# Legalize it



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

What is everyone's opinion on medicinal marijuana or recreational marijuana.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am still on a wait and see basis right now.

Lets see how Colorado out look on it. I know one thing that isn't publicized is the facts on the crime rates... up or down. What I mean is I know right away the cartel were doing smash and grabs. Since at the time people with the legal sale of medical pot couldn't put that money in a FDIC bank (federal laws) they would need "stash houses" for the cash. Well cartels were going along and finding the house or following the vehicles and robbing them. One that was told to me by an FBI agent was that the cartel took one car smashed it into the house and then a following car ran into the house and robbed it of all the cash. Again don't know if these are still happening or not.

Plus the DUI type issues. Have "smoking" and driving been an issue? Has a "breathalyzer" been developed to prove this. Plus the lingering effects..... like how long does it take to get out of your system. Just like alcohol. People shouldn't be going to work a little "intoxicated". Just like a person would get fired if someone smelt booze on their breathe.... same should be for pot as well.

Or crime because of people moving to these states just to enjoy pot "legally". The other thing has visits to the ER or hospitals gone up for irresponsible usage... ie: people eating edibles not immediately feeling anything and consume more and get sick/OD on it and need or seek out medical attention.

So like I said I want to "wait and see" a 5 year average on these to give kind of an indication of things to come. Also need to iron out the legalities/penalties of some of the stuff I mentioned above.... I mean think of an HR nightmare for firing/hiring and drug testing.

But there are positives... TAX TAX TAX... just like they do now with cigarettes and alcohol. Money to be made on licensing by the state.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

The biggest problem I see is who has a legitimate need and who doesn't. Even doctors struggle with that and often error on the side of the patients comfort, real or imagined) just as the do with opioids. And we all pretty much know that prescriptions will likely be far more easy to get than they should be and that many if not most users will fraudulently be getting a script primarily for recreational purposes. While its effects are more subtle than other drugs it still causes impairment to judgement and reaction time. For everyday tasks that may not be an issue but for many tasks it may cause a dangerous situation. They will need to come up with a very thorough DUI law to deal with it. I also think it will be more acceptable to the non using public if use is limited to non-smoking forms. I don't care what they say smoke is smoke and not good for the lungs in any form and that will eventually be bourn out. And I really don't think is will hardly slow down illegal sale. Government regulated means its going to cost more through medicinal sources. Legalizing it will make the demand higher so the illegal sources will be able to drop prices below legal sources and make up their profit in volume.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I think that if a person a disease that is terminal, why not let them have access to it? I believe that there is a lot more benefits from it, then the bad side. I think it would help with the opium epidemic we are seeing going on, and it help help out a lot of other people it other diseases and conditions. If they government would step aside and let that money go into the banks some of the crime would go down. I know it would stimulate certain economies and certainly reduce jail time for many people, cities, and states.

I do want a fast and easy way to test people, for driving or working to make sure they are clean. Regulate it like tobacco, have a set age limit and let it buck.

I wasn't a huge fan of it, until I have seen people with cancer or other diseases talk about how much better off they are with pot then the other medications. Most have mainly talked about the I'll side effects of the medications they were taking, and how with pot, they only real side effect is the munchies.

I don't think pot is a cure all like some people preach, but Hy not look more in depth to it. And look at how much money is spent on keeping it illegal.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Medical yes-if:

1. Prescription by doctor only. (Concerned it will turn out like opioids though).
2. Regulated and tested for consistent quality and potency.
3. Not a federally mandated use. States should have the right to be on board or not.

Recreational-NEVER!!!

1. Make tobacco users stand outside in a blizzard x amount of feet from an entrance and now we are legalizing another plant to be smoked? Hypocritical.
2. Have personally witnessed a relative and a couple of friends who used it as a gateway drug to far more damaging substances.
3. Not enough medical research to determine the effects on young users. Brain developement changes at that critical age when a lot of these youngsters are using has already been determined to be catastrophic.
4. It IS habit forming.
5. Have personally witnessed heavy users become pretty much worthless to society. Lethargic, cognitively depraved, most on some form of government assistance, and not having or keeping any type of job or career.

Could go on but have probably said enough.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

FWIW this did not pass in ND because of support of the medical users and/ or their families. It passed because the recreational users joined their forces in hopes that it would open the door for them.

