1
Should Cannabis Be Regulated Like Alcohol?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Trees
6696 readers
11 users here now
A community centered around cannabis.
In the spirit of making Trees a welcoming and uplifting place for everyone, please follow our Commandments.
- Be Cool.
- I'm not kidding. Be nice to each other.
- Avoid low-effort posts
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
DUIs for both. Public intoxication not nearly as big a deal, being high in public is harmless. Secondhand smoke is no different from cigarettes though, so public smoking still needs to be regulated. 21+ for both. Did I miss any?
I'm with everything you said except smoking in public.
The difference between nicotine and THC are wildly different and second hand smoke from cannabis containing high amounts of THC well absolutely wreck somebody and should not be acceptable.
Yeah if you literally exhale it directly into someone's mouth but if you're both standing on opposite sides of an open air smoking area it really isn't comparable in the slightest.
The problem with second hand cigarette smoke is also not nicotine, its the like 160 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke most of which comes from additives.
I won't argue for cigarettes, they're terrible.
But I do disagree with your sentiment regarding Marijuana. The cannabinoids and terpenes are still in what you exhale, just in a smaller amount. You're still introducing foreign material to others unsolicited.
So then we should probably talk about car exhaust fumes, I inhale that every time I go outside unsolicited. What about people who are sick? They should probably be banned from public spaces too. And restaurants who cook with grease, you inhale that when you walk past them too.
A smoker smoking a J in a designated smoking area is literally not causing any more harm than any other person smoking in that area. Designated smoking areas exist for a reason. People smoke in society, its simply how it is. People are exposed to harmful substances in the form of gas and fumes every single day of their lives from a million different sources. Singling out people smoking weed is stupid and largely driven by misinformation.
Your strawmaning me and I don't think we'll come to any agreements at this point so I'll agree to disagree and end the conversion here unfortunately.
Edit: jerboa app is fucking up and making it look like my comments are timing out but they're posting...
We literally just had two years of a pandemic where for a long time people were having to prove they weren't sick to access public spaces. We don't do it with every illness because it wouldn't be practical to test so much and most illnesses aren't that big a deal to people, but we do it when we have to.
I would argue cannabis, especially of the average potency and in moderation, doesn't impair most EVERYDAY users any more than a cigarette might (those things spike your blood pressure and dehydrate you fast!!) but I just especially have to object to treating high driving exactly the same. As another user stated, the statistics are very clear. To quote a friend's dad "If you can't drive and smoke weed, you can't drive."
So many functional alcoholics can drive seemingly perfectly fine, but letting people drive drunk is still incredibly stupid. Just because you have a high tolerance or whatever doesn't mean you should be allowed to drive while stoned, regardless of if it's just as impacting as being tired or whatever justification people use.
As someone who has ingested a lot of weed, strong disagree. I don't know how anyone who has experienced being high can say they are not impaired. That's a mind blowing statement to me.
I definitely wouldn't say it impairs you in the same way being drunk does, but I also wouldn't say driving high is the same as driving sober. And if you are driving high you really need to cut that shit out. All it takes is one time where your reaction time is slightly decreased and it could be catastrophic.
Define "a lot of weed". Because weed hasn't impaired me since high school, and I've met a lot of everyday users who feel the exact same. "Decreased reaction time" is absolutely a popular misconception IMHO, and that's a symptom of simple tiredness too -I'd argue pot is far from the #1 cause of it. Being a stimulant to some extent. I take mine with a ridiculous caffeine dependency though too so I could be a little biased.
Decreased reaction time is absolutely not a myth. The level of impairment is related to the amount consumed (just like alcohol), but a decrease in reaction time is a very real effect of cannabis. In case of an emergency on the road that could be a major issue. Please do not drive high.
Dude, just stop driving high. We live in a time where you can have everything delivered to your door, including someone showing up at your door to drive you somewhere. People who drive drunk also insist they are badasses that are not impaired.
If we engineered our roadways around the idea that people would be operating with a reduced reaction speed than normal, this would be fine. But we didn't, everything is designed to be safe for normal operation.
Most isn't good enough. If it impairs 10% of people, and increases fatalities even a little bit, it should be a DUI, unless there is some kind of medical exemption or something.
It impairs maybe 10% of people. They should know better than to drive and the other 90% shouldn't be held responsible for their mistake. But reduced reaction speed? Nah, THC is magical in that it's a mental stimulant that almost slows down one's perception of time, you clearly haven't heard of hackey-sack or met anybody that plays FPS games at a serious level.
I don't think it's reasonable to say that because only 10% of drivers are reckless, we don't get to regulate the other 90% along with them. Of course if we had some magical wand that would tell us who the reckless drivers are, then we could only target the dangerous folks, but often that's impossible.
Often the best we can do is take a look at the data and see what kind of policies would not be horribly burdensome for the general public and yet would save a lot of lives, and then we institute those.
The other part of the problem with the 10% bad drivers argument is that bad drivers change from hour to hour, and from day to day. After all, the majority of people believe that they're good drivers, right?
You don't get special rules just because you're special. That's just not how law works.
tell that to the police or anybody in law lol
... touche.
This is the same argument leille used when drink driving laws came in. "I can do it fine, why do we need a law". We can't set laws based on the outliers, we have to base them on all scenarios.