Natural Hallucinogens

[ERage]

Go to this link and follow the instructions on the movie. No it isn't one of those gay scare tactics. Just stare at the thing through the whole movie until it tells you to look away. I though it was pretty cool.

http://www.devilducky.com/media/47884/

Content: Who thinks this kind of stuff up anyways :confused:

Insert posts flaming me below this line.
-------------------------------------

[b_sinning]

Pretty cool. It affected me for a while afterwards. I'd love to try that on acid.

[elpmis]

the whole time I was waiting for satan to jump out and scream at me

[inline4]

Kinda neat but its gone already.. :(

[mikey]

Stare at this movie for 20 seconds, then look at the sun, you will see charlie. It's fascinating.

http://uselessforums.com/files/120505/CHARLIE.jpg

[Sarcasmo]

Stare at this movie for 20 seconds, then look at the sun, you will see charlie. It's fascinating.

http://uselessforums.com/files/120505/CHARLIE.jpg


hahahahahaha

[eileenbunny]

Neat, doesn't last as long as good hallucinogens.

[ERage]

the whole time I was waiting for satan to jump out and scream at me

I know, I'm always there for the good Satan gag but this one was on the up and up, I said so on the original post.

Neat, doesn't last as long as good hallucinogens.

yeah, but mine was free and legal :D

[eileenbunny]

I know, I'm always there for the good Satan gag but this one was on the up and up, I said so on the original post.



yeah, but mine was free and legal :D

Salvia is legal and after my plants arrive in a month it will be free. Way more powerful.

[SemperFly]

Salvia is legal and after my plants arrive in a month it will be free. Way more powerful.
I've only tried that once with DigitalChaos. It was fun, would like to try it again sometime.

[ERage]

Salvia is legal and after my plants arrive in a month it will be free. Way more powerful.

Score! And to think, some people go around licking toads. amateurs

[mikey]

Salvia is legal and after my plants arrive in a month it will be free. Way more powerful.

doesnt do much for me

[eileenbunny]

doesnt do much for me

Nothing does too much for you. I now have a new mission in life. I'm going to get you really friggin high somehow.

[eileenbunny]

I've only tried that once with DigitalChaos. It was fun, would like to try it again sometime.

You should come visit us in september. Or, I'll bring some to Chicago next time I come.

[SemperFly]

You should come visit us in september. Or, I'll bring some to Chicago next time I come.
to be honest DigitalChaos was about the only person I felt comfortable sitting with me on that stuff but I think I'd be comfortable with you as well :p

[eileenbunny]

to be honest DigitalChaos was about the only person I felt comfortable sitting with me on that stuff but I think I'd be comfortable with you as well :p

I will let no harm come to you on drugs. :heart:

[Thorn Bird]

You should come visit us in OCTOBER. Or, I'll bring some to ATLANTA WHEN I come.

[Epididymis]

Super cool visual effect. Only lasted like 30 seconds for me though. Yeah, I was expecting some kind of shocker image to jump out at me.

Salvia is legal and after my plants arrive in a month it will be free. Way more powerful.

Do you actually enjoy salvia? I found it so mind-blowingly intense on one of a few occasions that I'm not sure I'd be interested in exploring it further. I've never taken a drug except salvia that made me *totally* forget who or what I was (and that I took a drug), made me feel like I was literally trapped in eternity, but only actually lasted like 5 minutes. (Sublingual lasts much longer.) This was not something I found enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination; more like one of the most frightening experiences I've ever had, and I'm not exaggerating.

For some reason some people don't get anything from it. It may have to do with the method of administration. It's somewhat finicky.

[Thorn Bird]

i want to try this legal drug now, dammit.

[Epididymis]

i want to try this legal drug now, dammit.

Seriously, don't take salvia (or any hallucinogens) with haphazardness or disregard. This isn't like some other plant stuff you may have tried. Definitely have someone sit with you.

As you may know, remember: [mind]set and setting have a significant impact on these kinds of effects.

It's not completely safe to assume there aren't any significant direct health risks here, but there is a lack of any damning evidence for health hazards.

Excellent reference site:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml

I suggest reading some experience reports (especially bad experiences), the chemistry, and also the legal notes.

[SemperFly]

I will let no harm come to you on drugs. :heart:
i know :cool: and you wouldn't be judgemental about it so the trip wouldn't get ruined by all the paranoia I usually exhibit when I'm around other people


Do you actually enjoy salvia? I found it so mind-blowingly intense on one of a few occasions that I'm not sure I'd be interested in exploring it further. I've never taken a drug except salvia that made me *totally* forget who or what I was (and that I took a drug), made me feel like I was literally trapped in eternity, but only actually lasted like 5 minutes. (Sublingual lasts much longer.) This was not something I found enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination; more like one of the most frightening experiences I've ever had, and I'm not exaggerating.

For some reason some people don't get anything from it. It may have to do with the method of administration. It's somewhat finicky.
It's also strongly dependant on how much you smoke. I never expected it to hit so hard but when it did I completely forgot where I was. :( The first time was uncomfortable because too many people were around, the second time there was one less person around and the lights were off but damned if someone didn't have to start asking "So are you gonna tell your girlfriend you did this? Are you gonna tell your roommate?" and got me all paranoid.

But the experience itself was fascinating and I'd be willing to try it again but only with a single sitter present.


i want to try this legal drug now, dammit.
One of the few plants I was genuinely interested in trying. It also reminded me that I have such a low tolerance for substances (if I'm high and drunk at the same time I'm pretty much useless :() that it's safe to say I could never go for any hard drugs. :o

[eileenbunny]

I'll bring some to Atlanta.

I find that the method of administration is key to experiencing the drug. You have to get it very hot. I've had mild and mind blowing experiences on it. I find it can be very relaxing and fun in very small quantities. If you just use a little or you don't get it hot enough you can have a reasonably mild experience with it. Most people think it's a waste, but I think it's nice and leaves me with a very peaceful and relaxed feeling.

[fly]

Salvia is legal and after my plants arrive in a month it will be free. Way more powerful.
Ever try that DMT?

[Epididymis]

