California legislation to legalise pot

[Brokepick]

Pot has some documented harmful properties, such as the huge amount of toxic and carcinogenic substances inhaled when smoking it, the potential to induce panic/anxiety attacks, and the potential for psychological addiction. Still, compared to drugs like opiates, cocaine, meth, and even alcohol, it is relatively benign.

 

The harmful effects of alcohol are well documented, and yet, it's clear that making alcohol illegal was a miserable failure.

 

It's also clear that pot being illegal is also a miserable failure. The fact that it is illegal deters very few from using it.

 

The current pot laws in the US usurp huge amounts of government and law enforcement resources in a futile effort to control what cannot be controlled, much like prohibition did. Even if it's for the wrong reasons, it's about time a state considered legalizing pot.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Pot has some documented harmful properties, such as the huge amount of toxic and carcinogenic substances inhaled when smoking it, the potential to induce panic/anxiety attacks, and the potential for psychological addiction. Still, compared to drugs like opiates, cocaine, meth, and even alcohol, it is relatively benign. The harmful effects of alcohol are well documented, and yet, it's clear that making alcohol illegal was a miserable failure. It's also clear that pot being illegal is also a miserable failure. The fact that it is illegal deters very few from using it. The current pot laws in the US usurp huge amounts of government and law enforcement resources in a futile effort to control what cannot be controlled, much like prohibition did. Even if it's for the wrong reasons, it's about time a state considered legalizing pot.

 

 

I'm no expert on this...and I don't smoke, so bear that in mind. But I would think that much of the toxins could be eliminated by use of a filter, such as in a cigarette. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The rest I also agree with...with the added notion that laws should ideally reflect where society is at. And since society is never stagnant, neither should be our laws.

[nat whilk II]

 

I know you know this Jeff, but I'll just throw it out as a general comment - even if it passes at the state level, the Federal laws would still be in place, and could still be enforced...

 

 

Well, yeah! Not to mention the State of California, which might have to forego some of the mega-money they get from the Feds with all sorts of strings and compliance issues attached, would just land itself in a battle with it's Much Bigger Brother in DC.

 

It would make a most interesting Supreme Court case, no doubt. And a slam-dunk for the Feds in all likliehood.

 

I dunno - this CA legislation just sounds like some politico is keeping a candle in the window and winning votes supporting a cause for which there is no risk because it will never happen.

 

nat whilk ii

[Phil O'Keefe]

No need to be sorry, since my return everyone hates me anyway

 

Perception, especially when it relates to matters concerning one's self, are not always accurate my friend.

 

IOW, I don't think everyone hates you. I certainly don't.

[Phait]

Just a bad day.

[Anderton]

It's a misconception that pot is legal in Holland (and if that status has changed, I'm sure Boosh can correct me). It's a small distinction, but officially, it's "permitted." In other words, the cops aren't going to hassle you if you're smoking a joint. But if you're problematic for other reasons, they can haul you in for smoking if they want to.

 

Last time I checked, of all the western industrialized countries, Holland has the lowest per capita pot usage. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

As to California, like it or not, it's de facto legal now. The economy of places like Humboldt county depend on it. If it was controlled by the state, it would provide a) a major revenue stream, b) unclog significant portions of the criminal justice system, c) reduce the power of the Mexican drug cartels a bit, d) reduce taxpayer load. It could also be exported to states like New Mexico, which are on the verge of legalization medical pot.

 

As to pothead drivers, they're already out there. Legalization or de-criminalization will not cause people to say "Wow! I've been waiting for this so I can get stoned out of my brain and go driving!" People can be arrested for driving while impaired regardless of what drug they're taking.

 

All in all, I see very little downside and a lot of upside.

[Anderton]

As to hating Phait...huh?!? I don't see that at all.

[Jimbroni]

 

Who cares, as long as you're driving safely? Pot doesn't affect your motor skills like alcohol, as studies have shown. University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents

 

 

I'll look at the results but I'll tell you my own personal experience. I've been a smoker since the 5th grade. The one thing consistent thing I can tell you about pot is that its inconsistent. Different strains yield different results.

Sometimes you get the mindwalk, Sometimes you get eyeball weed which plays tricks your eyes, sometimes you get a body buzz, sometimes you get the jittery paranoid weed.

 

Regardless of what that studies sez, I don't want to be the guy who gets T-boned by a dude who is spaced out on a mindwalk after he toked up and pink floyd came on the radio.

[Jimbroni]

 

As to pothead drivers, they're already out there. Legalization or de-criminalization will not cause people to say "Wow! I've been waiting for this so I can get stoned out of my brain and go driving!" People can be arrested for driving while impaired regardless of what drug they're taking. All in all, I see very little downside and a lot of upside.