Again pretty much everyone will be able to get it simply by saying they are in pain. Pain is difficult to prove or disprove and doctors rely on the patient to determine what the level of pain is. Honestly....if you are over 40 you most likely have some level of cronic pain....even if its very mild. its called aging.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Because people can't control themselves we have an opiate problem. Now the doctors don't dare prescribe it even to people in severe pain. I would allow about anything to people who are terminal. Otherwise I am right in the same camp as north1.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

i agree with north and plainsman. we have a legal drug called cell phones that are killing and maiming enough already because mankind cannot control themselves. we don't need any more drugs.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

But what if pot would help less then load on the opium problems we are having? What if it actually helped with pain management? To me it's a win win if pot was legalized for medical use. It would add a new revenue stream, reduce jail populations which would mean that the police can actually focus more on other crimes. I used to completely against pot, but after talking to many people, people using for medical reasons and people using for fun, I just don't see the dangers in it.

You can't overdose on pot like you can on many prescribed drugs and alcohol.

I do get the fact that pot can make people lazy, and that could mean they end up on welfare. But if you had to pass a drug test to collect your check, we would really thin the herd collecting welfare.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

For those in serious pain, or on cancer chemo so they can't keep their food down ok. Never for recreation, and if a dealer was caught I could show you what a real war on drugs looks like.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

agree plainsman. the problem with pot today is it is much more powerful than 40 years ago but the human mind has not evolved to handle it. the other problem is pot is being laced with to many other drugs because it is never good enough for some.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Forget the wall. I wish they would put our military snipers on the border with night vision. Someone comes across with a pack on just drop their a$$ and leave them for the buzzards. They would understand pampers time was over.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Forget the wall. I wish they would put our military snipers on the border with night vision. Someone comes across with a pack on just drop their a$$ and leave them for the buzzards. They would understand pampers time was over.


But how would the left increase their voting numbers then? :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Forget the wall. I wish they would put our military snipers on the border with night vision. Someone comes across with a pack on just drop their a$$ and leave them for the buzzards. They would understand pampers time was over.
> ...


 :rollin: Win win, the drug mule couldn't vote liberal, and no one could smoke the weed and get dumb enough to vote liberal.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I could agree with allowing it for terminal patients.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Medical usages I agree with.... Terminal or cancer type things.

But just for "pain" or "anxiety"... no

Look how other states it is a joke to get your "medical" card. Just talk with people in MT. Doctors come in to shopping malls on a certain weekend a year and set up shop to give out "check ups" and then proceed to give out the card. I have a friend who is in law enforcement and witnesses this stuff. He said these doctors are licensed in MT but come from CA.... you go to the "mall" or some other location. Go in for a "check up" pay the doctor fee of $100 or what ever. Get your clearance... and bang... you are good to go to buy and carry pot. Then it is good for a year... and these "doctors" come back a year later.

I know of a buddy in CA that said it is so easy to go get your medical card. go in and say you are feeling anxiety.... bang.. .you get your card.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Yes there are people that abuse the system, but what if a person has to try other prescriptions a set number of trials, say for MS, epilepsy, or other incurable diseases?

There are many people that abuse the system so they can hunt with crossbows in ND. Words gets around fast on which doctors you go to and which ones you don't.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

One of our police officers said yesterday they got an update that it will be limited to oils in ND. That will take joints out of the picture. LOL I'm guessing oils can still be smoked...I really don't know about such things.

I think a good thing might be to track the prescriptions to see if some doctors are more prone to prescribe it than others and start monitoring them. Could do the same for opioids.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

waste of time locking up potheads when we aren't locking up violent repeat offenders or even murderers for life in some cases, something like 95% of violent crime is committed by about 5% of criminals

adults should be able to do what they want with the caveat that when it makes them sick its their problem

the whole pot is illegal thing is one more example of crony capitalism with the liquor lobby IMO


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> the whole pot is illegal thing is one more example of crony capitalism with the liquor lobby IMO


and tobacco lobby!

But like someone mentioned. Right now the public has an outcry against "smoking"..... don't you think they will say the same thing with POT.

I am sure it is something that the "legalize" crowd hasn't thought of. I mean "vapping" they are going after for the same smoking tobacco laws.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

You can eat or use pot oil, you don't have to smoke it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I know about the oils and edibles. But that is another tangent I will go on.

Edibles and oils are more potent than smoking (some studies have stated) Because it is a high concentration of the THC. Plus pot now is 10 folds stronger than pot in the 70's and 80's. But the problem with the oils (used for cooking) and edibles is people don't feel the immediate effect.... so they eat more than recommended. They then get really sick. I know there are stats out there about edible's and ER visits but just don't have the time to look them up. Not to mention that an edible brownie looks just like a regular brownie. Kids love brownies!! I know that should fall on the responsibility of the parents. But a 3 year old knows not to touch cigs and cant use a lighter. But they sure can climb on a counter, open a fridge, climb into a fridge, open cupboards, etc and get what looks like a delicious brownie or snack. Which looks exactly like what they have eaten before.

