Mj Is Legal In Colorado Washington

[Ralphie]

You guys think so?

Idk I think some states are going to be stubborn and not accept the change of times.

If I have learned anything from my almost 10 years in the workforce, it is that people HATE change.

Although typically, the Liberal states states go first and others follow I guess.


And Toycar, wtf is your name....

I know ive caught it before but I can't remember And I HATE calling people by their SN.

[wildBill83]

That still does not mean that people won't become violent while they are under the influence of ANY drug, legal or not.

Its just different for everyone dude.

Sorry to cut most of the post out, I just wanted to say that we seem to be 98% in agreement.

I just have never heard of or seen someone get stoned and violent unless they are smoking more than mj. That synthetic mj for example, can make someone violent and it is semi-legal, but since it is not mj I can't say it has the same effects as mj.

I agree that a drug, any drug, alters your perception of reality. But speaking of mj specifically, it usually gives the users a flowery calm view of reality, as compared to something like LSD that completely removes you from reality.

There may be someone out there that feels like wrecking shop when they get high on mj, I'm just saying that statistically that is a rare appearance.

[AAPOQ]

Not to encourage them to start smoking, but to stop judging us for smoking.

This has been my feeling on the matter for quite some time. I'm tired of being judged for my choice to partake...

I am a completely functional smoker, I go to work everyday, clean my house, pay my taxes, I do everything a responsible adult does. So why can't people realize how utterly useless it is to keep the plant illegal...

[Ralphie]

Sorry to cut most of the post out, I just wanted to say that we seem to be 98% in agreement.

I just have never heard of or seen someone get stoned and violent unless they are smoking more than mj. That synthetic mj for example, can make someone violent and it is semi-legal, but since it is not mj I can't say it has the same effects as mj.

I agree that a drug, any drug, alters your perception of reality. But speaking of mj specifically, it usually gives the users a flowery calm view of reality, as compared to something like LSD that completely removes you from reality.

There may be someone out there that feels like wrecking shop when they get high on mj, I'm just saying that statistically that is a rare appearance.

Idk, it really depends on the people.

In my crew from back in the day, most of us wanted to just play video games and eat cookie dough.

A few people though wanted to slap box and lift weights.

We usually were the less aggresive, and the hyper guys were the ones who did beer runs(grabbing whatever you can hold and running for your life w/o paying)

and broke into cars etc.


From my perspective, yes for the most part people are chill and are not violent when smoking.

There is still a grey area and that is the area that is the problem.

[toycar]

And Toycar, wtf is your name....

I know ive caught it before but I can't remember And I HATE calling people by their SN.

My name is Justin


old balls Justin as my friends call me


lol

[deevergote]

I don't think it's the drug that can be held responsible, though. Those guys would likely be no different on massive amounts of caffeine, or alcohol, or simply boredom.

[Ralphie]

My name is Justin


old balls Justin as my friends call me


lol

LOL, ok cool. Old balls justin is how I shall refer to you!

I don't think it's the drug that can be held responsible, though. Those guys would likely be no different on massive amounts of caffeine, or alcohol, or simply boredom.

Eh good point.

On massive amounts of alcohol, they were less aggresive actually because they were drunk lol.

Can't vouch for caffeine.

Boredom probably played a roll.

[toycar]

Lol


Boredom aka the real gateway drug

[deevergote]

Boredom and peer pressure.

[Ralphie]

Boredom and peer pressure.

Deadly consequences.

[phatdoughnut]

I think we'll see it in our lifetime.

We may not see overall acceptance the way alcohol is accepted, but I think we'll see legalization.

I think we will see it in our lifetime as well. If 20 states legalize the rest will have to follow suit, they will see the gains and have no choice.

[owequitit]

Just to clarify;



I never said that I was not effected by smoking weed or that I thought or think that its ok to work or operate machinery while being high.



I do think that there is a very common missunderstanding of what level of impaired we get when we smoke weed.

I would absoloutely argue that I could do anything a todler can do when I have been smoking. I do realize that my personal reaction time and thought process does not reflect upon the entire population of smokers.


However, I think its just as easily argueable that the studies that have been done do not accurately reflect the majority of us either.







Im not advocating for equal rights for a person stoned vs a sober person. I dont think people should smoke and drive for example.


I do think its bullshit that people dont realize they corner smokers with their assumed thoughts, when they are far from accurate.






