That it will happen I mean, not that it should happen. In too many conversations to count, with people across the political spectrum, the person will agree with every single point you bring up against prohibition but in the end still oppose legalization. All it takes is a single horror story (true or not) and they retreat back to their default position of keeping it illegal.

More importantly, legalization is a high risk, low reward proposition for politicians. The opponants can be counted on to be more passionate and vocal about their position than those who would legalize, as well as generally more organized. I just don't see it happening in 10 years (maybe 25), but I'd like to be wrong.

It will happen state-by-state, as long as the federal government doesn't intrude. California will legalize it outright, I think. The vote will be close. I don't see how you can support pot for medical purposes but not outright legalization. Everybody knows the medical-pot thing is a canard. And I say that as someone who supports legalization.

If the federal government continues a hands-off approach (and if Obama can get two terms and hold to that policy--no telling what another president would do), I don't think you can stop it from happening gradually, state-by-state.

I think its decriminalization and eventual legalization will be a bit more long-tail, for precisely the political reasons you've suggested. The pre-boomer generation who brought us the prohibition is still an important voting demographic. Also, pro-legalization advocates tend to oversell the benefits while underselling the downsides. People operating machinery (including cars) are pretty much just as dangerous as drunks. People toking up at lunchtime will have serious productivity issues in the afternoon at work. Use among kids will likely go up. These things need to be addressed.

Oh you'll be able to buy it, I'm sure, eventually. You won't, however, be able to smoke it. Because while we're decriminalizing pot, we're criminalizing smoking -- confining it to fewer and fewer legal venues.

"People toking up at lunchtime will have serious productivity issues in the afternoon at work. "

This is why I stick to only three old fashioneds during lunch at the Petroleum Club.

"All it takes is a single horror story (true or not) and they retreat back to their default position of keeping it illegal."

#### When one considers the countless TRUE horror stories about alcohol and tobacco and its effects, consider that these remain legal to purchase and use. How many DUI deaths per year? How many dead from lung cancer? Yet these remain legal.

If one is honest about it, drugs are not the problem--abuse is the problem--and thats as true with alchol and tobacco and any other drug. Getting high or drunk on your lunch break is bad judgement--it isnt somehow better that your are drinking beer or shots.......

I think access to pot will actually grow more difficult for kids if it's legalized, regulated and a minimum age is attached.

I didn't even smoke pot in high school, yet knew of several pretty regular sources where I could have obtained it. Alcohol, on the other hand, was a lot harder to score. It's not like there's a big black market out there for something adults can easily and legally walk into a store and purchase. For a lot of teenagers, alcohol is tough to get their hands on unless they have an older, willing sibling or parents with an unlocked and well stocked liquor cabinet or something along those lines.

I think access to pot will go in that direction if it's legalized. Particularly now that fake ID's are so much harder to make, what with every state going digital for drivers licenses.

My SIL and I were JUST talking about this same issue this weekend. We figure it'll get legalized and the drug companies (Phizer, etc) will develop some kind of pin-prick blood test (or saliva test) that police can administer car-side like they do a breathalyzer.

I don't smoke it, but it sure would be a money maker for American farmers, in addition to allowing the growth of its sister crop, hemp, in the US.

And a moneymaker for the govt with the sin tax + sales tax they'll be able to slap in like alcohol and cigarettes.

MrsBug:

My SIL and I were JUST talking about this same issue this weekend. We figure it'll get legalized and the drug companies (Phizer, etc) will develop some kind of pin-prick blood test (or saliva test) that police can administer car-side like they do a breathalyzer.

The problem with this is that THC takes a long time to metabolize out of the body once the high is over, so a person could have smoked a few days or even a week ago and still test "dirty" even though they are no longer intoxicated.

People operating machinery (including cars) are pretty much just as dangerous as drunks. People toking up at lunchtime will have serious productivity issues in the afternoon at work. Use among kids will likely go up. These things need to be addressed.

No, a stoned driver is not just as dangerous as a drunk driver. They're by no means safe, but they're not as dangerous as drunks. Besides, stoned people tend to know when they're too messed up to drive and don't do it.
Anyone who tokes up at lunch should be treated the same as anyone who gets drunk at lunch.
And I doubt that use among kids will increase at all. It's really easy to get as it is. My 17-year-old sister would have an easier time scoring a dime bag than she would a fifth of Jack. Take a look at countries with sensible drug policies. The Netherlands comes to mind. Marijuana has been decriminalized there for years and the rate of use is quite a bit lower than in the US.

ZoeCat:

No, a stoned driver is not just as dangerous as a drunk driver. They're by no means safe, but they're not as dangerous as drunks. Besides, stoned people tend to know when they're too messed up to drive and don't do it.

Eh...I'd say that at reasonable levels, dose per dose (beer-per-hit) it's a wash. Think how easily the mind wanders when stoned. The difference, really, is that one can only get "so" high, whereas continuing to drink after about 5 beers the average man becomes far more dangerous as a drunk.

Anyone who tokes up at lunch should be treated the same as anyone who gets drunk at lunch. And I doubt that use among kids will increase at all. It's really easy to get as it is. My 17-year-old sister would have an easier time scoring a dime bag than she would a fifth of Jack. Take a look at countries with sensible drug policies. The Netherlands comes to mind. Marijuana has been decriminalized there for years and the rate of use is quite a bit lower than in the US.

I generally agree, but I'm talking about selling the idea of legalization as a political reality to people resistant to the idea.

"Eh...I'd say that at reasonable levels, dose per dose (beer-per-hit) it's a wash."

So you say. I don't think it hinders one at all unless they are super fuckin stoned and/or a noob. And even then, it's nowhere like being super fuckin drunk.

How about some actual science to reconcile the inconsistencies in our opinions...? I'd like to volunteer to be in that study.

Well...are we talking about some of that California Blueberry Cush (sp?) vs. a Miller High Life? Or some Illinois ditchweed vs. Le Fin du Monde? Bong hits or joint hits?

Those studies probably are coming... :-)

> No, a stoned driver is not just as dangerous as a drunk driver.

A drunk driver will blow right through a stop sign. A stoned driver will sit and wait patiently for it to turn green.

enfermot!!:

"Eh...I'd say that at reasonable levels, dose per dose (beer-per-hit) it's a wash."

So you say. I don't think it hinders one at all unless they are super fuckin stoned and/or a noob. And even then, it's nowhere like being super fuckin drunk.

How about some actual science to reconcile the inconsistencies in our opinions...? I'd like to volunteer to be in that study.

I can see it now. The screening form would include "Are you a fucking noob? Please check yes or no.", and you would be scored on a 5 point score from "Buzzed" to "Super fuckin stoned".