[CSactuary]

Not good.

I was a proponent for cannabis legalization several years ago.. but seeing it in action, not so sure anymore. And I don’t even live in a state where it’s legal. But seems like half the work force is stoned now. Doesn’t bother me if you want to get high at home. But shouldn’t be high in public if it’s going to inconvenience others or put others at risk.

[quesera]

> But shouldn’t be high in public if it’s going to inconvenience others or put others at risk.

Laws vary, but public intoxication is usually a misdemeanor. Driving while intoxicated can be a felony. Working while intoxicated can be a fireable offense. We have existing frameworks to deal with these cases.

Babies and small children are sometimes sources of inconvenience in public. As are people who walk slowly. And tourists. And photographers. And dogs. And (especially) the people who think it is reasonable to push their cart down the middle of the aisle and leave it there while they decide which of "fifty kinds of breakfast cereals, with different names, whose ingredients all read exactly the same", they will choose to ensicken their children with.

The convenience objection sounds like a slight incremental discomfort to me.

I get it though. I am pro-legalization also. I believe it's proper and correct for government to have no role in the freely-chosen personal and private activities of competent adults. But I don't want to deal with people in public being any stupider (more graciously, "less conscientious and aware") than they are already.

That said, I'd much rather deal with a hundred people high on cannabis, lsd, mdma, and/or psilocybin, than a dozen people who are noticeably drunk on alcohol. I'm hoping for social preference to shift to newly-legalized intoxicants, which are better for everyone in all respects, than the status quo. And that these early years are just a period of adjustment and recalibration.

[CSactuary]

Yes, children can sometimes be an inconvenience, but sort of a necessary part of our existence. Tourism brings in money. Dogs are limited in where they may go.

Getting high is literally just to get a buzz. So pretty self indulgent.

Agree the laws on the books should help protect but unfortunately they are not consistently enforced.

Cannabis and other drugs can impair from a single dose. One quick edible before going to your shift. Whereas it’s difficult to slug a 6 pack or chug a bunch of liquor. So people pop an edible before going to work and don’t think anyone can tell they’re high, but next thing you know there’s a line wrapped around the block because they’re doing everything at the speed of molasses. There’s just no fear anymore and limited social taboo.

I tend to lean more libertarian but I just don’t think we’re on a good trajectory with this one.

[quesera]

> next thing you know there’s a line wrapped around the block

Poor work performance is always a solvable problem.

I don't think this objection is a significant concern in the complicated social response to the legalization movement.

> There’s just no fear anymore and limited social taboo

I'd hesitate to use such moralistic language. I don't care why an impaired person is impaired. I care that they are not doing things that endanger others, or themselves.

> Getting high is literally just to get a buzz. So pretty self indulgent

I think that's overly simplistic. My point was that a lot of things people do end up being inconvenient for others. Tourism brings in money, sure, but so does cannabis sales.

I can't justify having an opinion on how other people choose to enjoy their day. Tourism, standing in line at the brunch place, dog parks, lazy strolls along the riverfront, recreational chemistry...it's all good.

I'd always prefer that they didn't impede my plans for the day, but I, and my day, are not more important than they and theirs. I would like to have social/legal support for controlling their actions if they endanger others. This is established though, so I don't see an issue.

[Suppafly]

>But seems like half the work force is stoned now.

I live in a legal state and I haven't noticed this. The only place I've heard of any significant amount of people working stoned is Colorado and it was that way decades before legalization.

[quickthrowman]

There is no test to determine whether someone is currently high from THC. They’re simply testing more people and finding positive THC tests, which means they’ve used THC in the past 1-4 weeks.

This study is complete horseshit, a more accurate title is “Car crash deaths involving people who may have consumed cannabis in the past month are on the rise”

[walthamstow]

Total car crash deaths are also on the rise

[josefresco]

Very recently they have dropped: https://apnews.com/article/nhtsa-traffic-fatalities-82676a2a...

But they were up the last two years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

As far as why, this article might shed some light: https://www.vox.com/22675358/us-car-deaths-year-traffic-covi...

"According to several traffic experts I spoke with, the explanation for the 2020 fatality spike is relatively straightforward: With fewer cars on the road during quarantine, traffic congestion was all but eliminated, which emboldened people to drive at lethal speeds. Compared to 2019, many more drivers involved in fatal crashes also didn’t wear seat belts or drove drunk."

[ValentinPearce]

But is it linked ? Cars have been getting bigger and bigger cars (specifically SUVs) are linked to car crashes to be more lethal.

Are total car crashes on the rise ? How does that figure compare to the amount of cars on the road ?

[CapcomGo]

This is fear mongering.