I couldn't disagree more that dose is NOT relevant. Dose is EVERYTHING. Water is vital for humans to survive, but if you drink too much water, you will get high. Should we ban water drinking? Of course not, we should inform people how much they should drink each day. It's a no-brainer because thirsty people will drink water when they feel like.

Dude, I am ALL for legalization of marijuana (I might have given the impression that I am against it for some reason). I know there will be people who will use emotional and ignorant arguments against it and, hence, I believe that imposing certain bounds on consumption could be a good idea because it would defeat those weak arguments against legalization.

What I would like to see is unbiased, reliable scientific evidence. I would like to know how much an adult should be able to consume. Yeah, too much pot and one falls asleep (I have smoked, so I know it), but if you fall asleep while driving then you might be endangering others. In my humble opinion, marijuana SHOULD be legal, people should be informed about what would be a responsible daily consumption, and politics, religion, emotion should be left out of it.

You still don't seem to grasp that it's none of yours or anyone else's business how much one consumes as long as no one is harmed. If you harm someone while high, the fact that you're high really isn't relevant either, you can be punished by existing law for harming someone. Murder is murder, it doesn't matter if you did it while high, or drunk, or on PCP, the crime was still the murder, not the state of mind that led you there.

Dose is only relevant if the maximum dose is easily reachable. There is no practical maximum to smoking pot, you'd have to smoke literally a truck bed full to even get close to a dangerous level which is physically impossible. Thus, as I said earlier, dose is not relevant.

Sure we do. Almost every country has a legal definition of sobriety when it comes to alcohol.

Murder is murder, it doesn't matter if you did it while high, or drunk, or on PCP, the crime was still the murder, not the state of mind that led you there.

There are many legal degrees of murder and state of mind certainly plays a role in how much trouble you're going to be in.

There is no practical maximum to smoking pot

If I smoke a certain amount of pot I shouldn't be driving. The effects of weed wildly differ between people. It's one reason legalization is difficult. It's very hard to determine how stoned a person is and whether or not it's even affecting their motor skills or judgement.

No we don't. We don't have a max daily allowance of alcohol, you can drink all you want, you just can't drive. No one will stop you from drinking yourself to death if you so choose. You can walk into any store sober and buy enough alcohol to kill 20 people and no one will stop you.

> It's very hard to determine how stoned a person is and whether or not it's even affecting their motor skills or judgement.

If you can't figure out if someone is stoned and they can pass the field sobriety tests administered by the police, then who care if they're driving.

This idea that you need some quick way to test for a particular drug because someone might drive while on it is just absurd. We take all kinds of drugs, legally, that are much worse than pot and no one screams about driving on it.

Alcohol is particularly problematic because it affects your judgment center and makes you do stupid think like drive when you should otherwise know you can't. Pot doesn't do that.

Is that based on your personal experience, your (unsubstantiated) belief, or any scientific data? This is an honest question. Though I have smoked pot, I never smoked more than one joint per night.

Sure it's none of my business how much other people consume just as long as no one gets harmed. But you're assuming that people are responsible and most people aren't. Murder is murder, but there are accidents that could be avoided if people were not mind-altered. And I am referring to alcohol, not pot.

I don't think it would be too ridiculous to hold pot to a higher standard than alcohol, for instance. Solely for practical reasons. Alcohol is legal. Pot is not. If imposing caps on consumption would reduce the resistance to the legalization of pot, then it COULD be worth considering. This is speculation. I am not saying it would be worth it, I am just saying one should not discard any possibilities without a more in-depth analysis.

1) "Widely know" is not scientific at all. Opinions of laymen count for nothing. The truth is found through experimentation and observation, not by consensus. Show me scientific papers, please.

2) Overdose is not the problem. The problem is that people react differently to the same dose. Thus the need to come up with a threshold. Even if this threshold were not enforced, it could serve as a guideline.

3) If you have indeed smoked a truckload of pot and felt OK enough to drive (for instance), all you have proved is that the truckload of pot had little influence on your brain on that day. You can't generalize to the rest of the population.

You seem to be like the Inquisition: you're not even willing to consider any idea which goes against your dogma. Prove me wrong.

You're spouting nonsense as if you haven't even done the most basic research on your own. You could have found plenty of scientific research that has been done with a trivial amount of Googling. I'm not going to do it for you; educate yourself on the issue because your fears about dosage are simply unfounded nonsense.

Scientific research on this topic does not seem mature enough. It's an ongoing effort. But it's better than nothing.

To cut a long story short: just because something as dangerous as alcohol is freely available and culturally acceptable, I think we should be careful about legalizing drugs. I have smoked pot, my friends have smoked pot. From my experience, it's a lot less dangerous than alcohol. Scientific seems to suggest that pot is not particularly dangerous (unless you smoke an entire field).

I don't think we disagree on much. The difference is that I believe that one should be exhaustive when analyzing this issue. All possibilities should be studied. Information should be provided in an unbiased manner. And, ultimately, people should be able to decide whether to consume or not without any baby-sitting from the government.

You're talking like there's some big bad unknown danger lurking around the corner and we should tread carefully. That's just bogus, pot isn't some unknown what if, it's something massive amounts of people do all the time already. It's a joke that it isn't already legal. It's a joke to suggest that it's even dangerous, it's not, and everyone knows it.

The last bit of resistance is people like you balking about moving too fast and not being careful enough or wanting to place limits and all that as if we aren't 30 years past that kind of timidness. People who are scared of pot are a joke.

I am concerned about the ethical aspect of it. If I were a scientist who had spent 30 years researching the effects of marijuana, I would say that: "scientific evidence seems to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous, but people should take into account that future research could lead to different conclusions". People should decide, and have already decided. There's a huge market out there and it's a scandal that marijuana has not been legalized yet.

Unless you are absolutely sure there's no danger whatsoever, you have no right to say that any fear is a joke. Your certainty stems from your ignorance, and this is not supposed to be offending. I think pot should have been legalized decades ago, and we're not moving fast... we're moving slow. Legalize it ASAP. Period. But do not advertise that there are no dangers, because you don't know. Moreover, the way you consume pot might be the danger, not the pot itself. I mean the paper used to roll the joint for instant. The hot air is known to increase the chances of throat cancer. Lip cancer is a problem. Using a water pipe should be safer. I know I know nothing, but for a layman you seem awfully certain.

That's absurd. Nothing in this life is perfectly safe. Safety has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is legal or not. Sky diving is dangerous but legal. Riding bulls is dangerous but legal. What I'm asserting is that pot is known to be safe enough that it should be my choice whether I do it or not.

We're decades beyond the irrational fears you're peddling. Our president has smoked pot for Christ's sake, you can't get much more mainstream than that.

If I were a medical doctor in the 1940s and advertised that research suggested that cigarettes were safe... as soon as evidence started proving otherwise decades later, I would have felt horribly guilty and ashamed.

Medicine is not yet an entirely exact science. There are many things we don't know. I say: inform people of the risks, and let them decide freely. But just don't advertise something as "perfectly safe" when it's just "safe enough" because it sounds slightly dishonest.