California voters to decide in November...

[ChrisG]

...whether to legalize pot.

[JV]

[Chad H]

It's satans drug. It's habit forming. It's expensive. People will OD on it.

[Nor*Cal]

This happens every so many years in CA. Not new.

[ChrisG]

[J_DOGG]

Go pot pot.... bout time one of our states wakes up....

I so wish this will pass but for more reasons than most would think...
for one I want other states to see how much money they will bring in from this and BAM they will be doing it...



Go pot pot....

[Nor*Cal]

[chavez]

Nor*Cal, it will be in conflict, but didn't Holder say they wouldn't be pursuing (legal) pot related issues?

Supremacy clause still wins, but if the federallies aren't actively chasing the pot shops down, I wonder what would stop CA from doing it?

My guess would be some family-first nonsense group trying to tie pot to bigger drugs, and maybe MADD, but that could take years to wind its way through the courts.

[key]

LEGALIZE IT!!!

ive said before but ill just repeat myself,.......my state(SC), will be one of the last to have anything to do with P.O.T. with the whole bible belt under its wing...

[savage3221]

WORD

[RampageWake]

I hope it doesn't pass. The filthy politicians are already licking their lips over the sin taxes they can impose. F-That. I can't believe the sheeple are not outraged that the gov't. wants to sell them their rights. "legalize it and tax it" <- I've heard this a billion times from proponents. How about just "legalize it" -- must we pay a tax for EVERYTHING we do? Name one thing the gov't doesn't tax. [/rant]

[key]

^^^^^^^^amen^^^^^^^^^

[Tbonez]

[ChrisG]

[chavez]

Tbonez, RampageWake, yeah, that's awesome and all.

BUT

Who's going to pay for the necessary people to regulate it?

As a controlled substance it WILL REQUIRE REGULATION. That costs $$$$$$$$. Sales will have to be regulated. Growth/farming will have to be regulated. Production will have to be regulated. Distribution will have to be regulated. It's not cheap to do all that.

Beyond that, who will pay for the law enforcement impact? Now they are running DUI checks for pot, which other than basic FST's they don't have a device to give a "yes/no" kind of result to see if one is under the influence. So now we've got to figure that out too. All this stuff costs money...


I have to ask, do you folks even think about things from a macro perspective? Or is it all about "why should I have to pay for that"? In this case, you wouldn't even be paying for it. Once in a while, zoom way the hell out and look at it from 30,000 feet.

[Big Al]

I'm sure they can use all the money they're not going to spend on the little war on marijuana (epic failure...everywhere)...plus the taxes they'll get. I saw that dude that owns all the pot shops and stuff in Oakland, he said on TV he already pays over a million in taxes a year for all of it.

DUI for pot.

[chavez]

Big Al, well, you know they won't be speeding.

[Tbonez]

[chavez]

Tbonez, I'm sure your kids will love playing with their lead-based toys and your teeth get especially clean using arsenic-laced toothpaste.

Some gov't functions do actually serve the greater good, you know.


OR maybe we should just open it all up, let kids buy booze and drugs, take the ABS out of our cars, and go back to the good old days before the gubmit told us we couldn't drink and drive! Ain't nothing better than a road soda while doing 110 in my death trap that can't stop while smoking a fatty. Screw the man!!! Yeeehaaaaw!!!

Good times, good times...

[Jensen]

LEGALIZE IT. Its ridiculous how much money the state spends on the war on drugs when there is so much they can be making by legalizing it. It wouldn't really affect the prices anyways.

I recently got my medical script, for chronic migraines, and the prices at the collectives are ridiculous, twice as much as i can get on the streets and same quality as well, but i live in an isolated part of the nation where these prices are nowhere close to anywhere else, any other consumer would buy the legal taxed weed.

[chavez]

Jensen, I don't know how many people go to the vicodin lounge then try to drive home.

If legal, this is going to be as recreational as booze.

And until legit manufacturers can catch up, there will still be a black market. Eventually we would get there.

[Jensen]

[Tbonez]

[Nooga678]

The real truth is all those those government regulations don't really work. I guess it's easier to speculate about how horrible it would be without the government watching out for us, than to image a world where you were responsible for yourself. Consumers wouldn't allow companies to make it that cheated them, poisoned them, shorted them etc.. Instead people think the government is watching out for them so they don't care. The FDA is a perfect example. People are fools that blindly follow what the FDA says is OK or not OK to put in your body. The right amount of money can get some horrible drug pushed through, while lack of money will keep some naturally growing herb from making the approval list. And with all there wonderful nanny state regulations we still get e. coli in our beef and other similiar issues.

[chavez]

Tbonez, you sound like a country song.


Feel free to ride without a helmet, not use your seatbelt, and tear out your airbags, and scrape the popcorn off your ceiling with no respirator. More power to you.

You are young, injuries, cancer, and death are for old people. Silly old people.

[J-Ro]

[Nor*Cal]

[JV]

Are there any drug tests as quick and easy as the breathalyzer for weed? On the side of the road, how can you prove someone is high? And can they put a number like a BAC on how stoned you are and what threshold makes it illegal to dirve?

That's my only opposition to legalizing it. If legal in Cali, it's use will be common at all hours of the day, and I have no desire to share to traffic-filled roads with potheads.

I've been in the car with my share of drunk drivers and high drivers, and I'll take the drunk ones any day of the week.

[Nor*Cal]

JV, it's kind of hard to hide that smell. But the basic battery of tests performed at a stop will reveal enough to create reasonable cause then you're required to submit to an invasive test at booking.

[freerider4]

JV you would really rather be in a car with a drunk driver? For me it is not even a question if I was in a car and the person was going to be either drunk or high, I would take high no questions asked. You are the first person I have ever heard say they would rather be in a car with a drunk person.

[freerider4]

JV you would really rather be in a car with a drunk driver? For me it is not even a question if I was in a car and the person was going to be either drunk or high, I would take high no questions asked. You are the first person I have ever heard say they would rather be in a car with a drunk person.

[JV]

Nor*Cal, true, but if it's legal, the smell alone isn't enough to assume you're "over the limit". But I guess smelling it would be grounds for performing balance and concentration tests. I'm still not sure how I feel about half of Cali, getting off work, toting up at 420 and joining my commute home With alcohol, generally speaking you know where and what times to avoid the roads...2 am leaving downtown. With absolutely no statistics to back this up, I'd imagine the vast majority of drunk drivers are on the road after midnight. With pot, it'll be 24/7

[ChrisG]

[JV]

ChrisG, from the couple dozen or so test samples ( ) I've taken, yes I am. I'm sure there's plenty of data supporting the opposite, but the point is driving high can be just as dangerous as driving drunk for some people. The difference is, there's a quick, accurate, non-subjective test for drunk driving with a quantitative over the limit benchmark.

[Tbonez]