Why I'm voting no on legalizing pot in CA.

[wtmusic]

"Brian O'Neill, a 20-year-old West Nantmeal man on trial for vehicular manslaughter and felony DUI, tested positive for marijuana, according to the West Chester Daily Local. But since THC (the herb's active component) remains in the system for up to a month after ingestion, the question is whether he was actually stoned at the time of the incident.

<>

"The defendant was driving his dad's pickup truck when he drove the wrong way up an exit ramp. Victims George Parker, 47, and 45-year-old Diane Parker were driving their Suzuki Sidekick in the right lane when Brian O'Neill's truck collided with their car. the head-on collision left the Suzuki crushed and the couple was killed instantly.

Motorists who stopped after the crash, as well as the ambulance crew, told police that Brian O'Neill was "dazed" and "spacey." While that may describe anyone in the aftermath of a serious accident, especially a fatal one, an officer told the jury that his blood exceeded the THC concentration level considered "intoxication" by nearly six times."

http://philadelphiaduiattorneyblog.com/2010/08/dui-trial-considers-effect-of-marijuana-at-time-of-fatal-crash.html

I ride my bike about 5,000 miles a year, and cyclists are at the mercy of DUI drivers. Two days ago, on a road I ride frequently:

Cyclist killed in Agoura Hills hit-and-run; driver arrested on suspicion of DUI

"A motorist in Agoura Hills who allegedly struck and killed a bicyclist and fled the scene was arrested after witnesses followed her to a nearby parking lot and alerted authorities.

The collision occurred at about 3:45 p.m. Saturday on Agoura Road, just east of Liberty Canyon Road, the California Highway Patrol reported."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/cyclist-killed-in-agoura-hills-hit-and-run-driver-arrested-on-suspicion-of-dui-after.html

Breath testing, as a form of prevention, does work - for alcohol:

"Research Performed That Gives Merit to DUI Laws:
In 2009, the results of a study performed by the Public Health Law Research organization were released. The aim of the study was to conclude whether or not the DUI laws placed for drunk driving were effective in preventing people from driving on the road drunk.

The study concluded that breath testing was an effective way of providing intervention in the time of a drunk driving incident occurring. They also contributed to the reduction of danger that comes with driving impaired. The study also concluded that reducing the blood alcohol content maximum DUI law for drivers under the age of 21 would significantly reduce the dangers of driving on the road. The study also concluded that reducing the blood alcohol content maximum DUI law in all persons would significantly reduce annual deaths in drunk driving related accidents."

http://www.govstandard.com/drunk-driving-and-dui-law.html

However, there is currently no way to measure THC intoxication accurately. In CA officers can provide observational testimony such as the following:

* Dilated pupils,
* Elevated pulse rate,
* Elevated blood pressure,
* Giving off the odor of marijuana,
* Eyelid and body tremors,
* Relaxed or uninhibited demeanor,
* Dry mouth, and
* Short-term memory impairment.

but California DUI lawyers have an arsenal of effective techniques to shoot this testimony down in court:

"Joe’s Long Beach DUI marijuana attorney would argue that Joe’s blood-shot eyes and stale breath may have been caused by a variety of factors: drinking, smoking cigarettes, being around other smokers, being exhausted, and still not having brushed his teeth from the night before.

Joe’s DUID attorney would argue that anyone being investigated for DUI would be nervous and likely have an elevated pulse. Joe’s DUI marijuana lawyer would also address the fact that Joe hadn’t slept the night before, because he was up the entire night 'partying' with his friends.

Joe had, in fact, eaten some 'pot brownies' and was drinking at the party, but that was over twelve hours before he was stopped by Officer Bill. The effects of marijuana would have certainly worn off hours before driving."

http://www.shouselaw.com/dui-marijuana.html

When there's an effective roadside test to measure THC intoxication I'll reconsider my position.

[KossackRealityCheck]

1. Weed doesn't cause accidents. Alcohol does.

Wrong substance.

[uncommon]

41. Bullshit. It impairs. I smoke on a fairly regular basis and I don't drive after smoking.

It slows down my reaction times.

It is not appropriate to smoke and drive.

(Edited to add: I support legalization.)

[ProudDad]

Then how do you know it impairs?

I didn't even like pot all that much but the only times I drove "under the influence" I was a VERY careful and safe driver...much different from my non-stoned, bordering on road rage self back then...

[uncommon]

76. Are you serious? It impairs my ability to function at a normal level. I don't have to drive to

know it. Just like I know I am impaired when I am drunk. Should I drive to test the theory out? Would that make you happy?

[Adsos Letter]

79. I agree with you about impairment, at least in my case...

I was a fairly heavy toker back in the day, and I was never truly comfortable driving while high, and avoided it when possible. I'll vote for Prop. 19, but I agree that Law Enforcement needs a way to measure and enforce DWI-type restrictions for legal marijuana use, along with other restrictions appropriate to alcohol consumption and purchase.

