"Smoking and driving or driving high should be illegal. "

It's much harder to prove, though. Pot stays in the system longer, so it can show up on tests long after you're high. I'm guessing you're not in favor of prosecuting drivers who aren't high just because they're habitual pot users. But it's not so easy to do one and not the other.

Look, my point is is that if you are worried about health care costs, then there should be a lot of other things illegal to prevent ER visits and other things of the sort. And people in there from pot should be the least of your concerns.

OK, not a bad point.

But what if you're worried about traffic fatalities?

Also, my point about sports was that there are many people who go to the ER because they are injured from a sport, not that they are driving impaired. I personally have been injured 4 times while playing a sport and went to theER all of those times. My argument was that sports should be illegal for causing people to go to the ER.

No they shouldn't consider pot is the second biggest source of ER visits due to illicit drugs behind cocaine.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drug-related-hospital-emergency-room-visits

Well, it's got a vastly higher use rate, Putin. It's not completely clear what the meaning of that statistic is.

Yes and unlike recreational drug use playing sports has many health benefits.

But I also asked you for stats on that and you have provided none.

Also, don't you think that there are already numerous people who already drive high? Plus, if all pot users are "lazy" then why would they drive when they could just sit around or have somebody else drive them?

What clarity do you need? There aren't 375,000 ER visits a year for taking ginseng or vitamin C.

"Also, don't you think that there are already numerous people who already drive high?"

And this is good? And the number won't go up if it's legalized?

"Plus, if all pot users are "lazy" then why would they drive when they could just sit around or have somebody else drive them? "

Taco Bell.

Driving does not take much effort, as is obvious by the legions of serial fast food eaters around the world.

As I already said, it's a hypothetical to show that some of the things you are putting out are a little ridiculous. Yes, tons of people go to the ER who smoked weed recently, I won't argue there, but if it's illegal because of danger, then other things that cause danger should also be illegal, such as sports because of injuries.

Are you suggesting that everything that is dangerous should be legal?

Putin is an agent provocateur

I think the whole Taco Bell thing is a dumb stereotype. I'm just putting it out there that people already do it. It's terrible, but, the numbers aren't going to sky rocket nearly as high as you predict. A lot of people are smarter than you are giving them credit. A lot of people are dumb, but a lot of people are smart too.

"Chaqa, it's currently illegal federally. The current administration has decided not to enforce that in CO and WA, but the next one could choose to."
This, hence why I support legalizing it federally and letting the states do whatever the fuck they want. I don't want the president to have to power to decide on a whim whether or not to enforce drug policy.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just saying that YOU are saying everything dangerous should be illegal. The government needs to weigh costs and benefits to figure out what the threshold should be.

They already have skyrocketed.

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/

"I'm just saying that YOU are saying everything dangerous should be illegal"

No I'm saying illicit drugs should be illegal. And the argument that other things are legal which are also dangerous is not persuasive. Give me a reason why I should support introducing more legal dangerous behavior into society.

"It's terrible, but, the numbers aren't going to sky rocket nearly as high as you predict. "

I imagine that the driving-while-high would be more or less linear in the number of users. Do you think that that wouldn't go up?

I just think that if the amount of users are going up 3x, then crashes will go up 3x as well. That's not sky rocketing, that's just correlation. I wasn't anticipating it to get better, I was only saying that it's not going to multiply 9x because of it's legalization.

And should 3x as many people be killed because some people want easier access to pot?

Well, then the police need to find a way to regulate driving high. That is obvious. It's the same thing with alcohol. But, I digress. It seems that there is one flaw in the legalization you found. How many benefits can you count? I count at least 5 big ones.

For most people weed in moderation is harmless. Legalise it.

Pot in moderation is totally fine, and can be quite helpful. Many of the squares around here could really benefit.

Do people still say squares? Wow.

Odd sort of debate, this. People seem to be going out of their way to miss the points. Lets keep things simple.

For most people pot is mostly harmless. Bully for them. For some people pot will go a long way to buggering up their lives. Not so bully.

Now, it is clear to anyone with eyes that the law doesn't stop millions of people smoking pot. It is likely, however, that is does stop quite a lot, some of which would have been the unlucky sods who would have had their lives ruined. This is a good thing.

Having a law that millions routinely break with no consequence, however, is fertile soil for growing disrespect and contempt of the law. This is a bad thing.

The question is simple. Does the good outweigh the bad? If it does, keep it illegal.

"For most people pot is mostly harmless. Bully for them. For some people pot will go a long way to buggering up their lives."

What proportion of people who smoke pot have their lives ruined by pot?
I don't have any stats in front of me, but my guess is the proportion of people whose lives are ruined by pot, is lower than the proportion of people whose lives are ruined by playing rugby union (people break their necks). Just about every activity involves an element of risk.
Some people have a problem with drugs and alcohol in general - but for most of those, of the drugs they take, pot is not the problem (not compared with alcohol or meth)

All that said I don't think kids should smoke pot. Minimum age should be 18 (or even 21).

"Having a law that millions routinely break with no consequence, however, is fertile soil for growing disrespect and contempt of the law. This is a bad thing."

This sounds to me more like an argument in favour of legalising it.