(Close Window)
Topic: Driving on drugs
Message: Posted by: scottds80 (Jun 4, 2012 06:44AM)
Here in Victoria Australia, we have a campaign on tv to stop drug affected drivers.
Warning - this ad is graphic with road trauma. They don't muck around!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rWMkFzvArE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 4, 2012 08:46AM)
Does it include fluoride affected drivers?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 10:47AM)
The county jails in Pennsylvania are overflowing with DUI violators. The third offense around here is mandatory 2 years jail sentence, and those unfortunate fellows get to work on the back of a garbage truck for their two years sentence, and while they are incarcerated their outside life falls apart. No job, no place to live, no drivers license, no future. The DUI laws in PA are working so well we are creating a permanent under class.

BTW
I do not drink.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 10:51AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 11:47, Al Angello wrote:
The county jails in Pennsylvania are overflowing with DUI violators. The third offense around here is mandatory 2 years jail sentence, and those unfortunate fellows get to work on the back of a garbage truck for their two years sentence, and while they are incarcerated their outside life falls apart. No job, no place to live, no drivers license, no future. The DUI laws in PA are working so well we are creating a permanent under class.

BTW
I do not drink.
[/quote]

Sounds good to me. When I taught traffic school in the early 90s, it took about 2 years for alcohol-related accidents to kill as many Americans as died in 10 years in VietNam. Out here, we just keep slapping them on the wrist until they kill someone.

If you've got three DUI convictions, "Unfortunate" isn't the word that leaps to [i]my[/i] mind to describe you.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 4, 2012 11:08AM)
I can understand a 20 year old partying and driving once. People make mistakes, though (IMO) DUI's about the equivelant of firing a gun into the air downtown as far as mistake level. But if it happens three times because you didn't learn the first two, then I don't trust your no impulse control having self to flip my burger.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 4, 2012 11:28AM)
A very good friend of mine crashed into, and killed, a 23 year old man in Moon Township PA in 2009 while drunk. I don't even know how many previous offenses he had between WI and PA but it was at least four. He had several in WI that were wiped off the books when they still used to wipe them off. I doubt those were even taken into account at his trial. He got 3 years in jail and frankly I think he got off easy. I had been wondering for years when he was finally going to kill himself or someone else.

Once is a mistake, twice you have a serious problem, any more than that and you are a menace to society. I'm not crying any tears for multiple offenders with 3+ violations. It's an unbelieveably dangerous, stupid, and selfish thing to do.

And I don't believe that in most cases these multiple offenders have been busted the only three times in their lives they ever drove drunk. By the time they have been arrested and convicted 3+ times they have driven drunk dozens, if not hundreds of times.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 11:34AM)
It is a very good thing that at my age I go to bed before the police start stalking late night drivers.

BTW
Marijuana smokers are the safest drivers on the road.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 4, 2012 11:43AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 12:34, Al Angello wrote:
It is a very good thing that at my age I go to bed before the police start stalking late night drivers.
[/quote]

My friend caused his fatal accident at 5:15 pm on a wednesday. But yeah, I hope that nobody you care about ever has a head on run in with one of those unfortunate souls who like to get drunk and take to the roads. You'd be singing a different tune about repeat drunk drivers, I guarantee that.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 11:45AM)
Maybe the sentencing guidelines for 3rd offense DUI convicts should be written by people who have lost loved ones to people on their 4th DUI.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 12:02PM)
I do not have a dog in this fight, but they are adding lots of trailers at the county prison to accommodate the giant influx of DUI criminals. Of course the state institutions are overflowing with marijuana criminals. Did I read some where that 1/3 of all the prisoners in the world are in the good old US of A?

Lobo
I hear in the news that in California there is a big trend for house arrests because there's no more room in prisons for all the convicted criminals? Soon we will all either be in jail, or working as prison guards.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 4, 2012 12:15PM)
Hi Al,

As others have said, think of the people these guys DIDN'T kill while they were serving their mandatory sentences. And I wouldn't care if 99 44/100% of all the prisoners in the world were in the USA, if that's where they belonged.

By the way, on what do you base your claim that a stoned pot-smoker is the safest driver around?
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 4, 2012 12:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 13:02, Al Angello wrote:
I do not have a dog in this fight, but they are adding lots of trailers at the county prison to accommodate the giant influx of DUI criminals. Of course the state institutions are overflowing with marijuana criminals. Did I read some where that 1/3 of all the prisoners in the world are in the good old US of A?
[/quote]

Could be. I don't know. I'm not in favor of roadblocks and all that stuff. But I can't really abide these multiple offenders. I myself have had two DUI convictions, the last one in 1996. I don't even know if they are ever taken off the driving records in WI anymore and I don't care. I learned my lesson. Even though other than the money it cost me the 2nd offense wasn't treated very seriously either. I got off easy as well. Probably too easy but at least I wised up.

As far as weed it's funny to me that we have a President who if busted doing the things he admitted to as far as drugs would have been subject to the same bad laws that a lot of potheads (and probably cokeheads) like to complain about, yet he's in no hurry to change any of them. In fact Justice is going after a bunch of states over their medical mary laws.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 4, 2012 12:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 12:34, Al Angello wrote:
Marijuana smokers are the safest drivers on the road.
[/quote]

:lol: Whoooooooo!!! Man! You had me going there for a minute! Booowahahahahahaha!
Ow!!! Stop! My kidney! :lol:
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 01:18PM)
Woland
They have been trying for over 40 years to find something to blame pot smoking for and here is the first study that came up on Google, but somehow I don't think you will accept these facts or any of the hundreds of studies conducted over the years.

http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 4, 2012 01:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 14:18, Al Angello wrote:
Woland
They have been trying for over 40 years to find something to blame pot smoking for and here is the first study that came up on Google, but somehow I don't think you will accept these facts or any of the hundreds of studies conducted over the years.

http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence
[/quote]

That's a lot to read. Can you post the part where it says "Marijuana smokers are the safest drivers on the road".


