Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   Legalizing marijuana in the US could, in short, deal a blow to Mexico's traffickers of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving   (economist.com) divider line 187
    More: Obvious, United States, American Election, fixed costs, social costs, drug traffickers, Sinaloa, economic cost, wholesale prices  
•       •       •

2852 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2012 at 12:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-04 08:15:51 AM  
Duh.
 
2012-11-04 08:22:48 AM  
I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?
 
2012-11-04 08:38:51 AM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


I would assume that the net job loss would be very little given that there are more people convicted on drug-related charges than there are operating the criminal justice side.

I would also assume that it's remains true after taking into consideration that not all arrested/convicted have jobs. If they held for jobless rates using demographic and geographic data - it would probably be a simple model to account for.

However, the study should identify the scope anyway.
 
2012-11-04 08:39:52 AM  

Bontesla: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?

I would assume that the net job loss would be very little given that there are more people convicted on drug-related charges than there are operating the criminal justice side.

I would also assume that it's remains true after taking into consideration that not all arrested/convicted have jobs. If they held for jobless rates using demographic and geographic data - it would probably be a simple model to account for.

However, the study should identify the scope anyway.


Now, imagine that I typed this without any errors. Thanks.

/I should stop Farking as I try to wake up in the mornings.
 
2012-11-04 08:51:21 AM  

Bontesla: Bontesla: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?

I would assume that the net job loss would be very little given that there are more people convicted on drug-related charges than there are operating the criminal justice side.

I would also assume that it's remains true after taking into consideration that not all arrested/convicted have jobs. If they held for jobless rates using demographic and geographic data - it would probably be a simple model to account for.

However, the study should identify the scope anyway.

Now, imagine that I typed this without any errors. Thanks.

/I should stop Farking as I try to wake up in the mornings.


There would be an immediate rise in people using though, and that has been demonstrated in various European countries over the years.

I do wonder what the final push will be to finally get marijuana legalized. I suspect that on a national level, gay marriage equality will be passed first. We're getting there...
 
2012-11-04 08:58:36 AM  

Endive Wombat: Bontesla: Bontesla: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?

I would assume that the net job loss would be very little given that there are more people convicted on drug-related charges than there are operating the criminal justice side.

I would also assume that it's remains true after taking into consideration that not all arrested/convicted have jobs. If they held for jobless rates using demographic and geographic data - it would probably be a simple model to account for.

However, the study should identify the scope anyway.

Now, imagine that I typed this without any errors. Thanks.

/I should stop Farking as I try to wake up in the mornings.

There would be an immediate rise in people using though, and that has been demonstrated in various European countries over the years.

I do wonder what the final push will be to finally get marijuana legalized. I suspect that on a national level, gay marriage equality will be passed first. We're getting there...


I'm okay with an increase in usage. In fact - we shouldn't be jailing people for offenses related to drug addiction and drug use. I'm actually in favor of legalizing all drug use and turning the saved money into free and accessible rehab centers for dependent people.

/that's just assuming you're correct in claiming prohibition is an effective deterrant
//which there are many studies that say prohibition contributes to usage and not deters from usage
 
2012-11-04 08:59:50 AM  

Endive Wombat: I do wonder what the final push will be to finally get marijuana legalized.


DEA reclassifying it as a Schedule II drug. That's it, pretty much.

It should be classified the same as nicotine and alcohol, but that won't happen in my lifetime.
 
2012-11-04 09:23:47 AM  

Bontesla: I'm okay with an increase in usage. In fact - we shouldn't be jailing people for offenses related to drug addiction and drug use. I'm actually in favor of legalizing all drug use and turning the saved money into free and accessible rehab centers for dependent people.

/that's just assuming you're correct in claiming prohibition is an effective deterrant
//which there are many studies that say prohibition contributes to usage and not deters from usage


But that's SOCIALISM WHARRGARBL!111111ELEVENTYONE
 
2012-11-04 09:30:23 AM  

Endive Wombat: There would be an immediate rise in people using though, and that has been demonstrated in various European countries over the years.


I wonder if it's more people using, or more people that were already using now saying so because there are no legal repercussions? That would be a tough study,
 
2012-11-04 09:33:57 AM  

Elandriel: Endive Wombat: There would be an immediate rise in people using though, and that has been demonstrated in various European countries over the years.

I wonder if it's more people using, or more people that were already using now saying so because there are no legal repercussions? That would be a tough study,


Well, that's one of the things that some studies discovered: how you collect data determines the degree of accuracy of the results.

Another thing that can alter the accuracy is the stigmatized nature of the topic. Respondents were less likely to provide an accurate response when that answer made them feel bad
 
2012-11-04 09:40:37 AM  

Elandriel: I wonder if it's more people using, or more people that were already using now saying so because there are no legal repercussions? That would be a tough study,


I would venture that 99% of the increased numbers could be attributed to those using previously in fear.
 
2012-11-04 09:42:05 AM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.
 
2012-11-04 09:53:58 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.


I am disheartened by how uninvolved pharmacy professionals are in the decisions made by doctors, FDA, and DEA. I've taken your advice to heart. I don't really expect much and just wait for time to resolve most things.
 
2012-11-04 10:03:56 AM  

NewportBarGuy: hillbillypharmacist: Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.

I am disheartened by how uninvolved pharmacy professionals are in the decisions made by doctors, FDA, and DEA. I've taken your advice to heart. I don't really expect much and just wait for time to resolve most things.


Well, as long as privatized prisons are profitable - and those elected are being purchased by that industry - I doubt that we'll see any change.
 
2012-11-04 10:21:41 AM  

NewportBarGuy: hillbillypharmacist: Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.

I am disheartened by how uninvolved pharmacy professionals are in the decisions made by doctors, FDA, and DEA. I've taken your advice to heart. I don't really expect much and just wait for time to resolve most things.


Yeah. We unfortunately have less power than I think we should. Some of it is how the profession prefers it sometimes. It's sad I think, we could be a lot better, as a profession, especially when it comes to national policy.
 
2012-11-04 10:42:06 AM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses


If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.
 
2012-11-04 10:45:26 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.


I would argue that the employers liability insurance companies are to blame.
 
2012-11-04 10:49:59 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.


I assume you mean as long as somebody doesn't show up to work drunk/stoned/tripping balls, etc?
 
2012-11-04 10:52:08 AM  
Destroying cartels is the absolute LAST thing the DEA wants.
 
2012-11-04 10:53:02 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.


Medical marijuana still gets people fired for popping on a test; it would be nice if it were rescheduled and covered under ADA. Until there's a need to determine actual MJ intoxication, simply establishing that a user smoked recently wrecks most of these legalization routes as employers and the government are content with the current testing schemes.

In CO, their "regulate marijuana like alcohol" amendment has problems with OUI limits, primarily if (pretending the amendment passed) one legally got high on a Saturday night, then was pulled over on the way to work Monday morning they could be busted for OUI as their THC metabolite level could be high enough to exceed the limit even though they are no longer under the effects of the drug.
 
2012-11-04 10:55:33 AM  

Endive Wombat: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.

I would argue that the employers liability insurance companies are to blame.


This is true. I don't think any employer has a vested interest in what any employee does on their time off and most wouldn't bother spending money on testing if their insurance didn't pressure them to do so.
 
2012-11-04 10:58:46 AM  

Endive Wombat: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.

I would argue that the employers liability insurance companies are to blame.


Likely, but this country is capable of legislating the rights of the worker in their relationship with their employer, this would be a good next step.

flucto: I assume you mean as long as somebody doesn't show up to work drunk/stoned/tripping balls, etc?


Of course. If an employee can drink on their off hours under the presumption from their employer that they will be responsible enough to be sober when they come to work, it can work for pot too. Hell, it happens for a lot of people already.
 
2012-11-04 11:05:10 AM  

dr_blasto: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.

Medical marijuana still gets people fired for popping on a test; it would be nice if it were rescheduled and covered under ADA. Until there's a need to determine actual MJ intoxication, simply establishing that a user smoked recently wrecks most of these legalization routes as employers and the government are content with the current testing schemes.

In CO, their "regulate marijuana like alcohol" amendment has problems with OUI limits, primarily if (pretending the amendment passed) one legally got high on a Saturday night, then was pulled over on the way to work Monday morning they could be busted for OUI as their THC metabolite level could be high enough to exceed the limit even though they are no longer under the effects of the drug.


IANAL, but I do believe people can get DUIs ofrom being intoxicated via legally prescribed pharmaceuticals. There is no instant or blood-level test for that like there is for alcohol either. Really, it's not a good reason for continued prohibition.
 
2012-11-04 11:22:36 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: dr_blasto: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.

