Will Marijuana be legalized under Trump?

[BugI02]

The concern is the long latency of delta-9 THC in the human body and at what level the perpetrator is not impaired. I have presented evidence that this latency is not the short metabolizing time characteristic of alcohol, so smoking only on saturday does not mean you are unimpaired on monday, which would be true if you only drank on saturday and recovered on sunday

The assertion was that a great deal of research and experiment would be necessary to put in place common sense regulation that is not required now. The original assertion was that federal legalization would be fraught with unintended consequences, the least of which would be unintended expenses.

Why do you think the UCMJ is zero tolerance? Do you think you should be able to retain a security clearance if you are a stoner? The questions are endless. Sleeping dogs

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, the Google results argument is silly. If you get 4.8 billion hits on a cute kitten search, does that mean 2/3 of the planet is posting about cats? There are probably more people in the world who have eaten a cat than have taken a picture of one. But you wouldn't know it by comparing Google results.

I took it to be indicative in a very rough way of how much internet play a particular topic generates and thus as a stand-in for prevalence of a topic

example: search on "Glocks suck" 168000 hits

search on "1911s suck" 39500 hits

obviously, Glocks suck almost five times as much as 1911s

 

[Woobie]

It isn't very rough, it is useless.

The UCMJ won't change when marijuana is legalized. Federal aviation regulations do not have to change. This is all baseless hand wringing.

 

[hoosierdoc]

The data MVCs involving marijuana based on a drug screen is completely misleading. All it's doing is sampling the population's use of marijuana.

As drug use in the population goes up, they are seeing a rise in accidents where the drivers are testing positive. That does not mean that the MJ caused the accident, just that they used it in the last week or two.

If they want to report LEVELS of it and make an argument, fine. But you can't report a positive metabolite and expect us to make an honest logical leap.

 

[Bummer]

The concern is the long latency of delta-9 THC in the human body and at what level the perpetrator is not impaired. I have presented evidence that this latency is not the short metabolizing time characteristic of alcohol, so smoking only on saturday does not mean you are unimpaired on monday, which would be true if you only drank on saturday and recovered on sunday

The assertion was that a great deal of research and experiment would be necessary to put in place common sense regulation that is not required now. The original assertion was that federal legalization would be fraught with unintended consequences, the least of which would be unintended expenses.

Why do you think the UCMJ is zero tolerance? Do you think you should be able to retain a security clearance if you are a stoner? The questions are endless. Sleeping dogs

Common sense does not posit that someone could smoke on Saturday and still be impaired on Monday.

THC-COOH is stored in body fat and released over time. It is not associated with impairment since it is not the psychoactive component. THC-COOH is what urine tests catch. The majority of tests used today are checking for relatively long term use, not active impairment. A "chronic" can quit and still be caught by a urine test forty days later even though blood tests show the psychoactive component is gone in a few hours - certainly less than a day.

Can a user (perpetrator is such a biased term) pass an old fashioned "stupid human tricks" sobriety test? Then they're not really impaired. A saliva swab should be sufficient as a backup test if the user fails the stupid human test. A blood test is a needlessly invasive way to learn the same thing.

I think the UCMJ is zero tolerance because it's the military. People in the military signed away their rights. What else should one expect?

If marijuana were legal why would anyone need to lose their security clearance? Clinton violated the Espionage Act with impunity, so security isn't really a very good argument to make. The people at the top clearly don't care about that.

The fact is there's been plenty of study. The problem is the antis don't like the results.

Unintended consequences? Like what, freedom in the Land Of The Free?

Doesn't "Sleeping dogs" really mean that power should keep doing it because it's gotten away with it this long? Argumentum ad antiquitatem. The old way of doing it hasn't been proven to be right, it has merely proven to be. By that standard should not the Framers and Founders have simply bowed before King George III?

 

[seedubs1]

Just because the .gov doesn't have a robust limit of some sort doesn't make it ok for them to ban something.

You're also falling into the trap of correlating BAC with inebriation. BAC isn't a good measure of how drunk someone is. I've seen alcoholics that you couldn't tell had had a drink, and their BAC is around 0.30. Then there's my wife.....On the floor passed out at 0.06 (under the legal limit).

