Recreational Pot; has your view changed?

[batoncolle]

John non pot head hadn't been smoking it, yet he got fired cause his friend had, would one suggest leaving the room when someone else has an alcoholic beverage, or that John non head had ridden on the car's luggage rack, I'm just making a point that as in many cases I too have witnessed in courts, the guilty go unpunished and the non guilty get punished. Thar's our "justice" system unfortunately, and the scales of justice will never be balanced, so the choice or rather recommendation to "Don't smoke it" doesn't mean a hoot, however had they both of been doing Coke, and since Cocaine stays in your system for 12-72 hours, not up to 30 days, he'd been just fine, now is that a fair system?

Yeah but none of those items are my issue, and my point is simple. I don't care what you do as long as you don't steal another person's freedoms. The penalties should be severe when you get high on whatever and hurt another person. And if there is no reliable way to prove it's out of a person's system, then perhaps they should find another drug of choice.

 

[strongtactics]

I certainly don't think sugar should be compared to alcohol, Marijuana, or other illegal drugs. I understand the argument being made; however, even though I have heard the "sugar defense" in regards to breaking the law, I'm pretty sure that even in large doses, people can still drive responsibly, not act out (fight, be violent, etc), that is where the difference comes in. Sugar doesn't impair/affect judgement.

As another individual mentioned above, the THC content in today's Marijuana is much greater than the more basic plant that was smoked in the 70s, 80s, etc. Obviously, I come from a slightly different perspective, being in law enforcement, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

 

[RiverBend]

 

[land_surveyor]

I certainly don't think sugar should be compared to alcohol, Marijuana, or other illegal drugs. I understand the argument being made; however, even though I have heard the "sugar defense" in regards to breaking the law, I'm pretty sure that even in large doses, people can still drive responsibly, not act out (fight, be violent, etc), that is where the difference comes in. Sugar doesn't impair/affect judgement.

As another individual mentioned above, the THC content in today's Marijuana is much greater than the more basic plant that was smoked in the 70s, 80s, etc. Obviously, I come from a slightly different perspective, being in law enforcement, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

The sugar argument is looking at the public health consequences not the intoxication aspects. Most people agree that the habitual overuse of anything is bad.

Yep, pot is stronger than it used to be.

I think the point of the exercise is basic human liberties, not weighing the virtue of one vice over another.

Does the cost (not just money) of enforcing prohibition out weight the value of letting free adults decide the best way to live their own lives?

The argument has a very strong parallel to gun control. Every mark on your permanent record says you are a responsible adult. If you want to own an AR15 with a 30 round magazine you should be allowed to because you have never given anyone reason to believe that you would ever cause harm to others with that device. You get to own a 10,000 lb truck that you could ram into a market and kill dozens of people - but you don't. By the same logic you should be allowed to decide how to govern your body as you see fit as long as you don't infringe on my right to do the same. Get it?

 

[Kman]

Wow, I just looked back at this thread and I'm not surprised at what the majority thinks about this issue.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Wow, I just looked back at this thread and I'm not surprised at what the majority thinks about this issue.

It is a tax loving bunch! 83%

 

[Gunanddoglover]

Don't smoke it anymore and have not in years. Would I if it was legal? No beause I have to pass random drug testing, and it will slow me down at work the next day. I don't know if it because I got older or pot is stronger. Or both. I still need to make a living and be a responsible adult. However, pot will never go away so might as well legalize it, create jobs, and revenue. Having said that I am no economist and know next to nothing about anything.

 

[rickmcgowan5]

So what do we legalize next? Is coca in next? With that logic ... that our courts are being jammed .... might as well legalize everything and we will all be law abiding citizens. That's a fled argument!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[rickmcgowan5]

Legalizing drinking alcohol has worked out perfectly ... hasn't it? I mean you probably have never heard of anyone getting killed by a drunk driver!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[spencer60]

Back in my teenage years, when I used to smoke this stuff regularly, it was a lot harder for me and my friends to buy beer on a Friday night than to get weed.

There were always half a dozen places I could get fairly decent dope at any time of the day or night, and no one cared if I was 18 or not (shows how long ago this was). However there were only a couple of liquor stores that would take my fake ID and sell me a 6-pack of beer.

Putting the distribution of drugs in the hands of criminals pretty much guarantees that there will be no restraints around who they sell them to. The legal drugs we have out there today, alcohol and cigarettes, are probably a lot tougher for kids to get than anything on Schedule A.