[Romulox]

104. Fucking scientific study of an issue instead of anecdote--how does that work?

" I don't have to drive to know it. Just like I know I am impaired when I am drunk. Should I drive to test the theory out? Would that make you happy?"

[Chan790]

187. Would you feel better being told that study after study of non-anecdotal evidence says you're wrong.

That's studies being conducted by non-partisan researchers, not people on the payroll of the DEA or NTSB or NHTSA or MADD or various anti-marijuana legalization groups or NORML. University researchers for the most part. All with similar results to the question, that not only does THC intoxication not increase accidents but that high-drivers tend to be more attentive on the road and obey more traffic signs and signals than their sober contemporaries. They tend to drive slower too, approximately 3MPH below posted speed limits as opposed to 5MPH over posted speed limits on average as well.

Chan790, non-pothead. In favor of legalization. Also supports a criminalizing cell-phone ban for drivers.

[Cid_B]

177. Right...

The same stinker of an argument comes up for drunks and no one would let that fly. The reason burnout potheads keep failing in their legalization efforts is because they aren't honest and everyone knows it.

[Threedifferentones]

136. By the OP's logic, alcohol should be TOTALLY ILLEGAL

It impairs your driving so ban it outright.

But we tried alcohol prohibition and decided it sucked. No matter how the government tried, people just kept drinking, and gangsters just kept getting richer and more powerful because of it. Sound familiar?

[Threedifferentones]

137. Dupe

[Le Taz Hot]

170. Then you're and amatuer.

See "Super High Me."

[WinkyDink]

108. I'm sorry; you are incorrect. All reactions are impaired by pot.

Pleading the 5th to any replies.

[LynneSin]

199. NO ONE should be driving under the influence of ANYTHING.

That includes pot.

I support the legalization of Pot but we do need to find a way to test for those who could be driving under the influence. Just because perhaps you've been lucky to drive without incident that doesn't mean others may not have issue.

If someone wants to drive they need to pay attention and have a clear head. That means no alcohol, no pot, no drugs, no chatting on the phone, no texting, no putting on makeup or anything else that distracts you from safely driving a car.

[Vincardog]

2. Since there is currently no way to measure THC intoxication accurately.

How could his blood exceeded the THC concentration level considered "intoxication" by nearly six times."?
And why is this a pre condition for you to want to quit incarcerating millions over a herb?

I assume that you want to reinstate prohibition because of the hundreds of thousands of alcohol related deaths every year?

Don't get me wrong you are free to vote any way you want to, I just wonder why the FAUX rational?

[wtmusic]

4. There is an accurate way to measure alcohol intoxication

Not so for pot. Straw man.

[Vincardog]

9. You posted that he was 6 times intoxicated. Straw man back at you

[KossackRealityCheck]

11. Your own links disprove your point

Clicked on your link and found this paragraph--

* Marijuana’s Effect on Driving Impairment is Relatively Insignificant ¹

This argument is critical to the defense. It means that marijuana use doesn’t render you “unable to drive with the caution characteristic of a sober person” -- the very definition of California DUI.

Despite the stereotyped myths, studies reveal that marijuana has no significant impact on driving abilities. Unlike alcohol, it is rarely linked to causing accidents. The consensus is that alcohol promotes risk-taking while marijuana promotes conservative driving.

[Vincardog]

14. The unintellectual is strong in this one

[wtmusic]

19. A law firm telling prospective clients what they want to hear.

Let's look at some science:

"Panel’s Assessment of Driving Risks: Low doses of THC moderately impair cognitive and psychomotor tasks associated with driving, while severe driving impairment is observed with high doses, chronic use and in combination with low doses of alcohol The more difficult and unpredictable the task, the more likely marijuana will impair performance."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

[JonLP24]

30. I've read many studies on this

most say similar things to the BBC one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1068625.stm It does impair but not nearly as much as alcohol and remember you can have 2-3 beers and pass the .08 limit.

This is one thing that is common in more studies than I can count.

The most obvious effect of the cannabis was that the volunteers drove more slowly, trying to compensate for intoxication by being more cautious.

I'm not saying it is OK for people to drive on it but it has to be looked at in proportion to alcohol. Alcohol can impair you so much you can't even walk, the same can't be said about cannabis.

[Vincardog]

31. Does prop 19 mandate that people get high and drive? WTF is your point?

[Vincardog]

32. Does prop 19 mandate that people get high and drive? WTF is your point?

[Vincardog]

54. Crickets again

[wtmusic]

57. Crickets.

[U4ikLefty]

204. more like chicken

[shanti]

45. if he passes a roadside test

then he's not intoxicated, regardless of his "THC blood level". please.

[fishbulb703]

52. Any field sobriety test will find an impaired driver no matter if he is drunk, high, or on pills

a breathalyser or blood test will NOT find intoxication, only blood alcohol content. BAC and intoxication have a positive correlation, but it varied WILDLY depending on the person. My 89 year old grandfather probably is about .2 BAC at any given time. He can still shoot trap like the champ he was when he was 50

[hobbit709]

148. I'd flunk a field sobriety test because of the diabetic neuropathy in my feet.

Does that make me impaired?

