# Wash. vows to try to keep weed in state _ but how?



## Chessiedog (Jul 24, 2009)

Interesting to say the least . What a bunch of BS . One of the things that have been said is we use up to much valuable law enforcement time on trying to stop marijuana
use . So this is going to use less? Trying to figure out if your legal user or an illegal user . 

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130129/DA43PPPO1.html


----------



## cwright (Oct 19, 2011)

No money saved just jail space. Now they are hiring a whole new force to tag, track and inspect all the product.


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

Well, I hate to say it, but this may just be a jobs program to employ the folks that can't get on at McDonald's or the TSA.


----------



## Chessiedog (Jul 24, 2009)

Mike120 said:


> Well, I hate to say it, but this may just be a jobs program to employ the folks that can't get on at McDonald's or the TSA.


As product samplers ? LOL


----------



## Chessiedog (Jul 24, 2009)

Your right Mike120 here's one of those new jobs !

*Pot Consultant: Washington State Looks For Weed Scholars To Separate Seeds From Stems*

I'm guessing no pp test required !


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. This might be a good set up to legalize and TAX, TAX, TAX weed. That's what the primary purpose of the ATF was---to enforce taxation. So maybe it'll become the ATFP - Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Pot.

Ralph


----------



## Chessiedog (Jul 24, 2009)

Oh I agree it's about the money ,always is. I just don't see how wire tying a couple of bar codes to a plant is going to track it . I guess no one would ever think of copying a bar code on one plant an put it on another . If it was to go the way your suggesting Ralph then how long will it be before its legal to produce so much for personal use just like alcohol ? Just saying really . Whats the next thing to be legalized ?


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

Personally, I am all in favor of allowing un-restricted drug usage--with the following qualifications:

First, if you are arrested for a felony crime, and test positive for any kind of drug usage, you would be given $5,000 and automatically deported to the country of your choice. No returns.

Second, if you go to a hospital or doctor for medical treatment and test positive for drug usage, your insurance and/or medicare coverage is automatically cancelled and you will not receive treatment until you ante up the complete cost of coverage.

My thinking: people who use drugs don't really care about their lives or the consequences of their actions. So let's help them along (and ourselves in the process)--they're killing themselves anyway.

Hard-nosed? Maybe, but all the other approaches have failed, so why not try something radical. Instead of fighting it, allow it, but make the consequences real.

Just more thoughts.

Ralph


----------



## cwright (Oct 19, 2011)

rjmoses said:


> Personally, I am all in favor of allowing un-restricted drug usage--with the following qualifications:
> 
> First, if you are arrested for a felony crime, and test positive for any kind of drug usage, you would be given $5,000 and automatically deported to the country of your choice. No returns.
> 
> ...


I wouldnt give them the 5 K because they have already slole 3 times that amount to support a party lifestyle.

If mom and dad would just tell them they had 2 weeks to move out of the basement and pay for their own place to live a lot of usage would just vanish.
P.S. If you can afford to buy pot dont ask me for grocery money or help with the rent.

CW


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

cwright said:


> If mom and dad would just tell them they had 2 weeks to move out of the basement and pay for their own place to live a lot of usage would just vanish.
> 
> CW


I had a friend in Chicago that was a psychologist. He said his biggest client base was the 30-40 year old people, still living with their parents, their mother still cooking their meals and doing their laundry, their father still paying their car insurance and payments and them not paying any rent.

Ralph


----------



## Chessiedog (Jul 24, 2009)

That is amazing Ralph and sad . I'm past the thirty and the forty marks but I can't imagine wanting to be living at home at that age .


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

And then they "Occupy Wall Street" because life is so unfair. I personally feel that we waste a huge amount of money by banning things to protect people from themselves and the consequences of doing stupid things. If mommy and daddy want junior in the basement that's their problem.....but the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for it in welfare or anything else.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

I know of a few where the dope smokin is a family affair.They bitch and moan about $ and think every one owes them a living.Pisses me off!!Kids are a bunch of thieves supporting their drug habits.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

swmnhay said:


> I know of a few where the dope smokin is a family affair.They bitch and moan about $ and think every one owes them a living.Pisses me off!!Kids are a bunch of thieves supporting their drug habits.


Hey, I think ur talking about some deadbeats that live down the way from me......you been down in Dixie?


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Mike120 said:


> Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. This might be a good set up to legalize and TAX, TAX, TAX weed. That's what the primary purpose of the ATF was---to enforce taxation. So maybe it'll become the ATFP - Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Pot.
> 
> Ralph


Ever see Lexx? The most evil and underhanded entity on the planet was the ATF.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Personally I don't care, if they want to legalize it fine, hope they tax the living bejesus out of it.