Like I have stated. I am for it in certain medical situations. But for rec usage. NO WAY. We have enough of a problem with alcohol usage. Why make another stimulant legal and figure out how to enforce these laws. I have mentioned it before.... there is now breathalyzer for POT. Can you fire someone who smells like POT after they come back from a lunch break? How can you monitor POT usage and work. I mean a guy eats, smokes, etc.. before driving a school bus, semi, etc..? Lets say he just had one hell of a night and shows up to work the next day to drive that bus? Now if they do that with booze.... they are sent home or fired! Now with POT... how can you check that? Guy could just say, "My roommate partied hard last night and it must have gotten on my clothes and I didn't get sleep"..... I hope you see that issue. Where with alcohol you can smell it on breathe, you can have testing via breathalyzer, etc. There is nothing like that for POT.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I will concied that pot is probably no worse than alcohol however now you are putting 2 legal drugs into society. DUIs will easily double. One of the problems with alcohol is people often do not think or are to impaired to realize they are impaired. Pot may be even worse in that respect.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

dakotashooter2 said:


> I will concied that pot is probably no worse than alcohol however now you are putting 2 legal drugs into society. DUIs will easily double. One of the problems with alcohol is people often do not think or are to impaired to realize they are impaired. Pot may be even worse in that respect.


I highly doubt that DUI's would increase that much, I think that they would go down. It will be interesting to see how other state's DUI's are that have legalized pot.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It will be interesting to see how other state's DUI's are that have legalized pot.


 It may have been the Drudge Report that had an article about a year ago. States that neighbor Colorado were complaining about the increase in impaired driving in their states. People were getting stoned in Colorado and driving home in a neighboring state.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> dakotashooter2 said:
> 
> 
> > I will concied that pot is probably no worse than alcohol however now you are putting 2 legal drugs into society. DUIs will easily double. One of the problems with alcohol is people often do not think or are to impaired to realize they are impaired. Pot may be even worse in that respect.
> ...


Let me restate that to what I meant. Impaired driving will double. DUIs wont increase till they find a effective, foolproof test for pot.
The way things are going self driving cars are sounding better and better. Here is a plan for the future. If you get one DUI you may no longer own/ drive a operator driven vehicle. You may only own/ operate a 100% self driving vehicle.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

This is data from NHTSA(National Traffic Safety Administration) for Colorado:

The 2013-16 period saw a 40% increase in the number of all drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado, 627-880.
By contrast, the number who tested positive for marijuana use jumped 145% from 47 in 2013 to 115 in 2016.

In 2016, of the 115 drivers in fatal wrecks who tested positive for marijuana use, 71 were found to have Delta-9-THC in their blood, indicating their accident occurred within hours of marijuana use.
Of those , 63% were over 5 nanograms per milliliter, Colorado's limit for driving.

Now this data is most likely very conservative. In the same report it is stated Colorado is still scrambling to try to cope with the problem. They state the number of cases is likely more because testing is still in its infancy.

IMHO this and other data shows the problems with legalizing another drug for public consumption. It will turn out like alcohol. It will be abused and society as a whole will pay the price. States considering legalization need to take this in account and be prepared to set aside a significant amount of funds in their state budget for the ramifications involved(policing, legal system, treatment facilities, testing, costs to infrastructure, etc).


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I dunno whether to legalize it or not. Sure, it's trial and error for,terminal pain conditions like,cancer, but it remains untested for many other diseases. Up to now, ancient ultra conservative but well meaning laws passed around prohibition time have prevented any proper research on its efficacy for all kinds of conditions, so what we have are a lot of anecdotal reports, mostly good though, concerning treatment of a lot of medical,stuff.
One thing that strikes me is that there seems almost NO CASES OF ACCIDENTAL OR SELF INFLICTED DEATH, unlike literally EVERY other legal drug out there, including 
OPIATES and especially ALCOHOL, which is absolutely the number one killer of humans in dozens of ways, smasher upper of families, violence producing drug, etc. In my medical opinion, comparing marijuana to alcohol is like comparing the effects of a Red Ryder BB gun to a .50 BMG! No comparison at all!!! 
Yes, a lot of people advocating it's medical use are obviously wanting it for recreational or marginal medical indications, I suppose that as long as it doesn't seem to do much, if any, harm when compared to alcohol, opiates, tobacco, etc. Why not just legalize it and change FDA rules,so proper research that should,have been done on it back about 1930,be done!

