11 votes

Why “Legal” Pot May Turn Out to Be Bad News

Legalizing pot may turn out to be a not very good idea. Not because the state (or anyone) has the right to tell a person what they may or may not ingest, freely buy or sell . . . but because of the excuse it will give the police state to become even more authoritarian than it already is.

And yes, such a thing is possible.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks in at least two states (CA and PA) motorists have been stopped at random and “asked” to submit to swab-testing in order to ascertain whether they’ve been using “drugs” (that is, other than the drug alcohol).

Some have been “voluntary” – but expect them soon to become mandatory.

The LAPD, for one, will be forcing drivers at random “safety” checkpoints to submit to having their mouths swabbed for evidence of pot usage (and so on) since conventional Breathalyzers can only detect alcohol.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Cannabis and guns

Driving isn't the only "privilege" under fire where people are "allowed" to use cannabis. Due to a memo from ATF a few years ago, reminding gun sellers that federal law still considers cannabis an illegal substance, some states/counties enforce the notion that simply having a medical cannabis card disallows purchase/ownership of guns.

Retarded double standard continues... :(

Oregon's Measure 80 (Marijuana/Hemp Legalization)

Was far superior to the Washington or Colorado models (though not perfect). Growth
and possession w/o a license for personal use was allowed and there was a built-in
Tenth Amendment challenge in case the feds interfered. I'd quote some but it's late
and I could only find a PDF version of the text - worth checking out here:


It lost in 2012 by about six percent, but they had minimal $$ compared to WA and CO.

Looks like for 2014 there will be three measure - one bureaucratic tax and control
one (with deep pocket support) and a somewhat modified version of the 2012 initiative
split up into two separate initiatives:


Making Non-Right Infringing behavior 'Legal'

Making Non-Right Infringing behavior 'Legal' is as damaging as making it illegal. It gives those who serve us an excuse to force us to serve them.

I don't mind there being a

I don't mind there being a test for DWI. There already is in Australia. Police can swab you and check to see if you've been high in the last 4 hours. This is reasonable. Different kinds of Cannabis produce different effects. I smoked some late harvested bud last night that made me want to sleep within an hour - but other bud I've smoked gave me very little body stone and nowhere near the sleepiness.

I'm for decriminalization as well. But let's be real people. Some types of Cannabis do impair driving to some degree do to the sedative effects. Obviously alcohol impairment is worse. But all you weed smokers who've smoked some late harvested, heavy body stone bud that makes you want to sleep should know what I mean.

It's reasonable to have a test and to have fines because of the safety issue for other people on the road.

However - the fines shouldn't be any worse than someone taking some pharmaceutical sedative or other currently legal medication that can also impair driving.

Edit: btw: Non-heated Cannabis (for all you medical users) where neither the plant or the fluid it's steeped in (if in a tincture) is heated - produces no psychoactive effect but delivers great medicinal benefits. Cheers!

See: (the recently Axed site): https://web.archive.org/web/20131205030341/http://cannabisin...

And this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xPmR8j4plw

The real question is..

How long before Monsanto genetically modifies and patents it.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

If we can only come up with a swab test for steroid use...

we could ask cops to trade swab test when we are pulled over.

You're on to something, gptnomoney.

I am against legalization of marijuana, but for decriminalization. There's a difference.

There should not even be any laws about what one puts in their own body.

For the state to dictate what is legal is getting the cart before the horse. Everything is legal unless the state legislature makes it illegal.

Legal is natural. Illegal is unnatural - due to irresponsibility.

Laws should exist only to protect the person, property and rights of people who would suffer violence at the hands of the irresponsible.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

Regulations abound with legalization

Just gives the state many more new laws to arrest people for:


They won't ever consider decriminalization -- just legalization.

This is a boon for lawyers!!


Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine

I think this is unrelated

to pot. It's the excuse-of-the-day.

I believe

the 'blanket warrants' they use for these DUI checkpoints can be defeated, along with the methods used, if of course, the judge allows the defense to challenge them. As most of know, we don't have a 'real' justice system anymore, as the judges are belong to the same Corporate Collective as the politicians. This especially is true when it comes to their 'revenue holes' like using the breathalyzers, and their new found blood tests and swabs. I recall 25 yrs ago, that my attorney told me, he only lost 2 cases over his almost 50 yr span as a defense attorney, that his clients decided to challenge in court. Though, I was young and didn't understand what he was telling me about the system, he told me that he challenged the 'breathalyzer'. He brought in a chemist, that clearly proved the extreme inaccuracies in this test, but he said the judge and the DA worked together to manipulate the jury into not excepting the facts. I have been hearing an attorney on the radio, Gary Trichter, here in Houston, who is a DUI specialist, warning about the inaccuracies of these tests and that they can be contaminated. I think if somebody has the money to challenge these unconstitutional warrants and checks, this attorney would fight it up the chain. The problem with challenging these types of cases, is most of the people will except probation rather than take the risk of being convicted to jail time and 'roll the dice' in the appeals process.

I noticed in an article about

I noticed in an article about Colorado opening their stores, they said the first guy to make a purchase paid $60 for 1/8th of an ounce. Washington State where I am will be opening their stores in a few months, and street price on the same 1/8th ounce, is $40.

A 50% markup over street prices will mean that the black market will still be the choice of the budget minded stoner. People with money may be happy to pay more for greater selection, and not having to go to a lower class neighborhood than they live in.

Prices will fluctuate in the future, if the free market is allowed to work.


