Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana

[tbburg]

I could not give a damn.

Do you give a damn about the $10-$14 billion that's spent annually on it to no real effect other than subsidizing private prisons and law enforcement and jailing a good number of otherwise productive members of society? We have more citizens in jail than communist China, and I'm talking absolute numbers not per capita. Guess what most of them are in jail for?

No, I don't give a damn.
For lack of a better term, I'm going to use "dope-head".
How many dope heads are in prison for honestly using ole' mj as a medicine, as opposed to having so little self control that they have to have an ounce on their person or in their car at all times? Or, for that matter, as mentioned above, how many are in prison for MJ as opposed to coke, meth, H, etc?

Should the laws be changed? I'd say yes. Then again, I'd also do away with most of the traffic laws.("Reckless driving" should take care of most of it,..)

Wanna' get stoned? Have fun, do it on you own time, and leave me out of it.

Do I care what the latest gallup poll of people who responded to the poll think? Not a bit.

 

[iwannadie]

If you can't smoke a cigarette in a certain area, then obviously you can't smoke pot there.

-DUI laws apply to marijuana. Can't pass a field sobriety test, go to jail.

This came up recently at work.

If you are allowed to smoke marijuana in public designated smoking areas, what about people near by and contact high? Will there be, marijuana smoking areas, tobacco smoking and non-smoking areas?

For the field sobriety tests, I can see that being a problem. What would the test be? I've been accused of being high by police before because my eyes were a little red. I could see that turning into a hassle. From my understanding the trace of marijuana stays in your blood much longer. If a cop pulls you over, claims you have signs of being high and arrests you. You may very well be sober and have not consumed marijuana within 24 hours but when they blood test it will show up. How do we combat that? Are the trace amounts accurate enough to pinpoint that you were sober at a specific time even if trace amounts still show up?

I am all for it being legal but just being cautious as to how we can get there.

 

[bails85]

i no longer smoke mj. i used too and i loved it. but i dont feel that people have the responsibilty to make good decisions about using it if it were legalized. im not talking about the guy who rolls up a hooter after work in his garage or takes a rip before bed. if its legalized be prepared to see every dead beat stoner puffing right in your face without disregard for anyone. its already everywhere and cops cant control it now. how do you expect to regulate it when it is fully legal. teenage kids will be all over it even worse than now and i see it hitting junior high and high schools in full effect. im not against mj but i think legalizing it will just ruin it for everyone.

 

[hubs97xj]

Alcohol is legal, but how many places can you drink in public, or while at work?

You can buy booze at the grocery store, the liquor store, restaurants, bars, sporting events, concerts, fairs, festivals, vineyards, gas stations, convenience stores, etc etc, but not everyone who drinks is drunk all the time. Some common sense doesn't hurt, and neither does cutting back on Nancy's Kool-Aid...

 

[iwannadie]

Alcohol is legal, but how many places can you drink in public, or while at work?

Someone sitting next to me at the bar not drinking is not going to get drunk because I am drinking like they would with marijuana.

You can also show up to work 8 hours after having drank alcohol and have no trace in your system, you can not do the same with marijuana. If you get hurt on the job and they blood test, how do you prove that although it is in your system that you were not under the influence? With alcohol, they test and see the exact amount and if you were impaired or not by that amount. With marijuana, it stays in your system for what 30 days, how can you prove you were not high when an accident happened?

If we are going to move to make marijuana legal we need to know it is not alcohol.

 

[hubs97xj]

Again, alcohol is legal, but you can't drink wherever you want, whenever you want. Why wouldn't they establish some similar guidelines regarding marijuana? We're talking about being able to buy or possess marijuana without fear of landing in jail. We are not talking about there being absolutely no rules regarding its use.

 

[Darky]

Again, alcohol is legal, but you can't drink wherever you want, whenever you want. Why wouldn't they establish some similar guidelines regarding marijuana? We're talking about being able to buy or possess marijuana without fear of landing in jail. We are not talking about there being absolutely no rules regarding its use.

