If this passes, I'll eat my bong hat.

It certainly would be a step in the right direction; both helping the economy (through taxes, creating jobs to grow/dispense/etc) and by demystifying some of the stigma associated with the marijuana. It certainly won't be any more harmful than alcohol has been.

Should have happened twenty years ago.

If it passes in Lithuania, i'll eat my entire block of flats.

I wonder how they would test whether you're driving "under the influence". They can check for metabolites, but I wonder if there is a good way to test for active THC in the blood.

Either way, I hope it passes. People will use it whether it is legal or not, but it would be nice to stop clogging the prisons with, and taking the money of, non-violent weed smokers. Taxes > Fines.

>> ^Psychologic:
I wonder how they would test whether you're driving "under the influence". They can check for metabolites, but I wonder if there is a good way to test for active THC in the blood.


Where I'm from, you can be charged with impaired driving for a number of reasons. For example, if you blow under the legal limit, you can still get a DUI if you were too intoxicated to drive safely.
Depending where you are, this policy is already used most places for driving under the influence of marijuana.

We have drug testing on the roads in Victoria, Australia. I believe they can test for marijuana with a saliva sample. This has only recently been introduced and has been under a little criticism (mostly from the media), but this is to be expected given it is still in its infancy.

I'm not sure how accurate it is, although I would guess the harder thing is to differentiate between a joint smoked an hour ago and a joint smoked the previous day, because marijuana remains in the blood for so long compared to alcohol.

As omnistegan says, the police can still operate the old fashioned way if necessary.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Invest in Frito-Lay, now.

>> ^shuac:
If this passes, I'll eat my bong hat.


You may not realize it, but you've just inspired the idea of the bong hat.

^ If it's edible then you'll be a rich man.

The cops will test you with the standard tests for impairment... ie sobriety tests. Doesn't have to be breath or chemical.

You can pretty much tell when someone is stoned to the point of impairment, and if you can't tell.. well, there's your answer: Nothing happens.

Wait, a politician is suggesting something intelligent that doesn't fit the cookie cutter moral code the media has forced onto the world? Please forgive that run on sentence, I'm just in shock!

I keep feeling the ground to see if hell has frozen over.

I guess that will only happen if the bill passes.

I really hope this goes through. It will help every resident of California in one way or another. The additional money the state would make from taxes, the money not wasted on catching, prosecuting and imprisoning non violent offenders. Not to mention the decline in illegal drug dealers. No ones going to go buy from that guy in the shady part of town when they can go to Rite Aid or whatever. Hopefully this is the start of the country thinking logically for once.

>> ^dag:
Invest in Frito-Lay, now.


According to my own habits, Nabisco and Ferrero.

Munchies are for amateurs, but when I succumb I reach for milk and cookies.
(don't even act like you don't like milk and cookies motherfucker)

As a resident of California, I guarantee we would have a budget SURPLUS if we taxed the sale of marijuana.

/don't smoke it myself, know too many people that do

i'll eat an entire flock of bats.

>> ^MINK:
If it passes in Lithuania, i'll eat my entire block of flats.

All our pizzas will be free.

>> ^Psychologic:
I wonder how they would test whether you're driving "under the influence". They can check for metabolites, but I wonder if there is a good way to test for active THC in the blood.
Either way, I hope it passes. People will use it whether it is legal or not, but it would be nice to stop clogging the prisons with, and taking the money of, non-violent weed smokers. Taxes > Fines.


In 1990, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that 12.8% of those involved in fatal truck accidents showed signs of cannabis use in postmortem examination. However, that statistic is an unreliable indicator of the effects of cannabis on driving performance in a majority of those cases. A much larger NTSB study published in 1988 found that those drivers using only cannabis accounted for 2.2% of fatal accidents. That report concluded, “THC plays a relatively minor role in fatal traffic accidents as compared with alcohol.” - whole article, http://www.cannabismd.net/psychomotor-skills/

why don't we legalize murder and cash in on the sale of coffins??? wrong!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^yes, rock on! -

wait ... what??

The cognitive break between your avatar and your message gave me a mini-stroke.

When did marijuana become California's #1 cash crop?

>> ^solvent:
why don't we legalize murder and cash in on the sale of coffins??? wrong!


