Medical Marijuana prospective from those who have to enforce the laws. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Medical Marijuana prospective from those who have to enforce the laws.


akapennypincher
12-10-2011, 11:18
Recently watch a documentary on the National Geographic Channel about Medical Marijuana called, "Marijuana Gold Rush" (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/12/marijuana_gold_rush_documentary_examines_weed_busi.php) that was exploring the business aspects of the Medical Marijuana industry. Most of the program was film in and around Oakland,. CA, and Mendocino County, CA.

My question is to those who have legal Medical Marijuana where they work enforcing the laws. Has Medical Marijuana caused more problem than its supporters would admit.

I know when the people behind the ballot initiative in Arizona were trying to qualify their ballot initiative collecting signatures. I personally was approached to sign their petition several times. I ask why must you have this Medical Marijuana to Smoke?, why not a pill made by a Pharmaceutical Company containing the active ingredient Medical Marijuana. The replies I got were all about strength, and freedom of choice, making me think what I know. This entire Medical Marijuana is just an excuse for people to get high, under the guidelines of this being a treatment for some medical condition.

Here in Arizona Medical Marijuana was passed by a ballot initiative, but our Governor Brewer is not allowing the Law to be implemented because Medical Marijuana is not allowed under federal law. Beside we got enough problem with Alcohol, and Drunk Drivers. We do not need people under the influence of Medical Marijuana, driving down the road also. JMHO!

Hack
12-10-2011, 11:34
It is against federal law. But, there are movements afoot to invoke Amendment X to the US Constitution concerning state's rights on several issues, including concerning medical marijuana. The federal government on the other hand will probably try to enforce the commerce clause of the US Constitution. So, basically it is developing into an interesting conundrum.

PinkoCommie
12-10-2011, 11:49
My perspective is that I like clear, bright lines. I honestly don't care if it is legal or not to possess and smoke weed. What I dislike is the weird twilight zone we are currently in in Colorado. It's illegal to possess, but you can have up to 2 oz. if you get a card that you have to spend money to get, and lie to a "doctor", so you can get help with insomnia or left big toe pain. I also do not enjoy working in a jurisdiction where the DA is on the record saying he doesn't give a flying **** about marijuana.

Either make it illegal, or legalize it and make it not my problem. Right now I am charged with taking seriously something that no one else takes seriously. This is a frustrating state of affairs. The regulations are a formality, designed to be easily mocked by those who want to smoke weed.

I am sure there is someone out there who can be legitimately helped by medical marijuana with whatever serious medical condition they have. I haven't met that person yet, and I deal with A LOT of medical marijuana contacts (I work for a large University PD).

WarCry
12-10-2011, 11:54
I know when the people behind the ballot initiative in Arizona were trying to qualify their ballot initiative collecting signatures. I personally was approached to sign their petition several times. I ask why must you have this Medical Marijuana to Smoke?, why not a pill made by a Pharmaceutical Company containing the active ingredient Medical Marijuana. The replies I got were all about strength, and freedom of choice, making me think what I know. This entire Medical Marijuana is just an excuse for people to get high, under the guidelines of this being a treatment for some medical condition.

Let me start by saying that I don't give a damn about this issue, really. I've never touched the stuff, and even if it were legal I wouldn't. So I truly do not care.

But you don't KNOW what you're saying. You're issuing your opinion, and stating it as a fact. It's STILL just your opinion.

Unless you're a medical doctor, you have no way of knowing the answer to your OWN question, and unless you were ASKING a doctor, then there's no way you'd get a real answer.

If it was just as easy as making a pill, why hasn't that happened for other things? I work in medical insurance, and I see claims all day, every day from people getting nebulizers for their kids. In case you don't know, a nebulizer takes a prescription medicine and converts it to an inhalation treatment. It's used for things like COPD, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc. So, sir, why don't they just "make a pill" with the same drugs? The answer is because it's more effective to be inhaled and absorbed into the blood stream through the lungs.

I don't know if this is the case with medical marijuana, and I'm certain there are SOME out there that will abuse the system, but making a declaration that implies there is NO medical benefit at all, from someone that has no medical training, makes you look foolish.




That said, if you ARE a doctor and a specialist that knows what s/he is talking about, my apologies. Is that the case?

WarCry
12-10-2011, 11:58
My perspective is that I like clear, bright lines. I honestly don't care if it is legal or not to possess and smoke weed. What I dislike is the weird twilight zone we are currently in in Colorado. It's illegal to possess, but you can have up to 2 oz. if you get a card that you have to spend money to get, and lie to a "doctor", so you can get help with insomnia or left big toe pain. I also do not enjoy working in a jurisdiction where the DA is on the record saying he doesn't give a flying **** about marijuana.

Either make it illegal, or legalize it and make it not my problem. Right now I am charged with taking seriously something that no one else takes seriously. This is a frustrating state of affairs. The regulations are a formality, designed to be easily mocked by those who want to smoke weed.

I am sure there is someone out there who can be legitimately helped by medical marijuana with whatever serious medical condition they have. I haven't met that person yet, and I deal with A LOT of medical marijuana contacts (I work for a large University PD).

I'm a huge supporter of police, and I'm one of the people that will scream at folks blaming cops for enforcing laws. Even if it's a stupid law, the cop didn't make it, and they're doing their job.

I feel for you guys that are put in positions like this, and I agree 100%. Legal or Illegal, make up your mind.

Hack
12-10-2011, 11:59
My perspective is that I like clear, bright lines. I honestly don't care if it is legal or not to possess and smoke weed. What I dislike is the weird twilight zone we are currently in in Colorado. It's illegal to possess, but you can have up to 2 oz. if you get a card that you have to spend money to get, and lie to a "doctor", so you can get help with insomnia or left big toe pain. I also do not enjoy working in a jurisdiction where the DA is on the record saying he doesn't give a flying **** about marijuana.

Either make it illegal, or legalize it and make it not my problem. Right now I am charged with taking seriously something that no one else takes seriously. This is a frustrating state of affairs. The regulations are a formality, designed to be easily mocked by those who want to smoke weed.

I am sure there is someone out there who can be legitimately helped by medical marijuana with whatever serious medical condition they have. I haven't met that person yet, and I deal with A LOT of medical marijuana contacts (I work for a large University PD).

There has been cannabis research studies concerning marijuana:

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=41&Itemid=135

PinkoCommie
12-10-2011, 12:09
There has been cannabis research studies concerning marijuana:

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=41&Itemid=135

I know. And I wasn't being sarcastic. What I was saying is that I am sure it is helpful to some. I have not, however, run into anyone like that yet -- people who are sick to the point that marijuana is necessary to mitigate whatever symptoms they have are not the ones who cross my path. I do see a lot of people wielding medical marijuana cards. I mean A LOT. And, so far, all of them have been comical. I ask the kids I deal with about the medical need (and I explain that this is strictly to satisfy my curiosity and not to make a case -- if they are getting a ticket for weed, they will get it regardless of whether they talk to me about this or not). They have ALL admitted that they got the cards to smoke weed and not to make some medical symptom better. Again -- I am sure that this stuff has some medical benefits to some people. Somehow, though, I don't think it's the 22 year old whose paperwork said that he got his medical recommendation to smoke to help with asthma. Seriously? Smoke weed for asthma? Even he said it was BS.

The-Fly
12-10-2011, 12:26
I know. And I wasn't being sarcastic. What I was saying is that I am sure it is helpful to some. I have not, however, run into anyone like that yet -- people who are sick to the point that marijuana is necessary to mitigate whatever symptoms they have are not the ones who cross my path. I do see a lot of people wielding medical marijuana cards. I mean A LOT. And, so far, all of them have been comical. I ask the kids I deal with about the medical need (and I explain that this is strictly to satisfy my curiosity and not to make a case -- if they are getting a ticket for weed, they will get it regardless of whether they talk to me about this or not). They have ALL admitted that they got the cards to smoke weed and not to make some medical symptom better. Again -- I am sure that this stuff has some medical benefits to some people. Somehow, though, I don't think it's the 22 year old whose paperwork said that he got his medical recommendation to smoke to help with asthma. Seriously? Smoke weed for asthma? Even he said it was BS.



I have to agree with this. I've known a few people who have MMJ cards, and the reasons they gave to the docs are BS. One guy even quietly admitted as much.

If its "medical", then it should be treated like any other prescription med. If we're going to let people get high because they feel like it (which currently, is pretty much how "medical" MMJ works), then we need to just be honest with ourselves as a society and stop making these stupid rules.

10-32
12-10-2011, 12:38
I have a friend who has a card (or whatever, I just know he has medical marijuana) and he uses it for legit medical reasons.

He has Crohn's disease, as well as pretty severe PTSD. Before the marijuana, he used to drink himself stupid to try to avoid the memories he had of his friends being killed in front of him. He also had horrible diarrhea (from the crohn's) and was losing weight uncontrollably.

He also did 2 tours in Iraq before he turned 21 and was more of a man at that age than a lot of people I had met who were much older. He's out of the military and going to college now.

My point is that it's not just about pot-head kids looking to get high. It has merit.
I agree that the laws are confusing right now and they need to be more clear, either the state or the federal standard has to reign. But we all face challenges in our chosen occupations, and this is just one of those challenges for law enforcement. Hopefully it will be settled soon and it won't be an issue...for the LEs or the legit patients

RetailNinja
12-10-2011, 12:50
No one every smoked two joints before they smoked two joints, then smoked two more, then went out and started a bar fight.

ateamer
12-10-2011, 13:06
Marijuana enforcement is a waste of our resources. Meth and heroin and alcohol abuse are what hurt people, not smoking weed. Marijuana should be legalized and regulated like alcohol.

msu_grad_121
12-10-2011, 13:15
Either make it illegal, or legalize it and make it not my problem...

I am sure there is someone out there who can be legitimately helped by medical marijuana with whatever serious medical condition they have.

I agree totally. In MI, you can get a card to possess, or another to grow in your house and generally speaking, you're not messed with (with one extremely notable exception). Personally, I've never smoked it, don't have any interest in it, but I can see how it might help someone like a friend of mine with a very severe brain tumor. Ironically enough, she refuses to use MJ to help with the nausea and such due to chemotherapy. She's by far the toughest person I've ever met.

That being said, I think the current state of affairs makes a mockery of MJ laws, as I personally have seen someone who had a possession card for (no BS) intermitent insomnia. Yeah, SOMEtimes I can't get to sleep, so the doctor gave me a card that lets me smoke weed to help. ANYway...

My personal feelings on the subject are that it should either be better regulated, or made legal already and be done with it. But Pinko's right, the way it's set up now is nothing but a joke.

Knute
12-10-2011, 15:36
But you don't KNOW what you're saying. You're issuing your opinion, and stating it as a fact. It's STILL just your opinion.

FACT-95 % of MMJ users in Colorado have them issued for "severe pain" and are between 20-25 years old (North Metro Task Force, 2009, Colorado DRE In-Service).

Personal experience; met TWO people who have legitimate medical issues for their MMJ card. Other reasons offered, PMS, sprained ankles, knee pain, etc. Oh, and when I was still a DRE and on patrol, my DUID arrests sky rocketed with MMJ users.

Unless you're a medical doctor, you have no way of knowing the answer to your OWN question, and unless you were ASKING a doctor, then there's no way you'd get a real answer.

This debate is still ongoing within the medical field. To call someone out on this board as a physician is a little testy isn't it?

If it was just as easy as making a pill, why hasn't that happened for other things? I work in medical insurance, and I see claims all day, every day from people getting nebulizers for their kids. In case you don't know, a nebulizer takes a prescription medicine and converts it to an inhalation treatment. It's used for things like COPD, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc. So, sir, why don't they just "make a pill" with the same drugs? The answer is because it's more effective to be inhaled and absorbed into the blood stream through the lungs.

Marinol (THC in pill form) has been out for a long time. Probably the reason nobody was using this before was because you actually had to see a doctor and have a REAL exam and get a bonafied prescription using a physician's DEA number. By the way, ashtma and COPD are respiratory conditions. Inhaling the medications would make sense for treatment (not sure about cystic fibrosis).

There is a problem when a large majority of the MMJ prescriptions are issued out by a small group of doctors within our state who already have sanctions against their DEA licensure. How can a doctor legitimately say they say over 100 patients a day and gave them thorough examinations? They can't, but there have been many who have issued many more MMJ cards than this in one day...for cash.

Oh yeah, and I have actually met people who have openly said they moved to our state just to smoke weed. Not because they have any medical condition, but just because it's so easy to obtain. That is first hand information that doesn't seem to make it to any of the media outlets...go figure!

MMJ and their dispensaries are a joke.

m2hmghb
12-10-2011, 18:07
A friend of mine takes marinol for pain and nausea due to medical conditions, it is prescription marijuana. Personally I would rather have marijuana then be on vicodin for pain, but until I see a pain clinic I won't be getting marinol, as for the medical cards I think they're a bunch of BS. You should have to go to a dr get an exam and then get a real prescription, not a voucher.

CAcop
12-10-2011, 18:48
Marijuana enforcement is a waste of our resources. Meth and heroin and alcohol abuse are what hurt people, not smoking weed. Marijuana should be legalized and regulated like alcohol.

And a little like tobacco too. It would be a little silly to tell people second hand tobacco smoke is bad but not second hand weed smoke.

WarCry
12-10-2011, 20:11
And a little like tobacco too. It would be a little silly to tell people second hand tobacco smoke is bad but not second hand weed smoke.

I think you're right. It needs to be regulated like alcohol in respect to driving, etc, and treated like tobacco in that....more or less....keep it in your own home/car/etc.

Goat 36
12-10-2011, 20:11
Marijuana enforcement is a waste of our resources. Meth and heroin and alcohol abuse are what hurt people, not smoking weed. Marijuana should be legalized and regulated like alcohol.

^This is really the bottom line.

Americans spend a Billion dollars a year on prisoners with Marijuana charges.

And all this for a 'plant' that many claim helps their pain and symptoms of debilitating disease more than anything that's pushed by Big Pharma.

And for those that use it casually: Alcohol is TEN times more dangerous, addictive and outright deadly on numerous fronts. Yet, it's marketed on every other billboard and tv commercial and sold on almost every streetcorner in America and the Government makes billions from those sales. People in every single walk of life drink alcohol and most of them are addicted.

Alcohol cannot and never will be classified as medicinal or good for you in any way, shape or form. And, even if someone 'could' make that argument somehow, they'll never get past the fact that Marijuana has 'never' killed anyone and never causes anyone to rob liquor stores, drive over a family of 5, beat their spouse/kids/family members, fight with complete strangers for no reason at all, or take any other action that can later be reasonably blamed on the weed for making them completely lose their mind.

Originally posted by CAcop:
And a little like tobacco too. It would be a little silly to tell people second hand tobacco smoke is bad but not second hand weed smoke.

Except that second hand Marijuana smoke could only give one a slight buzz if anything at all. Second hand cig smoke is loaded with carcinogens and poisons of various kinds. And yet they TOO are sold on almost every street corner in America.

Heaven forbid anybody ingests such a harmless plant as Marijuana for medicinal OR casual purposes when you consider all the other dangerous and deadly chemicals that are ingested in our foods and medicines, alone.

The one and 'ONLY' reason the Cartels make such an unGodly amount of money selling and moving Marijuana is because it's illegal. Without illegal pot sales, the Cartels would crumble.

CanIhaveGasCash
12-10-2011, 20:48
No one every smoked two joints before they smoked two joints, then smoked two more, then went out and started a bar fight.

I used to think like that, until I had to fight with a guy stoned out of his mind, but for the most part your statement is true.

Medical Marijuana may in fact have legitimate uses, however everybody knows that the system is abused by massive numbers of people. I forget the exact figure, but one doctor in Colorado wrote a disproportionate number of prescriptions.

We have also had an increase of DUID with marijuana being the intoxicant.

If they are going to sell it like medicine, it should be regulated like all other medicines. It should be in prescription bottles with the persons name on it like every other medication. I also don't know of any other medication that is administered in suckers, sodas, and brownies.

That said, legalize it, tax it, and set a per se limit for DUI.

akapennypincher
12-10-2011, 20:58
Unless you're a medical doctor, you have no way of knowing the answer to your OWN question, and unless you were ASKING a doctor, then there's no way you'd get a real answer.

No I am not an M.D., D.O., or PA but did have about 10++ years working in a Paramedical Field, and on the the Check Specialist I work with, and was my Medical Director. Was a proponent of marijuana for treatment of some pulmonary diseases. Yes he was aware of some medical benefit for some patients from POT. But he would always say I can not tell a patient to go buy marijuana, as it is not legal, there is no way to know if the stuff is ok to use, or has been contaminated, and will cause heath damage, injury, or death.

If it was just as easy as making a pill, why hasn't that happened for other things? I work in medical insurance, and I see claims all day, every day from people getting nebulizers for their kids. In case you don't know, a nebulizer takes a prescription medicine and converts it to an inhalation treatment. It's used for things like COPD, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc. So, sir, why don't they just "make a pill" with the same drugs? The answer is because it's more effective to be inhaled and absorbed into the blood stream through the lungs.

Actually Marijuana Pill with the active chemical THC is available it is called. It's called Marinol (http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html).

"Medical" Marijuana - The Facts

* Medical marijuana already exists. It's called Marinol.

* A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.

* Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke-Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective and dangerous drugs off the market.

*
There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette

* Morphine, for example, has proven to be a medically valuable drug, but the FDA does not endorse the smoking of opium or heroin. Instead, scientists have extracted active ingredients from opium, which are sold as pharmaceutical products like morphine, codeine, hydrocodone or oxycodone. In a similar vein, the FDA has not approved smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes, but has approved the active ingredient-THC-in the form of scientifically regulated Marinol.

* The DEA helped facilitate the research on Marinol. The National Cancer Institute approached the DEA in the early 1980s regarding their study of THC's in relieving nausea and vomiting. As a result, the DEA facilitated the registration and provided regulatory support and guidance for the study.

* The DEA recognizes the importance of listening to science. That's why the DEA has registered seven research initiatives to continue researching the effects of smoked marijuana as medicine. For example, under one program established by the State of California, researchers are studying the potential use of marijuana and its ingredients on conditions such as multiple sclerosis and pain. At this time, however, neither the medical community nor the scientific community has found sufficient data to conclude that smoked marijuana is the best approach to dealing with these important medical issues.

* The most comprehensive, scientifically rigorous review of studies of smoked marijuana was conducted by the Institute of Medicine, an organization chartered by the National Academy of Sciences. In a report released in 1999, the Institute did not recommend the use of smoked marijuana, but did conclude that active ingredients in marijuana could be isolated and developed into a variety of pharmaceuticals, such as Marinol.

* In the meantime, the DEA is working with pain management groups, such as Last Acts, to make sure that those who need access to safe, effective pain medication can get the best medication available.

But than I think some Medical Marijuana Smokers just want the BUZZ of Smoking Hi Potency Pot, and this is not a problem. Until they try and drive a Car, Truck, SUV, etc under the influence.

Also with the cost of Pot per ounce, or Medical Marijuana. How do some people pay for the thing Pot crave? Prostitution, Selling Drugs, Breaking into home to steal items to sell or hock.

Have a friend who lives in the Big Sky Country-Western Montana. He say his City Police are busier now with problems caused in their little town of 7-9K Residents because of, or related to Legal Medical Marijuana. He should know as he just finished his last term as a City Councilman.

CAcop
12-10-2011, 21:21
[QUOTE=Goat 36;18270071Except that second hand Marijuana smoke could only give one a slight buzz if anything at all. Second hand cig smoke is loaded with carcinogens and poisons of various kinds. And yet they TOO are sold on almost every street corner in America.

Heaven forbid anybody ingests such a harmless plant as Marijuana for medicinal OR casual purposes when you consider all the other dangerous and deadly chemicals that are ingested in our foods and medicines, alone.[/QUOTE]

I really hope you aren't trying to say weed smoke won't kill you because it will. Maybe not as likely but it is still not healthy.

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/HerbsVitaminsandMinerals/marijuana

"Many researchers agree that marijuana contains known carcinogens, or chemicals that can cause cancer. Results of epidemiologic studies of marijuana and cancer risk have been inconsistent, and most recent epidemiologic studies have not found a substantial effect on cancer risk. However, some researchers caution that these studies are difficult to conduct, as some people may not be truthful about illegal habits such as smoking marijuana, and that these negative results should not be interpreted as convincing evidence of safety."

The site was the American Cancer Society discussing it in reference to it's medicinal use. I trust them to be fair since they have to let people know the good and bad with all cancer treatments or pallative measures with cancer treatment.

packsaddle
12-10-2011, 22:02
they'll never get past the fact that Marijuana has 'never' killed anyone and never causes anyone to rob liquor stores, drive over a family of 5, beat their spouse/kids/family members, fight with complete strangers for no reason at all, or take any other action that can later be reasonably blamed on the weed for making them completely lose their mind.

uh huh.....tell that to the little girl who died in this wreck:

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/03/mobile_mother_marijuana_daughter.html



or maybe tell that to all the victims of this thief:

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/throop-police-man-stole-to-support-synthetic-marijuana-habit-1.1066597#axzz1gCNX1aCs



it would behoove you to do a little research next time before you post something you know nothing about.

Goat 36
12-10-2011, 22:17
Originally posted by CAcop:
I really hope you aren't trying to say weed smoke won't kill you because it will. Maybe not as likely but it is still not healthy.


Now, careful. You're saying two totally different things, there.

Will it KILL you?
Or is it UNHEALTHY?

The latter is almost completely irrelevant considering the air we breathe, water we drink and food we eat in just about any city on the planet.

As much as I 'hate' to post long posts, this info is just too appropriate 'not' to include. Then I'm done with this topic. -I hope.

(1998 - causes of death - marijuana safety)
"3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?
"4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.
"5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.
"6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.
"7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
"8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
"9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."

Source:
US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 56-57.
http://druglibrary.net/olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young4.html

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Goat 36
12-10-2011, 22:30
Also with the cost of Pot per ounce, or Medical Marijuana. How do some people pay for the thing Pot crave? Prostitution, Selling Drugs, Breaking into home to steal items to sell or hock.


You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody out there committing these kinds of crimes for some 'Pot.'

For Crack? Sure. For ICE/Speed/Meth? Absolutely. For Cocaine? No doubt.

For Marijuana? Highly, HIGHLY unlikely.

It just doesn't create that kind of desperate, irrational craving.

Alcohol/Liquor is more addictive than Pot by FAR. There is controversy over whether Marijuana even creates an actual 'physical addiction.'

OLY-M4gery
12-11-2011, 03:07
You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody out there committing these kinds of crimes for some 'Pot.'

For Crack? Sure. For ICE/Speed/Meth? Absolutely. For Cocaine? No doubt.

For Marijuana? Highly, HIGHLY unlikely.

It just doesn't create that kind of desperate, irrational craving.

Alcohol/Liquor is more addictive than Pot by FAR. There is controversy over whether Marijuana even creates an actual 'physical addiction.'

Really? I have been part of the investigations of homicides, robberies, etc. That MJ was what was the target of the crime, or collecting money owed on past MJ purchases was the motive.

I suppose if the MJ robbers were caught, you would count them in with the "just in jail for MJ" group I keep hearing about.

What about the drug dealer that killed his buyer that was behind on his payments, or the group of youths that killed their dealer so they could steal his MJ. Would you include those guys in with the "just in jail for MJ" count?

The local jail has a 1,000 inmate capacity. Just like you the locals had been claiming that there were bunches of people in jail "just for MJ".

I think it's because it's easier for inmates to include possesion of MJ in the answer to relatives, than the robbery, theft, sexual assualt, DUI, etc that they are also in jail for.

So, the Sheriff went through and counted up how many people are in jail for "drugs". It's easy to do a computer search for that. There were a bunch of people in jail for drugs.

They took that list, and went through manually, and pared it down to the people that were in jail for EXCLUSIVELY MJ.

There was just 1 person in jail for exclusively an MJ charge.

I suspect your figures are similarly skewed.

10-32
12-11-2011, 03:51
Really? I have been part of the investigations of homicides, robberies, etc. That MJ was what was the target of the crime, or collecting money owed on past MJ purchases was the motive.

I suppose if the MJ robbers were caught, you would count them in with the "just in jail for MJ" group I keep hearing about.

What about the drug dealer that killed his buyer that was behind on his payments, or the group of youths that killed their dealer so they could steal his MJ. Would you include those guys in with the "just in jail for MJ" count?

The local jail has a 1,000 inmate capacity. Just like you the locals had been claiming that there were bunches of people in jail "just for MJ".

I think it's because it's easier for inmates to include possesion of MJ in the answer to relatives, than the robbery, theft, sexual assualt, DUI, etc that they are also in jail for.

So, the Sheriff went through and counted up how many people are in jail for "drugs". It's easy to do a computer search for that. There were a bunch of people in jail for drugs.

They took that list, and went through manually, and pared it down to the people that were in jail for EXCLUSIVELY MJ.

There was just 1 person in jail for exclusively an MJ charge.

I suspect your figures are similarly skewed.

Those sound like crimes committed out of greed, not addiction to any drug. I've heard of people being killed over a pair of shoes or some pocket change, what's the difference?

OLY-M4gery
12-11-2011, 04:32
Those sound like crimes committed out of greed, not addiction to any drug. I've heard of people being killed over a pair of shoes or some pocket change, what's the difference?

If you rationalize, minimilaze, and ignore all the bad behavior associated with anything. Soon there are no negative side effects.

I find it incredible in a country that has launched a war on tobbaco smoking, due to all the side effects associated with that activity, that people are so ready to rationalize the side effects of other products away so quickly.

I mean it's just a leaf. (which one am I talking about, now? )

lawman800
12-11-2011, 06:07
Interesting the federal government has declared war on the dispensaries and how they are going to enforce the federal laws by going after the dispensaries in California. DEA agents are telling business property owners that they will have their business property seized if they don't stop renting to dispensaries. The feds are clamping down on this in the name of enforcing federal law.

On the flip side, the feds are also preempting state choice with immigration by fighting Arizona tooth and nail because they are so adamant about enforcing federal immigration law... oh wait....

In other news, having that medical marijuana out helps us out a bit in that if there is a valid medical marijuana card, we don't cite for possession up to the prescribed amount. We have a statewide verification hotline too where we can check the validity of a marijuana card. Kinda ridiculous but it's at that point in the game here.

In any event, CA changed the law for marijuana possession and reduced it to an infraction instead of a misdemeanor for small quantities under 1 ounce or 28.5 grams. So even without a card, you get the same as a traffic ticket.

Saves us some time in scratching out the ticket. Makes no difference otherwise.

RetailNinja
12-11-2011, 06:32
I work in a large, rural county. I recently moved to live in a town of about 4000 people. Last night at the local PD's Xmas party I met my alderman for the first time and found out he is in charge of the Ordinance committee and the Police commission. In front of the first assistant states attorney and the chief of police, I asked him to consider an ord. imposing a hefty fine for misd. cannabis possession which would revert to a criminal charge if the fine was not paid. The 1ASA and Chief both thought this was an excellent idea, and the alderman is going to look into it.

series1811
12-11-2011, 07:03
Marijuana enforcement is a waste of our resources. Meth and heroin and alcohol abuse are what hurt people, not smoking weed. Marijuana should be legalized and regulated like alcohol.

At times, I think we are just spinning our wheels with all substance abuse enforcement. We are fighting the symptoms of the problem instead of the problem and have made a mental health issue into a crime problem.

Dealers are the users' worst enemy, and they don't even realize it. Most users are shocked to find out that very few mid to upper level dealers use drugs, until you point out it is for the same reason you never see an alcoholic own a chain of liquor stores, or a gambler own a casino. They self destruct. To them a user is just someone to make money off of, until they die.

akapennypincher
12-11-2011, 07:21
Did anyone else see the show on National Geographic Channel about Medical Marijuana called, "Marijuana Gold Rush". Several thing shocked me . One was the number of people in Kali with Medical Marijuana. Also a M.D. who was a Medical Marijuana Doctor was interviewed, and he joked about NEVER Turning down a Patient for a Medical Marijuana Card who want POT.

Agent6-3/8
12-11-2011, 07:26
At times, I think we are just spinning our wheels with all substance abuse enforcement. We are fighting the symptoms of the problem instead of the problem and have made a mental health issue into a crime problem.

Dealers are the users' worst enemy, and they don't even realize it. Most users are shocked to find out that very few mid to upper level dealers use drugs, until you point out it is for the same reason you never see an alcoholic own a chain of liquor stores, or a gambler own a casino. They self destruct. To them a user is just someone to make money off of, until they die.

You're absolutely right, the war on drugs is nothing but a waste of resources. Marijuana will never be controlled. its too easy to grown. Every good ole boy with a few seeds can grow his own dope. The most logical approach is to legalize and tax/control it similar to tobbaco. Cocaine, heroin, etc will never be controlled until the Feds get serious about securing the border. Here in southern WV, eastern KY its perscription meds that are the root of most crime. Its a huge problem that is killing this area.

The "war on drugs" is winnable, but the government lack the will/stones to take the necessary steps to do so. As things stand we're just flushing millions and millions of dollars down the crapper.

akapennypincher
12-11-2011, 07:59
You're absolutely right, the war on drugs is nothing but a waste of resources. Marijuana will never be controlled. its too easy to grown. Every good ole boy with a few seeds can grow his own dope. The most logical approach is to legalize and tax/control it similar to tobbaco. Cocaine, heroin, etc will never be controlled until the Feds get serious about securing the border. Here in southern WV, eastern KY its perscription meds that are the root of most crime. Its a huge problem that is killing this area.

The "war on drugs" is winnable, but the government lack the will/stones to take the necessary steps to do so. As things stand we're just flushing millions and millions of dollars down the crapper.

IMHO the War on Drug could be partially won if the USA, and all the States had laws & punishment like some other places. Singapore comes to mind. The place is Clean, Drug, and Crime free to a much lessor amount than the USA were we do not punish offenders.

ClydeG19
12-11-2011, 08:53
Marijuana enforcement is a waste of our resources. Meth and heroin and alcohol abuse are what hurt people, not smoking weed. Marijuana should be legalized and regulated like alcohol.

+1.

It's odd this thread came up. I was thinking about asking some questions myself as I got a case with medical marijuana potentially involved yesterday. According to the bill, AZ allows reciprocity with other states' card holders. Is the governor blocking that portion of the bill as well? Last I heard, Dept of Health Services was holding things up to work out procedural stuff with the dispensaries.

wrenrj1
12-11-2011, 09:11
Let me start by saying that I don't give a damn about this issue, really. I've never touched the stuff, and even if it were legal I wouldn't. So I truly do not care.

But you don't KNOW what you're saying. You're issuing your opinion, and stating it as a fact. It's STILL just your opinion.

Unless you're a medical doctor, you have no way of knowing the answer to your OWN question, and unless you were ASKING a doctor, then there's no way you'd get a real answer.

If it was just as easy as making a pill, why hasn't that happened for other things? I work in medical insurance, and I see claims all day, every day from people getting nebulizers for their kids. In case you don't know, a nebulizer takes a prescription medicine and converts it to an inhalation treatment. It's used for things like COPD, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc. So, sir, why don't they just "make a pill" with the same drugs? The answer is because it's more effective to be inhaled and absorbed into the blood stream through the lungs.

I don't know if this is the case with medical marijuana, and I'm certain there are SOME out there that will abuse the system, but making a declaration that implies there is NO medical benefit at all, from someone that has no medical training, makes you look foolish.

That said, if you ARE a doctor and a specialist that knows what s/he is talking about, my apologies. Is that the case?

Sorry if someone responded already, but it's called Marinol, currently in pill form, but being explored for use with other delivery mechanisms.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html

I have Glaucoma, don't need weed, just a drop of medicine in the eye once a day. I don't understand why that doesn't help others...

PinkoCommie
12-11-2011, 09:29
As far as weed smoke killing people, or even being unhealthy -- those may be valid concerns, but not for criminal law. Butter kills people too. Lots of people.

We should not be legislating what is good or bad for adults into criminal law.

series1811
12-11-2011, 09:50
You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody out there committing these kinds of crimes for some 'Pot.'

'

What town do you live in? Do you think money for unemployed pot smokers just drops down out of the sky?

Of course they commit crimes to get money to buy it. Are you actually trying to say they don't?

series1811
12-11-2011, 09:57
You're absolutely right, the war on drugs is nothing but a waste of resources. Marijuana will never be controlled. its too easy to grown. Every good ole boy with a few seeds can grow his own dope. The most logical approach is to legalize and tax/control it similar to tobbaco. Cocaine, heroin, etc will never be controlled until the Feds get serious about securing the border. Here in southern WV, eastern KY its perscription meds that are the root of most crime. Its a huge problem that is killing this area.

The "war on drugs" is winnable, but the government lack the will/stones to take the necessary steps to do so. As things stand we're just flushing millions and millions of dollars down the crapper.

I have never understood the "tax it" angle. These are people that have pretty much shown that obedience to the law is not really high on their priorities. Drug dealers are supposed to report their income now, with protection from it being disclosed to law enforcement, but I have yet to see one who has done it.

I once interview a marijuana importer who lived in the US and was bringing in tons of marijuana at a time. I asked him what his favorite kind of marijuana was to smoke, and he said, "Do I look like an iditiot? I've never smoked it. I just bring it in and sell it to the idiots who do."

He had never even seen marijuana, but pleaded guilty and got twenty years for importing it. We will never get rid of drug users. Too many people have figured out you can make money off of them and as long as someone will supply it, users can't stop. There is nothing that can be done to stop that and still respect our Constitution (get rid of that, and yeah, we could have drugs cleaned up in about a week and a half).

Knute
12-11-2011, 10:38
You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody out there committing these kinds of crimes for some 'Pot.'

For Crack? Sure. For ICE/Speed/Meth? Absolutely. For Cocaine? No doubt.

For Marijuana? Highly, HIGHLY unlikely.

It just doesn't create that kind of desperate, irrational craving.

Alcohol/Liquor is more addictive than Pot by FAR. There is controversy over whether Marijuana even creates an actual 'physical addiction.'

Ummmmm...we've had multiple home invasions of "caregivers" growing pot for their "patients." We've had multiple armed robberies of our dispensaries just for some "pot." I don't even have to look outside my jurisdisction for MULITPLE examples of violent crimes of "legal" marijuana.

Goat 36
12-11-2011, 11:07
Those sound like crimes committed out of greed, not addiction to any drug. I've heard of people being killed over a pair of shoes or some pocket change, what's the difference?

Exactly. I'm glad someone else out there gets this.

Simplify the issue of Marijuana, itself.

If you take any average Joe and start pumping him full of Marijuana, what is the worst thing that could happen to him considering his health and actions he may take inspired 'directly' by the effects of the chemicals in pot on his mind/body?

Now, take that same Joe and do the exact same thing with Alcohol or other hard drugs, i.e. Crack, Meth, Heroin, and see what you get.

Compare the two outcomes and the conclusion is visibly significant.

Of course they commit crimes to get money to buy it. Are you actually trying to say they don't?

People commit crimes for 'money.' What they do with that money takes myriad forms.
If a lady commits a crime to get money to buy her children a PlayStation, can we label PS evil?

What kind of actions are fully inspired by the 'EFFECT' MJ has on a person are what I was discussing, here. 99.9% of humans are 'not' going to commit a violent crime while under the influence of MJ--directly opposing the mass of violent crimes committed by people under the influence of alcohol/cocaine/meth, etc.

We will never get rid of drug users. Too many people have figured out you can make money off of them and as long as someone will supply it, users can't stop. After all the information that's been presented, it is obvious MJ is 'not' the problem in this issue.

You could make almost 'any' legal household medicine or even certain food or soft drinks 'illegal' and people are going to pay through the nose to get what they desire. Most people in the world drink alcohol. Fair? If you seriously think alcohol isn't 'much' more dangerous than MJ, then you're clearly naive, brainwashed, grossly uninformend/misinformed or lacking critical reasoning skills.

If you rationalize, minimilaze, and ignore all the bad behavior associated with anything. Soon there are no negative side effects.


What's interesting about this quote is you could insert 'Aspirin' into this category perfectly. Yes, innocent, household Aspirin kills "100s" of people per year. Many people take it like candy for a cure-all pain killer and many even feed it to their children just as willy-nilly.

If you demonize, maximize, and highlight all the worst possible aspects of 'anything,' soon you will have successfully convinced many that it is evil.

There will always be those who have a vested, even monetary, interest in labeling MJ 'evil' and there will always be those who take their word for it without any investigation or objective perspective on their part.

series1811
12-11-2011, 11:44
Goat, I'm glad you live in a place where people don't commit murder and other crimes while high on marijuana. When I lived and worked in Dallas, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Miami, they did.

I've interviewed a ton of subjects who used marijuana to calm them down enough to commit crimes they said they were too nervous to commit without it. And, yes, I have heard the same story from people getting drunk, first, too.

One of the first murders I worked was over two pounds of marijuana, and the subject who stabbed the other one (user killing a dealer because he owed money he couldn't pay) told me he smoked weed all day trying to get his nerve up to do what he knew he had to do.

RetailNinja
12-11-2011, 12:19
No different than people taking xanax or alprazolam, or Oxy, hydrocodone etc.. to achieve the same effect. It's not any better just because a doctor prescribed it. I had a 16 year old trying to kill his parents because he was overdosing on xanax and freaking the F out. If he was bigger or stronger, the call might have come in differently.

Your boi, more likely than not, would have gone through with the killing anyways eventually based on what you posted.

Goat 36
12-11-2011, 12:24
Goat, I'm glad you live in a place where people don't commit murder and other crimes while high on marijuana. When I lived and worked in Dallas, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Miami, they did.

I've interviewed a ton of subjects who used marijuana to calm them down enough to commit crimes they said they were too nervous to commit without it. And, yes, I have heard the same story from people getting drunk, first, too.

One of the first murders I worked was over two pounds of marijuana, and the subject who stabbed the other one (user killing a dealer because he owed money he couldn't pay) told me he smoked weed all day trying to get his nerve up to do what he knew he had to do.

With full respect, Series, I still think this is different from the point I'm trying to make.

In that type of case someone could use anything to help them have the nerve, or 'lack' of nerves, to commit a crime. They could even use Xanax or Tylenol PM for something like that.

What I'm trying to say is that if you take an otherwise sane and stable person and give them MJ, will the chemicals in the MJ make them do something nutty, violent or dangerous to themselves or others?

Alcohol absolutely can and often 'does' in 'many' people.

Marijuana? Not so much.

Marijuana does not have the tendency to turn a level-headed person into an unreasonable psychopath like I've personally seen alcohol and other hard drugs do too many times to count.

Those cases you present had an existing motive before the MJ was even introduced. They fully intended to commit these crimes before they used MJ. They could've used any number of things to help numb their senses to commit an immoral act, but the intention was already fully there.

That's the only point I'm striving to illustrate, here, is that it's not the effect of the chemicals in the MJ on the mind/body that are 'CAUSING' people to act in dangerous/immoral/illegal ways.

Agent6-3/8
12-11-2011, 12:46
IMHO the War on Drug could be partially won if the USA, and all the States had laws & punishment like some other places. Singapore comes to mind. The place is Clean, Drug, and Crime free to a much lessor amount than the USA were we do not punish offenders.

Definitely. That goes back to my "lacking the will/stones" comment.



I have never understood the "tax it" angle. These are people that have pretty much shown that obedience to the law is not really high on their priorities. Drug dealers are supposed to report their income now, with protection from it being disclosed to law enforcement, but I have yet to see one who has done it.

I once interview a marijuana importer who lived in the US and was bringing in tons of marijuana at a time. I asked him what his favorite kind of marijuana was to smoke, and he said, "Do I look like an iditiot? I've never smoked it. I just bring it in and sell it to the idiots who do."

He had never even seen marijuana, but pleaded guilty and got twenty years for importing it. We will never get rid of drug users. Too many people have figured out you can make money off of them and as long as someone will supply it, users can't stop. There is nothing that can be done to stop that and still respect our Constitution (get rid of that, and yeah, we could have drugs cleaned up in about a week and a half).

Very true, sir. I think when most people talk about taxing MJ they're thinking along the lines of tobacco and cigarettes.

lawman800
12-11-2011, 13:54
Haha, if marijuana has nothing to do with violence, then the dispensaries here are paranoid. Every single dispensary that I have seen is fortified just like drug dens in da hood... oh wait....

10-32
12-11-2011, 14:06
Haha, if marijuana has nothing to do with violence, then the dispensaries here are paranoid. Every single dispensary that I have seen is fortified just like drug dens in da hood... oh wait....

Yeah, so is every pawn shop and GUN STORE I see around here.

They must both be inherently evil too, no?

lawman800
12-11-2011, 14:11
Yeah, so is every pawn shop and GUN STORE I see around here.

They must both be inherently evil too, no?

In certain parts of Cali, dispensaries are way more welcomed than any gunstore... and that includes SanFran and Los Angeles.

PinkoCommie
12-11-2011, 15:17
In certain parts of Cali, dispensaries are way more welcomed than any gunstore... and that includes SanFran and Los Angeles.

To each their own. If they like that kind of thing, they should enjoy their dispensaries. I no more want to control their dispensaries than I want them controlling my gun stores.

ateamer
12-11-2011, 15:30
In 23 years of full-time law enforcement - 18 years on patrol - I have never had to fight with someone who was stoned, nor have I ever arrested someone for committing domestic violence while he or she was stoned.

ray9898
12-11-2011, 15:37
While I think it is past time for society to change its position on MJ it really annoys me to see people catagorize MJ users as saints to try to bolster their position.

My reasoning for legalizing it is the consiquences are no worse than alcohol and enforcement tasks do not really have a lasting effect in my opinion.

series1811
12-11-2011, 17:21
With full respect, Series, I still think this is different from the point I'm trying to make.

In that type of case someone could use anything to help them have the nerve, or 'lack' of nerves, to commit a crime. They could even use Xanax or Tylenol PM for something like that.

What I'm trying to say is that if you take an otherwise sane and stable person and give them MJ, will the chemicals in the MJ make them do something nutty, violent or dangerous to themselves or others?

Alcohol absolutely can and often 'does' in 'many' people.

Marijuana? Not so much.

Marijuana does not have the tendency to turn a level-headed person into an unreasonable psychopath like I've personally seen alcohol and other hard drugs do too many times to count.

Those cases you present had an existing motive before the MJ was even introduced. They fully intended to commit these crimes before they used MJ. They could've used any number of things to help numb their senses to commit an immoral act, but the intention was already fully there.

That's the only point I'm striving to illustrate, here, is that it's not the effect of the chemicals in the MJ on the mind/body that are 'CAUSING' people to act in dangerous/immoral/illegal ways.
Alchohol and marijuana both lower inhibitions. If you are being inhibited from doing something bad, that ain't good.
That's just my opinion from dealing with thousands of doped up and drunken criminals. Others experience may be different.

berto62
12-11-2011, 18:34
.........

Lampshade
12-11-2011, 18:55
While I think it is past time for society to change its position on MJ it really annoys me to see people catagorize MJ users as saints to try to bolster their position.

That is, if anything, a counter-reaction to the villification that others cast upon them.

lawman800
12-11-2011, 19:23
In 23 years of full-time law enforcement - 18 years on patrol - I have never had to fight with someone who was stoned, nor have I ever arrested someone for committing domestic violence while he or she was stoned.

Fully stoned? No.

But guys who are caught with "just" weed in their pockets or who are caught toking somewhere in public aren't always so cooperative.

Lampshade
12-11-2011, 20:21
But guys who are caught with "just" weed in their pockets or who are caught toking somewhere in public aren't always so cooperative.

Its my understanding that people caught committing crimes of all sorts aren't always so cooperative, so I fail to see the significance of your assertion.

ateamer
12-11-2011, 21:05
Fully stoned? No.

