Congressman introduces bill to legalize low levels of marijuana

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: bamacre
Look at that video again, of the debates....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6fXpwp1bwQ

Would one of the Obama supporters like to explain to me, exactly, what Obama's actions were immediately following the question?

I don't know what you're getting at, just looked to me like he raised his say to indicate his opposition to legalization or he wanted to be recognized so he could speak. Can't tell.

Fern

It happens pretty quickly, but after watching it a few times, it is rather obvious.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The argument does hold up. There's no argument that the potency has increased. The argument is whether or not the increase in potency makes it more harmful to users.

http://www.boston.com/news/hea...potency_sparks_debate/

No, it's bullshit. The same drug warrior interests spread the same FUD year after year, and the only thing they change is the dates. There were 'studies' claiming the exact same record THC numbers back when I was a teenager in the 80s. Hell, I remember one claiming 15%+ THC.
The truth is that what these 'studies' do is compare poor quality weed vs. high quality. Both have been available since the 60s, but they misrepresent that the high quality wasn't available then (even though it was).
Hell, anyone really concerned about having high THC content could just turn to hashish (edit: which ranges from 20% up to 40% THC, way more than any super-weed), and that's been around for 1000 years.

As to whether or not the increase in potency makes it more harmful to users, do you support outlawing hard alcohol then? No? Then shut up because it's no different. Potency, all by itself, is only more dangerous with drugs where there is the possibility of accidental overdose. Otherwise, the user just regulates their dosage accordingly, like how beer comes in pints and hard liquor comes in shots.
You couldn't get the high quality bud of today back in the 60s and 70s. Sensimilla didn't really make its appearance in any widespread sort of distribution until the mid to late 70s. Then came the Lamb's Bread, Purple Affie, the Kona bud, and the boys in N. Cal began growing the Kryptonite. Now it's progressed to White Witch, G-15, and Northern Lights.

I don't care what kind of wild numbers have been bandied about. From personal experience I have no doubt that potency has increased.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: bamacre
-snip-
It happens pretty quickly, but after watching it a few times, it is rather obvious.

Well, for those of us without great vision (and old crappy monitors) please tell us what you see

TIA

Fern
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,235
6,338
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
BTW, no one cared to answer my question about Obama's actions in the video of that debate. Not surprised. If I were an Obama supporter, I wouldn't want to do so either.

Vic gave you a perfectly good answer.

He did? Have I gone blind? :confused:

Don't say you weren't warned. ;)

Still not seeing it. *shrug*

Your journey to vision begins with a single step.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
-snip-
You couldn't get the high quality bud of today back in the 60s and 70s. Sensimilla didn't really make its appearance in any widespread sort of distribution until the mid to late 70s. Then came the Lamb's Bread, Purple Affie, the Kona bud, and the boys in N. Cal began growing the Kryptonite. Now it's progressed to White Witch, G-15, and Northern Lights.

I don't care what kind of wild numbers have been bandied about. From personal experience I have no doubt that potency has increased.

^ That's pretty close to my personal experience.

And my impression is that *designer weed* didn't exist back in the 70's or maybe even the 80's (I was living in Europe from '85 on so I don't know what was going on here).

I spent a lot of time in Amsterdam in the late 80's, I know they were developing *special* strains of plants then.

But I became aware of doing it here later. But I'm in the SE, I can imagine other parts of country doing it first.

Fern
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: bamacre
-snip-
It happens pretty quickly, but after watching it a few times, it is rather obvious.

Well, for those of us without great vision (and old crappy monitors) please tell us what you see

TIA

Fern

I see Obama raising his hand only after checking to see how those to his right answered. And Hillary and Edwards are both to his right. And his head moves back to the crowd at the same time his hand goes up.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Regardless of who is raising their hand, or who is supporting this, or if it's up to the states or the federal government, let's assume for a few minutes marijuana was made legal. What if anything would/should we do about people driving under the influence of marijuana, or using heavy machinery, or being a police officer, firefighter, you get my point. Should we have laws regarding this? Continue mandatory drug testing and zero tolerance policies for certain jobs or no?

I'm don't really have a care one way or the other except that drug users/dealers kind of keep me in business at my new job, but I was also young and in HS/college once and dabbled in a few things here and there ;).
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Regardless of who is raising their hand, or who is supporting this, or if it's up to the states or the federal government, let's assume for a few minutes marijuana was made legal. What if anything would/should we do about people driving under the influence of marijuana, or using heavy machinery, or being a police officer, firefighter, you get my point. Should we have laws regarding this? Continue mandatory drug testing and zero tolerance policies for certain jobs or no?

