Marijuana legalization to go on the Nov ballot in CA
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]yup.. cali has legalized it medically but the feds raid the dispensaries all the time Not "all the time"; there hasn't been a raid here in SF in months that I've heard aboutIt doesn't matter if it get's voted in or not. There is still a federal ban on it. This ballot is pointless.
xaos
and for every raid, at least here in SF, two new clubs start up.
I was pretty bad growing up and I've been there done that. And depending on the individual - their bodies can handle certain drugs very well. Now, do we cater to those who can handle it well - or regulate it taking into consideration those who don't. Because believe it or not - and me seeing it myself - some people can not handle weed like most here. And are you telling me that even after drinking 7 glasses of my vodka mix, just because I KNOW how to pass a field sobriety test, I should be allowed to drive off? I don't think so. I'd be way over the BAC limit. Believe it or not - the field sobriety test isn't that hard to pass if you know what you're doing."some people can not handle weed like most here."[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]"I know how to pass a field sobriety test drunk."
but being high and being drunk have two totally different effects. if you can pass a field sobriety test while high, i think you'd be okay to drive. i'll admit that i have driven when i probably shouldn't have, but i don't think i would have passed a sobriety test either.
and i can't speak for the other drugs because i've never done them and don't plan on it, but based on what i've heard about them, they don't have the same effects as weed. i don't think it makes sense to compare weed and alcohol and cocaine, etc. to each other, because they don't have the same effects.
needled24-7
i think if someone can't handle it, they wouldn't pass a sobriety test.
and no, i don't think it's okay to drive drunk. but driving high is completely different from driving drunk, that's what i was saying before. besides, if someone had 7 drinks, i don't think they'd know what they were doing to pass a sobriety test. besides, even if you know what you are doing, when you are drunk, sometimes you just can't control yourself, that's what being drunk is :P. i think the vast majority of people would not know what they're doing if they had 7 drinks.
Ahh see there we go. So you can't fathom how I can handle it - but plenty of people are functioning after that many drinks - perhaps more. And the thing is many THINK they are functioning after that many drinks but are not. Now, would you feel safe to let someone who has had one drink get behind the wheel? What about two? What about three? If they say they are fine and that they can handle it and they are functioning - would you be okay with that? Maybe their reaction to alcohol is not the same as yours? Now for weed, would you be comfortable letting them get behind the wheel after one hit? Two? three? more? They say they are fine, they say they are functioning. How do you know if you are not them? How do you regulate it if it is not you? How do I know you can really handle it? What is the measure there apart from taking your word on it? If I have to take your word on how someone who is high is more likely functioning - why can you not take my word for it that I am fully functioning after 7 drinks?Hopefully. Drug prohibition in many cases ends up doing more damage than good. The main drawback to legalizing marijuana is there isn't an effective way to catch people driving really stoned, which is quite dangerous. GettingTired
And untill there is, I refuse to vote to legalize it.
[QUOTE="needled24-7"]"some people can not handle weed like most here."[QUOTE="Sajedene"] I was pretty bad growing up and I've been there done that. And depending on the individual - their bodies can handle certain drugs very well. Now, do we cater to those who can handle it well - or regulate it taking into consideration those who don't. Because believe it or not - and me seeing it myself - some people can not handle weed like most here. And are you telling me that even after drinking 7 glasses of my vodka mix, just because I KNOW how to pass a field sobriety test, I should be allowed to drive off? I don't think so. I'd be way over the BAC limit. Believe it or not - the field sobriety test isn't that hard to pass if you know what you're doing.Sajedene
i think if someone can't handle it, they wouldn't pass a sobriety test.
and no, i don't think it's okay to drive drunk. but driving high is completely different from driving drunk, that's what i was saying before. besides, if someone had 7 drinks, i don't think they'd know what they were doing to pass a sobriety test. besides, even if you know what you are doing, when you are drunk, sometimes you just can't control yourself, that's what being drunk is :P. i think the vast majority of people would not know what they're doing if they had 7 drinks.
Ahh see there we go. So you can't fathom how I can handle it - but plenty of people are functioning after that many drinks - perhaps more. And the thing is many THINK they are functioning after that many drinks but are not. Now, would you feel safe to let someone who has had one drink get behind the wheel? What about two? What about three? If they say they are fine and that they can handle it and they are functioning - would you be okay with that? Maybe their reaction to alcohol is not the same as yours? Now for weed, would you be comfortable letting them get behind the wheel after one hit? Two? three? more? They say they are fine, they say they are functioning. How do you know if you are not them? How do you regulate it if it is not you? How do I know you can really handle it? What is the measure there apart from taking your word on it? If I have to take your word on how someone who is high is more likely functioning - why can you not take my word for it that I am fully functioning after 7 drinks?but i was never saying that it is okay to drive drunk. i don't think it's okay. that's what i said in my previous post. maybe it is okay to drive after a drink or two, but you're not drunk then, maybe buzzed, but not drunk. but that doesn't matter, i wasn't even talking about that in the first place, i was talking about driving HIGH. some people can do it, some people can't. that's why a sobriety test (maybe a different one than they use for alcohol) would help determine if they are fit to drive or not.Ahh see there we go. So you can't fathom how I can handle it - but plenty of people are functioning after that many drinks - perhaps more. And the thing is many THINK they are functioning after that many drinks but are not. Now, would you feel safe to let someone who has had one drink get behind the wheel? What about two? What about three? If they say they are fine and that they can handle it and they are functioning - would you be okay with that? Maybe their reaction to alcohol is not the same as yours? Now for weed, would you be comfortable letting them get behind the wheel after one hit? Two? three? more? They say they are fine, they say they are functioning. How do you know if you are not them? How do you regulate it if it is not you? How do I know you can really handle it? What is the measure there apart from taking your word on it? If I have to take your word on how someone who is high is more likely functioning - why can you not take my word for it that I am fully functioning after 7 drinks?but i was never saying that it is okay to drive drunk. i don't think it's okay. that's what i said in my previous post. maybe it is okay to drive after a drink or two, but you're not drunk then, maybe buzzed, but not drunk. but that doesn't matter, i wasn't even talking about that in the first place, i was talking about driving HIGH. some people can do it, some people can't. that's why a sobriety test (maybe a different one than they use for alcohol) would help determine if they are fit to drive or not. Some people get really high off of one hit. Some people get really drunk off of one drink. Lightweight people exist. How do we determine that? Now you bring up what I have been suggesting - measuring / determining if someone is fit enough to drive while high. How does one determine or exercise that? Does this ballot take that into consideration? That is what we need to have to regulate it. Not just pass it because it will take a state out of debt, which I even doubt will happen.[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]"some people can not handle weed like most here."
