Poll? How to best handle marajuana in terms of use and enforcement.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Poll? How to best handle marajuana in terms of use and enforcement. (Page 1 of 4)

Posted: 10/4/2005 4:02:55 PM EDT

Hit the poll. Elaborate on your decision if you wish.

To every genius who says tax it like alcohol, read the thread.

To LEOs preferably, but I suspect many will answer.

I was told by a couple of LEOs the only reason they do not support legalization of Marajuana is their is no effective field sobritey test for it. In short blood tests don't tell you if they are stoned at that moment and even if they did are not applicable in the field. Your thoughts?

Posted: 10/4/2005 4:04:37 PM EDT

[#1]

"add a poll" on the buttons on the right - Add Poll New Topic Reply Forward UnSubscribe
Just don't go all Milsurp on us!

Posted: 10/4/2005 4:06:57 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
"add a poll" on the buttons on the right - Add Poll New Topic Reply Forward UnSubscribe
Just don't go all Milsurp on us!

Finally caught that thanks, in the process of editing.

Posted: 10/4/2005 4:07:59 PM EDT

[#3]

I don't think you're allowed to, unless you become a Team member.

Posted: 10/4/2005 4:11:17 PM EDT

[#4]

Legalize it. It was banned under false pretenses.

Posted: 10/4/2005 4:13:38 PM EDT

[#5]

Also if you click "stiffen penalties" elaborate?

Posted: 10/4/2005 4:22:19 PM EDT

[#6]

Come on 9 votes? WTF?

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:26:17 PM EDT

[#7]

?????

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:32:25 PM EDT

[#8]

Legalize it with restrictions on consumption similar to alcohol. One exception to the alcohol parallel would be to allow homegrown.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:33:10 PM EDT

[#9]

My guess is at leat 25% of the members here are smokers. LEGALIZE IT!

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:34:18 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Legalize it with restrictions on consumption similar to alcohol. One exception to the alcohol parallel would be to allow homegrown.

Homegrown "Moonshine stills" are illegal still. The ATF actually still pursues this pointless cause.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:36:42 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Legalize it with restrictions on consumption similar to alcohol. One exception to the alcohol parallel would be to allow homegrown.

Homegrown "Moonshine stills" are illegal still. The ATF actually still pursues this pointless cause.

That's why I said the EXCEPTION thingy.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:38:34 PM EDT

[#12]

If they legalize it and I have to breathe in someones hippie smoke, I will cut their throat.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:39:21 PM EDT

[#13]

Marijuana is illegal because anyone with a patch of dirt and a seed can make their own with no difficulty or loss of quality. It's all about the money.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:40:43 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Marijuana is illegal because anyone with a patch of dirt and a seed can make their own with no difficulty or loss of quality. It's all about the money.

No shit, we know that here. But still Politicians will not touch it.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:40:47 PM EDT

[#15]

Maybe have a reward for turning in pot farms?

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:41:57 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
If they legalize it and I have to breathe in someones hippie smoke, I will cut their throat.

Agression issues heh? Your opinion of Alcohol and Tobacco?

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:44:25 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legalize it with restrictions on consumption similar to alcohol. One exception to the alcohol parallel would be to allow homegrown.

Homegrown "Moonshine stills" are illegal still. The ATF actually still pursues this pointless cause.

That's why I said the EXCEPTION thingy.

I know that is rational and thought out thus Gov. is incapable of it. It just like Marajuana is a tax issue. Stills for >>>personal consumption<<< are legal at least to my knowledge.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:45:21 PM EDT

[#18]

Confiscate and ticket but do not arrest - been there, done that.

It's a ticket here for personal amounts - an ounce?

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:48:29 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Confiscate and ticket but do not arrest - been there, done that.

It's a ticket here for personal amounts - an ounce?

Short of legalizing it is practical and thought out and minimizes Police time wasted. An ounce is a decent supply is it not?

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:48:41 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legalize it with restrictions on consumption similar to alcohol. One exception to the alcohol parallel would be to allow homegrown.

