How many of you dissenters are aware that some strains are equal to Superman's Viagra?
And I'm dead cold serious. Big Pharma only wishes they could produce the equivalent.
Still want to ban it?? Best check with the wife first, she may want access for Cousin Jody.
Jody the pothead, aka the Big Sex Machine, LOL.
That is perhaps another medical use for those that need that to perform and great I guess if used in ones home but pray tell me how that has one iota of influence concerning the lack of a test for DUI and driving under the influence of THC?Originally Posted by TampaJim
Typical liberal tactic of trying to deflect the conversation away from the issue at hand when the facts do not support the liberal viewpoint.
Ehhh. Jim’s just lightening up a conversation. We’re not solving anything here.
His comments do speak to the real goal, though; that is diminishing the social stigmas associated with smoking pot. He/they don’t really care about legality, because it’s already widely available, and there is really no risk of arrest when using it as they have described.
Last I knew firearms didn't alter your train of thought.
So road head should be illegal also. It's a driving distraction
Amazing how many here think weed will make you drive stoned.
People do what people do, some are dumber than others, period.
I don't drink and drive, I don't smoke and drive. It's not proper.
For the 100,000X on BBC alone, it's important to allow freedom.
As much as possible, this is the United States of America folks.
The goal is to permit people the freedom to choose. End of story.
Unless they violate the rights of another, it's all good. Go at it.
I don't think you can remove it. You just have to edit it.
So, you're a toker? That explains a lot.
Good post, Jim.I agree wholeheartedly.
However, it's also important to allow states, cities, counties, communities, parishes, etc., that same freedom. And that freedom includes the ability to make marijuana illegal, and attempt to keep it out of plain sight in their community.
TJ the Hooker-
Cousin Jody That certainly is an odd name for a Hispanic jazz musician, You know what that means? Let Me think of a dirty word to use... Got it..
"Egad"
God Bless you for supporting the 2nd amendment and the rest of the Constitution!
Again trying to use the smoke and mirrors to deflect the conversation into a totally different direction!
Now you go to trying to make it about constitutional freedoms and the right to choose.
The conversation was about having a test available that could determine a specific level of THC in a persons system with a predetermined level of what would constitute whether the operator of the vehicle was considered over a legal limit and be considered to be DUI.
Currently such test is not available and as a result many feel that legalizing marijuana and not having a means to make such a determination is irresponsible and increases the danger on our public roads as a result.
Therefor currently passing recreational use laws is irresponsible.
It is not about taking away your constitutional right to choose whether to partake and be a stoner only wanting laws and established methods and levels to send your stoned ass to jail when you choose to drive stoned and kill or hurt someone driving impaired on THC BEFORE those laws are passed..
Stoners are not the only ones with rights in this country, the general population expects that the drivers on our public roads not be impaired and under the influence of any drugs or chemicals actually.
Didn't deflect at all, see Post #62 ... the one you never did answer.
What testing is available for Rx drugs?? What are the legal limits?
There's a HELL of a lot more of it running around than weed.
And most are a considerably greater impairment to driving safely.
Again, you ARE NOT going to reduce marijuana use, even driving.
What you WILL accomplish, legal/safe access for responsible adults.
With no/low taxes, you will greatly reduce crime surrounding it.
And you'll improve the lives of many suffering from health issues.
Does it bother you that RESPONSIBLE adults have proper access??
Or do you think it's acceptable to punish the many due to the few?
Trying to wrap my head around your version of freedom in the US.
What really scares me for the sake of my family's safety and cop's in inability to do their job, is that this generation of pot smokers are buying vape cartridges of hash oil and you can't even smell the odor when it is being smoked around you.
The problem i see is that the Jeanie is out of the bottle on this matter and u can't put it back in the bottle. Major corporations now building factories to manufacture and distribute. Some will say it brings jobs but the long term issues of another drug that is mind altering that adds to legal alcohol is only going to kill people on the road and make it more difficult to raise kids right if u ask me.
And pot smoking ( not all of course! ) can escalate to try cocain and heroin. As 10 heroin addicts if they tried pot before trying heroin and 10 will say yes. A pot smoker likes to be buzzed.. and they will escalate to other methods of being buzzed if they are not taking marijuana for medical reasons.
Your answer to post post #62 was given in post #65.
Your definition of RESPONSIBLE adults and my definition differ apparently.
Responsible adults would agree that laws that that helped prevent or punished those that did operate a motor vehicle while being impaired should be in place prior to turning the general public loose to get stoned and smoke dope with the blessing of the powers of government not something to come later or possibly never.
Even you bring up the mistakes that have been made concerning people operating motor vehicles under the influence of other prescription drugs with no way to determine legally whether such person is actually DUI.
A smart RESPONSIBLE adult learns from the mistakes made in the past and strives to not repeat those same mistakes.
An irresponsible adult would want recreational access laws passed prior to systems being in place to deal with those that abused or placed the general public at risk with no clear cut way to determine the level of abuse or risk their actions could pose.
Again how many times do you have to be reminded or have it pointed out that a person that has health issues DOES NOT need recreational laws passed to legally access marijuana or THC. There are totally separate medical marijuana laws that address those with health issues and allow access.
You just like to include that trying to add dramatic effect and public support by trying include issues that garner support for the suffering that do not have anything to do with what you are trying to promote.
My version of freedom is a person has the freedom of choice when their choices do not affect someone else. I have no problem with a person getting falling down drunk or so stoned he cannot move in his own home at his own expense as long as that is where he remains until he is no longer under the effects of whatever he decides to pollute his mind and body with.
I do have a problem when I have to deal with the effects of such actions as that affects my freedoms of choice to not have to deal with it or be endangered by it.
Is that clear enough for you to wrap your mind around?
Last edited by v_fourmax; 10-20-2018 at 08:00 AM.
is there a mental illness test? I know a few bi polar and very depressed people who drive daily.
And they purchase firearms, vote and have children. All are more damaging to society for sure.
Maybe we should round them up BEFORE they commit a crime, kind a pre-crime arrest and punishment.
Those who have considered shoplifting, or worse, get a choice ... firing squad, guillotine or noose.
Again... Starting today Oct. 20th, 2018 ending Oct. 20th, 2019
What causes more traffic accidents w/fatalities: The driver using a cell phone or the driver whose accident is attributed to Cannabis. (I'll also give You "Possession of") $1,000 sound okay?
Actually one traffic fatality attributed to EITHER ONE is one to many.
Just because one may be responsible for higher numbers does not lessen the fact that the other may be or is also responsible for more limited numbers.
Dead is dead and just because you are willing to accept a certain percentage of loss of life for legalized marijuana use and no prior set and testable limits of impairment does not make it acceptable for all of society.
Without set limitations the risk are higher. How many people now drinking alcohol for instance will not drive if they have had more than two beers because they may get a DUI as the limit is .08 in most states where if it were only officer discretion they may risk driving after drinking 4 or 5?
Set black and white limits keep normally responsible people from risking screwing up many times and in this case may well keep impaired drivers off of the roads.
Would work the same way with thc levels!
So again justifying traffic deaths because something else also causes possibly more traffic deaths is irresponsible childish justifications to allow personal selfishness to override the public's safety concerns.
Reply With Quote