View Full Version : So 64 just got signed
Punkface
12-10-2012, 14:33
http://kdvr.com/2012/12/10/governor-signs-amendment-64-marijuana-officially-legal-in-colorado/
That said, the release went on to say that that it is still illegal to buy or sell marijuana or to consume marijuana in public.
SuperiorDG
12-10-2012, 14:41
http://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/hickenlooper.jpg?w=432&h=288
Priceless.[rockon]
MATT02GT
12-10-2012, 14:42
So if its legal... Are jobs still going to test for it? Itll be intersting to see how it all plays out in a year from now. Maybe youll be able to get your Great Value weed from walmart soon.
CrufflerSteve
12-10-2012, 14:43
Damn! Too late to save the Twinkie.
newracer
12-10-2012, 15:05
So if its legal... Are jobs still going to test for it? Itll be intersting to see how it all plays out in a year from now. Maybe youll be able to get your Great Value weed from walmart soon.
It has nothing to do with condition of employment, you can still get fired for testing positive. Especially if a company does any work on federally funded jobs.
So if its legal... Are jobs still going to test for it? Itll be intersting to see how it all plays out in a year from now. Maybe youll be able to get your Great Value weed from walmart soon.
from a local business "The drugs we have on premises are regulated by federal law. We follow federal law regarding employee drug use."
I'm of the opinion that what you do outside work should not a factor in employment (in the general case). The second it affects your performace though...
Zundfolge
12-10-2012, 15:32
It's still against federal law. Which means it's incredibly stupid for anyone to engage in the business of growing or selling "Colorado Legal" Marijuana (even MMJ).
All the feds have to do is sit around and wait for a few pot dealers to get rich and they can swoop in and take ALL THEIR STUFF. Homes, cars, furniture, bank accounts, EVERYTHING under Federal asset forfeiture laws.
Should be fun to watch.
speedysst
12-10-2012, 15:55
Don't you all understand? This is all for the children since all this tax money will help pay for schools right?
tmjohnson
12-10-2012, 16:06
What will this do for law enforcement officers. If someone is trafficking drugs, won't they just say that I have a legal amount and you can't search my vehicle?
It's about time it was legalized. I won't use it but I've met enough folks who have to know it isn't that big a deal compared to street drugs, and apparently it will grow anywhere so it seems pointless to clog up the courts and jails over this. Doesn't seem to be a problem in Colorado, but in other states police have been known to kick in people's doors without a warrant because they thought they smelled weed when they were walking past. Personally, I think giving the police the power to kick in doors because they smell weed is a lot scarier than some potheads moving in next door.
My main reason to back this is the textile and industrial uses for cannabis. It's way better than using wood pulp for paper, and it makes really good rope... As soon as that gets legitimatized we're back to being a leader in exporting.
Pancho Villa
12-10-2012, 16:45
Ronin, curious - I've heard that before, and I also heard that the old textile industries were really big behind the push to get marijuana illegalized. Any truth to that?
Rooskibar03
12-10-2012, 16:49
Ronin, curious - I've heard that before, and I also heard that the old textile industries were really big behind the push to get marijuana illegalized. Any truth to that?
From the Internet, so it must be true.
A fresh, federally-funded wave of marijuana prohibition began in 1930 with founding of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, headed by Harry J. Anslinger, nephew to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Mellon, one of the richest men in the nation, was an investor in DuPont Chemical. DuPont was then developing and patenting a variety of chemicals, including new gasoline additives threatened by hemp-based materials being pursued by Henry Ford. At the same time, newspaper titan William Randolph Hearst realized hemp paper threatened his own business interests, like a logging company that sold product to DuPont, a huge advertiser in his papers.
this bill doesn't address commercial hemp production
Ronin, curious - I've heard that before, and I also heard that the old textile industries were really big behind the push to get marijuana illegalized. Any truth to that?
I've heard that, but not sure on the facts behind it at all. Some pro-MJ conspiracy folk think that's exactly what happened, they claim it was mostly the paper industry that pushed for the prohibition of MJ (something like cannabis is 300% more efficient for producing paper).
Oh here is a pretty good video that goes into the truth about our green plant that just got the CO seal of approval:
Dv4x2pRMamE
bigmyk2k
12-10-2012, 17:24
Personally, I think giving the police the power to kick in doors because they smell weed is a lot scarier than some potheads moving in next door.