U.S. STATE LAW
Delaware
Bill outlawing Salvia divinorum signed on May 02 2006 adds it to schedule I of the Delaware state controlled substances law. Bill Banning Salvia divinorum, now passed (May 8 2006). (Thanks to Logan)
Louisiana
Effective Aug 8, 2005 (signed into law Jun 28, 2005) Louisiana Act No 159 makes 40 plants illegal, including S. divinorum, when intended for human consumption. The law specifically excludes the "possession, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting" of these plants if used "strictly for aesthetic, landscaping, or decorative purposes." (Text of HLS_05RS-52 and Update June 2005)
Missouri
On Aug 28, 2005 House Bill 633 was incorporated into 195.017 of Missouri's drug regulation statutes. Thus, Salvia and salvinorin A became Schedule I substances in that state. As far as Erowid knows, Missouri is the first state in the U.S. to actually schedule s. divinorum or its active chemical. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/chapters/chap195.htm. (Thanks Q)
St. Peters city passed an ordinance banning sales of Salvia divinorum to minors aged 17 or younger. Jan 2003. (St Peters Journal - Jan 26, 2003)
HB165 introduced in state legislature, proposing addition of S.divinorum to list of scheduled substances. No hearing scheduled as of Jan 2005. (MO House of Representatives)
New Jersey
New Jersey lawmakers are reportedly considering a ban of Salvia divinorum: courier post online, may 18 2006. No law concerning Salvia d. known, but a mention in news about Northern Monmouth includes the following curious text: app.com GRAND TOUR: Two 15-year-old borough males were charged on Sept. 10 with illegal possession of salvia divinorum with intent to distribute by Sgt. Kevin Roake. (Thanks embroglio)
New York
New York is moving to control Salvia divinorum. State Targets Tripped Out Herb - Long Island Press, June 16 2005. Also see the text of the proposed law taken from the very, very awful web site at: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/ . (Thanks Embroglio)
Tennessee
Tennessee has made it a class A misdemeanor to "knowingly produce, manufacture, distribute, possess or possess with intent to produce, manufacture, or distribute the active chemical ingredient in the hallucinogenic plant Salvia divinorum A." Along with the strangely-worded caveat that this prohibition does not apply to "the possession, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of such hallucinogenic plant strictly for aesthetic, landscaping, or decorative purposes." See http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?billnumber=SB3247. The law takes effect on July 1, 2006. See also: Ban on hallucinogenic passed by House (May 2006). See also: Tennessee House and Tennessee Senate. (Thanks Embroglio and MG)

[SemperFly]

why do people find it necessary to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own fracking body?

[eileenbunny]

Ever try that DMT?

I have yet to try this. I have some, but I've not felt healthy enough since I aquired it to give it a shot. I understand it's a helluva drug.

[fly]

I have yet to try this. I have some, but I've not felt healthy enough since I aquired it to give it a shot. I understand it's a helluva drug.
Not really too different than salvia, maybe more intense tho... Start small.

[Thorn Bird]

eileen, i'm falling for you so completely. :drool:

[Epididymis]

why do people find it necessary to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own fracking body?

Intolerable, yes.

However, these moves are probably in response to the very reckless promotion of salvia plants and extracts as "the new X" and "legal substitute for M", all over ebay and other websites.

Lawmakers don't know what this stuff is. They just see it recklessly and shamelessly hyped as a replacement for already illegal substances, view it therefore as a problem, and move to control it. They bolster any argument with anecdotal evidence of people acting irresponsibly with salvia and harming themselves or others, no doubt misinformed or uninformed before using it.

I am deeply offended by such abandon of reason in the irresponsible promotion, abuse, and attempt to control these substances.

[eileenbunny]

eileen, i'm falling for you so completely. :drool:

:heart: Wait until you see the bunny outfit. You'll be mine.

[mikey]

i hate all you guys :mad:

[fly]

i hate all you guys :mad:
I've got some 5MeO-DMT that will blow your fucking mind.

[Epididymis]

PiHKAL and TiHKAL are both interesting reads. I haven't read either in entirety yet, but maybe one day.

Edit: Personally, I get more out of reading about these substances than actually using them. It's a vicarious experience I guess. Very rarely do I even drink alcohol, but I still really enjoy reading others' experiences with the plethora of psychotropic substances. Shulgin was the grandfather of the boom in these analogue compounds, and he presents some very objective information in these books.

[eileenbunny]

I've got some 5MeO-DMT that will blow your fucking mind.

Are you coming to Atlanta in October?

[eileenbunny]

PiHKAL and TiHKAL are both interesting reads. I haven't read either in entirety yet, but maybe one day.

Edit: Personally, I get more out of reading about these substances than actually using them. It's a vicarious experience I guess. Very rarely do I even drink alcohol, but I still really enjoy reading others' experiences with the plethora of psychotropic substances. Shulgin was the grandfather of the boom in these analog compounds, and he presents some very objective information in these books.

I like trying them all and writing about them myself. Everyone takes something different away from their experiences. I like what I get out of it and I've never had anything I've done terrify me. I just don't think I get scared.

[Sarcasmo]

why do people find it necessary to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own fracking body?


Because when you do something stupid and hurt yourself the burden falls on taxpayers.

It's why we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.

[eileenbunny]

Because when you do something stupid and hurt yourself the burden falls on taxpayers.

It's why we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.

Perhaps then, instead of spending millions of dollars a year on this "war on drugs" we should educate people so they won't do anything stupid and hurt themselves. Either way, the burden is falling on taxpayers.

[SemperFly]

Because when you do something stupid and hurt yourself the burden falls on taxpayers.

It's why we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.Bullshit. If I hurt myself with a drug the only burden will be on my insurance company if they decide to cover whatever medical costs were incurred due to my stupidity. How is it my fault that people without insurance OD and cost the rest of us money? If it makes you feel better, let's stop treating people without insurance at ERs that have managed to hurt themselves with drug or alcohol use. I'd be fine with that.

I don't agree with seatbelt laws and helmet laws, either. Damned if I will ever let anyone ride in a vehicle I'm driving without wearing a seatbelt but there shouldn't be a law against it if I decide not to. The only seatbelt laws I agree with are those that require parents to buckle their children. That's it. If a 17 year old jackass wants to cruise around with his seatbelt risking being thrown through the windshield, let him. It's not my problem, not my concern, not my business. I'm not about to drive without a seatbelt but if someone else is stupid enough not to then let them.

If someone is stupid enough to smoke two packs a day or pass out drunk every night or skydive or bunjee jump or anything else that is inherently chock full of risk, I don't care. I sure as shit shouldn't have to pay for it but that should be for the insurance company I choose to decide, not the government.

Drug laws are as stupid as gun laws. They prevent nothing, they cost us money, they fund black markets and genuine criminals, they prevent free people from exercising their alleged freedom, and they're used time and time again to curtail our civil liberties.

edit: sorry for the rant, I'm having a bad day :o

[b_sinning]

Perhaps then, instead of spending millions of dollars a year on this "war on drugs" we should educate people so they won't do anything stupid and hurt themselves. Either way, the burden is falling on taxpayers.


Or they could sell some of the drugs they confiscated and get the taxpayers their wasted money back.

[SemperFly]

Perhaps then, instead of spending millions of dollars a year on this "war on drugs" we should educate people so they won't do anything stupid and hurt themselves. Either way, the burden is falling on taxpayers.
*billions of dollars :(

[fly]

Are you coming to Atlanta in October?
yep

[FlamingGlory]

Bullshit. If I hurt myself with a drug the only burden will be on my insurance company if they decide to cover whatever medical costs were incurred due to my stupidity. How is it my fault that people without insurance OD and cost the rest of us money? If it makes you feel better, let's stop treating people without insurance at ERs that have managed to hurt themselves with drug or alcohol use. I'd be fine with that.

I don't agree with seatbelt laws and helmet laws, either. Damned if I will ever let anyone ride in a vehicle I'm driving without wearing a seatbelt but there shouldn't be a law against it if I decide not to. The only seatbelt laws I agree with are those that require parents to buckle their children. That's it. If a 17 year old jackass wants to cruise around with his seatbelt risking being thrown through the windshield, let him. It's not my problem, not my concern, not my business. I'm not about to drive without a seatbelt but if someone else is stupid enough not to then let them.

If someone is stupid enough to smoke two packs a day or pass out drunk every night or skydive or bunjee jump or anything else that is inherently chock full of risk, I don't care. I sure as shit shouldn't have to pay for it but that should be for the insurance company I choose to decide, not the government.

