nice
yes
no
dont give a shit
nice
overgrow.com has some interesting stuff on it.
Some people are like slinkies!good for nuthin but u cant help but smile if you see one tumble down the stairsFactory Intgegra Type R LSD $300 PM Me.
if alcohol is legal then why not mj?!!....alcohol is more dangerous IMO
i got 10 lbs waiting to get picked up ..
NY STAY HIGH !!!
I can only imagine how chaotic things will get if it gets legalized. People would be driving down with a joint, I'm sorry but that something I dont want. A BUNCH OF RETARDS ON THE ROAD.
Seriously, have you guys thought about the consequences?
Thank you.Originally Posted by GIXXERDK
Another thing I would be worried about, should it ever be made legal.
2001 Honda Prelude Base model
http://www.cardomain.com/id/twkg2001
Just finished a discussion in my health class on all drugs including weed. Of course weed is the less "harmful" one. Def. my drug of choice over alchohol.
THAT'S MY JAM!
yes!! it a harmless grass that everyone can enjoy!!!
stop with the lie's LOL
Still here!
I didn't even know this thread was still going, but....Dude, for the last freakin time, THEY WEREN'T LOOKING IN MY PUPILS. I was there remember. IT WAS NOT THE DUMBASS PUPIL TEST.
Since you're so well versed on Law Enforcement Procedures, tell us exactly what it was they were looking at when they shined a light into your eyes.
Really? What Blood test is there that shows you're CURRENTLY under the influence?HELLO. BLOOD TEST!!Let me explain this to you one more time since you seem to have reading comprehension issues. A blood test can show 3 things. no THC, THC, or THC metabolites. If the test shows THC metabolites then it means that the subject has use MJ but it has been metabolized and no time frame can be determined. If the test shows actual THC, that hasn't been metabolized, it means the subject has used within the last few hours depending on the subjects metabolism.
You don't seem to get it. Regular Blood tests only show if you have EVER been in contact with THC. NOT when, NOT how much. According to GA DUI laws ANY amount of THC in your system is good enough for a conviction. How's that fair? What if I was standing next to a buddy who was smoking and I got some second hand smoke, 2 wks ago? A blood test would merely red flag the presence of THC. It metabolizes at a completely different rate than does ALCOHOL, which metabolizes at a VERY predictable rate because it does so thru the BLOOD and not FATTY tissues like THC.
You are the one that has a comprehension problem. You don't get that it is not fair, nor should it be legal to convict someone without being able to PROVE that they were impaired WHEN they were behind the wheel. The law doesn't say "impaired sometime", it says you have to be impaired AT THE TIME OF.
Yes, it is possible to determine with much more accuracy through some elaborate testing procedures the actual amount of THC at a certain time. BUT those tests are not only expensive, but TIME CONSUMING. THC levels drop off dramatically after 3 hours. What LAB is going to test at 3 a.m.? What are you going to do with this person UNTIL then? You haven't PROVEN he/she is impaired, therefore you CAN'T detain them. What are you going to do then?
Until they develop a testing procedure which gives accurate and more importantly LEGAL results in the FIELD, you can NOT do this.
Really? I guess you didn't read that website as closely as you thought you did. If you had, you'd seen this:OK, since you obviously missed the link in my last post WHICH IS TO A CONVICTION FOR MJ DUI, I'll post it again.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4940
"The conviction of Bryan Love was a travesty. A conviction based on “prior crimes” evidence or character evidence would be condemned by this court and swiftly reversed. However, this ridiculous law allowed the jury to convict an unimpaired driver of DUI simply because he had smoked marijuana sometime in the past. The status of being a marijuana smoker instantly made him an impaired driver."
AND this:
"Flimsy science can no longer be used as an excuse for leaving a law on the books that puts unimpaired drivers in jail for DUI. The State and Defense witnesses agreed on the central flaw in §40-6-391(a)(6), its arbitrariness. Because it arbitrarily and unnecessarily discriminates against sober, unimpaired drivers who happen to have certain inert compounds in their bodies, it violates equal protection. Because this arbitrariness can be eliminated without compromising public safety by prosecuting DUI / drug suspects under §40-6-391(a)(2) and the Controlled Substances Act, the statute offends substantive due process as well. "
AND this:
"The “any amount” DUI-drugs law is a very inefficient way to prevent drug impaired driving, and the associated costs are unacceptable. There exists the constant risk of punishing an unimpaired driver for DUI."
