The Marijuana Thread

[username]

Gee, that sounds familiar.

I don't see much problem with establishing acceptable limits. If you read the NHTSA reports I linked to previously yo will see that there are well established protocols for driver testing. In fact they routinely test new prescription drugs for effects on driving.

Here's how I see it being done. Get a group of drivers of varying skill levels. Benchmark them individually sober. Then feed them alcohol and test at various levels of intoxication to just over the legal limit. Again, individually benchmark the drivers. Then, long after they have sobered up, repeat with marijuana and keep feeding them marijuana until they drive as poorly as they did at the legal limit for alcohol. I would think that they should test about 500 or more drivers this way.

In my personal experience this wouldn't be reliable. I have noticed that if I smoke pot after a lengthy absence, I get seriously stoned and wouldn't be fit to drive at all. If I smoke regularly for a couple months I could drive without much difficulty or risk to anyone.

In other words a tolerance develops quite rapidly with regular use.

The primary difference I have noticed with myself between alcohol and pot is that when drunk I sometimes think I can drive OK when I cannot whereas with pot I know if I can or not. Pot doesn't seem to impair judgement the way alcohol does.

The biggest risk I see with stoned drivers isn't that they can't operate a vehicle effectively, but that time can seem distorted and disorienting. Sort of like a split second lapse in attention that feels like it was much, much longer. There may be some potential for problems from this while driving.

In any event I don't see stoned driving being anywhere near the public safety issue that alcohol is, even if the number of people smoking pot was equal to the number drinking alcohol.

Still, I would think a blood test would be just fine. *IF* I am driving poorly and *IF* I fail the field sobriety test, then go ahead and draw some blood. If the test reveals I am currently under the influence, then arrest me.

 

[Schneibster]

Some do.

Damn, what next, geigh marriage? Abortion?

 

[steverino]

Damn, what next, geigh marriage? Abortion?

Don't ask me. Ask them.

 

[Schneibster]

Just rhetoric, bud.

 

[luchog]

Emphasis mine.

Problem is, we aren't starting. Tobacco is legal now, even though it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to provide a fix for an addiction.

That is definitely not true. People wouldn't use tobacco at all if there wasn't some benefit to it. In fact, recent studies show that nicotine appears to have mild pain-relief properties. It's stimulant effects are well-known to any smoker.

http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/research/archives/2004/nicotine_as_therapy.cfm
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15374/

 

[luchog]

First I made the distinction because unfair comparisons/generalizations kept being made, ie how alcohol is so much worse than pot....but this is the case w/alcohol to great excess, not alcohol in general.

This is demonstrably not true, but that has already been addressed by Skibum.

Second, it is not the same. Even light use of pot can (for example) seriously impair one's awareness, reaction times etc.....and is still unhealthy. Not so w/alcohol.

No, this is also not true. Cannabis use causes less impairment of motor function and judgment than alcohol. It's the latter that is the most important factor. Alcohol users typically underestimate their impairment, and are more likely to engage in risky behaviour such as driving while impaired. Cannabis users, on the other hand, are more likely to overestimate their impairment, and are less likely to engage in risky behaviour. Impairment is also relieved more quickly than it is with alcohol as well.

http://www.fcda.org/driving.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Misc/driving/s16p2.htm

No one with any brains will claim that cannabis doesn't cause performance impairment. But it is greatly exaggerated by prohibitionists, and the actual science simply doesn't support their claims.

There is absolutely no argument in favour of cannabis prohibition that can be made using actual scientific facts that doesn't apply far, far more appropriately to alcohol. The claim that cannabis should be prohibited, while alcohol should remain legal, can only be made from ignorance, hypocrisy, or schizophrenia. The damage, both physical and social, caused by alcohol is many many times that caused by cannabis, or could possibly be caused by cannabis. I know that statement isn't going to win me any friends, but it based on actual, peer-reviewed and replicated science, unlike the claims in favour of prohibition (which are predominantly emotionalist anyway).

 

[luchog]

So you could go to a party and decide not to drink alcohol because you'd get busted if pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint. But you could smoke all the weed you want, because the police couldn't test you; you'd have nothing to fear from a sobriety checkpoint no matter how stoned you were. They could bust you for "failure to keep right" or "failure to yield," but not for DUI.

Sorry, but that's complete BS, not to mention a total red herring. DUI can include simple conditions such as obvious fatigue or distraction. Proving the effect of a particular drug is not necessary for a successful charge and prosecution. If the officer has probable cause to suspect impairment and justify an arrest, a drug test can confirm the presence of cannabis, and properly done can determine the blood concentration.

 

[luchog]

I see, so your proposal for legalization would be a law that says "you can only get high if you stay in your home." Good luck w/that. Believe it or not, if you legalize pot, not everyone will just sit at home and get high. And precious few would call a cab if they were out somewhere and couldn't drive. Am I still going too fast for you?

Provide evidence, or admit that you're talking out of your ass. The actual scientific data is against you.

 

[luchog]

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.

Just like alcohol users don't get pulled over for weaving, speeding, etc.; and have absolutely no risk of getting busted for DUI because alcohol is legal. Same with users of prescription opiate painkillers and decongestants. They never get busted for driving while impaired.



Do you actually think about what you write?

 

[The Shank]

I've just read this thread from beginning to end.
Now i'm gonna roll myself a fat-un.