OT - Initiative 65 and Initiative 65a

[defiantdog]

Not sure why the federal government doesn't treat it like alcohol.

[dawgoneyall]

Not sure why the federal government doesn't treat it like alcohol.

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

Exactly. Let people make decisions, stop micromanaging their life as if you know what's best for everyone. No it doesn't matter if weed is "annoying" to you- imagine if you had guns taken away because some people were "annoyed" at gunshots? I'm "annoyed" at smokers, it shouldn't be banned. I'm "annoyed" at drunk people, doesn't mean beer and bars should be illegal. I'm "annoyed" at loud trucks and motorcycles, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

The other thing about all this is it isn't even a choice of "allowing people to have weed or keep them from it"... because weed (and all drugs for that matter) are so damned easy to get, the question is "will I force people to be felons to have weed, or allow them to do it safely?". Nobody in this board is going "God bless Daddy Gov't for keeping meth illegal or I'd run down to the CVS right now and smoke it right there in the parking lot", so why are we so afraid of if drugs are legalized? Why do we think there's masses of people waiting to rush the weed store, but who aren't hitting up a local dealer already?

Alcohol is legal, cheap, easy to find, and addictive. If someone develops a problem with it we say it's their fault. We don't say "well that's why Gov't should have kept prohibition in place; to protect people like this". If you can't handle alcohol responsibly it's up to you to avoid it, don't take away our Saturday beer.

Before someone calls me biased, I've never done a drug in my life

[Jarius]

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

This doesn't make any sense. Weed being legal would not make it legal to drive high. If they already are not able to test for it DUI wise, then what difference would it make for weed to be legal? It's not like you can't find weed extremely easily if you want it anyway.

[BeastMan]

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

This is the absolute worst mj take you can possibly have. There are 2 types of DUI. Regular DUI and DUI other. DUI other covers every single substance not named alcohol including numerous legal substances including opioids & Xanax as well as your illegal drugs like cocaine, crack, meth, etc.... There are literally thousands upon thousands of DUIs given where drivers refuse the breathalyzer and field sobriety test. You know why? Cops are vigorously trained to identify impaired drivers. They do it every single day. DUI others, just like regular DUIs, do not have to have a roadside test. If you?ve ever been to a DUI trial you?ll see when they put the officer on the stand. 100% of the time you?re going to get testimony that says, Through ____ years of training and experience i could tell with my expert opinion the driver was impaired?. As long as there was no procedural loopholes its a closed case after that phrase 95% of the time.

When you know the current law, how it?s applied, and how it?s applied in court it?s impossible to have the take that they need a roadside test first. If you don?t think a cop can tell someone is barbecued behind the wheel, you have a police problem, not a lack of test problem.

Y?all keep these coming. There isn?t a single talking point that I can?t debunk but it?s easy when it?s propaganda.

[FISHDAWG]

This is the absolute worst mj take you can possibly have. There are 2 types of DUI. Regular DUI and DUI other. DUI other covers every single substance not named alcohol including numerous legal substances including opioids & Xanax as well as your illegal drugs like cocaine, crack, meth, etc.... There are literally thousands upon thousands of DUIs given where drivers refuse the breathalyzer and field sobriety test. You know why? Cops are vigorously trained to identify impaired drivers. They do it every single day. DUI others, just like regular DUIs, do not have to have a roadside test. If you?ve ever been to a DUI trial you?ll see when they put the officer on the stand. 100% of the time you?re going to get testimony that says, Through ____ years of training and experience i could tell with my expert opinion the driver was impaired?. As long as there was no procedural loopholes its a closed case after that phrase 95% of the time.

When you know the current law, how it?s applied, and how it?s applied in court it?s impossible to have the take that they need a roadside test first. If you don?t think a cop can tell someone is barbecued behind the wheel, you have a police problem, not a lack of test problem.

Y?all keep these coming. There isn?t a single talking point that I can?t debunk but it?s easy when it?s propaganda.

I think there already is a test ... I don't know this for fact but I have heard there is a breathalyzer now for pot

[BeastMan]

I think there already is a test ... I don't know this for fact but I have heard there is a breathalyzer now for pot

They’ve been testing some. There aren’t any in MS. It’s not even needed. You ever heard them talk about needing an opioid breathalyzer? Nope.