General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsan honest question about Cannabis legalization
Now, I confess, I have been at all points on the spectrum as far as legalizing it.
On the one hand, try to prohibit it seems to be helping nobody but the gangs and the prison industry. I would much rather have cops deal with Meth Labs (which unlike MJ, explode and require full Hazmats.) I also think that if Marijuana were the drug of surbranites of European descent, it would not nearly have gotten the attention it did, as frankly, the powers that be want an excuse to throw people into the planatation/jail.
On the other hand, when I hear the stuff described as medicine, the ways it could be abused make my eyes roll.
This is an example of a song that makes a joke out of medicine:
So, here is what I ask:
A) if people want MJ to be regulated like any other drug, has someone worked out the law? For example, has someone worked out what levels of intoxication would cause a DUI?
B) Has anyone worked out the regulations as the the quality. I am not talking about what makes pot "organic" though I would be surprised if someone did not work that out. I mean this: is the gorwing of it going to be liscensed, and if so, what are the criteria?
C) If Mj is going to be legal in some states, how will that be monitored? For example, let's say Colorado legalizes it, who deals with the fact that people will probably take it elsewhere.
A special point about C) I am in Florida, where most of the trouble is not related to MJ, but to two "legal" products, Guns and Oxycontin..which creeps from allover the nation come here to buy. We get people hating us for what our legislauture makes money off of,and we attract criminals looking to score with illegal sales.
Now, the point is not anti Cannabis...indeed, if someone has thought of laws, I want to hear them, after all, half the reason I post on DU is the good chance that someone, somehwere on here has already got a source to link to. However, I do not see many people trying to answer these points. However, I will also be the first to say that, outside of here, such points are never discussed, so please, inform, discuss, because if somebody has already tried to work out the nice clean laws, I want to see them
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randome
(34,845 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 8, 2012, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)
New York has decriminalized, hasn't it? They don't have as many border states to worry about so it may not be as much of a problem.
I doubt that many here on DU have delved into the details of medical use. I suspect their main motivation has always been to make marijuana more available in a general sense because I have never heard any of them speak as passionately about other aspects related to cancer and pain -such as euthanasia and hospice availability.
It seems to all revolve round the wonder weed of marijuana.
I have learned from DUers that decriminalization would be a good thing. But legalization would not stop crime. The cartels would simply move on to something else.
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)... in terms of law enforcement. It's still not legal to grow or sell with decriminalization.
Also, minor point, New York has five border states: quite as many as most other states.
randome
(34,845 posts)And about the difference between decriminalization and legalization. But I think decriminalization nation-wide would eventually lead to legalization. Not something I'm especially in favor of but I wouldn't stand in the way of it, either.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Nobody knows for sure exact percentages because of the underground nature of the business, but marijuana makes up a sizeable chunk of cartel profits. And unlike cocaine, the cartels control Mexican pot production from the farm field to wholesale sales in the US, so that means they get all the money from pot--they don't have to pay producers elsewhere.
Yeah, the cartels wouldn't vanish, just like the mob didn't vanish after the repeal of Prohibition. But legalization would put a hurt on them.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If you have not seen conversations about medical marijuana, you have not been paying attention. DU has several posters who go all the way back to the days of the early AIDS crisis, when all of this chatter and pontification was simply not in the budget and compassionate people took action in terms of providing medicine in spite of the law to people who needed it. It was that time and that clearly pressing need that lead to the activists saying enough is enough and starting efforts like 215 in CA.
Without medical marijuana, I would personally be on so many various drugs I'd not be typing here today, I'd be nodding off and drooling. This is not really your business to know, I am sharing because of your utterly unfounded cynicism. Here are some words from you post 'I doubt' 'I suspect' 'it all seems'. Not much specificity, not much detail, not much more than arch insinuations and conjecture.
Here's how accurate your post is: NY has 5 border States and one border nation, Canada.
You:"They don't have as many border states to worry about so it may not be as much of a problem."
My question to you then is 'as many border States' as who? As what other State?
randome
(34,845 posts)But I don't hear anything today from DUers who advocate for legalization about AIDS or other health-related issues. That's why I question their advocacy.
And you're right about the number of states bordering NY. I was mistaken.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I assume you've scanned sites like NORML? I wouldn't be surprised if more than one approach has been proposed to each of these issues over the years. Old High Times archives might well be a good place to mine.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)How much brain damage does scholastic sports, Occupational hazards, ATVs and smoking cigarettes cause?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)How much brain damage does marijuana cause?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Panasonic
(2,921 posts)A) if people want MJ to be regulated like any other drug, has someone worked out the law? For example, has someone worked out what levels of intoxication would cause a DUI?
