Legalization of Cannabis

[Electrode]

I'm generally against the legalization of any recreational drug that causes mind altering effects--whether it be marijuana, alcohol, etc; or at least it being used in the household. I think that these kinds of drugs should be restricted to use in drug hotels, buildings that would provide medical staff in case of medical emergencies, and prevent the visitors from hurting themselves or one another. Putting a crazy tax on these drugs sounds like an awesome idea, but sin taxes are crap. The downside of this [drug hotels], of course, is that a recreational user that may be using a drug responsibly has to deal with renting a room and being watched when they had things handled just fine.

It's not so much the hurting of oneself that bugs me, seeing as how people have the right to their bodies. It's the possible harm to others that does. And I know the recreational drug users out there hear that a lot, so I'm sorry if it's an old hat.

Also, for those who say that drugs may have such things as ground up glass in them, and that this should be a reason to keep it illegal, think of this; If the drugs were legal, could they not then be regulated? One could argue that it would be much safer because the people that do stuff like that would be put in jail.

On the other hand, people like this may still sell their goods illegally in order to avoid possible taxes, thusly rendering legalizing the drugs (to avoid unclean goods) moot. Or would it? I'm not a behaviorist, or economist, so I could not say exactly.

Here's the best link I could find on the schizophrenia issue. I figured that we should have a link instead of tossing around 'I heards".

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

 

[The Requiem]

I'm generally against the legalization of any recreational drug that causes mind altering effects--whether it be marijuana, alcohol, etc; or at least it being used in the household. I think that these kinds of drugs should be restricted to use in drug hotels, buildings that would provide medical staff in case of medical emergencies, and prevent the visitors from hurting themselves or one another. Putting a crazy tax on these drugs sounds like an awesome idea, but sin taxes are crap. The downside of this, of course, is that a recreational user that may be using a drug responsibly has to deal with renting a room and being watched when they had things handled just fine.

So you think I should give up my privacy completely just because I want to light up a bowl? Never mind what this kind of situation would do to people who trip. What's the point of doing ANYTHING that makes you not sober if you cant be comfortable while doing it?

It's not so much the hurting of oneself that bugs me, seeing as how people have the right to their bodies. It's the possible harm to others that does. And I know the recreational drug users out there hear that a lot, so I'm sorry if it's an old hat.

Hey, did you know that sober people hurt each other too?

Here's the best link I could find on the schizophrenia issue. I figured that we should have a link instead of tossing around 'I heards".

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevent...reetdrugs.html

I'm gonna go ahead and save the "you can't believe everything you read" argument, and take what I read here at face value. What I found in that article, is the same thing I've found in countless things I've read in the past of similar nature, you pretty much have to already have schizophrenia, or have mental illness as such in your history for that to be an issue. And if that's the case, you should definitely be a sober steven anyway. Not to mention the fact that the numbers for such a study cannot possibly be solid unless we had a control group under some severe surveillance during their teen years, which honestly could do more damage than the drug itself.

 

[cantab]

i can see cannabis being the same way if it gets a 21+ limit (which it should, it should be treated similarly to alcohol).

Alcohol shouldn't have a 21 limit - and in the UK, fortunately it doesn't. But discussing the drinking age is a topic for another thread.

 

[Electrode]

So you think I should give up my privacy completely just because I want to light up a bowl? Never mind what this kind of situation would do to people who trip. What's the point of doing ANYTHING that makes you not sober if you cant be comfortable while doing it?

Are you saying that keeping those who trip under careful watch is worse than having them be in their homes, being a possible health risk to themselves and others? I understand that losing some privacy sucks, but I think that another persons life is worth more than comfort, especially when people don't need to do a recreational drug.


Hey, did you know that sober people hurt each other too?

Those who are sober are generally going to be more controlled and self-contious then those who are under the effects of a mind-altering drug. Are we going to let people use drugs and possibly be more of a hazard to other people then they might have been before, just because sober people have the ability to hurt others too?


I'm gonna go ahead and save the "you can't believe everything you read" argument,

Okay.

