Futuregrower

as I've said, what was needed in the OP was a bit about growing, specifically, not just owning/possesion. I note that in cali, according to norml, growing of any MJ is a felony, with 16-36 months for ANY amount, 1st timers even. unless you are patient/caregiver, then it's legal

WOW 16-36 months for 1 small plant, 1 day after sprouting?
Maybe if possession is legal, it would help cali to make growing legal, and kill the blackmarket (mostly).

I say mostly 'cos there will always be the black market for anything, any regulation will be ignored, gotten around, etc. Can't have more than 15 pounds? someone will have 16, and so on.

So......admenment to OP.........
Decrease penalties for growing, too, till that's legal as well. Then you have a smaller-and-smaller blackmarket, serving only those who can't get a medical card, or have such limited space they cannot grow their own.

__________________
~~The Once And FutureGrower

Gee

It WILL happen, I'm very optimistic about this. I've only really been into the legalization debate for about 12 months but in that short time I've seen a tidal wave of pro-pot movies/docos and news clips on Youtube.

The only way it will stay prohibited is if they can convince pro-pot people to turn anti-pot. I haven't yet ever heard of this happening. In my experience it's almost always the anti-pot people changing their tune towards the greener side.

I think it's best left to the Norml/MPP/LEAP staff to do this the right way. Donate and support the professionals and let them do what they do best. Shouting "LEGALIZE!" will do nothing other than making your throat sore before your next bong

__________________
Legalize Cannabis and live Life in High Definition

Futuregrower

So TheMeatball and I came to peace, and I am posing the question again, in the hope of other voices. Also, I note the poll is split right now between 'shouting now,now,now' and 'making it legal for everyone, even schoolbus drivers on duty', with no votes for the ' government will never allow it'. 'FutureGrower is really smart' is trailing by 1 vote, but may make it up when the 2 people who voted 'really high right now and have no idea what's going on' come down, possibly changing vote to the FutureGrower plan. Or maybe forgetting why they came. Depends on the MJ I guess.


So, What's YOUR view on the subject, now that we can hear you without TheMeatball and I shouting?

Here's your . Ride that puppy.

tdlex420

Here is a video that was aired on the speed channel that deals with driving while high. They actually videotape a guy driving before and after smoking a joint. I never said being stoned improved my driving skills, I simply said being high improves my driving skills. I've been driving almost 10 years and have not had a single accident so to imply I'm a bad driver is absurd.

__________________

DRO Nukka Plz

That's very thoughtful. It would be beautiful if it actually happened.

Futuregrower

and now for what FutureGrower ACTUALLY WROTE.

The fact that you have never had an accident does not mean you don't have reduced reaction time, impaired judgment, or are the world's best, worst, or in-between driver while high. It simply means you have never had an accident. I used to drive a truck for a living, and have at least 350,000 accident-free miles in a big rig. For many of those, I was exhausted- the type of tired that comes from driving (in some cases) 40 hours straight. (not all for the company- had side jobs they didn't know about) This does not mean I am a better driver when tired- just that I am a good driver, plus I got lucky. Usually, what I see is people pointing to 1 or 2 video's, saying that makes the case, while ignoring the fact that MJ does, in fact, reduce reactions, etc. Also, you make the point about stoned vs. high- I say it's like alcohol, a little = a little impaired, a lot = a lot impaired.
Whjat I want to see is many people, driving many courses, high first , then sober, then compare times/scores. I'd like to see, say, first 1 pill (keeps it from being ingested differently, like some toking hard, some puff-puffing lightly) then 2, etc., untill you reach a state where you can no longer do it. Then, do it stone cold sober.
Do this with a good sample- lets start with 100 people, male and female, close to same age. Keep the scores secret untill all are done, and let's see what happens.
Does anyone out there know of tests like this?
Untill one comes along, I take the 1 or 2 videos about driving high with a pound of salt.

