More states weigh marijuana reform

[MR2-Sooner86]

High expectations? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091228/ap_on_bi_ge/us_legalizing_marijuana)


OLYMPIA, Wash. – Washington is one of four states where measures to legalize and regulate marijuana have been introduced, and about two dozen other states are considering bills ranging from medical marijuana to decriminalizing possession of small amounts of the herb.

"In terms of state legislatures, this is far and away the most active year that we've ever seen," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, which supports reforming marijuana laws.

Nadelmann said that while legalization efforts are not likely to get much traction in state capitals anytime soon, the fact that there is such an increase of activity "is elevating the level of public discourse on this issue and legitimizing it."

"I would say that we are close to the tipping point," he said. "At this point they are still seen as symbolic bills to get the conversation going, but at least the conversation can be a serious one."

Opponents of relaxing marijuana laws aren't happy with any conversation on the topic, other than keeping the drug illegal.

"There's no upside to it in any manner other than for those people who want to smoke pot," said Travis Kuykendall, head of the West Texas High Intensity Drug-Trafficking Area office in El Paso, Texas. "There's nothing for society in it, there's nothing good for the country in it, there's nothing for the good of the economy in it."

Legalization bills were introduced in California and Massachusetts earlier this year, and this month, New Hampshire and Washington state prefiled bills in advance of their legislative sessions that begin in January. Marijuana is illegal under federal law, but guidelines have been loosened on federal prosecution of medical marijuana under the Obama administration.

Even so, marijuana reform legislation remains a tough sell in some places. In the South, for example, only Mississippi and North Carolina have decriminalization laws on the books.

"It's a social and cultural thing," said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based marijuana advocacy group. "There are some parts of the country where social attitudes are just a little more cautious and conservative."

Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, a Seattle Democrat who is sponsoring the legalization bill in Washington state, said that she "wanted to start a strong conversation about the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana."

Under her bill, marijuana would be sold in Washington state's 160 state-run liquor stores, and customers, 21 and older, would pay a tax of 15 percent per gram. The measure would dedicate most of the money raised for substance abuse prevention and treatment, which is facing potential cuts in the state budget. Dickerson said the measure could eventually bring in as much to state coffers as alcohol does, more than $300 million a year.

"Our state is facing a huge financial deficit and deficits are projected for a few more years," Dickerson said, referring to the projected $2.6 billion hole lawmakers will need to fill next year. "We need to look at revenue and see what might be possible."

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said that tough economic times across the country have lawmakers looking at everything, and may lead even more states to eventually consider the potential tax value of pot.

"The bean counters are now reporting back to their elected officials how much money is being left off the table," he said, adding that billions of dollars worth of pot is going untaxed.

Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, said that he feared that, if legalized, marijuana would contribute to more highway accidents and deaths, as well as a potential increase in health care costs for those who smoke it.

State lawmakers, he said, need to ask themselves "if they believe we really will make all that revenue, and even if we did, will it be worth the suffering, the loss of opportunities, the chronic illness or death that would occur?"
Legalization isn't the only measure lawmakers across the country are weighing. About two dozen states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, are considering bills ranging from medical marijuana to decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, St. Pierre said. Washington state is among the states that are considering decriminalization, with a bill that would reclassify adult possession of marijuana from a crime with jail time to a civil infraction with a $100 penalty.

Fourteen states, including Washington state, already have medical marijuana laws, and 13 have decriminalization laws on the books, St. Pierre said. About two dozen cities across the country, including Seattle, make marijuana offenses a low law-enforcement priority.

Marijuana advocates said that while increased activity in the statehouse is heartening, change most likely will come at the ballot box through voter-driven initiatives.

"Inevitably, the politicians are going to be behind the curve on this stuff," Nadelmann said, noting that almost all of the medical marijuana laws came about by initiative.

This month, a group campaigning to put a marijuana legalization measure before California voters said it had enough signatures to qualify for the 2010 ballot.

That proposal would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and older. Residents could cultivate marijuana gardens up to 25 square feet. City and county governments would determine whether to permit and tax marijuana sales within their boundaries. And in Nevada earlier this month, backers of a move to legalize marijuana there filed paperwork creating an advocacy group aimed at qualifying an initiative for the 2012 election.

It's a shame we won't see anything like this in Oklahoma for a long, long, long, long, long, long, long time.

[Okla-homey]

I'd settle for making personal possession with no intent to distribute of anything under 5 ounces a misdemeanor punsihable by a fine of 10 bucks.;)

[Oldnslo]

I'd settle for making personal possession with no intent to distribute of anything under 5 ounces a misdemeanor punsihable by a fine of 10 bucks.;)

I agree in principle. But, dude, if you're handy about the kitchen you'll realize that 5 oz of, say, dried oregano, is a f'n s-load of dried oregano.

[yermom]

i think an ounce is pretty generous

[JLEW1818]

i think an ounce is pretty generous

:D

[MR2-Sooner86]

i think an ounce is pretty generous

That what you tell your "clients" ;)

[yermom]

no MY ounces are pretty generous :D

[yermom]

seriously though, this is what an ounce of weed looks like:

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/07/bag_of_pot.jpg

(that's not my weed, and i don't think i've even held that much weed)

[OUDoc]

I'm glad there aren't more pressing issues with Washington's legislators.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But hey, smoke a doob and everything is groovy, man.

Grooooovy.

[OUDoc]

Sorry, didn't mean to harsh the Senators' mellow.