i think if someone can't handle it, they wouldn't pass a sobriety test.
and no, i don't think it's okay to drive drunk. but driving high is completely different from driving drunk, that's what i was saying before. besides, if someone had 7 drinks, i don't think they'd know what they were doing to pass a sobriety test. besides, even if you know what you are doing, when you are drunk, sometimes you just can't control yourself, that's what being drunk is :P. i think the vast majority of people would not know what they're doing if they had 7 drinks.
needled24-7
what the stoners really want is to be able to buy weed at there local gas station. But if it does become legal it should only be from a Medical Doctor .
I will be voting in November to legalize, since I live in Cali. It should be up to us 21+ adults if we want to put a plant into our bodies.
[QUOTE="needled24-7"]but i was never saying that it is okay to drive drunk. i don't think it's okay. that's what i said in my previous post. maybe it is okay to drive after a drink or two, but you're not drunk then, maybe buzzed, but not drunk. but that doesn't matter, i wasn't even talking about that in the first place, i was talking about driving HIGH. some people can do it, some people can't. that's why a sobriety test (maybe a different one than they use for alcohol) would help determine if they are fit to drive or not. Some people get really high off of one hit. Some people get really drunk off of one drink. Lightweight people exist. How do we determine that? Now you bring up what I have been suggesting - measuring / determining if someone is fit enough to drive while high. How does one determine or exercise that? Does this ballot take that into consideration? That is what we need to have to regulate it. Not just pass it because it will take a state out of debt, which I even doubt will happen.so IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized?[QUOTE="Sajedene"] Ahh see there we go. So you can't fathom how I can handle it - but plenty of people are functioning after that many drinks - perhaps more. And the thing is many THINK they are functioning after that many drinks but are not. Now, would you feel safe to let someone who has had one drink get behind the wheel? What about two? What about three? If they say they are fine and that they can handle it and they are functioning - would you be okay with that? Maybe their reaction to alcohol is not the same as yours? Now for weed, would you be comfortable letting them get behind the wheel after one hit? Two? three? more? They say they are fine, they say they are functioning. How do you know if you are not them? How do you regulate it if it is not you? How do I know you can really handle it? What is the measure there apart from taking your word on it? If I have to take your word on how someone who is high is more likely functioning - why can you not take my word for it that I am fully functioning after 7 drinks?Sajedene
Some people get really high off of one hit. Some people get really drunk off of one drink. Lightweight people exist. How do we determine that? Now you bring up what I have been suggesting - measuring / determining if someone is fit enough to drive while high. How does one determine or exercise that? Does this ballot take that into consideration? That is what we need to have to regulate it. Not just pass it because it will take a state out of debt, which I even doubt will happen.so IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized? I would be a little more at ease. Some people, as I have learned, just don't know when enough is enough, and I'd be more inclined to support it if there is true regulation to it. But that is not the case - so I will vote NO.[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]but i was never saying that it is okay to drive drunk. i don't think it's okay. that's what i said in my previous post. maybe it is okay to drive after a drink or two, but you're not drunk then, maybe buzzed, but not drunk. but that doesn't matter, i wasn't even talking about that in the first place, i was talking about driving HIGH. some people can do it, some people can't. that's why a sobriety test (maybe a different one than they use for alcohol) would help determine if they are fit to drive or not.
needled24-7
[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]but i was never saying that it is okay to drive drunk. i don't think it's okay. that's what i said in my previous post. maybe it is okay to drive after a drink or two, but you're not drunk then, maybe buzzed, but not drunk. but that doesn't matter, i wasn't even talking about that in the first place, i was talking about driving HIGH. some people can do it, some people can't. that's why a sobriety test (maybe a different one than they use for alcohol) would help determine if they are fit to drive or not.
Some people get really high off of one hit. Some people get really drunk off of one drink. Lightweight people exist. How do we determine that? Now you bring up what I have been suggesting - measuring / determining if someone is fit enough to drive while high. How does one determine or exercise that? Does this ballot take that into consideration? That is what we need to have to regulate it. Not just pass it because it will take a state out of debt, which I even doubt will happen.so IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized? Im pretty sure if it gets legalized then some researchers or whatever will definitley invest some time to develop a way in finding how much THC is in a person's body. It could be a similar system to alcohol.[QUOTE="needled24-7"]so IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized? Im pretty sure if it gets legalized then some researchers or whatever will definitley invest some time to develop a way in finding how much THC is in a person's body. It could be a similar system to alcohol. Then why not do that first BEFORE making it legal? Why wait until then?[QUOTE="Sajedene"] Some people get really high off of one hit. Some people get really drunk off of one drink. Lightweight people exist. How do we determine that? Now you bring up what I have been suggesting - measuring / determining if someone is fit enough to drive while high. How does one determine or exercise that? Does this ballot take that into consideration? That is what we need to have to regulate it. Not just pass it because it will take a state out of debt, which I even doubt will happen.butteman12
Some people get really high off of one hit. Some people get really drunk off of one drink. Lightweight people exist. How do we determine that? Now you bring up what I have been suggesting - measuring / determining if someone is fit enough to drive while high. How does one determine or exercise that? Does this ballot take that into consideration? That is what we need to have to regulate it. Not just pass it because it will take a state out of debt, which I even doubt will happen.Sajedeneso IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized? I would be a little more at ease. Some people, as I have learned, just don't know when enough is enough, and I'd be more inclined to support it if there is true regulation to it. But that is not the case - so I will vote NO. thats still being unfair. the same can be said for alcohol. some people just dont know when enough is enough yet alcohol is still legal. And as someone mentioned before, driving high is much more different than driving drunk. You are more reckless and negligent when drunk.
