# Legalization of Cannabis WA/ CO



## Achilles (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm sure most of are aware Colorado and Washington state leagalized Cannabis. 
I'm pretty sure it's still illegal under fedral law, right?
So if you have it in your possession (not smoking it, inhaling, eating or consuming it in any way) and you're pulled over, can't you still be fined under federal law?
Cannabis being an psychedelic drug and also hallucinate, has a high potential for abuse, which is why it is a schedule 1 drug per the Controlled Substance Act (CSA.) Will the scheduling of the drug ever change? Will federal law ever change? What is your opinion on the legalization.


----------



## VFlutter (Nov 7, 2012)

I will not try to debate the medical aspect of marijuana but I am of the opinion that there are more dangerous things out there are currently legal. That being said, the fact that marijuana is illegal now really means nothing. It is incredibly cheap and easy to get. Most kids in highschool can get weed easier than he can get alcohol. So why not legalize, regulate, and tax it? You would hopefully cut down on the more dangerous (Laced) product and also cut down on crime related to its sale while creating revenue. 

*I personally do not smoke (or ever have) so I don't really care either way but from a public stand point in this it makes more sense to legalize it.

Also I do not think it should be schedule one. I think it was put there based on incorrect information and political propaganda from the past.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Nov 7, 2012)

ChaseZ33 said:


> So why not legalize, regulate, and tax it?



/thread. Our government needs money, does this not seem like a good way to help boost income especially with some of the newer information that has come out in regards to marijuana?

Yes under federal law it is still illegal and can be prosecuted as such. Only reason the schedule will change is if it becomes federally accepted for medicinal reasons or if it is legalized all together.


----------



## JPINFV (Nov 7, 2012)

Achilles said:


> I'm sure most of are aware Colorado and Washington state leagalized Cannabis.
> I'm pretty sure it's still illegal under fedral law, right?
> So if you have it in your possession (not smoking it, inhaling, eating or consuming it in any way) and you're pulled over, can't you still be fined under federal law?


Sure, but that would have to be prosecuted by a Federal prosecutor in Federal court. Additionally, nothing is going to force state and local police departments from enforcing Federal law. Basically the states are telling the Feds that they can go have fun enforcing the drug laws. 




> Cannabis being an psychedelic drug and also hallucinate, has a high potential for abuse, which is why it is a schedule 1 drug per the Controlled Substance Act (CSA.) Will the scheduling of the drug ever change? Will federal law ever change? What is your opinion on the legalization.


 
The other key part about scedule 1 is that there has to be no acceptable medical use. Hence why marijuana is schedule 1 and cocaine is scedule 2. Will it ever change? I guess it's possible to get it down to 2 or 3 assuming an acceptable use is found. However since it's so hard to do research on it due to it's scheduling, it's rather unlikely. It's schedule 1 because there's no use, and there's no research on use because it's schedule 1.


----------



## triemal04 (Nov 7, 2012)

Achilles said:


> I'm sure most of are aware Colorado and Washington state leagalized Cannabis.
> I'm pretty sure it's still illegal under fedral law, right?
> So if you have it in your possession (not smoking it, inhaling, eating or consuming it in any way) and you're pulled over, can't you still be fined under federal law?


Yes it is, and yes, I suppose if a federal law enforcement agent stopped you they could fine and/or arrest you...though the number of feds doing car stops is...low to put it mildly.  More likely they would be going after larger growers and retailers.  Basically the same thing they've been doing to certain suppliers of medical marijuana.


Achilles said:


> Cannabis being an psychedelic drug and also hallucinate, has a high potential for abuse, which is why it is a schedule 1 drug per the Controlled Substance Act (CSA.)


Please tell me you said that with tongue firmly planted in cheek.  Please tell me that...


JPINFV said:


> Additionally, nothing is going to force state and local police departments from enforcing Federal law. Basically the states are telling the Feds that they can go have fun enforcing the drug laws.


Not completely true.  What could easily happen would be something similar to what went on back in the day with freeway speed limits.  A state (like Idaho which caved, or Montana which kind of did) does something the federal gov't doesn't like, so to get compliance they cut off certain funding to the state until they fall into line.  

