Legal marijuana = fewer traffic fatalities

I always found it interesting (paraphrasing from some stand-up comic, maybe George Carlin), that once mj is legalized that we will never hear anything from potheads ever again.

@Galiant said:

@Elazul said:

@Galiant said:

I can't believe alcohol is still legal. Substances less dangerous than alcohol are illegal, it makes no sense. I'd love to see all these pointless substances banned. The world would be a better place. Replacing a drug with another is not an improvement. Ban all that shit. You can claim you're a "responsible user" all you want, you're still a user and that in itself is irresponsible. Prescriptions for pain obviously don't count.

Fantastic idea! Better yet, why not also outlaw junk food, smoking, household chemicals, cars, cookers, glass containers, electricity and anything else that could potentially cause health problems, injury or death if used irresponsibly? Hell, if only we could all just live in some sort of hyper-sanitized, prison-like bubble where everything could be made of marshmallows, and anything that threatened to bring even the slightest amount of enjoyment or excitement to our pathetic, meaningless lives would be immediately destroyed "for our own protection". That way we'd all live to 200, provided we could resist the constant urge to tear open our wrists with our teeth.

Oh man, where to begin with you. You're comparing junk food to drugs? I'd love to ban smoking, by the way. But that's besides the point.

Try listing the pros and cons of drugs. Give it a try. It's great for relieving pain if you're diagnosed with a terminal illness. Drunk people that drive have killed people. People with reduced inhibitions do things they otherwise wouldn't, sometimes resulting in the loss of lives or people being beaten within an inch of their life. Sometimes resulting in rape, broken families, addictions. Shall we get started on addictions? Loss of money? Homelessness? Killing people for money? For a fix?

You want to get high because it feels good. You want to drink so you can socialize and be able to pick up girls without feeling so damn shy. I'm sure the families of the victims of drug abuse would consider your very valid points. That'll bring their loved ones back. I'd love to see you tell the parents of a child lost to a drunk driver that we need to keep alcohol legal because your needs go before the life of their lost child. I once had to sit through a lecture many years ago where a parent who had lost his daughter to a drunk driver told us of his pain. I didn't need to hear that, I already knew driving while drunk was bad fucking news. I honestly think that the life of his daughter is more important than your use of your favorite drug, if only to take it away from those that would accidentally harm another.

I'm a realist. I know the "culture" of alcohol is too deep-rooted for anything to be done about it. So don't you fucking worry, you'll get your fix. That doesn't mean I have to approve of it. At least some drugs are still illegal.

I know the guy overreacted, but I'm really, really glad you're not in a position of power to ban anything. Because you'd probably ban everything. But you've already proven you have no sense of humor, so you'd probably make a good Republican candidate someday.

@Galiant said:

@Elazul said:

@Galiant said:

I can't believe alcohol is still legal. Substances less dangerous than alcohol are illegal, it makes no sense. I'd love to see all these pointless substances banned. The world would be a better place. Replacing a drug with another is not an improvement. Ban all that shit. You can claim you're a "responsible user" all you want, you're still a user and that in itself is irresponsible. Prescriptions for pain obviously don't count.

Fantastic idea! Better yet, why not also outlaw junk food, smoking, household chemicals, cars, cookers, glass containers, electricity and anything else that could potentially cause health problems, injury or death if used irresponsibly? Hell, if only we could all just live in some sort of hyper-sanitized, prison-like bubble where everything could be made of marshmallows, and anything that threatened to bring even the slightest amount of enjoyment or excitement to our pathetic, meaningless lives would be immediately destroyed "for our own protection". That way we'd all live to 200, provided we could resist the constant urge to tear open our wrists with our teeth.

Oh man, where to begin with you. You're comparing junk food to drugs? I'd love to ban smoking, by the way. But that's besides the point.

Try listing the pros and cons of drugs. Give it a try. It's great for relieving pain if you're diagnosed with a terminal illness. Drunk people that drive have killed people. People with reduced inhibitions do things they otherwise wouldn't, sometimes resulting in the loss of lives or people being beaten within an inch of their life. Sometimes resulting in rape, broken families, addictions. Shall we get started on addictions? Loss of money? Homelessness? Killing people for money? For a fix?

