Colorado. What do you guys think?

[Seoul_lasers]

To me this is the problem with legalizing marijuana. There is no test to determine if someone is currently under the influence of marijuana/THC.

When it's made legal lots of people will try it who are not used to it.
Some of these people will drive while under the influence of it.
Some of those people will get into accidents, gauranteed.

How do we test to see that they are *currently* under the influence? There needs to be a way to do this quickly and easily. There are people who would be incapable of driving while under the influence of marijuana and the first time one of these people crash into a van full of children people against legalization are going to scream "I told you so!".

I am for the legalization of marijauna but this is a problem that needs solved. Also, will employers still be able to fire/not hire someone for a positive marijuana test in Colorado?

I am for the legalization of most drugs but I feel it needs to be a slow evolution or people won't handle it well.

There is an easy way to test for THC.... the craving of twinkies

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

To me this is the problem with legalizing marijuana. There is no test to determine if someone is currently under the influence of marijuana/THC.

If you are referring to a test like the breathalyzer, no there isn't.

There is also no test like that for coke, or meth, or heroin, or any number of drugs, legal and illegal, except for blood/urine/hair sampling.

There are however lots of tell tale signs when people are high....

When it's made legal lots of people will try it who are not used to it.

Anyone who wants to try it, can try it now.

Fact: Drugs are not hard to obtain. All that is necessary, is a will and some money.

Fact: Prices on drugs are right now extremely inflated due to said drugs being illegal.

Fact: Quality of the drugs on the street... unknown.

I personally would prefer people pay a premium for quality, instead of supporting the local charity otherwise known as the DEA.

 

[StardustSprinkles]

SO happy to hear this news. It's more of a victory for the nation in my eyes, the DEA, ATF, FBI all have divisions that are essentially bloatware to our government, in a financial crisis like this we need to shrink the Gestapo just a bit and focus on keeping the important things running, and the real criminals off the street. They focus on these victimless crimes like piracy and marijuana possession whilst blabbing about being broke and I have to wonder.. How much does the anti-piracy division cost annually to run? Oh, and why doesn't Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount, Ect. have to pay a healthy percentage of that, again??
Same with this war on drugs. Make the rope companies and pharmaceutical reps too afraid of competition pay for the war they hype. /disappoint nanny state

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Brandon Woodard: Law student murdered in New York 'was drug courier killed over missing cash' | Mail Online

@Woodofcville - It's not that they have divisions that are useless, and bloatware, the very agencies themselves are the bloatware.

 

[Bionic-Badger]

I have seen that the criminal elements will not go away...
When cigarettes went up in price the enterprising criminal
elements smuggled cheap cigarettes into Canada and made
a killing underselling the main stream legal sellers that were
locked into their selling prices.
The criminal element was created by that increase in price.

No, not go away, just as they haven't all gone away for alcohol. Still, criminal elements involved with alcohol aren't really much of a problem compared to those involved in illegal drugs.

Also remember that cigarettes cost 2x in Canada as the cost in the States, so there is profit to be made trafficking cigarettes to Canada. In Colorado, the price of legal pot will probably be fixed at the same going rate as the illegal stuff until if/when its legality becomes more widespread, after which the price across the board will go down. This is to prevent trafficking, and maximize profits for the state. With no profit incentive, there's no point to trafficking.

Even all things equal, there are positive secondary effects: less law enforcement and incarceration costs, and extra tax revenue that would normally be going to dealers.

If pot is legalized it will not deter the criminal element they
will just adjust their strategy... the prior "illegal pot" will still
be available but for less since the criminal element will not
be paying the exorbitant taxes that will inevitably be applied
to the "legal" pot just like they do for cigarettes and alcohol.

That's okay too. There are still positive benefits: pot's value will go down, reducing profits to the existing dealers. Many people will switch to the legal supply because it is more convenient, has quality control, and the price will not be that much more. It'll be like people buying illegal alcohol when they can just as easily buy a bottle at a liquor store.

Another key difference here is that in Canada, cigarettes were never illegal in the first place, so the price increase created a black market, just like Prohibition created a black market for alcohol. With pot, the black market already exists. The only thing price competition from legal sources will do is reduce the profits going to the black market--even if it doesn't eliminate it.

To me this is the problem with legalizing marijuana. There is no test to determine if someone is currently under the influence of marijuana/THC.

Is there a test to see if someone is sleep deprived? They're just as much, if not more, a road hazard than someone on drugs. "Intoxicated driving" shouldn't depend only on a chemical test.

When it's made legal lots of people will try it who are not used to it.
Some of these people will drive while under the influence of it.
Some of those people will get into accidents, gauranteed.

It's no different than now. Even without access to now-illegal drugs, people can try alcohol too right? What makes the situation any different?

How do we test to see that they are *currently* under the influence? There needs to be a way to do this quickly and easily. There are people who would be incapable of driving while under the influence of marijuana and the first time one of these people crash into a van full of children people against legalization are going to scream "I told you so!".

How do we do it now? Cops can only pull you over if you're showing signs of intoxication, or at a checkpoint during drinking holidays.

Also, is it any better than it is now? Someone could be driving under the influence of pot now, and there are no field sobriety tests because its illegality means nobody tests for it. Alcohol tests are used only because it is assumed that someone can partake of it. I expect that methods will be developed to test for other chemicals--assuming they're legalized.

I am for the legalization of marijauna but this is a problem that needs solved. Also, will employers still be able to fire/not hire someone for a positive marijuana test in Colorado?

Yes, that is still allowed.

I am for the legalization of most drugs but I feel it needs to be a slow evolution or people won't handle it well.

It should be done in a controlled manner, so that people are made aware of the dangers of using them. It's like safe sex education: if you don't teach kids how to do it right, they're probably going to do it wrong. The key is that they're going to do it anyway, so at least make sure they do it right.

 

[Kartracer00]

To me this is the problem with legalizing marijuana. There is no test to determine if someone is currently under the influence of marijuana/THC.

When it's made legal lots of people will try it who are not used to it.
Some of these people will drive while under the influence of it.
Some of those people will get into accidents, gauranteed.

How do we test to see that they are *currently* under the influence? There needs to be a way to do this quickly and easily. There are people who would be incapable of driving while under the influence of marijuana and the first time one of these people crash into a van full of children people against legalization are going to scream "I told you so!".

I am for the legalization of marijauna but this is a problem that needs solved. Also, will employers still be able to fire/not hire someone for a positive marijuana test in Colorado?

I am for the legalization of most drugs but I feel it needs to be a slow evolution or people won't handle it well.

Have you ever seen a cop have said person stare at his finger as he slowly moves his hand side to side? The cop is looking for twitchy eye movements. This is the current way to check for "highness" or to see if they are under the influence of anything really.
That is a well known method of testing someone. And well, of course, common sense. My uncle is chief of police in Walla Walla, Oregon.
(yes, he was called to the Clackamas Town Center minutes after the tragic shooting )

:thanks: Everyone for your thoughts and opinions on this subject! Its a nice little debate.

 

[Distillate]

If you are referring to a test like the breathalyzer, no there isn't.

There is also no test like that for coke, or meth, or heroin, or any number of drugs, legal and illegal, except for blood/urine/hair sampling.

There are however lots of tell tale signs when people are high....

Have you ever seen a cop have said person stare at his finger as he slowly moves his hand side to side? The cop is looking for twitchy eye movements. This is the current way to check for "highness" or to see if they are under the influence of anything really.
That is a well known method of testing someone. And well, of course, common sense.

But do these tell tale signs and comon sense methods hold up in court as proof. Nowadays if a cop says in court "his eyemovements seemed suspicious and he tested positive for marijuana" that's it closed case, DUI. BUT, when marijuana is legal this is going to turn into a very gray area. Eye movements or suspicious tell tale signs are not difinitive proof and a positive thc test will be caused by completely legal smoking the day before. I'm just saying alcohol is a quick, easy test...either you go to jail in handcuffs or you drive away. Easy to set limits on what level is legal and what level isn't.
Ofcourse driving drunk is by far more dangerous than driving high on marijuana for the most part in the average person, especially for someone used to smoking marijuana. How do set the laws though...at what point is it legal again to drive?

Anyone who wants to try it, can try it now.

Fact: Drugs are not hard to obtain. All that is necessary, is a will and some money.

Right, but there are many people who have chosen to not try marijuana because it is illegal and who will try it once it's legal. I'm not saying that's a reason to not make it legal but there will be a big surge of first time users. We need to figure out how to deal with these people. People in general are idiots or rather there are many idiots in the general public...that's why we are governed by so many laws that seem over-strict and unfair. Laws against lasers, laws against fireworks, laws against drugs, speed limits, etc. If everyone used common sense we wouldn't need any of those laws.
There needs to be a way of seperating out and punishing those who are idiots with marijuana so it can be legal for those who wish to use it in a way that doesn't create a burden to society. Having a "breathalizer-style" test would do that.

I could talk about the pros and cons of legalization of drugs all day and this is just one of the many views I have on the subject.

Fact: Prices on drugs are right now extremely inflated due to said drugs being illegal.

Fact: Quality of the drugs on the street... unknown.

I personally would prefer people pay a premium for quality, instead of supporting the local charity otherwise known as the DEA.

