TorilMUD Forums

Couple years ago, through a citizens initiative, Montana legalized medical marijuana. The initiative was written very very well and completely tied the hands of the executive branch, police and courts to really hold it up or slow it down. It made the state act on permits for MMJ within 5 days or automatically approve them, it prohibited the state police and courts from charging a MMJ permit holder with basically any MJ related crime, it made the process for becoming a mmj card holder a matter of getting a doctors note and designating someone to grow for you a matter of the mmj card holder asking someone too. felons are not restricted from being mmj card holders or mmj growers. employers and various public places dont have to accomodate mj smokers either just because its medical. so really it was a beautiful piece of legislation approved by the citizens of montana 62% to 38% to completely legalize marijuana under the guise of medical m. The legislation is so good that even A 2.5 year old child has a valid mmj permit.

So the GOP with its large majorities wrote several bills to "fix" it, including one to outright repeal it. It went to the governor's desk and unless he signs it tomorrow, will be vetoed. A friend of mine asked me to write/call the governor and support him signing it. I'm not inclined and we had a pretty extensive conversation about it.

My position is that its no worse than alcohol or smoking and those are legal. He argues that just because you have 2 doesn't mean you should allow 3. I agree, but not enough.

My position is that it gives people more liberty... his position is that its a bad choice and contributes to the degredation of society in many ways from education, to crime to making Montana a laughing stock. Again, I totally agree mj has a variety of negative affects... but really is it any of your business if i go extreme mountain biking which is dangerous?

My position is that the voters passed it by a good margin, his position is that we live in a republic and citizens don't know what they are doing and we should leave it up to the legislators or we get mob rule. (current split is like 68 gop 32 dem). This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard... maybe if we didn't have a constitutional republic we shouldn't allow citizens initiatives, but i sure as hell won't defer always to the legislators to make the law.

Really the 2 biggest things from my perspective is 62% of the voters voted for it and it increases liberty. If it had been 51/49 or was restricting liberty, I would be more likely to support it because yes its not good. but since it really isn't "that bad" of a drug (yes its bad, but not like heroin bad) I'm inclined to tolerate it.

What do you guys think? Should I support the repeal because of all the evils of MJ... because of the "loop holes" in the current law? A 2.5 year old obviously has no business smoking and the whole medical thing is a complete sham and outright fraud... also recently the feds busted up a dozen shops in the state for basically growing pot and traffiking it to other states... it is clearly out of control (assuming that it was intended to be controlled in the first place which it was not and im ok with).

All drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) should be legalized and available to adults for one simple reason: What goes into my body is not a valid concern of the government.

That and you would get rid of an enormous amount of violent crime. Drugs are expensive because they are sold on a blackmarket. If they were cheap, the associated murders and thefts would be strongly diminished.

California recently voted on legalizing MJ, I read an article that intrrviewed dealers and MMJ shop owners and they voted against it because it would cut into thier profit margins. The legalization vote did not go through, and the dealers profit margin are still there.

I don't really think the 2.5yr old is smoking MJ -- the parents are using the card for personal use. I don't think that the child's smoking habits should be taken seriously in the argument as that is more than likely not happening. The fact that the kid has a card, yes, that's pretty bad. In this case you would tighten the legislation rather than repeal it -- that's just silly. It would be like saying, "My car's headlight busted. Cars should all be recalled and we should go back to riding horses."

For the question at hand, no, you should not support a repeal for many reasons. Many of which Corth covered. Secondarily, the negative effects of MJ are very low, and I wouldn't put it even close to on par with cigarettes or alcohol. Both of those have been shown to cause body damage (lungs and liver/brain respectively) where as MJ has not (outside of smoking it). If you vaporize MJ, the carcinogens aren't combusted and you never breath them in. Take it in a pill, you're fine. Cook it, you're fine. The only negative that has been associated with MJ is in the developmental stages of the brain -- which is generally found to be a stunt rather than damage per se. After the developmental stages, it has been shown to enhance creativity. One of my favorite examples is Carl Sagan. You don't operate at that level of genius if MJ deteriorates your brain.

The moral issues should weigh in favor of MJ as it would lower crime. I have yet to see MJ cause family problems outside of one thinking it's good while the other thinking it's bad. Essentially, MJ in and of itself is harmless until human perspective plays its role in these cases. This should be a fault of society rather than a fault of MJ.

