Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Sorry, I wasn't trying to jump of a cliff.
I don't disagree with your points. I am fine with the legalization of pot. I can't say I am an advocator for it as I don't use, so it doesn't directly change my day to day life. I am not as you say:
If it came off that way, then believe me that is not how it was intended.
I think from reading you post that we can't take the "non-factor" approach mentioned by Polak (sorry Polak I really am not trying to poke you these last few days/weeks).
I think it is important that if we legalize pot we need to have a way of testing for the use while driving.
Will legalization of pot increase driving under the influence of pot, nah not necessarily, but it might increase the useage of pot. You might have a segment that didn't use out of fear (maybe not I don't know).
Flash, I think you will agree that the lead up to the evantual legalization of pot must include many difficult discussions, like driving while under the influence, legal age to buy and use pot, etc...
To me Polak's post read (whether he indended it or not) as discounting the concerns over the driving while under the influence of pot. I think that it all "needs to be on the table" if we as a society are going to move forward with the legalization of pot.
I am running on very little sleep, so if that don't make sense I am sorry.
|
Well, I can't speak for polak, but maybe if the same studies etc that we rely on for understanding the consequences of alcohol intoxication say marijuana intoxication may not increase the likelyhood of an accident, maybe polak is right, maybe it is negligible.
So far, the evidence points more strongly in that direction than the opposite. I haven't read the study he linked, but if the excerpt he posted is the conclusion, well, that's 2 studies separated by 2 decades drawing the same conclusion. The same agencies in Canada, Australia and Britain reached similar independent conclusions.
Maybe the simplest explanation is the correct one?