I don't think anyone is disputing that weed is not a significant contributor to motor vehicle accidents. Still, that's a far cry from saying that pot smokers are "the safest drivers on the road". Don't take a legit statement/argument and make it into a silly one. It's good enough to say that marijuana smokers don't seem to pose any significant threat without taking any further than that.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 01:43PM)
If you are saying that Marijuana is a much maligned harmless herb then I gotta agree with you.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 4, 2012 01:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 14:43, Al Angello wrote:
If you are saying that Marijuana is a much maligned harmless herb then I gotta agree with you.
[/quote]

No. While that may be very much true, what I was saying, and trying to be nice in doing so, is that a statement such as "marijuana smokers are the safest drivers on the road" is profundly stupid, and is not backed up in any way by that report you posted.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it grandpa.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 4, 2012 02:19PM)
So here's another non-academic link that counters the previous non-academic link:
http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 03:56PM)
Of course we all know that one puff makes you want to kill your mother.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 04:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 16:56, Al Angello wrote:
Of course we all know that one puff makes you want to kill your mother.
[/quote]

Wow, I haven't seen a discussion like this since...well, since Chance had an active profile. Is that the dichotomy? It either makes you want to kill someone (your mother, even!) or it's safe to drive stoned?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 04:30PM)
Lobo
Just ask Woland I believe he can find some pertinent data to prove that mother killing claim.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 04:41PM)
He's got about as good a chance as you do to prove that "safest drivers on the road" claim.

Of course, the difference is, [i]He didn't [b]make[/b] the mother-killing claim.[/i].
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 04:44PM)
I can show you a movie that proves one puff and you want to kill your mother.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 4, 2012 04:47PM)
Al, did you notice the article saying pot did cause response times etc problems was put out by Norml As part of their effort to legalize pot? They are your team duuuuude.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 04:49PM)
Santa
I refuse to talk to you because I'm still holding a long time grudge. Danny Doyle and I are friends now, you are back on your feet, and you owe me a big time public apology for acting like a fool, and a jerk.
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Jun 4, 2012 04:54PM)
Hey, hereís an idea, lets make marijuana legal. Letís sell a 6 pack of joints in every corner store. Because, we donít have enough problems with legalized alcohol. Addiction? Its a myth, just one of those government conspiracies.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 4, 2012 05:14PM)
Al, could you or someone with knowledge of what grudge you hold pm me so I know what it is about? Good thing I didn't call you with a question I had yesterday, might have sent you over the edge.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 05:21PM)
Ask anyone at the buskers Cafť why you owe me a big time public apology. Ask anyone
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 4, 2012 05:46PM)
Huh...I have no clue....

I would like to publicly apologize for the
(Pick one or more)
1. Mean
2. Untrue
3. Hurtful
4. Uneducated
Statement I made to/about Al Angelo or the people/state of Pennsylvania. The use of drugs, Italian deli meats, or my confusion about beef and sweck is as decribed by the kig of dudes Mike Gallo or Paul gertner.

My remarks were based on ignorance and or lies by the former Bush administration and stress brought on by their complete destruction of the economy and the American ideal. My written words that so offended Al would make fans of The Satanic Bible as well as the Necromacy vomit.

I suck.

Sincerely,
Magic Santa aka Leonard Kobal aka Mike Nevets aka Steve aka Sexy Sadie
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Jun 4, 2012 05:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 14:48, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]

[/quote]

No. While that may be very much true, what I was saying, and trying to be nice in doing so, is that a statement such as "marijuana smokers are the safest drivers on the road" is profundly stupid, and is not backed up in any way by that report you posted.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it grandpa.
[/quote]

I'm not for Marijuana usage either. But if you want to find out how many Marijuana caused auto accidents a paramedic E.M.T. see's on a daily basis, You will find out how very very few there actually are if any. The reason I know this is one of my two younger brother's is a fire, fighter and paramedic. He's made the comment a few times that they don't get called to auto accidents that were caused by Marijuana use. I'm not advocating it's use, but only suggesting that you explore your education on the subject before posting a bit better.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 4, 2012 06:06PM)
Lets make everything illegal in order to make using it that much more exciting.

I don't really care what you folks think because the wheels of progress are slowly turning, and soon the prohibition will end.

Santa
You are pathetic.

RS1963
Thank you for shedding real light on this subject that is riddled with folk legends.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jB7RBGVGk
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 4, 2012 06:07PM)
What about shrooms? I drove on shrooms and the hood of the car would shrink then go forward to far. The lights were tracking too. I have not heard of shroom accidents so maybe I was okay. Heck I don't remember cuz I was drunk as well.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 4, 2012 06:12PM)
Darn Al, I gave you a public apology and you rejected it! That is very hurtful, or may have been if I had human feelings.

I agree that pot drivers, the greatest drivers EVER, are not a real problem. It has nothing to do with them not wanting to get in the car either. I rode with a pot guy and he held a roach in his fingers and drove for an hour without taking his eyes off the road.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 4, 2012 06:13PM)
Darn Al, I gave you a public apology and you rejected it! That is very hurtful, or may have been if I had human feelings.

I agree that pot drivers, the greatest drivers EVER, are not a real problem. It has nothing to do with them not wanting to get in the car either. I rode with a pot guy and he held a roach in his fingers and drove for an hour without taking his eyes off the road.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 06:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 18:58, RS1963 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 14:48, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
I
[/quote]

No. While that may be very much true, what I was saying, and trying to be nice in doing so, is that a statement such as "marijuana smokers are the safest drivers on the road" is profundly stupid, and is not backed up in any way by that report you posted.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it grandpa.
[/quote]

I'm not for Marijuana usage either. But if you want to find out how many Marijuana caused auto accidents a paramedic E.M.T. see's on a daily basis, You will find out how very very few there actually are if any. The reason I know this is one of my two younger brother's is a fire, fighter and paramedic. He's made the comment a few times that they don't get called to auto accidents that were caused by Marijuana use. I'm not advocating it's use, but only suggesting that you explore your education on the subject before posting a bit better.
[/quote]

Which proves next to nothing unless you know what percentage if total drivers is under the influence of marijuana.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 06:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 19:06, Al Angello wrote:
Lets make everything illegal in order to make using it that much more exciting.

I don't really care what you folks think because the wheels of progress are slowly turning, and soon the prohibition will end.

Santa
You are pathetic.

RS1963
Thank you for shedding real light on this subject that is riddled with folk legends.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jB7RBGVGk
[/quote]


You're conflating the issue of marijuana being legal with the issue of driving under its influence .
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Jun 4, 2012 07:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 19:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 18:58, RS1963 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 14:48, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
I
[/quote]

No. While that may be very much true, what I was saying, and trying to be nice in doing so, is that a statement such as "marijuana smokers are the safest drivers on the road" is profundly stupid, and is not backed up in any way by that report you posted.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it grandpa.
[/quote]

I'm not for Marijuana usage either. But if you want to find out how many Marijuana caused auto accidents a paramedic E.M.T. see's on a daily basis, You will find out how very very few there actually are if any. The reason I know this is one of my two younger brother's is a fire, fighter and paramedic. He's made the comment a few times that they don't get called to auto accidents that were caused by Marijuana use. I'm not advocating it's use, but only suggesting that you explore your education on the subject before posting a bit better.
[/quote]

Which proves next to nothing unless you know what percentage if total drivers is under the influence of marijuana.
[/quote]

True Lobo and as I said I am not for marijuana use at all. But I have talked to other E.M.T.'s etc... that have said pretty much the same things as my brother has about it's use and driving. Are they totally safer drivers than those that drink and drive or drive while under the influence of other stronger narcotics? I really don't know. Other than what I have heard from others.


