Should Marijuana be legalized?

[PhantoMPhones]

damn double post

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Oh really ? I could swear it went something like this :

No need to be a smartass, re-read your own posts where you first state your opinion on things and you will note that you didn't make any distinction until it was questioned by someone.

Yet again you've failed restate your questions as requested for the sake of getting back on topic, and haven't addressed ANYTHING as I can see it. You merely picked apart my post and responded as if everything was a personal attack, in full rhetoric. You took a 4 paragraph post and turned it into a 30 paragraph post because you are attacking my sentences, rather than dealing with the subject. And now you are on a tangent about seat belt law. You are presenting a question to which you have a point but are trying to bait me into responding otherwise due to the tangential nature of the question.

Unless you want to re-clarify your 'questions' so I can try to address them and you have every intention on supporting your own claims with more than 'nuh-uh', 'im not listening' and 'i think', then I'm out of here as you are wasting time I will never get back. I will NOT reply to you, just as the others have done.

I think we have similar opinions on a lot of things and that this discussion has just gotten out of hand. I will try to address some things, but I will not listen to you insult me anymore. Let's just discuss this like adults please.

1. They have no honest rite for any "sin" taxes. They are unfair taxes because they discriminate, the excessive taxes on tobacco and alcohol are outragous, they have also been on a rapid rise, this rapid rise and the fact that they exist validates my concern, got it? Its my belief that nothing in this country should be subject to any tax outside of the standard sales tax.

Agreed whole heartedly. However, my concern is the legalization of cannabis, not what the government does after that point. Like you, I hate all governments foreign and domestic, probably for the same or similar reasons you do. I would agree that there is a FAR more heinous mechanism at work at this very moment, and that focusing all our effort towards 'legalization' rather than the greater matter at hand is dubious, however that is for another time and place of discussion, which I would absolutely love in fact. However, I don't see anything wrong with doing ANYTHING that puts a dent in or slows progression of the gradual mass manipulation and intentional de-evolution and enslavement, however minute it may be. For myself, it isn't a matter I'm concerned about. It is already effectively (in practice) decriminalized here, and for that matter, nobody really cares (well the odd asshole but hey.) But there's nothing to say that people who cannot for one reason or other concern themselves with the greater matters at hand effectively, can't help in their own way, even if it seems insignificant. And honestly, I don't think they would make much from it as people would grow their own anyways or obtain it elsewhere, as has been discussed previously.

2. The government earning money from drug dealing makes them accessory and by law therefore liable for any harm.

As far as I'm concerned they already do make money from drug and other questionable commodities and therefore to me the point does not need to be debated.

Do I want to do some research to locate the evidence to prove to you children that its a "gateway" drug? nope! Its typically the first drug used by those that would venture down that road. Does that make it a gateway drug ? You choose.

First? Sugar, caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana. I'd say out of those five marijuana is usually the last.

It would now seem like an amazing feat if one of you know it alls addressed how employment drug testing and driving sobriety tests would be handled if weed was legalized.

Exactly as they are now. Nothing would need to change. Whether I'm stoned behind the wheel before legalization or after legalization it makes no difference. Whether its legal or not its still illegal to be under the influence while driving. Testing would stay as it is now, and non-existent on roadside stops as it is now (unless the technology is developed which shouldn't be hard, and would be phased in just like tasers were etc.) As it stands there is no need for the kind of testing you are suggesting. There is no evidence to suggest that this would change just because legalization has occurred, as there is no evidence or model for it to be set against, (actually you could use portugal and the netherlands model, but lets leave that be for simplicity's sake)and why is that? Surely not because people haven't been driving while high. (Studies even show that prescription drugs are far more a hazard than marijuana when it comes to driving, and they don't test for prescription drugs during roadside stops. In fact, a diabetic attack, heart attack and prescription induced state are almost always mistaken for drunk drivers)

As far as employment testing goes, I don't understand what you mean. Some companies do test for drugs as you've said. I do not agree with it at all. If it's legal then the companies would have to just ignore marijuana test results. Just like you may not know if someone is drunk or on coke or whatever in the workplace, you wouldn't necessarily know someone is high on ganja. This is always taken on a case by case basis. Drug testing in companies is done on say a monthly or annual basis, or whatever the case may be and obviously alcohol cannot be tested for using this method. The drug tests detect the metabolite of the drug in the system, not the drug level itself. They do not determine 'highness' they determine 'history of highness'.

We have a education system in this country that if you deal drugs and get caught you are going to jail, that has had a medium level effect as deterant. We have plenty of drug education in this country, for decades now, its effect ? probably middle of the road, that and illegalization has most likely kept Dyrkyn from becomeing a smoker, but he has yet to respond to that question, so I shouldnt assume but am useing it as a valid example regardless the person.

As far as education goes here, its just like the government handles all its other 'education'. It's pretty much tantamount to fear mongering. People are kept completely in the dark when it comes to drugs, and are fed propaganda and told they would go to jail. Not only is this unacceptable, but it doesn't work. For the most part when people come in contact with marijuana and find out its not the baby-killer that it's made out to be, and they've been lied to, and then they are prompted to try other things. To ME, that's the real gateway there. Bottom line, the current education 'approach' is not only a farce, it is a financial disaster setting itself up.

