Marijuana Legalization/Decriminalization Efforts

[Kohan]

Marijuana needs to be regulated like a mix of alcohol and tobacco regulations. Since it's use has different effects from the two and are enjoyed in almost the same environments.

- Shouldn't be allowed to smoke marijuana outside like you can cigarettes unless otherwise specified. <-- Like alcohol

Why not? Second-hand smoke from cigarettes is harmful, but second-hand smoke from marijuana is not. I see absolutely no reason for marijuana smokers to not enjoy the same freedoms that cigarette smokers do.

- Shouldn't be allowed indoors in public areas unless otherwise specified <-- Like tobacco

I don't have a problem with this, as it's equal treatment. Despite the aforementioned second-hand smoke difference, it smells, makes the air smoky, etc.; I see no reason to dislike this restriction.

- Not allowed at work unless otherwise specified <-- Like alcohol

This, I disagree with as well. If cigarettes are allowed, there is no reason whatsoever for marijuana to be banned.

[jmc]

Why not? Second-hand smoke from cigarettes is harmful, but second-hand smoke from marijuana is not. I see absolutely no reason for marijuana smokers to not enjoy the same freedoms that cigarette smokers do.



I don't have a problem with this, as it's equal treatment. Despite the aforementioned second-hand smoke difference, it smells, makes the air smoky, etc.; I see no reason to dislike this restriction.



This, I disagree with as well. If cigarettes are allowed, there is no reason whatsoever for marijuana to be banned.

Because cigarettes dont alter someone's state of mind, and neither does second hand smoke from cigarettes.

Thats why it would be more comparable to liquor, because the person using it is still not the same after using weed or liquor.

[Kohan]

Because cigarettes dont alter someone's state of mind, and neither does second hand smoke from cigarettes.

That isn't true.

http://smoking.ygoy.com/effects-of-s...-on-the-brain/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/nicotine

However, I do see the point you're going after; namely, that cigarettes do not affect the mind in the same exact manner as marijuana. I do not condone things like driving under the influence, naturally. At the same time, I understand that there are plenty of legal medications that can produce side-effects unwanted in a work environment, and yet, they are tolerated—they're legal, after all. In direct comparison, for those who would smoke marijuana for medical reasons, being unable to use their medication at the workplace would be unfair treatment. Would they have to drive home, smoke, and then drive back? Where is the safety in that?

This kind of discrimination would also negatively impact efforts to remove marijuana detection from mandatory, job-related drug testing. If a job may bar marijuana use, they may also bar marijuana users. Due to the current federal law, this is the way things work. Additional obstructions related to marijuana-friendly policies in the workplace would only compound that.

[jmc]

That isn't true.

http://smoking.ygoy.com/effects-of-s...-on-the-brain/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/nicotine

However, I do see the point you're going after; namely, that cigarettes do not affect the mind in the same exact manner as marijuana. I do not condone things like driving under the influence, naturally. At the same time, I understand that there are plenty of legal medications that can produce side-effects unwanted in a work environment, and yet, they are tolerated—they're legal, after all. In direct comparison, for those who would smoke marijuana for medical reasons, being unable to use their medication at the workplace would be unfair treatment. Would they have to drive home, smoke, and then drive back? Where is the safety in that?

This kind of discrimination would also negatively impact efforts to remove marijuana detection from mandatory, job-related drug testing. If a job may bar marijuana use, they may also bar marijuana users. Due to the current federal law, this is the way things work. Additional obstructions related to marijuana-friendly policies in the workplace would only compound that.

I honestly just say treat it like any type of liquor. They already started by having marijuana being 21+.

For work, fire or discipline someone for showing upto work stoned just like being drunk. Yet, dont punish individuals because they use it in their personal time.(drug testing)

[Kohan]

I honestly just say treat it like any type of liquor. They already started by having marijuana being 21+.

For work, fire or discipline someone for showing upto work stoned just like being drunk. Yet, dont punish individuals because they use it in their personal time.(drug testing)

What about the aforementioned medical marijuana case? Someone who takes it for medical reasons should not be "stoned," as one does not need to smoke constantly to intake their recommended amount of medicine. However, it is likely they'll be taking it before, during, and after work.