Right now, that is still being worked out. Colorado recently tried to pass a DUI-MJ law with 50ng of THC in system, but that is WAY too low for MMJ users who have higher tolerance levels. I'm a MMJ user, my tolerance level is pretty high. It has helped with chronic back spasms and would prefer not to abuse my liver with Tylenol or Advil.
B) Has anyone worked out the regulations as the the quality. I am not talking about what makes pot "organic" though I would be surprised if someone did not work that out. I mean this: is the gorwing of it going to be liscensed, and if so, what are the criteria?
Colorado requires that the dispensaries grow their own plants in on-site, so it's pretty much organic as you can get.
C) If Mj is going to be legal in some states, how will that be monitored? For example, let's say Colorado legalizes it, who deals with the fact that people will probably take it elsewhere.
That's the fun part about legalization. Only the 17 states that have legalized medical marijuana would probably tolerate the fact that marijuana is (or will be) legal in our three states, and rather than wasting time enforcing it, the other 33 remaining states would rapidly decriminalize and make it legal as well, forcing the feds to remove it from scheduling.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)for offering an answer snark-free. However, your answers brought in more questions..
One, it does seem that making a DUI can be a pain..We need to be able to make some standard level, or else we will have the equivalent to "I can drive perfectly on three beers!" However, there should be a limit, as this is chemistry.
As far as point three, I can see a way around that. Take for example, Amsterdam...there is nothing that says that MJ cannot be comsumed,mbut must be done so on premises. I can see two places that can take advanatge of this...Casinos, and Indian reservations.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Drunk drivers are a danger, stoned drivers are an impediment to the flow of traffic.
I do not believe that is a breath test that can determine how high you are,
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Meaning, just like .008 blood alcohol per se level, if you're over that the law would assume you are impaired. But pot isn't alcohol and the science around driving and pot is not yet very convincing. That part of the Washington initiative is causing a lot of the pot people to come out against it.
I don't agree with a per se level for pot, either. If cops and prosecutors want to prove a driver who smoked pot the day before is impaired, let them do it the old-fashioned way: Show actual impairment. You know, roadside sobriety tests.
As for point three, I think at least one of the three legalization initiatives mentions that it is a crime to take weed out of the state. But there will inevitably be leakage. There already is from the medical marijuana states. I'm not so concerned about that.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)The only times mmj has ever impaired driving in my experience is when it was mixed w/alcohol.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And that was voted down in the legislature after William Breathes, the medical marijuana columnist for Westword, smoked weed, waited several hours (or maybe overnight), passed driving simulation tests with flying colors, and then tested above 5 nanograms. It appears that level is too low.
My simple solution: If you're concerned about impairment, test for actual impairment, like with a roadside sobriety test. Can the driver walk a straight line? Can he touch his fingertip to his nose? Can he recite the alphabet backwards?
eggplant
(3,911 posts)There are already laws on the books everywhere for driving while impaired. That's why we have field sobriety tests. You think people didn't get busted for drunk driving before there were blood alcohol tests?
Or, to put it another way, how much Valium before you are DUI?
Honestly, framing the debate on "why should the be allowed" is the opposite of the nature of our constitution. "Why shouldn't it?" is the question you should be asking. If you go back and look at the history of its criminalization you'll see that it had everything to do with crony capitalism, and nothing to do with health.
There have been ample studies that show that MJ has medicinal benefits. There is no justification for its current classification. All of the propoganda about it being a gateway drug, causing cancer, and so on have been thoroughly debunked.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is also effectively legal in CO, and again civilization didn't crumble. Once enough state legalize it the federal government will simply clue up and give up. It will remain nominally illegal at the federal level and effectively decriminalized/legalized at the state level.
People will get fucked over by the mish-mash of regulations for a while until eventually criminal penalties go away and we will all look back at this era with a long flatulent WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT ALL ABOUT sigh?
eggplant
(3,911 posts)Response to DonCoquixote (Original post)
Post removed
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The California medical marijuana law was written by activists, not legislators or lawyers, and it leaves the definition of what constitutes medical need for weed wide open. If I recall the language correctly, it listed a whole bunch of conditions and then "or any condition for which it helps"--something to that effect.
That was a loophole and effectively legalized marijuana for anyone who had $75 for a pot doctor visit. Many, many people have taken advantage of that, and I can't say I blame them.
Which is not to say there are no legitimate medical marijuana patients. There are lots of those, too, and a growing mountain of evidence relating to marijuana's medical efficacy.
And by the way, I alerted on the over-the-top rudeness of calling the OP a "brainwashed idiot."
Webster Green
(13,905 posts)My old friend Bill Panzer comes to mind.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)OK,let be me personal here to clarify.
