Marijuana is Equal to a Parking Fine in California

Marijuana is Equal to a Parking Fine in California

Not quite. A hundred bucks is cheaper than some parking tickets I've seen.

GO AH-NULD

"This virtual legalization of marijuana definitely sends the wrong message to teenagers and young adults," Thomasson said. "It invites youth to become addicted to mind-altering pot because there's not much hassle and no public stigma and no rehab if they're caught."

Not a hassle? I'd imagine that the civil infractors would find losing up to an ounce to be a big hassle actually.

On a serious note. Tax it, fine it, whatever, just spend the state's resources on bigger issues.

It's been that way in Colorado since 1975, but it's nice to see them catch up.

Yeah, that's the right thing to do. That stuff is mostly harmless, much less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. The whole 'gateway drug' theory only works because it's illegal -- adults try to scare kids out of using it, they try it anyway, and realize that adults are lying to them yet AGAIN (we do that ALL the goddamn time). So they figure that the warnings about the stuff that's ACTUALLY dangerous are also lies, and get themselves in trouble.

Pot, in other words, wouldn't be a gateway drug if we were honest about it up front. Lying and saying it's this horrible ravening monster that will inevitably eat your soul does more harm than good. It means that the REAL warnings, about tobacco and cocaine and opiates and meth, get ignored.

Malor wrote:

Yeah, that's the right thing to do. That stuff is mostly harmless, much less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. The whole 'gateway drug' theory only works because it's illegal -- adults try to scare kids out of using it, they try it anyway, and realize that adults are lying to them yet AGAIN (we do that ALL the goddamn time). So they figure that the warnings about the stuff that's ACTUALLY dangerous are also lies, and get themselves in trouble.

Pot, in other words, wouldn't be a gateway drug if we were honest about it up front. Lying and saying it's this horrible ravening monster that will inevitably eat your soul does more harm than good. It means that the REAL warnings, about tobacco and cocaine and opiates and meth, get ignored.

Hmm... do I smell patchoulli?

I got the chance to visit Market Street in San Francisco a few years ago. I was blown away by how open the pot smoking was. People in the streets puffing, a guy at a bus stop was rolling up, people selling it. No fear at all, even with police down the street. Almost felt like warning them, "psst, hey buddy, watch out! There's a cop down the street!" lol

That same weekend I got to witness their (annual?) Gay Pride parade. The scale of this was very impressive, must've cost quite a bit.

This all blew my mind...of course I was visiting from Texas

Anyways, cool place.

Malor wrote:

So they figure that the warnings about the stuff that's ACTUALLY dangerous are also lies, and get themselves in trouble.

And Schwarzenegger vetoed two other bills that would have helped with those. One step forward, two steps back.

You're still screwed getting a job though if it requires a piss test.

edit: This has me wondering. Would it be a lawful condition of employment to preclude you from a completely arbitrary and legal behavior? For instance, can an employer state that a condition of employment for working in his office is that you have to be in bed by 9pm every night? Would it be lawful for him to hire private investigators to enforce that policy?

Paleocon wrote:

You're still screwed getting a job though if it requires a piss test.

edit: This has me wondering. Would it be a lawful condition of employment to preclude you from a completely arbitrary and legal behavior? For instance, can an employer state that a condition of employment for working in his office is that you have to be in bed by 9pm every night? Would it be lawful for him to hire private investigators to enforce that policy?

Some places have policies against hiring smokers (for example) so, yes.

NathanialG wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

You're still screwed getting a job though if it requires a piss test.

edit: This has me wondering. Would it be a lawful condition of employment to preclude you from a completely arbitrary and legal behavior? For instance, can an employer state that a condition of employment for working in his office is that you have to be in bed by 9pm every night? Would it be lawful for him to hire private investigators to enforce that policy?

I would love to have more restrictions on what a company could look at when hiring you. I think that the only thing they should have the power to check is your work history.

This a billion times.

Paleocon wrote:

You're still screwed getting a job though if it requires a piss test.

edit: This has me wondering. Would it be a lawful condition of employment to preclude you from a completely arbitrary and legal behavior? For instance, can an employer state that a condition of employment for working in his office is that you have to be in bed by 9pm every night? Would it be lawful for him to hire private investigators to enforce that policy?

I would love to have more restrictions on what a company could look at when hiring you. I think that the only thing they should have the power to check is your work history.

