Schwarzenegger says it's time to study legalizing pot

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Please explain why marijuana will not ever be legalized in California or the US.

Well it cant be legalized on a state-by-state basis. Although Obama has stopped DEA raids (apparently) on medical pot, you can bet they would go out full-force as far as legalization.

Oh, good ? so all this silly State?s rights stuff has been settled?

Exactly, the issue is not that the Feds feel for the medical marijuana patients and are therefore stopping persecution. The Fed doesn't want to circumvent State Law (which obviously allows medical marijuana) and overstep state sovereignty issues.

If the state legalizes recreational use, then the same principle should hold true.

What?

State law cannot trump federal law. This is 101 here.......yikes.

My comment was sarcasm. There appears to be a desire for more state rights by some?just not on this issue. It usually boils down to the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Please explain why marijuana will not ever be legalized in California or the US.

Well it cant be legalized on a state-by-state basis. Although Obama has stopped DEA raids (apparently) on medical pot, you can bet they would go out full-force as far as legalization.

Oh, good ? so all this silly State?s rights stuff has been settled?

Exactly, the issue is not that the Feds feel for the medical marijuana patients and are therefore stopping persecution. The Fed doesn't want to circumvent State Law (which obviously allows medical marijuana) and overstep state sovereignty issues.

If the state legalizes recreational use, then the same principle should hold true.

What?

State law cannot trump federal law. This is 101 here.......yikes.

My comment was sarcasm. There appears to be a desire for more state rights by some?just not on this issue. It usually boils down to the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Yeah I got that and was responding more towards OCguy.

 

[daniel49]

Maybe Arnold is already studying it? It could explain some of his policies.

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Dragula22

No shit, so why is the fed giving med mj states a pass? Because they are patients?
MJ is shedule 1, no medicinal uses. Yet, at least 10 states have passed mmj laws.

So why is the fed not busting every patient then?

The fed is allowing the state's to decide what to do instead of squandering away federal resources, in effect, indirectly admitting fault to its own policy.

If full legalization becomes legislated, I am saying there's no reason to not expect this same retarded behavior from the fed.

Because MMJ has much more support than recreational use.


Noone wants to be in the newspaper wheeling out a cancer patient with handcuffs on

If you for one second believe the feds would allow a state to actually legalize a Schedule I drug, you should have your voting rights suspended.

If MMJ has much more support, it should be reclassified as schedule 2 under federal law:

Definition of Schedule 1:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

Definition of Schedule 2:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.

(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence

Drugs in Schedule 2 includes commonly used drugs like Morphine.

And so, the gov't turning a blind eye towards states legalizing mmj doesn't make any sense. They probably realized A) it's not addictive and B) it has valid medical uses.

Again, they are implicitly admitting fault by allowing state's to legalize mmj and it has nothing to do with the Medical in MMJ. The classification of MJ in any schedule is inherently flawed.

Oh and some crazy anti-drug crowds would love to see ppl in wheelchairs handcuffed behind bars.

My opinion, it will be legalized in <10 yrs across the US, <5 yrs in a few select states.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

But most importantly - Which is the point I made earlier.. here we are, with you ADMITTING to driving under the influence of a controlled substance.. and Anandtech apparently does not care about this? I'm sorry, but being under the influence of ANY substance while driving puts MY life and my family's life at risk. I don't trust a youtube video as proof that its not happening.

You could apply the same logic to most legal over the counter drugs


My gf can't drive w/o marijuana (too much pain).




While I think sobriety is more or less determined on a case by case basis, I have no faith in humanity and more or less agree with your assessment (not including teh gf and a few other guys i know)

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Maybe Arnold is already studying it? It could explain some of his policies.

He smoked plenty of it in the 70s and 80s and has no problem admitting to it. He even did it on video. I take it you never saw the movie Pumping Iron?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Dragula22

No shit, so why is the fed giving med mj states a pass? Because they are patients?
MJ is shedule 1, no medicinal uses. Yet, at least 10 states have passed mmj laws.

So why is the fed not busting every patient then?

The fed is allowing the state's to decide what to do instead of squandering away federal resources, in effect, indirectly admitting fault to its own policy.

If full legalization becomes legislated, I am saying there's no reason to not expect this same retarded behavior from the fed.

Because MMJ has much more support than recreational use.