I Definitely don't disagree with that point. However, I still didn't vote for 64. I do think that this needs to be a state issue- along with damn near everything else- and the more push from individual states to legalize, the more pressure it would put on the feds to admit that they shouldn't have that power. However, it would take a caveat making it a felony to provide to minors (either actively or by negligence) to get me to actively support this.
If you are of the age of consent, f yourself however you want. However, let the future generations make that decision when they have the knowledge and experience to do so, and not before.
I voted in favor of it to hopefully force a showdown between states and the federal government.
BushMasterBoy
12-10-2012, 17:56
Q: How many potheads does it take to change a lightbulb.
A: Screw it, we got lighters
Q. How long does it take before a pound of weed goes bad?
A. I don't know! I've never had it longer than an hour!
Q: How do you hide pot from a hippie?
A: Put it in his work boots.
Q: What do you called a doped-up Pikachu?
A: Tokemon!
Q: What is the difference between politicians and stoners ?
A: Politicians don't inhale...they just suck.
Q. What do you call a stoner that just broke up with his girlfriend?
A. Homeless.
centrarchidae
12-10-2012, 20:02
What will this do for law enforcement officers. If someone is trafficking drugs, won't they just say that I have a legal amount and you can't search my vehicle?
Probably not that big a change. Consent to search, and the law about searches where a person did not consent, haven't changed.
About the only change here that I can see is, drug dogs don't distinguish between one drug smell and another when they alert. The alert signal is the same no matter the drug. Which means, if MJ is one of the smells on which the dog is trained, then that dog's alerts suddenly became a lot less admissible.
Great-Kazoo
12-10-2012, 20:28
I've heard that, but not sure on the facts behind it at all. Some pro-MJ conspiracy folk think that's exactly what happened, they claim it was mostly the paper industry that pushed for the prohibition of MJ (something like cannabis is 300% more efficient for producing paper).
W.R. Hearst was a major financier involved in the move to criminalize hemp. His investments in logging-newspapers was threatened by the quick to grow and produce plant. Unlike deforestation which took years to bring back, hemp was able to re-grow within months of being cultivated.
There was also another movement in the mid 40's regarding people of color and their desire to rape "white women" while under the influence. Mass hysteria and blatant lies, combined with white America's "fear" of blacks did nothing to dispel the myth. Similar to some erroneous firearm laws prohibiting blacks from possession, combined with less than tolerant whites [KKK]in the south being shot at, by those who had issues with neck tie parties after dark.
jerrymrc
12-10-2012, 20:38
I am one of those old guys that looks at the cost of this "war on drugs" as it applies to Marijuana in both $$ and lives ruined because of the increased penlites and voted yes.
As to the law and employers it is one of those things that is up to the employer. You want the job then do not come up hot on a test. Just like not coming to work with alcohol in your system they can require you to not have THC in your system. I understand all about how it stays x-number of days and one may not be stoned but again their rules.
There are even places that will not hire you if you have nicotine in your system and it is legal but if ya want the job you have to play by there rules. I myself do not and being a federal worker and a Medical worker have never thought about it but for those that are in a position to and want to I say what the hell.
Although driving and smoking do not mix in recent memory I have seen many stories about how someone got drunk and beat the wife/husband/kids/dog or challenged the cops to a fight. I can't remember the last time I saw the news story "Man Smokes Pot and goes on rampage"
Just a thought from some old guy. [Coffee]
Great-Kazoo
12-10-2012, 20:41
I am one of those old guys that looks at the cost of this "war on drugs" as it applies to Marijuana in both $$ and lives ruined because of the increased penlites and voted yes.
As to the law and employers it is one of those things that is up to the employer. You want the job then do not come up hot on a test. Just like not coming to work with alcohol in your system they can require you to not have THC in your system. I understand all about how it stays x-number of days and one may not be stoned but again their rules.
There are even places that will not hire you if you have nicotine in your system and it is legal but if ya want the job you have to play by there rules. I myself do not and being a federal worker and a Medical worker have never thought about it but for those that are in a position to and want to I say what the hell.
