[Choban]

$1:

Any regulation of weed should first and foremost reduce the risk of fire, contamination and booby-traps that grow-ops pose.

Small scale grow ops big enough to produce consumption requirements for say 2 people (a husband and wife) are no more dangerous to your house than growing tomato plants inside is. It's the big underground ops that possess all the hazzards due to the sheer volume of moisture in the air and the stealing electricity.

[Delwin]

I think one of the strongest arguments against decrimilization is our inability to acuratley test for marijuana impairement on the roadside. Until squad cars come equiped with roadside labs, legalizing pot would pose a great danger to drivers, and I could never vote for that. There is no breathalizer for marijuana, and blood tests and urine test results take time and there is no standard to guage impairment. I could never vote for something that would endanger lives.

[EyeBrock]

Choban Choban:

$1:

Any regulation of weed should first and foremost reduce the risk of fire, contamination and booby-traps that grow-ops pose.

Small scale grow ops big enough to produce consumption requirements for say 2 people (a husband and wife) are no more dangerous to your house than growing tomato plants inside is. It's the big underground ops that possess all the hazzards due to the sheer volume of moisture in the air and the stealing electricity.

But that isn't your average grow-op. In my area the average grow-op is in a detached residence in a sub-division, ran by people from out of the area, usually on a ethnic-based 'franchise', where the hydro is illegally by-passed.

The houses are usually rentals or bought with mortgages that are not paid after the first couple of harvests. There have been several fires in these houses and after the grow-ops leave, the houses are uninhabitable.

That's the threat to the public that the vast majority of grow-ops pose. Who cares about the people with ten plants in their basement.

[Dayseed]

Delwin Delwin:

I think one of the strongest arguments against decrimilization is our inability to acuratley test for marijuana impairement on the roadside. Until squad cars come equiped with roadside labs, legalizing pot would pose a great danger to drivers, and I could never vote for that. There is no breathalizer for marijuana, and blood tests and urine test results take time and there is no standard to guage impairment. I could never vote for something that would endanger lives.

Police officers are able to arrest, charge and obtain convictions for impairment marked by nothing more than their observations. It's not like the cops randomly side up next to you on the road, shoot out your window and capture breath samples in glass jars like they would moonbeams.

They usually have ample grounds after you've nosed into a Toys R Us display window and are yelling at the scattered Buzz Lightyears to "get the <hic> fuck outta the damn intersection you plastic bastards!" An impaired driver gets noticed by his driving.

Right now, people are driving while stoned AND getting charged for it, albeit in much smaller numbers than drunks. The crime is happening anyway and there is effective means to enforce sober driving.

[Dayseed]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Choban Choban:

$1:

Any regulation of weed should first and foremost reduce the risk of fire, contamination and booby-traps that grow-ops pose.

Small scale grow ops big enough to produce consumption requirements for say 2 people (a husband and wife) are no more dangerous to your house than growing tomato plants inside is. It's the big underground ops that possess all the hazzards due to the sheer volume of moisture in the air and the stealing electricity.

But that isn't your average grow-op. In my area the average grow-op is in a detached residence in a sub-division, ran by people from out of the area, usually on a ethnic-based 'franchise', where the hydro is illegally by-passed.

The houses are usually rentals or bought with mortgages that are not paid after the first couple of harvests. There have been several fires in these houses and after the grow-ops leave, the houses are uninhabitable.

That's the threat to the public that the vast majority of grow-ops pose. Who cares about the people with ten plants in their basement.

Eyebrock,

You forgot about the houses that never get busted by the cops and are sold to unsuspecting customers who inherit Legionnaire's Disease or some other moldy lunged infection. That's a huuuuge threat too.

And ethnic based franchise? Do you mean French Indochinese folks? They're like pot-growing grand samurais now.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

But that isn't your average grow-op. In my area the average grow-op is in a detached residence in a sub-division, ran by people from out of the area, usually on a ethnic-based 'franchise', where the hydro is illegally by-passed.

The houses are usually rentals or bought with mortgages that are not paid after the first couple of harvests. There have been several fires in these houses and after the grow-ops leave, the houses are uninhabitable.

That's the threat to the public that the vast majority of grow-ops pose. Who cares about the people with ten plants in their basement.

I still say there is no reason to have a large scale commercial grow op in a residence without prohibition. Licensing the growers would give us control over where it is grown. It would allow those growers to have licensed electricians do work for them with the proper permits and inspections. They wouldn't need to bypass hydro to hide their usage either.

[EyeBrock]

Those are the ones Dayseed! It really is a franchise type set-up.

The mould etc issues on undetected grow-ops is a very good reminder to people buying houses to ensure those buildings are properly inspected.

My point is that regulated production of weed would make these illegal grow-ops less viable.

