Love the joke at the end. As to the earlier part, in a word ... nope.

So . . . in essence . . . you are saying--with the brief, yet non-redundant and wasteful, parsimony of words that are inherent to the elusive quality often attributed to art and, mostly, to wit:
"Say Nope to Dope"?

(objection, your honor: leading the witness . . . or the witless as the case may be or not . . . "dave" . . . "dave" . . . donde esta 'dave'? knockknockknock=)

I DON'T want my stoned fifteen year old daughter making decisions about sex and birth control while over at some pothead's unsupervised house in the afternoon anymore than I would want her to make those sorts of decisions when she is drunk.
Why is your 15 year old daughter stoned? You've created a straw man by bringing kids into this. None of the state laws allow anyone that young to legally smoke.

There were 8600 prisoners in state penitentiaries in 2002. They each cost about as much to incarcerate as a public school teacher makes per annum. That means a state the size of Oklahoma could afford to hire about 80-100 new school teachers if it stopped incarcerating marijuana users (not including new tax revenue). This may be beneficial to your stoned 15 year old daughter.

As soon as one introduces a strawman into the mix I imagine a character out of the Wizard of Oz . . .
protecting the lush marijuana fields of [select your location] . . . O! If he only had a brain AND a heart . . .
You know . . . Like the crew on Trailer Park Boys . . . eh . . .=)

mtupT_dFxGc

Well good luck in passing that job related drug test then. Ya know even if pot is legalized it's still going to seriously limit opportunities for better paying jobs.

I'm sure if cannabis were legalized at the federal level, they would no longer test for it as they don't test for alcohol. Unless you go to work drunk. You kind of sound like the kid who is going to take his toys and go home, if cannabis were to be legalized. I know plenty of people who smoke on a regular basis and make good money.

The guys and gals who sell it but don't smoke it make even better money.
(and get off that whole goofy "cannabis" banned wagon: "hemp" involves fewer keystrokes)

they would no longer test for it

It would be up to the individual employer whether you get drug screened prior to employment. It would also be at his discretion as to hiring you if you test positive for MJ.

I'm sure if cannabis were legalized at the federal level, they would no longer test for it as they don't test for alcohol. Unless you go to work drunk. You kind of sound like the kid who is going to take his toys and go home, if cannabis were to be legalized. I know plenty of people who smoke on a regular basis and make good money.

Employers in CO and WA can still test employees and new hires for pot, and obviously fire them or not hire them if they fail.

If I had my choice, my kids would drink wine or beer at the dinner table and leave the rest alone. More and more studies are showing that kids' brains are affected by pot in detrimental ways that might not affect adults the same way, and let's face it, the pot kids smoke, these days, is much stronger than it was decades ago. I saw nothing good come from teens smoking pot as a guardian ad litem, and plenty just horrible in terms of memory impairment (even when not stoned), lack of motivation, school achievement dropping off, poor social skills and interactions, retarded maturity and addictive personality development. It also allows underlying mental illness to more easily gain a foothold. Excessive drinking is no good, either, but to pretend pot smoking is no big deal for kids, IMO, is dangerous. It is very dangerous for some kids (perhaps not all) but you just don't know which ones will be severely affected.

For that matter, it would worry me more to have my kids running with a bunch of potheads than kids who sneak beer. I say that from purely practical reasons - kids who drink can more easily hide it and if they are drinking, chances are if their parents don't know it, it is more likely because they were fooled. Plenty of good parents with good intentions are fooled by sneaky kids. it means they were fooled - it doesn't mean they aren't making a good effort to set a safe environment.

But kids who smoke have clothes and rooms that reek. Parents of the kids who ignore the smell are liable to be either potheads, themselves, dysfunctional parents who let their kids run wild, or clueless. How many of those parents are going to call the kid's parents and tell them that, although they let their own child smoke, they want to make sure it is okay for the neighbor kid to join in? They won't. They will just look the other way and that sets kids up to end up in a smoking den with no real adult supervision.

Good parents might let their kids drink at a certain age, in moderation, but I can't see good parents throwing open the bar for the neighbor kids to do the same because they'd realize that wouldn't be appropriate. Maybe I was wrong but I let my kids have a short glass of wine or beer with dinner (at home) beginning they were in their mid teens (16 - 17). We treated it as a learning experience and would discuss different types of wine or beer, how it was brewed, moderation, etc. But I can't imagine having one of their friends over and offering them alcohol without their parent's permission. And I wouldn't serve my kids alcohol if we had company because that is something another parent might not feel comfortable with.

