Utterly Stupid Arguments For Prohibition

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Argument one:

More people would drive stoned.

So what. That is a non issue.

Why?

That is why:

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
By Robbe HWJ, O’Hanlon JF
November 1993

http://www.erowid.org/…_driving4.shtml

Abstract

Abstract: This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the results of one pilot and three actual driving studies. The pilot study’s major purpose was to establish the THC dose current marijuana users smoke to achieve their desired “high”.

From these results it was decided that the maximum THC dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 mcg / kg (0.3 mg / kg). The first driving study was conducted on a closed section of a primary highway. After smoking marijuana delivering THC doses of 0, 100, 200, and 300 mcg / kg, subjects drove a car while maintaining a constant speed and lateral position.

This study was replicated with a new group of subjects, but now in the presence of other traffic. In addition, a car following test was executed. The third driving study compared the effects of a modest dose of THC (100 mcg / kg) and alcohol )BAC of 0.04 g %) on city driving performance.

This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol.

Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.

Marijuana Use and Driving
By Robbe HWJ
November 1994

http://www.erowid.org/…_driving3.shtml

Abstract

Abstract: This article concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the major results of one laboratory and three on-road driving studies. The latter were conducted on a closed section of a primary highway, on a highway in the presence of other traffic and in urban traffic, respectively.

This program of research has shown that marijuana produces only a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol.

Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight into their performance and will compensate where they can (e.g., by increasing distance between vehicles or increasing effort). As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program.

Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance
By Hindrik W. J. Robbe, Ph.D. and James F. O’Hanlon, Ph.D.
1999?

http://www.erowid.org/…_driving5.shtml

In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has “slight” effects on driving performance (Robbe & O’Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects’ performance was more affected than their predecessors’.

The present subjects showed impaired car following performance after THC 100 1lg/kg whereas the previous ones were not impaired by doses up to 300 1lg/kg. In the present study, road tracking performance after 200 ~g/kg was worse than the performance after 300 ~g/kg in the previous study.

We believe that these differences are attributable to the groups’ respective experience with THC smoking and to driving under the influence of THC. The present group was less experienced and probably had not developed the same degree of behavioral tolerance as their predecessors.

Yet all of the individuals in both groups admitted to having occasionally driven under the influence of THC before entering the studies. Thus, the new data seem no less representative of how drivers normally operate under the influence of THC. The addition of these data to those previously collected merely broadens the range of reactions that might be expected to occur in real life.

That range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety. Alcohol present in blood concentrations around the legal limit (0.10 g/dl) in most American States is more impairing than anything subjects have shown after THC alone in our studies.

As mentioned, medicinal drugs have had worse effects on psychiatric patients’ driving performance in other studies employing the same test procedures. If not blatantly dangerous, however, the effects of THC alone in this study were certainly more than slight. They were of sufficient magnitude to warrant concern.

Drivers suffering the same degrees of impairment as the present subjects did after THC alone would be less than normally able to avoid collisions if confronted with the sudden need for evasive action. They would probably also be more likely to fall asleep during prolonged vehicle operation.

In short, while the effects of THC alone in doses up to 200 1lg/kg might be categorized as “moderate” in the tests, they could easily become “severe” under exceptional circumstances.

http://www.idmu.co.uk/candriva…

Results: Overall, drug using drivers reported 9% fewer accidents than would be expected from a comparable population group. However, younger drug-using drivers showed increased risks compared to their peers, whereas drivers over 25 reported decreased incidence of accidents. Notable sex differences included drug-using women under 25 or over 40 reporting more accidents than their peers, whereas only males under 20 reported increased risks, with males over 25 reporting markedly lower risk.

Interpretation: Impairment of driving ability from cannabis appears most pronounced among young drivers, suggesting tasks requiring conscious thought or learning may be most affected, whereas “automatic” tasks may be less susceptible to disruption.

The overall effect of cannabis on driving suggests a trade-off between mild psychomotor impairment and improvement in driving behaviour. In males, improved behaviour may outweigh any psychomotor impairment, whereas in females there may be less scope for improvement in behaviour, drug-impairment may outweigh marginal behavioural improvements.

2

Even if it did impair ones driving, there are already laws to address that.

There are laws to address any crime one may commit under the influence of any drug.

I see zero point in limiting the damage one can knowingly inflict on themselves. If they harm or disturb someone else they should be delt with, whether they are on meth or stone-cold sober.

You want to discourage drug use, show less tolerance for breaking laws you think drug use encourages and take away the safety net. It’s almost become socially acceptable to be in or go to drug rehab. Almost like a badge of honor or courage. When did that happen?

3

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Even if it did impair ones driving, there are already laws to address that.
[/quote]

I agree, but apparently it doesn´t.

Not that I am for driving while intoxicated, but the argument, “legalization of cannabis, ergo more stoned drivers” is not only in and of itself flawed but, also rests on the assumption that driving stoned is a genuine problem, which it apparently is not.

And yet people mindlessly regurgitate that nonsense and people go to jail because of it.

Somehow I still expect people to be able to logically argue why they want to put someone else into a cage.

That cannot be to much to ask for.

4

[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Even if it did impair ones driving, there are already laws to address that.

I agree, but apparently it doesn´t.

Not that I am for driving while intoxicated, but the argument, “legalization of cannabis, ergo more stoned drivers” is not only in and of itself flawed but, also rests on the assumption that driving stoned is a genuine problem, which it apparently is not.

And yet people mindlessly regurgitate that nonsense and people go to jail because of it.

Somehow I still expect people to be able to logically argue why they want to put someone else into a cage.

That cannot be to much to ask for.

[/quote]

Yes it can - I suspect you know that.

5 

Are pot users criminals? The tragic case of Rachel Hoffman
via ABC News

After being caught twice with a "baggie" of marijuana, 23-year old Rachel Hoffman was reportedly told by police in Tallahassee, Florida that she would go to prison for four years unless she became an undercover informant.

The young woman, a recent graduate of Florida State University, was murdered during a botched sting operation two months ago.

Her case will be profiled Friday on 20/20.

"The idea of waging a war on drugs is to protect people and here it seems like we're putting people in harm's way," said Lance Block, a lawyer hired by Rachel's parents.

The Florida Attorney General's office says it is reviewing the procedures and protocol of the Tallahassee police. Rachel's case also has raised new questions about state and federal laws related to marijuana possession.

"I'm calling her a criminal," Tallahassee police chief Dennis Jones told 20/20, who maintains that both drug dealers and drug users are considered criminals to his department.

Under Florida law, possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana is a felony.

Rachel was also found in possession of two ecstasy pills, a felony under Florida law no matter the quantity because it "has a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

The Tallahassee police chief says Rachel was suspected of selling drugs and she was rightly treated as a criminal.
6

I am still waiting for Mick28 rebuttal.

After all, I think I can expect him to live up to his own standards and promises, can´t I?

I am especially interested to hear about the terrible things that would happen if cannabis were legalized.

After he has shown some evidence for his stoned drivers fabrication.

7

I am all for legalization. I can’t figure out why hard dick drugs, prostate shrinking drugs, toe nail fungus drugs, mood altering drugs, etc are legal and others are not…No government should have the right to say what a person can or cannot put into our own bodies.

8

[quote]pat wrote:
I am all for legalization. I can’t figure out why hard dick drugs, prostate shrinking drugs, toe nail fungus drugs, mood altering drugs, etc are legal and others are not…No government should have the right to say what a person can or cannot put into our own bodies. [/quote]

Could you explain to me why Americans have to take things so seriously?

OF course we have drug prohibition in Europe too, but noone would even think of mandatory minimum sentences like in the US or practically forcing people to snitch for them or incarcerate more people than China.

It is more like, yeah, the unwashed masses demand this, let us make it as painless as possible.

It is like your elected officials really mean it, but ours at least try to protect the people from their own stupidity.

9

Prohibition ALWAYS fails. Luckily alot of people around the world are starting to realize it.

10

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Prohibition ALWAYS fails. Luckily alot of people around the world are starting to realize it.[/quote]

Marijuana prohibition has been around since the 30s, I do not understand how it can still be illegal. All of those old F�??ks in congress that grew up in the 60s andf 70s smoked pot and they did inhale.

11

Weed should be illegal. What if someone smoked the 20,000 joints necessary to overdose on THC and died?

13

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Weed should be illegal. What if someone smoked the 20,000 joints necessary to overdose on THC and died?[/quote]

I will fucking salute him

Because that is true dedication.

14

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I don’t care who smokes pot as long as they don’t drive while they’re high. Only a nitwit would think that people drive better when they’re high.

And…Horion has proven my point.

Thank you.

By the way you’ve out done yourself. Congratulations you are now officially the T-Nation Ass Clown.

[/quote]

Oh nonononono, that is not what you wrote.

You wrote that more people would drive high when it was legalized and that that was just the beginning.

So I expect the answer to “So what if they do not cause that much accidents?”.

“What has that do do with anything?”

And " What else would happen? Would 23 olds be forced to snitch or go to jail for years?".

Because, you know, ideas matter.

16

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
I don’t care who smokes pot as long as they don’t drive while they’re high. Only a nitwit would think that people drive better when they’re high.

And…Horion has proven my point.

Thank you.

By the way you’ve out done yourself. Congratulations you are now officially the T-Nation Ass Clown.

Oh nonononono, that is not what you wrote.

You wrote that more people would drive high when it was legalized and that that was just the beginning.

So I expect the answer to “So what if they do not cause that much accidents?”.

“What has that do do with anything?”

And " What else would happen? Would 23 olds be forced to snitch or go to jail for years?".

Because, you know, ideas matter.

Actually, I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own home. However…

If pot were legalized you don’t think more people would be driving high…idiot?

If alcohol were illegal you don’t think that less people would be driving drunk?

If burglary were legal you don’t think that there would be more burglaries?

If rape were legal you don’t think that there would be more rapes?

If …okay hopefully even someone of your limited intellect will understand at this point.

But never mind all of that tell us more about how driving while high is actually safer than not driving high. You austrian ass clown.
[/quote]

Your arguments do not make any sense.

Since nobody argues to legalize driving stoned your burglary and rape examples are irrelevant.

Maybe people would smoke more pot if it was legalized, though that remains to be seen and is even unlikely in the light of the Netherlands experiences.

That that would also lead to more stoned drivers is highly speculative and as I have shown even that would not constitute that much of a problem, probably less than tired drivers.

So, no if cannabis would be legalized probably even less people would use it, there is no reason to believe that it would lead to higher numbers of drivers under the influence of cannabis and even if this were so it would very likely not eb a problem.

I am waiting for any link to something even loosely resembling evidence for any of your arguments, at least those that hold any water, for I remember that you really do not like it if people simply claim something without anything to back it up.

How could you possibly do the same?

Just to demonstrate how that works:

Abstract

Conflicting predictions have been made to the influence of decriminalisation on cannabis use. Prohibitionists forecast that decriminalisation will lead to an increase in consumption of cannabis, while their opponents hypothesise that cannabis use will decline after decriminalisation.

Most probably cannabis use among youth in the Netherlands so far evolved in two waves, with a first peak around 1970, a low during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and a second peak in the mid 1990s.

It is striking that the trend in cannabis use among youth in the Netherlands rather parallels the four stages in the availability of cannabis identified above. The number of adolescent cannabis users peaked when the cannabis was distributed through an underground market (late 1960s and early 1970s). Then the number decreased as house dealers were superseding the underground market (1970s), and went up again after coffee shops took over the sale of cannabis (1980s), and stabilised or slightly decreased by the end of the 1990s when the number of coffee shops was reduced.

However, cannabis use also developed in waves in other European countries. Apparently, general national trends in cannabis use are relatively independent of cannabis policy. To date, cannabis use in the Netherlands takes a middle position within the European Union. Apparently most cannabis use is experimental and recreational. The vast majority quits using cannabis after some time. Only a very small proportion of current cannabis users is in treatment. From international comparison, it is concluded that trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. Consequently, it appears unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.

The vast majority of cannabis users has never tried hard drugs. Moreover, with regard to the problematic use of opiates and drug related health problems, the Netherlands ranks relatively low within the European Union.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm

emphasis mine

17

[quote]orion wrote:
… Consequently, it appears unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.
…
[/quote]

This statement is utter bullshit. If it was legal and available I would smoke it on occasion.

It just shows how useless and/or biased so many studies and reports are.

18

[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
I am all for legalization. I can’t figure out why hard dick drugs, prostate shrinking drugs, toe nail fungus drugs, mood altering drugs, etc are legal and others are not…No government should have the right to say what a person can or cannot put into our own bodies.

Could you explain to me why Americans have to take things so seriously?

OF course we have drug prohibition in Europe too, but noone would even think of mandatory minimum sentences like in the US or practically forcing people to snitch for them or incarcerate more people than China.

It is more like, yeah, the unwashed masses demand this, let us make it as painless as possible.

It is like your elected officials really mean it, but ours at least try to protect the people from their own stupidity.
[/quote]

They don’t only the news media makes it look that way. Almost everybody I know smokes the cannabis. Trust me when I tell you it is every where. I have never been any where in America where I could not get some if I wanted to.

Speaking of:

Some good news…It’s a step in the right direction.

19

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
… Consequently, it appears unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.
…

This statement is utter bullshit. If it was legal and available I would smoke it on occasion.

It just shows how useless and/or biased so many studies and reports are.[/quote]

In all studies the Netherlands are somewhere in lower half of cannabis use and lower in hard drugs use.

What you would or would not do is purely anecdotal.

20

In a major survey of 17 countries, it was found that the United States has the highest levels of cocaine and cannabis use. These results, based on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) was released on June 30, 2008 in the open access journal PLoS Medicine.

That cannabis prohibition will kick in any minute now, won´t it?