There's a lot of talk about that from Prohibitionists. Presumably because they believe that it somehow reinforces the correctness of their opinion that marijuana should stay illegal. And because there is always the - in my view erroneous - view that easier acces to marijuana will necessarily lead to an explosion in use and abuse, and hence DUI of weed.

There's absolutely nothing to corroborate such a view. The Dutch have had easy access to weed since the 70s and they haven't had any explosion in either use or abuse, nor in "high driving".

I'm sure there are factors that determine the level of DUIs in a society, but it's not the legal status of or accessibility to a particular drug. Social expectations and personal morals are much more important factors, and campaigns like the Designated Driver campaign was actually very succesfuld at shaping social expectations AND giving people an easy way of modifying their behavior. Morals are cool, but somewhere, somehow, there are also practical concerns that needs to be addressed.

Nowadays, with zero-tolerance stupid laws have been passed here and there. In some places in the US 100% sober designated drivers can actually be charged with a crime simply by being in close proximity (in the car) to the other drunk friends. Presumably legislators and moralizers figure that this should stop them from drinking altogether. Other insane laws mean that some parents, who might otherwise supervise a party, can be charged with crimes if anyone under 21 happens to drink or if anyone of those guests happen to sneak out, drive home under the influence and get caught by the police. Result;: parties move to public spaces where DUI _most certainly_ will take place (people DO have to get home, yes?)

The big problem - even with alcohol - is the strong drive for total abstinence. Some people just won't concede to the fact that drinking and other drugs use is here to stay, so they try these sneaky laws and regulations that try to sneak Prohibition in through the back door, and then they wonder why society does a crash'n'burn because people routinely defy those laws - yet they are now in a worse position than ever to avoid drunk driving.

Of course, when some drunk torpedoes an innocent it's just more moral jet fuel to the War on Drugs. These fuckers, in my very sincerely view, set up the population for failure and then they can claim moral superiority when something predictably goes a lot worse than "intended".

(Other posters: do check your sarcasm and ironymeters)

There's definitely some truth to what you say. I've read Ph.D's who say the same as you. It is VERY important that those at the wrong end of the baton show submission. The police is here to take undesirables and deviants and instill into them proper fear and respect for the standards set by society. Insubordination, even vile shit like mentioning your Constitutional Rights, are clearly attacks on both the policeman and society as a whole, and no one is better equipped than the police officer to teach those malcontents a proper dose of respect and submission.

At least that's how they feel. The police.

What exactly is it that's so very dangerous about a man simply running - even if it's allegedly away from the police?

The real danger surely comes from the fact that the police officer thinks "allegedly running from the police" is a capital offense that requires him to discharge his weapon in crowded areas.

And what if the person just happens to be running for some other purpose than actually evading the police? How do you feel about gunning down people like that?

Finally I can't help think that you're maybe quite a bit naive on the laws in the USA. Do you have any idea how tough a court trial is and just how many years people go behind bars even for actions that really, truly should not be considered crimes moreso than homosexuality.

You probably don't ever expect to be in the situation, but let's just say you'd returned from the mountains with a 3 month stash of medicinal marijuana that you're bringing a very ill member of your familiy. Do you deserve to be simply SHOT for trying to evade what is surely a drug charge with conspiracy to distribute, and God Almighty forbid you had your legal, concealed firearm in a ankle holster: some places that lil' combo would give you a mandatory minimum of 50 years in prison.

So really, truly ... would you just surrender and take your chances in court? In that kind of a legal system?

Well, let's hope your appetites for changing the workings of your central nervous system never evolves beyond alcohol and yoga, and let's pray no one ever gets sick and you have to bring them the medicine that your government is holdning back.

Psilocybin mushrooms require even less. You can pick them fresh and eat them, or you can dry them and eat the later.

Salvia Divinorum can be smoked in the same way - it's still legal most places in the USA but banned in other places (like my own country Denmark).

Mescaline cacti (peyote, San Pedro) can be eaten raw or by simply cooking a tea.

The MAOi and DMT containing ingredients for ayahuasca can be used by simply cooking a tea with them. Currently only the Sante Daimo in the US can enjoy this sacrament legally as a tea.

Then there's the LSA of Morning Glory and Hawaiian Baby Woodrose. Can be eaten as is or as a tea. Dunno about the legal status of those. (From all accounts it would seem that the purely synthetic LSD, which is related to LSA, is easier on the body than the natural product.)

Amanity Muscaria (red fly mushroom) can be dried and drunk at a tea.

The leaves of the coca plant can be picked and chewed as is.

Raw opium is in no way processed and can be eaten or smoked as is, or you can drink a tea made from whole poppy heads.

Anyway, whether something is "purely natural" or cooked up in a lab is really completely irrelevant to almost anything except the fact that the naturally growing stuff is a great deal easier to make yourself. All that talk of "natural" drugs is nothing but pure romantic nonsense if you study the substances. The purely natural can be just as deadly as anything cooked up in a lab by a chemist.