I'm don't really have a care one way or the other except that drug users/dealers kind of keep me in business at my new job, but I was also young and in HS/college once and dabbled in a few things here and there ;).

We have all that set up for alcohol. Shouldn't be tough to create those laws for marijuana.

Select All. Copy. Paste. CTRL-H. Search for: alcohol. Replace with: marijuana. Save as. Done.

:D
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

I see Obama raising his hand only after checking to see how those to his right answered. And Hillary and Edwards are both to his right. And his head moves back to the crowd at the same time his hand goes up.

Hehe, Could be.

I wish they wouldv'e gotten his comments on it, just for the record.

If I had to guess, I'd say Obama's position is that of Dodd (legalize it). But I think he'd have some trepidation about voicing it. Can you imagine the response? "That crazy pot smoking druggie Muslim terrorist black candidate" type stuff that may occur?

Might be fodder for a new thread; I can see Obama supporting lagalization as President. I'm sure the left and his black constuents would appreciate it. I hear many comments about how the laws disproportionaly affect blacks/African Americans. If so, as a conservative I'd say at least we got one benefit out of a lib/Dem winning the WH.

Fern
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Regardless of who is raising their hand, or who is supporting this, or if it's up to the states or the federal government, let's assume for a few minutes marijuana was made legal. What if anything would/should we do about people driving under the influence of marijuana, or using heavy machinery, or being a police officer, firefighter, you get my point. Should we have laws regarding this? Continue mandatory drug testing and zero tolerance policies for certain jobs or no?

I'm don't really have a care one way or the other except that drug users/dealers kind of keep me in business at my new job, but I was also young and in HS/college once and dabbled in a few things here and there ;).

We have all that set up for alcohol. Shouldn't be tough to create those laws for marijuana.

Select All. Copy. Paste. CTRL-H. Search for: alcohol. Replace with: marijuana. Save as. Done.

:D

I understand what you're saying, but it is a wee bit harder to detect if someone is driving under the influence of marijuana. And it's an illegal search/seizure to take blood on the side of the road at a car stop as far as I know.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Regardless of who is raising their hand, or who is supporting this, or if it's up to the states or the federal government, let's assume for a few minutes marijuana was made legal. What if anything would/should we do about people driving under the influence of marijuana, or using heavy machinery, or being a police officer, firefighter, you get my point. Should we have laws regarding this? Continue mandatory drug testing and zero tolerance policies for certain jobs or no?

I'm don't really have a care one way or the other except that drug users/dealers kind of keep me in business at my new job, but I was also young and in HS/college once and dabbled in a few things here and there ;).

We have all that set up for alcohol. Shouldn't be tough to create those laws for marijuana.

Select All. Copy. Paste. CTRL-H. Search for: alcohol. Replace with: marijuana. Save as. Done.

:D

No need even to create laws that already exist.

DUI stands for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants. Not just alcohol. Hell, I've heard of several cases where people having been prosecuted for driving under the influence of legally-obtained prescription drugs (which is far bigger concern IMO).

I have never understood why people think that legalizing the possession of marijuana would change the completely separate DUI laws.

As for job tests, most of those screen for alcohol and certain prescription drugs as well. Once again, no changes.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Sinsear
I understand what you're saying, but it is a wee bit harder to detect if someone is driving under the influence of marijuana. And it's an illegal search/seizure to take blood on the side of the road at a car stop as far as I know.

No, it's not. Implied consent applies regardless of the suspected intoxicant.

A problem with your logic BTW is that you're assuming that people don't already drive under the influence of marijuana. That would be false.
Another problem is that you're assuming that marijuana is just as much a driving impairment as alcohol. That would also be false. In fact, a USDOT study in the '80s showed only minimal impairment, while a British study a couple years ago showed no impairment at all. The reasoning for this is that apparently marijuana does not impair judgment like alcohol does, so potheads are aware that they are stoned and drive more cautiously.

 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Sinsear
I understand what you're saying, but it is a wee bit harder to detect if someone is driving under the influence of marijuana. And it's an illegal search/seizure to take blood on the side of the road at a car stop as far as I know.

No, it's not. Implied consent applies regardless of the suspected intoxicant.