You are arguing a completely different point. As an average, reasonably healthy male, I can drink one beer, and expect it to be completely out of my system after about an hour. If I smoke a joint, it will still show up on drug tests long after the high is over.
I like to have a beer or two before bed. The next morning, I know it will be gone from my system. If I get in an accident on the way to work, there will be no alcohol found by the breathalyzer or blood test.
If I smoke a joint before bed, the next morning, the high will be long gone but there will be traces of THC in my system. If I get in an accident, and they do a blood test, will they be able to tell if the amount of THC in my system was enough to cause impairment?

He's not talking like there'll be no laws, he's trying to point out possible flaws in enforcement based on the differing effects they each have on our system.

 

[hubs97xj]

Why do we test for THC in the blood, or metabolites in the urine?

 

[Darky]

You mean in the event of an accident? Same reason you test for alcohol in the blood or on the breath.

 

[hubs97xj]

Sort of. I should have added "only the presence of" to that question. We know your average Joe has some level of impairment at a given BAC. With marijuana, we test simply for use. It's basically always been illegal, so there's no reason to test for some level of impairment. I would think we could test for that, if we had reason to. But it's easiest to just say, "he was high", and deny coverage/fire/not hire/charge someone who tests positive. Any use is illegal, so that's all we've cared about. BAC on the other hand, we look at how much, and what happens afterwards depends on how much is in your system.

And your one beer = one joint analogy doesn't quite work. I see what you're getting at, but it would be more than a few beers, and in that case, there would likely be some indications that you'd been drinking the following morning.

So we'd need better/more testing, and we'd have to rewrite some laws, and figure out how to deal with insurance companies, and drug manufacturers, and the cartels (none of whom would like legalization), but none of this is impossible. It would require a common sense approach by all involved (which is probably the biggest obstacle), but it could be done.

edit: and keep in mind, none of this really stops people from smoking now. Maybe some, but not all, or even most, IMO.

 

[ocean_jet]

How many dope heads are in prison for honestly using ole' mj as a medicine, as opposed to having so little self control that they have to have an ounce on their person or in their car at all times? Or, for that matter, as mentioned above, how many are in prison for MJ as opposed to coke, meth, H, etc?

In a free country, it should be none.

 

[iwannadie]

Sort of. I should have added "only the presence of" to that question. We know your average Joe has some level of impairment at a given BAC. With marijuana, we test simply for use. It's basically always been illegal, so there's no reason to test for some level of impairment. I would think we could test for that, if we had reason to. But it's easiest to just say, "he was high", and deny coverage/fire/not hire/charge someone who tests positive. Any use is illegal, so that's all we've cared about. BAC on the other hand, we look at how much, and what happens afterwards depends on how much is in your system.

And your one beer = one joint analogy doesn't quite work. I see what you're getting at, but it would be more than a few beers, and in that case, there would likely be some indications that you'd been drinking the following morning.

So we'd need better/more testing, and we'd have to rewrite some laws, and figure out how to deal with insurance companies, and drug manufacturers, and the cartels (none of whom would like legalization), but none of this is impossible. It would require a common sense approach by all involved (which is probably the biggest obstacle), but it could be done.

edit: and keep in mind, none of this really stops people from smoking now. Maybe some, but not all, or even most, IMO.

I am not sure I follow what you are trying to say at all.

From what I know there is no way to do a field sobriety test for marijuana the same way as alcohol. That alone is a major hurtle. If a cop sees someone driving in a way he feels is impaired and pulls the person over, how can he establish they are under the influence of marijuana. Driving under the influence of marijuana despite its legal status will still be a crime but how will it be enforced? How will I prove my innocence when pulled over and the cop says I am under the influence of marijuana and arrests me to perform a drug test. I may have had a legal dose of marijuana 15 days before the drug test but it will still show up, will I be considered under the influence and breaking the law by driving?

What if I have a legal dose of marijuana and 15 days later I am in a car accident caused 100% by someone else. Will I be blood tested and found to be at fault because THC is showing up in my blood from 15 days ago?

Even if they can do an accurate blood test to show exact levels and determine if you were impaired or not it still would need a blood test. A road side field sobriety test is still not possible and a big issue.

People smoking now has no relevance on my issues/questions at all. Now, if you get in an accident and are found with THC in your system you can bet your insurance will not be paying up.

Just making something legal and having to structure behind it will end very badly. It is nice to say we will have to re-write laws to adjust for the use of marijuana but how easily has re-writing laws ever been? How willing will insurance companies be to adjust what they consider to be under the influence? How will local law enforcement handle making judgement calls on you being impaired. How accurate are the THC tests now and how accurate can they become?

 

[n1ywb]

Driving under the influence of marijuana despite its legal status will still be a crime but how will it be enforced?

The same way they enforce it now; if you're acting like a stoned moron, you probably are. Breathalysers are a relatively modern invention; I'm sure somebody will patent something similar for dope the day after it's legalised.

I mean seriously; there's all sorts of conditions other than alcohol that impair driving; how are cops checking for those now?

 

[tbburg]

In a free country, it should be none.

Then again, in a truly free country, a citizen would be required to take responsibility for his/her actions. Everybody in prison for possession of a controlled substance, or possession with intent to distribute, KNEW IN ADVANCE that it was illegal. The equation going through their minds must have been: I wanna get high, getting caught means prison: totally worth it!

In most every state(every state I know of,..) it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol. It is also illegal to have an open container of any alcoholic beverage in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle. In Ga, in the '80s, a six-pack of beer, with one beer missing, was legally an open container. 'Cardboard 12-pack with the cardboard broken: open container. Bottle of wine or spirits with the seal broken: open container. Any one could get you arrested for an open container violation, weather you were drinking or not. Somehow, most of those drooling rednecks managed to remember to put their beer in the trunk.
It was, and is, a stupid law, but somehow, people managed to comply with it.
What you seem to be arguing about now is the defense of,"But I really wanted too." That's a good reason to ignore the law! Most people busted for use or possession during traffic stops either had it in the car with them( "Is that a roach in your ash tray sir?"), or they were using it while driving.(Cop called a K-9 unit: probable cause, smell of marijuana coming from the car. Try that level of self control with beer, and you're in jail too, but most people who drink manage to show some (much higher)level of self control.

You know what? There's not much wrong with having sex in public. Try it in any city in the nation(SF excepted)and you'll get arrested and charged with lewd behavior. Using the "but I really wanted to!" defense will get you fined or jailed.

As I stated in my first post: there is a travesty concerning the marijuana laws, but it has to do with the lack of legal medicinal use, not the travesty of the poor misunderstood stoner that only wants to get high, and "the man" won't leave him be.
Generally, marijuana seems to be no more addictive the alcohol, and not nearly as bad for your health when you are addicted. Stoners in general don't seem to commit other property crimes or violent crimes while under the influence. I don't have a problem with changing the laws, but the idea of civil disobedience/ignoring the law just because you don't like it? For this? No.

RE: The running argument about second hand MJ smoke, and contact buzz. Why does it have to be smoked? You can get the same high from eating it, can't you?(better for your lungs, too) Heck I've seen cows get high eating it. Does it taste nasty or something?

PS: my apologies to Southerners in general and Georgians in particular.
I've met some really nice people from Georgia(and some of them were rednecks). It's exaggeration to make a point.

 

[ocean_jet]

What you seem to be arguing about now is the defense of,"But I really wanted too." That's a good reason to ignore the law!

No, I am saying, in America, the law shouldn't exist in the first place.

I am saying we should not be imprisoning citizens for possessing a PLANT.

Where exactly does the US Constitution give the Federal Government the right to imprison American citizens for possessing a plant.

You want to argue it's a states choice to put someone in prison for pot, fine. But a federal law exists and is enforced. It shouldn't.

Most people busted for use or possession during traffic stops either had it in the car with them( "Is that a roach in your ash tray sir?"), or they were using it while driving.(Cop called a K-9 unit: probable cause, smell of marijuana coming from the car.

Where are you getting that stat from?

but most people who drink manage to show some (much higher)level of self control.

LOL. Right.

That's why thousands of people die each year at the hands of drunk drivers.

Seriously... it isn't funny... but you are just making stuff up now.

 

[ocean_jet]

As I stated in my first post: there is a travesty concerning the marijuana laws, but it has to do with the lack of legal medicinal use, not the travesty of the poor misunderstood stoner that only wants to get high, and "the man" won't leave him be.

It's not much of a travesty that it is illegal to get high.

It is a travesty that our rights are trampled constantly... and what's more of a travesty is that people seem either numb to it, or worse... apathetic to it. That's the travesty.

"It's just one little right... and, stoners don't really count anyway... their rights aren't really that important"



It's America. The Land of the Free.

 

[iwannadie]

The same way they enforce it now; if you're acting like a stoned moron, you probably are. Breathalysers are a relatively modern invention; I'm sure somebody will patent something similar for dope the day after it's legalised.

I mean seriously; there's all sorts of conditions other than alcohol that impair driving; how are cops checking for those now?

So, if I am a legal marijuana user and have not consumed marijuana in say 15 days and obviously not under its influence I get pulled over... The cop can say my eyes are red and arrest me based on that alone and I will show positive in a blood test and be guilty?

I am also not sure why stoned and moron go hand in hand and how we can arrest people based on that?

I don't want to hope and day-dream about some magic device that may be patented(if you look into the patent process you will see it takes a very long time to go through also).

 

[n1ywb]

So, if I am a legal marijuana user and have not consumed marijuana in say 15 days and obviously not under its influence I get pulled over... The cop can say my eyes are red and arrest me based on that alone and I will show positive in a blood test and be guilty?

I certainly hope not. A conviction for impaired driving should be predicated on actual impairment. Those broadly interpreted open container laws always seemed like bullshit to me, especially since my XJ doesn't have a trunk. They passed that law in vermont a while back and the joke was that you could be convicted for drunk driving on your way to the redemption center except for the kindness of the police.

 

[iwannadie]

I certainly hope not. A conviction for impaired driving should be predicated on actual impairment. Those broadly interpreted open container laws always seemed like bullshit to me, especially since my XJ doesn't have a trunk. They passed that law in vermont a while back and the joke was that you could be convicted for drunk driving on your way to the redemption center except for the kindness of the police.

So, your saying we will rely on the kindness of the police officer and hope they will let us off in certain situations?

My point is still this.

You can do field sobriety tests for alcohol very easily. The LEO can ask you to do a balance test, count backwards or even blow into a breathalyzer and rather accurately determine if you are impaired and act accordingly.

You can not field sobriety test for marijuana in a way that I know of. You can not do a balance test, you can not do a counting test or a type of breathalyzer. There will be no way to determine if a person is under the influence other than a blood test. Even with the blood test the trace amounts of THC will show up for much longer in your system past the beyond of having an effect on you.

Keeping the current set of laws and type of enforcement and just hoping the cop will be "cool" and let you go is not a particularly good plan.

Also, if I get hit by someone who is in fact impaired I would certainly like a way for that to be proven and have it stick in court to protect me.

Everyone is so focused on just making it legal but non one is thinking about a system behind it to protect the legal users and actually enforce the laws(written and yet to be written).

 

[hubs97xj]

I think it's foolish to claim the police cannot test for intoxication, but feel free to draw your own conclusions. Mind you, this test was done 17 years ago...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199408253310807#t=articleDiscussion

It's been mentioned, but yes, we would have to change the laws, and improve testing. Yes, field sobriety testing would possibly need refined, although if you haven't given the police reason to stop you, this isn't normally an issue. Yes, we would have to have guidelines on its use (something like open container laws; prohibiting smoking in areas not designated for its use; limiting legal use to adults; still prohibiting driving under the influence of any intoxicant, etc), set thresholds for a level of intoxication, and the other obvious practical issues legalization would create. But claiming this is impossible, simply because we haven't done it yet, is silly.