ClumsyMonkey.net

Rusty wrote:Since I don't have an account to post a comment there I shall post it here. Simple as pie....wow I could go for pie right about now.... *ahem* anyway here we go:

"I might not agree with what you smoke, but I believe in your right to take a toke."

I like that line. Very nice way to end it. You make a very strong arguement for the legalization of it. I agree with the legalization it would benefit the economy, and cut the "drug wars" down a lot. People would be sure of what they were getting so it would be safer and provided it was sold under controlled circumstances like alchohol is in special stores it would work very well. The only problem with the legalization of it is, what about someone driving under the influence of pot? It's easy to take a quick breathalizer(sp) (forgive my horrid spelling/most likely improper word). Now of course it's easy to smell pot on someone. But that isn't a scientific way of proving they are stoned. Laws demand police to have a scientific check. The only way known to scientifically check for drug use now is a blood test. The police cannot take a blood test because it infringes on our rights. So how do you propose that, the obstacle of drivining under the influence of marijuana be tackled?