Marijuana: By the numbers

• lhslep134

  

  justincredible wrote:

  Glory Days wrote:

  SQ_Crazies wrote: I would LOVE to see how many haters would change their tune and start using it as soon as it became legal. It'd be HILARIOUS actually.
  
  You know what another problem with weed is, drug tests for work are totally bogus. And before someone says, "yeah, so says the pothead", I know a business owner very well who is VERY clear that they aren't big fans of weed. But even they think drug tests for jobs are STUPID, especially for weed.

  
  i think if it becomes legal that would be a big problem. imagine getting pulled over or getting in an accident. they smell weed even though you havent smoked it in say a day or 2 because the jacket you are wearing smells like it or there is some in your car. yet they test you and hit positive because it stays in your system for so long.

  I can actually see the issue presented here. Since there are no tests for pot that tell if it is in your system "right now" (i.e. smoked recently and still high) there would need to be field sobriety tests for it. Not sure if they would be similar to those for alcohol related DUIs. Perhaps the cop could offer the driver some Cheetos. If they turn them down they are obviously not high.

  If I'm not mistaken, and I think I could be (my circumstance may have been different), that in Ohio you DO NOT have to submit to a field sobriety test, the only way they can get you for DWI or OVI or whatever it is, is if you submit to a breathalyzer, and if you refuse that they can take you in if they're suspicious. I got pulled over once while high (30 in a 25, fuck youngstown) and I turned down the field sobriety test the officer wanted me to take because my eyes were glossy but I gladly submitted to a breathalyzer because I knew I hadn't been drinking. He ended up just giving me a warning, and I know for a fact he thought I was drunk and was just looking for another drunk driver to pull over.
  
  Long story short, it's a major issue that it can't be detected as being in the system currently when operating a vehicle. I've never drank and drove but I have been high, and while I'm still accident free, I can't say the same for one of my friends.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  IMO, there wouldn't be a field test for it. If you can't drive on weed it's because you can't drive, it's not the weed. When people say it's right up there with alcohol, they don't mean the effects.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Dude I'm calling BULLSHIT on you getting pulled over for 30 in a 25 by Y'Town cops. Actual YOUNGSTOWN cops?
• jpake1

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: IMO, there wouldn't be a field test for it. If you can't drive on weed it's because you can't drive, it's not the weed. When people say it's right up there with alcohol, they don't mean the effects.

  I have to disagree. I've been so high before at one of my bonfires, I was holding on to the chair for dear life. The world was about to tip. I definitely wouldn't have been able to drive.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I mean, it's the person 99% of the time. Ride along with someone who got in an accident when they were drunk sometimes when they're sober--they're likely still a shitty driver.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days wrote:
  how is the vote any different? you are missing the point i am making. they both would be just as constitutional or whatever you want to call it? you cant say the vote would be different for either. the issues are, the vote process itself is not. let the people vote and have the final say. if it passes and becomes legal, so be it. why let the big bad government decide right?

  I'm not missing the point, I understand exactly what you are trying to say.
  
  What I am saying is the issues are completely different. Yes, the voting process is the same, but the issues are different, therefore making the votes different. Some people that would vote in favor of a public smoking ban might also vote in favor of a the legalization of marijuana. In your original post, it seemed to me that you were implying that since people voted in favor of a public smoking ban, than they would not be in favor of the legalization of marijuana. If I misunderstood you, than that is where the confusion lies between us.
  
  What I am saying is the votes would be different because the issues are different. I didn't mean or say the voting process would be different. That is why I never brought up the constitutionality (word?) of either vote.
  
  I am not in favor of the public smoking ban, but it was voted on by the public and I accept it. If the public voted against marijuana being legal, than I would accept that as well, it doesn't mean I'd agree with it though.
• I Wear Pants

  lhslep134 wrote:

  justincredible wrote:

  Glory Days wrote:

  SQ_Crazies wrote: I would LOVE to see how many haters would change their tune and start using it as soon as it became legal. It'd be HILARIOUS actually.
  
  You know what another problem with weed is, drug tests for work are totally bogus. And before someone says, "yeah, so says the pothead", I know a business owner very well who is VERY clear that they aren't big fans of weed. But even they think drug tests for jobs are STUPID, especially for weed.

  
  i think if it becomes legal that would be a big problem. imagine getting pulled over or getting in an accident. they smell weed even though you havent smoked it in say a day or 2 because the jacket you are wearing smells like it or there is some in your car. yet they test you and hit positive because it stays in your system for so long.

  I can actually see the issue presented here. Since there are no tests for pot that tell if it is in your system "right now" (i.e. smoked recently and still high) there would need to be field sobriety tests for it. Not sure if they would be similar to those for alcohol related DUIs. Perhaps the cop could offer the driver some Cheetos. If they turn them down they are obviously not high.

  If I'm not mistaken, and I think I could be (my circumstance may have been different), that in Ohio you DO NOT have to submit to a field sobriety test, the only way they can get you for DWI or OVI or whatever it is, is if you submit to a breathalyzer, and if you refuse that they can take you in if they're suspicious. I got pulled over once while high (30 in a 25, fuck youngstown) and I turned down the field sobriety test the officer wanted me to take because my eyes were glossy but I gladly submitted to a breathalyzer because I knew I hadn't been drinking. He ended up just giving me a warning, and I know for a fact he thought I was drunk and was just looking for another drunk driver to pull over.
  
