What is wrong with legalizing Weed?

[Tony Oday]

I have never gotten a straight answer on this topic. I have always been for it because man we could tax the shit out of it. Weed, as i have viewd it, isnt a harsh drug. I tried it in college and well I liked the booze better I have never met a person who is so addicted to the mary jane that they cant function. I have met guys that have smoked themselves retarded and will prolly never get a job out of the food service industry.

I just think man it would cost what $1 to make some marlboro greens and you could sell a 20 pack for $20. That is $19 in taxes and profit. Takes the weed off of the street, which I would think breaks the back of the illegal trade of weed for the most part. This would reduce crime.

Some of the reasons I have heard is that there is no way to test if someone is high while opperating a motor vehicle.

what are your thoughts on it? Heck the tax money made on APB alone would fund Social Security for years!

[Fosco33]

I have never gotten a straight answer on this topic. I have always been for it because man we could tax the shit out of it. Weed, as i have viewd it, isnt a harsh drug. I tried it in college and well I liked the booze better I have never met a person who is so addicted to the mary jane that they cant function. I have met guys that have smoked themselves retarded and will prolly never get a job out of the food service industry.

I just think man it would cost what $1 to make some marlboro greens and you could sell a 20 pack for $20. That is $19 in taxes and profit. Takes the weed off of the street, which I would think breaks the back of the illegal trade of weed for the most part. This would reduce crime.

Some of the reasons I have heard is that there is no way to test if someone is high while opperating a motor vehicle.

what are your thoughts on it? Heck the tax money made on APB alone would fund Social Security for years!

This is near and dear to me - both because I smoke the ganja from time to time and because I'm a Libertarian.

I think we've debated this one a few times on this forum - and I agree with your assessment above.

Drug and gang economics is all about easy cash. Remove the profit from the blackmarket for weed and there will still be guys slanging meth, crack and heroin.

Regarding the point of determining being high while driving, well - I don't know off the top of my head but you can be tested for the amount of inactive THC in your system - not sure if you can be tested for the active (high) components.

Legalize marijuana and sell it. Put the money into schools and drug education, rehabilitation, housing for the homeless (about the only thing I disagreed w/ Reagan on) and more police.

Decriminalize all other drugs - freeing the jails for criminals. If someone stole something or robbed someone to get money for drugs (or killed over gang territory), they'll be in jail. Then, make and enforce actual sentencing time (none of this sentenced to 7 years out in 3 bullshit).

If someone grows their own shit and smokes to relieve the stressors of this world, let it be.

Little known, recent law - passed in West Hollywood, CA. The city council mandated that the cops look the other way for all marijuana offenses - putting it lower on the priority list than jay walking.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

You oday is an idiot.

[GrnBay007]

Some of the reasons I have heard is that there is no way to test if someone is high while opperating a motor vehicle.

"Driving While Intoxicated OR drugged" charge has become very popular the last few years. I don't know all the specifics on testing but I know they have officers trained specifically to determine if soneone is driving "drugged".



MARINETTE, Wisconsin -- "Busted. Over the limit. Under arrest." That's the latest ad slogan for the State of Wisconsin's enforcement of drunk driving laws.

The law is fairly simple, if you have a blood Alcohol concentration level (BAC) over 0.08, you will be arrested, but up until recently, arrests for driving while under the influence of illegal drugs fell into an hazy area.

While a person could be under the influence of an illegal drug, it was a hard process to make a convincing legal argument that the drugs impaired a person's ability to drive.

In December that changed. A new law, called Luke's Law, went into effect Dec. 19 which basically states that if someone is caught driving while under the influence of an illegal drug, they will be charged just like a driver under the influence of alcohol.

While the law is similar to the state's already existing driving while under the influence laws, Wisconsin State Patrol Lt. Tim Carnahan said that it was necessary for the state to be more specific.

"Essentially what is says is that it is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle if you have any detectable limit of a controlled substance in your blood. The controlled substances are all the usual suspects; Marijuana, Cocaine, Opiates, methamphetamines. They are not talking about legal medications, they are talking about illegal drugs," said Carnahan. "If you've got it in your system, you've broken the law."

Before this law, driving while under the influence law stated that a person could not drive a motor vehicle if they are impaired by Alcohol or other drugs. That's still the case.

"The problem for law enforcement is when you brought somebody in and they were clearly impaired driving, but they didn't have any Alcohol and you had drugs," explained Carnahan. "They took them for a blood test, and the blood test came back, for example it came back for Cocaine, and it said that you had such a level of Cocaine in your blood, you didn't have the corresponding blood Alcohol levels."