Noone wants to be in the newspaper wheeling out a cancer patient with handcuffs on

If you for one second believe the feds would allow a state to actually legalize a Schedule I drug, you should have your voting rights suspended.

If MMJ has much more support, it should be reclassified as schedule 2 under federal law:

Definition of Schedule 1:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

Definition of Schedule 2:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.

(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence

Drugs in Schedule 2 includes commonly used drugs like Morphine.

And so, the gov't turning a blind eye towards states legalizing mmj doesn't make any sense. They probably realized A) it's not addictive and B) it has valid medical uses.

Again, they are implicitly admitting fault by allowing state's to legalize mmj and it has nothing to do with the Medical in MMJ. The classification of MJ in any schedule is inherently flawed.

Oh and some crazy anti-drug crowds would love to see ppl in wheelchairs handcuffed behind bars.

My opinion, it will be legalized in <10 yrs across the US, <5 yrs in a few select states.

I agree with you on the bolded. However, your pie-in-the-sky dream about legal Schedule I drugs is your issue not mine. Dont shoot the messenger.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I do find it interesting that Anandtech chooses to lock threads and potentially ban people who admit to piracy, but do absolutely nothing to people or threads which actively promote and admit to illegal drug use.

Well it is a tech site owned and run by Nerds and Hippies many who spend their time getting stoned and writing code.:laugh:

 

[wwswimming]

isn't there some kind of proverb about being proud of what you do well ?

well, California is good at growing marijuana. i thought this article was interesting, they're finally beginning to grade it using analytical chemical equipment

http://www.alternet.org/drugre...imate_pot/?page=entire

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: OCguy

I agree with you on the bolded. However, your pie-in-the-sky dream about legal Schedule I drugs is your issue not mine. Dont shoot the messenger.

Fair enough, maybe I'm overly optimistic, but people said the same thing when cali legalized MMJ more than 10 yrs ago--that the Fed would interfere.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: OCguy

I agree with you on the bolded. However, your pie-in-the-sky dream about legal Schedule I drugs is your issue not mine. Dont shoot the messenger.

Fair enough, maybe I'm overly optimistic, but people said the same thing when cali legalized MMJ more than 10 yrs ago--that the Fed would interfere.

The Fed did interfere, even all the way up to after Obama's election. There is no saying that the next president wont let the DEA go after medical. It is a really interesting situation.

 

[Modelworks]

As I said in another post. The plant itself, hemp, has many uses. We import more hemp than anywhere else in the world. Something that we could be growing ourselves, but can't because of the drug laws. If we can't even grow it here for industry usage then getting it legal to where you can smoke it is never going to happen.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The other argument that it's a gateway drug is bullshit too. People with addictive personalities that need the crutch of a heavier drug will get there with or without pot.

Uh hu. I guess you know better than all of the social workers who deal with this every day. Why bother spending millions of dollars on ACTUAL RESEARCH when we could have just talked to you?! Holy crap! What other magical powers do you have?

Basing your opinion off of the anecdotal evidence given by social workers sounds like a terribly flawed way to make a decision. Why would you base your conclusion off the X percent of marijuana users who encounter enough trouble in their lives to visit a social worker and ignore the Y percent of marijuana users who never set foot inside a social worker's office? Talk about coming to the conclusion you want to reach.

And basing an oppinion off of the anecdotal evidence of people who already use it is better? It's funny how when it comes to pot, science goes out the window. We need to ignore all of the research done on the subject because you and your buddies toked up and never moved on to harder drugs. Hey! It's cold out today so global warming must be a hoax! I eat junk food all day long and I'm not obese so there must be no connection between junk food and obesity!

Study after study has shown the link. 100% of the people who smoke don't turn to harder drugs, but a significant number do. The link exists.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I do find it interesting that Anandtech chooses to lock threads and potentially ban people who admit to piracy, but do absolutely nothing to people or threads which actively promote and admit to illegal drug use.

I don't know what state you live in but in hawaii, oregon, califonia and many other states ... You can legally grow and smoke weed. So, I am not breaking the law as far as the state is concerned and the feds just stated that they will not go after medical MJ users. So apparently I'm not in violation of any federal law as well. So I don't see what your problem is.