And to anyone who doesn't live in the Pacific Northwest, pot isn't really legalized in Washington; amounts of under 1 ounce (for dried buds) or higher for edible or liquid forms are legal for anyone over 21 to possess.  With the proper state licence it will be legal to grow, process, or sell, but how all that will play out has yet to be determined; it's in the hands of the state liquor board and up to them to decided how to do it and regulate it.  There's also a hefty tax on it, and provisions for handing out DUI's for driving after smoking/eating.  So if the average person get's stopped with a pound or tries to grow it at home...they are still able to be legally arrested.

Basically the law was a compromise that leaned more towards keeping it ILLEGAL, which is why it pissed off so many pro-legalization groups.


----------



## Jambi (Nov 7, 2012)

One thing to consider when pondering the likelihood of coming across a federal officer is that park rangers, game wardens, and fish and game agents are all federal agents, so that fishing trip with a little weed is a state that allows it can go very sour...

Just a thought.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Nov 7, 2012)

Don't mind me I'll just be stacking these sand bags over here in front of this comfy lawn chair where I can watch the show 

Federal law trumps state law by the way so yes you could be arrested for something that is considered legal by the state. As an example pot store owners in California are raided arrested and charged by federal agents on occasion.


----------



## Jambi (Nov 7, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> Don't mind me I'll just be stacking these sand bags over here in front of this comfy lawn chair where I can watch the show
> 
> Federal law trumps state law by the way so yes you could be arrested for something that is considered legal by the state. As an example pot store owners in California are raided arrested and charged by federal agents on occasion.



This isn't nearly as confrontational an opinion as I'd expect from a Texan lol


----------



## Summit (Nov 8, 2012)

In some areas, local ordinances specify that the local PD is to make cannabis enforcement the "lowest priority."


----------



## Veneficus (Nov 8, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> The other key part about scedule 1 is that there has to be no acceptable medical use. Hence why marijuana is schedule 1 and cocaine is scedule 2. Will it ever change? I guess it's possible to get it down to 2 or 3 assuming an acceptable use is found. However since it's so hard to do research on it due to it's scheduling, it's rather unlikely. It's schedule 1 because there's no use, and there's no research on use because it's schedule 1.



The interesting thing about that and THC is that THC does have a use in palliative care.


----------



## JPINFV (Nov 8, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> The interesting thing about that and THC is that THC does have a use in palliative care.




It's use isn't "accepted" enough to change the rating of THC. I state this as a fact, not as a personal judgement one way or the other.


----------



## Veneficus (Nov 8, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> It's use isn't "accepted" enough to change the rating of THC. I state this as a fact, not as a personal judgement one way or the other.



I know, I was stating a fact also.

Most of the people who claim medicinal uses for THC do not understand the legit uses are for terminal patients where curative medicine is withdrawn and comfort care initiated.


----------



## Achilles (Nov 8, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I know, I was stating a fact also.
> 
> Most of the people who claim medicinal uses for THC do not understand the legit uses are for terminal patients where curative medicine is withdrawn and comfort care initiated.



Isn't it more of a side effect of the drug? Eg. Helping with loss of appetite in cancer Pt's. it's not curing cancer but it's supposedly helping cancer Pt's. Also it seems as it would be more difficult to show that marijuanna or the active ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; put you at greater risk for other illnesses due to its legality.


----------



## Veneficus (Nov 8, 2012)

Achilles said:


> Isn't it more of a side effect of the drug? Eg. Helping with loss of appetite in cancer Pt's. it's not curing cancer but it's supposedly helping cancer Pt's. Also it seems as it would be more difficult to show that marijuanna or the active ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; put you at greater risk for other illnesses due to its legality.



Your body has endocanniboid in the CNS, the total effects are not yet elucidated, but aside from apetite control, it has several observed effects on the CNS which are beneficial to terminal patients.

Palliative care is not really my thing, but 6 months of adult and peds palliative care was a mandatory class and rotation for me.


----------



## Jambi (Nov 8, 2012)

To play devil's advocate here...

Aren't all drugs simply chemicals used for their positive effects/side-effects where whose use is balanced with its toxic effects?


----------



## Veneficus (Nov 8, 2012)

Jambi said:


> To play devil's advocate here...
> 
> Aren't all drugs simply chemicals used for their positive effects/side-effects where whose use is balanced with its toxic effects?



That is the general idea and near the quote of the father of pharmacology.


----------



## patput (Nov 8, 2012)

I personally see no issue with the legalization of marijuana. I've the lost friends from high school and college to drinking - a DUI accident, stupid decisions (fell into a gorge), and alcohol poisoning. I can't say the same is true about marijuana, at most I've got friends that got fat from too much time with the munchies.