Realistically, the only reason for a 2.5 year old to have a mmj card is to be able to legally grow more pot. Parents really wouldn't need anything as the permit basically says you can smoke as much as you want and can't be charged with a MJ crime.

kiryan wrote:Realistically, the only reason for a 2.5 year old to have a mmj card is to be able to legally grow more pot. Parents really wouldn't need anything as the permit basically says you can smoke as much as you want and can't be charged with a MJ crime.

Wasn't aware of the nuances in Montana law. Regardless, the 2.5 yr old smoking MJ shouldn't even be mentioned.

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp07122003.shtml


I'm all for the legalization of mj nationwide. Legalize the harder drugs, keep the users corralled, and let natural selection take care of the nation's drug problems.

My experience in the mj culture is that the people who lose their potential to it are the ones who were apt to flush their potential down the toilet anyway. Cigarettes are far more physically damaging, and alcohol is far more overall damaging, and both are far more addictive. Everybody responds differently, but if you participate in an activity that puts you to sleep, and you can't figure out that you shouldn't do it before you go to work, you're really too stupid even without the mj so why blame it on the substance?

I think one major road block to legalizing it is there really isn't a test that can be done to tell if your under the immediate influence of it. This causes a Problem with policing driving under the influence. I know that pee tests can detect it from az far back as 28 days.

amena wolfsnarl wrote:I think one major road block to legalizing it is there really isn't a test that can be done to tell if your under the immediate influence of it. This causes a Problem with policing driving under the influence. I know that pee tests can detect it from az far back as 28 days.

This really is my only obstacle regarding legalization, drugged driving, otherwise, I'd say treat it legally just like alcohol. You might be doubling (or more) the national figures for DUI deaths. I know there's more to it, but increasing the chance that my kids might be killed by some stoned dickhead is my issue.

Some quick figures :

8,600 People died in 2005 as a result of Drugged Driving (I couldn't find anything more recent quickly, beats me why)

580,000 People were injured in car crashes as a result of Drugged Driving in 2010

$33 billion in damages every year from Drugged Driving

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:

amena wolfsnarl wrote:I think one major road block to legalizing it is there really isn't a test that can be done to tell if your under the immediate influence of it. This causes a Problem with policing driving under the influence. I know that pee tests can detect it from az far back as 28 days.

This really is my only obstacle regarding legalization, drugged driving, otherwise, I'd say treat it legally just like alcohol. You might be doubling (or more) the national figures for DUI deaths. I know there's more to it, but increasing the chance that my kids might be killed by some stoned dickhead is my issue.

Some quick figures :

8,600 People died in 2005 as a result of Drugged Driving (I couldn't find anything more recent quickly, beats me why)

580,000 People were injured in car crashes as a result of Drugged Driving in 2010

$33 billion in damages every year from Drugged Driving

In 2005 43,510 people total were killed in traffic fatalities. If 8,600 were killled by drugged driving that would be just shy of 20%. Supposedly there were 16,885 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2005 also. If that number is correct that's 39%. So just for alcohol and drugs we're at 59% of all traffic fatalities. Sleep deprived driving claims an average annual death toll of 1,550. Add that in and we're at 63%. Distracted driving accounted for 10% of vehicular fatalities in 2005, now we're at 75%. 31% of traffic fatalities include speeding. That's 106%! "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Twain

But more serious is to be someone between the ages of 25 and 34 between 5pm and 5:59pm monday through friday. You have like a 75% chance of dying in a car accident if you meet those statistics.

But in all seriousness, Drugged Driving statistics include legal prescription drugs. Prescription drugs cause more deaths annually than all illegal drugs combined. Tyelenol alone kills more people than all illegal drugs combined. Aspirin kills more people annually than marijuana.

Legalize MJ and ban aspirin!

Vaprak wrote:

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:

amena wolfsnarl wrote:I think one major road block to legalizing it is there really isn't a test that can be done to tell if your under the immediate influence of it. This causes a Problem with policing driving under the influence. I know that pee tests can detect it from az far back as 28 days.

This really is my only obstacle regarding legalization, drugged driving, otherwise, I'd say treat it legally just like alcohol. You might be doubling (or more) the national figures for DUI deaths. I know there's more to it, but increasing the chance that my kids might be killed by some stoned dickhead is my issue.

