I don't expect to see an answer on the alcohol in this thread...
I don't support legalization of marijuana. However I think that eventual legalization is inevitable, so I actually applaud New Jersey's legislative effort to implement legalization in a managed fashion, versus the legalization via referendum we've seen in other states.
The question of potheads vs alcoholics isn't a real issue in my mind. I understand that alcohol is legal is most people drink responsibly, but some abuse it. I expect that if pot is legal, the same would happen; most people would use pot responsibly, but some will abuse it. As T2K notes, adding to the problem, adding potheads on top of alcoholics, is not desirable. But I don't agree that is sufficient reason alone to not legalize marijuana, especially if abusers are the extreme minority, as we see with alcohol.
But I have other concerns with legalization of marijuana:
- There is no test for impairment, similar to a breath test or blood test for alcohol, that can be easily used to keep impaired drivers off the road.
- Marijuana smoke stinks. This is a personal peeve of mine, but still one of my reasons for objecting to marijuana use. With limitations on where people can smoke tobacco, I find myself more sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke (and also the smell of vaping), which occurs in public outdoor spaces. I hate having to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter a building, or smell smoke when sitting in a park, on the beach, or tailgating. Marijuana smoke would only exacerbate an already bad situation.
- There are limited scientific studies on the long-term effects of marijuana use or even short-term effects. Without scientific evidence, we don't know if we are creating a public health crisis. We spend a lot of money to discourage people from smoking cigarettes because of the public health costs. It seems counter-intuitive to now legalize smoking of another substance.
But, since I think that legalization of marijuana is eventually inevitable, I think these concerns need to be addressed.
For concern 1, revenue from marijuana taxes could be used to fund development of a field test. In the meanwhile, the law can be written to assume impairment on the presence of marijuana use under existing testing methods. (Note that alcohol tests don't actually test impairment; the law assume impairment based on presence of alcohol above certain levels). Here the law can be written, for example, if someone shows certain signs of impairment and a urine test shows marijuana use, then they are assumed to be driving under the influence of marijuana. Yes, this may snag people who smoked 3 days prior and claim they are no longer under the influence of marijuana, but they would also be showing signs of impairment, so they should be taken off the road. Once a reliable field test is available, the law can be rewritten.
For concern 2, the proposed bill already limits smoking in public places. I haven't looked at the details of the bill, but it might need to be tightened. (I also wouldn't mind prohibiting smoking tobacco or vaping in all public spaces as well.) Alternatively, smoking marijuana could remain illegal, while only edibles are legalized.
For concern 3, the bill could be written to allow temporary legalization of marijuana, say for three years, renewable by another 3 years. Then revenue from marijuana taxes could be used to fund some short-term studies on marijuana health issues, possibly one study on smoking and another on edibles. The results of those studies could help inform a decision on whether to let marijuana legalization expire, or continue.
