Replies

And how many of these arrests were for, say, driving under the influence of pot, as opposed to being arrested for simply having the stuff? I suspect rather more of the latter than the former. If pot had the same legal status as booze, that would mean driving stoned would still be illegal.... but it would not longer be a crime to have a joint - or a barn full of the stuff.

Like booze and tobacco, there are limits as to how much of the stuff you are allowed to have in your possesion.As far as driving under the influence of pot, the only reason their aren't more arrests is because there aren't any tests for them currently. but watch out, it's coming. many states are looking at blood sample on demand laws.

Who are pot smokers bothering, compared to the carnage inflicted upon society by the booze drinkers?

Pot users do bother a lot of people. They cause property damage, get in car accidents, are loud and obnoxious, play loud music in the middle of the night, etc etc. In short, they do everything annoying that you accuse drinking parties of, and in fact are most often part of the same party. So how can you separate the two? Kids + pot + booze + cars + loud radio's +large numbers = bothersome, dangerous, annoying, rude, and often are deadly as well.

Not all pot users sit in their basement listening to AC/DC, just the old, washed up has been's do that.

Pot users do bother a lot of people. They cause property damage, get in car accidents, are loud and obnoxious, play loud music in the middle of the night, etc etc.

There is already a legal rememdy for each and every one of these "horrible" things---why does pot's legal status enter into the equation at all?

> Like booze and tobacco, there are limits as to how much of the stuff you are allowed to have in your possesion.

There are limits to how much booze you can own? I've never heard that. So much for wine cellars, I suppose.

> In short, they do everything annoying that you accuse drinking parties of...

Like get into lethal fist/knife/gun fights?