Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Perscription drugs that affect your ability to drive or perscription drugs that don't affect your ability to drive?
I think you (a royal you, not uust you per se) are down playing the importance of this issue, particularly to the driver's that might be hit by an impaired driver.
In short, if there is a chance it will impair your ability to drive, then why take the risk? There are options: bus, walking, cab, friends.
|
I think you're jumping off a cliff here.
The idea is, you can't test and assess for intoxication under marijuana the same way you can with alcohol, so it's ridiculous to assign them the same enforcement strategy.
No one is suggesting drivers drive impaired, quite the opposite, but if you can't breathalyze for it and evidence of it lasts a lot longer, you have to treat it differently.
The fact that it appears to be less harmful as an intoxicant for drivers than alcohol isn't an argument to drive intoxicated, it's an argument that using driving under the influence of marijuana as comparable to alcohol is not an honest, reasoned argument.
The argument that legalization of marijuana is a wrong policy decision because it may lead to more instances of drivers under the influence of marijuana is an invalid argument because they do not have the same effects.
'Intoxication' isn't 'intoxication'. If stoned drivers are potentially statistically less prone to accidents than sober drivers, that is compelling evidence that the perceptions of the drug are out of touch with the reality of the drug. It's a manipulation to try to say that's an argument for driving under the influence; it's an argument for a rational discussion on the effects of the drug and the ramification for it's legalization.