Homegrown "Moonshine stills" are illegal still. The ATF actually still pursues this pointless cause.

That's why I said the EXCEPTION thingy.

I know that is rational and thought out thus Gov. is incapable of it. It just like Marajuana is a tax issue. Stills for >>>personal consumption<<< are legal at least to my knowledge.

Legalize pot, shouldn't be illegal to begin with IMO.

Home stills? I think it may have been at one time, but no distilled spirits can be made at home but beer and wine . IIRC.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:50:00 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Confiscate and ticket but do not arrest - been there, done that.

It's a ticket here for personal amounts - an ounce?

Short of legalizing it is practical and thought out and minimizes Police time wasted. An ounce is a decent supply is it not?

not really from my youthfull experiences.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:52:04 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
If they legalize it and I have to breathe in someones hippie smoke, I will cut their throat.

would you like a beer instead there hoss?

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:52:09 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legalize it with restrictions on consumption similar to alcohol. One exception to the alcohol parallel would be to allow homegrown.

Homegrown "Moonshine stills" are illegal still. The ATF actually still pursues this pointless cause.

That's why I said the EXCEPTION thingy.

I know that is rational and thought out thus Gov. is incapable of it. It just like Marajuana is a tax issue. Stills for >>>personal consumption<<< are legal at least to my knowledge.

Legalize pot, shouldn't be illegal to begin with IMO.

Home stills? I think it may have been at one time, but no distilled spirits can be made at home but beer and wine . IIRC.

What was the justification on controlling distilled spirits "for our own safety"? Safety is just an excuse for not recieving tax revenue. I assume the law is leftover from prohibition?

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:54:13 PM EDT

[#24]

I say legalize it, and tax it.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:54:28 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Home stills? I think it may have been at one time, but no distilled spirits can be made at home but beer and wine . IIRC.

Beer and wine are not distilled. Home stills are illegal, except for certain, small-volume stills that are used to make herbal tinctures and essential oils. And while owning these for the intended purpose is legal, distilling any volume of alcohol for consumption is still illegal.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:55:37 PM EDT

[#26]

Seeing how many pot-heads we have around here keeps me away from most ARFCOM shoots. Frightening.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:55:44 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legalize it with restrictions on consumption similar to alcohol. One exception to the alcohol parallel would be to allow homegrown.

Homegrown "Moonshine stills" are illegal still. The ATF actually still pursues this pointless cause.

That's why I said the EXCEPTION thingy.

I know that is rational and thought out thus Gov. is incapable of it. It just like Marajuana is a tax issue. Stills for >>>personal consumption<<< are legal at least to my knowledge.

Legalize pot, shouldn't be illegal to begin with IMO.

Home stills? I think it may have been at one time, but no distilled spirits can be made at home but beer and wine . IIRC.

What was the justification on controlling distilled spirits "for our own safety"? Safety is just an excuse for not recieving tax revenue. I assume the law is leftover from prohibition?

too many people going blind and dying i think. Just a guess though.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:58:08 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

What was the justification on controlling distilled spirits "for our own safety"? Safety is just an excuse for not recieving tax revenue. I assume the law is leftover from prohibition?

Disregarding the tax issue, distilling is a rather dangerous business if people are either a) careless or b) too stupid to educate themselves. If you don't distill alcohol properly, you run a very good chance of producing nothing more than a goodly amount of poison. I'm sure this factored into it, as well as the tax issue. People are allowed to make a certain amount of beer and wine tax-free for personal consumption. I don't see why distilling is any different. I dunno about it being a prohibition throwback, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Edit: Grammar.

Posted: 10/4/2005 5:58:08 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Seeing how many pot-heads we have around here keeps me away from most ARFCOM shoots. Frightening.

funny, it's the drunks With guns I try to stay away from. since we were talking frightning.

of course now, I don't do either.

Posted: 10/4/2005 6:00:30 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Seeing how many pot-heads we have around here keeps me away from most ARFCOM shoots. Frightening.

funny, it's the drunks With guns I try to stay away from. since we were talking frightning.

of course now, I don't do either.

I will side wth UnKempt1 on this.

Posted: 10/4/2005 6:48:31 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:

What was the justification on controlling distilled spirits "for our own safety"? Safety is just an excuse for not recieving tax revenue. I assume the law is leftover from prohibition?

Disregarding the tax issue, distilling is a rather dangerous business if people are either a) careless or b) too stupid to educate themselves. If you don't distill alcohol properly, you run a very good chance of producing nothing more than a goodly amount of poison. I'm sure this factored into it, as well as the tax issue. People are allowed to make a certain amount of beer and wine tax-free for personal consumption. I don't see why distilling is any different. I dunno about it being a prohibition throwback, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Edit: Grammar.

That is wrong. No where in the process does any sort of "poison" get introduced, even if you are sloppy as hell. You may get small amounts of ketones, I've heard, but not enough to kill you, and it would taste nasty enough that you wouldn't want to drink enough to kill you.

What was the justification on controlling distilled spirits "for our own safety"? Safety is just an excuse for not recieving tax revenue. I assume the law is leftover from prohibition?

too many people going blind and dying i think. Just a guess though.

The myth about people going blind goes back to the prohibition era. Moonshiners, or dealing middle men would sometimes "cut" their booze with methanol (wood alcohol) to stretch it. Similar to how heroine and cocaine are often "cut" for sale on the street. It was the methanol from tainted supply that caused the blindness and not anything in the distilling process itself.

Posted: 10/4/2005 6:53:11 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Seeing how many pot-heads we have around here keeps me away from most ARFCOM shoots. Frightening.

funny, it's the drunks With guns I try to stay away from. since we were talking frightning.

of course now, I don't do either.

Agreed--equally frightening.

Openly admitting my trust may be misplaced, I will say that I think drinkers are more likely to separate anything important / dangerous from their drug of choice.

Posted: 10/4/2005 6:56:35 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seeing how many pot-heads we have around here keeps me away from most ARFCOM shoots. Frightening.

funny, it's the drunks With guns I try to stay away from. since we were talking frightning.

of course now, I don't do either.

I will side wth UnKempt1 on this.

Hell man, I haven't smoked in years. right now I'd do the test of pot smoker vs drinker

hit a local police driving course. I'd say shooting, but I sure ain't no dead eye LOL unless it was a mediocre shot like myself. (gone shooting twice in the last year and have never been more than a defensive center mass shooter)

driving I think would be more fair to all. wouldn't you agree?

Hardest part would be scoring the pot.

any leos think your dept would donate for the experiment? you guys sure could attend and supervise but there should be some way to keep which driver had what from the judges and leos?
Maybe even make you fellas do a blind vote as to who was what after the runs. a quarter ounce and a vaporizer or bong would be sufficient.

Seen them do it with alcohol before, but not pot.

Let the games begin.

Posted: 10/4/2005 6:59:43 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

What was the justification on controlling distilled spirits "for our own safety"? Safety is just an excuse for not recieving tax revenue. I assume the law is leftover from prohibition?

Disregarding the tax issue, distilling is a rather dangerous business if people are either a) careless or b) too stupid to educate themselves. If you don't distill alcohol properly, you run a very good chance of producing nothing more than a goodly amount of poison. I'm sure this factored into it, as well as the tax issue. People are allowed to make a certain amount of beer and wine tax-free for personal consumption. I don't see why distilling is any different. I dunno about it being a prohibition throwback, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Edit: Grammar.

That is wrong. No where in the process does any sort of "poison" get introduced, even if you are sloppy as hell. You may get small amounts of ketones, I've heard, but not enough to kill you, and it would taste nasty enough that you wouldn't want to drink enough to kill you.

What was the justification on controlling distilled spirits "for our own safety"? Safety is just an excuse for not recieving tax revenue. I assume the law is leftover from prohibition?

too many people going blind and dying i think. Just a guess though.

The myth about people going blind goes back to the prohibition era. Moonshiners, or dealing middle men would sometimes "cut" their booze with methanol (wood alcohol) to stretch it. Similar to how heroine and cocaine are often "cut" for sale on the street. It was the methanol from tainted supply that caused the blindness and not anything in the distilling process itself.

IIRC, this came more from the use of old radiators from cars and trucks in their stills (evaporators? not sure what part it would be?). Not that I don't agree some out there would use wood alcohol either.

Posted: 10/4/2005 7:02:47 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seeing how many pot-heads we have around here keeps me away from most ARFCOM shoots. Frightening.

funny, it's the drunks With guns I try to stay away from. since we were talking frightning.

of course now, I don't do either.

Agreed--equally frightening.

Openly admitting my trust may be misplaced, I will say that I think drinkers are more likely to separate anything important / dangerous from their drug of choice.

I dunno, I can remember going out with the great white hunters and them being sloshed hunting in the woods. mainly what keeps me from going out anymore. too many "it moved" shooters/shootings.

scary lot in the woods sometimes when they are stone cold sober too though. which is just damn confusing to me.

Posted: 10/4/2005 7:06:09 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

The myth about people going blind goes back to the prohibition era. Moonshiners, or dealing middle men would sometimes "cut" their booze with methanol (wood alcohol) to stretch it. Similar to how heroine and cocaine are often "cut" for sale on the street. It was the methanol from tainted supply that caused the blindness and not anything in the distilling process itself.

IIRC, this came more from the use of old radiators from cars and trucks in their stills (evaporators? not sure what part it would be?). Not that I don't agree some out there would use wood alcohol either.

The radiator would be the condenser to the unit--where the vaporized alchol was cooled off enough to become liquid. I don't see how a radiator could cause blindness. I think another problem though with radiators was they would either hook them up with lead pipes, or moonshiners would use lead solder to connect their plumbing to the radiator. This naturally would lead to lead poisoning.

Also naturally, "legit" distilleries like jack daniel's and the like would never use lead plumbing or solder in their setups. This is just another example of the dangers of prohibition. Unfortunately, today's drug warriors don't want to learn that lesson.

Posted: 10/4/2005 7:14:05 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The myth about people going blind goes back to the prohibition era. Moonshiners, or dealing middle men would sometimes "cut" their booze with methanol (wood alcohol) to stretch it. Similar to how heroine and cocaine are often "cut" for sale on the street. It was the methanol from tainted supply that caused the blindness and not anything in the distilling process itself.

IIRC, this came more from the use of old radiators from cars and trucks in their stills (evaporators? not sure what part it would be?). Not that I don't agree some out there would use wood alcohol either.

The radiator would be the condenser to the unit--where the vaporized alchol was cooled off enough to become liquid. I don't see how a radiator could cause blindness. I think another problem though with radiators was they would either hook them up with lead pipes, or moonshiners would use lead solder to connect their plumbing to the radiator. This naturally would lead to lead poisoning.

Also naturally, "legit" distilleries like jack daniel's and the like would never use lead plumbing or solder in their setups. This is just another example of the dangers of prohibition. Unfortunately, today's drug warriors don't want to learn that lesson.

From what i understand on it, they were using old used radiators, guessing the anti freeze gets in the mix. Maybe that crust in the radiator is alcohol soluble

Posted: 10/4/2005 7:23:56 PM EDT

[#38]

If it becomes legal, only on the contingency that there be an immediate field test for it, you can bet your ass that there will be a test available by 8:00 am tommorrow morning.

note: don't smoke it, don't hang around people that do. But I don't think it's any worse than some redneck doing 20 tequila shots after work on a friday night, starting a fight, then driving home because he 'says he's fine' to drive.

Posted: 10/4/2005 7:39:54 PM EDT

[#39]

I don't drink or smoke anything anymore (better than 10 years). Been there, done plenty of that with pot - never plan to return. I'm pretty far removed from any sort of recreational chemical use, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

Having said that, I'd vote to legalize. It's certainly no worse than alcohol.

