91–100 of 197 posts
It seems obvious to me that marijuana legalization would alleviate the two aforementioned issues by raising awareness of marijuana-related DUIs and eliminating distribution networks that sell to children, but I probably haven't considered other problems associated with widespread marijuana use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY&feature=youtu.be...
From the end of Part 1 of the editorial series: > On Monday at 4:20 p.m. Eastern Time, Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, will be taking questions about marijuana legalization at facebook.com/nytimes.
At 4:20? Holy crap, I thought the NYT was way too stuffy to do such a stunt. I've been a reader for many years, and the only things I can count on in life are life, death, and the sleepy character of the NYT editorial page. I think I'd better pay closer attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a big deal. The New York Times is hardly universally respected, but it has a lot more credibility than the image normally associated with the marijuana legalization crowd. I would expect Sunday morning news programs to mention this editorial tomorrow.
Yep, this has the potential to become one of those phase-change situations where there is movement from "it will never happen because it's always been this way" and "why is this still broken?" Like gay marriage. In these kinds of issues, the NYT is typically a lagging indicator, so it's nice to see them leading for a change.
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you basically just advocated prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, and included in your list of reasons 'I don't like the smell'. Never mind that prohibition was already tried and already failed.
Well I'll add one more: The physical and mental health problems and associated healthcare burden. This is not insignificant and totally shrugged off by the "pro-legalisation" side of things.
And so does the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379018/let-states-deci...
That's an Op-Ed, not necessarily the position of the National Review's editors. The NYT isn't just running a series of articles on legalization, they are taking a stand as a newspaper in favor of it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367618/sensible-weed-e...
Supporting marijuana legalization isn't solely a left-wing stance, and the NYT isn't particularly early to the position. William F. Buckley Jr., the founder of the National Review, was in favor of legalization as far back as the mid-1960s.
I sincerely believe the only people who are against legalisation of marijuana are those who don't understand it's effects on a person and those who are easily susceptible to propaganda and fail to do their own research on the subject. I can't think of even one legitimate reason for it's prohibition. If you argue for prohibition based on health consequences or risk to society you should also be arguing for prohibition…
Legalize it, But there are some real issues to be worked out, as someone who had a friend sent to hospital after being hit by a stoned driver who blew through a stop sign. Whats the legal limit? I'm not sure how easy it is to detect if someone is "under the influence" as the drug is detectable for weeks in the blood (in this case the join was in the car).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are quite clearly an absolute dire example of a complete fucking moron if you think that smoking weed doesn't affect your driving. It affects your judgement, your motor skills, slows your reaction time and so can the withdrawal symptoms. I'm not even going to link a page because it's that easy to find supporting information that is credible.
You don't know what you're talking about, I bet that you are not a stoner. I've been smoking for many years, and have many friends that do. The majority of stoners will tell you that it's very safe to drive while high. Why? When you're high each and every one of your senses are heightened, making you more 'aware' of things going on around you, making you a safer driver. And in addition, the feeling of slight paranoia…
My own anecdote: sitting passenger in a car with someone stoned and thinking traffic was going too fast, racing by him. On I-95 in the middle lane, going approximately 25 mph. And he insisted he was actually safer when driving stoned due to that slight paranoia you'd mentioned. I mention this here only to underscore the reliability (or lack thereof) of the source you're using.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first time I smoked marijuana I was 13 years old; prohibition doesn't work, and while MJ has its burdens, prohibition has far more. We should focus on treating the addicted as human beings needing help rather than criminals to be thrown into prison.
Isn't prevention better than cure? People keep saying "prohibition didn't work" but I'm hard pressed to find a conclusive paper on the subject. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Edit: Ask for proof/sources = down vote. Hey everyone, fuck science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the studies that show that MJ use is far less of an impact on driving than talking on a phone... The paranoia over stoned drivers is a little high (no pun intended) Not saying it should be ignored as an issue all together, but it seems to be the last issue the opposition can attach itself to and sound sane, and its getting a little carried away.
Even if that's true the drugs effect is different on each person and the amount you take will vary the effect it has on your driving ability. A couple of puffs probably won't make a difference. But you can also take enough that it's hard to even get out of a chair. The easiest solution and one that should appease everyone would be a total ban on driving within 12/24 hours of last taking marijuana imo.