CO and WA Legalize Recreational Marijuana

Rule of thumb is anything mass produced typically comes out in worse quality. I'm not for or against weed, it's not part of my lifestyle, it won't be, legal or not.

Well Colorado called for their state legislature to create the regulations that will ensure the production and distribution of a "versatile and popular product." For people to want to smoke weed and provide revenue for the state, then the government needs to make their product well. The article also mentioned that the strains would be tested for THC potency and marked accordinly, so what I am hoping to see is a highly competitive and varied product.

Depends how much and how hard it is to get a license, age limitations, and price. Otherwise the blackmarket for moonshine wouldn't exist.

What I got from the laws is that if you are over 21 you can go purchase marijuana. Besides limitations on where you can smoke, that is about it. I didn't see anything about having to acquire a license.
Assuming they want to make money, I'd imagine the price will be significantly better than the current black market price for a gram- which over here is $20.

Well Colorado called for their state legislature to create the regulations that will ensure the production and distribution of a "versatile and popular product." For people to want to smoke weed and provide revenue for the state, then the government needs to make their product well. The article also mentioned that the strains would be tested for THC potency and marked accordinly, so what I am hoping to see is a highly competitive and varied product.

All fluff really, I'm not saying drop the cause but I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatch either. I can imagine their market being similar to tobacco products. I mean people think they understand how tobacco and alcohol is regulated...but until you get into the tax law, oh my god, the surface, barely scratched.

Maryland recently came out with a new OTP law that makes it that regular cigar's have a 70% tax on the whole sale price. Right there, 70% on top of the regular price, and premium cigars only have a 30% tax rate.

So is it 18+ or 21+? Who controls the production? Big Tobacco? And how does this work with getting the economy back together?

No one has answered this so I guess I will.
The age is going to be 21 or older. Adults are allowed to grow up to six plants for personal use. Smoking in public or driving under the influence is still illegal. However, they can be purchased in retail stores and the first $40 million will go toward public school funding.

Lol @ driving high still illegal. They won't have a test for being high other than looking at your eyes and they haven't even proven that driving high is more dangerous. If anything it's safer because the slowed perceptions cause people to drive the actual speed limit which they think to be fast enough already.

No.
Driving under the influence of anything is bad.

Just like all drugs are bad right? Because that must be true in a thread about the legalization of a still heavily lobby'd against drug. Lol.

I'm sure my friend who drives around all day on pain killers and perks would love a chat. Or maybe my roomate who has ADD medication in his system all day. Or even my ex-roomate who uses adderall. But oh wait those aren't drugs because they aren't illegal. Riiiight.

I'm all for legalisation, and I think it'd be smart to legalise it. However, I'm not going to lie to myself and say people should drive while high. It's completely retarded and as much as I hate to pull the science card on these forums it's completely anecdotal to say that it won't have issues. Just because your friends seem to be decent drivers while under the influence of marijuana doesn't mean most Americans will be as good. Most Americans are idiots while driving anyway and car accidents are very high with drunk driving and other statistics. Why would you want to risk it and cause a possible increase of accidents while driving? It's silly.

However, I'm not going to lie to myself and say people should drive while high.

Neither am i. I don't think it's ok to drive high and never said it was, it just shouldn't be punishable at least not at the same degree as an alcoholic DUI because high driving has little to no reported crashes whereas alcohol DUIs are a very high cause of death in the US. If anything they need to do more research before lumping high driving with drunk driving and keeping both illegal.

I'm all for legalisation, and I think it'd be smart to legalise it. However, I'm not going to lie to myself and say people should drive while high. It's completely retarded and as much as I hate to pull the science card on these forums it's completely anecdotal to say that it won't have issues. Just because your friends seem to be decent drivers while under the influence of marijuana doesn't mean most Americans will be as good. Most Americans are idiots while driving anyway and car accidents are very high with drunk driving and other statistics. Why would you want to risk it and cause a possible increase of accidents while driving? It's silly.

