# Legalize Pot??



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am still on the fence about this.

But I know one argument by "Pro pot" people is that it would stop the street level use and sale...

Well that is false. A California board on the legalization of Pot.... these are pro pot people. Find illegal grows and cartel or drug rings are hurting legal pot sales....

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol- ... story.html



> As much as 80% of the marijuana sold in California comes from the black market, according to an estimate by New Frontier Data, a firm that tracks cannabis sales and trends. Analysts also found that California's illicit pot market was valued at an estimated $3.7 billion last year, more than four times the size of the legal market.





> Last week, Newsom announced an expansion of efforts by the California National Guard to work with federal officials to target the black market, including illegal drug grows in Northern California operated by *international drug cartels*.





> Separately, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife last year sent officers on 103 missions targeting illegal trespass grows, much of it on public property such as state and county parks. A cleanup that lasted from December to January removed 500 plants in an illegal grow in Orange County's Laguna Coast Wilderness Park.
> All told, last year the agency eradicated 1.5 million plants, more than double that from the year before.


So if you are for or against the legalization you should send letters to your elected officials commenting on the issue. Look what California is dealing with. I know in the upper Midwest we don't have the "growing" season needed like in CA but they are screaming that more enforcement is needed. To curb the illegal production. If more states go to legalization.... CA and other warmer climates might even see more "illegal" production and what not. Let alone our home states.

Just something to think about. This also goes along with the "immigration" issues and drugs at the border. Instead of weed they are sending people to run the weed farms. :bop:


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Pot people would and do say anything to promote their product. Then when others try to horn in on their gig they cry foul. Bringing to light the lies they expounded trying to gain acceptance for product. A myriad of examples can be applied to the situation. Alcohol for one. Acceptance on nationwide level didn't and doesn't work. Prohibition didn't work. Taxing doesn't work. Exorbitant taxing doesn't work(just increases illegal production). Education of its pitfalls doesn't work. We humans have a propensity to destroy ourselves and others. Pot is just one of a long list of those means. It will play out like tobacco. Trillions of dollars and millions of destroyed lives later we may finally realize the error of our ways. The only saving grace in all of this is God almighty himself. But then we are on our way to banning him and legalizing sin.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

North1...

Totally agree with you. Some of my biggest complaints on the whole pot argument is DUI testing. Yes they have the field test... ie: eyes and "walking the line". But you need something like the Breathalyzer. Maybe some law enforcement people can chime in on this. But does the field testing hold up in court? Or do you need the breath type test to secure a conviction?

Because pot can stay in your system just as long as alcohol. So if someone smokes a joint at noon then goes and drives a school bus at 3 pm..... are they intoxicated? People can tell with booze but can they with pot? That is my issue. Or even so.... eat a brownie. No smell on clothes etc.

Since you brought up Tabacco&#8230;. I love how now they are targeting "vaping". Which again did the tabacco company say vaping is ok or did the non tabacco people? I don't know. But anyone who was against Tabacco&#8230; and is for Pot... i find funny. Because the same thing will go for second hand smoke. Yes it is proven people get "contact" type highs. :bop:


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

It depends "how" you legalize it. Let the people grow their own, and then you won't have Callies problems.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Rowdie&#8230;

Not disagreeing with you. But how do you regulate that? Regulate the strength of it and what not.

Lets put it this way.... a guy grows his own. Shares it with someone... that someone goes and gets into a car accident or what ever. guess what the guy who grew it is in deep legal issues. Let alone lets say a minor gets ahold of it.

If you don't think this is an issue.... look at liquor laws. If you over serve someone in your home and they go get into an accident and kill someone. You can be on the hook with liability... in some states. In MN...yep.

But that is an issue that needs to be worked out. BTW... I don't want my state to be on the "butcher block" on finding out this stuff. Let other states be the Guinee pig so to speak.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

All your what-ifs this or that's would be the same if you had to buy it. Kids getting into your stash, or liquor, same thing IMO. Happens all the time, hell who didn't get into their parents liquor? So my answer is simple, limit the amount of plants per person. That's it. Haven't heard any horror stories out of Wash st., have you?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Happens all the time, hell who didn't get into their parents liquor?


 Who didn't? Me. My parents didn't drink so no liquor in the house. If you got into it and had an accident who hurt someone guess what would have happened? Your parents would be paying the test of their lives. So limiting the number of plants will do little to solve the liability problem. There are many false claims by the pro mj people. They care more about their next high than the problems that will surely follow.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I never got into my parents stash of liquor either. Being in sports meant.....no alcohol or get suspended. Sports were A LOT more important than getting a buzz on.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

On this, we certainly agree!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Rowdie,

The huge difference is the strength of stuff. Beer is regulated on how strong, alcohol is regulated how strong, states regulate how strong or if they are allowed to have moonshine or the 99% stuff. So the "getting into parents booze stash" is some what regulated how strong it is. While weed is pretty much uncheck as far as I have read. If you let people grow their own how can u regulate the strength of it? Again I am not up 100% on the laws but from what I have limitedly read.

