Why?

Really we're not that strict... try texas or nevada sometime. They will jail you for years for a first offense.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really we're not that strict... try texas or
> nevada sometime. They will jail you for years for
> a first offense.

No they won't!! Jackass

I'll go ahead and counter that flawless and heavily notated argument with:

Yes they do!!! douchebag.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll go ahead and counter that flawless and
> heavily notated argument with:
>
> Yes they do!!! douchebag.

Sorry reston but nevada they are aloooot less strict, even medical weed is legal which anyone can get.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4550

Texas, 2 oz or less* class B misdemeanor 180 days $2,000
2 to 4 oz* class A misdemeanor 1 year $4,000


(In va 1/2 an ounce is a felony)

Virginia only started letting people of mixed races marry each other within the last 40 years...and not by choice either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Don't expect much progressiveness.

EbonyAndIvory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virginia only started letting people of mixed
> races marry each other within the last 40
> years...and not by choice either.

why would they force people to have interracial marriages? ok... now im afraid of them legalizing gay marriage. ;)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Because it's illegal, you damn hippie.

ffxstoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESton Peace Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'll go ahead and counter that flawless and
> > heavily notated argument with:
> >
> > Yes they do!!! douchebag.
>
> Sorry reston but nevada they are aloooot less
> strict, even medical weed is legal which anyone
> can get.
>
> http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4550
>
> Texas, 2 oz or less* class B misdemeanor 180
> days $2,000
> 2 to 4 oz* class A misdemeanor 1 year $4,000
>
>
> (In va 1/2 an ounce is a felony)

yeah I know, I was quoting a movie and then I just was arguing

Why? Because the Commonwealth is, overall, a very socially conservative state. Less so up here in NoVA, Charlottesville, and perhaps some parts of Virginia Beach; however, the rest is really quite conservative and has a high percentage of Christians.

Just how it is -- for now...

texas is not that strict, you can be arrested with like 2 ounces almost and its a misdameanor, first time offense will get you 6 months probation at max

Maybe the tobacco companies are worried about competition.

negative, marijuana use increases tobacco consumption.I have heard that smoking a cig while high is awesome.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the tobacco companies are worried about
> competition.


Really? You've never met someone who smokes pot?

More pot smokers also smoke cigarettes compared to the general population.

I would think the tobacco companies would actually prefer that more people smoke pot.

One of the first things I learned when I smoked pot in High School was that smoking a cigarette was THE cure for cotton mouth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2009 03:56AM by Thurston Moore.

TefD187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have heard that smoking a cig while
> high is awesome.

it is.

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TefD187 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have heard that smoking a cig while
> > high is awesome.
>
> it is.

Maybe if you don't usually smoke cigarettes.

If you smoke regularly, it's just another smoke. The high from the weed is what should be awesome.

Now, sex, on the other hand, when you're high, that is pretty intense.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

I've had lots of pothead friends, just never got the urge to become one.

I'm all for legalizing it, though. What the hell, might reduce the need for all these roid-rager SWAT weenies and prisons.

Can't be worse than legalizing alcohol was.

Yea my beef is that alchohol is legal and weed isn't thats ridiculous man getting stoned is what got me through calculus...waste of money

I smoke alot of pot and when im high i don't crave cigarettes at all i will smoke 1 just to cure my dry mouth and add a little kick to the high. Now when im drunk i crave cigarettes like crazy, im not a big smoker about 3 packs every month.

TefD187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> negative, marijuana use increases tobacco
> consumption.I have heard that smoking a cig while
> high is awesome.


more awesome than you will ever know... its like god came in your mouth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2009 04:27AM by Kenny_Powers.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've had lots of pothead friends, just never got
> the urge to become one.
>
> I'm all for legalizing it, though. What the hell,
> might reduce the need for all these roid-rager
> SWAT weenies and prisons.
>
> Can't be worse than legalizing alcohol was.


But prohibition only lasted around 10 years. The demonization of marijuana is going on 80 or more years now.

There are so many people who truly believe that marijuana is evil and bad and stoners and potheads and evil weed and gateway drug and psychosis and anti-social and living in basements playing video games and kills brain cells and and and and and.

Propoganda, or marketing, is powerful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Maybe the state has enough foresight to realize that legalizing pot will only increase the number of intoxicated drivers on the road and thus is a safty issue. Someone who is high, will inevitably get in a car and drive, much like a drunk, for one reason or another.

I R in yer Richmons bein strict wit yer weeds N intoxicantz

I have been smoking weed for the past 2 years, i drive on it with no problems
I have never been in an accident and my driving record is flawless
Also i am a math major and just got an A in Calculus 2 while smoking weed just about everyday.... Learn before you make judgements about things you don't know

FurckIgnorance Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been smoking weed for the past 2 years, i
> drive on it with no problems
> I have never been in an accident and my driving
> record is flawless
> Also i am a math major and just got an A in
> Calculus 2 while smoking weed just about
> everyday.... Learn before you make judgements
> about things you don't know

Is that supposed to impress us? Calculus 2?? You are so cool

http://knucklesunited.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/4popped-collars.png

my best argument for not legalizing any drugs is this:

Do you want to live in a community where people are high? Is being high something that you want your children (or future children) exposed to? Do you want to be around drugs all the time and at any time?

Using drugs is not productive for society or individuals. It encourages laziness and risky behaviors. While some posters here seem to feel that driving high is fine as long as you get good grades, in reality it is no better then driving buzzed and/or drunk.

I am by no means in favor of prohibition, I just think that society should use its collective will to limit the amount of vices legitimately present in society. Since alcohol is already legal and the vast majority of alcohol consumed in the US is made in the US, with the US benefiting from the profits and taxes, alcohol gets to stay. In this particular case alcohol is the lesser of two evils. The combination of tax revenue and unique rules that apply to it (such as limited sales based on the time of day, liquor only being sold in state stores, and strong DUI laws) make legal alcohol a much bigger benefit to society then drugs.

In your argument in support of legalizing drugs please consider where drugs come from and what it takes to get them to the US. Columbia's and Mexico's political instability and violence is due to drugs, the Taliban gets a huge chunk of its operational money from drugs, and the mark up you pay to get your drugs directly supports purchasing weapons/guns and the lives of drug dealers and frequently pimps.

I have yet to come across a person in my life who does NOT use drugs who believes its a good idea to legalize it. It seems very suspicious that the only people who want it legalized are current drug addicts.

FurfaxTownie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the state has enough foresight to realize
> that legalizing pot will only increase the number
> of intoxicated drivers on the road and thus is a
> safty issue.

The same people who make your argument would never think of criminalizing drinking because of the thousands of accidents caused each year. And the argument is flawed to begin with, you assume that because its legal more people will be doing it. When in fact the evidence shows the opposite, consumption would go down with legalization (the same way it did with alcohol during and after prohibition.)

And if i had to guess, I'd say that driving while high is much less dangerous than driving drunk, texting and driving, or talking on a cell phone while driving.

> Someone who is high, will inevitably
> get in a car and drive, much like a drunk, for one
> reason or another.