AND this:
"The public has absolutely no interest in prosecuting unimpaired drivers for DUI. As shown above, there is no connection between the presence of marijuana metabolites in the blood and impaired driving ability. When applied to persons in Appellant’s position, the statute simply acts to deter marjuana consumption by criminalizing tha act of driving within two or three weeks of drugs use. Although it may be in the public interest to deter such drug use, there are better ways to do so than prosecuting sober drivers for DUI simply because a screening test indicates that they used marijuana at some time in the past. "
AND how about this little tid bit?:
"Since the evidence of smoking marijuana remains in the body for such a long time, a positive drug screen within an hour or so of an arrest does not mean that the driver was “high” or under the influence of the drug while driving.8 He might have been high two weeks ago. "
I have more than proven my "BS" many times over. YOU on the other hand have just been shot with your own ammo. You want more "proof" that current testing methods are not the way to tell if someone is "high" at the time of their arrest??? Go do your own research. I've challenged you ten times to show PROOF of a field testing method that ACCURATELY shows someone is "high" WHEN they get pulled over. You've yet to meet that challenge. Until then, you have no argument. The LAW states that the STATE has to PROVE someone is impaired AT THE TIME THEY ARE IN CONTROL OF A MOTOR VEHICLE. NOT 3 wks ago, not even a day ago. RIGHT NOW. Show me where a simple blood test can show you that at 3 a.m. in anytown U.S.A. and you may have a point. Until then, you don't.So, yet again, I have proven my statements and backed them up with links, which you have yet to prove any of your BS.
Look above and see who has done "research" and who hasn't. It's clear to everyone else reading, why are you having such a hard time with it?Since you can only reply with your opinion and nothing else, I'm not going to continue trying to explain this to you. Like I said before, do some research before you talk out of your ass.
Like I said above, maybe it's YOU that's having the reading comprehension problems, huh?
interesting... but theres still one big thing No one I've ever talked to has answered. How can you continue to tell children or anyone for the matter that drugs are bad mmmkay and legalize a drug at the same time? If pots legal and its a drug does that mean its ok to do other drugs just because one is legal. The fact of this argument will go on for years because no matter how much money could be made legalizing pot the pro's and con's are near even to me.
It has been mentioned.
I mentioned it back in post #93. Noone has tried to answer that question yet is the problem.
Like I said since the beginning, it's not as easy as just saying "fuck it, chief it up...." because there are lots of other variables to consider. If those variables were in place, I'd say go for it. But they're not, so I don't see how they could just legalize it as everyone thinks they should.
I agree with you though.
They had been doing some testing with this concept for detecting impairment:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...80/ai_70651816
Basically, it uses a computer to track your vision following a moving object to determine if you are impaired for any reason, be it drugs, alcohol or even sleep deprivation. I think that would be a good starting point for future development. That article is somewhat dated, so I am not sure if any advances have been made lately.
http://www.eyedynamics.com/SafetyScopeGEN.htm
http://www.visionetx.com/
What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today.
See, now something like that could be a possible solution.
NO
Don't smoke, don't care. If people want to smoke it's cool with me.
***Lotus Elise***
BlackWatchRacing/Sector111/Larini Exhausts/Difflow Diffusers/Classic Livery of Atlanta Paint/APR Performance
the marijuanna plant would destroy the textile industry, paper industry, it is cheap source of biodeisel fuel, it produce better cooking oils, and it grow rapidly so cultivation would be fast. Just a quick fact, papers made from marijuana stem can last 300 years without fading. gg.
btw. the reason to that statement is greed. by not allowing that plant to be legalize, they can charge you 2 dollar something for cigarette/tobacco pack and 2.01 for gas.
and i voted i dont care.
ahh idk?
Quality control.. we couldn't maintain the quality.. if it was grown to "standards", what is in it, how old, bla bla bla. Also it couldn't be taxed. Why buy it for some jacked up price at the store when people will still buy it from the local guy behind blockbuster like they always have. It would just be like moonshining.
I'm all for the legalization and think it would be awesome to go to my house with no worries that I'm baked, or be able to stand those few times of church I meet up with the family for, or w/e and wouldn't feel guilty..
You really think it would be cheaper buying it from some sketchball than from a store legally? See my old post. If it is legalized, even after taxation, there is no way that it would cost more than it does nowadays. Tobacco is so cheap but you end up paying as assload in taxes, think the same deal.
02 WRX Sport Wagon
Weed will never be legalized in this country. This country has too many issues already. They don't even let kids play what the want at school.