Drug laws are as stupid as gun laws. They prevent nothing, they cost us money, they prevent free people from exercising their alleged freedom, and they're used time and time again to curtail our civil liberties.

edit: sorry for the rant, I'm having a bad day :o
One little point to add:

Public intoxication, no matter what the substance is and should be illegal.

[fly]

Because when you do something stupid and hurt yourself the burden falls on taxpayers.

It's why we have seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.
Sounds like the 'burden' is what we need to fix, not the drug laws, helmut laws, and 10,000 other laws...

[Sarcasmo]

Bullshit. If I hurt myself with a drug the only burden will be on my insurance company if they decide to cover whatever medical costs were incurred due to my stupidity. How is it my fault that people without insurance OD and cost the rest of us money? If it makes you feel better, let's stop treating people without insurance at ERs that have managed to hurt themselves with drug or alcohol use. I'd be fine with that.

I don't agree with seatbelt laws and helmet laws, either. Damned if I will ever let anyone ride in a vehicle I'm driving without wearing a seatbelt but there shouldn't be a law against it if I decide not to. The only seatbelt laws I agree with are those that require parents to buckle their children. That's it. If a 17 year old jackass wants to cruise around with his seatbelt risking being thrown through the windshield, let him. It's not my problem, not my concern, not my business. I'm not about to drive without a seatbelt but if someone else is stupid enough not to then let them.

If someone is stupid enough to smoke two packs a day or pass out drunk every night or skydive or bunjee jump or anything else that is inherently chock full of risk, I don't care. I sure as shit shouldn't have to pay for it but that should be for the insurance company I choose to decide, not the government.

Drug laws are as stupid as gun laws. They prevent nothing, they cost us money, they prevent free people from exercising their alleged freedom, and they're used time and time again to curtail our civil liberties.

edit: sorry for the rant, I'm having a bad day :o

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm a libertarian. Do what you want and deal with the consequences on your own. It's all about accountability. But if you wrap your bike around a phone pole or plow through a guard rail and need a million bucks worth of brain surgery, society pays for that. i.e. me. And that pisses me off.

We can sit here until we're blue in the face and talk about refusing the people without insurance the care and medicine they need. But this is America, where we love to take care of people. Or rather, where we implement systems that we SAY take care of people, without ever really taking care of people. :shrug:

It's easier to make drugs illegal than to to form yet another system of miles and miles of red tape and political bureaucracy to filter out the worthy from the not-so-worthy and foot the bills for reorganization and administration in the process.

And yet, paradoxically, it's about what sounds good on paper, not what makes fiscal sense. Even if the war on drugs cost 15 times (hypothetical figure) what it would take to restructure the healthcare system, we STILL wouldn't want to make drugs legal because it sounds immoral and unjust.

I think the bottom line is that nothing in this country makes sense anymore. :fly:

[fly]

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm a libertarian. Do what you want and deal with the consequences on your own. It's all about accountability. But if you wrap your bike around a phone pole or plow through a guard rail and need a million bucks worth of brain surgery, society pays for that. i.e. me. And that pisses me off.

We can sit here until we're blue in the face and talk about refusing the people without insurance the care and medicine they need. But this is America, where we love to take care of people. Or rather, where we implement systems that we SAY take care of people, without ever really taking care of people. :shrug:

It's easier to make drugs illegal than to to form yet another system of miles and miles of red tape and political bureaucracy to filter out the worthy from the not-so-worthy and foot the bills for reorganization and administration in the process.

It's about what sounds good on paper, not what makes fiscal sense. Even if the war on drugs cost 15 times (hypothetical figure) what it would take to restructure the healthcare system, we STILL wouldn't want to make drugs legal because it sounds immoral and unjust.
I wonder how many brain surgeries it takes to duplicate the amount of money we've spent destroying Columbia alone...

[FlamingGlory]

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm a libertarian. Do what you want and deal with the consequences on your own. It's all about accountability. But if you wrap your bike around a phone pole or plow through a guard rail and need a million bucks worth of brain surgery, society pays for that. i.e. me. And that pisses me off.

We can sit here until we're blue in the face and talk about refusing the people without insurance the care and medicine they need. But this is America, where we love to take care of people. Or rather, where we implement systems that we SAY take care of people, without ever really taking care of people. :shrug:
Charity. With a rise of private chairties the people who need help get it if they deserve it, people give money to charity if they want. Socialism is the redistribution of wealth, the consequence is that people who recieve help believe they are entitled to it, e.g. the guy FEMA put up in a NY hotel who now wont leave because he says he deserves the money.


It's easier to make drugs illegal than to to form yet another system of miles and miles of red tape and political bureaucracy to filter out the worthy from the not-so-worthy and foot the bills for reorganization and administration in the process.

And yet, paradoxically, it's about what sounds good on paper, not what makes fiscal sense. Even if the war on drugs cost 15 times (hypothetical figure) what it would take to restructure the healthcare system, we STILL wouldn't want to make drugs legal because it sounds immoral and unjust.

I think the bottom line is that nothing in this country makes sense anymore. :fly:
There is a simple solution. Drugs form a part of interstate commerce. Anything that is part of interstate commerce falls under the purview of Federal agencies. You could put a tax on the manufacture, use, and possesion of narcotics. We already have an instant background check system in place, so why not also make it illegal for anyone convicted of a crime with a sentence of more than one year ineligable to purchase the various narcotic substances etc.

[SemperFly]

One little point to add:

Public intoxication, no matter what the substance is and should be illegal.
Why?

If I'm stoned in Central Park, basking in the sun and watching the rollerbladers fly by, where's the harm? Why not charge people with crimes when they've actually commited them and not because they could commit them?

[FlamingGlory]

Why?

If I'm stoned in Central Park, basking in the sun and watching the rollerbladers fly by, where's the harm? Why not charge people with crimes when they've actually commited them and not because they could commit them?
Two people having sex in central park in broad daylight also arent harming anyone except mentally.

Public space is not private by definition. It has nothing to do with commiting crimes. Not to mention that by your logic DWI/DUI shouldnt be illegal because they havent actually hurt anyone :tard:

[Sarcasmo]

There is a simple solution. Drugs form a part of interstate commerce. Anything that is part of interstate commerce falls under the purview of Federal agencies. You could put a tax on the manufacture, use, and possesion of narcotics. We already have an instant background check system in place, so why not also make it illegal for anyone convicted of a crime with a sentence of more than one year ineligable to purchase the various narcotic substances etc.


I think that solution is next to impossible to enforce. The amount of people who illicitly manufacture, sell and possess drugs would be vast. You could tax a few, but I think it's obvious that most people would simply take advantage of the sudden abundance of materials and skirt the system altogether (with really no fear of reprisal). Taxation would be like a microscopic pin prick on the artery of drug culture.

[SemperFly]

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm a libertarian. Do what you want and deal with the consequences on your own. It's all about accountability. But if you wrap your bike around a phone pole or plow through a guard rail and need a million bucks worth of brain surgery, society pays for that. i.e. me. And that pisses me off.
Pisses me off, too. This is why I abhor the idea of socialized health care.


