Massachusetts Ballot Initiative

[checkymcfold 0]

i think it's pretty hard to just get a little bit high, but i haven't smoked brick weed in a while.that study henry quoted REALLY surprises me, but i trust a scientific study more than my own subjective opinion (oh, if only more people were willing to say that!). i mean, i smoke a good deal of pot, and it always changes my mindset to the point where i don't consider myself as competent a driver as i am sober, so i don't drive high, ever. i'd probably have no problem having public policy err on the side of no tolerance with regard to "altered" driving, but i'm not aware of any thc test that can differentiate between whether you smoked an hour ago or five hours ago, which would make things somewhat difficult. would saying the alphabet backwards without giggling suffice?afaik, though, it's perfectly legal to drive after snorting 10 xanax, so there's that.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I wonder if PH has ever smoked pot.I am going to go with the over/under on 4 times in his whole life.

He went to madison, I'll take the over. Also, for the record BG, I'm right there with you on this. Based on my own personal experience pot, I'm extremely skeptical that it doesn't impair you, and I'd want a great deal more research before I start buying that.

[Jeepster80125 0]

For the record, I agree that consuming pot generally impairs. But, I don't know anyone who takes a single hit to get 'stoned' when they consume marijuana. Obviously, consuming small amounts of an expensive narcotic is a waste of time and money, assuming you don't get impaired by a single dose. I agree that there should be zero tolerance on driving while impaired.My point, which obviously has been ignored by BG, is his assertion that any consumption at all of marijuana renders the user unable to safely operate a vehicle. I'm simply arguing that ridiculous statement. But I'm a fool for trying to make BG take a position, since he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Kind of like when he says we have to take the bible literally and not allow gays to marry because the bible explicitly states marriage is between a man and a woman, and then says we shouldn't take the bible literally when it states that it's okay to own slaves. It's pretty hilarious. He's pretty old school, so it's okay.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

There is a serious push to Legalize Marijuana in Michigan (Oz. or less for personal use). We already have Medical Marijuana and it has long been a $5 Civil Infraction in Ann Arbor. They are starting with a ballot initiative in Detroit and hoping the State Legislature takes it on at that level. The one objection I have is the argument that it is "too expensive" to enforce Marijuana laws and there are other more serious crimes. Either it is a crime and we enforce, or it isn't. The notion that we need to ignore certain crime because it is inconvenient is silly to me. We can't have this hierarchy of crimes and only focus on eradicating the "important" crimes and ignoring other illegal activity until the crime at the top is completely eliminated and then sequentially go on to the next most "important" crime until we finally reach Garden Gnome Theft.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There is a serious push to Legalize Marijuana in Michigan (Oz. or less for personal use). We already have Medical Marijuana and it has long been a $5 Civil Infraction in Ann Arbor. They are starting with a ballot initiative in Detroit and hoping the State Legislature takes it on at that level. The one objection I have is the argument that it is "too expensive" to enforce Marijuana laws and there are other more serious crimes. Either it is a crime and we enforce, or it isn't. The notion that we need to ignore certain crime because it is inconvenient is silly to me. We can't have this hierarchy of crimes and only focus on eradicating the "important" crimes and ignoring other illegal activity until the crime at the top is completely eliminated and then sequentially go on to the next most "important" crime until we finally reach Garden Gnome Theft.

But the practicality of enforcing a crime is a real issue. I mean, in our real world, we have a finite police force with finite resources. At some point, someone has to decide what crimes these policemen are going to enforce. Someone has to decide what they do on a day to day basis. A cop has to wake up one day and say, "Today, am I going to be an undercover drug buyer who is attempting to bust dealers, or am I going to try to catch highway speeders, or am I going to follow up on a murder investigation..." etc etc. There is such a hierarchy in all scenarios, and usually that hierarchy is usually constructed ad hoc by those who enforce laws. We could prevent Garden Gnome Theft at a near 100% rate if we devoted all of our resources to it, but no one cares about that crime, so we don't.