"If you want peace, prepare for war"
that and the government wouldnt let it pass because they wouldnt get their cut on it... aka taxes..
and about the post above me, the guy is right they dont have anymore rubber balls to play with in dodgeball, even in fucking high school (what im in) we bought rubber balls that we can play with though!! so now its fun
Don't know if it was said or not, but everyone should read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" By Jack Herer. It's been revised a view times, but it is completely compiled from Government sources and credited sources. The consumption of Marijuana to get high is the least beneficial trait of marijuana. It can be used from fuel, food, paint, paper, building, clothes etc.. I could fill a whole web page with awesome information.
I believe it should be legal. Not only because I love to get high, but it is far too resourceful to be illegal.
HOWEVER
I strongly doubt the greedy MAN gives a shit what it's people want, it just wants our money. It can be efficiently taxed...i.e. tobacco. Tobacco has a MAJOR tax, but I don't know a single soul that grows tobacco.
And I'll stop there because I get emotional with the sweet leaf.
p.s. If anyone needs an extra set of golden lungs, hit me up.
"Legalize it, don't criticise it.
Legalize it, and we will advertise it"
-Bob Marley & Bradley Nowell
How can you test people for THC consumption? Once somebody can make a breathalyzer of sorts it will be much more likely to become legal.
02 WRX Sport Wagon
WHY DOES EVERYONE KEEP SAYING THE GOVT CANT TAX IT??
Thats the most retarded statement I've ever heard. If it was made legal the gov't would treat it just as they do tobacco or alcohol and tax it. Why would it be any different?? If it was made legal it wouldn't carry the same street value anymore, and 99% of people would stop growing it illegally due to it not being worth the consequences.
It would be no different than alcohol after prohibition. How many people bother with moonshine anymore? Very few.
No deffinate roadside test, however they can take you in with probable cause and do a blood test. I would think that would take finding some seeds or something like that though. Not sure what would warrant that.
Numerous people have been convicted of MJ DUI's from a blood test. I posted a link to one that was in the news a while back in an earlier post. A blood test can tell if a person has THC or THC metabolites in his system. If he has THC metabolites it only means he's used in the past month and they can't convict. But if they find THC in your system it means it hasn't been metabolized and basically you are still high. They can and HAVE convictted people of MJ DUI in this manner.
Have you not opened your eyes while driving recently? The road is already full of retards. I'm not trying to say that people should be allowed to smoke and drive, because they shouldn't, but you're argument is flawed. Yes there are consequences to society but I see it like this: Even if 10% of the money earned from taxes went to the education system in this country it would be enough to provide a much better education to the country's children.
Yea, a good buddy of mine spent the rest of his probation term (6 months) in jail after the blood test showed THC in his system. They accused him of being "high".
This is an issue that will never be solved in America. Logically, it should be legal. It will not be legal anytime soon, that is for sure. As for the driving issue, there would not be more people on the road "smokin the reefer" just because it was legal. The same people will be doing the same thing. Personally, I am more concerned with people driving drunk than people driving stoned. This is a never-ending debate.
What consequences? If it's legal, then why wouldn't you be able to grow it in your backyard like corn or tomatoes? HOW would they be able to tell that the MJ you're smoking came from your yard or the store? How do you plan on stopping drug cartels from producing and distributing? It can't be done now, what would change by merely making it legal?
So if you can't stop the illegal production, distribution, and sales NOW, what makes you think that the gov't will somehow corral that in and be able to "tax" it? Furthermore, WHERE would the gov't GROW MJ for legal distribution? So you have 100's of acres of MJ planted and you don't think somebody will sneak around the backend of that big ole field to help themselves to what they want to something that is perfectly LEGAL all of a sudden???
There a good bit of logistics that need to be thought of before simply saying, "oh, go ahead and make it legal so you can "tax" it and we make more money..." It's AMERICA....land of endless red tape and politics.
Actually, much more than you know.It would be no different than alcohol after prohibition. How many people bother with moonshine anymore? Very few.
Difference is that alcohol can be produced, distributed, and sold all under the very watchful and outstretched hand of Uncle Sam. As stated above, solve the riddle of production, distribution, and sale and you have a possibility of this working. Until then it's a pipe dream....no pun intended.
Until they do, they will have a very hard time enforcing DUI's for MJ users.No deffinate roadside test,
Incorrect.however they can take you in with probable cause and do a blood test. I would think that would take finding some seeds or something like that though. Not sure what would warrant that.
