Should marijuana be legalized?

[cceinc]

The reason they will not legalize it is they have no way of measuring how much you have had instantly like BAC. It is already a billion dollar industry for the Gov't. They make money form not only the fines but when they confincate the good and then resell it the the highest bidder overseas. Just like weapons the United States the Largest Drug and weapons dealer in the world.

[Tasuki_Civic]

The reason they will not legalize it is they have no way of measuring how much you have had instantly like BAC. It is already a billion dollar industry for the Gov't. They make money form not only the fines but when they confincate the good and then resell it the the highest bidder overseas. Just like weapons the United States the Largest Drug and weapons dealer in the world.

i could have never said it better.

[Jaimecbr900]

Wow!!! Some of you need to KEEP smoking whatever it is you're smoking and remember NOT to reproduce........some of yall are total malinformed idiots of the first degree.

IF you are going to defend ANYTHING, please do some half intelligent research. Smoking a blunt or a bowl with your boys on your back porch IS NOT research. Listening to your half lit bud that just did that bowl wit ya is also NOT research.

How is the gov't or anyone going to regulate it?

How are they going to modify it's use, i.e. how are you going to tell if someone is over the "limit"?

How are you going to determine what that "limit" is?

How are you going to tax it if it will suddenly become legal for people to sell it on the street?

How are you going to monitor production?

How are you going to regulate what one "farmer" puts onto his crop vs the other?


Some of you need to seriously read up on what a drug is and what it can and does to someone's body both physically and mentally. EVERY drug has a side effect. EVERY drug will diminish your ability to do certain things. Some people can function at .10 BAC while others are blatto at .05 BAC, eventhough one is "legal" and the other is not.

People will always do drugs that want to do drugs. It may be that marijuana is not the worst drug out there, but it is a drug. It affects the body just like any other substance. But just because it doesn't affect the body as violently as some other drugs don't make it out to be like it's candy. It's not. Not all pot is the same, trust me I KNOW.

Bottomline is that is not an easy answer to this. On one hand marijuana has shown some GOOD side effects, so it does have some positive uses. On the other hand you are opening up a pandorah's box by allowing one drug to be legal while keeping the others illegal. Who's to say that someone doesn't come along and demand that coke or heroin be made legal too?

We are being too simple minded if we think that there's one answer to this question. It's not that simple. There are lots of variables to think about.

[StupidBikerBoy]

The reason they will not legalize it is they have no way of measuring how much you have had instantly like BAC. It is already a billion dollar industry for the Gov't. They make money form not only the fines but when they confincate the good and then resell it the the highest bidder overseas. Just like weapons the United States the Largest Drug and weapons dealer in the world.

Not true.

There are ways for cops to test on location, just as drinking tests (lift one leg, taking so many steps in a line, etc.). I have personally been put through some of them.

Remember, the roadside test is only to determine reasonable doubt to detain and further test. None of the roadside tests are admisable in court, but the test you take when you are brought in is. They can easily test for MJ then.

They do issue DUI's for being high also, one of my boys got one.

And as far as it being a billion dollar industry for the gov't, they also spend billions on the enforcement of the laws.

And last, of course America is the largest drug and weapons dealer, we are also the richest by far. We are the largest dealer of many other things also.

[StupidBikerBoy]

I still say we should legalize it, and tax it.

Spend the tax money on education of drugs and clinics to help those that want to get away from it.

[MusicIsLife]

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..

[GTScoob]

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.

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.

[Jaimecbr900]

There are ways for cops to test on location, just as drinking tests (lift one leg, taking so many steps in a line, etc.). I have personally been put through some of them.

Field sobriety tests is one thing, detection is another.

Remember, the roadside test is only to determine reasonable doubt to detain and further test. None of the roadside tests are admisable in court, but the test you take when you are brought in is. They can easily test for MJ then.

Exactly HOW are they going to determine that?

The amount of THC in your body?

Did you know that THC remains in your body, depending on the users dosage, for up to a month? So, how are they going to be able to prove that THC detected today is not remnants of toking up yesterday or a week ago?

THC metabolizes into your fat cells and is stored there. That is how people get "violated" for using while out of jail on probation or parole. Tests show they used, not how much. How much happens to be the only determining factor in sobriety. You can smoke a J today and the "high" be over in a few hours. How does that make you guilty of a DUI a week from now? It doesn't. But if you use THC measurements and equipment that the police would likely use, it only shows that you smoked....not when nor how much.

So again, HOW are you going to determine who is and isn't "under the influence" in the field? Police will not be able to take the amount of time nor use the very expensive equipment needed to accurately determine someone's current THC content.

They do issue DUI's for being high also, one of my boys got one.

How'd they test him for being under the influence of anything but alcohol?

Your boy probably admitted to doing the drug and thereby given the admission of guilt can and does get charged. As explained above, a pee test will only determine if he smoked MJ, not how much nor when.