[QUOTE="butteman12"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]so IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized?Im pretty sure if it gets legalized then some researchers or whatever will definitley invest some time to develop a way in finding how much THC is in a person's body. It could be a similar system to alcohol. Then why not do that first BEFORE making it legal? Why wait until then?Sajedene
it might take some time to make it legalized if California actually does decide to pass it. maybe during that period of time california will look into it. it would make more sense.
[QUOTE="needled24-7"]so IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized? I would be a little more at ease. Some people, as I have learned, just don't know when enough is enough, and I'd be more inclined to support it if there is true regulation to it. But that is not the case - so I will vote NO.but why should it make you more at ease? you said before that some people get really high off one hit. which is true. and as there are lightweights, there are also heavyweights, they take a little more to get high. let's say a man and his friend are smoking, and let's also say that this device that can determine the level of THC in someone's system does exist. so the man and his friend are smoking, his friend takes 2 hits and is high, and the man takes 5 hits, but isn't high! because it takes more for him, he's built up a tolerance, whatever, the point being he isn't high, but still has the THC in his system. should that man not be able to drive since he's over the legal amount? (let's pretend he is). he's not high, but still he can't drive?[QUOTE="Sajedene"] Some people get really high off of one hit. Some people get really drunk off of one drink. Lightweight people exist. How do we determine that? Now you bring up what I have been suggesting - measuring / determining if someone is fit enough to drive while high. How does one determine or exercise that? Does this ballot take that into consideration? That is what we need to have to regulate it. Not just pass it because it will take a state out of debt, which I even doubt will happen.Sajedene
[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]so IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized?I would be a little more at ease. Some people, as I have learned, just don't know when enough is enough, and I'd be more inclined to support it if there is true regulation to it. But that is not the case - so I will vote NO. thats still being unfair. the same can be said for alcohol. some people just dont know when enough is enough yet alcohol is still legal. And as someone mentioned before, driving high is much more different than driving drunk. You are more reckless and negligent when drunk.butteman12
But there is way to regulate and monitor alcohol with immediate results. There is none for weed.
If you re-read everything I've typed in the last two pages you will see I have already addressed that.
It's not fair for ANY individual who can handle their vice. Is it fair for a fully functioning person who does cocaine to have it illegal? It's their vice, their body - but its illegal for them too. What about other opiates? So yes, it will vary per individual. The only thing is - alcohol has the capability to generate an exact result of consumption but the others not so much.
I have seen marijuana Breathalyzers but also am aware of the questionable results. So lets take care of that first before legalizing it.
but it doesn't matter, weed will eventually be legalized, it's inevitable. sajedene, if your reason for not wanting it to be legal is because someone close to you had their lives destroyed because of weed, or because there isn't a way to determine how high someone is, yet you don't think alcohol should be illegal, that's just stupid.
I would be a little more at ease. Some people, as I have learned, just don't know when enough is enough, and I'd be more inclined to support it if there is true regulation to it. But that is not the case - so I will vote NO.but why should it make you more at ease? you said before that some people get really high off one hit. which is true. and as there are lightweights, there are also heavyweights, they take a little more to get high. let's say a man and his friend are smoking, and let's also say that this device that can determine the level of THC in someone's system does exist. so the man and his friend are smoking, his friend takes 2 hits and is high, and the man takes 5 hits, but isn't high! because it takes more for him, he's built up a tolerance, whatever, the point being he isn't high, but still has the THC in his system. should that man not be able to drive since he's over the legal amount? (let's pretend he is). he's not high, but still he can't drive? Then someone out there needs to figure out how to measure it immediately like alcohol. That's what I've been saying. You're saying that THC levels are not a good indication of being high. Yes, so what is? Until that is figured out, I don't want it legal. No matter how many hits certain individuals do - once they get high, which is their goal because who smokes weed to not get high, then how do we regulate it then? This is why with alcohol they will do a field sobriety test and then the BAC test. Someone like myself could pass the field test but will fail the BAC test. Then you have lightweight sally over there who will fail that field test. What should be done for marijuana smokers?[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]so IF someone came up with a reliable, accurate way to determine how much THC is in someone's system, what would you think then about it being legalized, or at least decriminalized?
needled24-7
thats still being unfair. the same can be said for alcohol. some people just dont know when enough is enough yet alcohol is still legal. And as someone mentioned before, driving high is much more different than driving drunk. You are more reckless and negligent when drunk.[QUOTE="butteman12"][QUOTE="Sajedene"] I would be a little more at ease. Some people, as I have learned, just don't know when enough is enough, and I'd be more inclined to support it if there is true regulation to it. But that is not the case - so I will vote NO.Sajedene
But there is way to regulate and monitor alcohol with immediate results. There is none for weed.
but if the person has already driven into oncoming traffic and hit a car and killed the people inside, it's too late for that. but oh well, we'll just have to make a motivational video and show it in drivers ed classes, right? maybe it will show people not to drive drunk, right? nah.[QUOTE="needled24-7"]but why should it make you more at ease? you said before that some people get really high off one hit. which is true. and as there are lightweights, there are also heavyweights, they take a little more to get high. let's say a man and his friend are smoking, and let's also say that this device that can determine the level of THC in someone's system does exist. so the man and his friend are smoking, his friend takes 2 hits and is high, and the man takes 5 hits, but isn't high! because it takes more for him, he's built up a tolerance, whatever, the point being he isn't high, but still has the THC in his system. should that man not be able to drive since he's over the legal amount? (let's pretend he is). he's not high, but still he can't drive? Then someone out there needs to figure out how to measure it immediately like alcohol. That's what I've been saying. You're saying that THC levels are not a good indication of being high. Yes, so what is? Until that is figured out, I don't want it legal. No matter how many hits certain individuals do - once they get high, which is their goal because who smokes weed to not get high, then how do we regulate it then? This is why with alcohol they will do a field sobriety test and then the BAC test. Someone like myself could pass the field test but will fail the BAC test. Then you have lightweight sally over there who will fail that field test. What should be done for marijuana smokers?the little story i just made was bad, i'll admit that.[QUOTE="Sajedene"] I would be a little more at ease. Some people, as I have learned, just don't know when enough is enough, and I'd be more inclined to support it if there is true regulation to it. But that is not the case - so I will vote NO.Sajedene
THC levels are a good way to indicate the level of highness. but i'm saying a field sobriety test would be good enough to determine if a person is good enough to drive or not. if a high person can pass a sobriety test, then they are probably fine to drive.
It doesn't matter if it get's voted in or not. There is still a federal ban on it. This ballot is pointless.
Pirate700
meh, sort of, sort of..not
dispensories will still be subject to federal regulation, but I imagine people in their homes or other safe-to-smoke areas (according the CA law) will have an easier time doing it.
in short, I think this will be just right because the big companies wont be able to get in it, and people can just grow it at home.
How is my opinion stupid? Because you think you're right? I bring up very valid reasons here. No one has yet given me a way to regulate marijuana so why should I be okay with that? There are ways to regulate alcohol. Very specific ways and that is why it is legal. The reason why car accidents involving alcohol is recorded and we can give specific numbers for it is because we are able to detect and measure it. How do we know how many marijuana related accidents are there when its close to impossible to figure out if someone is high behind the wheel?but it doesn't matter, weed will eventually be legalized, it's inevitable. sajedene, if your reason for not wanting it to be legal is because someone close to you had their lives destroyed because of weed, or because there isn't a way to determine how high someone is, yet you don't think alcohol should be illegal, that's just stupid.
needled24-7
Then someone out there needs to figure out how to measure it immediately like alcohol. That's what I've been saying. You're saying that THC levels are not a good indication of being high. Yes, so what is? Until that is figured out, I don't want it legal. No matter how many hits certain individuals do - once they get high, which is their goal because who smokes weed to not get high, then how do we regulate it then? This is why with alcohol they will do a field sobriety test and then the BAC test. Someone like myself could pass the field test but will fail the BAC test. Then you have lightweight sally over there who will fail that field test. What should be done for marijuana smokers?the little story i just made was bad, i'll admit that.[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]but why should it make you more at ease? you said before that some people get really high off one hit. which is true. and as there are lightweights, there are also heavyweights, they take a little more to get high. let's say a man and his friend are smoking, and let's also say that this device that can determine the level of THC in someone's system does exist. so the man and his friend are smoking, his friend takes 2 hits and is high, and the man takes 5 hits, but isn't high! because it takes more for him, he's built up a tolerance, whatever, the point being he isn't high, but still has the THC in his system. should that man not be able to drive since he's over the legal amount? (let's pretend he is). he's not high, but still he can't drive?
needled24-7
THC levels are a good way to indicate the level of highness. but i'm saying a field sobriety test would be good enough to determine if a person is good enough to drive or not. if a high person can pass a sobriety test, then they are probably fine to drive.
And then I go back to myself and others I know who can drink like there is no tomorrow and pass a field sobriety test and still be functioning to drive. So that means I am fine to drive in your book?thats still being unfair. the same can be said for alcohol. some people just dont know when enough is enough yet alcohol is still legal. And as someone mentioned before, driving high is much more different than driving drunk. You are more reckless and negligent when drunk.[QUOTE="butteman12"][QUOTE="Sajedene"] I would be a little more at ease. Some people, as I have learned, just don't know when enough is enough, and I'd be more inclined to support it if there is true regulation to it. But that is not the case - so I will vote NO.Sajedene
But there is way to regulate and monitor alcohol with immediate results. There is none for weed.
If you re-read everything I've typed in the last two pages you will see I have already addressed that.
It's not fair for ANY individual who can handle their vice. Is it fair for a fully functioning person who does cocaine to have it illegal? It's their vice, their body - but its illegal for them too. What about other opiates? So yes, it will vary per individual. The only thing is - alcohol has the capability to generate an exact result of consumption but the others not so much.
I have seen marijuana Breathalyzers but also am aware of the questionable results. So lets take care of that first before legalizing it.
who cares if their is a way to regulate and monitor alcohol with quick results? driving drunk is driving drunk whether you like it or not. its wrong and so is driving high from any intoxicants. but you cant assume everyone who smokes marijuana will go and drive. just like you cant assume that someone who drank alcohol will go and drive while they are drunk. imo, if someone gets caught driving high, they should be ticketed with a DUI just like alcohol.[QUOTE="needled24-7"]the little story i just made was bad, i'll admit that.[QUOTE="Sajedene"] Then someone out there needs to figure out how to measure it immediately like alcohol. That's what I've been saying. You're saying that THC levels are not a good indication of being high. Yes, so what is? Until that is figured out, I don't want it legal. No matter how many hits certain individuals do - once they get high, which is their goal because who smokes weed to not get high, then how do we regulate it then? This is why with alcohol they will do a field sobriety test and then the BAC test. Someone like myself could pass the field test but will fail the BAC test. Then you have lightweight sally over there who will fail that field test. What should be done for marijuana smokers?Sajedene
THC levels are a good way to indicate the level of highness. but i'm saying a field sobriety test would be good enough to determine if a person is good enough to drive or not. if a high person can pass a sobriety test, then they are probably fine to drive.
And then I go back to myself and others I know who can drink like there is no tomorrow and pass a field sobriety test and still be functioning to drive. So that means I am fine to drive in your book?BEING DRUNK IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING HIGH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?jeez
okay, every time before when i said people are okay to drive if they passed a sobriety test, i was talking about if they were high. i thought i made that clear but i guess i didn't make that clear.
nevermind, i DID make it clear. i specifically said in my previous post that i was talking about a HIGH person, NOT a drunk person.
but it doesn't matter, weed will eventually be legalized, it's inevitable. sajedene, if your reason for not wanting it to be legal is because someone close to you had their lives destroyed because of weed, or because there isn't a way to determine how high someone is, yet you don't think alcohol should be illegal, that's just stupid.
