Question about Mary Jane

[Felch]

solution:

legalize it, make legalized pot have some trace 'thing' which can be traced (but that leaves the system 'quickly')

if you have the tracer, you are 'impaired'

JM

What like technetium? I don't want marijuana to be laced with any biomedical tracer, nor would anybody else. It would increase not only cancer risk, but increase costs. Legalized marijuana would need to compete with black market (i.e. non-radioactive) weed.

Let's assume that you're not talking about a traditional radioactive tracer. It's still less feasible to require marijuana to have tracers than it is to criminalize entirely. What happens if the weed has been stored for a while, and the chemical tracer has decayed? Are police really going to sift through every little baggie they confiscate to find those that have the tracers? Would people want to buy something that they know has been contaminated with some sort of proprietary chemical tracer?

Finally it doesn't prove impairment. A dose that would impair one person might not impair another. Since everybody handles chemicals differently, some impaired drivers will slip through the nets, and some sober drivers will get caught up by the arbitrary bull****. Having a light buzz isn't the same thing as being impaired, otherwise DUIs would be given to any driver with any alcohol in their system.

Why not just trust police to administer traditional sobriety tests? Why not trust adults to smoke what they want without the Granny State poisoning them with rare isotopes?

[giblets]

I firmly believe that if there wasn't issues of properly detecting driving under the influence, it would be legal and regulated like booze.

I don't understand how people who are on drugs can simultaneously be terrible drivers and be difficult for cops to detect.

[Hauldren Collider]

We don't have cops on every street, gribbler. It's an enforcement issue, not detectability, just like DUI's.

[Jon Miller]

The only way it 'destroys lives' is by making people unmotivated to do more productive stuff, or because of the legal rammifications of getting caught.

I have seen it seriously negatively impact peoples lives.

Yes, it doesn't cause most people to go on a killing spree or for their bodies to quit working. But I know of it increasing psychological problems and causing people to have problems with producing the income needed to survive (which is destroying lives).

Just because this isn't true for everyone doesn't mean it isn't true for some.

Even drugs like heroin and crack can be used responsibly by some.

JM

[rah]

It's a hell of lot easier for cops to notice someone driving drunk than someone driving stoned. There are those that claim they drive better stoned since they realize they're stoned and don't want to do anything to be pulled over.

[giblets]

We don't have cops on every street, gribbler. It's an enforcement issue, not detectability, just like DUI's.

If I was stupid and didn't think there was an even larger enforcement issue associated with making marijuana illegal, this explanation would make sense to me.

[giblets]

It's a hell of lot easier for cops to notice someone driving drunk than someone driving stoned. There are those that claim they drive better stoned since they realize they're stoned and don't want to do anything to be pulled over.

Are these people a serious threat to public safety?

[rah]

When driving stoned, the only noticeable traits are driving a bit slower and being indecisive. Which basically are the traits of older drivers.
So those of us that are older have nothing to worry about. When the cops pull us over they'll just assume it's because we're old.

[kentonio]

I have seen it seriously negatively impact peoples lives.

Yes, it doesn't cause most people to go on a killing spree or for their bodies to quit working. But I know of it increasing psychological problems and causing people to have problems with producing the income needed to survive (which is destroying lives).

Just because this isn't true for everyone doesn't mean it isn't true for some.

You could make exactly the same argument about excessive video game usage. It's way too vague to be a compelling argument.

Even drugs like heroin and crack can be used responsibly by some.

Sorry but thats a blatant strawman. They are not even vaguely comparable.

[Hauldren Collider]

If I was stupid and didn't think there was an even larger enforcement issue associated with making marijuana illegal, this explanation would make sense to me.

I didn't say I agreed that marijuana should be illegal.

[Jon Miller]

You could make exactly the same argument about excessive video game usage. It's way too vague to be a compelling argument.

I know people who have displayed negative behavior both with video games and with pot. Pot is way worse.

Pot has real effects which can seriously impact some people in a negative way. If it did not have real effects, no one would smoke it.

The idea that it has real effects but has no serious impact to anyone is ridiculous. And an obvious falsehood to anyone who is willing to think about the subject.

JM

[MRT144]

I'm not going to listen to anyone who was addicted to porn, about the negative impact of marijuana.

[Jon Miller]

I recognized the negative impact of marijuana (including people going from great students with plans for the future to someone who almost didn't graduate and works minimally to get enough money to smoke) long before I recognized my addiction to pornography or thought that there were any negative aspects of pornography.

I never tried pot.

JM

[Aeson]

While drugs can ruin your life, video games can lead you to posting at places like poly. If I had it to do over again...

[rah]

It could have been worse, you could have paid for the place.