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.
I can't reconcile the hipocracy that smoking is bad for you. And anyone who smokes should be ostrasized, pay higher insurance premiums, be liable for lawsuits etc. But smoking pot is none of that. If the medical benefits of pot are that good why don't patients take it in pill form?
Actually, there is a pill form of THC being tested. However, this thread isn't about medicinal marijuana, it's about the legalization of marijuana for recreational use.
Your public use of it may impair my ability to do a given task. Contact High and you have infringed on my wellbeing. Are all of the years of study indicating long term negative effects of inhalation now invalid?
Different with alcohol. I cannot get drunk if you consume it and breath on me.
Different than tobacco use. It may affect my lungs in the short/long term but does not affect me in the instant of exposure.(well I may cough but your B.O. could also make me gag) Long term effects of seconday smoke one of the reasons use is now restricted. For the health of non-smokers.
NB: But what you do in your home is your business.
You can get high from tobacco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanalsLB
I can't reconcile the hipocracy that smoking is bad for you. And anyone who smokes should be ostrasized, pay higher insurance premiums, be liable for lawsuits etc. But smoking pot is none of that. If the medical benefits of pot are that good why don't patients take it in pill form?
Smoking is bad for you, but I can't honestly say I've heard or support anything of those.
And, people smoke pot for the same reason they smoke cigarettes--it's the experience and culture of smoking.
And because inevitably somewhere someone is going to bring up how smoking is banned in bars--that's about protecting the workers, not the customers, and it really is a mixed bag of problems.
Social conservatives are the largely the Religious Right, aka the non-intellectual part of the Republican Party. That's where the Drug War stuff comes in, along with alcohol Prohibition, and other ideas totally contradictory to American freedom. You can't have freedom while trying to micromanage personal behavior that does not hurt others via a gigantic central federal government. You can only have an ever-growing Empire that enslaves its own citizens and wages wars against everyone else on the planet.
Fiscal conservatives are more widespread among Republicans than among Democrats, but neither of today's major political parties are by ANY stretch of the imagination fiscal conservatives.
I'd say the most philosophically consistent American political view is fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. It's also known as being a Libertarian, but that's being made a dirty word by the two (one, actually) political parties that pretend to offer us a "choice" of representation.
I used to work with police as a non sworn staff member and they talked about this all the time. There isn't a test so far where they can see how much you have smoked but the eyeballs react a certain way to lights when high. I do not know this to be a fact but this is what I was told. For the record ALL the officers I worked with want it legal.
Well, that is the problem i spoke of. How can we write laws making it illegal to drive while stoned on marijuana when there really is no way to prove a person was in violation of the law? The person was acting goofy, or their eyes looked funny, is not going to stand up in court.
I can't reconcile the hipocracy that smoking is bad for you. And anyone who smokes should be ostrasized, pay higher insurance premiums, be liable for lawsuits etc. But smoking pot is none of that. If the medical benefits of pot are that good why don't patients take it in pill form?
The reason most patients don't take it in pill form is simple, it's MUCH less effective and slower to act. There is a pill form called Marinol (or at least it used to be called that), and I've actually tried it myself - did nothing, literally. So unless they come up with a way to mainline marijuana, smoking will be the preferred method for fast & effective benefits. If smoking is an issue for anyone, they can also vaporize or use edibles like "pot brownies," both of which are more effective than the pills.
Well, that is the problem i spoke of. How can we write laws making it illegal to drive while stoned on marijuana when there really is no way to prove a person was in violation of the law? The person was acting goofy, or their eyes looked funny, is not going to stand up in court.
We have many threads on this topic, so I think we should refrain from discussing it here, but there are ways to prove it. Not only do they have special field sobriety tests JUST for marijuana (can't fake how your pupils react, can you?), but any good cop knows - and their testimony will stand in court. Some cops don't care, but they do know and will be believed over the driver.
Why do you need to know if somebody in a traffic accident was high?
If you can't determine that a person is too drunk or too high on any substance whatsoever to drive, then they aren't.
You don't need a test to see somebody weaving in and out of traffic, and it doesn't matter if they are high on cough syrup or weed.
It's very easy to determine if a driver in an accident is drunk. We do have laws against drunk driving. Are you are saying we should not have laws against driving while stoned on marijuana? so we just give them a ticket for erratic driving, or driving strangely?
We have many threads on this topic, so I think we should refrain from discussing it here, but there are ways to prove it. Not only do they have special field sobriety tests JUST for marijuana (can't fake how your pupils react, can you?), but any good cop knows - and their testimony will stand in court. Some cops don't care, but they do know and will be believed over the driver.
Why not discuss it, since this thread is about people's misgivings about legalization?
Why not discuss it, since this thread is about people's misgivings about legalization?
Haha... my bad!! I totally thought I'd clicked on the link for that "Lesbian couples in NC" thread, and was just wondering how it turned into a debate on marijuana. Carry on, and ignore my "off topic" comments.
It's very easy to determine if a driver in an accident is drunk. We do have laws against drunk driving. Are you are saying we should not have laws against driving while stoned on marijuana? so we just give them a ticket for erratic driving, or driving strangely?
I don't think that was their point... they're saying if a person isn't driving poorly enough to where they are OBVIOUSLY under the influence, it shouldn't matter if they technically are or not. And I feel the same about alcohol, since not everyone who had a drink is "too drunk to drive." Just as with alcohol, there are different levels of marijuana intoxication - and I have the personal stories (involving traffic stops) to prove it.
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.
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.
