Other than being illegal what's wrong with having different strains? Drinkers have all kinds of choices, do drinkers really contribute more positively to our society?

My experience is yes on the drinkers but I’m not a proponent of alcohol by any means. Most of the drinkers I met had jobs and for the most part, contributed to our society. The typical weed smoker would sit around on some BS disability check and be baked most of the time they were awake. Sure there are exceptions to both groups but I’m speaking about to the majorities. Either 4 ounces of weed or 20 gallons of whiskey in a car is someone who either sells it or needs to make some serious changes in their life.

Eureka! I was hung up on possession at home not traveling in a vehicle. Yes most are most likely up to no good when they have that much on their person, UNLESS they are on the way back home from their hook up.

And that’s why taking in the totality of the circumstances is done on stops that end up with weed. Cops don’t want to put everyone in jail. They want to put the right people in jail. It’s actually a fair amount of work to book someone in on a PC arrest. You would be floored if you knew the number of weed users I sent on their way. It also resulted in hundreds of documented gang members being arrested for it and much more serious crimes. They were given zero breaks. As for the home aspect, if you get caught with it in your home you’re already in a lot more trouble than the weed would be. The only weed I found in homes were during search warrants for something a lot more serious.

So does it REALLY matter if someone ONLY has weed?

I thought this was supposed to be a free country

Police officers like to use "the odor of marijuana" as a justification to search vehicles; the same way they like to make chicken feather arrests as an excuse to conduct an "inventory" (search) of a vehicle before towing it off.

I respectfully disagree with that. The enormous power and resources of the government, combined with an extremely "conservative" society, is not exactly in the favor of the person accused of a crime. I know a lot of cops think that's the case. I take it from your posts that you are (or were) in law enforcement, and I understand that it's easy to get sucked into that viewpoint when your perception is skewed by that line of work. I have absolute respect for the job that law enforcement officers do, but I also know that citizen's rights get trampled every day, with little to no recourse against those officers who stretch the rules (er, the Constitution) in order to achieve a desired outcome.

How many times have you seen officers ask for consent to search, get denied by the motorist, and then make the motorist sit there for 30 minutes or an hour for a K9 to arrive, without any specific, articulable facts to lead the officer (or anyone else) to believe that the motorist has drugs in the vehicle? That happens all the time. It also happens to be against the law, according to established U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, but what is the recourse a citizen in that situation has against the officer? Nothing. Except maybe an IAD complaint, which generally results in little more than a stern talking-to, at most.

Weed is illegal, By it being bought and sold is someone helping the Mexican Drug Cartel survive and thrive especially in Texas.

Almost everyone I know that is now a looser started out just smoking a little weed as a youth, I remember when I got my first apartment I was like age 19, most of the people I knew all had bongs and weed trays under their couches, they would smoke daily.

I watched family and friends who never lived up to their potential due to the weed killing their drive in life.

That might be true, but obviously the fact that it's "illegal" didn't deter any of those people, right? Legal or not, people are going to do it if they want to. Just like the Prohibition era. The only difference is exactly what you said: Under the current laws, people have to source their marijuana from illegal sources (cartels, etc.), just like the mobsters controlled the liquor industry during Prohibition.

The opposite of your statement is also true. Most people probably know functioning alcoholics and users of marijuana who are very successful and happy in life, who otherwise don't break any laws.

I love weed threads. They smoke out the dirt bags every time.

Are you referring to me?

Did I inhale? Probably did but after 40 to 50 years, it’s hard to remember.

Or it comes from Colorado, or New Mexico, or Oklahoma, where it is taxed and those states benefit from the revenue instead of TX.

Why smoke weed when you could have a gummy or cookie?

Dang, I guess believing in personal freedom is scandalous behavior to some.

Redranger is 100% correct. "most of the people I knew all had bongs and weed trays under their couches, they would smoke daily." That was me at age 19. I was the dude with the bong under the couch. Luckily, I had an epiphany around age 20. Have not touched it since, and don't want to. I do, however see the same thing as him. "family and friends who never lived up to their potential due to the weed killing their drive in life."

Weed ain't a good thing unless you have Cancer or Glaucoma. Those of you who smoke daily and think it's fine are lying to yourselves.

Daily


Dr Pepper, skittles, fried chicken, beer, snuff etc isn’t good either, but you don’t see anyone squawking about those things.

One consideration: If a person is arrested for ANY narcotics offense, it goes on their police record. Go for a job interview and you will get a background check. It isn’t a positive and “ Yeah, but” is not acceptable The company just moves on without asking for an explanation.

In the career arena, it’s not a victimless crime.

Not to mention the costs associated with hiring an attorney, going to court over-and-over again, and filing an expunction (if eligible to do so). Oh, and spending a night or two (or more) in jail isn't what most people would call a "fun time."

Here's another fun fact:

Did you know that a Possession of Marijuana conviction can trigger a driver's license suspension of 180 days, even if the arrest had absolutely NOTHING to do with driving? (Don't feel bad if you didn't know that. Most cops don't even know that.)

Example: Willie is sitting on a park bench, and gets arrested because he has a small joint in his pocket. 180-day mandatory and automatic driver's license suspension upon conviction, with no opportunity for a hearing on the suspension, even if nobody (like a prosecutor, for example) bothered to mention this to him before he foolishly went to court on his own and entered a plea on the case.

And then he would have to complete a mandatory Drug Offender Education Program and pay a reinstatement fee to get his driver's license back.

it works faster. depends on what you're using it for.

Step out of the car please. I smell the odor of marijuana.

I personally have no problem with any of this. Don’t break the law and there is no problem.