People are going to use drugs...government will never stop it. Atleast with legal drugs the purchaser would know what they are actually getting and the taxes would be huge. The taxes would be money coming in to the government instead of insane amounts being spent on the drug war. Maybe when we didn't have to pay to put every user in jail we could invest in decent treatment centers for addicts.
One problem though is the current politics uses the drug war as a reason why police departments need to buy new cool gadgets, and as a way to pay for them. If a police department can say this new thermal imaging camera was used to make 300 arrests and 200 were drug arrests. They need drugs to be illegal in order to make these purchases reasonable......The police departments don't want their budgets cut and they wont need such inflated budgets without a drug war.
Also, the government has been pushing so many lies and bad science over the years it's hard for them to just turn around and make any drug legal.

:thanks: Everyone for your thoughts and opinions on this subject! Its a nice little debate.

It's a nice little subject to debate...like the whole entire healthcare system being eff'ed and people's right to marry who ever they wish. (although I don't see gay marriage as a real debate...I don't see how gay people getting married can harm me in any way....give them the right to do what everyone else does and lets move on. I see gay marriage as the civil rights movements of the past. One day eveyone will look back and say "why the heck wasn't that done decades sooner, why was everyone's head up their @$$ soo long.)

 

[HitShane]

In every country where drugs were legalised, the crime rate dropped to 1/3 after ten years. There are a lot of people in prison, using up our tax $, all because they were in the front yard smoking a "J" and playing with their dog. Someone calls the cops or one drives by and now this persons life is ruined.

If Marlboro or Newport lobbied to sell Marijuana it would pass federally.

There is a petition going around and through congress to seperate the local government laws (State) from the Federal laws...This way each state can do what they think is best for the econemy and the people. The Fed would not be able to over rule the state. There are several states right now that are already at a separatist stance from the US government.

https://secure2.convio.net/dpa/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=905&autologin=true

 

[Distillate]

Is there a test to see if someone is sleep deprived? They're just as much, if not more, a road hazard than someone on drugs. "Intoxicated driving" shouldn't depend only on a chemical test.



It's no different than now. Even without access to now-illegal drugs, people can try alcohol too right? What makes the situation any different?

The problem/difference is that fact that marijuana was/would be just made legal. Media hype and the opposition would be all over ANYTHING that could possibly due to the legalization of marijuana. If it were just made legal for truck drivers to drive unlimited hours than the same could be said for needing a sleep deprevation test. The media is mainly really after ratings (other than political based news stations) but they have a huge impact on people's perceptions of things. Tell me FOX News wouldn't be ALL OVER "the disasterous effects of the recent federal legalization of marijuana" if it happened...compete with ominous sound effects as they read the headline.

Also, is it any better than it is now? Someone could be driving under the influence of pot now, and there are no field sobriety tests because its illegality means nobody tests for it. Alcohol tests are used only because it is assumed that someone can partake of it. I expect that methods will be developed to test for other chemicals--assuming they're legalized.

I believe it's not tested for because there has not been a test developed that is capable, not because marijuana is illegal. A cop would love to be able to have a test now to prove the driver is under the influence when they walk up on a car full of the odor of marijuana but no physical evidence.

Yes, that is still allowed.

I see that as a big problem. Marijuana is legal but a company can hire/fire someone for using it. Seems like discrimination but without a test to be able to prove someone is not currently under the influence even though there is a positive thc test, how can an employer hire a marijuana user? Companies do drug tests after accidents because of insurrance costs. They need to know the accident wasn't caused by impairment.

It should be done in a controlled manner, so that people are made aware of the dangers of using them. It's like safe sex education: if you don't teach kids how to do it right, they're probably going to do it wrong. The key is that they're going to do it anyway, so at least make sure they do it right.

And wasn't it Bush's administration they wanted an "abstinance only" approach to sex education?? dumb, dumb dumb! The DARE program and current drug education program is terrible. It's so full of untruths that when a kid does try drugs and it's totally different than what they been told, it just makes them think everything they learned about drug education is BS.
We really need an honest drug education program. Tell people the truth and let them make smart choices. So many ER visits are due people using drugs without the needed knowledge to use them safely.

In every country where drugs were legalised, the crime rate dropped to 1/3 after ten years. There are a lot of people in prison, using up our tax $, all because they were in the front yard smoking a "J" and playing with their dog. Someone calls the cops or one drives by and now this persons life is ruined.

These people come out of prison feeling like a criminal, received an education on being a criminal while in prison and now have a criminal record so they can't get a normal job; setting them up to be a real criminal.

If Marlboro or Newport lobbied to sell Marijuana it would pass federally.

