I have a sneaking suspicion that even if pot were legal, employers would still test for it (i.e., and not allow its use).
In Denmark it is perfectly normal to drink a few beers during your lunchbreak. Even when you're a school teacher.
Legalize it to the level that Alcohol and Nicotine are legal. Legalize everything to this level.
I'm firmly on the side that you advocate rosborne, but I feel compelled to ask where we would draw the line and just how you go about formulating a definition which is a clear line of demarcation between marijuana and meth or barbiturates, for example.
What about mushrooms (psilocybe cyanescens)?
I suppose there is no way to remove subjective relativism in exchange for a catch-all rules set that bans crank but allows pot. Even harder is to design a rules set that bans crank but allows tobacco.
rosborne979 wrote:Legalize it to the level that Alcohol and Nicotine are legal. Legalize everything to this level.
Why not just prohibit alcohol and tobacco instead?
We already tried that. It didn't work. And current drug policies are having more of a negative impact on our society than a positive impact (in my opinion).
But beyond all that, I have a hard time believing that we have the right to limit personal freedom to do drugs, or not.
rosborne979 wrote:We already tried that. It didn't work. And current drug policies are having more of a negative impact on our society than a positive impact (in my opinion).
Then why regulate drugs on the same level as alcohol and tobacco? What is it about alcohol and tobacco that they are the benchmarks for acceptable drug regulation?
Because there is a point at which personal drug use begins to impact other people's rights. In particular this happens in public, and driving vehicles, and at work.
The dividing line you are requesting is the point at which personal freedoms begin to infringe on other people's personal freedoms. And I agree that the line can get a bit fishy in places, which is why I suggest using the "standards" which are currently in place for Alcohol (I actually prefer using Alcohol rather than Tobacco because it covers things like driving).
Presumably, then, you'd have no objection to selling heroin in six-packs at the local grocery store. Or having crack cocaine on tap at the corner tavern. Or setting up a crystal meth lab in an abandoned brewery. Right?
Correct. I can't have it both ways. I have to be wiling to accept the things you described if I am to have the level of personal freedom I think people should have.
Note: A person leaving a bar is not supposed to be falling down drunk. So a person leaving a crack bar or a heroin parlor must likewise be able to walk the public streets in a respectible fashion.
As it happens, Alcohol has a reasonably well understood level of inebriation which is considered acceptable in public. If heroin or crack intoxication were to be determined unacceptible in public, then it would seem reasonable to require home use only.