Pot smokers

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

1) They are usually more mellow (doesn't make them more compatible with any given job, just makes it harder to detect)

2) More people drink alcohol than smoke pot, so the alcohol problem is more pervasive.

3) Alcohol seems easier to abuse. You can drink until you're dead or in the hospital; harder to do with pot.

4) Alcohol is more detectable in general (slurred speech etc)

Just as HGN has been proven to show the signs of someone having had consumed alcohol, the lack of convergence also works for someone who has consumed marijuana.

Its not hard to detect if someone has consumed alcohol, marijuana, etc, its just a skill set that a large portion of the populace simply does not have.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

As you should well know, legalization covers all of this.

Not really, not all of it …

Yes, really. All of it is implied with legalization. If you are saying that legalization isn't going to be a quick and easy process, that may well be true, but no one is arguing otherwise.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[normiss 801]

Again, the current testing for weed measures the metabolites waste product of the THC...not very accurate nor timely from my understanding.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you suggesting that removing a major source of income for the Mexican cartels is going to further destabilize the Mexican government? I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning behind such an assertion.

Feel free to read what I previously wrote about that subject, instead of simply cutting out something that you think fits your singular angle.

I did read what you wrote previously. You gave us a bunch of words, but no real substance. Feel free to add the substance if you believe that you have some insight that eludes the rest of us.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Yes, really. All of it is implied with legalization. If you are saying that legalization isn't going to be a quick and easy process, that may well be true, but no one is arguing otherwise.

Heh, ok, if you really believe that. Its not that legalization isn't going to be a quick and easy process, others were arguing that it would be a magical cure-all, but I'm glad you don't necessarily agree. Did you read the snippet I wrote in a previous post about federal vs. state government, law and the enforcement?

That's the point. Legislation on the federal level alone won't fix this. Legislation on the state level alone won't fix this. Both will result in various cases and case law, which will be needed to further define what was written. An interesting and different situation about the legal drinking age is an example. The federal government wanted the drinking age raised to 21, the fight between the federal government and state government. Specifically the fight that Louisiana had.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's the point. Legislation on the federal level alone won't fix this. Legislation on the state level alone won't fix this. Both will result in various cases and case law, which will be needed to further define what was written. An interesting and different situation about the legal drinking age is an example. The federal government wanted the drinking age raised to 21, the fight between the federal government and state government. Specifically the fight that Louisiana had.

The alcohol laws of Utah are radically different than the laws of Nevada. Somehow they manage to coexist next to each other.

Dave, any chance you'll start giving specifics rather than vague 'this won't work well' statements along with poor comparisons to cigarettes, painkillers, and viagra? What I see is someone whose direct experience makes it very difficult to view the problem objectively.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

any chance you'll start giving specifics rather than vague 'this won't work well' statements

Nope, I can't, I've been referencing publicly available information and that's all the information I will share. Beyond that, I guess you can start filing FOIA requests with a handful of agencies.

That's also why I've been talking about very broad and interesting things that effect this situation. Stuff about constitutional law (which I find really interesting) and large scale violence in the drug trade.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

> Marijuana problems seem to be caused more by the weed, not the user.

?? I have never seen anyone forced to smoke pot. Problems with both alcohol and pot are caused by their users. To some people they are inherently dangerous due to addiction, predisposition etc but those people have to make the decision to use (or abuse) them.

The problems I am speaking of are associated with job loss, I should have clarified that. But I still think it is more fair to say that the user of marijuana is less likely to have problems associated with its effects than alcohol users as they relate to jobs, however, the marijuana user is more likely to lose a job over the legalities and judgements associated with marijuana.

>Problems with both alcohol and pot are caused by their users"

there are more definitive problems associated with weed because it is illegal. For example, if I have a six pack unopened in my car, im still ok, but if I have a joint rolled in the glove box, I could go to jail ect... Neither, situations were affected by the "effect" of the drug itself, but one gives you more problems... So I dont think its a blanket statement to say that both of them are caused by they're users. Assuming the beer or the joint doesnt belong to the driver of the car. still maybe im just not understanding you completely

"We didn't start the fire"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

any chance you'll start giving specifics rather than vague 'this won't work well' statements

Nope, I can't, I've been referencing publicly available information and that's all the information I will share. Beyond that, I guess you can start filing FOIA requests with a handful of agencies.