But then again there's this thread which Critter started so this would show otherwise from what I have said. http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=468761&forum=32&6
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 07:16PM)
I suspect that one of the reasons that EMT's see relatively few accidents involving marijuana is [i]because[/i] it's illegal, and its use is much less common than alcohol use. Which makes it sort of funny to use the low accident rate as a justification for its being legal. If it were legal, it would almost certainly be used more often, and the number of marijuana-related accidents would almost certainly increase.

Which isn't to say that I'm in favor of its being illegal; I'm not. I think it [i]should[/i] be legalized. But if it is, anyone who thinks that those low accident rates aren't going to increase is delusional.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Jun 4, 2012 07:22PM)
Back to drunken drivers. I don't know if in Turkey they still execute drunk drivers on the spot. If not I think it's more of a prevention of accidents than any other option. I have no use for anyone that drives drunk
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 07:29PM)
I wouldn't go so far as to advocate on-site executions, but in addition to favoring legalization of marijuana, I'm also in favor of markedly stronger DUI laws.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 4, 2012 08:59PM)
I am also in favor of legalized (but regulated) marijuana. However, I don't believe that it's a completely harmless drug.
And driving? If you've ever been [i]really stoned,[/i] or been around anyone [i]really[/i] stoned, and you still think that it's a good idea to drive in that state, then there's no point trying to reason with you- because you probably wouldn't understand big words like "manslaughter" and "the."
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Jun 4, 2012 09:14PM)
I think any driving while impaired due to anything should be illegal actually. Even if it's an over the counter drug, that gives a warning of Do not drive while using this medication. I know it may not have sounded like that in my other posts but that is how I feel.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 4, 2012 09:19PM)
Agreed. The pain killers they gave me when I sprained my ankle I had to wait until I got home from school to take because there was no way I trusted myself to drive after taking them.
And OTC meds can be just as bad. Does anybody else remember "going robo," aka "robotripping?" My idiot raver friends did it all the time.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 4, 2012 09:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-04 22:14, RS1963 wrote:
I think any driving while impaired due to anything should be illegal actually. Even if it's an over the counter drug, that gives a warning of Do not drive while using this medication. I know it may not have sounded like that in my other posts but that is how I feel.
[/quote]

I agree, and while it's a matter of state law, I strongly suspect that it is, in all 50 states.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 4, 2012 09:54PM)
Al, I shall now write a poem for you so you'll forgive me for whatever I did

Legalize it by Magic Santa

Reefer will make you smarter,
Weed will make you strong,
Pot makes you a better driver,
Ganja keeps you going all night long

Thai stick makes you sexy,
Wacky tobacky makes you bold,
Hooter on a Winters night,
Chases away the cold

Lambs bread from Jamaica,
Is good most anytime,
But ol' skunk bud out of Humbolt,
Will be sure to blow your mind.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Jun 5, 2012 01:16AM)
Here in LA, there are probably more dispensaries than Starbucks, and I'm not kidding. It seems to be going OK, very smooth, if you ignore the anti-pot panic people. It might as well be a legal recreation drug, it would shrink the drinking and all those involved problems. There are so many dispensaries now that there are no longer lines of people waiting to get to the counter and the 80 strains of weed they usually carry.


Or so I am told.


Romulan.


But, I'd say I'd rather be following a pot smoker driver than a drinking driver. The drinking driver plows through red lights, the pot smoking driver sits there waiting for the stop sign to change to green.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 07:29AM)
With 50% of the American people in favor of legalization it is good to see that a few of you finally get it.

Tom
When I read your post I almost choked on my coffee. LOL

How many car accidents are caused by women putting on makeup? Now there's a drug that needs to be controlled.

Lobo
After being in a car accident they go through your pockets, car, and all your possessions. It would be practically impossible to hide any evidence of drug use. Come on get real.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 08:13AM)
Critter
You make me laugh regulation is a joke. It's a weed that comes with it's own seeds. There is a 25% unemployment rate in Spain, and every back yard has a pot patch to make a few bucks during hard times. Only mother nature can control her blessings. Most pot smoked in the US today is grown in the US.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Jun 5, 2012 08:31AM)
[img]http://i.saucesome.net/mu5.gif[/img]
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 5, 2012 10:16AM)
Yeah, Al.
It's a weed that comes with it's own seeds... like tobacco. Which is regulated.

I know lots of people that homebrew too, and yet we manage to regulate booze.

And with all this locally grown ganj, there still seems to be plenty of profit in it for the South Americans.
Now, there's always going to be bootlegged hooch and black market ciggies, but that's not exactly the norm.

However, when I mention regulation- I'm not only talking production, but usage. You can't keep all underage kids from drinking, and you can't keep every moron from driving drunk, but the laws discourage a large number of us. And it should be the same for weed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 5, 2012 10:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 08:29, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
After being in a car accident they go through your pockets, car, and all your possessions. It would be practically impossible to hide any evidence of drug use. Come on get real.
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're responding to with this.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 5, 2012 10:21AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 11:16, critter wrote:
And with all this locally grown ganj, there still seems to be plenty of profit in it for the South Americans.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, and the Southeast Asian markets, the Middle Eastern markets... they may as well stop all smuggling to the US. It's not worth the risk since nobody here is buying any foreign weed.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 10:42AM)
Critter
You are terribly misinformed. I suggest you do some serious homework before you make any more statements that contain no facts. If you do a simple Google search you will find that most of the pot smoked in this country is American grown. Pot growing is big business in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington state. I live in a populated area, and there are no booze bootleggers around here. Where do you live in the Ozarks?

FYI
I never saw a tobacco seed in my life, and neither did you.

Lobo
On this very page you said some nonsense about pot being illegal is the reason why there are very few marijuana related automobile accidents. When the truth of the matter is police go over accident scene's with a fine tooth comb, and look for incriminating evidence.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 10:49AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 11:42, Al Angello wrote:
When the truth of the matter is police go over accident scene's with a fine tooth comb, and look for incriminating evidence.
[/quote]

No they don't. And even if they did it is possible to drive drunk, or stoned, without actually having drugs or alcohol in the car.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 10:56AM)
Possible yes. Probable not really. Both substances can be detected on your breath, and in a blood test. All police need for a blood test is suspicion, and an automobile accident constitutes suspicion. If you have been smoking in your car there is probably a roach in your ashtray, or a seed on your floor. Cops around here know very well what they are looking for.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 5, 2012 11:01AM)
Hi Al, et al.,

I am well aware of the circumstances under which the first prohibition of marijuana was passed by the House of Representatives.

