Legalization of cannabis

[hym 358]

While I was primarily referencing the chemical/petrochemical industries, the same is more or less true in a lot of other business sectors too. By the time you get done looking at all the ways that marijuana use could potentially harm or kill someone, you would have pretty much eliminated all the industrial jobs in the US, along with most of the commercial service sector jobs too. You would also likely eliminate many of the office jobs too, since depending on the work they are doing, misuse of controlled substances could have deadly effects somewhere else down the line.

and alcohol doesn't?

I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm simply citing marijuana because it is the topic of the thread. Most decent companies have drug policies that, at the very least, require employees to take the day off if they show up to the workplace intoxicated. Doesn't matter if it's marijuana, alcohol, or you're high on your prescription medication.

However, not all drugs are created equal when it comes to the issue of their suitability in the workplace (and thus, to a certain extent, their legality). You could have a dedicated employee who does great work Monday through Friday, gets smashed every Friday night, then comes in Monday completely sober. You could put him through a random drug screen and prove that he was drinking alcohol sometime over the weekend, but he could just as easily prove that he isn't intoxicated when he shows up to the workplace, and it could hold up in court if the issue ever went that far.

Marijuana is a different story. It's detectable in the body significantly longer than alcohol is, and its duration of effect on a person is much less predictable than alcohol's. So your dedicated employee could do great work Monday through Friday, spend all Friday night smoking marijuana, and not be able to prove himself sober when he failed the drug test Monday morning. Furthermore, he couldn't prove himself sober the following Monday either (and maybe even the Monday after that too).

Alcohol doesn't have this level of problems, which is part of why alcohol is better tolerated when it comes to employment status.

I'm trying to see the rationale for making marijuana illegal and alcohol legal. So far, I'm not seeing it.

There really isn't a good reason for making marijuana illegal. At the same time, however, there isn't much of an argument for making it legal either.

Making marijuana legal would be one way to balance the budget...We could be getting tax revenue from selling the marijuana, just like we are getting tax revenue from selling alcohol.

I'm curious to know just how money supporters think this idea will generate. Again, a wide range of companies utilize drug testing, and a growing number of companies that don't currently have drug policies are looking at the issue. Most of us who have decent jobs and value our employment won't do anything we know will ruin our careers.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let the private sector make what rules it will. If you legalize cannabis, you have taken a serious step in reducing a criminal conspiracy that is operating against the western world on a world wide basis. Of course, you then tax the daylights out of it, but not enough to drive it underground again.

This takes one of the soft "introducer" drugs out of the hands of the underworld, puts a serious crimp in their income, and because we can make some purity laws, if we don't have them already, making it safer. We have organizations that help alcoholics, and similar groups will arise for stoners as well.

At the same time, we would be starting up a new industry, providing employment to thousands. The clean rooms alone, to prevent employee contamination, would flood millions into the economy.

Once this is over its initial hurdles, the war on drugs can be intensified with respect to Cocaine and the other non-opiates (and the opiates as well). If nothing else is done, I have a good slogan I saw on a bumper sticker in the U.S. southwest: "I'd rather be a goat-roper than a doper". Peer pressure can be used to great effect if you start with the very young.

Most youth get caught by drugs when they are going through the adolescent downs and ups resulting from their raging hormones and the accompanying identity crises. Some concentration on feelings of worth needs to be done here.

Drugs in general, including alcohol and cannabis, need to be made unfashionable. We certainly have the mechanisms for that, it is just a case of getting Mad Ave behind the thrust with serious intensity, whether they make a nickel on it or not. Maybe a tax incentive could be used, like a non-refundable tax credit.

  Edited May 20, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Duke87 1,070]

One also must consider that various substances affect different people differently, and they also have different tolerances (one person may be plastered after four or five drinks, another may be just a bit tipsy). So, you can't always just say "X drug does Y to you", because it may not be true for everyone.

For this reason, setting legal limits becomes somewhat arbitrary. Some people shouldn't be driving with their BAC at 0.05. Others may still be okay at 0.10. Depends a lot on how well you handle it.

[astronelson 339]

For this reason, setting legal limits becomes somewhat arbitrary. Some people shouldn't be driving with their BAC at 0.05. Others may still be okay at 0.10. Depends a lot on how well you handle it.

I would guess studies were done as to how much alcohol affects driving ability, what the limit is beyond which it is likely someone with that BAC would be a danger to other people, and all that, followed by lawmakers completely ignoring this and coming up with an easy-to-remember figure until protestations build up about this limit being too high and it being lowered (the limit in the US was once 0.15).