They are going to want to try something soon. Cigarette smoking is becoming banned left and right and the cost of cigarettes is becoming so high most smokers are going to quit.

 

[HitShane]

Just like you are not allowed to drink and drive, yet we can still buy beer... Txting on your phone is becoming a huge driving risk, yet cell phones are legal...

 

[Bionic-Badger]

The problem/difference is that fact that marijuana was/would be just made legal. Media hype and the opposition would be all over ANYTHING that could possibly due to the legalization of marijuana. If it were just made legal for truck drivers to drive unlimited hours than the same could be said for needing a sleep deprevation test. The media is mainly really after ratings (other than political based news stations) but they have a huge impact on people's perceptions of things. Tell me FOX News wouldn't be ALL OVER "the disasterous effects of the recent federal legalization of marijuana" if it happened...compete with ominous sound effects as they read the headline.

But you can drive while sleep deprived. It's not illegal. There are stretches of highway here that have billboards telling people to pull over if they're sleep deprived. Some people don't even know they're sleep deprived.

And who cares if the news is going to jump over changes in policy? That's not the "difference" I was alluding to. I was talking about why is it that different that people can try other drugs besides the currently legal batch right now?

I believe it's not tested for because there has not been a test developed that is capable, not because marijuana is illegal. A cop would love to be able to have a test now to prove the driver is under the influence when they walk up on a car full of the odor of marijuana but no physical evidence.

Actually, who even cares if they're under the influence, but not to any detectable problematic level? Really, the cops should be catching people for driving erratically, not because some substance hit some arbitrary threshold level.

I see that as a big problem. Marijuana is legal but a company can hire/fire someone for using it. Seems like discrimination but without a test to be able to prove someone is not currently under the influence even though there is a positive thc test, how can an employer hire a marijuana user? Companies do drug tests after accidents because of insurrance costs. They need to know the accident wasn't caused by impairment.

It looks like you answered your own question in the end of that paragraph. In the end it's not unfair discrimination just because something is legal. Porn is legal, but your boss can hire/fire you for looking at it while on the job. Many jobs have dress-codes too. It is also reasonable to rule that having such chemicals in your system could be a safety and liability hazard that an employer doesn't want to take on.

 

[HitShane]

Then if you show up high to work you get fired... Same as drunk, late, unshowered, poor dressed, lack progress, poor attitude....

 

[Distillate]

It looks like you answered your own question in the end of that paragraph. In the end it's not unfair discrimination just because something is legal. Porn is legal, but your boss can hire/fire you for looking at it while on the job. Many jobs have dress-codes too. It is also reasonable to rule that having such chemicals in your system could be a safety and liability hazard that an employer doesn't want to take on.

I wasn't trying to answer my own question, I was trying to point out both sides of the problem. I still see a big problem here when for example an employee needs to take a drug test for any reason and can get fired for a positive test that was actually positive from legal marijuana use many days earlier. That's the difference between this and things like dress-code, porn, drinking on the job, etc.). What good would making it legal do if you were under constant threat of losing your job and not being able to provide for your family?
Imagine if the only test for alcohol detected it for a week afterward and employers fired people for positive alcohol tests. That would be the same as what we are talking about.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

I wasn't trying to answer my own question, I was trying to point out both sides of the problem. I still see a big problem here when for example an employee needs to take a drug test for any reason and can get fired for a positive test that was actually positive from legal marijuana use many days earlier. That's the difference between this and things like dress-code, porn, drinking on the job, etc.). What good would making it legal do if you were under constant threat of losing your job and not being able to provide for your family?
Imagine if the only test for alcohol detected it for a week afterward and employers fired people for positive alcohol tests. That would be the same as what we are talking about.

Ultimately most employers really do not care what people do on their off time, so long as it does not impact their on the job performance. Nor IMO should they care.

Those that do, and fire people as a result of a positive drug test to a legal drug, may well end up with the losing end of a lawsuit on their hands for wrongful termination.

 

[HitShane]

Alcohol does show up the next day... Not every job drug tests. If you take vitamins everyday and drink water your system will stay pretty clean anyway. My younger years have proved time and time again, that drug tests can not detect toxins that are not there in a high enough concentration...They would have to use the mouth swab tests. Same ones they use to see if you drank today. They make them for all drugs. They really just check for recent drug use (1-3 days).

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

There are other tests that can be done. Specifically hair testing can produce results for up to a year (for body hair).

Blood tests can come back even after a few weeks, and up to a month.

For most people drug testing is usually only an issue when being hired. After that random drug tests tend to be rare.

Also many drug tests will show a false positive, and results cannot be used against you, if you are taking a prescription drug with similar properties.