Posted: 10/4/2005 8:01:34 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

If it becomes legal, only on the contingency that there be an immediate field test for it, you can bet your ass that there will be a test available by 8:00 am tommorrow morning.

note: don't smoke it, don't hang around people that do. But I don't think it's any worse than some redneck doing 20 tequila shots after work on a friday night, starting a fight, then driving home because he 'says he's fine' to drive.

The reason there isn't a field test is because the effects aren't at all like alcohol. It doesn't destroy motor coordination like alcohol does. The best research shows that the only reliable way to tell if someone is stoned on pot is to ask them.

Posted: 10/5/2005 11:47:03 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I don't drink or smoke anything anymore (better than 10 years). Been there, done plenty of that with pot - never plan to return. I'm pretty far removed from any sort of recreational chemical use, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

Having said that, I'd vote to legalize. It's certainly no worse than alcohol.

I've smoked maybe 3 times in my life none recent and I seldom drink. I still agree it should be legalized.

A test of sobriety/under-the-influence with vehicles, firearms, and other potential hazards would be an interesting field study. A test body of stoners and drinkers under stress test would be educational and hilarious. Three drunks clearing a room vs. 3 stoners doing the same. Could you imagine drunk vs. stoned IDPA style events?

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:06:09 PM EDT

[#42]

Marijuana is legal if it has a tax stamp on it, they just don't sell the tax stamps.

All we need to do is start selling the tax stamps like we do for cigarettes and alcohol.

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:07:15 PM EDT

[#43]

Make it legal with some rules... You cannot use it in public (you get a ticket if you do,) pot bars/establishments are not legal, otherwise it should be the same a booze.
I don't like the shit and I wouldn't smoke it if it were legal... But, the current law is just sensless. If they do make it legal, I don't want to see the shit and I don't want to see people smoking the shit. What you do in your house is your business.

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:09:26 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't drink or smoke anything anymore (better than 10 years). Been there, done plenty of that with pot - never plan to return. I'm pretty far removed from any sort of recreational chemical use, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

Having said that, I'd vote to legalize. It's certainly no worse than alcohol.

I've smoked maybe 3 times in my life none recent and I seldom drink. I still agree it should be legalized.

A test of sobriety/under-the-influence with vehicles, firearms, and other potential hazards would be an interesting field study. A test body of stoners and drinkers under stress test would be educational and hilarious. Three drunks clearing a room vs. 3 stoners doing the same. Could you imagine drunk vs. stoned IDPA style events?

Where do I sign up?

Let's get it on!

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:12:07 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Make it legal with some rules... You cannot use it in public (you get a ticket if you do,) pot bars/establishments are not legal, otherwise it should be the same a booze.
I don't like the shit and I wouldn't smoke it if it were legal... But, the current law is just sensless. If they do make it legal, I don't want to see the shit and I don't want to see people smoking the shit. What you do in your house is your business.

it would be ok to have a "bar" but not ok to have a coffee shoppe where they could gather and be amoungst their friends too?

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:13:21 PM EDT

[#46]

Looks like we have a lot of pot heads in the crowd

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:14:37 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Looks like we have a lot of pot heads in the crowd

X pot head here. 10 years thanks. more about freedom and equality, than pot IMHO

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:16:48 PM EDT

[#48]

If it was (RE)legalized......

LEO's would have to track down REAL criminals.

Mexican Dopers wouldn't have as much U.S, currency.

We would save BILLIONS of dollars every year.

How the hell can a plant be illegal??? If that's not the height of hypocrisy, i don't know what is.

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:17:41 PM EDT

[#49]

Oh good gawd I leave the site for an hour and another drug thread.

Posted: 10/5/2005 12:19:01 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Seeing how many pot-heads we have around here keeps me away from most ARFCOM shoots. Frightening.

So we're not allowed to be for legalization without being potheads? Perhaps we just don't want to see are tax money wasted and our courts and jail crowded with people who are generally less troublesome than drunks.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Poll? How to best handle marajuana in terms of use and enforcement. (Page 1 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us