Some interesting articles

The_Kid

Whats your thoughts???

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/us/10-things-colorado-recreational-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/06/travel/marijuana-tourism-seattle/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

0patience

It's a very controversial subject, filled with tons of mis-information.
Consider that hemp (which is actually not the plant that is smoked) was deemed illegal along with marijuana. It destroyed a multi-billion dollar industry in one clean stroke.
Were you aware that the timber/paper pulp industry was very instrumental in making it illegal?
Hemp was far cheaper to produce paper and they used marijuana as an instrument in destroying the hemp industry. Hemp was the same plant, in essence, but was not the same to smoke.
At one time, the hemp industry was probably as large, if not larger than the cotton industry.

Anyway, my thoughts on the subject of legalization is that arguably, is is quite possibly the third largest industry of consumed products that are not food. Alcohol and tobacco leading it.

The amount of tax revenue that can be generated from it are staggering. Not to mention the judicial costs to deal with infractions that would be saved.

Do I agree with it's use? Not so much.
But then again, I'm not much of a drinker and have seen it destroy people's lives, but I don't think alcohol is in need of being illegal either.

There will always be arguments about the use of tobacco, alcohol and pot. For and against.
And those products will always be used whether they are legal or illegal. Prohibition should have taught us something. Legal, you get taxes and some form of regulation. Illegal, you get crime.
That point can and has been argued for years and quite likely will be argued for years more.

Think about this though. Hemp can be grown anywhere, in almost any conditions (a reason it is called weed) and can produce rope, garments, fuels and a host of other things. A remarkable plant actually.
Why would you restrict a very inexpensive source of so many things?

So, those are my thoughts. Agree with them or don't.

The_Phantom

Here's my thoughts on marijuana, it's a leaf, just like tabacco is a leaf, you both can smoke it. Marijuana is illiegal, legal in some places. Tabacco is legal. There's some difference of course, in the effects of smoking Marijuana as to tobacco (cigars). Here on the Cigar Forum, I have observed that everyone loves their Cigars. They have the opportunity to have fun and games. They're famous for their Bombs and Trades and completelly have FUN. If some smoke Marijuana, it's none of my business, I do feel they have the right to smoke whatever they want and like. And might be just as much FUN, smokiing it or get high, at least. lol As far as the laws on Marijuana, it sucks, government are too uptight about it!!!! Just my take on the subject, guys.

jd50ae

0patience:

It's a very controversial subject, filled with tons of mis-information.
Consider that hemp (which is actually not the plant that is smoked) was deemed illegal along with marijuana. It destroyed a multi-billion dollar industry in one clean stroke.
Were you aware that the timber/paper pulp industry was very instrumental in making it illegal?
Hemp was far cheaper to produce paper and they used marijuana as an instrument in destroying the hemp industry. Hemp was the same plant, in essence, but was not the same to smoke.
At one time, the hemp industry was probably as large, if not larger than the cotton industry.

Anyway, my thoughts on the subject of legalization is that arguably, is is quite possibly the third largest industry of consumed products that are not food. Alcohol and tobacco leading it.

The amount of tax revenue that can be generated from it are staggering. Not to mention the judicial costs to deal with infractions that would be saved.

Do I agree with it's use? Not so much.
But then again, I'm not much of a drinker and have seen it destroy people's lives, but I don't think alcohol is in need of being illegal either.

There will always be arguments about the use of tobacco, alcohol and pot. For and against.
And those products will always be used whether they are legal or illegal. Prohibition should have taught us something. Legal, you get taxes and some form of regulation. Illegal, you get crime.
That point can and has been argued for years and quite likely will be argued for years more.

Think about this though. Hemp can be grown anywhere, in almost any conditions (a reason it is called weed) and can produce rope, garments, fuels and a host of other things. A remarkable plant actually.
Why would you restrict a very inexpensive source of so many things?

So, those are my thoughts. Agree with them or don't.

I agree with sooo much of what you say.

I suffer from pain for a number of reasons. I take pain pills by prescription. There are days when I don't want to get out of bed. There are other days when I am useless after 4 or 5 hours. All of this seriously impacts the quality of life in this house and not just mine. If medical marijuana was available here I would be all over it. I can't take the number of pain pills I need because they won't let me sleep and it feels like my face is covered by spiders. Why any one takes pain pills when they don't have to is beyond me.

Marijuana is a proven pain reliever and it helps you sleep. The proof is out there and it can not be denied. Doctors are starting to be very worried of prescribing pain pills because of the abuse and I don't blame them. I will not go out and by marijuana off the streets because I do not want the hassle and the worries.

It will be made legal as soon as those in power figure out how to build in the graft and corruption. It will be another bureaucracy run by stupid people who will have no idea what they are doing, much like any bureaucracy we have now. Until then we will have to put up with major hypocrisy, lies, double standards and politicians who smoke it but lie about it. Doctors that I have talked to want it legalized as soon as possible. Enough venting.........

