In my opinion I don’t think that’s the right solution. I think cannabis is closer to coffee.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    DUIs for both. Public intoxication not nearly as big a deal, being high in public is harmless. Secondhand smoke is no different from cigarettes though, so public smoking still needs to be regulated. 21+ for both. Did I miss any?

    • PutangInaMo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m with everything you said except smoking in public.

      The difference between nicotine and THC are wildly different and second hand smoke from cannabis containing high amounts of THC well absolutely wreck somebody and should not be acceptable.

      • LadyAutumn
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah if you literally exhale it directly into someone’s mouth but if you’re both standing on opposite sides of an open air smoking area it really isn’t comparable in the slightest.

        The problem with second hand cigarette smoke is also not nicotine, its the like 160 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke most of which comes from additives.

        • PutangInaMo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I won’t argue for cigarettes, they’re terrible.

          But I do disagree with your sentiment regarding Marijuana. The cannabinoids and terpenes are still in what you exhale, just in a smaller amount. You’re still introducing foreign material to others unsolicited.

          • LadyAutumn
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So then we should probably talk about car exhaust fumes, I inhale that every time I go outside unsolicited. What about people who are sick? They should probably be banned from public spaces too. And restaurants who cook with grease, you inhale that when you walk past them too.

            A smoker smoking a J in a designated smoking area is literally not causing any more harm than any other person smoking in that area. Designated smoking areas exist for a reason. People smoke in society, its simply how it is. People are exposed to harmful substances in the form of gas and fumes every single day of their lives from a million different sources. Singling out people smoking weed is stupid and largely driven by misinformation.

            • PutangInaMo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Your strawmaning me and I don’t think we’ll come to any agreements at this point so I’ll agree to disagree and end the conversion here unfortunately.

              Edit: jerboa app is fucking up and making it look like my comments are timing out but they’re posting…

            • PutangInaMo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your strawmaning me and I don’t think we’ll come to any agreements at this point so I’ll agree to disagree and end the conversion here unfortunately.

              • LadyAutumn
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My point was that people are already exposed to plenty of things in public that are definitely harmful and also that are ‘unsolicited’. But yes, you are correct.

    • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would argue cannabis, especially of the average potency, doesn’t impair most EVERYDAY users any more than a cigarette might (those things spike your blood pressure and dehydrate you fast!!) but I just especially have to object to treating high driving exactly the same. As another user stated, the statistics are very clear. To quote a friend’s dad “If you can’t drive and smoke weed, you can’t drive.”

      • pizza_rolls@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        As someone who has ingested a lot of weed, strong disagree. I don’t know how anyone who has experienced being high can say they are not impaired. That’s a mind blowing statement to me.

        I definitely wouldn’t say it impairs you in the same way being drunk does, but I also wouldn’t say driving high is the same as driving sober. And if you are driving high you really need to cut that shit out. All it takes is one time where your reaction time is slightly decreased and it could be catastrophic.

        • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Define “a lot of weed”. Because weed hasn’t impaired me since high school, and I’ve met a lot of everyday users who feel the exact same. “Decreased reaction time” is absolutely a popular misconception IMHO, and that’s a symptom of simple tiredness too -I’d argue pot is far from the #1 cause of it. Being a stimulant to some extent. I take mine with a ridiculous caffeine dependency though too so I could be a little biased.

          • pizza_rolls@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude, just stop driving high. We live in a time where you can have everything delivered to your door, including someone showing up at your door to drive you somewhere. People who drive drunk also insist they are badasses that are not impaired.

            • xXemokidforeverXx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              This. Would I be impaired driving? Likely not. Still won’t do it, because I’m not just risking myself. That would be a risk for everyone.

          • its_y@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Decreased reaction time is absolutely not a myth. The level of impairment is related to the amount consumed (just like alcohol), but a decrease in reaction time is a very real effect of cannabis. In case of an emergency on the road that could be a major issue. Please do not drive high.

        • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would say it really depends on person, tolerance, strain, etc. The issue with DUIs for THC intoxication is that it’s practically impossible to prove that someone is under the influence definitively like you can with alcohol. Even without a shred of evidence a breathalyzer will tell you if someone is over the legal limit, there is no equivalent with marijuana.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        If we engineered our roadways around the idea that people would be operating with a reduced reaction speed than normal, this would be fine. But we didn’t, everything is designed to be safe for normal operation.

        Most isn’t good enough. If it impairs 10% of people, and increases fatalities even a little bit, it should be a DUI, unless there is some kind of medical exemption or something.

        • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It impairs maybe 10% of people. They should know better than to drive and the other 90% shouldn’t be held responsible for their mistake. But reduced reaction speed? Nah, THC is magical in that it’s a mental stimulant that almost slows down one’s perception of time, you clearly haven’t heard of hackey-sack or met anybody that plays FPS games at a serious level.

            • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Okay but law unfairly targets and exploits substance users in the first place, and you’re missing my whole point- cannabis does not impair JUDGMENT, unlike alcohol. Regardless of what you think, the statistics show it is vastly safer than driving drunk. Besides that, any laws like this would be especially harmful to the average medicinal user being as THC levels fluctuate and it can stay in the body for up to months.

              • ElmerFudd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                To add to your point: I once saw a TV show where they got drivers to smoke weed and drive a basic obstacle course, They presented stats saying drunk drivers were (iirc) 6x more likely to crash, while cannabis use was associated with a 2x higher likelihood to crash. So, while it is technically safer, it is definitely not safe.

                  • ElmerFudd@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Haha, you must be so cool. Do you think everything on television is all lies, all the time? Like when a young person tells an old person about a fact they learned online, only to hear the old person gripe: “oh sure, because you read it on the internet it must true”. That’s one ignorant take.

                    I’m gonna go back to not knowing you, never talk to you again, and live a productive life. Enjoy your trolling, basement man!

          • orcrist@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that because only 10% of drivers are reckless, we don’t get to regulate the other 90% along with them. Of course if we had some magical wand that would tell us who the reckless drivers are, then we could only target the dangerous folks, but often that’s impossible.

            Often the best we can do is take a look at the data and see what kind of policies would not be horribly burdensome for the general public and yet would save a lot of lives, and then we institute those.

            The other part of the problem with the 10% bad drivers argument is that bad drivers change from hour to hour, and from day to day. After all, the majority of people believe that they’re good drivers, right?

      • reeen@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So many functional alcoholics can drive seemingly perfectly fine, but letting people drive drunk is still incredibly stupid. Just because you have a high tolerance or whatever doesn’t mean you should be allowed to drive while stoned, regardless of if it’s just as impacting as being tired or whatever justification people use.