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

[Octopod]

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.

Oh I agree with you 100% that driving under the influence of any mood or mmind altering substance should be illegal and I feel it should carry even harsher penalties than it already does.

[Hatta]

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

- The driving issue.

Easily solved. Use field sobriety tests. If someone is impaired they will fail the field sobriety test.

- 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.

Nobody gets high off of 2nd hand smoke. The concentrations of THC are way too low. Kids do get asthma from 2nd hand smoke (usually tobacco). If you're that concerned, prohibit smoking around kids. Don't prohibit mere possession.

- The dependency issue. I have known enough people (and studies bear this out)
to know that marijuana can be addictive (psychologically, if not chemically).

Sure anything can be psychologically addictive. TV, video games, food, sex, etc. Do you want to ban all of those?

So, that's the foundation for an argument that marijuana harms others and should be prohibited.

A foundation that I have easily demolished. Listen, I'm a nice guy. Do you really want to see me go to jail? You can wave your hands all day and say this might happen, or that might happen. What actually happens under prohibition is that nice people go to jail. Who would you be protecting when you send me to jail?

Edit: oh there's more

"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,

If someone steals, that's already illegal. You don't need to send them to jail for pot. And if someone chooses to ignore their loved ones, that's their choice. Do you really think you should be sending people to jail for being an inattentive husband?

What possible harm could justify taking an educated, employed, and happy person like myself away at gunpoint and locking me in a cage for months or years? What have I done that is so awful?

[Octopod]

You already know the answer to that Hatta. Dont play dumb. You smoked the evil herb!

[Limewater]

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

- The driving issue.

Easily solved. Use field sobriety tests. If someone is impaired they will fail the field sobriety test.

This really isn't so easy as you wish to say. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone failing a field sobriety test without actually being drunk or high. For example, if someone becomes ill while driving, he may fail a sobriety test due to light-headedness or nausea. If someone has been in an accident, he might fail a sobriety test due to shock from having been in an accident.

For reasons like this, most states require some sort of chemical test for intoxication. No convenient, short-turnaround test yet exists for pot. Also, I am not sure if such a test would be able to accurately distinguish between someone who smoked up an hour earlier or three days earlier.

Additionally, some studies indicate that pot can impair one's ability to drive a lot longer than the high actually lasts.

So no, it's not just "easily solved."

[dsheinem]

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

- The driving issue.

Easily solved. Use field sobriety tests. If someone is impaired they will fail the field sobriety test.

This really isn't so easy as you wish to say. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone failing a field sobriety test without actually being drunk or high. For example, if someone becomes ill while driving, he may fail a sobriety test due to light-headedness or nausea. If someone has been in an accident, he might fail a sobriety test due to shock from having been in an accident.

For reasons like this, most states require some sort of chemical test for intoxication. No convenient, short-turnaround test yet exists for pot. Also, I am not sure if such a test would be able to accurately distinguish between someone who smoked up an hour earlier or three days earlier.

Additionally, some studies indicate that pot can impair one's ability to drive a lot longer than the high actually lasts.

So no, it's not just "easily solved."

Thanks, Limewater. This, for me, is the most important of my three arguments. Until they have a way to accurately determine whether a person is driving under the influence of marijuana, I don't think it is safe to legalize the drug.

Hatta, I understand and appreciate your point of view, and it seems clear that I won't change it (nor am I really trying to). No, I don't want you to go to jail for possession. As someone who has smoked pot many times in his own life, I am sympathetic to your desire for personal freedom as long as it hurts no one.

The problem is that no legalization solution has been presented (in this thread or elsewhere) that would ensure that those who use safely would be protected whereas those who don't would be prosecuted. We have these kinds of laws for alcohol use/abuse, which is why prohibition doesn't make sense for alcohol.

Furthermore, since we're talking about revoking a law which is ostensibly meant to protect the populace, I believe my arguments are still valid. The conflict between personal liberties and security is obviously larger than the debate over drug legalization (e.g. screening at airports), but in this particular case I would side with existing laws until a better solution that simply "legalize it!" (or a vague "regulate it!") is presented.

Nobody gets high off of 2nd hand smoke. The concentrations of THC are way too low. Kids do get asthma from 2nd hand smoke (usually tobacco). If you're that concerned, prohibit smoking around kids. Don't prohibit mere possession.

Perhaps my evidence is anecdotal, but I certainly have known many people to get high off of second hand smoke when enclosed in a room with other smokers and little air circulation. There are few good studies on this since the drug is illegal, but the few studies that are out there suggest that a second hand-high is indeed possible. Ask anyone who has ever failed a drug test after hanging out with someone who smokes...

Sure anything can be psychologically addictive. TV, video games, food, sex, etc. Do you want to ban all of those?

