this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
37 points (89.4% liked)

Trees

6717 readers
232 users here now

A community centered around cannabis.

In the spirit of making Trees a welcoming and uplifting place for everyone, please follow our Commandments.

  1. Be Cool.
  2. I'm not kidding. Be nice to each other.
  3. Avoid low-effort posts

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In my opinion I don't think that's the right solution. I think cannabis is closer to coffee.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

DUIs for both. Public intoxication not nearly as big a deal, being high in public is harmless. Secondhand smoke is no different from cigarettes though, so public smoking still needs to be regulated. 21+ for both. Did I miss any?

[–] PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm with everything you said except smoking in public.

The difference between nicotine and THC are wildly different and second hand smoke from cannabis containing high amounts of THC well absolutely wreck somebody and should not be acceptable.

[–] wolfshadowheart@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Outdoors this idea is laughable. Smoking shouldn't be done indoors publicly anyway.

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah if you literally exhale it directly into someone's mouth but if you're both standing on opposite sides of an open air smoking area it really isn't comparable in the slightest.

The problem with second hand cigarette smoke is also not nicotine, its the like 160 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke most of which comes from additives.

[–] PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I won't argue for cigarettes, they're terrible.

But I do disagree with your sentiment regarding Marijuana. The cannabinoids and terpenes are still in what you exhale, just in a smaller amount. You're still introducing foreign material to others unsolicited.

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

So then we should probably talk about car exhaust fumes, I inhale that every time I go outside unsolicited. What about people who are sick? They should probably be banned from public spaces too. And restaurants who cook with grease, you inhale that when you walk past them too.

A smoker smoking a J in a designated smoking area is literally not causing any more harm than any other person smoking in that area. Designated smoking areas exist for a reason. People smoke in society, its simply how it is. People are exposed to harmful substances in the form of gas and fumes every single day of their lives from a million different sources. Singling out people smoking weed is stupid and largely driven by misinformation.

[–] PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Your strawmaning me and I don't think we'll come to any agreements at this point so I'll agree to disagree and end the conversion here unfortunately.

[–] PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Your strawmaning me and I don't think we'll come to any agreements at this point so I'll agree to disagree and end the conversion here unfortunately.

[–] kttnpunk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I would argue cannabis, especially of the average potency, doesn't impair most EVERYDAY users any more than a cigarette might (those things spike your blood pressure and dehydrate you fast!!) but I just especially have to object to treating high driving exactly the same. As another user stated, the statistics are very clear. To quote a friend's dad "If you can't drive and smoke weed, you can't drive."

[–] pizza_rolls@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As someone who has ingested a lot of weed, strong disagree. I don't know how anyone who has experienced being high can say they are not impaired. That's a mind blowing statement to me.

I definitely wouldn't say it impairs you in the same way being drunk does, but I also wouldn't say driving high is the same as driving sober. And if you are driving high you really need to cut that shit out. All it takes is one time where your reaction time is slightly decreased and it could be catastrophic.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I would say it really depends on person, tolerance, strain, etc. The issue with DUIs for THC intoxication is that it's practically impossible to prove that someone is under the influence definitively like you can with alcohol. Even without a shred of evidence a breathalyzer will tell you if someone is over the legal limit, there is no equivalent with marijuana.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we engineered our roadways around the idea that people would be operating with a reduced reaction speed than normal, this would be fine. But we didn't, everything is designed to be safe for normal operation.

Most isn't good enough. If it impairs 10% of people, and increases fatalities even a little bit, it should be a DUI, unless there is some kind of medical exemption or something.

[–] reeen@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

So many functional alcoholics can drive seemingly perfectly fine, but letting people drive drunk is still incredibly stupid. Just because you have a high tolerance or whatever doesn't mean you should be allowed to drive while stoned, regardless of if it's just as impacting as being tired or whatever justification people use.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

This seems about right.