What I found in that article, is the same thing I've found in countless things I've read in the past of similar nature, you pretty much have to already have schizophrenia, or have mental illness as such in your history for that to be an issue.

Not that one already has to have it, but one needs the chemcial make up to have the schizo. be triggered by marijuana. The thing is, most people don't know the individual chemical make-ups of their brain, let alone if it runs in the family.

And if that's the case, you should definitely be a sober steven anyway.

I agree. Maybe a brain scan and chemical analysis should be added to the "need to use mind-altering drugs" list?

Not to mention the fact that the numbers for such a study cannot possibly be solid unless we had a control group under some severe surveillance during their teen years, which honestly could do more damage than the drug itself.

It did go off the 'Did you use this before, and if so how much?", question.

 

[The Requiem]

Are you saying that keeping those who trip under careful watch is worse than having them be in their homes, being a possible health risk to themselves and others? I understand that losing some privacy sucks, but I think that another persons life is worth more than comfort, especially when people don't need to do a recreational drug.

Actually yes, putting someone tripping in a situation like that would probably make them far more likely to freak out and hurt themselves or others. And being under constant watch isn't a loss of some privacy, its a loss of all privacy. Yes people don't need to do recreational drugs, but the government doesn't need to mandate every-fucking-facet of our lives.

Those who are sober are generally going to be more controlled and self-conscious then those who are under the effects of a mind-altering drug. Are we going to let people use drugs and possibly be more of a hazard to other people then they might have been before, just because sober people have the ability to hurt others too?

Have you ever been not sober? Ever? Because I've been getting not-sober for many years now and I can tell you unless you are just some asshole that decides that they're good to drive impaired, the likelihood of people getting hurt isn't really all that much higher. Just because your "mind is altered" doesn't mean you're gonna go psycho and hurt people.

Not that one already has to have it, but one needs the chemcial make up to have the schizo. be triggered by marijuana. The thing is, most people don't know the individual chemical make-ups of their brain, let alone if it runs in the family.

The other thing is, these people have no idea if these people would've gone schizo WITHOUT the marijuana in their lives. Its also not hard to know if past family members have had schizophrenia, alzheimers, or anything else, really.

I agree. Maybe a brain scan and chemical analysis should be added to the "need to use mind-altering drugs" list?

No need to go to that extent if you have some common sense.

It did go off 'Did you use this before, and if so how much?", question.

I can definitely tell you I've used pot before. No way in hell I can tell you how much. You can't produce solid results off of this type of shot in the dark.

 

[Electrode]

Actually yes, putting someone tripping in a situation like that would probably make them far more likely to freak out and hurt themselves or others. And being under constant watch isn't a loss of some privacy, its a loss of all privacy. Yes people don't need to do recreational drugs, but the government doesn't need to mandate every-fucking-facet of our lives.


If they could be restrained until their trip is over, then I'd say it's much safer than them having an open house to themselves.

The government? Drug hotels don't have to be run by the government, it could be private business. Also, yes, if something has a greater chance of causing harm to others without their consent then the government should regulate it. I'm sure big business doesn't like the idea of government snooping in on it dumping chemicals into lakes, because of their privacy being violated.

Can we drive as fast as we want, wherever we want? Are we allowed to put land mines in our yard, right next to the sidewalk? Should we be able to?

Regulating the use of drugs is hardly mandating one's whole life, unless of course using drugs is one's whole life, in which case they probably put their family and themselves at risk more so than a casual user.



Have you ever been not sober? Ever? Because I've been getting not-sober for many years now and I can tell you unless you are just some asshole that decides that they're good to drive impaired, the likelihood of people getting hurt isn't really all that much higher.

No, I have never been under the influence of any casual use drug And the thing is, there are plenty of assholes that decide that they're cool to drive when they're impaired by a mind-altering substance. Just because you're more controlled doesn't mean that everybody else is.

Just because your "mind is altered" doesn't mean you're gonna go psycho and hurt people.

There's a difference between going psycho and being impaired. You don't have to have a mental problem to be impaired.