No, of course not. The psychological addiction causing harm argument is my weakest one, to be sure - but it is a harm to at least take under consideration when deliberating over whether or not to change marijuana use law (which is what was asked for in the thread).

[Hatta]

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone failing a field sobriety test without actually being drunk or high. For example, if someone becomes ill while driving, he may fail a sobriety test due to light-headedness or nausea.

I don't care if you have an inner ear infection or whatever. If you can't pass the field sobriety test, you have no place behind the wheel.

No, I don't want you to go to jail for possession.

You can't simultaneously advocate a policy and then disclaim the results of that policy. That's just doublethink.

The problem is that no legalization solution has been presented (in this thread or elsewhere) that would ensure that those who use safely would be protected whereas those who don't would be prosecuted

No prohibition solution has been presented that would ensure that those who use safely would not be prosecuted.

Furthermore, since we're talking about revoking a law which is ostensibly meant to protect the populace, I believe my arguments are still valid.

Ostensibly. But the actual effect of the law is that it victimizes more people than it protects. Do you realize that more people are arrested for marijuana possession than ALL VIOLENT CRIMES COMBINED?

I certainly have known many people to get high off of second hand smoke when enclosed in a room with other smokers and little air circulation.

If you're hotboxing a closet, you might see some effects. But don't neglect the placebo effect. Besides, this is a red herring. Anyone who shuts their kids in a small chamber filled with smoke should be on trial for child abuse, whether the substance itself is legal or not.

[dsheinem]

No, I don't want you to go to jail for possession.

You can't simultaneously advocate a policy and then disclaim the results of that policy. That's just doublethink.

No, I've advocated for a change in the current policy by way of decriminalization - which would mean no jail time. You've advocated for legalization, which I still have issues with for the reasons given.

The problem is that no legalization solution has been presented (in this thread or elsewhere) that would ensure that those who use safely would be protected whereas those who don't would be prosecuted

No prohibition solution has been presented that would ensure that those who use safely would not be prosecuted.

Now there's some doublethink. How would one come up with what you ask? If something is prohibited, prosecution is implied in the very definition of the term "prohibition". Even if something is decriminalized it is still prohibited, but the penalties are much less. This, I think, is the best solution until the driving issue is addressed.

Furthermore, since we're talking about revoking a law which is ostensibly meant to protect the populace, I believe my arguments are still valid.

Ostensibly. But the actual effect of the law is that it victimizes more people than it protects. Do you realize that more people are arrested for marijuana possession than ALL VIOLENT CRIMES COMBINED?

Yes, I do. It's horrible and ridiculous. Again, though: decriminalization, decriminalization, decriminalization. Decriminalization would still help to protect the people that can be harmed by irresponsible users, but ensure that those who get caught with small amounts for personal use would not suffer any major consequences unless it was demonstrable they were harming or risking others...

I certainly have known many people to get high off of second hand smoke when enclosed in a room with other smokers and little air circulation.

If you're hotboxing a closet, you might see some effects. But don't neglect the placebo effect. Besides, this is a red herring. Anyone who shuts their kids in a small chamber filled with smoke should be on trial for child abuse, whether the substance itself is legal or not.

Agreed on that last point. Disagree that you have to hotbox in a closet to get high from secondhand smoke.

Anyway, tests have been inconclusive, so really both of us are talking out our ass on this one: http://www.ehow.com/about_5180551_effec ... fants.html

Personally, I'd choose to err on the side of caution.

[Limewater]

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone failing a field sobriety test without actually being drunk or high. For example, if someone becomes ill while driving, he may fail a sobriety test due to light-headedness or nausea.

I don't care if you have an inner ear infection or whatever. If you can't pass the field sobriety test, you have no place behind the wheel.

Wow. Tell that to the paraplegic driver who got his legs blown off serving in the military.

"If you can't stand up to take a field sobriety test, you have no place behind the wheel!" You can't have a guy in a wheel chair stand on one foot, or test his balance while he looks straight up at the sky.

Or tell it to the guy who had a stroke while driving.

"If you were going to have a stroke, you shouldn't have gotten behind the wheel!"


Sure, if you have a condition that will affect your ability to drive, you shouldn't get behind the wheel. But sometimes crap happens while you're driving. What you are essentially advocating here is removing the presumption of innocence in the justice system.

[Luke]

Wow. Tell that to the paraplegic driver who got his legs blown off serving in the military.

"If you can't stand up to take a field sobriety test, you have no place behind the wheel!" You can't have a guy in a wheel chair stand on one foot, or test his balance while he looks straight up at the sky.

Or tell it to the guy who had a stroke while driving.

"If you were going to have a stroke, you shouldn't have gotten behind the wheel!"

Wow.

I don't think anyone thinks that is what he meant.

[Erik_Twice]

So are you comparing driving while drunk, a concious choice, to a fatal accident like having a stroke?

Wow