But as Lobo and others have pointed out, the fact that marijuana or alcohol may be legal to use or illegal to use does not have much to do with whether it impairs driving or not. Would you fly in an airliner with a pot-smoking pilot? I don't think so. And I am not comfortable sharing the road with pot-smoking drivers.

I am reminded of a letter to the editor of the "Gallup Independent" published 20 or 25 years ago. The author, Conrad Rossebo, was one of the most prolific letter-writers to the editor. In this letter, which I still chuckle over when I remember it from time to time, he argued that drivers who were under the influence of alcohol were safer than sober drivers, because they drove more slowly and were aware they had to take extra care.

A fantasy, like so much else we read and hear today.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 11:15AM)
Woland
I agree with you totally don't drink and drive, don't smoke and drive, don't use you cell phone and drive, don't put makeup on and drive, don't listen to your ipod and drive, don't eat and drive, don't drink coffee and drive, don't look at pretty girls and drive, don't read and drive, don't day dream and drive, don't look at road signs and drive, and in general don't do anything else while you are driving except drive. Now that we have covered all the granny disclaimers do you really think anybody is listening?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 5, 2012 11:17AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 11:42, Al Angello wrote:
Critter
You are terribly misinformed. I suggest you do some serious homework before you make any more statements that contain no facts. If you do a simple Google search you will find that most of the pot smoked in this country is American grown. Pot growing is big business in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington state. I live in a populated area, and there are no booze bootleggers around here. Where do you live in the Ozarks?

FYI
I never saw a tobacco seed in my life, and neither did you.

[/quote]

How dare you make such ignorant assumptions about me?
Especially in light of not actually countering any of my arguments with a legitimate fact.
And I thought we were friends. Oh, well.
Unfortunately, when you find yourself incapable of rational discussion you resort to put-downs and lies.
And then you have the audacity to call others pathetic.

[quote]
I live in a populated area, and there are no booze bootleggers around here. Where do you live in the Ozarks?
[/quote]

Guess you didn't see it under my profile pic, but I also live in a populated area, and there are people with private stills and who homebrew. My kids' Godfather did when he lived here, and now he's moved somewhere less populated and still does. I've known at least four other people with stills, and I can't remember how many homebrew beer, but it's a lot. We have at least one shop dedicated entirely to homebrewing supplies is how popular it is here.

[quote]
I never saw a tobacco seed in my life, and neither did you.
[/quote]

Yes, I *** sure have. I have even seen a tobacco plant.

[quote]
You are terribly misinformed.
[/quote]

I am really, really not.

[quote]
I suggest you do some serious homework before you make any more statements that contain no facts. If you do a simple Google search you will find that most of the pot smoked in this country is American grown. Pot growing is big business in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington state.
[/quote]

And it's big business in Burma, Thailand, Afghanistan, etc. I never said there was no US production, or that production wasn't good in the US. What I said is that the US doesn't have a Monopoly on it. (Well, I didn't outright say it- but I thought it was pretty easy to infer from what I did say. Guess not.)
But most of the pot smoked in the US probably comes from Mexico. But, hey, that's just according to the actual experts and what do they know anyway?
Not everyone has a card to get the medicinal stuff.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 11:19AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 11:56, Al Angello wrote:
Possible yes. Probable not really. Both substances can be detected on your breath, and in a blood test. All police need for a blood test is suspicion, and an automobile accident constitutes suspicion. If you have been smoking in your car there is probably a roach in your ashtray, or a seed on your floor. Cops around here know very well what they are looking for.
[/quote]

I know. A lot of it depends on the severity of the accident. Around here the cops don't even want to show up for a fender bender and when they finally do they typically are trying to get the heck out of there as soon as possible. A bad accident, yeah they are gonna do some digging. That's why it's wise to keep that stuff out of your car even if you do drive high. Even if you haven't taken a hit in three weeks, if two sober people have a collision and one has a roach in the ashtray or seeds on the floormats. That person is probably going to be blamed regardless.

Re; Seeds. Are you still smoking that 70's ditch weed loaded with seeds? What are you doing, sitting in your car in a parking lot cleaning that bunk on a Grateful Dead album cover? If your gonna smoke, step up to some sensimilla son.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 11:20AM)
Critter
We are still friends, but only a friend will tell you that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Do a Google search and find out the real facts. I haven't seen Asian pot since 1972.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 5, 2012 11:21AM)
What's also funny is (in general) the Mexican stuff has more seeds than the home-grown. Somebody's not supporting their local economy... :lol:
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 11:25AM)
Only Sensimilla has no seeds. The amount of seeds has to do with the growing process not the georgaphy.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 5, 2012 11:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 12:20, Al Angello wrote:
Critter
We are still friends, but only a friend will tell you that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Do a Google search and find out the real facts. I haven't seen Asian pot since 1972.
[/quote]

I have plenty of idea what I'm talking about. I don't rely on Google for my facts, but I did a search just for fun.
In the first hit on my Google search it said that one think tank estimates up to 2/3rds of the ganj smoked in the US comes from Mexico, another estimates anywhere from 40-67%
http://www.fronterasdesk.org/news/2011/jun/15/where-does-pot-come-domestic-growers-or-mexican-ca/
Of course, this is a non-academic source so I trust it about as far as I can throw a laptop, but it doesn't seem to support me being an ignorant yokel with no idea what I'z talking about.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 5, 2012 11:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 12:25, Al Angello wrote:
Only Sensimilla has no seeds. The amount of seeds has to do with the growing process not the georgaphy.
[/quote]

But we have a better growing process in the US because we have such fantastic horticulturists :)
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 11:32AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 12:25, Al Angello wrote:
Only Sensimilla has no seeds. The amount of seeds has to do with the growing process not the georgaphy.
[/quote]

It also affects the potentcy.

I honestly don't know why weed is still illegal in most places. But I'll be willing to bet that when it is legalized a lot of the same restricions that are in place for most drugs will still be in place. I'm sure it will be illegal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence, employers will still forbid the use during working hours, etc. Which I think is reasonable. It's bound to open a can of worms because of how long it stays in the system. A person could be totally sober and still show high levels of THC in their system. Which may be one reason it remains illegal. It's hard to prove someone is actually high at any given time. Especially very seasoned smokers.