Medical marijuana still gets people fired for popping on a test; it would be nice if it were rescheduled and covered under ADA. Until there's a need to determine actual MJ intoxication, simply establishing that a user smoked recently wrecks most of these legalization routes as employers and the government are content with the current testing schemes.

In CO, their "regulate marijuana like alcohol" amendment has problems with OUI limits, primarily if (pretending the amendment passed) one legally got high on a Saturday night, then was pulled over on the way to work Monday morning they could be busted for OUI as their THC metabolite level could be high enough to exceed the limit even though they are no longer under the effects of the drug.

IANAL, but I do believe people can get DUIs ofrom being intoxicated via legally prescribed pharmaceuticals. There is no instant or blood-level test for that like there is for alcohol either. Really, it's not a good reason for continued prohibition.


You can be intoxicated from Xanax and get OUI; I think that in most cases you'd have to be pulled over for driving recklessly or get in an accident and have evidence of pills lying around. For pot, the tests you would take like a UA (today) only test for metabolites--meaning you can be legally under the influence, but not actually under the influence. Those metabolites don't have an intoxicating effect and they can linger for days and weeks.
 
2012-11-04 11:51:44 AM  
And we wouldn't want that.

Bye-bye DEA agents' jobs!
Bye-bye prison jobs!
Bye-bye lawyers and DA's and so on.

Who gives a fark if America as a whole is better off? JOBS!!!!1!

/also, there goes our source of cheap American labor in the form of prisoners
 
2012-11-04 11:52:39 AM  
Ugh, who smokes Mexican pot?
 
2012-11-04 12:02:49 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


I think there are a couple things that need to be established. First, when it comes to marijuana is what are the levels of intoxication. Pot stays in your system for quite a long time even after the high wears off. Second, how can you test quickly and unobtrusively (i.e. not blood or hair samples) for actually being high and not having residual THC in your system.

Don't get me wrong, I've long been a supporter of legalizing drugs. But there are some things that need to happen in order to maintain safety and productivity.

Back to TFA. Prohibition does not work. We've spent over $1 trillion dollars fighting the "War on Drugs" and the only winner has been the government. Over 50% of the 2 million people that are in prison are there for drug-related offenses. Have any of these efforts done a damn thing to reduce demand? Nope. Demand for illegal narcotics in the 1960's was 12-15% and it's the same today.

Hell, you can compare crime stats in countries that have legalized (or at least decriminalized) drugs and you'd find that they have much lower violent crime than we do in the U.S.
 
2012-11-04 12:11:22 PM  

flucto: Duh.


Done in one.
 
2012-11-04 12:13:21 PM  
Legalizing marijuana in the US could, in short, deal a blow to Mexico's traffickers the Department of Justice and the private prison industry of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving

FTFY

Also.. Hello Bontesla.. how YOU doin? ;)
 
2012-11-04 12:23:37 PM  
Legalizing marijuana would deal a blow to both drug traffickers and the private prison industry.

It's win/win.

But that noted, much like in the case of marriage rights for gays politicians will never push for it until it enters the realms of the politically feasible. That is to say polling nationally at higher that 51%. That kind of consensus building requires organization and sustained effort. NORML and other groups have been around for years and they've certainly helped changed some attitudes but perhaps not quite enough just yet. When the sea change will occur to make legal recreational marijuana politically feasible is anyone's guess at this point. It will take a bunch of state's initiatives like we're seeing in WA to make that change I reckon.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-04 12:23:55 PM  
If I'm running the DEA I may have enough agents to find big operations but not the many smaller ones. So I announce a reward program. If your tip leads to a conviction you get a share of the asset forfeiture. Law enforcement agencies already benefit from a similar policy. Deputy Bob smells legal-under-state-law pot when he gives you a speeding ticket. He drives by your house and sees some plants in the back yard. Call in the tip, feds seize your house, Bob gets a 10% commission on the $200,000 forfeiture.  Kind of like crowdsourcing.
 
2012-11-04 12:27:21 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


The drug related accidents would be the same - or do you think anyone that wants to do drugs now can't easily find them?
 
2012-11-04 12:30:27 PM  
Prohibition didn't work in the '20s either
 
2012-11-04 12:31:14 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


You know what would be easier to measure? How many people would smoke if it were made legal.
 
2012-11-04 12:32:42 PM  
I've always wondered how much money drug cartels donate to the campaigns of "tough-on-crime" politicians. Laundered through legitimate fronts, obviously, but I strongly suspect that they're financially invested in keeping the political climate where it is.
 
2012-11-04 12:34:29 PM  
As a less-government, more-liberties republican, I will support any law, no matter how expensive or repressive, as long as it stops consenting adults from doing what they want behind closed doors

/conservative logic
 
2012-11-04 12:35:19 PM  
Maybe we can start with a pilot program, where pot is legalized in a small district and if there are no major problems that arise, we can use that as a springboard for national legalization. I would like to nominate my house for this bold experiment.
 
2012-11-04 12:36:09 PM  
It would also take a chunk out of the alcohol industry I would imagine.

/nttawwt
 
2012-11-04 12:36:20 PM  
Legalizing marijuana in the US could, in short, deal a blow to Mexico's traffickers of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Someone puff puff pass over this way.
 
2012-11-04 12:36:28 PM  
There is too much money being made on both sides of the issue for drugs to ever be legalized.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-04 12:36:59 PM  
D-Liver

Your hypothetical legal house would look like a reality TV show as thousands of friends you didn't know you had crowded in to join the experiment.

You need a bigger legal district.
 
2012-11-04 12:37:47 PM  
How much would legalization cost?

S'rsly?

It would save a shiat ton more than it would cost while reducing prison ranks not to mention restoring a measure of respect to LEOs and reducing the power of criminal cartels.

Win. Win. Win. Win. FTW.
 
2012-11-04 12:38:03 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


The job losses would be offset by the people able to be hired who would have failed the drug test.

/granted, there should be some jobs where drug tests are necessary
//mostly in fields where the operation of heavy machinery is required
 
2012-11-04 12:38:40 PM  
Honestly, if anyone thinks that the Gulf Cartel pays their bullet bill by smuggling pot, then you are sadly misinformed. The big players are all meth, heroin and coke.

These are the guys causing havoc, and free pot for all will not change their bottom line one centavo.
 
2012-11-04 12:39:51 PM  
Um, duh.

Also brilliantly noted by The Economist, "Smoking cigarettes stinks and it causes cancer."
 
2012-11-04 12:40:22 PM  
As much as I agree with the merits of marijuana legalization...

kunochan.com

If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?
 
2012-11-04 12:40:41 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


If you actually show up to your job baked, I have about as much sympathy for your unemployment as I would were you to show up drunk, or on.

Similarly, anyone dumb enough to drive under the influence is probably already doing so, because their problem is terminal stupidity more than anything else and a new form of intoxication is unlikely to fix or exacerbate their stupid much.

So... not really hugely relevant questions, there. Though iirc some DUI studies have been done using Marijuana and have largely concluded that it's somewhere between not much of a problem off the highway and bad but no worse than alcoholic DUI.
 
2012-11-04 12:41:08 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


I imagine it would have just about the same effect on those things as the ending of Prohibition did. I know of no one - not even the fierciest proponents for legalizing marijuana - who has said it should be allowed for people to show up to work or get behind the wheel while stoned.

Of course, there could be some short term job losses amonst the law enforcement community due to scaling down the war on drugs, but I'm certain they could be transitioned over to fighting crack, cocaine, crystal meth, jenkem, or cheesing.
 
2012-11-04 12:41:38 PM  
I dream of the day when I can legally smoke pot while taking my married lesbian sister (who earns the same as her male coworkers) in a high speed train to get a safe on-demand abortion. We'll celebrate with a hearty breakfast of stem cell omelettes.
 
2012-11-04 12:41:47 PM  

Turbo Cojones: Honestly, if anyone thinks that the Gulf Cartel pays their bullet bill by smuggling pot, then you are sadly misinformed. The big players are all meth, heroin and coke.

These are the guys causing havoc, and free pot for all will not change their bottom line one centavo.


Even if that were true (citation, please), at the very least we could redirect the billions of dollars in cannabis industry to legitimate cultivation and sales right here in the United States and create several jobs.
 
2012-11-04 12:42:26 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?

You know what would be easier to measure? How many people would smoke if it were made legal.


You can very easily get a prescription right now to legally buy, grow and smoke weed here in California. I've yet to meet anyone that signed up just because they could. People that already smoke weed signed up - not so they could smoke (they already were) but so they don't get in trouble.
/Was even super easy to get growing up in Salt Lake City *UTAH*.
 
