I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=554166
which links to this article: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...
Perhaps not an argument against, but certainly a 'reality' check argument against the "it's so obvious we should do it" mentality that seems to thrive in online forums.
EX: A "major" issue is it's hard to detect if someone is currently under the effects of pot. Because, apparently drug test are designed to detect if you have smoked not if you are currently impaired. However, an officer can do a road side sobriety test without using a breatilizer so it's not a real issue.
Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own.
I don't see a problem. Pot use can be detected, sometimes days (or weeks) after. The law in most of europe is simple: If you're tested positive while driving then your license is gone.
Seems fair enough.
The bioaccumulation idea was a separate issue; if smoking pot for 30 years turned people into zombies with an uncontrollable desire to eat brains then it should be illegal regardless of other negatives. (I could not think of any issues like this so I made something up for the sake of argument.)
PS: You can probably detect pot in the blood of 75% of Americans if you set your threshold low enough. (Second hand smoke from 2 blocks away etc.) That does not mean it's impossible to separate smokers from non smokers just you need to set a reasonable threshold and accept you might miss the occasional smoker.
Well, the tests are not that precise (yet), but it's the same with alcohol. You may very well be tested positive if you had been drunk the day before.
Imho that's just fair. If I want to smoke then leaving the keys at home for a few days seems reasonable. If I want to be a regular pot smoker then I shouldn't be driving anyways, as my reflexes are permanently reduced.
I can attest to the latter from experience, as I used to smoke quite a bit for a while. The longterm effect on concentration and memory have been fairly small, but definitely noticeable.
Anyway, as a non smoker I assumed Pot like most drugs had a fairly short term effect, if you are impaired for 3-7 days then that's a separate issue I was not aware of.
FWIW, I've been smokin' quite a bit myself for a few years, I'm in no way against it.
I think your reasoning is not correct. I think the quick-tests go for the metabolic waste simply because there is no other reliable test short of taking your blood.
I've not been in the situation but I guess that blood test will take place before you actually lose the license, just like with alcohol.
Anyways, like I said, I know what I was like when I was smokin' frequently and anyone who does will probably agree that your overall performance is slightly reduced even a few days after. For that reason I'm okay with not allowing people to drive during a reasonable timespan.
I have a couple of pretty simple one (it's worth considering).
The long term affects of pot abuse are pretty easy to develop - I've seen medium-heavy users become fairly "brain dead" after several years of use. This is entirely from observation but it seems to occur faster than the same effect due to alcohol abuse. As a result we could see quite a few problems from more long term users.
It is also harder to determine if someone is under the influence. This would mean some industries would have to begin mandatory drug testing prior to performing sensitive work - random examples: doctors, pilots. That's costly, time consuming etc. And if the long term affects of the drug are as pronounced as I suspect you could see heavy abusers in those fields actually pass drug tests and still fail to concentrate at a critical moment.
It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs.
Mandatory drug tests are common already (Home Depot does drug tests on all employees -- don't you feel safer about hardware?) People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry.
>It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs.
No it doesn't. It's safer than other existing legal drugs: http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
A gallery of loser stoners: http://coedmagazine.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-po...
And if it is a concern about people's health, why is it treated as a criminal matter?
Solid point. I can't disagree. Possibly the only issue worth raising is that cannabis influence may not be as physically obvious as those things you mention. For example a nurse may notice a brain surgeon is looking fatigued and raise concerns, but if on drugs his attention may wander at random moments which are not immediately obvious in the same way.
Legal marijuana makes it so that people don't start using more dangerous drugs on a whim. They are no longer presented with an easy opportunity.
If pot is on the same level as alcohol which do you think is more of a gateway drug? One that makes you introverted and cautious or one that makes you more confident while simultaneously impairing your judgement?
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your account is 49 days old...I'm not sure that you're at the "I get to tell people what sorts of discussions they're allowed to have" stage yet, especially not to people that have been here for almost three years.
I'm sorry I didn't know that you had an alt account, it's just annoying when people start showing up and trying to dictate how things "should be" to established members of an existing community.
Actually, I'd be ok with the latter discussion too, but only in person, not on an internet fourm.