Paleocon wrote:

You're still screwed getting a job though if it requires a piss test.

edit: This has me wondering. Would it be a lawful condition of employment to preclude you from a completely arbitrary and legal behavior? For instance, can an employer state that a condition of employment for working in his office is that you have to be in bed by 9pm every night? Would it be lawful for him to hire private investigators to enforce that policy?

I would say that employers can only enforce behaviour when it's on company time, but I've known people who have been severely reprimanded (and one who was fired) for posting pictures of "embarrassing behaviour" on social network sites, even though said behaviour had nothing to do with work and couldn't possibly impact it in any way.

(granted, they were idiots to publicly post those pics in the first place)

I'd say that the subject line is incredibly false. Marijuana is definitely better than a parking fine.

As long as they don't confiscate it at the prices you guys pay.

A high price here is about $4 an ounce.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

You're still screwed getting a job though if it requires a piss test.

edit: This has me wondering. Would it be a lawful condition of employment to preclude you from a completely arbitrary and legal behavior? For instance, can an employer state that a condition of employment for working in his office is that you have to be in bed by 9pm every night? Would it be lawful for him to hire private investigators to enforce that policy?

I would love to have more restrictions on what a company could look at when hiring you. I think that the only thing they should have the power to check is your work history.

This a billion times.

It doesn't take 2 minutes to think of a scenario where they should check. Say a convicted pedofile applying for a job with children - but his work record was great!

farley3k wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

You're still screwed getting a job though if it requires a piss test.

edit: This has me wondering. Would it be a lawful condition of employment to preclude you from a completely arbitrary and legal behavior? For instance, can an employer state that a condition of employment for working in his office is that you have to be in bed by 9pm every night? Would it be lawful for him to hire private investigators to enforce that policy?

I would love to have more restrictions on what a company could look at when hiring you. I think that the only thing they should have the power to check is your work history.

This a billion times.

It doesn't take 2 minutes to think of a scenario where they should check. Say a convicted pedofile applying for a job with children - but his work record was great!

Which of course leads us to the argument over "Didn't they do their time?"

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Which of course leads us to the argument over "Didn't they do their time?"

Which of course leads us to the subject of punitive facial tattooing at the time of sentencing.
"Poor Impulse Control."

It's called decriminalization (not "virtual legalization"), and about 39 States (maybe 40 now) have already done it. Usually, anything less than an oz is a fine (usually $100 or so). Possession of more, or selling, are still major crimes. Decriminalization is still not legalization, which is still a long way off in any State because of the fed laws.

How much is 1 ounce, anyway? How much do you need, say, to make one joint?

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

How much is 1 ounce, anyway? How much do you need, say, to make one joint?

An eighth is enough for 2-3 people, unless you are Snoop Dogg or Woody Harrelson.

edit: or it was for college kids a decade ago.

Seth wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

How much is 1 ounce, anyway? How much do you need, say, to make one joint?

An eighth is enough for 2-3 people, unless you are Snoop Dogg or Woody Harrelson.

edit: or it was for college kids a decade ago.

From what I understand from reading the fear inspired media, the potency of marijuana has increased dramatically in the last decade, so I assume that figure might need adjusting.

While 1oz is enough for several people, I could be mixing up my jargon, and it could be less than a kilo/pound...? I haven't needed to research the issue for a few years (since an undergrad paper I wrote) and I'm not exactly in the business that allows the smoking of the weed.

From what I understand from reading the fear inspired media, the potency of marijuana has increased dramatically in the last decade, so I assume that figure might need adjusting.

haha. I find that hard to believe, although not impossible. Judging from that circle of my friends that eschews alcohol for cannabis, the real problem is shady sources cutting it with more dangerous chemicals -- cocaine and acid being typical culprits.

I'm lucky my drugs of choice -- caffiene and alcohol -- are legal.

Paleocon wrote:
Seth wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

How much is 1 ounce, anyway? How much do you need, say, to make one joint?

An eighth is enough for 2-3 people, unless you are Snoop Dogg or Woody Harrelson.

edit: or it was for college kids a decade ago.

From what I understand from reading the fear inspired media, the potency of marijuana has increased dramatically in the last decade, so I assume that figure might need adjusting.

Potency is up dramatically. It's not even in the same ballpark. For one, growing techniques have improved, and two, more and more of the pot sold today is Sinsemilla, to point no one even makes a real distinction anymore. Now, the government is using this information to spread more fears about how much more harmful this more potent marijuana is. But really, the overall effect is that people smoke less.

