The Marijuana Thread

[BPSCG]

Due to the nature of mj, the impairment is not directly dose related...

The same is true of alcohol. The correlation between blood alcohol and impariment is not exact either. BAC of 0.4% is normally enough to cause not just impariment, not just loss of consciousness, but death. And yet, there are well-documented cases of people having that amount of alcohol in their blood and still driving (I initially did not believe it until I researched it; it was the topic of a thread here last year).

The degree of correlation between BAC and impairment is not exact. But we have set a uniform nationwide standard: If you have 0.08% alcohol in your blood, you're legally impaired, no matter how you feel or how well you can drive with that BAC.

Has anyone done any research to determine how much THC should be in a person's bloodstream before he should be automatically considered impaired?

 

[Dancing David]

Right. And if we legalize marijuana, it will be cheaper, and wider spread, and it, too, like alcohol, will take its toll on teens. Why do we need one more health crisis?

I still see no evidence that legalization will lead to higher use amongst teens. I see an assertion that it will lead to higher use. But I would counter that most teens already have the ability to use, they choose not to.

Why does legalizing it for adults have to be framed in the impact upon teens? There are plenty of other things that adults can do that teen can't, why is mj different?

 

[Dancing David]

The same is true of alcohol. The correlation between blood alcohol and impariment is not exact either. BAC of 0.4% is normally enough to cause not just impariment, not just loss of consciousness, but death. And yet, there are well-documented cases of people having that amount of alcohol in their blood and still driving (I initially did not believe it until I researched it; it was the topic of a thread here last year).

The degree of correlation between BAC and impairment is not exact. But we have set a uniform nationwide standard: If you have 0.08% alcohol in your blood, you're legally impaired, no matter how you feel or how well you can drive with that BAC.

Has anyone done any research to determine how much THC should be in a person's bloodstream before he should be automatically considered impaired?

I know, the highest BAL I saw was .415, in the ED and they had driven there.

The issiue is that a person who smakes ten joints a day will build up a level equivalent to sixty joints a day in thier blood streem and it will rise to higher levels and descend.(1st three days, 1-30, second three days 15+30=45, 3rd set 23+30=53, 4th set 26+30+56, etc, THC has a half life of three days, so they will come close to having sixty joints in thier blood.) Yet when they wake up in the morning they will not feel impaired, although some will complain of being tired. They will function without impairment until the smoke some more. And dependening on thier tolerance they may need to smoke a whole lot more.

But a new person will smoke a couple of puffs and be impaired. They will just have a couple of puffs in thier blood stream and be very distactable.

Personal tolerance varies a lot as well.

 

[steverino]

Right. And if we legalize marijuana, it will be cheaper, and wider spread, and it, too, like alcohol, will take its toll on teens. Why do we need one more health crisis?

"Why does legalizing it for adults have to be framed in the impact upon teens? There are plenty of other things that adults can do that teen can't, why is mj different?"

In post #255 you make a point about teens drinking and driving, and so I addressed that comment.

Geeze, dude, I now know why you are "dancing" dave. You bounce all over the place. I try to contradict one position you state, and then you bounce elsewhere.

You ask for data on harm done by marijuana. Here is one of a zillion links. There is a lot of evidence linking panic attacks to marijuana use. It's just one example. But now the problem is, others on this forum will say that "harmful effects" is not a reason to keep MJ illegal, that it is the individual's business what he ingests. This thread has been bouncing all over the place. I need to smoke a joint.htm

http://www.panic-anxiety.com/cannabis-panic-attacks-anxiety-marijuana.

 

[Wheezebucket]

Actually, if pot is legalized I'll most likely have to start paying more for it. So will my mom (who's smoked pot consistently since she was 16, but I didn't find that out until a couple years ago - well after I started on my own).

 

[jimlintott]

The driving issue is a concern and has been for some time. Studies have certainly been done into the effects of pot on driving. The most unusual conclusion from some studies is that stoned drivers are saver than the average sober driver. Here is an article about driving and pot. I'm sure the parent site is biased but they have links (some biased) to all the cited research. I'm not necessarily convinced that being stoned is safer but I know for a fact that it does not impair physically and mentally the way alcohol does. Alcohol effects both motor skills and reasoning ability. The most dangerous combination.

Having said that I see dealing with pot impaired drivers occuring the same way we deal with alchohol impaired drivers. With the exception of road side stops the impaired driver gets stopped because they are displaying very poor driving or they have just been in an accident. The cops give them a field sobriety test and if they fail that they get arrested and given more thorough testing at the station. This works regardless of the form of intoxication, alcohol, pot or Sudafed. (Maybe, until there is a breathalizer to detect cold medication, it should be made illegal too. Any medication with a side effect of drowsiness can be very dangerous to be under the influence of while driving.)