It all comes down to personal responsability. Even though most citizens dont act like adults, we have to treat them like they are. We cannot control what people do with their lives, as long as it has no effect on another person.

eric56787 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you want to live in a community where people
> are high? Is being high something that you want
> your children (or future children) exposed to? Do
> you want to be around drugs all the time and at
> any time?

You already live in a community where people get high, as you know.

And because of you, those druggies fund gangs and the underworld, instead of buying from legitimate sources.

YOU are the cause of gang warfare, no-knock raids, and trashing the constitution, which, by the way, does NOT authorize the federal government to ban narcotics or even alcohol. Hell, they needed an ammendment to ban alcohol, so maybe you can explain to me why they think they didn't need one to ban drugs.

Everytime somebody dies in a drug-related crime, it's YOUR fault, ignorant ass. People like you ruin my country.

And as I've already stated, I have never had the urge to use drugs, so you're a liar to boot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2009 01:36AM by tomahawk.

eric56787 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In your argument in support of legalizing drugs
> please consider where drugs come from and what it
> takes to get them to the US. Columbia's and
> Mexico's political instability and violence is due
> to drugs, the Taliban gets a huge chunk of its
> operational money from drugs, and the mark up you
> pay to get your drugs directly supports purchasing
> weapons/guns and the lives of drug dealers and
> frequently pimps.
>

It is a common misconception among "non drug users" who probably have 2 or 3 prescription DRUGS in their medicine cabinet, that anyone talking about legalizing Marijuana is actually talking about legalizing ALL DRUGS.

For whatever reason, many people cannot disambiguate "drugs". Marijuana, crystal meth, heroine, cocaine, et al, are all "DRUGS!!!", and there is no differentiation. Alcohol is the only drug they can disambiguate from the melange of "evil drugs". Well, caffeine, and nicotine, too, maybe.

If Marijuana were legalized, and we're talking about a specific drug, like we might talk about aspirin and not all analgesics, it would be produced domestically, and in abundance. It would become the largest cash crop grown in the US, and it would eliminate all the issues you use to prop up and justify it's criminality.

Mexico and Colombia and British Columbia, CA would not be able to compete against the guy down the street with a really nice organic hydroponic grow setup.

No more cross border crime, no more criminal drug organizations killing mexican police and judges, no more mafia/gang control over something less harmful than alcohol.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2009 01:58AM by Thurston Moore.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eric56787 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > In your argument in support of legalizing drugs
> > please consider where drugs come from and what
> it
> > takes to get them to the US. Columbia's and
> > Mexico's political instability and violence is
> due
> > to drugs, the Taliban gets a huge chunk of its
> > operational money from drugs, and the mark up
> you
> > pay to get your drugs directly supports
> purchasing
> > weapons/guns and the lives of drug dealers and
> > frequently pimps.
> >
>
> It is a common misconception among "non drug
> users" who probably have 2 or 3 prescription DRUGS
> in their medicine cabinet, that anyone talking
> about legalizing Marijuana is actually talking
> about legalizing ALL DRUGS.
>
> For whatever reason, many people cannot
> disambiguate "drugs". Marijuana, crystal meth,
> heroine, cocaine, et al, are all "DRUGS!!!", and
> there is no differentiation. Alcohol is the only
> drug they can disambiguate from the melange of
> "evil drugs". Well, caffeine, and nicotine, too,
> maybe.
>
> If Marijuana were legalized, and we're talking
> about a specific drug, like we might talk about
> aspirin and not all analgesics, it would be
> produced domestically, and in abundance. It would
> become the largest cash crop grown in the US, and
> it would eliminate all the issues you use to prop
> up and justify it's criminality.
>
> Mexico and Colombia and British Columbia, CA would
> not be able to compete against the guy down the
> street with a really nice organic hydroponic grow
> setup.
>
> No more cross border crime, no more criminal drug
> organizations killing mexican police and judges,
> no more mafia/gang control over something less
> harmful than alcohol.

+1 x 11,806,909,000,000+ (our national debt) http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Because we come from old money and keeping pot illegal puts more money in everyones pocket. so fuck them. legalize it.

from 4 am to 7 am the national debt has grown approx. one million dollars. i wonder how many millions of dollars of weed has been sold in that amount of time?

We should secede from the rest of Virginia and DECRIMINALIZE (not legalize - there is a difference) small amounts of drugs. Its not worth locking up every nickle and dimer, send them to ADS and be done with it. If you are caught dealing you go to jail for distribution. User offenses such as anything over a half ounce of marijuana or sall amounts of other illicit substances should be dealt with through fines along with mandatory drug counseling for habitual offenders NOT JAIL TIME. This would keep our tax dollars here where we need them and further fund road projects to improve our goddamn rush hour. It couldn't be more pragmatic than that.

I wonder if we might be at a tipping point with respect to marijuana.

I suppose I haven't been keeping up, but I was rather shocked to learn from a friend of mine in Colorado that pot-smoking coffee shops are legal and hassle-free. Here's an article about it: http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/christina_davidson/2009/08/at_first_glance_the_one.php

And Denver appears poised to pass a law that will reduce penalties for possession of less than an ounce to $1. http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13212872

I understand that dispensaries of medical marijuana in California are similarly very minimally regulated.

Now it appears Maryland may pass a medical marijuana law that will put it on the same footing as CO and CA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091202441.html

I personally am opposed to the legalization of marijuana, primarily because I don't want a bunch of stoned people out there driving.

But the way things are going, it really wouldn't surprise me if in the next 5-10 years marijuana is effectively decriminalized, in many if not all states, through a combination of minimally regulated medical marijuana, and Denver-type fines.

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I personally am opposed to the legalization of
> marijuana, primarily because I don't want a bunch
> of stoned people out there driving.

DWI is already against the law. So is driving recklessly.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DWI is already against the law.


Well of course it's not that simple. You can't use breathalyzers to test for pot. Blood tests are invasive and could be misleading. According to this pro-marijuana policy paper http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-how.html, the best alternative is field sobriety tests, which I think is a dubious solution - in that existing field sobriety tests designed to show alcohol intoxication will not necessarily show marijuana intoxication. And indeed the paper implicitly recognizes this problem, noting that "Significant work is being done to develop and implement modified field sobriety tests."

Alternatively, DUI charges could be based on a more subjective evaluation of whether a driver exhibits symptoms such as bloodshot eyes, slow speech, or a confused thought process, as per current practice in California. http://www.duiblogger.com/driving_under_the_influence_of/

But such a subjective approach seems fraught with the potential for abuse by Fairfax' finest.

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tomahawk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DWI is already against the law.
>
>
> Well of course it's not that simple. You can't
> use breathalyzers to test for pot. Blood tests
> are invasive and could be misleading. According
> to this pro-marijuana policy paper
> http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-
> how.html, the best alternative is field sobriety
> tests, which I think is a dubious solution - in
> that existing field sobriety tests designed to
> show alcohol intoxication will not necessarily
> show marijuana intoxication. And indeed the paper
> implicitly recognizes this problem, noting that
> "Significant work is being done to develop and
> implement modified field sobriety tests."
>
> Alternatively, DUI charges could be based on a
> more subjective evaluation of whether a driver
> exhibits symptoms such as bloodshot eyes, slow
> speech, or a confused thought process, as per
> current practice in California.
> http://www.duiblogger.com/driving_under_the_influe
> nce_of/
>
> But such a subjective approach seems fraught with
> the potential for abuse by Fairfax' finest.


