Marijuana and the Harm Principal. There is nothing in the smoking of marijuana which causes harm to others.
Partly correct. The act of smoking it in a controlled environment and it's effect may not cause harm to others. However, it's use scientifically through chemicals introduced voluntarily into the bloodstream causes physical effects which can and do impede the judgement of an individual - the corollary is alcohol as the physical effects can and are sometimes impeded depending on the amount of THC or alcohol introduced over a period of time. That impediment to judgement provides opportunity to harm to others. The issue is not the action of driving while under the influence but that one is under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug. DUI with alcohol is illegal as is DUI as a result of smoking marijuana.
The crux of the harm is not driving but the use of a substance WHILE driving - back to "impeded judgement". Therefore the "potential" for harm is greater driving under the influence of any drug than not.
The use of legal narcotics I would add, such as prescription drugs can have an equal or greater effect on an operator of a vehicle whereas prescription drugs are provided to users under a controlled environment with consultation of a doctor, sold by a certified pharmacologist with FDA warnings and instructions on it's use. THC is scientifically, a narcotic and therefore should at least be controlled with as much care as an existing prescription drug.
I don't think I'm arguing that it is; in fact I didn't identify it as a narcotic but a hallucinogenic. I quoted the legal use of percription narcotics and the control measures put on legal narcotics.First off, as I discuss at the beginning of my linked webpage, THC is NOT scientifically a narcotic. A narcotic is an opiod or derived-opiod. THC is not. THC is legally a narcotic because our government defined drugs which are not scientific narcotics as legal narcotics.
It is when intoxication is with an illegal substance. Your claim that marijuana is not a narcotic is fine - let's identify it as something else... but also a controlled substance and therefore illegal. Schedule 1 is where marijuana is located on the DEA drug schedule with LSD and Heroine for example. LSD is also not a narcotic but is still on Schedule 1. You're point would be better made via the definition of Schedule 1 which marijuana does not apply - namely it's medical use. That is a reason to change it's designation possibly to Schedule III.As to the rest of your post, it is not illegal to get intoxicated or fall under the influence.
Yet judgement impairment due to the intoxication allows one to make mistakes such as drive. We can go around and around here - but I'd agree it doesn't belong on Schedule 1 but probably on Schedule III. And I can find use of marijuana for medical purposes as valid but I cannot see it's legalization ie. as with alcohol use to be condoned. The only way I'd agree to the legalization of marijuana is if ALL drugs were legalized and I don't think that will occur.That this impairs judgement does not excuse one of the responsibility to not drive. Drinking is not illegal; driving while intoxicated is. It is the driving part which is illegal. The same applies to marijuana.
I don't think I'm arguing that it is; in fact I didn't identify it as a narcotic but a hallucinogenic. I quoted the legal use of percription narcotics and the control measures put on legal narcotics.
THC is scientifically, a narcotic and therefore should at least be controlled with as much care as an existing prescription drug.
It is when intoxication is with an illegal substance. Your claim that marijuana is not a narcotic is fine - let's identify it as something else... but also a controlled substance and therefore illegal. Schedule 1 is where marijuana is located on the DEA drug schedule with LSD and Heroine for example. LSD is also not a narcotic but is still on Schedule 1. You're point would be better made via the definition of Schedule 1 which marijuana does not apply - namely it's medical use. That is a reason to change it's designation possibly to Schedule III.
Yet judgement impairment due to the intoxication allows one to make mistakes such as drive. We can go around and around here - but I'd agree it doesn't belong on Schedule 1 but probably on Schedule III. And I can find use of marijuana for medical purposes as valid but I cannot see it's legalization ie. as with alcohol use to be condoned. The only way I'd agree to the legalization of marijuana is if ALL drugs were legalized and I don't think that will occur.
I don't believe marijuana is classified as an hallucinogenic either.
It's also still accurate.This is a non-sequitur.
Ok and I agree - but my point is it's irrelevant. Driving while under the influence (of any drug which impairs one's ability to use the vehicle safely) is illegal. The ACT of getting intoxicated impairs one's judgement such that they may not realize or be able to think clearly of the consequences of driving - and that includes the use of cannibis. Would you agree, that could occur?I wasn't claiming it was legal to get intoxicated by an illegal substance, but that it is legal to get intoxicated by a legal substance. My point being that it is ok to get intoxicated, but not ok to drive in that state.
I believe we still should. American culture seems to not be able to handle recreational drugs very well as opposed to country's like Portugal.We should not continue to treat marijuana as a controlled substance.
It's a slippery slope - allow Cannibis then arguments start for Coke, Meth, etc... alcohol is an abberation from a by gone era that was made illegal and then overturned Constitutionally and was a mess with many impacts on society. A stipulation and mis-classification of a drug is not a reason to allow it to go from legal to illegal.Judgement impairment does not excuse the irresponsible decision of driving while intoxicated. You are culpable for your actions. This should in no way govern the legality or control and regulation of substances.
Another necessary step would be to put insanely strong regulations around tax payer costs, money and involvement in those who abuse it, as well as increase the responsibility of those involved in violence, accidents etc... where those under said influence and impeded judgement would be accountable and responsible. As well, any government tax revenues used to sponsor, subsidize or support detoxification of individuals be banned. In other words, if one uses LSD or Meth or other drugs when they are legal are the sole responsibility of the individual and no one else. That I can support.I agree we should legalize all drugs, but this is a necessary first step.
Drug Class: Cannabis/ Marijuana: spectrum of behavioral effects is unique, preventing classification of the drug as a stimulant, sedative, tranquilizer, or hallucinogen. Dronabinol: appetite stimulant, antiemetic.
And apparently I DID (though I was thinking the direct opposite) say it was a narcotic... my bad, and I stand corrected.
Ok and I agree
but my point is it's irrelevant. Driving while under the influence (of any drug which impairs one's ability to use the vehicle safely) is illegal. The ACT of getting intoxicated impairs one's judgement such that they may not realize or be able to think clearly of the consequences of driving - and that includes the use of cannibis. Would you agree, that could occur?
I believe we still should. American culture seems to not be able to handle recreational drugs very well as opposed to country's like Portugal.
It's a slippery slope - allow Cannibis then arguments start for Coke, Meth, etc... alcohol is an abberation from a by gone era that was made illegal and then overturned Constitutionally and was a mess with many impacts on society. A stipulation and mis-classification of a drug is not a reason to allow it to go from legal to illegal.
Another necessary step would be to put insanely strong regulations around tax payer costs, money and involvement in those who abuse it, as well as increase the responsibility of those involved in violence, accidents etc... where those under said influence and impeded judgement would be accountable and responsible. As well, any government tax revenues used to sponsor, subsidize or support detoxification of individuals be banned. In other words, if one uses LSD or Meth or other drugs when they are legal are the sole responsibility of the individual and no one else. That I can support.
Yet judgement impairment due to the intoxication allows one to make mistakes such as drive.
As well, any government tax revenues used to sponsor, subsidize or support detoxification of individuals be banned. In other words, if one uses LSD or Meth or other drugs when they are legal are the sole responsibility of the individual and no one else. That I can support.
It's a slippery slope - allow Cannibis then arguments start for Coke, Meth, etc... alcohol is an abberation from a by gone era that was made illegal and then overturned Constitutionally and was a mess with many impacts on society. A stipulation and mis-classification of a drug is not a reason to allow it to go from legal to illegal.
Do you mean from illegal to legal? Otherwise I am confused by what you are trying to say. I think there are good arguments for legalizing Coke, Meth, Heroin, LSD, Psilocyban, Ecstasy, etc... Meth and Heroin are particularly bad. They should be regulated. Pot should not be regulated.
ANOTHER pot legalization discussion by the reefedjib.
It will be legalized. It is UNAMERICAN that it is criminal.
Whats Unamerican is democracy, but that doesn't stop legalization supporters from thinking we live in one.
I know we live in a Republic. What's your point?
My point is that the majority of the people that smoke pot are idiots. In no way are we doing society a favor by legalizing marijuana. Also, this issue is like gay marriage when it comes to the fact that there are more important thigs to worry about.
My point is that the majority of the people that smoke pot are idiots. In no way are we doing society a favor by legalizing marijuana. Also, this issue is like gay marriage when it comes to the fact that there are more important thigs to worry about.
That is a very poor assumption on your part. The stereotype of a potsmoker is stupid, but there are a majority of people who smoke to enhance their intelligence. I used to. Many of my friends used to. We are all college graduated and professionals and raise families now.
The current law makes smoking marijuana a criminal act. Smoking marijuana does NOT violate the harm principle - no one is harmed or injured by someone smoking marijuana. As such, the current law is inconsistent with American principles. Legalization helps society by making the law consistent with American principles. There are many other pragmatic reasons this helps society as well. The reduction of crime is an important one.
It seems pretty important to me to rectify such a situation. Congress can certainly multi-task. There are limits to what a legislative body can do to help a recession. The can spend time reducing the budget but they don't. They can certainly find time to legalize marijuana.
Why would he expect you to be a smoker when you say its stupid?Are you serious? You're going to talk to me about assumptions while you assume I don't smoke pot. That's hypocritical.
Also, you lost me at "there are a majority of people who smoke to enhance their intelligence". I happen to know for a fact that there is nothing intellectual happening when you are getting high.
Sorry, thats just hate.Especially for liberal stoners when considering everything to them is about feelings and looking good.
Are you serious? You're going to talk to me about assumptions while you assume I don't smoke pot. That's hypocritical. Also, you lost me at "there are a majority of people who smoke to enhance their intelligence". I happen to know for a fact that there is nothing intellectual happening when you are getting high. Especially for liberal stoners when considering everything to them is about feelings and looking good. The bottom line is that nobody cares if you get high so long as your not stupid about it. I think that has something to do with there being better things to worry about.
The bottom line is that nobody cares if you get high so long as your not stupid about it.
I think that has something to do with there being better things to worry about.
It may be said that second hand smoke is harmful, but the legality of cigarettes belies this observation. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the other individual to avoid second hand smoke if they are concerned. Rules governing indoor smoking in public establishments would still apply.
Yeah - my responsibility to avoid second hand smoke? . . . so if all laws concerning smoking cigarettes are thusly applied to marijuana then I could get a 2nd hand high just by walking into Books A Million. . . which is not my desire to do. . . how to avoid that? Stay at home?
I don't mind the idea of legalizing marijuana as long as the SMOKER manages to show respect to everyone else - or laws are more strict for smoking it and ban it from being smoked near public establishments.
If you could convince me that smokers would use common sense and respect I'd have more support for it - but if smokers who smoke just cigarettes can't manage those two things then there's no evidence to sway me into believing that someone under the influence will do that.
That being said - regulations and laws concerning cigarette smoking are becoming more and more strict depending on where you are. . . which goes against your argument using cig-smoking on behalf of marijuana.
I agree that smokers, of both cigs and pot, should use common sense and show respect. Not all will. There is a corresponding responsibility on the part of the non-smoker to suffer the smoker.QUOTE]
In the following news story, Anti-Smoking Laws Hold Little Power Over Marijuana - cbs13.com, how would you apply the harm principle?
I agree that smokers, of both cigs and pot, should use common sense and show respect. Not all will. There is a corresponding responsibility on the part of the non-smoker to suffer the smoker.
In the following news story, Anti-Smoking Laws Hold Little Power Over Marijuana - cbs13.com, how would you apply the harm principle?
Deputies can only stop medical marijuana users if they are endangering children, and secondhand marijuana smoke is not currently considered child endangerment.
I agree that smokers, of both cigs and pot, should use common sense and show respect. Not all will. There is a corresponding responsibility on the part of the non-smoker to suffer the smoker.
Using the term 'suffer' in a 'no harm, no foul' argument kind of seems like an oxymoron. . . doesn't it?
I was really giving my thoughts on the issue with my post - not really debating it because I don't have a problem with legalizing marijuana.
I don't think so. I mean that non-smokers will have to suffer the offensive nature of smoke, but this is not harmful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?