So I see two things, it will be dealt with in basically the same way as alcohol and that research seems to indicate that it may not be much of an issue at all. Someone in a bad mood may be a worse driver than someone who is a little stoned. We don't stop cars entering a freeway to ask the drivers how they are feeling before letting them proceed. We are still entitled to a little 'innocent before proven guilty'.

 

[steverino]

Actually, if pot is legalized I'll most likely have to start paying more for it. So will my mom (who's smoked pot consistently since she was 16, but I didn't find that out until a couple years ago - well after I started on my own).

Why do you suppose your mom hid her marijuana use from you?

 

[pgwenthold]

Why do you suppose your mom hid her marijuana use from you?

Because it's illegal? Maybe she didn't want him to run the risk of being arrested, especially as a young person who is wont to take a lot of unnecessary risks?

How many parents hide their drinking or smoking from the kids? Yeah, I'm sure there are some that do, but the great majority do not. Why not? Because it's not _illegal_ behavior.

 

[King of the Americas]

I am prescribed THC from my doctor, here in Texas.

After sustaining a spinal cord injury, I found out that my body functioned better when exposed to regular doses of THC. My spasms decreased and my bladder holds more with no more accidents.

I discovered the affects of THC on my body after I was 23, and had never even seen the stuff before that.

I only 'smoked' THC for years, until a couple of years ago when I found out about the above mentioned "Marinol". Marinol is an 'artificial' source of THC, and is NOT derived from the naturally occuring cannibis plant. If it were, it would be much more inexpensive.

My state funded perscription program pays for 3 perscriptions a month, one of which is my Marinol, the other two get used on whatever the doctor gives me for other illnesses, antibotics usually. My concern is the cost...

I kid you not, for a month's supply at my current dose, is hold on to your cap- $1500.

For that cost, I could buy 2 YEARS worth of 'cheap weed', or I could buy a year's worth of 'kind bud'.

Smoking vs. Ingesting THC is no competition. The Marinol often reacts differently with what I eat. Salads, fruit juices, and tomato dishes have the best results, whereas milk or anything dairy tends to decrease the potency, and even under perfect conditions consumption takes almost an hour to feel the affects. Smoking cannibis on the other hand...well it doesn't much matter what you eat, and the affects are instantanious.

I know the question was, "Should it be legal?", I just wanted to provide a little background information first.

Given that I would offer myself up as evidence as to THC's medically beneficial properities, I would say, "YES, it should be legal."

I would also add that THC isn't lethal.

Although it may be detrimental to a physically active life style, and thus be somewhat harmful, it is far an away much more safe than alcohol.

If I could grow it, and not be hampered by law enforcement, I could save the state close to $20,000 a year!

*I can't wait until they provide Marinol inhalers...

 

[bigred]

By the legal and medical definition of "drug", as well as by the standard English definition of "drug", alcohol qualifies as a drug. That reasonable enough for you?

It's very reasonable. It's also extremely vague and oh btw you didn't answer the question. Look up "drug" in the dictionary and pls let me know which one you consider the "best" definition.

Nope, that fails the definition of "gateway" drug. It was clearly the environment and personality, not the drug itself, that led to other drug use.

Oh please....next you'll tell me "it was society's fault." Sorry that's a cop out IMO.

By They did not find what they were looking for with cannabis, so they moved on to harder drugs.

You could say that about a lot of drugs.

By definition if a drug isn't a "gateway" for an overwhelming majority of users, then it simply isn't a gateway.

By YOUR definition. I see so a majority isn't enough, it has to be an overwhelming majority. In fact that may very well be a good definition, I hadn't really stopped to try and nail that down....or is there a legal/medication definition there as well? Seriously. Are there some legal/med universally accepted textbooks which provide such a definition or some such?

There is nothing about the drug itself that causes people to want to use harder drugs.

Sure there is. It gets you high. That's what it's all about. But when that high becomes a been there/done that kinda thing, most at least experiment with other stuff. If you just mean physical addiction kinda thing tho, I agree.

 

[bigred]

It bothers me that you can't seem to tell the difference between right and wrong.

It bothers me that you didn't understand what he said when it was plain as day.

You think that society's stamp of approval isn't on pot?

uh, no. It it were, it'd be legalized by now.

There aren't movies and television shows and magazines made about it, most high school and college kids don't do it?

You think that means it's "approved by society??" Pls tell me you're kidding.

You really think that marijuana's illegality prevents people from being stoners? You think lying to children about drug use prevents them from abusing drugs? You think that telling children that pot and heroine are both incredibly dangerous and addictive is morally acceptable? You think that when they find out hey were lied to about pot they will then become enligthened and magically know all there is to know about drugs? (Sidenote, the DARE drug program has been longitudinally studied and shown to cause drug abuse; why do they still use it?)

Wow, that's one serious lack of ability to grasp what someone else said. You were high when you wrote this weren't you

 

[Tony]

Sure there is. It gets you high. That's what it's all about. But when that high becomes a been there/done that kinda thing, most at least experiment with other stuff.

You're repeating the the D.A.R.E./anti-personal freedom party line. Do you actually have any empirical evidence that marijuana makes people want to try harder drugs?

 

[bigred]

As for the lethality of alcohol withdrawal:
Bolding mine

from here:
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Delerium+tremens

Course we could go on about how exceedingly rare and unlikely this is, but I did ask for the info and appreciate it (was curiousity as much as anything).

Alcohol is the only drug that brings about this condition.

Again excuse the doubt, but you sure there isn't a withdraw from "hard" drugs that couldn't cause death?

I am hearing many posters speak of a 'societal stamp of approval' or some such nonsense.

Are you people serious?

MJ use is widespread. You would have to search long and hard to find any solid evidence that people attach a stigma to such use, of any sort.

Perhaps in the circles you're in. Trust me, if you grabbed a cross-section of America, it wouldn't be hard, esp as you talk to older people (and I don't mean 85).

You would also have to provide some good evidence that MJ use is associated in any way with social failure, or the idea that people who use MJ cannot be/are not productive members of society.

? Who is saying "anyone who uses grass cannot be/are not productive members of society" - ? We're talking about people in general, not "look there's a guy who smokes it and he's productive; therefore it's OK."

All this is aside from this idea:
One person cannot tell another how they ought to live their life.

? Sure they can. What do you think parents are for

Seriously, you kidding me? That about defines what a gov't is, ie telling people (to a point) how they ought.....no make that how they CAN (are allowed) to life their life.

Where do we draw a line? If the person harms no one else, then what have we to say about it?

I hope you're waxing philosophic here, since obviously there is no easy answer. But the idea that a person getting high is only harming themselves is a dicey assumption at best.

Also, if you wish to speak of the social ills as far as health costs, et cetera, let's look at the increase in health costs of MJ to the general public in the form of overdoses, ER visits, et cetera.

$0

Course this is but one factor, but I'm curious how you arrived at this figure. You're saying (for example) no highway accidents occur due to someone getting high, driving and causing an accident due to reduced mental capacities? I hope you're kidding.

I would conclude that, at the least, Mj use is no more a social ill than drinking, or gambling, both of which are legal, in some form.

Even if that point is conceded, blowing by "2 wrongs make a right" to "3 wrongs make a right" is hardly a valid justificaton for legalization of pot.

The REAL social ill happens when a group of people makes up arbitrary rules and tries to force others to live by them. Like religion.

Oh goody, a pointless jab at religion here at JREF, what a shocker this is. Way to weaken your credibility. Shame, I suspect you are generally better than that, but if you can't go thru the day w/o such nonsense, may I suggest you at least take it to the proper forum.

But hey good point: let's eliminate all gov'ts (and those nasty ol religions) and have anarchy. Our "societal ills" would plummet, no doubt.

 

[bigred]

Uh huh, what is that a quote from Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

Do you lie to your children.

Why if I tell my child the truth about heroin (very addictive and dangerous), alcohol (addictive and not so dangerous) and marijuana (not so addictive and not so dangerous)
and then say, i don't want you to use alcohol or marijuana, i am telling them to use marijuana and other drugs, yup.

You are some sort of demagouge, I used to think you at least reasoned your arguments yourself, now I wonder.

You are about as hysterical and uninformed on this issue as someone can get. BTW Reader's Digest often plants articles so they can quote them and edits people out of context. When did reader's Digest become a peer reviewed journal? Even high school kids know you aren't supposed to quote a source more than three years old, unless it is to establish the history of a topic. Use Reader's Digest, get a D on your paper. Yup.

Good points there Towlie!



Honestly, translations appreciated.

 

[bigred]

Because it's illegal? Maybe she didn't want him to run the risk of being arrested, especially as a young person who is wont to take a lot of unnecessary risks?

I think the question was why did she hide it from YOU, not the authorities. She could safely hide it in the house and not from you, but didn't. Why?

How many parents hide their drinking or smoking from the kids? Yeah, I'm sure there are some that do, but the great majority do not. Why not? Because it's not _illegal_ behavior.

Yes, but also because it's socially accepted. Not saying that is right or wrong, just an observation.

 

[slingblade]

Right. And if we legalize marijuana, it will be cheaper, and wider spread, and it, too, like alcohol, will take its toll on teens. Why do we need one more health crisis?

We call that a slippery slope argument. They are fallacious when you can show no evidence for these problems other than opinion, or resort to "it's just common sense."

So. Do you have evidence?

 

[Schneibster]

Winston Wowie

LOL, you made my day. Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

In post #255 you make a point about teens drinking and driving, and so I addressed that comment.

Geeze, dude, I now know why you are "dancing" dave. You bounce all over the place. I try to contradict one position you state, and then you bounce elsewhere.

You ask for data on harm done by marijuana. Here is one of a zillion links. There is a lot of evidence linking panic attacks to marijuana use. It's just one example. But now the problem is, others on this forum will say that "harmful effects" is not a reason to keep MJ illegal, that it is the individual's business what he ingests. This thread has been bouncing all over the place. I need to smoke a joint.htm

http://www.panic-anxiety.com/cannabis-panic-attacks-anxiety-marijuana.

Uh huh, and you are the one who said the 'health crisis' will loom.

So it causes panic attacks, are those in people who are already prone to panic, does it go away when they stop?

The problem with this argument is that there is this one substance you are focusing on, gambling and alcohol cause a greater scoietal distress and damage than mj. Why pick on one issue, teen driving kills a lot of people as well.

So why this one issue, and stating there are a zillion web sites doesn't mean anything, what are the 'credible health threats' or whatever you are afraid will damage our society?

 

[Dancing David]

Good points there Towlie!



Honestly, translations appreciated.

Thanks for the ad hom Big Red!

I am an ex-user.

I have not encouraged use, I am making the point that there is no good reason to keep marijuana illegal. It is much less harmful than alcohol. You and Steverino are not making arguments based upon the facts, you are making emotional arguments based upon assertion. Which is fine.

This is a bulletin board for people who like to argue after all.

If you wish a translation than I suggest you read the post I quoted, then the Reader's Digest was a comment on another post of Steve's, but by all means why don't you translate your hyperbolre for us as well.
i will admit my hyperbole is hyperbole, will you?

PS and oh btw mixed feelings on the whole thing, but I don't get why not legalizing pot is so unfathomable. It seriously impairs the brain

Evidence and data.

(and by extension motor skills, reaction times etc)

Evidence and data

and does or can do serious damage

Uh huh and it is short term but of course alcohol toxicty lasts a life time
[qyuote]
to short-term memory, and often contributes to a lazy/poor attitude in general
[/quote]
evidence and data

(and pls note I'm talking question of degrees there, since someone is bound to go "oh you think anyone who smokes pot is a lazy bum!" blah etc). And unlike alcohol

Evidence and data

, it is almost never done in moderation, people do not "smoke it for the taste," and with rare exception

and so what are the benefits of alcohol?

(ie providing relief to cancer patients) it cannot provide a health benefit - ie has no other use other than to catch a buzz.

data and evidence

Sorry, not a myth.

Anecdotes prove the existance of fairies as well.

Having been there and been around a LOT of people who were, yes it was overwhelmingly a "gateway" drug

How many in your sample drank and smoked cigarettes.
How do you control for the societal impact, yes in the seventies many did go on to try other drugs. But are you sure that statistic hold true?

If people use cocaine and never smoke marijuans what does that mean? What is the majority of people who use cocaine used alocholo first in thier lifes.

Is going to church a gateway to drugs use.

Tomatos cause cancer?

- once pot become ordinary, most were looking to try something else. Of course that doesn't mean everyone who got high turned into a crackhead (or whatever). It isn't always or automatically a "gateway."

Thank you I do notice the caveat.

And BTW you doubt on the lethality of alcohol withdrawl is foolish. Why don't you call your local detox center and ask them? So above we have alot of argument by assertion and argument by anecdote.

In another thread we have you doubting the medicaly established fact that alcohol withdrawl can lead to death.

Will you do some research and get back to us.

BTW are you big red the gum? Or are you big red the tall person?

 

[BPSCG]

I have not encouraged use, I am making the point that there is no good reason to keep marijuana illegal. It is much less harmful than alcohol.

I keep hearing this argument. And while I agree that pot is probably less dangerous than alcohol, and certainly less dangerous than tobacco, I don't understand how that becomes a justification for its legalization.

"Smoke dope: It probably won't kill you."