How am I supposed to argue or defend myself when all you want to do is quote science study that are irrelevant to what Im talking about. The position you take(owequitit) in the conversation leaves me no choice but to look like a defensive stoner. Until you are willing to hear what I am saying, theres no point.

Nobody is denying that you are effected by smoking weed. I am certainly not advocating for people to be able to smoke at their free will whenever and wherever they want.



I very much so am saying that you guys are just plain wrong. Go smoke weed for 24 years and come back and tell me I dont know what Im talking about. I am not denying your claim to "proof" but you are very clearly denying my point.


People can smoke themselves stupid. Yup. Anyone can do that. Just like you can drink yourself stupid, some people choose to do that.



That is not the common practice and that is not what functional pot heads do though. And you guys have to realize that we can do stuff after hitting the bong a few times without risking anyones life.


Scott(I think thats your name) you claimed that after smoking people would have a hard time performing tasks a toddler could do and you act as though your quoted study is some how the answer.



Let us come out of the darkness and I bet you'll find more studies that actually study people like me and the common opinion will change.


Just this week I did all kinds of shit high.


I setup a Home network for 4 pc's all use a single networked printer. Wired up K5 lines into every room of the house and everything.


I did about 4 hours worth of drywall work.


I changed inner and outer tie rods, wheel bearing, lower ball joints and lower control arms(both sides) on my cd5.

I worked on my bathroom for a while. Plumbed in a second line for our second sink(upgrading bathroom vanity to 2 sink jobby). When I say plumbed I mean new main line copper pipe to the bathroom, installed up to code with a permit and inspection- soldered and all.

Assembled an Ls2 short block for a buddies car.

I cooked dinner every day. Washed my cars(all of them).



I did and do all kinds of shit after burning and through my life of experience I can both acknowldege my limits and deny your claims. Yes, you put limits in front of yourself after you start smoking or drinking. Yeah, its true.

That doesnt make me a dumbshit though, and Im not just all the sudden an idiot because I smoked some weed. If you get high, it doesnt just reset your memory and you forget how to act.







And this is what I have been eluding to the entire time. Maybe you (scott) didnt read all of my posts but to paraphrase its people like you and your thought process that is hindering the progress in the first place.


Until you actually experience someone like me in real life, you just assume Im lying or what I am saying doesn't apply to the majority.


There are a lot more people like me than anyone wants to admit.



My core points of everything I have posted are this;




-Non smokers have no idea what smokers are capable of and how impaired we actually are. I can tell you right now, your assumptions are not even close to accurate.

-Because people like you guys express yourselves so strongly, and come across so close minded to the notion that I might be telling you the truth-it hinders progress. This divide forces people like me to live differently, because of opinions like yours. You just assume the worst since I am honestly telling you that I can smoke weed and be more functional than previously in some scenarios-you automatically think I want to get high and fly planes or something. Stop assuming the worst and open your mind to what I am saying.

-Some people are at a disadvantage from square one. Meaning they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. Those are also the people the get a hold of weed, and have created the image that you guys assume must be everyone that smokes. Most of us get high behind closed doors and you non-smokers live your entire lives being none the wiser. You literally have NO idea we smoke 99% of the time.


-An estimated 16.7 million people smoke weed. There are enough of us that dont get in trouble compared to the 850,000 people that were arrested(2010 stats) to easily argue that what you see in public does not accurately reflect on what happens behind closed doors.


-People that dont smoke weed at work shouldn't have to worry about losing their jobs. This is the only reason I think the law needs to be addressed. Well the workplace issues, and to educate non smokers of what smokers really live with. I dont think people should be allowed to work high or drunk. There should be an equal system in place for both.


It is not a fair assumption that since I am arguing about how impaired I am being defined as-I am also trying to advocate that people can get high at work.


Thats not it.



We cannot take you guys seriously when all you talk about in the MJ conversatoin is ridiculous bullshit that hasn't applied to even 10% of pot smokers in recent years.




Dont you guys get piss tested to be a pilot? You sure see alot more pilots getting drunk on the job than getting high thats for sure. I would argue that the culture surrounding MJ forces people to become alcoholics in some lame attempt to work around the piss test.


Being an alcoholic is equally as bad if not worse than a stoner. Theres no arguing that. From health to impairment alcohol is 10x worse than any MJ.



I as a smoker am tired of being treated with a blanket policy that since I smoke weed I must like scooby snacks and probably zone out on the couch every day.