 

 

 

Well you're right about that. And I agree there is way more upside than downside.

I'm more or less just playing lawyer (devils advocate). To me the inability to field test for DUI is the only legitimate argument against legalization I've ever heard. And it is legitimate, cops can curb DUI's now, indirectly Tthey can search a car if they smell weed. And because its illegal they confiscate and write tickets. If it were legal they can't do anything because they have no proof the driver was high.

[Ernest Buckley]

Consider that alcohol is just as or even more potent than marijuana.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

As to hating Phait...huh?!? I don't see that at all.

 

 

I definitely don't see that at all.

 

Agreed on your other points.

[Anderton]

To me the inability to field test for DUI is the only legitimate argument against legalization I've ever heard. And it is legitimate, cops can curb DUI's now, indirectly Tthey can search a car if they smell weed. And because its illegal they confiscate and write tickets. If it were legal they can't do anything because they have no proof the driver was high.

 

Urine tests will show weed. If the police suspect driving while impaired, they can demand a urine test instead of a breath test. Also, remember that although alcohol is legal, if there's an open bottle in your car, they can bust you regardless of whether you're drunk or not. I would imagine a similar situation for pot - if they find a pipe or evidence of pot in the car's driver/passenger compartment, it would be the same as finding an open bottle of, say, beer.

 

Besides, it's easy to tell when a pot smoker is driving - they're the ones who obey the speed limit

[deanmass]

Isn't there a pot joke that is something like..:

 

A guy is pulled over, high on pot, and the cops says "Sir, do you have any idea how fast you were going?. ....The guy says " 75?", the cop says "no, 13 mph...step out of the car...

 

Pot has not been leglized IMHO due to :

 

Politicians who back keeping it illegal having to eat to much crow

 

and

 

Corporations being BEHIND the curve on growth and distribution.

 

Pot and industrial hemp would strengthen our tax base, give us a workable option to stop many farm subsidies as farmers move into it as a cash crop, and bring some textile industries back to the US. Unless corporations can find a way to regulate small growers out, I don't see it happening. They are afraid of losng their stranglehold on us for other vices they control totally..

[bp]

 

Yeah right, I couldn't even walk when I was high, once I stood up I had to sit down. I can't imagine driving like that. {censored} that. Also reaction times are much slower.

 

 

It ain't your father's herb these days. Some is far stronger. That said, I think anyone who really wants to smoke already does.

 

I have zero problem with legalization. I'd outlaw Pop Tarts before pot.

[rasputin1963]

If it's legalized there will be different companies that make it, like cigarettes. Different brands of pot

 

 

Despite your smiley-face, this is literally true now: the R.J. REYNOLDS group has already taken out a trademark for the first commercial/retail/prerolled marijuana cigarette: It's to be called HIGH POINT, named after the town of HIGH POINT, North Carolina.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I have zero problem with legalization. I'd outlaw Pop Tarts before pot.

 

NORML would have a fit if you outlawed munchies like Pop Tarts. What's next - Twinkies?

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

W To me the inability to field test for DUI is the only legitimate argument against legalization I've ever heard. And it is legitimate, cops can curb DUI's now, indirectly They can search a car if they smell weed. And because its illegal they confiscate and write tickets. If it were legal they can't do anything because they have no proof the driver was high.

 

 

Can they field test for barbiturates? Opiates? What about the driver who has a doctor's prescription for one of those substances, but is driving impaired? Heck, watch the pharmaceutical commercials sometime - many of them caution users to avoid driving or other potentially hazardous activities until they see how they react to the drug. Even over the counter allergy medications can cause drowsiness that could potentially lead to impaired driving...

 

I'd personally be in favor of legalization, for many of the reasons Craig mentioned. As far as driving with under the influence, I'd be in favor of that remaining illegal - if they think you're driving while smashed on something - anything really - they can drag you in for a blood or urine test. If your levels exceed a certain point, you're DUI, and you get charged accordingly.

 

The libertarian leaning part of me says - go ahead, legalize and tax it, and use some of the tax revenues for drug education and treatment programs - but hold people accountable for anything they do while under the influence that affects the health / safety / freedom of others. To me, that would definitely include DUI... but I think we can find better uses for our tax dollars than going after some guy in San Fran who has a plant growing in a flower pot on his balcony that he only uses for his personal use at home after work.

[ggm1960]

I haven't been able to smoke weed since the damned FAA forced electronic technicians who work on avionics equipment into a random piss test pool.

 

I probably wouldn't smoke a lot of weed at this stage in life but it sure would be nice if I didn't have to piss in a little plastic cup!

[Phait]

Last thing I want is someone who goes into work high and botches a repair on my avionics or engine and I die in a plane crash.

