Washington & Colorado Legalize Recreational Marijuana
 

Oh happy day, OH HAPPY DAY!!!!!!

from YahooNews

I voted in favor of Initiative 502, the legalization of marijuana in Washington. I'm glad it's passing. Still over a million ballots to be counted as of this morning, so, not conclusive. But it does have a very large lead and is likely to be reversed.

It's the end of prohibition, and it's gonna be bloody.

This also brings up the question of how we should address harder drugs and the drug war in general.

I'm for weed legalization as long as its treated like alcohol but I would not want to see it extended to harder drugs such as cocaine or LSD. However, I am against the overtop drug war.

Also, are companies still allowed perform drug tests in those states?

That's interesting, ph45, cause like - I wouldn't call LSD a harder drug the way I'd call coke. LSD, shrooms, weed, dxm... nah, shit should be legal and regulated. MDMA i'm not sure about, but it's largely much less harmful than most drugs. Coke, crack, heroin, meth, nah way bro.

Drug tests make no sense. You can do coke for an entire week and 3 days later you're clean. More quickly if you drink more water. If you hit a joint at your friend's party two months ago you can fail, and get fired. Marijuana is fat soluble and can stay in your system for a very long time.

Mandated by the insurance companies, for money.

Of course doing drugs ON THE JOB is dangerous. So is drinking on the job. So we don't tolerate drinking on the job and we won't tolerate being stoned on the job.

It's not rocket science so why all the fear (from the opponents?)

Even being stoned on the job depends honestly.
i've been stoned at work loads of times. As long as i don't get like, USELESSLY high, a bit of a buzz helps me focus and actually increases my productivity. depends on the person, depends on the job. I wouldn't want my surgeon or my cop or my building inspector to be high on the job. Mechanic? actor? chef? office monkey? paper pusher? why the hell not? I know folks who could definitely take apart and put back together an engine better high than sober.
Weed doesn't intoxicate at all the same way alcohol does.

Sure, most employers would say, yeah, okay, dont come in high. fine. But I can imagine that a lot of small businesses wouldnt give a fuck if it didnt affect performance.

I was sort of playing devil's advocate. I agree with you...but you're not going to convince the opponents of that. And I think if things do change it's a concession we'll have to make.

Back in my heyday...it was awesome to take a quick break and catch a buzz while working at the bar. Of course, having a couple drinks was OK too if you don't get stupid. I think it's hard to get stupid smoking weed (at least the crap shit you find these days...bring back my heyday with sensi and indica.) Working on tiny assemblies and soldering too...you could get so focused.

I wouldn't do it now. Though I tell you...it sure would help with the stress. :)

Actually, the average THC content per mg of plant matter has gone up a LOT in the past 40 years and is continuing to rise. Shit's getting danker, not worse.

As long as it doesn't negatively impact the work, employers shouldn't care. And if it does negatively impact the work, the employers can discipline based on the poor performance, not on the reason behind the poor performance.

I don't see a reason for drug tests. Just fire the kid for eating all the twinkies in the 7-11, not for being high.

LSD isn't addictive but there is too much we currently don't know about it to justify its legalization. Weed is justifiable because even though I would argue that the net effects are negative when used as a habit, the effects are no worse than alcohol.

LSD is a drug that can have drastically different effects depending on the hit and person. One person may be able to take LSD on a regular basis (once a month) for years and experience very little negative effects while another person may be fucked up for life by taking a single hit. I'm not opposed to people using it, I would argue no legal consequences unless you are dealing, but it is something that should not be promoted within our society in any way. Too much uncertainty.

[thisisn'tme] I've heard that too...but having been alive and kicking it in the 80s I'm not seeing it. I certainly haven't had a one hit wonder in about 20 years. Of course, it could be a local problem.[/thisisn'tme]

You haven't been smoking the same stuff I have been smoking IM.

Depends on location and what you get. Some of the good west coast weed will knock anyone out with a single hit while the same people can smoke lesser quality weed all day long and not feel it.