----------



## triemal04 (Nov 8, 2012)

Actually Marinol has been used for quite awhile in non-terminal cancer patients undergoing chemo.  It's not just for comfort care in terminal patients.

One of the original arguements against medical marijuana was that a synthetic THC was allready available, and in use by the population thar was initially pointed to as the likely users.


----------



## ThirdCareerMedic (Nov 9, 2012)

*Marijuana vs alcohol....*

Where I live, I prefer to deal with pot smokers as patients rather than someone intoxicated with alcohol.  I haven't been assaulted by someone high on grass yet but I have come close on a number of times with drunks....  Hard to figure why one is legal and the other is not....  LOL.  (Just to be clear, I don't like dealing with anyone under the influence....)


----------



## CFal (Nov 9, 2012)

Achilles said:


> I'm sure most of are aware Colorado and Washington state leagalized Cannabis.
> I'm pretty sure it's still illegal under fedral law, right?
> So if you have it in your possession (not smoking it, inhaling, eating or consuming it in any way) and you're pulled over, can't you still be fined under federal law?
> Cannabis being an psychedelic drug and also hallucinate, has a high potential for abuse, which is why it is a schedule 1 drug per the Controlled Substance Act (CSA.) Will the scheduling of the drug ever change? Will federal law ever change? What is your opinion on the legalization.



Non-fed LEOs can't enforce federal law, Obama told us that about Arizona's immigration law.


----------



## EMTFozzy (Nov 9, 2012)

There are ups and downs to this. That is all I am gonna say on that. Good news is I am opening up new quick stop stores to capitalize on the midnight munchie runs!!!!


----------



## codethree (Nov 10, 2012)

Im from Washington and yes it is still illegal under federal law. Personaly I think it was a bad idea to leagalize it because it will only cause more car wreaks and other issues due to driving under the influence. Although on the other hand that is job security for us right!? And it will bring money into the state, Washington is talking about taxing it up to 50%.


----------



## chillybreeze (Nov 10, 2012)

I tend to disagree on the car wreck issue.  People will be more paranoid about their driving while smoking pot than the reckless driving some people have driving while under the influence of alcohol


----------



## NomadicMedic (Nov 10, 2012)

chillybreeze said:


> I tend to disagree on the car wreck issue.  People will be more paranoid about their driving while smoking pot than the reckless driving some people have driving while under the influence of alcohol



Got a citation for this, or is it just based on anecdotal experiences?


----------



## ThirdCareerMedic (Nov 10, 2012)

n7lxi said:


> Got a citation for this, or is it just based on anecdotal experiences?



:lol: I would like to see a research proposal for a study on this!


----------



## chillybreeze (Nov 10, 2012)

:rofl:   ummm.....ahhhh...lets just say anecdotal experience!  My teen years were a long time ago!  I think I remember them!!


----------



## chillybreeze (Nov 10, 2012)

ThirdCareerMedic said:


> :lol: I would like to see a research proposal for a study on this!





They have studies on everything else Im surprised they havent done one!!!:blink:


----------



## firetender (Nov 11, 2012)

Here's a start:

http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Myths-Facts-Scientific-Evidence/dp/0964156849

It's important that each of us comes to a better understanding of ALL of the intoxicants that human beings will use, especially the ones where there is what's true and what we are told. The illegality of marijuana is an important industry for the U.S. because it fills so many privately operated jails.


----------



## Cleric (Nov 16, 2012)

Achilles said:


> Cannabis being an psychedelic drug and also hallucinate, has a high potential for abuse, which is why it is a schedule 1 drug per the Controlled Substance Act (CSA.).




Having used Cannabis a handful (4-6) of times as a wee lad (read: 16-17 y/o), I can safely say that there are no hallucinogenic effects that result from use of marijuana (unless it has been laced). While THC is a psychoactive chemical, it is considered a mild psychedelic. 

I get the feeling that a majority of the harsh treatment of the drug is a result of misinformation and inexperience. While most of my knowledge might be considered skewered because of my "bias" due to past use, I assure you it's as objective as possible. I only tried it a limited number of times because I couldn't stand the high, nor the people and atmospheres generally associated with it. The high is similar to being drunk, but much more sluggish and peaceful. While drunk, one might feel invincible or all-knowing, cannabis tends to make even the more roided-out frat boy turn into a harmless smirking Cheshire Cat, and makes you more curious and pseudo-philosophical than anything.