[StupidBikerBoy]

Field sobriety tests is one thing, detection is another.

There ARE field sobriety test that determine recent use of MJ. As I said I have been subjected to a few. The one I remember is where they shined a light in my and told me to look in the other direction, only turning my eyes. I dont have a clue what they were looking for. Look into it if you don't believe me, but I'm not making this up.

THC remains in your body, depending on the users dosage, for up to a month? So, how are they going to be able to prove that THC detected today is not remnants of toking up yesterday or a week ago?

There are numerous ways to test for it, and a hair folicle test can determine the time frame it was used. A piss test is only used to determine use, there are others that yield more results.

How'd they test him for being under the influence of anything but alcohol?

Your boy probably admitted to doing the drug and thereby given the admission of guilt can and does get charged. As explained above, a pee test will only determine if he smoked MJ, not how much nor when.

I don't know what test they used in court, I wasn't there. But I do know that he didn't admit to it and tried to fight it. And again, a piss test is not the only method used to test for drug use.

[Jaimecbr900]

There ARE field sobriety test that determine recent use of MJ. As I said I have been subjected to a few. The one I remember is where they shined a light in my and told me to look in the other direction, only turning my eyes. I dont have a clue what they were looking for. Look into it if you don't believe me, but I'm not making this up.

That test is administered as an initial sign of sobriety. If your pupils do not respond quickly enough to the light, you are thought to be under the influence of SOMETHING. That in itself is NOT enough evidence to convice anyone of anything. It gives reasonable cause for the officer to be allowed to go further. Just like field sobriety tests. You will not get convicted of DUI on a field sobriety test ALONE. That is why they bring you into the PD to test you AGAIN.

There are numerous ways to test for it, and a hair folicle test can determine the time frame it was used. A piss test is only used to determine use, there are others that yield more results.

You would have lots of innocent people in jail, which would subsequently cause a huge backlog of lawsuits against the PD if you are going to use a folicle test for each and every one of the people suspected of DUI. It takes a long time for a hair folicle test to be done and results returned. What are you going to do with the person in the meantime? You can't put someone in jail w/o proof....proof doesn't come for a few weeks.....what are you going to do? Put that person in jail until then? What if it comes back negative for MJ? Wouldn't you be liable for damages and wrongful incarceration?

No PD will ever be stupid enough to open themselves up for lawsuit action like that. You have to have a method of testing that not only gives you accurate results, but it also gives you those results right then and there.

Again, do the research and find a testing method that fits those two criteria at the same time.

I don't know what test they used in court, I wasn't there. But I do know that he didn't admit to it and tried to fight it. And again, a piss test is not the only method used to test for drug use.

There are tests out there that determine if you've had THC lately, but the problem with DUI cases is that you have to prove that you have THC right now and at which amount. THC is stored in the body, even when you are not high and when you are not smoking right this minute. That's the big problem. The only tests accurate enough to determine how much and when take a lot of time and are expensive. Therefore, they are useless for officers in the field that have to make a determination of someone's sobriety right then and there. Unlike alcohol, THC is absorbed differently in the body. If it got into the blood stream and stayed there for a specific amount of time at a specific metabolic rate, fine. But it doesn't at all.

So the very first case that went to court someone could simply say that they ingested some or even inhaled by accident as second hand smoke a week ago and that's how it showed up in their system. Both ways will show positive test results, but neither shows the person was under the influence when they were tested. So how could it hold up in court?

Again, I'm not supporting the ban of MJ all together because it does have positive effects unlike other drugs. But we also have to realize that its not as easy as just letting people do it whenever because it's not as easy as that either.

[StupidBikerBoy]

That test is administered as an initial sign of sobriety. If your pupils do not respond quickly enough to the light, you are thought to be under the influence of SOMETHING. That in itself is NOT enough evidence to convice anyone of anything. It gives reasonable cause for the officer to be allowed to go further. Just like field sobriety tests. You will not get convicted of DUI on a field sobriety test ALONE. That is why they bring you into the PD to test you AGAIN.

I never said a field sobriety test was enough to convict.

I was not reffering to the pupil test. That is a general test anyways, for many drugs. If you'd look back I my post, I said they made me look in the other direction while they shined the light. They were not shining the light at my pupils. They were looking for something else. I don't know what.

You would have lots of innocent people in jail, which would subsequently cause a huge backlog of lawsuits against the PD if you are going to use a folicle test for each and every one of the people suspected of DUI. It takes a long time for a hair folicle test to be done and results returned.

Not true. My company (BASF) has drug tested with the hair folicle test and gotten results the following day.

You should do a little research on drug testing.

Hell, they can use a blood test to determine recent use also. If a blood test reveals THC, that means recent use. If it reveals Carboxy THC or any other MJ metabolite (which is what remains in your body for up to a month), it is not considered impairment.