Or, you could just ticket or arrest the guy for HOW HE IS DRIVING instead of worrying about what is in his blood.

Keep in mind that people are driving while high right now, regardless of the law.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2009 07:35PM by tomahawk.

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tomahawk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DWI is already against the law.
>
>
> Well of course it's not that simple. You can't
> use breathalyzers to test for pot. Blood tests
> are invasive and could be misleading. According
> to this pro-marijuana policy paper
> http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-
> how.html, the best alternative is field sobriety
> tests, which I think is a dubious solution - in
> that existing field sobriety tests designed to
> show alcohol intoxication will not necessarily
> show marijuana intoxication. And indeed the paper
> implicitly recognizes this problem, noting that
> "Significant work is being done to develop and
> implement modified field sobriety tests."
>
> Alternatively, DUI charges could be based on a
> more subjective evaluation of whether a driver
> exhibits symptoms such as bloodshot eyes, slow
> speech, or a confused thought process, as per
> current practice in California.
> http://www.duiblogger.com/driving_under_the_influe
> nce_of/
>
> But such a subjective approach seems fraught with
> the potential for abuse by Fairfax' finest.


A field sobriety test will show any intoxication. They also have little testers that you spit into and in 90 seconds it will tell the officer what your on.

Of course the police can *always* find a reason to stop you for how you're driving.

A separate issue is evaluating marijuana intoxication in the case of accidents -- in which case we do indeed have to worry about what's in someone's blood, for purposes of determining liability.

More on the problems with marijuana field sobriety tests here: http://www.bestduidefense.com/MarijuanaDUIDefenseAttorney.htm

ffxstoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A field sobriety test will show any intoxication.

Bullshit. Field sobriety tests for marijuana are difficult to develop and implement per the two articles I linked to, http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-how.html and http://www.bestduidefense.com/MarijuanaDUIDefenseAttorney.htm


> They also have little testers that you spit into
> and in 90 seconds it will tell the officer what
> your on.

The MPP paper may be out of date, but it states: "the technology for reliably testing saliva is still unavailable, and there are no national standards for testing saliva, as there are with blood and urine".

This article from Aug 12, 2009 suggests such a device will be introduced later this year, but is not yet on the market: http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/12/prohibition-hi-tech-tool-just-another-anti-marijuana-silver-bullet/

Are you saying such devices are currently in use and accepted as evidence in Virginia courts (or any state)? If so, link?

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ffxstoner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A field sobriety test will show any
> intoxication.
>
> Bullshit. Field sobriety tests for marijuana are
> difficult to develop and implement per the two
> articles I linked to,
> http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-
> how.html and
> http://www.bestduidefense.com/MarijuanaDUIDefenseA
> ttorney.htm
>
>
> > They also have little testers that you spit
> into
> > and in 90 seconds it will tell the officer what
> > your on.
>
> The MPP paper may be out of date, but it states:
> "the technology for reliably testing saliva is
> still unavailable, and there are no national
> standards for testing saliva, as there are with
> blood and urine".
>
> This article from Aug 12, 2009 suggests such a
> device will be introduced later this year, but is
> not yet on the market:
> http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/12/prohibition-hi-te
> ch-tool-just-another-anti-marijuana-silver-bullet/
>
>
> Are you saying such devices are currently in use
> and accepted as evidence in Virginia courts (or
> any state)? If so, link?

If you can pass a alcohol sobriety test while stoned then your are good enough to drive. And no they don't have the devices in use yet but they are coming soon.

ffxstoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can pass a alcohol sobriety test while
> stoned then your are good enough to drive.

Bzzt. Wrong. Even the pro-marijuana MPP acknowledges the need to develop new tests. This is just common sense. Marijuana intoxication is obviously different that alcohol intoxication. Existing field sobriety tests designed to show alcohol intoxication will not necessarily show marijuana intoxication, and yet the inability of an ill-matched test to detect the latter cohort does not mean that cohort is any condition to drive.


> And no they don't have the devices in use yet

Well you said they did. Don't twist the facts to make your case.

ffxstoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tipping point? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ffxstoner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > A field sobriety test will show any
> > intoxication.
> >
> > Bullshit. Field sobriety tests for marijuana
> are



> > difficult to develop and implement per the two
> > articles I linked to,
> >
> http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-
>
> > how.html and
> >
> http://www.bestduidefense.com/MarijuanaDUIDefenseA
>
> > ttorney.htm
> >
> >
> > > They also have little testers that you spit
> > into
> > > and in 90 seconds it will tell the officer
> what
> > > your on.
> >
> > The MPP paper may be out of date, but it
> states:
> > "the technology for reliably testing saliva is
> > still unavailable, and there are no national
> > standards for testing saliva, as there are with
> > blood and urine".
> >
> > This article from Aug 12, 2009 suggests such a
> > device will be introduced later this year, but
> is
> > not yet on the market:
> >
> http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/12/prohibition-hi-te
>
> >
> ch-tool-just-another-anti-marijuana-silver-bullet/
>
> >
> >
> > Are you saying such devices are currently in
> use
> > and accepted as evidence in Virginia courts (or
> > any state)? If so, link?
>
> If you can pass a alcohol sobriety test while
> stoned then your are good enough to drive. And no
> they don't have the devices in use yet but they
> are coming soon

I was given a field sobritey test right after smoking by the police. I was with a girl who had been drinking the officer made me go through the exact same tests. While the officer found me sober he failed he girl for the test, the officer allowed me to drive her home high and I got us both there safely. I continue to smoke and drive without ever getting pulled over and still I have never had a ticket or traffic infraction.

FurckIgnorance Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was given a field sobritey test right after
> smoking by the police. I was with a girl who had
> been drinking the officer made me go through the
> exact same tests. While the officer found me
> sober he failed he girl for the test, the officer
> allowed me to drive her home high and I got us
> both there safely.

So you were given a field sobriety test for suspicion of alcohol intoxication, which you passed because you weren't drunk.


> I continue to smoke and drive
> without ever getting pulled over and still I have
> never had a ticket or traffic infraction.

A self-righteous stoner driving under the influence and endangering others, and bragging about it. Wow. That's just delightful.

Stoned Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We should secede from the rest of Virginia and
> DECRIMINALIZE (not legalize - there is a
> difference) small amounts of drugs. Its not worth
> locking up every nickle and dimer, send them to
> ADS and be done with it. If you are caught dealing
> you go to jail for distribution. User offenses
> such as anything over a half ounce of marijuana or
> sall amounts of other illicit substances should be
> dealt with through fines along with mandatory drug
> counseling for habitual offenders NOT JAIL TIME.
> This would keep our tax dollars here where we need
> them and further fund road projects to improve our
> goddamn rush hour. It couldn't be more pragmatic
> than that.