The reason I describe this, is because the original reasoning for the banning of Marijuana in the US was mainly a political issue. Industrial hemp was cheaper and more effective than most materials such as wood pulp or jute and would put paper-makers and the like out of business if they didn't overhaul their manufacturing structure. The more publicized reason (see "Reefer Maaaaadness!") was that it made Cannabis users violent and murderous (sometimes with a racially-tinged nod towards African-American "reefer-heads"). 

To also note the question of increasing DUIs and wrecks, the penalties for driving high would be equal to or greater than those for drunk driving, compounded by the fact that THC lingers longer in the blood stream than ETOH. However, it is my experience that drivering that are mildly to moderately intoxicated would rather drive extremely cautiously and slower than they think they are going due to the sluggish and paranoid feelings brought on by THC. Additionally, THC does not impair judgement as ETOH does. It may slow thought processes down, but driving while high seems like just as bad of an idea when you're sober as when you're high. When a driver is drunk, the idea is more similar to "Nahh, I've got this, I can pull it together and focus!" 

Drunk people will dance half-naked with lampshades on their heads, then puke and pass out, risking aspirating vomit should they puke again after passing out, not to mention the threat of alcohol poisoning. With THC products, I have yet to see somebody do something stupid while high (that they wouldn't normally do--people who are stupid sober will be stupid high) and there's not been a single marijuana "overdose," because it's simply not physically possible to ingest that much THC in a short enough period of time. Being drunk is controlled ethanol poisoning, being high is from having the cannabinoid receptors stimulated. 

In my honest opinion, THC is illegal because the ban on it is so long standing that the idea of legalizing a drug that has been so illegal for so long is just a foreign concept to the generations of DARE program and Nancy Reagan kids.


----------



## Jon (Nov 17, 2012)

Achilles said:


> I'm sure most of are aware Colorado and Washington state leagalized Cannabis.
> I'm pretty sure it's still illegal under fedral law, right?
> So if you have it in your possession (not smoking it, inhaling, eating or consuming it in any way) and you're pulled over, can't you still be fined under federal law?
> Cannabis being an psychedelic drug and also hallucinate, has a high potential for abuse, which is why it is a schedule 1 drug per the Controlled Substance Act (CSA.) Will the scheduling of the drug ever change? Will federal law ever change? What is your opinion on the legalization.


Here's an even better question - What about EMS agencies in these states. Will a positive drug screen for THC still be a failure?


----------



## Aidey (Nov 17, 2012)

I think the safe assumption is yes. Just because it is legal doesn't mean employers are going to remove it from their policies. See policies for tobacco and alcohol use for reference.


----------



## ThirtyAndTwo (Jan 30, 2013)

*Marijuana: An Overview*

Let me start off by saying that I am not a doctor, nor do I have any advanced degrees in pharmacology, however I am currently studying psychiatry and focusing on drugs and addiction. As a result, I have a great wealth of knowledge when it comes to marijuana so I hope to provide an overview of some hot topics concerning marijuana.

First off in response to the original question: Marijuana is illegal under federal law for any use, be it medical or recreational. This means that federal officials can arrest anyone in possession of marijuana, and it also means some other things for example you cannot ship marijuana through the mail because the mail system is federally controlled, even within a state where marijuana has been legalized. The way around this is in states where it has been legalized, state and local police cannot arrest you for possession because according to the laws under which they operate, marijuana is legal. Technically an FBI agent could drive to Colorado and arrest anyone with marijuana, but this is very unlikely to happen because federal agents would not concern themselves with such a minor offense.

Is it a good thing that marijuana is becoming more and more legal? Yes and no. First of all, there is no denying that marijuana is bad for you. This is a scientific fact and simply cannot be refuted. That said, there are tons of legal things that are bad for you as well, such as tobacco, alcohol, fast food, a sedentary lifestyle…the list goes on and on. From this, I can conclude that it is at least inconsistent with current laws to make marijuana illegal BASED SOLEY on the fact that it is harmful to your health.

How bad is it for you? That's tough to answer but I can give some examples. The main factor is how and how often one uses marijuana. Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic, just like cigarette smoke, meaning it causes cancer, but smoking marijuana once will not increase you chances of getting cancer by any measurable amount, it depends on how much you smoke. For example, cigarettes cause more cancer than marijuana because 1) more people smoke cigarettes and 2) people who smoke tobacco smoke much more (gram for gram) than people who smoke marijuana, which leads us to our next point: addiction.