I am a very productive person even when Ive been smoking. I get up everyday and go to work, I do a good job. I pay my bills, and I am no longer a criminal.

Get off my jock yo. What I do in my time shouldn't matter to you non smokers if it doesn't actually effect you in any way.



This entire conversation reminds me of the election this year and how it became an issue that men were trying to decide what was best for womens health care.

If you are not a smoker, you really have no idea what is best for us. There has NEVER been a real study with enough people to accurately hatch out the pros vs cons of MJ. The largest studies had like 1,000-1,500 people in them. Often times they take a non smoker and ask them to smoke for the first time to decide what the initial effects are. Initially, the first time you smoke you get a LOT higher than after you've been smoking for a while. Obviously the effects are very different and however you structure your study could influence the percieved outcome. Test MJ effects on non smokers and sure, I bet they were "impaired"


Perform the exact same study on life long smokers and I bet you get a very different picture.

This is a link to 10 studies that go against anything you are claiming that were all gov funded.

http://libertycrier.com/government/t...-never-funded/

Im not saying they are accurate either, but merely pointing out that there are studies that can say anything you want if you look far enough. In this arguement, I feel my life of experience should hold merit just as much as these shenanigans. Now Im not saying these studies are the end all answer either. Merely pointing out that studies and their results are limited to the number of people involved and the circumstances leading into the study.

There has never been a comprehensive study that gathered millions of stoners together to actually study us.




Most studies actually suggest that MJ has positive effects on people.


There is a safe level of consumption.


Smoking one bowl is not the same as getting bombed or being drunk.


Its just not and you non smokers need to wrap your head around this.

If you expect me to even take the time to BEGIN to read your posts, it would probably be beneficial for you to actually format them like a coherent, logical, well thought out and cognitively capable statement should be written out. I.E. paragraph and sentence structure matter. I know this is a forum, and I certainly don't expect a doctorate level dissertation, but at least we could get some readable structure?

I just wanted to touch on the level of impairment part:

Alcohol:
I have seen people get so impaired that they black out and do things they would never do sober as well as continue drinking and functioning when the brain has entirely shut down all concious thought processes to the point of alcohol poisoning. The average heavy drinker drinks to get bombed, that is the goal, to get as drunk as possible.

MJ:
I have seen people get so impaired that they fall asleep, I have never seen someone get so impaired that they can function without reasonable thought or poison themselves. Like toycar states, the majority of heavy closet smokers just reach a certain comfortable buzz and go on about their ways, because if you get bombed you fall asleep and waste the buzz and the day.

Bottom line they are both drugs and should be grouped together and have similar laws in place. There is no seperation other than the level of impairment you can obtain and the amount of damage you do to your body, of which alcohol can get you more impaired and do more body damage and you can pick it up at the local corner store anywhere. The only real seperation is in the culture and use of the two types of drugs. Comparing mj use to alcohol is like comparing caffine to methamphetamine.

You are attempting to create a strawman here. It isn't about which one can kill you faster. It is about does it, or does it not impair you. If it does, then it must be watched carefully.

The first, and biggest flaw in your position, is that you dismiss anybody else's posted studies as flawed, while getting upset that they don't swallow yours. Hypocritical much? The reality is that having looked at endless sights such as you post, more often than not they do not hold up under scrutiny, they do not support themselves, and they don't really offer much other than speculation and conjecture. It is a lot like the post 911 conspiracy sights. Most of them are just frankly full of crap, and whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you, but you hardly have any leverage to assail anyone who doesn't believe you, or agree.

Now, lets get to the real root of this issue. You guys can strain, burn or waft as much smoke as you like. Whether drugs come from legal dispensaries or the black market federal government, it does not change the realities of chemical affect and impairment. As such, it does not change the argument for controlling, limiting, or testing for them. It really is that simple, and nothing else really supports anything along that avenue.

You can argue the social merits of legalization all you want. You can't argue the physiological, liability, or ability of employers to control said substances in any way, shape, or form.

The second flaw in your statement is that you assume that anybody who against weed being controlled is pro-alcohol. I would like to point out that alcohol is responsible for 40,000+ deaths annually, and ranks as not only the #1 killer related to automobiles, but also the largest non-natural killer of humans in this country every single year. So to approach your argument from the standpoint of "alcohol" is legal, so weed should be too" is short sighted and flawed. If anything, alcohol is as clear a demonstration of the potential side effects of driving impaired as any, and we haven't even touched on the domestic violence, or any other aspects of it yet.

