Teen leaps 4 stories after eating marijuana cookie

[SamSpade]

If I may ...

There are approximately 88000 deaths attributed to alcohol in the US every year.

Before I comment, I might want to add, I had a niece killed in an accident where kids were drinking. I have no illusion that drinking while driving, even with legal amounts of alcohol is not dangerous. I have reported FRIENDS to the police for driving drunk, because I'd rather see them in jail than in the ground.

But that number is bogus, and that is why the term "alcohol-related" is used, rather than "drunk driver", because in a traffic fatality, the term is used very loosely. It can refer to victims who were not at fault; it can refer to PASSENGER victims in a car hit by someone NOT under the influence of alcohol. Wherever you see this vague term, check out the data, because you're not getting the whole story.

The actual numbers are far less, even though they're still very high.

THAT said ---

Many, many years ago I used to smoke dope, and it's true, it doesn't make you the slightest bit violent. It did make me a little paranoid. But I can easily attest to the fact that it made several friends of mine completely oblivious to obvious danger, such as the numerous times we have to grab one of our group from continually wandering into oncoming traffic - as a PEDESTRIAN. Or to help one of our group after he fell down a flight of stairs he didn't know was there.

It's my peculiar belief that these sort of dope-related deaths will climb for no other reason except that while a lot of people smoke weed, they don't do it NEARLY as often as people drink and get drunk, but you're still not a better driver when you're stoned than when you're drunk.

 

[Hodr]

I don't smoke (pot or cigarettes), and I don't drink. I'm not into altered states of consciousness.

But what does bother me about this "debate" is when people who drink regularly get into frothing rages over pot use. I don't understand why they are so vehemently against one, while perfectly willing to indulge in the other.

For myself, I fall into the decriminalization camp (not the legalize camp) simply because I don't like wasting my tax money keeping non-violent criminals in prison. Give them a ticket if they are out and about impaired, or caught selling the stuff. Send them to jail if they do something actually/potentially harmful to others (like operate a vehicle stoned). But I would say the same about alcohol and I know that is unpopular.

 

[SamSpade]

Give them a ticket if they are out and about impaired, or caught selling the stuff. Send them to jail if they do something actually/potentially harmful to others (like operate a vehicle stoned). But I would say the same about alcohol and I know that is unpopular.

And I have a couple reactions to this.

One is, you're going to see the same idiot in court who was in jail last month for possession, NOW seeing the judge because he drove while stoned. The kind of person who winds up in jail for possession is not your typical model citizen who just got caught doing something dumb - he's almost always a complete nitwit who will get stoned doing something else. He'll still be in jail but for another drug related charge.

To me it's like a day I spent in traffic court last year - there were morons who were waiting for their day in court and STILL managed to get caught driving drunk in the meantime. I tried not to laugh out loud when one woman was trying to plea for leniency when she'd only been caught the NIGHT BEFORE doing the same damned thing. Some people just aren't going to change, and changing the law just means they're going to do even stupider things.

The other is, among the reasons these kind of laws stick around is the same as getting Capone on tax evasion - you can make it stick. I was on a jury once for a guy who was clearly selling crack, but the case wasn't stone cold solid. Yes, he had in his possession rocks of crack, and the amount of rocks he had and the cash in his pocket added up exactly to what you'd expect a guy selling a 20 rock bag would have. The jury went with possession, because that wasn't in dispute. My brief experiences with law enforcement on the matter have been exactly that - can't get them on the bigger charge, charge 'em with possession - AND - if possession is the only thing they're guilty of, usually the penalty is light. Currently the law in Maryland is a fine.

 

[officeguy]

But that number is bogus, and that is why the term "alcohol-related" is used, rather than "drunk driver", because in a traffic fatality, the term is used very loosely. It can refer to victims who were not at fault; it can refer to PASSENGER victims in a car hit by someone NOT under the influence of alcohol. Wherever you see this vague term, check out the data, because you're not getting the whole story.

The actual numbers are far less, even though they're still very high.

Alcohol related deaths also include deaths due to alcohol related disease.

Whether alcohol is good or bad for you has no bearing on whether pot is good or bad for you. Alcohol could kill you on the first sip and it wouldn't make a wit of difference.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

But what does bother me about this "debate" is when people who drink regularly get into frothing rages over pot use. I don't understand why they are so vehemently against one, while perfectly willing to indulge in the other.

That's because people who are on the political left need permission from their government to do positively everything. They do not believe in the individual. If the government says it is illegal .. welp .. it is illegal and immoral to do whatever...

 

[Larry Gude]

The other is, among the reasons these kind of laws stick around is the same as getting Capone on tax evasion - you can make it stick. I was on a jury once for a guy who was clearly selling crack, but the case wasn't stone cold solid. Yes, he had in his possession rocks of crack, and the amount of rocks he had and the cash in his pocket added up exactly to what you'd expect a guy selling a 20 rock bag would have. The jury went with possession, because that wasn't in dispute. My brief experiences with law enforcement on the matter have been exactly that - can't get them on the bigger charge, charge 'em with possession - AND - if possession is the only thing they're guilty of, usually the penalty is light. Currently the law in Maryland is a fine.

Capone is a perfect example for this; get Capone for what? The violence and corruption of...prohibition. Prohibition and prohibition alone created the environment of violence and corruption that made his empire possible. Prohibition on...drinking. Why? In a free nation what on earth possesses us to even begin to contemplate banning alcohol?

Why, the harm to people's lifes and society of course! (Exact same argument we use now).

If we actually care about the health and welfare of the person and the general welfare of the society, we can readily see that how we've handled drugs has either;

1. Not worked
2. Made things worse than they otherwise would be


People who are anti gun think we still don't have enough gun laws.
People who are anti drug think we still don't have enough drug laws.
People who are pro gun think it is about behavior and individual freedom and choice
People who are pro drug think it is about behavior and individual freedom and choice.


The good news is that we are consistent. We do think the same way but our gears are not synchronized. Clearly, guns and drugs are not the problem. Clearly, behavior is. Personal freedom and choice is where these battles are to be fought and won. We need to address behavior.