How do you feel about the change taking place in concern with marijuana laws?

[Belk]

That's true, although I would assume you are still digesting many of the same chemicals and properties of the plant.

I don't know about you but in my life I want to limit as many addicting things as I can. This goes for drugs, alcohol, pills, food, computer and TV. I strive for idealism and self-actualization and nearly all drugs (certainly illegal drugs) can starve this process and we become reliant on them for peace and a sense of calm.

It isn't just the physical attributes of drugs that I detest but also the psychological dependence that they can create. Sure, not everyone who smokes pot is addicted but why risk it? Why not invest in more healthy and permanent solutions?

right on! I wish you every success in your endeavors. For myself, I prefer a more balanced approach. I was able to stop the one extremely addicting substance in my life (nicotine) so I do not find myself worried about using pot now and again. I will not try anything harder then that however. To much risk versus rewards.

 

[Everlasting33]

right on! I wish you every success in your endeavors. For myself, I prefer a more balanced approach. I was able to stop the one extremely addicting substance in my life (nicotine) so I do not find myself worried about using pot now and again. I will not try anything harder then that however. To much risk versus rewards.

Congrats! My mom is still very much addicted to nicotine and it is frustrating to watch. Wasting all that money to put toxins in your body and watching her health decline because of smoking is difficult.

 

[PsychMJC]

http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/marijuana

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
Sorry, I'll go with this one. Not that it matters.

 

[Belk]

Congrats! My mom is still very much addicted to nicotine and it is frustrating to watch. Wasting all that money to put toxins in your body and watching her health decline because of smoking is difficult.

Thanks. Yeah it can be a tough battle. you know the things are killing you but you have such a reaction when you stop. Personally I highly recommend the patch. It's still tough but not nearly as bad as trying to go cold turkey.

 

[Everlasting33]

Thanks. Yeah it can be a tough battle. you know the things are killing you but you have such a reaction when you stop. Personally I highly recommend the patch. It's still tough but not nearly as bad as trying to go cold turkey.

She's tried that, the gum, and substituting the gum for mints and tootsie rolls Most of her just doesn't want to quit and that is why she hasn't.

 

[Everlasting33]

right on! I wish you every success in your endeavors. For myself, I prefer a more balanced approach. I was able to stop the one extremely addicting substance in my life (nicotine) so I do not find myself worried about using pot now and again. I will not try anything harder then that however. To much risk versus rewards.

Why do you use pot? Is it just to calm down? If so, what about deep breathing relaxation techniques, exercise, meditation?

 

[Shane Roach]

As long as it is legalized by the consent of the governed, I am not at all offended. Fact is, though I do not use it, I know a lot of people who do, and it has begun to annoy me in much the same way seatbelt laws, gun control laws, and even the more extensive drinking and driving laws annoy me.

We've gone on past the "Nanny State" and into the "You're in Jail and You Just Don't Know it Yet State".

In Austin TX, if an officer suspects you of drinking and driving, and you decline the breath test, they can jump you, immobilize you, and have a medic take your blood right there on the spot. No warrant... No nothing.

I know it's become utterly politically incorrect to question laws about drunk driving but folks, I've driven sleepy way more often than drunk, and there's still no law.

Ultimately, you really ought to at least wait for someone to do something that most people do not do habitually before you arrest them. That's why I am ok with MJ being legal, even though I wish we lived in a country where people's values were such that it were not so commonly used.

 

[Belk]

She's tried that, the gum, and substituting the gum for mints and tootsie rolls Most of her just doesn't want to quit and that is why she hasn't.

That is the most important piece of course. You have to really want to quit otherwise you are just playing around to make yourself feel good saying "see, I tried".

 

[b&wpac4]

In Austin TX, if an officer suspects you of drinking and driving, and you decline the breath test, they can jump you, immobilize you, and have a medic take your blood right there on the spot. No warrant... No nothing.

In MD, if you refuse the breath test, you are simply assumed to be driving over the legal limit and charged as such.

 

[Belk]

Why do you use pot? Is it just to calm down? If so, what about deep breathing relaxation techniques, exercise, meditation?

I enjoy the inebriating effect it has on me. I find it pleasurable and I enjoy using it and playing a game of settlers with friends. I also find it useful as an emotional outlet when I want to be introspective.

 

[Belk]

In Austin TX, if an officer suspects you of drinking and driving, and you decline the breath test, they can jump you, immobilize you, and have a medic take your blood right there on the spot. No warrant... No nothing.

Seriously?!? Now don't get me wrong I am a firm believer in drunk driving laws, but that is over the top. Here in Washington if you refuse the test you have to give up your license for a year, but they cannot test you against your consent unless there has been an actual accident.

 

[Shane Roach]

In MD, if you refuse the breath test, you are simply assumed to be driving over the legal limit and charged as such.

Zoinks.

Touche'.

 

[b&wpac4]

Zoinks.

Touche'.

Yeah, this happened to a friend of mine. Not that he would have passed the test anyway but...

 

[Shane Roach]

Seriously?!? Now don't get me wrong I am a firm believer in drunk driving laws, but that is over the top. Here in Washington if you refuse the test you have to give up your license for a year, but they cannot test you against your consent unless there has been an actual accident.

Well, and it is just getting too strict. It used to be a good rule of thumb was if you had two beers in the course of an hour you were good to go. After that, you had to limit yourself to one beer an hour to maintain. I have no idea how little you have to drink now to be over the limit, but frankly I think you could easily pop positive on one beer, and one beer, even if it has a measurable effect on your driving, is not driving drunk. Period.

This is exactly the same issue I had with MJ. You criminalize something that is a: common practice and b: not really that risky or bad. Now you just have a standing excuse to abuse people's personal security and privacy.

 

[b&wpac4]

This is exactly the same issue I had with MJ. You criminalize something that is a: common practice and b: not really that risky or bad. Now you just have a standing excuse to abuse people's personal security and privacy.

I really don't understand how alcohol and cigarettes are legal, but MJ is not.

 

[Shane Roach]

The simple fact is that there were already crimes on the books for controlling drunk driving. The same weaving that makes up "probably cause" could simply be called reckless driving. You go on from there. I wouldn't even have a problem with testing as drunk after an accident being an aggravating circumstance or increasing the chance of civil liability, but the act alone of drinking some undisclosed amount of alcohol and then stepping behind the wheel is simply not properly illegal in my view.

As it is, you can drink legally, drive legally, and even drive after you drink legally... you just have no idea how long after you drink you can drive legally.

 

[Belk]

Well, and it is just getting too strict. It used to be a good rule of thumb was if you had two beers in the course of an hour you were good to go. After that, you had to limit yourself to one beer an hour to maintain. I have no idea how little you have to drink now to be over the limit, but frankly I think you could easily pop positive on one beer, and one beer, even if it has a measurable effect on your driving, is not driving drunk. Period.

This is exactly the same issue I had with MJ. You criminalize something that is a: common practice and b: not really that risky or bad. Now you just have a standing excuse to abuse people's personal security and privacy.

Very true. While I admit I tend to the social liberal side of the scale I find myself upset with what you term the nanny state. I guess I am more of a classic liberal, I think that unless there is a bloody good reason to intervene the government should keep their nose out of peoples business. I really don't need anyone telling me that wearing a helmet or my seat belt is a good idea. I am perfectly capable of figuring this out on my own.

 

[Shane Roach]

I really don't understand how alcohol and cigarettes are legal, but MJ is not.

It was political. A governmental agency needed to legitimize its existence. It's probably true to an extent that it was racist too, though a good argument can be made that it was merely a misunderstanding coupled with early problems with illegal immigration.

It scared a few people at first, and we've been paying for it ever since.

That's my entirely unsolicited view of the matter. Someone more into the whole legalize pot movement will have to provide the details because I do not go over it often. I tried pot. I was not impressed. It was illegal. So, I did not use it any more. And like TeddyKGB, I do not anticipate using it if it is legal either.

 

[b&wpac4]

The simple fact is that there were already crimes on the books for controlling drunk driving. The same weaving that makes up "probably cause" could simply be called reckless driving. You go on from there. I wouldn't even have a problem with testing as drunk after an accident being an aggravating circumstance or increasing the chance of civil liability, but the act alone of drinking some undisclosed amount of alcohol and then stepping behind the wheel is simply not properly illegal in my view.

As it is, you can drink legally, drive legally, and even drive after you drink legally... you just have no idea how long after you drink you can drive legally.

I got pulled over in for suspected drunk driving. It was around midnight and I was taking my girlfriend home after a concert. I touched the white line on the shoulder ONCE because the road was being repainted and there were dual lines, and the cop followed me for about five miles before pulling me over.

Keep in mind, I do not consume alcohol. My family has a long history of alcoholism, and it made me decide at a young age that I would not even press my luck at drinking.

So, the officer talks to me for about fifteen minutes, and I'm not slurring my speech, I'm speaking clearly and accurately, and describing the concert. I was STILL required to do a field sobriety test followed by a breathalyzer test. Surprise, surprise, I have a blood alcohol content of... 0. He lets me go, but tells me I was lucky this time.

 

[Shane Roach]

Very true. While I admit I tend to the social liberal side of the scale I find myself upset with what you term the nanny state. I guess I am more of a classic liberal, I think that unless there is a bloody good reason to intervene the government should keep their nose out of peoples business. I really don't need anyone telling me that wearing a helmet or my seat belt is a good idea. I am perfectly capable of figuring this out on my own.

I was generally wearing seat belts before it was the law, and went through a stage where I stopped wearing them precisely because I was miffed. It didn't take long for me to realize I was doing the classic cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-my-face gig, so I once again began wearing seat belts.

The ads and the drivers ed focus was what really changed things for me, not the law.