Decriminalizing marijuana doesn't solve the problem. It just makes some of the stoners happy that they don't need to worry about being busted for small amounts.

It does not eliminate a criminal underground market. It does not eliminate cross-border criminality. It does not eliminate rich, powerful cartels operating outside and inside the united states. It does not eliminate the outfolow of our dollars to these external criminal cartels.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives needs to be renamed the Bureau of Marijuana, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Marijuana should be sold LEGALLY in either specially licensed stores or the same way as cigarettes and beer. Underage use should be strictly prohibited and heavily enforced. Anyone caught driving should be treated as DUI if certain motor skill, reaction time and attention/focus measures are not met.

I know many people who drink a lot because they enjoy feeling intoxicated. If they could get access to marijuana, it would be much healthier for them in the long-run (and cheaper for society through health-care costs, lost productivity, etc.) -- I know that for myself, if I feel like getting a decent buzz, I have to drink 10 or 12 beers, or I could smoke a couple bong hits, if I was able to find weed, which I can't. The next morning, after 10 or 12 beers, I'm going to be less productive because I'm going to be hung over. I may even call my boss and say I'll be in late. With a couple tokes, I feel 100% perfect the next morning.

A person can smoke weed fairly regularly and at worst, have a higher risk for lung cancer. I don't know if I have enough time in the day to list all the health risks that come with drinking regularly, but the list is long and the long-term prognosis for a drinker is pretty grim. Worse than a cigarette smoker.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

"Decriminalizing marijuana doesn't solve the problem. It just makes some of the stoners happy that they don't need to worry about being busted for small amounts.

It does not eliminate a criminal underground market. It does not eliminate cross-border criminality. It does not eliminate rich, powerful cartels operating outside and inside the united states. It does not eliminate the outfolow of our dollars to these external criminal cartels."


The Atlantic article http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/christina_davidson/2009/08/at_first_glance_the_one.php on Colorado's medical marijuana law (which i suppose is limited legalization, rather than decriminalization) suggests it's having a rather dramatic effect on the underground market, including dollars going to cross-border smugglers:

Most of the farmers Kathleen works with have been cultivating their product illegally for many years--the oldest has been in the illicit business for 35, more than half have grown marijuana for over two decades. Now that they sell their product to a legal commercial enterprise, weed farmers will have to register their income and pay taxes on it, just like anyone growing tomatoes or tobacco. "To have these people coming out of the closet after so many years, that's the really heartening thing about what's happening right now," Kathleen says.

Since marijuana farmers have begun selling exclusively to legitimate dispensaries, the underground market for illegal weed has been quashed, putting drug dealers out of business for lack of available stock. One such dealer I talked to in Boulder, who I will call Quark at his request, told me that with the supply of high-quality Colorado hydroponic weed redirected to dispensaries, he has only been able to procure cheap Mexican schwag for the past few months.

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Atlantic article
> http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/christina_da
> vidson/2009/08/at_first_glance_the_one.php on
> Colorado's medical marijuana law (which i suppose
> is limited legalization, rather than
> decriminalization) suggests it's having a rather
> dramatic effect on the underground market,
> including dollars going to cross-border
> smugglers:
>
> Most of the farmers Kathleen works with have been
> cultivating their product illegally for many
> years--the oldest has been in the illicit business
> for 35, more than half have grown marijuana for
> over two decades. Now that they sell their product
> to a legal commercial enterprise, weed farmers
> will have to register their income and pay taxes
> on it, just like anyone growing tomatoes or
> tobacco. "To have these people coming out of the
> closet after so many years, that's the really
> heartening thing about what's happening right
> now," Kathleen says.
>
> Since marijuana farmers have begun selling
> exclusively to legitimate dispensaries, the
> underground market for illegal weed has been
> quashed, putting drug dealers out of business for
> lack of available stock. One such dealer I talked
> to in Boulder, who I will call Quark at his
> request, told me that with the supply of
> high-quality Colorado hydroponic weed redirected
> to dispensaries, he has only been able to procure
> cheap Mexican schwag for the past few months.


So you see how LEGALIZATION as opposed to DECRIMINALIZATION can actually resolve the issues that everyone associates with Marijuana?

Once people can buy legal, regulated, legit weed grown domestically, all those foreign drug cartels will wither and die.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course the police can *always* find a reason to
> stop you for how you're driving.
>
> A separate issue is evaluating marijuana
> intoxication in the case of accidents -- in which
> case we do indeed have to worry about what's in
> someone's blood, for purposes of determining
> liability.
>
> More on the problems with marijuana field sobriety
> tests here:
> http://www.bestduidefense.com/MarijuanaDUIDefenseA
> ttorney.htm


1. If you can pass a field sobriety test, you are able to drive. That's what the test is for, it's not a chemical detection test; it's a test for coordination and self control.

2. If you caused an accident, what difference does it make what chemicals you have in your blood? It's your fault drunk, high, or stone cold sober. Pay the price for your actions.

3. Law or no law, people are currently driving around stoned anyway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2009 11:57PM by tomahawk.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. If you can pass a field sobriety test, you are
> able to drive. That's what the test is for, it's
> not a chemical detection test; it's a test for
> coordination and self control.
>
> 2. If you caused an accident, what difference does
> it make what chemicals you have in your blood?
> It's your fault drunk, high, or stone cold sober.
> Pay the price for your actions.
>
> 3. Law or no law, people are currently driving
> around stoned anyway.



But some people have the Adam Walsh syndrome.

They want there to be a greater evil behind their loved one's death, or the dent in their car.

They want to vilify something in order to convince themselves that it will never happen again, or whatever.

In a rational world, if you cause an accident, you pay the price. But in the irrational world that we live in, some people need to vilify or demonize some behaviors in order to feel "safe" or to get over a tragedy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you see how LEGALIZATION as opposed to
> DECRIMINALIZATION can actually resolve the issues
> that everyone associates with Marijuana?
>
> Once people can buy legal, regulated, legit weed
> grown domestically, all those foreign drug cartels
> will wither and die.


That's a legitimate point.


tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. If you can pass a field sobriety test, you are
> able to drive. That's what the test is for, it's
> not a chemical detection test; it's a test for
> coordination and self control.


Field sobriety tests are designed to reveal the effects of *alcohol*. The effects of alcohol and marijuana - as any stoner should know - are *not* the same. Thus, the battery of tests that have been designed to test drunks are not sufficient to test stoners.

For example, "Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus or HGN is defined as the involuntary jerking of the eye. Alcohol affects automatic tracking mechanism of the eyes and causes a jerking (nystagmus) of the eye as it moves from side to side." http://sandiegodwi.com/sandiegodwisfsts.html

And so cops have developed a specific HGN test to catch out drunk drivers.

But marijuana doesn't cause HGN http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1217329, although it obviously causes other deficits, which result in a significant number of accidents (not as bad as alcohol, but still a serious problem): http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/driving.html

Hence the need for marijuana-specific field tests, such as the Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) tests developed in California, which test for, among other things:

- Dilated pupils,
- Elevated pulse rate,
- Elevated blood pressure,
- Giving off the odor of marijuana,
- Eyelid and body tremors,
- Dry mouth

http://www.shouselaw.com/dui-marijuana.html

However, these tests are time-consuming, and not necessarily accurate, as noted in my prior posts.