A problem with your logic BTW is that you're assuming that people don't already drive under the influence of marijuana. That would be false.
Another problem is that you're assuming that marijuana is just as much a driving impairment as alcohol. That would also be false. In fact, a USDOT study in the '80s showed only minimal impairment, while a British study a couple years ago showed no impairment at all. The reasoning for this is that apparently marijuana does not impair judgment like alcohol does, so potheads are aware that they are stoned and drive more cautiously.

ygpm
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Regardless of who is raising their hand, or who is supporting this, or if it's up to the states or the federal government, let's assume for a few minutes marijuana was made legal. What if anything would/should we do about people driving under the influence of marijuana, or using heavy machinery, or being a police officer, firefighter, you get my point. Should we have laws regarding this? Continue mandatory drug testing and zero tolerance policies for certain jobs or no?

I'm don't really have a care one way or the other except that drug users/dealers kind of keep me in business at my new job, but I was also young and in HS/college once and dabbled in a few things here and there ;).
The problem with drug testing is that it doesn't show that you are high right now, it shows that you used drugs at a previous point in the past. Nobody should care if I was drunk last Saturday in the comfort of my own home. Why should anyone care if I was high on Sunday in the comfort of my home as well?

If there's not a test to show someone is actually high while driving or on duty then they need to develop one or they really have no case. It's a poor rationale to keep mj illegal just because they can't test whether or not someone is high. imo, there's allegedly no such test because they don't want to crack that door open. It's always amazing what they can come up when necessity is the mother of the invention though.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,460
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Regardless of who is raising their hand, or who is supporting this, or if it's up to the states or the federal government, let's assume for a few minutes marijuana was made legal. What if anything would/should we do about people driving under the influence of marijuana, or using heavy machinery, or being a police officer, firefighter, you get my point. Should we have laws regarding this? Continue mandatory drug testing and zero tolerance policies for certain jobs or no?

I'm don't really have a care one way or the other except that drug users/dealers kind of keep me in business at my new job, but I was also young and in HS/college once and dabbled in a few things here and there ;).
The problem with drug testing is that it doesn't show that you are high right now, it shows that you used drugs at a previous point in the past. Nobody should care if I was drunk last Saturday in the comfort of my own home. Why should anyone care if I was high on Sunday in the comfort of my home as well?

If there's not a test to show someone is actually high while driving or on duty then they need to develop one or they really have no case. It's a poor rationale to keep mj illegal just because they can't test whether or not someone is high. imo, there's allegedly no such test because they don't want to crack that door open. It's always amazing what they can come up when necessity is the mother of the invention though.



Holy crap...first Palehorse, then one of the other conservative posters, now I'm in full agreement with TLC? WTF is going on? Is this the apocalypse? I know the x-tian bible talks about the last days, when the lion lays with the lamb or some such shit...but for me to agree with these guys?:shocked:

:D

TLC's point is one I've made for years. I'm all in favor of legalizing marijuana, taxing the hell out of it, and selling it in venues like liquor stores, BUT, there needs to be an accurate way to discriminate between the joint someone smoked last weekend, while on his own time, and the joint he smoked 30 minutes ago on his way to work as a truck driver. Smoke and drive? Go to jail, just like you would for drinking.

Yes, certain "safety-sensitive" jobs will still retain a ban on use of marijuana, but again, there needs to be more accurate testing done. I shouldn't be fired because I smoked myself into oblivion 2 weeks ago while on vacation up in Vancouver B.C. (I hear great things about their "BC Bud!) but, I certainly don't see anything wrong with a person being fired for coming to work stoned...
I worked heavy construction for 30 years, and maritime construction for much of that. Working on navigable waterways, we were subject to the USCG's much more strict drug testing regulations. Lots of jobs have a relatively high cut-off point, below which you're considered a negative (passing) test. The USCG's test has a MUCH lower cut-off point, to the point where ANY residual cannabinols in the test will be a fail.

Hell, if we'd legalize pot, regulate and tax it, we could eliminate the national debt pretty quickly, PLUS, by legalizing it, we'd take most of the money out of illegal sales of it, eliminate much of the police action involved in enforcing marijuana laws, and remove many people from jail/prison.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Holy crap...first Palehorse, then one of the other conservative posters, now I'm in full agreement with TLC? WTF is going on? Is this the apocalypse? I know the x-tian bible talks about the last days, when the lion lays with the lamb or some such shit...but for me to agree with these guys?:shocked:

:D
I've always tried to stress that supporting the war in Iraq does not imply I'm a conservative because, other than fiscal conservatism, I don't hold any of their other ideals dear whatsoever. People love to stereotype in here though so what can I do?

