My question on this stemmed from the link I provided on page two. As things stand now, legally * any * THC in your system makes you “impaired,” even if you last smoked marijuana days ago. Heavy users have more residual THC in their bodies than do light or infrequent users. Thus, a heavy smoker is legally impaired * all the time. * He may last have smoked pot a few days ago, as the young defendant in the above case claimed, but he’s still legally “high.”
If the amount of THC detectable in a marijuana smoker varies greatly based on how frequently they smoke, how would we then define intoxication? Let’s say for sake of argument that we define intoxicated as a “25,” what about the man who’s frequent usage keeps his THC level at that number, even though he hasn’t smoked recently? A new user at “25” is stoned out of his gourd, but the first man is as sober as a judge.
Appearance is not always a dead-accurate indicator, either. I’ve seen pot smokers who show absolutely no signs of being high when they were. Not all users are the stereotypical giggling space-heads. They could easily pass the road-sobriety test which is used for drunks.
Even if all drugs were legallized, driving while intoxicated would not be. The problem, as I see it, is the difficulty in determining a legal standard for intoxication.
Maybe I don’t understand your definition of intoxication, maybe I don’t understand sobriety tests. If a person has the mental and physical abilities and reflexes of the average unimpaired driver, is that person intoxicated? I would say that the definition of intoxication is not whether that person has used drugs (including alcohol) but whether that person could pass a driving test in his or her present condition. I believe the sobriety tests are a reasonable indicator. Even better than blood levels.
(Side comment) There are lots of people on the road today that shouldn’t be. I wish we could put them in jail for driving unintoxicated.
Good point. If someone is “intoxicated” physically, and can pass a sobriety test, then why prosecute intoxication if it has no effect on a person’s driving skills?
How would we prevent a Pre-Opium-War China type scenario from occuring, should we decriminalize all drugs? This time period is a historically documented case where the uninhibited flow of drugs had a dramatically negative effect on a society.
Soup_du_jour: why should we? If people want to screw up their bodies and minds, why should we (or the law) be able to force them to do otherwise? Also, given the War on Drugs, massive amounts of money being given to dealers, impure and dangerous drugs, and other problems that would be solved were drugs legalized, how much worse could things get?
We are better educated and have a better support system. During the same time period, alcohol in America was also a much bigger problem. Of course it wasn’t as big a problem as during Prohibition. But, that is why I agree with** robertliguori**!
All right, let’s try some relatively isolated state, like Alaska or Hawaii. Or the territory of Puerto Rico.
The law would allow for people to only buy enough drugs for their own personal use. Those who are not licensed to sell drugs within the state would only be allowed to possess enough drugs at any one time to last for one week of their own use. Purchase age is 21. Must have valid photo identification.
Well, not ALL. Opioids (heroin, morphine, methadone, oxycodone, etc.) don’t really cause any long-term damage themselves. The only really significant problem from opioids themselves is constipation, which is reasonably easy to deal with. Though it can be amazingly painful if you DON’T deal with it, which leads me to wonder why legal opioid outlets (hospitals, doctors, methadone clinics, or whatever) don’t mix a little methylnaltrexone in with their opioids to block the drug’s effects everywhere but the brain. It would certainly be in their patients’ best interests; I’m sure most everybody would rather pay a few cents extra per dose than experience the wonderful delights of a colon obstructed by impacted feces.
Actually, opioid withdrawal is generally regarded as nonlethal, though extremely unpleasant. In this respect opioids differ from other depressants (such as alcohol, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines), withdrawal from which can easily be lethal. Of course, you could still die from aspirating some vomit or something along those lines, so it’s obviously not a good idea to attempt withdrawal from any substance that induces physical dependence without supervision.
The questions of health hazards and physical addiction and withdrawal symptoms are irrelevant.
Require labels on the drugs. Place a warning symbol on the package. In bold letters print: ABUSE OF DRUGS MAY HARM YOU. YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME IF IT DOES. IDIOT.
The fear of possible problems with drug use are also irrelevant. It seems to me that the percentage of Republican Office holders that commit felonies is about the same percentage as drug users that cause problems.
Using anti-drug logic, we should make it a crime for Republicans to hold office.
