Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana

[H8PVMT]

I'd love to see that study if you have it handy...

I'd love to see that study if you have it handy...

What possible use could one have for a coca plant besides refining into cocaine, or selling to someone else to refine into cocaine?

coca cola uses the plant still, there are many uses for the plant other than making cocaine, it's used pretty regularly in south/central america as a chew, can't be that good cause they don't add fiberglass to it like skoal
it's also used in religious ceremonies and for medicinal uses, think of it this way, there are a ton of reasons to like a rose besides it's thorns

 

[H8PVMT]

I'd love to see that study if you have it handy...

i'll try and track it down, this was from around 00 or 01

 

[ocean_jet]

Where do you stand on DUI laws?

Where do I stand on them? As in do I think that they should be overturned?

Absolutely not.

15,000 dead a year is WAY too many.

 

[ocean_jet]

I'd love to see that study if you have it handy...

Funny thing... I wrote a report on in in Jr. College (the economic impact of legalizing weed). The professor was this little old lady who was pretty conservative. She actually asked me to come to her office where she scolded me for writing a positive report about marijuana.

She actually complimented the report telling me it was very well researched, and deserved an A, but was giving me a B for the subject matter. I shit you not. She really told me that.



Unfortunately, that was over 20 years ago and I don't have the report anymore.

 

[Darky]

coca cola uses the plant still, there are many uses for the plant other than making cocaine, it's used pretty regularly in south/central america as a chew, can't be that good cause they don't add fiberglass to it like skoal
it's also used in religious ceremonies and for medicinal uses, think of it this way, there are a ton of reasons to like a rose besides it's thorns

So is peyote, but it's still illegal because the possibility and likelihood for abuse is too high.

Also, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Coca Cola no longer includes coca. EDIT: After intense research (Wikipedia), it would appear Coke uses a spent, cocaine free coca leaf for flavor. However, being that most people don't brew their own coca cola, I think it's safe to say that there still isn't a compelling reason for private citizens to have coca plants. Either way, that's beside my point. My point is that in even the free-est of countries, it's necessary that there be laws to regulate society.

 

[Darky]

http://www.naturalnews.com/032658_Coca-Cola_cocaine.html

Interesting read by the way. Cocaine is not allowed tp be imported into the US by anyone...except coca cola

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

http://www.lawadvicenow.com/law/traffic-law/the-difference-between-a-dui-vs-dwi/

http://www.duiarresthelp.com/states/california/dui-laws.php
http://www.duiarresthelp.com/states/arizona/dui-laws.php
http://www.duiarresthelp.com/states/new_york/dwi-laws.php

http://austin-tx-dwi.com/Texas_DUI_DWI

:dunno: These all seem to mirror what I said. Don't know what to tell ya...

Before you start talking about stuff that you have know idea about and posting links "backing it up," you should probably read them:

It is important to note that if a person’s BAC is less than .08%, they can still be charged with section 23152(a) of the California vehicle code because even though the person’s BAC level was below the legal limit, through either the officer’s observation of the suspect’s mannerisms or by failing the field sobriety tests administered by the officer, the officer felt that the suspect was intoxicated and should not be operating a vehicle

Under some circumstances, the legal definition of intoxication is met even if a person's alcohol concentration is lower than .08 percent.

Sound familiar?

In order to be convicted of DWI, the state must prove that you were impaired (assuming it's from an illegal substance or in an illegal amount), not that you were under the influence. A person's BAC does not matter to the state, their impairment does... You can get a DWI with a BAC below .08...

Also, where at in any of those links you posted does it say anything about the difference between DWI and DUI being a different BAC? In what world does any of those links mirror what you said?

 

[ocean_jet]

However, being that most people don't brew their own coca cola, I think it's safe to say that there still isn't a compelling reason for private citizens to have coca plants.

Freedom isn't compelling?

If I want to chew coca leaves... why should the government stop me. Who am I hurting. From the article you posted:

They are rich in many essential nutrients; they ease respiratory and digestive distress and are a natural stimulant and painkiller. Indigenous tradition and scientific studies have both confirmed that in their natural form, the leaves are completely safe and non-addictive

So, through a complex process and with the assistance of additional chemical ingredient, I can turn that into cocaine.

With a complex process and the assistance of additional chemical ingredients, I can turn castor beans into ricin.


Should we imprison citizens for processing castor beans?

My point is that in even the free-est of countries, it's necessary that there be laws to regulate society.

I don't think the government should play the role of protecting citizens from themselves. No one wants a nanny state...