[Romulox]

168. You can't count backwards or touch your nose because of diabetes in your foot?

Ummm... :wtf:

[hobbit709]

183. Try the stand on one foot or walk heel to toe part.

[fishbulb703]

184. If you have a doctors note the police will do tests you can perform with your disability.

Otherwise you might get a dui arrest that has to be expunged later. Happened to my friend who has two screws in his foot.

[hobbit709]

186. That works real well with a cop who's made his mind up.

Believe me I know.

[Better Believe It]

3. So would you like to restore alcohol prohibition too?

Why not?

Liquor prohibition worked out almost as well as pot prohibition!

Unlike pot, thousands die every year from being under the influence of alcohol.

[Vincardog]

5. Crickets

[wtmusic]

8. #4. Dead crickets. nt

[uncommon]

42. The OP states specifically that there are reliable tests for blood alcohol level.

As opposed to marijuana.

[ProudDad]

55. And the OP is WRONGLY assuming that marijuana

is at all as dangerous as alcohol...

There's no proof for that, just drug warrior bullshit...

In fact, most evidence points to the opposite.

[wildbilln864]

6. one lame assed OP! nt

[Vincardog]

12. +6

[Heidi]

7. I'll look forward to signing your petition for an initiative to criminalize alcohol sales/consumptio

n to/by adults. Go get 'em, tiger!

[wtmusic]

10. Apparently you didn't read the OP.

Give that a shot first. :eyes:

[Heidi]

13. I read it. Good luck on your initiative.

ETA: Heidi, who hasn't smoked pot in nearly 30 years, drives a car regularly on European autobahns frequented by other people living in countries where marijuana use in decriminalized or legal, and hasn't been involved in a car accident of any kind in nearly 15 years of living here.

[DefenseLawyer]

15. Impaired driving would still be illegal.

People are charged all over this country every day with driving under the influence of marijuana. If you think that states have a difficult time proving those cases, think again. If anything, the convictions are too easy to get, as many states have "per se" laws that punish drivers for having any level of THC in their blood even if any intoxicating effects have been worn off for weeks.

[devilgrrl]

20. People are charged all over this country every day with driving under the influence of marijuana.

Oh are they?

[wtmusic]

23. Per se laws are equally unfair

No accurate test exists to convict or exonerate anyone. The point is not to convict anyone who's been using pot - it's to convict those driving under the influence.

Until there's an accurate test that can't happen.

[Moosepoop]

63. Not true...

The case you cited in the OP was decided by a jury. While O'Neill was found responsible for the deaths of the two victims in the other vehicle, he was NOT found guilty of any form of DUI.

http://philadelphiaduiattorneyblog.com/2010/08/jury-splits-verdict-in-dui-marijuana-case-of-brian-oneill.html

Now that a Chester County jury has returned with its verdict, the wait is over. The Chester County Daily Local News reported that the jury found Brian O'Neill guilty of two counts (each) of homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter and causing an accident involving death.

However, they also found him not guilty of being too impaired to drive a vehicle safely, not guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance and not guilty of homicide by vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.

The jury reached this verdict partly on the testimony of forensic toxicologists, who addressed your contention that no test exists to convict or exonerate a person accused of being under the influence of marijuana:

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/articles/2010/08/23/news/doc4c725d922a3c6517787536.txt

According to the testimony of forensic scientists for the prosecution and the defense, the presence of marijuana in a person's blood system is measured in two ways: first the active THC level in the blood and then the residual metabolites of that drug, known as carboxy.

To be convicted of driving under the influence of marijuana, a person must have more than five nanograms per milliliter of carboxy in their blood, or any level whatsoever of active THC. But the carboxy level does not indicate actual impairment; only the active THC level does.

After the crash and his fall from the bridge, O'Neill was taken by helicopter to the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, where blood was drawn from him twice — once at 3:38 a.m., and the second time at 5:15 a.m.

According to reports, no active THC was found in his blood at 3:38 a.m. but about 31 nanograms per milliliter of carboxy were detected.

The level of carboxy, or metabolites, was what was detected at the "6 times greater than intoxication" range. But the fact is that carboxy/metabolite level indicates only past use, not active intoxication. The level of active THC in the blood does that.

So yes, accurate tests DO exist that can convict or exonerate an accused person -- in this case, the tests exonerated the accused regarding the charges of driving under the influence of THC.

[wtmusic]

66. If they are reliable, they aren't admissible in CA

1. California DUI Marijuana law has no “per se” violation like the 0.08% standard used to prosecute an alcohol-related DUI under California Vehicle Code 23152(b) VC, and
2. There is no clear correlation between the amount of marijuana in your system and your level of intoxication. Numerous factors affect a person's mental and physical sensitivity to marijuana (tolerance, height, weight, frequency of use, potency of drug, etc.).

http://www.shouselaw.com/dui-marijuana.html

[Moosepoop]

81. Yes, tests for THC in the blood and/or urine are admissible in CA.

Look again at Shouse attorney website you keep linking to. It says right there that one of the four things the prosecution in CA will typically present is the result of chemical testing for THC in the suspect.