I’m sure there would still be people willing to continue grow-op production but reasonably priced, regulated weed production/supply would certainly reduce the hazard to the public that grow-ops currently pose.

The driving-while-stoned is another very good point that requires a solution.

[EyeBrock]

Curtman Curtman:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

But that isn't your average grow-op. In my area the average grow-op is in a detached residence in a sub-division, ran by people from out of the area, usually on a ethnic-based 'franchise', where the hydro is illegally by-passed.

The houses are usually rentals or bought with mortgages that are not paid after the first couple of harvests. There have been several fires in these houses and after the grow-ops leave, the houses are uninhabitable.

That's the threat to the public that the vast majority of grow-ops pose. Who cares about the people with ten plants in their basement.

I still say there is no reason to have a large scale commercial grow op in a residence without prohibition. Licensing the growers would give us control over where it is grown. It would allow those growers to have licensed electricians do work for them with the proper permits and inspections. They wouldn't need to bypass hydro to hide their usage either.

I agree Curt. See my last post!

[Yogi]

Personally, I don't think that weed as a drug, is very harmful at all. Aside from the comparison to 'inhaling smoke into the lungs' aspect and the usual litany of health problems that creates. Sure, I smoked a fair amount 'back in the day', but I never cared for the taste, or the burning throat. These days, I don't use any intoxicants. But if weed was legalized, you can bet I'd be one of the first to set up a green house!

[Choban]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Choban Choban:

$1:

Any regulation of weed should first and foremost reduce the risk of fire, contamination and booby-traps that grow-ops pose.

Small scale grow ops big enough to produce consumption requirements for say 2 people (a husband and wife) are no more dangerous to your house than growing tomato plants inside is. It's the big underground ops that possess all the hazzards due to the sheer volume of moisture in the air and the stealing electricity.

But that isn't your average grow-op. In my area the average grow-op is in a detached residence in a sub-division, ran by people from out of the area, usually on a ethnic-based 'franchise', where the hydro is illegally by-passed.

The houses are usually rentals or bought with mortgages that are not paid after the first couple of harvests. There have been several fires in these houses and after the grow-ops leave, the houses are uninhabitable.

That's the threat to the public that the vast majority of grow-ops pose. Who cares about the people with ten plants in their basement.

But thats my case, regular joe can legally grow so he's not supporting organized crime and he's not ruining his house to do so.

[Choban]

Delwin Delwin:

I think one of the strongest arguments against decrimilization is our inability to acuratley test for marijuana impairement on the roadside. Until squad cars come equiped with roadside labs, legalizing pot would pose a great danger to drivers, and I could never vote for that. There is no breathalizer for marijuana, and blood tests and urine test results take time and there is no standard to guage impairment. I could never vote for something that would endanger lives.

They can't test now for illegal pot so why worry about testig for legal pot, it's a matter of observation, there are definate signs of imparement with pot, they just have to know them and look for them when pulling someone over. With alcohol they can test but there are still 100's of drunks on the roads that don't get caught.

[andyt]

Delwin Delwin:

I think one of the strongest arguments against decrimilization is our inability to acuratley test for marijuana impairement on the roadside. Until squad cars come equiped with roadside labs, legalizing pot would pose a great danger to drivers, and I could never vote for that. There is no breathalizer for marijuana, and blood tests and urine test results take time and there is no standard to guage impairment. I could never vote for something that would endanger lives.

How would it endanger lives more than now? Are you suggesting that legalization will result in such an upsurge of users that the roads will be flooded with stoned drivers wreaking havoc? Don't you think pretty well every one who wants pot can get it now?

Have you ever driven on pot? You want to go real slow. Once we were driving out to Whistler, it was snowing and must have been an ice base under it because cars were abandoned after having driven off the road all over the place. I, stoned, was driving nice and easy and had no problems. I finally told my buddies I had to turn around because it was freaking me out that everyone else was off the road but not me - I couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong right. I think someone who's had a joint or two is probably a safer driver than half the rageaholics out there on the roads. But, legalizing pot doesn't mean legalizing driving on it - no different than booze. Just safer.

[EyeBrock]

We have an illegal drug that just mellows people out and we have a legal one (booze) that turns a large minority of people into aggressive idiots.

[Choban]

$1:

I think someone who's had a joint or two is probably a safer driver than half the rageaholics out there on the roads

I don't know about safet, certainly slower, but pot impares judgement and reflex as much as alcohol, I myself won't drive under the influence of anything.

[andyt]

Choban Choban:

$1:

I think someone who's had a joint or two is probably a safer driver than half the rageaholics out there on the roads

I don't know about safet, certainly slower, but pot impares judgement and reflex as much as alcohol, I myself won't drive under the influence of anything.

I wasn't advocating it. When I was a young idiot I would drive stoned or drunk, and I was a lot more cautious stoned. Never had an accident tho - only when I was sober and driving totally out of control.