even if so

who cares?

no one has the right to deny you from self destructive behavior. If we legislated everything that was bad for people,

no one would be allowed to drive (more people are killed in car accidents than war)

cigarettes and salt and sugar would be illegal

and just for that

I think I'm gonna get stoned before I go forth into public to run my errands

and yes, I'm drivin

certainly not i robin


but i would still like to see the data from the actual studies

i have never seen such data supporting that claim

and i wonder if it is a 50s style scare tactic

Well said, Quietman.

A wise man once told me that, "You're not really free unless you're free to fail."

Instead of enforcing particularities between substances based on arbitrary measurements I always thought the intelligent thing to do would be to teach people that the drug is irrelevant - personal responsibility is what will determine your relationship with any substance.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070731085550.htm

yeah, a lot of the stuff I hear is just that, old 50's and 60's propaganda repeated by people who don't know much about it other than hearsay

I was reading a while back about how in the 30's they had a big influx of illegal migrant mexican workers flooding the south west

and marijuana was associated with them. So the southwestern states started demanding laws against marijuana as a method of controlling those workers

but the constitution had no provision in it for making something like that illegal so they passed a tax law for it. You couldn't sell or possess marijuana without a tax stamp (and not one single stamp was ever printed) and you couldn't apply for a tax stamp unless you already had the marijuana in possession which without a stamp was already illegal. the government was already playing head games over it

where I grew up in West Texas in the 70's, possession of one joint of marijuana was punishable by life in prison. you had to be dedicated to be a pot head in Texas in the 70's

Oh ffs.

It STILL has an effect on your motor functions. It slows your thought processes.

Do you SERIOUSLY think getting behind the wheel while stoned is any better than having a few drinks??

"instantly kill someone"

I just love the logic.

Actually, more or less...it is. Not that I promote driving while under the influence of anything nor do I drive under the influence. But marijuana only really slows your reaction time, and that is dependent on amount used and tolerance buildup to the chemicals. Alcohol on the other hand slows your reaction time, blurs your vision, and can do it in fewer than three drinks. Not to mention the number of fatalities to drunk drivers versus that of stoned drivers, really, there is an abundant of evidence showing alcohol to be far worse on motor functions than that of marijuana.

Having said that though, I like weed where it is currently. Not too illegal but not quite fully legal either, it is a good median.

I'm sure if it ends up being legal nationwide it will be because government found some kind of way to tax it and generate a lot of revenue to help with the deficit.

I agree that it is not as dangerous as driving while drunk. I'm thinking the incidence of violent behavior and domestic abuse is much higher from drinking than smoking marijuana.

d'accord

if I get pulled over and have in my posession a small amount for personal use then its a citation like a traffic fine

if I get pulled over and have 50 lbs then its serious. but then I have no business having 50 lbs of marijuana

if it becomes too legal then the corporations will get involved and ruin the whole thing

I understand where you are coming from, D.

But...

The fact is that there are an awful lot of " distracted " drivers out there on the roads.

Being under the influence of anything that slows your reaction times is foolish at best.

Or the government.

from link

Seventy five people smoked only cannabis, and 91 smoked both. Eighty one people did not smoke either, and 92 smoked only tobacco.


sorry that is not a large enough segment to prove the claim

the link also says

The researchers base their findings on 339 adults up to the age of 70,


were the 70 year olds the cannabus smokers??????

imo this is not worthy study --- with sch a small number it would be to easy to manipulate the group dynamics to get any result you wish ----- you could probably find enough that smoke neither tobacco nor pot with lung issues to try and point out that not smoking hurts your lungs if you want to use such a small group


but hey

what do i know

statistics show that 99% of the people killed in car accidents were sober

so statistically its safer to get drunk or stoned and drive

.

Still, I bet you didn't get those numbers from M.A.D.D.'s web-site.

notice the wording,,' of the people killed '. Its different than how many of those that CAUSED the deaths were sober.

looks like drinking is the number THREE reason for fatal car accidents...
In 2004, an estimated 16,654 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes, according to NHTSA(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) This is an average of one death almost every half-hour. Drunk drivers were responsible for 30 percent of all fatal crashes during the week in 2003, but this percentage rose significantly over the weekends, during which 53 percent of fatal crashes were alcohol-related.


here are the top causes

1.Distracted Drivers
2.Driver Fatigue
3.Drunk Driving
4.Speeding
5.Aggressive Driving
6.Weather



although MJ didnt make the list, I suppose it could cause the NUMBER TWO reason. I dont personally know people who smoke a joint and then drive, most are in a mood to lay back. I think it would be equally irresponsible to drive while high though,,even on PRESCRIBED drugs.

I will not state an opinion either way for legalization... however, driving under the influence of marijuana... isn't that much different than driving while intoxicated. And YES there has been accidents with people under the influence of marijuana.

If it was decriminalized, there would probably be laws restricted driving while under the influence... it's just harder to detect levels.

I spent a great deal of time in Canada where you can't grow or deal marijuana but you can smoke it where ever you like and of course you can posses it.If we should compare countries concerning legalizing drugs we should look to Canada as a example,as Canada is nearly identical to the United states but only has 35 million people in the whole country.I understand that people can do what they like but their lax drug laws in Canada affects everyone.If you go to the beach in Vancouver,BC and lay in the sand it is not uncommon to have people coming up to you every 10 minutes or so asking you if you want pot,mushrooms,hash,etc.Then someone else comes along asking you if you would like to buy some beer,pot,pizza,etc.Then someone else comes along.You can go to the 7-11 in Vancouver and they will have glass pipes and bongs for sale in the front display counter where they usually sell lottery tickets.Head shops,cannabis cafe's,sex shops,they are all over the place.Add the legal age to drink alcohol at 19 and you have a city full of drunken,stoned people everywhere you look on a Saturday night.To a person who does not do drugs or drink this city is hard to enjoy especially if you have children wtih you.

If you really want to see a city with a drug problem you can drive down Hastings street at 10pm and count no less than 1,000 junkies spread out all over the place.Prostituion is everywhere.On one corner I counted 14 prostitutes which Vancouver also turns a blind eye to.


http://www.csdp.org/news/news/canada.htm

On June 25, 2009, the Vancouver Sun ("Canada Primary Source of Ecstasy in Drug Trade") reported that this year's "United Nations report on the world drug trade reiterates what [British Columbian] police forces have been saying for a couple of years now: Canada has become a global producer of 'party' drugs, especially ecstasy. The article states that "Canada has grown to be the most important producer of MDMA for North America" and also plays a major role in supplying the drug to Japan and Australia. Additionally, the UN found that Canada's participation in the global amphetamine trade was on the rise. As the Sun states, "Export of illegal amphetamines produced in Canada, the report claims, has grown to 20 per cent of the country's output in 2007 from only five per cent in 2006."

In Michigan the cops do swab tests if they think you're driving high. No joke.