574ee3af   
   XPost: talk.politics.drugs, misc.legal, alt.politics   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa   
   From: pxhxz@cadence.com   
      
   In article <5170561b-6e3a-481c-80b8-fccb3cff84e4@k22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>   
   Transition Zone  writes:   
   >On Jan 14, 4:22=A0pm, px...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:   
   >> In article <2035e4ba-dbfa-48a9-abcb-caa6fe8f6...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.=   
   >com> Transition Zone  writes:   
      
   >> >Have you or your kids ever been a passenger on a plane flown by a pot   
   >> >smoking pilots? =A0A bus or taxi driven by pot smoking drivers??   
      
   >> Have you or your kids ever been a passenger on a plane flown by an alcoho=   
   >l   
   >> drinking pilots? =A0A bus or taxi driven by alcohol drinking drivers??   
      
   >Oh, so the more the merrier?   
      
   No, the point is that the problem isn't the drug, it is the particular person   
   taking it.   
      
   Not to mention that a marijuana-only using driver is far safer than an   
   alcohol-only using driver, and statistics show that a marijuana-only using   
   driver is about as safe as a totally sober driver.   
      
   So, I am against people driving or piloting while incapable of doing it.  But   
   it is a logical fallacy to claim that if more substances are legal then more   
   people will drive will incapable.  People who are responsible and reliable   
   will not drive in such a condition.  And that won't change whether or not   
   substances are legal or illegal.   
      
   What does change, though, is the "forbidden fruit" aspect.  Things that are   
   forbidden are more enticing to those inclined to take risks, so making things   
   illegal will actual make those things more enticing for some people.   
      
   Note that during alcohol prohibition in the USA more young people were getting   
   drunk (not necessarily drinking, since one can drink in moderation without   
   getting drunk) and that was one of the reasons people started calling for the   
   repeal of alcohol prohibition.   
      
   By all means, require that people who are driving not do things that reduce   
   their ability to drive.  And that includes getting enough sleep, not drinking   
   too much alcohol, not using cell phones or other electronic equipment while   
   driving, not reading while driving, etc.  But do it based on reality, not   
   conjecture.  If a certain level of marijuana intoxication can be shown to   
   be correlated to reduced driving ability, then by all means set a limit for   
   marijuana use while driving.  Similarly, we set such a limit with alcohol.   
      
   And it is OK with me that professional drivers and pilots should be limited   
   to .01% alcohol (instead of .08 BAC as it is with most drivers) and there may   
   be a lower limit for other drugs, too.  But that's not a reason to make those   
   drugs illegal (and therefor more dangerous and more enticing to risk-takers)   
   for general use by people who aren't driving or otherwise engaged in   
   activities that might put others at risk.   
      
   And in some cases certain drugs may be beneficial.  We don't forbid drivers   
   to use caffeine, for example.   
      
   -Pete Zakel   
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
      
   Ambidextrous, adj.:   
   	Able to pick with equal skill a right-hand pocket or a left.   
      
   			-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)