Although driving and smoking do not mix in recent memory I have seen many stories about how someone got drunk and beat the wife/husband/kids/dog or challenged the cops to a fight. I can't remember the last time I saw the news story "Man Smokes Pot and goes on rampage"
Just a thought from some old guy. [Coffee]
GET OFF MY PLANTS
Every time a CO legal outfit is busted by the Feds, the Feds should also follow the tax money from said legal outfit and door kick the local schools to seize the equivalent amount of assets. It's only fair.
Nothing good will come of 64. Good vid Ronin thanks for posting that.
W.R. Hearst was a major financier involved in the move to criminalize hemp. His investments in logging-newspapers was threatened by the quick to grow and produce plant. Unlike deforestation which took years to bring back, hemp was able to re-grow within months of being cultivated.
There was also another movement in the mid 40's regarding people of color and their desire to rape "white women" while under the influence. Mass hysteria and blatant lies, combined with white America's "fear" of blacks did nothing to dispel the myth. Similar to some erroneous firearm laws prohibiting blacks from possession, combined with less than tolerant whites [KKK]in the south being shot at, by those who had issues with neck tie parties after dark.
Good job bringing up Hearst. He was diabolical. Everyone should see Citizen Cane.
jerrymrc
12-10-2012, 21:54
GET OFF MY PLANTS
You better have an M1 to say that. [LOL]And I thought ya drove a Yugo not a 73 ford. [hahhah-no] [mop]
Great-Kazoo
12-11-2012, 00:59
You better have an M1 to say that. [LOL]And I thought ya drove a Yugo not a 73 ford. [hahhah-no] [mop]
nissan versa. and a FNC.
This whole thing is foolish. I hope the Feds come in and regulate.
Great-Kazoo
12-11-2012, 01:17
This whole thing is foolish. I hope the Feds come in and regulate.
There are people who feel the same way about guns.
There are people who feel the same way about guns.
Well luckily for us guns are ok on both levels while mj is not. This law is like your mom telling you it's ok to do something yet your dad would beat your ass for it. No business, bank or school is going to risk prosecution by the Feds. Here you have something that is legal yet on the other hand other than growing your own product, there is no legal way of obtaining it. You can get fired for using it. That's why this law is pointless and foolish.
This whole thing is foolish. I hope the Feds come in and regulate.
Yeah, we need more senseless regulation, not less. As Americans we need the government to tell us how to live our lives because we are not capable of making decisions for ourselves.
MATT02GT
12-11-2012, 02:00
Its a step towards national legalization of it and imo, itll get there one day. Like its been said before, there are too many petty cases tying up cops, courts, jails, etc for weed. Also, besides recreational use, there are many uses for mj/hemp and proven medical uses for it. Hell, if it was legal and regualted in every state with its many different uses, that sure could stimulate the economy in many ways. The big hold up I see is something that can test real time like a dui test can do.I voted yes and hope to see progress with it becoming totally legal, and I can also pass a piss test btw.
Yeah, we need more senseless regulation, not less. As Americans we need the government to tell us how to live our lives because we are not capable of making decisions for ourselves.
Oh did the Feds just pass a law outlawing mj, therefore adding more "senseless" regulation? We live in a nation of laws. If you want to live somewhere without laws, you are free to do so. Your utopia where you just run around and do whatever the fuck you want and nobody can tell anybody isn't practical.
Oh did the Feds just pass a law outlawing mj, therefore adding more "senseless" regulation? We live in a nation of laws. If you want to live somewhere without laws, you are free to do so. Your utopia where you just run around and do whatever the fuck you want and nobody can tell anybody isn't practical.
I think my point is that we need less laws and more personal responsibility. Laws should only exist to protect people from others, not to protect people from themselves. But I guess you need the gov to tell you what's best for you.
centrarchidae
12-11-2012, 04:37
This whole thing is foolish. I hope the Feds come in and regulate.
What Federal regulations will make this better?
This whole thing is foolish. I hope the Feds come in and regulate.
that's what we need since the feds do such a great job with everything else......
Kraven251
12-11-2012, 08:15
I have always been on the side of legalize. People are going to sell it, people are going to use it. This should help prevent folks from getting something laced with other narcotics etc. I have never heard of anyone ever OD'ing on pot. Beyond that there is the side revenue, with the hemp industry. Hardest thing that hit the hemp industry was all of the federalbureaucracy about growing the plants, granted a majority of the seeds used to grow industrial hemp would probably suffocate you by the time you imbibed enough to get a buzz the same as drinking a beer. The fact remained though that it was still heavily monitored regulated etc. This would potentially make hemp fiber more readily available.
