COLORADO GOVERNOR: LEGALIZING POT WAS BAD IDEA

[_sabotage_]

What the f*ck I'm talking about is that the article which I linked and then you cherry picked from clearly states, as I quoted (if you want to go over every specific of the article, we can but I thought using what it referred to as the "best evidence" and the total result of that evidence would be slightly more efficient than nitpicking through each detail) that it is equivalent to a 0.00-0.05% BAC level.

Since it didn't specify how much risk that added, I looked it up. I then quoted the article which suggests that only at the extreme end, starting at 0.04% BAC do we see any measurable affect.

Since alcohol is exponentially impairing, using the 4% increase in risk which is sen at double the levels, I used a smaller number, which to me is reasonable.

This was measuring the risk with sober driving. It is so negotiable that alcohol with a similar affect is perfectly legal at these rates.

And no Mets, I'm not just refusing to give up a point.

I think it is utterly fair that if an accident is attributable to marijuana, or any form of impairment that a driver didn't use their good common sense about, then that person be held more liable than otherwise. On the other hand, marijuana remains in the system longer than any other drug, far after you are no longer high. As such, it should be treated as any other form of impairment. If someone is endangering others, or fails to pass a sobriety test, then punish them. If on the other hand, they are not endangering others or themselves, can pass a sobriety test, then giving them a DUI is extremely discriminatory if they test positive for marijuana.

Tbh I don't think we should be driving anyways, we should have a more efficient and safer transport system. But until that happens, if I get in trouble for driving perfectly safely, I will just chalk up another point for the prison industry to go with the 700,000-800,000 marijuana arrests annually.

[thegreekdog]

What in the actual f*ck are you talking about? First, I'm not trying to ban marijuana. I'm trying to ban driving under the influence of marijuana, which up until today I thought was something 100% of peoples could get behind.

Probably close to 100% of people could get behind that. But understand the politics of the situation. There are a lot of people who want marijuana to remain illegal, and use arguments like "stoned people are dangerous drivers" to defend that. If those in defense of legalization concede that in some cases marijuana can be dangerous, it gives ammunition to their opponents (even though the ammunition is weak and only matters because of how much this turns into an in-group versus out-group thing). The arms race means that defenders of legalization sometimes make bad arguments in defense of a good cause, just like in any other situation.

Ah... excellent point. I didn't think of it in that way. That explains sabotage's weirdness here.

[thegreekdog]

What the f*ck I'm talking about is that the article which I linked and then you cherry picked from clearly states, as I quoted (if you want to go over every specific of the article, we can but I thought using what it referred to as the "best evidence" and the total result of that evidence would be slightly more efficient than nitpicking through each detail) that it is equivalent to a 0.00-0.05% BAC level.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't cherry pick anything. It's in the second paragraph of the article! And I didn't even quote it until I responded to you two posts ago!

I think it is utterly fair that if an accident is attributable to marijuana, or any form of impairment that a driver didn't use their good common sense about, then that person be held more liable than otherwise. On the other hand, marijuana remains in the system longer than any other drug, far after you are no longer high. As such, it should be treated as any other form of impairment. If someone is endangering others, or fails to pass a sobriety test, then punish them. If on the other hand, they are not endangering others or themselves, can pass a sobriety test, then giving them a DUI is extremely discriminatory if they test positive for marijuana.

I agree with this. JUST LIKE THEY DO NOW! I'm not arguing for extra regulation. As I said, what bothers me is your blase attitude about driving while under the influence of pot. I'm not saying cops should arrest you because you smoke a bowl and drove (just like they shouldn't arrest me for drinking a beer and driving). I'm saying if you are over some reasonable limit or impaired, you should be arrested.

[_sabotage_]

With that we have an agreement.

What bothers me, though, is your insistence that my attitude is blasé. I've smoked weed for a long time and yes I am high right now (there's a blizzard outside and not much to do). I normally don't smoke during the day, but it really depends on what I'm doing. Not smoking during the day is a way to enjoy a evening pipe. I smoke about 0.2 grams a day down from a peak of about 50 grams per day 14 years ago. I think I know exactly how impaired I am.

Others don't and if there was a question in their mind about how impaired they are, there should be a law to help them stay on the safe side of that question.

On the other hand, I think we all know someone who got hurt by drunk driving. We have a lot of data and it should be treated according to the data.

The lack of significant research is in itself suggestive for marijuana. But if my son started driving high before he's able to kick my ass, there'd be some child abuse.

But I don't like the stereotypes. I don't go giggly; I eat twice a day, everyday, since I could choose my eating patterns, no munchies; I don't get paranoid.

Next time you're driving and see the guy in front of you keeping a nice safe distance, not rushing, and signaling slightly early, then that's me driving high. I normally do those things, but I do it a bit extra when high.

[Symmetry]

Your attitude does kind of indicate a level of being blasé. You're saying that being intoxicated is a regular thing for you. And you seem to be saying that you're better high.

Next time I'm driving, I'll do what I always do- assume that the person in front of me is an idiot who thinks that driving while intoxicated is a good idea.

[_sabotage_]

And you think that being intoxicated isn't a regular thing for most people? My godmother is lawyer and drinks a bottle most nights. The headmaster/founder of the top international school in HK drinks a bottle every night. My parents, they share a bottle a night, a lawyer and a writer. I can't think of too many people I know that don't have an evening drink.

I don't. I have a pipe.

As for which of us is the idiot, oh Symmetry. Welcome back.

[Symmetry]

And you think that being intoxicated isn't a regular thing for most people? My godmother is lawyer and drinks a bottle most nights. The headmaster/founder of the top international school in HK drinks a bottle every night. My parents, they share a bottle a night, a lawyer and a writer. I can't think of too many people I know that don't have an evening drink.

I don't. I have a pipe.

As for which of us is the idiot, oh Symmetry. Welcome back.

I think many people are regularly intoxicated, often to the point of addiction. I wouldn't want them behind the wheel of the car in front of me, but I assume that they are. Assuming that the driver in front of you is an idiot is probably the best way to drive safely.

Have you had a period within the last year where you've not been high for more than a few days?

[_sabotage_]

2 months.

Have you ever been high? And if so, on what? Did you hurt any one?

Do you drink?

[Symmetry]

2 months.

Have you ever been high? And if so, on what? Did you hurt any one?

Do you drink?

That's good- I'll answer your questions, but I do want you to understand that I'm not attacking you. I have been high, on pot. I didn't hurt anyone.

If the threshold is really "I haven't hurt anyone" I think you need to add the "yet" to that line of thought.

My own questions: Why did you stop? How did you feel while not-smoking? Why did you start again?

[_sabotage_]

I was between crops. I tried planting five plants and only got three ounces off of the three that weren't stolen. This didn't quite last me until the following harvest, so I had two months in between without.

Ah Sym, you can answer a bit better than that. I want to turn this thread festive, reanswer with a bit of gusto.

[mrswdk]

Man, I would use that internet cable to strangle her until she blacked out. You gotta assert your dominance.

[thegreekdog]

Man, the acceptance of anecdotal evidence on the forum these days is at an all time high. Where are Mets and BBS to yell at people? What's that? BBS is gone (again)? Mets is intermittant for some reason? Fine, I'll do it.

And you think that being intoxicated isn't a regular thing for most people? My godmother is lawyer and drinks a bottle most nights. The headmaster/founder of the top international school in HK drinks a bottle every night. My parents, they share a bottle a night, a lawyer and a writer. I can't think of too many people I know that don't have an evening drink.

I think many people are regularly intoxicated, often to the point of addiction.

Now, I suspect Symmetry is just agreeing to get on with what he wants to talk about.. but c'mon. Guys. You know some people who drink a lot? You think many people are regularly intoxicated to the point of addiction? Oh, okay.

[mrswdk]

They are of that generation that thinks drinking yourself into a stupor in your sitting room is normal, and they can't help but project that onto others.

[thegreekdog]

They are of that generation that thinks drinking yourself into a stupor in your sitting room is normal. Leave it to the millennials to clean up this society.

This not quoting people when responding is shitty. I hate it.

By the way, endgame is going to shit himself when he sees sabotage vs. Symmetry. This thread won't even be remotely about regulation.

[mrswdk]

lol. If the post I'm replying to is the one immediately before mine then it helps save on clutter if I don't fill my own post up with quotes \(^_^)/

[Lootifer]

Loots, why not just let people smoke weed and then pay for the health consequences of their smoking themselves? Why does the government have to take their money and then pay for the consequences on their behalf?

Fundamentally because I believe society already "voluntarily taxes" the stupid and "voluntarily subsidizes" the intelligent.

Like our mutual disagreement in the other thread I feel that as a society we have a duty to look after our weakest members (including those who aren't very good at making life decisions), you don't.

[_sabotage_]

Well there loot, we got to talking about it and we decided through a very careful process that you are this forums weakest member.

From now on you will be required to submit a draft of your post to AOG for content screening 72 hours prior to posting.

It's for your own good.

[mrswdk]

Loots, why not just let people smoke weed and then pay for the health consequences of their smoking themselves? Why does the government have to take their money and then pay for the consequences on their behalf?

Fundamentally because I believe society already "voluntarily taxes" the stupid and "voluntarily subsidizes" the intelligent.

Like our mutual disagreement in the other thread I feel that as a society we have a duty to look after our weakest members (including those who aren't very good at making life decisions), you don't.

It's nothing to do with whether or not we subsidize poor people. You suggested taxing weed smokers in order to pay for the consequences of their smoking, I asked why we don't just skip the tax and make them pay for the consequences as and when they materialize.

[Endgame422]

They are of that generation that thinks drinking yourself into a stupor in your sitting room is normal. Leave it to the millennials to clean up this society.

This not quoting people when responding is shitty. I hate it.

By the way, endgame is going to shit himself when he sees sabotage vs. Symmetry. This thread won't even be remotely about regulation.

Dude i didnt even bother reading any of it.

I will say i am part of your 100 percent who can get behind having a reasonable "legal limit" on driving UTI.
The current limit is nonsense(in CO anyways) but the concept is solid and I'm with you there.

[thegreekdog]

Loots, why not just let people smoke weed and then pay for the health consequences of their smoking themselves? Why does the government have to take their money and then pay for the consequences on their behalf?

Fundamentally because I believe society already "voluntarily taxes" the stupid and "voluntarily subsidizes" the intelligent.

Like our mutual disagreement in the other thread I feel that as a society we have a duty to look after our weakest members (including those who aren't very good at making life decisions), you don't.

Do you feel that governments do the same thing?

[Lootifer]

Loots, why not just let people smoke weed and then pay for the health consequences of their smoking themselves? Why does the government have to take their money and then pay for the consequences on their behalf?

Fundamentally because I believe society already "voluntarily taxes" the stupid and "voluntarily subsidizes" the intelligent.

Like our mutual disagreement in the other thread I feel that as a society we have a duty to look after our weakest members (including those who aren't very good at making life decisions), you don't.

It's nothing to do with whether or not we subsidize poor people. You suggested taxing weed smokers in order to pay for the consequences of their smoking, I asked why we don't just skip the tax and make them pay for the consequences as and when they materialize.

I am working on the assumption that weed is a demerit good, that is its consumption has negative externalities.

Most similar demerit goods (eg. nicotine, alcohol and gambling) show that the problems associated with over-use and dependence tend to be higher in lower socioeconomic groups (eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12457787).

Lower socioeconomic groups are also the least equipped to deal with the problems, or potential problems, associated with over-use and dependence. Why would we not a) disincentivize the consumption (via tax) and b) subsidize the solution of the problems (via tax revenue)? Makes sense to me.

Hell even if you don't buy that logic, isn't collecting tax revenue off what is quite obviously a luxury good (you don't need weed to lead a normal life, it really only enhances you life) preferred to collecting tax revenue off fruit and vegetables (sales tax), or creating additional economic value (income tax)?

[_sabotage_]

Not if the policies those taxes are enforcing are supplying the wealthy with more wealth.

[mrswdk]

I am working on the assumption that weed is a demerit good, that is its consumption has negative externalities.

Why would we not a) disincentivize the consumption (via tax) and b) subsidize the solution of the problems (via tax revenue)? Makes sense to me.

Hell even if you don't buy that logic, isn't collecting tax revenue off what is quite obviously a luxury good (you don't need weed to lead a normal life, it really only enhances you life) preferred to collecting tax revenue off fruit and vegetables (sales tax), or creating additional economic value (income tax)?

What's the point in legalizing it if you're just going to keep deliberately discouraging and penalizing its use?

This vague notion of 'probable negative externalities' doesn't sound very convincing. You want to tax weed because there are some possible side effects that we're not really sure of but want to prepare for just in case? By that logic it makes more sense to tax fruit and vegetables, in order to pay for the known side effects of pesticide use, than it does to tax weed.

Taxing it on the basis that it's a luxury is not valid at all.

[Lootifer]

I give up. If you don't think dope is a demerit good then there's no point in us having a discussion.

@ _sab: I presume you are concerned about government cronyism? I agree that regulatory authorities have a tradition of that kind of thing, but ideally it would be absent.