Re: Solution:
> Shall we debate?
I'm game.
>
> > - Cigarettes don't impair one's ability to function
> > normally.
>
> That may be true in a superficial sense, but consider the
> following: an addiction is an addiction, no matter what form
> it is in. An addiction to ANYTHING (including cigarettes)
> will change how someone thinks, reacts, or controls their
> behavior. Think of the smoker who "needs" the cigarette
> break at work every hour or so, or think of how moody a
> smoker who usually smokes a pack every day gets when they
> don't have their cigarettes. The hallucinogenic properties
> of drugs may be powerful, but the mind when addicted can
> sometimes be stronger than chemicals.
>
The act of smoking the cigarette doesn't lead to impairment. You've cited effects of withdrawal, not smoking, but while you have evidence of a person's mood change due to withdrawal, you have no evidence that the body's reaction causes impairment of motor skills. Same with coffee. Same with nervousness.
> > - Alcohol can be consumed in moderation without impairing
>
> > ability, especially when consumed with food.
>
> I read a report on a study that was done with about 100
> college students, the jist of it follows: 100 college
> students; 50 given a clear alcoholic beverage, the other 50
> given a clear non-alcoholic beverage.
>
> The whole night, all 100 college students drank and partied.
> The odd thing was, they all got drunk. At the end of the
> night, the 50 non-alcohol-drinking students, who stammered,
> stumbled, and, for all intents and purposes, WERE drunk,
> were told that they hadn't had alcohol at all. Those 50
> students (very quickly) sobered and went on with their
> night.
>
> Again, the effects of alcohol, though not completely, are a
> sort of mind game. The level of impairment, as this study
> shows, almost seems baseless, except for how impaired the
> drinker wants to be. The point though: not food nor
> anything else controls how "drunk" someone is going to get,
> the person does, irregardless of moderation.
>
First, I'd need to see the report itself before I can accept its validity.
Second, were those students in that study tested for actual impairment, or were they just acting stupid? You said yourself that they very quickly sobered up, which leads me to believe the latter. Drunkenness and the accompanying loss of motor skills cannot be controlled. Although a person may act in control, his motor skills are still compromised by alcohol. The effects of alcohol are not a mind game, they're a physiological fact.
Third, it's a medical fact that certain factors mitigate blood/alcohol content (bac). Examples include body size and food consumption. It's the bac that determines the impairment, not how stupid the person is acting.
Fourth, the fact that we have a minimum threshold for impairment (0.08% for driving a vehicle in most states, 0.04% for flying an airplane) suggests that there is a tolerable level of impairment.
> > - Drugs are used for one reason: to get high. Period. The
>
> > user's goal is impairment.
>
> And what say you about the medicinal benefits of some drugs?
> What about the person who only gets a numbing effect from
> drugs such as marijuana, and doesn't become impaired at all?
>
The numbing effect is evidence of the impairment. Again, impairment is defined by the effect on the body, not by the person's actions. The theoretical person you cite is impaired.
Our nation has consistently allowed the use of narcotic substances, such as codeine, under strict medical supervision. We haven't quite worked out how to implement medical marijuana, but I'm confident that we will.
> ...the fact that we don't see half as many accidents due to
> drug use as drunk driving.
I'm not sure of your statistics, but you need to take into account that habitual drug use is still kept down by the mere fact that it's illegal. That is, many people don't even start, or stop at experimental stage, just because drugs are illegal. Take away that inhibition and it's almost certain that habitual drug use increases. And so will accidents.
> While being "drunk" impairs the
> sense of prudency (a drunk driver is more inclined to driver
> faster and more irratically),
Not necessarily true. I know a fellow who used to get drunk in HS - when driving home, he drove slowly, not fast. That's why drivers who are driving too slowly are also pulled over by police on suspicion of alcohol impairment.
> being high slows you down (and
> in essence makes you safer!).
Again, not true. Police have pulled over speeders who were high on crack, meth, whatever. You're likely citing the common perception that smoking marijuana makes you mellower. Maybe, but if you're driving the wrong way on a road because you're high, it doesn't matter how slow you're going - you're NOT safer.
> Plus, it would seem that a
> person who is high more often than not lacks the lucidity to
> even get behind the wheel at all! I doubt we'd see an
> increase in accidents caused by impairment from drugs as we
> see with drunk driving.
And you've hit the trifecta! You yourself cited accident statistics above, proving that even you don't believe what you just wrote here.