[ADs_Agent]

peopel are going to smoke it regardless. Gov't regulate it, tax it, control it. This might shock some people, but do the same with prostitution.

[Okla-homey]

seriously though, this is what an ounce of weed looks like:

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/07/bag_of_pot.jpg

(that's not my weed, and i don't think i've even held that much weed)

OK. No more than that much = $10 fine. Are you Nazis happy?;)

[yermom]

sounds good to me

although, i like the idea of buying it at liquor stores :D

[okiewaker]

I want to be a Weed farmer. My farm would have to be surrounded by high fences with barb wire.

[sooner ngintunr]

Gov't regulate it, tax it, control it.

Why?
There is no good reason for that. Just decriminalize it for personal use. Up to 3 plants in your house, under 1 oz. for personal possesion, no problem.

Just don't sell, transport it for selling, or have more than an ounce on you.

We need to get rid of Govt bureacracy not create more of it.

[StoopTroup]

How about making it legal for Airline Pilots and such too.

[StoopTroup]

Especially legal for your surgeon. He can concentrate better when he's moving around your vital organs.

[Chuck Bao]

Wow! That is a lot of pot. I never weighed it so I have no idea. I buy ganja in little compressed cubes, like frozen spinach squares. I hate the stuff because I have a serious short-term memory problem and it makes it worse. On the other hand, I have a lot of pain and it seems to help more than the medicine my doctor gives me. Either that or I quickly forget about it.

I agree with Dean that it is for slackers. But you can say that about a lot of prescribed medicine and this one seems to help me more when I don't need much short-term memory or much motivation to do much of anything.

Could one the Native American tribes make it availiable in Oklahoma in their numerous tobaccy stores? If the Feds aren't forcing individual states to comply, why should they force the tribes to comply? Okay, the Oklahoma legislature is responsible for state offenses and prosecution. Would they lose out in potential state revenues with the current huge deficit and forced to concede that smoking a joint isn't really that terrible. I'm just wondering.

[StoopTroup]

aggies shouldn't be allowed to get stoned. They are way to high already.

[yermom]

Especially legal for your surgeon. He can concentrate better when he's moving around your vital organs.

it's not like they should be drinking when they do that either...

[Chuck Bao]

Especially legal for your surgeon. He can concentrate better when he's moving around your vital organs.


Dood! What about your proctolgist and he smokes a doob before sticking his finger up your rectum. He may find meaning to the universe up there. Ever think about that?

[Okla-homey]

Especially legal for your surgeon. He can concentrate better when he's moving around your vital organs.

Docs tend more to abuse alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines and hydrocodone. Afterall, if a surgeon walked into an OR after just burning a fattie, don't you think the OR staff would smell it on him? Please try to keep up.;)

[Oldnslo]

Seems like they could make mj subject to the same controls as alcohol. I know there's a field test for mj, but I don't think there's a breath test for it. Blood test, sure, but not something that is instant and non-invasive.

[StoopTroup]

Right now if your under DOT Mandatory Testing you aren't clean for up to 60 days for MJ. They test you in nanograms (That's One billionth of a gram folks).

If you think that the Government thinks that as long as you didn't get high 8 hours before your next shift starts like they do with alcohol....you are in need of some education.

Here's a link to the DOT site regarding mandatory testing.

http://www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/

If you test positive or refuse a test you aren't able to perform Safety Sensitive Work. They leave the discipline of such results up to the Employer for the most part.


Will I lose my job if I test positive or refuse a test?

The DOT regulations do not address hiring, termination, or other employment actions. These decisions are solely the employer's, which may be based on company policy and/or any collective bargaining agreements


What happens to me when I test positive or refuse to test (i.e. adulterate, or substitute my urine specimen, or decline to be tested)?

When you test positive or refuse a test, you are not permitted to perform safety-sensitive duties until you have seen a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) and successfully completed the return-to-duty process, which includes a Federal return-to-duty drug and/or alcohol test. Working in a safety-sensitive position before successfully completing the return-to-duty process is a violation of the regulations.

Now....I'd like to see what would happen to the Medical Community if they had to adhere to such regulations.

I'm betting the amount of people seeking rehabilitation would be staggering.

[yermom]

i don't see why any of that would be different. the laws aren't going to change your job's drug use policies, for the most part

[jkjsooner]

That brings up a question. Is there a way to determine if someone is under the influence of MJ as opposed to just having trace amounts of chemicals that show previous use of the drug?

I've always wondered if an MJ user who used a month ago was in a serious accident and tested positive for recent use of the drug if they would be considered under the influence even though they were not at the time under the influence of any drug.

[StoopTroup]

i don't see why any of that would be different. the laws aren't going to change your job's drug use policies, for the most part

Well....

If it's not good for a safety sensitive person to even have smoked one hit of pot in the last 60 days...why is it a good idea for you to get blitzed the night before and then drive to work the next day? Doesn't it put you at risk of making bad decisions too? Doesn't it put you at a greater risk of hurting someone with your vehicle?

Yes it may seem stupid to try and enforce these laws on pot but if you are going to change it and make it legal, you need to address the idea that after getting high...it should be illegal to do certain things like drive or operate machinery, make legal decisions that involve the masses, practice medicine or assist in the practice of medicine etc. I deal with OSHA as well and I can tell you...things at OSHA aren't designed to turn a blind eye to bad safety practices but that's exactly what you guys are talking about when you just blindly say "LEGALIZE IT". It does sound like a great idea as I to am sick of having the Orwellian Eyes looking over my shoulder....but I also realize that it is a great idea as there are many folks who should never smoke pot. Never. They are already way to many folks not using their ability to stay focused on what they are doing out there with the stuff that's being smoked. You're talking about having to regulate and grade the strength and quality and most assuredly....there is the anti-smoking crowd to deal with too. Emphysema is a huge health risk with long term use and mixing pot with other medicines will need to be addressed too.