[Jeepster80125 0]

RAC, there are many laws that aren't enforced, because it's difficult to reverse legislation. Much easier to ignore/not enforce.Take into account the stories you hear about old laws that aren't enforced that are ridiculous but still laws.In Colorado, we've had medicinal marijuana since 2000. Denver held an election several years ago and voted to lower the marijuana possession fine to $0, but the governor (?) refused to sign it like an *******. Pretty sucky that an elected official would ignore the voters.

[CaneBrain 95]

There is a serious push to Legalize Marijuana in Michigan (Oz. or less for personal use). We already have Medical Marijuana and it has long been a $5 Civil Infraction in Ann Arbor. They are starting with a ballot initiative in Detroit and hoping the State Legislature takes it on at that level. The one objection I have is the argument that it is "too expensive" to enforce Marijuana laws and there are other more serious crimes. Either it is a crime and we enforce, or it isn't. The notion that we need to ignore certain crime because it is inconvenient is silly to me. We can't have this hierarchy of crimes and only focus on eradicating the "important" crimes and ignoring other illegal activity until the crime at the top is completely eliminated and then sequentially go on to the next most "important" crime until we finally reach Garden Gnome Theft.

Why? It's just prioritizing the responsibilities of the police. It's not only logical.....it's just plain smart.We already have a hierarchy of crimes (reflected in sentencing structure, length of the statute of limitations, etc). It's not about ignoring certain crimes....it's about deciding the best way to use police resources. This is basic stuff and makes perfect sense.Cost/benefit analysis can be applied to everything. If enforcing marijuana laws are very expensive AND everyone agress it is not a high priority offense, then why shouldn't the police decide not to make it a priority? As a conservative, you should know better than to just wait along for legislators (of all people!) to get their butts in gear.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Of course I understand that certain crimes are given priorities. I just think it is a stupid reason to take it off the books. Either we agree it is a criminal offense and enforce it as possible, or we decide that it isn't a criminal offense and remove it as a crime. To say it isn't any longer considered a crime because it is inconvenient is contrary to the reason society considers it to be inappropriate or unacceptable.

[vbnautilus 48]

Of course I understand that certain crimes are given priorities. I just think it is a stupid reason to take it off the books. Either we agree it is a criminal offense and enforce it as possible, or we decide that it isn't a criminal offense and remove it as a crime. To say it isn't any longer considered a crime because it is inconvenient is contrary to the reason society considers it to be inappropriate or unacceptable.

But the reason it's not a priority for enforcement is the same reason it shouldn't be on the books: it's not actually causing a problem. The fact that we don't bother to enforce this law tells us that we really don't think it's an issue worth using the law to control.

[El Guapo 8]

but i'm not aware of any thc test that can differentiate between whether you smoked an hour ago or five hours ago,

A blood test can tell if you are currently high. (It is no as accurate as alcohol for either blood or breath in determining level of intoxication)A urine test can tell if you have smoked within 30 days give or take.A hair test can test about 2 weeks after ingestion, to as long as the hair is. Each 1/2 inch is about a month. Most hair test only test about 90 days worth of hair.EDIT: Hi BigD

[CaneBrain 95]

A blood test can tell if you are currently high. (It is no as accurate as alcohol for either blood or breath in determining level of intoxication)A urine test can tell if you have smoked within 30 days give or take.A hair test can test about 2 weeks after ingestion, to as long as the hair is. Each 1/2 inch is about a month. Most hair test only test about 90 days worth of hair.EDIT: Hi BigD

Just to nitpick: a urine test will tell if you have smoked within 30 days only if you are a constant user. If you have a couple bowls one night out of the blue, it will be out of your system within 3-4 days (5-7 if you are a fat-ass....pot is stored in lipids so if you have to pass a drug test---hydrate and exercise!).The more you know!Also, I read there is a prototype pot breathalizer being worked on. The biggest snag is differentiating between cigarettes and pot. I am sure scientists can figure it out.