I don't care for drugs and don't use them, but if the government is going to tax everything else, why not tax this. Also, when they say all this money from drugs is being used to fund terrorism etc. legalize it, let it be home grown, and keep the money in our economy. The DEA is still going to be plenty busy as is the IRS, but now they can focus more on the external and worry less about busting some idiot college kid who got stoned in his dorm room. (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=HA7&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1&q=bureaucracy&sa=X&ei=QD7HUNr2AaXWygGUmoCgCg&ved=0CDAQBSgA&biw=1614&bih=839)
You guys need to light up and calm down. Anyone got any snacks? [ROFL2][ROFL2][ROFL3][ROFL3]
Great-Kazoo
12-11-2012, 08:36
I have always been on the side of legalize. People are going to sell it, people are going to use it. This should help prevent folks from getting something laced with other narcotics etc. I have never heard of anyone ever OD'ing on pot. Beyond that there is the side revenue, with the hemp industry. Hardest thing that hit the hemp industry was all of the federalbureaucracy about growing the plants, granted a majority of the seeds used to grow industrial hemp would probably suffocate you by the time you imbibed enough to get a buzz the same as drinking a beer. The fact remained though that it was still heavily monitored regulated etc. This would potentially make hemp fiber more readily available.
I don't care for drugs and don't use them, but if the government is going to tax everything else, why not tax this. Also, when they say all this money from drugs is being used to fund terrorism etc. legalize it, let it be home grown, and keep the money in our economy. The DEA is still going to be plenty busy as is the IRS, but now they can focus more on the external and worry less about busting some idiot college kid who got stoned in his dorm room.
Locally it is. The feds could decrease debt by X amount over say 1 year. As an example. In this town we had 3 dispensaries up and running. The town released figures of 2nd quarter revenue after they were up and running. 3 dispensaries paid to the town $165K in taxes! One quarter tax revue if you went on the low side of say $1K per Q that's still $400K annually, $400K! SO What does the city do? Allows a petition to outlaw them on the ballot. Who voted for it, drinkers and fear mongers. After the election, we lost approx $400 in taxes annually, Way to go. Ft. Collins during the first ban not only lost tax revenue, the number of now vacant business didn't help anyone let alone the owners. Even worse the same place the anti-weed proponents wanted to keep weed out of, neighborhoods, was now the only place licensed growers were allowed to sell out of.
Decriminalize it and deal with more serious crimes. whats that saying? YMMV
Smoke a Joint Go to jail
Molest a kid, Out on Bail
palepainter
12-11-2012, 09:03
I think this is going to play out poorly on the Libs in this state that put the Dictator in office. They are going to come down on CO like they did in AZ. This is going to create some perplexing reactions by the Libs that made it all possible.
I personally think too much time is spent on a plant that most people can do without or use leisurely with no issues. It should be handled like alcohol. Like Jim mentioned, the revenue could be good.
Ok, yesterday I gave my pro argument for 64, now for the con... The #1 problem I have with MJ is that there doesn't exist any way to immediately prove intoxication. Look at the PBT, they can tell, without a warrant or anything, if you're too drunk to drive in a single (long) breath. The only way to tell if someone has used MJ (from an LE standpoint) is a blood test, and without consent that requires a warrant. Even then, they cannot tell the level of intoxication or even how long ago you used. I can't get behind legalization until they can prove someone is driving under the influence (which some say is potentially worse than drunk driving).
The #1 problem I have with MJ is that there doesn't exist any way to immediately prove intoxication. Look at the PBT, they can tell, without a warrant or anything, if you're too drunk to drive in a single (long) breath. The only way to tell if someone has used MJ (from an LE standpoint) is a blood test, and without consent that requires a warrant. Even then, they cannot tell the level of intoxication or even how long ago you used. I can't get behind legalization until they can prove someone is driving under the influence (which some say is potentially worse than drunk driving).
The #1 problem I have with guns is there isn't currently a way to 100% track who has them as there isn't a comprehensive registration database. Look at automobiles, they can tell by the license tag exactly who owns that vehicle and where they live. The only way to tell if someone has a gun is if they A) disclose that information to you, or B) you get a warrant to obtain that information from them, and even then, they might not divulge that information honestly. I cannot get behind legalization of firearms until they can devise a database that lists firearms owners, what they own, and where they live (afterall, firearms are potentially worse that automobiles).