My relative has a serious nueorlogical condition that requires Oxy. This is not a joke, as her muscles literally get so locked up that her hands can tear through drinking glasses. However, because of all the idiots going to my states oxy clinics, it has become harder for her letigtamte doctors to prescribe oxy, thus making her medicare useless, and no, we do not want to get into a pill bidding war with those people from Kentucky "visiting their relative in Florida" with a U haul. The current moxie "the oxycontin express" will desribe the mess better than I could.
Obviously, there are legit MJ users..Indeed, MY relative would probably add that to her mix if it came out, but the reason I put the video up was to show a cyniocal amount of abuse. Granted, if medical MJ were legal, I would rewirte said video to where the LEGIT medical MJ users kicked the areses of said musicans, becuse they were trying to abuse the one thing that kept them well, very mcuh the way where I would love to see the OXy clinics burn to the ground. Sadly, the GOP loves the issue, as our governor actually ran several of these clinics.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That's where you should focus. What are you doing about that horrid situation? Anything?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and voting for anyone offering to do things like build a database, or ban cash only clinics, not much I can do. However, snarking off on me does not change that legalization is not the easy panacea, and this comes from someone who has to deal with relatives not being able to get the medicine they need because creeps from up north come down to these clinics.
And frankly, the "real" hard rugs bit is a misnomer...if people want to use medicine, they have to use it responsibly, which does not include getting in a car and crashing into someone. The whole point of this op was to ask if people had done the legwork for that. Some people came up with hard answers, others, seemed to simply offer snark.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)We let violent criminals out of prison cells to make room for cancer grannies and Phish fans busted for smoking a joint.
So ANYTHING would be better than what we have now, which is total insanity.
1) I think field sobriety tests would function as a decent placeholder for inability to drive a vehicle until a better method of determining cannabis intoxication (as opposed to THC in the body, which, due to fat solubility.
2) As for varying laws- one thing that probably would change is, in the places where it is legal for ADULTS, it will be harder, not easier, for others to obtain. When I was in High School, there was no medical MMJ, the drug war was in full swing, and it was way easier to get pot than alcohol. People who want pot, can already get it.
3) Guns and Oxycontin are far more dangerous than marijuana.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Is it possible to make laws that apply DUI to MJ? The means of intoxication is already not the issue as beer and pills will both get a DUI, but how do you prove whether someone if A) too stoned to drive and B) should have known better to call a taxi?"
porphyrian
(18,530 posts)A) We can model pot laws after alcohol laws. The one change necessary would be the "level of intoxication;" as others have mentioned, different people have different tolerances, so it would be difficult and a bad idea to devise a maximum Blood Marijuana Level, or whatever. Instead, as someone suggested years ago, why not simply test to see if the driver is impaired? They already have field tests for this. After all, this is what we're concerned about; you drive every day with people who are high but not impaired (and probably a few who are impaired as well). I'm not condoning people driving high, it just isn't right to use levels of marijuana's active substances to determine intoxication when they are detectable in a person's system up to 40 days after consumption (way after the person is no longer affected by them), compared to cocaine and meth, which are gone in a day or two. We want to stop impaired driving. Why the driver is impaired is immaterial.
B) The regulating entity would have this job, not us, and they would develop standards over time, probably through trial and error.
C) This answer depends on which level decriminalization/legalization occurs. If it's on the federal level, the differences in state law would be much less important. You can see what happens when state laws differ from federal law with what is happening right now. California is having dispensary problems similar in some ways to the pain clinics in Florida, if you believe the DEA. This is exacerbated by gangs and organized crime, similar to Florida and the pill mills. One argument for decriminalization/legalization is that it takes profitability out of the business, so gangs and criminals would likely move on to more profitable ventures.
panader0
(25,816 posts)How will be monitored?
What if someone buys whiskey in Texas and takes it Oklahoma?
As far as DUIs, every state has their own limit of blood alcohol content.
So, legalize it already and quit stressin'.
As far a strength--alcoholic drinks come in many different strengths, from light beer to 151 proof, still legal.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The major concern I have is DUI, which is already a mess. Right now, if someone is drivign with over the legal limit of alaochol, they are guilty, clear as math, or chemistry. My deal is how to you deal with people saying "I can drive perfectly on five joints." the way assholes used to say "I can drive perfectly on five beers" before blood alcohol came in.
porphyrian
(18,530 posts)Here are the first few links that showed on Google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/17/111017fa_fact_specter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/portugal-drug-laws-decriminalization-_n_889531.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9C6x99EnFVdFuXw_B8pvDRzLqcA
musiclawyer
(2,335 posts)Measures will be. Even if one passes, the drug war is dead man walking.
