ericredaxe
Veteran
Yes or No?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
- Thread starter ericredaxe
- Start date
SonofSouthie
Misanthrope
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
Yes.
Yes.
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
No. Two reasons. 1) I don't want to smell the smoke. If its only edible pot that might change my stance. 2) There is no test for determining if someone is too stoned to drive. There is for alcohol. If we are to regulate pot like booze, we need to make sure cops can arrest people for driving impaired.
Until those are answered, no deal.
No. Two reasons. 1) I don't want to smell the smoke. If its only edible pot that might change my stance. 2) There is no test for determining if someone is too stoned to drive. There is for alcohol. If we are to regulate pot like booze, we need to make sure cops can arrest people for driving impaired.
Until those are answered, no deal.
RaceBoarder
Waiting for the Snow to fly...
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
What is the answer to that specific impaired driving question? How does the Pro-Pot side sell that?
Don't have a dog in the fight, but it's coming soon enough. Just curious on the matter.
What is the answer to that specific impaired driving question? How does the Pro-Pot side sell that?
Don't have a dog in the fight, but it's coming soon enough. Just curious on the matter.
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
They don't mention it. Or at least I haven't seen them cover the subject.
They don't mention it. Or at least I haven't seen them cover the subject.
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
I would guess erratic driving. There's no "measurement" in the laws, like alcohol. However, there is still the general "driving while impaired" and that can apply to anything from drugs to alcohol.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
Since the Michigan government screwed marijuana from even getting on the ballot here, please vote yes so there are more states that aren't stuck in 1930s Reefer Madness.
Since the Michigan government screwed marijuana from even getting on the ballot here, please vote yes so there are more states that aren't stuck in 1930s Reefer Madness.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
Anyone here living in a state where is has already passed?
Can you comment on the results / effects so far?
Anyone here living in a state where is has already passed?
Can you comment on the results / effects so far?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
From what I've heard from friends, sh-tloads of tax revenue. Otherwise, zilch.
The war on pot was always political. It has zero public policy value.
From what I've heard from friends, sh-tloads of tax revenue. Otherwise, zilch.
The war on pot was always political. It has zero public policy value.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
The Legislature here dragged its feet on getting the infrastructure going so we haven't had shops or anything yet. However, there hasn't been a rash of impaired driving or having to smell smoke (since public consumption is banned, dumb reasoning Rover). The only consequence I'd heard was some police departments weren't happy because they had to get new drug sniffing dogs.
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
While it is not "legalized" in CT, possession for personal use is punishable by $150 fine. That's it; basically equivalent to a speeding ticket.
Have no idea how to assess the results / effects so far. Have not seen any obvious differences but then that might merely be a result of what is visible for me to see in the first place....
While it is not "legalized" in CT, possession for personal use is punishable by $150 fine. That's it; basically equivalent to a speeding ticket.
Have no idea how to assess the results / effects so far. Have not seen any obvious differences but then that might merely be a result of what is visible for me to see in the first place....
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!
GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
1) This is woefully ignorant. Like, straight out of the Republican playbook ignorant. Public consumption is still banned, so you're not going to be smelling any smoke.
2) There's basic tests that police use to determine impaired driving well before a breathalyzer test. If marijuana is suspected the only difference will be a blood test at the station instead of roadside breathalyzer.
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
Not sure if you're a pot consumer yourself, but what I will tell you is in my experience pot smokers are either oblivious or think everybody else wants to smell their smoke. I don't. Nor do many other people. In Boston pot smoking in the Boston Common is a regular occurrence. Why these dorks can't smoke in their own homes is beyond me. Even more than that, if you live in an apartment setting, somebody smoking might make its way into your personal space.
So, if you want to get all huffy about it, even though I've already said I'd consider legalizing edible pot, then I'd vote no on everything.
Lastly, your driving impaired solution is ridiculous. Driving drunk is a simple one. Cops pull you over and give you the test. If they don't you have a better chance of beating it in court. Pot stays in your system for a month. Blood test down at station is worthless, and you'd be on your way. If there's no consequences for getting people off the roads if driving impaired, people will drive stoned. The same level of impairment can't be handled different legally because in one case we have a test and in the other case we don't.
Not sure if you're a pot consumer yourself, but what I will tell you is in my experience pot smokers are either oblivious or think everybody else wants to smell their smoke. I don't. Nor do many other people. In Boston pot smoking in the Boston Common is a regular occurrence. Why these dorks can't smoke in their own homes is beyond me. Even more than that, if you live in an apartment setting, somebody smoking might make its way into your personal space.
So, if you want to get all huffy about it, even though I've already said I'd consider legalizing edible pot, then I'd vote no on everything.
Lastly, your driving impaired solution is ridiculous. Driving drunk is a simple one. Cops pull you over and give you the test. If they don't you have a better chance of beating it in court. Pot stays in your system for a month. Blood test down at station is worthless, and you'd be on your way. If there's no consequences for getting people off the roads if driving impaired, people will drive stoned. The same level of impairment can't be handled different legally because in one case we have a test and in the other case we don't.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
A lot to unpack here.
First of all, no I don't smoke marijuana. I have in the past but not in many years. I do know plenty of regular users, but Alaska is full of them. Don't try to deflect the argument by painting me as a "dumb pot smoker."
If people are already out in public smoking then that's on your local law enforcement for not enforcing the laws. If anything, legalization actually helps that in that it's fair easier for officers to write a swath of tickets rather than mass arrests.
Alright, now your ignorance is in full bloom.
When a police officer pulls you over on suspicion of impaired driving they perform roadside tests to get a basic determination of impairment. If it's alcohol they'll perform a breathalyzer test but this can be refused, in any case you will be arrested and blood samples will be taken regardless of what is believed to be impairing you. In Alaska and the other states the laws set what level of metabolites legally constitute impairment.
So yes, there are consequences for driving stoned. In fact, many of them are already in place and officers are already trained to detect signs of impairment. It's willfully ignorant to just assume they'll be this rash of stoned people out driving and getting away with it.
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?
I don't know what flies in Alaska, but there's a few things here that don't apply especially since we're talking about Massachusetts.
1) Cops can't be everywhere at once. If you call them and they respond, I'm assuming they'd have to catch people in the act as well. If there's no fear of arrest, I'm guessing these people will be happy to risk a 25 dollar fine as opposed to toking up in their parents basement.
2) I'm not aware of cops taking a blood test down at the station for a drunk driving arrest.
I don't think you can compel blood tests out of people except under court order but I'll let the legal beagles speak to that. But, your premise is still incorrect. A blood test will show pot for smoking up to a month ago. Why not just claim you're not stoned now, and its showing what you did yesterday or last week? Again, you'll win in court every time, which makes the law unenforceable.
Your haughty attitude in dismissing these questions isn't going to serve your cause well. People want to regulate pot like alcohol? Sounds good. Can you drink beer in public, like in the park or on the street? No, not less specifically permitted or residing in New Orleans. Can you drive with too much alcohol in your system? No. Can you show up for work smelling like alcohol? No. Is public intoxication legal? No.
So, until you're willing to apply the same standards, my answer is no.
I don't know what flies in Alaska, but there's a few things here that don't apply especially since we're talking about Massachusetts.
1) Cops can't be everywhere at once. If you call them and they respond, I'm assuming they'd have to catch people in the act as well. If there's no fear of arrest, I'm guessing these people will be happy to risk a 25 dollar fine as opposed to toking up in their parents basement.
2) I'm not aware of cops taking a blood test down at the station for a drunk driving arrest.
I don't think you can compel blood tests out of people except under court order but I'll let the legal beagles speak to that. But, your premise is still incorrect. A blood test will show pot for smoking up to a month ago. Why not just claim you're not stoned now, and its showing what you did yesterday or last week? Again, you'll win in court every time, which makes the law unenforceable.Your haughty attitude in dismissing these questions isn't going to serve your cause well. People want to regulate pot like alcohol? Sounds good. Can you drink beer in public, like in the park or on the street? No, not less specifically permitted or residing in New Orleans. Can you drive with too much alcohol in your system? No. Can you show up for work smelling like alcohol? No. Is public intoxication legal? No.
So, until you're willing to apply the same standards, my answer is no.