Cali to potentially legalize marijuana for everyone.

[adaminc]

It seems there is an initiative in the works to legalize marijuana for everyone in California, and also to tax the sale and growing. I provided a link to an article on it.

http://laist.com/2008/06/30/california_to_legalize_weed_for_eve_1.php

 

[chrisf]

Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?

 

[wannabe SF member]

If this happens, The USA will see the greatest internal migration of potheads and hippies in the history of mankind.

 

[aesop081]

Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?

Police only have to hold a twinkie up to the window and see what happens...... ;D

 

[chrisf]

If this happens, The USA will see the greatest internal migration potheads and hippies in the history of mankind.

From where? Aren't these the same folks that voted in the governator already?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Police only have to hold a twinkie up to the window and see what happens...... ;D

Or tell said Driver to stare at his hands.... if he takes longer than 30 seconds and is giggling the whole time or amazed... he's not good to drive

 

[the 48th regulator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC7iIttp6cY

Ah, what the heck.

It doesn't snow there....

dileas

tess

 

[adaminc]

Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?

I don't know for sure, but I do think that if someone were to use pot by smoking a joint or using a vaporizer, there would be residue in his lungs that might be expelled with normal breathing. So a new kind of breathalyzer, like a modified bomb testing device, could be used to look for THC in certain quantities maybe?

 

[armyvern]

Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?

Apparently not a roadside test, but effective today actually - drug testing can be done at the police station by "drug evaluations experts":

http://employeedrugtesting.wordpress.com/

Drugged Driving - New Laws - July 2008
June 19, 2008 by pcholakis
Police get new powers to test drivers for drugs
Drinking and driving penalties also going up
Scott Dunn (Source: Sun Times)

Police across Canada will have new powers to investigate drivers suspected of being impaired by drugs starting July 2, when penalties for driving while impaired will also go up.
...
The drug evaluations experts will have authority to demand samples of saliva, urine or blood to determine the presence of alcohol or a drug without a warrant, Department of Justice spokeswoman Carole Saindon said.

Tests on the fluids can detect seven families of drugs, although there’s no specific drug impairment level as there is for alcohol.
...
First and forement, devices / techniques must screen for THC-delta-9 in oral fluid NOT THC-COOH and/or delta-11, etc. The latter is a metabolite found only in urine at any level that can be commonly detected, the former is the active ingreadient of marijuna and found in oral fluid.

Detection of THC-delta-9 in oral fluid has repeatedly been demonstrated to be possible from connsumption… up to 24 hours post consumption.
...

 

[geo]

well... impaired IS impaired.

If California gives it's blessing I can see a couple of things happening....
- Federal money for a multitude of projects would suddenly dry up - real fast AND
- supreme court challenge

 

[adaminc]

well... impaired IS impaired.

If California gives it's blessing I can see a couple of things happening....
- Federal money for a multitude of projects would suddenly dry up - real fast AND
- supreme court challenge

They might be able to offset that Federal money with taxes on pot.

 

[geo]

Face it, if the Feds want to make California's life miserable, they can very easily do it.
I do not see one state of the Union striking off on it's own in such a radical manner.

 

[silverbirdtank]

potentially under Bush or similar presidents that line of thinking would be correct but Obama has stated that he doesn't want to waste federal money going after state approved medical marijuana users, this may be no different.

"Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. directed federal prosecutors Monday to back away from pursuing cases against medical marijuana patients"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101903638.html

"Obama Orders Medical Marijuana Use Allowed Where State Law Makes it Legal"

http://www.psa-rising.com/blog/2009/10/feds-halt-medical-marijuana-prosectutions/

This along with the overwhelming amount of facts supporting the idea that legalizing marijuana would be better for society than continued prohibition which makes criminals out of harmless people, funds organized crime (I mean if you want to talk about marijuana funding organized crime and illegal immigration look no further than Cali), forces the people who choose to enjoy it to associate with criminals (drug dealers), causes a burden on the justice system and robs the government of tax money might be enough to hold the feds off long enough to see how it works out.

Besides at the end of the day it really should be about what the majority of people want.

If anyone has a problem with some of the points i've posted please refer to these quotes from the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs that made it's final recomendation after years of extensive research that Cannabis would be less harmful to a society legalized, regulated and taxed. If somebody still wants to argue I request you use sourced facts, I wont respond to random "it's a gateway", "kills braincells", "no way to test intoxication" claims as i'm not disputing any of that because the people that use those points often know very little about the subject.  I think we should be a little more progressive in todays society dealing with things in a scientifically recommended way instead of dogmaticly carrying out a proven failure of a system.

http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/pdf/senate_report_quotes.pdf

 

[wannabe SF member]

continued prohibition which makes criminals out of harmless people

So simply because you consider the consumption of Marijuana harmless than the people who willingly choose to indulge in it's consumption knowing full well that it's illegal do not deserve to be punished? Rules are meant to be kept, not agreeing with the law is no excuse to break it.

forces the people who choose to enjoy it to associate with criminals (drug dealers)

People are forced? They can live without weed, I sure as hell do. The fact that they choose to associate with criminals forces me to question their moral standing and status as harmless people.

Marijuana has been proven to cause anxiety, psychosis, depression and sleeping disorders and can occasion addiction. It is not a harmless plant.

Besides at the end of the day it really should be about what the majority of people want.

People have been known to make mistakes in the past.

 

[PMedMoe]

Besides at the end of the day it really should be about what the majority of people want.

I think we should be a little more progressive in todays society dealing with things in a scientifically recommended way instead of dogmaticly carrying out a proven failure of a system.

Try that on your next military course.  :

The incongruous, excellent response*!

*Regarding the reply to "it really should be about what the majority of people want" comment.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Bwahaha,

Goodwin's law in this thread...I have seen everything!

Yes, was this the people's decision?

And thanks for the lowdown of the evils of MJ....

dileas

tess

 

[wannabe SF member]

Goodwin's law in this thread...I have seen everything!

Poin taken, I admit my exemple was less than imaginative. >

 

[Dean22]

Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?

In some states of the U.S. police can take blood tests in a road stop.

Many people have complained about this since they end up with infections, etc because the police officers are untrained individuals in taking blood and it is a huge violation of your rights. I only say the last part because in these States they can take the blood test without any pre-cursors to do so (ie you seem heavily intoxicated).


Personally, I think the marijuana legalization is a step in the wrong direction. Smoking a joint can equal the same amount of THC to about 10 cigarettes just because of the method of consumption (holding THC into your lungs). We need to be increasing laws against drugs and improving laws against smoking.

I would personally love to see more enforcement in Ontario about smoking laws. People smoking on the streets can be quite the nuisance.

 

[Loachman]

The incongruous, excellent response!

Not in my view, even without the evocation of Godwin's Law.

There is no difference, really, between alcohol and marijuana - except that somebody decided that one would be legal and the other not.

Legalize it and tax it, or at least set a reasonable limit on the number of plants that anybody can grow for personal consumption. Right now we're just funding organized crime and ruining houses used as grow ops. This is absurd.

It's likely that very few more people will use it if it was legal anyway.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Bring it on, just as soon as police have a fast, reliable roadside test for pot impairment.  that includes fines for open containers.  People who would never consider rolling out of bed and hoisting a couple of double dark 'n' dirties before driving to work wouldn't think twice about blazing up first thing in the morning.