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 want to change the opinion that "pot heads are evil". And if I call the cops and tell them I believe my neighbor is doing something illegal, the sheriffs department can show up and ask to see the house. If you refuse, which is your right, then they'll just go and get a warrant.
I agree, I like decriminalization, but most of the other states are there yet, its part of what I'm fighting for.
Weed can be detected through blood and urinalysis. Immediate effects can often be found using the traditional sobriety tests used for alcohol. You do know that most people don't take breathalyzers right?
Most folks don't suggest that driving on any drug is a good idea. I myself don't like people driving high. But we've already got laws on the books for driving under the influence, and they are already used in marijuana cases. If you fail a sobriety test, guess what, you're going to have a DUI.
Cigarettes have over 200 chemicals that are bad for you. Most of the chemicals you're talking about are contained in your food as well.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box.†New York. (1995): 36.
Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981.
Nahas, Gabriel G. and Nicholas A. Pace. Letter. “Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.†New York Times 4 December 1993: A20.
Inaba, Darryl S. and William E. Cohen. Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. 2nd ed. Ashland: CNS Productions, 1995. 174.
Again, most DUI's are given with sobriety tests, not breathalyzers. Most law enforcement officers understand that this shows impairment no matter what drug you are on.
The cops can question on suspicion. Things happen, fires, pet break ins, natural disasters, etc that would be neither irresponsible or up to you if someone found out your business.
And again, most of us have never said that driving while high is a good idea.
Hope this clears up a little bit.
[MOD CUT]
All of your studies are from the 80's and 90's and my study was from 2009 and was a summary of 30 different studies. There is obviously a lot of research that goes both ways, but weed obviously has a negative effect on people who use it a lot and often. Anyways you also said that people refuse breathelizers? In Illinois if you refuse one you lose your license for 6 months, so i dont think it happens that often. And the only chance a person has to beat a DUI is if they dont blow, so if marijuana was legal i doubt it would be easy to convict people based off an opinion of the police officer.
If your neighbor was growing marijuana, what would you do? I'm sure it'd depend on the amount, the reason, their demeanor, various other factors, but what would you do?
Debate your rationing please. If you make a scientific statement, please provide a source of your knowledge.
Thanks
I would do nothing. I wouldnt want anyone else to know, but if we were not friends and I found out I still would not tell anyone who might get him in trouble, as I dont believe its illegal and should be regulated by anyone other than the consumer (and whatever taxes and fees must be imposed were it legal).
With something as popular as marijuana, its too easy to "manufacture" and law enforcement can never halt its production anyway
All of your studies are from the 80's and 90's and my study was from 2009 and was a summary of 30 different studies. There is obviously a lot of research that goes both ways, but weed obviously has a negative effect on people who use it a lot and often. Anyways you also said that people refuse breathelizers? In Illinois if you refuse one you lose your license for 6 months, so i dont think it happens that often. And the only chance a person has to beat a DUI is if they dont blow, so if marijuana was legal i doubt it would be easy to convict people based off an opinion of the police officer.
Nope, summaries are bad when it comes to studies. The overall effect is nill.
The only studies that have been done on so called "heavy cannabis use" are all conducted on people using the drug 7 times a week since they were at the latest 18 years old, usually earlier.
Heavy use by minors is known to cause brain function problems, much as heavy alcohol use in minors and anything that effects the developing brain
But when its in adults, or those who smoked for recreational only purposes when younger, and then went to regular use when they were older there is little to no impairment shown.
July 1, 2003 -- Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.
The researchers found only a "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Otherwise, scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies.
No, I didn't say people refuse breathalyzers, although they do in some circumstances in some states. I said that the field sobriety test is usually used by officers, because in many cases it shows a better view of the impairment of the person, and not just blood alcohol level. And its cheaper, they don't have to use the little tips and add ins for breathalyzers when they can tell someone is falling over drunk or under the influence.
Actually its quite easy to convict with a video of a field sobriety test where you're falling all over yourself.
I would call the cops. It's ILLEGAL for a reason and I don't want to be considered an accessory and be put in jail too for their ILLEGAL activity when they eventually will BE CAUGHT.
I would call the cops. It's ILLEGAL for a reason and I don't want to be considered an accessory and be put in jail too for their ILLEGAL activity when they eventually will BE CAUGHT.
What is that reason?
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.
