1 - 10 Next
But the police, trained in this matter, cannot tell if someone is high on marijuana. How do you define "stoned off your *ss"? Do you really think you sound intelligent to ANYBODY with any experience with marijuana? Anybody that knows even one person that uses knows without a doubt you have never been around it, because what you say is so ignorant. I hope you aren't telling your children, should you have them, stuff like this. They are going to see what a fool you are before too long. Sure, they might not say anything, but they, as the rest of us, will know that you speak only out of ignorance.
I'll give you an example, IIIbay, as I live in one of the states where this is legal. We haven't had an accident yet, in either state, after more than two months (dozens of drunk driving deaths in that time), and the media is asking the police questions as to why. The police have to TRAIN their members to recognize those that have smoked. Their biggest complaint is that smokers are not failing field sobriety tests. In other words, even a police officer CANNOT tell if someone has used marijuana. It is the same as trying to tell if someone has drank 5 espressos, the effect is similar in intensity. Now I ask you this, have you ever had a hard time identifying a drunk? I can tell one OVER THE PHONE. I can see them from 10 yards.
These morons believe that marijuana dealers add extra cost to their products, for no reason at all, just to cut into their own profits. You know, like car dealers often gold plate the wheels of their cars, just for the heck of it. There is no need to add anything to marijuana, if what was available didn't sell, prices would fall, and prices have gone up over the course of the last two decades. There's no need to "add" anything to move the product, therefor the seller is not going to add anything. These people act like they don't understand economics at all. Of course, they think the way to minimize the sales of something is to make it hugely profitable, so maybe they don't have any understanding of economics....
You are a user, then? You know this as a fact? I know it isn't. As a fact. So where do you get your stupid ideas from?
IIIbay: What were those consequences for the first 140 years of our existence as a country? You do realize that it wasn't made illegal until 1937, right? And that it has been on earth longer than man? So, is it better now that it is illegal, or was it better before 1937? If it was so bad back then, why didn't our founders put its ban in our constitution? I guess you haven't traveled much, huh? You do know that countries without marijuana persecution not only have lower crime rates, but lower rates of usage, right? Why do you insist on laws that give an incentive for criminals to make billions from a plant? Do you think massive profits lead to fewer people selling something? I'm always curious when people make statements that make no sense..
Did she mention the costs to society of prohibition at all? The misdirection of police resources away from violent criminals? The release of violent criminals early to make room for drug users in prison? The drive by shootings of innocent bystanders due to drug trafficking? The death of 100,000 on our borders due to smuggling? The increase in property crime due to addicts having to pay black market prices for their "fix"? The increase in use that has occurred since prohibition began? The reduction in potential tax revenue from those with criminal records? The loss of ability to get an education for those with a record? There was no mention of "both" sides at all. Prohibitionists never like to discuss the costs of their ideas.
Prove that the first hand exposure to marijuana smoke is dangerous first..... The AMA couldn't find it. Read their most recent research, just publish in TIME magazine. Your point is moot.
You believe the death penalty is effective in stemming drug use? Do you know where that is actually part of the arsenal? Iran. Guess what has happened since they instituted that law? They now have the highest rate of addiction on the planet. Over 8%. Our rate is less than 2%. Why is it that people believe that by making something insanely profitable to sell, less people will sell it? Is there something about economic theory that Americans just don't understand? How many drug dealers do you think we would have it we gave away drugs for free? Exactly zero. So Americans, in order to try to get to zero drug dealers, make drugs as profitable as possible. That's how the DEA measures it success, by the increase in street prices.
So the testing has to be convenient for the state, or people lose their rights? The test exists, it's part of the legislation in the state of WA. What is wrong with a field sobriety test, that has been used for alcohol for generations? Doesn't that measure impairment? If not, a blood test of active THC in the blood can be done. The research HAS been done, it's just that our government didn't like the conclusions. A search of "1993 NHTSA Marijuana" will bring it right up. It doesn't cause driving impairment. Canada and the UK's studies concur. We should make caffeine illegal to drive under the influence of, too, right? Why not? Because there is no proof of impairment? EXACTLY. It's the same with marijuana. Show us the proof of impairment.
Alcohol is a neurotoxin, that damages every organ in the human body, is physically addictive, and has a low LD50. As DEA Administrative Judge Francis Young determined, marijuana is the least toxic substance know. Less so than potato skins and alcohol, according to a DEA judge. The AMA just released a 20 year long term study of over 5,000 marijuana smokers, the largest and best study ever done. They found NO damage to lung function. At all. 125 million marijuana smokers in the US, do you know ONE that has been found ill as a result? You could at least try reading the research before spreading discredited "facts".
1 - 10 Next