[akoff 0]

I don't understand the whole make pot legal thinking...it is cheap, it is easy to get, it is easy to grow, it carries virtually no penalty for common use...you want to twist one go for it. Nobody is really trying to stop you.There are way more important battles to fight. Back to work now, this whole economic problem has put so many investment options on the table that I don't have time to argue these days! Busy buying property for 40 percent or less of 2008 prices!

[CaneBrain 95]

I don't understand the whole make pot legal thinking...it is cheap, it is easy to get, it is easy to grow, it carries virtually no penalty for common use...you want to twist one go for it. Nobody is really trying to stop you.There are way more important battles to fight. Back to work now, this whole economic problem has put so many investment options on the table that I don't have time to argue these days! Busy buying property for 40 percent or less of 2008 prices!

I think that is kind of the point, really. It is de facto semi-legal as is in a ton of states.....let's just go ahead and legalize it and make money off it (instead of Mexican gangsters making money off it).I think you understand the lets make pot legal thinking perfectly, to be honest.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I don't understand the whole make pot legal thinking...it is cheap, it is easy to get, it is easy to grow, it carries virtually no penalty for common use...you want to twist one go for it. Nobody is really trying to stop you.

Some (many) people work for companies that test as a condition of employment.

[Jeepster80125 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0053103231.html

[Balloon guy 158]

I think that is kind of the point, really. It is de facto semi-legal as is in a ton of states.....let's just go ahead and legalize it and make money off it (instead of Mexican gangsters making money off it).I think you understand the lets make pot legal thinking perfectly, to be honest.

Except it's a gateway drug!What's next? Legal Hash ( it's only pot concentrate with no pulp )Then what? Free Heroin at School Lunch Programs?

[Jeepster80125 0]

Except it's a gateway drug!What's next? Legal Hash ( it's only pot concentrate with no pulp )Then what? Free Heroin at School Lunch Programs?

Would you mind clarifying what you consider to be stoned?Let's stay on topic BG.

[Balloon guy 158]

Would you mind clarifying what you consider to be stoned?Let's stay on topic BG.

What would I consider stoned?When you think Algore makes sense?When you think Checkymcfold plays Razz a little too nitty?When you vote for a democrat to lead the country during a financially difficult time?When you would rather defend a 'study' that says that being stoned has no effect on your ability to react physically and remain focused on mundane tasks.When you read Annie Rand and think :"Wow..this could actually work"When you spend money to go to a school that would have Obama as a visiting professor of anything.

[Jeepster80125 0]

What would I consider stoned?When you think Algore makes sense?When you think Checkymcfold plays Razz a little too nitty?When you vote for a democrat to lead the country during a financially difficult time?When you would rather defend a 'study' that says that being stoned has no effect on your ability to react physically and remain focused on mundane tasks.When you read Annie Rand and think :"Wow..this could actually work"When you spend money to go to a school that would have Obama as a visiting professor of anything.

I am asking a very simple question, for you to quantify what you mean by referring to someone as 'stoned'. You're being quite trollish in this thread lately.

[Balloon guy 158]

I am asking a very simple question, for you to quantify what you mean by referring to someone as 'stoned'. You're being quite trollish in this thread lately.

Ha ha. I'm being trollish.I mean: I'M being Trollish?Someone post an article that never clarifies what they mean by a person ingesting maryjuanda but it apparently doesn't matter because this study knows that they can still operate a car whether they smoked a little or a lot...But the burden of proof is on me to clarify what I mean by saying that this study is dumb.You know what? I don't think I care to clarify what it takes for a person to become stoned because I have already won this debate.The minute you guys all flipped out and started defending the notion that any amount of pot smoked will not effect a person's ability to operate a car...that was the moment you guys lost the debate.You can pick up your second place trophy in the back of the Loser's Store on 5th and Broadway.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Ha ha. I'm being trollish.I mean: I'M being Trollish?Someone post an article that never clarifies what they mean by a person ingesting maryjuanda but it apparently doesn't matter because this study knows that they can still operate a car whether they smoked a little or a lot...But the burden of proof is on me to clarify what I mean by saying that this study is dumb.You know what? I don't think I care to clarify what it takes for a person to become stoned because I have already won this debate.The minute you guys all flipped out and started defending the notion that any amount of pot smoked will not effect a person's ability to operate a car...that was the moment you guys lost the debate.You can pick up your second place trophy in the back of the Loser's Store on 5th and Broadway.