It would appear that since CA does not have a "per se" law, detailed tests like the ones in PA are not cusomarily done there. But the tests that ARE routinely done are admissible, and if someone were to do testing consisting of more detail such as active THC level as well as metabolite level, then those findings would be admissible as well -- by both the prosecution, and the defense.

As it is right now (according to your link), most of the testing in CA only looks for the presence, not the quantity, of THC or its metabolites, and those tests are admitted. That does not mean that tests results with the exact quantities would not be admitted, it just means that it doesn't often come up. Right now, the job of the defense in CA in regard to THC test results is to argue that the results (on tests typically performed in CA) are meaningless.

Still, the technology for testing for impairment does exist.

Finally, you're the one who cited the PA case as your first and foremost reason for not supporting the legalization of marijuana in CA, and you made the claim that testing does not exist for measuring impairment, yet you then discount the fact that such testing does exist by claiming that it's not admissible in CA, which is also wrong.

I think you should do some extensive reading (and comprehending) before you make up your mind on how to vote.

[U4ikLefty]

202. +420

[Johonny]

145. pretty much

[spanone]

16. reefer madness

[leftstreet]

17. What are you, high?!

n/t

[Jim Sagle]

18. Whadda buncha shit.

[tridim]

21. Is there a roadside test for being fu@ked up on Oxycontin?

How about cold medicine?

[Capitalocracy]

109. +1 and a facepalm for the OP

[coti]

22. No one's going to listen. I brought up the safety issue,

mentioning that I was still pro-legalization, but didn't get far with it. This is a cultural issue that most won't address THAT honestly.

The first line of thinking is equivocation with alcohol- the laws should be the same, though the two drugs' effects are different and chemical detection of impairment is much more difficult with marijuana.

The second is flat-out denial that marijuana has any negative effects. People will tell you that it's totally okay to drive stoned, that they wouldn't mind at all if their airplane's pilot or surgeon had been smoking marijuana the night before, etc.


After 19 passes, there's probably going to be a good amount of time where California is having to work this stuff out, because before it passes those who support it are treating any mention of negative consequences as conservative propaganda and they're not willing to be totally honest yet.

[wtmusic]

24. Hope springs eternal

and thank you for your reasoned response. :thumbsup:

[Romulox]

27. Arguing that it shouldn't be legal because we *can't tell* if people have been smoking is illogical

If marijuana impairs one's driving, then a standard field sobriety test should detect this. If the field sobriety test cannot, then what is it that is impaired?

Hence, your position is not logical.

[coti]

34. I'm pro-legalization.

For about a thousand good reasons.

[shanti]

47. exactly

i posted the same thing.

[wtmusic]

51. Pot doesn't impair driving in the same manner that alcohol does

but you bring up a good point. If someone could develop a field sobriety test which could accurately measure THC impairment I would probably support 19.

[Romulox]

82. Yours is a faith based position, then. nt

[wtmusic]

123. That's correct, I put faith in science. nt

[Romulox]

160. Accept that "science" contradicts your POV: to whit, marijuana doesn't significantly impair driving

Someone who respects "science" cannot determine the desired outcome first (i.e. defense of the racist drug war status quo) and then cherry pick for studies which support that position. :hi:

[girl gone mad]

203. That's an illogical statement.

[JonLP24]

35. We listened (or read)

we just didn't agree. I see you're still holding the same positions so perhaps you were as unwilling to be swayed as we were? :shrug:

[moriah]

70. If it were a condition of legalization....

... I'd be willing to allow that the detection cutoff in blood or saliva would mean intoxication.

[joeybee12]

25. Um, is there something in the proposition that also allows people to drive while under the influence

Like since alcohol is legal you can drink and drive right, legalizing alcohol means you can do anything while drinking.

[Ozymanithrax]

26. Well reasoned and thoughtful decision.

I still intend to vote for the measure, because the caustic affects on society by the current policy create their own set of problems.

And even legal, I would never allow anyone to consume pot in my home or on my personal property.

[shanti]

48. really?

do you disallow drinkers on your property as well? i'm not understanding your thought process.

[Romulox]

28. Your argument would make more sense if it were for alcohol prohibition

As an argument against marijuana legalization, it doesn't make much sense.

[TexasObserver]

29. Hysterical overreaction.

That is not a logical approach to the problem.

Why would making it legal render driving under the influence legal?

Like all prohibitionists, your fear drives your conclusions, not reason.

[Toucano]

49. +1000 n/t

[mkultra]

33. im afraid you are going to need to explain the "6 times" part of the story

that's the part that sounds like bullshit.

