Should marijuana be legalized?

[Nochitt]

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.

[GTScoob]

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.

[StupidBikerBoy]

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.

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.

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.

[idriveasloweclipse]

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.

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.

[StupidBikerBoy]

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.

+1

[Jaimecbr900]

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.

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.

It would be no different than alcohol after prohibition. How many people bother with moonshine anymore? Very few.

Actually, much more than you know.

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.

No deffinate roadside test,

Until they do, they will have a very hard time enforcing DUI's for MJ users.

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.

Incorrect.

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.

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.

Again, incorrect.

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.

[StupidBikerBoy]

What consequences? ..........................................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.

[Jaimecbr900]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Then I guess we're finally agreeing on something, because that's how I feel too.

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....

[StupidBikerBoy]

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?

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?

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.

Then I guess we're finally agreeing on something, because that's how I feel too.

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

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

[SniperJoe]

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.

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