You're confusing two different things here. Even if the feds have stated they're not going to bother medical MJ users, that doesn't mean you're not breaking federal law in growing/using your own. To the best of my knowledge, the law hasn't changed; it's still a crime - just a crime they're not going to worry about right now. And I agree with others here who think MJ should be decriminalized, so I really don't care if the feds aren't going to bother with small-time growers or users.

Honest question for those who've tried it: How much does it really impair you? Can you drive? Exercise sound judgment? Perform complicated tasks? All I really know about it is what I've seen depicted in movies/TV, and of course I question the realism of that. Just curious.

You COULD try it and see for yourself.... You won't become addicted, and it won't kill you.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: ApexCS

Honest question for those who've tried it: How much does it really impair you? Can you drive? Exercise sound judgment? Perform complicated tasks? All I really know about it is what I've seen depicted in movies/TV, and of course I question the realism of that. Just curious.

Well I have smoked everyday for 5 years now, mostly at night. One thing I've noticed is that impairment is strain dependent for me. I really think that what is depicted in the movies is more stereotypical of classic "stoners". In my experience, cannabis does not prevent sound judgment or prevent me from performing complicated task. Hell I think playing Slayer and Metallica on guitar takes some hand eye coordination and focus, and it hasn't hindered my practice any. And yes, I think music and movies are better and so is gaming while I'm high.

I think people expect more from cannabis as far as intoxication goes. I doesn't come close to the extreme impairment cause by alcohol or people taking recreational, legal, prescription drugs.

Here's a cool video done by the speed channel on driving stoned. I warn some of you this is not the most scientific test, but it does represent my experience driving high.
Text

Here's a link to NORML's site where they list a study and a lot of sources. Text

I do have some problems with that test. First of all, the driver admits to trying to concentrate harder knowing that he was being tested and under the influence of pot. Next, as they said.. there was no way to judge how much he had injested. If he smoked twice or three times as much would it have changed the outcome?

But most importantly - Which is the point I made earlier.. here we are, with you ADMITTING to driving under the influence of a controlled substance.. and Anandtech apparently does not care about this? I'm sorry, but being under the influence of ANY substance while driving puts MY life and my family's life at risk. I don't trust a youtube video as proof that its not happening.

This is just f--king stupid.. Argue for the legal use of pot if you want, but saying smoking while driving is acceptable is just WRONG.. hell, many places in this country you can't use a cell phone while driving yet you appear to be advocating being high while smoking as a good thing, and openly admit you DO it..

Yes, I definitely think we as a society need more protection against caffeinated driving. Also hydrated driving. And nicotinated driving. And ibuprofenated driving. And....

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Please explain why marijuana will not ever be legalized in California or the US.

Well it cant be legalized on a state-by-state basis. Although Obama has stopped DEA raids (apparently) on medical pot, you can bet they would go out full-force as far as legalization.

Oh, good ? so all this silly State?s rights stuff has been settled?

Exactly, the issue is not that the Feds feel for the medical marijuana patients and are therefore stopping persecution. The Fed doesn't want to circumvent State Law (which obviously allows medical marijuana) and overstep state sovereignty issues.

If the state legalizes recreational use, then the same principle should hold true.

What?

State law cannot trump federal law. This is 101 here.......yikes.

Check the constituiton, state law does trump federal law.

It's only the "interstate commerce" supreme court ruling that allowed the feds to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY. However this opened the door and once power is gained, it is difficult to take away.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Please explain why marijuana will not ever be legalized in California or the US.

Well it cant be legalized on a state-by-state basis. Although Obama has stopped DEA raids (apparently) on medical pot, you can bet they would go out full-force as far as legalization.

Oh, good ? so all this silly State?s rights stuff has been settled?

Exactly, the issue is not that the Feds feel for the medical marijuana patients and are therefore stopping persecution. The Fed doesn't want to circumvent State Law (which obviously allows medical marijuana) and overstep state sovereignty issues.

If the state legalizes recreational use, then the same principle should hold true.

What?

State law cannot trump federal law. This is 101 here.......yikes.

No shit, so why is the fed giving med mj states a pass? Because they are patients?
MJ is shedule 1, no medicinal uses. Yet, at least 10 states have passed mmj laws.

So why is the fed not busting every patient then?

The fed is allowing the state's to decide what to do instead of squandering away federal resources, in effect, indirectly admitting fault to its own policy.