(disclaimer: I do not use marijuana in any form)
Right on Hatidua, that plant and the business it creates has kept my security business alive through these tough times. I've seen electricians, plummers get work and real estate that has been vacant sell. It is already better than before and the opposition to its progress is literaly dying off. I cant wait till everyone in congress has played Grand Theft Auto 3.
The #1 problem I have with guns is there isn't currently a way to 100% track who has them as there isn't a comprehensive registration database. Look at automobiles, they can tell by the license tag exactly who owns that vehicle and where they live. The only way to tell if someone has a gun is if they A) disclose that information to you, or B) you get a warrant to obtain that information from them, and even then, they might not divulge that information honestly. I cannot get behind legalization of firearms until they can devise a database that lists firearms owners, what they own, and where they live (afterall, firearms are potentially worse that automobiles).
(disclaimer: I do not use marijuana in any form)
HUH? I'm talking about driving under the influence, since science (ah our old friend) has proven that marijuana affects one's ability to operate a vehicle. There is no amendment to the US Constitution that says driving is a right not to be infringed in any way.
OneGuy67
12-11-2012, 11:41
Ok, yesterday I gave my pro argument for 64, now for the con... The #1 problem I have with MJ is that there doesn't exist any way to immediately prove intoxication. Look at the PBT, they can tell, without a warrant or anything, if you're too drunk to drive in a single (long) breath. The only way to tell if someone has used MJ (from an LE standpoint) is a blood test, and without consent that requires a warrant. Even then, they cannot tell the level of intoxication or even how long ago you used. I can't get behind legalization until they can prove someone is driving under the influence (which some say is potentially worse than drunk driving).
Actually, you can do roadside maneuvers for MJ intoxication and there are indicators for it. However, it does require an arrest and consent to a blood test in the minimum, and a DRE (Drug Recogntion Expert) evaluation and blood test at the maximum. Given there are so few DRE certified officers in Colorado, the easiest way would be to train officers to look for the indicia and upon a probable cause arrest, request a blood test.
Actually, you can do roadside maneuvers for MJ intoxication and there are indicators for it. However, it does require an arrest and consent to a blood test in the minimum, and a DRE (Drug Recogntion Expert) evaluation and blood test at the maximum. Given there are so few DRE certified officers in Colorado, the easiest way would be to train officers to look for the indicia and upon a probable cause arrest, request a blood test.
So there is a way to prove someone is driving under the influence and follow up with charges? But isn't it pretty tough to prove?
HUH? I'm talking about driving under the influence
Simple analogies designed to highlight your level of hypocrisy fly cleanly over your head.
Simple analogies designed to highlight your level of hypocrisy fly cleanly over your head.
Really? Hypocrisy...? I'm talking about driving stoned, which as of right now is illegal, you use some word replacement to *try* to compare my example to guns (stretch, hope you didn't pull anything). I don't see how it's hypocritical, and by me failing to see the connection you'll probably claim that "that flew over my head too," but it's plainly obvious your reaching is an attempt to belittle my argument. Oh, sorry, I just realized you live in Boulder, so the 2nd hand smoke has probably already affected your brain beyond repair. I was simply stating that without a quick, effective, and accurate way to test for the level of intoxication of MJ WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE such as a breathalyzer, I cannot support any legislation that decriminalizes MJ. But you go ahead an compare apples to oranges and think it makes sense.
I don't want the Feds telling ME what I can and can not do.....I want them to tell HIM what he can't do....Talk about your flip floppers You can't have it both ways you know? Otherwise you might get called the H word.
OneGuy67
12-11-2012, 12:55
So there is a way to prove someone is driving under the influence and follow up with charges? But isn't it pretty tough to prove?
