Should Cannabis Be Regulated Like Alcohol?

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?

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.
- 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.
- Outdoors this idea is laughable. Smoking shouldn't be done indoors publicly anyway.
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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
This seems about right.

Not really sure why this is a question. If I have a cup of coffee, I am fine to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. If anything, my reaction time would be slightly quicker (vs me uncaffeinated, YMMV).

If I get high, I'm keeping my ass put on the couch/at home and if anything my reaction time is slower.

Unpopular opinion but alcohol is basically poison. Weed still fucks you up and in no way should anyone be doing anything significant while high. It’s not the same as coffee.

Impaired is impaired. Shouldn’t drive if your ability is compromised, especially when most people only start off with half a clue.

Coffee is also dangerous in the sense that it masks the sensation of fatigue, but you are still impaired. Driving tired is extremely dangerous as well.

I'm sorry, but I CANNOT agree. Coffee smells MUCH BETTER than weed. In fact, I think weed smells terrible. It reminds me of skunks. I would much rather smell coffee.

I'm sorry, but I CANNOT agree. Weed smells MUCH BETTER than coffee. In fact, I think coffee smells terrible. It reminds me of putrid morning breath. I would much rather smell weed.
It's a flower. All flowers smell funny.

I feel like its akin to coffee in severety but it is still a drug that imo kids shouldnt be smoking (but lets be real-life sucks but i digress). The label should state its psychoactive and be responsible and whatnot as well as an ID requirement. Driving while smoking is dependent on the person driving and generally safe but i think people SHOULD be smart enough to know if they are actually impaired.

People should also be smart enough to know they are too impaired to drive when drinking but they aren't. Self regulation won't work. A ban on driving under the influence will reduce the number of incidents.

There are some logistical issues with this as THC can stay much longer in your system. So regulating what counts as "under the influence" is more difficult and might even require new testing methods. Until then a flat ban is better than having more accidents.

It should be regulated in terms of selling, because things like edibles can really mess someone up. While some people can handle a lot with no problem, it can get legitimately psychedelic for others. Regulation in shops allows for much better quality control and helps curate a positive experience for everyone.

But it absolutely should not be treated any differently than taking Adderall in the morning and driving or drinking caffeine and then driving, just like you said. Because a lot of people don't react to THC in a way that inebriates them at all, as long as they don't overdo the amount. Also, there's no way to easily check someone's active THC percentage, as that shit just stays in their system for a long time.

Statistics are very clear about how much lower a risk smoking and driving is compared to drinking, so nobody with just THC in their system should be being given a DUI unless we completely change how DUIs work in general.

While driving under the influence of marijuana is less risky than driving under the influence of alcohol, it can still be a dangerous activity. Of course, people who are going to drive after smoking should be aware of their limits and cautious not to get too high before driving.

Nah. It's way more impactful on reflexes than coffee.

Bigtime especially for heavy users.