Do a lot of people in CO smoke pot? Should MJ be legal? (houses, lawsuit)

[AMidnightSoul]

And that pup definitetly looks high, lol.

[snofarmer]

Keyword,acquittal

In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned.

Free from the charge, like it never happened.

On a job application he would not have to mention it.

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

He was indeed impeached, but then was aquitted in a mock senate trial. He was only the second President to be impeached in US history.

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Probably would have been a good idea to leave the hash pipe at home before school, too.

Your posts are so over the top, like doctors and pilots or others doing there job high just because it is legal, it would still be illegal to do so high, just like it is to day.
Do you think legality's are stopping them from getting and or using drugs today, it is not. The law and their morals are stopping them.
Well to a point, as I'm sure there are some doing their jobs while having a drug in their systems be it pot alcohol, or some other mind altering drug.

[joeandmich]

People smoke pot everywhere in the world not just in Colorado.

[ryanek9freak]

Weed and Alcohol are 2 of the greatest things in the world. Responsible people know when and when not to use them. I don't go to work drunk, not would I go to work high, it's no different.

[CosmicWizard]

ryanek9freak wrote: Weed and Alcohol are 2 of the greatest things in the world. Responsible people know when and when not to use them.

Right on the money, except for one little thing....big brother assumes to know best and has usurped our right to be responsible or irresponsible with weed.

[McGowdog]

Originally Posted by ryanek9freak

I don't go to work drunk...

What happens if you go to the bar sober... or to a friends house sober... or the a restaurant sober... drink a few, change your mind, and lose track of your sobriety, think you're not that drunk, and drive home?

If you do that, then you're irresponsible? Maybe. But it doesn't necessarily make you an alcoholic. You might be a borderline hard drinker or a moderate/social drinker who made a bad decision, right? A teetotaler would never wind up in this position in the first place because they would have ordered an unsweetened brewed tea. So I guess the teetotaler has the BEST judgement of all... who is also the most responsible, but I must admit that I can't relate to him too well.

I guess the responsible person I could relate to is the one who likes to drink, who likes to get drunk at times, but can decide that they're not going to drink tonight because they have to drive home. But once they get home from dinner, he can go drink a 5th of Tennessee Bourbon before bed.

I was a very irresponsible drinker personally. Don't be like me. Today, I just don't drink booze at all, nor do I poke smot nor do I take other drugs/pills to get high. I don't even partake in tobacco. Why? Because it all becomes destructive for me personally and I had to go out and find a sufficient substitute.

For folks who are responsible with regards to this, I have nothing to say. For those who are not so responsible, DM me sometime. I'll discuss what I do if it is of interest to you.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

Keyword,acquittal

In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned.

Free from the charge, like it never happened.

On a job application he would not have to mention it.

You wrongly stated that he wasn't impeached. He was. The acquittal is a different issue...but that does not erase the asterisk next to Bill Clinton's name in the history books as only the second President ever to be impeached. And keep in mind that acquittal is not the same as proof of innocence, moreso in a trial conducted in a partisan political body rather than by a jury.

Originally Posted by snofarmer

Your posts are so over the top, like doctors and pilots or others doing there job high just because it is legal, it would still be illegal to do so high, just like it is to day.
Do you think legality's are stopping them from getting and or using drugs today, it is not. The law and their morals are stopping them.
Well to a point, as I'm sure there are some doing their jobs while having a drug in their systems be it pot alcohol, or some other mind altering drug.

The legal hurdles right now involve criminal penalties for everyone involved in the illegal manufacture, distribution, and sale of the drug. I guarantee you that if an airline pilot were to be convicted of purchasing, possessing, or use of MJ one time right now their career would be in serious jeopardy. That's a lot more margin of safety than having to rely on detection of overtly obvious signs of impairment when they're on the job.

@Wiz--government has a legitimate role in protecting the populace from the hazards imposed by irresponsible dopers. Nobody has a "right" to abuse a substance and then place their neighbors at risk by exposing them to the potential consequences of their impairment.

[Juliemac]

""government has a legitimate role in protecting the populace from the hazards imposed by irresponsible dopers. Nobody has a "right" to abuse a substance and then place their neighbors at risk by exposing them to the potential consequences of their impairment.""
[+] Rate thi

By that logic, please have the government also come and take my neighbor's guns... he is exposing me to potential dangers if one of his elementary aged kids picks one up and fires it towards my yard. And take his booze too.. he could easily run me down when he comes barreling in from the bar some night.... Oh wait...those things are both perfectly legal and I need to assume gun owners and alcohol drinkers are responsible folks who will make the right choice and exercise their freedoms responsibly. See how that works?

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Juliemac

""government has a legitimate role in protecting the populace from the hazards imposed by irresponsible dopers. Nobody has a "right" to abuse a substance and then place their neighbors at risk by exposing them to the potential consequences of their impairment.""
[+] Rate thi

By that logic, please have the government also come and take my neighbor's guns... he is exposing me to potential dangers if one of his elementary aged kids picks one up and fires it towards my yard. And take his booze too.. he could easily run me down when he comes barreling in from the bar some night.... Oh wait...those things are both perfectly legal and I need to assume gun owners and alcohol drinkers are responsible folks who will make the right choice and exercise their freedoms responsibly. See how that works?

No, I don't see how that works.

We run random DUI checkpoints to look for alcohol-impaired drivers. Many states have dram-shop laws that make giving a drink to someone cause for legal action against the drink provider if the drinker then goes out and hurts someone. That's a much less insidious risk than something like a dope-addled nurse getting a decimal point wrong and giving you a lethal 10x dose of medication, or dope-addled drivers hitting the roads in large numbers and killing your family because enforcement is tremendously difficult (nearly impossible) without a breathalyzer-like spot test for THC intoxication.

We can't protect everyone against every risk, but the number of fools who would be putting legalized drugs into their bodies and then inflicting the results on the rest of us is a huge nontrivial basket of risk that needs to be considered for the common good. It's widespread human nature for the losers and dregs of our society to get loaded on whatever is available and hit the streets. And having marijuana as easily available as tobacco to adolescents and teens presents another huge danger added to the minefield kids already have to traverse to grow up, especially with the large numbers left to grow up on their own without competent parental supervision. A kid that doesn't give a cr*p about school because he's living in a pot-induced stupor tends to grow up not being worth a cr*p as a member of society. There are too many like that now...what we don't need is to apply a big multiplier to that number.

[CosmicWizard]

Bob wrote: Nobody has a "right" to abuse a substance and then place their neighbors at risk by exposing them to the potential consequences of their impairment.

While I mostly agree with this statement, I would add that the vast majority of MJ users are not abusing it, but rather using it in moderation. I'll venture a guess and say that there are far more abusers of alcohol than MJ.