I'm not asking you to prove anything, I'm simply asking where you stand on a specific part of this thread in particular and this discussion in general.I'm pretty clear that I asked you to specifically define what amount of consumption makes someone 'stoned'. I have no idea what you mean by that word, and we can't really continue this discussion without getting to that point.I'm not really interested in 'winning' or 'losing' this discussion. I think this is an interesting topic, with many parts, and it will continue to be a topic of current events. I was just trying to see what you mean.I didn't think you considered posting in this thread a win/lose proposition, so I'll stop asking you to clarify your points and assume you're just trolling. Thanks.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You can pick up your second place trophy in the back of the Loser's Store on 5th and Broadway.

I love the Flatiron Building.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not asking you to prove anything, I'm simply asking where you stand on a specific part of this thread in particular and this discussion in general.I'm pretty clear that I asked you to specifically define what amount of consumption makes someone 'stoned'. I have no idea what you mean by that word, and we can't really continue this discussion without getting to that point.I'm not really interested in 'winning' or 'losing' this discussion. I think this is an interesting topic, with many parts, and it will continue to be a topic of current events. I was just trying to see what you mean.I didn't think you considered posting in this thread a win/lose proposition, so I'll stop asking you to clarify your points and assume you're just trolling. Thanks.

Your welcomeNow I will answer your question.When is a person stoned depends on the amount of magnesium in the soil where the pot was grown, the amount of water it received, the amount of time it was cured and it's current moisture levels relative to the smoking environment; compared to the weight of the subject, the amount he or she ingest, the method of ingestion and the diet of the person immediately before the moment of ingestion.Coupled with:The amount of times the person has ingested pot in the last month times the body mass index to determine the amount of THC stored in said person's system and the body's metabolism to determine likely hood of stored THC being released during the actual ingestion.These things plus the age and race all combine to make the answer to your question of when is a person stoned to be: It depends.Now that I have answered your question I will ask you one. ( or one with two parts)Can the level of a person being stoned be quantified? Can a person be more stoned or is there only one level of being stoned?

[Jeepster80125 0]

Your welcomeNow I will answer your question.When is a person stoned depends on the amount of magnesium in the soil where the pot was grown, the amount of water it received, the amount of time it was cured and it's current moisture levels relative to the smoking environment; compared to the weight of the subject, the amount he or she ingest, the method of ingestion and the diet of the person immediately before the moment of ingestion.Coupled with:The amount of times the person has ingested pot in the last month times the body mass index to determine the amount of THC stored in said person's system and the body's metabolism to determine likely hood of stored THC being released during the actual ingestion.These things plus the age and race all combine to make the answer to your question of when is a person stoned to be: It depends.Now that I have answered your question I will ask you one. ( or one with two parts)Can the level of a person being stoned be quantified? Can a person be more stoned or is there only one level of being stoned?