But an ounce will get you about 30-40 joints. The average Joe tends to buy either a quarter or an eighth of an ounce at any given time. But today, one person doesn't need to finish a joint. Seriously, a couple of hits is plenty. So rolling a joint is massively overkill, and wasteful. When a quarter was $10 (a dime bag), and potency was way down, it made sense. But with potency up, and prices running from $60-$120, people find more efficient methods. So even at a high of $12 a joint, it's still not that expensive compared to liquor.

In other words, the only people holding more than an ounce are the guys selling it. If you do feel he need to buy in bulk, you are sure not lugging it around with you.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

How much is 1 ounce, anyway? How much do you need, say, to make one joint?

Let's put it this way - anyone buying an ounce probably shops at Costco. Same mentality

Back in college, when I was hitting it hard, all day, every day, an eighth would last me about a little under a week.

Can't imagine potency has changed that much in the space of a decade. Maybe I'm wrong.

Jonman wrote:

Can't imagine potency has changed that much in the space of a decade. Maybe I'm wrong.

It really has.

From a 2004 article:

First, the potency issue. According to the WhiteHousedrugpolicy.gov website (last updated on October 16, 2004), pot’s average potency today stands at approximately 5 percent THC. (THC is short for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.) Indeed, this figure is an increase over past years – pot’s THC content averaged 4 percent in the 1990s and just under 3 percent for the 1980s – but it’s hardly an alarming one. Marijuana poses no risk of fatal overdose, regardless of THC content, and studies indicate that recreational pot smokers readily distinguish between high and low potency weed and moderate their use accordingly – just as an alcohol consumer would drink fewer ounces of (high potency) bourbon than they would ounces of (low potency) beer.

From a 2009 article on CNN:

The average potency of marijuana, which has risen steadily for three decades, has exceeded 10 percent for the first time, the U.S. government will report on Thursday.

Scientists working for the government predict that potency, as measured by the drug's concentration of the psychoactive ingredient THC, will continue to rise.

At the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project, where thousands of samples of seized marijuana are tested every year, project director Mahmoud ElSohly said some samples have THC levels exceeding 30 percent.

Average THC concentrations will continue to climb before leveling off at 15 percent or 16 percent in five to 10 years, ElSohly predicted.

I pretty much avoid the stuff anymore, like anyone else who grew up. But what I have seen is pot that is not only stronger today, but strong stuff is far more prevalent. It used to be more urban myth 20 years ago. But hydroponics has pretty much changed all of that.

The question for scientists now is whether the stronger pot is better or worse for you. the government is just going to go with the scare tactic message that stronger is worse. But THC is fairly non-toxic. And you don't really get more high, as much as you just smoke less. Smoking less is probably a huge net benefit, as the process of smoking it is the most harmful part.

I'd argue that the increase potency has actually made it safer.

I'd argue that anyone over 30 still smoking pot should really re-examine their priorities. But I freely admit to being a bit conservative in that regard.

Paleocon wrote:

I'd argue that anyone over 30 still smoking pot should really re-examine their priorities. But I freely admit to being a bit conservative in that regard.

I think you are letting stereotypes affect how you view pot smoking. Because anyone over 30 that wake and bakes, and muddles through their day in a stoner haze has some serious issues. As would an alcoholic that does the same thing. But a 30 year-old that has a beer or a couple of drinks in the late evening, after priorities are taken care of, wouldn't be considered immature. I'd say the same goes for a guy that smokes a bowl.

But pot is illegal, so smoking is a deviant behavior. When enough people participate in a deviant behavior, it increase the number of people that actually decide to identify themselves with that deviant behavior. Something doesn't have to be illegal to be considered deviant behavior, but it helps. It's why prohibition caused more problems that it solved.

In fact, because it is illegal, folks that you would consider responsible adults, hide their use. If you are not a user, there is no benefit to exposing themselves to you.

Paleocon wrote:

I'd argue that anyone over 30 still smoking pot should really re-examine their priorities. But I freely admit to being a bit conservative in that regard.

I'll argue that anyone over 30 who makes blanket statements like that ought to think their posts through a little more.

I've known people who self-medicate with pot instead of taking anti-depressants. To them, they're better off smoking than not.

In a broader sense, I equate it with drinking. If you get sh*tfaced all the time, you could probably do with rethinking things a little, regardless of whether it's weed, booze, acid or whatever else. If you enjoy a tipple every now and again, and it's not impacting your ability to lead your life, go right on ahead.