Discussion: Legalizing Marijuana II

[Smirnoff]

Originally Posted by mrvlknight21

Your facts are a little mixed up.
The US Constitution never allowed for the protection of people's rights to use drugs. The rights from that document are, for the most part, with limited exceptions, still in place (right to bear arms, right to free speech, etc).

Sadly drug use/addiction does affect the lives of others many times. Now while there may be some casual users of marijuana who never let it affect their daily lives (they still go to work, pay their bills, take care of their families), there are plenty of users, particularly of hard drugs, that wreck the lives of their families and loved ones.

99% of the American population doesnt go to work and doesnt drool to the tv and then go to bed. That was a really bad generalization.

Umm, if you don't think disallowing people to ingest whatever they please ISN'T unconstitutional, well then I fear debating you may be worthless. I understand your point, it does obviously harm others, but so does lot's of habits. It doesn't mean they should be illegal. There are millions of users who don't harm anyone. Gambling ruins entire families as well, as does many different pass times. I can do all the LSD I please. DMT? You mean the chemical in my ****ing brain? Illegal? Ooooh, but ALCOHOL is legal. The worst drug for society, period. Again, I'll do as I please.


And we DO NOT have the right to free speech. And what was that about the right to bare arms? Oh ****, yeah, guess that's out the window. Oh, but the government does believe itself to have to "right" to detain or even murder its OWN citizens WITHOUT TRIAL. Not the mention slaughtering everyone else. Give me a break. As you are in Law Enforcement, it is obvious that you have a skewed perspective on justice and freedom, but come on, get realistic.

[wiegeabo]

Actually, the right to use drugs is in the Constitution. It's the Ninth Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


And, if anything, the Tenth Amendment should give the people and States the right to regulate drug use, not the Federal government.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The Federal government has to use (to the point of abuse) the Commerce Clause to try and get around them.

[Sun_Down]

Originally Posted by Smirnoff

And we DO NOT have the right to free speech. And what was that about the right to bare arms? Oh ****, yeah, guess that's out the window. Oh, but the government does believe itself to have to "right" to detain or even murder its OWN citizens WITHOUT TRIAL. Not the mention slaughtering everyone else. Give me a break. As you are in Law Enforcement, it is obvious that you have a skewed perspective on justice and freedom, but come on, get realistic.

We have the right to free speech. We have the right to bear arms (not "bare" arms - you have the right to wear tank tops). Nobody has taken these rights away from you. You might not understand what those rights actually mean, but you do still have them, despite what Fox or the NRA might tell you.

Talk about a skewed perspective. Get out of your fallout shelter and get out in the world. The sky's not falling.

[freesecurity]

Just telling the best and formost thing.

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Sun_Down

We have the right to free speech. We have the right to bear arms (not "bare" arms - you have the right to wear tank tops). Nobody has taken these rights away from you. You might not understand what those rights actually mean, but you do still have them, despite what Fox or the NRA might tell you.

Talk about a skewed perspective. Get out of your fallout shelter and get out in the world. The sky's not falling.

No one should have the right to bare arm or wear tank tops. That's just wrong.

[Sun_Down]

Originally Posted by moraldeficiency

No one should have the right to bare arm or wear tank tops. That's just wrong.

I think the bigger question is, do we have the right to arm bears?

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by Sun_Down

I think the bigger question is, do we have the right to arm bears?

We did during WWII!

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/voytek.html

They even got a kickass emblem

[Smirnoff]

Originally Posted by Sun_Down

We have the right to free speech. We have the right to bear arms (not "bare" arms - you have the right to wear tank tops). Nobody has taken these rights away from you. You might not understand what those rights actually mean, but you do still have them, despite what Fox or the NRA might tell you.

Talk about a skewed perspective. Get out of your fallout shelter and get out in the world. The sky's not falling.

No, they actually instilled an age limit on the right. They have systematically been taking away all our rights over the last decade or so. You are now subject to being imprisoned or murder without trail by your own government. Fools like you are the reason why they get away with these atrocities. Grow up and learn a little about the world you live in.

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Smirnoff

No, they actually instilled an age limit on the right. They have systematically been taking away all our rights over the last decade or so. You are now subject to being imprisoned or murder without trail by your own government. Fools like you are the reason why they get away with these atrocities. Grow up and learn a little about the world you live in.