But, and this is a big but, how do you handle enforcing not driving while high? Unless something has changed the only tests available detect THC, but not how much or when it was absorbed.

So, if a person wants to smoke pot, no driving allowed at all then? Or at least until a test comes along like a breathalyzer that's instant and can determine just how high a person actually is? Not real enthused about the thought of more stoned drivers on the road.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

mlappin said:


> Personally I don't care, if they want to legalize it fine, hope they tax the living bejesus out of it.
> 
> But, and this is a big but, how do you handle enforcing not driving while high? Unless something has changed the only tests available detect THC, but not how much or when it was absorbed.
> 
> So, if a person wants to smoke pot, no driving allowed at all then? Or at least until a test comes along like a breathalyzer that's instant and can determine just how high a person actually is? Not real enthused about the thought of more stoned drivers on the road.


They're driving high or drunk any way right now. So the question becomes not how to prevent it, 'cause its going to happen, but what to do about it when it does happen so that that person never, ever does it again. And the consequences are so serious that nobody else wants to do it either.

What needs to be resurrected is personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions and pay the consequences.

Timeout parenting usually only teaches the kid that there is no serious consequence to its behavior. Slap-on-the-wrist judges don't do us any favors either. (Here's a link to a local story about a 19 year old. http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/local/article_b9660a30-6f43-11e2-921e-0019bb30f31a.html Note that her first sentence was dismissed because she plead guilty to the second offense.)

What's the solution? I don't know. But I do know that what we have isn't working so we have to do something different.

Ralph


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

rjmoses said:


> They're driving high or drunk any way right now. So the question becomes not how to prevent it, 'cause its going to happen, but what to do about it when it does happen so that that person never, ever does it again. And the consequences are so serious that nobody else wants to do it either.
> 
> What needs to be resurrected is personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions and pay the consequences.
> 
> Ralph


I agree, one thing I thought was rather clever on our first trip to England is that the drunk driving laws there are so severe people don't even attempt it. Going to the pub? Walk, take a taxi or bus, or have a designated driver. The penalties are stiff enough most people won't even drink if they have to drive the next morning.

People would learn self responsibility a lot quicker if the penalties for stupidity were harsher, seems now though we reward it instead.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Thing I dont like about legalizing is the precedent it sets for the children. It tells them it's ok to smoke dope and walk around stoned all day. We drink beer and so do lots of high school kids just like I did. Why did I do it? Because I thought adults that did it were cool.

We gonna have pot ads on tv showing healthy beautiful people taking bong hits at a party like they show healthy beautiful people drinking beer at a party? That's who I looked up to and thought was cool when I was a teenager.


----------



## cwright (Oct 19, 2011)

JD3430 said:


> Thing I dont like about legalizing is the precedent it sets for the children. It tells them it's ok to smoke dope and walk around stoned all day. We drink beer and so do lots of high school kids just like I did. Why did I do it? Because I thought adults that did it were cool.
> 
> We gonna have pot ads on tv showing healthy beautiful people taking bong hits at a party like they show healthy beautiful people drinking beer at a party? That's who I looked up to and thought was cool when I was a teenager.


You hit the nail right on the head. Fads and image pushed by advertizing media. I think the girl in this video is a fan of Linsey Lohan.
http://hsrd.yahoo.co...-210739814.html

Right now there are members of congress pushing to make pot legal on a national level. Sad thing is they dont want to cure the problem they just want to tax the problem.
http://search.yahoo....-189880381.html

I bet the girl in the video will be in and out of jail the rest of her life, but I bet she wont flip any judges off again.

My point is this. Smoke it, drink it, use whatever... Just don't expect me to provide your real needs. Your real needs are your own responsibility.


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

mlappin said:


> I agree, one thing I thought was rather clever on our first trip to England is that the drunk driving laws there are so severe people don't even attempt it. Going to the pub? Walk, take a taxi or bus, or have a designated driver. The penalties are stiff enough most people won't even drink if they have to drive the next morning.
> 
> People would learn self responsibility a lot quicker if the penalties for stupidity were harsher, seems now though we reward it instead.


Run up a bit farther North next time and it gets more strict. I'm in Norway right now where a blood alcohol content of .02 percent gets you a huge fine, license suspension, and 3 weeks in jail for a first offence. Plus alcohol is heavily taxed and very expensive. Other than that, it's just like being in Minnesota.....cold, snowing, and surrounded by Norwegians.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I like Norwegians.........especially the full figured blonde lady Norwegians.....lol


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

Yes, there is an abundance of eye-candy. Sadly they are all bundled up against the cold........another reason I hate the cold.


----------

