Legalize Pot! (?)

**Goldfoot** · 06-07-2012, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jinsai

Some drugs are dangerous not just to the person who takes them but to everyone around. We don't need to go for an all or nothing approach to legalization. You don't need to watch "Breaking Bad" to know that meth is a dangerous substance that destroys lives. I don't think we should be throwing people in jail for using or even supplying these drugs. At the same time, it's a shitty idea to allow general consumption of meth, crack, or PCP. It's a detour from the point: Pot is fucking harmless so it shouldn't be illegal.

In my vision I see there being regulations on them and some sort of control over the production. People wouldn't be making it in their basement, risking neighboring families and shit. That's not a discussion for this particular thread, though, you are right. I consider marijuana to be a recreational drug, and to keep it on topic I think it, and all recreational drugs, should be legal. One issue is being able to test for it to be active in your system, say when you get pulled over. There are ways to test for the presence of active alcohol, but marijuana is significantly harder. I think being able to do that would be a huge step toward it becoming widely legalized.

**Jinsai** · 06-07-2012, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfoot

There are ways to test for the presence of active alcohol, but marijuana is significantly harder. I think being able to do that would be a huge step toward it becoming widely legalized.

A blood test can reveal the active level of THC in the person's system. It's not entirely precise, but if you pull someone over, do a roadside sobriety test, check their pupils, and then check their blood for THC, you can have a pretty solid case.

They're also working on preparing saliva tests which should be able to reveal recent activity.

Hair and urine tests do not show the active level of THC, which is the psychoactive component, so they show no evidence or indication of whether or not the person was impaired at the time the test was administered.

**botley** · 06-07-2012, 10:51 PM

I'm really fuckin' high right now, for the second night in a row.

**allegro** · 06-07-2012, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfoot

In my vision I see there being regulations on them and some sort of control over the production. People wouldn't be making it in their basement, risking neighboring families and shit. That's not a discussion for this particular thread, though, you are right. I consider marijuana to be a recreational drug, and to keep it on topic I think it, and all recreational drugs, should be legal. One issue is being able to test for it to be active in your system, say when you get pulled over. There are ways to test for the presence of active alcohol, but marijuana is significantly harder. I think being able to do that would be a huge step toward it becoming widely legalized.

In the U.S., "driving under the influence" includes just about anything, including over-the-counter and prescription drugs. Contrary to popular belief, no chemical tests are necessary to successfully convict someone of driving under the influence. Police officers are considered to be "expert witnesses" in a court of law, and they conduct extensive on-site tests using a lengthy checklist, plus they generally videotape these tests. A breathalyzer won't detect that you just ate 4 Benedryls and hopped behind the wheel. Blood and hair tests are invasive and illegal and, really, unnecessary. I saw a guy convicted of a DUI who blew UNDER the limit, but failed every other sobriety test.

Further, Marijuana is NOT solely a recreational drug; it has proven medical uses.

**botley** · 06-07-2012, 11:13 PM

Don't be harshin' my buzz.

**Goldfoot** · 06-08-2012, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Jinsai

A blood test can reveal the active level of THC in the person's system. It's not entirely precise, but if you pull someone over, do a roadside sobriety test, check their pupils, and then check their blood for THC, you can have a pretty solid case.

They're also working on preparing saliva tests which should be able to reveal recent activity.

Hair and urine tests do not show the active level of THC, which is the psychoactive component, so they show no evidence or indication of whether or not the person was impaired at the time the test was administered.

I'm aware of the current ways of testing, especially blood tests, which is why I used the term active; the presence of THC in someone's urine or blood doesn't indicate a narrow enough time frame on its own to determine if the person was under the influence when driving. I'm not saying it's impossible to know, but there aren't any accepted methods right now like there are for alcohol.

Originally Posted by allegro

In the U.S., "driving under the influence" includes just about anything, including over-the-counter and prescription drugs. Contrary to popular belief, no chemical tests are necessary to successfully convict someone of driving under the influence. Police officers are considered to be "expert witnesses" in a court of law, and they conduct extensive on-site tests using a lengthy checklist, plus they generally videotape these tests. A breathalyzer won't detect that you just ate 4 Benedryls and hopped behind the wheel. Blood and hair tests are invasive and illegal and, really, unnecessary. I saw a guy convicted of a DUI who blew UNDER the limit, but failed every other sobriety test.

Further, Marijuana is NOT solely a recreational drug; it has proven medical uses.

I feel like this depends on the state and circumstances of the traffic stop. Everyone reacts to drugs in different ways. Not saying that you are wrong, but I've had plenty experience with cops over the years (not in a criminal capacity), so I know that there's no cut an dry way to handle every situation.

As for the recreational statement, I didn't say it was only recreational. It is mostly used for recreational purposes, and even though it has medical uses, that doesn't take away the other ways it is used. Morphine has a illegitimate medical use, but does that mean it should be legalized?

**allegro** · 06-08-2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfoot

I feel like this depends on the state and circumstances of the traffic stop. Everyone reacts to drugs in different ways. Not saying that you are wrong, but I've had plenty experience with cops over the years (not in a criminal capacity), so I know that there's no cut an dry way to handle every situation.

If the cop suspects you are under the influence, the cop has steps to take to determine same. I'm not speaking from a personal standpoint, I'm speaking from the legal standpoint. See my resume.

Morphine is legal. But, it is regulated.

Alcohol has zero medical purpose. It's dangerous, damaging and addictive. It's directly linked to thousands of deaths per year. Yet, it's legal. And regulated.

Tobacco is more addictive than heroin. It has zero use to society or medicine. It is linked to cancers and diseases too numerous to list, here. Yet, it's legal. And regulated.

The ONLY reason that pot is illegal in this country is due to corruption; the DEA is on the take, as is the FBI.

**isak** · 06-08-2012, 10:24 AM

My partner was recently diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, and around the same time I suggested he tried some pot (for recreational purposes). He was a little wary with his condition and asked I investigate any negative side effects with it, apparently there's been loads of studies on how beneficial cannabis actually is for IBD's such as Chrons and Ulcerative Colitis, all bringing back overwhelmingly positive results like this. Considering there's a good chance he will need surgery, it's incredibly frustrating to think that a totally harmless drug that could potentially reduce the risk of surgery, is a class B drug in the UK.

**BrewHa** · 06-09-2012, 11:40 AM

"Not only should pot be legalized, but it should be mandatory." - Bill Hicks

Seriously, it is the year 2012. What is the fucking hold up here? There is a reason that alcohol (which is a drug and a more harmful drug at that) is legal and pot is not. One makes you stupid and angry, while the latter helps inspire creativity and has proven to be beneficial to chemo patients. Big Pharm would be seriously screwed if everyone just started smoking pot instead of taking pills. Hopefully we all live to see the day.

**REPLICA** · 06-14-2012, 05:56 PM

How can Snoop Dog have pot legally and I can't? I get migraines too! Pass me some, Snoop!

EDIT: By the way, I think North Carolina would have an awesome economy if we started farming pot like we used to farm tabacco - CASH CROP!!