Kids sneaking behind the barn to smoke or drink is one thing. It happens. Kids whose families tolerate unsupervised drinking, smoking, etc. and allow other parents' kids to use their home as a safe haven tend to be bad news because there is a break down in boundaries. I wouldn't trust those families to properly keep an eye out for my kid.


I don't want kids smoking cannabis either. Under current laws it is easier for a kid to get cannabis than it is alcohol. Joe Schmoe does not ask for ID. If cannabis were regulated, taxed and sold to persons 21 years of age. In adults only stores where they ID, those same stores would be fined and/or jailed if selling to a minor. Same goes for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I know I would rather have my kids get high as get wasted on alcohol. Not one person has ever died of a cannabis overdose. You can't say the same for alcohol. Cannabis is not addictive, you can get a dependence on it, but is not the same as addiction. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of our government flushing Ten Billion dollars down the toilet every year to stop a plant. All the senseless deaths across our southern border. Why not get the tax revenue from it and use it for something good. Whether it be recreational or medicinal. The status quo is not working.

Employers in CO and WA can still test employees and new hires for pot, and obviously fire them or not hire them if they fail.
I did say when it was legalized at the federal level.

Doesn't matter about the legality of the drug. Employers will always have the right to drug screen workers and not hire those who don't pass or fire those already on their payroll who fail the test. It's a liability issue with the company. Workplace safety etc.

I couldn't disagree, more. In fact, for many, pot acts as an aphrodisiac. I'm just saying...

Hogwash

Doesn't matter about the legality of the drug. Employers will always have the right to drug screen workers and not hire those who don't pass or fire those already on their payroll who fail the test. It's a liability issue with the company. Workplace safety etc.

Uh duh? Of course they always have the right to drug screen, but if it is decriminalized then chances are it'll stop being a targeted substance on the drug screen. I would hazard to say that several prescription drugs are more of a threat to liability than pot.

and chances are that you're wrong. It affects an employees cognizance so it's a safety issue. I would also suggest that if a worker was injured on the job and the company suspected he was negligent that they have him tested and if he failed the test the company would lawyer up and deny workers comp, etc.

Uh duh? Of course they always have the right to drug screen, but if it is decriminalized then chances are it'll stop being a targeted substance on the drug screen. I would hazard to say that several prescription drugs are more of a threat to liability than pot.

I'd question that. Alcohol is legal, but many companies test for alcohol if an employee is involved in an accident. Also, at least one company I worked for would terminate you if alcohol showed up on a random drug screening. Other companies i worked for may have done the some thing, but I wasn't aware of it.

I'd question that. Alcohol is legal, but many companies test for alcohol if an employee is involved in an accident. Also, at least one company I worked for would terminate you if alcohol showed up on a random drug screening. Other companies i worked for may have done the some thing, but I wasn't aware of it.

Absolutely they'll test for it if you are involved in an onsite incident. That is standard procedure. All or most companies have policies against drinking while on company time, during lunches, and even X hours before work starts. So if something happens while on duty, they are definitely going to test for it to see if it was a contributor.

If you are drinking before a drunk screen, one that is a bit stupid since you have to drive to it, but I've yet ran into it being an issue when hiring anyone.

and chances are that you're wrong. It affects an employees cognizance so it's a safety issue. I would also suggest that if a worker was injured on the job and the company suspected he was negligent that they have him tested and if he failed the test the company would lawyer up and deny workers comp, etc.

Anything to do with on the job incidents are completely a different animal than someone who uses it at home recreationally If you are using alcohol, pot, or even pain killers while on site you are an idiot. Absolutely they should be tested for and that person terminated if they were under the influence of it.

Absolutely they'll test for it if you are involved in an onsite incident. That is standard procedure. All or most companies have policies against drinking while on company time, during lunches, and even X hours before work starts. So if something happens while on duty, they are definitely going to test for it to see if it was a contributor.

If you are drinking before a drunk screen, one that is a bit stupid since you have to drive to it, but I've yet ran into it being an issue when hiring anyone.

I remember a certain ex DA's wife who arrived at a previously scheduled drug screening with an alarming BAC.

I do however think, even if legal, many companies would decline to hire an individual if they tested positive for marijuana as long as they had other candidates to choose from. As a business owner, I'd probably first ask that an employee pre-disclose marijuana use. If they lied, that would most likely make the decision to fire or not hire easier.

Don't worry overmuch about it. I was a heavy smoker for some 40 years, and my wife took it up shortly before our marriage. Our sons all grew up in a home that undoubtedly reeked of stale tobacco smoke -- and as a result they all developed a total revulsion to it! Hopefully, you'll be as lucky...

I did quit, some 25 years ago, but the damage to my body had already been done. I now have an implanted defibrillator, and only 50% lung capacity -- but I knew what I was doing and did it anyway, so I now have no right to complain about the consequences...
Meanwhile, what is the worst medical problem that may happen to heavy pot smokers? Bronchitis?

Why is your 15 year old daughter stoned? You've created a straw man by bringing kids into this. None of the state laws allow anyone that young to legally smoke.

There were 8600 prisoners in state penitentiaries in 2002. They each cost about as much to incarcerate as a public school teacher makes per annum. That means a state the size of Oklahoma could afford to hire about 80-100 new school teachers if it stopped incarcerating marijuana users (not including new tax revenue). This may be beneficial to your stoned 15 year old daughter.

If you are suggesting that making pot legal won't result in more teens getting stoned, I have to disagree with you.

And I didn't bring kids into this - the discussion about kids began when someone else said they'd rather their child smoke pot than drink. My point - that you are glossing over and is NOT a strawman - is that I don't want my daughter making life changing decisions whether she is stoned OR drunk. Assuming that it won't be "my" child that has a problem is a burying your head in the sand. No child is immune and you never know which one can handle it and which can't.

And forgive me if I say that if they legalize pot, you will probably have less people incarcerated for marijuana offenses, but you'll also have a lot more social problems that go along with pot smoking and that costs money, too. I worked with way too many messed up kids whose problems were the result of excessive pot smoking - even the ones whose parents were doing the best they could to get it under control - and this was in a state where pot was illegal. Every kid I ever tried to work with whose personality had changed to surly and withdrawn - and who was dropping out of school - and who had became dishonest and deceitful to hide their habit - would spout the same sorts of arguments, i.e., that pot smoking is harmless and better than drinking.

Hogwash

Oh, sweetie...

I'm sure if cannabis were legalized at the federal level, they would no longer test for it as they don't test for alcohol. Unless you go to work drunk. You kind of sound like the kid who is going to take his toys and go home, if cannabis were to be legalized. I know plenty of people who smoke on a regular basis and make good money.

Cannabinoids are the cash cow of the drug testing industry. If not for pot, the only positives would be amphetamines, opiates, and ANGEL DUST (boy, I bet those users get popped at work often, lol).

No way, NO way, would they drop pot, any more than they'd give up testing for improper (nonprescribed) use of otherwise legal substances.

Add: Pot remains on the list not because it's dangerous; simply, it's detectable in urine far longer than any other prohibited substance. Positive drug tests sell drug hysteria.

$ :congrats:

If you are suggesting that making pot legal won't result in more teens getting stoned, I have to disagree with you.

This is I think the only strong argument against legalization. But it turns out the places that have legalized haven't seen increases in usage, including teens. If you want to provide proof to the contrary, go ahead.


My point - that you are glossing over and is NOT a strawman - is that I don't want my daughter making life changing decisions whether she is stoned OR drunk. Assuming that it won't be "my" child that has a problem is a burying your head in the sand. No child is immune and you never know which one can handle it and which can't.
I'm not burying my head in the sand. I'm saying its parents' responsibility to raise their children. If your 15 year old daughter gets stoned and pregnant it was because she wasn't raised right. Johnny Law can't fix parenting problems. Counseling and treatment programs might, but not incarceration.



And I didn't bring kids into this - the discussion about kids began when someone else said they'd rather their child smoke pot than drink.
The guy you quoted believes kids should do drugs. Is he really worthy of a response?


Every kid I ever tried to work with whose personality had changed to surly and withdrawn - and who was dropping out of school - and who had became dishonest and deceitful to hide their habit - would spout the same sorts of arguments, i.e., that pot smoking is harmless and better than drinking.
I never said it was harmless. I would put it between energy drinks and alcohol in terms of harm. It is much much less harmful than tobacco and prescription painkillers.

stick47, out of curiosity what is your position on the use of cell phones while driving?

Out of curiosity, what is your position Kokopelli? Personally, I don't like people talking on cell phones while driving and I sure as hell don't want the person behind me texting. Fortunately my car is bluetooth enabled and I can tell a huge difference with just my driving. It is easier to make calls, take calls, and talk. In fact, it is no different than talking to someone in the seat next to me. As for not imparing motor skllls - that is pure crazy talk. I watched my brother get high a thousand times and his judgement and reaction time was so skewed it was scarry. If pot doesn't effect your mental capacity why are you smoking it?

