Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis

[Karl Henning]

I'm sorry if I'm suspicious

Well, you're funny that way.  You're suspicious of this, but not of that.

[Ken B]

Well, you're funny that way.  You're suspicious of this, but not of that.

Ain't we all?

There's a good case for having a test for THC levels and of course we need to charge impaired drivers. But I assume that the impaired driver (and let's assume he was impaired) was not on legal THC. So banning it doesn't eliminate the problem of impaired drivers. For many reasons it might even make it worse. And of course there are other crimes and misdeeds affected.

One lobby against legal pot is the legal beer industry. When pot sales go up beer sales go down. So I suggest will beer-impaired drivers.

So the net effects of things are hard to predict. That's a good argument for federalism. Try legal gay marriage in welcoming states, and when the sky doesn't fall, it spreads. Same for legal pot. I think legal pot will make us overall safer. I'm happy to let Oregonians, should they fell so inclined, test this theory for me.

[Karl Henning]

Ain't we all?

When you're right, you're right 

[Karl Henning]

There's a good case for having a test for THC levels and of course we need to charge impaired drivers. But I assume that the impaired driver (and let's assume he was impaired) was not on legal THC. So banning it doesn't eliminate the problem of impaired drivers. For many reasons it might even make it worse. And of course there are other crimes and misdeeds affected.

This being Mass., the THC was not banned.

[amw]

One thing that strikes me regarding the opioid epidemic in the USA is that a lot of the people currently dying from it got onto heroin via painkillers, and got onto painkillers because they were in pain.

Something else that seems to be effective for treating chronic pain, but less addictive than oxycontin or whatever, is medical marijuana, and I'm not aware of anyone who has died of a marijuana overdose. Except while driving, but the same applies to, e.g. morphine or whatever.

Maybe A Thing people should consider.

[Todd]

So I suggest will beer-impaired drivers.

Is there evidence for this?  The number of automobile accident claims have gone up in three states where marijuana is legal, but at least this article does not suggest that alcohol related incidents went down.  At the same time, Colorado showed a decrease in fatal crashes after legalization, and in the first quarter of this year, the number of marijuana DUIs in that state dropped by a third.  Granted, this reflects only three small data sets, but it appears that evidence to date falls in the "inconclusive" camp.  (And this doesn't even really get into causation: was legal marijuana responsible for a statistically observable decrease in fatal accidents?  I have my doubts.)  Unfortunately, for prohibition supporters, inconclusive is bad news since it more or less demonstrates that various warnings about the risks are not panning out.  Oregon has yet to publish a lot of data on the subject, and while every once in a while there is a news story about how driver X was high on pot and caused a bad accident, they are far less common than a drunk driver causing a bad accident.  I expect more "inconclusive" results as more comprehensive data sets become available.

In some ways, prohibition arguments remind me of a hubbub here years ago involving extra-long tractor-trailers (ie, a tractor pulling three trailers).  There were warnings of sharp increases in serious and fatal accidents involving these behemoths, complete with scary commercials using scary music.  The law to allow these rigs passed, and nothing happened.  Well, aside from increased freight traffic.

bwv 1080 hit the nail on the head: legalized pot is far less destructive, and imposes far fewer social costs, than the obscene, abusive, coercive use of state power in enforcing prohibition, which, if SJW types - and statistics - are to be believed, also disproportionately impacts minority communities.  Public policy is a matter of trade offs, and so far the trade offs in states where marijuana has become legal look good to me.

[Ken B]

Is there evidence for this?  The number of automobile accident claims have gone up in three states where marijuana is legal, but at least this article does not suggest that alcohol related incidents went down.  At the same time, Colorado showed a decrease in fatal crashes after legalization, and in the first quarter of this year, the number of marijuana DUIs in that state dropped by a third.  Granted, this reflects only three small data sets, but it appears that evidence to date falls in the "inconclusive" camp.  (And this doesn't even really get into causation: was legal marijuana responsible for a statistically observable decrease in fatal accidents?  I have my doubts.)  Unfortunately, for prohibition supporters, inconclusive is bad news since it more or less demonstrates that various warnings about the risks are not panning out.  Oregon has yet to publish a lot of data on the subject, and while every once in a while there is a news story about how driver X was high on pot and caused a bad accident, they are far less common than a drunk driver causing a bad accident.  I expect more "inconclusive" results as more comprehensive data sets become available.

In some ways, prohibition arguments remind me of a hubbub here years ago involving extra-long tractor-trailers (ie, a tractor pulling three trailers).  There were warnings of sharp increases in serious and fatal accidents involving these behemoths, complete with scary commercials using scary music.  The law to allow these rigs passed, and nothing happened.  Well, aside from increased freight traffic.

bwv 1080 hit the nail on the head: legalized pot is far less destructive, and imposes far fewer social costs, than the obscene, abusive, coercive use of state power in enforcing prohibition, which, if SJW types - and statistics - are to be believed, also disproportionately impacts minority communities.  Public policy is a matter of trade offs, and so far the trade offs in states where marijuana has become legal look good to me.

My point, to make it clear, is that it's hard to predict consequences, which is why empirical results rather than just "but what about" are important.( This applies to impaired drivers but also to all the other side effects, such as reducing bad policing too of course. )
I think you, I, and bww all agree pretty much perfectly.

[Todd]

I think you, I, and bww all agree pretty much perfectly.

I think so.  I was just reinforcing both the vague nature of the data, and, more importantly the trade offs.  Okay, so more people smoke pot daily.  So what?  If it can be shown that material harm is being caused to others and major harm to such users (I'm not sure slacking counts), then that becomes an issue to be dealt with by expanding the lower-cost/more taxpayer friendly alternative of treatment rather than continuing or reinstating prohibition, which is a far worse alternative.  Also, not to sound jaded, but I remember having to watch BS/propaganda flicks while I was in high school about the ill effects of marijuana, and one of the tropes then was about people needing to smoke every day.  It must be worse now, I guess.