Only a court order can FORCE you to take a blood test of any kind. You are given the CHOICE of "blood, breath, or urine", but you can NOT be FORCED to take ANY of them....by law. You can simply refuse all three if you'd like. As a matter of fact, many a DUI defense lawyers ADVICE to refuse under certain circumstances.
So if you don't have a way to definitively test on the side of the road, AND you can't make anyone take a blood test......how would you go about PROVING that anyone is under the influence and impaired with MJ at the time of the arrest? I've asked that question about 50 times in this discussion and noone has been able to answer it. And an answer is NOT, "my buddy's friend's cousin got convicted of DUI while he was high...." Well that doesn't prove squat since we've already established that the only way you can CURRENTLY be PROVEN to be under the influence is by submitting VOLUNTARILY to a test. If one person is stupid enough to do that, it doesn't mean EVERY one else will do the same.
Again, incorrect.Numerous people have been convicted of MJ DUI's from a blood test. I posted a link to one that was in the news a while back in an earlier post. A blood test can tell if a person has THC or THC metabolites in his system. If he has THC metabolites it only means he's used in the past month and they can't convict. But if they find THC in your system it means it hasn't been metabolized and basically you are still high. They can and HAVE convictted people of MJ DUI in this manner.
THC takes a long time to fully metabolize out of the system. Therefore, it is entirely possible and actually very likely that someone can come back with a positive THC content YET not be under the influence at that very moment. THC, unlike alcohol, VARIES in the amount of time it takes to metabolize in every single person because it metabolized thru the FAT cells and NOT the blood like alcohol. So the mere presence of THC can mean you just smoked a bowl or you did a few days ago. Just because you have THC in your system right now doesn't mean you are CURRENTLY high. As a matter of fact, MJ effects are long gone BEFORE THC ever leaves your body. The gap may be days, depending on how heavy a smoker the person is.
I know people that smoke it everyday. Heavy users. They can drive, talk, walk, and be seemingly coherent. No glassy eyes, no super munchies, no laughing out loud. They are seasoned users and can handle it. How are the police going to be able to tell that person is under the influence? They don't smell like it. They don't look like it. They don't even act like it?
An employer can fire someone in a zero tolerance environment by the mere positive test. They don't have to know when or how much or how long ago. They merely have to know you used. DUI is and cannot be like that, by law. The arresting party has to prove that you were operating a vehicle WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Tests confirm the officer's suspicions, and if there's not a reliable test then you have a big problem because it then becomes one person's word vs the other.
I have no doubt people would still grow it like you said, but making it legal would destroy the profits made from illeagal sales, just like what has already happened with prohibition.
Why would you risk buying it illeagally if you could get it cheaper from the convienience store?
This scenerio is no different from prohibition. It can easily be packaged and sold and taxed. In that manner, it would be no different from how cigarettes are done today. Moonshine is what made the mafia and numerous others rich when it was illegal because they could charge high prices, but what happened when it was made legal? No more profit. Same thing would happen to weed. It will be cheaper and easier to get.
Why would it be treated any different?
I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand, its not some special item that can't be easily packaged and sold. Big tobacco and other large corporations would be all over it.
And as far as a MJ DUI. Aside from me seeing it with my own 2 eyes......
Heres proof.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4940
Personally I don't think that a blood test should be allowed in court considering it isn't proof of driving under the influence, but as I said I have seen it personally.
+1Yea, a good buddy of mine spent the rest of his probation term (6 months) in jail after the blood test showed THC in his system. They accused him of being "high".
This is an issue that will never be solved in America. Logically, it should be legal. It will not be legal anytime soon, that is for sure. As for the driving issue, there would not be more people on the road "smokin the reefer" just because it was legal. The same people will be doing the same thing. Personally, I am more concerned with people driving drunk than people driving stoned. This is a never-ending debate.
I think if they were to go ahead and legalize it they could sale in packs of 20 like cigs. and tax it the same also... Think about all the people that smoke that buy a blunt at a time or dub sake or quater,half, whatever. I bet everyone of them dont buy from there dealer no more. Cause all they have to do is go to the gas station. And not worry bout what kinda weed there getting, is it laced, sprayed, whatever. I think if they do legalize we should have the choice of blunt style or straight buds. To smoke with a pipe. My 2 cents
:boobies:
Shooting mutha fuckahs in the face and gettin paid.
I'm going to combine both of these because I think they go hand-in-hand.