Statements like it is more powerful now than 40-50 years ago have zero scientific basis as there has never been and still has not been proper studies to try to,exactly analyze exactly WHAT is in it (many compounds present) what concentration, etc. A lot of internet information is without any scientific basis, spun information, or pure lies to support the posters anecdotal opinion about it. 
Remember, virtually all information out there is pretty anecdotal and of questionable validity, and is mostly slanted to supposition the posters own OPINION, so just don't just blindly believe what you want to believe either pro or con. Not that such opinion is necessarily WRONG, but just not supported with proper objective scientific research, no matter how convincingly it is presented.

And no, I don't use it, never have (yet, at least, in spite of my often severe back pain - don't use opiates either!) so my post is not in favor OR against it, and I'm trying to be as objective as possible,with,the small bit,of,valid,information we,have,about it!
It'll be interesting to follow what happens with this contentious drug!


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Wonder if it would calm me down and abolish Buck fever when that Turdy Point Buck is standing broadside at 8 yards!? Hey, another use for it has just been discovered! LOL


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

The biggest trouble with even reputable stats from a place like Colorado police agencies is that the numbers look reliable, and may well be, but are widely criticized by other 'experts' with no dog in the cannibus fight on a wide variety of issues. For example, we agree that .08 blood alcohol should be a legal limit but for THC legal limits are argued all over the place. And if THC is detected in an accident victims blood, did it contribute to the accident or not, and how much. Cell phones and distracted driving are argued to be probably much worse, but they are new enough accurate numbers are pretty shakey, like THC related fender benders. And was the THC pure, how concentrated, and Was it inadvertently contaminated with something thought to be innocuous but made it act in some weird way! Drug interaction and potentiation is always a HUGE problem. And illegal THC is commonly deliberately spiked with many other drugs and chemicals. Is it the THC more potent or is it the many kinds of chemicals added to it? As pointed out above, THC can be smoked, applied to the skin, eaten in food, drank in drinks, injected IV subQ I M and yes, for the weirdos it can be taken via enemas, I kid you not.....

Just playing Devils advocate here, mentioning just a few of the huge list of unknowns and explaining why I'm skeptical about claims, both positive And negative,so no hard and fast opinion.

After not sleeping much last nite due to the miserable painful parasthesias from this crapped out and 4X rebuilt back of mine and snowbirding in Az and close to California, I'm tempted to run down and look into it more closely, Ive tried everything else, but I wish that stupid research preventing law back in the late 1920's hadn't been passed so maybe we'd have had close to 90 years of scientific research on it, and we'd know a little better what we'd be getting Into. A classic example of the law of unintended consequences. Make that a well meaning lawof unintended consequence!

If Idoapplyforamed MJ card I'll report on it here,how much, how hard, how many minutes it took, etc. LOL could be interesting.....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If Idoapplyforamed MJ card I'll report on it here,how much, how hard, how many minutes it took, etc. LOL could be interesting....


. Extremely interesting.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

As long as the manufacturers here use strains that are low in THC and high in CBD there won't be an issue with impaired driving. THC is psychoactive and gets you high, CBD is not, and the majority of the medical benefits of cannabis comes from CBD's. I am all for medical marijuana of this type.

I'm not so sure about recreational marijuana that is high in THC, though I would be in favor of decriminalizing it. A stiff fine rather than packing our jails full of people that possess a bag of weed makes more sense to me and will save money and make more room in our jails for violent offenders.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I sure agree with Huntun 1 that filling our jails with minimal users makes zero sense. So far it's tough to know what's high or low in THC and CBD or the many other compounds that are present in ythe plant. I doubt street MJ has any analysts done, and independent labs say labeling of stuff in legal dispensaries is so far pretty hit and miss.

Plainsman, for the heck of it Im going to seriously look into a MJ card. I have a docs appointment Tues, and he can fill out a form that I think you send to the state and they issue the card. Then you can buy stuff in the dispensaries, which are supposed to be non profit. There are 4 or 5 here in the Bismarck sized city we snowbird in. I'll report on the details later on though I dunno if I'd use it much if at all, but who knows?,.. From what I understand though, is that regulations and hoops you must jump through varies widely from state to state, and despite the new state laws, MJ is still illegal under a Fed Law! Seems to be a don't ask, don't tell situation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

HH I sure hope it does help you. I don't like the pain you suffer through. I suppose if I pray for Habitat Hugger God will know who I am praying about. :thumb:


----------

