• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Marijuana is harmless. Right?

Lithrael said:
I think ‘gale is talking about lung disease from heavy long term use.
Click to expand...

That's what I assumed, but while I do know people who have died from lung cancer after smoking tobacco, I can't recall a single case of someone contracting lung cancer from weed.

Of course nobody smokes anywhere near 2 packs a day of weed, but I suspect it's a lot less carcinogenic than tobacco anyway.
 
Planigale said:
Not acutely. I have seen people die from long term cannabis use.
Click to expand...

Varanid said:
Lol, wut?
You're going to need to back this up.
Click to expand...

Lithrael said:
I think ‘gale is talking about lung disease from heavy long term use.
Click to expand...

I agree with Varanid. I've heard of an seen a mild chronic bronchitis. I'll have to see some evidence for the pot actually killing folks. I'll buy it if its hard to tell if they died of prostate cancer or lung damage from pot.

Even so, that would almost certainly be due to smoke rather than anything inherent in pot. Eat or vape and it goes away.
 
ahhell said:
In terms of driving high, it think its plausible that folks will be less afraid of being caught by police if they are high if its legal. It is then possible that some fraction of them will be less inhibited in driving while slightly high. I wouldn't bet one way or another, but I won't be surprised if legalization does increase the instances of driving high.
Click to expand...
Unlikely. The government isn't about to stop subjecting motorists to random drug tests just because marijuana is legal.
 
psionl0 said:
Unlikely. The government isn't about to stop subjecting motorists to random drug tests just because marijuana is legal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there is a big difference between just a DUI and a DUI coupled with possession. Now that the possession charge is off the books in many jurisdictions the legal risks associated with driving while stoned are slightly lower.

I think you can find data to indicate an increase in marijuana related traffic fatalities in some US states that have legalized. Some of that is due to out of state marijuana tourism and some of it is contained in a small spike just after legalization. But over time the states show no overall increase in traffic fatalities due to marijuana legalization.

I actually thought there was a chance that there could be an overall reduction in traffic fatality, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the US.
 
psionl0 said:
Unlikely. The government isn't about to stop subjecting motorists to random drug tests just because marijuana is legal.
Click to expand...

There is no easy marijuana test you can administer to drivers as there is for alcohol. Breathalyzer don't work, you need to do a blood draw, and that's harder to perform and legally harder to demand. And it's also much less accurate than alcohol tests in terms of measuring impairment.
 
Ziggurat said:
There is no easy marijuana test you can administer to drivers as there is for alcohol. Breathalyzer don't work, you need to do a blood draw, and that's harder to perform and legally harder to demand. And it's also much less accurate than alcohol tests in terms of measuring impairment.
Click to expand...
THC can be detected with a simple saliva test that takes 5 minutes. It is simply illegal to drive with a prescribed illicit drug in your blood (as distinct to driving while drug impaired). If it takes several weeks for the THC to go out of your body then you risk getting charged if you are stopped for a random drug test during that time.
 
Ron Obvious said:
That's what I assumed, but while I do know people who have died from lung cancer after smoking tobacco, I can't recall a single case of someone contracting lung cancer from weed.

Of course nobody smokes anywhere near 2 packs a day of weed, but I suspect it's a lot less carcinogenic than tobacco anyway.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty well established that inhaling smoke is bad for you, whatever the source. However, you are correct that the quantity inhaled is way less for marijuana smokers than for tobacco smokers. Also, chewing tobacco and dipping snuff are associated with oral cancers, which suggests that nicotine or something else in tobacco may be carcinogenic without the polyaromatics in smoke that are frequently blamed for lung cancer.
 
psionl0 said:
THC can be detected with a simple saliva test that takes 5 minutes. It is simply illegal to drive with a prescribed illicit drug in your blood (as distinct to driving while drug impaired).
Click to expand...

No, actually, it's generally not illegal to drive with a prescribed illicit drug in your blood. Only 11 states prohibit any amount. Most states require impairment. And in places where the drug is legal (such as Colorado), it's not illicit to begin with. The saliva test cannot determine impairment levels, and does not suffice to demonstrate such.
 
CORed said:
I think it's pretty well established that inhaling smoke is bad for you, whatever the source. However, you are correct that the quantity inhaled is way less for marijuana smokers than for tobacco smokers. Also, chewing tobacco and dipping snuff are associated with oral cancers, which suggests that nicotine or something else in tobacco may be carcinogenic without the polyaromatics in smoke that are frequently blamed for lung cancer.
Click to expand...

That would be one very expensive two-pack-a-day habit.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, actually, it's generally not illegal to drive with a prescribed illicit drug in your blood. Only 11 states prohibit any amount. Most states require impairment. And in places where the drug is legal (such as Colorado), it's not illicit to begin with. The saliva test cannot determine impairment levels, and does not suffice to demonstrate such.
Click to expand...

I would also point out that, in the US, the police are not allowed to perform random drug tests. They have to have probable cause to believe that you are impaired or that you have violated a traffic law to stop you in the first place, and probable cause to believe that you are impaired to order a test. Not that their aren't some shenanigans pulled to circumvent both of those, but they are not allowed to just stop people at random and order a breath or blood test.
 
psionl0 said:
Unlikely. The government isn't about to stop subjecting motorists to random drug tests just because marijuana is legal.
Click to expand...

I don't think that matters. As it becomes more normalized folks will probably be a little less paranoid about getting caught. The guy who thought it was 50/50 as to whether he should drive and only lives a "few blocks away" might be more willing to take the chance. Out of however many millions of get high on a semi regular basis, there will possible be a few that move over to "I'll risk it just this once" who might not have otherwise.

All I'm saying, its possible. I suspect probable but we will see.

My pot head friends in Seattle all say the legal stuff sucks and have stuck with their regular guy.

Probably relevant. There are actually two crimes associated with driving under the influence of alcohol.
1. Being impaired no matter how much alcohol is in your system, for the light weights.
2. Being over the legal blood alcohol limit regardless of impairment, for the hardcore drunks.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
I would also point out that, in the US, the police are not allowed to perform random drug tests. They have to have probable cause to believe that you are impaired or that you have violated a traffic law to stop you in the first place, and probable cause to believe that you are impaired to order a test. Not that their aren't some shenanigans pulled to circumvent both of those, but they are not allowed to just stop people at random and order a breath or blood test.
Click to expand...
I know that the 4th Amendment bars "unreasonable searches and seizure" but given how asset seizures work, it could easily turn out that RBTs are ruled "reasonable".
 
ahhell said:
I don't think that matters. As it becomes more normalized folks will probably be a little less paranoid about getting caught. The guy who thought it was 50/50 as to whether he should drive and only lives a "few blocks away" might be more willing to take the chance. Out of however many millions of get high on a semi regular basis, there will possible be a few that move over to "I'll risk it just this once" who might not have otherwise.
Click to expand...
This is just another version of the "everybody will get high if we don't ban it" theory. It hasn't worked that way in practice and there is no reason to believe that a responsible motorist will suddenly become irresponsible if they are legally allowed to consume weed.
 
ahhell said:
In terms of driving high, it think its plausible that folks will be less afraid of being caught by police if they are high if its legal. It is then possible that some fraction of them will be less inhibited in driving while slightly high. I wouldn't bet one way or another, but I won't be surprised if legalization does increase the instances of driving high.
Click to expand...
Except that as I said, pot makes you paranoid and lazy and less likely to take risks. And the paranoia associated with being high isn't just about being caught. You tend to get slightly paranoid about all sorts of things, rational and irrational.

Ron Obvious said:
That's what I assumed, but while I do know people who have died from lung cancer after smoking tobacco, I can't recall a single case of someone contracting lung cancer from weed.

Of course nobody smokes anywhere near 2 packs a day of weed, but I suspect it's a lot less carcinogenic than tobacco anyway.
Click to expand...
It is common to mix pot with tobacco to smoke it. That's how I always did it. It could be the case that someone smokes mulled pot but not tobacco on its own, and get lung cancer that way.
 
psionl0 said:
This is just another version of the "everybody will get high if we don't ban it" theory. It hasn't worked that way in practice and there is no reason to believe that a responsible motorist will suddenly become irresponsible if they are legally allowed to consume weed.
Click to expand...

I think there is actually very little change in usage with legalization. I don't really think the laws against possession actually prevent very many people from using it at all.
 
psionl0 said:
Meth is the big worry but cops are quite happy to test for THC as well.
Click to expand...

Prescribed? Or does that mean something different in the USA?

In the UK, in this context, it would be something you had a prescription for from your doctor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom