The Great Mexican Wall

[Robert Roaldi]

Sounds suspiciously like legalising murder. At a stroke - or a stab or a shot - you'd make the lawyers less rich, but then whoa! what happens to brand Leica? Who'd buy the shiny limos? You see the problems with legalising "fun" and "recreation" and things that are generally not so good for you?

;-)

I said above that I had said everything I wanted to on this, but I will add one more comment in response. The people who do dope and then drive, thus putting your life in additional risk, have already been doing so for decades.

[Rob C]

I said above that I had said everything I wanted to on this, but I will add one more comment in response. The people who do dope and then drive, thus putting your life in additional risk, have already been doing so for decades.

Quite so, but why encourage them, and others still virgin, under the banner of freedom and legal acceptance of the stupid habit?

Making these products difficult to get, and worthy of heavy penalty for consumption and not just for supplying, seems the better route to me.

Rob

[MattBurt]

Sounds suspiciously like legalising murder. At a stroke - or a stab or a shot - you'd make the lawyers less rich, but then whoa! what happens to brand Leica? Who'd buy the shiny limos? You see the problems with legalising "fun" and "recreation" and things that are generally not so good for you?

;-)

I don't quite follow but if you are saying legalizing it takes the money out, that isn't correct. People are still getting plenty rich from selling weed, but now they are accountable to regulations that help limit who they can sell to. The tax money collected goes to lots of great programs in the state to help education, substance abuse prevention, and things like parks and trails. I'm sure the lawyers will still do ok.

Prohibition is funding murder. Legalizing is funding education and prevention. I think we chose wisely in Colorado.

The whole medical aspect is another success for getting people off opioids.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/nation-world/seniors-choosing-cannabis-over-opioids-for-pain/507-574186491

[MattBurt]

Quite so, but why encourage them, and others still virgin, under the banner of freedom and legal acceptance of the stupid habit?

Making these products difficult to get, and worthy of heavy penalty for consumption and not just for supplying, seems the better route to me.

Rob

That is a great argument for alcohol prohibition. Should we bring it back?
The cartels will be happy to provide whatever the people crave and higher penalties means higher profits!

[Alan Klein]

That is a great argument for alcohol prohibition. Should we bring it back?
The cartels will be happy to provide whatever the people crave and higher penalties means higher profits!

We don't need to add another drug to create additional Mayhem on the roads.

[MattBurt]

We don't need to add another drug to create additional Mayhem on the roads.

I agree. But this isn't another drug, it's always been around.

[MattBurt]

I think I'm almost done here and we are going to have to agree to disagree (or disagree to disagree?).

I just want to add this driving test video that shows people smoking until they can't drive properly. My first observation is it sure takes a lot of weed to make them really drive poorly. My second is they still drive better than a typical drunk person.
 
Like I said earlier, sober drivers are my preference but I'd still prefer stoners to drunks. We have a lot of tourists around here so I'm used to people driving too slowly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw1HavgoK9E

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As someone who has been for legalization of all drugs for years, I can not see a logical argument that would accept the legality of alcohol but deny it to drugs.

As in any social decision, it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis and having the benefits outweigh the cost. So, yes, there might be a cost to pay in increased road accidents, but the benefits would outweigh the cost. The rational solution would be to engage in impaired driving education of the general public and drug users in particular, devising better methods of detecting drug-impaired drivers, etc. If I am not mistaken, police already has specially trained policemen capable of spotting multiple sigs of drug use in drivers.

[Rob C]

I agree. But this isn't another drug, it's always been around.

But it is, in the sense that if you legalise it, it joins the ranks of alcohol as the same drug that was once illegal, but is now legal. So you end up with twice the number of legal ones as you had before, but with availability made risk-free and possibly less expensive. So, open to even more people.

Next, do you progress to the setting up of an agreed legal level of coke snorting, heroin shooting etc. etc. till everything is good for go?

This is simply the same faux argument as the gun lobby makes: people always died from guns, so hey, nothing's gonna change, put more of them out there and of course, the numbers dying will fall because everyone will be armed. Crazy, or what?

[Alan Klein]

As someone who has been for legalization of all drugs for years, I can not see a logical argument that would accept the legality of alcohol but deny it to drugs.

As in any social decision, it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis and having the benefits outweigh the cost. So, yes, there might be a cost to pay in increased road accidents, but the benefits would outweigh the cost. The rational solution would be to engage in impaired driving education of the general public and drug users in particular, devising better methods of detecting drug-impaired drivers, etc. If I am not mistaken, police already has specially trained policemen capable of spotting multiple sigs of drug use in drivers.

The logic is if you legalize marijuana the carnage on the roads will increase.

If you legalize all drugs as you suggest then the carnage to the non driving population will increase  as well as more and more people will OD with needles stuck in their arms.  Haven't you been reading the news lately with opioids?

[James Clark]

As someone who has been for legalization of all drugs for years, I can not see a logical argument that would accept the legality of alcohol but deny it to drugs.

As in any social decision, it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis and having the benefits outweigh the cost. So, yes, there might be a cost to pay in increased road accidents, but the benefits would outweigh the cost. The rational solution would be to engage in impaired driving education of the general public and drug users in particular, devising better methods of detecting drug-impaired drivers, etc. If I am not mistaken, police already has specially trained policemen capable of spotting multiple sigs of drug use in drivers.

Exactly this.

[MattBurt]

But it is, in the sense that if you legalise it, it joins the ranks of alcohol as the same drug that was once illegal, but is now legal. So you end up with twice the number of legal ones as you had before, but with availability made risk-free and possibly less expensive. So, open to even more people.

Next, do you progress to the setting up of an agreed legal level of coke snorting, heroin shooting etc. etc. till everything is good for go?

This is simply the same faux argument as the gun lobby makes: people always died from guns, so hey, nothing's gonna change, put more of them out there and of course, the numbers dying will fall because everyone will be armed. Crazy, or what?

I wondered if someone was going to point that out. That logic is flawed for sure and I was just using it as a debate point that might appeal to Libertarian leaning people. Good catch.

The point of freedom-limiting laws is to protect us from danger. My disagreement is with the degree of danger we are talking about of legal pot vs. prohibited pot compared to other potentially dangerous intoxicants. Pointing out that people involved in accidents have thc in their systems and its increase in places where pot is legal does not prove that driving high is a significant problem. I should add it also doesn't disprove it. Correlation does not indicate causation, especially with the way current testing can detect it so long after use.
We are in the early days of detection and determining the appropriate levels but I'm sure law enforcement is getting it figured out. I'm happy to have them dedicating more resources to actual dangers to society like intoxicated driving and other crime instead of ruining lives for what otherwise non-criminal people do in the privacy of their homes.

[Alan Klein]

I wondered if someone was going to point that out. That logic is flawed for sure and I was just using it as a debate point that might appeal to Libertarian leaning people. Good catch.

The point of freedom-limiting laws is to protect us from danger. My disagreement is with the degree of danger we are talking about of legal pot vs. prohibited pot compared to other potentially dangerous intoxicants. Pointing out that people involved in accidents have thc in their systems and its increase in places where pot is legal does not prove that driving high is a significant problem. I should add it also doesn't disprove it. Correlation does not indicate causation, especially with the way current testing can detect it so long after use.
We are in the early days of detection and determining the appropriate levels but I'm sure law enforcement is getting it figured out. I'm happy to have them dedicating more resources to actual dangers to society like intoxicated driving and other crime instead of ruining lives for what otherwise non-criminal people do in the privacy of their homes.

The study from Washington State Motor Vehicle Commission shows that there are more accidents and fatalities since their state legalized MJ.  I highlighted some of those in my earlier posts. 


The "ruining lives" of people who use pot in the privacy of their homes is not an issue.   You created a straw man argument.  Police aren't breaking into homes and arresting people for smoking a doobie.  Unfortunately, the whole fear argument and false narrative that pot is safe has worked.  It's switched public opinion to favoring legalizing pot.  We'll reap what we sow. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... That logic is flawed for sure...

I wonder what exactly is flawed with that logic?

I just stated in the previous post that you can not possibly defend the logic of legal alcohol and smoking and deny the same logic for drugs. Either the alcohol prohibition was right and should have never been abolished, or it wasn't right. You can't have it both ways.

As for coke and heroin...sure, be my guest. If someone wants to use them, they will (and do), legal or illegal.

As for the gun argument... at the risk of reopening the old debate, I will say that the parallel is false. The manyfold increase in (legal) guns in the States over the years, has NOT been accompanied by the similar order of magnitude in gun deaths.

Both alcohol and tobacco are legal, yet we teach our children (and ourselves) to stay away from it, and if they do enjoy it responsibly, not to drive. After all, a reasonable consumption of alcohol has been found to be beneficial for your health. I do not smoke, but occasionally enjoy a good cigar. I am sure there is no health benefit from smoking (the way I do), and probably there is some damage, but it's been outweighed by the psychological pleasure I received (Cuban cigar + a good bourbon = happy guy).

In other words, the fact that something is legal (like alcohol and tobacco) doesn't mean everybody is going to jump into it.

[Alan Klein]

I wonder what exactly is flawed with that logic?

I just stated in the previous post that you can not possibly defend the logic of legal alcohol and smoking and deny the same logic for drugs. Either the alcohol prohibition was right and should have never been abolished, or it wasn't right. You can't have it both ways.

As for coke and heroin...sure, be my guest. If someone wants to use them, they will (and do), legal or illegal.

As for the gun argument... at the risk of reopening the old debate, I will say that the parallel is false. The manyfold increase in (legal) guns in the States over the years, has NOT been accompanied by the similar order of magnitude in gun deaths.

Both alcohol and tobacco are legal, yet we teach our children (and ourselves) to stay away from it, and if they do enjoy it responsibly, not to drive. After all, a reasonable consumption of alcohol has been found to be beneficial for your health. I do not smoke, but occasionally enjoy a good cigar. I am sure there is no health benefit from smoking (the way I do), and probably there is some damage, but it's been outweighed by the psychological pleasure I received (Cuban cigar + a good bourbon = happy guy).

In other words, the fact that something is legal (like alcohol and tobacco) doesn't mean everybody is going to jump into it.

It isn't often we disagree.  But this is one case.  It is true that alcohol creates more carnage on the road then anything else.  But just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean that we have to legalize less damaging drugs as well and add to the carnage.  That seems perfectly logical to me.  That would be like a diabetic telling himself it's OK to eat a cupcake because he already finished a hot fudge Sunday.  Of course for the diabetic, he'd only be killing himself.  He's not going to kill a pedestrian or three children riding home from a soccer match. 

I'm totally against coke and heroin.  It's killing people and hurting society even not considering driving.   

Trusting people not to drive while under the influence just doesn't work.  Check my earlier posts that show that 37% of users don't believe pot effects your driving.  40% admit to driving within three hours of smoking it. 


The one thing we agree on is guns.  But even if they are an issue, there are constitutional protections that would have to be changed to effect who can own them.  On the other hand, drugs do not have constitutional protection. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Quite so, but why encourage them, and others still virgin, under the banner of freedom and legal acceptance of the stupid habit?

Making these products difficult to get, and worthy of heavy penalty for consumption and not just for supplying, seems the better route to me.

Rob

you are naive to think this is a viable option.

[Alan Goldhammer]

As someone who has been for legalization of all drugs for years, I can not see a logical argument that would accept the legality of alcohol but deny it to drugs.

As in any social decision, it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis and having the benefits outweigh the cost. So, yes, there might be a cost to pay in increased road accidents, but the benefits would outweigh the cost. The rational solution would be to engage in impaired driving education of the general public and drug users in particular, devising better methods of detecting drug-impaired drivers, etc. If I am not mistaken, police already has specially trained policemen capable of spotting multiple sigs of drug use in drivers.

OMG!!  WE AGREE OK SOMETHING

[MattBurt]

The study from Washington State Motor Vehicle Commission shows that there are more accidents and fatalities since their state legalized MJ.  I highlighted some of those in my earlier posts. 


The "ruining lives" of people who use pot in the privacy of their homes is not an issue.   You created a straw man argument.  Police aren't breaking into homes and arresting people for smoking a doobie.  Unfortunately, the whole fear argument and false narrative that pot is safe has worked.  It's switched public opinion to favoring legalizing pot.  We'll reap what we sow.

Actually, they are. Just not in Colorado anymore. If they aren't, then let's not have this gray area where if a cop suspects or doesn't like you they can choose to enforce a law that is usually ignored. It would be much clearer to everyone if the law and the enforcement are consistent.

If Sessions gets his wish I have a feeling it might be more like his other zero tolerance policies which I think has mostly just ruined lives (IMO of course).
Pot is safe, at least more so than alcohol or tobacco. I'm not trying to make the argument that intoxicated driving is ok (even if less severe than alcohol). If we are using general public safety as a reason to maintain prohibition, we are prohibiting the wrong substances.

[Alan Klein]

Actually, they are. Just not in Colorado anymore. If they aren't, then let's not have this gray area where if a cop suspects or doesn't like you they can choose to enforce a law that is usually ignored. It would be much clearer to everyone if the law and the enforcement are consistent.

If Sessions gets his wish I have a feeling it might be more like his other zero tolerance policies which I think has mostly just ruined lives (IMO of course).
Pot is safe, at least more so than alcohol or tobacco. I'm not trying to make the argument that intoxicated driving is ok (even if less severe than alcohol). If we are using general public safety as a reason to maintain prohibition, we are prohibiting the wrong substances.

Matt, You're repeating a falsehood.  Police are not breaking into homes to arrest users.  Sure they do that if there are sellers or smugglers there.  But not casual users.  In NYC, if you smoke on the street, you'll probably be ignored by the cops.  If they stop you, they give you a ticket and you pay $35 or so like a parking ticket.  There's no criminal arrest or record. It's an administrative fine.   By the way, even though alcohol is legal, you can't drink in public either.  In any case, no one's life is being ruined.  Let's not increase the number of users and death on the roads by legalizing it.  If you want to smoke a joint, buy it illegally if you feel you have to and stay off the roads. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... If you want to smoke a joint, buy it illegally if you feel you have to and stay off the roads. 

That is way less optimal than buying it legally and staying off the roads.