Also, you can make any claims you want about what alcohol does to people and what you have observed, but that is not necessarily "scientific." Just because you have never seen angry stoners doesn't mean you can't, won't, or that it is impossible. Everybody reacts to drugs differently, and drugs are categorized the way they are for a reason. They are tested and measured the way they are for a reason, and there are limits placed on them for a reason.

I am not really here to argue the social implications, because frankly, I really don't care. I choose not to smoke, and have no desire to do so. I have better things to do with my money and time, but then I feel the same way about tobacco, gambling, and usually alcohol. I am not socially against the legalization of MJ personally, but I am sure as hell against any pseudo-reality that attempts to pretend that MJ doesn't have any issues associated with it at all. If that were the case, there would be no benefit to legalizing it because nobody would want to smoke it.

Also, I would like to point out that no amount of legalization is going to stop the black market operations. They may become less lucrative, but ultimately, they will continue and the people who operate there won't just go away. They will branch into new, untapped markets. Study La Cosa Nostra for an example of how operations will adapt. Also, consider that music, video games, etc are all "legal" and are all still available on the black market.

7.4% IS MJ.

Alcohol only was 7.3%.

So for the first time, there are slightly more high drivers then drunk drivers.

It is mind bending, no, it is only .1% more.

Is it a trend? Idk too early to tell.

It's just numbers on a page, but those numbers represet REAL people who are jeopardizing REAL people.

Honestly, this isn't a perfect world, but I would dare to say we as a Society especially in 2012 can do a smidge better then 14%.

Out of 1300 people, should be less then 5%.




I understand your stance on the discussion with regards to what they can and can't do and your point has been noted.


Now, with regards to your posted links, I believe you were trying to say that the stats they represent show that decriminazling it will not lead to an increase in use with the public.

I hate to rain on your parade, but your not to good at understanding stats lol.

Unless im wrong, and ill be corrected if I am, my take on those two websites shows that CLEARLY, the US is not ready for mainstream use.

Just so you know I read the same thing you did, both websites compared the US(San Fransicco) to the Netherlands.

They chose San Fran due to its similiarity to the Netherlands as far as pop/colleges etc

And I quote-



Now this statment is confusing. Lawfully regulated cannabis would refer to how we control it in the US no?

If so, the proof is right there.

And if it is true, then that clearly shows that the US culture is not ready for mainstream cannabis use.

Your comparing to very different lifestyles and cultures.

It has ALWAYS been part of their culture and its been integrated into their daily lives.

Now I will agree that their approach(Public health issue is #1, Law issue is #2) is the right approach imo. Heck, there are a lot of countries who do things better then the US.

In Israel, it takes 25 minutes to get from the entrance to your gate, which includes luggage and security.

Why? Because there are no security checkpoints. You just drop your bags off and head to your gate.

Well how is that safe?

There are dozens and dozens of people blending in that are trained to read people.

You don't know who they are, but they watch EVERYONES every move.

Studies show that people who are planning on commiting a crime or planting a bomb act different then people who are just headed home.....signs are there...you just have to know how to read them.

But here in the US, we get x-ray'd and patted down and it takes 2 hours to get through that bs.


So to answer your question about open mindedness....

So if I choose not to read an article im close minded!?!?

Little heavy no?

I wasn't choosing to NOT read them because I felt they were not useful or stupid.

Just didn't feel a need too, but if it mean't that much to you, I would.

And anything that is www.warondrugs.org comes off tinfoil hat to me.

That was presumptious of me, and that I am guilty of, but those websites just come off wacky.

The other is a legit one.

Both actually had good points.

I agree that lessening the crime/punishment for having or using(in certain circumstances, see rest of thread) should be reduced.

As long as your not transporting or selling, it should be confiscated and you sent home.

I don't think decriminizliing it will make use go up, but in this country, making it legal will(hence why 7.4% are now driving high)

Not sure why you think that use won't go up.

Maybe it wouldn't because most people are ALREADY using, but you will now see a spike in other issues not thought of before(like DUI).

Ok I reread it. Of those 7.4%, how many were actually high at the time of the test? The test could not tell you if they had just smoked or had smoke in the last few days. Just because it is in your system does not mean you are high or even buzzed. A typical mj buzz last a couple of hours tops.


