I voted to keep our county dry! (Page 2)

From what I understand, New Mexico has some of the most draconian dram shop laws in the country.

If I were completely drunk, was really good at hiding it (no outward signs like slurred speech, stumbling, etc.) and bought something else to drink (at a bar or liquor store, etc) and drank it and then drove and killed someone, that last person to sell to me would be held liable, even though they had absolutely no idea how many drinks I drank before I got to them.  Or if, I went to a liquor store, bought a case of beers, drank them in their parking lot, or somewhere nearby, drove and killed/hurt someone, that liquor store is liable.

You sure they weren't laced with something?

Wait, are you talking about me?

When weed is "laced with something", it is generally done by the person doing the lacing (think of "wet" - MJ with formaldehyde). I see a lot of people who end up with idiosyncratic reactions to weed (e.g. psychotic episodes) who often claim "it must have been laced with something" - but no other evidence that this is the case (e.g. no one else who was using with them had a similar reaction, nothing else shows up in the drug screen, etc). It is more likely that they have a predisposition to such reactions, which is a bad sign. It means they are more likely to have psychotic breaks in general, and they may well begin to have permanent psychosis as a result of their using. It is rare, but unpredictable.

Well, considering the word "Assassin" comes from the fact that these hired killers in the ME would smoke "hashish" and then go kill someone, I don't think it would require being laced with something for someone to do violent things after smoking the cannabis.

The below article in the USA Today (which I call "the McPaper" because like McDonald's and calories, the McPaper has statistics, they're just not always presented accurately or represent what they indicate they do) shows that in all cities, Marijuana is the most prevalent drug found in someone's blood stream upon their arrest.  Except in the ATL where it's cocaine.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-27-arrestees_N.htm

Both Alcohol and Mary-jane are depressants, but people still do messed up stuff when they're drunk or high.

I'm ok with some legalization, but with controls.

Yes it does. When you account for time off work, medical costs, lost production at work, regulation, and criminal costs.... alcohol cost more than all illegal drugs combined. But Americans are cool with that. Even DUIs... they could be wiped out nearly overnight with say... 5 years mandatory prison... but too many people drive drunk... including legislatures, so it is OK.

I don't have a problem with alcohol, but DUIs are needless. And the only thing thw War on Drugs has done is militarize the police and funded criminal organizations.

So what? It is currently illegal to drive under the influence of prescription drugs. You can't take 5 Vicodin and get behind the wheel. I can't go to work on muscle relaxers either.

There have only been tests to determine if you smoke weed because that was all that was needed. There are test to determine if you are high on weed currently. For some stupid reason a law was not passed here to set a legal limit to drive. It can easily be handled.

And why in the world would you assume more people will smoke weed if it is legalized. I think heroin should be legalized, and it isn't because I'm going to rush out and use it.

All i want to know is if we needed a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the use of alcohol, and the subsequent repeal allowed it... where is the Constitutional amendment prohibiting drugs? The only reason is because Anglo Saxons love getting drunk, so it is OK. And it is perfectly Ok to beat your wife and kids, kill people with your car, and generally rape pillage and plunder under it's influence. But ya drugs... you really cross the line there.

Do you otherwise think it's a good idea for the government to make personal decisions for you?  Maybe outlaw soft drinks, or potato chips.

I see where you bolded the word I in my post. And let me reassure you that I made those observations, based on MY experiences, which led to MY conclusions, not the Govt.

And I thought this was a vote, which was letting the people of his county/city decide.

(I can bold all the I's also! It's kind of fun!)

Sure it is.  My question was more about your political philosophy.  Do you think this sort of governmental control, generally, is good?  Examples being outlawing soft drinks, or potato chips.

Nope, I do not think the Govt should try to control chips and cokes, but if you are trying to compare eating potato chips and cokes to alcohol or weed... it is not apples to apples!

Why not?  Is me drinking a beer somehow more detrimental to me or society than me eating a bag of chips?

 Living in WA i voted last year to get the state out of the liquor business and make it available in all stores (along with Beer and Wine) AND I voted this year to legalize marijuana. I am not a big drinker. An occassional beer and rarely a mixed drink but I think this was a good move for us and so far all of the "underage drinking and conveniance stores selling to minors all the time..." has not come to pass any more than it was already happening, maybe even a little less from the news stories and search I did.

I do not smoke MJ at all and can't see myself ever having a reason too. But I voted to legalize it, not because I want it, or because I want the tax revenue from selling it. I voted to legalize it so our cops and criminal justice system would have that bit more freedom to work on more important crimes.

If I decide to eat a bag of chips and drive home and you decide to drink beer and drive home, I think your decision is more detrimental to you and society.a

This has nothing to do with you personally, because I don't presume to know your personal political preferences.  However, this sort of thinking is what makes me laugh when I hear conservatives/Republicans talk about less government and more personal freedoms.

If you want to use this specific example, is drinking (above a limit) and driving permitted where you live? 

When I was in college the beer run was a staple of every Fri, Sat and some Sun nights. Lucky for us there were no less than 5 convenience stores and a huge grocery store within 10 minutes walking distance that all sold beer and wine. 

Imagine if when we ran out of beer we had to get in the car and drive to get more...

Two posts ago you asked about MY political philosophy on things, now you say this has nothing to do with me personally?  which is it? 

So less Govt, are we talking about local Govt, State Govt or Federal Govt?

If you fancy yourself a more personal freedom/less government type, then, yes, I think your vote in this instance is laughable.  Fed, state or local government - heck make it as local as a homeowners' association if you want.