It is a myth that marijuana is not addictive. People get addicted to marijuana, there is irrefutable scientific and anecdotal evidence to confirm this. Its really very obvious, anything that causes enjoyment or pleasure has the potential to be addictive the important factors are going to be HOW addictive it is and the consequences of that addiction. Compared to other recreational drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), marijuana is significantly less addictive. This is because marijuana dependence is rare, it takes a lot of marijuana to create a physical dependence to it where one would experience withdrawal symptoms if they were to stop abruptly. Because of this, marijuana's addiction potential is mostly psychological. Bear in mind however that psychological addiction is more often than not the most difficult aspect of addiction to treat. Physical dependence can be treated by simply weening off a drug in  detox period, however psychological addiction requires a good amount of quality psychotherapy and self will, and in some cases drugs as well. All of this said, its relatively rare to find someone with only an addiction to marijuana. Most marijuana addictions are part of a poly drug addiction. The consequences of a genuine marijuana addiction more or less parallel a tobacco addiction, however marijuana cause more psychological problems so its safe to say marijuana addiction is more harmful than tobacco addiction. 

A common thing said in support of marijuana is "Why doesn't the government just legalize it so they can tax it?" While this seems like a good idea, there are a number of problems with it. For one, its takes a lot to completely reverse a federal law. For marijuana, this would require scientific studies on both the health and social effects of legalizing marijuana and years of debate, right now out government simply has more important things to focus on like debt, poverty, health care, and the war. Also, it would be no easy task to set up a system for distributing and taxing marijuana, we are talking about a huge multimillion dollar infrastructure plus the manpower to run it. Also, we can't forget that there are still many people that strongly oppose marijuana, so even if the government were able to set all this up it would still need to pass a vote. The voices advocating its legalization are louder than those opposing it, but this is probably because the people opposing it already have what they want, so its hard to tell what the majority of people really want. In conclusion, while its valid to say that the government would eventually profit off marijuana's legalization, we cannot ignore the tremendous resources such a feat  would require.

As a side note, we have to remember that if the government were to legalize and tax marijuana, it would still be smuggled into the country. In order for the government to make any significant amount of money off taxing marijuana, it would probably be more expensive than it is now, so people would still have incentive to buy from illegal sources.

So to wrap everything up:

1) Marijuana like all other recreational drugs, can be addictive and harmful.

2) Legalizing it federally is a big feat, its not something that can be brought about by a simple vote.

3) Legalizing marijuana does not necessarily eliminate the problems caused by its illegality.

My opinion: I think that if it were possible to go back in time before marijuana was made illegal, it would be a good idea to keep it legal. Unfortunately this is not possible. I actually think ALL drugs should be legal. I believe, and there is evidence to back me on this, that more problems are caused by making drugs illegal than by making them legal. The basic reason for this is the following: People will always try to do what they want. If someone wants to use drugs, they will find a way to do so whether its legal or not. BY making drugs illegal, its harder for people to get drugs but not hard enough to be justified as a significant deterrent. Because of this, a large portion of crime in this country is built around the drug trade, and a large portion of prisons are populated by non-violent drug offenders. The increase in drug health related problems that would be caused by making drugs legal would be far less harmful than the problems we are currently facing due to the illegality of drugs.

And finally, all this is speculation. We have no real life model of a country that had drugs illegal and then decided to legalize them, so its hard to be sure of what would actually happen. Everything I said is just one side of the story, there is evidence on both sides of the coin I simply believe this side to be better.


----------



## fortsmithman (Jan 31, 2013)

ThirdCareerMedic said:


> Where I live, I prefer to deal with pot smokers as patients rather than someone intoxicated with alcohol.  I haven't been assaulted by someone high on grass yet but I have come close on a number of times with drunks....  Hard to figure why one is legal and the other is not....  LOL.  (Just to be clear, I don't like dealing with anyone under the influence....)



I've run into one or two alcohol poisonings I have never had a Marijuana OD.  And stoners are not as violent if at all as Alcoholics.


----------



## JeffDHMC (Feb 1, 2013)

Nearly 20 years in the game and I can remember one pot related call that I ran. Kid smoked up, didn't get ripped off and was not sure how to deal with some good weed.

Never shall I be able to recite any but the absolute worst of the ETOH calls I've run.


----------