This case will never exist for liquor, as it does not have a legitimate medicinal use. Marijuana does.

What then?

[jmc]

What about the aforementioned medical marijuana case? Someone who takes it for medical reasons should not be "stoned," as one does not need to smoke constantly to intake their recommended amount of medicine. However, it is likely they'll be taking it before, during, and after work.

This case will never exist for liquor, as it does not have a legitimate medicinal use. Marijuana does.

What then?

Sorry, I was just referencing for general use by anyone in the public for non medical reasons.

For those that use marijuana for medical purposes (like my father while he was fighting cancer) they should be able to use it when needed at the work place, but being mindful to their fellow employees.

[Kohan]

Sorry, I was just referencing for general use by anyone in the public for non medical reasons.

For those that use marijuana for medical purposes (like my father while he was fighting cancer) they should be able to use it when needed at the work place, but being mindful to their fellow employees.

That is something I can agree with, 100%.

[Jefe]

Then it would be in their best interests to find another drug that doesn't have the adverse effects of marijuana. If you want to smoke some weed in the privacy of your own home, hey enjoy. However, it's a bad idea to have an individual using drugs with hallucinogenic properties before, during, and after work even if it's for 'medical reasons.'

[Kohan]

Then it would be in their best interests to find another drug that doesn't have the adverse effects of marijuana. If you want to smoke some weed in the privacy of your own home, hey enjoy. However, it's a bad idea to have an individual using drugs with hallucinogenic properties before, during, and after work even if it's for 'medical reasons.'

Considering that marijuana doesn't have the damaging side-effects of your average pharmaceutic product, what you're suggesting is that someone must prefer a more harmful substance to a more benign one, which directly contrasts the concept of "getting better." Such products are one of the strongest reasons medical marijuana has been campaigned for so fiercely; that, and the evidence related to its harmlessness in relation to alcohol and nicotine.

However, given your placing apostrophes around "medical reasons," I understand that you're unfamiliar with that reality, and prefer to be judgmental. That is unfortunate, especially considering that you have a "Hecho en Mexico" image in your signature, and one of the main reasons behind its banning was a racism-fueled hatred of Mexicans using it.

[Tellahh]

Don't think anyone's brought up consumables/edibles in this argument, there's plenty of smoke free ways to take marijuana, easily available at any medicinal dispensary for the most part.

I do agree that marijuana would have to be held in the same regards as cigarettes in public places, I know I don't want to smell fucking cigarette smoke near me even if it's just lingering smell in the air, I'm sure others wouldn't want to smell marijuana wherever they go either.

[Gwynplaine]

This is really a huge step forward and I congratulate the CO and washington voters on doing the right thing. There needs to be rigorous strong advocacy for ending drug prohibition and hopefully this is the first part towards doing so across the country. People have the right to trade and do business, and the right to choose what they put in their bodies. Protecting that right will take away the lethal power that gangs are now weilding, create far less non-violent criminals,

When the other states see that allowing adults to use substances doesn't end the world other states will follow suit. For the record I don't smoke weed and probably still wouldn't if it were legal. But it's the politics.

[Kohan]

Don't think anyone's brought up consumables/edibles in this argument, there's plenty of smoke free ways to take marijuana, easily available at any medicinal dispensary for the most part.

Yes, that's entirely true. While considering alternatives like vaporizers, I for some reason neglected to mention edibles.

Unfortunately, even edibles would present a problem if workplaces still looked down upon testing positive for THC. In an ideal world where they did not, edibles would be a fantastic way to imbibe without bothering anyone.

(Well, if not for the fact that some edibles also stink, but they can always be eaten outdoors.)

[Tellahh]

Unfortunately, even edibles would present a problem if workplaces still looked down upon testing positive for THC. In an ideal world where they did not, edibles would be a fantastic way to imbibe without bothering anyone.

I'm willing to bet they're going to leave it up to the employers discretion to test/fire for THC or not, I'm hoping most people will be level headed enough to accept this stance in our state, but I think I'm being optimistic lol.

[Jefe]

Considering that marijuana doesn't have the damaging side-effects of your average pharmaceutic product, what you're suggesting is that someone must prefer a more harmful substance to a more benign one, which directly contrasts the concept of "getting better." Such products are one of the strongest reasons medical marijuana has been campaigned for so fiercely; that, and the evidence related to its harmlessness in relation to alcohol and nicotine.