Some people who are pushing or don't care because they are remembering "pot" they smoked back in the 80's or 90's. Now it is even stronger... Plus edibles. Which people still are not up to speed on. IE: they buy a pot brownie and the instructions say eat only a 1/2 of it. Well they eat the whole thing! It is a different game out there on pot strength, consumption, etc. Which just needs to be looked at more IMHO.

I did a quick search and couldn't find anything about "crime" or other issues involving pot in Washington State. Which doesn't mean there is or isn't any issues. Just couldn't find them.

One thing I heard about Colorado, this was from a law enforcement officer who also runs private security and works with the FBI, is that cartels were doing "smash and grabs". This was a couple years ago. So I don't know if the laws have changed or not. But it was or still is a federal crime to put drug money in a bank. IE: profit from selling legal pot. So at that time the dispenseries were having to "legally launder" it. Is how this guy put it. So in the meantime they were storing cash in houses. Well the cartel would find these houses, crash a vehicle into the house. Run in grab the cash, safe, etc. Then leave. He said this was happening. Again this was I believe 2 years ago he told me this stuff. He also said.... "let the other states figure everything out before MN jumps into the game". He also stated that many stories were not getting published because they didn't want to show a "failure". But again this was a couple of years ago and maybe they have now let "legal drug money" get deposited in banks or have special banks that take care of it. I am not sure.

So you see there are issues with legalization. Again I am not for or against it as of yet. But there needs to be innovation, education, and stuff like that before I will say a firm YEAH legalize it and tax it. But like I mentioned is my main concern is the impaired driving issue. How do you test for it and how do you up hold convictions.

BTW.... I never got into my parents liquor stash either in high school. Same reason as Ken. :bop:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Legalize it not. Treat it just like smokes. Tax it and regulated and let the free market figure out a way to test for it just like a breathalyzer for alcohol.

From the research it looks like it could be a wonderful tool for pain management and a cheaper option for other illnesses. It is hard to dig through the research and find something other then what just stoners and hippies claim. I know many people that use it for pain, stress release, and relaxing. It can't be any worse then beer.

It will be very interesting now that Hemp is legal and hopefully the CDB oil gets going and there are positive medical uses for it.

I also see the benefit of legailizing it as another revuene stream for the goverment (though I hate taxes and the goverment) and will help farmers as well. Right now in the South, Tobacco farmers are converting 50-100% to hemp production to help bring back the prices of tobacco.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It can't be any worse then beer.


I have literally heard that a dozen times, but I wonder. The people that smoke it have to be putting a lot of carbon and other chemicals into their lungs. Coughing is nature's way of keeping crap out of our lungs. The pot back in the 1960s made people hack and cough.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

That's a personal choice, and no one should tell me what I can and can't do with my body. Weed hurts lungs, alcohol hurts liver and kidneys.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Your right and I am not one to pry into others business or dictate their lifestyle. The problem occurs when someone needs a million dollar procedure and medical care for a liver transplant for cirrhosis of the liver(alcohol), treatment for lung cancer, COPD, etc(tobacco), same lung problems for marijuana and God knows what else down the line. Not to mention tax dollars going to treatment facilities for dependency problems for all of them. Then your free will has now invaded mine. Not only with increased taxes but with increased healthcare costs which affect premiums and availability of healthcare for everyone.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

There are a lot of things we can or cannot do with our body......traffic laws, food safety, Illegal drugs etc.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

north1 said:


> Your right and I am not one to pry into others business or dictate their lifestyle. The problem occurs when someone needs a million dollar procedure and medical care for a liver transplant for cirrhosis of the liver(alcohol), treatment for lung cancer, COPD, etc(tobacco), same lung problems for marijuana and God knows what else down the line. Not to mention tax dollars going to treatment facilities for dependency problems for all of them. Then your free will has now invaded mine. Not only with increased taxes but with increased healthcare costs which affect premiums and availability of healthcare for everyone.


You can eat pot, or just utilize the oil. No harm done to the lungs. Many more uses then smoking reefer.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> Rowdie,
> 
> The huge difference is the strength of stuff. Beer is regulated on how strong, alcohol is regulated how strong, states regulate how strong or if they are allowed to have moonshine or the 99% stuff. So the "getting into parents booze stash" is some what regulated how strong it is. While weed is pretty much uncheck as far as I have read. If you let people grow their own how can u regulate the strength of it? Again I am not up 100% on the laws but from what I have limitedly read.
> 
> ...


