It shouldn't have to be said, but I guess I should have prefaced it all with the disclosure that I am for legalizing mj, but have a few hangups, not outright opposition, but hangups on what will happen in the real world. So are the majority of conservatives, moderates, and liberals I know under the age of 50. So there you have it. It's not a war between me and the pot heads. Defenses down, ok?
a) OK.. What about alcohol? Do you not want cops to decide who is driving drunk either?
b) Me neither. Then again I don't want people to drive drunk either. But if I had to choose I'd probably take the stoned guy over the drunk. DUI includes driving while messed on more stuff than just alcohol I don't see why pot couldn't be included here too.
c) Would your boss fire you if you showed up drunk or even smelled alcohol on your breath? Why would you need to call the Sheriff? Leave it to the discretion of the business.
Comparing US prison rates to China, North Korea, or at least half the Islamic Conference members is bad example and you know it. Compare west to west and I'm with you.
a) I don't want cops playing judge and jury on anything, including pot and alcohol. BAC tests are reliable and directly correlated to toxicity. THC tests don't tell you anything about current condition, as far as I know anyway.
c) If you are taking the libertarian view that GF is then I have no qualms outside usury and feudalism issues that libertarians by and large don't recognize as existent (I also have strong Austrian leanings, so kiss my *** if you want to pick a fight with me on this). Others will, however.
All I am saying is if it is legal then you will increase usage, at least in the short term, and you will have operators with THC in the bloodstream who may or may not be stoned. If you want to let a paranoid boss fire them then that's what we live with. But you're going to see plenty opposition, mainly from the left.
So we should keep it illegal because it isn't detectable in real time? So if law enforcement can't establish a test that would differentiate between a stoned driver and a sober driver then maybe it's because there isn't much of a difference. On the other hand, if a field sobriety test would catch stoners then we're all set, aren't we?
That's my only question. I'm not in favor of law enforcement or regulators establishing guilt based on a personal judgement (this coming from someone who does this for a living). When it comes down to an officer's testimony against the innocent, who do think the judge will side with? The judge of the executive. Brown shirts aren't my style.
I believe scientific advancement should lead regulation. BAC tests work and are credible evidence that minimize human error, bias, prejudice, and vendettas. Any cop pair can declare you stoned and there is nothing you can do about it. Well, not for years until the ******** are finally caught and your case gets tossed. I don't want to take that chance and spend 15 at the point over an ******* with a gripe. I don't see how any libertarian or stoner is not in agreement here.
I'm for complete drug legalization. I'm also for employers having the ability to hire/fire based on any criteria they see fit, including drug/alcohol tests or even cholesterol level. I'd expect periodic random drug screening by employers would be a more effective way to control drugs than the current war on drugs is. Not saying no one would do drugs or that no one would get away with doing it and working in places people on drugs shouldn't, so it would be a lot like our current situation in that regard.
And you have the moral upper hand on every member of this website based on consistency and lack of hypocrisy and personal mental blocks. I'm not arguing against this because it's a value system and not something you establish a logical foundation away from or toward. Where I move away from libertarianism, and I was one for life minus the last 3 years, is the feudalism issue. How do libertarians solve it? Jefferson did, libertarians deny. That's my dumb minded understanding anyway.
1. Basic civil liberties are at stake.
I'd call you on this if I thought you were a hard core leftist, which I know you're not.
2. eh? Cannabis is not only a psychotropic drug, but also an extremely good source of food. Only a complete moron would argue against converting corn and soy fields to cannabis for food supply reasons.
Something I haven't ever heard. Thanks.
3. I imagine there are quite a few pot heads out there who would pay a premium for locally grown, organic weed if it were legalized. They already do so now.
I'm not talking local pothead anomalies who actually stick to their values (and in my experience are thoroughly parasitic anyway). You know the left is hypocritical here.
