420 friendly Halo Tournaments !!!Winner wins free 1/8!! - $5

[dsheinem]

And you haven't pointed out any evidence that it isn't harmful.

The impetus isn't on anyone to prove that marijuana isn't harmful to others, as it is the argument that it is harmful to others that is being used to justify its prohibition. The weight is on the accuser.

This is an argument about prohibition, by the way - not regulation. If your answer is to regulate drug usage, I'm in full agreement. It's the idea of prohibition that I think is counterproductive.

This post probably makes the most concise and relevant point. So, here's an argument about why marijuana is harmful to others

Here's why, for now, I favor prohibition over regulation/legalization:

- The driving issue. Of course not everyone drives when stoned, and of course not everyone drives poorly when stoned. But some do, and those who make poor driving decisions under the influence of marijuana too often cause the death of others on the road. The problem is that there is currently no way to test if someone is high when driving. If they come up with a way to pull you over and determine if you are high at the moment, then I'd be much more comfortable with lifting prohibition. Until them legalization is a VERY bad idea as driving deaths would certainly increase. This is a clear harm to others.

- Kids of pot smokers/Second-hand smoke. I always feel bad for children who live with parents who smoke cigarettes all the time and have no choice but to inhale second hand smoke continuously. I don't think we need to add to this problem by also having a bunch of kids high off of second hand marijuana smoke. They need to be protected as much as possible, and legalization of marijuana would most certainly cause a negative impact on children (or anyone else who happens to be stuck in a stream of second hand smoke at a bar, in a restaurant, etc.). This is a clear harm to others.

- The dependency issue. I have known enough people (and studies bear this out) to know that marijuana can be addictive (psychologically, if not chemically). As with any other addictive substance, this can cause harm for both users and those they come into contact with. Families are often hurt by this (e.g. the father who starts smoking pot and loses all career ambition, the kid who steals money from parents to buy weed, etc.). Though I don't think this is as important as the two reasons above, this too is a harm to others.

So, that's the foundation for an argument that marijuana harms others and should be prohibited. Regulation (e.g. selling pot like alcohol or cigarettes) would not fix any of these problems. Is prohibition fair to people who want to use marijuana responsibly? Of course not. But when there's a clear conflict between an individual desire to do what they want and the public safety, the law's duty is to the protection of the broader public.

I do, of course, realize that the war on drugs introduces a whole new set of problems, and that penalties are really quite egregious. I'm much more in favor of decriminalization than legalization/regulation as decriminalization addresses the majority of the problems I have with how marijuana use/possession is prosecuted. But, for the reasons above, it should still be prosecuted.

[Luke]

The problem is that there is currently no way to test if someone is high when driving.

Actually, the police do have an exam that tests response time and coordination to determine if thc is present in your body.

[dsheinem]

The problem is that there is currently no way to test if someone is high when driving.

Actually, the police do have an exam that tests response time and coordination to determine if thc is present in your body.

Is it reliable/consistent? Does it hold up in court? Can it determine whether it was there yesterday or 30 minutes ago? I'd love to know more about this, as I was under the impression no field tests were accurate (and certainly not as accurate as tests for alcohol).

[Luke]

Is it reliable/consistent? Does it hold up in court? Can it determine whether it was there yesterday or 30 minutes ago? I'd love to know more about this, as I was under the impression no field tests were accurate (and certainly not as accurate as tests for alcohol).

I don't have the answers to all your questions, as again, this is something I've only seen done on COPS. They also have eye charts to recognize use of amphetamines.

I've got a friend who is a police officer. I'll email him and see if I can't get more definitive answers.

[Octopod]

And you haven't pointed out any evidence that it isn't harmful.

The impetus isn't on anyone to prove that marijuana isn't harmful to others, as it is the argument that it is harmful to others that is being used to justify its prohibition. The weight is on the accuser.

This is an argument about prohibition, by the way - not regulation. If your answer is to regulate drug usage, I'm in full agreement. It's the idea of prohibition that I think is counterproductive.

This post probably makes the most concise and relevant point. So, here's an argument about why marijuana is harmful to others

Here's why, for now, I favor prohibition over regulation/legalization:

- The driving issue. Of course not everyone drives when stoned, and of course not everyone drives poorly when stoned. But some do, and those who make poor driving decisions under the influence of marijuana too often cause the death of others on the road. The problem is that there is currently no way to test if someone is high when driving. If they come up with a way to pull you over and determine if you are high at the moment, then I'd be much more comfortable with lifting prohibition. Until them legalization is a VERY bad idea as driving deaths would certainly increase. This is a clear harm to others.

- Kids of pot smokers/Second-hand smoke. I always feel bad for children who live with parents who smoke cigarettes all the time and have no choice but to inhale second hand smoke continuously. I don't think we need to add to this problem by also having a bunch of kids high off of second hand marijuana smoke. They need to be protected as much as possible, and legalization of marijuana would most certainly cause a negative impact on children (or anyone else who happens to be stuck in a stream of second hand smoke at a bar, in a restaurant, etc.). This is a clear harm to others.

- The dependency issue. I have known enough people (and studies bear this out) to know that marijuana can be addictive (psychologically, if not chemically). As with any other addictive substance, this can cause harm for both users and those they come into contact with. Families are often hurt by this (e.g. the father who starts smoking pot and loses all career ambition, the kid who steals money from parents to buy weed, etc.). Though I don't think this is as important as the two reasons above, this too is a harm to others.

So, that's the foundation for an argument that marijuana harms others and should be prohibited. Regulation (e.g. selling pot like alcohol or cigarettes) would not fix any of these problems. Is prohibition fair to people who want to use marijuana responsibly? Of course not. But when there's a clear conflict between an individual desire to do what they want and the public safety, the law's duty is to the protection of the broader public.

I do, of course, realize that the war on drugs introduces a whole new set of problems, and that penalties are really quite egregious. I'm much more in favor of decriminalization than legalization/regulation as decriminalization addresses the majority of the problems I have with how marijuana use/possession is prosecuted. But, for the reasons above, it should still be prosecuted.

Your arguement about driving assumes that more people will smoke weed than currently do if it is legalized. I think the amount of new smokers would be small. Laws are not stopping anyone who wants to smoke.

Your addiction arguement is flawed aswell because tabacco and alcohol are both addictive and alcoholism is a horrible promblem. No one gets high and beats their wife or kill people in fights. Drunks do that stuff.

Anyway marijuana is already decriminalized in Massachusetts.

[Octopod]

Is it reliable/consistent? Does it hold up in court? Can it determine whether it was there yesterday or 30 minutes ago? I'd love to know more about this, as I was under the impression no field tests were accurate (and certainly not as accurate as tests for alcohol).

I don't have the answers to all your questions, as again, this is something I've only seen done on COPS. They also have eye charts to recognize use of amphetamines.

I've got a friend who is a police officer. I'll email him and see if I can't get more definitive answers.

My aunt is a police detective and my mother-in-laws new husband is a police sergent so I will ask them as well.

[Luke]

My aunt is a police detective and my mother-in-laws new husband is a police sergent so I will ask them as well.

Thanks you kindly. Knowing that my friend who is an officer use to smoke pot, his first answer will be, "I just know if someone is high".

Would the legalization of marijuana change employment practices? I would hope not, as I'm all for drug screening, but employers (that I know) don't test for tobacco or alcohol. Just wondering how it might effect EOE laws. EOE laws are bullshit anyway, have you ever seen a male waiter at Hooters? If you have, you are at the wrong Hooters.

[dsheinem]

Your arguement about driving assumes that more people will smoke weed than currently do if it is legalized. I think the amount of new smokers would be small. Laws are not stopping anyone who wants to smoke.

While I do think more people would smoke if it was legalized, we can't really argue a speculative point. And of course laws stop people who want to smoke. Plenty of people are willing to trade getting high for safety from penalties, even if they'd rather have both.

And you're wrong: my argument about driving holds even if the number of smokers decreased under legalization. Driving stoned is a problem period, regardless of how many people are doing it.

Your addiction arguement is flawed aswell because tabacco and alcohol are both addictive and alcoholism is a horrible promblem. No one gets high and beats their wife or kill people in fights. Drunks do that stuff.

No, my addiction argument isn't flawed either. Just because some addictive things are legal doesn't mean we should allow any addictive thing to be legal. People might not beat their wife or kill others in fights while high, but "harm" doesn't only have to be physical. I've mentioned how addiction can cause people to steal for drug money, ignore their loved ones, etc. etc. These are harms.

[Luke]

I've mentioned how addiction can cause people to steal for drug money, ignore their loved ones, etc. etc. These are harms.

Yup. No such thing as a victimless crime.

[Limewater]

My aunt is a police detective and my mother-in-laws new husband is a police sergent so I will ask them as well.

Thanks you kindly. Knowing that my friend who is an officer use to smoke pot, his first answer will be, "I just know if someone is high".

For what it's worth, my friend who is a cop is the one who told me there is no reliable field test for drug use. He told me that he has pulled over people driving recklessly who were clearly high, and he's ultimately pretty powerless on the drug issue in those cases.