It really doesn't matter if YOU did get into your parents liquor, the fact is, it was there for you TO get into. It doesn't matter if you buy it, find it, make it, or how you get it. As long as you have it (booze or pot) its a liability. That's all I'm saying. You keep coming up with scenario after scenario of what if's, and my point is *the liability is already there*....booze or pot....legal or not? (hell that rhymes)

Then you start sounding ridiculous about how alcohol is regulated....are you kidding me. Anyone over the age of 21 can go get some everclear that's 99%!! When I was a kid, my parents bought all the booze for my sisters wedding reception. We had leftover everclear, and other hard liquor, in the basement for a few years. My brother slowly stole it, as he was in his late teens and 20's. Again all that liability of intoxicating someone at your house ALL READY EXISTS! Just because it's Illegal now doesn't mean if your off the hook for liability, the same liabilities would exist with pot or booze.

I say let people grow there own....F the gov't and their regs!!! Why do you want to regulate everything?? FN gov't will just screw it up. Make it legal to grow and Illegal to sell. Limit the amount you can grow and possess. Take the cash out of the equation!! Can't you see the simplicity? Those who want it get it anyway. Decriminalize it, and let people grow some plants, they're just plants for God's sake. If you're worried about kids getting into it....well that's playing the scenario game again...you can go back and forth with the "What if's" all day. Fact is, the drug is all ready all over the place, just like booze is!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Your everclear reference is way off.

In some states that is still illegal to purchase. Plus anything that is consumed by the public has to go thru testing. If you let people grow there own. It isn't getting the tested.

I am saying you can cross pollenate and what not to get more stronger pot. It is being done already. It is also being done for "flavor" and other things as well.

Here is the deal about the liability.... yes it does matter right now. Because if you have "Pot" which is illegal and something happens... your insurance policy will say F'U".... if it is alcohol... there could be some coverage. HUGE difference in the eye of civil lawsuits.

I totally see the simplicity and benefits. But I also see the down side. Like I mentioned.... guys eats a pot brownie for lunch goes drives school bus at 3. If the guy goes and hammers a few cold ones back. People can smell it on them or can have people take a breath test before driving. With Pot there is nothing out there as of yet. :bop:

Also the huge thing that people are missing is that CA has legal pot and is fighting illegal aliens/cartels growing pot. I also said granted CA has great growing climate but it shows there are issues.

You keep mentioning "What ifs" and things like that. That is what exactly needs to be thought of when you are making something legal. You need to figure those "what ifs" out. When you make something more accecible you need to think of these things. You say "pot" is everywhere.... it is but it isn't in grocery stores, gas stations, almost every household, in bars, restaurants, etc.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Making something illegal creates a black market option which makes things highly profitable and dangerous. Look how well Prohibition work! The benefits of pot far out weigh the downsides. Look how fast hemp is gaining steam.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Making something illegal creates a black market option which makes things highly profitable and dangerous. Look how well Prohibition work! The benefits of pot far out weigh the downsides. Look how fast hemp is gaining steam.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I hear about the benefits of pot, but I have never seen it in peer reviewed proffessional papers, only grey literature. I should know soon, because I know a lady who has tried surgery and medicine to control pain and nothing helps. She got her mj medical card.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Who tests the wild mushrooms people pick, or plums, apples, turnips....etc.? People sell sweetcorn off the side of the road, who tests that? Who's testing everyone's garden? Growing your own for personal use doesn't need testing. Never seen so many so called conservatives want so much regulation.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I hear about the benefits of pot, but I have never seen it in peer reviewed proffessional papers, only grey literature. I should know soon, because I know a lady who has tried surgery and medicine to control pain and nothing helps. She got her mj medical card.


And that's the problem. The research is very hard to find that is actually worth something. Its out there, but when I talk to people who use it for pain they really enjoy it. Another way to look at it, is why prevent someone that is in chronic pain or is going to die, why not let them use it to see if it helps? Or helps with mental health? What do we have to loose?

The research on CBD oil is a lot easier to find and it looks very promising, even for animals.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I totally agree on the CBD oil. Have talked to several people who use it and they have stated it has helped them in various ways. Still quite expensive but in some respects less costly than some pharmaceuticals. Also fewer side effects and all natural. Also no THC so no dependency problems or associated side effects with that.

I have no problem with marijuana being used for medical purposes. The proposal of sales being illegal and growing for personal use is intriguing. But we know that would eliminate taxation and what is becoming "big pot" companies from the equation. I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Now that state governments and Uncle Sam in the future have their sights set on tax revenues that would never happen. They will raid your home or patch like they do the moonshiners. Whatever the outcome I fear it is another sticky wicket.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Yes, I think that states, and big pot growers see $$ signs when they think about legalization, but other states allow you to grow your own. It's the $$ that brings in the gangs and crime. Take the cash out of it, and let citizens be free.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Blhunter3 your talking medical mj and I voted for that myself. I think they are going overboard on the opiate drugs too. If someone is terminal who cares if it's habit forming. So many innocent people suffer because the drug loving get hooked.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Rowdie&#8230;

#1: You food references don't get people intoxicated.
#2: The mushrooms are not the "intoxicating" mushrooms. If someone dies from them there is a law suit. Just read about one happened in Spain.
#3: You bring up Booze and Everclear&#8230;. that stuff is regulated and isn't grown at home. It is illegal in most states if not all from producing grain or 99% proof spirits or even owning a Stihl or equipment for production of "moon shine".