That would depend on the person's diagnosis, correct? For example, you wouldn't compare the medicine a patient infected w/ HIV, AIDs, Cancer, etc. has to take to someone who suffers from insomnia and uses zzzquil. You don't have any problems w/ a person taking a drug w/ hallucinogenic properties before, during, and after work?

[Pikarya]

http://i45.tinypic.com/x5wj6a.jpg

[Kurokikaze]

Why not? Second-hand smoke from cigarettes is harmful, but second-hand smoke from marijuana is not. I see absolutely no reason for marijuana smokers to not enjoy the same freedoms that cigarette smokers do.



I don't have a problem with this, as it's equal treatment. Despite the aforementioned second-hand smoke difference, it smells, makes the air smoky, etc.; I see no reason to dislike this restriction.



This, I disagree with as well. If cigarettes are allowed, there is no reason whatsoever for marijuana to be banned.

I meant because of contact high. Cigs don't alter your state of mind like alcohol/marijuana do so it gets a pass. Try not smoking marijuana at an indoor Bob Marley concert and see if you don't get high. I'm not saying that just passing by someone who is smoking pot will get you high... but stick around long enough and it will.

Because of that it's use in public areas will have to be regulated similar to alcohol.

Just a heads up, when I said all that I meant for general use in public areas. Medicinal purposes is obviously an exception.

[quannum]

sure is lack of common sense in here

[BaneTheBrawler]

You can show up to work drunk/drink on the job if you want. You're unlikely to keep said job, though. I see no reason why the same should not apply to weed. I'd say prohibit it indoors, though, like cigarettes. I don't care if the smoke is "harmless" (Protip: Smoke is never harmless, only varying degrees of harm), it does bad things to buildings/carpets/etc and if its concentrated enough it can give your coworkers a contact high, which is not cool. If they don't want to get high, they shouldn't have to.

As for consumables... sure, you can eat them wherever... but you're still taking mind altering drugs (Anything that alters the way your body functions is a drug- from cocaine to deodorant) so again, you'll probably get fired. There's also the issue of how you're gonna get home. Mind altering is mind altering, whether its booze or weed. You'll still get a DUI and earn the enmity of every sober person out there.

Edit: also, yeah, medicinal is special circumstances... but for medicinal, really the only thing that changes is you don't get fired for doing it at work. You still can't drive, you still shouldn't smoke around people who don't want to be breathing your smoke, and you still shouldn't smoke indoors at all.

[arus2001]

^ I can't stand the smell (don't smoke either, but I think it should be legalized). I'd kinda want there to be some public restrictions like smoking has even though it doesn't hurt second hand. I just really really hate that smell.

Gonna mirror this. I personally wouldn't have voted for legalization as I hate dealing with anyone drunk, stoned, or riled up by other mind-affecting drugs prescription or otherwise and simply loathe the concept of multiplying that likelihood. Unlike pills or drinks, though, smoke is intrusive to others, and at best, I'd hope it looks roughly similar to open container laws for booze and public intoxication. I'm sure someone will still bitch about it needlessly clogging up prisons, though. Otherwise, I'd call related crime data an important statistic to keep an eye on.

[Tellahh]

Gonna mirror this. I personally wouldn't have voted for legalization as I hate dealing with anyone drunk, stoned, or riled up by other mind-affecting drugs prescription or otherwise and simply loathe the concept of multiplying that likelihood. Unlike pills or drinks, though, smoke is intrusive to others, and at best, I'd hope it looks roughly similar to open container laws for booze and public intoxication. I'm sure someone will still bitch about it needlessly clogging up prisons, though. Otherwise, I'd call related crime data an important statistic to keep an eye on.

Really though, would you rather deal with a stoner that brings up his favourite music at every chance and forgets what you tell him after 5 seconds, or a drunk that passes out on you or wants to kick your ass because you looked at him wrong? And I'm all for keeping smoke out of people's faces, as I said, Cigarette smoke bothers the fuck out of me in public, I wouldn't want to piss others off with marijuana smoke. It honestly almost comes down to common courtesy.