The other thing is, these people have no idea if these people would've gone schizo WITHOUT the marijuana in their lives.

Because of what the scientists have found by looking at brain chemistry and how it reacts in certain situations, I'm sure that they would argue with you on that.


Its also not hard to know if past family members have had schizophrenia, alzheimers, or anything else, really.

I certainly know that I have never looked into the mental state of my relatives, except my immediate family. Because I don't ever see anybody outside of my immediate family anymore, I couldn't tell you if my family tree has mental problems based on the actions of other family members. It is very probable that others may be in my situation.

The thing is, if somebody shrugd off data that may very well be true and believes that there's no risk to themselves, when there might actually be a risk, then they are most likely not going to check into their family history if they don't know it already. Why would they need to if they think that such a study is bogus?

I can definitely tell you I've used pot before. No way in hell I can tell you how much. You can't produce solid results off of this type of shot in the dark.

Others may know how much they have been using; look at the drug thread. Yet again, they could be remembering wrong.

Because the mind is impaired during the events, it could very well be that those figures and numbers are based on poorly recovered memories.

 

[The Requiem]

If they could be restrained until their trip is over, then I'd say it's much safer than them having an open house to themselves.

So jacking up the chances of someone not having a bad trip is much safer then letting someone sit at home and stare at their popcorn ceiling. Yeah this makes a lot of sense.

Can we drive as fast as we want, wherever we want? Are we allowed to put land mines in our yard, right next to the sidewalk? Should we be able to?

Yeah, because getting behind the wheel of a 2 ton vehicle and driving it at 120 in a 35, or buying land mines in the first place is EXACTLY the same as me grabbing a 6 pack, or a bag of weed. I said specifically that if it's legalized it should be regulated in a similar fashion to alcohol/tobacco. Not hey, lets legalize pot and let a 6 year old get his chief on.

Regulating the use of drugs is hardly mandating one's whole life, unless of course using drugs is one's whole life, in which case they probably put their family and themselves at risk more so than a casual user.

I didn't say the mandation of drug use is mandating one's whole life, but if you had your eyes open you'd know that slowly we are losing a lot of freedoms that we do have. And I'd much rather risk going to jail to smoke a bag of weed, then have to be watched constantly as I do it. And if one wants to spend their whole life zonked out, they should have the right to do so. It's not illegal to be an alcoholic, its just frowned upon.

No, I have never been under the influence of any casual use drug And the thing is, there are plenty of assholes that decide that they're cool to drive when they're impaired by a mind-altering substance. Just because you're more controlled doesn't mean that everybody else is.

The fact that you've been sober your entire life means that all you've heard about being "impaired" is hearsay, and I'm willing to bet from your attitude about it most of what you've heard has been bad. The people reckless enough to drive drunk, chances are, drive like complete reckless shit when they're sober anyway. Just because I'm more controlled doesn't mean that a majority of the people that drink are not.

There's a difference between going psycho and being impaired. You don't have to have a mental problem to be impaired.

By your own admission, you don't know anything about being "impaired". People not knowing anything about being impaired and passing legislation started this "war on drugs" and wasting our tax dollars. Not to mention every time you talk about "impaired" people you seem to think that all they are capable of is harm. That's not all that far from psycho if you ask me.

Because of what the scientists have found by looking at brain chemistry and how it reacts in certain situations, I'm sure that they would argue with you on that.

I'm sure that they would argue with me. Neither of us would have concrete proof that we're right. I'm willing to bet, however, that there are a whole hell of a lot more pot smokers than schizophrenics.

I certainly know that I have never looked into the mental state of my relatives, except my immediate family. Because I don't ever see anybody outside of my immediate family anymore, I couldn't tell you if my family tree has mental problems based on the actions of other family members. It is very probable that others may be in my situation.

The thing is, if somebody shrugd off data that may very well be true and believes that there's no risk to themselves, when there might actually be a risk, then they are most likely not going to check into their family history if they don't know it already. Why would they need to if they think that such a study is bogus?

