rocko100
...how is more jobs possible if the employees cannot even remember what to do half the time?
You're assuming that employers are going to permit employees to "be high" at work, and I doubt many employers will permit that. You're allowed to consume alcohol when off-the-clock, but you can be terminated from your job for showing up to work with any ill-effects of drinking. I can't imagine an exception for marijuana.
If people want to get high all day, that's their choice, it's only a problem once they start operating heavy machinery or making other unwise decisions, of which they must face consequenses for their actions.
The weed-permitting world won't suddenly become an unholy land of zombies, although I'd imagine the first week or so after enactment might be a little on the unproductive side.
We are seeing a slow deterioration of marijuana laws in the United States, for both medicinal and "medicinal" use. And yet, California hasn't self-destructed. But we're a long way off...although perhaps that's not a bad thing; perhaps there's a state that wants to forbid it, and everyone there's okay with that.
Comparing alcoholics to pot-addicts is simple enough, most do have similar tales of woe and similar faults. Crime won't change, because I don't think the casual smoker (like a casual drinker) is going to suddenly go haywire and start stealing for his first toke. But I could imagine that an addict of one might transfer, if you will, to a different type of drug...big deal, nothing's changed.
That's not to say I haven't heard some lame excuses from drug addicts: "Weed isn't addictive", and "The government should regulate our quality" and "It's not my fault, I was high." You want big-boy laws, now act like one, with a pinch of responsibility.
That said, I've done my share, been clean for well over a decade, and have no plans to resume. High people vary from interesting to annoying to bleeping stupid, which isn't much different than non-users, in my experiences.