GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-08-2012, 23:43   #221
Dubble-Tapper
Senior Member
 
Dubble-Tapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: the columbia river gorge
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
I know that is the argument that was put forth by marijuana proponents in California in response to California DUI laws by defense attorneys.

And, even if someone is pursuaded by that argument, it still leaves the original problem, right?
the problem is that it effects vary drastically from user to user. Impairment isnt as consistent as alcohol. Until further research is conducted, we are stuck using our limited understanding of how our body processes and stores THC/byproducts to form misguided legislation like the DWI provision outlined in the WA state I-502. (5 nanograms/mL of blood)

what is impaired? i think it should be simple. First, it must be determined exactly what driving related skills are affected by mj use. then, a field impairment test can be developed from these findings. Develop a standard for what is acceptable performance and what is not.

If you are obeying traffic laws, exhibiting basic driving skills, and can pass a simple physical impaired motor skills test, good to go.

if you are so baked you cant obey simple traffic laws or you cause an accident, and cannot pass the above test, you get the book to the teeth.
Dubble-Tapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 02:53   #222
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubble-Tapper View Post
did you say AK47?


how about KalashnaCough

Pink KalashnaCough
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 14:27   #223
TAKtical
Member
 
TAKtical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 29
Legal or not, nothing changes for gun owners.
__________________
I make custom holsters for concealed carry, competition, and tactical applications. All of my holsters are $40.
TAKtical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 14:29   #224
Magnus2131
Glock Gimp
 
Magnus2131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 11,752
So glad the election is over, now we can get back to the important things like endless pot threads.
__________________
Quote:
LW would have laughed that round off her chest.
Quote:
And then gone and stuffed the gun up the ass of the Hajji bastard that shot me!
"RIP Jeff (23Skidoo)" and our Silent_Runner. 129,520
Magnus2131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 14:56   #225
dixietoo
Member
 
dixietoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Phenix City, AL
Posts: 53
Blog Entries: 1
I have yet to see anyone comment on how legalization in all 50 states would put a real hurt on the Mexican cartels. they make money off all sorts of drugs, but weed is a mainstay. I don't have any facts on this but know almost everytime there is some cartel bust there is coke and weed in the haul. If the potheads are allowed to grow their own, not to mention the growers that grow the super duper stuff, the weed-money that goes to the cartels will go to zip unless they move up here, (I'm sure they will try) and the cash they can get per kilo will go down instead of up.
Ya'll do know the cartels are some extremely malicious a'holes know for killing mayors, journalists, LEO's, and any other Mexican citizen who stands against them, right? And the use terror tactics like sending the LOE's the heads of officers the cartel has captured and killed? The cartels would be the FIRST to stand up and shout "NO" to legalization. They want that money.
__________________
Illegitamus Non Carborundoum!
dixietoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 15:15   #226
robrides85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEOH212 View Post
It's still illegal on the Federal level as it should be.

What the states want to do or pretend to pass into law hold no weight on the Federal level when it comes to this topic.

Until they get it changed on the Federal level, they're breaking the law.

I can't wait for the DEA to clean house!

One executive order to deschedule marijuana, and that's that.
robrides85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 15:17   #227
robrides85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheExplorer View Post
That's what I think as well. The revenue surplus will be immediate and obvious. Still, businesses drug test so the audience will remain the same. It will just funnel the money more directly to the states without the "court costs" middleman.
Jawohl!
robrides85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 15:39   #228
robrides85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Glock View Post
Wrong:

MJ affects your eyes physiologically: that is why it is used by glaucoma paitents. So what you say? It changes your depth perception. The person can't tell, they feel fine, but the reality is the end result is dramatic: many studies for the 1970s through the 00s confirm the reality of this effect: operating equipment, driving etc are all affected negatively. One example 72 hour after smoking a joint drivers are FAR more likely to rear end another vehicle.

This is not the case for alcohol.
Yeah, I hate that I'm linking to NORML too, but there are cited journal articles within, quotes as well. No question that it makes you a worse driver than a sober person, but if since we now moved on to comparing it to alcohol, it's not as bad as alcohol.

A common theme = cannabis bad, alcohol worse:

"Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly."

and

"However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels."

http://norml.org/library/item/mariju...tific-evidence

Last edited by robrides85; 11-09-2012 at 15:40..
robrides85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 15:46   #229
robrides85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Glock View Post
Did you read my post? Apparently not.

I hate alcohol and don't think it should be illegal.

1) it should be a state not federal issue
2) MJ inhibits the user for 72 hours after use, alcohol does not.
Don't know which study you're referring to in #2.

Closest I can come to eye effects is here:

http://www.glaucoma.org/treatment/sh...glaucoma-1.php

"Less often appreciated is the fact that marijuana's effect on eye pressure only lasts 3-4 hours, meaning that to lower the eye pressure around the clock it would have to be smoked 6-8 times a day."
robrides85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 15:54   #230
robrides85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Glock View Post
Smoke a joint or two over the weekend and there ARE after effects which dramatically affect your safety performance the following week.
in comparison to alcohol:

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/fact.../workplace.pdf

"The after-effects of drinking (hangovers) can impair both work attendance and
performance. A survey carried out by YouGov for PruHealth found that each day
around 200,000 British workers turn up to work hungover from the night before. High
proportions of hungover workers report problems such as lack of concentration,
inability to work at normal pace, etc. Alternatively, workers complaining of hangovers
may absent themselves from the workplace (see below)."

