People addicted to weed are more tolerable than alcoholics.

Citizens enchanted by taxation are more dangerous than both.

I am for full legalization of weed. It is less dangerous than alcohol which is already legal for recreational use. And if Colorado's experience is anything to go by you won't have a significant increase in usage. That usage will just be more visible.

But this will not increase tax revenue. Look back on the laffer curve thread. People will just move their spending from one product to another. Tax revenues will remain the same.

Tax revenues will remain the same.

I'm skeptical of that. People who use weed regularly now will still have access to non-taxed sources. You think the illicit weed sellers are going to pack their bags and go home?

It'll be interesting to see how the unregulated and untaxed market reacts to a government imposed floor in prices. How much will they raise their prices?

It's a start on the long road to sanity. Ballotopedia has a good write-up about it. One good thing is if Proposition 64 is approved, individuals serving sentences for activities made legal under the measure would be eligible for resentencing.
The measure still treats pot like alcohol's sordid, slutty cousin: Cultivation has to be done out of view (Unlike breweries or wineries where you can drop into the showroom for a tour and a taste) Only one ounce is legalized. Alcohol - no limit. And you can only smoke in a private home or a designated facility: e.g. a drug den.
It's a start. I just don't know what the opposition is afraid of.

"I just don't know what the opposition is afraid of."

I guess you just haven't been paying attention. Already, people have died and been injured because of the actions of stoners.

Not many - but how many is good for you?

Review this.

And, while avoiding comparisons to other activities in which we think thousands dying is an acceptable price, please do this: Tell me how to test for impairment after you legalize a drug.

I've asked. Nobody answers. It's too important to get high, I guess.

Citizens enchanted by taxation are more dangerous than both. ~ Crid at October 16, 2016 4:47 AM

Agreed. If the only argument you can give for marijuana legalization is increasing government revenue and, subsequently, power, you are making an argument against legalization.

Ask a bootlegger how legalization was beneficial to his business. The heavy hand of government will still be felt in this new utopia of legalized weed, perhaps more so than it was when weed was illegal.

You wont' be able to use your backyard to grow weed and sell it at the county fair. Raw milk anyone?

We don't need to give any level of government an unlimited supply of revenue (coerced taxpayer money) and all the power that will buy.

What happens when a government bureaucracy is the only agency allowed to sell weed in your state. Several states have ABC stores which have a monopoly on the sale of alcohol in that state. Several of those stores are run by county or local commissions.

What happens when the state monopolizes the sale of pot? If you think the machinery of police enforcement will shut down with legalization, you're dreaming. Your local pot dealer is going to encounter a police structure just as dedicated to bringing him down and arresting him as the one before weed was legal. You'll get your weed at the ABC, but anyone trying to circumvent the state's monopoly will find himself in jail on federal drug charges.

I think it's dumb and I think California is the worse off for legalizing pot.

Of course, I live in a pot legal state and the pot tourism industry here is pretty darn huge, with many Californians coming here and wondering the best way to get the pot back into California....

There are a ton of "green cross" stores around, far more than the vape stores I saw arising, and even pot window shopping (well you have to go inside, there are no windows) is a lot of fun, as one store may look like the inside of a van (on purpose) another may model itself after an Apple store, and there are all sorts of employees to tell you all about each strain, this strain is oakey and tastes of chocolate and berries, that strain provides a body high, this strain goes very well with Avatar, and stuff like that.

Anyway, don't legalize it, you'll have way too many ODs and deaths on the highway.

I just don't know what the opposition is afraid of.

That someone somewhere is enjoying themselves in the WRONG WAY

Tell me how to test for impairment after you legalize a drug.

How do you test for impairment from codeine? Aspirin? NyQuil? Intermittent seizure disorders?

What Conan said.

Remember when Pennsylvania police seized a guy's $160,000 wine collection?

Pennsylvania's liquor monopoly was designed in part to inhibit drinking, and kept in place because the state is dependent on the revenue stream. Pittsburgh's local government burdened restaurant owners with an additional alcohol tax that they swore would be used to fund public transportation - but predictably the money was funneled into other budget holes.

I still can't buy a bottle of wine at the grocery store when I'm shopping for dinner. When I have gluten free pizza and wings delivered to my house (thanks to the small business owner - because my house is outside his delivery zone), I can't pay them to also deliver a couple of the pricey gluten free beers they carry (one of the few worth drinking, that my local grocery store stopped carrying).

So small business owners are losing business, and government puts time, effort, and money into turning our citizens into criminals where we refuse to be a captive market by taking such extreme measures as driving across the state line to buy alcohol for ourselves and our friends.