I just see things from a larger perspective I guess.

I grew up during a time when it was cool. Now that we have had nearly 50 years of watching folks use this stuff...I think it would be wrong to not point out the downside to it's use as well.

How about let's start with DOT Drug Tests for everyone who drives a vehicle? Make it mandatory for a hair test that shows whether or not you have been clean for the last year. Now if you want to smoke pot...you can take mass transportation or call a cab or you can hire people who are clean to be your chauffeur. :D

I'm sorry if I'm buzz killin' your high right now. :D ;)

[yermom]

you might be taking that a hair too far. i mean just because DOT checks for that small of an amount doesn't mean that it affects you a month after you smoke it.

[StoopTroup]

I'm not the one taking it that far though. It's your current law that is on the books.

Again...just legalizing it is going to set off some serious questions to current laws regarding safety. I'm just gonna say it...

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/its_a_trap.jpg

[yermom]

what current law?

[Oldnslo]

Well....

If it's not good for a safety sensitive person to even have smoked one hit of pot in the last 60 days...why is it a good idea for you to get blitzed the night before and then drive to work the next day? Doesn't it put you at risk of making bad decisions too? Doesn't it put you at a greater risk of hurting someone with your vehicle?

Yes it may seem stupid to try and enforce these laws on pot but if you are going to change it and make it legal, you need to address the idea that after getting high...it should be illegal to do certain things like drive or operate machinery, make legal decisions that involve the masses, practice medicine or assist in the practice of medicine etc. I deal with OSHA as well and I can tell you...things at OSHA aren't designed to turn a blind eye to bad safety practices but that's exactly what you guys are talking about when you just blindly say "LEGALIZE IT". It does sound like a great idea as I to am sick of having the Orwellian Eyes looking over my shoulder....but I also realize that it is a great idea as there are many folks who should never smoke pot. Never. They are already way to many folks not using their ability to stay focused on what they are doing out there with the stuff that's being smoked. You're talking about having to regulate and grade the strength and quality and most assuredly....there is the anti-smoking crowd to deal with too. Emphysema is a huge health risk with long term use and mixing pot with other medicines will need to be addressed too.

I just see things from a larger perspective I guess.

I grew up during a time when it was cool. Now that we have had nearly 50 years of watching folks use this stuff...I think it would be wrong to not point out the downside to it's use as well.

How about let's start with DOT Drug Tests for everyone who drives a vehicle? Make it mandatory for a hair test that shows whether or not you have been clean for the last year. Now if you want to smoke pot...you can take mass transportation or call a cab or you can hire people who are clean to be your chauffeur. :D

I'm sorry if I'm buzz killin' your high right now. :D ;)

Ever shown up to work hungover?

[Partial Qualifier]

Now....I'd like to see what would happen to the Medical Community if they had to adhere to such regulations.


What about the I.T. industry? Woah!! :D

[JLEW1818]

I've always been a fan of acid myself....

us pornstar peoples love it

[OUDoc]

Now....I'd like to see what would happen to the Medical Community if they had to adhere to such regulations.

I'm betting the amount of people seeking rehabilitation would be staggering.

As in you think there is a high percentage of medical professionals who are actively using drugs/alcohol at work?

[TheUnnamedSooner]

sounds good to me

although, i like the idea of buying it at liquor stores :D

The weed or hookers?

[MR2-Sooner86]

The weed or hookers?

Both really.

"I'd like a 30 pack of Guinness, a brick of Mowie Wowie, and that blonde that's hiding that liter of tequila."

[goingoneight]

I'm glad there aren't more pressing issues with Washington's legislators.

True... but if we're going to spend money on steroids in baseball, we might as well give this one a try.

With legal mary jane, what will Tejas players have to do to make headlines?

[OUDoc]

With legal mary jane, what will Tejas players have to do to make headlines?
Texting-related felonies.

[StoopTroup]

As in you think there is a high percentage of medical professionals who are actively using drugs/alcohol at work?

Not alcohol...it's to easy to spot and when the DOT policies were instituted...I don't believe there were that many folks who were using them at work either but the outcry to regulate safety in America was heard and acted upon. Now you have folks trying to legalize something. You're going to need to have some rules regarding it's use. If you're going to legalize it...I want to know that the person starting my IV or giving me drugs or filling my prescriptions are in the same safety zone as the guy who flies my family around. Yep. That means Doctors too.

Our Country has responded in the past to folks who have caused others harm by instituting these DOT Drug Screening Standards as a way to reduce the possibility of one or more individuals hurting people because of the use of illicit drugs.

Our Country has continued to be bombarded by drugs being brought across our borders. We have spent untold billions trying to just slow it down.

The best way to stop drug use is to be wise about what the stuff does to you over the long term. If you use drugs and you do it for a long time...you're eventually going to make a mistake and hopefully that mistake won't cost you or someone else their life.

Drugs are a bad choice. In my life I've seen plenty of Doctor shopping as well and folks who think they aren't on drugs. They take their meds that clearly state don't drive, they mix it with alcohol which they are told not to do and then they get pulled over and tell a Cop...but I've only had two drinks. Would they have made those same choices had they not drank? I think the risk factors rise once you've had one drink.