[JonLP24]

37. I agree

You could get LOL on a test and still be sober at the time of taking a test. LOL means exceeds limits of linearity. It results from using cannabis regularly with not very many breaks in days. It doesn't mean the person is high at the time of a test so I'm unsure what they are basing the "6 times" on.

[mkultra]

83. 30 day is the saturation limit

My understanding is that THC stays in your system for 3 days unless your smoke again, thus adding any remaining days to a new three day window. If you smoke frequently enough, you can build up to a a 30 day max.

[wtmusic]

44. I agree

and I can't explain it, it was the officer's testimony. Possibly defense tore it apart, I don't know.

The point is that THC can impair the ability to drive, and the effects are compounded with alcohol. What was a safe blood alcohol level may become unsafe when THC is added to the mix.

Bottom line is that without being able to accurately measure intoxication, it's impossible to tell if someone's DUI.

[ProudDad]

58. C'mon the effects ARE the alcohol...

And ending the phony "war on drugs(tm)" would make it easier to deal effectively with those who DO have any "problem" with drugs.

You are voting to perpetuate drug cartel wars and murder and the horrendously expensive (in terms of treasure and lives) phony "war on drugs(tm)" and maintaining the high cost of a demonstrably, relatively benign substance.

[wtmusic]

60. How do you know? nt

[mkultra]

78. he probably knows the same way i do

from having smoked the shit out of it.

[Le Taz Hot]

173. You can't explain it

yet you post it as fact. Please. Really. See "Super High Me." It contradicts everything you say.

[Warpy]

36. Thilly wabbit

Case #1, not mentioned in the blog you cited was this from the news story: "O'Neill had been smoking "high grade" marijuana and drinking beer the better part of the day before the crash with his roommate at Immaculata University and other friends, investigators say."

It's the ALCOHOL.

Case #2, the substance was not specified. Alcohol? Cold tablets? Heroin?

Case #3, from your snip, "Joe had, in fact, eaten some 'pot brownies' and was drinking at the party, but that was over twelve hours before he was stopped by Officer Bill. The effects of marijuana would have certainly worn off hours before driving."

It's the ALCOHOL if it's anything. Best bet is that he was still drinking, chasing his high.

Pot smokers don't go hell bent down freeways. They go slow as constipated shit on back roads. They know they're impaired unless they're also drunk. Drunks think they drive better with a load on.

[wtmusic]

39. I don't believe in making decisions based on an anecdotal "best bet".

THC in sufficient levels has been proven to impair driving ability. If there's no way to measure intoxication, there's no way to know if someone's DUI.

Prop 19 will likely fail, but hopefully stimulate the development of some kind of metric to evaluate intoxication. Once that is done, I'm all for legalization.

[Warpy]

40. That's why stoners drive slowly on back roads if they must drive

They know they're impaired and tend to overcompensate.

Alcohol is different and two of your cases specified drinking and one specified nothing at all except possible intoxication.

Your reasoning is faulty.

[Fumesucker]

50. I know at least two people who should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle ever at all..

And yet both of those people have driver's licenses and drive regularly, one of them literally rear-ended a school bus with her young son in the car a few years ago, she was stone cold sober at the time, the same person has been involved in innumerable collisions most of which were her fault.

The point being that there are a large number of reasons people shouldn't drive and our current laws/regulations/enforcement are a long way from taking these people off the road.

Impairment testing is not particularly difficult to implement and can take those drivers who are just sleepy or whose reflexes are inadequate to the task of driving off the road as well as those whose impairment is due to the psychoactive effects of various drugs, including alcohol and cannabis.

[JonLP24]

56. The prop failing would actually likely have the opposite effect

With legalization you will have regulation so they have more of a chance of looking at the problem. Currently and in the past the government was lacked so much common sense on the issue of cannabis legalization and you're hopeful they will start once a prop fails?

[mkultra]

80. but it doesnt impair judgement

which alcohol does. Alcohol makes people take unnecessary risks. Pot has the opposite effect.

[wildbilln864]

98. you said...

" THC in sufficient levels has been proven to impair driving ability."

But that's complete bullshit! Do you have any credible evidence for the assertion other than your own opinion? :popcorn:

[wtmusic]

124. Here.

"Panel’s Assessment of Driving Risks: Low doses of THC moderately impair cognitive and psychomotor tasks associated with driving, while severe driving impairment is observed with high doses, chronic use and in combination with low doses of alcohol The more difficult and unpredictable the task, the more likely marijuana will impair performance."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs...

[Occulus]

131. When speaking of cannabis impairment, you would do better to not link to a .gov source.

Such sources are generally known to be inherently biased on the subject. Our government does not want cannabis legalized and will say anything at all to prevent that.

[JonLP24]

133. I thought the same thing

I posted a BBC study that was pretty much ignored.