Inebriation is not scientifically quantifiable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3570572/



Biological Properties of Alcohol - Toxipedia





Can't make a direct half-life comparison, but using the 1 beer = 1 shot = 1 glass of wine comparison, someone who went on a 12 drink bender spread over two hours would be at 0% BAC 38 hours later. If somebody went on a similar weed bender, how long before they are no longer of diminished capacity

 

[chipbennett]

There will always be a fight against other drugs as long as we a society accept the use of intoxicants at all. Alcohol and tobacco being legal is a problem. This is where the Muslims have it right.

And where the Muslims (and many Christians, for that matter) have it wrong is in conflating religious doctrine and secular law. I am a firm believer that society cannot legislate morality. Aside from foundational principles (God exists, our rights are given to us from God, per se harmful acts - murder, rape, robbery, bearing false witness, etc. - should be illegal, etc.) I separate my religious beliefs from my political stances, by-and-large. (This is where I have libertarian leanings.)

There are non-harmful - if not legitimately beneficial - uses for many forms of intoxicants. A free society has no business interfering with said uses of those intoxicants. (You can also replace "intoxicants" with several other words. Society shouldn't dictate how much fat, salt, or sugar one consumes. Society shouldn't dictate what consenting adults do in private. Society shouldn't dictate how much money one legitimately earns, or what one does with legitimately earned wages - gambling, luxury purchases, lavish lifestyles. Etc.)

 

[chipbennett]

I removed the quote blocks, sorry.

If my marijuana use affects you the same amount your gun ownership affects me, then what's the issue?

I have no issue with the feds regulating it in a smart manner. I'm just amazed that personal liberty gets thrown out the door when it doesn't have to do with guns(see also: abortion, marriage, bathrooms, etc.)

There are entire (epic) threads here devoted to that topic. One's view is entirely consistent with personal liberty, when one accepts that abortion results in the death of a human being, who did not have the opportunity to exercise personal liberty in the decision to have his or her life ended.

As for marriage: get the state out of it, and the problem goes away. Let the state recognize civil unions as a matter of contract law, and let religious institutions recognize marriage. That way, the state can recognize civil unions of whomever the state allows (one man and one woman, two men, two women, one man and four women, two men and two women - whatever), and the church can recognize marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. Simple.

As for bathrooms: what about the right of gender-based privacy? Public restrooms are based on one's actual plumbing, not on one's feelings or self-identification. Why does the personal liberty of the fewer-than-1% supersede the personal liberty of the greater-than-99%? But again, there is a simple solution: provide at least one, single-person facility, suitable for men, women, transgendered, families with young children, or whomever.

 

[chipbennett]

My argument is that we have allowed some intoxicants, yet not others. I think we should go the route of NO intoxicants. Other than societal approval, why should we influence our mental status and with poisons?

Let alone the poor effect on health of ourselves and others, why do we think it's cool to put chemicals into our bodies to effect mentality?

Personally, I prefer freedom to totalitarianism.

If you don't want to use intoxicants, surely you don't need to government passing a law in order for you to decide not to use them?

 

[chipbennett]

Prescribed meds as well. Altered state, stay home. Then it is your right to treat your body as you see fit. Easy enough to understand.

I have prescribed pain meds, for especially bad gout flares. I travel weekly, but I don't travel with the pain meds.

Oddly enough, I am able to determine what constitutes responsible usage for me, even without the government passing laws, or otherwise regulating my usage for me.

That's my main point of disagreement with bwframe.

 

[chipbennett]

I'd try to refute that, but I haven't had my coffee yet.

ISWYDT

 

[bwframe]

I guess I need to make it clear, seeing as how so many choose to read words into my posts that weren't there to begin with.

I'm not suggesting we change any laws (including legalizing pot.) I'm suggesting that we educate our chemical using populace that such is unhealthy and not cool. We have been successful at cutting down cigarette smoking dramatically with PSA's and taxation. There is no reason the same could not be done with alcohol, pot and further drugs.

Just say no...

 

[seedubs1]

So you're just suggesting we tax it to death. That won't create more backyard stills and people going blind from drinking rubbing alcohol or anything. We've tried this before.....it doesn't work. Prohibition (by legalization, taxation, or any other means) is not a winning platform.

I guess I need to make it clear, seeing as how so many choose to read words into my posts that weren't there to begin with.

