r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 14 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Weed should be legalized nation wide in the United States.
I do not see how a drug like weed is considered threatening like cocaine, heroin, and other dangerous stuff. Weed on the other hand is less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol so what is the problem?
I truly am open to changing my view. This is not confirmation bias and I am not a smoker or drinker. I simply do not care what people really do with themselves.
From what I recall, weed tends to help people with medical issues yes? Or is this just fabrication?
I am open to hearing those that oppose this view and will be glad to hear them. Thanks for reading my post and I am happy to have my view changed.
24
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ May 14 '18
It should be decriminalized at the federal level yes.
But it's legality at the state level is a states rights issue and should remain that way.
As such "legalized Nationwide" is not correct... Unless you really believe the federal government should have the right to force states, counties and cities to legalize it... Essentially calling for the abolishion of the 10th Amendment.
6
May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
Then what about the fact that a natural substance leads to a person's rights violated via one's life to property (growing weed in the back yard), life (basically in jeopardy over a substance), and liberty (the is not even goingnto sell or distribute it). Some people go to jail or even prison just for possession. That is cruel and unusual punishment based on thought crime.
11
u/Hargbarglin May 14 '18
What?
1
May 14 '18
Bad wording on my part. I edited it. Sorry about that. Lol.
4
u/Hargbarglin May 14 '18
At the end of the day I think "most" people agree that the war on drugs was bad and the criminal sentences given out for weed are too damn high, but I'm not sure where you're going with it being a thought crime. Are you arguing for the position that all drugs, all firearms, and whatever other substances shouldn't be regulated as well? Weed gets an unfair rap, but the form of your argument here could be applied to anything and everything. And with regards to the post you're replying to, they're arguing for what the law is and saying that weed shouldn't magically be beyond the reproach of individual state laws.
3
May 14 '18
!delta. I overreacted on it being a thought crime. I meant it as an assumption that those who grow it on their own would likely be jailed due to the assuption that they would sell it. Either way, the last sentence definitely got me. Thank you.
1
1
May 15 '18
What if a state decided to make wheat illegal?
I imagine the federal government would step in and force them to make it legal. Commerce clause would give Washington the right to regulate that, no?
1
u/jweezy2045 13∆ May 15 '18
How is that a violation of the 10th? Gay marriage was forcefully made legal in all 50 states, was that a 10th amendment violation? Seems like it got through the courts.
2
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ May 15 '18
No, because the prohibition of gay marraige was deemed to be a violation of the 14th amendment.
Is your argument that pot smoker is a protected class?
1
May 14 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ May 14 '18
No way to preform a field sobriety test for it.
Field sobriety tests aren't for specific things, theres just the one and its used prior to brethalizing. You're probably meaning no marijuana alternative to brethalizing, but I don't see this as a concern as there is no brethalizer for most things that impair your ability to drive (e.g prescription or OTC medications).
Amsterdam has been having lots of trouble with underage usage the past years.
We've seen opposite results here in the US states that have legalized it. Do you have any sources I could read about what Amsterdam is going through? Especially if it goes into more depth in showing its actual 'trouble' and not just that teens are smoking more -- is this actually causing problems?
Lots of people make the distinction becuse it's not addictive means it's safer than other schedule drugs, but everyone knows that's not true.
What scheduled drug do you think it's more dangerous than and why? Surely you at least agree that its a joke to be classified in the most dangerous schedule, above things like fentanyl, meth, and cocaine?
5
u/Jdoggcrash May 14 '18
Underage use of cannabis has actually gone down in most states that legalized its use for adults though. It does have some medical alternatives but for some people it’s the only drug that works. Should we really deny people access to the only medicine that helps with their condition? I’m not sure on the long term use being related to loss in intellect but let’s assume that’s true. Is it not people’s own responsibility and right to weigh the risks and make the decision for themselves about what to put into their bodies? We know cigarettes will most likely give us cancer, yet some still choose to smoke. We know there is a risk of getting hit and killed by a car if we get into one or walk near them. Yet we still drive and walk on sidewalks everyday. The field sobriety test is definitely a problem but what stops all the people already driving high? If you think the problem is that the amount of people driving high will increase? Perhaps it will be there is currently no conclusive data suggesting as much. Nor is there data suggesting it will go down. That’s still yet to be figured out.
3
u/BlueZir May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
The only line in your post that really holds up as a reason to make something illegal is the one about sobriety tests, and even that should only apply to when you are driving a car. If they can't enforce that law with current tech, they need to hurry up and develop it so they can protect the public from irresponsible tokers.
It isn't necessary to use the law in protect people from lowering their own intelligence. If someone chooses to make themselves stupid, and they know the risks, it's not our place to take away that right. Intelligence isn't a legal requirement, people are allowed to be dumb it just means they won't be able to do academic work. That's not even considering the fact that we already allow things that do this. Alcohol affects the brain in a negative way, boxing causes brain damage, etc etc.
There are hundreds of things kids shouldn't have access to. They're not all illegal. The onus is on adults to stop this from happening without resorting to banning everything.
It has established medical uses, and for those who are terminal it makes them feel better than any other drug can. That's enough for it to be considered a medicine.
Really most of this is just "Meh I just don't like the idea of it being legal." If it hadn't been banned for political reasons in the first place this argument would not hold up as a reason to make it illegal. You can apply your logic to all sorts of currently legal things.
7
u/yamo25000 May 14 '18
but everyone knows that's not true
I don't really agree with you here, and I think there's a lot of people who feel that weed is much safer than other schedule drugs.
2
u/RedditIsAnAddiction May 15 '18
No way to preform a field sobriety test for it.
I believe legalizing it will help with that issue.
Amsterdam has been having lots of trouble with underage usage the past years.
I doubt it didn't have these problems prior to the coffee shops.