The party's still going on here in Colorado. My next door neighbor figures that as long as he doesn't toke up in a National Park, the Feds are nothing to worry about. My other next door neighbor dropped by with some of the best weed I've ever smoked. My friend Jim thinks we should get in on the ground floor and once the rules for commercial growers have been set out by the department of revenue, we should get the paperwork and go into the biz.

If I did, I would actually be following in the steps of my grandfather who devoted a portion of his farm back in Kentucky to the cultivation of hemp as a part of the war effort back in WWII. My patriotic grandfather could never there after completely eradicate the weed from his fields. I can remember how irritated he'd get when kids from Eastern University (which was right over the farm's south boundary) would trample his tobacco plants in their quest to score a free high.

It's taken about 67 years for it to become legal again. 67 years of wasted effort and tax payer dollars and the rise of the Mexican marijuana cartels - all over a plant that can be made into some pretty sturdy rope but is put to far better use when smoked to get on a nice, relaxed buzz.

I think society is ready to change it's all or nothing thinking when it comes to pot. You never hear about some guy getting stoned, then beating up the wife and kids. I've encountered any number of mean drunks, but I've never met a mean stoner. There's no pot equivalent of crack cocaine or meth that I'm aware of, anyhow. Pot was never a problem when legal, but making pot illegal has caused society any number of problems , not the least of which is the rise of a set of ruthless criminals right on our southern borders.

If the US legalized pot and allowed growers to get licenses to grow it commercially, the Mexican marijuana cartel problem would all but vanish; state governments would get some badly needed income from new taxes that even a Tea Bagger couldn't object to; and law enforcement resources would be freed up to go after the substances that actually do cause considerable harm.

I think the Feds will begin to see reason, and I bet it won't take them another 67 years, either.

Having partaken since the early eighties, I can assure you that weed has only gotten stronger/better. Infinte Monkey needs to find a different dope slinger.

Here's what will be interesting to see:

1. Will the dope sold by the state-licensed pot stores cost more, or, less than what's sold 'on da street'?

If it's more expensive than 'street-weed', I think they're (WA & CO) pissing up a rope. Ain't no pothead gonna pay extra for weed just 'cuz it's all legal n shit. Unless it's like primo herb, of course.

2. Will 'street dope' survive?

I think it will, if for no other reason, cuz there's always the 'I ain't supportin tha gubmint' types.

3. Will the state sponsored weed be as good as 'reglar dope'?

I think it'll have to be at least as good...nobody'd buy 'bunk weed' twice.

4. How will it be sold?

By weight, like sugar? By the pack, like cigs? Loose? Pre-rolled?

5. The acceptance/non-acceptance by employers' drug testing, will this change?

I don't see it happening. Drug testing by employers is driven not by laws, but, by insurance companies.

Also, the NFL has already said 'You still can't smoke pot in the NFL.', although I believe it's overlooked to some extent already.


Of course, we may all already be ahead of ourselves:

from YahooNews

by Alex Dobuzinskis

I was hunting with Popdigr several years ago, and we had met up to go back to the truck. Popdigr stopped, looked around for a minute, got his bearings, and said "Fella over the hill there used to grow dope when I was a boy." He meant hemp during/after WW II. I talked him into showing me the place. Didn't take ten minutes to find the first plant. Found several. This would've been the mid-seventies.

Here's hoping, but, I ain't holding my breath.

I have long thought that talking about hemp and MJ was a lot like
talking about corn and lawn grass... both are grasses but product is totally different.

Even though it's the same plant, isn't/wasn't WWII hemp essentially
a non-THC form of the plant ?... something about male vs female forms.

Just like there are different varietals of grapes, there are different varietals of cannabis. Hemp is Cannabis Ruderalis, a form of the plant that doesn't produce anything psychoactive. The psychoactive varietals are Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica. Those two forms have been crossbred to produce many different strengths and different psychoactive "signatures".

- Dr Weed

I can tell you how it works with medical marijuana in Colorado. What UT said about the different varieties. The legal dispensaries sell pot that has a quality which is as high, usually higher than what you find on the street. Pot in smokeable form is sold by weight. You can also buy oils and ingestible forms of pot. The price is competitive with what you would pay your local dealer.