2012-11-04 12:43:02 PM  
www.eonline.com

SOON
 
2012-11-04 12:43:06 PM  
I wish we'd legalize it just so I'd no longer have to hear people biatch about it needing to be legalized.

/also because I wouldn't mind getting high on rare occasions without having to worry about losing my job and ending up in the clink.
 
2012-11-04 12:46:07 PM  
Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.
 
2012-11-04 12:47:26 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: As much as I agree with the merits of marijuana legalization...

[kunochan.com image 450x338]

If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


Archer Daniels Midland. Supermarket to the world.
 
2012-11-04 12:48:21 PM  

Toots de la Footsjelly: I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


Doctor McCoy did, all the time.
 
2012-11-04 12:49:20 PM  

thamike: Ugh, who smokes Mexican pot?


www.zuguide.com
"Mexicans"
 
2012-11-04 12:50:55 PM  
MORE HEAD SHOPS = LESS HEADS CHOPPED!
 
2012-11-04 12:51:17 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


Anyone with access to water and sunlight?
 
2012-11-04 12:51:53 PM  

Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


It was actually quite common at one time. During prohibition.
 
2012-11-04 12:52:03 PM  

Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


Grain Alcohol is used to counteract antifreeze. Also people who have issues with blood clots are often told to drink a lot. I once had to transport a patient that had a script for one beer a day. Medicaid paid for it.
 
2012-11-04 12:53:41 PM  
"legalize it all, every drug. Gov sells the drugs you get better quality, cheaper. Tax it, with the tax $ build & open facilities for those wanting help... this would take the street profit out of it and reduce the largest cause of violent crime, drugs"

- a cop friend I know said this...
 
2012-11-04 12:53:46 PM  
Fairly reliable polls are suggesting that Initiative 502 may actually pass here in Washington State. It's supported by two former US Attorneys, the guy who used to run the local FBI station, and more than a few judges. If it passes, it will beiinteresting to see how the feds respond.
 
2012-11-04 12:55:23 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: NewportBarGuy: hillbillypharmacist: Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.

I am disheartened by how uninvolved pharmacy professionals are in the decisions made by doctors, FDA, and DEA. I've taken your advice to heart. I don't really expect much and just wait for time to resolve most things.

Yeah. We unfortunately have less power than I think we should. Some of it is how the profession prefers it sometimes. It's sad I think, we could be a lot better, as a profession, especially when it comes to national policy.


Unfortunately, some of it is. We had marijuana decriminalization on the ballot in Cali in 2010, and most of the opposition to it came out of Humboldt County (for those that don't know Cali, that's where a lot of the medical growers are).
 
2012-11-04 12:55:43 PM  

thamike: Ugh, who smokes Mexican pot?


It's terribad, trust me.
 
2012-11-04 12:56:07 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

It was actually quite common at one time. During prohibition.


graphics8.nytimes.com
Just a historical tidbit, from when Churchill was being treated after an auto accident in NYC.
 
2012-11-04 12:57:28 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?



I have no data to back up my claims, but my logic for each point would be thus:

1) lost jobs and unemployment: Probably negligible. Pot is easily available today, so that if someone wants to smoke it, they can. Most people who do not smoke it, it can reasonably be assumed then, are either not doing it because they A) don't like it, or B) are avoiding it because it is against the law. The A group by definition will not suddenly take up smoking pot due to its legality, so the B group is the only one worth considering. Taking into account that they are not doing it because it's illegal, it stands to reason that they will probably continue to not smoke it if their company policy prohibits smoking pot. IE "If a person does not smoke because they are averse to the risk to themselves via the law, they will probably not smoke because they are similarly averse to the risk to themselves via company policy".
2) By the time pot is legalized, self-driving cars will either be ubiquitous or well on their way to being so, thus eliminating the danger of DUI's and DWI's.

So, I'm guessing it's negligible in either case.
 
2012-11-04 12:57:41 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: As much as I agree with the merits of marijuana legalization...



If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


In areas that legalized medical marijuana the hydroponics industry made out like gangbusters and you didn't have any shortages.
 
2012-11-04 12:58:41 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: As much as I agree with the merits of marijuana legalization...

[kunochan.com image 450x338]

If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


You don't think our local cartels... err, megacorps... are chomping at the bit to supply that?

Sinaloa think they're badasses, let's see how they do against Phillip Morris.
 
2012-11-04 01:00:07 PM  
Christians should be in support of this. After all, isn't this how they got their prophets talking to "God"?
 
2012-11-04 01:00:31 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: As much as I agree with the merits of marijuana legalization...



If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


www.troll.me
 
2012-11-04 01:01:26 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

Grain Alcohol is used to counteract antifreeze. Also people who have issues with blood clots are often told to drink a lot. I once had to transport a patient that had a script for one beer a day. Medicaid paid for it.


Ethanol is also a counteractant (not sure if that's a real word) for methanol poisoning. If I remember correctly, you need to drink about four times as much alcohol as you did methanol to competitively inhibit the methanol. So if you ever catch your teenager chugging the rubbing alcohol, hand 'em a fifth of Jack and get them to the ER.
 
2012-11-04 01:02:13 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
Do many of you remember the free cigarette sample packs the tobacco companies use to give away? Tobacco reps (usually great looking woman) would be at festivals and events passing out those small sample packs of cigarettes. I think they contained four cigarettes but I may be mistaken on that number.

The machine that packed those were really designed to pack marijuana cigarettes.
 
2012-11-04 01:03:21 PM  

Chameleon: globalwarmingpraiser: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

Grain Alcohol is used to counteract antifreeze. Also people who have issues with blood clots are often told to drink a lot. I once had to transport a patient that had a script for one beer a day. Medicaid paid for it.

Ethanol is also a counteractant (not sure if that's a real word) for methanol poisoning. If I remember correctly, you need to drink about four times as much alcohol as you did methanol to competitively inhibit the methanol. So if you ever catch your teenager chugging the rubbing alcohol, hand 'em a fifth of Jack and get them to the ER.

Woohoo medicinal booze for all. Fark is happy. Cue the we drink medicinal beer tag.
 
2012-11-04 01:05:04 PM  
It would do better if it were legalized only in non-smoking forms. Edibles and some sort of safe aerosolized inhalable would be much better than having another tobacco situation. Sure you could vape instead of burn, but joe dime bag isn't gonna lay out that much for a vaporizer when a pipe or joint are much cheaper.
 
2012-11-04 01:05:17 PM  
Another factor in the argument that having weed legal will make people want to start smoking:

The fine now in California is $99 for under an ounce. I just got a speeding ticket for $300. That means weed is 1/3 less of a criminal act than going too fast in a car. Decriminalized, and still the world has not ended...uh oh.
 
2012-11-04 01:05:44 PM  

D-Liver: Maybe we can start with a pilot program, where pot is legalized in a small district and if there are no major problems that arise, we can use that as a springboard for national legalization.


static.guim.co.uk
 
2012-11-04 01:06:27 PM  

smitty04: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 159x200]
Do many of you remember the free cigarette sample packs the tobacco companies use to give away? Tobacco reps (usually great looking woman) would be at festivals and events passing out those small sample packs of cigarettes. I think they contained four cigarettes but I may be mistaken on that number.

The machine that packed those were really designed to pack marijuana cigarettes.


They used to come out here at bars and hand out 3 full packs. Being a poor college student at the time I LOVED seeing those girls.
 
2012-11-04 01:06:55 PM  

Bontesla: NewportBarGuy: hillbillypharmacist: Keeping people employed by enacting or keeping impractical prohibition is pretty much the same as breaking windows to make work. Except people don't go to prison. But it's just as dumb.

I am disheartened by how uninvolved pharmacy professionals are in the decisions made by doctors, FDA, and DEA. I've taken your advice to heart. I don't really expect much and just wait for time to resolve most things.

Well, as long as privatized prisons are profitable - and those elected are being purchased by that industry - I doubt that we'll see any change.


Not just the prison industry, but paper, oil, and a lot of pharma companies oppose the measure, as well as those who profit from seizure sales.

It is the non drug related uses that interest me far more. I don't smoke the stuff, have no interest in ingesting it really in any intoxicant form, but the industrial uses far outweigh the drug related uses in my book. Not just for silly hemp based curios, but cloth, rope--which the Navy still maintains use of, and has its needs catered to--and a whole slew of products which will mean increased industry, lowering of costs in the long run through competitive practice which is REAL basis for the prohibition, and not the drug use.

Cotton and timber industries helped create this prohibition when industrial technologies would have allowed hemp to compete seriously. We still have it today, not because of fears of its use by the populace, but by industries that would see real competition in their markets. The excuses have ranged from making folks all kill crazy to too pacific to fight our wars. We have seen industries rise to meet the demand of incarcerating folks, and a culture of corruption to reap from seized properties, and the savings to states would far outweigh the costs. And allow our police to pursue real criminals, and even lighten the loads on our courts. That is the fear though: that legalization will see loss of controlling revenue for Senators and Reps, and steering dollars and opportunities to make cash for supporters will dry up. Those are the very real issues when we talk about legalization: generations of folks who have encouraged lack of competition and entrenched corruption, and those folks don't like the well going dry....

Never mind the savings to cities, counties, and states, or the nation in general, or the potential for increased revenue with new entrepreneurs and industries here. Never mind the jobs created. Never mind easing the workload on our police and courts. Never mind easing away from systemic corruption. Nope, it's just those damned hippies and peaceniks who want to see this end. The financial reasons are easier to NOT talk about when you cast it as an issue about smoking the stuff, as opposed to the very real industrial applications that would upset a lot of folks who have had generations to NOT have significant competition in the markets.
 
2012-11-04 01:07:26 PM  

Karne: Another factor in the argument that having weed legal will make people want to start smoking:

The fine now in California is $99 for under an ounce. I just got a speeding ticket for $300. That means weed is 1/3 less of a criminal act than going too fast in a car. Decriminalized, and still the world has not ended...uh oh.


For most on the far right, California is already the end of the world.
 
2012-11-04 01:07:32 PM  
USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?
 
2012-11-04 01:08:28 PM  

spelletrader: Karne: Another factor in the argument that having weed legal will make people want to start smoking:

The fine now in California is $99 for under an ounce. I just got a speeding ticket for $300. That means weed is 1/3 less of a criminal act than going too fast in a car. Decriminalized, and still the world has not ended...uh oh.

For most on the far right, California is already the end of the world.


I know, year round sun is for libs libs libs.
 
2012-11-04 01:12:11 PM  

KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?


The same cities that want to make tobacco completely illegal also want to make marijuana completely legal.
 
2012-11-04 01:12:35 PM  

KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?


I think any pothead would kill for marijuana to have the same restrictions as cigarettes.

/I can't smoke in the office and choke my coworkers with the noxious fumes! Truly, this is the worst government oppression anybody has ever had to face!
 
2012-11-04 01:13:30 PM  
When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways
 
2012-11-04 01:13:49 PM  
Weed is the devil. Leads to gay marriage, then socialism.
 
2012-11-04 01:13:53 PM  
what is this? reddit?
 
2012-11-04 01:14:37 PM  

smitty04: KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?

The same cities that want to make tobacco completely illegal also want to make marijuana completely legal.


The only real connection between the two is that there is smoke involved. Cigarettes are just a disease that you create for yourself that you have to constantly cure. Weed gets you ripped as cheese! No connection.
 
2012-11-04 01:14:49 PM  

Chameleon: globalwarmingpraiser: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

Grain Alcohol is used to counteract antifreeze. Also people who have issues with blood clots are often told to drink a lot. I once had to transport a patient that had a script for one beer a day. Medicaid paid for it.

Ethanol is also a counteractant (not sure if that's a real word) for methanol poisoning. If I remember correctly, you need to drink about four times as much alcohol as you did methanol to competitively inhibit the methanol. So if you ever catch your teenager chugging the rubbing alcohol, hand 'em a fifth of Jack and get them to the ER.


It also used to be used to stop premature labor, before more effective drugs were introduced.
 
2012-11-04 01:15:05 PM  

bdub77: flucto: Duh.

Done in one.


Are you kidding? It was done in the headline. actually no, it was done in the article.

Any post other than "THIS" is superfluous. So:

FTFHL: "Legalizing marijuana in the US could, in short, deal a blow to Mexico's traffickers of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving "

^^^^
THIS
 
2012-11-04 01:16:05 PM  
Pot has a low value density compared to cocaine and meth. Legalizing pot would just make more room in the smuggling trucks for the cocaine and meth. So the solution is to legalize everything.

I think it was a Freakonmics podcast that covered the rationale behind free heroin for addicts. The problem is that dealers give out samples to get people addicted, then charge them through the nose for a dose. If the addict can go for a free dose of the real stuff it would ruin the business model and dealers would go away and the number of addicts would dwindle.
 
2012-11-04 01:16:22 PM  

thamike: Ugh, who smokes Mexican pot?


No one. Come to the dark side.... we bake cookies :)
 
2012-11-04 01:16:27 PM  

Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways


From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.
 
2012-11-04 01:19:19 PM  

smitty04: Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.


It's the thought that counts.
 
2012-11-04 01:20:08 PM  

HeartBurnKid: KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?

I think any pothead would kill for marijuana to have the same restrictions as cigarettes.

/I can't smoke in the office and choke my coworkers with the noxious fumes! Truly, this is the worst government oppression anybody has ever had to face!


This...as a pothead I'd gladly have to hide out behind the bar with a small gathering of friends while we pass around a small....waitaminute.

/Don't bogart.
 
2012-11-04 01:20:36 PM  

wildcardjack: Pot has a low value density compared to cocaine and meth.


Pot butter goes for a K an ounce. Smoked through an e-cigarette it has more cachet than either coke or meth right now.

Or so I heard.

*blink*
 
2012-11-04 01:21:29 PM  

Infernalist: There is too much money being made on both sides of the issue for drugs to ever be legalized.


I don't think the current model is fiscally sustainable. Much like tobacco, so long as there's a risk and it's acknowledged (such as big tobacco paying into a fund for health care), regulating and taxing would MAKE the state money, not cost the state like the criminal justice system does.

It's only a matter of time...
 
2012-11-04 01:21:47 PM  
This article seemed really relevant to this conversation:

http://www.alternet.org/story/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_legalized _ all_drugs_--_what_happened_next
 
2012-11-04 01:21:52 PM  

smitty04: Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.


Not arguing motor skills.

If saftey is the reason pots illegal lets have an honest discussion

Coffee spills kill more people than cell phones
Are we going to outlaw coffee
 
2012-11-04 01:22:09 PM  

wildcardjack: Pot has a low value density compared to cocaine and meth. Legalizing pot would just make more room in the smuggling trucks for the cocaine and meth. So the solution is to legalize everything.


I think if you took the resources being used to attack pot users and applied them to real drugs you would see a drastic difference in what comes in. The fact that real addicts can now manufacture their own drugs (meth) makes the heavy products even less relevant. Legalizing pot would in effect do away with the Mexican drug cartels but it won't happen because there is just too much money to be made in "the war on drugs." Despite the often proven negative effect it has on American citizens you can't compare that with the money being made in this Reagan manufactured industry. As a result it will not go away because of lobbyists and various scare tactics used by those politicians elected because of the lobbyists. Never going to happen.. Ever.
 
2012-11-04 01:22:41 PM  
Yeah, but you GOP types have your death grip on America, so it will never happpen.

Fark you guys.
 
2012-11-04 01:24:36 PM  
Never gonna happen. Too many legislators would lose too many cash "campaign contributions." Follow the money, my friends, follow the mone4y.
 
2012-11-04 01:25:26 PM  
I was talking about this law to my friends, who happen to be massive potheads. I told them rather smugly that I, someone who has never used it, voted in favor of legalizing it. They told me that was bad, all of their drug growing friends will be worse off then instead of now. Apparently they seem to believe that growers of marijuana will face 10-20 years in prison for growing pot insteadof whatever 1-5 years you get now, so this new law is bad, bad, BAD!!!

I still maintain that they dont need to use it, only to get told what a necessity it is. And not addicting.
 
2012-11-04 01:25:58 PM  

Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways


The fact that you're a shut-in that never interacts with other people while stoned doesn't mean it never happens. I've been in as many fights after a bowl or two as I've been in after a six-pack or two, i.e. several, none of them intending genuine harm.

Drugs don't make you do anything you wouldn't normally do ever, they just remove some of your awareness of the social priorities that keep you from doing certain things sober, and make you do what you'd normally do but less competently.

OK, maybe 'shrooms make you do things you wouldn't normally. But not your basic intoxicants. Intoxicants just make you scrap harder when you're out looking for a scrap, and chill harder when you're hanging out with friends playing a video game or watching football. Which is, y'know, why people take them. If alcohol turned you in to a damned werewolf when you intended to just hang out and chat with your friends, no one would drink it, and if marijuana randomly caused you to stop liking exercise when your favorite hobby is running marathons, then no one would smoke it.

//People that refuse to accept that they're ultimately responsible for their own actions annoy me. There are people that legitimately don't control themselves. We lock them in padded rooms, usually in straightjackets. Everyone else doesn't get the "it wasn't me, baby, it was the beer" excuse, that shiat is weaksauce.
 
2012-11-04 01:26:13 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Destroying cartels is the absolute LAST thing the DEA wants.


Here's your answer, folks. Move along.
 
2012-11-04 01:26:34 PM  
Also, did anyone else reckon that the author could really use a thesaurus?
 
2012-11-04 01:28:12 PM  

xanadian: Bye-bye lawyers and DA's and so on.


This, really, is the sticking point. Considering lawyers make up a large part of the legislative branch, they're not going to enact a law that would cut down their numbers...
 
2012-11-04 01:28:18 PM  

Toots de la Footsjelly: I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


Before he died in the late-90s, we put my grandfather in a home, and his doctor wrote him a prescription for a pint of vodka a week. It was kind of fun when I would go and pick up his prescriptions for him from the local Walgreens and see a little bottle of Smirnoff with the dosage label on it.
 
2012-11-04 01:31:05 PM  
Then let's farkin' DO IT !!, DUMBASSES !!
 
2012-11-04 01:32:02 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Endive Wombat: I do wonder what the final push will be to finally get marijuana legalized.

DEA reclassifying it as a Schedule II drug. That's it, pretty much.

It should be classified the same as nicotine and alcohol, but that won't happen in my lifetime.


I've been assured that if Obama wins reelection, the entire fabric of our society will collapse into debauchery and sin. So we could totally be seeing legalization by next year.

Totally.
 
2012-11-04 01:32:28 PM  

Karne: smitty04: KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?

The same cities that want to make tobacco completely illegal also want to make marijuana completely legal.

The only real connection between the two is that there is smoke involved. Cigarettes are just a disease that you create for yourself that you have to constantly cure. Weed gets you ripped as cheese! No connection.


Um... given that carbon particulates are bad for you and smoke can travel and be inhaled by people that want no part in it, that's... pretty much the most relevant connection from a public welfare perspective, man.

Conclusion: grab a steamer, use it for your tobacco, too, and the rest of us are fine with whatever you wanna do.

//I actually don't care either way, but I can acknowledge that the logic of comparing the two is sound.
 
2012-11-04 01:33:33 PM  

smitty04: Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.


But they would only have traveled about three feet into the intersection...

The only slower drivers than potheads are old Asian women.

/legalize it
 
2012-11-04 01:33:39 PM  

angrymacface: xanadian: Bye-bye lawyers and DA's and so on.

This, really, is the sticking point. Considering lawyers make up a large part of the legislative branch, they're not going to enact a law that would cut down their numbers...


I think that there will still be actual violent crimes going on in order to keep the majority of them in business.
 
2012-11-04 01:37:12 PM  

Emposter: NewportBarGuy: Endive Wombat: I do wonder what the final push will be to finally get marijuana legalized.

DEA reclassifying it as a Schedule II drug. That's it, pretty much.

It should be classified the same as nicotine and alcohol, but that won't happen in my lifetime.

I've been assured that if Obama wins reelection, the entire fabric of our society will collapse into debauchery and sin. So we could totally be seeing legalization by next year.

Totally.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-04 01:37:47 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Karne: smitty04: KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?

The same cities that want to make tobacco completely illegal also want to make marijuana completely legal.

The only real connection between the two is that there is smoke involved. Cigarettes are just a disease that you create for yourself that you have to constantly cure. Weed gets you ripped as cheese! No connection.

Um... given that carbon particulates are bad for you and smoke can travel and be inhaled by people that want no part in it, that's... pretty much the most relevant connection from a public welfare perspective, man.

Conclusion: grab a steamer, use it for your tobacco, too, and the rest of us are fine with whatever you wanna do.

//I actually don't care either way, but I can acknowledge that the logic of comparing the two is sound.


Nobody is saying weed should be able to be publicly smoked, where it will go into baby and grandmas mouths. Amsterdam does fine with letting you smoke in designated areas.
Really doesn't matter to me much, I smoke as much as I want already (and I'm not a dick about where I do it).
 
2012-11-04 01:43:46 PM  

slayer199: Over 50% of the 2 million people that are in prison are there for drug-related offenses.


That's simply not true. According to Drug War Facts, of the 1,556,441 persons in Federal and State prisons in recent years, less than 22% are in for drug offenses of ANY kind.
 
2012-11-04 01:47:08 PM  
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, there were a total of 1.5 million drug arrests made nationwide in 2011, and out of those arrests, about 750,000 were for marijuana (just under half, 49.5 percent) -- that's one marijuana arrest every 42 seconds and one drug arrest every 21 seconds in the U.S.

Link

Link
 
2012-11-04 01:48:13 PM  
Anyone happen to notice in TFA where they claimed it cost almost 900 bucks to grow a kilo? I think that math might be a TEENSY bit off.

As far as jobs are concerned, you bet your ass if they legalized across the board there would be a massive spike in unemployment. For starters, all those folks stepping off the streets for a Graybar Vacation are "unemployed". They just aren't counted as such. So where, exactly, are the jobs for a couple of million people that are now in jail?

And if you aren't jailing them, I guess you can partially dismantle the prison system, and it's ancillary support industries. Ditto with the Legal system. There's a bunch of jobs down the tubes.

So add the disappearing jobs, to the influx of what would be a significant proportion of citizens that would otherwise be incarcerated, and yeah, you get a jump in the unemployment rate.
 
2012-11-04 01:48:48 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


ZERO
there would be increased job in sales, marketing and production.
increased jobs in treatment, education and enforcement (you dont think it will be legal to sell to kids do you?)
technically, 100% of the man power could be transferred to closing open rape cases and property crimes.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
like that would ever happen
 
2012-11-04 01:50:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, there were a total of 1.5 million drug arrests made nationwide in 2011, and out of those arrests, about 750,000 were for marijuana (just under half, 49.5 percent) -- that's one marijuana arrest every 42 seconds and one drug arrest every 21 seconds in the U.S.

Link

Link


and this has totally destroyed the drug trade right? prices have gone through the ROOF, people everywhere have stopped using or selling drugs.

no wait, nothing has happened except that we are punishing people for a committing a consensual crime. No one was hurt. Except the innocent citizen having fun.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo fun is EVIL!!!!
 
2012-11-04 01:52:33 PM  

PJMurphy: Anyone happen to notice in TFA where they claimed it cost almost 900 bucks to grow a kilo? I think that math might be a TEENSY bit off.

As far as jobs are concerned, you bet your ass if they legalized across the board there would be a massive spike in unemployment. For starters, all those folks stepping off the streets for a Graybar Vacation are "unemployed". They just aren't counted as such. So where, exactly, are the jobs for a couple of million people that are now in jail?

And if you aren't jailing them, I guess you can partially dismantle the prison system, and it's ancillary support industries. Ditto with the Legal system. There's a bunch of jobs down the tubes.

So add the disappearing jobs, to the influx of what would be a significant proportion of citizens that would otherwise be incarcerated, and yeah, you get a jump in the unemployment rate.


Freeing the slaves also created a huge spike in unemployed persons, and banning their trade put said traders out of work. That didn't obviate the moral aspect.
 
2012-11-04 01:52:46 PM  

Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


Had a patient that drank antifreeze once, he was given alcohol through an IV..
 
2012-11-04 01:54:04 PM  
www.meh.ro

/hawt
 
2012-11-04 01:55:59 PM  

Karne: Another factor in the argument that having weed legal will make people want to start smoking:

The fine now in California is $99 for under an ounce. I just got a speeding ticket for $300. That means weed is 1/3 less of a criminal act than going too fast in a car. Decriminalized, and still the world has not ended...uh oh.


It's the same here in Massachusetts. The only problem decriminalized weed has brought here is straight people wanting to get gay married.
 
2012-11-04 01:57:09 PM  

AkaDad: Karne: Another factor in the argument that having weed legal will make people want to start smoking:

The fine now in California is $99 for under an ounce. I just got a speeding ticket for $300. That means weed is 1/3 less of a criminal act than going too fast in a car. Decriminalized, and still the world has not ended...uh oh.

It's the same here in Massachusetts. The only problem decriminalized weed has brought here is straight people wanting to get gay married.


They probably already wanted it, but after smoking some they were even happier about it.
 
2012-11-04 01:59:51 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: slayer199: Over 50% of the 2 million people that are in prison are there for drug-related offenses.

That's simply not true. According to Drug War Facts, of the 1,556,441 persons in Federal and State prisons in recent years, less than 22% are in for drug offenses of ANY kind.


So you have a fifth that are inside for drugs directly. Possession of an object or ENGAGING IN CAPITALISM. How many of the other things were ancillary to drug trade, like violence or weapons and whatnot?

The misapplication of governance... Either an obscure band name or a poli-sci term paper.
 
2012-11-04 02:01:17 PM  

Karne: AkaDad: Karne: Another factor in the argument that having weed legal will make people want to start smoking:

The fine now in California is $99 for under an ounce. I just got a speeding ticket for $300. That means weed is 1/3 less of a criminal act than going too fast in a car. Decriminalized, and still the world has not ended...uh oh.

It's the same here in Massachusetts. The only problem decriminalized weed has brought here is straight people wanting to get gay married.

They probably already wanted it, but after smoking some they were even happier about it.


And the wedding cake tastes so much better.
 
2012-11-04 02:02:13 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-04 02:03:18 PM  
Not sure if anyone has posted links or not (I'm too high and lazy to read all the posts), but the ASA is having its day in court. Arguments for rescheduling pot are being heard as we speak, for the first time in decades:

Link

I am a medical marijuana patient in California (I have Ulcerative Colitis, which is like Crohn's Disease), and have seen lots of legitimate dispensaries get raided by the DEA. The worst part is the dispensary owners and sometimes the patients who were onsite at the time of the raid got thrown in jail. They were unable to use state law as a defense in court, which I thought was pretty shiatty. Fortunately, this recent ruling may change that:

Link
 
2012-11-04 02:04:56 PM  
Look everyone, the no-hope-dope-scum have come out to play.
 
2012-11-04 02:06:14 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

Grain Alcohol is used to counteract antifreeze. Also people who have issues with blood clots are often told to drink a lot. I once had to transport a patient that had a script for one beer a day. Medicaid paid for it.


Also, docs can prescribe one glass of say, red wine per evening for patients in nursing homes.
 
2012-11-04 02:10:36 PM  
Oh this changes everything. I didn't care what happened to my own country due to prohibition but I certainly care how it affects Mexico.
 
2012-11-04 02:13:27 PM  

dirtyeffinhippie: Not sure if anyone has posted links or not (I'm too high and lazy to read all the posts), but the ASA is having its day in court. Arguments for rescheduling pot are being heard as we speak, for the first time in decades:

Link

I am a medical marijuana patient in California (I have Ulcerative Colitis, which is like Crohn's Disease), and have seen lots of legitimate dispensaries get raided by the DEA. The worst part is the dispensary owners and sometimes the patients who were onsite at the time of the raid got thrown in jail. They were unable to use state law as a defense in court, which I thought was pretty shiatty. Fortunately, this recent ruling may change that:

Link


That's unpossible. I've been told right here on Fark that the only dispensaries that have ever been closed by the DEA were those operating outside the law, that the municipality begged the federal government to get rid of, and that only served 18 year olds with fake backaches.
 
2012-11-04 02:13:44 PM  

KrispyKritter: USA legal reefer? is this the same USA where you can't smoke a frickin' cigarette in most places?


You make a good point, the paternalists on both sides of the aisle (the Repubs want it illegal because JAAAAAYYYSUSSSS, that's why; and many Democrats want it illegal becuase it's not good for you. And think of The ChildrenTM.) will fight to keep marijuana illegal for as long as they can
 
2012-11-04 02:14:41 PM  

smitty04: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 159x200]
Do many of you remember the free cigarette sample packs the tobacco companies use to give away? Tobacco reps (usually great looking woman) would be at festivals and events passing out those small sample packs of cigarettes. I think they contained four cigarettes but I may be mistaken on that number.

The machine that packed those were really designed to pack marijuana cigarettes.


Yeah, I remember

www.essenceentertainment.com
This was way before I was old enough to even experiment with smoking, but I do remember seeing them once or twice.
 
2012-11-04 02:15:44 PM  
...and they had candy cigarettes for the kids!
 
2012-11-04 02:19:14 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Toots de la Footsjelly: I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

Before he died in the late-90s, we put my grandfather in a home, and his doctor wrote him a prescription for a pint of vodka a week. It was kind of fun when I would go and pick up his prescriptions for him from the local Walgreens and see a little bottle of Smirnoff with the dosage label on it.


Given your user name, all the more amusing ...
 
2012-11-04 02:38:10 PM  
The problem I see is this idea is being sold to the wrong political party.
Liberal democrats have become authoritarian boot lickers, convinced that bans on things work because their college professor said so.
Conservative republicans want money more than they care about morality and are looking for a new industry to generate millions of low skill jobs.

You keep shilling this out to the left and get no traction? Try playing for the right.
You might be surprised.

/at this point, it certainly wouldn't hurt.
/republicans may say yes on the principle that Obama said no.
 
2012-11-04 02:40:56 PM  
I like how those against pot never brag about alcohol prohibiton as the reasoning pot prohibition will work. I also think it is funny the reasoning some use for pot prohibition is that pot makes you lazy and always cite that alcohol consumption makes you the most productive in comparison. What is even funnier is that after what 80 years of pot prohibition nobody against pot can claim they are winning the war against pot. This is the most ludicrous part of pot prohibition our past three presidents all smoked pot and yet those against pot still voted for them willingly.
 
2012-11-04 02:42:40 PM  
We'd have a better chance to decriminalize/legalize if they'd stop letting stoners write the bills.

Oregon's Measure 82 is a legal LOL.
 
2012-11-04 02:44:48 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: We'd have a better chance to decriminalize/legalize if they'd stop letting stoners write the bills.

Oregon's Measure 82 is a legal LOL.


Er, Measure 80, that is.

/Second-hand duh.
 
2012-11-04 03:07:35 PM  
Cigarettes are legal, and smuggling them for tax evasion purposes is a big business. How would pot be any different?
 
2012-11-04 03:09:23 PM  

albuquerquehalsey: Cigarettes are legal, and smuggling them for tax evasion purposes is a big business. How would pot be any different?


That's why decriminalization is the best way to go.
 
2012-11-04 03:12:47 PM  

pmdgrwr: I also think it is funny the reasoning some use for pot prohibition is that pot makes you lazy


I've been smoking weed, almost every day, for 33 years and coincidentally I've been working for 33 years.

I used to unload ship containers by hand. Each container had 1,100 cases and the cases were 40 pounds each which equals 44,000 pounds per container. It used to take me 2 hours to finish.

I lol every time I hear that pot smokers are lazy too.
 
2012-11-04 03:14:19 PM  

albuquerquehalsey: Cigarettes are legal, and smuggling them for tax evasion purposes is a big business. How would pot be any different?


There'd always be some degree of smuggling against taxes, but the more we can get tax revenue from the better.
 
2012-11-04 03:22:57 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: albuquerquehalsey: Cigarettes are legal, and smuggling them for tax evasion purposes is a big business. How would pot be any different?

There'd always be some degree of smuggling against taxes, but the more we can get tax revenue from the better.


I'm also pretty sure whatever the lost tax revenue is, it's a hell of a lot less than law enforcement pisses away every day on TWAD.
 
2012-11-04 03:32:58 PM  
I can't find the article, but there was a great interview in the Portland Mercury or Willamette Week with the guy who wrote the Oregon ballot measure (Measure 80) that would legalize weed. He basically explained how the entire point is to cause a standoff in court with the federal government about their right to regulate something that is protected within a state constitution.

He even admitted it's a long shot, but if it worked out it could lead to marijuana usage nationally coming down to state laws. Unlikely, but possible.
 
2012-11-04 03:38:50 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: slayer199: Over 50% of the 2 million people that are in prison are there for drug-related offenses.

That's simply not true. According to Drug War Facts, of the 1,556,441 persons in Federal and State prisons in recent years, less than 22% are in for drug offenses of ANY kind.


As of 2010:
Federal Prison system - 211k total inmates, 108k for drug-related offenses
State Prisons - 1.4 million total, 280k for drug-related offenses.

Sorry, I should have clarified Federal. That's still nearly 400k people we lock up for drug-related offenses. So the DEA, ATF, and local task forces aside, we're spending $20 billion dollars a year (at $50k that it costs to house each prisoner/year) to incarcerate people for drug-related offenses. That number excludes County Jails.

Not to mention how the "War on Drugs" has allowed the government to erode our civil liberties in order to fight the war.

Don't even get me started on Drug Forfeiture laws.
 
2012-11-04 03:43:58 PM  

Elandriel: Endive Wombat: There would be an immediate rise in people using though, and that has been demonstrated in various European countries over the years.

I wonder if it's more people using, or more people that were already using now saying so because there are no legal repercussions? That would be a tough study,


This is such bullsh*t. There is nothing wrong with smoking pot once in awhile. I know plenty of people that smoke and they are all creative responsible individuals. Drinkers and prescription drug users are another story and I avoid most of them.
I could get a medical card and smoke all day long if I wanted to but I don't because I have no interest in it.
Mr.S. and I both voted to legalize it in WA. Time and money should be spent on serious issues not a goddamn weed.
I can't believe there are still people out there that think it is harmful or bad. Pull your heads out.
 
