I am not arguing for banning anything which is not already banned. As for testing, there would be a reasonable limit imposed on how much one could have in their system before being considered too impaired to drive. Unless you contend no such limit exists, whereupon I would disagree. Therefore some means of quantitatively determining whether that limit had been surpassed would be necessary to enforce that limit, otherwise the determination would fall solely at the discretion of the arresting officer, a situation which would not be agreeable to anyone with a sense of 'due process'. Thus you assertion of contradiction does not hold.
I am only asserting that if, and I repeat IF marijuana were legalized here in the US, I would expect an increase in automobile fatalities due to impaired driving, from either marijuana use before getting behind the wheel, or the combination of marijuana and alcohol.
I am not defending the use of alcohol (which I do not use), nor marijuana ( which I also do not use), nor am I condeming that useage.
The article asserted that marijuana use had no significant effect on the ability of the user to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence.
My observations of marijuana users I have known would indicate the article is wrong.
As for So? There was a time when slavery had been legal for the entire lifespan of a majority of Americans; was that a good reason to maintain that policy? , WTF does slavery have to do with operating a motor vehicle?
This is not a discussion of new restrictions on something, it is a discussion of the prudence of loosening the restrictions on something and the effects on highway safety.
Like all laws, the ones in place will only keep the law abiding in check, but that alone keeps a lot of drunks off of the road.
My assertion is that if the poster of the article (who is Canadian) wants this, push for it at home, let the studies of the effects be done, and we can evaluate that data before considering any such action here.
I know you don't want to so argue, but logic is a harsh mistress: if you argue for maintaining a current ban on the basis of accident rates, that argument applies just as well to consideration of new bans.
some means of quantitatively determining whether that limit had been surpassed would be necessary to enforce that limit, otherwise the determination would fall solely at the discretion of the arresting officer, a situation which would not be agreeable to anyone with a sense of 'due process'.
I disagree; walking a line and other 'subjective' tests are fine by me if nothing better exists.
Alcohol has been legal for the entire lifespan of a majority of Americans, Marijuana has not.
So? There was a time when slavery had been legal for the entire lifespan of a majority of Americans; was that a good reason to maintain that policy?
WTF does slavery have to do with operating a motor vehicle?
It's a testing ground for your implied principle that a long period of legality is in itself grounds for continued legality.