I have a question about inhaling and driving. If pot were made legal, does anyone know how it would be determined when one would be OK to drive after having smoked? How long between might if be from your last toke to the open road? And how would the cops test for this? A blood test? Ouch! A urine sample?
With alcohol, X amount on your breath decreases at a pretty steady rate per hour. But pot you smoked this morning will stay in your system for days. And if you smoke three or four times a week, you’ll always have some residue.
Perhaps a twinkie test? To see if you can eat just one??
One thing I definately wouldn’t like about legalized marijuana is having to breath in second hand smoke. I get enough of that with all the smokers who don’t care who else they’re making breath their smoke. But if I were to bring some radioactive thallium from work around with me, boy would they raise a stink.
A urine sample definitely wouldn’t work. An impairment test that measures reaction time, memory, coordination, etc. would be much more appropriate, and not limited to just one drug.
Unfortunately, as I recall from the fallout in the wake of California’s medical-marjuana legalization, the fact that some States have legalized marijuana is merely an academic point. The Federal anti-marijuana laws are so strict as to make those State laws irrelevant.
If we’re going to make marijuana really and truly legal anywhere in the U.S., we’ve first got to get it removed from Schedule I of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Even getting it bumped down to Schedule II would be a huge improvement, as doing so would open the doors for medical marjuana in every State that wished to legalize such practices.
Sigh … that’s the problem with Federal laws: it practically takes an act of Congress to change 'em!
Ridiculas. The existance of this opinion is the only (sensible) reason to keep marajuana illegal. The absence of an accurate method for determining someone’s intoxication due to marijuana makes it more or less impossible to enforce road laws. Until such a method is developed, we’ll never see legal pot. I can’t really say that I disagree.
Fwiw, I’m a regular user, and have far more driving experience than I’d care to admit.
That indicates he’d been smoking recently, not that he was stoned at the time he was driving.
My emphasis. That was their argument, not necessarily a fact. I’m not sure it’d be possible to know one way or the other.
Foiles sounds like a dumbass, but this is really stupid reasoning. If I have a friend who sometimes drinks too much, does that mean she’s incapable of driving safely? No. She can’t drive safely while drunk, but it has little or nothing to do with her driving the rest of the time.
I’m euqally amazed how people will believe anything when ''studies show" is put at the front of the sentence. I dismissed the result because I know from personal experience that it’s false, AND that it comes from a biased source.
As far as me ‘not liking’ the study… I’d LOVE for the result of that study to be true. Few things would make me happier. Unfortunately, the fine folks at NORML share the same bias. A lot of people can’t tell the difference between what they want to be true and what IS true.
You seem to be confused about the authorship of the studies. NORML didn’t run them, they only collected the results onto one page. If you read the page again, you’ll see citations and links to the actual studies.
And although I respect your personal experience, an anecdote is not data. My personal experience tells me that the “nicotine buzz” is a myth, and cigarettes have no effect other than throat irritation, but I wouldn’t use that to dismiss evidence that cigarettes really do contain a stimulant.
More to the point, some of my other personal experiences tell me that a person who drives in the city for 5 hours a day can do so safely while totally stoned. I may not be that person, and I personally find it almost impossible to navigate while high (dude… what street did I just turn on?) so I avoid doing it, but I’ve known a handful of people who pulled it off every day without a hitch.
Of course, that isn’t data either, just an anecdote. I’m content to stick with the studies.
Had any one of the legitimate studies they referenced actually came to the same conclusion that they did, they would have just posted the study. Since they didn’t simply post a study, we can deduce that no legitimate study has declared that marajuana + driving = safety.
Also, your personal experience example is logically different than mine. My experiance, that marijuana impairs my driving, negates the statement ‘Marijuana does not impair driving’. Disproof by counterexample. As simple as saying negating the statement “Noone named Colin exists” with “My name’s Colin.”
