[Alex3917]

"this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence"

Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol, does it really matter? We as a society have already decided that the level of risk that driving stoned poses is acceptable.

[tptacek]

Libertarians will also make rational arguments about how blood alcohol limit laws should be repealed. After all, there's no science to indicate that 10 different people will be impaired to the same extent by the same blood alcohol level. You can argue about any of these issues. But do you really think driving stoned is a winning political issue? And while tens of thousands of people are imprisoned over marijuana, isn't it relevant that it's a losing argument?

[jrockway]

Libertarians will also make rational arguments about how blood alcohol limit laws should be repealed. After all, there's no science to indicate that 10 different people will be impaired to the same extent by the same blood alcohol level.

No, that issue is solved. It's called a trial.

[tptacek]

My point is simply this: now you're trying to convince sensible people of two things they've been trained not to believe. First, that something that has been a controlled substance for decades should be open to commerce in California, and second, that the basis of our drunk driving laws are unsound and should be in effect repealed starting with that controlled substance.

A campaign to repeal blood alcohol limits would almost certainly fail in every US state, so its attachment to this bill seems like a horrible overreach.

[chollida1]

> Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol

Source? I've seen stoned people that couldn't stand up, much less drive.

[Alex3917]

Obviously you can put enough of anything into your body that you can't stand up, but for normal amounts it's safer than driving drunk, on your phone, texting, etc. There are several researchers who have found that it's so safe that in double blind studies they couldn't tell the difference between the sober group and the stoned group, i.e. they found zero harm at all. The ones who do find some impairing effects say they are minimal.

[chollida1]

I didn't down vote you, sorry that happened.

> Obviously you can put enough of anything into your body that you can't stand up, but for normal amounts it's safer than driving drunk, on your phone, texting, etc.

The problem I have with what you are stating is that you hand wave over "normal amounts". What is a normal amount. I've seen one toke of weed be enough to lay someone out for a half hour, I haven't seen that from one sip of a beer.

[adolph]

Any citation for that statement about impairment? Does it impair less than texting to talking on the phone? There was a stunt article in the LA Times that is short on detail but indicates that marijuana may impair in different ways from alcohol:

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-10...

[Alex3917]

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_cannabis#...