I'm not suggesting we change any laws (including legalizing pot.) I'm suggesting that we educate our chemical using populace that such is unhealthy and not cool. We have been successful at cutting down cigarette smoking dramatically with PSA's and taxation. There is no reason the same could not be done with alcohol, pot and further drugs.

Just say no...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You would need a Federal standard because the licensing is federal, no states can issue pilots licenses. Thus standards that govern the licensing must be federal. My pilot license was issued by the FAA after I met federally mandated standards, not by Ohio

You have not answered this question

Would you want a partner who you knew was 'baked' all weekend and only sobered up at the minimum necessary remove from duty? Would you bet your life on someone like that? Would you want that person operating on your wife or your children? Would the remedies available through the courts if they do be satisfying

What happens if you show up to fly your plane intoxicated on alcohol? Prescription medicine? Is anyone talking about changing the rules for intoxication of pilots?

Of course I don't want a partner who's a substance abuser. Or a doctor. However, I also understand not everyone is a cop or a doctor. I understand some people will abuse and some people will simply use. I understand that just because I don't want a partner who is morbidly obese, we don't need to outlaw sugar for everyone. I understand that just because I don't want a partner who's lazy, there's no need to call for a federally mandated exercise program.

Now that that question is out of the way, let's talk about why it's a silly question. If my hypothetical partner showed signs of drug use, he'd be suspended and almost certainly terminated. If a doctor shows up to surgery drunk, what happens? If it's legal at the federal level or not is irrelevant to either of those. It's legal for me to wear my uniform and participate in a political rally. It's against department policy and I can be disciplined for it. It's not illegal to not show up to work on time. Pretty much everyone's job can enforce the requirement you do so. Etc.

 

[bwframe]

So you're just suggesting we tax it to death...

No. Here is my post so may read it again, this time thoroughly maybe? :

I guess I need to make it clear, seeing as how so many choose to read words into my posts that weren't there to begin with.

I'm not suggesting we change any laws (including legalizing pot.) I'm suggesting that we educate our chemical using populace that such is unhealthy and not cool. We have been successful at cutting down cigarette smoking dramatically with PSA's and taxation. There is no reason the same could not be done with alcohol, pot and further drugs.

Just say no...

Education is key. Years and years of education to take the cool factor away from chemical use intoxication. Also the education of the long term health effects of such usage. The same as has been done with cigarettes.

Some folks do still roll their own smokes to dodge the high "sin taxes", but they are few. The few that do make their own, along with those that pay the high price for over the counter cigarettes, know without doubt that what they are doing is fatally unhealthy. Also, not so cool anymore. They know this through years and years (generations) of education.

As generations grow up without seeing parents/adults/peers/TV personalities use cigarettes, surprisingly their children often don't either.

The same can and should be done with alcohol and of course illegal drugs.

 

[seedubs1]

Highlighted in BOLD for you. I read it just fine. Those are your words, not mine. But I'm glad you see how ridiculous your grand ideas for taxation and decreased liberty and freedom sound. If alcohol was taxed at the same rate as cigarettes, I'd call that taxing it to death. Having "vice" taxes is ridiculous.

No. Here is my post so may read it again, this time thoroughly maybe? :

We have been successful at cutting down cigarette smoking dramatically with PSA's and taxation. There is no reason the same could not be done with alcohol, pot and further drugs.

Just say no...

 

[BugI02]

Highlighted in BOLD for you. I read it just fine. Those are your words, not mine. But I'm glad you see how ridiculous your grand ideas for taxation and decreased liberty and freedom sound. If alcohol was taxed at the same rate as cigarettes, I'd call that taxing it to death. Having "vice" taxes is ridiculous.

Oh, I don't know. If yer killin' yourself to live, we might as well make a profit off you

 

[BugI02]

[video=youtube;bxLSuzQbQOk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxLSuzQbQOk[/video]

 

[hoosierdoc]

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ho-offered-4-20-joints-to-congressional-staff



"hey dudes, let's go to federal property and offer joints to federal employees, wouldn't that be rad"?

 

[NKBJ]

While I'm against people screwing up their heads with pot I'm much more against the harm caused to people by the systems evolved from the "war" on drugs. The point of the system these days is to feed itself. It feeds primarily on the young people being goofy rebellious new in the world young people.
We really don't need to go through this any more.