Your experience, that you don’t feel a nicoteen buzz, doesn’t guarentee that no-one feels a nicoteen buzz. It’s as absurd as saying “I’m not a tall man. No tall men exist.”
The fact that some people can drive safely doesn’t mean that all people can drive safely. Just the same as how the fact that some horses are brown (hell, a LOT of horses are brown) doesn’t mean that all horses are brown.
A lot of the last generation of truckers have been known to be drunk drivers. I’m sure a lot of em were good at it. So by the same argument you’re making, drinking and driving should be allowed.
And if that’s the case you are the person I do not want around me when you’re driving. That there is one major point for me. I do not want you, or anyone, to be looking for some street that you missed and not be paying attention to me. There are enough people out there that do that normal.
And now from the site above:
(bolding mine)
Slowing down does very little for avoiding accidents, and can cause other problems by not keeping up with other drivers. Also it says people who smoke weed need greater time to respond so just slowing down you still need a reaction time.
Really? And exactly how does one know when their attention is required? Can you tell me when the idiot runs out in the street? When driving you need 100% attention and not when required.
Right here they say there is a measurable effect on motor skills, that’s enough right there to throw up a red flag. Any effect is bad, even if you say it’s minor. Plus why are they comparing it to alcohol? If there is such a difference they should not be compairing it at all and just seeing the results of weed on driving.
(bolding not mine)
I know I don’t want you to be drifting into my lane (trajectory), and while it may not cause you any problems, it sure as hell may for me, the guy on the motorcycle that you probably do not see as is. That and they contradict themselfs in on paragraph, one says there is an impact then they say there is little, so which is it?
Again the same, increased variability in your lane. And what is more cautious driving? That makes no sense to me at all, sounds like they are trying to make it sound better then drinking and driving.
Again comparing the two. And again they say that marijuana does present a real risk.
(bolding not mine)
Umm… how does one know that the weed didn’t have something to do with the accident? There is no way to ever tell. And actually it shows that there might be a cause between weed and accidents as the weed group and the non-weed group was the same size. That would suggest that 50% of the population smokes weed.
That’s because they’ve already said they drive more “cautiously”
In anycase, my problem, well actually it is but not totally, with weed is where are you going to allow people to smoke it? Are you going to allow people to smoke it at bars? What about at the park? Or at concerts, like they do already? I hate the smell of weed, it gives me a headache right away. Also how do you know what the weed may do to a stranger? I mean look at how people react to second hand smoke now, are we going to be more strict in reguards to pot smoking? I’ve left seats at concerts because of too much pot, even after telling security that I wanted them to stop.
I’m for making pot leagle, though I would say very little tolerance for driving, as I am for drunk driving as well, and not in public.
Just about any low-tech product, particularly agricultural products, can be produced at home. The overwhelming majority of such products are not produced at home for two reasons - convenience and quality.
Convenience is the more obvious reason. Given the choice between walking down to the store and buying a pack of joints and setting up a grow system, then properly watering, fertilizing, and proving light to your plants, all in order to have a crop some six weeks or so down the line, and 99.99999% of users will go to the store. Hell, even today, when pot costs $50-100 for a quarter ounce, the vast majority of users do not grow their own. Why do you think that would change when legal pot (even after taxes) costs $10-20 a quarter.
Quality is just as important. When I used to brew beer, I would say that about 70% of our batches came out as decent to good quality. The rest were skunked, vinegary, or exploded in the fridge :D. I don’t brew beer anymore.
In contrast, when I order a Newcastle Brown Ale at a bar, I am 98% assured of getting a quality pint. And if it is a bad pint, I can get my money back, or a free replacement.
Same thing when, er, friends used to grow pot plants. When the seeds were a weak strain, or fertilizing was done haphazardly, or some other problem arose, the result was poor weed.
With Marlboro Greens, however, I would be assured a decent quality, moderately priced joint. Chivas Regal tokes would be certain to be a more expensive, but excellent high-THC product.
So just about everyone would buy the (taxed) commercial product.
Breaking news! The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has set aside federal marijuana laws, finding in favor of two women who sought an injunction against the 1970 Controlled Substances Act under which marijuana has been banned. The legal reasoning, as I read it, is that federal authority over intrastate commerce as granted in the Constitution does not confer the right to regulate what happens in a state, considering that the user and the grower frequently live within a few miles of each other, and thus the whole basis for the law is unconstitutional.
Makes sense to me, but (a) I’m not a disinterested party and (b) I’m not a legal scholar. Plus, it’s the 9th, and they get reversed with alarming frequency, so expect Bushcroft to hit them hard on this. Still, it’s a new development as of yesterday afternoon, so I figured it was worth mentioning.
The acutal ruling limits the legalization to pot that’s only used non-commercially and for medical purposes. If otherwise, this would break down the whole basis for the CSA, rendering everything legal.
Naive Theory, I found a lot of the same information that is posted at the NORML site from other, completely unbiased sources. Mitch Earlywine’s book * Understanding Marijuana** cites several of the same studies as the NORML site. The findings do in fact show that not only do pot smokers cause any more road accidents, they are actually the culpable party in fewer accidents than non-users (assuming that they’re not mixing with alcohol). Given the fact that reaction time is slowed, probably a certain percentage of accidents might have been prevented it the person had the faster reaction time it would have taken to avoid colliding with the idiot who suddenly decided to cut them off, or the yayhoo who thought it would be a good idea to blow a stop sign at a two-way stop, so driving while stoned is not a good idea. But then, that could be covered under “driving while impaired” laws (which IMHO should also cover people driving when using prescription medicines, cold tablets, etc.)
Also worthy of note… a lot of the studies that are cited “proving” mj is horribly, horribly bad for you are done using questionable methodologies, like injecting mice with pure THC continuously for four days, then shooting them with a drug that suddenly strips it from the receptor cells in the brain and noting the mice had severe withdrawal symptoms, or suffocating monkeys by forcing them to inhale about 60 joints’ worth of weed in the space of five minutes, and using the results to prove that pot causes brain damage. The authors of these studies often don’t release the methodologies when they write their reports- Playboy had to sue to get the methodology for the monkey study I just mentioned.
The authors of the studies that don’t show really dire negative effects of pot usually are very forthcoming with their methodologies, so even if you think they’re questionable, at least you know that they’re not trying to perpetrate a scientific fraud.
Reading through this thread, I’ve seen an argument/hypothesis that I’ve heard often before:
After legalization, marijuana would be inherently unlike tobacco or alcohol in their manufacture, processing, distribution, and hence taxation because everyone would just grow their own marijuana.
I just don’t buy this. People are lazy. I have home-brewed my own beer (I have cider fermenting right now), made my own cheese, baked bread, etc., and I know a number of people who roll their own cigarettes, but it’s hardly the norm. I still buy 99.9% of my alcohol from large manufacturers, and I can count the number of roll-your-own tobacco users I’ve met in my life on one hand.
If legalized, I believe that marijuana will become as big an industry as any other. Hell–LETTUCE, tomatoes, herbs like parsley, etc., are huge industries, despite the fact that you can grown them in your backyard, or indoors using hydroponics, etc.
I think the current dispersed, home-grown state of marijuana production is purely a function of its being illegal. More people do it because they have to than because they want to. Like bootlegging during Prohibition. Granted, you’ll still see a vast amt. of home production if its made legal, but I don’t think the amount of home production will grow by any great leaps, if mass-produced alternatives are there.
That’s a good example. Think about how many people spend $150 a month or more on cigarettes, and how much cheaper it is to buy tobacco and papers to make your own. The savings are much more apparent with tobacco than with marijuana, but people still don’t take advantage of it.
Who would want to spend a hundred bucks on growing supplies and equipment (pots, soil, lights, timers…), then have to check the plants every day, just to get some weed of unknown quality several weeks later, when they could pop down to the liquor store today and get a pack of pre-made joints for $10?