Marijuana
- Thread starter LivingDeadDoll
- Start date
Ninjashadow
New member
I'm sure they can.
Ninjashadow
New member
They can. They should be able to tell how long the THC has been in the system and a piss test would be probable cause to arrest.
Ninjashadow
New member
I'm sure they're working on it then and it's only a matter of time before they develope it.
Ninjashadow
New member
It shows up in the blood, too.
Here is some info... it's not looking so good for a reliable roadside test.
http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugtestcan.htm
http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugtestcan.htm
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Great point, BillyBob. It's called using a little common sense.
Yes, alchohol is legal and can be safe if it's not abused. Just because it can be used safely (which seems to be a big argument for legalizing pot) doesn't mean that it always is. While some people can have a drink every now and then with no problem there's something about it that causes others to throw responsibility, rationality and safety of oneself and others out the window. We already have enough problems with this "drug". Why would we want to legalize something else that would only cause these same kind of problems? So now one will say, "well, pot is legal and I'm handling it ok and X drug isn't really that much worse than pot so what could it hurt? In fact, I can still think pretty clearly when I take X drug and it helps with my stress and pain so I think it should be legal". There will be no stop to what people want legalized. But it's one's like granite who could care less about how it might effect others just as long as he is ok with it. After all, we all know that how granite thinks and how he would handle it if it were legalized is all that really matters.
Those are good points, Poly.
I am usually decided on issues, but I cannot seem to reconcile a solid position on this one.
On one hand, I think it would be wrong for the feds to legalize drugs. They have an obligation to secure the safety of its citizens and I don't think condoning drug use fits that description. Many crimes are commited while under the influence of drugs and they certainly are not healthy for it's users. Pot isn't so bad, but cocain and heroin almost always lead to severe addiction. How can the government responsibly condone such recreational drug usage?
On the other hand, it seems absurd to me that the prisons are filled with people whose only crime was to sell something that other people wanted to buy. I have the same 'feeling' about the illegality of prostitution. It seems to violate the concept of freedom that is part of our culture and heritage.
I don't know if I'll ever resolve this indecision.......
Again, it is know that someone can have a few beers and not get drunk. Is it know that someone can smoke a joint and not get high? The argument of taking just one or two hits and then quitting, I just don't buy. Also, one or two hits probably would get most people high.
Different strokes. Some people's tolerance for booze is greater than others, same thing with weed. A couple of hits might make you mellow, on the other hand you might not even feel it. It also is greatly effected by the quality of grass you're smoking (and that really goes for any booze or narcotic out there).
Drunk and "high" are not equivalent.
BillyBob, I'm a little surprised at you. Don't think we've ever chatted, but you always struck me as a "Libertine," limited government kind of guy. Where does it say that the government's job is to regulate what we put into our bodies? Lotta stuff out there that's "dangerous" and potentially not "good" for you -- like "dangerous books," hang-gliding, or fooling around with a married woman. Addicts, like the poor, will always be with us. Historically, 2-3 percent of drug users become "addicts." This says as much about human nature as it does about drugs. Should all "firearms" be confiscated because 2-3 percent of "gun users" use them irresponsibly? Government is never the answser.
You mentioned drug users commit crimes while high on drugs. No doubt. But most crimes are commited by drug users in order to feed a drug habit made more desperate by the inflated street prices of "illegal" drugs. It would be less expensive, and more humane, to simply GIVE the 2-3 percent of addicts their drugs, than arrest and warehouse them, as we're doing now. This doesn't address the ethical issues of drug use, or why people use drugs, but as a practical matter it reduces the likelihood of an addict knocking you over the head for your Timex whenever he needs a fix. The "moral high ground" of the Christian Right and the government's War on People is killing us.
BillyBob, I'm a little surprised at you. Don't think we've ever chatted, but you always struck me as a "Libertine," limited government kind of guy. Where does it say that the government's job is to regulate what we put into our bodies? Lotta stuff out there that's "dangerous" and potentially not "good" for you -- like "dangerous books," hang-gliding, or fooling around with a married woman. Addicts, like the poor, will always be with us. Historically, 2-3 percent of drug users become "addicts." This says as much about human nature as it does about drugs. Should all "firearms" be confiscated because 2-3 percent of "gun users" use them irresponsibly? Government is never the answser.
You mentioned drug users commit crimes while high on drugs. No doubt. But most crimes are commited by drug users in order to feed a drug habit made more desperate by the inflated street prices of "illegal" drugs. It would be less expensive, and more humane, to simply GIVE the 2-3 percent of addicts their drugs, than arrest and warehouse them, as we're doing now. This doesn't address the ethical issues of drug use, or why people use drugs, but as a practical matter it reduces the likelihood of an addict knocking you over the head for your Timex whenever he needs a fix. The "moral high ground" of the Christian Right and the government's War on People is killing us.
Ninjashadow
New member
If they are trained to do it and told to do it.
Perhaps you missed this part of my post:
Those are all very different from one another. If the libs have their way, they will regulate more of them.
Now, I don't know where you get that number, but I promise you that more than 2-3 percent of crack users become addicted to the stuff.
You keep comparing things that are not analogous to drugs.
It's not that simple. A crack addict has no money, so even if crack cost one quarter of it's current price a crack addict will still commit crimes to obtain his drug. [I don't think I ever said that drug users comit crimes when high, although it certainly happens]
What else should we 'give away'? Food? Clothing? A house? Furniture? New Carpeting? A Car? Gasoline? An Air Conditioner?
It isn't the job of the government to supply people with anything. Besides, the government would then be condoning and contributing to addiction. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Your point about arresting drug users simply for possesion is a good one, I agree that it seems to be heavy handed.
That's why I carry a gun which, by the way, is specified in the Constitution as my right. There is nothing in there about me having a right to government sponsored crack.
But really, are you actually suggesting that the government freely distribute dangerous drugs to any person who asks for them? Drugs that can readily kill a person?
How so?