TLC's point is one I've made for years. I'm all in favor of legalizing marijuana, taxing the hell out of it, and selling it in venues like liquor stores, BUT, there needs to be an accurate way to discriminate between the joint someone smoked last weekend, while on his own time, and the joint he smoked 30 minutes ago on his way to work as a truck driver. Smoke and drive? Go to jail, just like you would for drinking.

Yes, certain "safety-sensitive" jobs will still retain a ban on use of marijuana, but again, there needs to be more accurate testing done. I shouldn't be fired because I smoked myself into oblivion 2 weeks ago while on vacation up in Vancouver B.C. (I hear great things about their "BC Bud!) but, I certainly don't see anything wrong with a person being fired for coming to work stoned...
I worked heavy construction for 30 years, and maritime construction for much of that. Working on navigable waterways, we were subject to the USCG's much more strict drug testing regulations. Lots of jobs have a relatively high cut-off point, below which you're considered a negative (passing) test. The USCG's test has a MUCH lower cut-off point, to the point where ANY residual cannabinols in the test will be a fail.

Hell, if we'd legalize pot, regulate and tax it, we could eliminate the national debt pretty quickly, PLUS, by legalizing it, we'd take most of the money out of illegal sales of it, eliminate much of the police action involved in enforcing marijuana laws, and remove many people from jail/prison.
I agree with much of what you said but doubt legalizing pot would solve the national debt problem. I do think it would go a long way to freeing up our legal system and detention system to address far more pressing issues though, and definitely would contribute significantly to reducing the debt.

btw, as someone who has spent some skiing/snowboarding at Whistler-Blackcombe, I can tell you that the BC Bud is not overhyped. :)
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Regardless of who is raising their hand, or who is supporting this, or if it's up to the states or the federal government, let's assume for a few minutes marijuana was made legal. What if anything would/should we do about people driving under the influence of marijuana, or using heavy machinery, or being a police officer, firefighter, you get my point. Should we have laws regarding this? Continue mandatory drug testing and zero tolerance policies for certain jobs or no?

I'm don't really have a care one way or the other except that drug users/dealers kind of keep me in business at my new job, but I was also young and in HS/college once and dabbled in a few things here and there ;).
The problem with drug testing is that it doesn't show that you are high right now, it shows that you used drugs at a previous point in the past. Nobody should care if I was drunk last Saturday in the comfort of my own home. Why should anyone care if I was high on Sunday in the comfort of my home as well?

If there's not a test to show someone is actually high while driving or on duty then they need to develop one or they really have no case. It's a poor rationale to keep mj illegal just because they can't test whether or not someone is high. imo, there's allegedly no such test because they don't want to crack that door open. It's always amazing what they can come up when necessity is the mother of the invention though.



Holy crap...first Palehorse, then one of the other conservative posters, now I'm in full agreement with TLC? WTF is going on? Is this the apocalypse? I know the x-tian bible talks about the last days, when the lion lays with the lamb or some such shit...but for me to agree with these guys?:shocked:

:D

TLC's point is one I've made for years. I'm all in favor of legalizing marijuana, taxing the hell out of it, and sellng it in venues like liquor stores, BUT, there needs to be an accurate way to discriminate between the joint someone smoked last weekend, while on his own time, and the joint he smoked 30 minutes ago on his way to work as a truck driver. Smoke and drive? Go to jail, just like you would for drinking.

Yes, certain "safety-sensitive" jobs will still retain a ban on use of marijuana, but again, there needs to be more accurate testing done. I shouldn't be fired because I smoked myself into oblivion 2 weeks ago while on vacation up in Vancouver B.C. (I hear great things about their "BC Bud!) but, I certainly don't see anything wrong with a person being fired for coming to work stoned...
I worked heavy construction for 30 years, and maritime construction for much of that. Working on navigable waterways, we were subject to the USCG's much more strict drug testing regulations. Lots of jobs have a relatively high cut-off point, below which you're considered a negative (passing) test. The USCG's test has a MUCH lower cut-off point, to the point where ANY residual cannabinols in the test will be a fail.