Of those 7.3%, 100% had drank prior to the test. 100% of those had a buzz when tested.


Fixed. This I can agree to.


Agreed, but I still feel the results are not accurate enough because they are not testing the level of impairment.


Thank you for listening to that part.



If you ask the educated youth of the Netherlands if they smoke pot, the majority will say no, even though it is legally available for recreational use. You would think that it would be the opposite result. If the drug was so bad and so widely available then why is there not 100% useage? Infact the number of habitual smokers in the Netherlands is on a decreasing trend.


No, the black market drives cannabis. This is far from lawfully regulated.


We are all human, and their way of life is not too much different, just the laws are and how the public percieves cannabis.


It has also always been a part of American culture, just under the table since the early 1900's when they deemed it the devils weed and spread propaganda to demonise a plant. Now Jimson weed is the true devils plant, but it is LEGAL everywhere. Hell it was so much of our culture that George Washington use to grow and harvest cannabis and even spoke of the importance of seperating male plants from the crop. It hass been in out culture since before the declaration of independence that was drafted on hemp paper. Cannabis use is world wide, infact it may be even more common than coffee.


This is the approach that is reducing addiction and the youth are trending away from drugs because of it there, why not educate our youth instead of tell them "just say no!". I was a child once, and when I was told to not do something ... sometimes I did anyway to find out why I was told not to just because it was not explained to me.


Discounting something before you read it is being closed minded. Open minded people will read it and then weigh the information. You may find the war on drugs site a bit crazy, but infact they are one of the oldest most grounded sites on the subject.


No arguments there.


Well considering the study was done in a state that has decriminalized and not legalized, but you say usage is increasing doesn't that go against what you think.

I don't think it will go up, if anything it will go down for a number of reasons.
1. People will be more comfortable to smoke at home and not on the road or at random places they need to travel to.
2. Teens and underage users are the primary ones driving while impaired because they cannot smoke at home, but regulation would reduce this. Think if alcohol was not regulated and there was no age limit, surely there would be more drunk teens on the road?
3. Some people use it just because it is taboo, but if it turns out not to be then their thrill from breaking the law is gone.
4. Public education will teach more of all of the issues associated, rather than telling them just don't do it becuase we said so.
5. Violent crime will reduce that is directly related to cannabis, just as it did with alcohol prohibition. While alcohol was illegal mobs and gangs distributed it on the streets and the government could not stop it and lost out on revenue. When they legalized it, it took the power away from the black market and this took the money away from the moon shiners. How can a gang or mob compete with a company like Anheuser-Busch and still make a profit? They can't and that is why we don't have speak-easy's today with illegal liquor.
6. As you pointed out, those using won't increase because they are going to use it, legal or not. Most of them don't care about the legality in the first place.

Bottom line is that the demand is there, but right now the black market is the only market profiting. Demand won't increase, and may not decrease, but for sure it is not going away so why not educate the public and profit from those who chose to use it? How much power would the cartels in Mexico have if their entire demand for cannabis dissapeared?

This is a VERY good read.

Talks about the relationship between violence and MJ.

The subject was a African-American youth.

Here are some profound quotes-













http://www.csdp.org/research/friedman_mjviolence.pdf


Now you can write that off any way you want.

It was a study done by a bunch of guys with PhD that we don't know personally.

Maybe it is skewed or slanted, I don't think so, but you have to form your own opinions.

I am not sure why they focused on African American communities but they have stats for white men of the same age as well.

What I take away from that is that there are ALOT more people doing dumb shit when high/and or drunk, then when sober.

Doesn't take rocket science to know that, Im aware.

Does that mean people don't commit violent crimes when sober? No.

Should we blame violent crimes on the guns? No.

What I am saying, and have been saying all along, is that no matter which way you show it, everyone knows that MJ has an effect on people when you smoke/eat it whatever you do.

Because it has an impact on your reasoning/cognition/reaction/etc etc

It still needs to be controlled(as it is a controlled substance) and still needs to be regulated regardless of it being made legal.

Just because group A(lets say 324,238 people) can be high and land an F16 on a Aircraft carrier, does not mean that group B(the rest of the population) can do it.

If you believe that then I'll bet you believed the movie "Reefer Madness" when it was shown in health class.

Of course the study is skewed. Do the same study in Amsterdam. If drug use equated to violent crime, wouldn't they have the highest crime rate in the world instead of one of the lowest?
EDIT: After reading the study even admits it is skewed and does not apply to the general population:

For that study to be even close to considered they need to monitor a control group spread across the spectrum (race/income/location) rather than those who may be more likely to skew the results in their favor.

The "culture" associated with the drugs they reportedly used is an illegal culture. Those that typically break one law have no qualms about breaking many others, especially felony offenses. A good deal of crime related to drugs are from either gangs or cartels. Take the money and product away from the street pharmacist and they will then link crime to their next capital product, guns. No big suprise there. The problem is not the drugs or the guns, but the gangs/cartels. The black market drives violence more than any drug or weapon ever invented.

Here is a more interesting and factually based read about violence and marijuana use:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...S/psycviol.htm
Summary:http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../basicfax6.htm

This was posted to show where you are actively refusing to accept someone else's link, even though it is absolutely no less valid than your own, and probably more so, in fact.

[wildBill83]

You are attempting to create a strawman here. It isn't about which one can kill you faster. It is about does it, or does it not impair you. If it does, then it must be watched carefully.

OK, and you are going on a tangent here because I have already posted it does impair and should be regulated similar to alcohol... I don't get your point...

The first, and biggest flaw in your position, is that you dismiss anybody else's posted studies as flawed, while getting upset that they don't swallow yours. Hypocritical much?

No, if I am provided with a study (like the one I posted) that follows the uniform scientific method all legitimate studies follow, and has a control group and monitors a better sampling of the public I will give it more weight. Not hypocritical, but level and fair...

The reality is that having looked at endless sights such as you post, more often than not they do not hold up under scrutiny, they do not support themselves, and they don't really offer much other than speculation and conjecture. It is a lot like the post 911 conspiracy sights. Most of them are just frankly full of crap, and whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you, but you hardly have any leverage to assail anyone who doesn't believe you, or agree.

Not true either, there are plenty of sites that provide plenty of sources and hold up very well to scrutiny, for instance the last study I posted that follows the scientific method and has real evaluated results without a biased goal in mind. I generally do not follow conjecture the way you are suggesting, nor do I disregaurd valuable fact based information even if it does not align with my current beliefs. This is why I am open minded, I allow my current beliefs to change when supporting evidence says my beliefs are incorrect.

Now, lets get to the real root of this issue. You guys can strain, burn or waft as much smoke as you like. Whether drugs come from legal dispensaries or the black market federal government, it does not change the realities of chemical affect and impairment. As such, it does not change the argument for controlling, limiting, or testing for them. It really is that simple, and nothing else really supports anything along that avenue.

Again, no one is arguing about wether or not you are impared, that is an obvious DUH thing. We also are all in agreement it should be regulated in a similar way to alcohol. So moot point to that part of your post too.

You can argue the social merits of legalization all you want. You can't argue the physiological, liability, or ability of employers to control said substances in any way, shape, or form.

I don't have to argue these points either, I just mearly point out that the US is not the first to go legal on marijuana and that other countries have found solutions we can model our current problem after.

The second flaw in your statement is that you assume that anybody who against weed being controlled is pro-alcohol. I would like to point out that alcohol is responsible for 40,000+ deaths annually, and ranks as not only the #1 killer related to automobiles, but also the largest non-natural killer of humans in this country every single year. So to approach your argument from the standpoint of "alcohol" is legal, so weed should be too" is short sighted and flawed. If anything, alcohol is as clear a demonstration of the potential side effects of driving impaired as any, and we haven't even touched on the domestic violence, or any other aspects of it yet.

Never said anything of the sort, I just use alcohol as an example as it is a drug and impairs drivers and is apparently popular. I DON'T believe the government should make health decisions for us. The less gov't in our daily lives the better from my point of view. So I don't think the gov't should tell us a substance should be legal or illegal if it is a naturally occuring substance.

Also, you can make any claims you want about what alcohol does to people and what you have observed, but that is not necessarily "scientific." Just because you have never seen angry stoners doesn't mean you can't, won't, or that it is impossible. Everybody reacts to drugs differently, and drugs are categorized the way they are for a reason. They are tested and measured the way they are for a reason, and there are limits placed on them for a reason.

I believe I also covered this on a prior post... Again your assumptions are incorrect. I NEVER said it was impossible for an "angry stoner" to exist, but I did say it was not as likely.

I am not really here to argue the social implications, because frankly, I really don't care. I choose not to smoke, and have no desire to do so. I have better things to do with my money and time, but then I feel the same way about tobacco, gambling, and usually alcohol. I am not socially against the legalization of MJ personally, but I am sure as hell against any pseudo-reality that attempts to pretend that MJ doesn't have any issues associated with it at all. If that were the case, there would be no benefit to legalizing it because nobody would want to smoke it.

More power too you, but at the same time no one is pretending there are no issues. We do have penal system and prison for those who create the issues though. I would not outright blame the drug more than the person causing the problems. If an issue was created it was a person's poor judgement, not the drug's poor judgement.

Also, I would like to point out that no amount of legalization is going to stop the black market operations. They may become less lucrative, but ultimately, they will continue and the people who operate there won't just go away. They will branch into new, untapped markets. Study La Cosa Nostra for an example of how operations will adapt. Also, consider that music, video games, etc are all "legal" and are all still available on the black market.

I'm not trying to stop the black market, just pointing out that it is dangerous and is more responsible for violence than the drug itself. I even stated earlier that when they stop selling mj they will move on to items like guns. Vicodin is legal and on the black market too, big whoop-de-doo. But removing something as lucrative as their #1 cash crop (mj) would set them back and remove part of their foothold in the American streets.

This was posted to show where you are actively refusing to accept someone else's link, even though it is absolutely no less valid than your own, and probably more so, in fact.

Again see the first part of the response and the reasons behind my non-acceptance of the studies. I did read them, but they were so slanted and biased and did not follow the scientific method that I could not accept them. Find me a study that follows the scientific method and uses a control group and I'll be more likely to believe it.

[reklipz]

I've been lurking here, trying to read all of these posts. I simply can't keep up, it's not worth my time, honestly. I appreciate that folks are having this discussion though!

I agree, alcohol trumps MJ. That in itself, does not negate the issues with MJ.

Just because one is worse does not make the other better.

So, I read this, and I think this is the heart of the argument here. Most, if not everyone, will agree or will concede that "the bad stuff" from alcohol, is just as bad, if not worse, than "the bad stuff" from marijuana. If we all agree to that, then it's only logical that restrictions and regulations on marijuana should be at least as lax as those for alcohol.

Now, I use quotes around "the bad stuff," because anyone who believes that the effects, positive or negative, from marijuana and alcohol are the same, on all levels, personal, societal, national, so many... is just being ignorant. I believe there has been a lot of good research, as well as a lot of "bad" research, on the personal health, and even societal and now likely economical effects of marijuana use. This research is what should be used to help make decisions regarding the legalization and regulation of marijuana.

All of that said, it looks like everyone agrees with it; I'm not saying anyone is being ignorant, or that anyone is claiming that because alcohol is worse than marijuana is a reason to give marijuana a free ride.

I agree that the onus is on the user regarding the specific testing used to detect drug use with respect to jobs and anything of that nature. Not everyone works a high risk job, and not everyone a low risk job. Again, alcohol is a good example because most folks are educated about it; if your job is so high risk that you can't have a drop of alcohol, it goes without saying that marijuana use is going to be held to the same high standard.

But, just because the current tests for marijuana don't even hint at when the use occurred, how "much" occurred, whether or not the drug is even still present, etc. doesn't mean that a test can't be formulated to do so, just like the breathalyzer does for alcohol. If such a test were developed and proven accurate, any and all of these regulations should be either a) worded in such a way that switching to the new test is a non-issue, or b) altered to allow such a switch. Anything otherwise is an ignorant infringement upon my (and every other US citizen's) rights. Again, I'm referring to laws here, not company policy. I don't know much about the laws, but if there are any incentives for a company to require drug-screening/testing, those would present an issue and would have to be resolved. Honestly, I believe that laws such as these are likely dishonest about their upbringing, especially given the light that legalization of marijuana is a very possible thing, meaning that these laws should be done away with anyway. If anything (regarding marijuana, at least), there should be laws to the contrary, forcing business that perform drug testing and screening to "not ignorantly infringe upon rights" as I stated above. Perhaps this is radical thinking, I honestly don't know the current situation well enough to say anything, but working laws in this way reduces the side-effect issue of revamping laws and dealing with the "cost" issue of doing so. That's a different topic though... sorry for the de-rail/ramble!

[toycar]

Lol@the idea that my posts are hard to read for any reason other than being so long.