problem is, the cop shouldn't be bending the law to fit what he thinks is right. What if the cop didn't have a problem with drunk drivers, PERIOD. It is not his opinion that matters. He should be expected to act within the confines of the law at all times. When that starts being allowed not to happen on ANY issue, we see abuse all around the board, and that is not ok.

Almost no cop will give a ticket for five miles an hour over the limit. So, according to you, no cop deserves to be one because they ALL abuse their power.

 

[lordofthereef]

There is no legal and testable limit for xanex, aderol, zoma, perciset, or the million other drugs that can impair.

First, those are all prescription drugs. Second, they are currently unavailable to be used LEGALLY as a recreational substance. My point is abusing them is currently illegal. If you are driving with those drugs that tell you not to drive while in your system, you get a DUI. If you contest it, you can be given a blood test. If they are in your system, and you were driving poorly, you are busted. Bottom line is we are talking about a recreational drug which will be available to everyone and anyone (likely over 18 or 21). Surely it is clear to everyone that this drug has a much larger potential for use while driving than these other rx drugs.

Almost no cop will give a ticket for five miles an hour over the limit. So, according to you, no cop deserves to be one because they ALL abuse their power.

No. They are actually allowed to use discretion in this case due to speedos in cars having varying points of accuracy. At least this is how it was explained to me by an officer when I asked.

Still, comparing 5mph over the limit to someone driving with a substance with the potential to impair judgement in there system is weak at best, IMO.

People are saying we need a more accurate test, while ignoring the fact that the test that is already there is JUST as accurate as the one for alcohol.

But here is the problem, it is not just as accurate. Not when the results said test gives is whether you used within 2-5 hours. That's simply not good enough. A alcohol test tells you how much alcohol you have on board at any given time. This is not the case for a marijuana test, mainly due to levels stored in adipose tissue.

 

[nlsme]

First, those are all prescription drugs. Second, they are currently unavailable to be used LEGALLY as a recreational substance. My point is abusing them is currently legal. If you are driving with those drugs that tell you not to drive while in your system, you get a DUI. If you contest it, you can be given a blood test. If they are in your system, and you were driving poorly, you are busted. Bottom line is we are talking about a recreational drug which will be available to everyone and anyone (likely over 18 or 21). Surely it is clear to everyone that this drug has a much larger potential for use while driving than these other rx drugs.

So your saying that the millions of people on these RX drugs are not allowed to drive? What if they took the RX the night before, it is still in your system, yet you would fail a drug test that tested for them. The fact is, it is the cops discretion, as to wether or not you are impaired with these drugs.

No. They are actually allowed to use discretion in this case due to speedos in cars having varying points of accuracy. At least this is how it was explained to me by an officer when I asked.

Still, comparing 5mph over the limit to someone driving with a substance with the potential to impair judgement in there system is weak at best, IMO.

Where is the line drawn?

But here is the problem, it is not just as accurate. Not when the results said test gives is whether you used within 2-5 hours. That's simply not good enough. A alcohol test tells you how much alcohol you have on board at any given time. This is not the case for a marijuana test, mainly due to levels stored in adipose tissue.

A person can fail a BAT because of mouthwash, dont tell me it isnt just as accurate because it doesn't give a "leve". The blood test for MJ CAN determine if someone is "impaired". I thought we already covered that from YOUR link...

 

[lordofthereef]

So your saying that the millions of people on these RX drugs are not allowed to drive? What if they took the RX the night before, it is still in your system, yet you would fail a drug test that tested for them. The fact is, it is the cops discretion, as to wether or not you are impaired with these drugs.

Most (maybe all) of these drugs state not to drive while taking them. If you are caught driving recklessly and demand a test and you "pass" said test, you will be charged with reckless driving and not a DUI, which is a higher charge.

A person can fail a BAT because of mouthwash, dont tell me it isnt just as accurate because it doesn't give a "leve". The blood test for MJ CAN determine if someone is "impaired". I thought we already covered that from YOUR link...

No. My link stated that it MAY give incite as to whether the person is currently impaired. The key word is may. I wouldn't want to be busted for a test that may give incite. I believe I did point this out before as well.

The breathalyzer is a simple tool. I never claimed it was anything more. This is why there are (and needs to be) other options.

 

[nlsme]

Most (maybe all) of these drugs state not to drive while taking them. If you are caught driving recklessly and demand a test and you "pass" said test, you will be charged with reckless driving and not a DUI, which is a higher charge.

But there is NO test to determine how much is in your system. So you are saying that the millions of people that take them, are guilty of a DUI? How about sleeping pills. You take one at night, wake up(no longer impaired), and get pulled over. Ohh, time for a dui. And, they don't actually say you can't drive, but rather you SHOULDN'T until you know how it will affect you.

 

[lordofthereef]

Again, this is an rx drug and not a recreational one. An RX is taken because it's necessary. Recreational, well, it's in the definition. That isn't the same thing.

You know, I could just say that none of this effects me and simply not care. If this is legalized and all we have is the testing currently available to us, I guarantee people are going to be getting busted left and right. If that is what the people want, let them have it I suppose. I am honestly not sure what the people want. Perhaps it should be voted on.

 

[nlsme]

Exactly what difference does it make if it is RX or not? And if it becomes legal, and people get busted for driving UNDER the influence, yet a test shows it has been MORE than 20 minutes/1 hr/10 hr's, there is room for someone to contest it. Or, do you think that the law will simply say, if you have smoked in the last 30 days, you will get a dui? Maybe the law will say, if you smoked in the last 20 minutes you will, but after 2 hours you wont. Maybe, the law will say that you can get a blood test, and if that determines you are UNDER the influance (wich it can), you will get a dui. Point is, you said you wanted an accurate test. There is one.