Do I think driving high is anywhere near as dangerous as driving drunk? No I don't. But personally I would prefer it if people refrained from doing it. Cause some people are better at it than others.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 5, 2012 11:51AM)
At the very least the Fed should follow the states in allowing medicinal marijuana (IMO).
Many of the nursing homes around here turned a blind eye to marijuana usage by the residents even before medical marijuana passed in Washington. One nurse stated it in terms of compassion for those who couldn't swallow a pill and didn't want another needle stuck in them. Of course, the staff never actively had anything to do with any illegal substances being administered, it's just that if they knew a family member was supplying it then they pretended they didn't know.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 11:54AM)
Marlin & Critter
Hydroponic gardening was developed in Holland. Indoor domestic plants have no seeds and are many times times stronger than regular Mexican pot, which is why most Americans smokers prefer the American grown pot.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Jun 5, 2012 12:10PM)
[img]http://i.saucesome.net/mD8.gif[/img]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 5, 2012 12:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 12:20, Al Angello wrote:
Critter
We are still friends, but only a friend will tell you that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Do a Google search and find out the real facts. I haven't seen Asian pot since 1972.
[/quote]

Oh, good...we're still friends, Al, because you don't have any idea what you are talking about. At least with respect to the statement "All police need for a blood test is suspicion." That is a flat-out, 100% incorrect statement of constitutional law. What they need for a blood test is probable cause, which is a significantly higher standard than suspicion (even "reasonable particularized suspicion," which is the standard for other things).

With respect to the statement "a few of you finally get it" (with respect to legalization), just a heads-up that the few you're talking about doesn't include me; I've been in favor of legalized pot for roughly 25 years.




Last but not least...

[quote]
On 2012-06-05 11:42, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
On this very page you said some nonsense about pot being illegal is the reason why there are very few marijuana related automobile accidents. When the truth of the matter is police go over accident scene's with a fine tooth comb, and look for incriminating evidence.
[/quote]


I can't imagine that any reasonable person could possibly disagree with statement about legality and number of accident, unless one were hopelessly blinded by ideology (in which case "reasonable" might not apply, anyway). But I'm willing to explore it. Which of these statements do you disagree with?

1. If pot were legal, more people would smoke it.

2. If more people smoked pot, more people would drive under the influence of pot.

3. If there were more drivers under the influence of pot, there would be more accidents involving drivers under the influence of pot.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 12:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 12:54, Al Angello wrote:
Marlin & Critter
Indoor domestic plants have no seeds and are many times times stronger than regular Mexican pot[/quote]

Yes. Clearly I know that. Why you would feel the need to direct that towards me when you were the one talking about people having pot seeds on ther floorboards, and pot coming with it's own seeds, is a bit odd. But I appreciate it just the same.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 5, 2012 12:35PM)
All the reports I read say marijuana does not play a significant role in traffic accidents or fatalities. Guess it is OK because it only causes a few accidents and does not kill that many people. :confused: Well if that works for you who can disagree with such logic. :)

Just a thought. I wonder how many marijuana users went on to coke or heroine...probably not a signifiant amount, only a few just like those who cause accidents not a signifant amount. :) Definitely clear sailing light up and do it
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 5, 2012 12:54PM)
That's why American horticulturists are the best, because they take the best methods from around the world.
But most of the smokers I've known usually buy what's cheap, not what's good. That Alaskan and Californian stuff is an occasional indulgence for them when they get a bonus check or something. That non-academic article I linked seems to confirm this.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 01:16PM)
Lobo
In Pennsylvania taking people to the emergency room to extract a vile of blood after an accident or if someone that refuses to blow up a balloon after a DUI stop is SOP.

Acesover
The all reports evidence you refer to is extremely flimsy evidence, give me a break. The gateway drug theory was very widely believed fourty years ago. Do a Google search before you say silly things again.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 5, 2012 01:55PM)
All the reports I have read say Americans will not have a pot to **** in soon.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 5, 2012 02:01PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 14:16, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
In Pennsylvania taking people to the emergency room to extract a vile of blood after an accident or if someone that refuses to blow up a balloon after a DUI stop is SOP.

Acesover
The all reports evidence you refer to is extremely flimsy evidence, give me a break. The gateway drug theory was very widely believed fourty years ago. Do a Google search before you say silly things again.
[/quote]

Why is it flimsy? Give you a break because it does not fit your agenda. Please show me where driving under the influence of POT makes one a safer driver. Then I will give you a break and call it flimsy.

Lets see GateWay Theory. Let me ask you if you wanted to score illegal drugs would you go to a known pot pealer and ask if he knew someone? I would have to say yes to that question and WOW what a gateway to more potent drugs.

Of course to those who oppose restrictions on illegal drugs such as pot and coke do not think so. If pot makes one a better driver just think how safe it wil be to use heroine and coke. Eliminate accidents and traffie fatalatiies altogether. Oh wait I forgot booze still causes accidents just that pot causes less so pot it is better. Now how about you giving me a break with that line of reasoning. I can see the slogans for legalizing pot now. Legalize pot and outlaw booze and only kill half as many people in drug related auto accidents. But wouldn't just keeping potheads off the road cause less accidents than there are now? Forget about comparing the ratio to booze that does not matter. We are not talking about outlawing booze but rather taking about how pot causes accidents. Accidents that would not occur if pot were not used in the first place. POT still causes accidents.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 5, 2012 02:10PM)
Potholes can be more than a nuisance. They can be a danger to cyclists.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 02:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 15:10, tommy wrote:
Potholes can be more than a nuisance. They can be a danger to cyclists.
[/quote]

Potheads too.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 5, 2012 02:31PM)
Judge by cause, not effect.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 02:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 15:31, tommy wrote:
Judge by cause, not effect.
[/quote]

Like the seed and the fruit my boy. The seed and the fruit.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 02:42PM)
Acesover
I really don't know what to say other than you simply don't get it.

