-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
I believe that marijuana should be legal (discussion)
- Thread starter bryce13950
- Start date
lordofthereef
Android Expert
The only reason alcohol shouldn't be illegal is because we tried, and failed, miserably, as has been mentioned before. This is likely the same reason tobacco hasn't been made illegal; we know we would simply fail at it.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
And pot prohabition is going really well, heh?
lordofthereef
Android Expert
AFAIK, better than alcohol prohibition did. But under that definition, prohibition of any substance is going poorly, right?
Worth mentioning that we have ways of testing just how inebriated a person is from alcohol. Not so with marijuana quite yet, AFAIK.
I wouldnt say that. Pot is VERY easy to get. I can get pot delivered to my house faster than a pizza. Organised crime has latched on to the income stream of pot, just like they did for alcohol, wich has resulted in thousands of deaths. Not to mention the billions spent on enforcement, or the millions of people incarcerated.
As for testing, what tests are there to determine how inebriated one is from the use of prescription drugs? How about sleep deprivation? Stress? Anger? Do we require old people to get tested for their cognative abilities regularly?
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I am not talking about ease of acquiring pot. I am simply referring to what people did to acquire said alcohol (ie make some bathtub liquor and go blind because I can't get me some beer).
As for those other things you mentioned, some things are untestable. I could have a seizure at the wheel, crash into a bus filled with schoolchildren, and kill all of us, all without having a history of it. That does not absolve us of having a responsibility to control those things which we can control. If we legalize marijuana for the public we are going to need some sort of field test.
The cognitive ability of an elderly person is very testable. I am all for requiring some sort of test like that if they want to be driving.
Nowhere did I mention seizures, I mentioned things that can be controlled. IE sleep deprivation, anger, stress. I dont understand the referance to people going blind for alcohol, to show the effectiveness of pots prohabition. Simple fact, it has failed. Costing us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and millions of jail cells.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
The fact that creating a prohibition on alcohol put worse product "on the street" than what was available beforehand was a very good example, IMO. If you don't feel that way, that is fine.
Sleep deprivation, to an extent, cannot be controlled either. There have been times that I have been tired from the monotony of driving for a few hours where I had plenty of sleep the night before. This happens to others as well. Furthermore, there is no real test for sleep deprivation. The answer to this would be don't let people drive because there is a risk that they might be sleep deprived. That would get everyone off the road. Sure it would be safer, but it would also defeat the purpose of said road. I am simply saying that we will need some sort of field test before legalizing this thing. We cannot leave it completely up to officer discretion. There is too much area for abuse there.
If you slept well the night before, then that is not sleep deprivation. That is driver fatigue. Sleep deprivation is VERY controllable. If you havent slept for 24 hours, you probably shouldnt be behind the wheel. You do bring another thing that is controllable into the mix here. Driver fatigue, you probably shouldn't drive more than 12 hours straight. Again, very controllable. Yet, there are no tests, and (other than cdl's), no laws to curb it. Same with anger, stress, and many more things.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
You hit the nail on the head then. There is no way to test it. The difference is, with marijuana there is also no way to test it. BUT, it is currently illegal. It will likely stay that way until we have tests. As I said, the only way to keep people from driving with fatigue, anger, stress, etc. is keep them all from driving. We solve the little marijuana issue by making it illegal, PERIOD. If you are busted with it, whether you are high or not, you are going to jail. As a result of this, I am sure far fewer drive high and cause accidents as a results than they would if marijuana was simply legalized without any sort of caps for driving.
It is not true that the only way to stop people from driving sleep deprived, fatigued, angry, or stressed is to stop everyone from driving. Besides, I don't really see the point in making pot illegal for everyone, because there is no test, when not everyone drives. And, there is a test. It is called a "field sobriety test". People get charged all the time with DUI's, because of pot. People drive stoned all the time, high on pot. How many deaths do you hear of because of it? I know I have NEVER heard of one. I have heard, where there was a woman that was driving the wrong way, on the Tachonic State Parkway, that hit another car head on. They said she was high on pot, but had also consumed a litre of Vodka. So much for those tests on alcohol saving lives.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Unless I am mistaken, driving while fatigued isn't illegal, simply because there is no way to prove it. You can prove reckless driving based, on how they are actually driving obviously, but you cannot prove this person was fatigued. As such, people aren't charged with fatigued driving, unless of course they admit to it. While preventable, there is no test for it.
I would like to point out that I am actually arguing FOR the marijuana user here, in case that was somehow missed. I would hate to see people being busted with a DWI simply because the copper thinks they may have been using weed. Conversely, those that do use the drug and then get into a wreck should be charged with a little more than reckless driving, IMO. I bet the test I propose is very attainable, just not been something anyone really cared too much about because currently any level is unlawful.
I would like to point out that I am actually arguing FOR the marijuana user here, in case that was somehow missed. I would hate to see people being busted with a DWI simply because the copper thinks they may have been using weed. Conversely, those that do use the drug and then get into a wreck should be charged with a little more than reckless driving, IMO. I bet the test I propose is very attainable, just not been something anyone really cared too much about because currently any level is unlawful.
jamor
Android Expert
There are ways to test it, but they aren't as cut and dry like a breathalizer..
But the argument that just because you can't blow into a breathalizer means we can't legalize it has several flaws.
First, you could load up xanax and prescription drugs that make you super wacky and NOT SAFE AT AT ALL to drive but you can't test for that immediately either. You can check for eye twitching, weird pupil movement, etc.. just like you can do with Marijuana.
So just because a drug isn't immediately testable doesn't give grounds to not legalize it because there a million legal drugs that dismiss that excuse.
Anyways I'm totally against drinking and driving and all that, so I definitely think there needs to precautions and rules, but we can't just dismiss it. After all, the only drug in the US that is immediately tested for DUI is Alcohol.
Anyways there ARE ways to give people reckless driving or DUIs or DWAIs besides breathalizer and blood tests.
What they could do is make a law so that if you are under suspicion for Marijuana then you are subject to a strict field sobriety test, eye checks, etc.. If you fail the rigorous sobriety test than the police can legally give you a DUI or whatever.
But the argument that just because you can't blow into a breathalizer means we can't legalize it has several flaws.
First, you could load up xanax and prescription drugs that make you super wacky and NOT SAFE AT AT ALL to drive but you can't test for that immediately either. You can check for eye twitching, weird pupil movement, etc.. just like you can do with Marijuana.
So just because a drug isn't immediately testable doesn't give grounds to not legalize it because there a million legal drugs that dismiss that excuse.
Anyways I'm totally against drinking and driving and all that, so I definitely think there needs to precautions and rules, but we can't just dismiss it. After all, the only drug in the US that is immediately tested for DUI is Alcohol.
Anyways there ARE ways to give people reckless driving or DUIs or DWAIs besides breathalizer and blood tests.
What they could do is make a law so that if you are under suspicion for Marijuana then you are subject to a strict field sobriety test, eye checks, etc.. If you fail the rigorous sobriety test than the police can legally give you a DUI or whatever.
jamor
Android Expert
My only problem with the fact that COPS could take advantage of that and just lie. So many that isn't the greatest idea lol.
Honestly this whole DUI and Marijuana thing is probably the hardest to discuss in this whole debate because it will probably make legalization harder.
Honestly this whole DUI and Marijuana thing is probably the hardest to discuss in this whole debate because it will probably make legalization harder.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I am not saying that I am morally against legalizing without a test. I am saying that I would want there to be a useable test if I was a user. I also, personally, think it unlikely that we will get legalization without something like this.
Like they do now? And not just for pot, but for speeding, wreckless driving, failure to stop at a stop sign, failure to yield the right of way, etc...
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Giving them more reasons isn't the answer either... A DWI is also (legally) a much more strict offense than anything else you listed.
jamor
Android Expert
Ohhh gochya. Yea it will be a bit harder.
I've heard of cops giving DUIs for marijuana because of bloodshot eyes, spots on the tounge, and mediocre field sobriety test.
Wow good point! They don't have to prove that shit for almost anything. It's always the cops word - their entire story.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
These days many do have cameras. And, of course, you are free to take them to court (who really does this?) There are certain "privileges" (for lack of a better word) that the law enforcement needs to have. Allowing them to bust someone with a DWI because they have a pretty good reason to think that they are stoned should not be one.
FWIW, I don't know anyone that got a ticket for something they didn't deserve. This isn't to say that doesn't happen.
Lastly, ad this isn't aimed directly at you, being the guy that advocates marijuana legalization, while at the same time complaining about the cops probably doesn't make for a very strong argument.
I have recieved tickets that were underserved. I have gotten a seatbelt ticket that stuck, when I was wearing my seatbelt. I got a ticket for talking on a cellphone wich didn't stick, because I brought a detailed bill that showed I had no phone calls or text messages anywhere near the time of the ticket. That said, most cops DO have camera's in their cars. However, these cameras are not running at all times, and are only switched on AFTER the cop pulls you over. Moving on, you pointed out that the offenses I pointed out were not as severe as the on being discussed. Well, you can be charged with assaulting a police officer for threatening them. If a cop alledges you threatened them, your facing a LOT more jail time than from a DUI. I am going to bet, that happens. And there is really NOTHING you can do about it....
lordofthereef
Android Expert
My friend, why are we arguing in circles. I am not trying to make the point that the cop cannot abuse his power. I am trying to say that I think some form of tangible test is necessary so as not to give them even more points that can be abused. I am not sure what your agenda is, but I honestly don't really care at this point. It is not my intention to turn this into a thread of when and how cops have wronged us. For the most part, they are there for the public's protection, but obviously need some checks and balances to keep them honest being that there can be that bad apple in the bunch.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I wouldn't want people getting a DWI based solely on a cop's discretion. This should never even have the ability of happening. Can't really make a law on how much marijuana one can have before (or during) driving if we don't have a real way to test it.
In short, I am not necessarily FOR keeping it illegal for this reason. I am fully aware that this is one thing that will have to be settled, legally, before it is legalized though. One way or the other, it will have to be defined what a police officer's proper course of action should be regarding smoking while driving, in public, etc.
In short, I am not necessarily FOR keeping it illegal for this reason. I am fully aware that this is one thing that will have to be settled, legally, before it is legalized though. One way or the other, it will have to be defined what a police officer's proper course of action should be regarding smoking while driving, in public, etc.