You're adorable. Can I adopt you and bring you to christmas parties?

[Kelly]

I think Washington State and Colorado are about to hit the first problem that I have talked about with this, and something that really needed to be researched, apparently neither state did.....and that is the big question. "How much weed is too much to drive....?" and "What about the problem of how long weed stays in the system, not as a hindrance, but simply stays in the system...?"

*shakes head* I applaud them for legalizing it, but damn they should have thought of this stuff long ago.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Worst case scenario the police can approach stoned driving the same way they did before legalization.

It's not like people didn't drive stoned before legalization. Plenty of people did.

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I think Washington State and Colorado are about to hit the first problem that I have talked about with this, and something that really needed to be researched, apparently neither state did.....and that is the big question. "How much weed is too much to drive....?" and "What about the problem of how long weed stays in the system, not as a hindrance, but simply stays in the system...?"

*shakes head* I applaud them for legalizing it, but damn they should have thought of this stuff long ago.

I think with the way weed works it would be more logical to throw out chemistry and go with a simple roadside check. If your motor functions are acceptable you can drive if not you're over the limit.

Also I do think some real tests into how much weed actually causes dangerous behavior is very much needed. Tests in nations with legalized weed have shown weed's effects to be fairly benign in terms of actual dangerous driving because while motor functions take a hit caution is typically raised. So while a driver would have slower functions they would also be much more inclined to pay attention and maintain proper driving form. It has been shown driving with the radio on, having people in the car or having a cell phone will cause more dangerous driving than being high.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by moraldeficiency

I think with the way weed works it would be more logical to throw out chemistry and go with a simple roadside check. If your motor functions are acceptable you can drive if not you're over the limit.

Also I do think some real tests into how much weed actually causes dangerous behavior is very much needed. Tests in nations with legalized weed have shown weed's effects to be fairly benign in terms of actual dangerous driving because while motor functions take a hit caution is typically raised. So while a driver would have slower functions they would also be much more inclined to pay attention and maintain proper driving form. It has been shown driving with the radio on, having people in the car or having a cell phone will cause more dangerous driving than being high.

Well, they aren't going that way....I believe Colorado is looking at a specific amount, and its pretty damn minute.....it seems to me that they could possibly change one stupid law with another....and neither will keep fewer people out of jail. : /

As far as cell phone use, it should be outlawed totally in cars....

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Well, they aren't going that way....I believe Colorado is looking at a specific amount, and its pretty damn minute.....it seems to me that they could possibly change one stupid law with another....and neither will keep fewer people out of jail. : /

As far as cell phone use, it should be outlawed totally in cars....

Well that's a shame, but the main thing I think is now that it can be studied more easily, let's do that.

I think the list of situations proven to be more dangerous in terms of dangerous driving behavior than being high were as follows:

Being drunk
Having others in the car with you
Having a cell phone
Eating/drinking
Smoking (the actual act of smoking so obviously smoking a joint would be a danger)
Having the radio on
Being tired
Being in a rush (late for work, etc)

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by moraldeficiency

I think the list of situations proven to be more dangerous in terms of dangerous driving behavior than being high were as follows

I said this many times before the worst thing you do when you drive high is go like 15 miles per hour in a 35 zone. It's a basic case when you hit somebody at that speed they might get a charley horse, grant you you get so paranoid while driving high you probably would slow down to 10 miles per hour if you see somebody a decent distance away.

[SV Fan]

By the way anybody who fears getting stoned I think watched to many after school specials

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Once you do get stoned you realize how incredibly stupid and a bunch of propaganda these are.

[Whiskey Tango]

Pot legalized in Colo. with governor's proclamation

FORT COLLINS, Colo. -- Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper on Monday signed a declaration formalizing the voter-approved amendment that makes it legal for those 21 and older to use marijuana.

On Election Day, voters approved Amendment 64 which called on the state to regulate marijuana like alcohol. The amendment allows for limited use, possession and cultivation of marijuana.

"This is a truly historic day," said Mason Tvert, co-director of the campaign to pass the measure. "From this day forward, adults in Colorado will no longer be punished for the simple use and possession of marijuana."

He applauded the governor's prompt declaration.

Hickenlooper, a Democrat who opposed the measure, had until Jan. 5 to sign the executive order, but he did so just four days after Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler certified the Nov. 6 election results in which 55 percent of voters statewide embraced legalizing the recreational use of marijuana.

