Prove itself dangerous. Just some food for thought ;)
Prove itself dangerous. Just some food for thought ;)
I live in Colorado, I've seen a definite decrease in safe driving the past few years. It is dangerous.
Some drug is vilified as a lampshade, because a physical substance is considered easier to control than irresponsible behavior. There is a diminishing return for prohibition that is hard to cost-benefit justify at any scale. e.g. the substance can create revenue outside of prohibition. This is the core error in the prescriptive "war on drugs" and decades later it's still confounding audiences as to why it's an incorrect conclusion.
The punishment severity of drug offenses is something to look at (the inverse relationship between drug offenses recorded and severity of punishment). This has nothing to do with the danger of the drug itself, but does address the behavior more directly. "Treatment" for addiction is still in the dark ages as many debunkers study this topic routinely. If you chase that topic, you might see how consequence is the stick, not blaming the inanimate substance.
So average measured blood-levels could well be up because more Coloradans are smoking, but that's no proof at all that more Coloradans are driving under the influence.
I wouldn't necessarily say that weed is harmless or safer than alcohol, but articles like the Denver Post one are written with an unfair bias.
Police here use a spit test; supposedly it reveals use within the past 24 hours. But as far as I know, it can/will test positive for a regular user that did not smoke weed in the past 24 hours.
So I guess you are right; it is not reliable (but it'll still get you convicted..)
Precautions must be made, I agree with you. But this looks like all drugs must be included in the next studies, and articles.