You do make a point about the profitability of illegal sales. But you're not remembering that this, unlike alcohol and tobacco, is dealing with a drug that has very differing potencies from supplier to supplier to supplier. In other words, heavy users are used to a high dosage or high potency MJ in order to achieve their high. As we all know with all drugs, our bodies up the tolerance levels as we increase use. Therefore, the new gov't controlled pack of "joints" may very well be like candy cigarrettes to most users because they are used to much more potent MJ now. So what do you think those guys/gals will do then? Spend $20 for a pack of store bought MJ that does nothing for them or spend the same $20 with their regular dealer and get blatto????? Look at the Amsterdam situation. It is legal there and they sell it at stores. But it is considerably less potent than a regular hand rolled joint. So it's more for recreational or occassional users. Heavy users don't even touch the store bought stuff because it does nothing for them.
You follow what I'm saying?
So you are right that it would serve to curb some of the issues, but not all.
Because MJ is totally different than tobacco. You couldn't go wonder out into a field of tobacco and just grab a leaf, dry it, roll it up, and smoke it. It would NOT be anything like a regular store bought cigarette. So there would be no need to guard your crops, right? Now, look at MJ. You would have have armed guards patrolling your fields like a military base to keep users from merely uprooting plants for their own use. Why? Because the plant can and is easily converted into the finished product, unlike a tobacco leaf is to cigarettes. See what I mean?I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand, its not some special item that can't be easily packaged and sold. Big tobacco and other large corporations would be all over it.
Now add that additional manpower and logistical cost into the equation. What tobacco, although filthy rich as they are, company do you think wants to have to factor in their cost (which of course they'd pass onto the end user via higher product prices) armed security which will then totally knock them out of the market place when in competition with street level dealers? In other words, if it's going to cost a tobacco company $30 a pack to produce MJ cigarettes....then they probably would not be successful because street level dealing would probably offer a very viable and sometimes even better alternative which in turn totally defeats the purpose of making it legal and the tax and the crime prevention and yada yada. Follow me? Cigarettes and booze work for their respective manufacturers because they can be produced very cheaply, but if you factor in the additional costs like would possibly be involved with MJ production......then I promise you moonshiners would be right back in business again. Who would pay $10 for a single beer or $50 for a pack of cigs when they could get them for half that on the black market?
Then I guess we're finally agreeing on something, because that's how I feel too.Personally I don't think that a blood test should be allowed in court considering it isn't proof of driving under the influence, but as I said I have seen it personally.
That's why I was saying that detection is going to be a top priority to decipher before you can even begin. You may figure out the tax side and the control side and the sales side.....but if you have no way of detecting ACCURATELY and on the spot if someone is under the influence, you have a big problem. I mean look at all the scrutiny and testing and re-testing and red tape a drug has to go thru with the FDA now......and that's for pills that HELP people get better when they're ill. What do you think the testing and red tape is going to look like for a drug that is now ILLEGAL? The politicians would have a field day with that. They'd fillibuster this to death and probably never get anything accomplished.....unless.....it would win them votes that is....
Good point. But on the other hand of that, there is a lot of process involved with cigarettes that may not be needed with MJ. I can see where you are coming from, but I think there is to much to speculate on to say yeah or nea on its legalization.
Actually I think this is the only thread that we have disagreed on, every other post I can remember reading of yours I have agreed upon. You seem to be a very intelligent and level headed person........... And I still want your daughter's bed set. lolThen I guess we're finally agreeing on something, because that's how I feel too.
Jaime, this isn't exactly true. Speaking from both empirical studies and personal experience, there is no lack of potency in storebought marijuana.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...56210500123217
What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today.
That's true too.
Appreciate that.Actually I think this is the only thread that we have disagreed on, every other post I can remember reading of yours I have agreed upon. You seem to be a very intelligent and level headed person........... And I still want your daughter's bed set. lol
You should of PM'd me about it. We ended up selling it on Sunday. A guy with a 3 yr old little girl came and got it. I took it down for him when he got there and helped him load everything up. I felt bad because he came by himself. Then I had to turn right around and go get her new set with my brother in his truck. Walk it up stairs and put it together. My back is still killing me today.
You should've PM'd me......
Welllllllllllll, I stand corrected then.....
No worries, mate. Life is simply the search for truth.Welllllllllllll, I stand corrected then.....
What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today.
I am definately for legalization, due to its medicinal abilities.
you can disregard the whole "armed security in the fields of marijuana" thing since the most potent and easily regulated weed is grown indoors.
That's totally possible, but if it were legal you could sneak onto a field and get your fill since it easily goes from plant to product.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