Legalizing pot is a good first start, but it would be far better to allow private growing and private sales. People who are in chronic pain should not have to beg a doctor and grovel to the medical system for permission to smoke or eat a plant most of us could grow.

I think about the crap added to tobacco and the high prices created by the high taxes meant to discourage smoking - that has worked on a lot of people I know, and I'm concerned it could artificially inflate the price of pot such that people have to choose between food, fuel, or pain relief.

I think about the crap added to prescription medications - my wife found many of the oral liquid meds intolerable because of the artificial flavors added to them. She was always super sensitive, as a kid and as an adult, including a hyper sense of smell and taste. It was so hard to find a way to make medications tolerable for someone who was increasingly not herself, not able to be reasoned with in some ways, and in horrific pain. Someone left a bottle of CBD oil by my front door - this was illegal in Pennsylvania at the time. The label had been removed, but I think it was a product called Charlotte's Web, which contains two ingredients, CBD oil and olive oil. This was simple enough to be used in ways she could tolerate. I'm glad someone makes this product and that someone who knew my wife well enough to have an idea of what might work for her, got it to us without being arrested. If you live in a state where pot is legal, but not the formulation you need, you're still in a bind.

I don't trust a state government to match or better the kind of responsiveness in product development and availability that becomes possible when people are acting out of their own interests and responding to one another's needs. The high tax can be a very real barrier to access something people need to alleviate chronic pain, and the money made from those taxes provides the state with another motivation to turn people into criminals where they refuse to be a captive market.

@ Rad: You and Norman and Flynne had a pretty good conversation at the link you posted. This seems to be your main question:
"I am still waiting for someone to tell me how to measure impairment, so that the public can be protected from the misuse of legalized drugs by workers in critical positions. We have zero-tolerance policies now which will be removed if you get things legalized."

One reason the information is unavailable is because the Feds took control of marijuana research back in 1968 and haven't produced any results yet. Though you would think that in the face of such a devastating threat to public health we would be fully informed about their findings. One clue comes from an article in the International Business Times:

"The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency – still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic, along with other powerful drugs like meth and heroin, the DEA also gets to sign off on research proposals. Critics of the process argue that because the DEA has a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal, the agency gives preference to studies that are likely to highlight marijuana's harmful effects."

> I think about the crap added to
> tobacco \....

The next year new poisons had to be added as a result of government order. They included mercury salts, benzene, cadmium, zinc, ether, chloroform, carbolic acid, acetone, iodine, brucine (similar to strychnine), formaldehyde (the major component of embalming fluid), methyl alcohol (wood alcohol), kerosene, and gasoline. The poison formulas had to be approved by government. It required that as much as 10% of the poisoned industrial alcohol had to include wood alcohol. The latter was hard to remove by re-distillation. It was very deadly.

It bugs me that people are so reflexively horny for government to collect money from this.

This is part of the Trump thing... Why bother to feign conservatism when everyone believes the most important thing is to guarantee revenue for the state?

Ah, Sorry, forgot the link;

http://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/deaths-during-prohibition-government-poisoned-alcohol-to-stop-drinking/

Liberal, compassionate government will happily murder as an expression of its kindness. ~ Crid at October 16, 2016 10:22 AM

That's the problem. When your cause is holy and righteous, any deaths along the way can be rationalized as mere "collateral damage" and can be justified. When the agent of your righteousness is the state, such deaths become the norm, not the exception.

"Raw milk anyone?"

As I have shown, raw milk IS available where it is prepared correctly, despite many comments having nothing to do with the primary mechanism as to why that's the case.

"How do you test for impairment from codeine? Aspirin? NyQuil? Intermittent seizure disorders?"

Existing law actually addresses these concerns. Check the requirements for CDL operation today. Responsible drivers avoid drinking for two reasons: they know their chance of causing a crash go up, and they want to keep their job, so they keep limits in mind.
I'm not talking about blatant disregard for the law. The impairment standard for alcohol is 0.08g/dl in most states. Notice that lets you imbibe without prosecution due to negligence on your part.

Go ahead. Tell me what concentration of THC in the blood will keep you from hitting the brake pedal on your fuel semi in time - because you're so calm you just don't see the need to hurry, AND THC affects spatial orientation.

Rad, your concern for highway safety is commendable. But it avoids the fundamental question of why any amount of marijuana is prohibited under federal law.

the fundamental question of why any amount of marijuana is prohibited under federal law

Reefer madness, dude. It puts our white wymyn at risk.

So I've been told. Wut?

Crid, thanks for the link.

It astounds me how transparent some government employees are in their lust to be obeyed. Willing to kill people who do not obey orders ostensibly enforced to keep people safe. It's a human weakness, the desire to control someone camouflaged as care - it's just appallingly transparent when the intention that has been clearly stated in the plain text of law is so egregiously different than the results people use the law to perpetrate.

Rad, as you point out with alcohol just because something is legal it doesn't mean you can't lose your job from using it. If you show up to work drunk you can still be fired. If you show up at work stoned you will be fired as well. Truck drivers currently avoiding alcohol will also avoid pot. Quite frankly truckers prefer stimulants anyways.

"It'll be interesting to see how the unregulated and untaxed market reacts to a government imposed floor in prices. How much will they raise their prices?"

IRA, why would they raise prices? The real issue Colorado saw was with their regulations and taxes it cost so much more to produce legal weed that the illegal market continued to operate. People sell illegal cigs to get around the tax. Moonshiners still exist due to high taxes. High taxes on pot will just crush the legal market and keep the current illegal one going. The risk of getting caught is already included in the current price of illegal weed. Dreams of vast tax revenue are something only a stoner could come up with. Especially considering how easy it is to cultivate marijuana.

Existing law actually addresses these concerns

Sorry Rad, no moving goal posts.

Your goal post was testing blood levels for impairment

So what test do they use to test for NyQuil?

As I have shown, raw milk IS available where it is prepared correctly, despite many comments having nothing to do with the primary mechanism as to why that's the case.

The raw milk comment I made was about people not being able by law to sell the product they raise in their backyard. Like milk directly from cows ... or pot.

"The raw milk comment I made was about people not being able by law to sell the product they raise in their backyard."

Simple. Don't sell it.

There's a law that says you cannot be "in the business" of selling guns without qualifying with BATFE as a dealer. Commercial activity is the point.

So. No impairment standards yet.

By the way, luj, the legalization of weed is the new aspect. Be logical. Impairment standards exist to figure out what to do when a violation is discovered, and they set the structure of responsibility between employees and employers.

Go ahead. Tell me you want to be found in court with an employee who says he was high yesterday, but not today when he let the commuter train hit the station. Oh, you had nothing in place when the state said "everything goes"?

Be prepared.

Since you don't appear to be willing to research your own question Rad, there are three standards states use for intoxication that are already applied to marijuana.
1. Any in the system counts as intoxicated. So yes, if they can scientifically detect it (or even bad cop 'science' detect it) you are 'intoxicated' and will get a DUI.
2. Over a threshold counts as intoxicated. For example Illinois the threshold is 5ng/ml in either blood or urine.
3. Behavior tests. I.e. walk a line and say the ABCs backwards.

So there you go. State law already covers your concerns. Impairment standards already exist for this drug. Now, are they the best or most appropriate standards, probably not. But that is true of alcohol as well.

Go ahead. Tell me you want to be found in court with an employee who says he was high yesterday, but not today when he let the commuter train hit the station.

And that is different from the guy who had a few beer on Saturday night and crashed while sober on Monday how?

Or the guy with the migraine condition who chases his Imetrex with some oxy the day before he crashed while not on any meds?

There is only one reason to belive weed should be illegal.

Racism

> It's a human weakness, the
> desire to control someone
> camouflaged as care

☑

I can't call having more people f'ed up, and there will be more people f'ed up, a good thing.

I don't know that more people will be f'ed up Alan. I'll admit I haven't done an exhaustive search, but what I've casually come across claims that pot usage in Colorado by residents hasn't gone up. There are a lot of people who illegally use the stuff already. Something like 50% of Americans have tried pot. Roughly 10% of Americans are current users.

I don't like the stuff. It isn't good for you. But making it illegal hasn't gotten rid of it. But the plant is too easy to cultivate for prohibition to be effective. Hence I find the police state which tries to enforce the unenforcable is more harmful than the drug.

For Ben.

Note the waffling. "Per se" and "Reasonable inference" in Colorado.

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here Rad. How is 'Per se' waffling? It means intrinsic or 'by it self'. So a 'per se' limit sets the legal limit. I.e. A per se >5ng/ml law is just saying the legal limit is 5ng/ml. You have a similar issue with the legal definition of 'Reasonable inference'. From what I can tell in this context that means that courts can use reasonable inferences as a basis of 'fact' for conviction. I.e. they don't have to prove you were over the legal limit if they can make a reasonable inference from other evidence. That 'reasonable inference' becomes the new evidence.

I'm not a lawyer so maybe Isab can chime in. But it look like from your own link Colorado has a hard limit of 5ng/ml THC in blood. Anything over that counts as impaired driving. But in addition to that they don't even have to show you are over the limit to secure a conviction. If they can claim a 'reasonable inference' from other evidence that you look like you are over the limit then you will be found guilty. Where is the waffling?