TwoGreenOneRed

Treat it like alcohol except the age limit should be 18 and older. You should be able to grow your own if you would like. Why should there be a limit on how much you can have? What is the threat of having tons of cases of beer in your house? None. Who cares if somebody has pounds and pounds of a legal product in their house? Its virtually the same. Penalty for having it under age should be confiscation, maybe a small fine, and tell the parents.

They should be able to develop a way to find out if you are high at the moment of the test, not metabolites that last a month or more. That way people won't be high on the job, but there is no problem having smoked it beforehand.

zoo

Dude, there are other ways to tell if your employees are high.

Also assuming being high at work at a given job task is a problem.

Zoo

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.

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?

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."

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

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

(And p.s. futuregrower, I'm less worried about being perceived as cool than gettin a laugh. Lighten up, would ya?)

Futuregrower

zoo- thanks for the 'prohibitionist' label. I'm actually not, but hey, if you are more concerned about getting a laugh then I guess we're all here for you.
My question- which of course you haven't answered yet- is what levels are you willing to accept?

The example of the field sobriety test was just that- an example. I saw this exact example in a traffic court case- guy was suspected of being drunk, pointed out his shoe had a bad sole, and he also could have tripped over shoelace. Alcohol test proved .098 at a time when the state limit was .10%.
Case was neatly ducked by judge, as man was on probation and was violated for drinking any amount of Alcohol, but the judge did note that by the time the breath test was given- about 45 minutes to an hour past the time driver was pulled over - indicated a level above .10% at the time he was driving.




so, again, what are you looking for to determine sobriety? a field test every day? the reason for a BAC test is to confirm a field test. In fact, in my state, if you smell of alcohol and pass a field test, the officer my, in his/her own discretion, request a BAC. If you refuse, it's charged as a DUI.


So, what I'm asking is, what levels do you want to ask for? what about if you have an accident? at my workplace, an accident = blood test within 2 hours. What happens when a dead sober person, who last smoked MJ 2 days ago, gets in an accident?

But, see, no-one wants to ANSWER that. Instead, people tend to say " you're wrong!!" prompting the other side to say "no, YOU'RE wrong!!"

So, given that a field test for sobriety is open to many different factors, such as 1) the testor may like/dislike you personally and give a false pass/fail, 2) people can fail and be actually fine, or pass and be stoned (I was once completly wasted and had to talk to 2 cops about a person who hit my car while it was parked, then got in my car and drove away with the cops watching and made it back home before I felt stoned and drunk again) 3) get into an accident while sober but have high levels of MJ present or 4) a combination of all of the above, How do you solve the problem of determining sobriety?

Given that you say using trace levels or any blood test is shortsighted and unjust, and also given that field tests have proven to be not 100% accurate, how do you propose to test for sobriety?

Do you simply field test, and that's it? or just figure that every single person is a good enough judge of themselves to know when they are being unsafe?

__________________
~~The Once And FutureGrower

TheMeatball

It's true that there is no reliable test for intoxication by THC. I understand that this can appear to be a major issue from a politician's standpoint, but from a philiosphical standpoint it's a non-issue in the matter of whether or not possessing marijuana is something we should consider crime. Dangerous driving is already a crime: drunk, stoned or sober. Legalizing MJ wouldn't change this.