Massachusetts Joint Revenue Committee hearing on marijuana legalization, regulation, taxation, and the right to grow your own for personal, non commercial use with Bill Breault speaking what some call reefer madness against the bill with MA State Reps and Senators present
More video to be posted.
Ever wanted to trot 15 hands high? Give today's deal a thumbs-up: $45 gets you two private hour-long horseback riding lessons ...
RT @alittlelucidity: @examinercom So excited to be a new member of your team! Thanks for the opportunity.
Kelly Osbourne wears Tony Ward Couture gown to Grammys (photos) t.co/hvItBZol
2012 Grammy Awards: Kirk Franklin wins awards for Hello Fear t.co/B5g5Faqo
Examiner.com is the inside source for everything local. We are powered by Examiners, the largest pool of passionate contributors in the world.
Examiners provide unique and original content to enhance life in your local city wherever that may be. Examiners come from all walks of life and contribute original content to entertain, inform, and inspire.
Comments
lmao this guys a joke, his facts are so old school and no one ever denied driving under the influence was something you shouldn't do. Saying driving under drugs after legalization is a huge speculation, and then he wants to talk about San Diego country!!! If you want to talk about destructive nature look at our California park systems! And yes, you are the minority get the hell out!
LMFAO ALL THAT DATA YOU DON'T HAVE!
We would be wise to adopt an approach allowing individuals to grow a little marijuana for personal use. It will put the illegal drug dealers out of business in a year. Limit the size of the growing area or the number of plants, and put a small user-fee on it to cover administrative costs, something like a fishing license.
One possibility:$100 per year for a permit to cultivate a dozen plants.
It's a win-win.
So, if he was the only opposition, then this must have passed, right?
The only to speak publicly at the hearing against it.
It hasn't gone to a vote, in many states and governmental committees they do the vote at the end of the hearing, not in MA. Vote is upcoming and we will find out when they let us know. I wish MA were more open and willing to do it right then, there, and in public. Why not in MA?
This guy is using statistics for alcohol, weed stays in systems for up to 30 days and can even longer.... so by his statement, if i smoke a blunt today and get in a wreck next month they WILL put me as having it in my system at the time of the crash.... so this guy is just retarded and uses no truthful facts.... i bet this hypocrite is an alcoholic which is 10 times worse then being a stoner.... and forget the tax based on THC.... alcohol isnt taxed higher based on proof.... it just cost more.... idiots like this is keeping America down.
I'm an advocate for legalization -- I believe it's a matter of personal liberty. However, here are the key points against legalization that, somehow, none of the opposition ever manages to express clearly:
1. If you legalize use, but not driving under the influence, you have to invent a reliable method of testing whether someone is high. This doesn't exist yet, and until it does, legalization of use means legalization of high-driving.
2. No one has estimated the cost of building the infrastructure around legalization. It must be regulated by government, meaning the creation of new government positions, possibly new departments. A *lot* of time/work/money will go into that. Sure, weed taxes might pay for it in the long run, but what's the up-front cost to taxpayers?
These are important points to address, and not only is no one answering them, they're not even being raised. NORML's written testimony actually insinuated that driving high is not dangerous. That's a bad position to
In response to John Factorial:
1. To solve the problem of no reliable way to test for recent use, how about a Field Sobriety type test? If you can count backwards from 100 while touching your nose, keep your balance while walking a straight line, speak intelligently, and perform basic hand-eye coordination tests as well as pass tests regarding your reaction time you should be easily able to drive.
2. Are you kidding me about the cost? Do you know how many lives are ruined by these idiotic laws? How can you compare a ruined life to money? Plus, I'm sure we'll be saving plenty when the cops aren't wasting money busting people for simple posession, or courts wasting money prosecuting, or jails wasting money imprisoing cannabis users.
1. Field sobriety and saliva testing and some of the new tests similiar to a breathalizer, they have can actually determine if one was high or at least if they used recently today, last few days versus last month....Field sobriety worked for decades before the breathalizer they use today. They still do field sobriety before the breath, so seriously what's the difference? None. Just most people stoned drive much better than those that are drunk. Even one beer is worse than a puff for most and that's backed by at least one study. .05 BAC which is legal is three times more likely to get in an accident than a person who just within the hour smoked pot.
2. Upfront costs? Next to ZERO. Really could be ZERO but I know the politicians like new furniture. Unlike casinos in which the taxpayer often finances or pays the longterm service costs for, marijuana just brings in the dough. It's already being sold and at a high price, all profit, no overheard, they collect big tax money. Huge net gai
Hey john factorial you better get your facts straight, there is a test its been used and tested in Australia ... they take a mouth swab and have the gear in the patrol cars, it detects weed coke eccy's speed .. the whole 9 yards.
Hey guys, good comments.
1. True, a field sobriety test could be used by police, and might even work. The problem with the mouth swab is that it can test marijuana usage up to 14 hours ago (long after the driver is no longer high). You have to be able to show in court that the driver was high, not simply that he smoked last night, slept it off and was on his way to work. Unless you can test for weed within the last 4 to 6 hours, we have to settle for letting the officer conduct a FST and using his own judgement. Maybe that's sufficient, but you have to convince lawmakers of that.
2. Please remember I'm talking about up-front costs: salaries for the folks who oversee taxation, regulation, manufacturing, dealing with the DEA, etc. Yes, revenue will come in. Yes, lives will be improved. I agree and support legalization! But if I tell you "Give me a million dollars and in two years I'll pay it back triple," you still have to find a million dollars first.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!