Skip Nav
Wedding
50 States of Weddings: See What "I Do" Looks Like in Every State
Travel
Your Guide to Traveling With Sex Toys (Don't Worry, Yours Won't Be the First TSA's Seen)
Women
It Took Me Years to Report My Sexual Assault, but My Story Still Matters
Netflix
14 of the Sexiest TV Shows You Can Stream on Netflix in July

California Could Become First State to Legalize Marijuana

Speed Read! California Could Become First State to Legalize Weed

Image Source: Getty
Join The Conversation
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
Firing Squad? Good idea....
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
Quite fascinating, Greg. Just goes to show, not all conservatives are idiots. It's not every cop in the city, but instead of having 20 cops patrolling, they'll have 5. They can call in extra officers, but then they either lose officers on another shift, or they run into over time. Though with all the busts they make, maybe they can afford it, I don't know. It doesn't sit right with me, but like I said, all you have to do is call the station and they tell you. Yeah, there's actually a 800 number in OH for DUIs, cops stencil it onto all their cars. The US has the most lenient DUI laws in the world, in El Salvador you're executed by firing squad for your first offense. This link is for other country's penalties: http://webpages.charter.net/ricknet/duilaws.htm Pretty shocking! 2nd DUI here is only 10 days in jail.
GregS GregS 7 years
There was this very famous man who made a very radical recommendation a number of years ago. He recognized that there was a serious drug problem in the country. That the "war on drugs" wasn't solving the problem, just making getting the drugs a little more difficult for a short term. He saw that when you take one drug off the market, another pops up to replace it. He also saw that the 3 strikes laws were filling up the prisons so fast that we couldn't hold all of the prisoners. This statistic wasn't available to him, but 1:100 adults in the US have done time. Mostly drug related. He saw that the only way to combat drug abuse was to deal with the user. Cure the user and you solve the supply issue. So he wanted pharmacies to dispense the drugs on doctor's orders as part of a treatment plan. The taxes on the drugs would fund the treatment centers. This would have the added benefit of purifying the drugs to eliminate the potentially lethal impureties and to standardize the dosing which would avoid accidental ODs. There were many other points that he made, but I can't for the life of me think of them, but these were the salient points. So who was this flaming liberal? Well, he wasn't liberal by any stretch of the imagination. George H. Nash, a historian of the modern American conservative movement, believed that he was "arguably the most important public intellectual in the United States in the past half century". "For an entire generation he was the preeminent voice of American conservatism and its first great ecumenical figure." He was, William F. Buckley, Jr.
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
Don't they do routine patrols AND DUI checkpoints? There would still be cops out during the checkpoints, there would have to be. I remember reading in the paper all the time about traffic accidents caused by drunk drivers, it was happening a lot. One time a guy who had more than 10 DUIs entered the freeway going the wrong way and smashed into a car full of teenage boys, all of the boys were killed (4 or 5). When I first started working back at my fast food job, there was a 19 year old who was drunk and went the wrong way on the freeway. He ended up going 3-4 miles (at night) before crashing into numerous cars, killing himself, a woman, and her unborn child. The crash stopped at the freeway next to my work (I wasn't there that night, but my coworkers heard it). Some of my classmates were killed by drunk drivers. I just don't understand why anyone would put themselves in that situation. If you're going to drink, do it at a home. Have a DD, have someone take your keys, something. There's no excuse. In California, the signs say to call 911 to report a drunk driver. They need to speed up the process of taking information though.
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
I mean an ounce *OFF* the internet.
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
Yeah, I figured someone had taken it to the Supreme Court, but it still rubs me the wrong way. They catch more DUI drivers, but I'm sure the average BAC is lower. Is it better to catch 10 .08 BAC drivers at a checkpoint, or to catch one .2 BAC driver by carrying out routine patrols? It's a tough question to answer. I called 1-800-GRAB-DUI once, and the operator gave me lip! Ridiculous. So I haven't called since. When you take a drug test, they only test to a certain concentration, I think it's 50 nanograms per milliliter, something like that. Maybe for work tests they could up the concentration to 200 ng/ml, so someone could smoke on the weekend and still pass their test for the work week. I don't know... I'm sure some companies wouldn't allow it to be smoked at all. Anon 37, salvia isn't illegal because they don't know about it yet. I tried it back in high school, my underage friend ordered an ounce of the internet for $10... Whatever, I didn't care for it, it made me feel too dissociated.