If full legalization becomes legislated, I am saying there's no reason to not expect this same retarded behavior from the fed.

The fed was perfectly happy busting MMJ dispensaries under Bush. They are doing what the Obama administration told them to do, which is to respect state's rights with regard to marijuana.

 

[ApexCS]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
And basing an oppinion off of the anecdotal evidence of people who already use it is better? It's funny how when it comes to pot, science goes out the window. We need to ignore all of the research done on the subject because you and your buddies toked up and never moved on to harder drugs. Hey! It's cold out today so global warming must be a hoax! I eat junk food all day long and I'm not obese so there must be no connection between junk food and obesity!

Study after study has shown the link. 100% of the people who smoke don't turn to harder drugs, but a significant number do. The link exists.

L.O.L.

You offer nothing in your own defense except make the same claim as the person you arguing with. Please show us the scientific proof.

I'll wait.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The other argument that it's a gateway drug is bullshit too. People with addictive personalities that need the crutch of a heavier drug will get there with or without pot.

Uh hu. I guess you know better than all of the social workers who deal with this every day. Why bother spending millions of dollars on ACTUAL RESEARCH when we could have just talked to you?! Holy crap! What other magical powers do you have?

Basing your opinion off of the anecdotal evidence given by social workers sounds like a terribly flawed way to make a decision. Why would you base your conclusion off the X percent of marijuana users who encounter enough trouble in their lives to visit a social worker and ignore the Y percent of marijuana users who never set foot inside a social worker's office? Talk about coming to the conclusion you want to reach.

And basing an oppinion off of the anecdotal evidence of people who already use it is better? It's funny how when it comes to pot, science goes out the window. We need to ignore all of the research done on the subject because you and your buddies toked up and never moved on to harder drugs. Hey! It's cold out today so global warming must be a hoax! I eat junk food all day long and I'm not obese so there must be no connection between junk food and obesity!

Study after study has shown the link. 100% of the people who smoke don't turn to harder drugs, but a significant number do. The link exists.

Those that go on to harder drugs do so because a lot of their marijuana dealers happen to also sell those hard drugs. The more drugs the dealer can get you hooked on = more profit for him. If pot were to be legalized and sold in stores this "link" would be nonexistent.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I do find it interesting that Anandtech chooses to lock threads and potentially ban people who admit to piracy, but do absolutely nothing to people or threads which actively promote and admit to illegal drug use.

Thank you for proving you can be a total idiot on a wide range of subjects. =)

 

[theflyingpig]

There is nothing to study. Pot must be legalized. Everyone knows this.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I do find it interesting that Anandtech chooses to lock threads and potentially ban people who admit to piracy, but do absolutely nothing to people or threads which actively promote and admit to illegal drug use.

Thank you for proving you can be a total idiot on a wide range of subjects. =)

Well lets see, we have at least one user actively admitting drinking and driving and being high and driving. I hope he doesn't kill someone in my family. But if that makes me an idiot, I guess I'm guilty as charged. Hopefully if he does kill someone its someone else who thinks this is OK.

This is what ATPN has come to.. being against drinking and driving and being high while driving now makes you an idiot. Apparently Anandtech will choose to look the other way.

 

[Vic]

You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe that wanting to repeal a failed, unnecessary, invasive, and expensive law is the same as supporting and/or partaking in illegal activity.

There's logical fallacies, and then there's just plain ol' dishonest dipshittery.

edit: the drug warriors and the gun grabbers are proof positive that govt-worshipping authoritarians can be either right or left, respectively.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Vic
You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe that wanting to repeal a failed, unnecessary, invasive, and expensive law is the same as supporting and/or partaking in illegal activity.

There's logical fallacies, and then there's just plain ol' dishonest dipshittery.

edit: the drug warriors and the gun grabbers are proof positive that govt-worshipping authoritarians can be either right or left, respectively.

Regardless of if you think being able to smoke it should be legal or not, do you think driving while high is a good thing?

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Dragula22
Possessed Freak,
While I agree that it's completely irresponsible to drive under the influence of anything, don't believe for a second the illusion that by maintaining illegality of drugs, you remove them from your life. That fact of the matter is, people are driving high already.

I am aware that all sorts of CRIMES happen daily. I disagree with being lenient or approving of criminal behavior on a public forum.