I reread this thread from the beginning and I didn't see you substantiate a single claim you made. And while you insist Prohibition isn't relevant, you haven't addressed a single argument on it, nor defending your claims regarding other trafficked commodities.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, really. All of it is implied with legalization. If you are saying that legalization isn't going to be a quick and easy process, that may well be true, but no one is arguing otherwise.

Heh, ok, if you really believe that. Its not that legalization isn't going to be a quick and easy process, others were arguing that it would be a magical cure-all, but I'm glad you don't necessarily agree. Did you read the snippet I wrote in a previous post about federal vs. state government, law and the enforcement?

That's the point. Legislation on the federal level alone won't fix this. Legislation on the state level alone won't fix this. Both will result in various cases and case law, which will be needed to further define what was written. An interesting and different situation about the legal drinking age is an example. The federal government wanted the drinking age raised to 21, the fight between the federal government and state government. Specifically the fight that Louisiana had.

You are either missing the point (or deliberately ignoring it); addressing all of that is implied with legalization, i.e., taking all of the necessary legislative steps to eliminate all legal prohibitions.te law has passed such laws is also decriminalization, not legalization.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

any chance you'll start giving specifics rather than vague 'this won't work well' statements

Nope, I can't, I've been referencing publicly available information and that's all the information I will share.

Ummm … no, you haven't been referencing any sources, only making vague claims. If you referenced a source or two, your claims might acquire a bit of credibility that they currently lack.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rynodigsmusic 0]

i

Quote

ts not hard to detect if someone has consumed alcohol, marijuana, etc, its just a skill set that a large portion of the populace simply does not have.

So, Im assuming your a police officer? Would've liked to have known that I think, but no worries, your also a skydiver and thats why your on this forum. I have smoked with policemen before, before they became cops, agents, or whatever. I have great respect for lawmen, and I appreciate what you guys do for us everyday... that being said...

Is your statement highlighting an assumption that most of the "populace" dont, or havent smoked marijuana and therefore they dont have the "skills" to recognize the effects on users? Or, are you just saying the "skills" are a taught thing due to your profession and experience? Because I think I would argue that more people than you may know have smoked, and still smoke... I could be wrong, but it was the wording of your statement that made me think. Like your protecting the populace from some sort of foreign enemy or something? With all due respect.

"We didn't start the fire"

[billvon 2,991]

>however, the marijuana user is more likely to lose a job over the legalities
>and judgements associated with marijuana.

Again, that's not my experience. Pilots lose their pilot's licenses (and thus their jobs) due to DUI's. People are fired for coming to work drunk - and that happens a LOT more than people who come to work stoned, primarily due to availability.

>For example, if I have a six pack unopened in my car, im still ok, but if I have
>a joint rolled in the glove box, I could go to jail ect...

Right. But if one of those cans is open, then you could also go to jail - and that has nothing to do with the effect of alcohol, either.

>Neither, situations were
>affected by the "effect" of the drug itself, but one gives you more problems... So
>I dont think its a blanket statement to say that both of them are caused by
>they're users.

That argument really doesn't work. I mean, you could claim that you got a DUI when you got pulled over but it's totally unfair because you were actually OK driving, even though you were over the legal limit. You could further argue that the problem wasn't with your use of alcohol, but the stupid law that says you can't drive with a BAC over .08.

But I don't think most people would agree with that. It's illegal to drive drunk even if you think you can.

(BTW I think marijuana should be legalized, but I also don't think that that's OK to violate the laws that are in place now.)

[AggieDave 6]

I fully believe that a large percentage of the population in the US has either consumed marijuana in the past or actively consume marijuana. I believe that the consumption of marijuana has become seemingly prevalent through out all social and economical standings.