 

[ocean_jet]

http://www.naturalnews.com/032658_Coca-Cola_cocaine.html

Interesting read by the way. Cocaine is not allowed tp be imported into the US by anyone...except coca cola

Corporate favoritism from our federal government?

Shocking.

 

[ocean_jet]

In my opinion, criminalizing drugs is the equivalent of talking to kids about abstinence instead of giving them condoms... and then expecting teen pregnancy to go down.

Drug laws are the equivalent to a collecting "putting our heads in the sand" in regards to any drug problem this nation may have.

History has shown that drug laws don't stop people from using.


So, what are we as a nation accomplishing by imprisoning non-violent drug offenders/users?

 

[Darky]

Before you start talking about stuff that you have know idea about and posting links "backing it up," you should probably read them:





Sound familiar?



Also, where at in any of those links you posted does it say anything about the difference between DWI and DUI being a different BAC? In what world does any of those links mirror what you said?

Did you read them? In most of them, they tell a difference between DUI and DWI. CA only has DUI, BAC under .08 is not intoxication by the very definition of DUI - Driving under the Influence.

Talk to me again once you've read the links.

So, through a complex process and with the assistance of additional chemical ingredient, I can turn that into cocaine.

With a complex process and the assistance of additional chemical ingredients, I can turn castor beans into ricin.


Should we imprison citizens for processing castor beans?
.

I posted the article more as an interesting thing than to back up any argument.

 

[iwannadie]

So is peyote, but it's still illegal because the possibility and likelihood for abuse is too high.

Also, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Coca Cola no longer includes coca. EDIT: After intense research (Wikipedia), it would appear Coke uses a spent, cocaine free coca leaf for flavor. However, being that most people don't brew their own coca cola, I think it's safe to say that there still isn't a compelling reason for private citizens to have coca plants. Either way, that's beside my point. My point is that in even the free-est of countries, it's necessary that there be laws to regulate society.

I would have to ask why should I not have the right to brew my own Coca Cola? Why should a big business have the right to something and profit from it while I can't?

Also, who grows the plants for coca cola? All the propaganda that was going around about smoking weed supports terrorism, could that be applied to coca cola? What are the chances of the part of the crop that doesn't make it to coca cola being used in drug production? If the fields and crops are actually secured and well managed then why can't this be done for anyone else besides coca cola?

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

Did you read them? In most of them, they tell a difference between DUI and DWI. CA only has DUI, BAC under .08 is not intoxication by the very definition of DUI - Driving under the Influence.

Talk to me again once you've read the links.

It is important to note that if a person’s BAC is less than .08%, they can still be charged with section 23152(a) of the California vehicle code because even though the person’s BAC level was below the legal limit

Is that big enough for you to read?

In most of them they tell a difference between DUI and DWI? Can you count or read? Only two of the links even try to differentiate between DUI and DWI. How is 2 out of 5 "most of them?" And even those two are irrelevant unless you're talking about minors.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, then please refrain from spewing out BS. Now talk to me once you've learned to read.

 

[Darky]

In most if not all states (including California), it's the impairment (which is determined by SFST's) that matters, not BAC. Except in the case of the charge called "driving with excessive BAC" (or something similar) which only requires a BAC of .08 or higher. Also, in most places the term DWI has been replaced be the term DUI and the statute covers both driving under the influence of alcohol as well as drugs.

I'm not sure where you got the whole .04 being DUI and .08 being DWI thing :dunno:

There is no mention of any charge with a name even remotely close to "driving with excessive BAC". Your favorite quote from CVC 23152(a) does indeed pertain to driving under the influence. It does not mean intoxicated. Section (b) of that same code applies directly to BAC. If you blow .08 or higher, you will be charged under both codes, .08 or lower only gets the first one, but you have to fail the test. By the way, the proper term for what you attempted to say there is the "per se".

The person is also in violation of vehicle code 23152(b); which states that it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or greater. A person arrested for drunk driving will be charged on both counts, 23152(a) driving under the influence and 23152(b) California ‘per se’ law.

That's the line directly ahead of what you keep quoting. And even then, CA is the only one that I looked at at all that would appear aggressive about prosecuting BAC's under .08. Texas makes mention of it, but refer to it as being "under certain circumstances. NY and AZ make no mention of BAC's under .08 unless you're a minor. NY's law has apparently changed since I lived there, they used to differentiate DUI and DWI.

One last thing here, I never said anything about .04 vs .08. One of the state's DUI/DWI laws does however, referring to the lowered standard for commercial drivers.

