The Marijuana Thread

[jimlintott]

Like a few others, you seem to think that someone smoking pot only endangers themselves. Not so.

Admit it, you just want to see NASCAR drivers drive stoned. Then you'd get all those accidents that you secretly want

I'm certainly not that naive. The morbidly obese person can put their own family through much pain. How many families have been torn apart by alcohol? The damage done by compulsive gambling makes most illegal drugs look about as dangerous as jello.

However the fact remains that large numbers of people still eat, drink and gamble with no effect on their families or anyone else.

It's simply use versus abuse. It seems that some people really think that any illegal drug can only ever be abused not just used. That is a fallacy.

 

[bigred]

Sir, at this point, I would lie down and die for you.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mjgate.htm

lol

The link you provided is not a study but an article which doesn't provide any source for the 83 percent/etc. So we're back to an unsubstantiated claim. If you have a link to the orig source/study (I googled CASA etc and couldn't find), it'd be appreciated. Assuming there is one that is.

I'd say - conservatively - that probably half or more of the people I got high with/around also at least tried cocaine. And this goes back some years when cocaine was considered less acceptable or "too hard" (at least as far as I can tell). I know it's a very small sample, anecdotal, etc but I'd be very surprised if that number was WAY different on a nation-wide scale. Would be interesting to see some studies/polls though.

Edit: I just noticed the links were at the top of THIS page. d'oh. Towlie #2 checking in...

 

[steverino]

How does keeping cannabis illegal reduce the incidence of stoned driving? Even if we assume that there are a significant number of would be users that don't currently smoke who will immediately light eon up as soon as cannabis is legal, it would be fair to assume that these additional users are very much about the legality of their actions. In which case why do we presume that they will drive stoned, something which is currently illegal and which would almost undoubtedly remain so?

I think I found a flaw in your argument, which I admit is a damn good one.
The group of pot-smokers who drive stoned do so illegally. They risk arrest if they drift into oncoming cars, etc., for the traffic infraction AND for being intoxicated on pot. This serves as a deterrent. If legal, those same stoners would, of course, still drive stoned, but without risk of being busted, even if they got pulled over for speeding, weaving, etc.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I think I found a flaw in your argument, which I admit is a damn good one.
The group of pot-smokers who drive stoned do so illegally. They risk arrest if they drift into oncoming cars, etc., for the traffic infraction AND for being intoxicated on pot. This serves as a deterrent. If legal, those same stoners would, of course, still drive stoned, but without risk of being busted, even if they got pulled over for speeding, weaving, etc.

In that case it seems you are making a good case to ban the booze, to serve as a deterrent to drunk driving.

 

[steverino]

In that case it seems you are making a good case to ban the booze, to serve as a deterrent to drunk driving.

That genie is out of the bottle, my dear. We don't need the law to greenlight another social ill.

 

[steverino]

Well, I am an alcoholic. Just celebrated 12 years of sobriety two days ago. And that means NO drugs of any kind, except those prescribed by a doctor. That's what being a recovering alcoholic means. You can no longer not just drink alcohol, you must avoid all mood-altering chemicals. If I smoked a joint, it would just be a matter of time, probably minutes, before I was back in the bottle..

Great post, and congratulations! Thank you for pointing out better than I could that Alcoholics Anonymous considers smoking pot falling off the wagon. Like booze, MJ can be, for some, equally insidious.

 

[bigred]

In that case it seems you are making a good case to ban the booze, to serve as a deterrent to drunk driving.

We've been down this road. Pls read the other pages of this thread...

 

[bigred]

Well, I am an alcoholic. Just celebrated 12 years of sobriety two days ago. And that means NO drugs of any kind, except those prescribed by a doctor. That's what being a recovering alcoholic means. You can no longer not just drink alcohol, you must avoid all mood-altering chemicals. If I smoked a joint, it would just be a matter of time, probably minutes, before I was back in the bottle. So for me, pot is a gateway drug.

Congrats!

The gateway thing is IMO not conclusive or absolute in either direction. It's far from a given and regardless it isn't of course always so, but I believe strongly (true, I have no backing web site with an "expert's" opinion ) it is so in many cases.

 

[Dancing David]

I think I found a flaw in your argument, which I admit is a damn good one.
The group of pot-smokers who drive stoned do so illegally. They risk arrest if they drift into oncoming cars, etc., for the traffic infraction AND for being intoxicated on pot. This serves as a deterrent. If legal, those same stoners would, of course, still drive stoned, but without risk of being busted, even if they got pulled over for speeding, weaving, etc.

No currently you will be arressted for having driven after smoking pot in recent history. In Illinois you must submit to a piss test if any one is injured in an accident.

If you say too ten puufs off a marijuana cigarette, then 3 days later you will still have the equivalent of 5 puufs, and 2 1/2 puffs after six days, etc. based upon a three day half life.

Therefoe currently you will be chagred (possibly) with DWI, for having used six days prior, even though there is no impairment.

And if legalized this is the largest obstacle because impairment is not related to blood level.

However your point still holds.

 

[Dancing David]

Great post, and congratulations! Thank you for pointing out better than I could that Alcoholics Anonymous considers smoking pot falling off the wagon. Like booze, MJ can be, for some, equally insidious.

That is common in all substance abuse models based upon the addictive personality.

If you subscribe to the primary substance theory, and some do, then you have to address the primary mood altering behavior, and then determine if there are other addictions.

There are alocholics who can use and function, there are alcoholics who can use marijuana and function. There are thosewho can't. i recomend avoiding all substances without perscription and relationships the first yera. Except for coffee and cigarettes, because I belive in the relapse prevention model. If smoking helps you not drink, then make it so,

The main question is if it interferes with your relationships and ability to function.

 

[Skibum]

I think I found a flaw in your argument, which I admit is a damn good one.
The group of pot-smokers who drive stoned do so illegally. They risk arrest if they drift into oncoming cars, etc., for the traffic infraction AND for being intoxicated on pot. This serves as a deterrent. If legal, those same stoners would, of course, still drive stoned, but without risk of being busted, even if they got pulled over for speeding, weaving, etc.

How is that a flaw? Wouldn't it still be against the law to drive while under the influence of marijuana? It's not an all or nothing proposition where legalizing the possession and use means they will allow a free for all.

I support legalization, but would certainly hope that it would still be against the law to drive while under the influence. I would even be in favor of a zero tolerance policy towards driving where any amount of the actual drug (not metabolites) found in ones system means serious consequences. Of course I favor that approach with alcohol as well.

 

[brodski]

I think I found a flaw in your argument, which I admit is a damn good one.
The group of pot-smokers who drive stoned do so illegally. They risk arrest if they drift into oncoming cars, etc., for the traffic infraction AND for being intoxicated on pot. This serves as a deterrent. If legal, those same stoners would, of course, still drive stoned, but without risk of being busted, even if they got pulled over for speeding, weaving, etc.

But they would be busted for driving stoned. And there is no reason why you cannot set the same penalties for stoned driving as you have set for possession of cannabis at the moment. OK so it may take a little while to conclusively prove that they where over whatever limit was set, but plenty of prosecutions rely, for evidence, on tests which may be precessed days after the fact.
Now, there are issues around what "dose" classifies you as too stoned to drive, well lets avoid that issue. There are tests which can tell if you have smoked in the last 6-9 hours before taking the test, set that as the limit instead of a blood/THC content limit. In the UK it is illegal to operate certain classes of machinery within 24 hors of consuming alcohol (or any intoxicant), why not have a similar rule for driving and smoking cannabis?

 

[Ziggurat]

How is that a flaw? Wouldn't it still be against the law to drive while under the influence of marijuana?

This actually brings up a practical question which I don't actually know the answer to. For alcohol, sobriety is tested based upon current blood-alcohol levels. Things like roadside reflex tests are only a rough guide, what matters is the actual measured levels. And conveniently enough, the level of alcohol in the blood can be measured quite accurately with breath tests, which are non-invasive.

With pot, there are obviously levels of THC in the blood which should correspond to intoxication. But if it's legal to smoke pot, the limit must obviously be nonzero. My question is: how easy is it to pinpoint current levels of THC in the blood? Because much of what gets used for drug tests, such as urine samples, are intended to determine the presence of past use and cannot be used to identify current blood levels. Maybe it's easy, maybe it's super-expensive, maybe it's cheap but requires blood samples (as opposed to a breath test), I don't know. If testing is easy, enforcing a law against driving stoned would be no more of a problem than enforcing laws against drunk driving. If the test is difficult or expensive, enforcing the law would be correspondingly difficult.

 

[brodski]

But if it's legal to smoke pot, the limit must obviously be nonzero.

Why?
Although i am in favor of legalization, I don't see a need to be soft on those that drive with dope in their system. As i said before, there are some jobs in the Uk where having ANY alcohol in your system will result in your sacking and probable prosecution (OK I didn't say it that explicitly, but I hinted at it )
there is no reason why a similar rule couldn't be made for pot. If you want to smoke, don't drive for x days afterwards.

ETA, at least one poster previously has mentioned saliva tests, which can be administered at the roadside, much like a breath test. And much like a failed breath test this could then be backed up with a blood or urine tests back at the station.

 

[jimlintott]

I think before everyone gets all carried away about detecting stoned drivers that you may want to read the research into it. Here is a page with links to plenty. I tend to favour the NHTSA research near the bottom.

The fact is that pot is not only not in the same ballpark as booze it isn't even the same game. Research does consider it to be impairing but that level is often negligible. Someone with the flu might be more impaired.

Stop equating it with booze. They aren't even close. Apparently to have someone stoned drive as poorly as a drunk you have to feed them alcohol. The level of impairment from pot is low enough that they would be hard to pick out amongst all the other idiots on the road.

Is it so unfathomable that a drug can get you high and yet have almost no effect on motor skills and judgement? Why do you think I would rather smoke pot than get drunk?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why?

Because the stuff lingers in your system. If anything above zero counts as driving intoxicated, then anyone who smokes pot can never be counted as sober ever. And you can get "intoxicated" (from a zero-threshold legal perspective) because your neighbor smoked.

Although i am in favor of legalization, I don't see a need to be soft on those that drive with dope in their system.

A low threshold is different than a zero threshold. The threshold must be nonzero, or it cannot work.

As i said before, there are some jobs in the Uk where having ANY alcohol in your system will result in your sacking and probable prosecution

I highly doubt it.

 

[Skibum]

This actually brings up a practical question which I don't actually know the answer to. For alcohol, sobriety is tested based upon current blood-alcohol levels. Things like roadside reflex tests are only a rough guide, what matters is the actual measured levels. And conveniently enough, the level of alcohol in the blood can be measured quite accurately with breath tests, which are non-invasive.

With pot, there are obviously levels of THC in the blood which should correspond to intoxication. But if it's legal to smoke pot, the limit must obviously be nonzero. My question is: how easy is it to pinpoint current levels of THC in the blood? Because much of what gets used for drug tests, such as urine samples, are intended to determine the presence of past use and cannot be used to identify current blood levels. Maybe it's easy, maybe it's super-expensive, maybe it's cheap but requires blood samples (as opposed to a breath test), I don't know. If testing is easy, enforcing a law against driving stoned would be no more of a problem than enforcing laws against drunk driving. If the test is difficult or expensive, enforcing the law would be correspondingly difficult.

I think where you are getting confused is the difference between Delta 9 THC ( the compound in marijuana that gets the user high) and the metabolites produced as a result of use.

Thats why I said "any amount of the actual drug (not metabolites)".

If theres no D9THC in your system, you're not high. D9THC is metabolized within 8 hours of use (in most cases between 3-6 hours).
There are cheap saliva tests which test for the presence of D9THC, that are available now and in use in many jurisdictions.

 

[Skibum]

Because the stuff lingers in your system. If anything above zero counts as driving intoxicated, then anyone who smokes pot can never be counted as sober ever. And you can get "intoxicated" (from a zero-threshold legal perspective) because your neighbor smoked.



A low threshold is different than a zero threshold. The threshold must be nonzero, or it cannot work.



I highly doubt it.

Its metabolites do, not the psychoactive compound.

A zero threshold for D9THC would work fine.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think where you are getting confused is the difference between Delta 9 THC ( the compound in marijuana that gets the user high) and the metabolites produced as a result of use.

No, I'm not getting confused at all.

Thats why I said "any amount of the actual drug (not metabolites)".

Still doesn't work. First off, the threshold for detection depends upon the detection method used. It's absurd that conviction might depend upon which method used. Secondly, there's little bits of just about everything floating around. A zero-threshold test for practically anything will turn up positive, if the sensitivity is high enough. If your neighbor was smoking pot all day, chances are there's little bits of D9THC in your system, even if it's not enough to do anything to you.

If theres no D9THC in your system, you're not high.

But the converse need not be true, at low enough levels.

D9THC is metabolized within 8 hours of use (in most cases between 3-6 hours).

That's nice. But this does NOT mean that ALL of it has been metabolized within that time period. It isn't. Trace amounts of unmetabolized drug will linger in exponentially decaying amounts, but if the test sensitivity is high enough, it WILL pick up the substance long after you're no longer high.

There are cheap saliva tests which test for the presence of D9THC, that are available now and in use in many jurisdictions.

That's the kind of detail I was looking for. But this saliva test isn't going to be zero-threshold - it has some built in sensitivity. It may be that this sensitivity corresponds to the threshold we want in law, and that would be fine, but there still MUST be a non-zero threshold in order for this to work practically. Among other issues, a zero-threshold limit would allow cops to essentially harrass people by selectively using high-sensitivity tests.

 

[Skibum]

That's the kind of detail I was looking for. But this saliva test isn't going to be zero-threshold - it has some built in sensitivity. It may be that this sensitivity corresponds to the threshold we want in law, and that would be fine, but there still MUST be a non-zero threshold in order for this to work practically. Among other issues, a zero-threshold limit would allow cops to essentially harrass people by selectively using high-sensitivity tests.

Okay, perhaps an absolute zero threshhold won't work. I'm confident that a non zero threshold could be found that would be widely acceptable similar to how BAC levels are determined.