Thanks for answering my question.To answer your questions, I don't believe that you can accurately measure whether or not someone is stoned or impaired. You can do the obvious intoxication stuff like check for physical symptoms of impairment, but I don't believe there is current technology that can measure the level of stoned-ness.I believe there are different levels of being stoned. There are two main types of marijuana, one type having cerebral but active effects, the other type having a much heavier, pain relieving, couch-lock effects. Depending on what symptoms I'm medicating for, will depend on the amount of medicine that I consume. Also, the method of consumption has an effect on the level of stoned-ness. Consuming edibles tends to have less of an effect to me than smoking. I should also point out that there are very effective ways to ingest these days. The vaporizer was pretty popular recently, but here in Denver there has been a huge increase in consumption of extracts, such as hash/oil, etc. The high that I got from smoking an entire bowl has now been replaced by taking a single hit from a extract pipe. So you don't want me to take a single hit and drive. With your example of the truck driver smoking a joint, that's completely different than me smoking extracts. Since there is no method to measure the level of intoxication with marijuana, the only option is keeping it illegal. I'm happy to concede that point.However, I would like you to concede that if marijuana were legalized or at the very least studied for it's properties medical or otherwise, we might have such technology to measure intoxication. But as long as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, there can't be any double blind placebo studies or any research at all. Who knows, maybe they'll discover that there is something dangerous and it will remain illegal. But then, you'd have to recognize the medical benefits of such drugs. Right now, it's easier for you to believe that legalizing marijuana is the same as legalizing heroin. That's fine, you're old school.I agree with you though: It depends.

[Balloon guy 158]

Thanks for answering my question.To answer your questions, I don't believe that you can accurately measure whether or not someone is stoned or impaired. You can do the obvious intoxication stuff like check for physical symptoms of impairment, but I don't believe there is current technology that can measure the level of stoned-ness.I believe there are different levels of being stoned. There are two main types of marijuana, one type having cerebral but active effects, the other type having a much heavier, pain relieving, couch-lock effects. Depending on what symptoms I'm medicating for, will depend on the amount of medicine that I consume. Also, the method of consumption has an effect on the level of stoned-ness. Consuming edibles tends to have less of an effect to me than smoking. I should also point out that there are very effective ways to ingest these days. The vaporizer was pretty popular recently, but here in Denver there has been a huge increase in consumption of extracts, such as hash/oil, etc. The high that I got from smoking an entire bowl has now been replaced by taking a single hit from a extract pipe. So you don't want me to take a single hit and drive. With your example of the truck driver smoking a joint, that's completely different than me smoking extracts. Since there is no method to measure the level of intoxication with marijuana, the only option is keeping it illegal. I'm happy to concede that point.However, I would like you to concede that if marijuana were legalized or at the very least studied for it's properties medical or otherwise, we might have such technology to measure intoxication. But as long as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, there can't be any double blind placebo studies or any research at all. Who knows, maybe they'll discover that there is something dangerous and it will remain illegal. But then, you'd have to recognize the medical benefits of such drugs. Right now, it's easier for you to believe that legalizing marijuana is the same as legalizing heroin. That's fine, you're old school.I agree with you though: It depends.

Actually I am not the concerned with pot being legalized. I think it's a dumb beginning for the very reasons that are used to justify it. Once you say yes to pot, how do you say no to x. After all, we let people drink, smoke pot and drink caffeine etc.My argument that the study was a crock was met with a lot of 'but it's a study therefore it must be true' type rationalizations that are borderline insane. You know it, I know it, anyone that has smoked pot knows, that driving a car after getting stoned is not in the best interest of anyone, least of all the 'pot should be legal' crowd, who want the argument to be that pot smoking in the privacy of your home should be legal. Once somebody gets into an accident and is found to be stoned, then we will have to deal with MASD, who will have a real concern.As far as it's medicinal values, the pot smoking crowd is ruining that argument by self prescribing pot for everything possible. There are some forms of glaucoma that pot does not help at all, but nobody cares, they want it legal because it does offer some relief to some strains of glaucoma. This thinking is poorly thought out. Once pot is legalized, there will be problems, problems that are being ignored to justify the argument to legalize it. There will not be a decrease in pot usage, there will not be a huge tax revenue generated ( why would I buy pot from a store when I can grow it quite easily), there will be problems with enforcement of the legal age. And some people will not stop with pot, they will insist everything be legalized. My arguments here were in response to the ones demanding that every drug be legalized, not just pot.