Are these reason enough to keep pot illegal?

[El Barto]

If it's a prescription drug, why the age limit at all?  To be fair, I'd be alright with a 16 year old needing to demonstrate a genuine need rather than the rubber stamp process they have in Cali for adults who want a card, but if a doctor sees that real need and wants to write him that scrip, he should be able to.  Frankly, it's pretty fucked up that 13 year olds get prescribed amphetamines to make them better zombies for the education system and people are haggling over whether or not high-schoolers can smoke some pot on their free time. 

[Chino]

Under the age of 21 you need a medicinal license. Hell, I'd give it to a ten year old in a pill form.

[zxlkho]

One step closer to legalization! Now if only Maryland or Virginia would legalize medical...

[Birch Boy]

If it's a prescription drug, why the age limit at all?  To be fair, I'd be alright with a 16 year old needing to demonstrate a genuine need rather than the rubber stamp process they have in Cali for adults who want a card, but if a doctor sees that real need and wants to write him that scrip, he should be able to.  Frankly, it's pretty fucked up that 13 year olds get prescribed amphetamines to make them better zombies for the education system and people are haggling over whether or not high-schoolers can smoke some pot on their free time. 

Just thought I'd say that my class' valedictorian, who is also president of the school, is one of the biggest pot-heads I know. 2340 on his SATs. He was high.

[zxlkho]

That's... impressive.

[Birch Boy]

Me and a mutual friend want his valedictorian speech to be:

"FUCK YOU ALL I'M A DRUG DEALER!"

and then he walks off. He'd get an applause from me.

[GuineaPig]

Er, I meant what should the age limit be?  I'm thinking 21, but then again that's just an arbitrary number.

This is an interesting question.  It's hard to fathom a United States where the legal age for drugs is lower than alcohol, but if one was to craft guidelines solely based on harm I would argue it should be.

I think 15 or 16 to smoke and then 18 to buy would be appropriate.  I can't remember what it is in the Netherlands.

[Birch Boy]

Although it's not a problem for some people, I don't know if being able to buy weed and drive a car on your sixteenth birthday would be a good idea, assuming it's your first time doing each thing.

[zxlkho]

Yeah, I think 21 would be just perfect.

(even though I think the age for alcohol should be lowered, but that's another issue.)

[El Barto]

Arbitrary age limits are pointless.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I think the idea behind it is that 21 year olds are more responsible than 18 year olds.

Which, in theory, should be true. I think we all know though that it's not. If anything, by that logic, it should be RAISED

[GuineaPig]

I think voting or military service is a bigger responsibility than lighting up a doobie.

[zxlkho]

Not voting, but military service for sure.

[Birch Boy]

Not voting, but military service for sure.

I think making the decision of what path our entire country will go down for the next four years and everything that will be brought with it is more of a responsibility than smoking weed.

[zxlkho]

I disagree. Look a the last presidential election: we were voting between McCain and Obama. A douche and a turd.

I don't really think a 16 year old could have screwed up that vote too much.

[El Barto]

I think the idea behind it is that 21 year olds are more responsible than 18 year olds.

Which, in theory, should be true. I think we all know though that it's not. If anything, by that logic, it should be RAISED

By raising it, all you're doing is punishing the mature youngsters.

Besides, how much?  I bet the number of surprisingly mature 14 year olds is quite similar to the number of highly immature 30 year olds. 

On a side note, I don't see any reason why maturity is of any real importance in this regard, anyway.  You want to set an age limit for shooting heroin and I won't object, but we're talking about something that's essentially harmless here.  Riding a bike, now that's fucking dangerous.  Getting high after school,  not so much. 

[Chino]

Happy Holidaze!

[El Barto]

Happy Holidaze!

Indeed.   

[PlaysLikeMyung]

11. The promotion, the discussion of how to obtain, or the discussion of how to take or use illicit drugs is not allowed.

just a reminder

[ack44]

What exactly is an "illicit drug"? Doesn't that depend on country and state?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

for all intents and purposes, we'll suppose that it refers to illicit drugs in the US

[El Barto]

Which state?   

[Chino]

I believe MJ should be allowed to be spoken about, even if it was just one thread dedicated to it.

[ThroughHerEyesDude6]

I have to agree with Chino. More times than not, I would love to talk about marijuana, and my experiences with it. But anytime I would like to, I have to step back and worry what the moderators might do.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

there's an extremely fine line between relating experiences as it relates to the law, and saying "LOL LOOK AT ME I SMOKE POT"

4/20 would almost always fall under the latter.

[ThroughHerEyesDude6]

there's an extremely fine line between relating experiences as it relates to the law, and saying "LOL LOOK AT ME I SMOKE POT"

4/20 would almost always fall under the latter.

Point taken...carry on.

