JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote:

Why not UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255

Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug
driving.

Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky
and both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in
Canada).

And your point?

It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought
to be more obvious: there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for
drugged drivers.

Even you ought to be able to work out why.

Acquisitive crime drops to near zero.

That's OK as far as it goes. But many would argue that
drugged-driving is worse than theft.

And your point?

It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought
to be more obvious: many would argue that drugged-driving is worse
than theft.
Even you ought to be able to work out why.

MP's opposed to legal weed all use weed.

Do they?
What, all of them? How would you know that?

Not all of them but certainly some have admitted to it. TB for one.

So it's all of them and not all of them.

I see.

One law for them.

And the same law for everyone else, including - and obviously much
to your chagrin - you.

Quite right. Why should I not be allowed to use weed in my own home?

Assuming you mean an illegally-cultivated drug whose possession is a
crime, the question contains its own answer.

And it would be surely a tragedy if you rode your bike whilst still
drugged up and were squashed by a juggernaut.

It would be one less cyclist, no tragedy.