[Romulox]

162. The BBC conducts scientific experiments? I think you may be confused.

You'd think that marijuana prohibitionists would be super-logical, and massively organized. But no. :hi:

[JonLP24]

132. It is interesting in your link

that the drug manufacturers of Marinol warn users that they should not drive until they can tolerate the drug. Marinol is a THC pill if you're wondering. I understand what they are saying though, as users gain more experience with cannabis the effects are not very significant at all. An inexperienced user would be affected more. I also posted a study that said "reaction times to motorway hazards were not significantly affected."

Either way I think you're overreacting about this and possibly punishing those that like to use in the privacy of their own home. Meanwhile if this fails, we still get beer commercials which is sickening.

[wildbilln864]

156. so you probably fell...

for that whole war on terra thing too eh!?
:rofl:

[tabatha]

38. And how about the deaths caused by

the illegal trade of pot? How about national forests being dug up to grow pot hidden from view? How about hikers being scared of encountering armed pot growers in the back country as has happened? How about a large chaparral fire being started by illegal pot growers as has happened?

If pot should be banned then alcohol should be banned.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

43. Absolutely right.

[Confusious]

135. Condoms could break

So don't use condoms.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

53. Flamebait. Thanks for the irrelevant far-right-wing drug warrior talking points.

They made me laugh...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[GodlessBiker]

59. Just for that, I'm going to burn more coal.

[wtmusic]

71. LOL nt

[AtomicKitten]

61. My "yes" vote on Prop 19 cancels out yours.

[wtmusic]

62. or vice versa.

:D

[AtomicKitten]

65. *

:P

[Vickers]

64. Glad I ain't you. n/t

[moriah]

67. " When there's an effective roadside test to measure THC intoxication I'll reconsider my position."

Sadly, there is not an *accurate* roadside test to measure alcohol intoxication.

A person can test positive for alcohol on the side of the road easily if they are in ketosis, for example, because roadside tests have a difficulty differentiating between ketones and alcohol. Sucks to be a diabetic! Also if they used Binaca, swished with mouthwash recently, or in some cases ate bread. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html

Breathalyzers at the station house or a blood test are the most accurate ways of measuring alcohol intoxication, to the point that most lawyers advise clients even if they haven't been drinking to go to the station for the test.

What's going to be a bigger deterrent? Hoping if they get pulled over that the roadside test will be inaccurate and giving them a false negative, or *knowing* that if they are suspected of being high they will have to go to the station for a blood or saliva test? Blowing into something on the side of the road is much less convenient for the person, and for the cop if they're administering a roadside breathalyzer they already expect to be taking the driver in. Not a lot of skin off the cop's back. (If they didn't have probable cause to believe the person was drunk, they shouldn't be administering a roadside breathalyzer in the first place!) If the saliva test takes longer to come back than breathing into the machine, that's even a stronger deterrent for the person foolish enough to get behind the wheel -- and there are officers whose only job it is to house the person at the jail while awaiting test results.

The study you quote about deterrence doesn't say if "at the time of the occurrence" is a roadside test or a test at the stationhouse, either.

[wtmusic]

74. Breathalyzers are about 85% accurate and they save lives

They're not perfect, but like many other issues it's a tradeoff between personal liberties and public safety.

For someone in my position the tradeoff is justified. That many others disagree is OK with me; there is no right/wrong on this issue.

[Romulox]

84. That's because alcohol impairs driving. You have no evidence that marijuana does.

Yours is a "faith based" position--you've started with the conclusion (i.e. that marijuana must impair driving,) and now you are searching for evidence to support it. That's not how one builds a logical argument, and why your argument is so unpersuasive.

[wtmusic]

118. That's correct, mine is a faith-based position.

I put my faith in science, not anecdotal evidence.

"Panel’s Assessment of Driving Risks: Low doses of THC moderately impair cognitive and psychomotor tasks associated with driving, while severe driving impairment is observed with high doses, chronic use and in combination with low doses of alcohol The more difficult and unpredictable the task, the more likely marijuana will impair performance."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

[moriah]

91. There is a reason roadside breathalyzer tests get thrown out...

... but I have no objection at all to your premise when it comes to in-station machines. Honestly, it seems like the roadside test is more for the driver's convenience -- if they pass that, no need to go to the station. All drivers in my state have the option of opting for a blood test for alcohol, but most places consider the breathalyzer a less intrusive test. I feel a saliva test would be a very similar option for those who want a less intrusive test, but still have the option for blood.

Me, I'm perfectly willing to agree that any level above detection cutoff shown on a blood or saliva test for MJ would be evidence of intoxication. I think part of the reason for .08 being a standard "intoxication" level for alcohol has to do with the breathalyzer not being the best test. Even if they ate some bread, to hit .08, they've been drinking too likely. When it sucks is when a juvenile gets their license taken away for showing any alcohol at all if they haven't been drinking.... but that's why drivers can go for a blood test if they want. Yes, tehre have been tests showing what blood level of alcohol shows intoxication, and there haven't been with MJ -- that's why I'd say detectable level is enough for intoxication under a legalization bill. If studies are ever actually done showing what level of intoxication causes impairment, we can change it, but for now...