There are 2 states that now allow recreational pot, why don't we give them a few years to see if it works out or not. If smoking pot means that much to someone I suggest they move to Washington or Colorado ASAP.

I personally have no problem with legalizing small amounts of marijuana for recreational use. I most likely would not participate - for no other reason than I've just never been the type to need artificial stimulants other than some caffeine and enjoying life. Tried pot in high school and a little in college, but I just didn't get the attraction to it. But, anyone who supports it because they think it doesn't impair the user's motor skills, judgement and/or mental/physical state is simply wrong. As pointed out above.... that's exactly why people use it.

The reality is we don't know whether marijuana affects driving ability because blood tests aren't done regularly. Any evidence I provide on that would be anecdotal because blood tests are expensive and uncommon. So I agree lets wait and see. I happened to notice when you said you were diagnosed with cancer JTF, so I'm curious why you are so adamantly against a substance that could provide relief to you in the future.

The reality is we don't know whether marijuana affects driving ability because blood tests aren't done regularly.

I predict that when legalized marijunana is combined with cell phones, traffic will stop moving altogether.

I predict that when legalized marijunana is combined with cell phones, traffic will stop moving altogether.

and we'll be able to discover the number of marijuana influenced drivers by counting the

2896

psychedelic billboards along the roadways.

I predict that when legalized marijunana is combined with cell phones, traffic will stop moving altogether.

Nah, someone will create apps for find oreos and find cheetos. It'll be dicey near C-stores and probably T-bell, but otherwise traffic will flow fine.

r8pEKwVl9tA

There are 2 states that now allow recreational pot, why don't we give them a few years to see if it works out or not. If smoking pot means that much to someone I suggest they move to Washington or Colorado ASAP.

Or they will continue to live here and easily buy it off the street relatively risk free.

And Im quite certain we will see CO and WA new laws work well as it has everywhere else in the world that has decriminalized it. It just takes a while to debunk decades of misinformation and unnecessary paranoia.

The reality is we don't know whether marijuana affects driving ability because blood tests aren't done regularly. Any evidence I provide on that would be anecdotal because blood tests are expensive and uncommon. So I agree lets wait and see. I happened to notice when you said you were diagnosed with cancer JTF, so I'm curious why you are so adamantly against a substance that could provide relief to you in the future.

If pot has a medical use then we should extract it from the plant and put it in a pill that provides the positive health benefits and doesn't alter the patient's mental capacity.

Or they will continue to live here and easily buy it off the street relatively risk free.

And Im quite certain we will see CO and WA new laws work well as it has everywhere else in the world that has decriminalized it. It just takes a while to debunk decades of misinformation and unnecessary paranoia.

The new laws might work perfectly fine. All I am saying is wait 5 year or so and find out if they do. What if in 5 years Mexican gangs are killing people all over Colorado? Mexico decrimalized drugs about 6 years ago and look what happened there.

I suggest we look, instead, toward Amsterdam for guidance . . .
Particularly toward the versions of "Wallender"--with subtitles--that dramatize the unintended consequences of importation of substances into Sweden across a long bridge on motorcycles . . .

If pot has a medical use then we should extract it from the plant and put it in a pill that provides the positive health benefits and doesn't alter the patient's mental capacity.
Because you start to feel the relief from pot almost immediately. Plus, why do I need Big Pharm to make a pill for me (when I dont know whats in it) when I could use the all natural pot. And before you say that the smoke is harmful, you can always use a vaporizer that is smokeless.


The new laws might work perfectly fine. All I am saying is wait 5 year or so and find out if they do. What if in 5 years Mexican gangs are killing people all over Colorado? Mexico decrimalized drugs about 6 years ago and look what happened there.

The violence in Mexico has nothing to do with them decriminalizing pot (I wasnt even aware they did). I think it has more to do with controlling the lucrative drug routes that come into our country. Something that wouldnt happen if we decriminalized pot. All you have to do is look at prohibition to see how decriminalization will put the illegal drug dealers out of business and put in business legitimate dispenseries that pay taxes and are regulated.

I think that it is high time we quit pointing the finger of blame toward The Southern Border . . .
3JUHCvHsCMI
Canada: Even Bigger Than Greenland on A Mercator Projection.

("space weed" is worth a click . . . =)

The guy you quoted believes kids should do drugs. Is he really worthy of a response?




That is the stupidest conclusion to what I said that I can imagine.

I have known lots of potheads and drunks through the years. Not once have I seen someone so stoned that they lost complete control of their faculties like I have drunks. Nor have I seen anyone smoke themselves to death with marijuana like I have literally seen two friends drink themselves to death. I stand by my statement that if I had my druthers I would rather MY kids to partake of pot before alcohol, if they must partake at all.

To say I advocated letting kids do drugs is just sheer stupidity.

Because you start to feel the relief from pot almost immediately. Plus, why do I need Big Pharm to make a pill for me (when I dont know whats in it) when I could use the all natural pot. And before you say that the smoke is harmful, you can always use a vaporizer that is smokeless.


Like I have said a thousand times - if a state thinks it is the key to prosperous and happy society let them give it a try. If a state thinks it will do harm to the society they should be free to restrict access. I am all for states having the ability to decide. The state that comes up with the best combination would then be seen as a model for the others.

Just the facts; just seen your post from this morning so to reply to your question. I am not for cell phone usage while driving. Studies have shown that it is comparable to drunk driving and what I see everyday while driving would confirm that. No question texting is the big culprit. At this point I would have no problem if new laws against it were enacted.

Yes, marijuana impacts motor skills. But that alone is not reason enough to not legalize it.

Once one gets past the small issues and we look at the bigger picture it is easy to see that what we have been doing for the past 40 years, in the War against drugs, is not working.

In the last 5-6 years there have been more deaths in Mexico than there was during the Vietnam war and it has nothing to do with the fact that Mexico relaxed their drug laws, rather it has everything to do with Americans appetite for drugs.

History has shown us that prohibition was a boon for organized crime and the drug war is confirming the same. And as recent events here in Oklahoma have shown they are now bold enough to add human trafficking to their menu. Additionally, now our National Parks are being used for marijuana farms. So the problems seem to be getting bigger.

So again what we are doing is NOT working and we have been spending major bucks for the failure

Serious questions... In states where it has been legalized, is it actually legalized, or really just decriminalized? Since it is still illegal at the fed level, I assume they are not packaging and taxing it.

Even if it is packaged and taxed, will that stem the tide of illegal marijuana coming north across the boarder? If so, in your opinion, how long would that take?

Would they be able to continue to sell the non-taxed stuff? How long will it take to make the legally sold and taxed stuff more popular than the imported non-taxed version?

Yes, marijuana impacts motor skills. But that alone is not reason enough to not legalize it.

I can tell you when I went to Breckenridge, there were a lot of people who were high that were a lot better skiers than I was. And I'm not bad, done a couple black diamonds.


Serious questions... In states where it has been legalized, is it actually legalized, or really just decriminalized? Since it is still illegal at the fed level, I assume they are not packaging and taxing it.

Even if it is packaged and taxed, will that stem the tide of illegal marijuana coming north across the boarder? If so, in your opinion, how long would that take?

Would they be able to continue to sell the non-taxed stuff? How long will it take to make the legally sold and taxed stuff more popular than the imported non-taxed version?
Lately the DEA in LA has been focusing only on dispensaries that break local regulations and the ones that are close to schools. The city council there voted to ban all dispensaries but that was somehow overthrown. It became legal in California for medical use with Prop 215, which passed in 1996. The grey area has gotten smaller over time and it is more legal now than almost ever before in California.
No the cannabis is not inspected and packaged where it legal. There is somewhat of an honor system where tax is collected like a sales tax, to my knowledge. I'm sure state regulators have the right to audit pot shops they suspect aren't paying their fair share.
The pot sold through LA dispensaries is slightly more expensive than its street equivalent, due to the taxes and business expenses like utilities and rent.
Every smoker I know prefers the type of weed sold by dispensaries, known as bud, to "brick weed." The cartels specialize in brick weed because it is easy to smuggle. Most pot smokers prefer bud, which is much harder to smuggle because it is higher volume and more fragile. So it wouldn't take long at all to cripple the cartels' marijuana trade.

Serious questions... In states where it has been legalized, is it actually legalized, or really just decriminalized? Since it is still illegal at the fed level, I assume they are not packaging and taxing it.

Even if it is packaged and taxed, will that stem the tide of illegal marijuana coming north across the boarder? If so, in your opinion, how long would that take?

Would they be able to continue to sell the non-taxed stuff? How long will it take to make the legally sold and taxed stuff more popular than the imported non-taxed version?