Do scientists agree with you about marijuana affecting you the week after being high? I've been googling a bit trying to find the 72hrs. post "high" source, but it's your job to provide proof to your statements, not mine.
robrides85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:06   #231
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,927


Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
Do you think everything you hate should be illegal?

I hate olives, I think they should be illegal.
What do you put in martinis?
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:08   #232
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,927


I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have an employee at work who got high the night before than one who drank excessively.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:11   #233
robrides85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Glock View Post
The data is clear: MJ users have a significantly higher incident of vegicle accidents, workplace accidents, and workplace injuries. Insurance companies already address this issue very tightly. For example some insurance companies refuse to insure companies which do not have tight pre-hire, post-hire random, for-cause, and post-accident drug testing; and virtually every insurance carrier gives preferential underwriting credit to companies who have such drug & alcohol policies/programs.

This is NOT arbitrary on the part of insurance companies, but rather it is based on experience.
Yeah, I'm going to need a source for this data too. Closest I came on a Google search was for tobacco use. Put in insurance + marijuana into Google and all that comes back are life insurance quotes. Nothing worthwhile for "workplace insurance marijuana" either.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...ppl_1/i28.full
robrides85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:12   #234
SC Tiger
Some say...
 
SC Tiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 9,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixietoo View Post
I have yet to see anyone comment on how legalization in all 50 states would put a real hurt on the Mexican cartels. they make money off all sorts of drugs, but weed is a mainstay. I don't have any facts on this but know almost everytime there is some cartel bust there is coke and weed in the haul. If the potheads are allowed to grow their own, not to mention the growers that grow the super duper stuff, the weed-money that goes to the cartels will go to zip unless they move up here, (I'm sure they will try) and the cash they can get per kilo will go down instead of up.
Ya'll do know the cartels are some extremely malicious a'holes know for killing mayors, journalists, LEO's, and any other Mexican citizen who stands against them, right? And the use terror tactics like sending the LOE's the heads of officers the cartel has captured and killed? The cartels would be the FIRST to stand up and shout "NO" to legalization. They want that money.
There was a thread on it about a week or two ago. It got pretty funny actually.
__________________
Hug your barking irons as the Devil hugs a witch

Quote:
If you're gonna be stupid, don't pull up short. Saddle up and ride it all the way in.
SC Tiger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:18   #235
robrides85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
I forget, what are the names of the 400 chemicals in marijuana?
Well that pretty much takes care of that. Apparently it was a provisional scheduling, they got a report back that favored decriminalization, and ignored it. The end!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal...Substances_Act
robrides85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:41   #236
robrides85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixietoo View Post
I have yet to see anyone comment on how legalization in all 50 states would put a real hurt on the Mexican cartels. they make money off all sorts of drugs, but weed is a mainstay. I don't have any facts on this but know almost everytime there is some cartel bust there is coke and weed in the haul. If the potheads are allowed to grow their own, not to mention the growers that grow the super duper stuff, the weed-money that goes to the cartels will go to zip unless they move up here, (I'm sure they will try) and the cash they can get per kilo will go down instead of up.
Ya'll do know the cartels are some extremely malicious a'holes know for killing mayors, journalists, LEO's, and any other Mexican citizen who stands against them, right? And the use terror tactics like sending the LOE's the heads of officers the cartel has captured and killed? The cartels would be the FIRST to stand up and shout "NO" to legalization. They want that money.
Amen. Marijuana is only 20% of their profit, but it's a nice side benefit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...486_story.html
robrides85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 17:49   #237
Dubble-Tapper
Senior Member
 
Dubble-Tapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: the columbia river gorge
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
It's not as huge as you think to people who don't smoke dope.
yeah, no big deal, its only been illegal for 80+ years...

dont try to downplay the significance of this decision due to your personal bias... this is a big deal for both state's rights and individual freedoms as an American.

and secondly, your posts in this thread and others have shown that this is in fact a big deal to you as well.

Last edited by Dubble-Tapper; 11-09-2012 at 17:51..
Dubble-Tapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 21:19   #238
mrstrau
Member
 
mrstrau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The People's Republic of New York
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamster View Post
On a related note, I'm calling my broker this morning to increase my investment in:
Political Issues
Dude I lol'd so hard when I saw that.


Anyway, I'm not a user myself, but I tend to identify pretty heavy with the libertarian crowd...smoking marijuana is the same as smoking cigs or drinking alcohol. Or drinking coffee or taking aspirin for that matter: its a personal choice.

Before anyone starts saying "hurr durr its not a personal choice because the health problems caused by smoking marijuana will weigh on the taxpayers", seriously, just stop. Look at any decent, non-bias, scientific report on cannabis. There are zero to nil health effects, even in long term use. If healthcare/rehab costs are really your concern, maybe you should focus on alcohol or cigarettes or prescription drugs or Mcdonald's for that matter. They are all worse for you than smoking a little plant...People have been doing it for thousands of years. Burnt cannabis plants were found with thousands of year old mummies...there's a passage in the bible that may possibly be referring to marijuana for crap's sake...
__________________
"If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand."
-General Carl von Clausewitz
mrstrau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 21:27   #239
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,927


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanster View Post

There must be a half-dozen medical MJ stores within two miles of my house,
And you just conveniently happened to accidentally buy a house right there.....

__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 23:28   #240
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
I think it will cause an increase in incidents of impaired driving. I don't have that much faith in the pot-smoking public to keep it at home and only do it when they're not going to be operating a vehicle or God knows what other machinery.

Given the fact that most employers require drug-screens now days and I don't see them bending on their policies related to drugs/alcohol, who is this actually benefitting so much?
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:34.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 885
240 Members
645 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31