Let me know what you think.

 

[razoredge]

No need to be a smartass, re-read your own posts where you first state your opinion on things and you will note that you didn't make any distinction until it was questioned by someone.

I know I never said weed was physically addictive, I have known better than that for decades. Any reference to addictive drugs would have been to "addictive ******. Which I bring up because "we should have the right to do as we please" and "stop wasting money on the war on ****** brings us to addictive drugs. So you must be confused there.

Yet again you've failed restate your questions as requested for the sake of getting back on topic, and haven't addressed ANYTHING as I can see it.

Dude the previous post to your request had a numbered list... geeze !

You merely picked apart my post and responded as if everything was a personal attack, in full rhetoric. You took a 4 paragraph post and turned it into a 30 paragraph post because you are attacking my sentences, rather than dealing with the subject.

I am breaking down our posts now so I can directly respond to the numberous things you are saying. That last post was drenched with my points of view as well as sarcasm returned for treating me like Im stupid.

And now you are on a tangent about seat belt law. You are presenting a question to which you have a point but are trying to bait me into responding otherwise due to the tangential nature of the question.

Not my tangent, that was Dakryns. Im not baiting, I really want everyone to think about it and come to the correct answer as to why that law came into play. It does have relevence to this subject regarding legalities, liability, money, lobby groups and why the government does some of the things it does, such as this illegal drug issue. It is good food for thought. Just think about why and how the seatbelt law came into effect. It was about alot more than simply saving lives or reducing injury... though that is still the bottom line. Think about who bears the financial burdon of liability in an auto accident. Remember nothing is as simple as a basic principle... in todays world.

Unless you want to re-clarify your 'questions' so I can try to address them and you have every intention on supporting your own claims with more than 'nuh-uh', 'im not listening' and 'i think', then I'm out of here as you are wasting time I will never get back. I will NOT reply to you, just as the others have done.

Its rare that one replys to me even when they are running their mouth through the keyboard, nothing new there.

"I think" all the time, its my character, something people have to deal with.

If "nuh-uh" and "I'm not listening" is what you are getting from my posts... well... I feel badly for those of minimal sight.

I fully support my concerns and any claims I make. No one has yet to show me things work differently than they do.

I cant see why I should have to continue repeating myself post after post and you should still say I need to make you a list. Is half of what I have addressed not made it to your computer screen ?

I think we have similar opinions on a lot of things and that this discussion has just gotten out of hand. I will try to address some things, but I will not listen to you insult me anymore. Let's just discuss this like adults please.

The card of respect is always in the hand of my adversary, I only deal what I recieve. In this topic I was immeadiately attacked by Varis... right out of the clear blue for having my extensive vision of the obstacles regarding legalization. You too came in ready to slay me seemingly because "Im not on your side". Make no mistake

the discussion is out of hand because no one will address the problems I see and want to put it all on me, which tells me they can not come up with the answers, which is fine, I cant either but I would want that stuff addressed first, rather than saying to the country, "OK drugs are legal, go fuck yourselves up. But guess what you will still lose your job by pissing in a cup. You will still have your licence pulled by pissing in a cup. We are putting a 40% sin tax on weed. You will be harassed by the IRS and jailed for tax evasion if we suspect you are selling dope. You will still go to jail if we find you are growing more than one plant. If you buy weed you need to sign this reciept, sheet... ect."

By this I only see one bureaucratic nightmare replaced by another.

Dont laugh at me, I bet you guys might be unaware that when buying kerosene they want people to sigh a sheet that states you are not using it for "highway" use, because they have a hard-on that someone might put it in a diesel truck and drive down the road free of the highway use tax that is appied to diesel.... do you know this ? Do you know they dyed kero just so they can dip the tank of a truck to catch someone not using the "proper fuel"... for tax evasion

Im being honest when I say from what I have seen these assholes do in my life time that I truely believe they will make a total mess out of marajuana if legalized so as its nothing but a PITA and everyone keeps doing it the illegal way anyhow.

Hey, I could be wrong, but wont be surprised if Im right.

Agreed whole heartedly. However, my concern is the legalization of cannabis, not what the government does after that point.

Oppositely, I want to know exactly whats in their heads before hand and how the process is going to work, before I have to watch those asshole throw out another smoke and mirrors catch 22, bureaucratic boondoggle. Any lack of sanity I may have I can directly connect to governmental agencies dancing to the tune of special interests groups.

Like you, I hate all governments foreign and domestic, probably for the same or similar reasons you do. I would agree that there is a FAR more heinous mechanism at work at this very moment, and that focusing all our effort towards 'legalization' rather than the greater matter at hand is dubious, however that is for another time and place of discussion, which I would absolutely love in fact.

Shit, talking politics is far more volatile than this topic.

However, I don't see anything wrong with doing ANYTHING that puts a dent in or slows progression of the gradual mass manipulation and intentional de-evolution and enslavement, however minute it may be.