Would they be able to continue to sell the non-taxed stuff? How long will it take to make the legally sold and taxed stuff more popular than the imported non-taxed version?[/QUOTE]

I believe that they just decriminalized it. Colorado and Washington plan to tax it and are currently working out the details. Those details include trying to figure out how the feds are going to react.

Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco, and Firearms. All 3 legal yet we have entire division of the Justice Department to prevent crimes committed for all 3.

ATF Online - About ATF - Mission / Vision / Values (http://www.atf.gov/about/mission/)


A unique law enforcement agency in the United States Department of Justice that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products.

I'm just saying if you think crime goes away with legalization I think you will be disappointed.

http://www.atf.gov/alcohol-tobacco/


Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 (PACT Act) Notice
On March 31, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 (PACT Act). The law goes into effect on June 29, 2010. Please review the PACT Act Registration Information and Publications on the right side of this page for updated information.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fact sheet on cigarette smuggling

http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/110812-tobacco-diversion.pdf

No crime won't go away with legalization. No one has said that. But I do believe that the dollars we are spending on the drug war could be spent more effectively and that legalizing marijuana would help us focus more on crimes that really matter.

Even if it is packaged and taxed, will that stem the tide of illegal marijuana coming north across the boarder? If so, in your opinion, how long would that take?

Would they be able to continue to sell the non-taxed stuff? How long will it take to make the legally sold and taxed stuff more popular than the imported non-taxed version?

With CO and WA completely decriminalizing it (not just for medicinal purposes like Cali) I imagine it will completely make them useless to the drug cartels. With it being completely legal, I imagine the price will come down a bit making the legal stuff you buy the obvious choice, rather than off the street. Even if price didnt come down and stayed about the same, people will still buy from legal dispenseries. So basically you put the cartels out of business in your state rather quickly, I would think.

Another thought (guess, maybe) of mine is that there is possibly an additional benefit to decriminalizing pot, especially in a state that has a meth problem like Oklahoma. If pot were legal, and thus turned out to be cheaper than it is now off the street, you might have some habitual druggies smoking pot since its legal, easy, and sort of cheap rather than meth all the time.

Thanks for the answers. Like I mentioned, I was vehemently opposed to the legalization, but the more research I do, and the more folks in law enforcement I talk to, the more I think I may change my mind. As of now, I'm a fence sitter. I wouldn't vote for a politician one way or the other based on this issue.

I'm open minded, but cautious (being a parent). Legal or not, I would prefer my kids avoid it, as with tobacco. Label me a hypocrite, but I don't mind them drinking once they reach 21, as long as they obey the law.

Thanks again, overall, a pretty mature discussion on the topic!

Because you start to feel the relief from pot almost immediately. Plus, why do I need Big Pharm to make a pill for me (when I dont know whats in it) when I could use the all natural pot. And before you say that the smoke is harmful, you can always use a vaporizer that is smokeless.
Edibles are also legal under the current medical marijuana laws in the State of Colorado, that went into effect in 2000 and seems to have been a success. It has been stated that Colorado has some of the strictest medical marijuana laws, both for growing and selling.

The feds have cracked down on dispensaries that are close to the 1,000 foot school buffer, most others they have left alone. The main point of enforcement has been against the banks and payment processors the dispensaries used. Because they are processing "drug money" the Feds have tried to charge them under RICO statues. most dispensaries have had to go to cash operations because of heavy handed federal enforcement and that has created an additional potential for armed robbery on the shops since they are dealing with cash. It seems like that would hurt the feds ability to track sales since it is much easier to take a cash business that you cannot deposit money from "off the books", that just goes against what the gov't likes to do in tracking what people do.


Like I have said a thousand times - if a state thinks it is the key to prosperous and happy society let them give it a try. If a state thinks it will do harm to the society they should be free to restrict access. I am all for states having the ability to decide. The state that comes up with the best combination would then be seen as a model for the others.
Amendment 64 in Colorado was a petition amendment, this was initiated by a public petition and voted for by the population, not the legislature. Most of the legislature was not in favor of 64 and the governor was not and he made his money in the craft beer industry. A similar petition failed a few years ago.

as stoners' hopes recede
like sunset reflecting off the mud
of the former lake hefner
in conjunction with
the untimely demise
of hostess twinkies
and the disturbed view
from the former porch
of red rock cafe restaurant whatever
a new day dawns
with the resurgence of . . .

http://www.sleeponthehearth.com/graphics/zonkers.jpg

a product of either CheXerboardRalstonSquare
or that Quaker oats dude
i forget . . . selectively. =)

(so bluedog . . . just out of curiosity . . . have you been to the top of The Third Flatiron yet? =)

Thanks for the answers. Like I mentioned, I was vehemently opposed to the legalization, but the more research I do, and the more folks in law enforcement I talk to, the more I think I may change my mind. As of now, I'm a fence sitter. I wouldn't vote for a politician one way or the other based on this issue.