I completely agree with you. I would much rather them make recreational use legal, but making driving while high illegal. Why should we take the risk that there may be more accidents? All that would do is give people that are against repealing marijuana prohibition a reason of why it should stay illegal.

[MENTION=618]Takebacker[/MENTION];
All drugs do not have the same effects, clearly, so saying that "if person A uses adderall and can drive safe, then person B should have the same option of driving while high" is pretty stupid. You can't just throw all drugs in the same boat and while marijuana is obviously not as dangerous as alcohol, I do not think that allowing people to drive under the influence of perception changing drugs is a good idea.

Also your point about people driving the speed limit while high is crap. I have been in the car with tons of people that have been high while driving. Regardless of the point that we have been safe, some of them speed, others drive the speed limit. It is very situational and involves personal preference that determines how fast you drive. I am not sure how a police officer could check if you were high somewhere on the side of the road without giving you a blood test, which seems too invasive to be adopted as a reasonable option.

[MENTION=618]Takebacker[/MENTION];
All drugs do not have the same effects, clearly, so saying that "if person A uses adderall and can drive safe, then person B should have the same option of driving while high" is pretty stupid. You can't just throw all drugs in the same boat and while marijuana is obviously not as dangerous as alcohol, I do not think that allowing people to drive under the influence of perception changing drugs is a good idea.

His point was that being under the influence of ANYTHING is bad. Therefore i used "anything" to refute that, because there are more drugs than just alcohol and weed that people use regularly often for purposes that make what people do more controlled and safer. But being under the influence of ANY drug doesn't mean it's bad when you're driving. Thanks for supporting my argument, bro.

Also your point about people driving the speed limit while high is crap. I have been in the car with tons of people that have been high while driving. Regardless of the point that we have been safe, some of them speed, others drive the speed limit. It is more personal preference of whether or not you follow the law "or want to be badass" or some sh'it like that that determines how fast you drive. I am not sure how a police officer could check if you were high somewhere on the side of the road without giving you a blood test, which seems too invasive to be adopted as a reasonable option.

My point is crap because people are different? K.

Not only is that implied, it doesn't take much from a research standpoint to get data on that. Take a sample group of sober drivers, observe them for X days or hours. Take a sample group of the same drivers, observe them driving high for X days or hours. Boom. Research data.

My point is crap because people are different? K.

Not only is that implied, it doesn't take much from a research standpoint to get data on that. Take a sample group of sober drivers, observe them for X days or hours. Take a sample group of the same drivers, observe them driving high for X days or hours. Boom. Research data.

You posted an assumption:

If anything it's safer because the slowed perceptions cause people to drive the actual speed limit which they think to be fast enough already.

I am refuting that statement because people are different and do things according to how they want to do them.

Yes you could do research on that and could probably eventually make the case for driving while high being relatively safe, but marijuana legalization is a sensitive issue filled with misconceptions and lots of involved parties. I would much rather the government make driving high illegal (but not have the penalty be of the same severity as a DUI for alcohol use) than possibly have driving accidents increase and as a result, negatively affect marijuana legislation support.

I'll support your argument when it alligns with my views and when it makes sense given the current political climate. I am very clearly pro-marijuana legalization, for numerous reasons, so it doesn't take much to convince me.

You posted an assumption:

I am refuting that statement because people are different and do things according to how they want to do them.

Yes you could do research on that and could probably eventually make the case for driving while high being relatively safe, but marijuana legalization is a sensitive issue filled with misconceptions and lots of involved parties. I would much rather the government make driving high illegal (but not have the penalty be of the same severity as a DUI for alcohol use) than possibly have driving accidents increase and as a result, negatively affect marijuana legislation support.

I'll support your argument when it alligns with my views and when it makes sense given the current political climate. I am very clearly pro-marijuana legalization, for numerous reasons, so it doesn't take much to convince me.

More like an observation if anything. I drive slower high and i know for a fact i am not the only one. It's not a reason for it to be legal, but it's a reason for me to think it being illegal is laughable.