 

[tommy_ed]

First, those are all prescription drugs. Second, they are currently unavailable to be used LEGALLY as a recreational substance. My point is abusing them is currently legal. If you are driving with those drugs that tell you not to drive while in your system, you get a DUI. If you contest it, you can be given a blood test. If they are in your system, and you were driving poorly, you are busted. Bottom line is we are talking about a recreational drug which will be available to everyone and anyone (likely over 18 or 21). Surely it is clear to everyone that this drug has a much larger potential for use while driving than these other rx drugs.

prescription drugs are most definitely NOT available to be used legally as recreational substances. There's a reason you have to have a prescription to get them!!! Abusing them is NOT legal.
This ironically applies DIRECTLY to your argument. With a blood test they can't tell if you've taken pills two minutes or 10 hours ago. Marijuana is also available by prescription in some states, just as the drugs you are mentioning. The situation is exactly the same, and it isn't a huge issue like you're making it out to be.

Like I said, I agree that there needs to be a test (for marijuana AND prescription drugs) but I don't think it's absolutely essential

 

[Bob Maxey]

Exactly what difference does it make if it is RX or not? And if it becomes legal, and people get busted for driving UNDER the influence, yet a test shows it has been MORE than 20 minutes/1 hr/10 hr's, there is room for someone to contest it. Or, do you think that the law will simply say, if you have smoked in the last 30 days, you will get a dui? Maybe the law will say, if you smoked in the last 20 minutes you will, but after 2 hours you wont. Maybe, the law will say that you can get a blood test, and if that determines you are UNDER the influance (wich it can), you will get a dui. Point is, you said you wanted an accurate test. There is one.

I seriously doubt MJ will be legalized until there are accurate tests. If it is legal and there is no way to tell when you last smoked a joint, then we have a problem. Not fair to arrest you if they find THC in your system left over from a week ago and you are stone sober.

I think a blood test would work. Testing can be very sophisticated these days. Certainly, there must be a way to determine how much THC is in your system. If so, then it does not matter how well you can (or think you can) drive or maintain while stoned. If you are over the limit, you are screwed.

Or, perhaps dope smokers should accept that with use comes a bunch of problems and it simply might be best not to smoke.

A person can fail a BAT because of mouthwash, dont tell me it isnt just as accurate because it doesn't give a "leve". The blood test for MJ CAN determine if someone is "impaired". I thought we already covered that from YOUR link...

LOL sigh . . . prove it! Show me where mouthwash has lead to an arrest. And show me where that arrest has lead to a conviction. Unless you drink the stuff, no amount of mouthwash will cause you to fail a blood alcohol test or a field sobriety test.

Are you perhaps reaching for that last straw in the bale?

 

[lordofthereef]

LOL sigh . . . prove it! Show me where mouthwash has lead to an arrest. And show me where that arrest has lead to a conviction. Unless you drink the stuff, no amount of mouthwash will cause you to fail a blood alcohol test or a field sobriety test.

Are you perhaps reaching for that last straw in the bale?

For person's under 21 years of age, it certainly will. That and nyquil are two problematic items. Now, I am not sure that it is going to result in a conviction, but it will result in a failed breathalyzer.

prescription drugs are most definitely NOT available to be used legally as recreational substances. There's a reason you have to have a prescription to get them!!! Abusing them is NOT legal.
This ironically applies DIRECTLY to your argument. With a blood test they can't tell if you've taken pills two minutes or 10 hours ago. Marijuana is also available by prescription in some states, just as the drugs you are mentioning. The situation is exactly the same, and it isn't a huge issue like you're making it out to be.

Like I said, I agree that there needs to be a test (for marijuana AND prescription drugs) but I don't think it's absolutely essential

There was a typo there, which has been fixed. I am sure you didn't think that I believed it to be legal to abuse an rx drug. Thanks for correcting me anyhow...

Go down to CA. One can walk into a marijuana RX shop and be written a script for $40. Marijuana prescriptions are being abused beyond belief.

 

[Bob Maxey]

For person's under 21 years of age, it certainly will. That and nyquil are two problematic items. Now, I am not sure that it is going to result in a conviction, but it will result in a failed breathalyzer.

Again, prove it.

 

[lordofthereef]

Prove what? Take a shot of mouthwash and immediately after use a brethalyzer. If it was alcohol based it will read high than 0.0, the legal limit for all persons under 21.

 

[nlsme]

prescription drugs are most definitely NOT available to be used legally as recreational substances. There's a reason you have to have a prescription to get them!!! Abusing them is NOT legal.
This ironically applies DIRECTLY to your argument. With a blood test they can't tell if you've taken pills two minutes or 10 hours ago. Marijuana is also available by prescription in some states, just as the drugs you are mentioning. The situation is exactly the same, and it isn't a huge issue like you're making it out to be.

Like I said, I agree that there needs to be a test (for marijuana AND prescription drugs) but I don't think it's absolutely essential

Does it matter WHY someone is taking a drug? No, the fact is, people are taking them. Does it matter that a doctor has to prescribe them? NO, fact is, people are taking them. Does one need to "abuse" them in order to drive inebriated? No. Is there a test that determines when someone is inebriated while taking them? No. My arguement is that the test that is in place is more than satisfactory. There doesnt NEED to be a "better" test.

LOL sigh . . . prove it! Show me where mouthwash has lead to an arrest. And show me where that arrest has lead to a conviction. Unless you drink the stuff, no amount of mouthwash will cause you to fail a blood alcohol test or a field sobriety test.

Are you perhaps reaching for that last straw in the bale?

Actually, it is well documented that mouthwash can cause a failed breathelyzer. And, please stop putting words in my mouth and telling me I am wrong. Did I ever say it can cause one to fail a field sobriety test? No, I said it CAN cause a failed test for BAC. Prove me wrong.