Yes. The legislative argument is what is going to be the defined limits of intoxication. You can drive with alcohol in your system and be under the legal defined limit. Right now, there is no legal defined limit for THC, so the prosecution hinges on officer observations and the proof, if you will, comes from the blood results. Failure to comply with the expressed consent law causes an administrative penalty of losing your license to drive for one year as well as the criminal prosecution in court. No test doesn't mean no prosecution; just a harder time in the prosecution.
soldier-of-the-apocalypse
12-11-2012, 13:23
yes it makes the best organic rope known to man and they made it legal during ww2 just for this reason, hep products were used through out the war and then made illegal again cause they thought it would make all the GI's lazy. it was originally made illeagal in the 30's because all the white folks thought all the darkies were getting high and raping all our white women .
here is some history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Cri minalization_.281900s.29
soldier-of-the-apocalypse
12-11-2012, 13:25
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Producer_of_marihuana.jpg/300px-Producer_of_marihuana.jpg
Great-Kazoo
12-11-2012, 14:38
So there is a way to prove someone is driving under the influence and follow up with charges? But isn't it pretty tough to prove?
REM. dead give away.
REM. dead give away.
REM as in the band, or Rapid Eye Movement, or...?
REM as in the band, or Rapid Eye Movement, or...?
Just quit breathing.
clublights
12-11-2012, 15:25
Yes. The legislative argument is what is going to be the defined limits of intoxication. You can drive with alcohol in your system and be under the legal defined limit. Right now, there is no legal defined limit for THC, so the prosecution hinges on officer observations and the proof, if you will, comes from the blood results. Failure to comply with the expressed consent law causes an administrative penalty of losing your license to drive for one year as well as the criminal prosecution in court. No test doesn't mean no prosecution; just a harder time in the prosecution.
Not Correct ???
I thought ?
What is this I hear about 5 micrograms ?
clublights
12-11-2012, 15:26
REM as in the band, or Rapid Eye Movement, or...?
Just quit breathing.
No no It's a fair question
If your listening to REM ( the band) there is a good chance your too stoned to reach the radio dial !! [ROFL3]
Just quit breathing.
For requesting a little clarity? Someone should probably go troll E. Colfax- you might need a little more than a hug.
ETA:
No no It's a fair question
If your listening to REM ( the band) there is a good chance your too stoned to reach the radio dial !! [ROFL3]
That's why I said it... didn't know if Jim was joking like "Only someone stoned would have REM on their radio..."
I don't think it's a matter of too stoned to reach the dial, I think it's a matter of only someone stoned would willingly listen to REM... [Coffee]
OneGuy67
12-11-2012, 15:45
Not Correct ???
I thought ?
What is this I hear about 5 micrograms ?
5 nanograms is the limit that Representative King wants to put in place as a minimum level of THC intoxication to be charged with DUI/D. It is the intoxication level that other states have enacted. However, the pro pot community does not want this level as they argue you can have this amount in your system and not be what they consider to be under the influence.
clublights
12-11-2012, 15:53
5 nanograms is the limit that Representative King wants to put in place as a minimum level of THC intoxication to be charged with DUI/D. It is the intoxication level that other states have enacted. However, the pro pot community does not want this level as they argue you can have this amount in your system and not be what they consider to be under the influence.
yes I meant nanograms LOL
the way I've heard it reported I thought it was already the standard... my bad
Yeah I understand that pro pot community didn't like the 5 nanograms as it can just be residual. and picking a "standard" is tough.... I personally believe that .08 is not exactly fair for all folks and all body types but it is what the law is .
We need to come up with a standard that is fair to the people and LE
I also understand that we need to come up with a roadside instant test ...
5 nanograms is the limit that Representative King wants to put in place as a minimum level of THC intoxication to be charged with DUI/D. It is the intoxication level that other states have enacted. However, the pro pot community does not want this level as they argue you can have this amount in your system and not be what they consider to be under the influence.
Again, this is why it's too slippery-slope... THC stays in the system much longer than the effects, plus it's not like alcohol where you can have a beer, wait and then drive safely an hour later. You smoke, there is no slightly high, moderately high, really high... you're high or you're not high.
bigmyk2k
12-11-2012, 16:23
I have always been on the side of legalize. People are going to sell it, people are going to use it.
I have heard this argument from those arguing to legalize for years, and it has never held water. Not saying legalization is the wrong thing, just that it is a terrible argument.
Let's try a few word substitutions:
Why is murder illegal? People kill people all the time anyway! Just make it legal, and you won't have all those people going to prison.
Why is drunk-driving illegal? People drive drunk all the time anyway! Just make it legal, and you won't have all those people going to prison.
Why is stealing illegal? People steal stuff all the time anyway! Just make it legal, and you won't have all those hungry people going to prison.