That is where the "growing" at home is the issue. You can cross breed and make stronger and stronger weed. So you would have people "trying" that at home. Which is the issue I have.

Plus the fact of the DUI type stuff. Yet alone the DUI how about workers in a factory. They go out and have a joint or pot brownie. It has become harder and harder to give drug tests at work. You can give them in the hiring process but after that. The days of the "random" drug test are going away or tied up in court. So workers safety could become an issue. I know you will go off on "that is a what if". But like I mentioned everything needs to be looked at. Why do you think CA has so many homeless or the homeless is increasing. Same goes for Seattle. Is there a correlation???

Like I have stated the oils and hemp products I see a huge advantage in and things like that. I see the benefit for farmers growing and selling the hemp. I see the benefits of the medical side to ease the pain.

also know on that note that getting your medical card is BS in many states as well. I have a PD friend in montana and said a guy from California comes once a year who has his license to practice medicine in montana. He buys a kiosk at the mall and gives out his "opinion" and prescribes the card to people for a fee. He told me they all know it is a joke but "anxiety" is a condition that can be prescribed mj. How do you test for anxiety.... you cant. I have a friend in CA who has his card and he said it was a joke back then too to get it. So simple.

But like I mentioned it all needs to be looked into more.

BL:
you talk about the "black market". that is the point of the article. The black market didn't go down in CA. It is there. Some dispensaries are getting caught buying the "black market" stuff because it is cheaper and not taxed up front. Also others are selling the black market stuff because it doesn't get taxed and is cheaper than the stuff in the dispensaries. So all that "black market" will go away crap right now is false. Per the article I posted. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It really doesn't matter if YOU did get into your parents liquor, the fact is, it was there for you TO get into.


  No, no it wasn't.



> Making something illegal creates a black market option which makes things highly profitable and dangerous.


 In some cases in others it's going to make a black market by making it legal to grow your own. Lets look at Jamestown for example. We have what now 16,000 people. Lets say 200 start growing their own pot. Is a cop going to stop every other day to make sure your only growing 3 or 4 plants or whatever the law is? No. How many people will grow pot and are not using it? You will see a black market spring up quickly. People will sell to people they trust. The illegal stuff isn't going to slow down that much either it will still keep coming for the kids who's parents will not let them grow. Or there will be an age limit so the kids will still go for the illegal mj. This will be a mess if it's legal.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

Like my first quote on this. In CA where there is legal pot to get... still 80% of it is coming from the black market. It says that in my very first quote! So like you and I have stated. The argument of tax and the "black market" will go away. It isn't the case in CA The black market is still going. :beer:


> As much as 80% of the marijuana sold in California comes from the black market, according to an estimate by New Frontier Data, a firm that tracks cannabis sales and trends. Analysts also found that California's illicit pot market was valued at an estimated $3.7 billion last year, more than four times the size of the legal market.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Home breeding takes a lot of work time and money that most people won't do. There are already multinational companies doing it for way cheaper

They black market in California is because is illegal everywhere else and the weather in California is prime pot growing weather.

Plainsman, ever wonder how many people are already growing in Jamestown? How many people are back ataking meth?

I personally would rather people be rolling doobies, and the cops don't have to waste time and resources on those guys and get after the sex offenders, hard drugs, and woman abusers.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

legalize pot and you will see the cartel in here like never before.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Highly doubtful, more people would be rasing it, dropping the price of snuggling it.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

time will tell


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 like you said, or someone made the point, the effort required to raise will lead to very few people raising it. Raising it will not be that cheap. Where there is a profit you will find the cartel. Those that think they are not in Colorado are hallucinating. Not only are they selling in Colorado they are doing what law enforcent call smash and grab. They ram an old car into a mj dispensary and grab the mj and all the cash. A person raising any amount is a target.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> blhunter3 like you said, or someone made the point, the effort required to raise will lead to very few people raising it. Raising it will not be that cheap. Where there is a profit you will find the cartel. Those that think they are not in Colorado are hallucinating. Not only are they selling in Colorado they are doing what law enforcent call smash and grab. They ram an old car into a mj dispensary and grab the mj and all the cash. A person raising any amount is a target.


To raise pot, its very simple as easy. To get good at it, it takes an agronomist's help and takes some money. The target people are this are greenhouses and people with high tunnels. You treat pot like corn fertility wise. Most products are liquid. The smash and grab is happeneing because the dispensories cannot take their money to the banks. Get rid of that law and the smash and grabs will dissappear.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Yep the smash and grab is happening.

Now you say get rid of that law. So then cartels can now funnel or others drug money into the bank and call it "pot" money. A whole different can of worms.

But it just shows you how complex this situation really is when it comes to legalization. It isn't so cut and dry as people think it is. Which is what I have been talking about.

Again... I am not against or for it as of yet. I just know more needs to be looked at. Let other states deal with the BS first IMHO. and I am from MN which I hate to say it will be very close to passing it. Which to me is a dumb move. But out officials like to think they are "progressive" and what not. Plus if people want to know that the USSR of MN is looking to hike taxes again!! I guess small business owners are screwed plus any farmers or big farmers. Yet the dairy industry or small dairies are dying but hell lets keep taxing everyone. uke: Sorry Minnie rant but heard two more dairy's in my area that are closing down or selling off all the equipment and cattle.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I look at the mj being legalized and can't help but think people are stupid enough when they abuse alcohol and I have seen people on pot. I have a hard time not seeing pot users as junkies. Oh well I guess they want whatever turns this country into an immoral crap hole country they want. A few more years and we will fit Trumps description. They kill the unborn now, and we old guys will be the next ones they want to euthanize.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

This is off topic. But I just saw a tweet by Sen. Warren. It basically says she believes "science" and anyone who doesn't shouldn't be making decisions on our environment.

So when it comes to climate change stuff you need to believe in science (which there are studies on both sides). But when it comes to gender.... they don't believe in science???

Yes this is a woman running for president people. :bop:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Opening up the banks to take money dispensaries is something that will be difficult without other "dirty" money coming in. I wonder how much "dirty" money they are already taking in?

Plainsman, not to crack down on words, but a "junkie" is someone who is into hard drugs like meth, coke, and so on. Pot heads are into just pot.

I would venture to guess that a lot of you guys know people that smoke pot and you would never guess they use it. I personally think the war on drugs is a huge waste of time an effort and money. Legalize weed, and see what happens? It can't be any worse then it is now. I actually think that crime would go down, since cops can focus in on other crimes. Plus the people who do smoke weed and get put in jail and it ruins their whole life, would have more job opportunities and wouldn't have to resort to a life of crime.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Legalize weed, and see what happens?


uuummm no. Pelosi tried that trick.



> Plainsman, not to crack down on words, but a "junkie" is someone who is into hard drugs like meth, coke, and so on. Pot heads are into just pot.


 Ya the liberals changed that just like they turned illegal aliens into undocumented workers. 



> I actually think that crime would go down,


 If you legalize any crime the crime rate will go down. If you legalize murder the crime rate will go down because murder will no longer be a crime, but I'll bet people killing each other goes up.



> Plus the people who do smoke weed and get put in jail and it ruins their whole life,


 and they still smoke it knowing this? Sounds like they are hooked. I didn't know it was so addictive people would risk ruining their life for a fix. :rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Opening up the banks to take money dispensaries is something that will be difficult without other "dirty" money coming in. I wonder how much "dirty" money they are already taking in?


But you can seize and prosecute for that "money". If they start to "co-mingle" those funds is the hard part because you can just take it all. Which again like I mentioned on the legalization side is things need to be figured out.



> I would venture to guess that a lot of you guys know people that smoke pot and you would never guess they use it.


Oh I guarantee this is true. Just like people you don't know who are alcoholics and other things. But that doesn't make it right. Just like other crimes.



> Plus the people who do smoke weed and get put in jail and it ruins their whole life


This is an issue with me. It is just like a DUI is a crime but people do it and get lambasted for doing it by many groups out there. Look how the legal limit keeps shrinking! Then not to mention if you have a CDL what the legal limit is. I bet dollars to donuts that in the next 3-5 years you will see the legal limit down to a .06 or further. So again... lets legalize something that we don't have a test for and let others get behind the wheel. Look how they want to increase speed limits! Same thing is that the government is showing what "laws" should be obeyed an which ones they don't care about. If you increase speed you increase damage done in accidents. So please when you go to complain about car insurance prices.... look at it with increasing speed limits. Which means more damage will be done to your vehicle if hit. I wont even go into how car salesman/women are lying to consumers saying that insurance is cheaper because of certain safety features....

off topic:
damn... I cant let that go.... It is great the new features but new cars are meant to crumple like a beer can around saving the life of the person inside. Which is great. But come from an insurance aspect is that it costs more to repair. I mean you can sneeze on a car now and it will dent. The cars of the 80's could hit a brick wall and you would get a scratch. (made of steel not aluminum.) But that increases the cost of insurance. So don't let sales people get you with the "this car is cheaper for insurance"... if you want the true call your agent. :bop:

Back on topic:
But it shows you how society looks at certain laws as "harmless". When in fact they might not be completely harmless or with out ramifications or affect others things.