:)

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Among other right wing talking points and contradictions you

post that "However, there is currently no way to measure THC intoxication accurately." but you also post that some cop 'swore' that "his blood exceeded the THC concentration level considered "intoxication" by nearly six times."
How can both of these things be true? It seems the officer was not being honest. How unusual.

[Subdivisions]

69. Un-rec and your post and your vote are bullshit. n/t

[meow mix]

72. cop unions and republicans love you.

you should join thier websites to post thier crap talking points

[Incitatus]

147. So do the privatized prisons with all their slave laborers. nt

[cynatnite]

73. I'm sorry, but your argument makes absolutely no sense to me...

There are ways of detecting if someone is high. Police officers are well trained to know it when it comes to both legal and illegal drugs. It's not always that easy to shoot these down unless there is evidence proving otherwise...such as Joe had, in fact eaten pot brownies and drank over 12 hours before being stopped.

You want a roadside test for TCH as a requirement before you change your position on a drug that has far more benefits than negatives. You're not asking for a test for oxycodone or any other legal narcotic. You're okay with alcohol being legal despite the horrible damages it causes, but not with pot which is far safer than any other drug out there.

Your argument makes zero sense.

[frylock]

75. you're entitled to vote no just as you are entitled to your stupid-ass opinion

[B Calm]

77. I been waiting now for over 40 years to see pot legalized. As a professional

driver I would rather you point your anger at people driving while on cell phones and or texting.

[wtmusic]

126. I have no doubt that cellphones/texting pose a greater threat than pot would

That doesn't mean that pot poses no threat. Or that I'm angry. :thumbsup:

[Romulox]

85. It's because you support the police state. Full stop. nt

[REP]

86. I was sure it was going to be FOR THE CHILDREN!!11

[meow mix]

87. but make sure to toss them in prisons with violent offenders upon thier 18th birthday

for thier own good

[gulliver]

88. What if some people stopped drinking alcohol due to weed legalization?

Then, at worst, they would be driving under the influence of a less debilitating substance. Weed does not have the emboldening effects of alcohol. A person on weed is more likely to be unwilling to drive a car under the influence. Booze makes you less inhibited, more likely to do stupid things. Weed legalization might actually improve road safety overall.

Booze vendors are trying to defeat Prop 19, by the way. They must think it will reduce alcohol consumption.

[BlueIris]

89. I support decriminalization for medicinal pot use, but I think it's a toxic substance

with just as much potential for abuse as any other drug, and I think those who choose to use it recreationally are (disgusting) fools.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

92. cannabis is NOT toxic!

That repeated slamming sound you hear is me pounding my head into the surface of my desk. Yes, it's loud enough to hear from Denver.

The word "toxic" means "deadly poison". You cannot die from cannabis consumption. Cannabis is NOT a toxic substance. You cannot get "intoxicated" from it.

This isn't an opinion-based concept.

Try again.

[Iggo]

111. Disgusting fool!!!!

:spank:

[JonLP24]

114. LOL

:)

[wtmusic]

125. Yes, it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9384293&mesg_id=9386517

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. I don't think toxicity is the issue, actually.

There definately *are* safety issues with marijuana use, but my understanding is that the main one is risk of causing/aggravating mental health problems, which I think (although I may well be wrong) is not technically toxicity.

It's really quite hard to poison yourself with marijuana, I believe.

[wildbilln864]

101. It's fucking impossible!

:banghead:

[KossackRealityCheck]

96. Strung out potheads sleeping under the FDR Drive-riiigghht

If weed has "just as much potential for abuse as any other drug" where are the emergency room weed patients, the weed junkies sleeping under the FDR Drive, the weed crack heads, the fetal weed babies or the graves of people who have OD'd on weed?

[meow mix]

97. Rec

where do people get these ideas?

[wildbilln864]

100. I use it recreationally...

and I think people who form opinions based on propaganda are disgusting fools!

[B Calm]

214. Rec

[Romulox]

106. Whether something is a "toxic substance" isn't a matter for opinion. Marijuana is 100% non-toxic.

Facts: start engaging with them. :hi:

[wtmusic]

122. Now you're just sounding goofy.

Willful ignorance doesn't benefit your cause.

"The human toxicity of marijuana

The pathophysiological effects of marijuana smoke and its constituent cannabinoids were reported first from in-vitro and in-vivo experimental studies. Marijuana smoke is mutagenic in the Ames test and in tissue culture and cannabinoids inhibit biosynthesis of macromolecules. In animals, marijuana or delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the intoxicating material it contains, produces symptoms of neurobehavioural toxicity, disrupts all phases of gonadal or reproductive function, and is fetotoxic. Smoking marijuana can lead to symptoms of airway obstruction as well as squamous metaplasia. Clinical manifestations of pathophysiology due to marijuana smoking are now being reported. These include: long-term impairment of memory in adolescents; prolonged impairment of psychomotor performance; a sixfold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia; cancer of mouth, jaw, tongue and lung in 19-30 year olds; fetotoxicity; and non-lymphoblastic leukemia in children of marijuana-smoking mothers."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1313532

[JonLP24]

134. I see one problem there

The schizophrenia. Causation does not imply correlation. They determined that the people that were treated for schizophrenia after cannabis use has similar family history in regards to schizophrenia as people who have schizophrenia.