Like a levee that has a gigantic hole in it There is no going back
What is POTUS going to do ? Litigate? Even POTUS knows he would lose. Thè entire west coast will be cannabis legal in
5 years if one state meaure passes. They cannot afford to leave a billion dollar cash crop --hemp and cannabis -- to economic rivals. Colorodo does not care if New Mexicans cross the border to buy. New mexico does though. That's why they will follow and legalize as well eventually
You can be arrested for DUI now. Alcohol or liquor. Very little changes. The only thing states must do come up with a threshold test. If you tested 3/4 of all drivers in CA right now they would test positive for cannabis because it does not leave your system easily. But only a tiny fraction of them are actually high ( under the influence )
Finally the market itself will take care of the quality of the bud. You want organic. Sure. But it will cost more You want Mendocino blue. It will cost you maybe more because it's shipped.
Next time someone says they want to go home and open a Bud, tell them you are an American citizen and should have the right to go home and Vape a bit of bud too. You should have the right to get high because you are celebrating, are in pain , are in love, are sad, want to really focus on thè ball game, whatever ...... It should be your right as long as you exercise it responsibly. Your much less likely to drive high than drunk because your judgment is far less impaired.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)A) Is maybe not knowable. I'd rely on actions and outcomes and the laws already in place to deal with such events (reckless driving, causing accidents, missing stop signs/lights, speeding, etc) like we pretty much have to do with everything save alcohol that effectively may impair a driver from talking to people in the car, playing with the radio, prescription drugs, lack of sleep, stimulants, powerful emotions like anger and grief, and it goes on and on and overlooks plain old piss poor driving.
B) I see no reason to treat it differently than other produce or things like coffee and tea. Keep the poison out and make sure it actually is what it is claiming to be, the consumer can handle it from there.
C) How do dry counties monitor and control liquor from wet ones? Whatever that is, including nothing, works for me.
I don't get the significance of these concerns. I don't mean that disrespectfully but they seem quite "lightweight" compared to the costs created to avoid them. Humanity did fine for thousands of years without prohibition and I see few serious reasons to continue with the clearly failed and stupid experiment of the last relatively few decades.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)To be honest B) is more because I do not want peoplelacing the stuff with toxins, any more than I want people lacing regular tea with toxins. However, the FDA as is prevents Lipton from putting something special in my Earl grey tea, so I would think it would not be hard to make similar regulations preventing them from doing that to other types of "tea."
But the issue of driving while intoxicated is not a luaghing one, because again, in Florida there are a lot of idiots who remember the good ole days when DUI was not a concern, and they are not concerned even after they crash their SUV into my relatives cars, putting them in the hospital. Alcohol at least allows for a blood alcohol level, a chemical thing...Part of the reason i asked this question is to ask if there is an eqivalent chemical test for Cannabis, something that can be proven as an objective measure.
And if people shift to the whole "blood levels are not imprtant, focus on performance" then lets be careful not to open the flodgates to drunks who simply memorize the test routine, but are not safe at any speed. The DUI situation is awful enough, and I do not want to make that any worse.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)I believe these two links will fully address all of your questions:
"The $60 (medical cannabis) ounce: a not-so-modest proposal"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6889020
"A proposed medical marijuana bill considers both suffering patients and a sick economy"
http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/a-proposed-medical-marijuana-bill-considers-both-suffering-patients-and-a-sick-economy/Content?oid=1226945
If, after reviewing these links, you have any questions, feel free to email me at [email protected].
Fly by night (Bernie Ellis)
Warpy
(111,254 posts)A. Field sobriety tests, especially with video provided by a dashboard camera, are the most useful for testing intoxication from any substance, alcohol to cold medicine to marijuana. A person incapable of passing a field sobriety test is incapable of continuing to drive. The point should be to get them off the road right then and there, it's a public safety issue more than a punitive one.
B. Undoubtedly quality control will be part of legalization. Consider the lack of quality control we have now, people don't really know what they're getting and whether or not it's laced with nasty herbicides or other chemicals. It will likely be an improvement over the drugs out there now.
C. That's their problem. If states still want to waste money on interdiction and incarceration, let them. It's no worse than what they're doing now. A legal state wouldn't have to put up with the sleaze bags for long, since they'd be going to sell the stash in a state where it's illegal. The originating state would be a little wealthier and if the sleaze bags didn't get caught, the drug consumers in the target state might be a little healthier.
I imagine the pill mills in Florida haven't been closed down by now because that's one of the last healthy industries in the state. Florida is in serious trouble and needs all the tax money it can get.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)But it won't happen in my state of Georgia for a long, long time.