How is my opinion stupid? Because you think you're right? I bring up very valid reasons here. No one has yet given me a way to regulate marijuana so why should I be okay with that? There are ways to regulate alcohol. Very specific ways and that is why it is legal. The reason why car accidents involving alcohol is recorded and we can give specific numbers for it is because we are able to detect and measure it. How do we know how many marijuana related accidents are there when its close to impossible to figure out if someone is high behind the wheel? a police officer would have to be extremely stupid and would be doing his job wrong to not know that someone involved in an accident was either intoxicated or not whether it be alcohol or marijuana or cocaine or whatever. if someone has just smoked marijuana or drank alcohol, they should not be driving. period.And then I go back to myself and others I know who can drink like there is no tomorrow and pass a field sobriety test and still be functioning to drive. So that means I am fine to drive in your book?BEING DRUNK IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING HIGH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]the little story i just made was bad, i'll admit that.
THC levels are a good way to indicate the level of highness. but i'm saying a field sobriety test would be good enough to determine if a person is good enough to drive or not. if a high person can pass a sobriety test, then they are probably fine to drive.
needled24-7
jeez
okay, every time before when i said people are okay to drive if they passed a sobriety test, i was talking about if they were high. i thought i made that clear but i guess i didn't make that clear.
nevermind, i DID make it clear. i specifically said in my previous post that i was talking about a HIGH person, NOT a drunk person.
How is it different? Both impare and both alter your state? Because you feel different? OKAY THEN! @buttteman12 yes they should! But how do you regulate a driver who is high and determine a legal level? And how will you measure said level on the spot? I get it that you guys want it legal - but I don't see how yelling at me or telling me that they are different will matter. I see both as items that you consume to alter your current (normal) state to something else. One has specific regulations to determine legal levels - the other does not. SIMPLE ENOUGH? I am voting no. Why does my one vote matter? Seems like so many want it passed anyway - I just wish they want it passed not for their own selfish reasons but to be smart about it.[QUOTE="needled24-7"]BEING DRUNK IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING HIGH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?[QUOTE="Sajedene"] And then I go back to myself and others I know who can drink like there is no tomorrow and pass a field sobriety test and still be functioning to drive. So that means I am fine to drive in your book?Sajedene
jeez
okay, every time before when i said people are okay to drive if they passed a sobriety test, i was talking about if they were high. i thought i made that clear but i guess i didn't make that clear.
nevermind, i DID make it clear. i specifically said in my previous post that i was talking about a HIGH person, NOT a drunk person.
How is it different? Both impare and both alter your state? Because you feel different? OKAY THENi lose my balance and can't see straight when i'm drunk. that doesn't happen when high.I think it's cute that it's treated as some sort of criminal offense to think marijuana isn't the greatest thing on the planet.
but it doesn't matter, weed will eventually be legalized, it's inevitable. sajedene, if your reason for not wanting it to be legal is because someone close to you had their lives destroyed because of weed, or because there isn't a way to determine how high someone is, yet you don't think alcohol should be illegal, that's just stupid.
How is my opinion stupid? Because you think you're right? I bring up very valid reasons here. No one has yet given me a way to regulate marijuana so why should I be okay with that? There are ways to regulate alcohol. Very specific ways and that is why it is legal. The reason why car accidents involving alcohol is recorded and we can give specific numbers for it is because we are able to detect and measure it. How do we know how many marijuana related accidents are there when its close to impossible to figure out if someone is high behind the wheel? a police officer would have to be extremely stupid and would be doing his job wrong to not know that someone involved in an accident was either intoxicated or not whether it be alcohol or marijuana or cocaine or whatever. if someone has just smoked marijuana or drank alcohol, they should not be driving. period. It's not fair to call someone stupid because a person is fully capable of hiding or masking their toxicity. So many here say so themselves that plenty of people smoke its just that "we can't tell or don't realize they do because they hide it well." Just because one hides it well does not mean that their state is still not altered. I can be drunk and not smell of alcohol and pass a sobriety test if I get pulled over by the check points. But as soon as I breathe into the Breathalyzer - guess who is spending the night in jail?
[QUOTE="needled24-7"]BEING DRUNK IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING HIGH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?[QUOTE="Sajedene"] And then I go back to myself and others I know who can drink like there is no tomorrow and pass a field sobriety test and still be functioning to drive. So that means I am fine to drive in your book?Sajedene
jeez
okay, every time before when i said people are okay to drive if they passed a sobriety test, i was talking about if they were high. i thought i made that clear but i guess i didn't make that clear.
nevermind, i DID make it clear. i specifically said in my previous post that i was talking about a HIGH person, NOT a drunk person.
How is it different? Both impare and both alter your state? Because you feel different? OKAY THEN! @buttteman12 yes they should! But how do you regulate a driver who is high and determine a legal level? And how will you measure said level on the spot? I get it that you guys want it legal - but I don't see how yelling at me or telling me that they are different will matter. I see both as items that you consume to alter your current (normal) state to something else. One has specific regulations to determine legal levels - the other does not. SIMPLE ENOUGH? I am voting no. Why does my one vote matter? Seems like so many want it passed anyway - I just wish they want it passed not for their own selfish reasons but to be smart about it.Oh come now, that's not fair. I fully support marijuana legalization and I haven't smoked it once in my life. :|
How is it different? Both impare and both alter your state? Because you feel different? OKAY THENi lose my balance and can't see straight when i'm drunk. that doesn't happen when high. I don't lose my balance and I can see straight and say the alphabet backwards and touch my nose and balance on one foot after drinking seven glasses of vodka mix. But I walk around with my eyes half closed and move slower when I am high out of my mind. So what now?[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]BEING DRUNK IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING HIGH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?
jeez
okay, every time before when i said people are okay to drive if they passed a sobriety test, i was talking about if they were high. i thought i made that clear but i guess i didn't make that clear.
nevermind, i DID make it clear. i specifically said in my previous post that i was talking about a HIGH person, NOT a drunk person.
needled24-7
:oops: :oops:I think it's cute that it's treated as some sort of criminal offense to think marijuana isn't the greatest thing on the planet.
