Found this on MetaFilter [metafilter.com], but it's so good I had to share.

Seems that Prime Minister Chrétien announced that marijuana will soon be decriminalized in Canada. [www.cbc.ca] As someone who feels that it's kind of ridiculous that we have 2 million people in jails in the United States (making us the world's leading jailer -- over 200,000 of the prisoners are drug offenders in state prisons), and that we should probably be allocating our resources and pririties elsewhere, I think this is a damned good idea. There is simply no good reason for marijuana to be illegal.

Some days I really do think it would be wiser to put all the stupidity and cruft that's accumulated in and about our American system behind me and move on up.

Anyway, for someone who claims never to have toked, Jean sure looked pretty messed up giving his speech:

Now, bear in mind that I don't necessarily disagree with you, but this is one argument that I've heard against legalizing marijuana:

Marijuana (among other drugs) has been known to impair some individuals' ability to drive, leading to injuries or fatalities in car accidents. When these accidents occur as a result of alcohol, it's easy to test someone's blood alcohol content (BAC) and get a (fairly) good idea of how intoxicated that person is. The laws in place that restrict driving at a certain BAC help keep down the number of alcohol-related car accidents.

Marijuana stays in the body for so long that it isn't possible to get an accurate result. Therefore, they wouldn't be able to set limits on how "high" you could be and still legally drive - a month after smoking pot, you could still test above the limit. And there would be people who would toke up, hit the road and hurt someone or something, yet wouldn't be prosecuted as they would be if it had been a six-pack instead of a joint.

Also, they can fine you, ticket you, take away your license, etc for drunk driving whether you cause an accident or not. They wouldn't be able to do anything to people driving stoned, so more people would probably do it.

Again, this isn't my argument, just one that I've heard many times. I'm interested in seeing how other people feel about this.

I think they should make marijuana legal, but only for people who pass intelligence tests. I mean, stupid people don't need drugs to get stoned. They're stoned on life!

In Response to TheMooseKing (#5547):

Yeah! That's great! Cause Pot makes you stupid, so it's self limiting!

In Response to cgarcia (#5545):

There are conflicting studies on the issue of how impaired [fcda.org] a high person is while driving. Some researchers have found that a person's reaction time is minimally effected by marijuana. On the other hand, a fully sober person talking on a cell phone [wirelessnewsfactor.com] has as bad or worse reaction time than a drunk driver. Or how about the danger of a sober person with road rage? [vehiclechoice.org]

As far as testing, I'm willing to bet given the proper motivation (legalization of marijuana) our government would find an accurate method to test the level of marijuana in the bloodstream with a very minimal amount of blood. Then again, would this testing be necessary given the minimal of effect of marijuana on reaction time?

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#5555):

There are conflicting studies on the issue of how impaired a high person is while driving

Now, I can't quote any studies, but empirical evidence suggests that this is so much bullshit. One person I know described driving while stoned as "like playing space invaders with the on-coming traffic". Marijuana does affect the ability to drive.

Whether there is a chemical test for marijuana isn't that important. There are already pretty accurate tests for whether someone is stoned or not. A chemical test might be preferable, but having, say, the testimony of two police officers and the test on video is pretty close.

So, no, I don't see the drugged driving argument as a reason not legalise marijuna. The only argument against legalising it is that it is likely to encourage people to smoke. Legalising it for use in cookies or similar only makes the world of sense - or just an effort to educate people that cookies are better than joints.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#5564):

Now, I can't quote any studies, but empirical evidence suggests that this is so much bullshit. One person I know described driving while stoned as "like playing space invaders with the on-coming traffic". Marijuana does affect the ability to drive.

One person's opinion (likely expressed while stoned) does not even come close to evidence or a study. I also question whether this person had this experience while on a completely different drug and had consumed marijuana around the same time as the other drug.

Of course marijuana affects a person's ability to drive. I don't believe I denied this. While under the influence of marijuana a driver might get distracted easier than usual, but many other legal things contribute to distraction as well (a baby in the back seat screaming, friends harassing the driver, a pleasant landscape, and so on).

According to the study I cited, a key area where marijuana has been shown to have minimal impact is reaction time. Reaction time is one of the biggest areas of concern (if not the biggest) with drunk drivers or people chatting on mobile phones.

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#5571):

First off, let's stick [hoboes.com] to [druglibrary.org] facts [hoboes.com], not what your friend told you.

If impaired driving is a valid reason for keeping marijuana illegal, then we should make sleep deprivation [resmed.com] illegal as well.

While marijuana may affect someone's ability to drive, it's a piss-poor reason to maintain its illegality. Keeping it illegal won't keep people from driving under its influence, and BAC tests haven't managed to do much for the 18,000 people [madd.org] who died in alcohol-related accidents last year.

For the record, I'm not saying that driving while stoned is a good thing, or that it should be legal. I just think that this is a bad angle to approach the debate from.

In Response to jon (#5572):

How'd you do that with the popup on the link? I like it.

Back to the discussion, I have no problem with the legalization of pot. From my experiences, the biggest detriment to my driving is sleep deprivation (no accidents yet, thank god, but I wish I could say I'll never drive sleepy again).

I haven't seen terribly strong arguments against legalization, neither here or elsewhere.

In Response to Raphael (#5574):

Those popups are link titles. You can include them in your links by using the "title" attribute like so:

<a href="http://www.url.com/" title="put your title text here">this is your link</a>

In Response to Raphael (#5574):

Yay - lots of other ways to refute that logic!

My original post was based on an argument I had (quite some time ago, I must admit) with a friend of mine who was very against the legalization of any drug. I gave up arguing with her about it, but I've always been curious about how other people would argue that.

I agree with a lot of what's been said in response. Thanks for playing, everyone! :)

In Response to jon (#5572):

First off, let's stick to facts, not what your friend told you.

If that is aimed at me, you've misunderstood me. I have a wealth of anecdotal evidence to base the conclusion that marijuana impairs the ability to drive. I'm enough of a scientist to not base an opinion on one person's testimony, just as I'm not misrepresenting anecdotal evidence as scientific study.

I'm also enough of a scientist to find fault in the studies you quote - the first one does not test responses to emergency conditions, the second classifies people as stoned based on blood samples (which tells us nothing about whether they were stoned at the time, or two days before) and tells us nothing about the condition of the sober drivers. But all that proves is that all such studies are limited.

If impaired driving is a valid reason for keeping marijuana illegal, then we should make sleep deprivation illegal as well.

In the UK, driving while sleep deprived is illegal. So is driving while using a mobile phone. Our dangerous driving laws require the driver to ensure he is in a fit state to drive. Alcohol is the strange anomaly, in that it is the only case where you can be clearly impaired, but legally allowed to drive.

Given that testing someone's blood can only tell you that they have used marijuana recently, not whether they are stoned, you need to test for actual impairment. Testing someone for motor control, concentration, and reaction times will catch a far wider range of problems than a blood test ever could.


While marijuana may affect someone's ability to drive, it's a piss-poor reason to maintain its illegality.


Absolutely. Its a reason for people not to drive while impaired.


For the record, I'm not saying that driving while stoned is a good thing, or that it should be legal. I just think that this is a bad angle to approach the debate from.


But it is an angle that the prohibition lobby are approaching the debate from. If you want more sensible drugs laws you have to tackle these issues. Quoting studies to show it isn't that bad is flawed, I believe. Far better to take the approach that driving while stoned is bad, but that shouldn't affect those of us who are walking.

Cheers,
Graham

All right. Here's my proposal.

We make it legal to smoke DOMESTIC pot. Imported pot is still illegal as hell. Driving while 'under the influence', and use during work hours by medical workers, operators of heavy machinery, and etc still illegal.

Support from the farm lobby, anyone?

In Response to zamphir (#5589):

It's already the biggest cash crop in the US anyway. I'm surprised Big Tobacco hasn't suggested something like this already. They'd be wise to diversify, what with all the legislative attacks on their current best-seller.

Although, on second thought, restricting imports would likely bring about retaliatory bans on US pot from other countries, which would hurt our farmers.

Best that we just subsidize them, I suppose. Then, when there's too much to go around, we can feed the extra pot to cows (like we do with our excess corn, which is a whole other discussion).

In Response to jon (#5592):

So in addition to BHT free milk, you're suggesting I would have to start looking for THC free milk as well?

And believe me. The last thing we want is herds of stoned cattle roaming the landscape.

Although it might add something extra to dung-based fires...

In Response to zamphir (#5593):

They'd probably get the munchies and buy sacks of 10 at White Castle.

In Response to jon (#5594):

Yes.

But consider how much food the average cow consumes in a day.

Now consider how many sacks of 10 it would take to satisfy the munchies of one cow.

Now consider the number of sacks of 10 it would take to satisfy the munchies of a HERD of cows.

Now consider what happens when the local WhiteCastle runs out of burgers. That herd of stoned, munchified cows is going to start wandering the streets, eating anything they can find.

And pooing.

In Response to zamphir (#5595):

But you forgot one crucial part to your musing.

How many sacks of 10 can you make from one cow?

In Response to Dynedain (#5596):

What makes you think WhiteCastle uses beef in their burgers?

In Response to TheMooseKing (#5547):

Huh. Modded down again. Did someone think I was serious, or something? Or were they just trying to be ironic?

In Response to zamphir (#5600):

Essentially, if Cows were roaming the streets in droves, I would assume beef prices would eventually drop to the point where it would be economically viable for WhiteCastle to use beef in their burgers. Especially when all they'd have to do is scrape giblets off the streets after the angry villagers beat them to pulp.

The amount of beef WhiteCastle then begins to buy would also improve primary industry stocks after the backlash from other countries refusing marijuana imports.

In Response to unFalln (#6844):

This'd make a good console game. Trying to navigate a stoned cow through angry villagers to find sacks of 10 and other munchies.

Maybe even SimStonedCows...

I started a very similar discussion a long time ago. Its good that it came back up, as my views have changed quite a bit.

I used to be for straight decriminilization (or legality). But, I am not anymore. This is why.

As a teenager, I can't begin to tell you the extremley large number of people (lets call them 'young people') who smoke pot just because it is illegal. If pot was legal, though, who knows what these 'young people' would move on to? This is why I feel keeping pot illegal will act as a harmless placeholder to keep these 'young people' from actually hurting themselves with the REALLY BAD DRUGS

Also, you have to think of other negative concequences. For example, if it were decrimilized, not only will the people who currently smoke pot start smoking in greatly increased quantities, but people who don't currently use it would start. This includes kids that are still very young and wouldn't start (this young, anyways) if it weren't legal. Smoking that 'first joint' would probably start as early as that 'first cigarette' does now.

One more point, I can't imagine if smoking pot became a 'casual' thing in the country. Something that people just brush off as 'no big deal'. That's a scary thought in itself. What drug would become the next pot?

I am not entirley without remorse, though. Current laws are way too strict. But there still need to be laws. Just not as strict.

In Response to the_fetus (#6847):

So in the space of a couple of months you have changed your opinion. Good on you. Your original opinion wasn't that well thought out or anything... then again boy howdie did you get riled up about it and how right it is. It's great to have you on our side for the next few months until you change your mind again, in the meantime, please feel free to get riled up and excited for our cause, we just flat out love having ill informed, half witted opinions being flooded down the channel. It makes being hard core something or other worth it.

(for the sarcasm impaired I personally could really give a damn if it was legalised or not, it won't make any difference to my life at the present point and when I care I may help the side I am forced towards, I may also try and do a touch of research first)

In Response to tor (#6849):

Terribly sorry that my changing of stance has upset you so. You are entitled to have your opinions about me, as I do not care. However, you did bring up an interesting point about the 'lack of research' in my post.

You are right. I didn't give any scientific proof in my post. I used something I like to call 'morals'. You see, these 'morals' aren't scientific facts, or anything like that. They just show how I have concern for other people.

And for your other point about my opinions being 'dimwitted' and 'ill informed'; I don't see how you get off saying that about my opinions. That is not something any human can tell another without being a conceited, narcissistic moron.

In closing, I am a bored person. I have nothing better to do than sit here and read about this issue and ponder it from just about every angle someone approaches it from. My opinion is not 'ill-informed', in fact, it is quite well informed. I might also add that you don't even have an opinion, so don't fucking tell me mine is wrong.

In Response to the_fetus (#6886):

My opinion is not 'ill-informed'

Without going into the nature of your opinion, and it's informed status, I'll merely point out some things that are requirements for 'well-informed'.

In order for an opinion, or anything else really, to be 'well-informed' it must be based on a diverse set of facts. In addition, those facts must also come from a diverse set of sources. Those sources must also be reputable, and must be chosen to be representative of the scope of the available sources.

And again, without saying that your opinions are 'ill-informed', I'll suggest that at least you have not shown that they AREN'T ill-informed.

It's all well and good that you've taken the time to think about the issues from what you believe are a variety of points of view. That at least allows you to say that your opinions are 'considered'.

However, it does nothing to show that you have a good understanding of what the real points of view are - other than the points of view that have been represented here. We can assume that you've at least read those points of view - although we can not take for granted that you've properly UNDERSTOOD them. We have no evidence that you've examined other points of view, nor determined what the total range of points of view on the issue are and made a careful study of a representative study of that range.

So we're not in any position to judge the informedness of your point of view, and you've provided very little evidence that supports that your opinion might be informed.

I don't see how you get off saying that about my opinions.

The first thing to realize is that Tor was actually expressing only HIS opinion. And he's entitled to hold whatever opionion he wants, no matter how dimwitted or ill-informed others may think it is.

That is not something any human can tell another without being a conceited, narcissistic moron
Again, though, we're talking about Tor... ;-)

I might also add that you don't even have an opinion,
At best you can say that he has not chosen to share an opinion if he has one. You can't know for sure that he does or does not hold an opinion on this subject - even if he claims one. He could be lying.

so don't fucking tell me mine is wrong.
You're a teenager. Your opinions are always wrong - just ask your parents... :-)

But again, he's just expressing his opinion. Don't be so sensitive.

Oh, and as an exerise, consider the difference between 'ethics' and 'morality'. And then consider which more correctly applies to the question of legalization of marijuana.