Like I mention again.... if you want to legalize pot you need to figure out other aspects of the whole picture to make it work. Again let other states worry about that. BTW.. people think ND wont get effected by cartels.... you have vast open lands where people sometimes don't travel a lot. IE: remote areas. You don't think people would make "grows" in 100 x 50 heated pole sheds. Something to think about. Why do you think cartels hit state lands or federal lands. In MN they find grows on state lands. Not huge operations like in CA... but some. :bop:


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

what rules are written into legislation to legalize mj that also makes you give up your right to own or possess firearms if you are prescribed or use the drug.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Getting charged with a felony. Or have drugs and a gun on you at the same time.

Those are the laws now on the books and depends if the judge will enforce them or not.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When people start to talk about artificial intelligence I always think of the guys I knew that smoked pot. The more they smoked the dumber they got and the smarter they thought they were.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I know I won't convince you guys to legalize it. I just want you guys to open your minds a little bit.

Yes, there needs to be a way to test on the spot, door DWS ( driving while stoned). That is a must.

There also needs to be regulation on growing, transportation, quality control, and a minimum age limit.

There also needs to be way for people in the pot business to take their money to the bank legally.

I am a firm believer in " if it's not hurting you, just the person doing it," there shouldn't be a crime. Like smoking pot at your house. You are potentially only hurting yourself. Wanna do pot? Have at it, just don't smoke around me, and don't steal my food when you get the munchies.

I firmly believe that pot is no more dangerous then tobacco. When use sparingly not the end of world. Pot is a mental addiction, not a physical one, say like caffeine. There are no physical withdrawals with pot, unlike other stuff.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am a firm believer in " if it's not hurting you, just the person doing it,"


 Perfect point here. We need to know what pot does to people long term, not just short term. If it turns them from productive people to dependent people so it requires us to pay even more taxes to care for them then it is hurting us. We are jumping on this pot bandwagon way to fast. I know many of the claims of how beneficial it is are simply made up without scientific data to back them up. Most of these exaggerated claims come from those who just want to get stoned.

You mentioned cigarettes and we spend millions of dollars a year in health care because of them. We really don't know if they are safer or not it's just a conclusion some jump to. I have never seen a cigarette smoke inhale, then hold their breath as long as they could, but I have seen pot smokers do it. When they do much less smoke is expelled. That means more residue remains in the lungs than with cigarettes. What does that do? No one knows. Don't even get me started on the millions of dollars the tobacco companies were sued for and the money was supposed to go for health care. Where did the North Dakota politicians spend that money?

Why do all the stoners want to circumvent the Food and Drug Administration?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Yes, there needs to be a way to test on the spot, door DWS ( driving while stoned). That is a must.
> 
> There also needs to be regulation on growing, transportation, quality control, and a minimum age limit.
> 
> There also needs to be way for people in the pot business to take their money to the bank legally


BL.... That is my point about the legalization. Let these things get developed first before jumping on the legalization bandwagon. Also like I mentioned in the article that I posted. It talks about how crime hasn't gone down in those state. Which is one of the major points of the pro pot crowd. It is a lie like... you can keep your doctor or insurance plan... LOL

But you see more studies or remedies needs to be thought of instead of just tax $$$$. I know Colorado is making good money off of the "pot" business or "pot" travel. But they are also having problems that don't get much media attention. Same goes for CA and WA state.


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Canada legalized recreational marijuana last October. I can honestly say I have seen no difference in my day to day travels, or out and about in the public, but I live a fairly sheltered life!


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman, they want to go around the FDA, because the pharmaceutical companies own them, and they want to keep their expensive drugs on the market, and not look into something possibly cheaper.

It's so hard to find any clinical data on the benefits of pot. I really want to know why that is. Some company somewhere has to be running legitimate tests on it and not publishing data.

I think it's hard for states that have legalized pot, to have longer crime, like we talked about before all of the smash and grabs going on, people are trying to transport pot across state lines, and idiots going there to use pot and raise hell.

As for people getting lazy while on pot ( I won't deny that happens as my worthless step brother becomes lazier the more he smokes, but he also thinks the government should give him $50,000 a year just because) I believe in order to collect any sort of welfare, you need to be drug tested before you get your check, and have completely random tests in general. Test positive once, your eliminated for one year minimum.

As for creating testing devices, I say make wee legal, depending on getting testing devices. That would spring a lot of technology into that area, driving the prices down and getting a quality tester.

Thanks


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I can certainly agree that if there are benefits to pot the pharmaceuticals would try to block it. I also think gov is corrupt so there is that possibility of FAD being influenced. 
There perhaps isn't any clinical trials showing benefits because maybe any benefits are placebo.

If they developed testing that would be good. Also there would have to be no physical damage that would become a financial burden to the American taxpayer. Let's face it alcohol and tobacco have been a huge expense to this nation.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I don't think there are any clinical trials, because no one in the USA wants to take that risk. Also because the trial would be hard to get unbiased people unless it was a double blind study.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> I don't think there are any clinical trials, because no one in the USA wants to take that risk. Also because the trial would be hard to get unbiased people unless it was a double blind study.


