Personally, I don't like the idea of stoned people driving, but that's just me.
Same here, but that argument only supports keeping existing DUI laws in place; it doesn't justify criminalizing possession and use.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
You want to play word games/semantics? You know it is illegal to drive with alcohol over certain level, how do you manage that with dope? is there a dope breathalyser? or are blood tests required?
Second hand smoke is bad enough, I don't want to breath in second hand dope
You know it is illegal to drive with alcohol over certain level, how do you manage that with dope? is there a dope breathalyser? or are blood tests required?
DUI laws don't work that way with respect to dope. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, toxicologists are unable to reach any consensus regarding what level of THC or THC-COOH in the blood or urine constitutes proof of actual impairment. Offhand, I can't think of any state that uses a number-based approach to determine drug intoxication for purposes of the DUI statute.
The majority of state laws are effects-based, proscribing driving "under the influence" of weed. Under those laws, cases are proved from observations of actual impairment, field sobriety tests, saliva tests that can indicate recent marijuana use, etc.
The latest craze in DUI/drug laws is what's been called "zero tolerance" legislation. Under those laws, it's a crime to drive with any detectable level of an unlawful drug or drug metabolite in your body. Ten or so states have laws like that.
The problem, of course, is that drug metabolites can show up on blood, urine or saliva tests for weeks after a single use, long after the impairing effects of the drug have worn off. Doesn't quite seem reasonable that someone can fire up a fatter shortly before going to bed on Monday, stay entirely clean the rest of the week, yet still be guilty of DUI on Saturday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
1) Do you like to smoke pot Y or N
Nope. Clean and sober since 1983.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
2) Do you have a personal interest for wanting it legalized? Y N
More than a little vague, but I'll say no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
3) Do you think teens that smoke pot are as successful in school & work as teens who do not? Y N
There's a false dichotomy implicit in the question, namely that legalization is an all-or-nothing proposition. There's plenty of middle ground. For instance, the law could be made to treat marijuana use like it treats alcohol use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
4) Do you think it makes no difference to younger children whether if their parents do dope. They receive adequate care & parenting anyway? Y N
If the parents are stoned every waking hour, then it most certainly makes a difference. On the other hand, it's difficult to believe that smoking a joint every now and then is any more damaging to parenting skills than drinking a beer or glass of wine every now and then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
5) If pot is legalized - more people will do it. Y N
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
6) Hard drug users worked their way up from pot? Y N
Depends on the user. I was abusing the hell out of some heavy duty amphetimines and barbiturates long before I started smoking weed and hash.
In any event, I'm not qualified by education, training or experience to assess the viability of "gateway drug" claims. Absent any definitive evidence of causation, though, such claims sound like a whole lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc to me.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Prescription drugs are given to treat an ailment - not so someone can get high.
Why do people need to get high? It is a whole society issue. Most people who do hard drugs started on marijana. The more acceptable and mainstream it becomes the more people will do it 'just because' and then when they get bored of that.. the next step.
I don't have stats to give, this is just my personal opinion - legalizing this shit that there is no need for will impact on the younger people in society. It will cause breakdowns in families, lack of success in school, loss of jobs and a excuse to be a big waste of life and blame everyone else for your problems.
They don't need to get high. The question is, why should people who want to get high be prevented from doing so? People don't need to skydive, but no one is suggesting that this dangerous activity be made illegal.
There is currently no way to test for marijuana impairment vis-a-vis driving (although you can still test reaction times etc.). I'd like to see NORML and similar groups fund research to develop such a test. There is plenty of evidence that marijuana does not impair the ability to drive nearly as much as alcohol.
I am no more lazy and unmotivated now than I was before I started smoking pot. The only hard drug I have ever tried is cocaine. Of course, if marijuana weren't illegal I would never have been introduced to a coke dealer.
Another thing to consider: liquor stores require proof of age. Drug dealers rarely check IDs. I think pot can be harmful to teenagers because their brains are still developing. If I have kids I'm going to tell them not to smoke pot until they're 18.
There needs to be a very important distinction made between use and abuse. The modern prohibitionist has tried to blur that distinction and make all use the same as abuse. I seriously doubt anyone who has a glass of wine at dinner or a beer after work would consider it abuse but that's exactly what the anti-drug programs are trying to do. Very little to no distiction is made in most propaganda between use and abuse.
So the real questions that needs to be asked are, "will proper legalization* increase abuse and other dangers to society? & "Does making it illegal decrease abuse and dangers to society?
*I say proper legalization as the decriminalization that we see in places like california does very little to answer many of the issues.
Complicated questions. In the US we had a nice experiment with the prohibition of alcohol. Most studies show little to no decrease in alcohol abuse directly related to prohibition (according to a Harvard paper figures related to abuse were actually on the decline before prohibition and began to rise during it). Prohibition caused a number of side dangers, from people creating bad booze (on accident or on purpose to increase profits) because legal safe booze was hard to come by to gangs funding their illegal activities with bootleg liquor money.
We see a parallel between prohibition and the modern war on drugs. Not only is it an utter failure but it can create problems. Many gangs are funded by drug sales, including pot. The government even made this apparent with its "drugs fund terrorism" campaign. Oddly absent from the campaign was "alcohol funds terrorism" since it doesn't. Overall there is no reason pot should be illegal and alcohol should be legal beyond alcohol proved to be too big a fish to fry. The government has taken a forced abstinence and closed eye approach instead of providing an effective solution and proper education.
On a historical note many of the first laws against pot were born out of racism against mexicans and poor science.
Banning a substance, locking people up and looking the other way isn't the way to solve problems but it does put money into the pockets of crooks (both gang members and politicians). Education, responsibility and safe products are the key.
To answer Leg's questions (all of which are false dichotomies).
1) Do you like to smoke pot Y or N
I've smoked pot but am not a pot smoker.
2) Do you have a personal interest for wanting it legalized? Y N
Personal as in I want to be a legal stoner, Nope. Personal as in it would be nice to have another legal drug around for occasional use, sure. Personal as in I would really like the government to stop wasting money on a lost cause and actually start to tackle the real problems, Yes.
3) Do you think teens that smoke pot are as successful in school & work as teens who do not? Y N
Yes and No. Teens that smoke pot can be just as successful in school as those that don't.
Teens that abuse pot on the other hand can easily fail in school.
4) Do you think it makes no difference to younger children whether if their parents do dope. They receive adequate care & parenting anyway? Y N
Remember Use vs Abuse.
I think parents who do dope give children equal care as parents who "do" wine or beer at dinner. Parents who abuse dope probably don't give their children adequate care, just like parents who abuse alcohol or prescription drugs.
5) If pot is legalized - more people will do it. Y N
Yes and No.
This question is quite complicated. We would need to weigh numbers between those who do it because it's illegal and taboo compared to those that don't do it because it's illegal and would if it became legal.
This question does seem to be leaning towards the view that more use is bad. I don't see that it is.
For example, just recently a kid committed suicide after having a bad trip taking a legal hallucinogenic drug, this drug is sometimes portrayed as a "marijuana substitute" but is definitely not. Many kids die or suffer permanent brain damage by pursuing dangerous but legal highs such as huffing or oxygen depravation "games" or taking high doses of store bought medication. In these cases easier access to safer drugs like pot (as well as education) could save lives.
6) Hard drug users worked their way up from pot? Y N
Many people work their way down from the legal drug alcohol to pot then back up to other hard drugs (yes alcohol should be considered a "harder" drug than pot, but since it's legal it often gets left off the evil drug lists).
Pot does create a small gateway effect being illegal as searching for pot will more likely put someone in contact with a dealer that sells other harder drugs than say going to the local store.
Here is an argument that some of the marijuana activists put forth: It is not safe to drive stoned. However, it is generally less dangerous than driving drunk. Anybody who has tried marijuana will agree with this, and statistics seem to support this, but I am generally skeptical of statistics when there are so many unknowns. In theory, legalizing marijuana would decrease drunk driving while increasing stoned driving, which would in theory make the roads safer, in a logical way that might be uncomfortable for some people to think about. You can't analyze this one in black and white. Pot makes people paranoid and pay attention to every little detail in their surroundings. Stoned people usually drive really slow and conservative.
Here is an argument that some of the marijuana activists put forth: It is not safe to drive stoned. However, it is generally less dangerous than driving drunk. Anybody who has tried marijuana will agree with this, and statistics seem to support this
Another point is, if you are dead stoned do you really want to drive?
As for ridiculous - only time will tell. Legalize it and see how the kids are 10 years down the road. My bet is MUCH more non productive, failures with no direction either because they are potheads or the adults in their life are.
Marijuana doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's one drug among many, as you yourself acknowledge with this "gateway drug" business. And as far as drugs go, I can't think of a less harmful one.
You know what I'm against? Dirt weed. But the sticky, skunky weed, I'm all for that. It's the dirt weed that can stay illegal.
And since we're on the anecdotal outrage rail, the funny thing is, I bet I could leave my apartment right now and be back with a bag of crack in about 30 minutes, tops. But I honestly wouldn't know where to get any weed right now.
My YES / NO questions to those reading this thread.
1) Do you like to smoke pot Y or N
Yes. I love to smoke pot. I haven't gotten around to it in a decade or so, but I heart me the marijuanas. I make celebratory hooting sounds in support of the marijuana. Wooo! Woooo!
Quote:
2) Do you have a personal interest for wanting it legalized? Y N
Define a personal interest.
Do I want to never ever again see someone lose their home, their car, their career, or their freedom because they had the wrong kind of plant? Yes. I have a deep personal interest in that. Do I not want taxes going to fund enforcement efforts and court costs and jail costs for marijuana possession charges, to the detriment of more important, more victimful crimes? Yes. I have a personal interest in that, too. Would I like to see it decriminalized, so that people who want it can safely and legally grow their own pot in their backyards, instead of buying it from people with guns, who get it from people with bigger guns? Yes. I have a strong personal interest in that.
Or did you mean would I like to buy some legal pot and smoke it? Maybe. You know. When I get around to it. You know how we big lazy potheads are. Always with the procrastinating.
Quote:
3) Do you think teens that smoke pot are as successful in school & work as teens who do not? Y N
As a whole, probably not. You're begging a question here, though. An obvious one, I think.
Quote:
4) Do you think it makes no difference to younger children whether if their parents do dope. They receive adequate care & parenting anyway? Y N
It probably does make a difference. Parents who smoke a lot of pot, who drink a lot, who gamble or fight or watch TV too much, parents who feed their kids junk food all the time, who work too much or stay out late also have a negative effect on their children. And at some point, every parent does one or more of those things, probably.
Parents with AIDS or glaucoma or cancer or certain types of sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, etc. may actually improve their overall health and parenting if they had safe, legal access to marijuana.
Quote:
5) If pot is legalized - more people will do it. Y N
Will the overall number of people doing recreational drugs increase on the whole? I don't think so. Will more people smoke pot? Probably. But the overall numbers of those who take chemical substances recreationally would probably stay pretty stable. Pot is safer than pretty much any of the current alternatives, including alcohol and prescription drugs. So more pot smoking, less drinking and pill popping.
I am for that.
People are either inclined toward recreational drug use or they aren't. Are teetotalers going to start sparking up? No. Might some recreational drunks and pill poppers switch to pot or add it to their rotation? Yes, and that would probably be a good thing.
Quote:
6) Hard drug users worked their way up from pot? Y N
Most hard drug users (unless you count certain prescription drug use as 'hard drug use,' which I would) probably did try pot first, but if pot's a gateway, alcohol is the gateway to pot. I'll leave out the bread argument.
What is your opinion of alcohol vs. marijuana, and why?
What possible argument do you have against pot that doesn't at least equally apply to any number of legal substances, too?
What are the actual dangers of marijuana? How do they compare to the actual dangers of alcohol or Valium or Vicodin?
2) Do you have a personal interest for wanting it legalized? Y N
Only in the sense that we all have a personal interest in taking the profit motive out of organized crime.
3) Do you think teens that smoke pot are as successful in school & work as teens who do not? Y N
Probably not. The likeliest explanation is the self-selection for students who will risk criminal conviction, though, rather than the effects of occasional pot smoking itself. At a minimum that's enough of a confound to make this question silly one.
4) Do you think it makes no difference to younger children whether if their parents do dope. They receive adequate care & parenting anyway? Y N
No difference with respect to what? The question is vacuous.
5) If pot is legalized - more people will do it. Y N
Maybe. Some will who otherwise wouldn't; some who otherwise would won't.
6) Hard drug users worked their way up from pot? Y N
I don't know. Again, the effects of smoking pot versus the effects of hanging around with drug dealers and other criminals would be virtually impossible to disentangle in any case.
As things stand, anyone who wants to can get and smoke pot. But doing so criminalizes you by definition, exposes you to criminals socially/developmentally, facilitates a contempt for the law, corrupts law enforcement personnel, stimulates all manner of otherwise unrelated crimes, and makes violent organized criminals rich and powerful. Each of these is a direct result of criminalization and has nothing to do with the use of marijuana. I think the possibility of a few more giggly and dazed teenagers is an excellent bargain for reducing these much more serious social and legal problems.
My opinion is a mixed bag, mostly having to do with personal freedom. For the same reason that Legs doesn't want people that are high on marijuana driving I think employers have the right to not want their employees under the influence, particularly where their employees duties can impact public safety. In fact, it is in the public interest, therefor the government's interest. However, I think outside of that, adults should be able to get high if they want to.
As for being a "gateway" drug, I think studies have shown the same links between tobacco and hard drugs. For that matter, most hard drug users probably had a wet diaper on longer than they should have when they were babies. If that's not a reason to do drugs I don't know what is.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Why is marijuana illegal?
--
A republic, not an empire.
Hybrid Mode