For the average person (on whom most laws regarding substances that cause detrimental effects should be based), concentration is noticeably impaired around 0.05, capacity for reason is reduced by 0.10 and by 0.20 your reflexes and motor control are lowered. Over 0.40 and death is quite likely.

On a side note, standard drinks aren't really standard. 1.0 standard drink in Japan is 1.4 standard drinks in the US, 2.0 in Australia and New Zealand, and 3.2 in Austria.

[Duke87 1,070]

Even within the country you don't have standards. "A beer" here is 12 fluid ounces (355 ml), but if you order one on tap, it's a pint (16 ounces). You can also find 16 ounce cans of some beers.

Never mind as well that not all beers have exactly the same alcohol content.

As for determining tolerances, averages of the population say nothing about any one individual. Making it quite unfortunate that there is no good alternative to having a number, since you can't convict someone of "driving drunk" without having a standard definition of what that means.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is an easy answer to all this argument about tolerances. Zero tolerance. Since effects vary widely, why allow any? I get remarkably happy on one glass of wine or beer, to say nothing of a shot of brandy.

Many of the prescribed drugs I take state baldly that you must not drive or operate machinery while taking them.

Politically, this is unsound, but it would solve the problem.

[hym 358]

There is an easy answer to all this argument about tolerances. Zero tolerance. Since effects vary widely, why allow any? I get remarkably happy on one glass of wine or beer, to say nothing of a shot of brandy.

Many of the prescribed drugs I take state baldly that you must not drive or operate machinery while taking them.

Politically, this is unsound, but it would solve the problem.

This would not solve the problem at all. A small percentage of the population has a condition that causes the body to produce alcohol as a byproduct of digestion. Putting a zero tolerance law in place would be tantamount to discriminating against the disabled. The moment that one of these individuals got a DUI/DWI because of something they had no control over, you can be sure that a lawsuit would result and the zero tolerance law would likely get struck down.

[Easy Bakes 253]

The problem with Zero tolerance is that it don't work in real life.

if you have one exception then its not zero tolerance.

it like to zero tolerence for bullies in school.they have zero tolerence for bullies as long as the bully isnt the star linebacker.

[Duke87 1,070]

There is an easy answer to all this argument about tolerances. Zero tolerance. Since effects vary widely, why allow any? I get remarkably happy on one glass of wine or beer, to say nothing of a shot of brandy.

Well, the social consequences of such a policy would be quite drastic. One would not legally be able to have a glass of wine while over at friends' house for dinner with such a law in place, for instance.

Besides, if you want to talk about tolerance, the American populace doesn't have a tolerance for draconian laws. Nobody would actually obey it, just like nobody actually waits until they're 21 to start drinking.

[sneakeypete 16]

We've got zero tolerance for drink driving for new drivers (first 3 years) here. Didn't have a social collapse either... Just means that you have to not be an idiot and organise transport (even the morning after a big night out), or be smart and not drink before you want to go somewhere.

edit: i'd also like to point out that Japan has a zero tolerance for blood alchahol level aswell.

  Edited May 22, 2011 by sneakeypete  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Our driving laws are similar. We have graduated licenses, and if you are caught with alcohol of any level when you are at level 1 or level 1 of any kind of license, you lose it, are suspended for a period, and back to square 1. This applies to any licenses you have, even completed ones.

If you get caught drinking aboard a vessel underway, you lose your boating license, your driver's license, and, if you have one, your pilot's license. The drinking and boat thing is federal, the rest are provincial. All waters in Canada are federal jurisdiction.

The definition of underway is funny/odd: A vessel is underway if it is not tied to the shore, aground, nor anchored. A vessel is underway, but not under command, when it is drifting without power or sail. No drinking when you are underway and not under command. So no drifting downstream in your canoe quaffing a cold one.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

There is an easy answer to all this argument about tolerances. Zero tolerance. Since effects vary widely, why allow any? I get remarkably happy on one glass of wine or beer, to say nothing of a shot of brandy.

Well, the social consequences of such a policy would be quite drastic. One would not legally be able to have a glass of wine while over at friends' house for dinner with such a law in place, for instance.

Besides, if you want to talk about tolerance, the American populace doesn't have a tolerance for draconian laws. Nobody would actually obey it, just like nobody actually waits until they're 21 to start drinking.

I'd like to point out that my 21st Birthday is June 11, 2011 and I have yet to consume alcohol. If you would like to travel to Ohio, I will gladly submit to a polygraph.

[astronelson 339]

Legal drinking age here is 18. I'll be 20 in November, and haven't drunk alcohol yet.

Interesting tidbit: my residential college has a bar. It's only open Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. A can of soft drink is a dollar, and I think most beers they sell are in the $3.50-$4.00 range. I'm pretty sure they keep a list of everyone in the college under the age of 18.

A Nonny Moose: So drinking is (underway NXOR under command) then?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Legal drinking age here is 18. I'll be 20 in November, and haven't drunk alcohol yet.

Interesting tidbit: my residential college has a bar. It's only open Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. A can of soft drink is a dollar, and I think most beers they sell are in the $3.50-$4.00 range. I'm pretty sure they keep a list of everyone in the college under the age of 18.

A Nonny Moose: So drinking is (underway NXOR under command) then?

So stay sober. Social drinking has become some sort of bane on our society. I hardly ever touch the stuff anymore (being now a type II diabetic).

I can see you've done logic circuits. Electronics engineer? You might have fun constructing such a gate.

[astronelson 339]

Legal drinking age here is 18. I'll be 20 in November, and haven't drunk alcohol yet.

Interesting tidbit: my residential college has a bar. It's only open Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. A can of soft drink is a dollar, and I think most beers they sell are in the $3.50-$4.00 range. I'm pretty sure they keep a list of everyone in the college under the age of 18.

A Nonny Moose: So drinking is (underway NXOR under command) then?

So stay sober. Social drinking has become some sort of bane on our society. I hardly ever touch the stuff anymore (being now a type II diabetic).

I can see you've done logic circuits. Electronics engineer? You might have fun constructing such a gate.

I have no intention of drinking at any time in the future. And I agree, social drinking has gotten a tad out of hand here, especially with the teenage set.

I'm not an electronics engineer, indeed, I haven't done anything with logic circuits since year 12 physics. We touched a bit on logic in last year's maths though. P NXOR Q is (Not[P] AND Not[Q]) OR (P AND Q), I think, and I could probably build that if I could remember how to make a NOT gate.

[krbe 193]

Well, the social consequences of such a policy would be quite drastic. One would not legally be able to have a glass of wine while over at friends' house for dinner with such a law in place, for instance.

Estonia, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary all have a 0.0 ‰ limit, while Norway, Sweden and Poland has a 0.2 ‰, which really doesn't allow for any drinking at all. While the 0.0 ‰ countries might not be the best social examples around, Norway, Sweden and Poland are still doing well. Before 2001 the limit in Norway was 0.5 ‰ -- I can't say lowering the legal alcohol limit has had any adverse effects on society.

With the exception of Malta, Ireland, Luxembourg and the UK (where the limits are 0.8 ‰) and Lithuania (0.4 ‰), the general European alcohol limit is 0.5 ‰. While this allows light 'social' drinking, most have limits set at 0.0 or 0.2 ‰ for young or inexperienced drivers and / or commercial drivers.

Also -- in Norway at least, it is illegal for a driver to drink alcohol before six hours after a car trip has been finished (unless a blood test has been taken by the police or they have deemed it not necessary to take one), so that drunk drivers that are not caught while driving cannot claim their intoxication came afterwards.

[Duke87 1,070]

If you get caught drinking aboard a vessel underway, you lose your boating license, your driver's license, and, if you have one, your pilot's license.

I understand this for the pilot/captain, but for passengers?

I'd like to point out that my 21st Birthday is June 11, 2011 and I have yet to consume alcohol. If you would like to travel to Ohio, I will gladly submit to a polygraph.

Oh, I believe you. I similarly refused to start drinking until I turned 21 because I was afraid of getting in trouble for it. But I took a lot of heat for that, and it was a major barrier to having a proper social life. Everything's about alcohol in college, after all...

So, yeah, I don't mean "nobody" 100% literally, but the point stands. The drinking age should be 18, it makes no freaking sense at 21.

i'd also like to point out that Japan has a zero tolerance for blood alchahol level aswell.

Estonia, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary all have a 0.0 ‰ limit, while Norway, Sweden and Poland has a 0.2 ‰, which really doesn't allow for any drinking at all. While the 0.0 ‰ countries might not be the best social examples around, Norway, Sweden and Poland are still doing well. Before 2001 the limit in Norway was 0.5 ‰ -- I can't say lowering the legal alcohol limit has had any adverse effects on society.

The US, meanwhile, is far more car-dependent than all of these countries, so such rules would have a more drastic impact on socialization.

[blade2k5 1,523]

The drinking age should be 18, it makes no freaking sense at 21.

I agree. they allow 18 year olds to vote and get killed in a war, but you better not drink any alcohol before 21. Governemnt at it's ignorant best.

[Meg 368]

The drinking age should be 18, it makes no freaking sense at 21.

I agree. they allow 18 year olds to vote and get killed in a war, but you better not drink any alcohol before 21. Governemnt at it's ignorant best.

Before we got the 26th amendment passed ("The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.") 18 year olds could get drafted and sent to war but were not allowed to vote. That didn't sit too well with some of us so that constitutional amendment was ratified in 1971. We were a bit proud of ourselves on that one.

We didn't do so well with the alcohol. When I turned 18, I could legally buy beer and wine but not hard liquor. That lasted for a while but there were too many young adults dying in car crashes. The fatality rate was pretty bad. So, one by one, most states moved the drinking age back up to 21.

[krbe 193]

The US, meanwhile, is far more car-dependent than all of these countries, so such rules would have a more drastic impact on socialization.

Which should mean that socialisation in (at least) Western and Northern Norway and Northern Sweden should suffer hard, as they are far more car dependent than perceived as parts of Norway and Sweden.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I am 18 and I only drink a small amount of wine at home. Less than a shotglass full over the course of any day that I drink. It is allowed at home when permission is granted by the parents.

[sneakeypete 16]

The US, meanwhile, is far more car-dependent than all of these countries, so such rules would have a more drastic impact on socialization.

Which should mean that socialisation in (at least) Western and Northern Norway and Northern Sweden should suffer hard, as they are far more car dependent than perceived as parts of Norway and Sweden.

Indeed, from small nations, you cannot really say any one nation is uniformly more car dependant than any other. parts might be, parts might not be. not everyone in the US lives on the farm 5 miles from the nearest town, for example. (and not everyone in australia lives in the outback either.) Even japan isn't all cities.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, car dependence isn't the only factor. Prevalence of alcohol consumption in the culture also matters. Do young people in northern Norway like to drink when they get together or do they entertain themselves in other ways?

[krbe 193]

Alcohol culture in at least Norway is one of weekend binge drinking. Alcohol is the main form of weekend entertainment in most places, especially the more rural areas where police resources are scarce (sometimes the counties smallest by population, which are some of the largest by area, have only one or two police patrols available in the weekends...). Socially, the binge drinking and the corresponding violence amongst young people and others are a far bigger threat to social cohesion than civilised people being unable to have a beer or a glass of wine when going out with their friends / spouses.

[Eastwinn 6]

I support the legalization of every drug, from marijuana to heroin to PCP. Since my last visit on this site, I've been doing extensive research on drugs and drug policy and its changed the way I view the world and the government. If you're looking for good information, try erowid.org

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I'd like to point out that my 21st Birthday is June 11, 2011 and I have yet to consume alcohol. If you would like to travel to Ohio, I will gladly submit to a polygraph.

Oh, I believe you. I similarly refused to start drinking until I turned 21 because I was afraid of getting in trouble for it. But I took a lot of heat for that, and it was a major barrier to having a proper social life. Everything's about alcohol in college, after all...

So, yeah, I don't mean "nobody" 100% literally, but the point stands. The drinking age should be 18, it makes no freaking sense at 21.

Congratulations, to both of you, I first had a sizable drink (ie. 1, as opposed to a sip of beer) when I was just under 16, 2 years shy of the legal purchasing age. However that being said, I drink considerably less often then most people my age however (around 2+ months ago)

However, I think there is not 'consumtion age' in Australia, it is tolerated if it is done privately in a home with parental consent. It's illegal to buy in shops or go to a bar.

I think 0.05 is an agreeable limit, but many people don't realise how easy it is to get. I also think the 18 age is ok here, the 21 set in America is stupid.

[Timmystwin 201]

Im fairly sure that britain has a "If your 12+ you can have a little at home" exception, with parents permission. And we can buy lighter stuff with a meal and a paying adult at 16

A little off the current topic tho, the stronger strains of weed are quite damaging mentally. If the stuff people used wasnt so strong i would be ok with having designated smoking areas and homegrowing, but at a certain level. (Too much=jail maybe?)

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I learn't about that law by watching 'The Inbetweeners'...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Hmmm will this backfire on them?

Amsterdam looks to ban tourists from 'coffee' shops that sell pot

Buzz Kill