Rain

I think the blueprint for weed is alcohol.Enjoy it in your home or at a bar. No driving while stoned, work can fire you for showing up stoned.

Amos_Umwhat

Rain:

I think the blueprint for weed is alcohol.Enjoy it in your home or at a bar. No driving while stoned, work can fire you for showing up stoned.

Exactly

Echambers

It is legal now in Washington State. I have no strong feelings either way but I am concerned with enforcement, especially when under the influence since you can't test for it in the same way as you can test for alcohol.

Rain

Echambers:

It is legal now in Washington State. I have no strong feelings either way but I am concerned with enforcement, especially when under the influence since you can't test for it in the same way as you can test for alcohol.

exhibit A...3 packs of oreo cookies.

0patience

Echambers:

It is legal now in Washington State. I have no strong feelings either way but I am concerned with enforcement, especially when under the influence since you can't test for it in the same way as you can test for alcohol.

The problem that enforcement is going to run into is determining "under the influence" versus having the substance in your system.
THC can be in your system for up to 7 days. It has been shown to be longer in some people.
Unlike alcohol, having it in your system doesn't necessarily mean under the influence.

There is very few tests that can show how much is in your system or whether a person is under the influence. Even though some are talking that there will be an "allowable" amount that can be in your system. So a person may smoke it/consume it on Sunday and it will still show in their system on the following Saturday, even though they show no signs of being under the influence.

It's going to be a very tough thing for enforcement. I'm sure that over time, they will come up with "in the field" tests that will be more accurate, but right now I'm not sure there are any reliable means to accurately convict anyone for being under the influence.
It's one that they will need to work out pretty quickly.

blutattoo

They have a field test for it here in CA already. It's exactly the same as a regular field sobriety test. If your driving and the field sobriety test point to you being under the influence of anything you will get a DUI (alcohol, pills, weed, meth, etc.). Even if you can't pinpoint anything in a chemical test. My buddy is a CHP officer and he says he's had multiple DUI arrests for weed based only on his assessment of being under the influence.

Echambers

blutattoo:

They have a field test for it here in CA already. It's exactly the same as a regular field sobriety test. If your driving and the field sobriety test point to you being under the influence of anything you will get a DUI (alcohol, pills, weed, meth, etc.). Even if you can't pinpoint anything in a chemical test. My buddy is a CHP officer and he says he's had multiple DUI arrests for weed based only on his assessment of being under the influence.

Do you know how many actually stick though? In Washington a lot get tossed because there are lots of reasons besides drugs that a person can't pass a field sobriety test. Video taping has helped In some cases but not all. Enforcement will indeed be the bear.

An irony of course is that yo can smoke pot in Washington but you can't smoke cigars in public.

blutattoo

It's probably a bit more difficult to prove but frankly it wouldn't surprise me if those arrested also had a car that smelled like a cheech and chong lowrider thus making it much easier to prove. My buddy did say they didn't put an emphasis on finding these folks but addressed those that were obviously under the influence.

jd50ae

Echambers:

blutattoo:

They have a field test for it here in CA already. It's exactly the same as a regular field sobriety test. If your driving and the field sobriety test point to you being under the influence of anything you will get a DUI (alcohol, pills, weed, meth, etc.). Even if you can't pinpoint anything in a chemical test. My buddy is a CHP officer and he says he's had multiple DUI arrests for weed based only on his assessment of being under the influence.

Do you know how many actually stick though? In Washington a lot get tossed because there are lots of reasons besides drugs that a person can't pass a field sobriety test. Video taping has helped In some cases but not all. Enforcement will indeed be the bear.

An irony of course is that yo can smoke pot in Washington but you can't smoke cigars in public.

I always giggle when someone says they took a field sobriety test and I feel for the poor police officer that ever gives me one. I use a cane a lot of days and it doesn't help me walk straight at all. Heck, I even fall down in bed.

blutattoo

Yeah and it depends on the cop too. When I was nineteen I worked nights in school and got pulled over for driving with one headlight. He asked if I had been drinking and I said no. He field sobriety tested me and apparently I "failed". I had to spend the night in the drunk tank completely sober. Frickin sucked a$$. When the breathalyzer and the urine test came back clean they dropped the charges, but that was six hours of he!!. Completely subjective results if you ask me. Hopefully they are better at it now.

Martel

We had a cop come to drivers' ed way back when and he picked the football team's starting RB to field test. Guy in prime physical condition, great balance, but dumb as a box of rocks. He had trouble walking straight under the limitations imposed and couldn't recite the alphabet backwards or count backwards by nines while he was sober.

Heck, I'm a smart guy and I'd have to think about those last two. Field tests like that have always seemed awfully subjective and a good reason for a cop to just pick on someone. Of course, a sensitive sniffer would help in many of these cases. Every time we do an orientation for a new group of students, I get a contact buzz from at least one...