> 2. If you caused an accident, what difference does
> it make what chemicals you have in your blood?
> It's your fault drunk, high, or stone cold sober.
> Pay the price for your actions.

In many accidents, causation is difficult to determine. Evidence of alcohol or drug use can help to determine causation, and thus liability.


> 3. Law or no law, people are currently driving around stoned anyway.

Yes, and to the extent weed is decriminalized, or legalized, the problem will likely become worse.

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 2. If you caused an accident, what difference
> does
> > it make what chemicals you have in your blood?
> > It's your fault drunk, high, or stone cold
> sober.
> > Pay the price for your actions.
>
> In many accidents, causation is difficult to
> determine. Evidence of alcohol or drug use can
> help to determine causation, and thus liability.

No, it can't. I can get stone cold drunk and get hit by a sober guy who just wasn't paying attention, even though I wasn't speeding or weaving. A PERSON causes accidents, not a drug. Whoever broke the traffic laws or couldn't control their car causes the accident. Not whoever happened to have a chemical in their blood.

Your arguments are all cloaked in scientific studies and expert testimony, but they all forget that law must hold people responsible for what they do to other people, while leaving them free to do whatever they want to themselves.

Freedom is such a simple concept, but you religious zealots have a hard-on for banning this chemical or that substance, forgetting the basic concepts of liberty and justice in a free society.

Actually, I know from a very good inside source that Fairfax/D.C. will be decriminalizing within 2 years tops. Count on it.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > In many accidents, causation is difficult to
> > determine. Evidence of alcohol or drug use can
> > help to determine causation, and thus
> liability.
>
> No, it can't. I can get stone cold drunk and get
> hit by a sober guy who just wasn't paying
> attention, even though I wasn't speeding or
> weaving. A PERSON causes accidents, not a drug.


It's possible that a drunk driver could be involved in an accident that is 100% the fault of the other driver. Under those circumstances, the law would not hold the drunk driver liable for the accident, per se.

Nonetheless, he or she could very well be held liable under the laws that prohibit driving under the influence.

Such laws are based on sound public policy: persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs CAUSE more accidents than those who are sober, as a result of impaired faculties caused by their preferred high.

Does this not make sense to you? Regardless, whether you approve or disapprove, DUI/DWI laws are not going to change.


> Your arguments are all cloaked in scientific
> studies and expert testimony, but they all forget
> that law must hold people responsible for what
> they do to other people, while leaving them free
> to do whatever they want to themselves.

Your right to get stoned, or drunk, stops when it interferes with other people's right to drive safely. My very modest position is that stoned drivers should stay off the road - which, if this thread is any indication, stoners are angrily and obstinately opposed to.

Because of such attitudes I and many others are opposed to the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana, which will increase the number of smokers, and therefore the number of car accidents caused by stoned drivers.

The only reason most stoners have to smoke and drive is because we aren't legally allowed to smoke in the privacy of our own homes without worrying that neighbors or someone else may smell it and call the cops on us. If weed was legalized I would never want to smoke and drive but because you forbid us from partaking in the drug of our choice while others smoke there nicotine and drink there liver away in the privacy of there homes.

Furckignorance Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would never want to smoke and drive but because
> you forbid us from partaking in the drug of our
> choice while others smoke there nicotine and drink
> there liver away in the privacy of there homes.


Yeah, because smoking weed is such a healthy alternative to drinking and smoking cigarettes

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ffxstoner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you can pass a alcohol sobriety test while
> > stoned then your are good enough to drive.
>
> Bzzt. Wrong. Even the pro-marijuana MPP
> acknowledges the need to develop new tests. This
> is just common sense. Marijuana intoxication is
> obviously different that alcohol intoxication.
> Existing field sobriety tests designed to show
> alcohol intoxication will not necessarily show
> marijuana intoxication, and yet the inability of
> an ill-matched test to detect the latter cohort
> does not mean that cohort is any condition to
> drive.
>
>
> > And no they don't have the devices in use yet
>
> Well you said they did. Don't twist the facts to
> make your case.

I never said they were in use here i just stated that the technology is here and some places are starting to use them. I would much rather have stoned drivers then Koreans and Maryland drivers



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2009 02:48PM by ffxstoner.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Furckignorance Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I would never want to smoke and drive but
> because
> > you forbid us from partaking in the drug of our
> > choice while others smoke there nicotine and
> drink
> > there liver away in the privacy of there homes.
>
>
> Yeah, because smoking weed is such a healthy
> alternative to drinking and smoking cigarettes


Smoking weed may not be, but the freedom to be able to cook in my own house weed brownies and other baked goods would be a much healthier alternative that is easy to do and i would much rather prefer it

ffxstoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never said they were in use here i just stated
> that the technology is here and some places are
> starting to use them.


Here's what you wrote:

> They also have little testers that you spit into
> and in 90 seconds it will tell the officer what
> your on.

You didn't say anything about "the technology is here" or "some places are starting to use them." Your comment states such testers are in use, but in fact they're not even on the market.

On a different note, defense attorneys are certainly going to fight the admissibility of such evidence, and given the success they've had lately challenging decades-old breathalyzer technology, I think these spit test machines are facing an uphill battle.

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your right to get stoned, or drunk, stops when it
> interferes with other people's right to drive
> safely. My very modest position is that stoned
> drivers should stay off the road - which, if this
> thread is any indication, stoners are angrily and
> obstinately opposed to.

Back to square one:

1. Driving under the influence is already illegal. So is driving poorly.

2. Laws banning MJ do not stop people from driving stoned anyway. But they do adversely affect the rest of us, who have to deal with criminal gangs and Nancy Reagan's no-knock SWAT raids.

Tipping point? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you see how LEGALIZATION as opposed to
> > DECRIMINALIZATION can actually resolve the
> issues
> > that everyone associates with Marijuana?
> >
> > Once people can buy legal, regulated, legit
> weed
> > grown domestically, all those foreign drug
> cartels
> > will wither and die.
>
>
> That's a legitimate point.
>

Thanks. I just wish more people would get off the "drugs are bad" bandwagon and look at this issue more rationally and methodically.

> For example, "Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus or HGN is
> defined as the involuntary jerking of the eye.
> Alcohol affects automatic tracking mechanism of
> the eyes and causes a jerking (nystagmus) of the
> eye as it moves from side to side."
> http://sandiegodwi.com/sandiegodwisfsts.html
>
> And so cops have developed a specific HGN test to
> catch out drunk drivers.


I actually have nystagmus. 1% of the population has it naturally.

I especially enjoyed being pulled over by a cop who proceeded to give me a field sobriety test, and I passed everything except when he asked me to follow his pen with my eyes.

He used that little wiggle of my eye as justification for a breathalyzer test, which I gladly took.

The fucker even said "I don't know how you blew a zero, I just know you've been drinking".

I exhaled right at him, burped and exhaled again, and said "you're an idiot, I haven't had anything to drink in a week. An Eye Doctor about 5 years ago told me I have a nystagmus."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2009 02:29AM by Thurston Moore.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Back to square one:
>
> 1. Driving under the influence is already illegal.
> So is driving poorly.
>
> 2. Laws banning MJ do not stop people from driving
> stoned anyway. But they do adversely affect the
> rest of us, who have to deal with criminal gangs
> and Nancy Reagan's no-knock SWAT raids.


Therein lies the problem.

I believe that drug enforcement, and the portion of incarceration funding and court funding and legal defense and prosecution expenses that marijuana represents is a very significant amount of money.

It would be very hard to legalize Marijuana because it would put a lot of people out of business. Not just the criminals, but quite a few people invested in the enforcement of current marijuana laws.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be very hard to legalize Marijuana
> because it would put a lot of people out of
> business. Not just the criminals, but quite a few
> people invested in the enforcement of current
> marijuana laws.


Amen to that! Lots of uniformed tax leaches would have to get new jobs. Can't have that!

on the subject of not being able to determine if someone is under the influence of pot while driving or not, its pretty irrelivant. Sure, it would be great if we could tell, but theres no test to see if someone is fucked up on nyquil or their legal perscription of oxycontin while driving. Its a good point, but its not a reason to keep it illegal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2009 05:15AM by Kenny_Powers.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Furckignorance Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I would never want to smoke and drive but
> because
> > you forbid us from partaking in the drug of our
> > choice while others smoke there nicotine and
> drink
> > there liver away in the privacy of there homes.
>
>
> Yeah, because smoking weed is such a healthy
> alternative to drinking and smoking cigarettes


uh, actually yes it is. Its a shit load more healthy than cigs and drinking. To my knowledge there is still no conclusive proof that marijuana causes cancer, and aside from the occasional paranoia, its 100% healthier than the alternatives.

Marijuana Moves Into the Open in a Ski Town
By Kirk Johnson
New York Times: November 13, 2009


BRECKENRIDGE, Colo. — High-altitude partying is a deeply carved tradition in ski
country, where alcohol in the open and illicit drugs in the shadows have been
intertwined for years.

Even before last week’s town vote here that decriminalized the possession of
small amounts of marijuana, one of the best-selling T-shirts at Shirt and Ernie’s
on Main Street winked at what it means to live and play 9,600 feet up in the Rockies.

“Dude,” the shirt says, “I think this whole town is high.”

But what the town’s drug ordinance could mean for the local culture and economy,
as well as its potential impact on the resort industry if more ski towns go
Breckenridge’s way, has become part of the discussion as people scan the skies
and wait for snow.

For business owners ever vigilant about the town’s image, safety-minded resort
managers and footloose ski and snowboard vagabonds whose ranks have given towns
like this a tinge of wildness since the first ski bum washed a dish or waited a
table, marijuana is openly discussed as perhaps never before.

The leader of the group that organized the petition drive leading to the vote,
Sensible Colorado, said that Breckenridge, where 71 percent of voters approved
the marijuana measure on Election Day, was the opening salvo in a town-by-town
strategy toward the goal of a vote on statewide legalization within a few years.

Local efforts, said the group’s founder and chairman, Sean T. McAllister, are now
organizing or under way in two other Colorado resort towns, Durango and Aspen.
After the election, Mr. McAllister said, people in Montana and Washington called
seeking advice on starting voter initiatives.

Breckenridge’s part-time mayor, Dr. John Warner, a dentist who voted against the
measure but remained publicly neutral before the election, said the three dozen
or so e-mail messages he had received since the vote had been mixed.

About half of the messages were negative, Dr. Warner said, and included comments
from people who said they had canceled reservations and would never come back.
Other respondents said they were thrilled about the town’s vote and could hardly
wait to visit and spend some money.

State and federal law still make marijuana possession a crime in Colorado, but
residents here say that local enforcement has not been a high police priority.

A spokeswoman for the Breckenridge Resort Chamber of Commerce, Carly Grimes, said
she thought that because of those other laws, little would change. But she said
that some chamber members were concerned about perceptions — that the statute
could send a message of broader drug tolerance that could turn off visiting
families, who remain a cornerstone of the economic base.

“This is not going to become a little Amsterdam,” she said, referring to the
Dutch capital, an international symbol of libertarian drug use.

At Vail Resorts, a publicly traded company that owns the Breckenridge resort, a
spokeswoman said she expected no change in management practices.

The spokeswoman, Kelly Ladyga, said that resort employees were already trained to
be “hypervigilant” in watching people for dangerous behavior from drugs or
alcohol and that the company reserved the right to test any employee for drugs
if “reasonable suspicions” are raised or an accident occurs.

“We’re a family-friendly resort, and together with the town we remain committed
to delivering an exceptional guest experience,” Ms. Ladyga said. “Boarding a lift
or using a slope or trail while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited.”

At Home for the Holidays, a year-round Christmas store, the manager, M. Musso,
who asked that only her first initial be used, said her customers tended to be
older and more conservative. The young and the rowdy, who crowd the bars when the
lifts close, usually do not shop for Christmas baubles, she said.

“I don’t think that’s the type of person we want flocking into Breckenridge,”
said Ms. Musso, who opposed the ordinance.

But it is also easy to find people like Chelsey Vogt, a 21-year-old snowboarder
originally from upstate New York who foresees what she calls change for the
better — from local marijuana users’ becoming more open and comfortable to pot-
smoking visitors drawn by the town’s new stance.

“It’s been here forever,” said Ms. Vogt, who works for a property maintenance
company when not on the mountain. “Now people can just be more comfortable
walking down the street having some marijuana in their pocket — definitely
including me.”

One Town Council member who supported the ballot measure, Jeffrey J. Bergeron,
said he thought history had played a role in assembling a majority of voters. Mr.
Bergeron, who has lived in Breckenridge for nearly 30 years, said many longtime
residents vividly remembered the 1970s and 1980s, when cocaine use became a rage
and then a scourge, destroying lives and businesses before fading in the 1990s.
Through that lens, he said, marijuana looks comparatively benign.

But Mr. Bergeron said he had not expected a backlash, and he now worries that
business could take a hit.

“It was a gesture in the right direction,” he said. “I just wish some other town
had done it.”

Whether the new measure will lead to more accidents on the slopes is anyone’s guess.

Colorado is one of the few states whose legal codes specify that collisions
between skiers are not a natural risk of the sport. The provision, passed by the
legislature in 1990, imposes what lawyers call a higher standard of care and
potential legal liability upon skiers who cause accidents than do most other
states with big resort industries.

James H. Chalat, a lawyer in Denver who specializes in personal injury and ski
cases, said that of the hundreds of lawsuits stemming from skiing accidents
handled by his firm, Chalat Hatten & Koupal, over 29 years, marijuana had been a
factor in only one collision between two skiers.

Alcohol, on the other hand, has often been an aggravating cause, with a drunken
skier or snowboarder plowing into somebody else, causing injury.

In any accident, though, evidence of marijuana use would be looked at. “If
somebody is stoned, that’s not helpful,” Mr. Chalat said. “It’s a dumb thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14smoking.html?pagewanted=all

Photo: Dylan John smoking marijuana with Matt Irvine, center, and Josh Corbett on the balcony
of the apartment they share in Breckenridge, Colo.
Attachments:

Support for legalizing marijuana grows rapidly around U.S.
Approval for medical use expands alongside criticism of prohibition

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 23, 2009

The same day they rejected a gay marriage ballot measure, residents of Maine voted overwhelmingly to allow the sale of medical marijuana over the counter at state-licensed dispensaries.

Later in the month, the American Medical Association reversed a longtime position and urged the federal government to remove marijuana from Schedule One of the Controlled Substances Act, which equates it with heroin.

A few days later, advocates for easing marijuana laws left their biannual strategy conference with plans to press ahead on all fronts -- state law, ballot measures, and court -- in a movement that for the first time in decades appeared to be gaining ground.

"This issue is breaking out in a remarkably rapid way now," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Public opinion is changing very, very rapidly."

The shift is widely described as generational. A Gallup poll in October found 44 percent of Americans favor full legalization of marijuana -- a rise of 13 points since 2000. Gallup said that if public support continues growing at a rate of 1 to 2 percent per year, "the majority of Americans could favor legalization of the drug in as little as four years."

A 53 percent majority already does so in the West, according to the survey. The finding heartens advocates collecting signatures to put the question of legalization before California voters in a 2010 initiative.

At last week's International Drug Reform Conference, activists gamed specific proposals for taxing and regulating pot along the lines of cigarettes and alcohol, as a bill pending in the California Legislature would do. The measure is not expected to pass, but in urging its serious debate, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) gave credence to a potential revenue source that the state's tax chief said could raise $1.3 billion in the recession, which advocates describe as a boon.

There were also tips on lobbying state legislatures, where measures decriminalizing possession of small amounts have passed in 14 states. Activists predict half of states will have laws allowing possession for medical purposes in the near future.

Interest in medical marijuana and easing other marijuana laws picked up markedly about 18 months ago, but advocates say the biggest surge came with the election of Barack Obama, the third straight president to acknowledge having smoked marijuana, and the first to regard it with anything like nonchalance.

"As a kid, I inhaled," Barack Obama famously said on the campaign. "That was the whole point."

In office, Obama made good on a promise to halt federal prosecutions of medical marijuana use where permitted by state law. That has recalibrated the federal attitude, which had been consistently hostile to marijuana since the early 1970s, when President Richard Nixon cast aside the recommendations of a presidential commission arguing against lumping pot with hard drugs.

Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said he was astonished recently to be invited to contribute thoughts to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, was police chief in Seattle, where voters officially made enforcement of marijuana laws the lowest priority.

"I've been thrown out of the ONDCP many times," St. Pierre said. "Never invited to actually participate."

Anti-drug advocates counter with surveys showing high school students nationwide already are more likely to smoke marijuana than tobacco -- and that the five states with the highest rate of adolescent pot use permit medical marijuana.

"We are in the prevention business," said Arthur Dean, chairman of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. "Kids are getting the message tobacco's harmful, and they're not getting the message marijuana is."

In Los Angeles, city officials are dealing with elements of public backlash after more than 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries opened, some employing in-house physicians to dispense legal permission to virtually all comers. The boom town atmosphere brought complaints from some neighbors, but little of the crime associated with underground drug-dealing.

Advocates cite the latter as evidence that, as with alcohol, violence associated with the marijuana trade flows from its prohibition.

"Seriously," said Bruce Merkin, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group based in the District, "there is a reason you don't have Mexican beer cartels planting fields of hops in the California forests."

But the controversy over the dispensaries also has put pressure on advocates who specifically champion access for ailing patients, not just those who champion easing marijuana laws.

"I don't want to say we keep arm's length from the other groups. You end up with all of us in the same room," said Joe Elford, counsel for Americans for Safe Access, which has led the court battle for medical marijuana and is squaring off with the Los Angeles City Council. "It's a very broad-based movement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112201986_pf.html



Of related interest:
Marijuana Raises Risk of Fatal Car Crash
Study Shows Pot Smokers More Likely to Be Responsible for Deadly Accident

Marijuana Use and Car Crash Injury
Research report by the George Institute for International Health
Conclusion: Habitual use of marijuana is strongly associated with car crash injury.

Legalize marijuana and the Bible Thumping Tobacco Farmers (are there any left?) will start growing it--- legally. You don't have to have go through a drug war zone to obtain this.

And if its legal-- tax problem solved because VA would tax the hell out of it.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really we're not that strict... try texas or
> nevada sometime. They will jail you for years for
> a first offense.


Um, no they wont

Smoking dope and jumping rope. Now that's fun.

New Jersey Lawmakers Pass Medical Marijuana Bill
by David Kocieniewski

New York Times, January 12, 2010

TRENTON — The New Jersey Legislature approved a measure on Monday that would make the state the 14th in the nation, but one of the few on the East Coast, to legalize the use of marijuana to help patients with chronic illnesses.

The measure — which would allow patients diagnosed with severe illnesses like cancer, AIDS, Lou Gehrig’s disease, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis to have access to marijuana grown and distributed through state-monitored dispensaries — was passed by the General Assembly and State Senate on the final day of the legislative session.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign it into law before leaving office next Tuesday. Supporters said that within nine months, patients with a prescription for marijuana from their doctors should be able to obtain it at one of six locations...

Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Princeton who sponsored the legislation, said New Jersey’s would be the most restrictive medical marijuana law in the nation because it would permit doctors to prescribe it for only a set list of serious, chronic illnesses. The law would also forbid patients from growing their own marijuana and from using it in public, and it would regulate the drug under the strict conditions used to track the distribution of medically prescribed opiates like Oxycontin and morphine...

Opponents often pointed to California’s experience as a cautionary tale, saying that medical marijuana is so loosely regulated there that its use has essentially been decriminalized. Under California law, residents can obtain legal marijuana for a list of maladies as common, and as vaguely defined, as anxiety or chronic pain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/nyregion/12marijuana.html?hp

Einluger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why? Because the Commonwealth is, overall, a very
> socially conservative state. Less so up here in
> NoVA, Charlottesville, and perhaps some parts of
> Virginia Beach; however, the rest is really quite
> conservative and has a high percentage of
> Christians.
>
> Just how it is -- for now...


Much of the Eastern United States is like this. The Western states have always had a much more libertarian bent - you'll see that the theme of libertarianism throughout the laws in the Western states. It has a lot to do with the history of their settlement and it has continued into today.

This is a reason that many people move out West. They want to have some land and have their freedom. It it, to a great extent, an enlarged version of New Hampshire.

In Virginia for most of the Eastern US the history is different. You had stricter laws to begin with and there has never been a strong pro-legalization movement here. That is likely, and I'm speculating here, because many of the strong pro-legalization proponents moved out West to where their values were already much more welcomed.

I do not think you'll find this as a Christian/Non-Christian issue or even a Liberal/Conservative issue. Many people in the pro-legalization movement would align closer to current Conservative ("Tea Bag" - I hate that term) movement. These are people who pretty much want the government to leave them alone to do what they want in the privacy of their home. Besides, Christian's don't -as a belief system - have a strong anti-drug philosophy. Christians - as used in this thread - are more focused on the enshrining the values of Christianity (faithful marriage, procreation, respect for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, etc.) into the laws of the United States.

I'll leave the judgement of whether that is a good idea or bad idea for another thread BUT my point is that drug legalization in a general sense is not a Christian issue. You'll find many atheist liberals who are fanatically anti-legalization because they see legalization as allowing individuals to harm themselves.

BillyBob99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You'll find many atheist
> liberals who are fanatically anti-legalization
> because they see legalization as allowing
> individuals to harm themselves.


You've obviously never been on Digg

BillyBob99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This is a reason that many people move out West.
> They want to have some land and have their
> freedom. It it, to a great extent, an enlarged
> version of New Hampshire.

I'm still scratching my head asking myself why the fuck I moved from NH... oh yeah, it's cold.


Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Mexico and Colombia and British Columbia, CA would
> not be able to compete against the guy down the
> street with a really nice organic hydroponic grow
> setup.

The Colombians, Mexicans and the DEA are already losing ground to homegrowers. Why do you think the Colombian "narcotraficantes" started pushing heroin? It doesn't take a horticultural genius to overgrow marijuana. Ten seeds, some dirt, water and alot of light and three months later you have a half pound... As much as they like to demonize growers, it ain't exactly a meth lab and it leaves no waste that would be any worse than growing tomatoes.

I am not and have never been a smoker of any kind. Its use is forbidden in my house. However, I am all for decriminalizing marijuana if you go smoke it somewhere else. Get Big Tobacco behind it and it will pass in Virginia.

I am sick of the schools, police and courts wasting so much time and energy on marijuana and baby DUI. There are bigger crimes and issues to wrestle with and waste tax money on those.

if u can go to war at the age of 18, but u cant drink alcohol till 21. that makes me slightly angry, and i dont even drink. but not being able to grow a plant and use it, smoking or not, makes me furious. marijuana to the federal law is just as bad as heroin on a federal scale. marijuana is on a number 1 priority scale and cocaine is on a lvl 2 priority scale. if this were to be this way for a long time i feel a good future for usa isnt likely.

eric56787 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> In your argument in support of legalizing drugs
> please consider where drugs come from and what it
> takes to get them to the US. Columbia's and
> Mexico's political instability and violence is due
> to drugs, the Taliban gets a huge chunk of its
> operational money from drugs, and the mark up you
> pay to get your drugs directly supports purchasing
> weapons/guns and the lives of drug dealers and
> frequently pimps.
>
> I have yet to come across a person in my life who
> does NOT use drugs who believes its a good idea to
> legalize it. It seems very suspicious that the
> only people who want it legalized are current drug
> addicts.


Yeeeah wrong. The ban on the drug and growing it in particular is what causes the need to smuggle it into the country. In places like California and Colorado where it's readily available, it's locally grown and distributed. No need for Mexico. No need for shady characters. People grow and smoke their own plants or get it from locals thus supporting the local economy. Weed is not coke or heroin or even alcohol. It does not ruin lives and it's recreational use does not make one a drug addict. It should be treated along the same lines as alcohol or prescription drugs in regards to driving.

TefD187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> negative, marijuana use increases tobacco
> consumption.I have heard that smoking a cig while
> high is awesome.


That's fucking retarded, maybe that's what kids are saying but it's not the truth

Only tobacco - increased cancer risk
Only pot - minimal cancer risk (pot contains cannabinoids that actually help restrict blood flow to tumors, thus reducing the size, but smoking it does release carcinogens)
Both together - pretty much triples your cancer risk, and the carcinogens in tobacco can block the benefits of marijuana and increase the carcinogenic effect in the bloodstream

Wilfredo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Yeeeah wrong. The ban on the drug and growing it
> in particular is what causes the need to smuggle
> it into the country. In places like California
> and Colorado where it's readily available, it's
> locally grown and distributed. No need for
> Mexico. No need for shady characters. People
> grow and smoke their own plants or get it from
> locals thus supporting the local economy. Weed
> is not coke or heroin or even alcohol. It does
> not ruin lives and it's recreational use does not
> make one a drug addict. It should be treated
> along the same lines as alcohol or prescription
> drugs in regards to driving.


Agreed, and the main reason it's kept illegal is to keep money in corporate pockets through the DEA and illegal trade.

@eric56787, if you think everyone that wants to legalize it are drug addicts, look up LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. They are law enforcement officers that have seen the fallacy of the drug war and are fighting to end it. Making it illegal just puts the money in the hands of the criminals and increases the gun trade and violence surrounding it.

If you ever see the results of a trial most get a slap on the wrist. I think the judges know if they impose maximum sentences on every crime the jail would be bursting at its seams.

Its the worst kept secret that politicians like to write these kind of laws to show they are tough on crime but they know rarely will anyone get the maximum or even close to it.

Legalization will not be the amazing event it is hyped to be.

Look at the backwards-ass alcohol laws that still exist so many years after prohibition was repealed.

Years after the feds legalize it, the state (and local?) laws will vary widely. Uptight places like VA and the bible belt will have none of it and those that allow it will attract tourist dollars.

Also see Las Vegas, Atlantic City, indian reservations, and gambling.

To answer the OP, THIS is why Virginia is so strict with marijuana:

A heavy equipment operator who is accused of being high on marijuana when a downtown Philadelphia building collapsed onto a thrift store, killing six people, is in custody after surrendering to face charges in the deaths, police said.

Sean Benschop, who posted on this thread under the handle "FurckIgnorance," surrendered Saturday and faces six counts of involuntary manslaughter, 13 counts of recklessly endangering another person and one count of risking a catastrophe. A warrant had been issued for his arrest and police had been searching for him. He is awaiting arraignment.

Authorities believe the 42-year-old Benschop had been using an excavator Wednesday when the remains of the four-story building under demolition gave way and toppled onto an attached Salvation Army thrift store, killing two employees and four customers and injuring 13 others.

Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison said a toxicology report showed evidence that Benschop was high on marijuana.

That finding, combined with witness statements and evidence from the scene, led to the decision Friday to raid his North Philadelphia home and later seek an arrest warrant, he said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=189540185

Out of millions of car crashes and industrial accidents, ONE is presumed to be caused by Marijuana, and the anti pot floodgates burst open.

Funny how just about everything, including every other new drug aprroved by the FDA (only to be banned and sued over as soon as a few people die of side effects) or even Tyenol and the majority of over the counter drugs are all more risky to health and/or likely to cause an accident than marijuana.

As soon as vaporizers become more user friendly and affordable, there goes the one big problem with pot, the smoke.

How is a heavy equipment operator not drug tested regularly? Aren't all special licensed drivers and equipment operators tested?

There is more of a problem here than just pot. That guy could have been a disaster waiting to happen no matter what the substance.

Because the general population of VA does not like pot smoking faggot hippies such as yourself OP.

i HAD Pot and they dROPED MY CHARGES,AND ALSO GOING BACK TO COACHING NEXT YEAR