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
"In 1990, the United States Supreme Court declared that sobriety checkpoints did not violate citizen's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. However, the Supreme Court decided that when these checks are preformed with minimal intrusion under specified guidelines, the benefit of these checkpoints greatly outweighs the minor intrusion on individual's rights. Each state has adopted laws of their own regarding sobriety checkpoints. Currently, Georgia allows the use of sobriety roadblocks. " I think if a cop just looks at the driver for a moment to see if they show signs of intoxication and checks for proper driving ID, it's not an issue. According to websites, in these cases, they cannot go in your car if you refuse and lock it behind you. Considering how many drunk driving accidents we had in California, anything to prevent more loss of life was fine with me. I remember one holiday they set up a point and arrested more than 50 people driving over the legal limit. If checkpoints are ineffective (I keep reading mixed things online), then they should be done away with. What's sad is I've called to report drunk drivers before (3 or 4 times). By the time the 911 operator gets the info, a full minute or two has gone and the person is out of sight, no idea which directions they're heading. Anon 35 - Very good question. I would like to know the answer as well. I would think it would still be on drug tests, legal or not, most companies prefer drug-free employees. If a person comes in to work high, they could potentially cause an accident (slows reaction time and impairs motor coordination).
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
The DUI checkpoints bother me because they're a clear violation of the 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Is it reasonable to assume that every single person driving down Main St Friday night is drunk? Of course not! Cops set these checkpoints up KNOWING that they'll be searching innocent people. I can't believe more people aren't up-in-arms about them.
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
Judging from what I've heard from cops who are family friends and neighbors, it's a very good thing. I've known a few people who died in car accidents caused by people driving drunk and/or with a suspended license (usually from a DUI). It seems like no matter what cops do, it's not good enough to people. My sisters boyfriend was involved in a car accident (not his fault) where the person who hit him died. She had no insurance and his truck was totaled. His insurance didn't cover it, so he was left to pay what he owed on the truck in addition to paying for a different car to get him to work. If it keeps people safe and makes revenue for the city to improve road conditions and pay for public services, I'm all for it.
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
If you call the department and ask where their checkpoints will be, they tell you. They catch a lot of people and bring in lots of revenue, but still I wonder if they'd be protecting the community better just sticking to their usual patrols. Legalization is a really tough issue all around, though it's not something we'll be deciding right away.
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
Whhhhat? That's insane. If it was a spork, I could understand. Those things are pretty damn dangerous. You could poke someone's eye out with one! Yes, DUI check points are set up. The thing is, they catch A LOT of people breaking the law. The reports usually show people driving over the legal limit (.08), people with expired registrations, suspended licenses, or no insurance. I don't think it's a bad thing. If you're following the law, you're fine. Not every car is searched, I know a few people who went through them. The thing that gets me, the newspaper TELLS you when and where they will be set up. More people need to read the paper if they're going to be breaking the law :p Continuous lanes... maybe weaving in and out of traffic? I don't think society would crumble, but I think more people under the influence would be on the roads, at school, and at work. Just like if they lowered the drinking age to 18, there would be more people driving drunk. Even thinking that, I'm still not really against legalization.
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
There's no legal case, it's "an honest mistake, ma'am, thank you for your time, and we apologize." It's not well-to-do white business men, it's anyone young, non-white, tattooed, or in a flashy car. Anything they find is fair game. They 'smelled something suspicious' on me once, searched my car, and charged me with 'concealment of a deadly weapon' because I had charcoal, plastic spoons/forks, and a STEAK KNIFE in my trunk. It got dropped; but still. Ridiculous. They ask you, "Do you have anything in the car I need to know about?" If they don't like the way you answer, it's probable cause. Sometimes they ask, "Can I look?" And if you say No its probable cause because who, except a criminal, would say no? Do you have DUI checkpoints in CA? They put up a road block, search and breathalyze everyone and every car, run your name & check your insurance. It's 100% legal, which is terrifying. They have this law called 'continuous lanes,' it pretty much means they don't like the way you look while you're driving. I got a ticket for it once, I even asked the judge what it meant, he told me, "Oh it could mean anything. I don't know." One more thing I'd like to add, when I said, "Some people are irresponsible and reckless, I don't think legalization will change who is and who isn't." What I mean is, a lot of people have this idea that society will crumble completely after legalization. The people who WOULD BE high at work are the people now who come in drunk, steal things and slack off. Our country will be different, but I don't think it would be worse.
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
I read up on that, that's pretty messed up. Seems like a cop could easily say something to get in the car if they wanted to. The problem is, if they're going in for one thing and find something else, it's possible you won't get charged with another offense. I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that from my Administration of Justice teacher. Or maybe that just applies to search warrants. If you believe you were unfairly targeted (when you didn't have anything on you), I'm sure you would have a legal case against the officer. I guess if you're going to knowingly break the law carrying drugs on you, make sure you obey traffic laws. Or just do it at home.
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
By early age I mean 11 or 12.
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
Yeah I guess both use and abuse would rise. I'm definitely not in favor of legalization without comprehensive unbiased drug education at an early age. In OH if a cop says he smells it, it's reason enough. There's a lot of profiling, racially and just by the way you're dressed and what you're driving. They call it 'probable cause'. If he finds weed that means he was right, if he doesn't find it, there's nothing you can do about it. I personally think it's a load of garbage.