Hell, if we'd legalize pot, regulate and tax it, we could eliminate the national debt pretty quickly, PLUS, by legalizing it, we'd take most of the money out of illegal sales of it, eliminate much of the police action involved in enforcing marijuana laws, and remove many people from jail/prison.

:thumbsup:

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The argument does hold up. There's no argument that the potency has increased. The argument is whether or not the increase in potency makes it more harmful to users.

http://www.boston.com/news/hea...potency_sparks_debate/

No, it's bullshit. The same drug warrior interests spread the same FUD year after year, and the only thing they change is the dates. There were 'studies' claiming the exact same record THC numbers back when I was a teenager in the 80s. Hell, I remember one claiming 15%+ THC.
The truth is that what these 'studies' do is compare poor quality weed vs. high quality. Both have been available since the 60s, but they misrepresent that the high quality wasn't available then (even though it was).
Hell, anyone really concerned about having high THC content could just turn to hashish (edit: which ranges from 20% up to 40% THC, way more than any super-weed), and that's been around for 1000 years.

As to whether or not the increase in potency makes it more harmful to users, do you support outlawing hard alcohol then? No? Then shut up because it's no different. Potency, all by itself, is only more dangerous with drugs where there is the possibility of accidental overdose. Otherwise, the user just regulates their dosage accordingly, like how beer comes in pints and hard liquor comes in shots.
Almost like alcohol, but different.

With weed, there is a "peak" to how high you can get. Basically your brain/body stops functioning enough that you can't lift the pipe up, you're a zombie for an hour or so.

As to potency, there's always been strong weed, then hash, then hash oil...all heading well towards 100% THC.

Alcohol has unlimited potency. You can drink until you puke, pass out, and even die.

On this topic, I don't see it changing federally for quite some time. When just about every state has finally decriminalized, then the feds might get a clue. Most dems are too pussified (what a broken record) to take a stand and vote for the right thing.

<-yet another neocon in favor of decriminalization/legalization.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
We tolerate a regime of drug prohibition that gives rise to an illegal distribution system that ruins whole neighborhoods. We have a system that garuntees employment to angry, violent aggressive kids who only need to hook up with a trafficker to become a dealer. We have created a system that rewards a willingness to risk jail time with substantial financial rewards. Thus we have incentivized anti-social behavior. When this anti-social behavior results in urban crime we say, "What is wrong with 'those people'? Thank God we live in a nice neighborhood!"

I could care less about some suburban pot-head who wants cheaper, more reliable weed, but I worry over people who live in places on the front line of our little War on Drugs. Good people, not using drugs, not selling drugs, whose lives are ruined by the system we have put in place. People who live in urban ghettos, people in the countries where our favorite drugs come from, these are the people who's lives would be changed for the better if we legalized marijuana and possibly other drugs.

I am sure most people could care less about those folks. The truth is most of us really don't. If we did then we would not turn so many of their neighborhoods into war zones so that fewer of "us" run the risk of addiction.

I've inhaled pot aplenty back in law school. Your worst case pothead is 35 and lives with his mother watching spongebob eating funyans. Your worst case alcoholic is a violent or verbally abusive person who's addiction will affect others. And sure there's some people that pay for a potheads laziness, but what are those costs in dollars, compared to the cost in emotions inflicted by a drug. The other real debate...should a penalty for a drug be worse than the drug itself. According to a Nixon Administration study: The most dangerous consequense of marijauna is the threat of incarceration.

It hardly requires an affection for marijuana to recognize the counterproductivity and waste of valuable resources reflected in the drug war, and of the 750,000+ annual mariujuana-related arrests (most of which are for simple possession) in particular. It simply requires paying attention.

We're talking about a substance which is less addictive and far less toxic than nicotine and alcohol, and less intoxicating than the latter. But when one's country has become the world's number-one per capita incarcerator - almost entirely due to a drug war that costs already cash-strapped states far more than it raises - I would suggest that liberals, moderate and libertarian conservatives, alike should give fair consideration to the flaws of zero-tolerance marijuana laws and avoid knee-jerk reactions.

Worst case scenario of legal pot. PS3, Xbox 360 & Frito Lay sales skyrocket.