But guys who are caught with "just" weed in their pockets or who are caught toking somewhere in public aren't always so cooperative.
Not around here. Almost everyone who smokes has a medical card, and the few who don't at least know that a speeding ticket will cost them more.

If there was some kind of exchange program, I would love to come down and work in Firestone (Century station?) or Newton Division for a couple weeks.

lawman800
12-12-2011, 04:56
Its my understanding that people caught committing crimes of all sorts aren't always so cooperative, so I fail to see the significance of your assertion.

The significance is because of people who say those who smoke marijuana aren't violent or even just resistive and it just ain't so. Then again, maybe your experiences differ but I will tell you otherwise.

Not around here. Almost everyone who smokes has a medical card, and the few who don't at least know that a speeding ticket will cost them more.

If there was some kind of exchange program, I would love to come down and work in Firestone (Century station?) or Newton Division for a couple weeks.

Everyone that smokes here CLAIMS they have a medical card but not many can produce it so they get a ticket thanks to our legislature who is trying to legalize it by minimalizing the penalties. Then there are those who produce fake cards so that's why we have our verification hotline. Then there are those who will just run or fight or whatever because they don't want to lose their dope or get busted on probation/parole.

Lampshade
12-12-2011, 07:24
The significance is because of people who say those who smoke marijuana aren't violent or even just resistive and it just ain't so. Then again, maybe your experiences differ but I will tell you otherwise.

Marijuana users are a hugely diverse and varied group. Of the dozens and dozens that I know, I wouldn't describe any as 'violent.' Of course, I'm an upper middle class type guy.

Characterizing marijuana users as violent or resistive is pretty much the same as trying to describe all gun owners in one fell swoop, it can't be done.

What can be said, however, is that the correlation between marijuana and violence is much lower than the correlation between most other drugs and violence, meth, crack, coke, alcohol, etc.

series1811
12-12-2011, 07:37
Marijuana users are a hugely diverse and varied group. Of the dozens and dozens that I know, I wouldn't describe any as 'violent.' Of course, I'm an upper middle class type guy.

Characterizing marijuana users as violent or resistive is pretty much the same as trying to describe all gun owners in one fell swoop, it can't be done.

Exactly. People who sit around smoking weed in their college dorm, with money their Daddy gave them, and think that it relates in any way to how marijuana use works with the underclass, need to get out in the world a little bit more.

And, as to the gun example. I use the open carry proponents as a good example. They think open carry will keep them from being a victim of a crime because when they walk in Wal-Mart with their gun, people look petrified.

Unfortunately, the people they most need to be worried about, are not petrified of guns. Things are very different in the underclass. In fact, many of them have already been shot at, and in many cases, shot, and they have a very different view of life, and death, than any normal person could ever understand. They all live, expecting to die. Yes the scavengers will be scared off. They are scared all the time. The predators will not be.

And, college students, college professors, scavengers, and predators, all behave differently from each other on drugs. Drugs generally just make you more of who you are, whatever that is. If you are already tending to be violent, that ain't good.

Grumpy0358
12-12-2011, 07:54
From the perspective of a street cop:
Smokers of marijuana are not really a big problem. They are usually pretty mellow people.
That being said, if its legalized, or decriminalized, how do you control those that use and drive? It's not like alcohol, takes a DRE to make a determination of intoxication. No breath tests, only urine or blood to detect concentration in the blood.
Folks smoking weed and driving cause untold damage, because it is hard to prove. If you think texting while driving is bad, this will cause deaths and property damage that texting cannot come close to.

This is an issue that has to be addressed BEFORE any thought of decriminalization or legalization. The roads are unsafe enough now.

Lampshade
12-12-2011, 07:58
If you think texting while driving is bad, this will cause deaths and property damage that texting cannot come close to.

Considering the studies that have come out as of late which show texting and driving to be statistically more likely to cause a crash than drinking and driving, I'd have to disagree, as alcohol certainly impairs vision and motor function to a far more significant degree than marijuana does.

lawman800
12-12-2011, 08:18
Marijuana users are a hugely diverse and varied group. Of the dozens and dozens that I know, I wouldn't describe any as 'violent.' Of course, I'm an upper middle class type guy.

Characterizing marijuana users as violent or resistive is pretty much the same as trying to describe all gun owners in one fell swoop, it can't be done.

What can be said, however, is that the correlation between marijuana and violence is much lower than the correlation between most other drugs and violence, meth, crack, coke, alcohol, etc.

Exactly. I respect Ateamer, but he says they aren't violent. I am saying they can be. You back up my point by saying there is no ONE description that fits them. They can be violent or resistive like anyone else.

Go ahead, argue and spin that one too.

BicycleDay43
12-12-2011, 08:34
Really? I have been part of the investigations of homicides, robberies, etc. That MJ was what was the target of the crime, or collecting money owed on past MJ purchases was the motive.

I suppose if the MJ robbers were caught, you would count them in with the "just in jail for MJ" group I keep hearing about.

What about the drug dealer that killed his buyer that was behind on his payments, or the group of youths that killed their dealer so they could steal his MJ. Would you include those guys in with the "just in jail for MJ" count?

The local jail has a 1,000 inmate capacity. Just like you the locals had been claiming that there were bunches of people in jail "just for MJ".

I think it's because it's easier for inmates to include possesion of MJ in the answer to relatives, than the robbery, theft, sexual assualt, DUI, etc that they are also in jail for.

So, the Sheriff went through and counted up how many people are in jail for "drugs". It's easy to do a computer search for that. There were a bunch of people in jail for drugs.

They took that list, and went through manually, and pared it down to the people that were in jail for EXCLUSIVELY MJ.

There was just 1 person in jail for exclusively an MJ charge.

I suspect your figures are similarly skewed.

These crimes would probably be alooot less likely to happen if mj was legal in the first place.

BicycleDay43
12-12-2011, 08:42
Fully stoned? No.

But guys who are caught with "just" weed in their pockets or who are caught toking somewhere in public aren't always so cooperative.

Can I ask exactly how many violent stoners you've delt with in your career?

razdog76
12-12-2011, 09:08
Considering the studies that have come out as of late which show texting and driving to be statistically more likely to cause a crash than drinking and driving, I'd have to disagree, as alcohol certainly impairs vision and motor function to a far more significant degree than marijuana does.

Many places have already made texting while driving. The jurisdictions that do not, are enacting laws. So be it, alcohol does have well documented, and scientifically accepted effects on the body, but operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is universally illegal as walking in the roadway while intoxicated, and to an extent public drunkenness.

While alcohol has a fairly consistent, rate at which a human can metabolize it, marijuana does not, and it will be in the user's system for 30 days.

So, if it is obvious that ANY consumption of alcohol, marijuana... will have an effect on perception and motor skills, how can you tout "statistics" to the level of impairments, when the user is going to use enough to take the to their happy place, and there is no way to determine how much THC is in a sample portion?

Considering the studies that have been done since the first goobered up driver crashed, it is irrelevant because the user is unable to make important decisions necessary to operate a car regardless of what substance they are using, and furthermore while the user may not feel high anymore, their body is still metabolizing it for about 30 days.

razdog76
12-12-2011, 09:14
These crimes would probably be alooot less likely to happen if mj was legal in the first place.

Then it would be even more socially acceptable to lounge around playing xbox all day instead of showing up at work, working, improving job skills, or looking for a job. Mope is already becoming a job class.

Lampshade
12-12-2011, 09:47
Many places have already made texting while driving. The jurisdictions that do not, are enacting laws.

