0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Unlike alcohol, the active ingredients of Marijuana are not a single volatile chemical, so testing for dangerous intoxication will be more expensive, time-consuming and intrusive, whether by the roadside or in the workplace.
I am not sure that "other intoxicants" are a good basis for deciding what is good for us.
The medical impacts of tobacco, who knew what, was it ethical for them to suppress & confound the scientific evidence, and did they have a responsibility to tell the public. There are now slow and laborious efforts underway to restrict it to places where it won't cause so much damage public health (eg no smoking in the workplace, or around children).
We have seen a recent discussion in the UK about legislative action to control excess alcohol consumption, and also in Australia.
In other words, we are now trying hard to undo the damage done by common practice in a previous era where scientific evidence was not a criterion for acceptability.
I welcome conducting scientific studies that may show that cannabis is "generally quite harmless", but the difficult part will be showing that it has an overall benefit to society (ie the benefits outweigh the costs), and so it should be legalised.
I think the hardest part of the costs to assess will be whether legalising cannabis will lead to a reduction in harms from alcohol, tobacco or other drugs.
skydiving and shark fishing...rock climbing or ocean racing
Minimum unit pricing
The goal is to maximise benefits, and minimise harms.
Perhaps more important, Australian rescue services have started charging captains (or their insurance companies) for the cost of rescues.
they said no other patient with her diagnosis had gone as long without a seizure, so there aren't really control groups to compare her progress to.