"Voters were loud and clear on Election Day," the governor said. "We will begin working immediately with the General Assembly and state agencies to implement Amendment 64."

Adults over 21 in Colorado may now possess up to an ounce of marijuana, or six plants.

The sale of marijuana and its consumption in public remain illegal. The Colorado Legislature plans to tackle assorted issues around the legalization of marijuana during the upcoming legislative session, including how to tax it, establishing a regulatory framework for its distribution, changing statutes to reflect the newly allowed practices involving marijuana and providing for legal means to produce industrial hemp.

Hickenlooper also issued an executive order Monday forming the 24-member Task Force on the Implementation of Amendment 64. Members will include lawmakers and stakeholders representing the interests of prosecutors, defense lawyers, the medical marijuana industry, backers of Amendment 64, the addiction treatment community, public health institutions, cities, counties, "a representative of marijuana consumers," employers and employees, among others.

Its meetings will be public, and the targeted date for its recommendations to the governor is Feb. 28.

"The Task Force shall respect the will of the voters of Colorado and shall not engage in a debate of the merits of marijuana legalization or Amendment 64," the executive order said.

Hickenlooper and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking guidance about how the federal government intends to enforce its laws, which still view marijuana as illegal, in Colorado after voters legalized marijuana. The federal government has not responded, according to the governor's office.

So far the federal government has offered little guidance beyond stating that marijuana remains illegal and that the controlled Substances Act will be enforced. Of special concern for state regulators is how to protect state employees who violate federal drug law by complying with state marijuana laws.

"As we move forward now with implementation of Amendment 64, we will try to maintain as much flexibility as possible to accommodate the federal government's position on the amendment," Hickenlooper said.

Last week, marijuana possession became legal in Washington state. Washington voters also legalize the recreational use of marijuana last month.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...orado/1759427/

[Bathead]

That's a start, I'd say.

[Alex_Spider]

ALCOHOL / CANNABIS

Addictive / Non-addictive
Depressant / Anti-depressant
Causes cancer / Cures cancer
1 Million deaths per annum / Zero deaths in history
Cost police & NHS billions / Saves police & NHS billions
Death via od / No od
Destroys brain cells / Grows brain cells
and in many cases, a list similar to alcohol's damage in the human body, can be applied to cigarette also. Add also the fact that cannabis fabrics can be used to construct a strong metal that is very light and durable at the same time. Oh, and house construction, juice, soup.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...e-of-marijuana
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainabilit...-from-cannabis

Go figure..

[mrvlknight21]

^ Um.....marijuana CURES cancer????

[Alex_Spider]

Originally Posted by mrvlknight21

^ Um.....marijuana CURES cancer????

Um...sure it does. Countless articles on the net. Check it out for your self. And don't be confused. It doesn't cure cancer in the form of smoking it. But processing it as hemp oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4lsvHMkWFg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ypbNYYMPXg

"A plant that grows naturally is banned. A plant that has so many uses from making ropes, fuel, plastics, cooking oils, fibers, medicines, cloth, etc is banned. Banned because big business interests don't want competition. I guess, democracy belongs to the highest bidder. The people who can get the lobbyists to bribe politicans can get whatever they want."

[Smashlilman]

Originally Posted by mrvlknight21

^ Um.....marijuana CURES cancer????

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1898208.html

Marijuana And Cancer: Scientists Find Cannabis Compound Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers
A pair of scientists at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco has found that a compound derived from marijuana could stop metastasis in many kinds of aggressive cancer, potentially altering the fatality of the disease forever.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

[Kelly]

I have not read anything that says that it CURES cancer, but it DEFINITELY curbs the nauseau from the side affects of the treatment of cancer, and having watched my mother go through that.......that is a HUGE thing that I wish she could have done. She wouldn't do it because it wasn't legal, I was willing to go and buy it illegal to get her some...she wouldn't allow that.

[Alex_Spider]

It does not only curb the nauseau. It cures cancer indeed. Proof is all over the net from people of medical field and cured patients.

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wor...wn-since-1974/

[wiegeabo]

uh, yeah, let me know when a real news organization reports on it. maybe a press release from a scientific organization. Not just some blog anyone could have thrown together.