So, if it is obvious that ANY consumption of alcohol, marijuana... will have an effect on perception and motor skills, how can you tout "statistics" to the level of impairments, when the user is going to use enough to take the to their happy place, and there is no way to determine how much THC is in a sample portion?

The point, which you seem to have missed, is simply that the claim that decriminilzing marijuana will cause far more harm on the roadways than texting is capable of causing, is bunk.

Lampshade
12-12-2011, 09:56
Exactly. I respect Ateamer, but he says they aren't violent. I am saying they can be. You back up my point by saying there is no ONE description that fits them. They can be violent or resistive like anyone else.

Oh, of course.

If all you were saying is that they are capable of violence we are in complete agreement, I read your previous posts as implying that marijuana users in general are violent or resistive.

Apologies if I have misunderstood.

BicycleDay43
12-12-2011, 10:16
Then it would be even more socially acceptable to lounge around playing xbox all day instead of showing up at work, working, improving job skills, or looking for a job. Mope is already becoming a job class.

So as long as people aren't GOD FORBID being quiet, minding their own and harmlessly playing Xbox while high; you're ok with violent crimes taking place that normally wouldn't happen if pot was legal?

razdog76
12-12-2011, 10:16
The point, which you seem to have missed, is simply that the claim that decriminilzing marijuana will cause far more harm on the roadways than texting is capable of causing, is bunk.

The point which you have missed is that all have obvious significant contributions to property damage/injury/loss of life, and that your statistics are of questionable source(s) to further your cause, and "decriminilzing" it would certainly not reduce the number of crashes.

razdog76
12-12-2011, 10:21
So as long as people aren't GOD FORBID being quiet, minding their own and harmlessly playing Xbox while high; you're ok with violent crimes taking place that normally wouldn't happen if pot was legal?

If that is the case, then those people would never get to meet me; however, people that are goobered up have a tendency to get the police called on them.

Lampshade
12-12-2011, 10:49
The point which you have missed is that all have obvious significant contributions to property damage/injury/loss of life

No, I understand that completely. Its merely not relevant to the point I am making.

I suggest you read the actual post to which I was responding, quoted here for your convenience.

If you think texting while driving is bad, this will cause deaths and property damage that texting cannot come close to.

And my point, which I will post again since reading comprehension seems not to be your strong suit, is that,

...the claim that decriminilzing marijuana will cause far more harm on the roadways than texting is capable of causing, is bunk.

lawman800
12-12-2011, 11:21
Can I ask exactly how many violent stoners you've delt with in your career?

Stoners, none, if they are the ones you think about the skater kids with dreads who are comatose on the couch next to their bag of potato chips. Then again, I've also never fought drunks who were totally passed out, or the heroin addict who is dead from an OD.

Marijuana users who are toking in public, thugs with weed in their pocket, others who aren't comatose, I've dealt with a few unhappy customers.

Grumpy0358
12-12-2011, 12:36
The point, which you seem to have missed, is simply that the claim that decriminilzing marijuana will cause far more harm on the roadways than texting is capable of causing, is bunk.

The studies are scary. Have you seen the studies of smoking and driving? The fact is that far too many accidents are caused by distracted drivers. BUT, in the after accident investigation, it is often hard, if not impossible to determine if or how distracted a driver is/was. BECAUSE, and I know that this will shock some of you, People will lie to the police in order to save their hides. So the studies on texting, as bad as they are, cannot help out on the street where folks are being killed. An officer cannot make a case if they cannot testify that the driver was distracted and how. Tough to do while driving a squad car or motor in traffic.
The point that I was making, is that there are not documented SFSTs for marijuana. Only what a trained DRE does. If MJ was legalized, how do we prevent that impaired driver? By the smell? In my 32+ years of LE experience, that would not be enough. But, you have studies. I have been picking up the dead and dying for over a quarter century. Thanks for your input.

Lampshade
12-12-2011, 14:13
The point that I was making, is that there are not documented SFSTs for marijuana.

Actually, you explicitly stated that texting cannot even hold a candle to the damage that decriminlizing pot would cause.

Objective analysis of these issues does not bare out that conclusion.


If MJ was legalized, how do we prevent that impaired driver?

How do we prevent impaired drivers currently?

razdog76
12-12-2011, 18:59
If it's semantics you want...

Considering the studies that have come out as of late which show texting and driving to be statistically more likely to cause a crash than drinking and driving, I'd have to disagree, as alcohol certainly impairs vision and motor function to a far more significant degree than marijuana does.

Seems to indicate that you believe that marijuana use does not impair motor function as much as alcohol. Alcohol is a CNS depressant, versus marijuana's alteration of reality. In terms of operating a motor vehicle what difference does it make?

And my point, which I will post again since reading comprehension seems not to be your strong suit, is that,

Actually, you explicitly stated that texting cannot even hold a candle to the damage that decriminlizing pot would cause.

Really? Perhaps my comprehension is clouded by your spelling, and use of dangling modifiers. If you are against the decriminalization of marijuana then I will chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Otherwise, you are making a silly circular argument chapping someone about their opinion, when your opinion has no support other than perhaps personal experiences. You of course provide nothing when I call you out on it.

The point which you have missed is that all have obvious significant contributions to property damage/injury/loss of life, and that your statistics are of questionable source(s) to further your cause, and "decriminilzing" it would certainly not reduce the number of crashes.

Lampshade
12-12-2011, 19:56
6
Seems to indicate that you believe that marijuana use does not impair motor function as much as alcohol.

DUH!


In terms of operating a motor vehicle what difference does it make?

A huge one. People who get really drunk can't stand up, speak, see double, etc. The effects if marijuana pale in comparison.


Really, have you ever used marijuana?

I think this is a question I should be asking you.


Otherwise, you are making a silly circular argument chapping someone about their opinion....

I am disagreeing with your assertion about the dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana far surpassing the potential negative consequences of texting, which you stated as a fact, not an opinion.

Recent university studies have demonstrated that the odds of getting in an accident while texting are often higher than the odds of getting into an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol. So since we know alcohol, a substance which obviously impairs driving ability more than marijuana can be less dangerous than texting, the whole idea of marijuana far surpassing the danger of texting is ludicrous.

razdog76
12-12-2011, 21:09
I am disagreeing with your assertion about the dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana far surpassing the potential negative consequences of texting, which you stated as a fact, not an opinion.

Recent university studies have demonstrated that the odds of getting in an accident while texting are often higher than the odds of getting into an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol. So since we know alcohol, a substance which obviously impairs driving ability more than marijuana can be less dangerous than texting, the whole idea of marijuana far surpassing the danger of texting is ludicrous.

I do not assert the level of dangers of operating a MV while under the influence alcohol, marijuana, or texting. I assert that your argument is semantic BS, because they all contribute to crashes.

I also greatly resent your total fabrication and labeling that I have ever uttered,


Really, have you ever used marijuana?

Again I ask you, in terms of operating a motor vehicle, what difference does it make whether your perception of reality and memory being effected, versus motor skills being effected? You simply give characteristics of a great level of intoxication, but will not answer the question, because you will have to admit that your argument is semantic crap, and that it doesn't matter whether the user is drunk off their ass, or stoned out of their gourd. Either example will show characteristics of impaired driving.

The fact that you alter material, and utter it in a way that a casual reader might accept that I wrote it demonstrates just how shaky your position is. BTW, you still have not provided any source for your statistics other than, "Recent university studies." If that is the best you have, maybe you should put your Birkenstocks back on, and return to your dorm.