In terms of what my post was replying to, was about BillVon saying that its harder for most to detect marijuana in the work place, but its easier for most to detect alcohol. This was about people in the work place. So although you may be able to simply say "gee, I think that guy smoked pot," you don't want to necessarily end that person's career with that. A trained and legally recognized ability to detect the presence of alcohol or a narcotic in someone's system is needed.

Wouldn't you love to lose your job because a manager *thinks* you showed up high? Do you think that manager has a trained skillset to determine that there is the presence of something in your system? Do you think most people have that trained and professional skill set? That's all it meant.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[fasted3 0]

Dave, I have read your comments with interest; thank you for providing your view point. I think that the fundimental problem comes from when your job goes from protecting the public from attack, and protecting a citizen from themselves. Be it any of the substances you name, or any victimless crime, it really boils down to you being compelled by your job to protect a citizen from the allegedly bad consequences of what they desire to do to themself.
Sin tax falls into the same catagory. When the tax on cigs is higher than the cost of making them, the door is open to criminal profit making. People aren't going to stop smoking cigarettes, or pot, for that matter, or going to prostitutes, or doing anything else that makes them feel good, and be damned to your laws.
The land of the free has more people locked up, per capita, than anywhere in the world. I automatically fear you because you're a cop, and that sucks. If you just stuck to real criminals, we would problably both be happier.
Anyway, to your original point about cartels/mafia/gangs/terrorist orginizations, if you took away the profit from any activity that people are going to do anyway...
Just a thought.

But what do I know?

[happythoughts 0]

What would you think of applying the same laws and enforcement to pot that is applied to alcohol.

Age restrictions, taxes, DUI, fines, etc.

It seems that current policy is more damaging than the
actual effect, considering the admissions of many of
our high ranking political leaders.

If we eliminated all former users from prominent business
and political positions, it would be quite different.

Obviously, if you can use pot, but later graduate from
college, and become president - then maybe it should
not be equated to the level of danger that it is.

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Again, that's not my experience. Pilots lose their pilot's licenses (and thus their jobs) due to DUI's. People are fired for coming to work drunk - and that happens a LOT more than people who come to work stoned, primarily due to availability.

Fair enough, Ive had different experiences, and have gone to work drunk plenty of times, when even bosses have known, and have never been fired for it, or not hired because of it. Now, weed on the otherhand has caused plenty of problems, in most of my freinds' lives, and some of my familys as well. I personally have not seen anyone lose a job because of alcohol, and I was in food and beverage, golf course maint., construction, military, retail, guitar sales, and overseas contracting.. etc.. never seen it one time. But weed on the otherhand..

Quote

plenty

.

Quote

>For example, if I have a six pack unopened in my car, im still ok, but if I have
>a joint rolled in the glove box, I could go to jail ect...

Right. But if one of those cans is open, then you could also go to jail - and that has nothing to do with the effect of alcohol, either.

>Neither, situations were
>affected by the "effect" of the drug itself, but one gives you more problems... So
>I dont think its a blanket statement to say that both of them are caused by
>they're users.

That argument really doesn't work. I mean, you could claim that you got a DUI when you got pulled over but it's totally unfair because you were actually OK driving, even though you were over the legal limit. You could further argue that the problem wasn't with your use of alcohol, but the stupid law that says you can't drive with a BAC over .08.

Your using the effects of the drugs still as an example. Beer bottle, unopened, sober driver, felony state... still ok... joint, sober driver, felony state, not okay. We have had different experiences on the differences of marijuana and alcohol and how they affected our lives and the people around us. In my exp. weed has brought many more problms to my observation as far as the law is concerned. The alcohol problems were not because of the alcohol, but the situations associated with its consumption that broke the law. Weed, you dont even have to consume to have problems with it. I personally have never met anyone who got a dui and wasnt under the influence, but its a good point and something I havent had to think about yet... "Wrongful DUI"?

Still your right, but, breaking the law is a risk, one that everyone takes everyday... there are many many laws in the world... follow the laws as much as your life will allow, but I wouldnt pretend your not a lawbreaker. I always hate getting speeding tickets from cops that drive way faster than I do. I understand we have to have speed laws enforced, but everyone breaks that law dont they? More laws more risk management I guess.