 I agree. All this talk about all the benefits I have heard since the 1960's. Some even think it will cure cancer. There are so many claims that I don't know where reality ends and fantasy begins. I have heard outrageous claims about the benefits of pot. The truth is we don't know if there are benefits or if it's simply pot heads exaggerating. Then there are reliable people who say it helps, but we are all familiar with the psychological affect of placebos on reasonable people.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

BL...

Great points.

One thing that would also have to change is the laws on drug testing workers. In some states workers are protected if a "hot" test is found. You cant fire them on that reason alone. Even in states where pot is illegal they have these protections. Plus with the fact that pot stays in your system longer than Alcohol. Doesn't mean you are feeling the effects it is that it can still pop a positive test.

So you see these are the things that need to be worked out. Otherwise we will be in a world of law suits... even more than we are now. this is just bringing something else to the table.

I hope people who are reading this discussion see it isn't just as simple as "make it legal". Because there are many situations we need to figure out before it is legal across the board. Let these other states be the "testing grounds".


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

BL...

another point that I cant believe I completely forgot about. Since this is a hunting website.

On your "back ground" check paper work for purchasing a firearm. It states are you a user of drugs. then goes into even rec, medical, etc of Pot. Even where it is legal. So I hate to say it... are people lying on that form? Because it is a "fed" form and fed back ground check.

If they are... well that is I believe a felony. Not 100% sure. But if they check "no" on that. It is against the law if they are a user.

As you see... things need to be amended and what not. :beer:

It is in the attached form. I don't know if they have different forms for where it is legal or not.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

That is a very good point. Buying firearms with legal pot.

I know I may sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when you look at why hemp and pot was outlawed, it makes a guy wonder what the ramifications of legalizing it will have on every other parts of our life. I think that is one of the biggest reasons some people don't really push for it to get legalized.

Big money got hemp and pot (even cocaine and opium) outlawed, big money will keep it that way. The biggest problem in society today is that everyone has an agenda so know one trust data from any source.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Remember, Pot is still federally illegal, even in states that have legalized it.

If the feds get hard line direction to enforce the laws on the books there are going to be a bunch of states grabbing *** to get back into good graces with the feds. Think about the possibility of withholding of federal funds for highways, just like they have done to force DUI limits for alcohol or speed limits in states that had none (south dakota went all the way to the supreme court to fight the DUI limits and lost). Pot tax revenue wouldn't be a drop in the bucket for most states like north and south dakota if they started seeing their FHWA dollars withheld. The same could be done with any other federal subsidy or program.

Regardless of whether it is legalized or not there will be many industries that will not accept it and will fire you for popping hot on a test, on the spot. Think trucking, state employees, law enforcement, etc and the federal rules/laws. It just isn't going to happen in the near future unless the feds legalize it.

On the so called benefits, call me skeptical but I have a hard time believing anything that you smoke/inhale into your lungs could have any benefits that outweigh the negatives from the chemicals absorbed.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I always get a kick out of when someone claims a drug to be natural...just because it is natural doesn't mean it's any better for you. Many natural things are poisonous to humans. Often natural medicines are somewhat better for us not because they are natural but because they contain lower dosage. The harm often comes when we process them to increase dosage. Most if any testing done on pot in the 60s,70 and 80s probably isn't valid today because of hybridization of the product.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

You can eat pot, use pot oil, you don't just have to smoke it for the benefits.

They need to regulate pot just like alcohol. Have quick and accurate tests, have a minimum age (18), and allow Jos to have random tests or state that you cannot use pot while working.

Follow the money trail on why it's illegal. Just like cocaine, hemp, alcohol during Prohibition, and many other products.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

let's give it about 25-35 years in Canada and see how things are there. Your going to need at least one generation to start seeing the longer term effects. two countries in the world legalized for recreational use Uruguay and Canada.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

6162rk said:


> let's give it about 25-35 years in Canada and see how things are there. Your going to need at least one generation to start seeing the longer term effects. two countries in the world legalized for recreational use Uruguay and Canada.


Amsterdam.....


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

if you want to see what recreational pot does come to my hometown and i will show you people that have been recreating for 40 years. then tell me they should run your farm or handle any part of your day to day life


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I can also show you people who live to smoke pot and I can also show you successful business men and women, I can show you multimillionaires that all smoke pot.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

maybe we should look at percentages


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> I can also show you people who live to smoke pot and I can also show you successful business men and women, I can show you multimillionaires that all smoke pot.


That isn't surprising, but I think for every success there are a dozen or more failures. It's hard to spot because they started smoking at an early age and never even tried.

It's like hearing about an athlete with a severe handicap winning races etc. That doesn't mean if you want to be a successful athlete that you should physically damage yourself.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

The other issue is that right now insurance providers won't cover it. People are having to pay out of pocket and are finding it cheaper to buy black market than at dispensaries. As I understand it the two supply companies in MN, after 2 years, are already almost 12 million dollars in debt.

