I'm not defining anything, just stating that it stands to reason that legalized Marijuana would lead to additional impaired drivers on the road even if they aren't caught. Maybe some will choose pot over beer or liquor, but I know a lot of drinkers that would never make that switch.

I don't see how that's reason enough to keep responsible users from partaking. Really, cars are the only common factor here. Maybe we could make those illegal...

I don't see how that's reason enough to keep responsible users from partaking. Really, cars are the only common factor here. Maybe we could make those illegal...

I never said that it was, just that more impaired drivers would be on the road...make of that what you like.

Honestly I don't see pot imparing drivers anywhere the rate alcohol does. People that have smoked pot can generally walk a straight line, no matter the amount they have smoked. Pot does not effect motor skills as much as alcohol does.

 

You can smoke one joint or 6 and your buzz isn't gonna change much, however if you drink a 6 pack as opposed to one beer, there will be a noticeable difference.

Can anyone in the know explain to me why marijuana is categorized as a Schedule I drug, along with heroin and LSD?

Can anyone in the know explain to me why marijuana is categorized as a Schedule I drug, along with heroin and LSD?

 

$$$

$$$

 

No doubt. As a scientist, I like things to make sense, but this categorization doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Honestly I don't see pot imparing drivers anywhere the rate alcohol does. People that have smoked pot can generally walk a straight line, no matter the amount they have smoked. Pot does not effect motor skills as much as alcohol does.

 

You can smoke one joint or 6 and your buzz isn't gonna change much, however if you drink a 6 pack as opposed to one beer, there will be a noticeable difference.

 

Have you tested this theory?

:popcorn:

Can anyone in the know explain to me why marijuana is categorized as a Schedule I drug' date=' along with heroin and LSD?[/quote']

 

I believe it's categorized that way because it has no accepted medical use right now.

Have you tested this theory?

 

Numerous times when I was younger.

I believe it's categorized that way because it has no accepted medical use right now.

 

Where does alcohol currently fit in with medical use?

 

Numerous times when I was younger.

 

:lol2:

 

Where does alcohol currently fit in with medical use?

 

Not a controlled substance.

I've said this a million times on here. I'm 100% for the legalization of pot and for any drug as a matter of fact. I don't care what affect a drug has , if you get addicted that on you. I'm 100% on the side of the government not telling an adult what they can put in their body. I personally choose not to partake and I wouldn't if it were legal.

 

But I always do get a laugh out of some on the pro legalization crowd who I agree with act like Marijuana is a miracle drug. Sure it helps some people . But the large majority of people who use it both illegally and legally do it for recreational purposes only. There isn't anything wrong with that , but I prefer to keep the debate honest.

 

Let's not act like there are no negative side affects to weed. For every functional adult you know who still smokes , I could also point to someone who is a typical "stoner"who has lost a brain cell or two.

 

To act like you couldn't be as impaired driving a vehicle from smoking as drinking tells me you are doing it wrong or were sold a bag of parsley.

 

Legalize it , period. But both sides just be honest.

Not a controlled substance.

 

Correct. But marijuana shouldn't be a controlled substance either as it is no worse than alcohol. I could argue that it's the lesser evil of the two.

 

I could go on and on about it, but I'd rather not. I do want to say that the term "controlled substance" the government uses to classify illicit drugs is a bit hilarious. What exactly are they controlling? If they are controlling heroin use, they sure as hell aren't doing a very good job of it.