Nail I3unny

I think what you've suggested is the path that most pro-marijuana politicians are using, starting with marijuana being legal for medicinal use (look at what's slowly happening all over the country? Here in Michigan, medicinal marijuana just passed with this past election year).

I think there are just two main problems when it comes to the legalization of marijuana that pro-legalization types haven't figured out. First, there is no set level of THC that will render you intoxicated. There is no BAC for marijuana. I haven't smoked all day, yet the levels of THC in my system are probably higher than some less frequent users out there. Basically, there is no way to tell if someone is driving "high". There's no breathalyzer for marijuana.

There's also the problem of public consumption. It is illegal to consume alcohol in public (other than places where it's served). The way to get around this is the brown paper bag. You can drink in the open as much as you want, so long as nobody can actually see the alcohol or the labels on the alcohol container. The problem with marijuana is that we have yet to find a brown paper bag for it. That is to say, there is no way to consume it that we know of that will allow the user to use it in public. Personally, I think that we should just have designated marijuana smoking areas...just like we have designated smoking areas...but that's just me.

Basically, we have a long way to go on the path of legalization, and one of the crucial components is time. We also have details to iron out, because unless our plan for legalization is rock solid (including laws regarding cars, as well as a "brown paper bag"), it will never pass through.

On a sidenote...I think it's really really funny that second most commonly chosen answer was "I'm really really high right now and have no idea what's going on."

TwoGreenOneRed

I personally agree with that. I am very functional when high, so are many others. But I don't think anybody would really accept their employees being high on the job, which is why I say this.

__________________
"It doesn't always matter as much who is sitting in the White House as who is sitting in, and protesting and standing up for their rights."-LGBT activist Sherry Wolf

I WAS HIGH WHEN I WROTE THIS

zoo

Obviously you've never worked for me.

(If you were engaged in giving me a bj I actually would actively encourage you to be high, heheh, but I guess that should be reserved for another thread).

All kidding aside, If I were running a company in which I recognized that cannabis use (or any other type of drug use for that matter) was a plus or even just not a problem for my employee(s); why shouldn't I be able to allow for such use?

zoo

I think you're forgetting that there exists field impairment tests that can be effectivley administered by investigating officers to determine if one appears to be too intoxicated to drive, right?

That sounds more like a personal problem for you rather than an actual problem for the rest of us.

Zoo

TwoGreenOneRed

!!! Where the hell did that come from haha!?

zoo

Well, that part was a joke and I suppose it came from my perverted sense of humor; but then again you left off my relevent comment in your quote. You make a good point though, that being that I should avoid stand up comedy.

Anyway, my point being that some jobs simply do not require sobriety. If indeed that is the kind of work my employee is performing, why should I care if they are smoking doobers while on the clock? Why should YOU care under those circumstances? In some jobs a stoned person may very well be more productive, particularly if it involves creativity.

Futuregrower

Nail I3unny, that's why I am not for full legalization, yet, the way people seem to take it- " LEGAL! LEGAL! LEGAL!!" Instead, I don't think that will help push matters any closer to full legalization. If we want to fight, the way to do it is by legislation- chanting/marching have a place for swaying public opinion, but bring 'em an argument they can understand, and SHOW WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM, and you will be close to a deal.
That's also why I keep pushing for "what limits?" since if you have never thought about it, you will look a fool if you try to debate the issue.

zoo, I think nail I3unny meant there is no back-up to the feild test- let's say you have huge THC levels from daily use, but are sober and can drive today. You get pulled over, cop does a field sobriety test. For argument's sake we'll say it is a random test at a roadblock. You are sober, but you appear to weave, or trip over your shoelace and stumble during test- cop gives you a blood? urine? whatever test- How to tell your levels are from 2 days ago, not 2 minutes? Also, if you want to have a compaNY where people can be high- go start one, there's no law says u have to test, or that you can't be ignorant of your employees' doings.
and p.s. zoo, uncalled for bj remarks uncool.


Anyway, I know in my job, there are lots of ways to die, and I stay sober while I'm doing it. You wanna be high? ok, just not next to me. Even if I trust YOU high, I worry about the other guy saying, " he/she is doing it, it must be okay...."

so where do we go towards legalization from here?

__________________
~~The Once And FutureGrower

styles215

http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Dri..._Marijuana.pdf
Stoned drivers are safe drivers | Cannabis Culture Magazine

__________________
I Hate all LEO

claygooding

That the government is planning and dreaming of all the tax dollars rolling into their pockets is a given,and they face the same problem the pharmaceutical companies do,if they price it to high,a black market will continue to provide and people will grow their own. It doesn't take a large factory or chemical plant to produce,or a lab technician to
prepare it.
And as is proven now,just because it will get you time in prison is not a successful deterrent,because there is just too much money involved.
Legalization,completely,is the only way that America can defeat the black market,because making it cheap is the only way you can remove the money out of the equation. Only when we can grow our own, with out any restrictions,will the large growers and cartels not be able to provide a service.
And if the profits are so low,even the street gangs and vultures of society will move on to more lucrative fields.

zoo

A properly administered field sobriety test takes into consideration the occasional misstep or fumble on the part of the examinee. A minimum of five are usually administered. Again, while your concern is not totally unfounded; field sobriety coordination/cognition tests are an effective tool for determining sobriety when administered by trained personnel. Unfortunately, many folks are overly hung up on blood content levels as emphasized by zero tolerance mentalities and people looking for an easy way out when determining intoxication levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Futuregrower Anyway, I know in my job, there are lots of ways to die, and I stay sober while I'm doing it. You wanna be high? ok, just not next to me. Even if I trust YOU high, I worry about the other guy saying, " he/she is doing it, it must be okay...."

You are using a typical prohibitionist rant. Nowhere have I suggested that anyone be allowed to intoxicate ON ANY SUBSTANCE in the course of activities that would endanger the wellbeing of the individual or others. In fact, any individual who is a danger to others even if not intoxicated and who are in fact dead sober should not be allowed to perform such tasks.

Again, there are effective ways to determine if an individual is a danger to themselves or others. You need to understand that using blood levels alone, trace or otherwise, are shortsighted, unjust, and particularly ineffective as it relates to many substances both licit and otherwise when attempting to determine intoxication levels.

But prohibitionist are not known for being concerned about such issues as justice, now are they?