You want to get high because it feels good. You want to drink so you can socialize and be able to pick up girls without feeling so damn shy. I'm sure the families of the victims of drug abuse would consider your very valid points. That'll bring their loved ones back. I'd love to see you tell the parents of a child lost to a drunk driver that we need to keep alcohol legal because your needs go before the life of their lost child. I once had to sit through a lecture many years ago where a parent who had lost his daughter to a drunk driver told us of his pain. I didn't need to hear that, I already knew driving while drunk was bad fucking news. I honestly think that the life of his daughter is more important than your use of your favorite drug, if only to take it away from those that would accidentally harm another.

I'm a realist. I know the "culture" of alcohol is too deep-rooted for anything to be done about it. So don't you fucking worry, you'll get your fix. That doesn't mean I have to approve of it. At least some drugs are still illegal.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you seem to think that anyone who would disagree with your hideously misguided opinion must be some sort of addict, blind to your "truth" solely because it would deprive them of the next fix. I'm not an addict, I rarely drink and I don't smoke or take drugs. What I am, however, is a man who cannot stand jumped up, self important, egotistical blowhards who insist on controlling every facet of human behaviour that they don't agree with or refuse to understand, and then act as if they are somehow superiour because of their crippling, delusional personality flaws. With that response, you just solidified every negative preconception that I possibly could have had about you, while adding a dozen more.

Oh, and that second-to-last paragraph is absolute gold. The part where you fabricated an entire personality and a full series of opinions and responses for me, specifically for you to rebut with your boilerplate, pseudo-political ramblings, was just delicious. Bonus points for your use of painfully forced hypotheticals referencing both dead children and rape. Fox News would be proud.

I'm willing to bet 90% of the people in your random group of friends/co-workers/classmates have tried or occasionally smoke marijuana and will tell you it ain't so bad/all it's cracked up to be. The fact that some of you are here debating alcohol vs pot just makes me laugh; it's a stupid debate.

Nevertheless, this study proves nothing and driving high is not something I recommend doing ever ever ever ever ever in your life. Liquor is awesome, weed is awesome and in a perfect world I could use both (if not any) substances and not be thrown in jail, unless I go driving while intoxicated.

@Vinny_Says said:

I'm willing to bet 90% of the people in your random group of friends/co-workers/classmates have tried or occasionally smoke marijuana and will tell you it ain't so bad/all it's cracked up to be. The fact that some of you are here debating alcohol vs pot just makes me laugh; it's a stupid debate.

Nevertheless, this study proves nothing and driving high is not something I recommend doing ever ever ever ever ever in your life. Liquor is awesome, weed is awesome and in a perfect world I could use both (if not any) substances and not be thrown in jail, unless I go driving while intoxicated.

The research study held the belief that weed would be the substitute for alcohol if it were legal for many people. They held that traffic incidences would likely go down if marijuana was legalized because it has been found that it is safer to drive while high rather then drunk (though they also say that driving while high is also fairly dangerous despite what the news article implies). That's why everyone is bringing it up.

But, a lot of the members, like the news article, are misrepresenting what the research was saying or are go off on tangents away from what the research article suggested (and what the news article implied, wrongly I might add, about the research).

If marijuana makes people slow down then to all you stoners, "Move B!#CH - get out the way."

If pot smoking is legalized we might encounter a Chocolate bar shortage. 

I am not a fan of drugs so...no thank you?

Yes, let us legalize pot, but why start there? Let's legalize all of the drugs, soft and hard! Let's allow heroin and opium to be sold at pharmacies. How about letting the Coka-Cola company put Coke back in their Cola? Let's lower the tax on cigarettes and maybe let them advertise a little. Make it all available to everyone, and let God sort them all out!

I am serious.

@afrofools said:

If marijuana makes people slow down then to all you stoners, "Move B!#CH - get out the way."

This is why I hate 75% of drivers on the road. You guys are so fucking impatient to get from point A to point B.

@jking47 said:

I really can't think of any good reasons as to why it should be kept illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are sold in every gas station and convenience store you can find.

because lots of old white politicians drink bourbon and smoke cigars, and marijuana causes blacks and mexicans to rape white women.

@Galiant said:

@Elazul said:

@Galiant said:

I can't believe alcohol is still legal. Substances less dangerous than alcohol are illegal, it makes no sense. I'd love to see all these pointless substances banned. The world would be a better place. Replacing a drug with another is not an improvement. Ban all that shit. You can claim you're a "responsible user" all you want, you're still a user and that in itself is irresponsible. Prescriptions for pain obviously don't count.

Fantastic idea! Better yet, why not also outlaw junk food, smoking, household chemicals, cars, cookers, glass containers, electricity and anything else that could potentially cause health problems, injury or death if used irresponsibly? Hell, if only we could all just live in some sort of hyper-sanitized, prison-like bubble where everything could be made of marshmallows, and anything that threatened to bring even the slightest amount of enjoyment or excitement to our pathetic, meaningless lives would be immediately destroyed "for our own protection". That way we'd all live to 200, provided we could resist the constant urge to tear open our wrists with our teeth.

Oh man, where to begin with you. You're comparing junk food to drugs? I'd love to ban smoking, by the way. But that's besides the point.

Try listing the pros and cons of drugs. Give it a try. It's great for relieving pain if you're diagnosed with a terminal illness. Drunk people that drive have killed people. People with reduced inhibitions do things they otherwise wouldn't, sometimes resulting in the loss of lives or people being beaten within an inch of their life. Sometimes resulting in rape, broken families, addictions. Shall we get started on addictions? Loss of money? Homelessness? Killing people for money? For a fix?

You want to get high because it feels good. You want to drink so you can socialize and be able to pick up girls without feeling so damn shy. I'm sure the families of the victims of drug abuse would consider your very valid points. That'll bring their loved ones back. I'd love to see you tell the parents of a child lost to a drunk driver that we need to keep alcohol legal because your needs go before the life of their lost child. I once had to sit through a lecture many years ago where a parent who had lost his daughter to a drunk driver told us of his pain. I didn't need to hear that, I already knew driving while drunk was bad fucking news. I honestly think that the life of his daughter is more important than your use of your favorite drug, if only to take it away from those that would accidentally harm another.

I'm a realist. I know the "culture" of alcohol is too deep-rooted for anything to be done about it. So don't you fucking worry, you'll get your fix. That doesn't mean I have to approve of it. At least some drugs are still illegal.

Are you for real? You could use the same arguments to validate a ban on anything. Why not ban cars, you don't have to be drunk to do damage with one of those. In fact a large part of lethal car accidents do not involve an intoxicated driver. Best we just ban cars all together because someone might get hurt!

When a person's use of an addictive substance can endanger or ruin someone else's life, that's when I think it should be illegal.

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I know the guy overreacted, but I'm really, really glad you're not in a position of power to ban anything. Because you'd probably ban everything. But you've already proven you have no sense of humor, so you'd probably make a good Republican candidate someday.

No, I'd ban the use of an addictive substance that can endanger or ruin someone else's life. Because when a person's rights interfere with the rights of another person, that's crossing a line. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin, that's my opinion and I stand by it.

@Elazul said:

I find it absolutely hilarious that you seem to think that anyone who would disagree with your hideously misguided opinion must be some sort of addict, blind to your "truth" solely because it would deprive them of the next fix. I'm not an addict, I rarely drink and I don't smoke or take drugs. What I am, however, is a man who cannot stand jumped up, self important, egotistical blowhards who insist on controlling every facet of human behaviour that they don't agree with or refuse to understand, and then act as if they are somehow superiour because of their crippling, delusional personality flaws. With that response, you just solidified every negative preconception that I possibly could have had about you, while adding a dozen more.

Oh, and that second-to-last paragraph is absolute gold. The part where you fabricated an entire personality and a full series of opinions and responses for me, specifically for you to rebut with your boilerplate, pseudo-political ramblings, was just delicious. Bonus points for your use of painfully forced hypotheticals referencing both dead children and rape. Fox News would be proud.

You brought that on yourself when you decided to ridicule my point with junk food and bubble wrap or whatever it is you were on about. You can eat all the damn junk food you want, that doesn't affect me or anyone else. I'll say it again: I'd ban the use of an addictive substance that can endanger or ruin someone else's life. Try arguing against that instead?

@Vodun said:

Are you for real? You could use the same arguments to validate a ban on anything. Why not ban cars, you don't have to be drunk to do damage with one of those. In fact a large part of lethal car accidents do not involve an intoxicated driver. Best we just ban cars all together because someone might get hurt!

I feel like a broken record here, but: When a person's use of an addictive substance can endanger or ruin someone else's life, that's when I think it should be illegal. We already ban most drugs because they can be dangerous to people other than the user as well as the user, and that's what boggles my mind - why are some of them that are equally dangerous or worse not banned as well?

@Galiant said:

@Elazul said:

I find it absolutely hilarious that you seem to think that anyone who would disagree with your hideously misguided opinion must be some sort of addict, blind to your "truth" solely because it would deprive them of the next fix. I'm not an addict, I rarely drink and I don't smoke or take drugs. What I am, however, is a man who cannot stand jumped up, self important, egotistical blowhards who insist on controlling every facet of human behaviour that they don't agree with or refuse to understand, and then act as if they are somehow superiour because of their crippling, delusional personality flaws. With that response, you just solidified every negative preconception that I possibly could have had about you, while adding a dozen more.

Oh, and that second-to-last paragraph is absolute gold. The part where you fabricated an entire personality and a full series of opinions and responses for me, specifically for you to rebut with your boilerplate, pseudo-political ramblings, was just delicious. Bonus points for your use of painfully forced hypotheticals referencing both dead children and rape. Fox News would be proud.

You brought that on yourself when you decided to ridicule my point with junk food and bubble wrap or whatever it is you were on about. You can eat all the damn junk food you want, that doesn't affect me or anyone else. I'll say it again: I'd ban the use of an addictive substance that can endanger or ruin someone else's life. Try arguing against that instead?

There you go again with that disgustingly egomaniacal attitude, claiming I "brought it on myself", as if you're some sort of grand social arbiter, dealing out verbal punishment to anyone who would dare disagree with you.

Well then, friend, you want me to make a salient counter-arguement to the topic at hand? How about that there is no proven correlation between a substance beeing prohibited and it's number of users/abusers declining? Or that banning almost anything directly siphons huge amounts of money away from the government and into the hands of organised criminals? I'm beginning to doubt how educated you are, but surely even you know how horribly alcohol-prohibition affected America during it's increadibly short-lived implementation. What about the huge spike in street-crime caused by addicts being unable to afford the exorbitantly inflated prices set by the practically monopolistic street-dealers, the fact that deaths caused by direct use of the substance in question will rise hugely, due to the complete absence of production standards and dosage regulations, and the gargantuan sums of taxpayer's money that would be wasted arresting, trying and imprisoning millions of otherwise innocent people at absolutely no benefit to the rest of the country.

Face it, all of the examples you've given for drugs or alcohol "causing" crime and death are either due to existing criminal tendancies, or grossly irresponsible actions. For example, alcohol would under no circumstances directly cause a normal person to commit rape or drive their car at 90 miles-per-hour down the wrong side of a residential street, any more than extremely tired or sick would. Alcohol in particular does not cause delusions or hallucinations and as such, the perpetrator would still be fully aware of what they were about to do, and would have to conciously perform the crime in question. For someone who is apparently only concerened with stifling a person's behaviour if it can directly harm others, you have yet to point out a single way in which drugs or alcohol could realistically cause that to happen. Every example you've given is either an existing crime, or only has the potential to damage the user, and even then, only if the substance in question is used improperly.

Finally, how about this; I at no point want to live in or have anything to do with a country that would radically change it's laws solely on moral grounds, regardless of how damaging it will be to it's citizens. The second you start imposing limits on people's personal freedoms completely against their will "for the greater good", you're setting yourself on an irreversible downwards spiral, straight into maw of dictatorship.

@Galiant said:

@Vodun said:

Are you for real? You could use the same arguments to validate a ban on anything. Why not ban cars, you don't have to be drunk to do damage with one of those. In fact a large part of lethal car accidents do not involve an intoxicated driver. Best we just ban cars all together because someone might get hurt!

I feel like a broken record here, but: When a person's use of an addictive substance can endanger or ruin someone else's life, that's when I think it should be illegal. We already ban most drugs because they can be dangerous to people other than the user as well as the user, and that's what boggles my mind - why are some of them that are equally dangerous or worse not banned as well?

Try looking up Prohibition in American history. It worked out great. Try checking out Juarez in Mexico today, it's working out great.

@Elazul said:

There you go again with that disgustingly egomaniacal attitude, claiming I "brought it on myself", as if you're some sort of grand social arbiter, dealing out verbal punishment to anyone who would dare disagree with you.

Well then, friend, you want me to make a salient counter-arguement to the topic at hand? How about that there is no proven correlation between a substance beeing prohibited and it's number of users/abusers declining? Or that banning almost anything directly siphons huge amounts of money away from the government and into the hands of organised criminals? I'm beginning to doubt how educated you are, but surely even you know how horribly alcohol-prohibition affected America during it's increadibly short-lived implementation. What about the huge spike in street-crime caused by addicts being unable to afford the exorbitantly inflated prices set by the practically monopolistic street-dealers, the fact that deaths caused by direct use of the substance in question will rise hugely, due to the complete absence of production standards and dosage regulations, and the gargantuan sums of taxpayer's money that would be wasted arresting, trying and imprisoning millions of otherwise innocent people at absolutely no benefit to the rest of the country.

Face it, all of the examples you've given for drugs or alcohol "causing" crime and death are either due to existing criminal tendancies, or grossly irresponsible actions. For example, alcohol would under no circumstances directly cause a normal person to commit rape or drive their car at 90 miles-per-hour down the wrong side of a residential street, any more than extremely tired or sick would. Alcohol in particular does not cause delusions or hallucinations and as such, the perpetrator would still be fully aware of what they were about to do, and would have to conciously perform the crime in question. For someone who is apparently only concerened with stifling a person's behaviour if it can directly harm others, you have yet to point out a single way in which drugs or alcohol could realistically cause that to happen. Every example you've given is either an existing crime, or only has the potential to damage the user, and even then, only if the substance in question is used improperly.

Finally, how about this; I at no point want to live in or have anything to do with a country that would radically change it's laws solely on moral grounds, regardless of how damaging it will be to it's citizens. The second you start imposing limits on people's personal freedoms completely against their will "for the greater good", you're setting yourself on an irreversible downwards spiral, straight into maw of dictatorship.

You can insult me or question my education all you want. You ridiculed my first argument by claiming that I would ban everything that could potentially harm anyone, so yes, you brought it on yourself when I had to bring up all those examples of what drugs can cause. Explain to me, then, why some drugs are legal while others are not? Drugs less dangerous than alcohol are illegal while alcohol itself isn't. You're also welcome to point out what your solution to this problem is since you are obviously so much better educated than I am.

@Vodun said:

Try looking up Prohibition in American history. It worked out great. Try checking out Juarez in Mexico today, it's working out great.

So when people break the law on a large enough scale, it should just be legalized? Is that what you're saying?

@Galiant: Alcohol has been around for a long time and while some people do become addicted the vast majority of people drink socially or casually and never become addicted. The vast, vast majority do not get behind the wheel. Your argument that somebody else's rights ends where yours begins can be used in both ways. What if I say your right to drive on the streets end when someone else's right to get drunk and drive begins. As stated by others banning alcohol only leads to a rise in organized crimes and unregulated alcohol. I know several people that drink casually and have never driven drunk so why do you think their rights should be taken away because of the actions of a few. Alcohol when consumed in normal quantities responsibly is not dangerous at all and as a matter of fact there have been lots of research that shows drinking responsibly is good for one's health.

This is obviously a belief that you hold strongly and logic and reason often can't override one's beliefs but yours are not really based on fact and if you want to legalize marijuana because alcohol is legal then I am not totally opposed to it. While I don't use any illegal drugs, I have often wondered if the costs to police, prosecute and jail people for using marijuana is worth it myself.

@Galiant: Alcohol has been around for a long time and while some people do become addicted the vast majority of people drink socially or casually and never become addicted. The vast, vast majority do not get behind the wheel. Your argument that somebody else's rights ends where yours begins can be used in both ways. What if I say your right to drive on the streets end when someone else's right to get drunk and drive begins. As stated by others banning alcohol only leads to a rise in organized crimes and unregulated alcohol. I know several people that drink casually and have never driven drunk so why do you think their rights should be taken away because of the actions of a few. Alcohol when consumed in normal quantities responsibly is not dangerous at all and as a matter of fact there have been lots of research that shows drinking responsibly is good for one's health.

This is obviously a belief that you hold strongly and logic and reason often can't override one's beliefs but yours are not really based on fact and if you want to legalize marijuana because alcohol is legal then I am not totally opposed to it. While I don't use any illegal drugs, I have often wondered if the costs to police, prosecute and jail people for using marijuana is worth it myself.

@Galiant said:

@Vodun said:

Try looking up Prohibition in American history. It worked out great. Try checking out Juarez in Mexico today, it's working out great.

So when people break the law on a large enough scale, it should just be legalized? Is that what you're saying?

Basically, yes. If the law doesn't prevent people from committing the crime you have to look at alternate solutions to your problem. If someone told you that banging your head against a wall would end world hunger, would you keep doing it even if it was very evident that it only gave you a headache and people were still starving?

However good you think the cause is, at some point you have to realize that it isn't working. Especially, like in this case, it causes much more damage than the actual drugs themselves.

I know someone who was super baked and backed over and killed an elderly woman. What a fucking idiot.

@Galiant said:

@sopranosfan

@Galiant: Alcohol has been around for a long time and while some people do become addicted the vast majority of people drink socially or casually and never become addicted. The vast, vast majority do not get behind the wheel. Your argument that somebody else's rights ends where yours begins can be used in both ways. What if I say your right to drive on the streets end when someone else's right to get drunk and drive begins. As stated by others banning alcohol only leads to a rise in organized crimes and unregulated alcohol. I know several people that drink casually and have never driven drunk so why do you think their rights should be taken away because of the actions of a few. Alcohol when consumed in normal quantities responsibly is not dangerous at all and as a matter of fact there have been lots of research that shows drinking responsibly is good for one's health.

This is obviously a belief that you hold strongly and logic and reason often can't override one's beliefs but yours are not really based on fact and if you want to legalize marijuana because alcohol is legal then I am not totally opposed to it. While I don't use any illegal drugs, I have often wondered if the costs to police, prosecute and jail people for using marijuana is worth it myself.

Great! Now explain to me why I can't snort heroin from the comfort of my own home (where I won't harm anyone) without breaking the law? Why should my "right" to use heroin be taken away because some people abuse it? I'd like to point out that I don't actually use any illegal substances, I'm just trying to make a point.

Putting heroin, meth, and crack anywhere in the same category as alcohol and marijuana is like putting Ebola or the Black Plague in the same category as the common cold or regular flu. They all make you sick, I don't really want any of them, and all of them could lead to your death but I don't mind getting the cold or even the flu but I really really don't want Ebola or the black plague.

@PeasantAbuse said:

haha Probably true.

"When I think about the people I have smoked pot with, they're such an eclectic mix of people, and I probably never would have spoken to a lot of them if it weren't for pot. Alcohol doesn't bring people together like that."

Dave Chappelle

This threads are a great way of reminding me that Giant Bomb is full of loony authoritarian high school kids. D.A.R.E. don't buy the hype!

Well, speaking of alcohol I hope Cuba doesnt change their drinking age from 16 before I go there during Spring Break.  Never done marijuana in my life but its more of a personal choice.  This 18 year old I met told me to wait until I hit grade 11 so Im waiting......   
 
Also, stoners are probably one of the coolest (not as in social status), most chill and best people Ive ever met.  I dont think I can say that for any other group of people