No PD will ever be stupid enough to open themselves up for lawsuit action like that. You have to have a method of testing that not only gives you accurate results, but it also gives you those results right then and there.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4940

There are tests out there that determine if you've had THC lately, but the problem with DUI cases is that you have to prove that you have THC right now and at which amount. THC is stored in the body, even when you are not high and when you are not smoking right this minute. That's the big problem. The only tests accurate enough to determine how much and when take a lot of time and are expensive. Therefore, they are useless for officers in the field that have to make a determination of someone's sobriety right then and there. Unlike alcohol, THC is absorbed differently in the body. If it got into the blood stream and stayed there for a specific amount of time at a specific metabolic rate, fine. But it doesn't at all.

This is irrelevant. All they need to determine is suspicion to get them to the police station for further testing, which is done by field testing.

So the very first case that went to court someone could simply say that they ingested some or even inhaled by accident as second hand smoke a week ago and that's how it showed up in their system. Both ways will show positive test results, but neither shows the person was under the influence when they were tested. So how could it hold up in court?

A piss test can only detect MJ for so many days depending on the persons metabolism. If they were telling the truth, it would come up negative after a weeks time.

A blood test would reveal THC metabolites if he's telling the truth, which is not enough to convict in most states (but it is in some). If the test revealed actual THC, the he has not metabolized it yet which is proof of recent use.


As I have said, I have PERSONALLY seen someone convicted of this and I have provided a link of a similar case.

Don't believe me if you wish, I feel I have provided enough proof. Thanks for the discussion.

[Jaimecbr900]

I was not reffering to the pupil test. That is a general test anyways, for many drugs. If you'd look back I my post, I said they made me look in the other direction while they shined the light. They were not shining the light at my pupils. They were looking for something else. I don't know what.

They made you look in a different direction but it was for the SAME reason.

You looked away in order for your pupils to look into the dark, then swing back into the light which causes NORMAL pupils to shrink quickly. If they stay dialated or "blown", it shows signs of impairment. It will NOT show WHAT caused the impairment.

Just like ANY field sobriety test shows you're impaired or not, but how do you think that shows it's MJ, cocaine, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc????? THAT is my point and you don't seem to get it. Field sobriety only gives them a reason to arrest you and take you IN. After that they have to prove RIGHT THEN AND THERE, not a day later, not a week later that you are RIGHT THEN AND THERE IMPAIRED. How do you suggest they do that? As has been explained 10 times already, MJ is absorbed differently than alcohol and therefore the mere presence of THC doesn't mean you JUST smoked it. You could've smoked it a week ago and still test positive.

Not true. My company (BASF) has drug tested with the hair folicle test and gotten results the following day.

That's possibly because they use it sparingly. #1 your company only has to prove that someone "uses", not always do they have to prove WHEN. So 99% of the time a simple positive means there is enough grounds for a company policy violation. #2 I'm willing to bet that they don't do 100 folicle tests a day, right? What do you think is going to happen when police departments all over the state start using the same people for folicle testing? Do you think the turn around time is still going to be a day? BTW, what are you going to do with someone UNTIL the results come back??? You can't hold someone on "suspicion" of DUI. What if the test comes back negative after holding someone even for a day? Lawsuit and rightly so is what happens.

You should do a little research on drug testing.

I've challenged you to find an immidiate THC test available, and you've yet to answer that challenge. Seems like it's YOU that needs to do the research.

I was in Law Enforcement many years ago. I've DONE my research already. Proof is still proof today. You can't just hold someone on suspicion. You have to prove their guilt not only the day of the infraction but also in case it goes to court.

Hell, they can use a blood test to determine recent use also. If a blood test reveals THC, that means recent use. If it reveals Carboxy THC or any other MJ metabolite (which is what remains in your body for up to a month), it is not considered impairment.

So what good does testing that shows use a month ago do for someone TODAY?????

"Recent use" is not good enough to convict anyone for driving TODAY. So what good does that test do towards a DUI????

This is irrelevant. All they need to determine is suspicion to get them to the police station for further testing, which is done by field testing.

What's irrelevant is what are you going to do when you do get someone back to the station if you can't show he is under impairment RIGHT NOW.....so all the field testing is for not.

A piss test can only detect MJ for so many days depending on the persons metabolism. If they were telling the truth, it would come up negative after a weeks time.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China....

A blood test would reveal THC metabolites if he's telling the truth, which is not enough to convict in most states (but it is in some). If the test revealed actual THC, the he has not metabolized it yet which is proof of recent use.

You're stuck on that "recent use" thing aren't you. Go search the GA Law books and find where ANY law allows for conviction on the assumption of "recent use" for DUI. It has to be at the time he/she is driving, not a week ago...... So all this "recent use" crap is totally worthless.

Don't believe me if you wish, I feel I have provided enough proof. Thanks for the discussion.

You've provided only proof for "recent use" tests which is like taking a birth control pill AFTER getting pregnant. What good does that do????