California is thinking about legalizing it

[AtheistPhil]

Regulate? You mean control? What gives anyone the right? It's a weed, like mankind. It will grow through the cracks...it always has, always will.

By regulate, it means to protect the people's right not to inhale cannabis smoke (second-hand smoke) and protect them from cannabis' negative effects (driving while high, young child accidentally ingest it). Doctor Gurley's column clearly explains those.

[RedFish]

1. Smoking is not an issue, the laws already exist to protect the public from 2nd hand smoke from cigarettes etc. No specific anti-smoking laws relating to cannabis would change that. Or be necessary.
2. I ride a motorcycle. If driving whilst stoned was dangerous, I'd be dead. Likewise many people I know. Prove to me that it is. The good doctor provided no evidence for her claim at all. It is not sufficient to say that x% of accident victims had cannabis in their bloodstream, that is not proof of cause. Merely how widespread use is.
3. You CANNOT overdose on cannabis sufficient to kill you. It is impossible. Any product which could be harmful to toddlers/babies should be kept secure. That is just common sense and does not require a 'study'.
Money for old rope methinks...
@Tiberius...I thought you were being serious but for the 'guns' bit. We have only one life. If we choose to f*** it up with substance abuse, of any kind, that is our choice. In a free world.

[Minimalist]

My sincerest of apologies, but I'm not the greatest at praying, so I'll do the best I can.

I'm very much in favour of legalizing, and regulating the usages of Cannabis sativa. I do not partake in such activities, but understand the near harmless consequences of said activities. More research should be done and publicized to spread awareness of its medical benefits, and its recreational positives.

It's not all smoke and daisies, had you read Doc Gurley's column, there is a definite downside to wide spread marijuana usage.

There is a definite downside to alcohol and many prescription drugs, as well. Doesn't stop their use.
As with everything else, money talks.

[Tiberius]

@Tiberius...I thought you were being serious but for the 'guns' bit. We have only one life. If we choose to f*** it up with substance abuse, of any kind, that is our choice. In a free world.

I was being serious...

[Autumnlicious]

1. Smoking is not an issue, the laws already exist to protect the public from 2nd hand smoke from cigarettes etc. No specific anti-smoking laws relating to cannabis would change that. Or be necessary.
2. I ride a motorcycle. If driving whilst stoned was dangerous, I'd be dead. Likewise many people I know. Prove to me that it is. The good doctor provided no evidence for her claim at all. It is not sufficient to say that x% of accident victims had cannabis in their bloodstream, that is not proof of cause. Merely how widespread use is.
3. You CANNOT overdose on cannabis sufficient to kill you. It is impossible. Any product which could be harmful to toddlers/babies should be kept secure. That is just common sense and does not require a 'study'.
Money for old rope methinks...
@Tiberius...I thought you were being serious but for the 'guns' bit. We have only one life. If we choose to f*** it up with substance abuse, of any kind, that is our choice. In a free world.

1 - true. They should be checked for generality.
2 - Adding in any abnormal substance to a body and then indulging in an activity that may end in the deaths of others is not wise. And anecdotal evidence is useless. For the most part, I've seen potheads, when they drive, drive erratically and pay less attention to their speed. Does that prove anything? No. But adding in laws to restrict to a bare minimum any substance that may in any way contribute to an accident is not unreasonable. Of course, people can always go crazy and make things much worse than they are.
3 - Not impossible. Just unlikely, due to the safety margin of a 1000/1 (dose required to kill/dose required to produce desired effects) as opposed to alcohol (8/1) or cocaine (10/1). Still, common sense seems to be a rarity nowadays...

I am not against others damaging themselves - I am against their damaging of another.

Oh - and for your information, you can email the good doctor and ask for evidence. It is not the first time one has asked for it. Keep in mind she writes for the general populace of San Francisco.

[Dotard]

1. Smoking is not an issue, the laws already exist to protect the public from 2nd hand smoke from cigarettes etc. No specific anti-smoking laws relating to cannabis would change that. Or be necessary.
2. I ride a motorcycle. If driving whilst stoned was dangerous, I'd be dead. Likewise many people I know. Prove to me that it is. The good doctor provided no evidence for her claim at all. It is not sufficient to say that x% of accident victims had cannabis in their bloodstream, that is not proof of cause. Merely how widespread use is.
3. You CANNOT overdose on cannabis sufficient to kill you. It is impossible. Any product which could be harmful to toddlers/babies should be kept secure. That is just common sense and does not require a 'study'.
Money for old rope methinks...
@Tiberius...I thought you were being serious but for the 'guns' bit. We have only one life. If we choose to f*** it up with substance abuse, of any kind, that is our choice. In a free world.

This ^

[Edwardo Piet]

Legalise all drugs; let people smoke, drink, consume whatever they want to.

Oh, and whilst you are doing that, let people say whatever they want, think whatever they want, and read whatever they want. Guns would be nice too.

I was with you until "guns".

EvF

[Meatball]

2. I ride a motorcycle. If driving whilst stoned was dangerous, I'd be dead. Likewise many people I know. Prove to me that it is. The good doctor provided no evidence for her claim at all. It is not sufficient to say that x% of accident victims had cannabis in their bloodstream, that is not proof of cause. Merely how widespread use is.

You can be so stoned you can't stand up. Don't tell me marijuana can't be dangerous in combination with a motor vehicle. Just because your experience hasn't ended in tragedy doesn't make it OK.

[Tiberius]

I was with you until "guns".

EvF

What's wrong with having guns? Currently in this country we've banned most types of gun, and so the only people who have them are the government and the criminals...both are two groups of people I wouldn't trust with them...

Letting responsible people have guns is no more dangerous than letting responsible people drink alcohol. Sure, we'll have people get shot by accident, but we don't ban alcohol simply because a drunk driver kills someone. Instead, we encourage responsibility, safety, licenses, etc.

[Meatball]

Letting responsible people have guns is no more dangerous than letting responsible people drink alcohol. Sure, we'll have people get shot by accident, but we don't ban alcohol simply because a drunk driver kills someone. Instead, we encourage responsibility, safety, licenses, etc.

One might argue that alcohol wasn't invented to kill or wound living things as it's primary purpose.