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
"I've had cops pull me over, CLAIM to smell it, and turn my car upside only to find nothing" That is absolutely illegal in California. If you step out of your car, you have to make sure you close your doors though. The problem is, people don't know their rights and police officers can take advantage of that. I mean rates of use and abuse.
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
CA is so laid back when it comes to marijuana laws. In OH, it's all they do. They stick their head in your car and sniff around for it when they pull you over. I've had cops pull me over, CLAIM to smell it, and turn my car upside only to find nothing; it happens to people round here all the time. Sometimes I think marijuana is more of a priority here than gangs or hard-drugs, because it's a low-risk bust and it brings in much needed police revenue. One county south of me, you get three days mandatory jail if they even find a seed or a stem in your car; in OH your license is suspended 6 month automatically for possession or paraphernalia with no work privileges. This one cop knew my friend smoked and would repeatedly pull him over and confiscate his stash but never charge him; in later years he started buying from that same cop. There would still be corrupt cops confiscating-and-selling hard drugs, but there wouldn't be much of a market to sell them to. The only real change in availability would be who you could buy it from. There's no legal age to sell weed because it's illegal for everyone. 12 year olds don't buy from sleazy adults standing outside their school yard, they buy from other 12 year olds. When you say rates of smoking would change, do you mean rates of USE or rates of ABUSE? Like alcohol, there would be people who abuse it, but I think the majority would use it responsibly. If it was legal, at least the dangers would publicized. Some people are irresponsible and reckless, I don't think legalization will change who is and who isn't.
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
I think most people are biased... if you smoke it, you want it legalized, if you don't, you don't care or you don't want it legalized. I've read both sides, I see both sides, I just don't know which is right. I was born and raised in Cali, cops are not focusing their time and energy on pot smokers. No matter what an issue is, people ALWAYS say that. Most cops in my area focused on the gang problems or hard drug dealers. I know a lot of people enjoy smoking it, but you KNOW the risks of getting caught, so you can't get too angry when you're busted (this goes for underage drinking too). I know quite a few people who have been caught with it, they were pulled over for more serious offenses (DUI, hit and run, cases where they were arrested) when it was discovered. Cops can't search your car if you get pulled over for speeding, so it's not something that people get caught for often. I know more than a handful of people who didn't even get a slap on the wrist for possession. My concern with legalizing it is making it more available (yes, I'm aware of how easy it is to get now) and more socially acceptable because it falls into the wrong hands. I recently watched a talk show episode about Mom's who smoked. They would even drive with their kids in the car. Changing the law would likely increase rates of smoking. Some of my coworkers used to come in to work high... their job performance sucked, made them lazy as heck. I was the only one at my entire workplace that didn't smoke. Only one. If people want to do that in their free time in the safety of their home, fine, but when people start bringing it to school, work, and their parenting responsibilities, we have a problem. Ditto with driving under the influence of it. I think most people on the anti-side are afraid of those consequences.
Bettye-Wayne Bettye-Wayne 7 years
In that study, what do they mean by 'move on to cocaine'? Do they mean get hopelessly addicted, or just try it? I'd be interested to see what percentage of people who begin smoking weed at age 18+ have tried hard drugs. I'd also be interested to see what percentage of people who try hard drugs get addicted, I would bet the majority who experiment with hard drugs don't. Either way Dana a lot of people are undecided on this issue. I think we as a society should at least take an unbiased look at the pros and cons of legalization. The two biggest pros for me are OF COURSE much needed tax dollars, and also, if cops don't have to run around busting pot-heads, the can focus on capturing REAL VIOLENT CRIMINALS and getting REAL DRUGS like heroin, crack-cocaine and meth off the streets. They could also crack down on underage consumption. I can't think of any cons, but of course, I am quite biased on the matter. I plan on talking honest with my kid about the difference between weed and hard drugs. Modern society may think it's okay to miseducate children, but I sure as hell don't.
danakscully64 danakscully64 7 years
She knew the dangers, she just thought she could do it a few times and not get hooked. Same ol' story of stupidity. If you're hanging out with people who smoke pot, you're more likely around the crowd who do other drugs as well. That combined with an addictive personality... bad. One study found that youth (12-17 years old) who use marijuana, are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than kids that do not use pot, and that 60% of the kids who smoke pot before the age of 15 move on to cocaine. The problem is, many people who do drugs start young (before they can fully understand the consequences of their actions) and many who do them don't have the emotional support at home they need. They may have parents who don't care or strict parents they're rebelling against. It's easier said than done to "not go through the gate." Children shouldn't have access to drugs, period, they're not capable of making great decisions. The problem now in our society is prescription drug abuse. My friend who did speed... she was never told by her Mom that pot was bad because she used to smoke it herself. I agree, no more Anon on topics like this. I'm still on the fence though, I don't know if either law is good or bad.
Amazon Buys Whole Foods
Prince George and Princess Charlotte Being Normal Kids
Jennifer Lopez Best Street Style Ever
Princess Charlotte Crying in Germany Pictures
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds