Marijuana vs. Alcohol...the debate
- Thread starter tecoyah
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alcoholthe debate marijuana
Yes, for alcohol...not for marijuana. There is no qualitative tests like blood alcohol level for marijuana to determine influence.
Mountain climbing is not necessary to have fun either. Should we outlaw it because it is very dangerous?
The question isn't really about whether or not either should be legal, but rather, why either or both shouldn't be. And I believe the comparisons made previously were purposefully referring to the distinction between the two. Since Alcohol is legal, and Marijuana is not, why the deferential treatment?
That isn't an argument for making them illegal though. We've tried that and we've seen the horrible consequences. If people want to do them, they will do them.
Then they should face the consequences of ill health. Ok...just wondered if anyone could justify willingly taking something into their body that supposedly gives a feel good factor but actually causes harm to greater of lesser degree.
On with the discussion
Do you ever indulge in sweets such as cake? Ever drink soda, tea, or coffee? Those could all fall under that description depending on your health condition too. There are also times when alcohol or even marijuana might be a good thing just like there are certain times when a high sugar or some caffeine intake might be beneficial.
Cake and soda yes but not to obesity level. Tea and coffee not at all.
If we're going to say that eating/drinking anything can be bad for you then we should all be living on salad and fresh water shouldnt we?
The point is that alcohol and drugs have been mentioned here as useful to having a good time.They are accepted recreational assets. I just wondered if anyone could explain why getting drunk is considered fun or why people go out with the intent to become incapable of clear thinking or even standing up straight.To put it another way, why is it considered odd or antisocial to not use alcohol or drugs?
Alcohol does not mean you are getting drunk. But it is just a recreational or social thing most of the time. It is a way to relax. It also has a lot of cultural significance in the Western world. Of course you can have fun without alcohol and drugs, but that doesn't mean doing them sparingly is horrible either.
But I think the major answer to your question is culture.
There isn't now, you can smoke marajuana and drive now, if you don't have any on you you will not be arrested for illegal use, you cannot get a driving while intoxicated charge. That is why there is a bribing under the influence charge, they are different charges. If you are below the legal threshold you can still get a dui, you can get a dui for being stoned, or the influence of any substance.
You can't prove intoxication, it isn't necessary for a dui charge. You just need to prove the influence, not the intoxication. Dui isn't as severe as a DWI, but the charge still exists for that reason. circumstantial evidence is sometimes enough to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
but still that there is no way to prove intoxication beyond a shadow of a doubt, is no reason to restrict our liberties. That argument is still absurd for the previous resin and the next one.
You can't prove intoxication levels weather the drug is legal or not, it isn't a crime to be stoned, possession is the crime. So the argument is not valid.
Is that tiny little aspect really worth blowing billons to lock drug users up and ruin their lives? That is completely irrational.
I drink on occasion, never to the point of intoxication, but I do enjoy a cold beer from time to time, why? Same reason I enjoy sex, sleep, coffee, sugar, and any number of intoxicating things.
In all honesty eating is mind altering, not eating is mind altering, music is mind altering, it is fun to alter your mind, that is why we do it. The most mind altering thing I have experienced is vital for humanity. That is love. My life totally changed when I found love, someone was to insult my spouse, (I never really cared if people insulted me) I would get angry. When he was put in danger my reaction was very different, that vastly mind altering thing was minor when a child became involved. I had never sneered in spite toward people until they attacked my boy.
Compared to love, alcohol is a minor intoxicant. The vicious things I have seen people do for love put alcohol to shame.
Yes, actually, and from a law enforcement perspective you should see that. If possession is made legal, then there needs to be laws regulating the effects of the drug…just as there are with other legal drugs like alcohol and prescription drugs. To leave something like that up to opinion is going to end up causing more harm than what we currently have. You seem to be looking at it from a very narrow aspect without regard to the overall picture.
Plus, we do not spend billions fighting marijuana…billions are spent on the war on drugs, but not all of that has to do with pot.