With Alcohol, in Wisconsin if a driver has a (BAC) of over 0.08, the state only has to argue that they were above the legal level of intoxication. With drugs, law enforcement and the courts didn't have that, thus it created a legal hassle to convict people who were impaired by other means than alcohol.

Such an incident happened in Milwaukee in 2001. The new law, is also known as the Baby Luke bill, after a victim in the incident.

Michelle Logemann of Waukesha was approximately eight months pregnant when her vehicle was hit by a van that ran a red light in Milwaukee on Dec. 11 of that year. She was seriously injured.

Soon after the crash, Logemann's baby, named Luke, was delivered by Caesarian section but died a few hours later of head injuries.

Prosecutors demonstrated that the driver of the van, Paul D. Wilson, had ingested Cocaine, but they couldn't prove actual impairment.

Wilson eventually pleaded no contest to a charge of a homicide by negligent use of a motor vehicle and received a maximum two-year sentence.

If he had been convicted of being impaired by Alcohol at the time of the fatal crash, he could have received a maximum 40-year sentence.

The new law makes penalties for drugged driving as severe as those for drunk driving, with a first offense resulting in a hefty fine, an Alcohol and other drugs assessment, loss of driving privileges, and possible jail time.

Motorists who exhibit behavior or symptoms indicative of drug use will have to submit to a blood test that determines the presence of controlled substances.

Refusing to take the blood test for illegal drugs is treated the same as refusing to take the test to detect Alcohol levels -- automatic revocation of the driver's license.

That doesn't mean that law enforcement officers can pull someone over and force them to submit to a drug test. As with all Alcohol stops, an officer has to have reasonable suspicion before requesting a test.

"Is law enforcement going to be stopping people and randomly sticking needles in people's arms to see if they have any drugs in their system? The answer to that is absolutely not," he said. "In order to stop somebody while driving a car, you have to have reasonable suspicion that they have broken some law. Then you have to make a determination based on probable cause that this law has been violated."

[Fosco33]

Some of the reasons I have heard is that there is no way to test if someone is high while opperating a motor vehicle.

"Driving While Intoxicated OR drugged" charge has become very popular the last few years. I don't know all the specifics on testing but I know they have officers trained specifically to determine if soneone is driving "drugged".

That's an interesting post. Given the inactive THC is stored in your fat cells from anywhere from a few days (light users, no fat) to months (fat, heavy users) could someone who smoked the night before and get pulled over by some overzelous cop get a DUI/DWI - while not high, it's still in your system.

Not sure - kinda murky....

[Rastak]

I never liked it much myself but I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal. It's no worse than alchohol, one of my favorite things.

[Tony Oday]

I can actually say I have never seen someone smoke too much weed and then pick a fight....

[Zool]

It might be that pot is viewed as a "gateway drug". We've all known people that go from weed to LSD.

Maybe its not legal because then it would be out of control. It would be extremely easy to grow it in your house and sell it for less than the "legal" sellers are doing. I've never grown it, but I assume its a whole lot easier than distilling Vodka or brewing up enough beer to sell.

[GrnBay007]

That's an interesting post. Given the inactive THC is stored in your fat cells from anywhere from a few days (light users, no fat) to months (fat, heavy users) could someone who smoked the night before and get pulled over by some overzelous cop get a DUI/DWI - while not high, it's still in your system.

Not sure - kinda murky....

If you smoked the night before the suspicion of drug use would not be there no matter the reason the police stop you. Police need evidence of impairment .... so field/sobriety tests I believe are used more initially in suspected cases of drugged driving. If the physical tell-tale signs are there of impairment and they ask for a breath test and that comes back neg. I think they would move on to urine tests. Now I'm curious about what the field tests are for drugged driving compared to that of alcohol.

[woodbuck27]

Ottawa Targets Drugged Drivers

November 2, 2004

Drivers suspected of being high on drugs could be required to provide police saliva, urine or blood samples under proposed amendments to the Criminal Code that were reintroduced on November 1, 2004.

Under the bill, a police officer who reasonably suspects that a driver is drug impaired may require roadside sobriety tests involving physical coordination.

If the driver performs poorly, the officer could demand more extensive testing at the police station by a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), a specially trained officer.

If the DRE, after completing an evaluation, has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is impaired by drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs, the officer may make a demand for a urine, saliva or blood sample to determine the presence of drugs. Failure to provide a sample on demand would be a criminal offence punishable by the same penalty as refusing an alcohol breath test.

Blood samples may only be taken by a qualified medical practitioner.

The Department of Justice has set out 12 steps that comprise a DRE evaluation:

1. a breath test;
2. an interview of the arresting officer as to what symptoms were observed at the scene;
3. a preliminary examination of the person;
4. an eye examination;
5. a series of divided-attention tasks;
6. an examination of vital signs, such as blood pressure, temperature and pulse;
7. a dark-room examination of pupil size;
8. a check of muscle tone;
9. an examination of typical injection sites on the body;
10. the giving of an opinion by the drug recognition expert;
11. an interview with the subject;
12. the provision of a bodily fluid sample.

Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba already use DRE testing, but the tests are voluntary.

Laws similar to the proposed amendments exist in most U.S. states and in Australia, New Zealand and some European countries.

[woodbuck27]

The Magnitude of the Alcohol/Drug-Related Crash Problem in Canada Overview

MADD Canada has adopted a comprehensive approach in assessing the magnitude of the alcohol-drug-related (impaired) crash problem in Canada. MADD Canada has attempted to obtain a complete picture of the problem that encompasses: both alcohol and drugs; all types of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; the full range of harms and losses (fatalities, injuries, property damage and their societal financial costs); and crashes that occur on public roads and property, private roads and property, or on the water. This inclusive approach to the data is mandated by MADD Canada's mission, which is to assist all victims of impaired crashes, and reduce the total number of such fatalities, injuries and crashes.

Other organizations and government agencies also publish reports on the impaired crash problem in Canada, their data often differ from MADD Canada's because they have defined their terms of reference more narrowly. For example, their fatality statistics may be limited to alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes occurring on public roads. Similarly, their injury data may be limited to crashes that the police attend, and for which they write a formal report. Simply because their data differ from that of MADD Canada does not mean that their data are inaccurate. Rather, these differences typically reflect their more limited scope of inquiry.

Fatalities

In 2003, it was estimated that 3,124 individuals were killed in motor vehicle crashes in Canada. MADD Canada estimates that at a minimum 1,257 of these fatalities involved impaired driving. Moreover, in MADD Canada's opinion, the 1,257 figure is a conservative estimate, due to the underreporting that results from the inability to test surviving impaired drivers and reliance on police reports.

As well, the 1,257 fatalities do not include individuals killed in impaired crashes on the waterways. In 2000, it was reported that there were 168 water-related deaths involving alcohol (many of these may not be included in the 1,257 number).

Given the limits on the 1,257 fatalities figure, and adding in water-related deaths, MADD Canada estimates there are somewhere between 1,425 and 1,600 impaired crash fatalities in Canada each year (3.9-4.4 deaths per day).

Injuries

In 2003, it was estimated that about 368,632 individuals were injured in motor vehicle crashes. MADD Canada estimates that approximately 74,181 of these individuals were injured in impaired driving crashes (203 per day). Note that this figure does not include impaired crash injuries occurring on the water.

Property Damage

In 2003, it was estimated that approximately 2,030,600 motor vehicles were involved in property damage crashes in Canada. Of these, MADD Canada estimates that approximately 245,174 involved impaired driving (roughly 672 per day). Note that this estimate is limited to motor vehicle crashes only.

Estimated Cost of Impaired Driving Crashes

Depending on the model used, the cost of impaired driving crashes in Canada has been estimated to range from 1.9 billion dollars (real dollar model) to 11.0 billion dollars (willingness to pay model). The real dollar model is based on the money spent, without considering any social costs. In contrast, the willingness to pay model includes money spent and a broad range of social related costs. Again, these figures are limited to motor vehicle crashes.

Sources for the Data

The estimates used in the document are explained in full details in a discussion paper, entitled "Estimating the Presence of Alcohol and Drug Impairment in Traffic Crashes and Their Costs to Canadians".


Submitted to MADD Canada by:

Applied Research and Evaluation Services
University of British Columbia
Dr. B. Mercer
Dr. M. Marshall

The estimates for water-related deaths came from "The National Drowning Report, 2002 Edition, Lifesaving Society".

[Revised January 2005]

[woodbuck27]

Canadians Evenly Split on Legalization of Marijuana.

Leger Marketing. May 2001.


A May 2001 poll shows Canadians evenly split on the legalization of marijuana, with the strongest support for the notion in Quebec and B.C. Almost half of British Columbians polled by Leger Marketing admitted smoking pot at least once, and more than half favoured legalizing it.Nationwide, 46.8 per cent of pollees backed legalizing the sale and use of marijuana, 47 per cent were opposed and 6.2 per cent didn't know or wouldn't answer.


Regional breakdowns in favour of legalization were as follows: Quebec, 52.7 per cent; B.C., 52.4; Ontario, 45.9; the Maritimes, 44.7; Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 37.4; and Alberta, 36.9.

[woodbuck27]

Check out the later date here and the countries reaction to this issue of legalizing the consumption of regulated amounts and consumption of marijuana (cannabis):

Newsbrief: Polls Find Canadian Majority Favoring Marijuana Legalization

11/26/04

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/364 /canada.shtml

The results of two surveys of Canadians came in this week, and both suggest the Canadian government is behind the curve with its plan to make possession of small amounts of marijuana a ticketable offense. When taken together, the two polls, one of attitudes toward marijuana law reform in Canada and one of marijuana usage rates, strongly indicate that pot has won broad social acceptance up north.

In a poll conducted for the Canadian National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (http://www.normlcanada.org) and released Thursday, 57% of respondents effectively backed legalization of the herb.

Those persons said that persons caught with small amounts of marijuana should be "left alone." This poll marks the first time a Canadian majority supported removing pot possession from the realm of the courts and police.

According to the survey, only 8% of Canadians support sending pot smokers to jail, while 32% favor a scheme of tickets and fines rather than a criminal conviction. That minority position is the one embraced by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin ( NOTE : His Liberal Gov't was defeated in January '06 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper leader of the Conservative Gov't.) with his bill to create a system of fines for possession of less than 15 grams (one-half ounce).

Even more strikingly, 53% of those surveyed either "somewhat support" or "strongly support" taxing and regulating marijuana in the same way alcohol and tobacco are taxed and regulated. Only 37% opposed taxed and legalized marijuana, while 3% had no opinion and 9% mysteriously selected "neither."

The survey was conducted by the respected polling firm SES Canada Research for NORML Canada and has a 3.1% margin of error.

"A clear majority of Canadians believe that individuals who possess small quantities of marijuana for personal use should be left alone," said SES president Nikita James Nanos.

"The results show Canadians feel the government is going in the wrong direction" said NORML Canada executive director Jody Pressman in a statement accompanying the poll results.

"The people are way ahead of government on this issue because they understand prohibition isn't working now and it never will. Taxing and regulating cannabis would generate billions of dollars in new revenue for social programs and finally remove the criminal element from the sale and distribution of marijuana," said Pressman.

A day earlier, the Canadian government reported that its surveys showed that marijuana use nationwide had nearly doubled in the last 10 years, with reported annual use rising from 7.4% in 1994 to 14% last year.

The survey from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse also found that among young people, 30% of 15-to-17-year-olds and 47% of 18-to-20-year-olds had toked up.

"Criminal prosecution and enforcement has only led to increased consumption of marijuana. We need a smarter strategy, starting with the recognition that the current approach has failed," said Pressman.

"Criminalizing use has ruined people's lives, cost hundreds of millions, and only served to fatten police budgets and the profit margin for organized crime. Over three million Canadians use marijuana and they are tired of being treated like criminals. Government is out of touch with public opinion on marijuana," said Pressman. "

"Instead of perpetuating the failed policies of the past, NORML Canada calls on government to regulate and tax marijuana like beer, wine, and spirits."

[Tony Oday]

see I have never seen it as a gateway drug. More often than not I have seen people take heavier drugs when they are drunk.

On the growing it at home I just dont see that being a problem because you can grow tobacco at home but nobody does you know what I mean?

I say legalize the little herb. I know a ton of proffessional people that smoke weed all the way up to executive management. Im for it because it may easy the property taxes and income taxes I am paying!

[woodbuck27]

see I have never seen it as a gateway drug. More often than not I have seen people take heavier drugs when they are drunk.

On the growing it at home I just dont see that being a problem because you can grow tobacco at home but nobody does you know what I mean?

I say legalize the little herb. I know a ton of proffessional people that smoke weed all the way up to executive management. Im for it because it may easy the property taxes and income taxes I am paying!

I agree with you and it will be legalized in Canada, because of OUR Liberal views overall.

It's quite a contradiction when one realizes that the Conservative party is in POWER - but as a Country, Canada is certainly in my view - overwhelmingly LIBERAL - in it's overall Policy making.

[Tony Oday]

Im a very conservative person but man this shit is being sold right now and is a huge reason for crime in the US because the fines and the penalty for getting caught with Weed is basically nothing compared to other drugs. Also normal weed is being laced with angle dust and such thus making a little high after school into a debilitating drug addiction. I see so much revenue in this that it is hard to see why it isnt legal so we can tax the hell out of it!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see so much revenue in this that it is hard to see why it isnt legal so we can tax the hell out of it!

Why would a conservative want to take the hell out of something?

[Tony Oday]

tax you mean?

[Badgepack]

I agree that it would make sense to legalize reefer, but it will never happen.
Heck, we can't even use the embryos that are to be destroyed for stem cell research.
As for taxation, again it makes sense, but so would making prostition legal and taxing it. Will never happen in our society.

[Tony Oday]

well prostitution is a different bird IMO. That can lead to the moral degredation of society, broken up marriages yada yada.

Weed leads to an increase in the snack food industry and the fast food industry