Otherwise our views and opinions are the same. It just doesn't make sense for reasons you just said, which is fine, because it was just an opinion anyway.

More like an observation if anything. I drive slower high and i know for a fact i am not the only one. It's not a reason for it to be legal, but it's a reason for me to think it being illegal is laughable.

Otherwise our views and opinions are the same. It just doesn't make sense for reasons you just said, which is fine, because it was purely an opinion anyway.

So because you know you drive slower while high and you also know that a number of other people do the same, that the majority of people drive slower while high? That is pretty flawed logic.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Nonetheless, I hope Colorodo and Washington get themselves together and get the details all worked out because I am fairly excited to see how they go about it and how the Fed responds.

I drive slower high and i know for a fact i am not the only one.

How's your reaction rate?

So because you know you drive slower while high and you also know that a number of other people do the same, that the majority of people drive slower while high? That is pretty flawed logic.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

More like "i know i drive slower high, and i know others drive slower high, therefore weed can sometimes have the effect of making people drive slower high and if a cop pulls someone over under this behavior they shouldn't be penalized simply for being high". The one thing you're overlooking is the circumstances. If someone is driving perfectly fine while high does that mean cops should jump and arrest them? No. If someone is driving like a d'ick he should be ticketed/arrested or whatever anyway and if he's high then whatever. Being on something shouldn't automatically determine the outcome unless it's something PROVEN TO BE DANGEROUS, which weed is not.

@above: How do i test that? I don't really notice very significant change in reaction, only differences in the perception of speed. But it's not like i drive high all the f'ucking time anyway like you all seem to think i am.

Some people also aren't drunk at 0.08% BAC and can probably drive just fine yet they still get a DUI. The point is, "better safe than sorry"

Good sh`it.

I still can't believe other states don't want to make money off marijuana, it's like free money.

Plus, how much they save on police/prisons. I think I read this would lead to 10k fewer arrests in CO just over the short term. Which means either smaller staff, or more time for dangerous criminals.

@above: How do i test that? I don't really notice very significant change in reaction, only differences in the perception of speed. But it's not like i drive high all the f'ucking time anyway like you all seem to think i am.

Well, I've lobbed stuff at my high friends. Most of them react noticeably slow.

More like "i know i drive slower high, and i know others drive slower high, therefore weed can sometimes have the effect of making people drive slower high and if a cop pulls someone over under this behavior they shouldn't be penalized simply for being high". The one thing you're overlooking is the circumstances. If someone is driving perfectly fine while high does that mean cops should jump and arrest them? No. If someone is driving like a d'ick he should be ticketed/arrested or whatever anyway and if he's high then whatever. Being on something shouldn't automatically determine the outcome unless it's something PROVEN TO BE DANGEROUS, which weed is not.

@above: How do i test that? I don't really notice very significant change in reaction, only differences in the perception of speed. But it's not like i drive high all the f'ucking time anyway like you all seem to think i am.

Before we continue this how does alcohol cause you to drive faster? It's reaction time, and reaction time doesn't mean "Can I drive at the speed limit". Reaction times means stopping at a stop sign before T-boning the car following the rules. And you do know driving "slower" is actually just as reckless driving faster? In fact I would argue that the general "50MPH" should be pushed to 70MPH in most highways because our cars are much more efficient. I mean when car's first came out, 26 mph was considered insane.

None the less, the risk of these substances include swerving and not recognizing traffic signals.

Before we continue this how does alcohol cause you to drive faster? It's reaction time, and reaction time doesn't mean "Can I drive at the speed limit". Reaction times means stopping at a stop sign before T-boning the car following the rules. And you do know driving "slower" is actually just as reckless driving faster? In fact I would argue that the general "50MPH" should be pushed to 70MPH in most highways because our cars are much more efficient. I mean when car's first came out, 26 mph was considered insane.

None the less, the risk of these substances include swerving and not recognizing traffic signals.

Alcohol affects decision making. Not sure about marijuana.