Okay, 90% is pot. I am a foot soldier in the "war on drugs" I worked for six years in a correctional facility, a multi million dollar correctional facility, who's main purpose was to cage boys who experimented with pot, they get locked up with beasts and become beasts all because you want proof that people are intoxicated. That is terrible. The prohibition of pot is costing way more than the costs would be were it legal. lock up a19 year old in jail for 6 months over some grass, he is in with rapists and murderers, possibly getting raped and murdered, it happens a lot more than you think. If he survives he goes back out in the populous, completely traumatized by the brutality that is the "correctional" institution. Never able to become employed likely to return to jail possably for a more serious crime.
That is the social cost of the inability to prove intoxication. Not to mention the economic costs. This story is utterly typical.
You cannot establish intoxication, great, that is what the DUI charge is for. That was why it was created. You can't establish intoxication from alcohol unless the primary agrees to do a sobriety test. You can sopena a blood test after processing, but that is typically too late, hence the Dui charge exists. To charge people who are VISABLEY intoxicated, but are not PROVEABLY intoxicated.
We already have the ability to charge someone with driving under the influence of marijuana, even though you can't establish provable levels of intoxication, you can prove intoxication based on the behavior of the primary.
So which is it, is the purpose of the facility to cage potheads or beasts? Or are you implying that potheads are also beasts and rapists and murderers? With statements like the above, you come across as someone exaggerating the truth to try and further your point.
To make being a pothead a crime you are arguing that potheads need to be locked up with beasts. You just argued against your self.
I work in this field, it is not an exaggeration, it is an observation.
Do you work in law enforcement out the correctional institution.
Ether is no need to continue prohibition of marajuana, all your arguments are addressed.
Don't get frustrated because the arguments you proposed are addressed, simply form an argument that has not been addressed.
Not remotely. Not all crimes are equal, as a law enforcement official you should be well aware of that. Not every criminal activity requires the same sentence or ends up with people in the same place. You again are exaggerating to try and make a case…that is poor argument technique.
You made contradictory observations, so you were exaggerating something. You said the multi-million dollar correctional facility was primarily for locking up pot users. Then you turned around and claimed that pot users were being thrown in with the scum of the criminal world. So, you were either exaggerating what these pot users had to deal with, or you were exaggerating the multi-millions in wasted money for this facility since it was not primarily for pot users.
You have not adequately addressed anything, most of your posts have been emotional exaggerations to my arguments.
I am not opposed to legalizing marijuana. I have stated that in posts above. However, in legalizing it there will be need for more regulation on it. The ability to quantitatively assess influence is only one of the factors. Others factors relate to creating regulations for growing, production, distribution, etc… which all other legal drugs have. Most people who push for pot legalization do so with the idea that nothing else should change. That just simply cannot be the case.
I never exaggerated a thing, at least 22% of inmates were locked up for drug crime in state and federal prison, just because some people don't like it.
I worked at a jail which housed misdomenor offenders and those accused of felony and have yet to attend trial. Most of the population cycled out in an under two year rotation. Being that it was for misdemeanor crime most of the inmates were drug arrests. why pay for the housing and the prosecution and rehabilitation of these people, they didn't do anything wrong. Just because they use a substance that people don't like. It is no different than alcohol prohibition.
No I did not make a contradictory observation, you misunderstood. In jail there are misdemeanor offenders, that make up a majority of the inmate population, then there are people awaiting trial that did not get bailed out. These people all share the same facility, at least 30% were there for pot. (again this is a jail not a prison) Why spend the money to house and detain pot smokers? If it WA legal they wouldn't need to be there.
You misunderstood again, there is no need to assess intoxication levels, that is only necessary to prosecute a DWI. If you are under the influence of any given substance it is evident, by your behavior. Just like if a car is serving, the police officer pulls it over and makes the driver preform a breath bac test and the driver's bac is 0.04, he is not legally intoxicated, but he is under the influence, he goes to jail, gets tried and punished for dui.
Because we have fifth amendment rights, we cab refuse a sobriety test, if a primary refuses we take them to jailFOR DUI the primary then is subject to a blood test in some cases blood tests show the primary to not be legally intoxicated, but judging by BEHAVIOR it is logical to conclude that the person was under the influence, yet not intoxicated. There is video evidence, officer testimony, UOR. And plenty of evidence to prosicute.
THERE IS NO NEED TO ASSESS LEVELS OF INTOXICATION I addressed that argument. You really need to be aware of the law.
You are all over the map here. First, your previous post insinuated that your locality spent multi-million dollars for a correctional facility for mainly pot users. Then you claimed that the facility was not just for pot users, but also terrible criminals implying a prison-like setting where the influence of felons unalterably changes the poor potheads. Then you turned around and called it a jail, where felons are placed while waiting trial and sentencing (i.e. they will still be on their best behavior [and no I am not saying there is no influence, just not at the exaggerated levels you imply]). Then you claim that only 22%, not a majority, are locked up because of drug crimes – but these are felonies and not misdemeanor pot use, so it has no real relevance to the argument. Then you claim that 30% of misdemeanors are pot related (without the statistics for how many of that 30% were just for possession versus other criminal activity associated with pot). Therefore, your claim of majority really makes no sense, your claim of multi-million dollar facilities for potheads makes no sense, and your claim that they are irreversibly influenced by the worst criminals is sketchy at best. So, yeah, I’d say you are exaggerating a lot.
So, now assessing levels is needed for some prosecution? If you noticed in my first post I mentioned DUI and other issues of criminal impairment. I’ll admit the DUI reference was probably not the best choice of terms, but that does not change the base points of my argument. Plus, many places do have felony DUI charges which often require levels of intoxication.
Outside of driving, there are other situations where proof could be needed. For instance, someone has an incident at work…right now a drug test can show whether they used drugs, but it doesn’t show if they were under the influence at the time. If marijuana was legal, then employers could not rely on these tests since they cannot determine how recently the pot was used.
And, while there are differences between being drunk and stoned, they both present dangers to the public. Stoners many not get as belligerent as drunks, but perception and judgment are usually impaired, concentration is usually diminished, coordination is lessened, reaction time is decreased as are inhibitions, people become paranoid and sometimes have hallucinations. Just as with being drunk, these things do not present too badly at mild levels, but can at higher levels. And while proof might not be needed to make an arrest, it sure as shooting will be needed to prosecute.
No, I am right on target, I didn't exaggerate a thing. First pot related crimes wouldn't be crimes if they were not crimes. federal and state prisons are at 22%. My estimates for drug related crimes was thirty percent of inmates. But you are not seeing the bigger picture, most people who get locked up for pot, don't ever leave a life of crime, they return to jail, and even prison.
Because pot is illegal, you get a criminal record for possessing it. That ruins peoples lives, just because some people don't like it. Just like alcohol prohibition. It serves no propose.
We are capable of assessing levels of impairment from marajuana. It is called a sobriety test. Just like any other drug including alcohol.
Why does this matter?
I illustrated above we have ways of proving sobriety, called a sobriety test.
Drunk at work...fired.
Stoned at work...fired.
Drunk behind the wheel...busted.
Stoned behind the wheel...busted.
Drunk in public...night in detox.
Stoned in public...night in detox.
We already have the laws in place for marijuana, due to alcohol....the level of impairment becomes the real issue.
Anyone who gets high will tell you the impairment is minimal, especially in comparison to alcohol inebriation. there seems little argument that getting stoned does not carry the same level of health, societal, criminal, or personal risks that alcohol can...yet one is legal and taxed.
Stoned at work...fired.
Drunk behind the wheel...busted.
Stoned behind the wheel...busted.
Drunk in public...night in detox.
Stoned in public...night in detox.
We already have the laws in place for marijuana, due to alcohol....the level of impairment becomes the real issue.
Anyone who gets high will tell you the impairment is minimal, especially in comparison to alcohol inebriation. there seems little argument that getting stoned does not carry the same level of health, societal, criminal, or personal risks that alcohol can...yet one is legal and taxed.