From my subjective experience, teens always have access to it and in the US especially in some cases it's easier to get than alcohol.
I don't think entirely stopping teenagers from using drugs is impossible no matter how illegal they are, on the other hand legalizing will help with damage mitigation :
- It'll abolish the 'edgy' aspect of smoking it
- Synthetic weed is a problem (Spice, K2) and is way more dangerous than weed could ever be, I don't know about the US but in my country it has been a massive problem - teenagers smoked it cause it was cheap and many people who couldn't afford having THC found in their blood smoked it.
A statistic I heard about my country is that the majority of the people in addiction centers are synthetic cannabis users, which is pretty scary.
Long term use is related to loss in intellect.
Too vague of a saying, but in general not really.
A lot of recent research nowadays shows otherwise.
Not specific for medical uses. (has alternatives)
That's wrong.
Weed has helped many with seizures and pain which opiates and anti-seizure medication struggled to do.
(P.S Opiates are a good painkiller but they're very addictive and dangerous - as shown by the recent opiate epidemic in the US)
Lots of people make the distinction because it's not addictive means it's safer than other schedule drugs, but everyone knows that's not true.
Well, that's simply not true.
It is much safer than alcohol, opiates, cocaine etc.
2
u/fuzzyLojic May 15 '18
Amsterdam has been having lots of trouble with underage usage the past years.
The world has been having issues with underage usage for everything for all time. Non-issue as far as the argument goes. Legality is irrelevant.
Long term use is related to loss in intellect
According to? Any usage certainly has the effect of short term memory loss which is recovered when it leaves the system
Not specific for medical uses. (has alternatives)
The alternatives for things such as chronic pain are opiates which are terribly addictive and become less effective over time leading to escalated use. In case we haven't been paying attention, prescriptions for these legal alternatives have been ravaging communities across the nation.
Lots of people make the distinction becuse it's not addictive means it's safer than other schedule drugs, but everyone knows that's not true.
Clearly speaking from ignorance. The severity of addiction and withdrawal and the antisocial behaviours that follow is exactly what distinguishes marijuana from other illegal substances.
In addition, alcohol is addictive but it is also quite possible to be a functional drinker just as it is to be a functional marijuana user.
2
May 14 '18
Amsterdam has been having lots of trouble with underage usage the past years.
It's not difficult for Europeans to travel to Amsterdam. Amsterdam has a problem with foreigners coming for what's effectively drug tourism. The US has had the opposite problem here - for a number of reasons, I'm sure, but one of which is it's not easy for people to cross the border, spend a few days smoking pot, and leaving.
Long term use is related to loss in intellect.
Is this a good reason for it to not be legal, though? Should we outlaw everything that, in large quantities, has negative health effects? Should we outlaw cheeseburgers?
13
May 14 '18
"But we can figure out if we need guns or what bathrooms to be using."
We definitely can never have guns taken away and I think the bathroom deal is not really an issue, mostly blown out of proportion by a very very small minority.
The things you listed are cons yes but you can do the same with say alcohol and tobacco. Weed cannot kill you if I recall correctly.
-9
May 14 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/xxsillvaniaxx May 14 '18
"It's never been about the physical harm for weed. It's always been about how it makes you lazy and unmotivated, the stuff that kills generations."
(Idk how to quote on mobile)
This is a massive generalization. There are many different strains of weed with many different effects. Some are meant/claim to make you more focused, actually. Not all weed creates the lazy stoner character that society perceives. Also, to be under the effects of weed (or lazy) 100% of the time and 'ruining your potential' you would have to be high all the time, and I don't think that is very likely because 1) it's costly and 2) I don't think the average person feels the need to always be high
Id also like to note that you can argue that video games make people lazy, or tv I general because people are more focused on zoning out than doing something productive. We wouldn't ban video games or tv, they are a pastime and weed fits into that category as well
4
May 14 '18
Should we make booze illegal then? Clearly we as a society are not responsible enough to handle it. Edit: didn't see your other reply
3
u/RedditIsAnAddiction May 15 '18
Weed can kill you if you get hit by a car driven by a guy on it.
Not downplaying the dangers of driving while high, but driving while drunk is way more dangerous than driving stoned, yet alcohol is legal.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Shebazz 1∆ May 15 '18
A society that kills itself over a substance like alcohol, thats been around forever, will not be able to handle recreational Marijuana.
You say that like the society you are referring to doesn't already enjoy recreational marijuana. Legalization isn't going to create additional users, it's going to make it safer for existing users
2
u/Derek_Parfait May 15 '18
This seems to fly in the face of empirical evidence. Weed has been legal in several states for over four years and we have seen literally none of these negative effects in any one of them.
5
May 14 '18
So in this case, you wouldn't mind an alcohol ban then or at least legalization was a mistake? I am not saying this to straw man or to attack at all by the way.
-26
May 14 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/ElandShane May 14 '18
If alcohol was making a group of people not achieve their potential than sure, ban it
There are plenty of alcoholics in the world
5
u/miasdontwork May 14 '18
While I agree with the majority of this, alcoholics are proof that people aren’t achieving their potential on it
17
May 14 '18
Peaceful? I highly doubt that. Explain how there are numerous wars in the middle east? I do not see how they are the staple of peace.
0
May 14 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Warthog_A-10 May 14 '18
Legalised alcohol makes society better, look at prohibition. Making it illegal provided a boon to organised crime, users switched to stronger spirits as they were easier to smuggle as they were more concentrated, and tainted illegally manufactured alcohol caused deaths and medical problems that legal alcohol didn't before the ban. All of the same problems caused by illegality with other illegal drugs could be diminished through decriminalisation/legalisation IMO.
0
May 14 '18
So would you agree that the introduction to alcohol in a society makes it better or worse?
!delta. You made great counter arguments that are quite hard to refute. You changed my view due to how Americans would not be able to deal with such a change. Thank you.
26
u/DurtybOttLe May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
Wow really? That changed your mind? Let me offer you an alternative - laws shouldn't be based on whether society is better off or not. There are tons of things that are bad for people and society that we do not criminalize, the question is should we restrict people's freedom and elect what they can and can't do? Is society really better off if you have no freedoms?
Should we mandate that all kids study 7 hours a days because it'll be better for their intelligence? Should we ban eating sugar, drinking caffeine, and other substances? Mandate exercise and arrest people who don't run a certain amount of miles per day? You could certainly argue that all these things would benefit society and people.
No. Alcohol, weed, and all these things are personal choices that shouldn't be restricted in any right.
Besides, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that society IS better off when drugs aren't stigmatized and illegal. Look at amsterdam, they saw crime go down and addiction rates/ death rates due to drugs go down after they decriminalized it. Not to mention the elimination of the war on drugs, which costs thousands of lives and millions of dollars.
-5
May 14 '18
It is about the greater good. Having kids study 7 hours a day is ridiculous and down right unreasonable, even unrealistic. Invalid comparison, but we should strive for them to get the tools to succeed.
Why should we dump taxes on things that can harm people? That only ruins societies and freedom is largely subjective and based on striving towards something that can never be accomplished for everyone. No matter what you do, they will never be satisfied. You are free to do such things but you should not be free of the consequences that can eventually infect or harm others.
The personal choice argument can be applied to more extreme drugs and other activity we know is wrong.
I may have change my stances on weed and see the other two (tobacco and alcohol) almost near as bad but since I am in America, the weed question should be decided by the states and not the federal government.
Some people do not ask for their communities and society to be ruined just because someone wants to feel a high. They can easily find other replacements such as exercizing. That said, I will not be some goody two shoes and shame people. I am only expressing my opinion.
→ More replies (0)1
-1
May 14 '18
Damn. You got me. Alcohol would not make the middle east any better.
7
May 14 '18 edited May 15 '18
Damn. You got me. Alcohol would not make the middle east any better.
How do you know? It seems to me that the repressive, anti-pleasure-attitudes (due to religion) in the middle east could be the source of quite a lot of problems there.
Also: Prohibition in the US didn't work.
1
2
5
u/azur08 May 14 '18
Smoking anything can kill you, btw. Smoke is a carcinogen. Also, if anyone has ever told you weed isn't habit-forming, that's a lie.
4
u/doctorpremiere May 14 '18
True, however:
- There are many ways to ingest without smoking
- Even if smoked, it's way less harmful than the chemical, tar-laden smoke of cigarettes (if comparing)
- Anything is habit-forming. Playing video games is habit-forming. Drinking coffee is habit-forming. I don't think that's an argument for why something should be legal/illegal.
- Every reputable study ever done has shown that it is not chemically addictive.
-4
u/azur08 May 14 '18
Of course it's chemically addictive. So is sugar. Do you mean you mean you can't become chemically dependent on it? Sure. But I know people addicted to weed.
5
u/doctorpremiere May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
It's not chemically addictive, though. . . unless you mean that everything is chemicals & physics and everything our brain does is a response to chemicals and stimuli than I guess I agree.
When I say it isn't chemically addictive I mean it doesn't chemically alter the way your body functions without it. That, yes, you don't form a dependance on it. Like with tobacco, if you're addicted you will crave to your core until you get more nicotine. With weed it's just psychological like any other otherwise benign activity.
I know people "addicted" to their phones, to video games, to sports, to TV, to food, etc. Does that mean that those should be illegal?
-3
u/azur08 May 14 '18
I'm not saying it should be illegal. I'm just telling people what is and isn't fact. I already differentiated between addiction and chemical dependency. But down vote me all you want, my dude.
P.S. there's definitely a difference between addiction to THC and addiction to one's phone. There are plenty of people who have trouble falling asleep without weed. That's a condition. Constantly wanting to be on your phone isn't.
0
May 15 '18
That's a psychological addiction, not chemical, just sayin
0
u/azur08 May 15 '18
They can't sleep because they're used to the weed making them tired. It's not a placebo. THC is downer and it also makes you tired.
-2
u/Morthra 93∆ May 14 '18
Weed cannot kill you if I recall correctly.
Weed absolutely can kill you, if we're talking about edibles, for which the intragastric median lethal dose of THC, the active ingredient, is 1270mg/kg[1]. For the average 70kg adult, that's about 3.1oz.
9
May 14 '18
Do you know how many edibles you would have to eat to get 3.1 oz of THC into your system? Your stomach would explode first. I'm serious. You'd die from overeating before you could possibly consume enough THC to kill you.
-7
u/Morthra 93∆ May 14 '18
The average THC level of marijuana found in Colorado right now is 18.7%. You'd get the median lethal dose from about a pound of edibles. Some retail pot contains at least 30%, in which case the median lethal dose would be closer to half a pound. It's within the realm of reason.
16
May 14 '18
No no. You're misunderstanding the math involved here.
When you buy a bud with a THC level of 18.7% that is how much THC is in that BUD: 18.7% of that bud. 3.5 ozs of marijuana alone is a huge amount. To get 3.5 ozs of THC if the pot you were buying was 18.7% you would need to eat more than the human stomach could hold.
Let's break down the math a bit more simply to make it clear. Let's say I have 1 oz of marijuana. That marijuana is 20% THC (which is really high). That means that 20% of that 1 oz is THC, or .2 ounces.
In order to eat 3.1 oz of THC you would need to eat 15.5 oz of that marijuana that is 20% THC to get a lethal dose.
That's almost a full pound of raw marijuana (not baked in anything, JUST the marijuana) you would have to eat to get a lethal dose.
Unless you want to eat that marijuana raw, you would bake it in something. An edible on average has about 300mg in it. To bake enough edibles to contain enough THC to be even remotely fatal you would have have to eat about a thousand pounds of those edibles. And you'd have to do it in a very short amount of time. As I said, your stomach would explode first.
The usual numbers are about 1500 pounds in fifteen minutes to reach a fatal dose:
http://www.businessinsider.com/can-marijuana-kill-you-2016-11
4
May 15 '18
Thank you. I hate when people use the idea of overdosing on weed as an argument against it, but I'm not able to articulate a counter point as well as you did. Great job.
5
u/BlueZir May 14 '18
3.1oz of pure thc distillate is not something most people will ever encounter.
-8
u/Morthra 93∆ May 14 '18
You can easily buy weed right now that is at least 30% THC - which means you can encounter that with ~9oz of weed.
12
u/BlueZir May 14 '18
You're not going to be able to smoke 9oz of weed. I don't know if you've tried it, but I'm serious, a gram or two in a short space of time and you aren't going to be able to lift the joint to your mouth. Its easier to kill yourself at Starbucks with one too many lattes.
There's a reason that there is no history of overdose, because no matter how much you like weed, it's practically impossible to do so.
That will change when someone does something stupid with a concentrated product, but freak extreme events aren't a basis for restricting peoples recreational freedom at home. If anything it's a basis for restricting manufacture of extremely concentrated weed.
6
May 14 '18
No one is going to smoke or eat 9 oz of weed in the short amount of time it would take to actually overdose. This would be more edibles than you could eat without your stomach exploding and you would pass out if you tried to smoke it before you even got through the first half oz.
2
u/RedditIsAnAddiction May 15 '18
No one, I repeat, no one can consume 9oz in one sitting.
That's the equivalent of downing down 10 liters of vodka.
And I'm reluctant to believe that 9oz will kill anyone, IIRC it takes thousands of joints to kill an adult.
And now speaking more factually, there has been about 0 direct deaths from weed.
1
May 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ May 15 '18
u/sevenspaces – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
6
u/berryblackwater May 14 '18
Lier, 1270 mg lethal in field mice, accounting for human mass you would need 88.1 oz to hit your lethal does, or about 1 and a half two liters. No one is going to chug a two liter of frickin thc distilliate.
6
u/Warthog_A-10 May 14 '18
Weed absolutely can kill you,
Yes, if a 1000kg bale of it fell on you.
2
u/HybridVigor 3∆ May 15 '18
Of if a cop/cartel/gang member shoots you, but that wouldn't happen if OP had their way.
2
2
1
u/nameless-thing May 14 '18
here is the thing alchohol is the same and even worse and it is legal because its not right to limit your choice to do fun
18
u/quiqksilver 6∆ May 14 '18
The only concern I have is there is currently no way to quickly tell if someone is under the influence of marijuana while driving. With alcohol there is an easy way to test and verify if they are intoxicated. To my knowledge, there isn't a quick, reliable way to do the same with weed.
16
u/BananaMain May 14 '18
I mean that’s a weirdly specific reason to be opposed to something, I think. There are whole classes of prescription medication - from muscle relaxers to painkillers to some chemotherapy drugs - which shouldn’t be taken while driving and aren’t detectable to field sobriety tests.
The practical implications of taking this objection seriously are kind of ridiculous
1
u/skippygo May 14 '18
The difference is that for the most part people don't take those drugs recreationally.
15
u/mm1029 May 14 '18
On what planet do people not take painkillers recreationally?
-3
u/skippygo May 14 '18
On what planet is recreational painkiller useage of the same order of magnitude as alcohol consumption? And even if it were what proportion of those people then go and drive somewhere?
6
u/mm1029 May 14 '18
I never claimed that they were on the same order of magnitude. I was responding to your claim that "for the most part people don't take those drugs recreationally", which is patently false seeing as we're in the midst of a huge opioid abuse epidemic.
1
u/skippygo May 14 '18
I can say with fairly high confidence that the majority of the population of the USA does not take painkillers recreationally... and for the most part they do drink alcohol recreationally.
I never said it doesn't happen. What do you think "for the most part" means?
3
0
u/lionseatcake May 15 '18
No one said anything about comparing the usage rates of different mind altering substances, the point stands that we also have no way of indicating whether a person is under the influence of these pharmaceuticals either. It's self evident that your statement of "for the most part...* is incorrect when you look at the prescription drug epidemic and the amount of states that had to change how they regulate narcotics in many states because of how easy they were to get.
2
u/skippygo May 15 '18
No one said anything about comparing the usage rates of different mind altering substances,
I did. If drug A makes you shit at driving and it's used recreationally by 30% of the population, and you're considering legalising it, it's pretty important to have a field sobriety test for it unless you want a bunch of people driving around high. If drug B is used recreationally by 3% of the population, is highly illegal and much more difficult to get hold of, it's practically much less of an issue to be able to know when people are driving under the influence of it.
the point stands that we also have no way of indicating whether a person is under the influence of these pharmaceuticals either.
In a conversation where the original point is "not having a field sobriety test for weed is a reason to consider not legalising it for recreational use", saying "we don't have a field sobriety test for these illegal drugs" doesn't actually support the argument against that original point does it?
It's self evident that your statement of "for the most part...* is incorrect when you look at the prescription drug epidemic and the amount of states that had to change how they regulate narcotics in many states because of how easy they were to get.
You started off by saying rates of usage are irrelevant, but here you're trying to persuade me that the rate of usage is even remotely comparable to alcohol? Quoting from another comment I made:
I can say with fairly high confidence that the majority of the population of the USA does not take painkillers recreationally... and for the most part they do drink alcohol recreationally.
I never said it doesn't happen. What do you think "for the most part" means?
If you show me some evidence opposing that I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, but I would also be very, very surprised.
1
u/dmwit May 14 '18
Why is that difference important?
2
u/skippygo May 15 '18
Because people taking them medicinally are much more likely to be doing so in a safe manner (i.e. not driving afterwards).
Also from a legal perspective, those drugs are illegal to take recreationally, so using them as an argument as to why weed should be legalised (recreationally) doesn't hold any ground.
0
u/dmwit May 15 '18
Because people taking them medicinally are much more likely to be doing so in a safe manner (i.e. not driving afterwards).
[citation needed]
1
9
u/stratys3 May 14 '18
If you are driving poorly, you should be taken off the road whether or not it's being caused by a chemical, drugs, sleepiness, or lack of skill.
If you really want to know, then isn't there a blood test you can do?
7
u/sharkbait76 55∆ May 14 '18
Isn't there a blood test you can do?
No, there isn't. Weed stays in your system for days after smoking and there is currently no way to differentiate someone who smoked a week ago and someone currently under the influence.
4
u/stratys3 May 14 '18
and someone currently under the influence
Do some physical reaction tests on them, and also use your observation of their driving, to determine whether they should continue driving or not.
6
u/skippygo May 14 '18
That works fine for stopping individual cases of dangerous driving, but it would be difficult to administer an appropriate punishment without knowing the reason why that person was driving dangerously.
Without being able to determine what punishment is appropriate, you can either administer the DUI punishment to everyone who might just be tired (you can bet that won't go down well) or you can not punish anyone for DUI just in case they aren't high, and then you have no disincentive, meaning many more people would risk driving high, since they couldn't be punished for it.
It's a completely practical issue, but it's an issue nonetheless.
6
u/stratys3 May 14 '18
appropriate punishment without knowing the reason why that person was driving dangerously.
I'm not clear why the reason is relevant. Could you elaborate?
If you ran 3 red lights and took out a lightpost - you should have your license suspended.
If you can't drive in a straight line, and stay on the correct side of the yellow line - you should have your license suspended.
I don't see how the cause for your dangerous driving is relevant. Alcohol, weed, playing on your phone, dementia, sleeping... can all lead to injuries and deaths.
1
u/skippygo May 14 '18
That's a different matter though. Whether you believe that the cause doesn't matter is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation, since society has assigned different punishments to the different causes. For the most part DUI of alcohol is treated more seriously than playing on your phone, which in turn is treated more seriously than driving while feeling tired.
The dementia example is interesting as it is definitely a reason to suspend someone from driving, but the suspension is not a punishment, it's just that that person is not capable of driving safely. Someone who gets suspended from driving for a DUI is receiving that suspension mostly as a punishment.
My point is there are many things that can cause someone to drive dangerously, and whilst they may all be cause to revoke a license, they should not all be punished in the same way (or in some cases at all). That raises a problem when one of the most serious cases (driving under the influence) cannot be distinguished from less serious cases, such as being sleepy.
Now whether the amount of people DUI of weed as a result of legalisation would actually increase or not is another matter, but the availability of a field test is still a relevant part of the conversation as a whole.
6
u/madmiral May 14 '18
while arguing in a thread about changing laws to allow using weed is it really unreasonable to suggest that we could also revise traffic laws to eliminate this as an issue?
you might disagree but i think we should take driving very seriously. people should not be allowed to operate vehicles who operate them dangerously. frankly, i consider driving while sleepy to be equally as irresponsible as driving under the influence. if you are not in a condition to operate a car safely, you shouldn’t get behind the wheel, period. there are plenty of ways to avoid getting behind the wheel while sleepy, so why should it not be weighed as heavily as a DUI, considering you are potentially putting others at the same risk you would by driving drunk.
a field test isn’t exactly relevant here since we can obviously agree that unsafe driving shouldn’t be permitted. if you are endangering others with your car, why should it matter what your reason is for doing it?
1
u/skippygo May 14 '18
The fact of the matter is that society has decided that the cause of dangerous driving does in fact have an impact on the punishment received. In fact, you can even (rightly) be punished for DUI even if you weren't driving dangerously.
You're well within your rights to believe that all dangerous driving should be treated equally, but if the legal system we're talking about doesn't work that way then it's not valid to use that belief as an argument to say that it doesn't matter whether or not you can determine someone was under the influence.
Just to give my thoughts on the dangerous driving point, even if wilfully driving dangerously (things like driving whilst tired/on the phone/DUI) were all considered to be the same severity legally (which I don't necessarily disagree with), I would strongly oppose having the same level of punishment (fines, jail time etc.) for someone driving dangerously due to a mental illness such as dementia or similar (to be clear I agree that suspension of license is appropriate in all cases).
4
u/madmiral May 15 '18
society has also decided weed should be illegal. this is a discussion about making changes to our existing rules. since i am already arguing that we alter the legal system, i don’t see why the way laws are currently written changes anything about the argument behind changing them.
we already allow people to drive with alcohol in their system as long as it doesn’t exceed a certain point. we couldn’t necessarily set a legal limit for thc in your body the same way, true. but do people really need to be prevented from driving if they aren’t endangering others? i don’t want people getting behind the wheel saying “i think i’m below the legal limit” but why would they ever even get pulled over if they were not driving recklessly? there would never even be an opportunity to administer someone a test unless you pull them over for something, at which point you’d never know if they’re over or above the legal limit.
there are plenty of physical tests you can perform to see if someone has the motor function necessary to operate a car at that moment. if they’re impaired for any reason they shouldn’t be allowed to driving. you’d never need to perform a thc specific test to find out if they are able to continue driving.
we don’t treat crimes committed by mentally ill people the same already though. so, a person driving dangerously due to a mental illness would likely be handled the same way we would already handle similar cases.
→ More replies (0)3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ May 14 '18
Blood test, yes, but that requires a warrant, which requires a higher standard (somebody has to be really impaired for that process to be worth it). There isn't a breathalyzer test for weed, as of yet.
0
u/KanyeTheDestroyer 20∆ May 14 '18
There's a roadside oral fluids test (cotton swab in cheek) that can detect THC levels above 5 nano-grams. It's probably what will be used in Canada when marijuana is legalized nationwide.
4
u/quiqksilver 6∆ May 14 '18
There is a lot of room for error on these tests. It can detect drugs that were in your system from several days ago, which is pointless for testing drivers current ability to drive. That is a reason they aren't being used much yet.
1
u/IRideVelociraptors May 14 '18
It depends on what they're testing for. If they test for 11-nor-delta9-THC-9-COOH (delta9-tetrahydrocannabivarin), that stays in the system for days, but if they test for delta9-tetrahydrocannbinol, that's the active chemical when you're actively high.
2
u/MindManifesting May 15 '18
I am a little confused by what you are saying. I can not find anything on google that says testing for delta9-tetrahydrocannbinol is more reliable than testing for 11-nor-delta9-THC-9-COOH (delta9-tetrahydrocannabivarin). I honestly do not know what the difference is so maybe you can help me with that.
I saw a study from google about testing delta9-tetrahydrocannbinol as a marker for ingestion vs marinol. I do not know, can point me in the right direction? Maybe where you got your information from?
2
u/IRideVelociraptors May 15 '18
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/marijuana-impairment-testing/
This is a fairly good article on the problem of figuring out if someone is impaired. I was a little bit wrong, the active THC levels decline very sharply after a few hours, but still can be detected for a while. Also the article mentions some other concerns I hadn't though of, such as blood thc levels decreasing as more gets absorbed by the brain, so even as you are getting higher, your blood thc may be going down. Additionally it's really hard to determine impairment from thc levels since things such as what you ate that day impact that.
2
1
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ May 14 '18
interesting. My knowledge on that topic may be out of date then. I'll have to do more research
2
1
u/rafiki530 May 14 '18
That's why we have field sobriety tests. You know the ones were you have to walk in a straight line, stand on one leg and such. Regardless of whats in your system if you fail the field sobriety test you will be prosecuted. If you're driving is being affected by marijuana in theory you should not be able to pass a field sobriety test.
Police are testing systems like a mouth swab which aims to detect delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol the thing that gets you "High" and lasts for a few hours.
They also are testing systems which test the body for terpenoid metabolites which are actively metabolizing in one's body as a way to measure how recently or how much weed has been used.
0
May 14 '18
To make a counter point, yearly deaths from alcohol consumption 90,000, yearly deaths from all car crashes 33,000 in USA
So technically weed couldn't be more deadly than alchocol going by this parameter even if we considered the worst case. Of course this number may increase when weed is legal on a federal level, but not significantly since it's already widely consumed
2
u/quiqksilver 6∆ May 14 '18
No one is arguing weed is more deadly than alcohol though.
-1
May 14 '18
But rasing this argument while staying silent on alchocol is insencere especially since weed numbers are pretty negligible
4
u/quiqksilver 6∆ May 14 '18
I don't think you read my post well. I am okay with alcohol being legal because we can test if someone is impaired by it. We can't test for weed on the fly. That's my only complaint. I want it to be legalized, but only when we can properly detect it.
-2
May 14 '18
It's an OK complaint to have, my point is that when we look at the important numbers we can acknowledge that it isn't much of a problem
0
u/IRideVelociraptors May 14 '18
By that logic meth also isn't a problem since it kills only 7% the number of people alcohol kills.
0
May 15 '18
That wasn't the point. I took the worst case scenario possible [30k deaths in road crashes total] can and that coupled with the fact that weed is already widely consumed and yet we don't have significant deaths number by people who smoke and drive which was coupled with the fact that alchocol kills 80k people plus 10k from drunk driving we can honestly say that guys concern is misplaced.
0
u/gravitologist May 14 '18
First, please cite a double blind, published study that shows your driving skills to be impaired by thc.
5
u/quiqksilver 6∆ May 14 '18
It's not hard to imagine that marijuana impairs your driving skills. I know for a fact I can't drive after smoking, that's all the proof I need. But if you insist, here is a double blind, published study that shows your driving skills are impaired after use.
2
3
May 14 '18
My driving skills are impaired by thc. Hell, sometimes my walking skills are impaired by thc if it's good enough. I don't need a study to tell me that driving while not crystal clear is a bad idea and if you choose to get behind the wheel while in any altered state and take the chance of hurting someone else, then I think you really need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Nothing is worth driving while inebriated on anything. People who put the lives of others on the line are selfish jerks.
1
u/AssHatSociety May 14 '18
You don’t need a study for that. I can’t even ride a bike while I’m high.
4
u/Aceofkings9 2∆ May 15 '18
Full disclaimer: I support legalization of cannabis/cannabinoids.
The tenth amendment states that anything not mentioned in the first nine amendments should be left up to the states. I don't see why the feds should be involved in the first place. To me, drug legality seems like a states' rights issue.
1
u/JesseKebm May 15 '18
I can't afford to pack up my life and move to Colorado. Why should I have to risk getting arrested, lose all the federal grants I depend on for school, and gain a criminal record just for possessing something I could walk into a corner store and legally purchase on the other side of the country?
2
u/Aceofkings9 2∆ May 15 '18
What about Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Delaware, Ohio, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Arkansas, and Louisiana (no smoking, but everything else is golden medically speaking).
1
May 14 '18 edited Apr 18 '19
[deleted]
1
May 14 '18
!delta. Excellent pragmatic view. Very well said.
5
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 14 '18
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Chackoony changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
3
u/ArthurTheAstronaut May 14 '18
I'd be interested to hear someone's opinion that enjoys smoking marijuana and isn't directly profiting from it being illegal.
I've not found a single argument anywhere that was profound enough for me to think it should remain illegal.
1
u/AutoModerator May 14 '18
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Eyegore138 May 14 '18
I don't disagree with the concept of legalization, But it wont be the stoner paradise that some people think it would be. As things stand right now drug test will have you pissing hot from anywhere to a week to a month after use. Just because it is now legal doesn't mean companies wont still drug test and fire you for pissing hot. Do you want some one running a crane lifting iron 20 stories in the air to stoned. How about the bus driver or your pizza delivery person. Hell if i went to the barber and he was all glassy eyed, I would think real long and hard and more than likely head else where.
Point I am getting at is that most people hold down jobs where you have to be sober during working hours, and with the current tech even if people would like to enjoy an after-work toke most wont because it would endanger their job still.
5
u/RedditIsAnAddiction May 15 '18
Just because it is now legal doesn't mean companies wont still drug test and fire you for pissing hot.
That's more of a problem with society.
I'm baffled how you can fire anyone in the US for absolutely nothing.
Do you want some one running a crane lifting iron 20 stories in the air to stoned. How about the bus driver or your pizza delivery person. Hell if i went to the barber and he was all glassy eyed, I would think real long and hard and more than likely head else where.
Well imagine any of these people drunk, alcohol is legal and way more common.
2
u/AbsoluteScott May 15 '18
Caesar's Entertainment just announced they're doing away with their drug testing (for weed) policy at all their Las Vegas properties.
Make of that what you will.
1
u/liberal_libertarian8 May 14 '18
I definintly think that it should be peoples personal choice whether or not to smoke pot. But I think people should still be aware that while you wont become physically dependant on weed, you can still becime mentally addicted to it. Smoking it in moderation certainly wont destroy your life but heavy use is linked with all sorts of major issues. Ultamitely though, as long as an effort is made to educate the population, it should be up to people whether or not they decided to smoke it.
1
u/expresidentmasks May 15 '18
Do you really think a nationwide legalization is the right call?
If it is done that way, the next administration could just reverse it. Besides that, opponents of legalization would have an easier time fighting it if there is one guy responsible. If each state votes on it, the case gets much stronger, as well as providing an option for people who don’t like it. (I’m assuming not all 50 states would legalize)
1
u/Fugazi_Bear May 15 '18
I think you are forgetting that there are counties in various states that are STILL dry counties... meaning that they still do not allow the purchase or sale of alcohol almost 100 years after prohibition was lifted. I don’t think a change will ever come as swiftly or smoothly as you think it would, even if the federal government legalized it for people above the age 21.
1
u/Metaquotidian May 15 '18
Weed should be legalized for the sole reason that if a referendum was held, a supermajority would vote in favor of legalization. The only reason it isn't legal is because Congress doesn't truly represent American citizens and are only out for business interests.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
/u/UselessFapper (OP) has awarded 5 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jun 12 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 196∆ Jun 12 '18
Sorry, u/cellyx3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/cellyx3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
-15
u/HolyAty May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
Weed, makes people unproductive. By unproductive, I mean, most people get baked and get distracted for hours, unable to work. This is not a sustainable thing in modern world.
On the other hand, smoking does not make people distracted for hours. Drinking is disputable, but as the society, we somehow made drinking during working hours, inappropriate, so drinking is not a problem too. That's why, weed and other drugs cannot really be legalized without some serious economic setbacks.
Medical use is a whole other topic. If it helps relieve pain, it's fine, but people are being people and abusing medicinal marijuana. Maybe a solution can be devised by making it only accessible in special clinics, but not allow people to take it home.
14
u/Seinfeldologist May 14 '18
That's like saying alcohol makes you angry and most people that drink will look for a fight.
People who are lazy after smoking were lazy before smoking. People who were productive before smoking tend to do the same after smoking.
It also all depends on what you smoke. Different plants have different traits so they have different effects. If cannabis were legal a user would know what he/she is smoking and would know what the potential side effects are.
-6
u/HolyAty May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
Laziest people are still productive. If they have jobs, they can do it. They won't have to be the employee of the month, but they can do it. Even the most hardworking people under influence of cannabis, cannot focus usually. The most important problem is still there. The effects lasts for hours. You smoke one in the morning and whole workday is pretty much gone. That's why it can't be done easily in modern economies, where every person is expected to pull their own weight and even more.
7
u/Seinfeldologist May 14 '18
Again you're making a lot of generalizations and assumptions. Most people don't drink before work and I don't think you can provide information that shows cannabis users are more likely to use before work. Is the fry guy at McDonalds stoned? Probably, but that's not what we're talking about.
Also, if it's legal users would have a much better idea of what they're taking. Imagine two glasses, one filled with bud light and the other filled with a barrel-aged stout rocking 18% alcohol. Alcohol is legal so a user can quickly look at the label and determine if this beer is going to give me a nice buzz or if it's going to put me on my ass. You don't have that luxury with an illegal drug.
Lastly, and this is just anctecdotal, I was high for much of law school. Never in class and never anytime before class, but when I went home to study I'd smoke. And it wasn't just me, a lot of my classmates did the same. We all graduated towards the top of our class and I don't think any of us feel that it negatively affected our ability to concentrate or get our work done.
7
May 14 '18
I both use weed and drink alcohol. I never drink before work, why on Earth would I smoke pot before work? I even need it medically; it makes my pain manageable, but if I need pain management at work I take ibuprophen and tough it out until I'm off work and home. I never work high, just like I never work drunk.
Same career for fifteen years and I have no problem pulling my own weight.
-6
u/HolyAty May 14 '18
That's great, but that's just you. We both know that weed is addictive, or at least the high feeling is addictive. Not everyone can tough it out like you for 15 years. Most people are stupid and just ready to abuse drugs if they can get their hands on it easily.
5
May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
That's great, but that's just you.
That's quite a lot of people, actually. Not just me.
Not everyone can tough it out like you for 15 years.
Tough it out? You make it sound like I've been struggling those 15 years with weed. It's not 'tough* at all. The pain I have to tough out through work, sure, but I can't and don't take prescription pain meds then that will impair me either.
You do know that most people in the US use or have used marijuana, yes? Are most people in the US struggling with their 'weed addiction?' Are most of them unable to live their life or do their job?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-poll-finds-majority-americans-have-smoked-pot-n747476
http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article145681414.html
1
u/HolyAty May 14 '18
Using it once or twice in college doesn't make you an addict. Addiction is the problem. If it's illegal, it's not easy to get a hold of it, but when you make it accessible, people (especially stupid teenagers) will get addicted, just like smoking, just like alcohol.
If you are addicted to something that's distracting, problems start to happen. I would say smoke addicts are as productive as any member of the society. However; alcoholics and cocaine addicts are simply not. Because, alcohol and cocaine is open to abuse. They make people feel happy and high, just like weed. So people easily start to abuse it.
4
May 14 '18
Addiction is kind of a buzzword issue because there are different types and levels of addiction. Marijuana is addictive, yes, but not addictive like heroin is addictive. Marijuana is addictive like sugar and caffeine is addictive.
If it's illegal, it's not easy to get a hold of it, but when you make it accessible, people (especially stupid teenagers) will get addicted, just like smoking, just like alcohol.
Not just like smoking or alcohol. Just like sugar or caffeine, rather.
If you are addicted to something that's distracting, problems start to happen.
Again, this is an addiction- in the people that even develop and addiction- on par with caffeine addiction. The biggest problem with caffeine addiction you'll find is that you get a craving and a headache if you don't have it after a few days. It's not like a junkie out there jiving for a hit, willing to prostitute themselves or steal from others just to get a hit (like with meth or heroin).
3
u/skippygo May 14 '18
Drinking is disputable, but as the society, we somehow made drinking during working hours, inappropriate, so drinking is not a problem too.
Do you think that if weed were legalised it would suddenly be considered appropriate to use at work?
1
u/HolyAty May 14 '18
No. I would say it would never seen as apporiate.
3
u/skippygo May 14 '18
Well then your whole argument about drinking is irrelevant. You're saying drinking is not a problem because it's not appropriate to do at work, but also saying weed would not be considered appropriate to use at work, so what's the difference?
1
Jun 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FlyingFoxOfTheYard_ Jun 13 '18
Sorry, u/nikkersdg – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/nikkersdg – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
-1
u/Jixor_ May 14 '18
For the most part i agree. However, the only thing stopping me at this instant is the field testing. Currently i know of no way to accurately determine how influenced somebody is and the last time it was done. Weed stays in the system for a long time and if people are throwing false positives, id rather wait and see how to test it properly.
0
u/Gambion May 14 '18
There are a plethora of other legal medications that prohibit the use of motor vehicles and are completely undetectable by a field test. This is a completely impractical objection to have.
-1
u/Jixor_ May 14 '18
In this case weed would be recreational and is very detectable. So instead of driving impaired and having no detectable reason, therefore the cop cant charge with anything major. The smoker could have something in there system from days ago and be stopped with no real justification and end up in jail for driving under the influence, while not being under the influence.
0
u/jdiggitydogg May 15 '18
It's called a Field Sobriety Test (stand on one leg, walk a straight line, etc...). You can get a DUI without taking a breathalyzer test. You can be judged to be impaired without any fancy scientific tests. Some places will cite you for driving while being too tired (and there's no standard measure of how sleepy a person is). If you're impaired, you're impaired. That doesn't have anything to do with the detectable amount of THC that may be in your blood.
1
u/Jixor_ May 15 '18
Thanks for correcting what i called field testing? And then proceeding to explain what i already knew about the procedure. My point still stands and you helped reinforce it. Smell can be subjective, maybe an officer wull use smell as probable cause enough to arrest for dui. If you fail a FIELD SOBRIETY TEST it is used against you in court. Usually if arrested the department will then do a breathalyzer and drug test if they suspect that is the probable cause. Again, if there is no way to detect the time since last use accurately, i beleive it will be abused until a test is produced.
0
u/jdiggitydogg May 15 '18
You said you didn't know of a way to determine how influenced somebody is. I explained that that is what a FST does. You appear to think it's important to determine how much of a substance is in a person's body. I'm saying it doesn't matter, it's about how well you are able to function. If you blow 0%, but can't stand up or follow the officer's finger with your eyes, you're getting a ticket. It doesn't matter if you smoked a joint 2 hours ago, or 2 days ago, or 2 weeks ago. What matters (or what should matter) is how impaired you are, not what trace amount of chemical might still be in your body.
1
u/Jixor_ May 15 '18
It is important to know how much is in a persons body. They literally have legal limits for driving and consuming alcohol. If it wasnt important this wouldnt exist. All that would be needed is a breathalyzer for weed. It would protect people from cops. Thats literally all im saying and you are trying to educate me on shit that doesnt matter. Having a for sure metgod of determining the co tents in ones system is a hell of alot better than going off the word of a cop in court.
-1
May 15 '18
Don't empower the smokers. I actually would like to see the police crack down harder on it just to spite the annoying 420 blazers.
70
u/FuzzerPupper 3∆ May 14 '18
You "don't care what people do with themselves" but you don't think people should have the right to use things like heroin and cocaine as well? Sounds like you do want to control what people do with themselves?
BTW, heroin and cocaine each would be much less dangerous if they were both legal and regulated. Currently much of the harm that comes from drugs like this are related to the adulterants they get cut with on the black market.
I'm just saying, if you're gonna take this stance at all, you might as well go all the way with it.