Recreational Pot; has your view changed?

[GeauxLSU]

Correct on your first point, although I am not sure why you brought that up?

I am not sure about your second point. I don't know what you consider a drug problem and I certainly don't know the statistics for drug deaths, addiction rates, etc for Amsterdam either. Not disagreeing with you, I just can't agree that Amsterdam doesn't have a drug problem without some research on my part. I am sure that in every country, regardless of drug laws, there are overdoses, addicts, etc, so at what point is there a "drug problem?" Again, I am not sure.

It's Shangra-la over there. https://news.vice.com/article/troub...dise-a-bloody-gang-war-is-raging-in-amsterdam

 

[Spiderman11]

For the purpose of this thread - I'm ok with the decriminalizing part of marijuana - if it is treated similar to alcohol. With that said, there needs to be much more research on the effects of "high" driving and the levels that create/cause impairment. There also needs to be a roadside test developed to determine levels/impairment (think portable alco-sensor as related to alcohol) for those that choose to put others at risk by impaired driving. I'm sure there are plenty of other considerations but that's off the top of my head.

Marijuana is already enforced vastly different depending on what legal jurisdiction you are in. Some agencies issues appearance citations, confiscate/destroy whatever you have, and on your way you go. Others arrest and you sit in jail on an affidavit until they obtain warrants from the magistrate judge. < All depends on which county/city line you are across - and that is something I do not agree with.

 

[DinkyDau]

For the purpose of this thread - I'm ok with the decriminalizing part of marijuana - if it is treated similar to alcohol. With that said, there needs to be much more research on the effects of "high" driving and the levels that create/cause impairment. There also needs to be a roadside test developed to determine levels/impairment (think portable alco-sensor as related to alcohol) for those that choose to put others at risk by impaired driving. I'm sure there are plenty of other considerations but that's off the top of my head.

Marijuana is already enforced vastly different depending on what legal jurisdiction you are in. Some agencies issues appearance citations, confiscate/destroy whatever you have, and on your way you go. Others arrest and you sit in jail on an affidavit until they obtain warrants from the magistrate judge. < All depends on which county/city line you are across - and that is something I do not agree with.

I wonder if an HGN test would revile under the influence of Marijuana? Is their the evidence of Nystagmus, at full deviation?

 

[Spiderman11]

I wonder if an HGN test would revile under the influence of Marijuana? Is their the evidence of Nystagmus, at full deviation?

No, only depressants, anesthetics, and some inhalants cause HGN. Higher levels of marijuana will cause a lack of convergence if you get them to try to "cross" their eyes. < and while that is a good sign for marijuana induced impaired driving, it is not "standardized field sobriety". I find DUI-Drug arrest to certainly be prosecutable but it requires a lot more articulation in the report process.

 

[BNB]

 

[batoncolle]

For the purpose of this thread - I'm ok with the decriminalizing part of marijuana - if it is treated similar to alcohol. With that said, there needs to be much more research on the effects of "high" driving and the levels that create/cause impairment. There also needs to be a roadside test developed to determine levels/impairment (think portable alco-sensor as related to alcohol) for those that choose to put others at risk by impaired driving. I'm sure there are plenty of other considerations but that's off the top of my head.

Marijuana is already enforced vastly different depending on what legal jurisdiction you are in. Some agencies issues appearance citations, confiscate/destroy whatever you have, and on your way you go. Others arrest and you sit in jail on an affidavit until they obtain warrants from the magistrate judge. < All depends on which county/city line you are across - and that is something I do not agree with.

^ This exactly. You can't just do something in a vacuum and expect everything to be hunky dory... Colorado has proven that. Amsterdam that Geaux linked above has proven that.

And since people are so concerned about the freedom of doing what they want in their home, then I'm sure they would have no problem drastically increasing the penalties for those who step outside their homes and take away another person's freedoms.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're high or drunk, and you kill someone, then you should face the death penalty...

 

[Indirect Fire]

We dont even ask Presidents if they used illegal drugs anymore. That says allot, the last 4 have repeatedly violated the marijuana laws and laws in general, two were regular cocaine users while in college and I'm pretty sure there more before it became "ok" for reporters to ask. They even write about it in their autobiographies these days.

All one time criminals that get a pass because they were elected. It simply doesnt make sense. The weirder thing is our last president felt it necessary to sneak around and smoke cigaretts and lie about it to his family and the public.

Arresting a minor possession pot user unless caught while driving is a waste of resources, and in fact we might be losing out on the next great Republican president lol....(Yes, Trump doesn't drink but toked the weed while young(he grew up)

 

[BanjoJohn]

^ This exactly. You can't just do something in a vacuum and expect everything to be hunky dory... Colorado has proven that. Amsterdam that Geaux linked above has proven that.

And since people are so concerned about the freedom of doing what they want in their home, then I'm sure they would have no problem drastically increasing the penalties for those who step outside their homes and take away another person's freedoms.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're high or drunk, and you kill someone, then you should face the death penalty...

What about stupid people driving, or evil people that drive and kill someone, should they also face the death penalty?

 

[hikingthehills]

To be fair, they aren't policing morality. That is a bumper sticker talking point by Rastafarians . They are policing public safety. If drug addicts never left home while under the influence and never harmed anyone else while they melted their brains, there wouldn't be a "war on drugs". While there are plenty of similarities between drugs and alcohol to merit some thought, there also more than enough differences to make the pure analogy pointless.

Well the same argument can be used for people who enjoy shooting guns. Should we have a government regulated proper height and width of a backstop for a private pistol range because there's a possibility of a bullet leaving it intended target. For public safety of course.

 

[batoncolle]

What about stupid people driving, or evil people that drive and kill someone, should they also face the death penalty?

Sure when you find a way to measure the amount of stupid and/or evil in a person, then knock yourself out.

But please don't tell me your looking for excuses for something you want to do in the privacy of your home because surely you're not going to take it out in public and do something wrong.