The primary reason to legalize, or rather decriminalize, marijuana is the associated costs of keeping it illegal. This includes the basic costs of prisons and law enforcement, as well as the negative effects caused by supplying money to the Mexican criminals who bring it into the US, and use that money to corrupt officials and police in Mexico.

In order to raise taxes you would need to restrict who can grow and distribute it. This mean it will still be illegal for private citizens to grow pot, otherwise anyone who uses would simply have their own plants. I believe it is the simple fact that it is so easy to grow that has kept it from becoming legal. That, and you now have a multi-billion dollar industry that thrives by having the marijuana boogie-man to point to. Take away pot and huge portion of the "drug abusers" are not longer there on the books to produce the problem to be fought. Also, pot is very competitive compared to the cost of getting high via alcohol and the like. How much money would get diverted from the legal companies which generate taxes?

Laws against DUI and publicly indulging will still need to be enforced. I would also think it would work better if you had pot "bars" with appropriate licensing and age controls. Likely we would need to require that people who indulge to be in a smoke free area for a time before being allowed to drive home, or they would have to use a taxi or designated driver.

The short way to say it is that there is nothing wrong with smoking weed.

The US Constitution is a shit-stained piece of toilet paper as long as this brainless, cowardly, 100% politically motivated persecution of good people continues.

The important thing is to get the Federal Government out of the picture entirely. It's properly a state matter.

As I have posted before the main reason pot is illegal relates to have a sound standard for impairment (e.g. a .08 standard) and a way to measure this quickly (e.g. during a police traffic stop).

Just having a law that says it is illegal to drive while 'stoned' means nothing unless there is a legal way to define 'stoned' and a way an easy and cheap way to determine if someone is stoned.

Until these two points can be worked out I don't see pot being legal.

I have no problem with people getting stoned. None at all, but good people don't drive around in public while on drugs. This impacts the public safety and that is a legit reason for the general public to limit drug use.

As I have posted before the main reason pot is illegal relates to have a sound standard for impairment (e.g. a .08 standard) and a way to measure this quickly (e.g. during a police traffic stop).

Just having a law that says it is illegal to drive while 'stoned' means nothing unless there is a legal way to define 'stoned' and a way an easy and cheap way to determine if someone is stoned.

Until these two points can be worked out I don't see pot being legal. Are you saying people should be allowed to drive regardless of the condition they are in? e.g. you are for drunk driving and that there should be NO restrictions?

"As I have posted before the main reason pot is illegal relates to have a sound standard for impairment (e.g. a .08 standard) and a way to measure this quickly (e.g. during a police traffic stop). "

and yet to this day at no time can you actually back any reality based facts to back this opinion I find highly moronic and lacking any credibility.

Well golly... you sure told him.

I didn't know there was an impairment standard for pot and a simple and easy test to measure this impairment. Please enlighten me.

Oh wait, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground! I like pot just as much as the next guy but that doesn't change the point I'm making. Man for a liberal you are a pill. I assume it is because you haven't been laid in years.

Just as an FYI, my brother-in-law is DA where I live and his side of the family are all DAs or assistance DA. They are the ones I'm getting this from. It makes sense to me. Just look at booze. It is still legal to get as drunk as one wants in private but NOT in public or to drive drunk. But there is a set legal standard; .08.

Say pot is legal and a cop pulls over a car. The car smells of pot but no one is openly smoking pot. How would the cop know if the driver was stoned or not? If pot was legal it would be legal for everyone other than the driver to be stoned, just like with booze. A way to measure impairment is key to reduce the public fear of stoned drivers.

Anyhow if this idea is BS CMD didn't make much of a case. The guy is a pill. Since I'm NOT a fan of the GOP by any means I sometimes agree with the pill but man it is hard since he is such an a-hole.

THC stays in the system for 28+ days. there is never going to be a standardized test to measure ones intoxication for I have very high levels in my system now, but am stone cold sober.

to even suggest this speaks volumes to the profound ignorance of even basic facts on this subject.

the quickest way to shut these idiots up, and I speak from experience, is to challenge them publically to put their bullshit to the test. set up any obsticle course usin any vehicle, be it a Lincoln towncar land yacht or a 10 ton dump truck, or sports car...I will smoke twice my normal medication and run the course timed. the idiot talking about DWD must then take the same course using the same rig, save they must be on their cell phone taking a basic 10th grade level aptitude test I give them while they drive the course.

so far I've made 2 State reps shut the fuck up, tuck tail, and run shitless from the challenge.

If you legalized it and regulated it, big tobacco would be in the business in an instant.

The price would go up quite a bit as well.

And the quality (and potency) would be dictated by Federal regulation, just as alchohol is now.

jazzguitarman:

Just as an FYI, my brother-in-law is DA where I live and his side of the family are all DAs or assistance DA. They are the ones I'm getting this from. It makes sense to me. Just look at booze. It is still legal to get as drunk as one wants in private but NOT in public or to drive drunk. But there is a set legal standard; .08.

Say pot is legal and a cop pulls over a car. The car smells of pot but no one is openly smoking pot. How would the cop know if the driver was stoned or not? If pot was legal it would be legal for everyone other than the driver to be stoned, just like with booze. A way to measure impairment is key to reduce the public fear of stoned drivers.

Anyhow if this idea is BS CMD didn't make much of a case. The guy is a pill. Since I'm NOT a fan of the GOP by any means I sometimes agree with the pill but man it is hard since he is such an a-hole.

if you can pass a roadside test for impairment ( walking a line, standing on one foot, etc) does it matter? if you aren't impaired, you aren't impaired...if you are you are. whether you have been drinking or smoking pot is only relevant insofar as it affects your ability to drive unimpaired, so if you can pass the test...what difference does it make?

The impairment test is very subjective. I have failed it a few times and in fact now I tell the cop 'don't waste your time with the impairment test just give me the breath test'. Each time I was .03 or .04 and the cop said 'have a nice day'.

Failing the impairment test is NOT breaking the law. NOT. It is only a test to see if OTHER TESTS should be done or not. So AGAIN, what OTHER TEST would be given for pot? A blood test will show pot in the blood but for over 30 days or more. There isn't a test to show that someone is too stoned at a specific time and place like there is with booze. Also as I said there isn't a standard for impairment (e.g. a .08 standard like with booze).

Do you see the major differences now?

I don't see why you have to continue to be such an asshole. YES, I know pot stays in the blood for up to 28 days. That was the point I was making. That there isn't a standardized test that can be reliable!

So now you agree with me. There is no standardized test and no basis for impairment with pot like there is with booze. This gives the policitians and moralist assholes a legit reason to continue to say pot should be illegal.

I'm working with a group to try to come up with a standardized test but it isn't easy. So we are on the same side here!!!! If there was a standardized test it would give these dumbshit politicians one less excuse.

If you were not so quick to hate everyone here you would see that we are not all morons and that often we are fighting the same fight!

Decriminalization of marijuana would be a sane, sensible option.

As for driving while under the influence of anything, to include cell phones, it should not be done.

A standardized test for marijauana would at least establish a minimum legal limit of impairment. But it should also be noted that the user of any substance, which could impair the judgement and motors skills of the operator, should not be used in conjunction with operating a motor vehicle.

I have smoked weed in the past, and I drink on occasion, but will not operate a vehicle if doing so. Driving is potentially dangerous enough as it is, and doing so without possession of one's full facalties would not seem to be a prudent action in any circumstances.