You're thinking too specific. I know that my moms family has a history of heart disease. I know my dads family has a history of obesity. I take actions in my personal life to avoid these outcomes, as I don't want to be fat, or die of a heart attack. It's not like you have to trace 4-5 generations back. I have friends that don't drink because they had an alcoholic parent, or grandparent. They didn't need to look into a study, they had the picture painted for them. People who use drugs without thinking it through first, probably shouldn't be using drugs. But they should also have the freedom to do so if they want to.

Others may know how much they have been using; look at the drug thread. Yet again, they could be remembering wrong.

Because the mind is impaired during the events, it could very well be that those figures and numbers are based on badly recovered memories.

I've already posted in the drug thread. And here you go again commenting about being "impaired" without knowing shit about it. Being able to recall how much pot I've smoked is like being able to recall how many bowls of cereal I've eaten since I was 16. I'm 22. Do you know how many bowls of cereal you've eaten in the last 6 years? Some people get blackout drunk. MOST people remember the party.

 

[Electrode]

So jacking up the chances of someone not having a bad trip is much safer then letting someone sit at home and stare at their popcorn ceiling. Yeah this makes a lot of sense.

Well, if having them safley watched and secured is accounted in the situation, then yes, I would. They would be much safer because a million watched bad trips would be better than one potentially fatal unwatched bad trip.

You're saying that they would always have good trips if it was at their house, which is not right.


Yeah, because getting behind the wheel of a 2 ton vehicle and driving it at 120 in a 35, or buying land mines in the first place is EXACTLY the same as me grabbing a 6 pack, or a bag of weed. I said specifically that if it's legalized it should be regulated in a similar fashion to alcohol/tobacco. Not hey, lets legalize pot and let a 6 year old get his chief on.

The idea was the possible harm involved, and how it could be stopped if regulated.

For instance, though it is dangerous to too many people to let drivers drive at 120 in public, it is perfectly fine to let them do so in a facility with medical personal and safeguards to protect themselves and others. This is racing. The landmines remark was a little too ballsy and mostly just for dramatic effect. I apologise.


I didn't say the mandation of drug use is mandating one's whole life, but if you had your eyes open you'd know that slowly we are losing a lot of freedoms that we do have.

Though freedom is important, the problem is that the outcome of using a drug may possibly harm others, thus interfering with their freedom.

Recreational drug use isn't important to survival; it is simply recreational. There is no argument for having it other than people want to use it. Thusly, it is not an important enough freedom to negate the possible harm to others.

It's not illegal to be an alcoholic, its just frowned upon.

It is illegal to drive while drinking, and mostly illegal to drink in public and at the work place. I'd argue that it is in fact illegal to be an alcoholic.


The fact that you've been sober your entire life means that all you've heard about being "impaired" is hearsay, and I'm willing to bet from your attitude about it most of what you've heard has been bad.

I do not have to drink or smoke myself to see others that are drinking and smoking act recklessly.

Being high or drunk has given insipration for countless amounts of great musical and artistic works. However, I am not against getting high or drunk in general, just against it when in an enviroment that could cause harm to others.

The people reckless enough to drive drunk, chances are, drive like complete reckless shit when they're sober anyway.

Even if they were originally bad drivers, being drunk or high still causes reaction time and critical judgement to be somewhat lower, causing the driver to be even worse than before.

Not to mention every time you talk about "impaired" people you seem to think that all they are capable of is harm.

Not true. I have been saying that it can cause harm, by accident or on purpose, and thusly should be stricly regulated.


I'm sure that they would argue with me. Neither of us would have concrete proof that we're right. I'm willing to bet, however, that there are a whole hell of a lot more pot smokers than schizophrenics.

They were saying that it has an 80% chance to cause schizophrania in people of certain brain chemistries. And even if they did say that it seemed to cause schizophrania from just doing it, that would not mean that it would be a 100% chance.

I don't think that you have a strong say in brain chemistry, unless of course you have a degree. The only strong say you have is in the conduct and numbers of the study.


I have friends that don't drink because they had an alcoholic parent, or grandparent.

Alcholism is a lot easier to detect than dormant brain chemistry.

Being able to recall how much pot I've smoked is like being able to recall how many bowls of cereal I've eaten since I was 16. I'm 22. Do you know how many bowls of cereal you've eaten in the last 6 years?

I do believe that it wasn't how much was smoked overtime, but how much was smoked whenever the person smoked, and how long they participated in smoking.

I will relate this to the cereal example. I know that whenever I eat cereal, I eat one serving of it with milk. I genrally eat cereal once every morning. That with the math, I have eaten around two-thousand-one-hundred-ninety servings of cereal (with milk) in six years. I am not literate in data and statistics, so I do not know what my margin of error would be.

EDIT: I'm sorry if any of these replies are unclear or too short. I had a whole spheal typed out, but when I went to submit it it didn't submit because apparently my computer decided that I shouldn't be logged in anymore. Feel free to ask meanings that you may be unclear about.

 

[TaiCrunch]

Alcohol shouldn't have a 21 limit - and in the UK, fortunately it doesn't.

yeah i just used 21 as an example. i just think it should be treated the same as alcohol.

Well, if having them safley watched and secured is accounted in the situation, then yes, I would. They would be much safer because a million watched bad trips would be better than one potentially fatal unwatched bad trip.

You're saying that they would always have good trips if it was at their house, which is not right.

but take into account just how low the number of "fatally bad trips" actually is. about 99% of the time, all that really happens when someone smokes pot is they sit on their couch, watch TV, somehow find Real Chance at Love really fascinating, maybe grab some food, and fall asleep. anything "dangerous" isn't nearly as common as the anti-drug campaigns make it out to be.

For instance, though it is dangerous to too many people to let drivers drive at 120 in public, it is perfectly fine to let them do so in a facility with medical personal and safeguards to protect themselves and others. This is racing.

race car drivers are trained professionals and have a bunch of equipment on hand. it doesn't take nearly as much skill and training to light a bong or roll a joint.

It is illegal to drive while drinking, and mostly illegal to drink in public and at the work place. I'd argue that it is in fact illegal to be an alcoholic.

you can sit around your house all day and do nothing but drink, taking your sober time to buy it. in that case it's perfectly legal to be an alcoholic.

I do not have to drink or smoke myself to see others that are drinking and smoking act recklessly.

is it reckless when i'm sitting at a restaurant relaxing with a some friends enjoying a couple beers?

Even if they were originally bad drivers, being drunk or high still causes reaction time and critical judgement to be somewhat lower, causing the driver to be even worse than before.

so does singing/dancing along to your favorite song. and having jackass friends that mess with you when you're driving. and restless children. and being a woman (just kidding!!) ...no, not really

 

[Oddish On Fire]

Today I found out first-hand why cannabis should be legal. I was drug-tested a week ago due to a random drug-test at my school. I admitted to smoking within the last week, and I had everything worked out to where I could go to prom and attend a music fund-raising event. Typically, if a drug-test is failed, ALL after-school activities much immediately cease. Well, I just got my drug test about an hour ago and it had cocaine in it. The problem is, I have never knowingly done that drug. It appears as if I have been smoking A LOT of laced pot. Had this not been the case, I would be going to prom tomorrow :(

edit: More news...I can't drive to school anymore, and I can't do any after school activities...This means no soccer club, no jazz band, no working out, and I currently can't go to my own graduation...They said if I take an eight hour seminar and take a second drug test at the end of the school year they might make a special exception and let me go to graduation though. Also, I took another drug test today and I tested positive in lower levels to marijuana and negative to cocaine. Looks like it's getting out of my system. I just don't get why I have to cease the activities that stop me from doing drugs. Recently I've been replacing smoking with going to the gym, and I can't even do that anymore. It seems counter-productive and frankly quite stupid.

 

[mf]

imo its inevitable. its such a ridiculous breach of human rights lol, in 100 years people will look back and say "what? it was illegal to inhale fumes from a plant???"

 

[Electrode]

but take into account just how low the number of "fatally bad trips" actually is. about 99% of the time, all that really happens when someone smokes pot is they sit on their couch, watch TV, somehow find Real Chance at Love really fascinating, maybe grab some food, and fall asleep. anything "dangerous" isn't nearly as common as the anti-drug campaigns make it out to be.

You don't know this for sure; all you can do is say that you or others you know don't cause any other harm. Also, the 99% number means nothing because there's nothing behind it. It's just a number that you suppose is true.

And yes, although the war on drugs and anti-drug campaigns exaggerate numbers and chances, that doesn't change the fact that it still causes an impairment of critical judgment and reaction time. It doesn't have to be a 100% chance for it to be regulated, or at least so in my opinion.


you can sit around your house all day and do nothing but drink, taking your sober time to buy it. in that case it's perfectly legal to be an alcoholic.

Granted.


is it reckless when i'm sitting at a restaurant relaxing with a some friends enjoying a couple beers?

No. But does what you do personally account for everybody?

Also, if you or a friend drove to the restaurant while high, then your reaction time and citical judgment would be lower and you'd be more likely to get in an accident.

 

[Electrode]

Today I found out first-hand why cannabis should be legal. I was drug-tested a week ago due to a random drug-test at my school. I admitted to smoking within the last week, and I had everything worked out to where I could go to prom and attend a music fund-raising event. Typically, if a drug-test is failed, ALL after-school activities much immediately cease. Well, I just got my drug test about an hour ago and it had cocaine in it. The problem is, I have never knowingly done that drug. It appears as if I have been smoking A LOT of laced pot. Had this not been the case, I would be going to prom tomorrow :(

I do believe that someone did a test to check drug tests. He ate poppy seeds on a muffin and then tested positive for heroin/morphine. I don't remember what this was part of, but I do remember seeing it. It might have been a satire or mock of the drug tests, or it could have been semi-news like the Dailyshow.

That's rather unfortunate. Did the test even say if you smoked marijuana? That would be somewhat ironic; that you lucked out on the marijuana side but got hit for cocaine, a drug that you didn't even do.

EDIT: Thanks for the correction, cantab.

 

[cantab]

Poppy seeds can cause positive for morphine / heroin. They shouldn't cause positive for cocaine.

There's not even any certainty OoF's pot WAS laced. These sorts of drugs tests are often carried out in a manner that makes them completely unaccountable. Tests used by the police or judiciary would have to be subject to scrutiny, but tests used by schools and employers likely undergo no such investigation. Teachers/bosses aren't going to believe their student/employee who says "I never took it", still less one who says "I smoked weed, but never took cocaine", so the companies providing the tests can very easily get away with being crap.

 

[b0b3rt]

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Marijuana has never in the history of humankind ever caused a death. Stupid shit people do while smoking it? Maybe. Same goes for alcohol, though.

In fact, more people die from police tasing them while they're trying to swallow a bag of pot.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ar_dustin_michaels_as_video_cameras_roll.html

 

[Eraddd]

Could someone explain to me the logic of "We can legalize alcohol, a pretty dangerous drug, when considering its inhibiting effects on the person AND on society, but we can't legalize marijuana, that causes considerably less damage than does Nicotine or Ethanol?"

I'm curious because I'm studying these drugs and I don't understand the law behind this.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I am pretty sure alcohol has caused many, many deaths. And this is from alcohol alone, not the stupid stuff people do after consuming it.

Have a nice day.

 

[mf]

Eraddd: It's not so much the legalization of marijuana that is the problem for the government there; it's more that there would be public outcry if alcohol or tobacco were made illegal, which it presumably would desire?

 

[bugcatcherjasonn]

this thread makes me lol. i'm not too sure why.

 

[bugcatcherjasonn]

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Marijuana has never in the history of humankind ever caused a death. Stupid shit people do while smoking it? Maybe. Same goes for alcohol, though.

forget the drug facts. what's more interesting is the higher yearly amount of of suicides compared to homicides - i never knew. but would i wholly trust that site? no.

 

[The Requiem]

You don't know this for sure; all you can do is say that you or others you know don't cause any other harm. Also, the 99% number means nothing because there's nothing behind it. It's just a number that you suppose is true.

And you do know for sure that being impaired will cause any form of harm?

Also, if you or a friend drove to the restaurant while high, then your reaction time and citical judgment would be lower and you'd be more likely to get in an accident.

We know. You're starting to repeat yourself.

Marijuana has never in the history of humankind ever caused a death. Stupid shit people do while smoking it? Maybe. Same goes for alcohol, though.

Not to mention the incredibly stupid shit sober people do every day.

It's not so much the legalization of marijuana that is the problem for the government there; it's more that there would be public outcry if alcohol or tobacco were made illegal, which it presumably would desire?

I don't really think that would happen at all, sure the sales of tobacco and alcohol might be affected in some way, but to make either thing illegal after legalizing pot is one step forward, two steps back.

 

[mf]

yeah requiem i was just hoping to clarify the reasons for the inconsistencies in drug laws. i guess the government are in a pretty sweet spot at the moment, they can continue taking revenue from alcohol and tobacco taxes while using marijuana as a scapegoat and retaining control over the hemp industry

Also, if you or a friend drove to the restaurant while high, then your reaction time and citical judgment would be lower and you'd be more likely to get in an accident.

hi that is why drug-driving is illegal im pretty sure nobody in this thread is advocating getting baked and driving anywhere

 

[Electrode]

And you do know for sure that being impaired will cause any form of harm?

Lack of motor skills and critical judgment sets the stage for plenty of things to happen, unless of course somebody was to just sit around their house all day when being impaired. Even then, though, there's possibities that they could cause harm to someone else.

Yes, it may not cause harm, it's not a 100% chance. However, like I said before, recreational drug use isn't important enough to make this chance game legal. (EDIT: At least without some kind of bar on where people can partake in drug use or some sort of strict regulation.)

We know. You're starting to repeat yourself.

I repeat myself because people keep using the same arguments.

Not to mention the incredibly stupid shit sober people do every day.

That has no grounds on making drugs illegal or not. Either way, being impaired heightens the chances of sober people doing even more stupid shit.

hi that is why drug-driving is illegal im pretty sure nobody in this thread is advocating getting baked and driving anywhere

But that doesn't mean people won't do it. If drug use was limited to medically watched drug hotels, then people couldn't physically leave if they, say, had the munchies and wanted to drive somewhere. Or at least it wouldn't be as possible as it would with just legalizing it out right with little to no restrictions.

i guess the government are in a pretty sweet spot at the moment, they can continue taking revenue from alcohol and tobacco taxes while using marijuana as a scapegoat and retaining control over the hemp industry

This is probably the best argument I've seen so far. That monopoly is why I like the idea of drug hotels being under private business; it ends the monopoly but keeps use well regulated.

I am pretty sure alcohol has caused many, many deaths. And this is from alcohol alone, not the stupid stuff people do after consuming it.

This is why I include all recreational drugs-including alochol, in my drug hotel idea. There's no argument against you (at least from me) that alcohol is generally much worse than marijuana.

 

[b0b3rt]

Jesus christ you don't get it do you? Keeping it illegal doesn't deter people from smoking it AND doing stupid shit like driving while high.

Also, I've been around people who got fairly baked. Trust me, while they may say some stupid shit, they really aren't that distracted. You'd be more distracted eating while driving then driving high.

 

[cantab]

The 'drug hotel' idea suffers from one big problem - it would be no fun. Most people don't smoke weed on their own, they smoke with friends. Most people don't just neck beers, they drink with a meal or while watching sport or chatting with friends. Most people don't take E in their house, they take it in a nightclub. It would really suck to have to go to some horrible concrete building in the shittiest part of town (and the 'drug hotels' WOULD be in the worst areas; would you want one next to where you live?), where they'll want three forms of ID and there's no hope in hell of me and my mate having a game of Mario Kart.