I'm open minded, but cautious (being a parent). Legal or not, I would prefer my kids avoid it, as with tobacco. Label me a hypocrite, but I don't mind them drinking once they reach 21, as long as they obey the law.

Thanks again, overall, a pretty mature discussion on the topic!

Thom, I don't pretend to speak for Jim Kyle and I don't intend to equate your stance with mine, but if you haven't already done so, go back and read Jim's posts in this thread. His comments have virtually persuaded me to support the legalization of cannabis. My only sticking point: I believe that there ought to be some easy field test similar to a breathalyzer for cannabis before it is fully made legal. Otherwise, we're clearly losing a war on this substance with some serious damage done to small time "combatants" in this war. The statistics of women and racial minorities in prison for drug-related offenses bothers me the most. Like terrorism, the unintended victims in this war are poverty-level people driven by a need to make a living where "above-the-table" options are rare.

Just in case anyone wants to see what Dubya61 refers to, it's post #60 on this thread.

I don't have strong feelings either way about marijuana or its relatives; it never appealed to me, but then I've never been fond of the idea of surrendering control of myself to any other person or substance. I've written elsewhere (on Doug's blog to be specific) about how I escaped the clutches of alcohol due to one spectacular binge.

I do, however, have very strong feelings about selective enforcement of laws, and especially about corruption of those charged with that enforcement. Like many if not most of my contemporaries, I once swore to defend our Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, and I think that among such domestic enemies of our Constitution must be numbered those who enforce laws of questionable validity primarily against those least able to defend themselves. Not far behind, too, are those legislators who create such questionable statutes, and the demagogues who provide their support.

Who else remembers that oath? Is it still meaningful, or is defending "just a scrap of paper" still worthwhile?

In the last 5-6 years there have been more deaths in Mexico than there was during the Vietnam war and it has nothing to do with the fact that Mexico relaxed their drug laws, rather it has everything to do with Americans appetite for drugs.
Not if you include the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese government concluded 2 million Vietnamese civilians died during the war. It turns out the hippies were right and Nixon was wrong, we shouldn't have been involved in that mess.

The statistics of women and racial minorities in prison for drug-related offenses bothers me the most. Like terrorism, the unintended victims in this war are poverty-level people driven by a need to make a living where "above-the-table" options are rare.

It was surely a backlash from accomplishments of the civil rights movement, including women's liberation from the 1960s. Then the 1970s came and Nixon ignored suggestions from his own drug committee to decriminalize marijuana and declared war on drugs. It was also Nixon's way of getting back at the anti-war movement. The desire to correct Nixon's mistakes provides some of the motivation to legalize marijuana.

(so bluedog . . . just out of curiosity . . . have you been to the top of The Third Flatiron yet? =)
Nope, I haven't done any climbing yet unless it was in the car or on the motorcycle like up Mount Evans or Independence Pass.



Thom, I don't pretend to speak for Jim Kyle and I don't intend to equate your stance with mine, but if you haven't already done so, go back and read Jim's posts in this thread. His comments have virtually persuaded me to support the legalization of cannabis. My only sticking point: I believe that there ought to be some easy field test similar to a breathalyzer for cannabis before it is fully made legal. Otherwise, we're clearly losing a war on this substance with some serious damage done to small time "combatants" in this war. The statistics of women and racial minorities in prison for drug-related offenses bothers me the most. Like terrorism, the unintended victims in this war are poverty-level people driven by a need to make a living where "above-the-table" options are rare.
Austin has "no refusal" periods where they have a trailer with a judge to issue warrants for blood tests, I could see a similar set up where there is a judge available to issue blood draw warrants for any type of DUI (alcohol, marijuana or any other kind of drug). You don't have to fail a field sobriety test to be taken to jail, after all most states have something similar to a "Driving While Impaired" statue that the legal threshold is much lower than a 0.8% BAC, many times it is a judgment call. Just because something isn't in place right now doesn't mean that adaption to something new can't occur, because pretty much every thing was "new" and some point and required the appropriate response.

Nope, I haven't done any climbing yet unless it was in the car or on the motorcycle like up Mount Evans or Independence Pass.



