I’m all for doing away with most of the draconian laws relating to Marijuana, and just taxing the stuff. I think Eric Holder’s announcement the other day that he would stop raiding medical Marijuana clinics is a great start.
But if it were ever to become legal how do you think it should be regulated? I don’t think you should be able to sell it to anyone under 18, and of course you shouldn’t be allowed to drive or operate heavy machinery while stoned. Any other rules that should apply?
Also how should you tax it. Aside from the Libertarian aspects, this is another major reason that weed should be legal. This is a huge cash cow the government is missing out on. And what are they doing? Spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to kill it.
I think it should be regulated much the same as alcohol. No sale to minors. Only licensed establishments can sell it. It should be taxed. (But not too heavily. Then it’ll continue to be sold illegally.) You shouldn’t be allowed to drive while stoned. Frankly, I think all drugs should be this way. It’ll save the government some money. Junkies won’t have to pay as much for their drugs and can afford it with a normal job. There will be better rehabilitation centers. Crime levels will drop. But I’m not counting on America to have the common sense to make that happen any time soon.
I’m comfortable with “illegal to drive while stoned,” but not under the current test standards. Intoxication itself should be tested, not the presence of metabolites in the urine or hair. You shouldn’t be ticketed because you’re driving, and you were stoned two days ago, or yesterday.
I’m pretty sure they don’t give urine or hair tests to people believed to be driving under the influence now. I’m pretty sure it’s a blood test at the hospital, just like with alcohol. If you have a cite, I’d love to be educated though.
Speaking of drug tests, a lot of morons think that legalizing drugs means companies won’t be able to drug test employees and that you can go to work high without repercussion (just like how they can’t fire you for being drunk…). This, of course, is ridiculous. However, I think companies should only be allowed to drug test if it poses a safety risk. For instance, construction companies should be able to test their operators however and whenever they want. For desk jobs, it shouldn’t matter. If you come to work high and can do your job, there isn’t a problem. If being high interferes with your ability to do your job, then you can be fired for that.
Edit: I forgot this thread is about marijuana specifically and not general drug legalization. Everything I said above applies to cannibis too.
The main effect would be that the 20% of American black men who are incarcerated at some point in their lives would drop precipitately. So the prison lobby would fight it fiercely since drug laws lead to the major share of their enterprise.
Seventy two year olds like use drugs chronically. But none of my six prescriptions lead to cognitive impairment, so the suggestion that all drug use while driving should be banned is simplistic and unnecessary.
Wait, you think it should be illegal for companies to employ people on the condition that they pass a drug test? I think that as long as people agree to the test, a business owner should be able to fire them for taking anything they want. If the company is on some kind of misguided crusade against caffeine, for example, they should be able to hire only caffeine teetotalers, at the expense of getting very few job applicants. Testing people without their knowledge, on the other hand, would be just as illegal as breaking into their houses to see if they have illicit stuff on their computers.
As for actual government regulation of marijuana, the only restriction that seems necessary is no driving intoxicated (I agree with testing for actual blood content, not particles left over in hair, although private companies should be able to test for whatever they want). Marijuana doesn’t seem to cause any problems for people under 18, so I would allow it with parental permission. (Although I would not actually use marijuana if it were legalized.) I would tax it the same as the regular sales tax (I’d do this for alcohol and cigarettes, too, for that matter), since I don’t believe in “sin taxes”.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
I believe only jobs where safety is an issue should be able to test. Honestly, I don’t feel strongly about other jobs testing to see if employees are high while at work via blood or saliva tests. I don’t think they should, but I could get over it pretty easily. But I feel strongly that it’s none of their business if you get high on the weekends. That’s just an invasion of privacy. But again, if safety is involved, none of that applies.
False. You’d be surprised at what someone can do at a desk job with the wrong key stroke. It can mean lots of $$$ down the drain quickly.
I’m kind of torn on the issue. On the one hand, I think that marijuana has some medicinal properties as well as being a way to get high. I think that recreational use, at least, shouldn’t be illegal. On the other hand, I’ve attended a few rock concerts and movies (this was obviously back in the days when tobacco cigarettes could be smoked in the theater) and I can attest to the fact that nonsmokers could get pretty darned high from all the pot smoke swirling around.
I think that if pot were legalized, we’d have to legalize it in nonsmokable form only in public places, just as tobacco smoking is not allowed in many public buildings now.
This was brought up in the other recent thread and it’s a valid point. Currently there is no test to determine ‘currently under the influence’. I have to wonder, where would you really draw the line? I mean smoking and driving = no, but smoked a few hours ago and driving? Exactly how would you test for that.
To answer the OP, it should be illegal to sell to minors, illegal for minors to possess, illegal to smoke in public (like cigarettes, maybe even more strict). I think coffee houses would be cool. Moderate taxation should be applied to maximize the governments profit while discouraging a big homegrown market. Like others have said, it the tax is crazy high <snerk> everyone will grow their own.
Testing by your employer is a similar argument to driving. I don’t want a heavy equipment operator stoned but he should be able to partake on the weekends or after work. I’d like to think this could be based on someone’s performance but the realist in me thinks too many would get injured in the meantime.
If it’s legal to sit at a desk job (like mine) while on valium or xanax (as it is now), why not pot if it were decriminalized?
I was more or less making the point that just because a job isn’t physical like construction, doesn’t mean people cannot fuck up big time sitting at their desk, drugs or not.
But to your point, you’re right and I agree. If it’s legal, the requirement for employment testing for pot should be taken out. But this isn’t a government mandate that I’m aware of, and is usually something the company itself wants, or is forced to want due to their insurance requirements. Mini rant: And employment drug tests are more targeted to pot users anyway. Everything else they usually test for on the litmus type tests is usually out of your system in a few days if that. Pot can be anywhere from a few days to a few months in your system depending on the frequency of use. The system is stacked against pot users big time. Coke head? Just abstain for a few days, then get tested. Big deal there.
And as Dreamy B mentioned, how would you test for that? I’m of the opinion that a test for drugs shouldn’t be in the equation in determining if pot should be made legal or not just because it’s uncertain if it can be a valid test in a traffic stop. Because I’m certain not every legal drug has a measure to be tested accurately for recent usage of the drug for OTC stuff and prescriptions.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.