Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense
- Auteur de la discussion GOD
- Date de début
Psychoid a dit:
I agree with Psychoid here, The positive side of legislation out weigh's the criminal side we see now. Regulation, Standard Control, Proper Education and Taxation + It opens up a whole new world of work
The whole community cant be protected from one or two idiots, But the community can all help to reducate and set straight idiots with real facts and support.
P.S. Viljo, sorry to say mate but you have either become a casualty of propaganda or you have experienced some one who suffers severe from a disability to regulate themselves.
If there is that many people who want cannabis legalized then the government should be considering a solution and not just ignoring the people.
I'm cool with some form of compermize, I've put some thought into what I would do if it was my decesion.
There are four issues.
First is youth (under 21 years of age) I would still want cannabis to be restricted (not allowed) to people under 21. This is because there still in development stages and theres no real reason for it, not with school, friends etc,ect.
However for people over 21 I can't see why not cannabis can't become legal.
As for driving under cannabis I'd still want a zero tolerance approach with drug testing still to commence.
Which leaves were to get it I would say that growing your own on a restricted size might work.
What you guys think about that?
I'm cool with some form of compermize, I've put some thought into what I would do if it was my decesion.
There are four issues.
First is youth (under 21 years of age) I would still want cannabis to be restricted (not allowed) to people under 21. This is because there still in development stages and theres no real reason for it, not with school, friends etc,ect.
However for people over 21 I can't see why not cannabis can't become legal.
As for driving under cannabis I'd still want a zero tolerance approach with drug testing still to commence.
Which leaves were to get it I would say that growing your own on a restricted size might work.
What you guys think about that?
Affirmatory
Elfe Mécanique
- Inscrit
- 29 Déc 2008
- Messages
- 354
Yeah really
It's a CNN TV 'ask the viewers' type poll. I don't know what method they used for the votes. It's just one of those polls you see on tv. It was on American TV a few days ago.
It's a CNN TV 'ask the viewers' type poll. I don't know what method they used for the votes. It's just one of those polls you see on tv. It was on American TV a few days ago.
oh yeah?
thats far more positive than i would have expected
good news
wouldnt it be great if governments knew there role instead of overstepping the boundary
all these countries boast of how liberal and free they are
yet there are sooo many laws that prove otherwise
thats far more positive than i would have expected
good news
wouldnt it be great if governments knew there role instead of overstepping the boundary
all these countries boast of how liberal and free they are
yet there are sooo many laws that prove otherwise
maybe this poll was published under a marijuana-topic or so? Because this is far too optimistic. I can't believe that half the population would be for legalization of all drugs. Well, probably the rednecks didn't learn how to use the internet yet :lol:
Affirmatory
Elfe Mécanique
- Inscrit
- 29 Déc 2008
- Messages
- 354
They have been having a lot of segments on legalization on CNN lately and they probably asked for answers in one of these. I think people against the legalization of drugs just assume they will always be illegal and don't bother watching TV shows about it or voting against it. But it was on national TV so there is no excuse if the anti-drugs people feel they were misrepresented. They should have voted. Though I do have an image in my head of millions of stoners calling eachother up to vote on the CNN poll, making multiple votes if possible.
It makes sense, of course those who are at risk of being locked up are going to be more vocal than the people who want innocents jailed.
I think if they MADE everyone vote, a lot more than 6% would be against legalization.
However, this is still a very good sign if we can get a 90%+ result on a TV poll. Sorta like how a cannabis question was the top of every category for Obama's town hall meeting.
With articles favouring legalization coming from all sorts of mainstream sources, like TIME magazine, the Economist, CNN... it's only a matter of time.
It makes sense, of course those who are at risk of being locked up are going to be more vocal than the people who want innocents jailed.
I think if they MADE everyone vote, a lot more than 6% would be against legalization.
However, this is still a very good sign if we can get a 90%+ result on a TV poll. Sorta like how a cannabis question was the top of every category for Obama's town hall meeting.
With articles favouring legalization coming from all sorts of mainstream sources, like TIME magazine, the Economist, CNN... it's only a matter of time.
www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2000/08/think_drugs.html - 41k
anyone want to comment on this who is from holland?
Peace I have chilled on the subject,
anyone want to comment on this who is from holland?
Peace I have chilled on the subject,
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 11 366
In holland it's 18 and teens below 18 use less cannabis than in the surrounding countries, unless there is no coffeeshop around (where they can sell legitimally), because if there isn't, people are reliant upon dealers who don't care who buys it.viljo a dit:
I guess to a certain point it is rather harmless, but if you use a lot, it might interfere with your driving, although for some people this isn't the case. I think we need something similar to alcohol (at least that's how it is over here): if you have one drink you are probably still able to drive an hour later. There should be objective testing what levels of cannabis use will hamper reaction times, impulsivity, etc.
viljo, i see you're reading about the subject and it seems you are now better informed. continue to do so. there are a lot of topics on the subject here so feel free to peruse the boards for a while. the arguments you posted on the first page come out of ignorance.
swingline545xx
Matrice périnatale
- Inscrit
- 6 Juin 2009
- Messages
- 16
As far as driving is concerned:
There are many legal (read: prescription) drugs that mess with one's ability to drive, and many of them have no way to be tested by the police when one is pulled over. These include Opiates (percocet, vicodin, oxycontin, etc), Valium, etc. I really don't need to list all of them, there are many.
The bottom line is that if the officer that pulls you over thinks that you are incapable of driving in a safe manner (e.g. you fail your "touch your nose / walk the line" test), he will take you off the road.
There is no need for the breathalyzer (alcohol measuring device based on alcohol content in breath). There is no need for similar technology to detect THC. There are simple and fair tests to see if a driver is capable of operating the automobile within reason, and these same tests will catch people who are too high to be driving. For some people, driving high may not be a problem. For others (perhaps even most) the same standards that have been in place for years will take care of the issue.
I think anyone under (even a small bit of) the influence of anything should stay off the fucking roads, personally. You think you're fine until you fucking kill someone.
Anyways, where I live, I don't even have to submit to the breathalyzer test. They cannot make me take it at the roadside. I can simply refuse to blow into their little tube. They can still haul me off the road if they want, and actually, they can drive me to a hospital or similar medical facility and have a doctor draw blood and test the alcohol levels in it that way, but they cannot force me to blow into that tube. I never will, either, even if I'm 100% sober. If I pass my roadside sobriety test that's based on reflexes and balance and they still want to take things further, then they can go fuck themselves.. I'll make their choice to do so as long and hard on them as possible.
So, yeah. The driving thing really is a non-issue. People who bring it up are grasping for an argument, IMHO. As everyone already knows, plenty of prescription meds mess up the ability to drive, and plenty of people get DUIs/DWIs for those as they're obviously messed up and fail their roadside tests. No new tech and no new laws are needed to handle this issue.
There are many legal (read: prescription) drugs that mess with one's ability to drive, and many of them have no way to be tested by the police when one is pulled over. These include Opiates (percocet, vicodin, oxycontin, etc), Valium, etc. I really don't need to list all of them, there are many.
The bottom line is that if the officer that pulls you over thinks that you are incapable of driving in a safe manner (e.g. you fail your "touch your nose / walk the line" test), he will take you off the road.
There is no need for the breathalyzer (alcohol measuring device based on alcohol content in breath). There is no need for similar technology to detect THC. There are simple and fair tests to see if a driver is capable of operating the automobile within reason, and these same tests will catch people who are too high to be driving. For some people, driving high may not be a problem. For others (perhaps even most) the same standards that have been in place for years will take care of the issue.
I think anyone under (even a small bit of) the influence of anything should stay off the fucking roads, personally. You think you're fine until you fucking kill someone.
Anyways, where I live, I don't even have to submit to the breathalyzer test. They cannot make me take it at the roadside. I can simply refuse to blow into their little tube. They can still haul me off the road if they want, and actually, they can drive me to a hospital or similar medical facility and have a doctor draw blood and test the alcohol levels in it that way, but they cannot force me to blow into that tube. I never will, either, even if I'm 100% sober. If I pass my roadside sobriety test that's based on reflexes and balance and they still want to take things further, then they can go fuck themselves.. I'll make their choice to do so as long and hard on them as possible.
So, yeah. The driving thing really is a non-issue. People who bring it up are grasping for an argument, IMHO. As everyone already knows, plenty of prescription meds mess up the ability to drive, and plenty of people get DUIs/DWIs for those as they're obviously messed up and fail their roadside tests. No new tech and no new laws are needed to handle this issue.
as if the jacks have the time to do a nose, ear whatever test on each individual that drives past.
im not sure what the big deal is about breathing into a bertho test.
its quick and you don't even have to get out of the car.
I think peoples safety on the roads is a huge issue and I totally support alcohol and drug testing.
im not sure what the big deal is about breathing into a bertho test.
its quick and you don't even have to get out of the car.
I think peoples safety on the roads is a huge issue and I totally support alcohol and drug testing.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 11 366
I also support alcohol/drug testing in traffic, but am against the use of the tests they have now, which can turn out positive even if you smoked a joint two days ago.
swingline545xx
Matrice périnatale
- Inscrit
- 6 Juin 2009
- Messages
- 16
I'll never breathe into the tube, because the roadside breath-based alcohol tests are inaccurate. Anyone can do a quick google search and come up with many instances of people getting DUIs and losing their jobs, etc, because the damn device was calibrated wrong and gave an incorrect result.
The best and most accurate test that can be done is one in a medical facility done by a trained doctor or nurse, testing the actual levels of alcohol in your blood. Because of this fact, I will never submit myself to any other test unless required by law.
I feel the same way about roadside tests for any other drug as well. The police officer is trained in, well, being a police officer. They are not a tech, they are not an engineer of the device. They are not a doctor or a nurse. They are simply not the people who should be doing such a test.
^^ as pointed out above, the existing THC tests will make you show up as positive even if you've smoked days ago and are not currently under the influence.
I still think the "touch your nose" and "walk the line" tests are the best that can and should be done on the road. If there is still concern, the officer should take you to a medical facility to do a proper evaluation of concentrations of the actual chemical in your actual blood.
Just my opinion I suppose. It's just that nothing pisses me off more than reading about people having their lives messed with for things they aren't even guilty of.
As an additional note: if you're under the influence of anything, stay the fuck out of the car!
The best and most accurate test that can be done is one in a medical facility done by a trained doctor or nurse, testing the actual levels of alcohol in your blood. Because of this fact, I will never submit myself to any other test unless required by law.
I feel the same way about roadside tests for any other drug as well. The police officer is trained in, well, being a police officer. They are not a tech, they are not an engineer of the device. They are not a doctor or a nurse. They are simply not the people who should be doing such a test.
^^ as pointed out above, the existing THC tests will make you show up as positive even if you've smoked days ago and are not currently under the influence.
I still think the "touch your nose" and "walk the line" tests are the best that can and should be done on the road. If there is still concern, the officer should take you to a medical facility to do a proper evaluation of concentrations of the actual chemical in your actual blood.
Just my opinion I suppose. It's just that nothing pisses me off more than reading about people having their lives messed with for things they aren't even guilty of.
As an additional note: if you're under the influence of anything, stay the fuck out of the car!