Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA
Posted on 07/23/2010 9:48:58 AM PDT by Mojave
California's three ACLU affiliates announced today they are backing Prop 19, the statewide initiative to legalize pot for those 21 and older. The measure will be on the ballot in November.
"Enforcement of marijuana prohibition consumes a great deal of California's law enforcement and court system resources, and has a disproportionate impact on communities of color," the ACLU said in a press release.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.laweekly.com ...
California is perfectly free to put this initiative on the ballot and to promote the agendas of the left.
“Actually, I would say alcohol is roughly equivalent.”
No, and that is indeed the crux of the argument.
If marijuana’s effects were equivalent to alcohol’s effects, it would make little sense to ban marijuana.
However, as I posted above, most of the people having a drink today are not going to get impaired with it.
Most of the people smoking pot today - virtually all, unless they suddenly have to snuff out the dutchie for some strange reason after one little hit - will be impaired.
Thus they are not the same.
So this proposed law requires the same?
Hey, if it does limit purchases to people that have a state id and limits their purchase and only allows local pot I am all for it as long as the taxes are all put for enforcement of legal grow operations only.
State rights, have at it.
I just don’t want to see California as the new source of Pot for all the other states in the US. You will see all the Mexican Drug gangs move from Mexico right into California.
“but you are high if you smoke one joint”
And you are drunk if you drink a gallon of whisky too.
So it’s all about the quantity then?
Should half joints be legal?
“There are definite distinctions between the two...something that is illustrated here quite often.”
Yup! Seems more and more lately too.
If it’s not drugs, it’s religion. The sad fact is that a lot of these so called “conservatives” are just fine with a lot of government - as long as it agrees with their views.
Yes, you are drunk if you drink a gallon of whiskey.
Drunkenness is a crime, already.
You might argue that one puff of the currently very high THC joints should be legal. I might agree with you in concept. But it would be so ridiculous to enforce - that is unenforceable.
If you were able to smoke 2, 3 joints without being impaired, I’d see the equivalence to 2, 3 drinks.
But you can’t.
Impaired after one hit?
Well I admit it’s been several decades since I last indulged, and I hear it’s more potent these days.
But 1 hit? Really?
I bet you favor a .02% BAC limit too. Or would that invalidate your argument.
I have news for you. If you are average sized and you have 2 or 3 beers, you are “impaired” according to the law.
It doesn’t contain any identification or residence requirements for purchase.
“But it would be so ridiculous to enforce”
I don’t know about that. They have breathalyzers, not to mention field sobriety test (walk a straight line, etc.)
If you can pass a field sobriety test, shouldn’t you be OK to drive?
I did not say you are impaired after one hit. Please read my post.
“You might argue that one puff of the currently very high THC joints should be legal. I might agree with you in concept. But it would be so ridiculous to enforce - that is unenforceable.”
As for being impaired after 2 or 3 beers, I indicated that it depends on alcohol content, body type, and how quickly you drink it. Again, please read my post.
I can most certainly drink 2 or 3 beers over an hour or two and not be impaired.
I can’t say the same about smoking 2 or 3 joints over an hour or two. Not even just one joint.
I know your world view is demanding that marijuana and alcohol be considered equivalent. But they aren’t.
When you see pot and heroin equated on a thread where the most abused drug, alcohol, is lauded then you can be sure that you have departed any zone of reason.
“If you can pass a field sobriety test, shouldn’t you be OK to drive?”
Yes.
But we are not just talking about driving.
We are talking about behaving in a world full of other people.
While you take care of the kids. While you work at the bank. While you go shopping. While you hunt. While you teach. While you check in on your parents. While you go to school. Etc.
To deliberately impair yourself is immoral. You are making yourself stupider, with lesser inhibitions, less rationality, and poorer judgement. I say that is immoral. You make us all more vulnerable to your deliberately stupidified self, and some are extremely vulnerable to you, for example, your kids and your spouse and your neighbors.
187
I believe your chart is weighing drunkenness, not a glass of wine with dinner. As I seem to have to state every time I post, I am not defending drunkenness. I totally oppose it and believe it to be murderously bad.
As for smoking, the smoker does not get his inhibitions lowered, his judgement hindered, or get made irrational by his nicotine. I’d leave my kid with a babysitter who smokes cigarettes. I wouldn’t leave him with a babysitter who smokes pot. Would you?
And no, I don’t smoke, so again, I’m not trying to defend my drug of choice.
Your chart does not show the amounts involved. My mom having a glass of wine with dinner is equal to a regular smoker in the “withdrawal” category? Seriously?
Also, in the area of “dependence” for example, a person dependent on caffeine would experience a headache should he not get his morning cup of coffee. Not the screaming meemies of the heroin addict.
The withdrawal of nicotine is equivalent to the withdrawal of alcohol? Really? Smokers get the DTs? They hallucinate? Actually, a weekend smoker would have a much better time quitting than a 12 pack a day drinker. And a wine with dinner drinker would have a far easier time giving that up than a two pack a day smoker. This chart allows for no discrepancies whatsoever.
Symptoms and effects of the various dependencies, withdrawals, tolerance, etc. can vary widely.
If you are trying to convince me that marijuana is a milder drug than heroin or what have you, there is no need. I know that some drugs are worse than others. I’d rather have my loved ones addicted to pot than cocaine, for instance.
In short, I think the chart is not very convincing. It paints with a very broad brush. It treats drugs that affect your reasoning alongside of nicotine. It assumes drunkenness and does not allow for the normal 1-3 drink scenario. And it equivocates mild symptoms such as headaches to horrific symptoms like complete nervous frenzy.
Then I think it will be struck down by a Federal Court Challenge.
I don't think the courts will strike down the state law. But once the pothead President we're stuck with now is gone, the federal government may begin enforcing federal law again in California. That would include arresting city and state officials who participate in the drug trade.
Apparently you never tried the lame sh!t that Chico brought across the border on his last run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.