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.
We hear a lot about the hazards of drunk driving, but here's something else to put on your radar: A study in the British Medical Journal found that marijuana nearly doubles the risk of vehicle collisions.
Researchers conducted a systematic review of nine studies on the subject of marijuana and driving accidents, which incorporated almost 50,000 participants.
One problem with driving while high on weed, is how will the police be able to determine if you are high? They can do a sobriety test if you have been drinking alcohol and appear to be drunk, and determine that you fail the tests and are impaired, but your BAC is what they use to convict you for drunk driving. How will they be able to test a person for being high on marijuana? Marijuana stays in a person's system for days and even weeks, because its a natural substance which your body does not reject.
If you are driving drunk, we can prove beyond a doubt what your BAC is, and convict you if you are over a certain limit. If you smoke marijuana, even as little as a few times a week, there is no conclusive test to say you were high when you were involved in an accident.
Does anybody have any numbers on the amount of tax revenue we could generate through the legalization of marijuana?
We could get a premium for the leaves, and then use the rest of the plant for paper, clothing, rope, etc. We'd be able to tax each part seperately.
I'm just wondering what type of revenue it would generate off its sales. That's not including the amount of savings it could generate through reduced law enforcement, reduced incarceration rates, etc.
It would make practical sense to legalize it unless you have some moral bias against it or some other corporate interest.
One problem with driving while high on weed, is how will the police be able to determine if you are high? They can do a sobriety test if you have been drinking alcohol and appear to be drunk, and determine that you fail the tests and are impaired, but your BAC is what they use to convict you for drunk driving. How will they be able to test a person for being high on marijuana? Marijuana stays in a person's system for days and even weeks, because its a natural substance which your body does not reject.
If you are driving drunk, we can prove beyond a doubt what your BAC is, and convict you if you are over a certain limit. If you smoke marijuana, even as little as a few times a week, there is no conclusive test to say you were high when you were involved in an accident.
Good point! THC actually says in your system for 30 days
One problem with driving while high on weed, is how will the police be able to determine if you are high? They can do a sobriety test if you have been drinking alcohol and appear to be drunk, and determine that you fail the tests and are impaired, but your BAC is what they use to convict you for drunk driving. How will they be able to test a person for being high on marijuana? Marijuana stays in a person's system for days and even weeks, because its a natural substance which your body does not reject.
If you are driving drunk, we can prove beyond a doubt what your BAC is, and convict you if you are over a certain limit. If you smoke marijuana, even as little as a few times a week, there is no conclusive test to say you were high when you were involved in an accident.
Yes, that is a problem which needs to be resolved before any legalization talks can continue.
Does anybody have any numbers on the amount of tax revenue we could generate through the legalization of marijuana?
We could get a premium for the leaves, and then use the rest of the plant for paper, clothing, rope, etc. We'd be able to tax each part seperately.
I'm just wondering what type of revenue it would generate off its sales. That's not including the amount of savings it could generate through reduced law enforcement, reduced incarceration rates, etc.
It would make practical sense to legalize it unless you have some moral bias against it or some other corporate interest.
Cailfornia makes millions off of the medicinal use of it, so you can imagine if it was legal, the growing, cultivating, packaging and actual sales would be tremendous for job growth and tax it like you would tax cigarettes and alcohol and you are talking billions a year in tax revenue. Now if you want to take a step further you can also use it to make paper which would save our forest and prevent alot of land erosion. This again would create alot more jobs.
I guess that you might be wondering, why have'nt they done any of this? Well, the alcohol lobby is very powerful and so is the religous right which opposes this tooth and nail. Most of this is just out of simple ignorance.
Incarceration and law enforcement is a different matter altogether, many officers are for the legalization since it would free them up to fight more serious crimes. The powers to be wants to keep it status quo, since the prison system is a very profitable venture and that would cut down quite a bit of their revenue
One problem with driving while high on weed, is how will the police be able to determine if you are high? They can do a sobriety test if you have been drinking alcohol and appear to be drunk, and determine that you fail the tests and are impaired, but your BAC is what they use to convict you for drunk driving. How will they be able to test a person for being high on marijuana? Marijuana stays in a person's system for days and even weeks, because its a natural substance which your body does not reject.
If you are driving drunk, we can prove beyond a doubt what your BAC is, and convict you if you are over a certain limit. If you smoke marijuana, even as little as a few times a week, there is no conclusive test to say you were high when you were involved in an accident.
If you can't tell that a person is impaired, then they aren't impaired. Breath and blood test do not mean somebody is impaired.
I guess that you might be wondering, why have'nt they done any of this? Well, the alcohol lobby is very powerful and so is the religous right which opposes this tooth and nail. Most of this is just out of simple ignorance.
Do you have any facts to support either statement?
If you can't tell that a person is impaired, then they aren't impaired. Breath and blood test do not mean somebody is impaired.
Exactly. I think that a breathalyzer should only be employed AFTER someone has failed a sobriety test.
That way the judge can make a proper determination as to how intoxicated they really were.
The field sobriety test is just as accurate, if not more so, then the breathalyzer and it detects other intoxicant effects other than alcohol, like THC.
Instead, you pull in your driveway after having two or three beers at the bar, and because you have a tail light out, you go to jail, you lose your license, possibly your job, wife, kids, home, etc.
Ruin someones life over nothing, stupid.
As I pointed out earlier, 98.7% of all "over the limit" drivers make it home without hurting a soul. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, why are we doing this to people who haven't hurt anyone?
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,079,627 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
Cailfornia makes millions off of the medicinal use of it, so you can imagine if it was legal, the growing, cultivating, packaging and actual sales would be tremendous for job growth and tax it like you would tax cigarettes and alcohol and you are talking billions a year in tax revenue. Now if you want to take a step further you can also use it to make paper which would save our forest and prevent alot of land erosion. This again would create alot more jobs.
I guess that you might be wondering, why have'nt they done any of this? Well, the alcohol lobby is very powerful and so is the religous right which opposes this tooth and nail. Most of this is just out of simple ignorance.
Incarceration and law enforcement is a different matter altogether, many officers are for the legalization since it would free them up to fight more serious crimes. The powers to be wants to keep it status quo, since the prison system is a very profitable venture and that would cut down quite a bit of their revenue
Can you imagine how happy the farmers who got the contracts to raise it would be and how their conversations would differ from today??....
"Uhhhh....mmmmmm,hey Bubba.......hmmm I was out checking my crop ....uhhhh...of...Afgan Sticky Brown this mornin'.......hmmmmm....doin' .....o.....kay............it is"
....of course you know the govt wouldn't let anyone but their crony corp. farm contributors grow it legally tho'.
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.