Have a nice day
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 5, 2012 03:12PM)
I gotta dolla that says if, when, and where recreational pot is legalized, you'll see a noticeable increase in marijuana-related traffic accidents.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 03:18PM)
I got two dolla's that say that if we taxed pot the national debt will shrink percipitously.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 5, 2012 03:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 16:18, Al Angello wrote:
I got two dolla's that say that if we taxed pot the national debt will shrink percipitously.
[/quote]

I don't know how precipitous it would be, but we're in definite agreement that it would be a net plus for the economy.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Jun 5, 2012 03:21PM)
Will it shrink at the same rate as the users brain cells?
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 03:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 16:18, Al Angello wrote:
I got two dolla's that say that if we taxed pot the national debt will shrink percipitously.
[/quote]

I'd take that bet. The three hunderd percent raise in federal excise tax on cigarettes over a 10 or 15 year period hasn't made many dents. Nor has any other tax.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Jun 5, 2012 03:28PM)
The question is...Would you buy the legal taxed one,or the cheaper non taxed blackmarket one?
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 03:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 16:28, Ray Tupper. wrote:
The question is...Would you buy the legal taxed one,or the cheaper non taxed blackmarket one?
[/quote]

Or why buy it at all? Being as how it's a completely harmless drug why wouldn't a person be allowed to grow as much as they want for personal use, as well as to share with family and friends. Like you would a tomato.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 5, 2012 03:35PM)
I hear people buy tomatoes, too.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 03:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 16:35, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I hear people buy tomatoes, too.
[/quote]

They do. They also grown them by the bushelfuls in their backyards, and buy them off the backs of trucks on the side of the road. The homegrown/farm fresh are typically cheaper, and more flavorful. It's a option.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 5, 2012 03:43PM)
I must side with my buddy and pal Al, who is allowed to call me Betty. Everything he said is true and thus I insist that the term 'wasted' instead be 'enlightened'. Smoke on my brothers, drive if you have 'em. I love you Al.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jun 5, 2012 03:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 16:35, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I hear people buy tomatoes, too.
[/quote]

Come on maaaannnnn. Get with it maaaannnnn. The Topsy Turvry. It's not just for tomatos anymore maaaaaannnnnn.

[img]http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8757/toppot.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 03:48PM)
Ray
Now there's a real question. As I said sever pages ago there is a 25% unemployment rate in Spain, and they are in the middle of a marijuana revolution. Every back yard garden has a few plants to supply the unemployed with some grocery money, and there are grow shops on every corner. I watch the live feeds from Spain every morning on facebook of the daily demonstrations, and it's lots more exciting than watching CNN in spite of the fact that I haven't the slightest idea what there picket signs say, but the young people of Spain are very organized.

Facebook has me hooked up with the whole world.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 5, 2012 04:13PM)
I see. Growing marijuana at home will bail out the EU. And pay off America's -what is it? now- 17 trillion dollar debt? What are you smoking, man?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 5, 2012 04:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 16:48, Al Angello wrote:
Ray
Now there's a real question. As I said sever pages ago there is a 25% unemployment rate in Spain, and they are in the middle of a marijuana revolution. Every back yard garden has a few plants to supply the unemployed with some grocery money, and there are grow shops on every corner. I watch the live feeds from Spain every morning on facebook of the daily demonstrations, and it's lots more exciting than watching CNN in spite of the fact that I haven't the slightest idea what there picket signs say, but the young people of Spain are very organized.

Facebook has me hooked up with the whole world.
[/quote]

So, you're saying we should be more like the country with the 25% unemployment rate.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 5, 2012 04:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 15:42, Al Angello wrote:
Acesover
I really don't know what to say other than you simply don't get it.

Have a nice day
[/quote]

Lets see now. You feel that driving under the influence of POT is safer than not driving under the influence of POT and you say I don't get it. That sounds like an old Bob Newhart phone call.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 5, 2012 04:27PM)
After those two ridiculous posts it's time for me to go back to facebook. Don't call me I'll call you.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 5, 2012 04:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 17:27, Al Angello wrote:
After those two ridiculous posts it's time for me to go back to facebook. Don't call me I'll call you.
[/quote]

I think it is time for you to put the joint away definitely losing brain cells at a rapid rate..
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 5, 2012 04:32PM)
I'll send a friend request Al!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 5, 2012 04:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 17:27, Al Angello wrote:
After those two ridiculous posts it's time for me to go back to facebook. Don't call me I'll call you.
[/quote]


Ok, there's:

[quote]
On 2012-06-04 12:34, Al Angello wrote:
Marijuana smokers are the safest drivers on the road.
[/quote]


But what was the other ridiculous post?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 5, 2012 05:02PM)
Do you think Al is mad cuz I said pot damages lungs last year?

Where is Danny Doyle? He'll tell me what I did wrong.....
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Jun 5, 2012 11:18PM)
So Facebook is the new Google?
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Jun 6, 2012 01:27AM)
This thread is funny.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 6, 2012 05:53AM)
Anybody who drives under the influence of alcohol or pot is a dangerous idiot. And anyone who would get in a car with a driver under the influence is an idiot. In order to drive [i]all[/i] your senses must be sharp.

As for the EMT question, I'm sure Lobo can speak for himself, but his point was clearly that just because fewer accidents are caused by pot smokers, it doesn't mean that driving while smoking is safe. It may just mean that there are fewer pot smoking drivers than drunk drivers. For example, driving while blindfolded (unless you're Cassidy) is clearly not safe, but I doubt EMTs have come across many accidents caused by blindfolded drivers.

Please don't drink or smoke while driving. You may not care about your life, but other lives are on the line.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 6, 2012 09:06AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-06 06:53, landmark wrote:

As for the EMT question, I'm sure Lobo can speak for himself, but his point was clearly that just because fewer accidents are caused by pot smokers, it doesn't mean that driving while smoking is safe. It may just mean that there are fewer pot smoking drivers than drunk drivers. For example, driving while blindfolded (unless you're Cassidy) is clearly not safe, but I doubt EMTs have come across many accidents caused by blindfolded drivers.
[/quote]


It's such an easy point to see when you're not stoned.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 6, 2012 09:44AM)
Well, landmark, on this one, I agree with you 100%!!
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 6, 2012 09:59AM)
100% agreement from me also....this is a special day :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Jun 6, 2012 11:09AM)
Leagalized marijuana will turn into another right within ten years then we will have a stoned welfare recipient class. That will be nice.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Jun 6, 2012 01:56PM)
1984. Soma. In 10 years, the government will need something to keep the rabble placid, complacent.

But ultimately, I think, the uber-issue is about Cannabis being a powerful medicine and at the least, a palliative that doesn't kill you as a side effect.

I predict a time when the strains will be regulated for purity and the combinations/hybrids specific for illnesses and conditions. Prescription drug making you spacey and disjointed? Romulan. Pills making you logy and sluggish? The doctor will also prescribe a medium Sativa to go along with it. Health professionals will specialize is determining the strains best for certain conditions AND for certain prescription drug side effects.

Just its ability to take pain from in front of your face and put it in the background is enough to make it an effective medicine.

It won't be long before the growers can separate the medicinal properties from the mental effect properties, and thus be able to control both as needed. THEN it will be OK to drive, as no one will be 'high' or impaired. Just medicated, without that mental thang going on.

But Weed as Soma is not to be discounted, whether you are for it or against it. It's da future.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 6, 2012 02:32PM)
Thanks, Mr. Jorgenson. I think you may be right. But SOMA was not from George Orwell's [i]1984[/i], it was from Aldous Huxley's remarkably prescient [i]Brave New World[/i]. Highly recommended. Many things that seemed wildly fanciful when I first read the book 40 years ago are now almost a reality. Didn't understand it at all then, understand it all too well now.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Jun 6, 2012 02:48PM)
Thanks for the correction...time to reread both, I think. In my fantasies, I am in Paris reading Hesse, Huxley and Orwell for months at a time. Now that I am old enough to kind of comprehend them, I've forgotten what they said.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 6, 2012 03:24PM)
Hesse is another one whose works I did not really understand 40 years ago. Although I did not read the Glasperlenspiel until just a few years ago. I'm thinking of Siddhartha and the Journey to the East.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 6, 2012 03:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-06 12:09, GlenD wrote:
Leagalized marijuana will turn into another right within ten years then we will have a stoned welfare recipient class. That will be nice.
[/quote]

Do you realize how biased that makes you sound? The wealthy smoke as much weed as the poor. (And probably more so since they can afford it.)

Do you think that only the "welfare class" uses drugs? That is demonstrably false.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 6, 2012 03:43PM)
There's plenty of legal SOMA already, from the Internet to Oxycotine. I don't see any particular evil from pot.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 6, 2012 04:52PM)
[quote]
The wealthy smoke as much weed as the poor. (And probably more so since they can afford it.)
[/quote]

Well now we know who's smoking all of that primo hydroponic Norte Americano stuff :)
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Jun 6, 2012 05:23PM)
I get the fact that recreational users (and addicts) are among every level. Sorry you extrapolated some kind of inherent bias from what I said. But it is true that smoking a lot of pot makes many people not only mellow and laid back but unmotivated and a lot more prone to sit around and dwell on things for no apparent reason or just for laughs. That's all fine and good but some cant get beyond that, if you know what I mean. Trust me I have had some "experimental" experiences in my "ahem" youth. And back then, I seriously thought that everyone was smoking weed, whether they admitted it publicly or not. I now don't think that way anymore but things were different back then.

On another note, what about those that have professions where drug testing is employed periodically or randomly? Are they still going to be penalized and not allowed to participate in the new "get high legally craze"? Where, say someone smokes on Saturday, goes to work sober on Monday gets tested and FAILS and is now unemployed... Big bummer. I guess it all comes down to people still have to make responsible decisions, regardless of what becomes legal etc.

Glen
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 6, 2012 05:54PM)
Glen
You live in LA how many medical marijuana shops are there in your town. Medical marijuana is available in 17 states.

Wake up and smell the coffee guys.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Jun 6, 2012 07:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-06 18:23, GlenD wrote:
what about those that have professions where drug testing is employed periodically or randomly?
[/quote]
If you drive for a living and fail the test regularly....Don't worry,you'll be headhunted.
Think how much a logistics companys insurance premium will fall when they have all the safest drivers on
their books.
Ray.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 6, 2012 08:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-06 18:54, Al Angello wrote:
Glen
You live in LA how many medical marijuana shops are there in your town. Medical marijuana is available in 17 states.
[/quote]

...and illegal in all 17.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 6, 2012 08:46PM)
Lobo
How do you suppose all those illegal shops stay in business?

How many legal or illegal medical marijuana shops are in the Los Angeles area?

Try to give me a straight answer counselor.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 6, 2012 08:59PM)
Why not ask me Al? There are 372 in Los Angele, all ordered to shut down.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Jun 6, 2012 11:26PM)
I've always thought doing away with POV's and making public transportation the only option to be a good idea. Accidents (drug related or otherwise) would drop by at least 90%. In the late 80's Seattle had an excellent bus system. Not sure how it stands today.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 6, 2012 11:27PM)
I don't think I've ever ridden the bus in Seattle, but I've ridden the monorail. It was fun.
My best friend lives there and rides the bus to work most of the time. Takes him a couple of hours as I recall. Me, I wouldn't be able to stand it. If I rode the bus to school it would take about an hour and a half to two hours with stops and transfers. Whereas to drive takes about 25 minutes. People say "do homework on the bus" but I wouldn't. I'd fall asleep. I'd never have time to do anything.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 6, 2012 11:38PM)
Hmmm... perhaps the monorail isn't all it's cracked up to be:
[quote]Accidents





Aftermath of the 2005 collision, the train on the right was approaching the station, and should have yielded
On July 25, 1971, a brake failure on the red train resulted in it striking the girder at the end of the track in the Seattle Center station, causing injuries to 26 passengers.[3]

On May 31, 2004, a fire broke out on the monorail with 150 people aboard. Five passengers were taken to the hospital with minor injuries.[4]

On November 26, 2005, the two trains clipped one another on a curve, shearing a door off one train. Two people were hospitalized with minor injuries. Poor design and driver error were blamed for the crash;[5][6][7] in 1988, the space between the monorail tracks had been reduced at the southern end of the line to make room for the new Westlake Center, effectively making gauntlet/interlaced track.
[/quote]

From the Wikipedia.
Here's a link to a scary-ass picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SeattleMonorailAccident.jpg
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 7, 2012 12:26AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-06 21:46, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
How do you suppose all those illegal shops stay in business?

How many legal or illegal medical marijuana shops are in the Los Angeles area?

Try to give me a straight answer counselor.
[/quote]

I don't know how many illegal ones.

Zero legal ones.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Jun 7, 2012 12:54AM)
LOL
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 7, 2012 08:06AM)
Your honor I want the court to make note that I'm dealing with a hostile witness.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 7, 2012 08:49AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-07 01:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-06 21:46, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
How do you suppose all those illegal shops stay in business?

How many legal or illegal medical marijuana shops are in the Los Angeles area?

Try to give me a straight answer counselor.
[/quote]

I don't know how many illegal ones.

Zero legal ones.
[/quote]
If there are none, then why are people protesting this preliminary ordinance today?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/07/medical-marijuana-patients-to-protest-potential-ordinance-shutting-down-dispensaries/

BTW, the article says there are still a little over 100 licensed dispensaries in LA.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 7, 2012 09:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-07 09:06, Al Angello wrote:
Your honor I want the court to make note that I'm dealing with a hostile witness.
[/quote]

Al, listen to me. Seriously. Put down the bong and pay attention. I'm saying it as simply as I can, and it's accurate. Every single one is operating illegally.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 7, 2012 09:17AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-07 09:49, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-07 01:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-06 21:46, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
How do you suppose all those illegal shops stay in business?

How many legal or illegal medical marijuana shops are in the Los Angeles area?

Try to give me a straight answer counselor.
[/quote]

I don't know how many illegal ones.

Zero legal ones.
[/quote]
If there are none, then why are people protesting this preliminary ordinance today?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/07/medical-marijuana-patients-to-protest-potential-ordinance-shutting-down-dispensaries/

BTW, the article says there are still a little over 100 licensed dispensaries in LA.
[/quote]

For the same reason that people protested Arizona's immigration bill.

Interesting reading (particularly Thomas's strong dissent): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15647611274064109718&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 7, 2012 09:21AM)
"For the same reason that people protested Arizona's immigration bill."

I'm sorry, but that is too cryptic a response for me. I'm not sure what you mean.

Are there about 100 licensed (doesn't that imply legal in some sense?) dispensaries in LA as the article reports, or not? Are you saying that those licensed dispensaries are not legal? You mean according to federal law?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 7, 2012 09:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-07 10:21, balducci wrote:
"For the same reason that people protested Arizona's immigration bill."

I'm sorry, but that is too cryptic a response for me. I'm not sure what you mean.

Are there about 100 licensed (doesn't that imply legal in some sense?) dispensaries in LA as the article reports, or not? Are you saying that those licensed dispensaries are not legal? You mean according to federal law?
[/quote]

That's correct; they're all in violation of federal law, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that, "But it's not against state law" is no defense.

Arizona sought (seeks) not to newly criminalize behaviors, but to make them illegal at the state level as well, which would bring about greater enforcement with respect to already-illegal things. For instance, much was made of the Arizona law's requirement that legal resident aliens carry their Alien Registration Cards ("Green Cards"); however, it is already federal law that they do so.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 7, 2012 10:04AM)
I was never worried about people having to [i]carry[/i] their green cards. What I was worried about was the possibility of: "Hey, you have brown skin, show me your green card!"
Not too far-fetched seeing as we used to do it to Chinese people. And who knows where it will stop? We went pretty far with our efforts to eliminate the "Yellow Peril." Where do we draw the line to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Ugh. Don't really want to go down this road again. Just something to consider.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 7, 2012 10:37AM)
I loved it when a waiter told me that he could not serve me a hamburger cooked "medium rare." But medical marijuana was OK in that state.

O tempora! O mores!
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 7, 2012 10:48AM)
Lobo
Your blank statements does have many holes in it. Thank you Balducci for pointing out some of those biased flaws.

Lobo
Why does it take a man from Canada to point out to you what is happening in your own neighborhood?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 7, 2012 11:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-07 11:04, critter wrote:
I was never worried about people having to [i]carry[/i] their green cards. What I was worried about was the possibility of: "Hey, you have brown skin, show me your green card!"
Not too far-fetched seeing as we used to do it to Chinese people. And who knows where it will stop? We went pretty far with our efforts to eliminate the "Yellow Peril." Where do we draw the line to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Ugh. Don't really want to go down this road again. Just something to consider.
[/quote]
I agree with you 100%.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 7, 2012 12:05PM)
No one shoild be allowed to drive without being stoned.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 7, 2012 12:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-07 11:48, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
Your blank statements does have many holes in it. Thank you Balducci for pointing out some of those biased flaws.

Lobo
Why does it take a man from Canada to point out to you what is happening in your own neighborhood?
[/quote]

Al-

You're coming off as a bit of a buffoon here. It's ok to be ignorant about a subject that is outside your area of expertise; however, when you insist on "correcting" someone in his own field, when you've been told unequivocally that your position is mistaken, and given a citation to refer to, at some point you might want to wake up and reconsider.

My "bias" isn't showing here; my education and professional experience is. I'm not sure what bias you're referring to, actually, since, as I have stated in this thread, I'm in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

As a relatively (2007) recent graduate of one of the top law schools in the country;
As an attorney, and moreover;
As an attorney who has been asked to consult on the possible opening of a medical marijuana dispensary in California-

You're simply wrong. NO medical marijuana facility in the country is operating legally. Period.

Again, recommended reading: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15647611274064109718&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Or the Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Amusingly (to me, anyway), it was that most-hated-by-liberals Justice, Clarence Thomas (ok, you could make a case for Scalia) who most vehemently argued in favor of the marijuana user in this case, but he was outvoted.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 7, 2012 12:19PM)
Thanks, Lobo. Justice Thomas's dissent on this case was lapidary.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 8, 2012 12:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-05 13:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Oh, good...we're still friends, Al, because you don't have any idea what you are talking about. At least with respect to the statement "All police need for a blood test is suspicion." That is a flat-out, 100% incorrect statement of constitutional law. What they need for a blood test is probable cause, which is a significantly higher standard than suspicion (even "reasonable particularized suspicion," which is the standard for other things).
[/quote]
Isn't it more the case that they require probable cause in order for the results of a blood test to be meaningful and be permissible in court etc.?

But for an officer to actually make you take a blood test, surely all he needs (in a practical versus a legal sense) is suspicion? Or even just a desire to send a message to you? I admit, I may misunderstand the process.

Anyway, I was reminded of your post just now because of this story in the news:

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/texas_couple_suing_angel_the_p.php
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 8, 2012 12:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-08 13:09, balducci wrote:
Isn't it more the case that they require probable cause in order for the results of a blood test to be meaningful and be permissible in court etc.?

But for an officer to actually make you take a blood test, surely all he needs (in a practical versus a legal sense) is suspicion? Or even just a desire to send a message to you? I admit, I may misunderstand the process.

[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by "in a practical versus a legal sense." I guess in a practical sense, he doesn't "need" anything - if they're going to force a test on you, they're going to force a test on you. However, if they lack probable cause, which is a term of art and a higher standard than "reasonable suspicion," then they're in violation of your 4th Amendment Constitutional rights.

One consequence of that constitutional violation is that evidence obtained thereby (subject to a couple of possible exceptions) cannot be used against you (the "Exclusionary Rule"), but that's not quite the same as saying they only need probable cause for it to be admissible. They need probable cause to take the test. A blood test is a search or seizure within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. The very act of taking blood in the first place is itself a constitutional violation, in the absence of probable cause.

Now for the caveat - drunk driving is a state law offense, and individual states may have case or statutory law to the contrary. I don't know if the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue specifically. However, "probable cause" is the explicit standard in the vast majority of states, and I'd give 10-1 odds that the Supreme Court would rule against any state that purports not to have a probable cause requirement. It's just blatant. I'd give even money that it would be a unanimous decision that a blood test without probable cause is unconstitutional.

That "vast majority of states" includes Al's state, by the way. Pennsylvania cops need probable cause to draw your blood. And if medical personnel draw your blood for purely medical reasons, the police need probable cause [i]just to obtain the results[/i]:

http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J82A-1999mo.pdf