2012-11-04 03:52:07 PM  
I asked for a puff puff pass a while ago; someone's bogartin'....
 
2012-11-04 04:01:26 PM  

slayer199: StoneColdAtheist: slayer199: Over 50% of the 2 million people that are in prison are there for drug-related offenses.

That's simply not true. According to Drug War Facts, of the 1,556,441 persons in Federal and State prisons in recent years, less than 22% are in for drug offenses of ANY kind.

As of 2010:
Federal Prison system - 211k total inmates, 108k for drug-related offenses
State Prisons - 1.4 million total, 280k for drug-related offenses.

Sorry, I should have clarified Federal. That's still nearly 400k people we lock up for drug-related offenses. So the DEA, ATF, and local task forces aside, we're spending $20 billion dollars a year (at $50k that it costs to house each prisoner/year) to incarcerate people for drug-related offenses. That number excludes County Jails.

Not to mention how the "War on Drugs" has allowed the government to erode our civil liberties in order to fight the war.

Don't even get me started on Drug Forfeiture laws.


See also - Prison Labor just a few threads up.
 
2012-11-04 04:30:37 PM  

smitty04: Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.


What's your argument here? That somehow legalizing weed would make it legal to drive stoned??? What's next? "If we legalize weed, CHILDREN WILL BE ABLE TO FREELY SMOKE IT!!"
 
2012-11-04 04:31:17 PM  

albuquerquehalsey: Cigarettes are legal, and smuggling them for tax evasion purposes is a big business. How would pot be any different?


How many smokers get their cigarettes on the black market? How many people continued to drink bathtub gin after prohibition was repealed?

Sure, there are black market smokes and moonshine, but the consumption of tobacco and alcohol is overwhelmingly above-board and taxed. How would pot be any different?
 
2012-11-04 04:36:20 PM  

smitty04: Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.


I can only conclude that you haven't seen much of pot smokers. People who smoke pot regularly show little if any difference in reaction times. Sure, being high can be a distraction, much like eating or playing around with the radio, but it is in no way comparable to alcohol or other drugs. People who haven't smoked pot very often, however, are dangerous as hell behind the wheel.
 
2012-11-04 04:44:50 PM  

dirtyeffinhippie: Not sure if anyone has posted links or not (I'm too high and lazy to read all the posts), but the ASA is having its day in court. Arguments for rescheduling pot are being heard as we speak, for the first time in decades:

Link



Finally, a plaintiff with standing (veteran on MM denied access to VA services specifically due to MM's Schedule I status). Sorry, DEA; it's in the judiciary's hands now.

/not sorry at all
 
2012-11-04 04:55:34 PM  

angrymacface: xanadian: Bye-bye lawyers and DA's and so on.

This, really, is the sticking point. Considering lawyers make up a large part of the legislative branch, they're not going to enact a law that would cut down their numbers...


How many former criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors are in the legislature? I'm guessing a pretty low percentage.
 
2012-11-04 04:56:25 PM  

ZAZ: Bob gets a 10% commission on the $200,000 forfeiture.


oddculture.com

/hot
smiling bob whistles all the way to jail
 
2012-11-04 05:11:03 PM  
Don't they have lobbyists in Washington? Oh right, the private prison system does that for them.
 
2012-11-04 05:20:44 PM  

slayer199: StoneColdAtheist: slayer199: Over 50% of the 2 million people that are in prison are there for drug-related offenses.

That's simply not true. According to Drug War Facts, of the 1,556,441 persons in Federal and State prisons in recent years, less than 22% are in for drug offenses of ANY kind.

As of 2010:
Federal Prison system - 211k total inmates, 108k for drug-related offenses
State Prisons - 1.4 million total, 280k for drug-related offenses.

Sorry, I should have clarified Federal. That's still nearly 400k people we lock up for drug-related offenses. So the DEA, ATF, and local task forces aside, we're spending $20 billion dollars a year (at $50k that it costs to house each prisoner/year) to incarcerate people for drug-related offenses. That number excludes County Jails.

Not to mention how the "War on Drugs" has allowed the government to erode our civil liberties in order to fight the war.

Don't even get me started on Drug Forfeiture laws.


Okay, I agree with you on the politics of drug laws, but if you meant Federal prisoners, you shouldn't have said 2 million prisoners. If you meant 2 million prisoners, you shouldn't have claimed half were in for drugs. Accuracy is a key to reasoned discussion of drugs laws.
 
2012-11-04 05:23:10 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


Shhhhh, they don't want to talk about that. Legalizing drugs only has positive scenarios
 
2012-11-04 05:32:49 PM  

flucto: Duh.

 
2012-11-04 05:56:34 PM  

Bontesla: I'm okay with an increase in usage. In fact - we shouldn't be jailing people for offenses related to drug addiction and drug use. I'm actually in favor of legalizing all drug use and turning the saved money into free and accessible rehab centers for dependent people.

/that's just assuming you're correct in claiming prohibition is an effective deterrant
//which there are many studies that say prohibition contributes to usage and not deters from usage


Meh, even the studies that claim prohibition instigates usage only believe it causes usage at some point in their lives, sudden legalization would take all the people who have smoked once, or smoke once a year when they go to Jamaica, or things like that and have them smoking the same way people who drink go to bars. Maybe less users if you count their entire lifetime, but definitely more users based on "who's smoking right now" because, well, it suddenly becomes so much easier.
 
2012-11-04 06:04:00 PM  

Hoban Washburne: Vodka Zombie: Destroying cartels is the absolute LAST thing the DEA wants.

Here's your answer, folks. Move along.


Hm, there is a question.

I cannot get into the headspace of believing that ANYONE greedy/corrupt enough to WANT to keep the cartels and the drug war going would be willing to stick around long enough to climb the ranks of the DEA. I instead believe anyone involved is either a True Believer in authoritarian methods and outlawing marijuana "Because it's bad," or dumb enough to be manipulated by the lobbyists of the private prison industry.

Essentially I believe the DEA is stupid instead of evil. So the question that raises is: that better or worse?
 
2012-11-04 06:07:43 PM  

dr_blasto: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses

If we took away the employers' right to control what we imbibe in on our own private time, this too would go away. It's just as silly as cannabis prohibition.

Medical marijuana still gets people fired for popping on a test; it would be nice if it were rescheduled and covered under ADA. Until there's a need to determine actual MJ intoxication, simply establishing that a user smoked recently wrecks most of these legalization routes as employers and the government are content with the current testing schemes.

In CO, their "regulate marijuana like alcohol" amendment has problems with OUI limits, primarily if (pretending the amendment passed) one legally got high on a Saturday night, then was pulled over on the way to work Monday morning they could be busted for OUI as their THC metabolite level could be high enough to exceed the limit even though they are no longer under the effects of the drug.


I heard about this. Apparently no one's been able to get DEA approval to study the THC levels that correspond to impairment.
 
2012-11-04 06:15:59 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: As much as I agree with the merits of marijuana legalization...



If we legalize, who is going to supply the demand?


I don't know, all those nurseries outside Boulder that mysteriously took down their signs and put up security lights after medical marijuana was passed could help. Not to mention all the individuals buying from the dozens of growing supply stores in the county.

\Unlike what I've heard about CA, when we did medical marijuana, we provided for growing, too. All the commercial growers have to get local permits, but obviously that hasn't been a problem everywhere.
 
2012-11-04 06:20:13 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Lionel Mandrake: Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.

It was actually quite common at one time. During prohibition.


Just a historical tidbit, from when Churchill was being treated after an auto accident in NYC.


8 ounces of hard liquor? Nice minimum.
 
2012-11-04 06:23:29 PM  

Toots de la Footsjelly: Conversely a lot of money is used to combat the evil weed that could be used to fight these real demons. Maybe reverse the curse and make alcohol illegal and pot legal. I'd much rather meet a stoned driver than a drunk one on the road or anywhere for that matter. I've never heard of a Dr. prescribing alcohol for anything.


My husband was once told he should drink a beer a day to control a benign essential tremor. Seems to work. Lactating women also still get told to drink a Guinness.
 
2012-11-04 06:39:17 PM  
Nov 2nd 2012, 21:20 by T.W. | MEXICO CITY

this story should SOOO have been filed 5 hrs earlier
 
2012-11-04 06:57:52 PM  

TheBigJerk: Hoban Washburne: Vodka Zombie: Destroying cartels is the absolute LAST thing the DEA wants.

Here's your answer, folks. Move along.

Hm, there is a question.

I cannot get into the headspace of believing that ANYONE greedy/corrupt enough to WANT to keep the cartels and the drug war going would be willing to stick around long enough to climb the ranks of the DEA. I instead believe anyone involved is either a True Believer in authoritarian methods and outlawing marijuana "Because it's bad," or dumb enough to be manipulated by the lobbyists of the private prison industry.

Essentially I believe the DEA is stupid instead of evil. So the question that raises is: that better or worse?


I'll go with stupid, too. With a heaping helping of bureaucratic inertia to help things along.
 
2012-11-04 07:21:51 PM  
Legalizing marijuana in the US could, in short, lead to increased cocaine, methamphetamine, and other hard drug trafficking.

Supply and demand. Demand drops for Mexican weed, they start pushing different things for the love of money and the fact their supply lines opened up as marijuana trafficking declines.

mlkshk.com
 
2012-11-04 07:22:51 PM  

slayer199: I think there are a couple things that need to be established. First, when it comes to marijuana is what are the levels of intoxication. Pot stays in your system for quite a long time even after the high wears off. Second, how can you test quickly and unobtrusively (i.e. not blood or hair samples) for actually being high and not having residual THC in your system.


How about by using a coordination and responsiveness test that doesn't rely on an arbitrary number that has different meaning for different people? If a person can pass a test showing satisfactory reflexes and responses to questions then they are not high.
 
2012-11-04 07:59:55 PM  

StrangeQ: slayer199: I think there are a couple things that need to be established. First, when it comes to marijuana is what are the levels of intoxication. Pot stays in your system for quite a long time even after the high wears off. Second, how can you test quickly and unobtrusively (i.e. not blood or hair samples) for actually being high and not having residual THC in your system.

How about by using a coordination and responsiveness test that doesn't rely on an arbitrary number that has different meaning for different people? If a person can pass a test showing satisfactory reflexes and responses to questions then they are not high.


California law enforcement and courts use the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), which evaluate of the subject's appearance and condition, ability to follow instructions, as well as balance and coordination. AFAIK there is no "residual THC" test or anything like that used here.
 
kab
2012-11-04 08:37:17 PM  
Guess they must of pulled this from the "well, no shiat" or "prohibition taught us nothing" files.
 
kab
2012-11-04 08:41:19 PM  

Elandriel: I wonder if it's more people using, or more people that were already using now saying so because there are no legal repercussions? That would be a tough study,


I'm wondering how many would-be users are actually deterred by the legal status of their drug of choice?
I'll wager it's somewhere in the neighborhood of zero point zero.

We seem to have this national fear that drug legalization will turn our populous into a track mark riddled horde of zombies. (sort of how alcohol legalization turned us all into irresponsible drunks.. or not.). Until you get rid of that mindset, I don't see much ever getting done about things.
 
2012-11-04 09:08:16 PM  
No shiat, Sherlock?
 
2012-11-04 09:44:22 PM  

Endive Wombat: drug related car accidents


You know how i know you've never smoked pot?
 
2012-11-04 09:47:26 PM  
As someone who just voted to legalize pot in Oregon, I'm getting a...a...snack.
 
2012-11-04 10:15:31 PM  

smitty04:

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.


They're still better than the cyclists, at least the stoners stop.
 
2012-11-04 10:34:15 PM  
Endive Wombat I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?

Well, the National Highway Safety Admin. conducted a series of `effect on driving' experiments/studies in the early `90's

Marijuana's effects on driving performance were compared to those of many other drugs. It was concluded that THC's effects after doses up to 300 micrograms per kilogram never exceed alcohol's at BAC's of 0.08 g%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs'. Yet THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence...

Finally, the relation between driving impairment following marijuana smoking and plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH is discussed. It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.


From: (big file): http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25800/25867/DOT-HS-808-078.pdf

In the early `80's I interviewed RN's/MD's who were working in the three ER's in town. When asked about how many individuals that they could recall who'd been examined/treated for conditions attributable to marijuana ALONE, none could give an example. However, I was regaled with plenty of ethanol related horrors. State of Missouri maintains no Stats on how many individuals are diagnosed with a condition attributable to marijuana alone, nor does any law enforcement entity maintain stats on accidents attributable to marijuana alone (certainly makes it easy to inflate nonexistent figures).
 
2012-11-04 11:38:57 PM  
It'd also destroy the Libertarian Party. Maybe a quarter of the membership truly cares about issues other than getting baked.
 
2012-11-04 11:41:37 PM  

RandyRick: As a less-government, more-liberties republican, I will support any law, no matter how expensive or repressive, as long as it stops consenting adults from doing what they want behind closed doors

/conservative logic


funny, those are gat00s exact views while I want every drug on earth legalized.
 
2012-11-04 11:46:04 PM  

cmb53208: smitty04:

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.

They're still better than the cyclists, at least the stoners stop.


www.bionicdisco.com

"Hey, man, how's my drivin?
 
2012-11-05 12:10:16 AM  

Endive Wombat: I am curious - How much would legalization cost in the form of lost jobs (due to work drug policies), unemployment due to said job losses, drug related car accidents (cost to both auto and health care insurance companies)? Has a study like that ever been conducted?


I know I'm late to the party but there have been a number of studies on driving and weed, many of which see no difference between moderately stoned people and drug-free drivers. Most of them show a significantly decreased risk for unsafe driving relative to people who use other drugs or alcohol.

Link

From one of the studies: "The study investigated the circumstances of each accident to assess which drivers were at fault or culpable. Drivers testing positive for marijuana were found to have no greater culpability than drug-free drivers. In every age group, alcohol was the drug most strongly associated with crash culpability. Cocaine users also showed higher crash culpability, especially in the age range of 21-40.

Significantly, marijuana-using drivers aged 41 to 60 were statistically less likely to be at fault for accidents than drug-free drivers. Similar results have been suggested in other studies, perhaps because marijuana-using drivers tend to slow down."
 
2012-11-05 01:12:31 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: StrangeQ: slayer199: I think there are a couple things that need to be established. First, when it comes to marijuana is what are the levels of intoxication. Pot stays in your system for quite a long time even after the high wears off. Second, how can you test quickly and unobtrusively (i.e. not blood or hair samples) for actually being high and not having residual THC in your system.

How about by using a coordination and responsiveness test that doesn't rely on an arbitrary number that has different meaning for different people? If a person can pass a test showing satisfactory reflexes and responses to questions then they are not high.

California law enforcement and courts use the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), which evaluate of the subject's appearance and condition, ability to follow instructions, as well as balance and coordination. AFAIK there is no "residual THC" test or anything like that used here.


Hey now

How dare you use a tool we have had at our disposal for generations to counteract an anti-prohibition talking point?

The judgement calls cops are allowed to make every day, I think them being able to administer a sobriety test is well within even their limited abilities.
 
2012-11-05 02:12:11 AM  

smitty04: Bocasio: When you see a fight break out at a baseball game
How many here think "those guys must be high"

Pot makes you lazy, dumb and fat

Booze does a lot worse, to people, to families, and on the highways

From what I have seen of pot smokers, they would hit the brakes 5 seconds after going through a red light.


A study that was linked on fark a while back showed stoners are better than drunks at driving (though still worse than anyone NOT intoxicated) because weed makes you cautious (to outright paranoid) while alcohol makes you confident despite being chemically incompetent.
 
2012-11-05 03:36:09 AM  
What frustrates me is attempting to eliminate the drug problem makes things worse.
 
2012-11-05 12:27:59 PM  

MurphyMurphy: StoneColdAtheist: California law enforcement and courts use the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), which evaluate of the subject's appearance and condition, ability to follow instructions, as well as balance and coordination. AFAIK there is no "residual THC" test or anything like that used here.

Hey now

How dare you use a tool we have had at our disposal for generations to counteract an anti-prohibition talking point?

The judgement calls cops are allowed to make every day, I think them being able to administer a sobriety test is well within even their limited abilities.


Yup, odd as it may seem, merely being 'under the influence' of pot is not grounds in Cali for a DUI. The subject has to exhibit specific physical traits. It all came about in a moment of LEO and judicial clarity several years ago when a medical mj user was pulled over by CHP for an unrelated offense. The cop saw the open baggie of pot in the car and asked the driver if he'd been smoking, to which the driver replied yes. That led to confiscating the pot and administering a FST, which the driver passed without issue. CHP still pressed DUI charges, all of which ended up in the California Supreme Court.

The CSC ruled that state law protected the guy's possession and use of the pot (since he had a valid mmj card), which the CHP had no authority to usurp. So long as the subject passed the FST the mere use of pot was no more a cause for arrest and seizure than was a driver who was below .08 BAC and who passed the FST. No harm: no foul.

The CSC also forced the CHP to return the guy's pot. :)

/ya rly!
 
Displayed 187 of 187 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report