Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-13-2013, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,784,265 times
Reputation: 14125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Weed should not be legalized. One issue is driving or operating machinery under the influence and the definition of being impaired by weed. Right now, it takes a blood test to determine just how high you are at a particular moment and whether or not you are high is speculation. With alcohol, we have breathalizers so we actually can tell who is impaired right on the spot before releasing them. With weed illegal, police can detain anyone who is in possession or drug dogs react on because of the smell. They can get them off the street. Legalizing drugs creates major headaches for the ability of the police to get people off the street who are in no condition to drive. Whether or not they are really impaired is subjective.
And if it's medical (in a state that legalized it for medical usage) it is the same as an OTC or prescribed medication that you are operating under the influence of. I am not pro-weed, I just think it should be prescribed because of the medical benefits of it. NOTE: if you are driving under the influence you can still be pulled over for impaired driving just like DWI (though it is not as clear cut with the breathalyzer tests.)

 
Old 08-13-2013, 03:17 PM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,647,311 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
I don't disagree that there are important issues but it seems to me the government has deliberately misled us for decades and doing nothing is more tragic... I think the president should use executive order to suspend any criminalization of marijuana... That will take less effort and require minimal time to do... Criminalization of marijuana is wrong when the only reason is you don't like it...
If there are federal laws against marijuana then Obama can't simply decree that those laws no longer apply. If you are going to argue for an issue, at least try an act like you are informed.
 
Old 08-13-2013, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,443,246 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
And if it's medical (in a state that legalized it for medical usage) it is the same as an OTC or prescribed medication that you are operating under the influence of. I am not pro-weed, I just think it should be prescribed because of the medical benefits of it. NOTE: if you are driving under the influence you can still be pulled over for impaired driving just like DWI (though it is not as clear cut with the breathalyzer tests.)
Yes, but we can prove you're driving under the influence of alcohol easily on the spot. We can't for drugs. It takes a blood test which is invasive, costly and time consuming.

You're right that medical weed does present this problem and it's something we need to figure out how to deal with. Perhaps you should be required to give up your driver's license to get a weed license??? We forced my step mother to give up her license because of the pain killers she was on but that was a family decision. She didn't need to be on the road under the influence. I shudder to think what the consequences might have been if she'd kept driving. This is an issue with all OTC drugs that impair ability but it's not an argument for legalizing any of them.

Drug laws aren't about individuals. They're about society and what is good for society. I see no benefit to society in legalizing weed or any other recreational drug. As to medicinal use, I think the pharmacies should isolate the compounds that are beneficial and market them. It may be possible to treat conditions without the high and that would remove the problem of driving under the influence. I don't think weed as is should be legalized. There are too many compounds in weed. Just isolate the ones you need to treat the condition you're treating.
 
Old 08-13-2013, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,784,265 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Yes, but we can prove you're driving under the influence of alcohol easily on the spot. We can't for drugs. It takes a blood test which is invasive, costly and time consuming.

You're right that medical weed does present this problem and it's something we need to figure out how to deal with. Perhaps you should be required to give up your driver's license to get a weed license??? We forced my step mother to give up her license because of the pain killers she was on but that was a family decision. She didn't need to be on the road under the influence. I shudder to think what the consequences might have been if she'd kept driving. This is an issue with all OTC drugs that impair ability but it's not an argument for legalizing any of them.

Drug laws aren't about individuals. They're about society and what is good for society. I see no benefit to society in legalizing weed or any other recreational drug. As to medicinal use, I think the pharmacies should isolate the compounds that are beneficial and market them. It may be possible to treat conditions without the high and that would remove the problem of driving under the influence. I don't think weed as is should be legalized. There are too many compounds in weed. Just isolate the ones you need to treat the condition you're treating.
Or you could just not drive until the effects are gone which is something alcohol drinkers have done for years... Oh wait, I forgot we cannot bring logic to political debates. Stupid me.
 
Old 08-13-2013, 04:05 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 10,629,696 times
Reputation: 3328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Yes, but we can prove you're driving under the influence of alcohol easily on the spot. We can't for drugs. It takes a blood test which is invasive, costly and time consuming.

You're right that medical weed does present this problem and it's something we need to figure out how to deal with. Perhaps you should be required to give up your driver's license to get a weed license??? We forced my step mother to give up her license because of the pain killers she was on but that was a family decision. She didn't need to be on the road under the influence. I shudder to think what the consequences might have been if she'd kept driving. This is an issue with all OTC drugs that impair ability but it's not an argument for legalizing any of them.

Drug laws aren't about individuals. They're about society and what is good for society. I see no benefit to society in legalizing weed or any other recreational drug. As to medicinal use, I think the pharmacies should isolate the compounds that are beneficial and market them. It may be possible to treat conditions without the high and that would remove the problem of driving under the influence. I don't think weed as is should be legalized. There are too many compounds in weed. Just isolate the ones you need to treat the condition you're treating.
ivory... there are people driving the streets every day on pharmaceuticals prescribed by their doctors. Many of these drugs say do not drive if impaired. But people do. Do you really think this is not happening? No, they shouldn't be driving. it is no different with cannabis. And if the people on pharmaceuticals get into an accident and have their blood drawn and it shows they were impaired, there are consequences. This should be the same for cannabis users.

Also, even though there is a plethora of new evidence coming from Israel regarding no high cannabis, there is much value for patients in the cannabis that still gets you high. But I guess you would have to be a cancer patient using cannabis to know that. There are two basic components in cannabis, CBD and THC, that help patients. Both offer relief. And different strains of cannabis help with different problems.

I am a cancer patient. I could fill my body full of the pharmaceuticals that doctors want to offer for my pain and other problems, but they cause horrible side effects and can interact terribly with prescribed pharmaceuticals. I suffer no problems with cannabis.
 
Old 08-13-2013, 04:46 PM
 
Location: On the Edge of the Fringe
7,573 posts, read 6,041,408 times
Reputation: 6995
Being that we have irresponsible adults in America who cannot handle drinking and driving, and teens who cannot handle texting and driving, I am not keen on the idea of toking and driving either.

That being said, I want to call attention to the successes of the Portugal drug enforcement model. It seems to be working, and while it may not work in a country as large as the US, it brings attention to the underlying need American's have for drugs.
Part of the United States problem is a messed up drug scheduling system, courtesy of that president that had to resign for criminal activities in office. Lacking in America is effective treatment to get people off the need for drugs. Our fast paced lifestyle with the disposable income and a ready-made panacea for any ill, social or physical, breeds communities with open mouths saying "Put something here to make me feel better right now" Such is instant gratification.
Rehab and addiction treatment in America lags behind Portugal's because so little funding goes into mental health. And addiction is part of the mental health problem, the same one that has long been underfunded and under researched in our great nation.
A great example would be to peruse the PDR each year when it comes out, and look at the new entries. The smallest is inevitably the psych meds, That is in part because Mental health remains the lower pecking order, while more money goes into treatments for cardiology and cancer. Sadly, those millions who are drug addicts, alcoholics and the like suffer not only from the addiction, but from lack of widespread effective therapy.

Legalizing marijuana would not be the answer. Creating a social model whereby someone had no desire or need for psychotropic drugs would be more effective. And finding treatments, like they are trying in Portugal, for clearing the addictions from the individual, would be likewise better than just telling kids "Just say no...now go out and be miserable"
 
Old 08-13-2013, 04:51 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,804,104 times
Reputation: 23659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
The problem is we're deciding what is good for society. Laws are for the benefit of society not the individual. It is you who needs to convince me that legalizing weed is beneficial for society.

I'm a good and safe driver. It would be to my benefit to drive 100 MPH on the expressway but I don't get my way because the law isn't about me. It's about what's good for society and it's not good for society to let everyone drive 100 MPH so I can't either.
I already spelled it out for you, but I'll list the "benefits to society" if we legalized again:

- Save money on jailing non-violent users
- Keep people who WERE contributing to society in their jobs, homes, etc, instead of taxpayer-funded jails
- Benefit those who genuinely need it for medical purposes
- Save the lawmakers' time from busting and harassing users who pose no threat to society in general; I know many cops personally, and every one I've discussed this issue with says they'd like to see it legalized (and see FAR more issues caused by drunks than stoners).

As for your continued argument regarding driving under the influence, I also already addressed that... the police are trained to assess a driver's impairment, through a series of simple field tests. Some of these aren't even subjective, like testing how your pupils react to a flashlight. I have been through these tests myself, and passed with flying colors - so the officers determined I was fine to drive, and didn't bother taking it any further. This is pretty much how they treat alcohol too, and blood tests aren't necessary until/unless the driver fails their field tests. Simple.

And if you want to take away driving privileges from anyone using medical marijuana, it would only be fair to take those privileges from anyone on ANY prescription drug (that causes any level of impairment). Or perhaps, just perhaps, we can treat it the same way... put a warning on the label (as they already do here in CA), and prosecute only those who violate the law and are caught doing so. Makes sense to me, but I guess not everyone is capable of this logical train of thought.

Last edited by gizmo980; 08-13-2013 at 05:00 PM..
 
Old 08-13-2013, 04:53 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,804,104 times
Reputation: 23659
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat View Post
Being that we have irresponsible adults in America who cannot handle drinking and driving, and teens who cannot handle texting and driving, I am not keen on the idea of toking and driving either.
And legalizing it would change that situation how, exactly? I've asked a few people this question, but have yet to receive an answer. Do you think people would suddenly start smoking pot - let alone DRIVING under the influence - simply because it was decriminalized? We've had "legal" pot in California for some 20 years now, and I don't notice any change in terms of driving or number of users. I'd have to research to see if my observations are correct, but I assume if there was a huge change, they would have reversed Prop 215 (and decriminalization for recreational use) by now. Don't you think?

Texting and drinking while driving are both illegal here in CA, and some people still do it while some people do not. I don't think that changed when texting was made illegal a few years ago, considering how many times I've almost been hit by a texting driver... so what makes you think the situation is any different with marijuana? And no, I'm not using the "people are gonna do it anyway" argument, I'm just explaining how it really doesn't change much in terms of numbers - and how if alcohol is legal and texting is legal, but neither are legal to do while driving, shouldn't marijuana be treated the SAME WAY? Even the anti-pot folks here admit these are similar issues, and yet they still insist that only marijuana should be the illegal substance. Makes no sense.
 
Old 08-13-2013, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,539,490 times
Reputation: 9675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post

Drug laws aren't about individuals. They're about society and what is good for society. I see no benefit to society in legalizing weed or any other recreational drug. As to medicinal use, I think the pharmacies should isolate the compounds that are beneficial and market them. It may be possible to treat conditions without the high and that would remove the problem of driving under the influence. I don't think weed as is should be legalized. There are too many compounds in weed. Just isolate the ones you need to treat the condition you're treating.
There are a bit over 400 chemicals in marijuana. In tobacco there is over 1000 chemicals. So I feel safe with legalizing marijuana.
 
Old 08-13-2013, 04:59 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
1,565 posts, read 2,445,248 times
Reputation: 1647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Or you could just not drive until the effects are gone which is something alcohol drinkers have done for years... Oh wait, I forgot we cannot bring logic to political debates. Stupid me.
That's the one of dullest posts I've ever read. Are we in grade school? Let's just base our laws on the honor system. We won't test for intoxicated drivers, we'll just assume they're cool to drive..........LMAO.

People that smoke weed always drive while they're high, go to work high, and do a tone of other things they shouldn't be doing while they're high. I would know because I used to be one of them. I don't believe any of these potheads on this forum that say they don't do these things high, as I've met very few potheads in my life that didn't. They seriously need to put some research in to finding an accurate and effective way to find out how stoned someone is on the spot. It would end this debate and legalize weed practically overnight. On the other hand it would be game over for peter potsmoker. He would be forced to to responsibly use the drug or face te same consequences drinkers do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top