We can sit here until we're blue in the face and talk about refusing the people without insurance the care and medicine they need. But this is America, where we love to take care of people. Or rather, where we implement systems that we SAY take care of people, without ever really taking care of people. :shrug:
True. Medical emergencies are one thing but I draw the line at paying for someone's rehab treatment. At least Cook County and Grady Memorial are paid for primarily with excise taxes as opposed to income tax.



It's easier to make drugs illegal than to to form yet another system of miles and miles of red tape and political bureaucracy to filter out the worthy from the not-so-worthy and foot the bills for reorganization and administration in the process.

And yet, paradoxically, it's about what sounds good on paper, not what makes fiscal sense. Even if the war on drugs cost 15 times (hypothetical figure) what it would take to restructure the healthcare system, we STILL wouldn't want to make drugs legal because it sounds immoral and unjust.

I think the bottom line is that nothing in this country makes sense anymore. :fly:
Indeed. :(

[Sarcasmo]

Why?

If I'm stoned in Central Park, basking in the sun and watching the rollerbladers fly by, where's the harm? Why not charge people with crimes when they've actually commited them and not because they could commit them?


Because people who are drunk or high are astronomically more likely to do something insane or harmful to others, either directly or indirectly.

[SemperFly]

Two people having sex in central park in broad daylight also arent harming anyone except mentally.

Public space is not private by definition. It has nothing to do with commiting crimes. Not to mention that by your logic DWI/DUI shouldnt be illegal because they havent actually hurt anyone :tard:

Not true. DWI/DUI would still be illegal because those are conditional to the licensing required to operate a two ton hunk of steel. Still, if I decide to walk home from the bar with the last beer still in my hand, I could be arrested. Why?

[SemperFly]

Because people who are drunk or high are astronomically more likely to do something insane or harmful to others, either directly or indirectly.
Nearly half of all accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means more than half of all accidents are caused by sober drivers! :eek: Sober driving kills. :fly:

[FlamingGlory]

I think that solution is next to impossible to enforce. The amount of people who illicitly manufacture, sell and possess drugs would be vast. You could tax a few, but I think it's obvious that most people would simply take advantage of the sudden abundance of materials and skirt the system altogether (with really no fear of reprisal). Taxation would be like a microscopic pin prick on the artery of drug culture.
Um, you cant fuck with the Treasury Dept. What you are saying is pretty much the same thing they said about Alcohol. By making it possible for people to access at all you can force them to jump through any number of hoops rather than deal with the consequences of not ponying up for taxes. Remember the penalty for Tax Evasion is 10 years in Federal Prison, a $10,000 fine, and the payment of all owed back taxes.

Turning the resources we use to enforce the prohibition on drugs toward taxation would be highly effective. Not to mention it would be nearly self sustaining like the ATF.

[FlamingGlory]

Not true. DWI/DUI would still be illegal because those are conditional to the licensing required to operate a two ton hunk of steel. Still, if I decide to walk home from the bar with the last beer still in my hand, I could be arrested. Why?
Ever think that no one wants to deal with you when you are drunk, or see you doing it. Refer back to the sex analogy.

[SemperFly]

I think that solution is next to impossible to enforce. The amount of people who illicitly manufacture, sell and possess drugs would be vast. You could tax a few, but I think it's obvious that most people would simply take advantage of the sudden abundance of materials and skirt the system altogether (with really no fear of reprisal). Taxation would be like a microscopic pin prick on the artery of drug culture.
That's not how it happened when Prohibition was repealed. Tell me, if you had the choice between buying a 1/4oz of weed from some guy named Joe that your buddy knows or from Walgreens, which would you choose? The unknown, unreliable source or the one you know has gone through quality control for health and safety concerns?

[FlamingGlory]

Nearly half of all accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means more than half of all accidents are caused by sober drivers! :eek: Sober driving kills. :fly:
Flawed reasoning.

If A causes half of all accidents
Then B causes the other half

Affirming the consequent

[Sarcasmo]

Not true. DWI/DUI would still be illegal because those are conditional to the licensing required to operate a two ton hunk of steel. Still, if I decide to walk home from the bar with the last beer still in my hand, I could be arrested. Why?


It's not just about danger or safety, it's about the integrity of society. No one wants to live in a place where there are hordes of drunks and stoners stumbling about. It's makes it a very unpleasant place to live. Drunks don't hold doors open for people, or engage in profound discussion. They stumble, they puke, they urinate, they fight, they're loud, and they annoy the shit out of people. Stoners are just downright fucking bizarre, depending on the substance.

Laws are (believe it or not) a representation of the beliefs of the majority of the population. If you aren't convinced by that, I think you'd be surprised. Release a scientific and concise poll asking the masses if they think public intoxication or drug use are good ideas. I think you'd see something like 17% No, 75% FUCK NO, 5% Probably Not, and 3% Sure, Why Not.

[SemperFly]

Ever think that no one wants to deal with you when you are drunk, or see you doing it. Refer back to the sex analogy.
Understandable. To be honest I don't see why the exhibitionism should be an issue. But that's just me and others may not agree. Perhaps the majority of the voting populace in NY would prefer not to have people having sex in broad daylight.....


and thus laws for public intoxication or exhibitionism or anything that that occurs in public yet doesn't directly harm others should be left up to individual municipalities, counties, or at best, states to decide. In either case the Federal government should have zero say in any of those issues.

Flawed reasoning.

joke

It's not just about danger or safety, it's about the integrity of society. No one wants to live in a place where there are hordes of drunks and stoners stumbling about. Let's say one particular town does. They're a bunch of happy go lucky drinkers and would like to enjoy drinking in public. Should they not be allowed to decide their own laws on the matter?

[Sarcasmo]

Um, you cant fuck with the Treasury Dept. What you are saying is pretty much the same thing they said about Alcohol. By making it possible for people to access at all you can force them to jump through any number of hoops rather than deal with the consequences of not ponying up for taxes. Remember the penalty for Tax Evasion is 10 years in Federal Prison, a $10,000 fine, and the payment of all owed back taxes.

Turning the resources we use to enforce the prohibition on drugs toward taxation would be highly effective. Not to mention it would be nearly self sustaining like the ATF.


Who is going to find and pursue the millions of people who are evading those taxes, and how are you going to prove they actually ARE evading if you have no idea what they're producing and where? The chemicals used to make most drugs can be found at Walgreens, and these people are ingenius when it comes to covering up their activities. It's not for want of trying, it's simply impossible to track some of them down.

Look at drug use today. It's a vast subculture, and yet it's illegal. That wouldn't change just because you make it legal and decide to tax it. It is a completely uncontrollable and immeasurable monster. After three years of working with prosecutors at the DOJ, that's the one thing I learned the fastest. Everything you do represents about .0003% of what you COULD do or would like to do.

[FlamingGlory]

Understandable. To be honest I don't see why the exhibitionism should be an issue. But that's just me and others may not agree. Perhaps the majority of the voting populace in NY would prefer not to have people having sex in broad daylight.....

and thus laws for public intoxication or exhibitionism or anything that that occurs in public yet doesn't directly harm others should be left up to individual municipalities, counties, or at best, states to decide. In either case the Federal government should have zero say in any of those issues.
I didnt say anything about the Federal government. They dont have the authority to make those kind of laws. Every state has a public intoxication law. The Federal government can use money to encourage the sort of laws they like in any case, e.g. drinking age 21.