Is that big enough for you to read?

In most of them they tell a difference between DUI and DWI? Can you count or read? Only two of the links even try to differentiate between DUI and DWI. How is 2 out of 5 "most of them?" And even those two are irrelevant unless you're talking about minors.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, then please refrain from spewing out BS. Now talk to me once you've learned to read.

Repeatedly quoting one line, out of context, that seems to support your argument does not a convincing argument make.

A DUI:
In definition a DUI is “Driving Under the Influence”. This means that you are breathing a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) of 0.08% or under. From state to state there are different acronyms that are going to have different meanings to this. A DUI is basically a charge that you are not capable of driving your car. Police are going to give you a ticket and you are going to appear in court. You are also going to have to get your car impounded as well.
A DWI:
In definition a DWI is “Driving While Intoxicated”. This means that you are intoxicated from any type of alcohol. This is when you have a BAC of 0.08% or higher. You are going to have a heftier charge on you and possibly you’re going to have to serve some jail time. It varies on the state that you are in. Some states don’t differentiate from the two and you are going to have to pay a big fine and spend time in jail. In Minnesota, this is the case.

http://www.lawadvicenow.com/law/traffic-law/the-difference-between-a-dui-vs-dwi/
And really, I can't decide if you're just trolling or if you really do think you're right. Either way, I have nothing better to do. :cheers:

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

There is no mention of any charge with a name even remotely close to "driving with excessive BAC".

By the way, the proper term for what you attempted to say there is the "per se".

California Vehicle Code 23152b VC - Driving with Excessive BAC

California drunk driving law provides for two DUI offenses: (1) Vehicle Code 23152a VC, driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and (2) Vehicle Code 23152b, driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher

:doh: No, I think that proper term for what you're doing is "talking about things that you have no clue about."

Your favorite quote from CVC 23152(a) does indeed pertain to driving under the influence. It does not mean intoxicated

There is no legal differentiation for adults between "intoxicated" and "under the influence." "Under the influence refers to alcohol or drugs whereas intoxicated obviously only refers to alcohol. Which is why many states have simply condensed it down to "DUI."

And really, I can't decide if you're just trolling or if you really do think you're right. Either way, I have nothing better to do. :cheers:

I am right. What makes you think you have any kind of knowledge about the law anyways? Cause you're not very good at it.

 

[Darky]

There is no legal differentiation for adults between "intoxicated" and "under the influence."

Section a specifically refers to being under the influence, below .08 BAC. It also carries a lesser charge than section B, which refers to actual intoxication, or being over .08 BAC.

However, we both are way off topic, so, if you would like to continue back channel, we can, but neither of us is really making much headway on the other...

 

[ocean_jet]

I sat on a jury for a "dui" case.

There were two laws the suspect was being accused of breaking:

1 - Operating a vehicle while BAC over legal limit of .08.

2 - Operating vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.


The judge instructed us that he was guilty of the first if the jury found he was driving while BAC was over 0.08. Further, he instructred us that BAC doesn't not come in to play when assessing #2.

He instructed that #2 referred to being a danger on the road, regardless of BAC level. You could be quilty of #2 with a BAC of .04 if you were acting dangerously and driving like you were impaired, or "under the influence" (i.e. failed filed sobriety test). Further, if the BAC was .09, you could be not-guilty of #2 if you were driving safely and not exhibiting behavior of "under the influence".

That was about 6 years ago or more, so things may have changed.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

You have it exactly right.

 

[iwannadie]

I am still confused on the DUI and DWI laws lol, I avoid it all by not having any booze at all and getting behind the wheel. I know some people that have a whole equation that they go by, "Oh I had 1 beer then I had food, then I had 3 more beers and waited 23 minutes then I pissed so I was able to drive safely."

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

This is way off topic but you're right, lots of people are confused about DUI laws. Just as much as they're confused about how much they can drink and not be "impaired." Hell, according to various charts (including those given out by law enforcement) based on my body weight, I can get by with anywhere from 2-6 beers/hour and be under .08. The funny part is that it was the chart produced for law enforcement to give out to the public that was most liberal, saying that I could drink 6 beers in an hour and not be above .08. Put on your tinfoil hats folks :laugh2:

I think that everyone should have access to a PBT or a breath test at some point in time and drink till they're at .08 just to know what .08 feels like. Not that that's a smart way to go about drinking and driving, I don't drive if I don't feel like I'm capable of driving safely. Which in my case may very well be below .08 (what can I say, I'm a cheap date )