[William Wallace]

This election has convinced me that California voters are the stupidest around. Two contradictory propositions on taxation passed, 19 was rejected, our micro version of cap and trade is going forward, and the Democrats have managed to hold on to the state legislature - and take the governorship. Seriously, fuck us.

I think this post perfectly sums up California politics. I'm really proud. Just had to express it.

[El Barto]

This election has convinced me that California voters are the stupidest around. Two contradictory propositions on taxation passed, 19 was rejected, our micro version of cap and trade is going forward, and the Democrats have managed to hold on to the state legislature - and take the governorship. Seriously, fuck us.

I think this post perfectly sums up California politics. I'm really proud. Just had to express it.

Nah, 19 was a stunningly bad piece of legislation.  The voters did right on that one, even if it was for all the wrong reasons.   I figure it was just the silly just say no crowd that shot it down thinking they were striking a big blow against dopers, but they actually did them a big favor.  Ironic, actually.  The straight, do-gooders mistakenly gave a huge hand to the people apparently too stoned to know they were fucking themselves. 

[William Wallace]

This election has convinced me that California voters are the stupidest around. Two contradictory propositions on taxation passed, 19 was rejected, our micro version of cap and trade is going forward, and the Democrats have managed to hold on to the state legislature - and take the governorship. Seriously, fuck us.

I think this post perfectly sums up California politics. I'm really proud. Just had to express it.

Nah, 19 was a stunningly bad piece of legislation.  The voters did right on that one, even if it was for all the wrong reasons.   I figure it was just the silly just say no crowd that shot it down thinking they were striking a big blow against dopers, but they actually did them a big favor.  Ironic, actually.  The straight, do-gooders mistakenly gave a huge hand to the people apparently too stoned to know they were fucking themselves. 

You made my point. Good or bad, the initiative was shot down because of presumptions a majority of voters have about drug use. And 19 had flaws, I agree, but legalization would have been a good first step.

[ReaPsTA]

legalization would have been a good first step.

Yes... but, going back to the very first post of the thread, honestly those were good reasons not to pass it.  We can say all we want about how Marijuana isn't that bad, but I can assure you for a variety of reasons that people who are high should never ever operate heavy machinery, or do anything of any importance besides write music.

[emindead]

Would it be that hard to get a device that can tell immediately if you are high or not? Or don't you think that once legal there will be advances in these processes to determine if you are under influence? That way it would be easy to decide if you will allow an employee of yours to operate heavy machinery or not.

[ReaPsTA]

Would it be that hard to get a device that can tell immediately if you are high or not? Or don't you think that once legal there will be advances in these processes to determine if you are under influence? That way it would be easy to decide if you will allow an employee of yours to operate heavy machinery or not.

That's not the point.  The way Prop 19 was written, you couldn't take someone off the job who was baked even if you knew.

[ricky]

It's just a matter of time before it becomes legal.

I think the big problem is that the government knows that they wouldn't make any money from taxing it, because everyone would just grow their own. And they could say, "well, possesing is legal, but growing is not" to try to maximize tax revenue, but it would go largely unenforced.

[Bombardana]

I want to know if legalising cannabis would lower the number of people smoking cigarettes, or no change?
Maybe a lot of smokers would switch from tobacco to cannabis. This would benefit them health-wise, but also where smokers in the UK would argue that the tax they pay helps pay for the NHS, they would still help pay for the NHS, but without causing the same health problems to themselves and costing money to the taxpayer to treat their lungcancer. By this, pot legalisation could create a healthier, longer living society, but I honestly don't know.

[El Barto]

Because of Reapsta's objection, I went back and re-read the OP.  Two things stuck out at me.  First off, they were citing MADD as the source of these concerns, and that automatically makes the rest of the article highly dubious.  Those guys are the kings of misleading people with bogus interpretations.  The other thing was how they were spinning it.  They were very deliberate in how they described people.  Specifically their usage of "has marijuana in their system" when they're referring to the new law,  as opposed to being stoned, impaired, under the influence, etc when referring to the old one.  Under current law, if a worker shows up smelling of alcohol or marijuana, an employer may remove the employee from a dangerous or sensitive job, such as running medical lab tests in a hospital, or operating heavy equipment. But if Proposition 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs.  Typical MADD bullshit.  Here are the two clauses of the proposed law that are relevant to the concerns that Reapsta shares with them.

(a) This act shall not be construed to affect, limit, or amend any
statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous
activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a
school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12,
inclusive.

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against,
or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any
conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section
11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to
address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an
employee shall not be affected.

It seems to me that it's still illegal to operate a forklift or drive the Greyhound bus if you're fucked up, and employers still have the right to prohibit people from working if they're impaired.  MADD almost always promotes prohibition first and foremost.  Their concern here isn't people driving the bus stoned, but anybody who ever smokes dope driving a bus.  That's two very different things.