Let's say one particular town does. They're a bunch of happy go lucky drinkers and would like to enjoy drinking in public. Should they not be allowed to decide their own laws on the matter?
Municipal codes cant override State law. They have no soviergn power.

[Sarcasmo]

That's not how it happened when Prohibition was repealed. Tell me, if you had the choice between buying a 1/4oz of weed from some guy named Joe that your buddy knows or from Walgreens, which would you choose? The unknown, unreliable source or the one you know has gone through quality control for health and safety concerns?


There is nothing unreliable about the products currently coming out of South America. Which is why the cartels are worth billions upon billions of dollars. There are exceptions to everything, but the big players got that big through deliberate design. Do you think they would add a few more cogs to their machine to encourage the now far less fearful American consumers to spend even more money on their products? Their products would surpass anything offered by Walgreens, I can almost promise you.

[SemperFly]

I didnt say anything about the Federal government. They dont have the authority to make those kind of laws. Every state has a public intoxication law. The Federal government can use money to encourage the sort of laws they like in any case, e.g. drinking age 21.
We can an 18 year old into a war zone to die for his country but he can't have a beer when he returns from deployment. :rolleyes:

Municipal codes cant override State law. They have no soviergn power.
I realize that. Are you sure that all states have public intoxication laws?

[FlamingGlory]

Who is going to find and pursue the millions of people who are evading those taxes, and how are you going to prove they actually ARE evading if you have no idea what they're producing and where? The chemicals used to make most drugs can be found at Walgreens, and these people are ingenius when it comes to covering up their activities. It's not for want of trying, it's simply impossible to track some of them down.

Look at drug use today. It's a vast subculture, and yet it's illegal. That wouldn't change just because you make it legal and decide to tax it. It is a completely uncontrollable and immeasurable monster. After three years of working with prosecutors at the DOJ, that's the one thing I learned the fastest. Everything you do represents about .0003% of what you COULD do or would like to do.
I know that people CAN get away with a great deal and they do. The advantage of taxation and regulation though would to the average consumer outweigh the burden of paying a small tax. Why dont people buy vast quantities of tax free alcohol? Because quality varies so much, it isnt generally safe, and the only advantage is that they dont pay a VERY small tax on it. AFAIK the only place where it even competes with licensed production is WV and south PA.

[SemperFly]

There is nothing unreliable about the products currently coming out of South America. Which is why the cartels are worth billions upon billions of dollars. There are exceptions to everything, but the big players got that big through deliberate design. Do you think they would add a few more cogs to their machine to encourage the now far less fearful American consumers to spend even more money on their products? Their products would surpass anything offered by Walgreens, I can almost promise you.
Say what? The reason cartels are worth billions upon billions is because they're the only source of the product. Of course they're unreliable; you never know the true purity of the product you're getting unless you're an accomplished chemist and considering the number of hands it passes through there's no telling what other deadly stuff could be in there.

You don't think that Abbot labs could produce better cocaine than the guys in Colombia that pay kids ten cents to stamp on plastic sheets for six hours?

[Sarcasmo]

Understandable. To be honest I don't see why the exhibitionism should be an issue. But that's just me and others may not agree. Perhaps the majority of the voting populace in NY would prefer not to have people having sex in broad daylight.....


and thus laws for public intoxication or exhibitionism or anything that that occurs in public yet doesn't directly harm others should be left up to individual municipalities, counties, or at best, states to decide. In either case the Federal government should have zero say in any of those issues.

joke

Let's say one particular town does. They're a bunch of happy go lucky drinkers and would like to enjoy drinking in public. Should they not be allowed to decide their own laws on the matter?

Yes, and they do. If the States don't say otherwise.

[FlamingGlory]

We can an 18 year old into a war zone to die for his country but he can't have a beer when he returns from deployment. :rolleyes:
Voting age use to be 21 too. Conscription is never going to happen again in any case. There would be a civil war first.

I realize that. Are you sure that all states have public intoxication laws?
A quick search of Findlaw seems to say so.

[SemperFly]

Voting age use to be 21 too. Conscription is never going to happen again in any case. There would be a civil war first. Conscription? :confused: I'm talking about the fact that an 18 year old is considered mature enough to carry an M16 into battle or direct a 45 million dollar Hornet across the deck of an aircraft carrier but for some reason isn't mature enough to have a beer.


A quick search of Findlaw seems to say so. Most of them are part of the MV code.
rgr. you make a good point either way

[FlamingGlory]

Conscription? :confused: I'm talking about the fact that an 18 year old is considered mature enough to carry an M16 into battle or direct a 45 million dollar Hornet across the deck of an aircraft carrier but for some reason isn't mature enough to have a beer.
Ah, well the thing is that the only people who care about the drinking age are 18-21. Once you turn 21 it's a non-issue. Around here it's also a non issue because the cops frankly dont care unless you are outside, driving, or making a lot of noise.

rgr. you make a good point either way
:D

[Sarcasmo]

Say what? The reason cartels are worth billions upon billions is because they're the only source of the product. Of course they're unreliable; you never know the true purity of the product you're getting unless you're an accomplished chemist and considering the number of hands it passes through there's no telling what other deadly stuff could be in there.

You don't think that Abbot labs could produce better cocaine than the guys in Colombia that pay kids ten cents to stamp on plastic sheets for six hours?

Have you ever seen a pound of coke with 99% purity? I've seen several. Straight out of the "ghettos" of Venezuela and Columbia. I wonder how a bunch of talentless, uncommitted hacks could produce something like that without chemistry degrees or proper facilities. Don't believe everything you see on t.v. or read in books.

I should take you bowling with a buddy of mine in the DEA. He has stories about corruption and pharmaceutical intrigue that would leave you drooling. Drugs in South America go all the way to the top. Abbott Labs? They've got nothing that the cartels don't have. It's the same thing. I bet they even know the same people and go to the same Christmas parties.

But you're right, the weak spot is in the distribution channels. Once it gets to them they can do whatever they want with it. But with the exponential increase in profits that legalized drugs would bring those channels would likely be cleaned up in a hurry, though of course that's just talk. There's no way to know for sure.

[SemperFly]

Ah, well the thing is that the only people who care about the drinking age are 18-21. Once you turn 21 it's a non-issue. Around here it's also a non issue because the cops frankly dont care unless you are outside, driving, or making a lot of noise.


:D
I'm 23 and I still think the drinking age is stupid.

[SemperFly]

Have you ever seen a pound of coke with 99% purity? I've seen several. Straight out of the "ghettos" of Venezuela and Columbia. I wonder how a bunch of talentless, uncommitted hacks could produce something like that without chemistry degrees or proper facilities. Don't believe everything you see on t.v. or read in books.
I've seen several as well. But how many dime bags have you seen that pure? I guarantee you not a single one because to find an importer that doesn't cut, a distributor that doesn't cut, a wholesaler that doesn't cut, and a dealer that doesn't cut is nigh impossible. I never said the stuff wasn't made well, only that by the time it gets to your hands it could be laced with god knows what or be a hell of a lot less than what you're paying for. Having it in a regulated form, available by prescription, would eliminate many of the dangers associated with most drugs.


