New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving | CTV Toronto

There are people too impaired to drive because they've taken prescription medication. Heck, over the counter meds warn you about driving, yet people do all the time. Nobody that's impaired should be allowed to drive, period.

I thought DUI laws already covered all forms of impairment?

They do. For drugs other than alcohol there is no set blood level that's defined as impairment. So they'd have to use behavioral tests, whether it's pot or Nyquil. This is just a red herring brought up by the anti-legalization crowd - as if legalizing pot will legalize driving on pot. It's not illegal of have a high THC blood level - they can't bust you for possession or anything, so legalizing pot will have exactly 0 effect on driving unless you believe all of a sudden there'll be a huge upsurge in pot use if it's legalized. I very much doubt that.

I don't. It might not increase the total users very much. But I bet the occassional user might light up more often with the legalisation, and subsequent ease of access of pot.

They do. For drugs other than alcohol there is no set blood level that's defined as impairment. So they'd have to use behavioral tests, whether it's pot or Nyquil. This is just a red herring brought up by the anti-legalization crowd - as if legalizing pot will legalize driving on pot. It's not illegal of have a high THC blood level - they can't bust you for possession or anything, so legalizing pot will have exactly 0 effect on driving unless you believe all of a sudden there'll be a huge upsurge in pot use if it's legalized. I very much doubt that.

Just another reason why there's no sense going backwards and legalizing more drugs just because.

They do. For drugs other than alcohol there is no set blood level that's defined as impairment. So they'd have to use behavioral tests, whether it's pot or Nyquil. This is just a red herring brought up by the anti-legalization crowd - as if legalizing pot will legalize driving on pot. It's not illegal of have a high THC blood level - they can't bust you for possession or anything, so legalizing pot will have exactly 0 effect on driving unless you believe all of a sudden there'll be a huge upsurge in pot use if it's legalized. I very much doubt that.

Just another reason why there's no sense going backwards and legalizing more drugs just because.

I have a question for you Ice, why are you so against it?

They do. For drugs other than alcohol there is no set blood level that's defined as impairment. So they'd have to use behavioral tests, whether it's pot or Nyquil. This is just a red herring brought up by the anti-legalization crowd - as if legalizing pot will legalize driving on pot. It's not illegal of have a high THC blood level - they can't bust you for possession or anything, so legalizing pot will have exactly 0 effect on driving unless you believe all of a sudden there'll be a huge upsurge in pot use if it's legalized. I very much doubt that.

Just another reason why there's no sense going backwards and legalizing more drugs just because.

How does anything you've quoted here argue for not legalizing pot?

I see no sense in going backwards.

We already have enough medical & criminal issues with alcohol and cigarettes. Let's avoid making weed more accessible and affordable to young people.

We can't turn the clock back on cigs and booze but we can prevent other drugs from being more easily accessible; especially for young people.

We now have the Province of Ontario suing big tobacco for health care costs. So hypocritical.

Pro-pot people like yourself haven't offered up anything besides anecdotal information.

Both sides have mostly unsubstantiated opinions, so for you to call someone out who's offered the same type of information is pot/kettle.

Young people find pot easier to get than alcohol, because alcohol is regulated, pot isn't. We could turn the clock back on booze and cigs any time we wanted to, but we don't want to. If I thought prohibition worked, I would be all for it. The argument is why let problem drinkers spoil it for all the responsible ones. Exactly the same argument applies for pot, except that pot is so much less harmful.

Pro-pot people like yourself haven't offered up anything besides anecdotal information.

Both sides have mostly unsubstantiated opinions, so for you to call someone out who's offered the same type of information is pot/kettle.

You quoted me - how is anything I've said an argument for not legalizing pot? Is that clear enough now?

Another bit of information without any backing.

You consistently ignore the fact that kids have very easy access to alcohol within the home.

Prohibition doesn't work to a certain degree on . If people want it that bad, they'll find a way.

Using the excuse that other drugs are more harmful and that's why we should legalize weed is just laughable.

Let's not make any more drugs easily accessible to people.

I see no sense in going backwards.

We already have enough medical & criminal issues with alcohol and cigarettes. Let's avoid making weed more accessible and affordable to young people.

We can't turn the clock back on cigs and booze but we can prevent other drugs from being more easily accessible; especially for young people.

We now have the Province of Ontario suing big tobacco for health care costs. So hypocritical.

I don't partake of alcohol or weed/illicit drugs. In a perfect world, all of this shit would just 'disappear'. But it's never going to happen.
Legalizing 'smoke' is only going to result in minimizing the amount of criminal cases> criminal convictions>criminal records, which are taking up an inordinate amount of 'court resources'.
I don't believe for a second that if legalized young peeps are going to start smoking any more than is already the case. Instead of continuing to try to 'hold back the tide, the govt might as well sit back and rake in some more cash.
Einsteins theory of insanity comes to mind!

Speaking as a former teenager Yogi....

Do you think that if weed was just as accessible in the home as alcohol is today that more teens would be tempted to try it?