Austin has "no refusal" periods where they have a trailer with a judge to issue warrants for blood tests, I could see a similar set up where there is a judge available to issue blood draw warrants for any type of DUI (alcohol, marijuana or any other kind of drug). You don't have to fail a field sobriety test to be taken to jail, after all most states have something similar to a "Driving While Impaired" statue that the legal threshold is much lower than a 0.8% BAC, many times it is a judgment call. Just because something isn't in place right now doesn't mean that adaption to something new can't occur, because pretty much every thing was "new" and some point and required the appropriate response.



When you really sit down and think about this issue I come to one conclusion. It's completely insane that weed is illegal and booze is legal. I mean booze does so much more damage than weed in all aspects and it's not even close. This law is really retarded if you think about it.

The law is rooted in business interests, namely DuPont nylon wanting to reduce competition from hemp and the tobacco industry, later the pharmaceutical, alcohol and law enforcement industries. Most legislation is rooted in business interests and lobbyists, nothing much changes in DC or in state houses all over the country.

The Oklahoman weighs in on the issue with some hard-hitting commentary
Colorado law has Oklahoma boarder county poised to respond (http://newsok.com/colorado-law-has-oklahoma-boarder-county-poised-to-respond/article/3730155)
Yes that is a typo in the headline... and yes they still expect to be taken seriously.

That editorial had me thinking, "huh?" I really didnt see the point they were trying to make. Trying to reduce cigarett smoking by the public and decriminalizing pot is really apples to oranges.

Thom, I don't pretend to speak for Jim Kyle and I don't intend to equate your stance with mine, but if you haven't already done so, go back and read Jim's posts in this thread. His comments have virtually persuaded me to support the legalization of cannabis. My only sticking point: I believe that there ought to be some easy field test similar to a breathalyzer for cannabis before it is fully made legal. Otherwise, we're clearly losing a war on this substance with some serious damage done to small time "combatants" in this war. The statistics of women and racial minorities in prison for drug-related offenses bothers me the most. Like terrorism, the unintended victims in this war are poverty-level people driven by a need to make a living where "above-the-table" options are rare.

I bet you and I are pretty close in our current opinions. If you have an opportunity, speak to a few law enforcement folks. Not all will be in agreement, but I found many who thought we should head toward legalization. I will say, I had the opportunity to speak to some folks at the DEA in DC, they're clearly not on board with the idea of legalization. Of course, that's like asking an IRS agent if he's in favor of a flat tax, the answer will be "no."

Thanks for reminding me to go back and read Jim's other posts.

The Oklahoman weighs in on the issue with some hard-hitting commentary
Colorado law has Oklahoma boarder county poised to respond (http://newsok.com/colorado-law-has-oklahoma-boarder-county-poised-to-respond/article/3730155)
Yes that is a typo in the headline... and yes they still expect to be taken seriously.

Any time you see wording like this: "It makes no sense to portray cigarettes as a societal plague but marijuana as a state-sanctioned, harmless vice." You know the writer has an agenda. Does Colorado view alcohol as a "state sanctioned, harmless vice"? My assumption is that they do not, and will try to figure out how to treat marijuana in a similar fashion. Similarly, I imagine that any current "no smoking" policies will extend to marijuana.

I will say that one of the major reasons I was never propelled down that path, was the process. Inhaling smoke into my lungs, from any burning substance, has never been high on my list of "smart" things to do to yourself. Now, shotgunning beers was a whole different matter...

I will say that one of the major reasons I was never propelled down that path, was the process. Inhaling smoke into my lungs, from any burning substance, has never been high on my list of "smart" things to do to yourself. Now, shotgunning beers was a whole different matter...
I am a fan of the Discovery channel show Weed Wars. On the dispensary in that show, they usually steer first time users towards cannabutter, a cannabinoid-enhanced form of regular cooking butter. Hopefully anybody suffering from debilitating illness is aware of this option. It is much more user-friendly and less stigmatic than smoking. It also keeps your lungs clear if you like to exercise and you don't smell like a Jethro Tull dressing room if you go out to run errands.

I am a fan of the Discovery channel show Weed Wars. On the dispensary in that show, they usually steer first time users towards cannabutter, a cannabinoid-enhanced form of regular cooking butter. Hopefully anybody suffering from debilitating illness is aware of this option. It is much more user-friendly and less stigmatic than smoking. It also keeps your lungs clear if you like to exercise and you don't smell like a Jethro Tull dressing room if you go out to run errands.

I guess that would be a good option for folks needing the THC for medicinal purposes. Not so much for socializing!