The beauty of legal pot is that it's legal. You can grow your own plants and not get busted by the cops. You can hop in your car and drive over to the nearby dispensary and browse through a variety of different strains. The dispensary is not going to burn you like a dealer might. You show the dispensary guy your medical card - easily obtained with the blessing of an MD who actually makes a living just authorizing patients to get medical mj. You pay your money, grab your smoke and go down the street singing a song. No Colorado law enforcement official is going to bother you. That's pretty sweet. When it's so easy to obtain legally, why bother getting it illegally and potentially having to pay some stupid consequence?

As far as drug testing - this is my personal experience - all you have to do is show your medical card to prove that it is legal for you to use pot. The employer will then just let it go. I guess maybe some big corporation might get in a snit about it, but I'm not aware of any in Colorado that has.

Now that Colorado has legalized recreational as well as medical marijuana, I think illegal growers will become fewer and fewer. Again, why risk what could be a pretty heavy duty bust when you don't have to? Why always have to worry that someone might come across your crop and rip you off while they turn you in? Just become that American icon - the owner of a small business that pays a nice living. It beats having to do deals with Mexican thugs down some back ally. Just my opinion.

It would also be nice knowing that no one died when transporting that weed and you are not financially supporting some of the most ruthless people on the planet...

Is stronger better?

Yes, stronger just means it requires less smoking to be effective.

I guess I'm wondering because there are apparently other healthful compounds which you'd presumably get less of. Once we're all legal it'll be all boutique so we could choose our poison, but are the higher levels linked to paranoia? bitd I had a drug studies professor deny it but I wonder.

Not really. The whole thing is, you smoke until you're high and some people have a paranoid or panic reaction to being high. In the 70s you smoked 3 joints or bowls to reach that point. Now you smoke half of one. But at some point you have reached all of the receptors in your brain and you don't really get "higher" or more prone to paranoia at that point.

The interesting thing is, the Sativa plant results in a buzzier and more paranoid high, and the Indica results in a more narcotic sort of high. So since California went legal, weed growers set out to produce plants that are more effective for different kinds of medical needs.

Benefits of Indica:
1. Relieves body pain
2. Relaxes muscles
3. Relieves spasms, reduces seizures
4. Relieves headaches and migraines
5. Relieves anxiety or stress

Benefits of Sativa:
1. Feelings of well-being and at-ease
2. Up-lifting and cerebral thoughts
3. Stimulates and energizes
4. Increases focus and creativity
5. Fights depression

(from here; if you click prepare to pause the video)

You now know more than most smokers, who should at least understand that Indica is "couch-lock" weed and Sativa is "Let's write some songs" weed.

You know, I used to be one of those people who got paranoid on pot, but that was back in the dark ages where like UT said, people would sometimes have to smoke 3 joints to get high. With the stronger varieties available today, a few hits give me a nice buzz without any paranoid response. I prefer sativa, myself, but if you go into a medical marijuana dispensary here in Colorado, there's an array of products available, carefully grown and prepared to meet your every need. Or so the dispensary owner claims. ;)

Neat.

Conversely, I would argue that we didn't know enough about it to make it illegal in the first place--after all, it wasn't illegal when it was discovered.

And from what I understand, there were many likely beneficial effects of this compound being researched (with great promise) when it was made illegal. So if we "don't know enough about it" it's because it was made illegal.

I don't want to digress from the main subject here, into a more questionable landscape, but I do struggle with this particular argument.



Regarding the main point here, about marijuana use, I think the people (the people I know, anyway) are clear how they feel about this. I think we're waiting fore some dottering old hardliners, who believe the internet is a series of tubes, to (sorry to have to say this) die off. And leave the rest of us sensible folk the hell alone. To be clear here, I don't smoke. But if you do, I don't care if you do. I also don't care who you sleep with or if you have any religious leanings--these things are none of my business, and for goddamn sure none of the government's business.

At the end of prohibition, Elliot Ness & Co would be unemployed, so make something else illegal, because moonshiners weren't wide spread enough. Something only lowlifes like Negroes and musicians and Hobos, cared about. ;)

The argument isn't ideal, but no other argument on that topic is either. As long as the effects of something remains largely unknown, there is no purely legitimate justification to legalize or ban something. That is why these issues are so controversial.