Why is coke/heroine/crack illegal? People snort/shoot-up all the time anyway! Just make it legal, and you won't have all those people going to prison. (these get closer to the line, as it is harder to define any victim other than the user, but believe me, they're out there)
Rape
Child Molestation
Kidnapping
Don't get me wrong, I all for freedom and deregulation. However, there are some things that are inherently morally reprehensible, and should not be tolerated in any amount.
Zundfolge
12-11-2012, 16:40
There are two kinds of limits on our liberties under the law.
Malum In Se and Malum Prohibitum
Actions and things that are Malum In Se are illegal because they are inherently wrong, evil or infringe on the rights of your fellow citizens (in other words "wrong in and of themselves).
Actions and things that are Malum Prohibitum are illegal simply because they have been made illegal (in other words wrong because somebody said so).
It would seem to me that a system of laws grounded in individual liberty and constituted under the precept that we are ruled by laws and not by men would be primarily (almost exclusively) on Malum In Se with little to no Malum Prohibitum laws allowed.
So I'd say that anyone that smokes pot is an idjut, but there is nothing inherently evil about it (providing it to children and driving under the influence notwithstanding).
bigmyk2k
12-11-2012, 16:47
providing it to children and driving under the influence notwithstanding.
I fully, and heartily, agree.
Who is to judge what is evil or inherently wrong?
I have heard this argument from those arguing to legalize for years, and it has never held water. Not saying legalization is the wrong thing, just that it is a terrible argument.
You know the other argument I've heard that is just flat out wrong? "It's harmless." Or "It's not as bad as alcohol." This is just flat out lies, and it's another terrible argument.
Scientific studies (although dampened by federal law) have concluded that smoked marijuana contains 3x the tar found in tobacco, 50% more carcinogens... so the common argument that smoking cigarettes is worse is also false.
Here are some neat facts I was able to dig up from multiple peer-reviewed sources:
The short-term effects of marijuana include:
Distorted Perception(sights, sounds, time, touch)
Problems with memory and learning
Loss of coordination
Trouble with thinking and problem-sovling
Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure
Sometimes marijuana use can also produce anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.
Effects on the BrainThe active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms:
Hallucinations
Delusions
Impaired memory
Disorientation
Effects on the HeartWithin a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana, compared to their general risk of heart attack when not smoking.
Other Health EffectsResearch indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors.Effects of Exposure During PregnancySeveral studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development. According to those studies, prenatal marijuana exposure can cause:
Altered responses to visual stimuli
Increased tremulousness
Problems with sustained attention and memory
Poor problem-sovling skills
While I'm thinking about it, since this is such a cash cow and a revenue generator, where exactly can one buy pot currently that is taxed? (People without a medical card)
Zundfolge
12-11-2012, 17:28
Who is to judge what is evil or inherently wrong?
Back when we were a people rooted in common sense and not mired in political correctness and critical theory nobody needed a third party to judge what was evil or inherently wrong.
But if you want a simple, non-religion based answer just use the Non-Aggression Principle (http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression). Or even simpler The Golden Rule.
Either would be better than the arbitrary rule of men writing Malum Prohibitum laws willy nilly.
jerrymrc
12-11-2012, 17:39
Memories...
http://youtu.be/g_mC6EZ8Jpk
OneGuy67
12-11-2012, 17:40
While I'm thinking about it, since this is such a cash cow and a revenue generator, where exactly can one buy pot currently that is taxed? (People without a medical card)
Currently, you cannot and nothing will be in place until October 2013 or possibly later to establish such a place.
You smoke, there is no slightly high, moderately high, really high... you're high or you're not high.
um that's not how tha reefer works bro.....my aunt can take a puff or 2 in the morning to quell her MS and not be all loopy then at night she will smoke a whole joint and goto sleep
Great-Kazoo
12-11-2012, 19:44
um that's not how tha reefer works bro.....my aunt can take a puff or 2 in the morning to quell her MS and not be all loopy then at night she will smoke a whole joint and goto sleep
Leave logic & reasoning out of any discussion that involves MJ. Those who oppose it's use, decriminalization etc, will or may not change their mind. I have known and know, hard core anti-mj people who after dealing with cancer and the treatments that followed, had a change of mind / heart.