Pixel-Pirate
idgaf what you guys think of me after this, it's the internet, report me for anything i've said, don't care
How is it different? Both impare and both alter your state? Because you feel different? OKAY THEN! @buttteman12 yes they should! But how do you regulate a driver who is high and determine a legal level? And how will you measure said level on the spot? I get it that you guys want it legal - but I don't see how yelling at me or telling me that they are different will matter. I see both as items that you consume to alter your current (normal) state to something else. One has specific regulations to determine legal levels - the other does not. SIMPLE ENOUGH? I am voting no. Why does my one vote matter? Seems like so many want it passed anyway - I just wish they want it passed not for their own selfish reasons but to be smart about it.[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]BEING DRUNK IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING HIGH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?
jeez
okay, every time before when i said people are okay to drive if they passed a sobriety test, i was talking about if they were high. i thought i made that clear but i guess i didn't make that clear.
nevermind, i DID make it clear. i specifically said in my previous post that i was talking about a HIGH person, NOT a drunk person.
chessmaster1989
Oh come now, that's not fair. I fully support marijuana legalization and I haven't smoked it once in my life. :|
Passing it because you smoke it, passing it because you think it will be the $$$ the state needs, and passing it without questioning or wondering how it will be fully regulated is not being smart about it.And then I go back to myself and others I know who can drink like there is no tomorrow and pass a field sobriety test and still be functioning to drive. So that means I am fine to drive in your book?SajedeneBEING DRUNK IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING HIGH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?
jeez
okay, every time before when i said people are okay to drive if they passed a sobriety test, i was talking about if they were high. i thought i made that clear but i guess i didn't make that clear.
nevermind, i DID make it clear. i specifically said in my previous post that i was talking about a HIGH person, NOT a drunk person.
How is it different? Both impare and both alter your state? Because you feel different? OKAY THEN! @buttteman12 yes they should! But how do you regulate a driver who is high and determine a legal level? And how will you measure said level on the spot? I get it that you guys want it legal - but I don't see how yelling at me or telling me that they are different will matter. I see both as items that you consume to alter your current (normal) state to something else. One has specific regulations to determine legal levels - the other does not. SIMPLE ENOUGH? I am voting no. Why does my one vote matter? Seems like so many want it passed anyway - I just wish they want it passed not for their own selfish reasons but to be smart about it. every vote matters to me since i want it to be legalized. and its definitley a different feeling from being drunk. Drunk makes you more reckless.also, another drug, caffeine, also alters your state making you more hyper and what not but driving and drinking coffee isnt illegal.Weed needs to be regulated, just like healthcare and capitalist business, but there is no doubt that it should be legalized.
[QUOTE="needled24-7"]i lose my balance and can't see straight when i'm drunk. that doesn't happen when high. I don't lose my balance and I can see straight and say the alphabet backwards and touch my nose and balance on one foot after drinking seven glasses of vodka mix. But I walk around with my eyes half closed and move slower when I am high out of my mind. So what now?so when you're high, it sounds like you would fail a sobriety test... which is my point.[QUOTE="Sajedene"] How is it different? Both impare and both alter your state? Because you feel different? OKAY THENSajedene
and if you come back saying "i know how to pass a sobriety test even if i'm high," i think a police officer would be a little suspicious if you had your eyes half closed and moved slowly. "but i know how to pass a sobriety test, i can just make my eyes be fully opened, and i would move at normal speed!" well if you can do that to pass a test, then you can do it to drive a car.
:oops: :oops:[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
I think it's cute that it's treated as some sort of criminal offense to think marijuana isn't the greatest thing on the planet.
needled24-7
idgaf what you guys think of me after this, it's the internet, report me for anything i've said, don't care
I just think you're the guy I had that marijuana debate with. Honestly, if I wasn't getting motion sickness out of your awesome sig I wouldn't remember it was you beyond the thread. We're not going to agree on everything - doesn't mean we still cant be friends or get along. Although I did not appreciate you saying my reasoning is stupid - now you got me saying that others are not being smart about it. Bringing out the claws! MEOW![QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Sajedene"] How is it different? Both impare and both alter your state? Because you feel different? OKAY THEN! @buttteman12 yes they should! But how do you regulate a driver who is high and determine a legal level? And how will you measure said level on the spot? I get it that you guys want it legal - but I don't see how yelling at me or telling me that they are different will matter. I see both as items that you consume to alter your current (normal) state to something else. One has specific regulations to determine legal levels - the other does not. SIMPLE ENOUGH? I am voting no. Why does my one vote matter? Seems like so many want it passed anyway - I just wish they want it passed not for their own selfish reasons but to be smart about it.Sajedene
Oh come now, that's not fair. I fully support marijuana legalization and I haven't smoked it once in my life. :|
Passing it because you smoke it, passing it because you think it will be the $$$ the state needs, and passing it without questioning or wondering how it will be fully regulated is not being smart about it.Actually, there's nothing "not smart" about either of those first two (the first one is actually one of the best arguments in favor of marijuana legalization)-I'm guessing you're referring to them in conjuction with the last one. Now, the third one is debatable - if someone believes that it should not be regulated and can provide a legitimate argument for it, then you can't call them "not smart" about it-they simply have a differing opinion.
[QUOTE="needled24-7"]:oops: :oops:[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
I think it's cute that it's treated as some sort of criminal offense to think marijuana isn't the greatest thing on the planet.
Sajedene
idgaf what you guys think of me after this, it's the internet, report me for anything i've said, don't care
I just think you're the guy I had that marijuana debate with. Honestly, if I wasn't getting motion sickness out of your awesome sig I wouldn't remember it was you beyond the thread. We're not going to agree on everything - doesn't mean we still cant be friends or get along. Although I did not appreciate you saying my reasoning is stupid - now you got me saying that others are not being smart about it. Bringing out the claws! MEOW!you're rightand i shouldn't have said what i did, about your opinion being stupid. i'm sorry i said it, i promise i'm not normally a mean person :( but it's 2:19am here and i have school in the morning, i've stayed up far longer than i should have. goodnight everybody.