Now...given those scenarios where alcohol is legal....lets add pot, prescription meds and a couple of drinks.

Yeah...we should legalize more drugs....LMAO

Folks...we are a very over medicated society that looks to drugs to solve many of our problems.

Pot users are just as Dean said..."Slackers".

I'll continue to say no to legalizing it. I will agree that there are some uses for Medical Marijuana as well but those that are prescribed it....should have their license to drive and any other licenses they carry suspended until such a time as they are able to stop it's use. I'll continue to think that many other professions should probably be under more scrutiny as well.

[TMcGee86]

I want to be a Weed farmer. My farm would have to be surrounded by high fences with barb wire.

I see what you did there.


:gary:

[StoopTroup]

I also think maybe you shouldn't be driving if your quitting smoking and taking this too...lol

Chantix


Chantix can cause drowsiness, which may impair your thinking or reactions. You may also have mood or behavior changes when you quit smoking. Until you know how Chantix and the smoking cessation process is going to affect you, be careful if you drive or do anything that requires you to be cautious and alert. Stop using this medication and call your doctor at once if you have any mood or behavior changes, or if you feel agitated, hostile, depressed, or have thoughts about suicide or hurting yourself.

And they legalized it too.

Maybe a few tokes might help with the side effects. :D

[yermom]

again, i say you are taking it too far

should your license be suspended if you have a prescription for Hydrocodone? Tylenol PM? Ambien?

i don't disagree that the US is overmedicated, but i think alcohol is just as bas as weed

[JLEW1818]

alcohol is bad... but does adding weed make anything better?

maybe it does.. idk.... but why make a bad situation worse?

or would it make it better? haha idk... i hate smoke, that's why i stick to the 12 ounce curls

[Crucifax Autumn]

I can drive way better high than drunk. No way in hell I'd attempt to drive high AND drunk.

Then again, I don't drive at all anymore due to seizures, but that's beside the point.

[the_ouskull]

peopel are going to smoke it regardless. Gov't regulate it, tax it, control it. This might shock some people, but do the same with prostitution.

And tobacco. And alcohol. And firearms. And...


I want to be a Weed farmer. My farm would have to be surrounded by high fences...

I'll bet it would, Panama Red.


That brings up a question. Is there a way to determine if someone is under the influence of MJ as opposed to just having trace amounts of chemicals that show previous use of the drug?

Yes. Show them this this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2spZ-NDfS4

Gauge their laughter for both volume and duration. The louder and the longer, the higher as well. (And yes, I know it's "more high," but "higher" is funner to say.)


i don't disagree that the US is overmedicated, but i think alcohol is just as bas as weed

There are little kids on OCD meds. ADHD. Legislation has made parents, etc.. so scared to raise kids correctly, that they had to invent diseases to describe the new ways that these little sh*ts act up now. I think that, before a kid gets that diagnosis, they should have to sit down with Dr. Denis Leary for an hour.

Also, alcohol, for the record, is 100x worse than weed. How many alcohol-related deaths annually? Marijuana-related? What about accidents?

The government would have already legalized it, were it not for two major hurdles...

1) The Bible Thumpers who say "love all God's creatures, 'cause it says it in the Bible," but then turn around, and, while talking badly about a friend or neighbor behind their back to boot, will rant and rave about the evils of God's plants; His garden, if you will. I mean, it's not like weed is synthetic... If you believe in God, then you must also believe that he created marijuana. You can't have it both ways, Christers.

2) They're too stupid to figure out how to effectively tax it. I mean, billions of dollars of weed gets done illegally now, I'm sure. If the government tries to go crazy with the taxation, the system is already in place to continue the weed trade without government involvement. It's a delicate balance between "offering the product," and "pissing off the buyer/seller."

And spare me all of that "the dangers posed to society" bullsh*t. This isn't Reefer Madness. If you want to talk about "dangers to society," look at alcohol-related problems (accidents, etc..) in countries where the drinking age is considerably lower than it is in the U.S. Look at the educational system in the Netherlands, and how much better it is than in the U.S.

This is a good article about how well the U.S. "handles it's booze," so to speak.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/ZeroTolerance.html

Overall, in countries with lower drinking ages, especially the French and Italians, there are fewer, not more, problems related to alcohol. Some of the countries with the most lax marijuana laws have the best secondary schooling. It's all about education and about making (gasp!) parents take responsibility; for their children, and for themselves and their own education - as well as their child's.

Or I could be wrong, and it's all a terrible tragedy. Could you repeat the question...?

the_ouskull

[SicEmBaylor]

There is no constitutional justification for having the Feds outlaw pot. They can regulate any interstate trade but that's it.

They need to get their f'ing nose out of the states' business. And don't even get me started on the ATF. If I were given unlimited power for a day, the first thing I'd do is shut those *******s down. Hell, I'd personally walk my *** over to their HQ building and be giddy as hell as I personally fired each and every one of them.

Anyway, you can't regulate and tax marijuana (nor should you). It isn't like alcohol which isn't really feasible for everyone to make on their own, but almost anyone can grow their own plant. Regulating and taxing it just isn't as feasible as it is with alcohol.

