Legalize Pot to Make Roads Safer

And more effective than having some of the most harsh laws in the world trying to get people to stop using marijuana.

It would be great if legalization of marijuana can get people to switch to that and so quit using more harmful drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco and opiates. Leading proponent, Lester Grinspoon has said he has switched from alcohol to marijuana to wind down at night. Surely, the lobbyists for the alcohol industry don't like the sound of that.

But marijuana is not an intoxicant in the same sense as alcohol is an inTOXICant.

And if bleedinorange thinks you haven't made good logical sense in your points, then that's his problem.

The problem with the "medical" marijuana angle is that it is not delivered to the system clinically, in specified and uniform doses. In addition, the doctors giving the "recommendations" do so for everything from anxiety to tooth pain to nausea from chemo. There aren't and probably neveral will be any clinical indications for dosing and specific conditions. I wish the discourse were around just leglalizng it for recreational use and regulated sale, period. If it helps AIDS and cancer patients, then wonderful -- it will be something they can just pick up at any pot shop. Selling it as "medicine" is just laughable. Just legalize, tax, restrict, and regulate.

By the way, the "medical" marijuana they sell at the "compassion" clinics in California are responsible for tons of diversion. At Golden Gate Park in San Francisco there are people literally reselling pot OUt of containers that were at some compassion club the hour before. It is a JOKE.

Following this methodology, should all illegal substances be made legal? Why stop with pot? Whether we're talking heroin, cocaine, or meth, all suffered from the same abject failure to control their use. Using your model, would you argue that their legalization would not create greater dependency? There comes a point where social responsibility has to be a consideration.

If you could swap legal alcohol/illegal cannabis with illegal alcohol/legal cannabis, would you?

While still not legal like alcohol, Portugal has decriminalized drugs and after 10 years doing that has been regarded as a success. For Portugal, being socially responsible for its drug problem has meant treating it much more as a public health issue, rather than a criminal one. Of course, that must be more of those pesky facts you want to ignore.

Actually, I personally would not have an issue with a reasonable attempt to do that as has been done in Portugal. I don't see it as stopping with pot. I see it as starting with pot. If it works, maybe we have some evidence toward making all of those legal. I believe it is better to start with a substance that does not have the physical dependency issues that all of those have. I do not fully believe the arguments that smoking marijuana is "safe." But, clearly it is safe relative to the substances you mentioned and there is a pretty good argument that is it safer than the already legal substances alcohol and cigarettes. I see marijuana as a necessary baby step and if it is beneficial then look at those other substances. I do not know if there would be more or less dependency. I suspect that would depend on how the actions are taken. Do you think that reasonable people would do hard drugs just because it was legal?

I fully believe what I am proposing is more socially responsible than continuing a drug war that has decimated a border, spent billions, and incarcerated more people than anything else in history with nothing to show for it.

The dependency argument as related to MJ is a fair one. I don't think reasonable people do hard drugs now and wouldn't be more inclined to use if the drugs were legal. But then we're not talking about reasonable people. We are talking about addiction which precludes reason.

Speaking to social responsibility, I would opine that if all drugs were made legal that crime might decrease due to availability, but the social destruction and the expense of taking care of the potentially increased number of users (and their families?) outweighs the social experiment of the mass legalization of hard drugs. I believe the welfare rolls would swell and government funded care for the addicted would make the wasted $ be a wash.

As in your scenario, we would once again be left with nothing to show for our efforts. Just government funded dependency and care to replace the border and incarceration problem.

...this is why I would love to see a state empowered enough (and courageous enough) to give it a try...out of 50 states, surely there's one or two around that could experiment with it...

The most serious drug abuse problem we're facing right now is with prescription medications.

There is no evidence that what you are claiming here is true. There is plenty of evidence that what you are advocating for has been an extremely expensive failure. So basically you are saying we should continue a failed policy because there is a chance that another policy might fail in a different way. What if I am correct and you are wrong? You are choosing guaranteed failure instead of chance at success. Think about all the lives harmed by continuing a failed policy instead of trying something new that has evidence that it can be successful. If it doesn't work, we can always go back as we did with alcohol. I'm not sure what social destruction is worse than murder, mass incarceration, and huge taxpayer expense. The income from the taxing of the substances would help offset the cost of treatment instead of it going to foreign criminal warlords as it does now. Exactly what welfare program is going to swell from this policy? Why do you think it would cost more that what we do now where we give the incarceration and treatment and the criminals take the money?

I'm merely offering my opinion, not trying to argue who is right or wrong. I'm not choosing failure, I'm just not willing to throw caution to the wind for the sake of social experimentation. As you indicated to me, there is no evidence what you are claiming is true. Your position on legalizing hard drugs is not defensible because it's merely theoretical at this point. Gambling with unknowns is hardly good science. Since you are obviously agitated, I'll leave the discussion at this point and agree to disagree with your assertions of the good to be done by legalizing drugs. I have enjoyed the discourse.

I am well aware of this truth. The Tulsa World is currently running a good series on that very issue.

I will continue to assert that until proven otherwise, legalizing hard drugs will not aleviate the pressure on prescription drugs but will only provide another avenue.

There will be a black market for whatever is in demand whether legal or not since prescriptions will still be needed to obtain the newly legalized meds.

No, because a lot of people will say to the alcoholic, "You did the crime, now do the crime". So it would only take us back to wondering where in prison are we going to put the alcoholics, as well as non alcoholics for mere possession of a bottle of beer, without crowding out the violent prisoners.

Probably marijuana should be sold as an over the counter drug. Interesting how many people would be horrified by that idea, since legal over the counter drugs have side effects, adversely interact with other drugs and worse, are sometimes used by distraught people to try to kill themselves, such as by using sleeping pills.

I'm asking the question in a vacuum.

Agitated? I'm not the least bit agitated. I'm just trying to show you that I believe you are incorrect in your assessment. Obviously, the government is not going to turn to either of us when choosing the path for future drug policy.

My position on legalization is defensible as there is evidence. I did not say there is no evidence it is true, I said I cannot predict if it will be true for the US. Portugal has done so and had their rates of use drop. Our own legalization of alcohol ended the mafia violence associated with it. You misunderstood what I am saying. There is significant evidence, there just is not proof. Using terms like "throwing caution to the wind" and "gambling" just shows your bias as that is not what I am advocating at all. Laws change all the time and there is no way to know for certain if the change is going to be beneficial. The drug war was a massive social experiment by your definition. It failed. Inaction is choosing failure whether you want to admit it or not. It is time to develop better policies. Legalizing marijuana is certainly not throwing caution to the wind.

You mean your question was meant to be taken as sarcasm?

I agree with most everything you said here (including my bias). The "caution to the wind" and "gambling" analogy was directed toward hard drugs. The drug war was (and is) a failure, but maybe not as big a failure as the people responsible for its inception. The Timothy Leary mentality among elitists dating from the 60's fostered a broad acceptance of mind altering substances. I simply can't imagine that expanding that acceptance will be a beneficial action. (as opposed to an inaction which obviously will have zero benefit) I will confess I don't know much about Portugal's social mores and how they would relate to the US, so I can't discuss whether that is a valid comparison. Mj decriminalization would seem more appropriate to me than legalization. I don't find the tax revenue angle palatable since that's what has kept nicotine legal. It is all an interesting subject without a discernable outcome.

Too bad I won't live long enough to see where it all ends up. If I did, (and I was correct) I'd hunt you down and make you buy me a beer for being so smart.