Well, I have to say here that I do not look at widespread drug use and its consequences as something confined to smoking a blunt in one's living room. You apparently do, however, considering that you come back to that one example time and again.
So, let me get this right, circumstances matter?
In the real world, there are all manner of objects near the roadway that could and do interfere with the driver's vision ahead, particularly if he's going 140 miles an hour! So this is certainly not something that's just theoretical.
All sorts of objects near the roadway? You're talking in very generic terms here. Remember I was actually there and watching very intently for any such objects.
If you want to "win" this disagreement, be mindful that by reducing it to what YOU ALONE saw or experienced on one drive...
Well, since your method of "countering" my argument that circumstances matter is to present a whole host of scenarios in which, under different circumstances, things don't work as well it seems you've spent lots of posts proving what I said in the first place, that circumstances make a lot of difference.
you are doing exactly what I noted before, which is taking a most improbable scenario and trying to make it seem like something commonplace. If you do not do that, you know that your story proves nothing about what the state or nation is forced to confront as a consequence of increased marijuana use.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that a one-size-fits-all approach often doesn't fit anything particularly well, that circumstances matter (as you've admirably helped demonstrate), and that we can restrict combinations of activities instead of worrying about one in isolation based on nothing more than a "but what if" scenario.
But we don't even need to point out the flaw in your argument like this, and that's because we have cold hard facts to consider. Among them is this one: drugged drivers (most often on MJ) on our highways now are more dangerous than drunk drivers, a fact that didn't exist before marijuana became widely legal and easily obtained.
... which is why we need laws against smoking
and driving. You know, it's legal to sit in my living room and have a couple of beers but, depending on just what "a couple of beers" means it might not be legal to drive for a while. The problem isn't people using marijuana, the problem is people using marijuana
and then driving.
Just as you totally failed to demonstrate how driving at 140mph on an empty expressway endangered anybody except myself, so you fail to demonstrate how smoking a blunt in my living room endangers anybody else, or indeed drinking my way through a case of beer in my own back yard endangers anybody else. It's the same with some prescribed or over-the-counter medications - the ones that say things like "may cause drowsiness, if affected do not drive or operate machinery". Should we outlaw those as well? You never know if someone will get really sleepy from their allergy medication and decide they want to go for a drive. You've probably seen your share of people weaving all over the road because they are trying to write a text message as they drive. Do we ban cellphones? No, we ban texting while driving.
Maybe we should just ban driving, it seems to be the common thread here. People can't be trusted not to drive after doing something that impairs them, so why not just make it illegal to drive in any condition? My little jaunt at triple-digit speeds ended when I approached the end of the expressway because the road conditions were going to change. You already noted the potential for carnage doing that sort of speed through a even a sparsely populated residential area (under different circumstances - there's that word showing up yet again...). Knowing different road conditions - different circumstances - were coming, I slowed down to a speed appropriate to the new conditions. But nothing forced me to do that. Maybe it's safer to just ban driving. We can all live like the Amish.
Trying to prohibit things based on the possibility that a person indulging in one activity may go on to do something else is exactly the kind of hypotheticals you're complaining about me throwing out there. That innocent bonfire in my back yard could become deadly if I decided to combine it with a game of makeshift golf, raining burning embers on my neighbor's piles of dry leaves that he so carefully placed away from where I burn. If you want to argue that one activity should be banned because people might go on to do something else, how hypothetical do you want to get?
Or maybe we should figure that the focus on "but what if you then go on and do this" is addressed with legislation. If I drink a six pack in my backyard everything is fine but if I then decide to drive to my friend's house, that is probably against the law (I say "probably" because a six-pack of something like Coors Lite may not put me over the DUI limit). If I smoke a blunt in my living room and then decide to drive to my friend's house, the law should have something to say about that as well. Likewise if I take medications that cause drowsiness and then decide to drive I should be treated as an impaired driver. And if I do any of those things
without driving, I'm still waiting to find out who I'm endangering. It's probably just as well I'm not holding my breath waiting.
As I may have mentioned before, circumstances matter. The question needs to be whether real people are endangered in the combination of circumstances that exists. Drinking, or drinking and driving. Smoking, or smoking and driving. Prescription medications, or prescription medications and driving. You'd almost be forgiven for thinking there's a pattern or something.