 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The argument does hold up. There's no argument that the potency has increased. The argument is whether or not the increase in potency makes it more harmful to users.

http://www.boston.com/news/hea...potency_sparks_debate/

No, it's bullshit. The same drug warrior interests spread the same FUD year after year, and the only thing they change is the dates. There were 'studies' claiming the exact same record THC numbers back when I was a teenager in the 80s. Hell, I remember one claiming 15%+ THC.
The truth is that what these 'studies' do is compare poor quality weed vs. high quality. Both have been available since the 60s, but they misrepresent that the high quality wasn't available then (even though it was).
Hell, anyone really concerned about having high THC content could just turn to hashish (edit: which ranges from 20% up to 40% THC, way more than any super-weed), and that's been around for 1000 years.

As to whether or not the increase in potency makes it more harmful to users, do you support outlawing hard alcohol then? No? Then shut up because it's no different. Potency, all by itself, is only more dangerous with drugs where there is the possibility of accidental overdose. Otherwise, the user just regulates their dosage accordingly, like how beer comes in pints and hard liquor comes in shots.
You couldn't get the high quality bud of today back in the 60s and 70s. Sensimilla didn't really make its appearance in any widespread sort of distribution until the mid to late 70s. Then came the Lamb's Bread, Purple Affie, the Kona bud, and the boys in N. Cal began growing the Kryptonite. Now it's progressed to White Witch, G-15, and Northern Lights.

I don't care what kind of wild numbers have been bandied about. From personal experience I have no doubt that potency has increased.

I agree...

My wife and I still occasionally partake. I remember back at college in the early to mid 80's buying those 1/4 bags of rag weed. We were happy to find bud with "red & purple hairs" to wind down from exams. Todays growers are getting designer seeds from the internet and seem to be learning how to grow super high potent stuff. I believe the access to more information on the subject from the internet has something to do with it. Something not available back in the 70's & 80's.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Regardless of who is raising their hand, or who is supporting this, or if it's up to the states or the federal government, let's assume for a few minutes marijuana was made legal. What if anything would/should we do about people driving under the influence of marijuana, or using heavy machinery, or being a police officer, firefighter, you get my point. Should we have laws regarding this? Continue mandatory drug testing and zero tolerance policies for certain jobs or no?

I'm don't really have a care one way or the other except that drug users/dealers kind of keep me in business at my new job, but I was also young and in HS/college once and dabbled in a few things here and there ;).
The problem with drug testing is that it doesn't show that you are high right now, it shows that you used drugs at a previous point in the past. Nobody should care if I was drunk last Saturday in the comfort of my own home. Why should anyone care if I was high on Sunday in the comfort of my home as well?

If there's not a test to show someone is actually high while driving or on duty then they need to develop one or they really have no case. It's a poor rationale to keep mj illegal just because they can't test whether or not someone is high. imo, there's allegedly no such test because they don't want to crack that door open. It's always amazing what they can come up when necessity is the mother of the invention though.


Again, I agree. Marij. stays in your system for longer periods of time. You could have smoked 3 days ago and show "positive" results in a test given today without showing any physical "effects" of the drug. This is the slippery slop no one wants to cross.
 

GooeyGUI

Senior member
Aug 1, 2005
688
0
76
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ayabe
I posted about this a couple months back when Frank was putting the language together.

Unless he's changed his tune, this bill would NOT reschedule MJ off of Sched I. and thus is pretty meaningless even if it were to pass.

IMHO the two have to go hand in hand otherwise we've left in place two conflicting policies.

Congress or the AG can reschedule a drug, this is what needs to be done, move it to III or IV, and put it behind the pharmacists counter like Sudafed.

Drug companies would never go for that.

Marijuana Vending Machines Opening For Business in LA

^^^^^^^^^^^^Check it out!^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GooeyGUI
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ayabe
I posted about this a couple months back when Frank was putting the language together.

Unless he's changed his tune, this bill would NOT reschedule MJ off of Sched I. and thus is pretty meaningless even if it were to pass.

IMHO the two have to go hand in hand otherwise we've left in place two conflicting policies.

Congress or the AG can reschedule a drug, this is what needs to be done, move it to III or IV, and put it behind the pharmacists counter like Sudafed.

Drug companies would never go for that.

Marijuana Vending Machines Opening For Business in LA

^^^^^^^^^^^^Check it out!^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To use them, you'll need to go with a prescription in hand, get fingerprinted and get a prepaid credit card that's loaded up with your dosage and what strain of weed you want. Yeah, no joke, the pharmacists in LA give you a choice between OG Kush and Granddaddy Purple. In the future, the machines may also be outfitted to sell other popular drugs such as Viagra, Vicodin and Propecia. Combine all four for a really interesting night that'll also slowly grow your hair back!
:D