And, 1956 was right- I was getting at the fact that high, stoned, reading a paper, chatting on the cell phone, not the best driving habits. Tell the insurance company you drive high, or get a D.U.I. for weed, and get put in a higher risk catagory. Why is that? A huge conspiracy, or actuarial tables?

tdlex420

Before I talk about anything else I have to comment on that last part. Considering all the propaganda about weed that so many people believe, that last statement of yours is a moot point. Regardless if you were put into a high risk category, it would have absolutely nothing to do with scientifically proven facts since there has never been a study to prove without a doubt that driving while high is bad.

Now as for everything else I'll start with me personally, and I'll start by saying driving while high is not something everyone should do. As almost everyone on here would agree weed affects different people differently so for someone to say without a doubt that driving while high is bad is a little far fetched without any data to back up that point. I've never done any scientific research based on this but I have smoked a lot of weed and driven a lot of different vehicles in my lifetime. I would happily take any driving test (of vehicles I am familiar with) while high and would bet money that I score just as well if not better while I am high.

For one, I have ADHD so my mind is almost always in a million places at once but when I get high and get behind the wheel of a car all of my attention is focused on driving safely. Another thing you mentioned about weed is that it decreases your reaction time, which again isn't always the case. I know for a fact that weed (again while being an average high, and not stoned) does not decrease my reaction time, as I have done plenty of research on that. Ranging from taking multiple reaction tests to something as simple as playing video games. I'm not saying my reaction times were always faster or anything but the simple fact that the times were never more than a few tenths of a second off from each other, while high and not high is quite interesting.

As far as you having been a truck driver goes, it's true that it gives you a ton of driving experience in multiple situations and environments. Plus the fact that you've went 350k plus miles without an accident is a credit to your driving abilities. Regardless of what anyone thinks, until there is enough scientific evidence about driving while high people are always going to debate the idea of driving while high. For me, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I'm a better driver while high but I have friends who can't drive in a straight line while high. So again it's not something that is for everyone but there are people who actually are better drivers while high, and I am one of them.

claygooding

"I completely disagree. Decriminalization will still lead to violence as gangs battle for turf in their black market economy. Mules will still cross our borders, violence will still be a problem in Mexico"


If American smokers are allowed to grow their own,and government is smart enough to under price the cartels instead of dreaming of new limo's with the tax dollars,when you remove the market,you remove the criminal's interest
and profit.

Vesey

plan needs moar legalization.

__________________

Futuregrower

tdlex420, That's what I was waiting for- someone to admit that while they may not have had an accident, it doesn't mean it's a good idea in general, just like I say it's no good to drive tired, though I did it for a lot of miles. A lot of times, people make up their minds, scream 'legalize it now!' , then refuse to see that there are any negative aspects of any use of MJ, in any situation, I think because they might be nervous that 1 negative situation will equal 'no legalize, ever, reefer madness will destroy our children!!' hysteria.
Also what I've seen is people pointing out the 1 or 2 examples, then trying to use that to say, " see? doesn't bother him, must be good!" - in my mind, kind of like saying, " my grandfather smoked 2 packs of unfiltered camels a day for 40 years, then died an accidental death at age 65, so smoking must not be linked to cancer".

I say, legalize it, but the reason for the plan and not "legalize-it-tonight!!" is exactly because of issues like this- are there going to be limits for MJ in system when driving? WHAT limit? For example, you are pulled over, cop thinks you are impaired- you don't do well on feild test, lets say you tripped over untied shoelace but cop thinks you can't walk heel-to-toe, now you're tested for MJ. What limit is there to say impaired/not impaired? in Illinois, alcohol used to be .10% BAC, now it's .08% BAC, .04% for anything you need a CDL for. Is MJ going to be the same? You can get a DUI for MJ now, but the lawyers have a feild day first- Especially since there is no set level of impaired/not impaired.
Lastly, about
There has rarely been a study that proves ANYTHING beyond a doubt. Driving while impaired is bad, but what level do you speak of? Example- 1 shot of whiskey, while "under the influence" in the sense that it's in your system, doubtful enough to impair driving. Driving after 15 shots recipe for disaster. Driving after 1 puff, not impaired, driving after 15 puffs, horrible? Driving while slightly sleepy, probably not too bad, driving while exhausted, very bad.

So, how about it, gang? WE want it legal, gonna have to come up with some solutions- hence the stairstep plan. If WE don't have solutions,they will make them for us.