Ok, I'll bite.
You're saying

murder = wrong
buying marijuana = wrong
Murder = buying marijuana

Except the only reason buying marijuana is wrong right now is because it's illegal. It's not harmful, it's not toxic. There can be no reasonable justification for considering marijuana consumption "wrong", except that it's against the law, and I agree one shouldn't break the law. But then you are kind of implying that things are *only* wrong *because* they are illegal, and then shit starts to go awry. Because then you're saying that anything that anyone ever succeeds in making illegal should forever be illegal and never questioned, because they are illegal. Which, given enough time, would result in everything being illegal. And I don't think it should.

Well, whatever. Sorry about the rant.

>> ^Spoon_Gouge:
When did marijuana become California's #1 cash crop?


Interesting question. I was able to find articles stating this as early as 1997, but I couldn't find the year that it actually surpassed vegetables as the #1 cash crop in California.

Probably taking an unpopular stance here, but I don't really think marijuana should be legal. Maybe the stuff you used to get could be safely legalised but seriously the skunk that is around now is genuinely linked to extreme paranoia and schizophrenia. I hear it's something like 60 times the strength of the average 1960s joint.
Besides people do get cancer from mixing it with tobacco and smoking without a filter. I think it's daft to make out that there is zero risk to smoking weed.
And the idea that it would boost the economy?!!
OK so who's going to go to work for the first few days or so of easily available legalised weed? That's going to introduce a lot of people to long stretches on sofas with Doritos and pizza.
Maybe it's not as bad as alcohol, and it's certainly not as bad as loads of drugs.
Besides I've never personally known of anyone who smokes weed getting busted for it. People that suffer the most from it's illegality are large scale importers or growers, and they take the risk and make the profit, so I don't see that it's so bad that it's illegal. Why not just keep it as an underground interesting activity that has it's risks?
Who wants their prim and proper Auntie Janice facebooking them about coming round for a few spliffs with your Grandma and the bible group?
OK I take that back, maybe that would be funny.

>> ^mrk871:
Maybe the stuff you used to get could be safely legalised but seriously the skunk that is around now is genuinely linked to extreme paranoia and schizophrenia. I hear it's something like 60 times the strength of the average 1960s joint.

It takes less to get you high, that's about it. You still can't die from it. At worst people pass out if they smoke too much. Weed does not cause schizophrenia, it can cause some "schizophrenia-like" symptoms for a very short duration immediately after smoking a lot of weed at once... very different things. If people don't like it then they won't do it.


Besides people do get cancer from mixing it with tobacco and smoking without a filter. I think it's daft to make out that there is zero risk to smoking weed.

So weed should be illegal because tobacco gives you cancer? What about people who only smoke cigs when they drink alcohol? Weed isn't 100% healthy, but it's much better than things that are already legal.


And the idea that it would boost the economy?!!
OK so who's going to go to work for the first few days or so of easily available legalised weed?

The same people who already smoke daily and hold a regular job. I think you underestimate the number of people who smoke weed.


Besides I've never personally known of anyone who smokes weed getting busted for it. People that suffer the most from it's illegality are large scale importers or growers, and they take the risk and make the profit, so I don't see that it's so bad that it's illegal.

So we should keep it illegal to support growers? Personally I'd rather be able to grow my own plant without having to spend huge amounts of money to hide the fact. No one should know anyone who gets busted for smoking weed, but I happen to know of several.


Why not just keep it as an underground interesting activity that has it's risks?

I don't find it very "interesting" having to track down someone who has decent weed. Imagine if you had to go through the same trouble to have a beer or some wine.

Illegality doesn't stop people from smoking weed, it just just makes it more expensive and much more dangerous to find. Hell, I don't even smoke weed anymore, but it sucks to see good friends spend several thousand dollars defending themselves in court because a cop found a joint in their pocket... not to mention how much of a waste of court time it is to have to deal with that crap.

They can keep prohibiting weed if they want, but it will not go away. It just depends on how much of the state and federal budgets people want to waste on something that is safer than many legal past-times.

Smoke contains the free radicals that lead to cancer. However, the active components of cannabis vaporize at a lower temperature than that of combustion; therefore, if you use a vaporizer, no smoke is produced, and hence, no cancer.

>> ^mrk871:
Besides I've never personally known of anyone who smokes weed getting busted for it.

I do.

Me.

And let me tell you, it's the stupidest thing that can happen to someone, and definitely the most unfortunate part of my life.

Marijuana cures cancer.

The bottom line is that free people in a free society (oh that it were so!) should be able to engage in behavior and activities that they choose so long as they are not harming anyone else. Period.

Smoking weed, IN AND OF ITSELF - not driving, not operating heavy equipment, not performing surgery while high) - easily meets this requirement.

I have yet to hear the rational/factual argument against this position...