Anybody that think individuals are going to grow ONLY the amount they are allowed to is naive. Many will grow enough to supply themselves their neighbor and or their buddies.

I still have some doubts about the safety of the product. Many of the studies done on pot are from years ago and on product far less manipulated and modified than current products. Pot is always being promoted as a natural product BUT...we've been messing with the original product, modifying and strengthening it which as we've seen in other drugs almost always causes problems.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

It will take a huge overhaul of the system to make it work. There is money a lot of money in medical marijuana plants, to control THC levels.

Insurance companies will need to accept it, and the government cannot make is cost prohibited to make it work. ( Shocker, government makes life difficult). Banks need to accept pot money, using pot cannot affect your ability to get a gun.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

blhunter3 said:


> It will take a huge overhaul of the system to make it work. There is money a lot of money in medical marijuana plants, to control THC levels.
> 
> Insurance companies will need to accept it, and the government cannot make is cost prohibited to make it work. ( Shocker, government makes life difficult). Banks need to accept pot money, using pot cannot affect your ability to get a gun.


now there's a laundry list of monumental proportion


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

MN voted rec pot down. Which I am glad they did. Like I mentioned more needs to be worked out before moving forward on this and let other states be the test subjects. :beer:

I also read about the MN companies that are in the red after two years from the medical side of MJ.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I guess I'm afraid it will be to easily abused. How many thousand die in auto crashes linked to DUO? Strange that liberals think guns are a big problem. How many livers give out each year? How many millions do we spend on rehab? We better prove some medical benefits before we jump into this cluster of bs.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I guess I'm afraid it will be to easily abused. How many thousand die in auto crashes linked to DUO? Strange that liberals think guns are a big problem. How many livers give out each year? How many millions do we spend on rehab? We better prove some medical benefits before we jump into this cluster of bs.


We need to legalize it, to see how it works! :rollin: oke: :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health- ... id=DELLDHP

This study talks about smoking "strong" pot leads to psychosis. Which is an issue with the new strains of marijuana and also people ingesting them via edibles or consuming too much.

Like mentioned before... needs more study before I am on board with it.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Well you get stupid from drinking strong alcohol, so strong pot would probably be the same.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am bringing this back up to the top....

Because yesterday I read an article where Denver now wants to vote to legalize hallucinating mushrooms.... Do we see where this is going to keep going!

Again how do we test for these things for people while driving? How can you test for these things at jobs with out breaking any hiring or job security laws. In some states "chemical dependency" is a protected class for workers... ie: you cant get fired because you go to rehab and miss work. Also for housing... because you are an addict you cant get turned away from housing....ie: Fair housing laws.

Just things that need to be thought about before you legalize things.


----------



## ezzie77 (Mar 30, 2010)

Chuck, if there really was a problem with people driving high on cannabis, don't you think we would have already noticed ? Wouldn't there be a bunch of accidents and deaths from DUI of cannabis ? If you look at Canada as an example, I would think there would be plenty of evidence of that problem. 
Cannabis is coming, like it or not, there's way too much $ to be made tax wise and the benefits that are just starting to be realized from cbd's and other compounds from this plant. FYI the biggest blocker of this plant is big pharma companies. If everything in this country that was touched by someone who used cannabis was pink, you would be living in a sea of pink. 
It would not surprise me in the next 5 years, cannabis will be legal worldwide.........


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

ezzie77....

Ask some law enforcement what they think about the legalization of Pot... you will get an eye opener on it isn't so cut and dry. Especially when it comes to DUI laws. Because now it is just the field sobriety test not a breathalyzer. It is the standing, walking, counting type tests. Which have been thrown out in court. Let alone the aspect of testing someone who is a driver for a trucking company, school bus company, etc when they show up to drive that morning or afternoon.

Like I mentioned... I am not totally for or against this. I am saying we need more measures in place before we jump in with both feet. Also you talk about the taxes and what not... I think I posted an article or talked about one where that isn't the case. Illegal weed is increasing because of the taxes and what not. Because a drug dealer doesn't have to pay taxes on their product or jump thru government red tape. So they can cut prices. :beer: I mean one can go get their pot card or what every... and buy the legal amount to carry from anyone. Or will we make a law that the buyer needs to carry a receipt??? good luck with that one. But you see what I am getting at. Then now with the vote on making mushrooms legal.... what is next coke, heroin, LSD, meth, etc???


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

We have heard how people who can find no relief from pain try medical mj and poof they get relief. Well a 70 year old lady with bad foot pain (right here in Jamestown) got a prescription and tried it. Absolutely no help. Kept at it for a while and nothing.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> We have heard how people who can find no relief from pain try medical mj and poof they get relief. Well a 70 year old lady with bad foot pain (right here in Jamestown) got a prescription and tried it. Absolutely no help. Kept at it for a while and nothing.


Is she rolling her doobies wrong? :rollin:


----------