I don't lose my balance and I can see straight and say the alphabet backwards and touch my nose and balance on one foot after drinking seven glasses of vodka mix. But I walk around with my eyes half closed and move slower when I am high out of my mind. So what now?so when you're high, it sounds like you would fail a sobriety test... which is my point.[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]i lose my balance and can't see straight when i'm drunk. that doesn't happen when high.
needled24-7
and if you come back saying "i know how to pass a sobriety test even if i'm high," i think a police officer would be a little suspicious if you had your eyes half closed and moved slowly. "but i know how to pass a sobriety test, i can just make my eyes be fully opened, and i would move at normal speed!" well if you can do that to pass a test, then you can do it to drive a car.
I really would fail it. But then by your reasoning I am okay to drive away after drinking, regardless of amount or BAC level, if I pass the test. I don't like that idea and I don't think anyone would like me behind the wheel no matter how vehemently I argue that I can drive. And in regards to caffeine / coffee - they do alter your state yes, but its not as extreme as the others brought to the table because if it was I am sure there would be a greater debate on it - and would give more to the side of those who say it is addictive - although if you are distracted because of your coffee while driving you can and will get a ticket. I've seen it happen :PI just think you're the guy I had that marijuana debate with. Honestly, if I wasn't getting motion sickness out of your awesome sig I wouldn't remember it was you beyond the thread. We're not going to agree on everything - doesn't mean we still cant be friends or get along. Although I did not appreciate you saying my reasoning is stupid - now you got me saying that others are not being smart about it. Bringing out the claws! MEOW!you're right[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]:oops: :oops:
idgaf what you guys think of me after this, it's the internet, report me for anything i've said, don't care
needled24-7
and i shouldn't have said what i did, about your opinion being stupid. i'm sorry i said it, i promise i'm not normally a mean person :( but it's 2:19am here and i have school in the morning, i've stayed up far longer than i should have. goodnight everybody.
Good night!Passing it because you smoke it, passing it because you think it will be the $$$ the state needs, and passing it without questioning or wondering how it will be fully regulated is not being smart about it.[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Oh come now, that's not fair. I fully support marijuana legalization and I haven't smoked it once in my life. :|
chessmaster1989
Actually, there's nothing "not smart" about either of those first two (the first one is actually one of the best arguments in favor of marijuana legalization)-I'm guessing you're referring to them in conjuction with the last one. Now, the third one is debatable - if someone believes that it should not be regulated and can provide a legitimate argument for it, then you can't call them "not smart" about it-they simply have a differing opinion.
Yeah I get where you are coming from. As I mentioned to needled, only reason why I busted that out was because I got a little mad he called my opinion stupid. :PI think it'd be nice if they'd get rid of the ridiculous marijuana prohibition in this nation but who cares really?Peoplegrow it now, people buy it now, people smoke it now. And at this very moment there are thousands of drivers out there high behind the wheel.Nolaw stops them. All thenay-sayerscan keep running in their circle to nowhere, law or no law marijuana has been and always will be a staple of american life. And all you're proving by voting no is that we still have another stupid reason for the prisons in america to be overcrowded and over costly. I condemn driving under the influence of any substance but why would you vote to keep getting someone thrown in jail for having a joint in their glovebox? It doesn't matter if you seem to think it'd be underregulated you never have a good enough idea whether or not some messed up guy is gonna hit you on the highway. Just my opinion on the matter.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Sajedene"] Passing it because you smoke it, passing it because you think it will be the $$$ the state needs, and passing it without questioning or wondering how it will be fully regulated is not being smart about it.Sajedene
Actually, there's nothing "not smart" about either of those first two (the first one is actually one of the best arguments in favor of marijuana legalization)-I'm guessing you're referring to them in conjuction with the last one. Now, the third one is debatable - if someone believes that it should not be regulated and can provide a legitimate argument for it, then you can't call them "not smart" about it-they simply have a differing opinion.
Yeah I get where you are coming from. As I mentioned to needled, only reason why I busted that out was because I got a little mad he called my opinion stupid. :PThere's also actually a decent argument to be made for legalizing marijuana even without including regulations in the initial legislation. Consider first that marijuana (when illegal) is not regulated beyond it simply being illegal. If a person smokes illegally, goes driving while impaired, and crashes due to the impairment, would the result be any different if he had smoked legally (and unregulated)? No. The only question, of course, is whether or not marijuana legalization would dramatically increase consumption, which boils down to a question of demand elasticity (legalization would lead to large price decreases because there is no longer the risk associated with producing an illegal substance and because of increased competition and mass production) - ie if it is very price inelastic, there will be a small increase in consumption, whereas if it is very price elastic, there will be a large increase in consumption. I do not profess to have the knowledge to judge which of these is more likely.
And, in any case the state legislature can pass restrictions and regulations as necessary.
Yeah I get where you are coming from. As I mentioned to needled, only reason why I busted that out was because I got a little mad he called my opinion stupid. :P[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Actually, there's nothing "not smart" about either of those first two (the first one is actually one of the best arguments in favor of marijuana legalization)-I'm guessing you're referring to them in conjuction with the last one. Now, the third one is debatable - if someone believes that it should not be regulated and can provide a legitimate argument for it, then you can't call them "not smart" about it-they simply have a differing opinion.
chessmaster1989
There's also actually a decent argument to be made for legalizing marijuana even without including regulations in the initial legislation. Consider first that marijuana (when illegal) is not regulated beyond it simply being illegal. If a person smokes illegally, goes driving while impaired, and crashes due to the impairment, would the result be any different if he had smoked legally (and unregulated)? No. The only question, of course, is whether or not marijuana legalization would dramatically increase consumption, which boils down to a question of demand elasticity (legalization would lead to large price decreases because there is no longer the risk associated with producing an illegal substance and because of increased competition and mass production) - ie if it is very price inelastic, there will be a small increase in consumption, whereas if it is very price elastic, there will be a large increase in consumption. I do not profess to have the knowledge to judge which of these is more likely.