I should take you bowling with a buddy of mine in the DEA. He has stories about corruption and pharmaceutical intrigue that would leave you drooling. Drugs in South America go all the way to the top. Abbott Labs? They've got nothing that the cartels don't have. It's the same thing. I bet they even know the same people and go to the same Christmas parties.
No doubt but at least in the case of Abbot the money isn't going into the hands of murderers, thieves, gangs and hell, even terrorists. At least with Abbot there's quality control from manufacturing to the store shelf. At least with Abbot there are strict health and safety guidelines to follow and workers aren't killed and dumped in harbors when they don't perform.


But you're right, the weak spot is in the distribution channels. Once it gets to them they can do whatever they want with it. But with the exponential increase in profits that legalized drugs would bring those channels would likely be cleaned up in a hurry, though of course that's just talk. There's no way to know for sure.
Yes there is. It happened once already in 1933.

[Epididymis]

One little point to add:

Public intoxication, no matter what the substance is and should be illegal.


What should be a measure of intoxication? DWI (alcohol) has a clear threshold. Plenty of people drink alcohol moderately in public places. If other substances were made to be legal, they should likewise have some form of standardized threshold, no?

[Epididymis]

There is nothing unreliable about the products currently coming out of South America. Which is why the cartels are worth billions upon billions of dollars. There are exceptions to everything, but the big players got that big through deliberate design. Do you think they would add a few more cogs to their machine to encourage the now far less fearful American consumers to spend even more money on their products? Their products would surpass anything offered by Walgreens, I can almost promise you.


I think this is a misreprentation. The original point was that one cannot trust the purity or quality of these illicit products. Sure, some are made well, and some are made poorly. Some are clean, some are cut with all kinds of garbage. Some makers can't get ahold of the sovents they want, so they use sovents that leave toxic residues. The fact is that you just don't know.

I do know that the alcohol I buy from the store doesn't have significant quantities of methanol in it. There's a good chance that the moonshine I buy from farmer JoeBob doesn't have methanol in it either. But then again, I don't know for sure...

[FlamingGlory]

What should be a measure of intoxication? DWI (alcohol) has a clear threshold. Plenty of people drink alcohol moderately in public places. If other substances were made to be legal, they should likewise have some form of standardized threshold, no?
The threshold for public intoxication isnt like DWI/DUI, it's normally subjective and up to the individual officers and the court to decide. Acting like you are drunk even if you havent had any alcohol will still land you with a fine. It normally written into the Statute.

For example:

§ 18.2-388. Profane swearing and intoxication in public; penalty; transportation of public inebriates to detoxification center.

If any person profanely curses or swears or is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. In any area in which there is located a court-approved detoxification center a law-enforcement officer may authorize the transportation, by police or otherwise, of public inebriates to such detoxification center in lieu of arrest; however, no person shall be involuntarily detained in such center.

[eileenbunny]

IMO there's no question of public intoxication. People shouldn't go out in public and cause a ruckus no matter who they are or what they are drinking/smoking/eating/injecting. If you are bothering someone to the point where their quality of life is effected, then you've gone too far. Certainly nobody should go out and drive under the influence. You are putting other people's lives in danger and that's just not cool.

However, what I do in my home on my own time shouldn't be anyone else's business but my own. If I'm responsible and safe, I don't see where the harm is. Our country is spending a lot of time trying to legislate against stupidity, and it just isn't possible.

[Epididymis]

IMO there's no question of public intoxication. People shouldn't go out in public and cause a ruckus no matter who they are or what they are drinking/smoking/eating/injecting. If you are bothering someone to the point where their quality of life is effected, then you've gone too far. Certainly nobody should go out and drive under the influence. You are putting other people's lives in danger and that's just not cool.

However, what I do in my home on my own time shouldn't be anyone else's business but my own. If I'm responsible and safe, I don't see where the harm is. Our country is spending a lot of time trying to legislate against stupidity, and it just isn't possible.


I propose that before decriminalization of various substances could ever happen, the issue of what constitutes intoxication would need to be clarified. This goes for public, driving, etc. Perhaps less subjective measurements and standards could be instated; and there would be different standards for different situations. With present saliva/breath/skin/sweat/whatever non-intrusive testing technology we have and will have in the near future, I think more quantitative standards for intoxication will be easier.

The fact of the matter is that all substances are different, and effects vary by dose. I honestly think there is an amount of many different presently illicit substances that wouldn't effectively impair one's driving ability any more than a <.08 BAC. There are also substances which could seriously impair driving ability at any amount. It's easy to say alcohol is okay at <.08 BAC, but any amount of anything else is bad, when anything else is illegal. It's not easy to say that when those other things are legal. Same goes for public consumption. We have bars. We have alcohol at ball games, and in churches and, in samples at grocery stores. There are certain amounts of alcohol that are okay, certain behavioral changes that are not considered extreme enough to be legally considered intoxication, and this would have to be applied for other substances as well for any decriminalization to occur.

[FlamingGlory]

I propose that before decriminalization of various substances could ever happen, the issue of what constitutes intoxication would need to be clarified. This goes for public, driving, etc. Perhaps less subjective measurements and standards could be instated; and there would be different standards for different situations. With present saliva/breath/skin/sweat/whatever non-intrusive testing technology we have and will have in the near future, I think more quantitative standards for intoxication will be easier.

The fact of the matter is that all substances are different, and effects vary by dose. I honestly think there is an amount of many different presently illicit substances that wouldn't effectively impair one's driving ability any more than a <.08 BAC. There are also substances which could seriously impair driving ability at any amount. It's easy to say alcohol is okay at <.08 BAC, but any amount of anything else is bad, when anything else is illegal. It's not easy to say that when those other things are legal. Same goes for public consumption. We have bars. We have alcohol at ball games, and in churches and, in samples at grocery stores. There are certain amounts of alcohol that are okay, certain behavioral changes that are not considered extreme enough to be legally considered intoxication, and this would have to be applied for other substances as well for any decriminalization to occur.
There already is, just most people arent aware of it.

For example NY:

S 1192. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol
or drugs.

1. Driving while ability impaired. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person`s ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol.
2. Driving while intoxicated; per se. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .10 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in the person`s blood as shown by chemical analysis of such person`s blood, breath, urine or saliva, made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of this article.
3. Driving while intoxicated. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.
4. Driving while ability impaired by drugs. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person`s ability to operate such a motor vehicle is impaired by the use of a drug as defined in this chapter.

NY and most other states have two or three DWI statutes. There is the .10% "in its own right" statute, that no matter what your ability you are guilty if you have that amount of alcohol in your system. Then there is the intoxication statute, even without a blood test if you are in an 'intoxicated condition' it is a crime to operate. The last one takes away your defence for use of OTC and other drugs, essentially if your ability is impaired at all by any drug it is a crime.

I can get court cases to give you a better definition of the two other statutes but I think I explained it pretty well. The BAC statutes are essentially a tool to streamline the justice procedure, there is no defense to it once a person is tested. Most of the cases around here actually stem from the DUI/DWAI statutes. They only haul out the breath test stuff on holidays and friday night.

[SemperFly]

BAC laws in themselves are pretty arbitrary. People don't understand that the only thing Blood Alcohol Content tells you is blood alcohol content. That's it. It is not an accurate measure of intoxication.

[eileenbunny]

I propose that before decriminalization of various substances could ever happen, the issue of what constitutes intoxication would need to be clarified. This goes for public, driving, etc. Perhaps less subjective measurements and standards could be instated; and there would be different standards for different situations. With present saliva/breath/skin/sweat/whatever non-intrusive testing technology we have and will have in the near future, I think more quantitative standards for intoxication will be easier.

The fact of the matter is that all substances are different, and effects vary by dose. I honestly think there is an amount of many different presently illicit substances that wouldn't effectively impair one's driving ability any more than a <.08 BAC. There are also substances which could seriously impair driving ability at any amount. It's easy to say alcohol is okay at <.08 BAC, but any amount of anything else is bad, when anything else is illegal. It's not easy to say that when those other things are legal. Same goes for public consumption. We have bars. We have alcohol at ball games, and in churches and, in samples at grocery stores. There are certain amounts of alcohol that are okay, certain behavioral changes that are not considered extreme enough to be legally considered intoxication, and this would have to be applied for other substances as well for any decriminalization to occur.

I don't think it matters whether they define it or not. I've never taken a drug and thought "I'm okay to drive." I think that nobody else should either. Driving is a privilige, and a dangerous one at that. It is irresponsible to get behind the wheel of a large piece of metal when you don't have all your wits about you. We really shouldn't need any laws about this at all. If you are using, DON'T DRIVE!!! I think the whole BAC thing is a load of crap. One beer or twenty, I just think people shouldn't drive. Sadly, people are going to continue to do this and it's a problem, but all the laws in the world hasn't stopped it.

As far as being impaired in public, it's really easy to define, and I believe I did in my previous post. Don't bother anyone else so that their quality of life is effected. It really doesn't matter what you are on, this is just a good rule of thumb. If you can't act like a human being, don't go out.

Maybe we should just make the law state that if you are gonna use, do it at home and don't go anywhere.

[Epididymis]

There already is, just most people arent aware of it.

For example NY:



NY and most other states have two or three DWI statutes. There is the .10% "in its own right" statute, that no matter what your ability you are guilty if you have that amount of alcohol in your system. Then there is the intoxication statute, even without a blood test if you are in an 'intoxicated condition' it is a crime to operate. The last one takes away your defence for use of OTC and other drugs, essentially if your ability is impaired at all by any drug it is a crime.

I can get court cases to give you a better definition of the two other statutes but I think I explained it pretty well. The BAC statutes are essentially a tool to streamline the justice procedure, there is no defense to it once a person is tested. Most of the cases around here actually stem from the DUI/DWAI statutes. They only haul out the breath test stuff on holidays and friday night.


It's actually .08 now in all states.

There are both quantitative and subjective methods of determining impairment for driving purposes. My point is that these would need to be applied to other (presently illicit) substances if they were to become legal. There would need to be less subjective standards for driving impairment, for what is defined as public intoxication, and any other situations.

It's clear that you can presently be charged with DUI if you appear impaired but don't blow over the BAC, or whatever, but that's not really what I was getting at. Right now, if I had any detectable quantity of an illicit substance in my system, was not impaired in any way, but was subjected to a random saliva test at a checkpoint of some sort (just imagine this scenario eventually becoming common with the increase in assaying technology), I could also be arrested for DUI. No amount of any illicit substance is okay notwithstanding lack of impairment. In contrast, some amounts of alcohol are okay if impairment above a threshold isn't obseved. This double standard couldn't exist in a world with more substances legal.

[Epididymis]

I don't think it matters whether they define it or not. I've never taken a drug and thought "I'm okay to drive." I think that nobody else should either. Driving is a privilige, and a dangerous one at that. It is irresponsible to get behind the wheel of a large piece of metal when you don't have all your wits about you. We really shouldn't need any laws about this at all. If you are using, DON'T DRIVE!!! I think the whole BAC thing is a load of crap. One beer or twenty, I just think people shouldn't drive. Sadly, people are going to continue to do this and it's a problem, but all the laws in the world hasn't stopped it.

As far as being impaired in public, it's really easy to define, and I believe I did in my previous post. Don't bother anyone else so that their quality of life is effected. It really doesn't matter what you are on, this is just a good rule of thumb. If you can't act like a human being, don't go out.

Maybe we should just make the law state that if you are gonna use, do it at home and don't go anywhere.

It's not realistic to think there can be a double standard for alcohol and "other drugs" in a world where those other drugs are also legal. I don't think it's realistic to ban use of all substances except to the confines of one's home. Do we include caffeine? Nicotine? Diet pills? OTC medicines? Refined sugar? The line between food and drug can be blurry. Who gets to decide what's okay and what's not? Yes, I'm being nitpicky, but this is actually my point. There are levels of behavioral change that are socially acceptable with alcohol, and the same holds true, or could hold true, with many other substances.

In a scenario where other substances were also legal, we'd have to either ban alcohol (and everything else) in public, instate a .00 BAC limit for driving, etc.; or we'd have to apply these kinds of level-of-impairment standards to other substances.

[FlamingGlory]

It's actually .08 now in all states.

There are both quantitative and subjective methods of determining impairment for driving purposes. My point is that these would need to be applied to other (presently illicit) substances if they were to become legal. There would need to be less subjective standards for driving impairment, for what is defined as public intoxication, and any other situations.

It's clear that you can presently be charged with DUI if you appear impaired but don't blow over the BAC, or whatever, but that's not really what I was getting at. Right now, if I had any detectable quantity of an illicit substance in my system, was not impaired in any way, but was subjected to a random saliva test at a checkpoint of some sort (just imagine this scenario eventually becoming common with the increase in assaying technology), I could also be arrested for DUI. No amount of any illicit substance is okay notwithstanding lack of impairment. In contrast, some amounts of alcohol are okay if impairment above a threshold isn't obseved. This double standard couldn't exist in a world with more substances legal.

In your hypothesis and under NYS Law , you could fight that charge on the grounds that you werent actually impaired. It isnt codified that any amount of any substance (except alcohol) in your system while driving constitutes a crime. Of course you wouldnt win in court because the Police will say that your ability was impaired and youll have no credibility because of the fact you did have an illegal substance in your system.

Also drug use per se isnt a crime ROBINSON v. CALIFORNIA, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

Though under Virginia Law:

§ 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of ,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v).

For the purposes of this article, the term "motor vehicle" includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth.

[Pandora]

I'll bring some to Atlanta.

I find that the method of administration is key to experiencing the drug. You have to get it very hot. I've had mild and mind blowing experiences on it. I find it can be very relaxing and fun in very small quantities. If you just use a little or you don't get it hot enough you can have a reasonably mild experience with it. Most people think it's a waste, but I think it's nice and leaves me with a very peaceful and relaxed feeling.

And what a coincidence...I just happen to have a lighter for that....


:shifty:

[mikey]

And what a coincidence...I just happen to have a lighter for that....


:shifty:


I happen to have a couple grams and no lighter.