I've heard the street prices in Colorado are similar. A "legal" 1/8 is $45 plus a 30% tax (state and local in Denver) or $60 like you heard.

I sorta expect the prices to come down some because this frees up the market a little. Initially their may be a bump because of the added demand (anyone, and tourists can purchase). But it supplies more outlets and allows for more people to grow. The resulting increase in supply will work prices way down.

The street price of weed more than halved following medicinal weeds splash in the market, so I'd expect the same thing here.

Plus there is already a culture and distribution system for most people. Weed was fairly prevalent before and in many case you weren't going to a lower class neighborhood, people would just know a buddy, or have a friend of a friend. And it's now legal to own a plant, so in order to compete with that the prices of "legal" weed will come down IMO.

I think the significant

The seeming significant difference between the new Colorado and Washington State laws is that Colorado allows people to personally grow for recreational use.

It is looking like Washington is going to have a lot of indoor industrial zone growing to supply retail stores. My brother has one next to his work. Not sure about the latest, but I think they left out commercial outdoor growing due to security concerns. Probably there will be modifications to the law later on. Especially if they put it to the voters. I think the proponents of the law compromised on some things to ensure passage, with the intent of using incrementalism.

Wow, I didn't know that about

Wow, I didn't know that about washington's law. That's sad really.

But I guess colorado's law is sad too. You are taking something I love (weed) and giving control of its production and distribution to something I hate (government). At least when it was illegal you didn't have to ask permission.

I wonder if incrementalism will work. Even in this case the gov got more power. It's "fixes" always land on the side of gov power.

Colorado is different than wash

you can grow your own in co without asking permission. you can grow 6 plants with 3 flowering. you can keep all the weed you grow from those 3 plants also. i have seen 20+ pound greenhouse plants in co, that's 60 pounds per year if you can pull it off. you can't sell it but you can give all your friends an oz every time they come over. more if they have a medical card, up to 2+ pounds a day.

also co allows for tourist while wash does not. so expect higher prices in co until more stores open up and demand evens out.
both laws are pretty bad in the libertarian sense but wash is real bad and will hopefully not be a model for the other states.
co is way ahead in many areas including out of state consulting so hopefully things will only improve from all the mistakes made.

Iraq War Vet First to Buy Legal Pot in Colorado

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Unless I'm able to grow my own for my own use

all I hear is "blah blah blah".

Sure, the out-of-touch among us will try and exploit this for their own agendas. But as more people use it openly and do not show stereotypical behaviours associated with pot smokers, perhaps the "police state" will look even more useless and irrelevant than they already are.

Focus on the good it could do but anticipate the predictable behaviours of the multicoloured monkeys to throw their sh*t at something.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

IMO, it's not really "legal" until...

This type of nonsense is ended. How can something be legal if you're going to get in trouble for using it?

Alcohol is also legal,

Alcohol is also legal, depending on if it is used or abused.

Hemp is a Trillion dollar plant

Just American's have been brainwashed from years of insane propaganda.

How many of you know Hemp was made illegal in America because the cotton industry spent millions of dollars lobbying against it 80 years ago.

WHY? Because you can grow up to 400% more yield in a single acre of land then you can with Cotton. This was a major threat to the cotton industry at the time.

Today, some of the greatest products in the world are made out of HEMP.

Example: The exterior of Lamborghini's are made from Hemp. Dr bronner's soap (Best soap ever!) made of hemp. These are a few of thousands!

The real problem with pot "legalization"

is that it sets a 'precedent' that legislature has lawful authority to set rules upon men/women using plants how they see fit. Given the fact that they never had the authority to legislate such a thing in the first place then the real result is further destruction of how law is applied and the limited scope of legislatures' power to establish applicable rules on such a thing.

As far as the roadside checkpoints the real root of this problem is that stupid people voluntarily contracted to be subjected to such code and actions when they signed the contract for 'their' driver's license. Don't contract for such application of law and let the 'courts' overflow with free people challenging jurisdiction on such contracts as being required at all.

It is the people's fault if they are too stupid to realize these contracts are not required at all for full liability men/women to travel however they see fit. Don't contract with them and then they have no jurisdiction to apply such contractual terms to you.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

b-b-but interstate commerce!

b-b-but interstate commerce! because selling plants affects...commerce?

using a plant doesn't require commerce

Notice I did not say sell plant or refer to any commercial enterprise. That was intentional on my part. If one doesn't participate in commerce to use the plant government regulation is not applicable and outside government jurisdiction.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Wickard v. Filburn

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy[citation needed] his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.


Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

I am very familiar with this case

Isn't that the whole point of growing plants for one's own use? to not buy natural goods that are needed.

At what point do We the People reject criminal men's interpretations that enslave us to commerce. The other thing with this case is that it presumes Filburn is a 14th amendment corporate commercial citizen who subject to their jurisdiction. Filburn asked for permission as a corporate citizen and he lost. US citizen's have no rights only We the People (full liability men/women) do.

So if we role over and submit to be their subjects as US citizens then we stand in court as commercial entity from the get go. This is why Filburn lost. You cannot be a citizen and maintain rights it is impossible under the Corporate State as a corporate citizen.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

This is a problem with the

This is a problem with the police state, not pot. Alcohol has been used in the same ways (checkpoints) over time. Why is it still legal? Why isn't that included in your title? Focusing in on something you may not agree with is the bad idea. End the police state and let the people be free, stop worrying out one group, and educate, that's the good idea.