[King Crimson]

agree with Sic, though not sure it's a de facto state rights issue (since that's not my solution to everything....;))....it's absurd to outlaw something that grows out of the ground....if only because the implication of "by what right" leads to some very dire assumptions on the part of the State vs, citizenry and the total scope of "politics" in the management/control of human life as the opposite of being "being endowed by one's creator".

but, nothing would be worse than government regulated weed.....brown, dry, Victory dope.

[Jacie]

Might as well make sugar illegal while they are at it . . .

[olevetonahill]

Anyway, you can't regulate and tax marijuana (nor should you). It isn't like alcohol which isn't really feasible for everyone to make on their own, but almost anyone can grow their own plant. Regulating and taxing it just isn't as feasible as it is with alcohol.

I beg yer Pardon :eek: :cool: :D

[SoonerAtKU]

On a related note, I don't know why there would be a problem with installing breathalyzers into everyone's car, preventing it from starting if you've been drinking. I'm assuming Stoop would be right with me on that one. Put em on airplanes, put em on scalpels, put em on chalk in the classroom. Let's breathalyze the hell out of our workforce one day and see how many people show up legally drunk for work.

[the_ouskull]

I disagree with putting them on scalpels if, for no other reason, how bulky it would make them. Those things are f*ckin' SHARP, man! Doctors need precision.

...but we COULD put one in their ER mask. :D

the_ouskull

[picasso]

Yes let's legalize weed! Then we will most certainly head closer to the bottom of the world testing scores for students.

No offense there blazers, but the real weedists I've known all of my life haven't amounted to much and the haze grows thicker by the year.

[StoopTroup]

I'm in El Paso trying to score some weed for some Stanford Fans. they say they'll pay top dinero.

[olevetonahill]

Ok I smoke a tad , every now and then But Im sharper than some
Yall Missed this , Just smooth missed it :rolleyes:



Quote:
Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor View Post
Anyway, you can't regulate and tax marijuana (nor should you). It isn't like alcohol which isn't really feasible for everyone to make on their own, but almost anyone can grow their own plant. Regulating and taxing it just isn't as feasible as it is with alcohol. Quote:


Quote Vet :I beg yer Pardon

[Frozen Sooner]

agree with Sic, though not sure it's a de facto state rights issue (since that's not my solution to everything....;))....it's absurd to outlaw something that grows out of the ground....if only because the implication of "by what right" leads to some very dire assumptions on the part of the State vs, citizenry and the total scope of "politics" in the management/control of human life as the opposite of being "being endowed by one's creator".

but, nothing would be worse than government regulated weed.....brown, dry, Victory dope.

I don't know, man. The medical marijuana is pretty high-grade.


Er. So I hear.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes let's legalize weed! Then we will most certainly head closer to the bottom of the world testing scores for students.

No offense there blazers, but the real weedists I've known all of my life haven't amounted to much and the haze grows thicker by the year.

What's odd is that many of the incredibly brilliant people I know enjoy the occasional blaze.

AND I know a TON of people of average intelligence who smoke dope.

You know, it's almost like a bell curve...

[Frozen Sooner]

On a related note, I don't know why there would be a problem with installing breathalyzers into everyone's car, preventing it from starting if you've been drinking. I'm assuming Stoop would be right with me on that one. Put em on airplanes, put em on scalpels, put em on chalk in the classroom. Let's breathalyze the hell out of our workforce one day and see how many people show up legally drunk for work.

I assume you're being sarcastic, since that'd be tossed on a Fourth Amendment suit before it was even implemented.

[olevetonahill]

What's odd is that many of the incredibly brilliant people I know enjoy the occasional blaze.

AND I know a TON of people of average intelligence who smoke dope.

You know, it's almost like a bell curve...

No way in hell ya sayin IM average :D

[MamaMia]

Queen Elizabeth smokes pot. She made the comment in an interview I saw back in the 70's that it helped to relieve her monthly cramp pains. Now she says it dramatically reduces the hot flashes accompanied with menopause. :)

[the_ouskull]

You an Iron Maiden fan?

Just checking...

the_ouskull

[okiewaker]

Being a Weed farmer I would have to hire government security to watch my crops.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Being a Weed farmer I would have to hire government security to watch my crops.

And I'd like to wander your fields! :P

[StoopTroup]

Ever shown up to work hungover?

Not doing what I do now.

[StoopTroup]

again, i say you are taking it too far

should your license be suspended if you have a prescription for Hydrocodone? Tylenol PM? Ambien?

i don't disagree that the US is overmedicated, but i think alcohol is just as bas as weed

I know how you feel and used to feel that way until they started cultivating and distributing all of this superpot. It's not the same as the one hit stuff many of you smoked in High School or College.

When folks get caught with the hydroponic stuff...the Cops want to know where you got it. If your distributing or growing...God help you.

I know folks who are in safety sensitive stuff who have to use prescription drugs and yes they are required to not use some of those meds 8 hours before working. I'm not saying it doesn't happen....that would be naive...but Tyleno PM and the others are a controlled substance. You can't grow them yourself or improve it's strengh....unless you smoke a big old fattie with it. then it might seem like it works better.

[picasso]

What's odd is that many of the incredibly brilliant people I know enjoy the occasional blaze.

AND I know a TON of people of average intelligence who smoke dope.

You know, it's almost like a bell curve...

So true. I'm talking about the 20 year everyday users.

Brain dead.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I know how you feel and used to feel that way until they started cultivating and distributing all of this superpot. It's not the same as the one hit stuff many of you smoked in High School or College.



Blah-blah...

So now I take a hit or two instead of 6 bowls in the bong or 3 doobers! ;)

Actually haven't had the good fortune of smoking up in about 2 years when we let some 20 year old hooker shack up with us for a few weeks since she had kids, but if I had it I'd fire it up.

[12]

Crusifax might be my new favorite poster.

[StoopTroup]

Blah-blah...

So now I take a hit or two instead of 6 bowls in the bong or 3 doobers! ;)

Actually haven't had the good fortune of smoking up in about 2 years when we let some 20 year old hooker shack up with us for a few weeks since she had kids, but if I had it I'd fire it up.

See you're so stoned you don't understand how bad it is for you. :D

I remember the days of folks dipping that **** in deodorizer, paraquad, angel dust too.

I'm just saying...maybe you shouldn't unless you grew it.

Hey I know there is a significant amount of folks who just don't give a **** about themselves too. There are many who think they should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

I'm of the opinion that there are folks out there who think if the U.S. would just back off the bathtub production of meth and allow them to just produce the Nazi ****, that things wouldn't be so bad either.

Of course...history shows that the Nazis mental health was affected by it's use. It just goes to show you that some stuff just isn't good for you.

Pot is still one of those drugs for me. Smoke it up if you want.

[StoopTroup]

At 19 I once had a Doctor tell me I was worried about way to much **** and that what I needed to do was get me some good coke.

I should have kicked him in the junk.

[SoonerAtKU]

I assume you're being sarcastic, since that'd be tossed on a Fourth Amendment suit before it was even implemented.

Of course I'm being facetious, but I do definitely agree that alcohol is a more pressing concern than weed, generally. Just for the record, I don't do either, but I've seen far more problems from one than the other.

[jkjsooner]

I know how you feel and used to feel that way until they started cultivating and distributing all of this superpot. It's not the same as the one hit stuff many of you smoked in High School or College.

When folks get caught with the hydroponic stuff...the Cops want to know where you got it. If your distributing or growing...God help you.

I know folks who are in safety sensitive stuff who have to use prescription drugs and yes they are required to not use some of those meds 8 hours before working. I'm not saying it doesn't happen....that would be naive...but Tyleno PM and the others are a controlled substance. You can't grow them yourself or improve it's strengh....unless you smoke a big old fattie with it. then it might seem like it works better.

You could control the amount of THC that is allowed in legally obtained pot just like you control the amount of alcohol in beer/wine/etc. That would almost kill the demand for the stronger stuff. Very few smokers would risk the legal consequences and pay 2 to 3 times as much for the stronger stuff.

My mother smoked cigs for 20 years, quit in the mid '80s, and died of lung cancer this year. (Gosh after almost 25 years I thought she was out of the woods for health concerns but I guess not. She was on some immune sepressant drugs which probably allowed cancer a foothold. Anyway....) I'll never intentionally ingest any toxins into my lungs but if someone had to either smoke a joint once a week or become a pack a day smoker I'd suggest the former (for lung health reasons).

[Rogue]

This is a decent discussion, y'all.
I've learned a thing or two (didn't know about the Nazi/Meth thing).

I've done my share of most illegal drugs and some of the legal ones.
Anymore I don't have much tolerance for any of it so small doses hit me hard.

Chantix is the 2nd worst drug I've ever taken.
Point being that different drugs affect people differently.
Some alcoholics are very "functional," some folks can take enough pain medicine that it would knock me out for a weekend but they can function on the stuff because of tolerance or pain or whateer.

I still say we're fighting on the wrong side of this War on Drugs. (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113175)
Criminalizing the herb hasn't worked very well.
I'd much rather see it regulated and marketed as produce than as a drug.
Can you imagine if Merck, J&J, or Pfizer just discovered Aspirin? We couldn't afford the stuff.

ST makes good points about safety. Sure driving stoned isn't "as bad" as driving drunk, but my reaction times and thinking when stoned was never sharp enough to drive stoned at all.

I think a poll on this would be interesting. SF.com is, compared to most places I visit on the innerwebs, a very conservative group and I see more support for legalizing pot here than I ever expected on this board. Must be we're attracting more college age folks and less of us geezers. Or the mood in the country is shifting.

Me, I say legalize the ganja. And seek and destroy meth labs and meth peddlers. And Pfizer for making that poison Chantix. :D

[the_ouskull]

(paraphrased, I think)

"We're not fighting a war against drugs."
"Why not? What do you mean?"
"Wars can be won."

the_wire

[Tulsa_Fireman]

ST makes good points about safety. Sure driving stoned isn't "as bad" as driving drunk, but my reaction times and thinking when stoned was never sharp enough to drive stoned at all.

There isn't a qualifier to driving while under the influence of medications or recreational substances. If you are impaired, you are putting other drivers at risk by disregarding the laws surrounding the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the roads of the state and ignoring the potential impact of such a decision. Whether it be marijuana, alcohol, prescription medication, a cell phone, a screaming child, an ignored yield sign, a cheeseburger, or plain old indifference, there is no justification whatsoever in endangering fellow drivers via operating that motor vehicle while impaired.

None.

And until there's a means to discover recent usage and effects to motor function in the field for law enforcement personnel, weed should remain illegal. The excuse that one doesn't drive "as bad" high as one would stoned is the equivalent of declaring murder with a stick as opposed to a .44 magnum isn't "as bad". It's all bad. It's all dangerous. And it all threatens motor vehicle operators that are more than happy to abide by the law and the spirit thereof and remain clearminded and uninfluenced to ensure the safety of themselves, their families, and their fellow drivers.