[Jimbroni]

Urine tests will show weed. If the police suspect driving while impaired, they can demand a urine test instead of a breath test. Also, remember that although alcohol is legal, if there's an open bottle in your car, they can bust you regardless of whether you're drunk or not. I would imagine a similar situation for pot - if they find a pipe or evidence of pot in the car's driver/passenger compartment, it would be the same as finding an open bottle of, say, beer. Besides, it's easy to tell when a pot smoker is driving - they're the ones who obey the speed limit

 

Well urine tests aren't immediate or accurate enough for court purposes. If you fail a urine test that could mean you smoked pot a month ago. Though, I do somewhat agree with what you're saying about open containers. There would still be a lot of loopholes, but that would accomodate somethings.

 

Like Phil said, about opiates and barbs. They can't test for that either, it slightly different because they aren't street legal. But still. Its interesting that Phil brought that up, I served jury duty for a women who was charged with driving under the influence of pain medicine while driving, she got off. No one could prove to the jury (me included) that she was actually impaired while driving.

 

Hey I'm still for legalization. I'm just saying they'll need to address it, and actually legalization may force them to, just like they did with alcohol.

[the stranger]

Last thing I want is someone who goes into work high and botches a repair on my avionics or engine and I die in a plane crash.

 

Smoking weed doesn't automatically make you a retard incapable of activity.

Some people have enhanced talents, perceptions, and focusing abilities when smoking reefer. Some people perform better when they smoke.

 

You better hope that the guy who does get high all day working on avionics doesn't run out. Then he's gonna have a bad day and not give a {censored}. Studies have shown that people who don't smoke are more likely to be uptight.

 

Thomas Jefferson was high as a kite. So was Ben Franklin. I bet Einstein had some government lab {censored}. You know how long term lsd use fries your hair out?

 

[Phait]

It could go either way, but you can't deny anyone under the influence of any drug is capable (keyword, not saying "unable") of not doing their job up to task

[Ryst]

May I ask why you feel that ALL drugs should be legalized? Please note that I am not trying to start a debate about your position, just that I want to know more about where you're coming from. Thanks. I generally agree most people's opinions on this so far except, sorry to say, Phait's.

 

Sorry, I just saw this.

 

Well, in my opinion we all have choices to make and I don't think anyone can make the best choice for me other than myself. Not the government, and not anyone else. I feel like your fate is in your hands. You make decisions and you live with those decisions. Now if it affects other people's well being (like drunk driving), that's just plain irresponsible and dangerous to others. But if you are in your home and you keep it there and it's not affecting anyone else, go ahead, do what you want. It's your life.

 

But that's where it gets sticky. How can you be {censored}ed up on heroin and keep it in your home without affecting anyone else? What if you want a bite to eat? Are you gonna try and drive somewhere? Would legalizing all drugs have an adverse affect on our culture's general safety? Would crime go up or down? I don't know. But if most people thought like me then drugs wouldn't be an issue. Also, I don't believe that non violent drug offenders should be jailed in our current system. They should be OFFERED (not forced) helped with their addiction....if they actually have one. Overcrowding jails with people who have been arrested for possession is just stupid, IMO.

 

I would argue that television/advertising/media has more adverse affects on our culture than drugs. Drugs don't tell you what you should buy, what's attractive, who's attractive, what to think, how to feel, what to be happy about, what to be upset about, what you should and should not say and when you should and should not say it, manipulate news stories to tell one side of the story like it's the only side...but television and the media do.

 

We have been turned into a nation of consumer sheep:lem:. Not by drugs but by our obsession with the television being the centerpiece of our living rooms and our conversations with others.

 

I'm sure most people disagree with me ...but that's my opinion.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

It could go either way, but you can't deny anyone under the influence of any drug is capable (keyword, not saying "unable") of not doing their job up to task

 

 

I know a whole lot of sober people who are also incapable of doing their job to task. And yet, there's no piss test for stupidity. Hmm.

[amplayer]

 

State revenues would be derived from a $50 per ounce levy on retail sales of marijuana and sales taxes.

 

 

$50 an ounce state tax? At that rate, I'm guessing lots of people would just grow their own or continue to buy weed that came from Mexico.

 

I'm all for legalizing Pot, but I think the state ought to keep it's grubby hands off of it. The last thing anyone needs is more big government.

I think it would be much better to legalize pot, but make the sales of it illegal still. This way, anyone is allowed to have pot, but they must grow it themselves or be friends with somebody who grows it.

 

Actually, I agree with Blue that the war on drugs is stupid. If people are dumb enough to take drugs, why should we as a society prohibit it? You can't legislate away stupidity.