[Pandora]

eileen, i'm falling for you so completely. :drool:

Paws off missy you've already claimed Fuxx, I want dibbs on elieen. You don't get to have all the girls! :P

[Thorn Bird]

Paws off missy you've already claimed Fuxx, I want dibbs on elieen. You don't get to have all the girls! :P


just you watch. i have this way... :D

[Epididymis]

In your hypothesis and under NYS Law , you could fight that charge on the grounds that you werent actually impaired. It isnt codified that any amount of any substance (except alcohol) in your system while driving constitutes a crime. Of course you wouldnt win in court because the Police will say that your ability was impaired and youll have no credibility because of the fact you did have an illegal substance in your system.

Also drug use per se isnt a crime ROBINSON v. CALIFORNIA, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

Though under Virginia Law:

I shouldn't have assumed this to be universal, because as you've pointed out, it's not (yet).

However, at least ten states have so-called zero tolerance per se laws for DUID (driving under the influence of drugs.) This means driving with any amount of illegal substance in one's system, regardless of impairment, is grounds for DUI. Several states also include drug metabolites. At least one state has an exemption for marijuana.

Within the past few years, there have been a few bills introduced to Congress to either encourage or mandate such zero tolerance laws across all states. Presently, federal legislation doesn't mandate this policy.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6492

[Epididymis]

also this page: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6669

[Pandora]

just you watch. i have this way... :D

OIC, so Fuxx is fair game then. Good to know....good to know... :pandora:

[Thorn Bird]

OIC, so Fuxx is fair game then. Good to know....good to know... :pandora:


together, we can take the world, all in one lick...:pandora:

[FlamingGlory]

I shouldn't have assumed this to be universal, because as you've pointed out, it's not (yet).

However, at least ten states have so-called zero tolerance per se laws for DUID (driving under the influence of drugs.) This means driving with any amount of illegal substance in one's system, regardless of impairment, is grounds for DUI. Several states also include drug metabolites. At least one state has an exemption for marijuana.

Within the past few years, there have been a few bills introduced to Congress to either encourage or mandate such zero tolerance laws across all states. Presently, federal legislation doesn't mandate this policy.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6492
Hmm. I dont see any heavy handed federal legislation about it coming realistically, it is beyond the power of the federal government. They can reccomend, they can withold highway funding, but there is a definite limit to their police powers. As to each State that has adopted zero tolerance laws, it is the purview of the states what their laws are. All you can do is lobby.

[Epididymis]

Hmm. I dont see any heavy handed federal legislation about it coming realistically, it is beyond the power of the federal government. They can reccomend, they can withold highway funding, but there is a definite limit to their police powers. As to each State that has adopted zero tolerance laws, it is the purview of the states what their laws are. All you can do is lobby.

I like Virginia's attempt at a per se policy. If I looked into their limits, I probably would think they were way too low for the legalization scenario I was depicting. Even so, that's closer to the idea I was thinking.

The federal government is the reason NY and other states are no longer .10 BAC . Every state has adopted .08 laws because the federal government threatened to withold highway funding otherwise.

[FlamingGlory]

I like Virginia's attempt at a per se policy. If I looked into their limits, I probably would think they were way too low for the legalization scenario I was depicting. Even so, that's closer to the idea I was thinking.

The federal government is the reason NY and other states are no longer .10 BAC . Every state has adopted .08 laws because the federal government threatened to withold highway funding otherwise.
Minimum drinking age was part of highway funding too. With a lot of help from MADD (whom I hate more than the ACLU). Though in most states you can posses and consume even if you arent allowed to purchase.

I usually use NY and VA for state law examples. I live in NY, and their codes are well organized/clearly written. If you want a headache try reading NJ or TX law.

[Epididymis]

Minimum drinking age was part of highway funding too. With a lot of help from MADD (whom I hate more than the ACLU). Though in most states you can posses and consume even if you arent allowed to purchase.

I just read in the Wikipedia entry for underage drinking that most states have a .02 BAC limit for <21 persons in public. That's interesting with respect to the quantitative definitions for public intoxication I was proposing. .02 BAC would not likley make a person appear intoxicated, but this would still legally be--in essence, not sure of the actual wording of the laws--public intoxication/underage consumption.

[FlamingGlory]

I just read in the Wikipedia entry for underage drinking that most states have a .02 BAC limit for <21 persons in public. That's interesting with respect to the quantitative definitions for public intoxication I was proposing. .02 BAC would not likley make a person appear intoxicated, but this would still legally be--in essence, not sure of the actual wording of the laws--public intoxication/underage consumption.
This one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underage_drinking_in_America ?

I hate it when people dont cite their sources. It makes information nearly impossible to find. Some states do obviously have a prohibition on all underage stuff (yellow coloured ones): http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/index.asp?Type=BAS_APIS&SEC={0D5C719E-FCE8-4E15-A367-4145C655505F}&DE={E6F19624-0ADC-437F-917D-5E7CBC9F58B9}

I'm fairly certain they are just pro se public intoxication statutes so even if there is not enough evidence to prove that you werent "intoxicated" they can still prosecute.

[ChikkenNoodul]

Though in most states you can posses and consume even if you arent allowed to purchase.

Although LEO's and the media would have you think differently of course. During the summer months (When school is out) anyone 18+ with proper ID can buy booze in VT.

Now in CT IIRC, your parents can buy you a drink in a bar or something like that...


I usually use NY and VA for state law examples. I live in NY, and their codes are well organized/clearly written. If you want a headache try reading NJ or TX law.
Or CA law, there's a reason you can't just waive the bar if you're practicing in another state. :fly:

[ChikkenNoodul]

There should be additional driving tests available for 'impaired' driving, so that those that could pass 'em don't have to worry about the pathetically low .08 BAC limit.

[FlamingGlory]

There should be additional driving tests available for 'impaired' driving, so that those that could pass 'em don't have to worry about the pathetically low .08 BAC limit.
Pathetically low is right, I've had BAC taken once by blood (nursing students are fun) and .251% for me is about when the room starts spinning. I'd guess and say that I'm not even buzzed at .08%.

I never drive though, it's just not ethical.

[eileenbunny]

I never drive though, it's just not ethical.

This is my point exactly. I personally have no problem with people wandering around in public drunk, high, tripping, nodding, zoning, whatever. Do it, have fun, don't bother anyone, DON'T DRIVE. If you want to go out on drugs, get a sitter/designated driver, call a cab, take the bus, walk...there's a lot of other options. It's really simple to do. The way I see it, the reason people get upset about the drunk driving laws the way they are now is because it's inconvenient. Everyone wants to believe that they are okay to drive impaired even though other people may not be. I've heard the argument a zillion times. I just don't understand what is so difficult about just not driving after doing drugs (alcohol included) that have the potential to impair your abilities.

Also, if Thorn and Pandora want to argue over Fuxx and I, might I suggest a wrestling contest that includes pudding or jello? Winner take all? I'll need to be there to witness the event though. I'm sure Fuxx would agree.

[Thorn Bird]

Also, if Thorn and Pandora want to argue over Fuxx and I, might I suggest a wrestling contest that includes pudding or jello? Winner take all? I'll need to be there to witness the event though. I'm sure Fuxx would agree.

that just turned me on a little. let's do it. :D

[Pandora]

that just turned me on a little. let's do it. :D

NO FAIR! You could woop my butt with one bewb! I never get the womenz. :pouts:

[Thorn Bird]

NO FAIR! You could woop my butt with one bewb! I never get the womenz. :pouts:


come put your head on my bewb and i'll make it aaaaaaaall better. :heart: