Legalizing marijuana

The Prohibitionists have not been able to voice a rational, and accurate argument as to why marijuana should be prohibited.

Two states have decided to make pot legal. This will be the opportunity to not only see what the effects of legalization will be, but also what future states should do to perfect legalization and regulation when they decide to legalize pot.

 

the legalize it crowd resorts to 3 y.o. arguments to get their way


"but but but... alcohol can do it.....I want to too"

does that argument work when your toddler son pitches a fit at the checkout when he wants an impulse buy item

"but but but.... jims mother bought him a candy bar..... I want one too"

 

Meanwhile, the prohibitionist crowd has no argument whatsoever, aside from "Because we said so". Sorry, dude, only my mother get's to use that one, and not even she has that right anymore.

 

The notion of using alcohol as a precedent to justify the legalization of marijuana, is a 3 yr old's argument to you? Our entire system of jurisprudence is based off precedent.

 

sure... pointing out that just because billy jumps off a bridge, is no reason to allow jimmy to do it too.

 

as soon as a there is a quick, breathalizer to check for DUI's like there is for alcohol.... I have no problem allowing weed to be legal.


as it stands, you allow a bunch of pot heads to say "sure I smoked, but I can handle it" right before they wreck and kill an innocent bystander.

if you legalize it, you have to either have a quick DUI check that can measure how impaired they are, set levels as to what is acceptable, and enforce it.... otherwise, if you don't, you have a newly legalized drug, and a person who thinks that means they are allowed to drive while impaired.

 

What a stupid analogy.

 

Funny.......you replied to my post......WITHOUT actually replying to my post. A non sequitur is not a valid reply.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/12/27/why_dui_limits_for_pot_are_bad.html

Colorado passed a law last spring that presumes you're too high to drive if you have five nanograms or more of THC per milliliter of blood, even though many experts say there is insufficient evidence to tie that level of THC to impaired driving.

Other states have per se drugged driving laws, meaning you can get a DUID if you have a certain level of drugs in your system. Several states have enacted per se laws in recent months, including Washington and Colorado.

If police stop a driver right now, suspecting that they are driving under the influence of alcohol- they can demand a breathalizer test, but at least in California, the driver does not have to take a breathalizer test, but can instead demand a more accurate urine or blood test.

It appears that states are passing very tough Pot DUI laws, and treating Pot very much like alcohols, with acceptable levels.

It sounds to me like Colorado and Washington have done exactly what you demanded- minus the breathalizer test- instead requiring more accurate blood tests.

- - - Updated - - -

I am just ignoring all of the trolling posts.

 

I'm not pro-pot, I'm pro-freedom and anti-organized crime. The prohibition of marijuana has caused far more death and destruction than marijuana itself would have had it been left alone. In my opinion, it's time for the bloodbath and prison-stuffing to stop, and the American people are apparently coming to the same conclusion. It's about damn time.

 

That's all fine... but until we have a roadside test to determine drug levels like we have for drunk levels... then we have no way to tell how impaired a driver is while driving.

I'm not one for giving up freedoms for safety, I've heard the quote about not deserving either... but the simple fact is, a person doesn't have the right to be a drunk driver, hence the laws, and we have a road side test for it.

A person does not have the right to drive while impaired with pot, meth, crack, heroin.... any of it.... and testing on the side of the road for any of that is impossible at the moment. As soon as a quick test can be created.... I'll be on board the pot-head movement....

 

I guess it is a really good thing the rest of us don't need your approval to make it legal huh?

Because it is so much more common than drunk driving, right?

 

If you are insisting something should be illegal, the burden of proof is on you to explain why.

I know you personally hate freedom, but you appear to be a minority in this country. And the law is not on your side.

"I don't like it, so it should stay illegal!" LOL

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...t_are_bad.html

Colorado passed a law last spring that presumes you're too high to drive if you have five nanograms or more of THC per milliliter of blood, even though many experts say there is insufficient evidence to tie that level of THC to impaired driving.

Other states have per se drugged driving laws, meaning you can get a DUID if you have a certain level of drugs in your system. Several states have enacted per se laws in recent months, including Washington and Colorado.

If police stop a driver right now, suspecting that they are driving under the influence of alcohol- they can demand a breathalizer test, but at least in California, the driver does not have to take a breathalizer test, but can instead demand a more accurate urine or blood test.

It appears that states are passing very tough Pot DUI laws, and treating Pot very much like alcohols, with acceptable levels.

It sounds to me like Colorado and Washington have done exactly what you demanded- minus the breathalizer test- instead requiring more accurate blood tests.