  Long story short, it's a major issue that it can't be detected as being in the system currently when operating a vehicle. I've never drank and drove but I have been high, and while I'm still accident free, I can't say the same for one of my friends.

  They can get you for OVI without a breathalyzer.
• Trueblue23

  

  Exactly. If police think you're under the influence of drugs they can take you to the hospital for a blood test.
• I Wear Pants

  Yeah, I wouldn't know this if I hadn't gotten arrested for OVI several weeks ago.
• lhslep134

  

  Trueblue23 wrote: Exactly. If police think you're under the influence of drugs they can take you to the hospital for a blood test.

  How long does it take marijuana to leave the bloodstream? If it's more than 10 hours then a blood test wouldn't be conclusive.
• lhslep134

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: Dude I'm calling BULLSHIT on you getting pulled over for 30 in a 25 by Y'Town cops. Actual YOUNGSTOWN cops?

  No Poland lol. I guess I could have been specific. Trust me, it was not the Ytown Police.
• I Wear Pants

  Yeah, Ytown police don't give a fuck. If you're not stabbing someone with a heroin needle you're an upstanding citizen.
• Gardens35

  I Wear Pants wrote: Yeah, Ytown police don't give a fuck...

  Tend to agree, seems the YPD mentality has changed over time. In years past, on slow nights they'd beat your ass just for practice.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  They'll pull you over for stopping at a red light in the middle of the night and tell you not to stop lol.
• I Wear Pants

  I literally watched someone (slowly) drive through a stop sign one night while a cop was stopped at one of the other signs. Dude didn't get pulled over.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew wrote:

  Glory Days wrote:
  how is the vote any different? you are missing the point i am making. they both would be just as constitutional or whatever you want to call it? you cant say the vote would be different for either. the issues are, the vote process itself is not. let the people vote and have the final say. if it passes and becomes legal, so be it. why let the big bad government decide right?

  I'm not missing the point, I understand exactly what you are trying to say.
  
  What I am saying is the issues are completely different. Yes, the voting process is the same, but the issues are different, therefore making the votes different. Some people that would vote in favor of a public smoking ban might also vote in favor of a the legalization of marijuana. In your original post, it seemed to me that you were implying that since people voted in favor of a public smoking ban, than they would not be in favor of the legalization of marijuana. If I misunderstood you, than that is where the confusion lies between us.
  
  What I am saying is the votes would be different because the issues are different. I didn't mean or say the voting process would be different. That is why I never brought up the constitutionality (word?) of either vote.
  
  I am not in favor of the public smoking ban, but it was voted on by the public and I accept it. If the public voted against marijuana being legal, than I would accept that as well, it doesn't mean I'd agree with it though.

  i guess thats my point, let the public vote. i agreed with the smoking ban. i would not agree with legalizing marijuana, but if voted on by the people, so be it.
• I Wear Pants

  We finally agree in this thread. ^^^^
• gut

  Glory Days wrote: i guess thats my point, let the public vote. i agreed with the smoking ban. i would not agree with legalizing marijuana, but if voted on by the people, so be it.

  My personal feeling is that the effects of smoking marijuana have not been comprehensibly studied, but I haven't really dove into the research. My point on the smoking ban has always been the research on second-hand smoke does not, IMO, justify encroaching on property rights. I do feel, however, if they wanted to make tobacco illegal because of the harmful 1st hand health effects it would be justified. With regard to the latter, for the same reason I don't feel marijuana should be legal, however if tobacco is (and it only is, at this point, because we've learned from prohibition but no question the direction we are heading is ultimately severe restrictions, if not eventually outlawed) I think it's a fair argument that marijuana should be legal as well.
  
  So let's just broach one more aspect brought up in this thread: vaporizing. OK, so if you feel marijuana should be legal because vaporizing is not harmful, then why not just make THC legal and leave pot out of the equation? I think it's immediately obvious why that is problematic. I suspect an approved over-the-counter type THC pill would be comparable to caffeine pills vs. speed, and I'd guess most advocates would not support such a watered-down high.
  
  Again, THC is a good corrolary with nicotine. First, let's point out nicotine does have beneficial effects on improved brain activity. But while nicotine substitutes have been available and marketed, tobacco users have generally not liked those products.
• Chesapeake

  

  One question left to ask here..
  
  Are you ever gonna pass that shit?!
• gerb131

  

  Chesapeake wrote: One question left to ask here..
  
  Are you ever gonna pass that shit?!

  Nope gonna babysit it like Mirg.
• Trueblue23

  

  My bad dudes, didn't mean to chief on it!
• Chesapeake

  

  gerb131 wrote:

  Chesapeake wrote: One question left to ask here..
  
  Are you ever gonna pass that shit?!

  Nope gonna babysit it like Mirg.

  He does overhold the marijuana while telling a story.
• gerb131

  

  Chesapeake wrote:

  gerb131 wrote:

  Chesapeake wrote: One question left to ask here..
  
  Are you ever gonna pass that shit?!

  Nope gonna babysit it like Mirg.

  He does overhold the marijuana while telling a story.

  I concur.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  chiieeffffinnnnn
• Trueblue23

  

  DeyDurkie5 wrote: chiieeffffinnnnn

  You ever gonna bring your goofdick ass to FayCo?