[MR2-Sooner86]

And until there's a means to discover recent usage and effects to motor function in the field for law enforcement personnel, weed should remain illegal. The excuse that one doesn't drive "as bad" high as one would stoned is the equivalent of declaring murder with a stick as opposed to a .44 magnum isn't "as bad". It's all bad. It's all dangerous. And it all threatens motor vehicle operators that are more than happy to abide by the law and the spirit thereof and remain clearminded and uninfluenced to ensure the safety of themselves, their families, and their fellow drivers.

That is a very weak argument. I wouldn't consider alcohol a stick and pot a .44 magnum. If you want to make pot illegal due to how it affects your driving then ban alcohol because they're the same. I've been drunk and stoned off my *** and was there a difference? No. There are small differences but either way you shouldn't get behind a wheel and you're impaired the same.
Hell, I could make the argument that I know more people who get drunk and behind the wheel because most people I know who get stoned want to relax on the sofa and watch Hangover while eating cheetos.

"But you can't detect it!"

Really? You mean the same way we can't detect if people are tabbed out, which by the way is small amounts of legal heroin, and behind the wheel? What about abusing sleeping pills and driving? It's simple, a cop can take you to the hospital and you can get a blood test. Go to an alcohol awareness meeting at any college and the cop will tell you they do that sometimes and if drugs are suspected they'll do it anyway.

Why are so many people afraid of and hate this drug yet make an argument while heading to the liquor store or taking some high powered pain killers? The more I read this thread the more I see people were brainwashed by the "Reefer Madness" films from back in the day.

[picasso]

Moderation is a key word for any type of substance. I'll stand by my experience of seeing and dealing with life long burners.

Who is really defending alcohol? If smoking weed is your thing then go home and toke away.
Just don't cry about making it legal.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

That is a very weak argument. I wouldn't consider alcohol a stick and pot a .44 magnum. If you want to make pot illegal due to how it affects your driving then ban alcohol because they're the same. I've been drunk and stoned off my *** and was there a difference? No. There are small differences but either way you shouldn't get behind a wheel and you're impaired the same.
Hell, I could make the argument that I know more people who get drunk and behind the wheel because most people I know who get stoned want to relax on the sofa and watch Hangover while eating cheetos.

The analogy is misunderstood. The comparison is made against driving while impaired on each specific substance, not the substances themselves. Therefore from my perspective, the comparison is valid.


"But you can't detect it!"

Really? You mean the same way we can't detect if people are tabbed out, which by the way is small amounts of legal heroin, and behind the wheel? What about abusing sleeping pills and driving? It's simple, a cop can take you to the hospital and you can get a blood test. Go to an alcohol awareness meeting at any college and the cop will tell you they do that sometimes and if drugs are suspected they'll do it anyway.

Not without the consent of the operator, they won't. You can refuse to take a breathalyzer and a urinalysis as well. It's well within your rights. You'll enjoy an automatically suspended license if you do, again because driving is a privilege. And to my knowledge, the appearance of THC in the bloodstream or presence on urinalysis can indicate usage as far back as 6 weeks or more, which with operator consent and articulable phenomena, will result in false DUI arrests. There are many clinical ailments that portray articulable phenomena similar to impairment from both alcohol and other substances including diabetic ketoacidosis which often is recognized by an odor of ETOH on the subject's breath. Other diabetic related emergencies can present with signs and symptoms of substance impairment along with trauma, postictal seizure states, and literally HUNDREDS of other clinical diagnoses. Which given these concerns, leaves us with being unable to proctor a field sobriety test for substances like marijuana with the presence of THC as the indicator (or other appropriate indicator) or the inverse, developing said field sobriety test because as it stands, there's no such thing as a "breathalyzer" for pot, let alone a method that can determine approximate sobriety level based on actual blood level and time proximity to the operation of the motor vehicle.


Why are so many people afraid of and hate this drug yet make an argument while heading to the liquor store or taking some high powered pain killers? The more I read this thread the more I see people were brainwashed by the "Reefer Madness" films from back in the day.

And why is the legitimate argument that we don't have the appropriate tools to determine field sobriety always construed as "pot is de debbil!" remarks? Until a law enforcement officer can employ a tool to determine whether ingestion took place with recent enough time to establish blood levels that can be used as evidence to establish intoxication BEYOND articulable phenomena, the drug needs to remain illegal. Develop an accurate SOBRIETY test, not a test for the presence of in the bloodstream (which again could be weeks old), and I have no argument against the legalization of marijuana. None. Until that day, keep your pot off my streets.

[yermom]

i had a cop check my eyes and tongue to see if i was high once. i had cut open a glow stick and got it in my eyes. he didn't believe i wasn't high until he had me stick out my tongue.

but seriously, you nanny state guys are killing me

[MR2-Sooner86]

Tyleno PM and the others are a controlled substance. You can't grow them yourself or improve it's strengh....unless you smoke a big old fattie with it. then it might seem like it works better.

Actually if you want to improve it then drink alcohol with it. For instance Lortab and alcohol are both "downers" so... The only bad thing with that is it's super extra hard on your liver and you run a high risk of shutting it down.


And to my knowledge, the appearance of THC in the bloodstream or presence on urinalysis can indicate usage as far back as 6 weeks or more, which with operator consent and articulable phenomena, will result in false DUI arrests.

But THC is detectable in the blood for a short time, usually a few hours, because it is rapidly metabolized into molecules known as metabolites. At least 80 different metabolites are formed from THC. These metabolites are stored in body fat and are gradually eliminated from the body through feces and urine.

