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.
Field tests, well it shouldn't be about whatever substance someone is using whether it's legal, illegal, prescription or OTC. It needs to be about the ability to drive safely regardless of all that. I know that takes the focus off chemicles and puts it onto something else but that's the way we need to go.
I firmly support the medical use of marijuana. I also believe legalizing, taxing, regulating is the the right thing to do.
While I fully agree that possession of small amounts of marijuana should be decriminalized and filling up jails with potheads at the cost of millions to the taxpayers is a stupid idea, the legalization and taxation of marijuana would never work. How exactly are you going to put Joe Dealer out of business when he already has a 1000 watt setup in his basement, no overhead other than his electic bill and fertilizer costs, and you just legalized the product he will always be able to undercut you with? He already has an established clientele who will likely keep buying off him to avoid paying excessive government taxes (especially if it is high-grade bio or hydro). The only reason why the end of prohibition put bootleggers out of business is because people want alcohol that tastes good, and smuggling, storing and distributing enough well made alcohol to supply a small city is very difficult to keep a secret without having the law in your pocket. On the other hand, 10 grow ops fully set up for maximizing yield with a hydro/bio setup is quite easy to keep secret, and the amount of product you would harvest from them would supply many times the number of people than the equivalent space would if bootlegging alcohol was your business instead.
Of course, you could just be suggesting that the government exchange the "war on drugs" for a "war on tax evasion" and lock up the same criminals at the same costs for what amounts to the same crime. As such, I really don't see how this is a solution to anything.
And that's great, but if/when its legalized how do you go about Proving someone is intoxicated to then charge them with DWI?
In Canada, they already have a "narcolyser" that can detect if someone is under the influence of drugs as quickly as a breathalyser can detect alcohol. There is also the matter of pulling someone in for suspicion and compelling them to take a blood test as proof of sobriety.
And my study has shown that drunks are better dancers that non-drunks at the club.
I don't get what they are wanting to do. If they want it legalized there are probably better ways of going about that than a pretty useless study like this.
And that's great, but if/when its legalized how do you go about Proving someone is intoxicated to then charge them with DWI?
First they would have to be driving in a way that was unsafe, we don't just pull people over for fun. If nothing else they can be cited for whatever it was they did to attract attention. The rest, it can be done it's just a matter of how far we want to go with it, remembering that the farther we choose to go the more likely we are just going to randomly start testing people just for the heck of it...and for the big $$ that will surely follow.
I want roads safe, I want safe drivers, but I want the law to be smart about enforcing it too and not using it against people just becasue they can.
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.