Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree. Personally I think Bush and Obama should both have been impeached for not protecting the borders.
how could someone live there since I does not feel like a safe place to live or be...heck stray rounds hitting the house would be a concern being so close with a heavy firefight like that esp if they have heavy and medium machine guns that can have the range to be a threat..
Well, desertdetroiter, you make a valid point. I don't see it really legal, just decriminalized. No taxes from that. (I know you didn't say anything about taxes)
I understand freedom. This is my opinion. I think America needs more sobriety.
Yeah, people can put whatever they want into their bodies. What worries me is that a lot of people do it every day.
I don't think that's good.
Then don't do drugs everyday. That isn't your problem, and it really isn't the problem of the state either, but rather, the individuals problem, and his or her acquaintances. Until that individual because a harm to the community, the state shouldn't be involved.
An FST can show that someone is under the influence. If their breath comes clean and they have no drugs on them, it still proves they are under the influence of something. They have home kits now to test for drug use. I know mj stays in the urine longer. I wonder about breath. If there were a breath test that could back up an FST, then DUI would be easy to prove.
I am for legalization and zero tolerance for DUI of marijuana. I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to have a good time with it, same as alcohol, but don't endanger any other lives while under the influence.
Decriminalization is a step in the right direction but doesn't go far enough.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,726,125 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat
I don't think it's a good idea.
I live in Michigan and I know Detroit pretty well. Yeah, Ann Arbor decriminalized pot a long time ago, but Detroit is something different altogether.
When you hear about the NY ghetto or Chicago's ghetto you think horror. Detroit's ghetto is quite wicked.
Even if they decide to legalize possession up to an ounce - Detroit has much bigger problems. A gun would be found on half of the people searched.
The last thing Detroit needs is people standing on the corner openly passing out dope (less than an ounce) and smoking it. It's not like they don't already do it, but this would make it acceptable in the eyes of the law/actually weakening law enforcement's mission. The unimaginable task of cleaning up Detroit.
Detroit is broke. And they are asking the state of Michigan to bail them out. Don't know what's going to happen yet.
The Detroit metropolitan area is the size of Rhode Island. The drugs are already there. Decriminalizing marijuana in an area of that size, advertises to the traffickers that Detroit is a drug friendly city.
Everything that comes into Detroit, gets disseminated throughout Michigan, especially up the I-75 corridor. Flint, Saginaw, Bay City and beyond are effected by this.
Why encourage more criminal behavior? I really hope my state doesn't go this way.
Note: Medicinal marijuana is legal in Michigan.
watch this video and educate yourself about legalizing all drugs.. keeping drugs illegal dosn't work!!!! all the wrong people are making big bucks by keeping drugs illegal..
how could someone live there since I does not feel like a safe place to live or be...heck stray rounds hitting the house would be a concern being so close with a heavy firefight like that esp if they have heavy and medium machine guns that can have the range to be a threat..
Like that in a lot of third world countries too I would guess.
An FST can show that someone is under the influence. If their breath comes clean and they have no drugs on them, it still proves they are under the influence of something. They have home kits now to test for drug use. I know mj stays in the urine longer. I wonder about breath. If there were a breath test that could back up an FST, then DUI would be easy to prove.
I am for legalization and zero tolerance for DUI of marijuana. I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to have a good time with it, same as alcohol, but don't endanger any other lives while under the influence.
Decriminalization is a step in the right direction but doesn't go far enough.
A field sobriety test proves nothing other than the trooper has probably cause to give someone a breath test I believe. They then pull out the field test and if you refuse to take it you get suspended six months. You pass it you drive on. I think they still have to give you one at the station as the field test isn't accurate enough for court. I may be wrong here though. A home kit is one thing but it would have to be whatever it is would have to be tested many times and approved by the legislature for use in court. Now I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers for that study. LOL. If you could charge everyone who can't say the alphabet backwards with driving under the influence a lot of folks would be without a license.
Then don't do drugs everyday. That isn't your problem, and it really isn't the problem of the state either, but rather, the individuals problem, and his or her acquaintances. Until that individual because a harm to the community, the state shouldn't be involved.
I don't do drugs at all.
But two things make me unsure about legalization.
(1) More availability. Less penalty. OK - freedom to do what you want, but everything people are free to do is not necessarily good for people. I'm not saying Nanny State no salt or no large coke stuff. Drugs effect people in negative ways sometimes. What if the ounce of pot is laced with PCP? Some people would say "Good Shiiit". I would say high risk. And it's going to get into the hands of our kids.
(2) When someone does "F" up, I can see it now, the solution will be some sort of substance abuse rehabilitation program. The abuser won't pay for it. The taxpayer will.
Recreational Marijuana is not just used in the home after a tough day. People drive, use it at lunch and then go back to work, etc.
Government restricts the over use of salt in New York City. That's ridiculous. But allowing people who are already screwed up to use pot is a bad idea.
In Michigan and other places, marijuana is just a supplement to other substances.
(1) More availability. Less penalty. OK - freedom to do what you want, but everything people are free to do is not necessarily good for people. I'm not saying Nanny State no salt or no large coke stuff. Drugs effect people in negative ways sometimes. What if the ounce of pot is laced with PCP? Some people would say "Good Shiiit". I would say high risk. And it's going to get into the hands of our kids.
Okay, you touch on a lot in this post right here.
1. Criminalization of drugs is a nanny state mentality if you're reasoning is "it's not good for you." Lots of things, like you point out, are not good for you. High-sugar drinks make you fat. Watching TV all day makes you fat. We don't outlaw those, however, and being overweight is a tremendous risk to your health. Being obese is definitely negative, and that will happen if you continue to consume large cokes and eat super-macs or whatever they're called.
What if an once of pot is laced with PCP? That's fine for people who consume it themselves, but it would be against the law for a manufacturer to do so because it would (ostensibly) violate part of the regulations of "lacing." That's why it's better to regulate, than it is to simply decriminalize. Decriminalization doesn't do any good if the back-end logistics of drug users (the pushers, manufactures, growers, etc) are still being controlled by criminal organizations.
And for "the kids" part, our children still consume large amounts of legal drugs with zero parental supervision, both legally and illegally. "For the children" is an emotional fallacy in this case. We can set age limits, enforce those limits, and continue a program of education for children and students, but there will, as with alcohol, always be the "risk" attraction of drugs and alcohol by kids and teens. We can't stop everyone, but it'll cut down on a lot of offenders.
Quote:
(2) When someone does "F" up, I can see it now, the solution will be some sort of substance abuse rehabilitation program. The abuser won't pay for it. The taxpayer will.
Court-ordered cases of AA are paid for by the attendant, not the tax-payer. Same goes with volunteer programs. Treating drug abuse as a medical--not criminal--problem will greatly cut-down on crime, not only because we'll be directly jailing less people, but also because of the fact that prisons create criminals, and petty possession offenses you might serve a month for, suddenly becomes a life sentence of joblessness, stigma, and as is sometimes the case, a life of crime.
Quote:
Recreational Marijuana is not just used in the home after a tough day. People drive, use it at lunch and then go back to work, etc.
People do that now with alcohol and prescription medications as well, which is honestly for an entirely different discussion altogether.
Quote:
Government restricts the over use of salt in New York City. That's ridiculous. But allowing people who are already screwed up to use pot is a bad idea.
"already screwed up," as in who?
Quote:
In Michigan and other places, marijuana is just a supplement to other substances.
A wonderful opinion you can uphold by not doing drugs or drinking. But it isn't your choice what other people do. That's the great double-edged sword of freedom.
A field sobriety test proves nothing other than the trooper has probably cause to give someone a breath test I believe. They then pull out the field test and if you refuse to take it you get suspended six months. You pass it you drive on. I think they still have to give you one at the station as the field test isn't accurate enough for court. I may be wrong here though. A home kit is one thing but it would have to be whatever it is would have to be tested many times and approved by the legislature for use in court. Now I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers for that study. LOL. If you could charge everyone who can't say the alphabet backwards with driving under the influence a lot of folks would be without a license.
Oh I definitely don't think an FST is anything other than probable cause. They need to develop something to test in addition to the FST. I used to practice my backwards abcs while drunk (once upon a time).
Hmmm wonder if something is in the works being tested right now. In my youth, I would have signed up to be a guinea pig for this one in a heartbeat
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