With LSD, there are known permanent side effects that can affect people for the rest of their lives. See HPPD (Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder). Almost all the specifics are unknown about this condition besides that it is really bad for people who get it. I don't believe that this, and similar side effects, justify LSD's prohibition but I want to make a point that society has to make a decision before sufficient evidence surfaces. Only in hindsight will we know if the decision was good or not.

However, my argument for LSD is more of a pragmatic one. While I don't see it negatively effecting society because its prevalence is low and the risk of major side effects is even lower, I don't think the drug should be promoted by society due to the current uncertainty about its safety. Since it is already illegal, the act of legalizing LSD itself is a form of promotion and I believe that should be avoided. Personally, I don't care if people use it (almost every single one of my friends have used it, including myself) but the uncertainty associated with LSD is too much for it to be considered "safe". However, as I mentioned, I think that LSD and similar drugs should basically be decriminalized. No one should go to jail over their use.


With regards to weed, I agree with you. I don't see it as much different than alcohol (better than alcohol in my opinion). Both are drugs that employers ideally shouldn't have a say with but unfortunately, both drugs can control some people's lives, affecting their working ability.

Basically, the entire drug argument comes down to the fact that we are forced to make a one size fits all decision on substances that effects everyone differently. There will never be a "fair" decision but I think we should strive to at least make a rational one. Our current drug laws are far from rational, and yes, many people will have to die (old geezers) before a rational discussion on the this topic can even occur.

legalize all drugs and tax them. it is a win-win situation. it will greatly impact the cartels and we'll cut our debt

If the so-called Libertarian Republicans in Congress would join forces with the liberal Democrats, this could all be settled fairly quickly.

Pot is waaaay less destructive than alcohol.

My sister has never been arrested or even had the police come to her house and she smokes pretty much every twenty minutes. (at least she did when I was with her in Maine but she said that was some pretty weak pot)

I don't smoke-one toke makes me paranoid and cotton-mouthed which I do NOT enjoy. Drinking is far more dangerous. Legalize pot and we've got a whole new revenue coming in!

Legalizing LSD is just plain stupid.

Everyone of us has, at one time or another, had to deal with an unhappy/belligerent/unhappy/bad drunk...imagine if the streets were filled with hot and cold running LSDfreaks tripping balls.

'Course, if they bother you, all ya gotta do is yell "I'M A DRAGON!!! BLLLLAAAAAUUUUGGGHHH!!!"

LSD's lack of prevalance is cuz i't illegal, and the penalties are through the roof.

If it was legal, it'd be as available as pot and alcohol.

prohibition didn't work and gave rise to organized crime. we are seeing the same thing with controlled substances, especially sch i or ii. legalization, taxation, and treatment for addiction seem to be the best choice.

of course i say this having never smoked marijuana or used illegal substances. however, i can cook up some of the best meth using the sodium/ammonia reduction method. i'm a graduate of the dea clandestine lab school

There's also what happens when people switch from harder stuff to just weed. Some time in the late 80s early 90s, the cities switched from crack to weed, and crime actually dropped.

I talked about this with a cop associate recently and he said, yeah, that turn of events is actually studied in Criminal Justice textbooks now.

Impossible!

I don't think so. Most people that I've talked to don't take it because they are not comfortable with the effects and it is seen as a big jump from weed.

Reason.com:
Who wants to bet at least two of these pass?
Crossing my fingers, here.

In the year 3027, I expect Ohio will follow along...

and Pennsyltucky in 4 more.

We may be hitting a tipping point with weed legalization / decriminalization.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...on_of_pot.html


I know Illinois is thinking of legalizing medicinal marijuana in the next few months.

I heard our governor on the radio the other day lamenting the fact that vermont, which has been ahead of the curve on many social issues, isn't a leader on this issue too. It looks real likely to make it through the legislature next session.

Good on ya, USA! :bong:

As Sarge said, legalise it and tax it. Even a lifelong stoner can work that out.

For other drugs, I believe that in general, prohibition does more harm than good.