Some quick figures :

8,600 People died in 2005 as a result of Drugged Driving (I couldn't find anything more recent quickly, beats me why)

580,000 People were injured in car crashes as a result of Drugged Driving in 2010

$33 billion in damages every year from Drugged Driving

In 2005 43,510 people total were killed in traffic fatalities. If 8,600 were killled by drugged driving that would be just shy of 20%. Supposedly there were 16,885 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2005 also. If that number is correct that's 39%. So just for alcohol and drugs we're at 59% of all traffic fatalities. Sleep deprived driving claims an average annual death toll of 1,550. Add that in and we're at 63%. Distracted driving accounted for 10% of vehicular fatalities in 2005, now we're at 75%. 31% of traffic fatalities include speeding. That's 106%! "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Twain

But more serious is to be someone between the ages of 25 and 34 between 5pm and 5:59pm monday through friday. You have like a 75% chance of dying in a car accident if you meet those statistics.

But in all seriousness, Drugged Driving statistics include legal prescription drugs. Prescription drugs cause more deaths annually than all illegal drugs combined. Tyelenol alone kills more people than all illegal drugs combined. Aspirin kills more people annually than marijuana.

Legalize MJ and ban aspirin!

Some of those instances can include more than 1 cause, for example speeding while driving drunk. so they double classify them. Fact of the matter is, from a policing point of view, we need a solid way to determine if you are under the IMMEDIATE influence of pot. I know every pot head and thier dog claim they function better while stoned, and for some of them its true. That still doesnt stop what they are doing from being illegal.

as far as im concerned smoke your brains out, drink like a fish, but stay away from a vehicle

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:

amena wolfsnarl wrote:I think one major road block to legalizing it is there really isn't a test that can be done to tell if your under the immediate influence of it. This causes a Problem with policing driving under the influence. I know that pee tests can detect it from az far back as 28 days.

This really is my only obstacle regarding legalization, drugged driving, otherwise, I'd say treat it legally just like alcohol. You might be doubling (or more) the national figures for DUI deaths. I know there's more to it, but increasing the chance that my kids might be killed by some stoned dickhead is my issue.

Some quick figures :

8,600 People died in 2005 as a result of Drugged Driving (I couldn't find anything more recent quickly, beats me why)

580,000 People were injured in car crashes as a result of Drugged Driving in 2010

$33 billion in damages every year from Drugged Driving

You're making a big assumption that those numbers will change. Most likely the people who would smoke pot and drive already are, not to mention that a bunch of those drugged driving accidents are legal drugs.

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:

amena wolfsnarl wrote:I think one major road block to legalizing it is there really isn't a test that can be done to tell if your under the immediate influence of it. This causes a Problem with policing driving under the influence. I know that pee tests can detect it from az far back as 28 days.

This really is my only obstacle regarding legalization, drugged driving, otherwise, I'd say treat it legally just like alcohol. You might be doubling (or more) the national figures for DUI deaths. I know there's more to it, but increasing the chance that my kids might be killed by some stoned dickhead is my issue.

Some quick figures :

8,600 People died in 2005 as a result of Drugged Driving (I couldn't find anything more recent quickly, beats me why)

580,000 People were injured in car crashes as a result of Drugged Driving in 2010

$33 billion in damages every year from Drugged Driving

How is that different than painkillers or various mood altering drugs...

Ashiwi wrote:http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp07122003.shtml


I'm all for the legalization of mj nationwide. Legalize the harder drugs, keep the users corralled, and let natural selection take care of the nation's drug problems.

My experience in the mj culture is that the people who lose their potential to it are the ones who were apt to flush their potential down the toilet anyway. Cigarettes are far more physically damaging, and alcohol is far more overall damaging, and both are far more addictive. Everybody responds differently, but if you participate in an activity that puts you to sleep, and you can't figure out that you shouldn't do it before you go to work, you're really too stupid even without the mj so why blame it on the substance?

I'll tend to agree that people who are already inclined to be losers end up being losers and blaming it on MJ.

I don't think there is enough research to conclude that cigarettes and alcohol are worse. the research that does exist is probably primairly conducted by people bias'd towards legalization.