Because marijuana stays in the bloodstream for a short time, blood tests for marijuana are usually not used, except in the case of automobile accidents and some roadside sobriety check points. Blood or saliva tests can show current intoxication. However, unlike blood alcohol concentration tests, they do not indicate a level of intoxication or impairment.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/marijuana_test.htm


Develop an accurate SOBRIETY test, not a test for the presence of in the bloodstream (which again could be weeks old), and I have no argument against the legalization of marijuana. None. Until that day, keep your pot off my streets.

Development Of Breath Tests For Drugs (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37134.php)

Blood and Urine Test for Marijuana (http://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf)

And this is just to stir the pot (no pun) a little...

Cannabis Poses Less On-Road Risk Than Alcohol, US Crash Data Says (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7189)

Driving under the influence of cannabis increases the risk of involvement in a crash. However, in France its share in fatal crashes is significantly lower than that associated with positive blood alcohol concentration. (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/331/7529/1371)

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents.
Fact: Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#accidents)

Excessive alcohol use is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States annually and its economic impact is estimated at over $150 billion. (http://apha.confex.com/apha/136am/webprogram/Paper186294.html)

Pot vs. Booze: A Former Police Chief's Take (http://www.alternet.org/story/137752/)

[StoopTroup]

This is a decent discussion, y'all.
I've learned a thing or two (didn't know about the Nazi/Meth thing).

I've done my share of most illegal drugs and some of the legal ones.
Anymore I don't have much tolerance for any of it so small doses hit me hard.

Chantix is the 2nd worst drug I've ever taken.
Point being that different drugs affect people differently.
Some alcoholics are very "functional," some folks can take enough pain medicine that it would knock me out for a weekend but they can function on the stuff because of tolerance or pain or whateer.

I still say we're fighting on the wrong side of this War on Drugs. (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113175)
Criminalizing the herb hasn't worked very well.
I'd much rather see it regulated and marketed as produce than as a drug.
Can you imagine if Merck, J&J, or Pfizer just discovered Aspirin? We couldn't afford the stuff.

ST makes good points about safety. Sure driving stoned isn't "as bad" as driving drunk, but my reaction times and thinking when stoned was never sharp enough to drive stoned at all.

I think a poll on this would be interesting. SF.com is, compared to most places I visit on the innerwebs, a very conservative group and I see more support for legalizing pot here than I ever expected on this board. Must be we're attracting more college age folks and less of us geezers. Or the mood in the country is shifting.

Me, I say legalize the ganja. And seek and destroy meth labs and meth peddlers. And Pfizer for making that poison Chantix. :D

Thanks for chiming in. I in no way want to argue with pot smokers. My feelings on this are from growing up during the 60's as a kid and watching it become a gateway drug for so many folks. Yep...I said it. Gateway. I think lots of people experimented way to much with drugs back then. Timothy Leary and his LSD bunch really brought hallucinagens into the limelight. Yes Marijuana is in the same category and I'm pretty sure nobody has ever experienced an acid trip by smoking it....but it's considered one.

All I really was trying to do was just say that the laws will eventually be effected and those who control substances will eventually get involved in the production of it. Once legal....things won't end up being like they are now and you'll still have folks out there who are rebels that think they can grow better weed.

Making it legal will result in even more laws and controls.

[TAFBSooner]

Queen Elizabeth smokes pot. She made the comment in an interview I saw back in the 70's that it helped to relieve her monthly cramp pains. Now she says it dramatically reduces the hot flashes accompanied with menopause. :)

Calling Mel Brooks . . .

[TAFBSooner]

Yes Marijuana is in the same category and I'm pretty sure nobody has ever experienced an acid trip by smoking it....but it's considered one.


It's in the same category as in "marijuana is also a Schedule I drug," although it by no means fits the definition:

Schedule I,
a category of drugs not considered legitimate for medical use. Among the substances so classified by the Drug Enforcement Agency are mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide, heroin, and marijuana. Special licensing procedures must be followed to use these or other Schedule I substances.

Obviously that's the DEA interpretation. Some of the states have different opinions. :)

It is not a hallucinogen like acid is.

[Rogue]

I don't think I was clear in a couple points earlier.
I agree with TF and ST....smoking weed and driving is baaaad news.

I mentioned I'd rather see it regulated as produce than a drug.
Cause I trust farmers more than I trust BigPharma.

[MamaMia]

Pot should be treated and regulated, the same as booze.

[StoopTroup]

Cool. Then I can smoke pot and work on airplanes the next day.

That'll be fun.....lol

[SunnySooner]

I know no one will believe me, but I have honestly never smoked pot. Ever. And not because I was a saint, it was just never around that much. I mean, I knew who the stoners were, and I'm sure if I went looking I could have found some but it wasn't like going to a party where there was beer everywhere. And I was always hinky about doing something that didn't have some sort of govt. seal on it--who knew where that stuff came from or what was really in it.

My point is if it had been legal, I'm sure I would have tried it. And I doubt I'm the only case out there. It would be MUCH more widely used if it was legal, and I don't really think that would be a good thing.

As for medicinal purposes, it needs to be produced and controlled like any other drug if there are truly folks out there who need it.

[Rogue]

You eat the banana with the Chiquita sticker on it first, don't you?
Or do you leave it 'til last so the bunch always has an official sticker?

[StoopTroup]

That's hawt.:pop: :hot: :eek: