Legalizing Marijuana

Saw this and was wanting opinions on it.

I'm all in favor of it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 ... juana.html

Looking forward to responses,
T2M

I was in college in 1970.
All my fellow students expected mj to be legal by 1980.

HTM

thinkstoomuch wrote:Saw this and was wanting opinions on it.

I'm all in favor of it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 ... juana.html

Looking forward to responses,
T2M

I would be more in favor of it if we could detect it in users easier. How do we address driving while under the influence of mj? Absent the ability to prove intoxication, the police will have the ability to assert someone is intoxicated by his judgement alone.

I can see opportunities for abuse there.

In all I don't have a problem with allowing private use. I have a problem with intoixcated users driving or operating heavy equiptment.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Saw this and was wanting opinions on it.

I'm all in favor of it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 ... juana.html

Looking forward to responses,
T2M

How do we address people driving while drunk? Seems like the answer is the same.

I've thought for years that marijuana should be treated like alcohol. It's not worth the costs of enforcing a complete ban. Treat it like alcohol and enforce it at that level.

PeterZ wrote:I would be more in favor of it if we could detect it in users easier. How do we address driving while under the influence of mj? Absent the ability to prove intoxication, the police will have the ability to assert someone is intoxicated by his judgement alone.

I can see opportunities for abuse there.

In all I don't have a problem with allowing private use. I have a problem with intoixcated users driving or operating heavy equiptment.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Saw this and was wanting opinions on it.

I'm all in favor of it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 ... juana.html

Looking forward to responses,
T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:How do we address people driving while drunk? Seems like the answer is the same.

I've thought for years that marijuana should be treated like alcohol. It's not worth the costs of enforcing a complete ban. Treat it like alcohol and enforce it at that level.

PeterZ wrote:I would be more in favor of it if we could detect it in users easier. How do we address driving while under the influence of mj? Absent the ability to prove intoxication, the police will have the ability to assert someone is intoxicated by his judgement alone.

I can see opportunities for abuse there.

In all I don't have a problem with allowing private use. I have a problem with intoixcated users driving or operating heavy equiptment.

I remember watching an "investigative documentary" several years ago that ran some small-scale experiments with driving, driving under the influence of marijuana and driving under the influence of alcohol.

It found that the marijuana-influenced driver was likely to drive more carefully than the other two categories. Of course, I put those air quotes above because even at the time I could see the experiment wasn't worth a fart according to proper scientific methods. However, a 2002 review of seven separate studies suggested:

“Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.

Furthermore, it's said that THC stays in a person's system for up to 30 days. So what does that mean for the concept of a THC driving limit, arguably the largest current legal impediment to legalisation? How can people keep track of their THC levels? With alcohol, it's easier because the average body absorbs one unit of alcohol over one hour. So if you drink 20 units, it'll take you 20 hours to de-tox(completely eliminate the substance in your system). In the UK, it is a legal requirement for all containers of alcohol to state a) quantity inside(eg 500ml), b) alcohol percentage and c) number of alcohol units. This is possible because an alcohol reading can be taken with a simple hydrometer. It's not easy to measure THC with that level of accuracy - not to mention, absorption rates differ from person to person much more widely for marijuana than it does for alcohol. Probably to do with depth of inhalation and time before exhalation.

Technology impaired drivers, texting and cell phone, are becoming a greater cause of accidents than substance impaired drivers. I know lets do what the ban the gun proponents propose and ban cell phones ect.

Poker

I say: modify cell phones so that they cannot work when
moving faster than five miles per hour!

Then, for the sake of airplane passengers,
let them work when the speed exceeds 100 mph.

HTM

pokermind wrote:Technology impaired drivers, texting and cell phone,
are becoming a greater cause of accidents than
substance impaired drivers. I know: lets do what the
ban the gun proponents propose and ban cell phones ect.

Poker

We've banned texting and calls on your phone while driving here. you can only use a hndsfree kit for calls to you, or to allow speed dialed calls out.

pokermind wrote:Technology impaired drivers, texting and cell phone, are becoming a greater cause of accidents than substance impaired drivers. I know lets do what the ban the gun proponents propose and ban cell phones ect.

Poker

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:I say: modify cell phones so that they cannot work when
moving faster than five miles per hour!

Then, for the sake of airplane passengers,
let them work when the speed exceeds 100 mph.

HTM

pokermind wrote:Technology impaired drivers, texting and cell phone,
are becoming a greater cause of accidents than
substance impaired drivers. I know: lets do what the
ban the gun proponents propose and ban cell phones ect.

Poker

Uh, most motor vehicles are quite capable of reaching 100mph. That's just setting a challenge. Airplanes move at 500mph, so you could set that particular limit at something like 200mph and all would be resolved.

It would piss off everyone who is a passenger of some sort. "Go very, very fast or very, very slow!"

It's not just a matter of changing the law legalize it and everything will be great. There are significant societal problems that need to be addressed.

1. Increased availability will lead to more users. A small percent of those users will become addicted so we would need more drug treatment centers (we are already underserved now). Also Marijuana makes users not care and those who are heavy users/addicts do not care enough to find a job, go to school so an increased number would lead to more pressure on social services, homeless shelters etc.

2. Increased availability and ease of access will enable minors to get easier access. Teenagers aren't dumb they will use the same tricks they use to get alcohol to get marijuana and while they already do get some increasing the availability will make it much easier for them.

3. The smoke (from the cigarette form) will lead to increased lung cancer, emphysema etc adding to our overburdened Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The positive of putting criminal marijuana drug dealers (and their associated violence) out of business may outweight the above negatives. But only if implementation is very carefully thought out. Of course rather than go bankrupt, the dealers may switch to crystal meth, then we'll all wish for the good old days when they were only dealing marijuana.