This is the beauty of smoking dope illegally, one great big "fuck you" to "the man"

For myself, it isn't a matter I'm concerned about. It is already effectively (in practice) decriminalized here, and for that matter, nobody really cares (well the odd asshole but hey.) But there's nothing to say that people who cannot for one reason or other concern themselves with the greater matters at hand effectively, can't help in their own way, even if it seems insignificant. And honestly, I don't think they would make much from it as people would grow their own anyways or obtain it elsewhere, as has been discussed previously.

This sounds like the illegal activity Im saying would take place in a legalized world, am I right ?

Still Varis point about users getting "jailed" for small possesions is a valid concern. However again my bet is that those statistic about "jailed for marajuana" are primarily one night stays in the local lock-up, not "time" federal jails.

Until the current random drug test problem is resolved, that of pissing in a cup, which shows positive on weed for a minimum of 11-14 days and upward to a month for heavy smokers... there will be no gains in the area of employment. THIS IS WHERE I WOULD FOCUS FIRST

As far as I'm concerned they already do make money from drug and other questionable commodities and therefore to me the point does not need to be debated.

Yes, but they are doing it illegally, which gives leverage to shake in their face. If legal they become accessories to drug dealing... I just cant wrap my head around that... sorry

First? Sugar, caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana. I'd say out of those five marijuana is usually the last.

You got me on sugar and tobacco, probably caffeine because its in soda and "power drinks" (lol) right ? I wouldnt argue either way on alcohol but its common for teens to start smoking grass at 14, even heard examples of 11.... gawd, has no one any shame anymore ?

Exactly as they are now. Nothing would need to change. Whether I'm stoned behind the wheel before legalization or after legalization it makes no difference. Whether its legal or not its still illegal to be under the influence while driving. Testing would stay as it is now, and non-existent on roadside stops as it is now (unless the technology is developed which shouldn't be hard, and would be phased in just like tasers were etc.)

Im suggesting that if its legalized they WILL start pressing hard to see if someone is stoned. Dont know why I think that way, perhaps because all the years of usage has made me paranoid... or perhaps because I try to keep my thinking one step ahead of the government so I dont go totally nuts when they pull their latest stunt... I expected it.

I would also say, make no mistake, lobby groups would press harder for this kind of testing if legalized, same as they have been responsible for lowering the acceptable alcohol levels the past 20 years, and introducing "0 tolerance" ideals.

"developed technology" regarding the determination of someones current THC level I am very sceptical about. Due to what I know from the urine tests. Somehow the stuff sticks in the system far longer than anything else. Im not sure if it can accurately be breath tested, seems it could be as its inhaled. I know you can smell someone that just got done smoking but Im not sure if it lasts long on the breath, easily masked by a cigarette... or what. Alcohol is easy and has proven so. If it comes to blood tests, this is a serious personal intrusion as well a pricy.

Irrelevent but BTW, I dont think there is anything wrong with driving stoned, its not imparing to me though stats say otherwise

As it stands there is no need for the kind of testing you are suggesting. There is no evidence to suggest that this would change just because legalization has occurred, as there is no evidence or model for it to be set against, (actually you could use portugal and the netherlands model, but lets leave that be for simplicity's sake)and why is that? Surely not because people haven't been driving while high.

I just coverd this didnt I. I think theres some things there to be concerned about (special interest lobbies)

(Studies even show that prescription drugs are far more a hazard than marijuana when it comes to driving, and they don't test for prescription drugs during roadside stops. In fact, a diabetic attack, heart attack and prescription induced state are almost always mistaken for drunk drivers)

Good point, not to support bureaucracy but it almost seems wrong that they let this go... no ?

As far as employment testing goes, I don't understand what you mean. Some companies do test for drugs as you've said. I do not agree with it at all. If it's legal then the companies would have to just ignore marijuana test results. Just like you may not know if someone is drunk or on coke or whatever in the workplace, you wouldn't necessarily know someone is high on ganja. This is always taken on a case by case basis. Drug testing in companies is done on say a monthly or annual basis, or whatever the case may be and obviously alcohol cannot be tested for using this method. The drug tests detect the metabolite of the drug in the system, not the drug level itself. They do not determine 'highness' they determine 'history of highness'.

Just covered this too but my understanding in regards to your "companies would have to just ignore marijuana test results"... is that its one test and results are simply positive, negative or inconclusive on all drugs. It does not seperate one from the other. Hey if Im wrong and its that simple, I'd be happy, but that is not my understanding. Frankly I just want to see random drug testing go away, its really not the rite of the employer what an employee does off the job, illegal or not. Legal matters belong in the hand of the State, not employers.

As far as education goes here, its just like the government handles all its other 'education'. It's pretty much tantamount to fear mongering. People are kept completely in the dark when it comes to drugs, and are fed propaganda and told they would go to jail. Not only is this unacceptable, but it doesn't work. For the most part when people come in contact with marijuana and find out its not the baby-killer that it's made out to be, and they've been lied to, and then they are prompted to try other things. To ME, that's the real gateway there. Bottom line, the current education 'approach' is not only a farce, it is a financial disaster setting itself up.

Maybe how its handled by the system, I cant say, but I believe the facts and scenerios are out there... especially in todays awareness world that let people know that if the like the wrong thing too much and do it too often, they WILL be fucked... yet, sadly it happens all too frequently.

This is another reason I would hesitate to have my government condone drug use of any kind.

Let me know what you think.

That was a MUCH better conversation............

 

[Satanstoenail]

I'm not getting involved in the quote-a-thon, but was having a read and just wanted to add some info you guys seem to not be aware of; We have random roadside drug testing here in Victoria, have done for years. A world first apparently. They test your saliva by placing an absorbent swab in your mouth. It will show your THC, methamphetamine and MDMA levels. I have no doubt that this procedure would be implemented in any country where cannabis use was legalised/decriminalised.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=4084

 

[razoredge]

I'm not getting involved in the quote-a-thon, but was having a read and just wanted to add some info you guys seem to not be aware of; We have random roadside drug testing here in Victoria, have done for years. A world first apparently. They test your saliva by placing an absorbent swab in your mouth. It will show your THC, methamphetamine and MDMA levels. I have no doubt that this procedure would be implemented in any country where cannabis use was legalised/decriminalised.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=4084

Thanks, thats what I was probing for but apparently nobody knew of anything. So are you saying this thing is accurate and non discriminate as urine tests are ? As in if you smoked 2 hours ago and were now perfectly straight, this test is not going to send you to jail, loose your licience, ect. ?

I'll read your link later, gotta go.

 

[razoredge]

Did read it, scarry, this validates that one concern of mine though it will eventually take place whether weed is legal or not. THis shows how the bureaucracy and such lobbys are getting tighter not looser as many here are hopeing for.

Nothing in there about how long it takes before any given drug it out of your system before it throws you to the dogs.

In this counrty and Canada this kind of testing would screw the trucking industry up big time. Trucking companies push drivers so hard I dont know when those guys even get a chance to sleep, I suspect the percentage of amphetamine usage amounst truck drivers to be suprizingly high.

Funny how our social and financial structure has pushed people for more more more yet wants to spank everyone for the final results of such a thought process.

 

[Satanstoenail]

No, it will only test the levels in your system, it can't test when you last smoked. Apparently THC stays in your system for a couple of days, so it's a pretty flawed test imo. I don't think someone who smoked pot 2 hours ago is "perfectly straight" though either. I've never been tested, so I'm not sure of the exact procedure, but apparently if you test positive to the first test they detain you and test you again at some point, not sure how long they wait though.

Drug bus:

 

[razoredge]

No, it will only test the levels in your system, it can't test when you last smoked. Apparently THC stays in your system for a couple of days, so it's a pretty flawed test imo. I don't think someone who smoked pot 2 hours ago is "perfectly straight" though either. I've never been tested, so I'm not sure of the exact procedure, but apparently if you test positive to the first test they detain you and test you again at some point, not sure how long they wait though.

Drug bus:

Christ , see it doesnt sound good does it ? Stir up trouble and you get trouble.

I dont think after two hours your still messed up, unless someone really hits it hard. This testing is no good, you'd still be hung to the wall, for driving down the road over what you did yesterday..... last night

Dont like it

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Christ , see it doesnt sound good does it ? Stir up trouble and you get trouble.

I most certainly hope that you aren't (and haven't been) implying that we should just keep quiet, lest we poke the bear.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I most certainly hope that you aren't (and haven't been) implying that we should just keep quiet, lest we poke the bear.

See why it is best to put this halfway-senile codger on your ignore list? There is no reason to be jousting at windmills....he does not argue against or debunk, all he does is fling poo.

 

[razoredge]

theres that little squeaking sound again

 

[razoredge]

I most certainly hope that you aren't (and haven't been) implying that we should just keep quiet, lest we poke the bear.

A little dissappointed that this was all you replied to after the informations just given

To answer your question. I have said I like the drug laws the way they are now, for reasons I addressed.

I have a larger concern than issues of legality

My largest concern being that of drug testing for employment and these sobriety road tests, being addressed first to stop this discrimination against something that WAS decriminalized in the 70's

Another poster just came on and gave some information that showed some validity to what I was talking about, that were not logically responded to in four pages of bitching at me.

I dont care on a personal basis, what reason or approach someone else takes in petitioning our government but they should be aware that many times they have equal opposition.

 

[Dak]

After readin this page of a quote-a-thon I am done trying to explain this. The bottom line is, government doesn't have any business telling me what I can and can't do to myself. Regardless of the supposed reasons/benefits/etc.

If I want to wear no seatbelt, snort some coke, and drive myself off a cliff it is my right. It's is none of YOUR damn business, or anyone elses for that matter.

I don't condone any of the above, but the problem is that as soon as we start restricting personal freedoms, it becomes a slippery slope until we are at the point we are at now, or where they are in England where every thing you do is under a microscope.

TBH my opinion of people with your apparent general opinion that the government needs to be a big babysitter is a big "Fuck Off".

 

[PhantoMPhones]

A little dissappointed that this was all you replied to after the informations just given

Well, its nothing new really though, saliva tests have been around for a while, I didn't really have anything to add...I do now though lol. (Although, instead of making people get frustrated, and ignoring other information because 'your question wasn't answered', when your question is a tangent to begin with, you could have easily googled it and found the information. I did. And yes I assume, you will have something to say about that too.)

To answer your question. I have said I like the drug laws the way they are now, for reasons I addressed.

Actually, thats not what I asked.

------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few 'ideas' being put on the table in different areas, breathalyzers saliva, blood etc. As I have said, saliva tests have been around for quite a while, as for roadside testing new laws have been passed in my country (July 2008) that allow police to obtain warrants for bodily fluid tests, seeing that you fail their 'standardized tests', like co-ordination testing etc. As for this bus thing, its pretty frightening. At first glance it seems no worse than a RIDE checkpoint, but this is much more serious. Basically, under the new laws it gives police the right to detain you for testing if say for example they notice you are driving erratically, they pull you over, do their alcohol sobriety tests and you pass, but they still think you are intoxicated. Makes a bit of sense I suppose (supposing there were no other problems with the testing, which there are.) but the kicker is in the ways they carry out the law. With this drug bus thing and the checkpoint they've basically cut out the original determination (seeing if you are driving properly) and gone straight to pulling EVERYONE over, and at that point when it comes to drugs, there are NO RELIABLE TESTS THAT CAN BE GIVEN, for marijuana at least. So basically for 'ANY' reason a cop wants they could subject you to this further testing based on any 'reasonable/probable cause' they want. Example, you are driving home at 2am after a 12 hour shift, you are dead tired and are commuting 45 minutes. You get stopped, cop notices you look sheepish and have red eyes, and BAM drug test. Though I WILL NOTE that they require a warrant to submit you to the test. If they take you in and you immediately willingly take the test without asking if they have a warrant, then its your own fault for submitting to the test. However, if you to refuse the test and they DO obtain a warrant, then you could face a criminal charge.

The problem with the immediate 'standardized tests' they administer (talking to you etc) are obvious as the previous example points out. The problem with the actual drug testing if you are detained is that they CANNOT be proven reliable. As I had mentioned previously drug tests ARE NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE HIGH OR NOT. They are ONLY able to determine metabolite levels in your system. A metabolite is the by-product of your body's metabolism of the drug, is a waste product and therefore is ejected in sweat, saliva, blood, urine, feces etc. Metabolites remain in your system for X amount of time depending on the drug and the amount you use the drug (not immediately the amount you ingest at one time). Someone who smokes pot once or twice a week will have metabolites in their system for 2-3 days, someone who smokes regularly can expect metabolites to last anywhere from 2 weeks to two months. Generally, approximately 30 days, however this depends on factors such as physical activity, health, what foods you eat etc, and not least of all the type of drug test. I think for normal and economical drug tests the threshold for detection is 500um/kg, and for more stringent tests I think the threshold is 300um/kg. What this sort of determines is the 'further back in history' the test can go. The obvious problem of this is that no matter whether you smoked the joint an hour ago or a day ago, you could still possibly test positive. This leaves big problems for civil liberty but also potentially problems in making charges stick, and could potentially cause lawsuits to be filed against authorities (actually this has already happened). Now as satanstoenail stated, there is a chance that they can try to make the test a little less unreliable (notice I did not say more accurate) by testing twice, over a period of time. HOWEVER, this would only work with certain drugs that have a VERY short half-life in the system. Why you ask? Because drug tests CANNOT determine the actual level of the metabolite in the system, they can only detect a threshold. (even when you get a drug test done at a lab, say you request it from your doctor, the results almost always only come back as a threshold) For marijuana for example, this type of tactic WOULD NOT WORK, and would not be able to be used as evidence against you, because the metabolites stay in your system for so long, they have no way of determining exactly when you ingested the drug, and if you are intoxicated, because you would just keep testing positive.

Another interesting fact is that, for example, if you were to have NO pot in your system at all. You are clean so to speak. And then you smoke a joint, get in your car and drive. Subsequently you come across one of these checkpoints, and you fail a sobriety test and they take you to the bus (btw the bus is just a substitute for the station). IF all of this has transpired in the course of less than about an hour, there is a good chance that the DRUG WILL NOT BE DETECTED, as the metabolites have not yet had a chance to reach detectable levels. This also has two sides to the coin. On one hand you could squeak by the test, on the other hand it also proves that the tests are unreliable in yet another sense. It would prove another facet of unreliability in that if it takes AT LEAST an hour for it to be detected in the system, there is NO way of determining whether the person is still high or not, at the time of driving, or at the time of testing.

Basically, I think when it comes down to it, its more of a deterrent than a practical application, however, I am really only focusing on marijuana for what im talking about. It costs money to administer drug tests, and even more if they are wrong and someone sues. Also, there would be a VERY huge case turnover rate as the evidence supporting these tests is almost laughable. As far as I'm concerned this is more a tactic to try and catch the odd big fish moving product, or dangerous drivers on hard substances rather than catching minnows. (In vancouver, which I know isn't quite victoria, the chief of police made a speech a while back stating they were basically going to leave personal smokers be, and even mentioned that they weren't worried about people even GROWING one or two plants for personal use. Now I know thats not policy or anything, but just adds a bit of info.)

Now, I could go to the extreme side of me that could perhaps link this 'testing' to some sort of 'on the DL' initiative to try and catalogue everyone's DNA etc, or even a 'YES/NO list for history of drug use'. Which to me is far more scary than anything else I've discussed. But let's not go there, that's a different issue, and even this testing stuff is a different issue. It is really a tangent completely and has nothing to do with the actual legalization (or not) of marijuana. This new law and program unless disputed and rescinded will remain around, even long after MJ is LEGAL (and in fact the former prime minister tried twice to legalize but was threatened with trade embargoes by the nosy, world police, you guessed it, Gov't of USofA.) At least here, most of the semi-sane politicians are pro-legalization, or pro-decriminalization. There aren't many fighters for the war on MJ left around here. Testing has been around for alcohol and drugs for ages, and once again I state that there is no evidence or even REASON TO BELIEVE that anything will change if MJ is decriminalized or legalized.

After readin this page of a quote-a-thon I am done trying to explain this. The bottom line is, government doesn't have any business telling me what I can and can't do to myself. Regardless of the supposed reasons/benefits/etc.

If I want to wear no seatbelt, snort some coke, and drive myself off a cliff it is my right. It's is none of YOUR damn business, or anyone elses for that matter.

I don't condone any of the above, but the problem is that as soon as we start restricting personal freedoms, it becomes a slippery slope until we are at the point we are at now, or where they are in England where every thing you do is under a microscope.

TBH my opinion of people with your apparent general opinion that the government needs to be a big babysitter is a big "Fuck Off".

Couldn't agree more.

 

[razoredge]

Do you have automobile insurance ?.... Its no longer your right to sustain unnecessary physical damage due to ignorance of a safety device that saves millions in hospital expenses

Does someone sell you that cocaine ?.... The government has every rite to make that illegal... their job is serve and protect

If anyone researched the law, it has nothing about doing drugs, its illegal to produce, distrubute or possess (under the pretence of distribution)

TBH my opinion of people with your apparent general opinion that the government needs to be a big babysitter is a big "Fuck Off".

And you are entitled to that opinion as I am to mine. Though your lack of depth and focus finds you flawed in placing "people with your apparent general opinion" in some specific catagory. When its been blantently clear that my largest concern is that of the trouble that random drug testing by employers has created, and they clearly have no business in what someone does off the clock.

But alas you lack spine to address that and want to dramatize any restrictions designed to restrain abuse of the origional principles of rites. You want to simplifiy it all and cry like a baby on the principle of "I want my pacifier NOW !"

Failure to comprehend the complexities of any society is where in lies the big fuck off.

 

[razoredge]

Well, its nothing new really though, saliva tests have been around for a while, I didn't really have anything to add...I do now though lol. (Although, instead of making people get frustrated, and ignoring other information because 'your question wasn't answered', when your question is a tangent to begin with, you could have easily googled it and found the information. I did. And yes I assume, you will have something to say about that too.)

Actually, thats not what I asked.

------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few 'ideas' being put on the table in different areas, breathalyzers saliva, blood etc. As I have said, saliva tests have been around for quite a while, as for roadside testing new laws have been passed in my country (July 2008) that allow police to obtain warrants for bodily fluid tests, seeing that you fail their 'standardized tests', like co-ordination testing etc. As for this bus thing, its pretty frightening. At first glance it seems no worse than a RIDE checkpoint, but this is much more serious. Basically, under the new laws it gives police the right to detain you for testing if say for example they notice you are driving erratically, they pull you over, do their alcohol sobriety tests and you pass, but they still think you are intoxicated. Makes a bit of sense I suppose (supposing there were no other problems with the testing, which there are.) but the kicker is in the ways they carry out the law. With this drug bus thing and the checkpoint they've basically cut out the original determination (seeing if you are driving properly) and gone straight to pulling EVERYONE over, and at that point when it comes to drugs, there are NO RELIABLE TESTS THAT CAN BE GIVEN, for marijuana at least. So basically for 'ANY' reason a cop wants they could subject you to this further testing based on any 'reasonable/probable cause' they want. Example, you are driving home at 2am after a 12 hour shift, you are dead tired and are commuting 45 minutes. You get stopped, cop notices you look sheepish and have red eyes, and BAM drug test. Though I WILL NOTE that they require a warrant to submit you to the test. If they take you in and you immediately willingly take the test without asking if they have a warrant, then its your own fault for submitting to the test. However, if you to refuse the test and they DO obtain a warrant, then you could face a criminal charge.

The problem with the immediate 'standardized tests' they administer (talking to you etc) are obvious as the previous example points out. The problem with the actual drug testing if you are detained is that they CANNOT be proven reliable. As I had mentioned previously drug tests ARE NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE HIGH OR NOT. They are ONLY able to determine metabolite levels in your system. A metabolite is the by-product of your body's metabolism of the drug, is a waste product and therefore is ejected in sweat, saliva, blood, urine, feces etc. Metabolites remain in your system for X amount of time depending on the drug and the amount you use the drug (not immediately the amount you ingest at one time). Someone who smokes pot once or twice a week will have metabolites in their system for 2-3 days, someone who smokes regularly can expect metabolites to last anywhere from 2 weeks to two months. Generally, approximately 30 days, however this depends on factors such as physical activity, health, what foods you eat etc, and not least of all the type of drug test. I think for normal and economical drug tests the threshold for detection is 500um/kg, and for more stringent tests I think the threshold is 300um/kg. What this sort of determines is the 'further back in history' the test can go. The obvious problem of this is that no matter whether you smoked the joint an hour ago or a day ago, you could still possibly test positive. This leaves big problems for civil liberty but also potentially problems in making charges stick, and could potentially cause lawsuits to be filed against authorities (actually this has already happened). Now as satanstoenail stated, there is a chance that they can try to make the test a little less unreliable (notice I did not say more accurate) by testing twice, over a period of time. HOWEVER, this would only work with certain drugs that have a VERY short half-life in the system. Why you ask? Because drug tests CANNOT determine the actual level of the metabolite in the system, they can only detect a threshold. (even when you get a drug test done at a lab, say you request it from your doctor, the results almost always only come back as a threshold) For marijuana for example, this type of tactic WOULD NOT WORK, and would not be able to be used as evidence against you, because the metabolites stay in your system for so long, they have no way of determining exactly when you ingested the drug, and if you are intoxicated, because you would just keep testing positive.

Another interesting fact is that, for example, if you were to have NO pot in your system at all. You are clean so to speak. And then you smoke a joint, get in your car and drive. Subsequently you come across one of these checkpoints, and you fail a sobriety test and they take you to the bus. IF all of this has transpired in the course of less than about an hour, there is a good chance that the DRUG WILL NOT BE DETECTED, as the metabolites have not yet had a chance to reach detectable levels. This also has two sides to the coin. On one hand you could squeak by the test, on the other hand it also proves that the tests are unreliable in yet another sense. It would prove another facet of unreliability in that if it takes AT LEAST an hour for it to be detected in the system, there is NO way of determining whether the person is still high or not, at the time of driving, or at the time of testing.

Basically, I think when it comes down to it, its more of a deterrent than a practical application, however, I am really only focusing on marijuana for what im talking about. It costs money to administer drug tests, and even more if they are wrong and someone sues. Also, there would be a VERY huge case turnover rate as the evidence supporting these tests is almost laughable. As far as I'm concerned this is more a tactic to try and catch the odd big fish moving product, or dangerous drivers on hard substances rather than catching minnows. (In vancouver, which I know isn't quite victoria, the chief of police made a speech a while back stating they were basically going to leave personal smokers be, and even mentioned that they weren't worried about people even GROWING one or two plants for personal use. Now I know thats not policy or anything, but just adds a bit of info.)

Now, I could go to the extreme side of me that could perhaps link this 'testing' to some sort of 'on the DL' initiative to try and catalogue everyone's DNA etc, or even a 'YES/NO list for history of drug use'. Which to me is far more scary than anything else I've discussed. But let's not go there, thats a different issue, and even this testing stuff is a different issue. It is really a tangent completely and has nothing to do with the actual legalization (or not) of marijuana. This new law and program unless disputed and rescinded will remain around, even long after MJ is LEGAL. At least here, most of the semi-sane politicians are pro-legalization, or pro-decriminalization. There aren't many fighters for the war on MJ left around here. Testing has been around for alcohol and drugs for ages, and once again I state that there is no evidence or even REASON TO BELIEVE that anything will change if MJ is decriminalized or legalized.

More validation, thanks, good to know I wasnt off one bit.

While drug testing may not be your concern, it is mine, WTF is the problem with that ? Ignoring the detrimental impact drug testing has had in branding someones social security number for life and crying about whether we have the rite to do as we please at the same time is bizarre.

Are any of your semi-sane politicians supporting legalization coming clean as to their tax revenue angle ? I know Canada is really big on the "sin taxes", a model sample I believe.

Legal issues with testing you mentioned sound fine and dandy, until you realize very few have the resources to "fight city hall" (an expression). This is the beauty law makers are aware of in their privileges. They sit in wait to suck as much money out of society as they possibly can, thus providing them with "the good life" and validating their assumed value to society (job security}.

In the States, with a CDL driver, any accident, regardless the indications of who was at fault, is subject to a mandatory drug test, which upon failure is an immeadiate licence revocation. any refusal to test, IS a mandatory revocation.

So yeah, until they address these discriminent issues, I find concerns of legalization a joke.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

So yeah, until they address these discriminent issues, I find concerns of legalization a joke.

Then feel free to leave the discussion regarding LEGALIZATION.

It sounds like theres no appeasing you. On one hand you said they need to crack down on drug users, and you seem to only concern yourself with control, and that hard drug users are deserving of well lets not even go back down that road. But on the other hand you aren't going to be satisfied until the government is on its knees. The latter portion I agree with, but if you think tackling legalization is hard, then you are living a pipe dream, concerning yourself with control over the people in general, over individual social (socioeconomic) issues. Good luck trying to tackle that one as one big issue. It is ONLY by way of aggression (even possibly violence) or some sort of other total collapse that change across the board will take place all at once. Even then, it isn't likely. It is only by way of taking one issue at a time (some focus on one issue and others focus on other issues) and challenging the government on issues one by one that will enable us to affect change. Theres no magic Obama pill where I live. And I'd kick his ass all the way out of my country had I the chance and circumstance.

 

[razoredge]

Then feel free to leave the discussion regarding LEGALIZATION.

Nah, I think I WILL stay, I HAVE been the discussion, all you mamzies have applied to it is "its not right" waah, waah, waah ! As you said before "welcome to the real world"

It sounds like theres no appeasing you. On one hand you said they need to crack down on drug users, and you seem to only concern yourself with control, and that hard drug users are deserving of well lets not even go back down that road.

You have a lack of understanding that I only bring up problems that exist, rather than running around useing some BASIC idealistic principle as a crutch. Im not looking to be appeased by others participating in this topic, I allow them to have their opinion. Sure it would be nice if everyone was free to do drugs... sounds sweet... no ? However some people abuse and become a burdon to others, be it pushing drugs or just the pathetic addictive family member.

Frankly I think we should have the rite to kill people that intentionally fuck up this world for their own selfish benefit too, but alas that wouldnt work either would it ? So sure as society has become massive in population with split beliefs, concerns and interests government has also become massive. I honestly dont believe ANYONE has the answer for this. Its the human equation rearing its ugly head. Its this very abuse of rites, seemingly an inate human tendency that has caused this problem of ever reaching government. So dont blame it on "me" or "the likes of "my kind". Im just one that simply sees how this mess came to be. Im as annoyed by people themselves as I am the government. Like no one can see the forest through the trees.

But on the other hand you aren't going to be satisfied until the government is on its knees.

Dont know what you mean here ?

The latter portion I agree with, but if you think tackling legalization is hard, then you are living a pipe dream, concerning yourself with control over the people in general, over individual social (socioeconomic) issues.

On the other hand I believe it is others living in the pipe dream.

Good luck trying to tackle that one as one big issue. It is ONLY by way of aggression (even possibly violence) or some sort of other total collapse that change across the board will take place all at once. Even then, it isn't likely. It is only by way of taking one issue at a time (some focus on one issue and others focus on other issues) and challenging the government on issues one by one that will enable us to affect change.

Yes and I believe the issue of drug testing for employment and drivers licences is primary, especially considering it was the latest infringment that came to play. I want to reverse that before going further.

Theres no magic Obama pill where I live. And I'd kick his ass all the way out of my country had I the chance and circumstance.

The Obama pill will eventually ware off but Im afraid the withdrawal effects will be devestating, problem is ALL politicians are ass clowns, so there is/was no correct choice. Besides they are powerless to do the things that really need to be done... they have their hands all tied in trying to appease those that make lots of noise about the little stuff, like if its illegal to take a few tokes from time to time.

 

[Odin's Curse]

Secondly, Marijuana DOES NOT KILL BRAIN CELLS.

That's very true Phantom all the studies done show that it changes the shape of braincells which is temporary but with extensive use can cause problems with the way your brain releases chemicals which can cause you to go

But even then its really rare for the schizophrenia which is consatntly harped on about.

Governments like to control, its what they do, weed is illegal becuase its hard to tax, unlike tabbaco its relatively easy to grow and prepare, its sometimes called a penny-pound crop which is grow for a penny sell for a pund which would make the government money through taxes but they can't gruantee that we'll go to the cafes or shops when we've got our own gardens to sit out in. That takes away the power.

I don't know what the deal is with Magic Mushrooms (psilocybines) are illegal (in fact they're class As which puts them up with Heroin) in the UK dispite NO health risks or addictive qualities yet the muscaline variaty which can be dangerous are ungraded Why? because people were buying uo Shrooms by the bucket load at markets because there was loop hole meaning we could get them. Suddenly there's a reason to crack down on them. The reason is power in the hands of the people means power out of the hands of the politians. If they can't control it and tax it to fuck then its a threat and must be prohibited.

I'm not particularly anti-establishment [at least I don't think I am] but the war on drugs at least in reference to halucinagines from weed to DMT is actually a war on the redistrabution of power back to the masses. There was time when all drugs were legal, The world didn't end.

Weeds illegality causes gang wars, provides crime sindicates with finace and ground level troops to fight their battles for territory and cause huge sink-estates and ghettos.

That worse then a couple clowns smoking too much weed.

 

[monoxide_child]

IN RESPONSE TO THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD

yes marijuanna should be legalized