"We didn't start the fire"

[FastRon 0]

Smokers- If you think the profit motive is absent from marijuana sales you are naive. The large importers are the same ones who bring you cocaine, heroin, and cook your meth. They do rob, and murder for it. As for long term effects... A young couple I know were unable to have kids because potiential daddy was essentially sterile due non-motile sperm, from a lot of pot smoking from adolescence on to his 30's, per his doctor. Maybe they were stoned like he was?

[normiss 801]

Yet I had three beautiful and normal children during my party days....

Meth is not imported in Florida according to law enforcement anyway.
Most meth HERE is cooked in local bathtubs. I'll NEVER understand the use of chemicals....

Either way, you have touched the point a lot of folks are trying to make...remove the profit, which in turn removes a large portion of the criminal element.
Seriously...if you can grow your own at home...why would you buy from a drug cartel?????

[stratostar 5]

Quote

A young couple I know were unable to have kids because potiential daddy was essentially sterile due non-motile sperm, from a lot of pot smoking from adolescence on to his 30's, per his doctor

That is some funny shit dude cuz I smoked a pack and a half of cowboy killers for 25 years, the last four of those year my wife quit taking the pill (no we were not trying) after 4 months of me quitting cig's...... guess what happened.

Weed can not be ruled as the only or main reason for lack of birth rate!

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Smokers- If you think the profit motive is absent from marijuana sales you are naive. The large importers are the same ones who bring you cocaine, heroin, and cook your meth. They do rob, and murder for it. As for long term effects... A young couple I know were unable to have kids because potiential daddy was essentially sterile due non-motile sperm, from a lot of pot smoking from adolescence on to his 30's, per his doctor. Maybe they were stoned like he was?

Doctors tell a lot of lies to discourage you from activities they don't approve of. This appears to be another example.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Either way, you have touched the point a lot of folks are trying to make...remove the profit, which in turn removes a large portion of the criminal element.
Seriously

That's the problem here. People are making assumptions based on simple economics. It doesn't work that way. Like Aggiedave said, there's a whole lot more involved. For instance, Mexico is plenty mad at us due to California's "Medical pot" laws. There is a lot of pot being sold legally that was received from Mexico. And as you know, there is a huge war going on down there and cops are being killed left and right trying to stop the trafficking. There are still going to be violent crimes if we legalize here. The violence is going to be here or our demand is going to cause problems elsewhere. As long as it's illegal somewhere else, there is going to be the correct imbalance needed to provide for drug profiteering. America is too lazy to grow their own. They are going to buy at the store or illegaly for much cheaper on the streets.
I personally believe that if pot is to be legalized, it would be a lot huger than just Obama signing law. This would require a global agreement. and even then, the criminals weren't fueled by a need to provide people with pot(this is why the economic theories put out here in this thread is flawed), they were fueled by the rewards. This means that the violence will not stop, it will move to other areas of black market profit. You are just moving the violence to somewhere else.

If anything, this is more a psychological issue rather than a Freshman college level economic test case. There are varying issues with varying aspects with differennt reasons with different rewards dealing with multiple cultures that have to communicate with each other. This is not a black and white issue as observed on this thread so far.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

America is too lazy to grow their own. They are going to buy at the store or illegaly for much cheaper on the streets.

People grow it already, despite the risk of detection. Why on earth would they be too lazy to do it when they don't have to worry about losing the house?

[nanook 1]

The same reason many people go through drive throughs instead of going home and grilling up a hamburger. Or going to a 7-11 because it is closer than a much cheaper supermarket. This is a fast paced society. Also, don't forget; most live in apartments and/or (especially here in San diego) are the rolling homeless without tracts of land to grow. Legalization will decrease prices (sin taxes not being included because I can't predict what taxation programs would come into place with this) and I believe the lesser price (possibly by mass production by corporations) will actually make it more expensive to grow your own stuff. Pretty much like fruits and vegetables now.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[stratostar 5]

It pretty clear you don't grow by your statement.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo