re: Give me one good reason why marijuana should be illegal while alcohol shouldn't

quote:

---

Post legalization, the person can explain away a positive drug test (urinalysis) after an accident by saying they smoked recently but they were not under the influence when it happened. Pot is legal and with no way of knowing if they were stoned when they killed or injured somebody, they get off free and clear. That's not OK.

---

1. Making weed legal does not mean employers don't have to require their employees to stay drug free. Colorado employers, for example, can still deny people employment based on marijuana usage, despite it being legal there. So your argument doesn't hold up.

2. I knew you were going to make that argument, which is why my post began with this:

quote:

---

What about a coworker with a prescription for pain pills who abuses them on the job? Where's your oxycodone breathalyzer, so you can test them in real time? Out of all of the legal substances that exist that can be abused with or without a prescription, alcohol is the only one I'm aware of that has a real-time breathalyzer type test (i.e. no blood work).

---

3. If you're concerned about holding someone accountable for injuring or killing someone, then, as other posters have pointed out, there are tests that can be taken and used to determine if someone is high, but they just don't have instant results. Employees who operate machinery are already subject to drug tests in most workplaces, especially after an accident, so administering a test will be nothing new anyway.

Besides, how do you expect new tests to come out if marijuana is never legalized? What company is going to invest in a product that has no use? It's silly to think that this type of test won't be developed very soon after legalization

quote:

---

The 24 hour urinalysis creatine test you mentioned earlier is fine but how do you administer it on the side of the road to someone suspected of DUI?

---

1. Field sobriety tests still exist
2. They don't drug test for marijuana now for a DUI, so what makes this any different? We're back to the "you don't think people smoke and drive now?" argument.

I'll have to both agree and disagree with you there. In both cases, tolerance does develop and the user does need to use more in order to get the desired (subjective) effect, and the person who has used longer probably will seem to "have it together" more so than the naive person's first time drunk or high. There's no arguing that.

Some of the physical effects (slowed mentation, reaction time, etc) are consistent with drug levels regardless of whether the person using is naive or a chronic abuser. If you read the review article I linked, it actually specifically mentions that marijuana users do experience cognitive decline that is measurable but not noticed by the abuser. I don't believe reaction time was measured, but the other tests were all related to the concept of concentration. It's extrapolating a small amount with no hard numbers or study (not to say that one isn't out there, but it's not mentioned in the one that I linked), but I think it's at least reasonable to assume there is going to be a delay in reaction time (as there is with all "downer" substances that are abused. In everything I've read to date, despite memory/recall, ability to perform specific tasks not being challenged after chronic use, reaction time usually still lags. How significant is another question, but the concept of "unnoticed effects" is the point I am trying to make) Because of this, it's probably very likely that even the chronic user has delayed reaction times and cognitive functions when taking in less, even if it's not realised by him. As to what that amount is or what level of concentrating THC is responsible for such decline, I don't think there is so much as a good estimate at this point. You can bet the house on a substantial amount of research going to find that number and how to measure it somewhere in the peri-legalization window.

quote:

---

Post legalization, the person can explain away a positive drug test (urinalysis) after an accident by saying they smoked recently but they were not under the influence when it happened. Pot is legal and with no way of knowing if they were stoned when they killed or injured somebody, they get off free and clear. That's not OK.

---

I would be more concerned about someone using a cell phone and being inattentive while driving than I would be with someone having recently smoked marijuana. If or when someone is killed by a driver under the influence of marijuana, I'm going to suspect something else besides the marijuana causing the accident, unless of course the individual is guilty of something like trying to roll a joint while driving, which should be listed on a "dangerous and stupid things one should not do while driving" list.

quote:

---

There isn't one

---

heres the answer

Because I don't like the pot smokers.

Because we'd be locking up a whole shitload more people for alcohol use.

thugs again

quote:

---

Meet me at work and we will get in a personnel basket attached to a crane that is going to lift us 150 feet in the air. Maybe the crane operator will be stoned, maybe he won't. We have no way of telling for sure because there is a "lack of testing measures" as you put it. You see no problem here?

---

this has nothing to do with why it should be illegal. that private employer still has its own rules and regulations irrespective of alcohol. and tell me how you can immediately test that crane operator on the scene for opiates, which are much more of a worry (and much more common) than weed.

the only instant-chemical analysis we have is for alcohol. that's mainly a function of alcohol being legal for so long and the market adapting. the argument that we can't legalize weed b/c we don't have that is irrational b/c you've created the self-fulfilling prophecy to maintain its illegal status

quote:

---

When smoked, it begins to effect users almost immediately

---

This will be a very important argument for those who argue against it. Because harmful effects can come right away. Yes I realize that there is a case by case basis. But I would think that Marijuana has a more negative effect on the body quicker than alcohol.

The difference with Alcohol is that you can drink it without much effect on the body. If I have two glasses of wine with dinner, I can usually drive home without any issues, I wake up in the morning feeling fine, etc. IF I were to smoke the same amount of Marijuana what ever that is, I would be much more negatively effected.

I'm not saying I'm against it, but just because Alcohol effects more people in a year than Marijuana doesn't mean it should be legal. There are poisonous plants that will kill you if you ingest a-little but Alcohol kills more than this plant. No-one is calling for it's legal consumption.

The problem with the alcohol hurts more people is that use rates are different. I may know a handful of people who actually smoke Marijuana while on the other hand, I go to a party and almost everyone is drinking some type of alcohol. Some may get drunk others may drink in moderation, but lot's of people are drinking.