Marijuana.com

lilguyboi03

If one day marijuana was legalized for use (any reason) and the government placed a tax on it, how would marijuana buyers like you feel about it? Please put some opinions.

 

nornerator

I would be very very happy.

It would be very unlikely that the tax the government would put on it would be more than what it costs to buy on the black market.

Even with a sin tax of 100% would keep a pack of joints costing less than a pack of cigarettes, not to mention it would be very good quality.

If it were legal, I would imagine wild weed plants would be growing everywhere, and someday in the future, long after legalization, people wouldn't even think of smoking it from a wild plant. They'd be like "Pick it, dry it, and smoke it? It could be dirty! lets just go to the store"

Buzzby

Wild plants would all have gone to seed and not be of great quality for psychoactive purposes.

The tax would have to be fairly reasonable. If it was to high people would simply grow their own.

__________________

lilguyboi03

What if they started having intoxication limitation percentage similiar to BAC percentage? Like if you exceed a certain intoxication (pot) limit percentage, they'll jot you down as DUI and give you a fine. Now wouldn't that be a bummer.

Pskitzo

Well first, you can't get a DUI for getting drunk. You can get as trashed as you want as long as you aren't in public and aren't driving.

And second, that would be a pretty reasonable idea. I know alot of people can drive fine high, but many can't. Also, it really wouldn't be worth the risk if you wrecked and the police found out you had been smoking. That would be real bad. But I doubt they would have any sort of limit on it because there is no way to tell how much someone has smoked.

 

RL in IL

First of all, I don't think it has been proven that THC and cannibinoids are intoxicating. THC itself has been said to be non-toxic by several sources.

Secondly, there have been limited studies done showing people drive more carefully after smoking a joint (and getting more high than is comfortable for them) than people who have not. The same studies show that people who have drank more alcohol than is comfortable for them before driving have virtual accidents while those who have smoked joints do not.

This is another reason why "drugged driving" laws are unjust when it comes to marijuana. It is a nightmare for the government to figure out exactly how the different types of marijuana affect different types of people in different situations. Especially with no research allowed into it, and no central authority to determine these factors that can be relied upon.

The "drugged driving" laws are simply a catch-all political approach with no regard to the science of how peculiarly and uncharacteristicly various types of marijuana act on a range of people.

Intoxication may be an inapplicable term when it comes to marijuana in general.

phuzz01

Actually, I think it is quite simple. No matter WHAT substance somebody is on (alcohol, marijuana, other illegal drugs, prescription drugs, etc.), if they cannot adequately perform divided attention tests (such as field sobriety tests, or talking with you while also looking for license, etc.), then they are not safe to be driving and should be arrested for DUI.

Buzzby

"Intoxicating" refers to the mental/behavioral effects. Despite the same Latin root, people who ingest poisonous substances are "poisoned", not "intoxicated".


There's no need for any such complications. A videotaped field sobriety test should be sufficient evidence as to whether a person is intoxicated or not.

Marijuana may not be as much of a problem for driving as alcohol, but I know that I've been too high to drive and I think most other experienced smokers, if they were honest, would say the same thing. If you can't stand up and you can't remember what you're talking about for more than a few seconds, you probably shouldn't be attempting to control a couple of tons of fast moving steel. The reason it's not as much of a problem is that most smokers have the good sense not to drive when they're really not up to it. Consumers of alcohol, OTOH, seem to be highly confident in their abilities when they shouldn't be.

nacrypt

Every body rails on about marijuana DUI because they are thinking in terms of alcohol intoxication. Smoking marijuana, even lots of it, just does NOT impair the ability to drive for the vast majority of people who smoke. While a high enough dose of alcohol will impair the driving skills of practically everyone! This is why most DUI crashes are caused by alcohol impaired drivers and not marijuana impaired drivers. Marijuana does not blur your vision, or significanly decrease reaction time (which is why pot is great for video games). Nor does marijuana make people prone to recklessness as alcohol clearly does.

I know it is not PC to say this, but it seems to be the pharmacological truth. Anyway, I doubt it would be practical to measure the dosage level of marijuana in a roadside test. Marijuana can usually only be detected in urine metabolites, which, as well all know, can state in the body for up to a month, long after the psychopharmacological effects of the drug have subsided.

airhead

where's the proof that marijuana doesn't impair judgement?

i do agree that i would be better off driving stoned than drunk but i don't think that driving while high is technically safe.

as far as i no, marijuana does not necessarily impair judgement. however, marijuana slows reaction time or at least it does that for me.

are u saying that fighting someone in a boxing ring would be the same whether you were high or not?
i doubt that