San Fran to expunge over 9000 cannabis convictions

[Jackalope]

No argument there.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I have one very serious reservation about the legalization of weed. People drive while high, and that really, really pisses me off. Studies have shown an increase in car accidents in the states that have legalized weed. The increase is about 6%. With about 30,000 people dying per year in car accidents, a 6% increase is 1,800 more dead people every year. People seem to be reasoning that since weed is legal, then driving while high is more acceptable.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consume...es-n921511

People drive when drunk. Should we ban alcohol too?

[Yonadav]

I have one very serious reservation about the legalization of weed. People drive while high, and that really, really pisses me off. Studies have shown an increase in car accidents in the states that have legalized weed. The increase is about 6%. With about 30,000 people dying per year in car accidents, a 6% increase is 1,800 more dead people every year. People seem to be reasoning that since weed is legal, then driving while high is more acceptable.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consume...es-n921511

People drive when drunk.  Should we ban alcohol too?

I didn't say that we should ban weed. I said that I had one serious reservation about legalizing it.  There's this thing called a balanced perspective. Aside from the problem of people driving while stoned, I can't think of any other reason that weed should be illegal. But I still have that one serious reservation about stoned driving. If we are going to have legal weed, then we need to actively discourage stoned driving just as aggressively as we do drunk driving.

I have already posted one link in which a writer seems to think that some people can operate a motor vehicle 'in perfect safety' while stoned, and seems to feel that there is an acceptable level of being stoned while driving by differentiating between being 'stoned' and 'dangerously stoned'. So we definitely have some assholes out there who think that it is OK to drive while stoned.

[I_am_not_mafia]

People drive when drunk.  Should we ban alcohol too?

I didn't say that we should ban weed. I said that I had one serious reservation about legalizing it.  There's this thing called a balanced perspective. Aside from the problem of people driving while stoned, I can't think of any other reason that weed should be illegal. But I still have that one serious reservation about stoned driving. If we are going to have legal weed, then we need to actively discourage stoned driving just as aggressively as we do drunk driving.

Because if you have reservations about legalising weed for the same reasons that alcohol is a problem, but think that alcohol should stay legal, then that's inconsistent.

So we have a campaign to seriously deter people from driving while stoned. Easy enough. We do it successfully with drunk drivers.

[Yonadav]

I didn't say that we should ban weed. I said that I had one serious reservation about legalizing it.  There's this thing called a balanced perspective. Aside from the problem of people driving while stoned, I can't think of any other reason that weed should be illegal. But I still have that one serious reservation about stoned driving. If we are going to have legal weed, then we need to actively discourage stoned driving just as aggressively as we do drunk driving.

Because if you have reservations about legalising weed for the same reasons that alcohol is a problem, but think that alcohol should stay legal, then that's inconsistent.

So we have a campaign to seriously deter people from driving while stoned. Easy enough. We do it successfully with drunk drivers.

No, it's not inconsistent. You are just engaging in whataboutism. I said that if we are going to have legal weed, the we need to actively discourage stoned driving just as aggressively as we do drunk driving. So I'm completely consistent.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Because if you have reservations about legalising weed for the same reasons that alcohol is a problem, but think that alcohol should stay legal, then that's inconsistent.

So we have a campaign to seriously deter people from driving while stoned. Easy enough. We do it successfully with drunk drivers.

No, it's not inconsistent. You are just engaging in whataboutism. I said that if we are going to have legal weed, the we need to actively discourage stoned driving just as aggressively as we do drunk driving. So I'm completely consistent.

I don't think that anyone is arguing with that.

Your post suggested that maybe weed shouldn't be legalised. Apologies if I misunderstood what you meant.

I have one very serious reservation about the legalization of weed.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

TheyneedtodecriminalizespeedassoonaspossibleThereisnorealreasontomakerecreationspeeduseacrimeThisisjistanotherexampleofthenannystategonemadnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh.

Boru

[EgoDeath]

Because if you have reservations about legalising weed for the same reasons that alcohol is a problem, but think that alcohol should stay legal, then that's inconsistent.

So we have a campaign to seriously deter people from driving while stoned. Easy enough. We do it successfully with drunk drivers.

No, it's not inconsistent. You are just engaging in whataboutism. I said that if we are going to have legal weed, the we need to actively discourage stoned driving just as aggressively as we do drunk driving. So I'm completely consistent.

Your original post didn't exactly express this same sentiment. Having a reservation about the legalization of weed means you're sort of skeptical about legalization, as if this one limiting qualification is enough to make you question whether or not cannabis should be legalized. That's how your original post came off to multiple people, not just me.

This seems inconsistent when you openly cited incomplete research to try to prove that cannabis causes car accidents (which, the very research you quoted openly admitted it was making no such claim), while you never expressed any "reservations" about alcohol and fatal car collisions. This comes off, to some, as inconsistent. It seems like you have a bone to pick with weed while you're happily giving alcohol a pass.

I'm not claiming you're saying that, but you have to understand that this is how it is coming off to people.

Even if a correlation was completely established between cannabis use and an increase in reported car collisions, this isn't a valid enough reason to combat legalization. This means, as others have stated, we need increased awareness and education surrounding cannabis use, especially in correlation to using a motor vehicle.

[Yonadav]

No, it's not inconsistent. You are just engaging in whataboutism. I said that if we are going to have legal weed, the we need to actively discourage stoned driving just as aggressively as we do drunk driving. So I'm completely consistent.

Your original post didn't exactly express this same sentiment. Having a reservation about the legalization of weed means you're sort of skeptical about legalization, as if this one limiting qualification is enough to make you question whether or not cannabis should be legalized. That's how your original post came off to multiple people, not just me.

This seems inconsistent when you openly cited incomplete research to try to prove that cannabis causes car accidents (which, the very research you quoted openly admitted it was making no such claim), while you never expressed any "reservations" about alcohol and fatal car collisions. This comes off, to some, as inconsistent. It seems like you have a bone to pick with weed while you're happily giving alcohol a pass.

I'm not claiming you're saying that, but you have to understand that this is how it is coming off to people.

Even if a correlation was completely established between cannabis use and an increase in reported car collisions, this isn't a valid enough reason to combat legalization. This means, as others have stated, we need increased awareness and education surrounding cannabis use, especially in correlation to using a motor vehicle.

You distort the concept of having a reservation. You people are so damned "You're either 100% for things, or you're 100% against them" that it is just about impossible to have a discussion about anything with any of you. You shut down discussions.

I had one reservation. It was a valid reservation. An intelligent discussion probably would entail what we think should be done about that valid reservation. Several people posted that people who are caught driving while stoned should be prosecuted. That's a rational response to my reservation.

[EgoDeath]

You distort the concept of having a reservation. You people are so damned "You're either 100% for things, or you're 100% against them" that it is just about impossible to have a discussion about anything with any of you. You shut down discussions.

Woah, what? What the hell is your problem? I literally just used the definition of what having a reservation is "withholding, keeping back, or applying a limiting condition to." I never said you were 100% for or against, I even said that the reservation you have may be well-founded, but that the research isn't conclusive yet. I also said that if it is an issue then we clearly need better education about cannabis use and driving. I'm not "shutting down" any discussion, I showed you why the research you cited is inconclusive, which it is and which you seemed to be willfully ignoring. If you're recognizing that it's inconclusive, then fine, no problem. As long as everyone is being honest about that.

I had one reservation. It was a valid reservation. An intelligent discussion probably would entail what we think should be done about that valid reservation. Several people posted that people who are caught driving while stoned should be prosecuted. That's a rational response to my reservation.

It MAY be a valid reservation, sure. And as SEVERAL people HAVE suggested, we SHOULD prosecute people who drive impaired. No one has denied that or said anything close to denying that.

It seems YOU'RE the one who wants to shut the discussion down - THIS IS A VALID RESERVATION AND THAT'S THAT!

Well, no, that's not that. The conversation doesn't end there and people ARE allowed to challenge you on that reservation, as multiple people have. Chill the fuck out dude.