And, in any case the state legislature can pass restrictions and regulations as necessary.
I don't know either and either result would be no difference to me because what I care about is determining levels in the body. I'd still like to have regulations on it that will have immediate results without having someone pee in a cup or whatever. lol. This way, you all can legalize it and I will know that there are regulations to it and that we can now monitor activity with it (ie if an accident does happen now that its legal - we can find out if they were high and then take that into consideration with the accident) because now accountability is involved and that was not around when it was illegal.[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Sajedene"] Yeah I get where you are coming from. As I mentioned to needled, only reason why I busted that out was because I got a little mad he called my opinion stupid. :PSajedene
There's also actually a decent argument to be made for legalizing marijuana even without including regulations in the initial legislation. Consider first that marijuana (when illegal) is not regulated beyond it simply being illegal. If a person smokes illegally, goes driving while impaired, and crashes due to the impairment, would the result be any different if he had smoked legally (and unregulated)? No. The only question, of course, is whether or not marijuana legalization would dramatically increase consumption, which boils down to a question of demand elasticity (legalization would lead to large price decreases because there is no longer the risk associated with producing an illegal substance and because of increased competition and mass production) - ie if it is very price inelastic, there will be a small increase in consumption, whereas if it is very price elastic, there will be a large increase in consumption. I do not profess to have the knowledge to judge which of these is more likely.
And, in any case the state legislature can pass restrictions and regulations as necessary.
I don't know either and either result would be no difference to me because what I care about is determining levels in the body. I'd still like to have regulations on it that will have immediate results without having someone pee in a cup or whatever. lol. This way, you all can legalize it and I will know that there are regulations to it and that we can now monitor activity with it (ie if an accident does happen now that its legal - we can find out if they were high and then take that into consideration with the accident) because now accountability is involved and that was not around when it was illegal.Oh, but there is a very large differrence between the two cases. If marijuana is very price inelastic, then you might as well legalize it unregulated and worry about regulations later, since consumption will only increase minimally, and (as I've said) there's no way to regulate its current usage beyond simply saying it's illegal. If it's very price elastic, then there will be a significant consumption increase, which could be a cause for concern and necessitate regulation before the law is passed.
Now, if you wanted my opinion, it would be that experimental consumption (generally low level doses) will increase fairly significantly, but the increase will not be particularly dangerous because the levels consumed will not be too high. However, I would also expect heavy consumption (individuals consuming large amounts in short periods of time) would increase by very low amounts, and likewise would not be particularly dangerous. On the other hand, I also think that the legislature will wish to place restrictions and regulations on marijuana consumption after it is legalized (for one because regulating it should be fairly popular), which to an even greater extent minimizes the adverse societal effects. Tax revenues likewise would start off relatively small until people began making larger marijuana farms, which would then increase profits. Basically, adverse social effects would start at an acceptable level and would decrease, while tax revenues would start at a below-desirable level but increase.
In case you hadn't realized by now, I'm in favor of legalization even without immediate regulation. :P
Anyway I need to sleep, been fun chatting. If you respond to this post I'll get back to you tomorrow.
I don't know either and either result would be no difference to me because what I care about is determining levels in the body. I'd still like to have regulations on it that will have immediate results without having someone pee in a cup or whatever. lol. This way, you all can legalize it and I will know that there are regulations to it and that we can now monitor activity with it (ie if an accident does happen now that its legal - we can find out if they were high and then take that into consideration with the accident) because now accountability is involved and that was not around when it was illegal.[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
There's also actually a decent argument to be made for legalizing marijuana even without including regulations in the initial legislation. Consider first that marijuana (when illegal) is not regulated beyond it simply being illegal. If a person smokes illegally, goes driving while impaired, and crashes due to the impairment, would the result be any different if he had smoked legally (and unregulated)? No. The only question, of course, is whether or not marijuana legalization would dramatically increase consumption, which boils down to a question of demand elasticity (legalization would lead to large price decreases because there is no longer the risk associated with producing an illegal substance and because of increased competition and mass production) - ie if it is very price inelastic, there will be a small increase in consumption, whereas if it is very price elastic, there will be a large increase in consumption. I do not profess to have the knowledge to judge which of these is more likely.
And, in any case the state legislature can pass restrictions and regulations as necessary.
chessmaster1989
Oh, but there is a very large differrence between the two cases. If marijuana is very price inelastic, then you might as well legalize it unregulated and worry about regulations later, since consumption will only increase minimally, and (as I've said) there's no way to regulate its current usage beyond simply saying it's illegal. If it's very price elastic, then there will be a significant consumption increase, which could be a cause for concern and necessitate regulation before the law is passed.
Now, if you wanted my opinion, it would be that experimental consumption (generally low level doses) will increase fairly significantly, but the increase will not be particularly dangerous because the levels consumed will not be too high. However, I would also expect heavy consumption (individuals consuming large amounts in short periods of time) would increase by very low amounts, and likewise would not be particularly dangerous. On the other hand, I also think that the legislature will wish to place restrictions and regulations on marijuana consumption after it is legalized (for one because regulating it should be fairly popular), which to an even greater extent minimizes the adverse societal effects. Tax revenues likewise would start off relatively small until people began making larger marijuana farms, which would then increase profits. Basically, adverse social effects would start at an acceptable level and would decrease, while tax revenues would start at a below-desirable level but increase.
In case you hadn't realized by now, I'm in favor of legalization even without immediate regulation. :P
I see that :) And I must say it is quite refreshing and educational for me to see your POV. Although it will not change my vote or stance on wanting it regulated (the way I want it ahhaha) it does give me more to think about in regards to what could happen - which is what it comes down to. What if's and what nots. As much as I would like to hope that it will be something to not worry about like you said in when it comes to inelasticity, I'd feel safer voting for something knowing that there is regulations in place. (gosh I hope I am still making sense - its late here and I'm pretty out of it) I just need accountability.I see you've edited your post to say gnight so I will do the same since I can't see anymore ahahah
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment