This thread has obviously veered miles away from Rogan and his concurrent thoughts on both hunting and marijuana. It's now nothing more than a debate on pot legalization which of course nobody is going to win or lose here. My comments are mainly for questions and discussion.
Regarding legalization and comparing it to alcohol, I wonder if similar regulations and laws would work? I'm primarily thinking about the user/consumer. What would be the marijuana-equivalent laws to alcohol regarding driving under the influence, public intoxication (stoned outside the mall), open container, and a host of other questions. Legalizing it doesn't mean there won't be a hoard of laws regarding legal vs illegal use and the concurrent enforcement issues which accompany that. Law enforcement spends a ton of time and tax dollars enforcing alcohol-related laws and dealing with those who misbehave with that substance. The same WILL be true with cannabis if legalized. Making it legal to possess will not suddenly free up our law enforcement community and legal system to ignore marijuana. Rather, it will result in a new library of laws and enforcement efforts centered around acceptable, legal use, and dealing with use-related crimes...just as with alcohol today. I'm in no way saying cannabis and alcohol are similar in effect. I am saying there will be bad actors associated with pot, just as there are with alcohol. It's rather disingenuous for anyone to paint a picture of a happy idyllic family where mom and dad are rolling and sharing a joint after dinner while the kids watch television. Is a roach in an a vehicle ashtray the same as an open bottle of vodka...legally? Will it be? Your opinion is just as valid as mine at this point.
I don't want my wife to be out on the road along with a truck driver who's had one of anything if it affects his driving.
I will opinionate something: I think resistance to legalization is as much belief-oriented and cultural as it is logical (or illogical to some). A huge segment of people believe we simply have too many people impaired by substances...period. They believe cannabis impairs people when it's used. They know alcohol and many other substances of abuse cause real impairment and put a huge strain on all of us in terms of our spent tax dollars and hours of law enforcement utilized. For many, cannabis (remaining illegal) represents a line in the sand issue. Legalize it and it won't be enough for those who advocate a free-to-choose society. The line gets moved but will be asked to move again and again as a segment of our population wants greater access to (currently illegal) substances and gradually moves the needle toward a drug-tolerant society. Those negatively affected by drugs and drug users don't view increasing societal acceptance of drugs as producing a better quality of life or reducing crime. Again...it's a line they will fight to hold. Ideology vs Ideology.
Soapbox for me: I've always been about personal responsibility and accountability. People who put addictive and toxic substances in their bodies as a lifestyle thing should NOT be asking the rest of us to pay their bills in life. You smoke...get cancer...don't come looking for government medical assistance. You're out of work...smoke weed...there goes your unemployment income. You weigh 385 pounds and have diabetes...please don't ask me to pay for your insulin, antidepressants, cookies and a nice, close parking space. If you get drunk and hurt someone, you're going to hurt more...by a factor of 5. Should I be asked to pay for narcan and an EMS crew plus transport for a opioid addict who will repeat this process x times as long as I/we enable them financially and socially? Come on...I can't afford that EMS crew in a direct-pay situation myself, but an unemployed (forever) heroin-shooter gets a free ticket? We are not helping ourselves by accepting (both) people's right to abusively use substances, and then handling the costs of it. If a drunk driver took your wife's life would you feel sorry for him if he had to pay money for 20 years or lose his home in order to account for the direct costs of his behavior? If the blood tests showed only the existence of cannabinoids, would you give him a pass?
I see potential benefits and big problems in legalization. Some things might improve. Unintended consequences can't be brushed aside. I suppose in the end it comes down to the old cost-benefit ratio, except proving any of it is difficult.