Realistically there is a group of dopers who want to be able to smoke, ingest pot any time they feel like without any form of repercussion. They don't care as long as then can "toke up".
On the flip side there are people who found through friends, family, strangers, ingesting or smoking pot has helped them deal with anxiety, trauma, cancer.
We also have the INDUSTRIAL side of HEMP, which BTW has little if any THC properties. Shoes, clothing, paper goods etc can be mfg from Hemp. This allows a sustainable supply of raw material other than Trees, to mfg items with. Hemp has such a quick turn around time for regrowth vs. trees it's literally a cash cow for manufacturing.
newracer
12-11-2012, 19:48
We also have the INDUSTRIAL side of HEMP, which BTW has little if any THC properties. Shoes, clothing, paper goods etc can be mfg from Hemp. This allows a sustainable supply of raw material other than Trees, to mfg items with. Hemp has such a quick turn around time for regrowth vs. trees it's literally a cash cow for manufacturing.
This is what we really need.
Great-Kazoo
12-11-2012, 19:52
This is what we really need.
Yes we do. Unfortunately the anti MJ crowd lumps HEMP (mfg) in with the smokers crowd and time & time again gets shot down as a viable crop. Imaging the tobacco farmer who shit canned nicotine for hemp. Better return on investment, faster turn around time between harvest, AND it's literally a WEED, hell any road in NE has this crap growing in the ditches. BUT NOOOOOOO.
You smoke, there is no slightly high, moderately high, really high... you're high or you're not high.
You can't say something like this, and not expect to completely invalidate every other thing you've said in this thread. Please expand on this comment you've made here. What is your personal experience? Can you provided data from ANYWHERE that even comes close to supporting this statement?
Yes we do. Unfortunately the anti MJ crowd lumps HEMP (mfg) in with the smokers crowd and time & time again gets shot down as a viable crop. Imaging the tobacco farmer who shit canned nicotine for hemp. Better return on investment, faster turn around time between harvest, AND it's literally a WEED, hell any road in NE has this crap growing in the ditches. BUT NOOOOOOO.
There are currently people growing marijuana with as LITTLE THC as possible. The article I heard about this particular growing method, is that while THC gets you high, it is not necessarily responsible for the other medical benefits that are often praised about marijuana. Basically, not everyone who is helped by marijuana, for whatever reason, likes/wants the "high" that comes with the THC, but would still benefit without the THC.
soldier-of-the-apocalypse
12-12-2012, 01:05
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/74995-So-64-just-got-signed/images/tf_ideal/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Ronin13 http://www.ar-15.co/threads/74995-So-64-just-got-signed/images/tf_ideal/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ar-15.co/threads/74995-So-64-just-got-signed/showthread.php?p=775771#post775771)
You smoke, there is no slightly high, moderately high, really high... you're high or you're not high.
I have to say that is a pretty dumb statement, its like saying drinking one pbr is the same as a 5th of jac. The only difference is when you smoke a oz of weed you just fall asleep, when you drink a 5th of jack you get alcohol poisening and you die.
MATT02GT
12-12-2012, 04:56
^+1.... do a lil self research and get back to us.. I agree some people need to take a hit a chill the F out, its really not this super gateway, life ruining, cant do anything, youll never amount to anything drug. Hell, I catch more of a buzz inhaling some ciggs, and those are perfectly legal including the chemical additives.
You can't say something like this, and not expect to completely invalidate every other thing you've said in this thread. Please expand on this comment you've made here. What is your personal experience? Can you provided data from ANYWHERE that even comes close to supporting this statement?
I meant like in terms of comparing to BAC... Aside from nanograms etc. due to prohibition there is no way to level "high", such as with alcohol you have buzzed, drunk, stupor, dead, etc. From personal experience, when I did smoke way back when, I was a lightweight, one hit and I was high... so some bias there, but I quantify it as there is no low level high or really high in my book, just high- until a better system can replace my opinion that is. I'm always up for learning new things, though.
I have to say that is a pretty dumb statement, its like saying drinking one pbr is the same as a 5th of jac. The only difference is when you smoke a oz of weed you just fall asleep, when you drink a 5th of jack you get alcohol poisening and you die.
As I stated previously, there actually is no comparative argument with MJ intoxication and alcohol intoxication... at least that I know of. Talking in terms of how much intake, you can't compare the effects to equate to the leveling of effects with alcohol intake.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.