"These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis," Arendt explained in comments to Reuters Health.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4A26JV20081103?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true

I'll have to research the other claims from independent sources. You have to realize there is a lot of debate in the scientific community in regards to long-term effects as well as other issues such as motor vehicle impairment.

[asdjrocky]

151. Total propaganda bs.

How about a study from people who are not trying to sell us on a lie? Oh, you don't have that, do you?

[wtmusic]

165. Don't be coy.

I know you have better data than mine up your sleeve. Link, please.

[asdjrocky]

180. In at least one reply in this thread I posted links that blow your bs away.

Read for yourself. You are full of it, and you are a cannabis bigot.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

157. so cannabis smoking multiplies my risk of schizophrenia by 600%?!?!?

Bwahahahahaaaaa! Yup, that MUST be why cannabis use rates have risen while schizophrenia rates have remained steady. You sure nailed that one! :eyes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

So let me get this straight: properly prescribed prescription drugs (note: this does not count mis-prescribed drugs or accidental overdoses) kill more people that traffic accidents in 15 states every year and YOU think we need to keep sending people to jail for using a plant that has never killed any human being in over 10,000 years?

http://news.injuryboard.com/prescription-drug-deaths-surpass-fatal-auto-accidents-in-15-states.aspx?googleid=271936

Pathetic, ridiculous and sad. Pull your head out of your rear end.

[Romulox]

158. Sorry, all your "proofs" are from compromised sources.

Objective (read: non US government) sources do not support your position. Which is why all your links end in .gov. :hi:

[Romulox]

159. Sorry, all your "proofs" are from compromised sources.

Objective (read: non US government) sources do not support your position. Which is why all your links end in .gov. :hi:

[wtmusic]

164. What was I thinking quoting those fly-by-night National Institutes of Health

which provide $5 billion for cancer research, $100 million annually for AIDs research, etc.

Then again, numbers like that probably even eclipse the budget for the Danish Backroom Institute for Non-Peer-Reviewed Pot Research. So keep searching for that reputable source that justifies your habit...I'll be waiting. :hi:

[Romulox]

166. The Drug Warrior studies are funded by Drug Warriors

Why can't you Prohibitionist types engage with basic facts?

[wtmusic]

167. Why can't you provide a link from a reputable, peer-reviewed source?

Still waiting... :D

[Romulox]

169. Why can't I provide a link to prove your point? That's not how logic works, that's why.

Your "proofs", such as they are, are all produced by organizations whose continuing funding is entirely predicated on producing data to support the government's position on the War on Drugs. That you don't acknowledge this plain facts signals (quite loudly) that your position is agenda driven, not science driven. A truly objective person examines the weakness in her own argument.

In order for society to take the responsibility and burden of depriving a person of liberty for years of their lives, we need to know that the otherwise apparently victimless crime they are engaging in has real, scientifically documented consequences. In other words the burden is on the prohibitionists and authoritarians to make the point that cannabis users should be locked away from society, not the other way around. This is because in a free society, not being deprived of one's liberty is the natural state of being, again, not vice versa.

[wtmusic]

171. I don't believe marijuana use is addictive

but I'd never know it listening to your rant. You tout science but provide none, criticize my logic and provide none of that either, all the time sounding like a heroin addict who's an hour late for his next fix. So go smoke a bowl and pretend like you won here, I'm bored with your nonsense. :hi:

[Romulox]

172. What you believe is of interest to no one but yourself.

"You tout science but provide none, criticize my logic and provide none of that either, all the time sounding like a heroin addict who's an hour late for his next fix. So go smoke a bowl and pretend like you won here, I'm bored with your nonsense."

You are arguing in favor of the racist war on drugs. You are not carrying your burden.

[Romulox]

175. "The human toxicity of marijuana: a critique of a review by Nahas"

Your study has been debunked:

The human toxicity of marijuana: a critique of a review by Nahas and Latour

A review entitled “The human toxicity of marijuana” was published in 1992 in the Medical Journal of Australia. The authors claimed that the adverse effects of cannabis use have been trivialized and that the effects are much more serious than earlier reported. We have made a careful study of this review and examined the claims made. We compared the claims of the authors with the information contained in the documents they cited and found that at least 28 of the 35 citations in this article were cited inaccurately. Five of these publications were misquoted, or the findings of the study were not fully reported. Twenty-three citations contained other errors, leaving only six to eight (two citations could not be retrieved because of their obscurity) accurate citations among 35. All of these inaccuracies operate in the direction of finding an adverse effect of marijuana.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09595239400185291

[Romulox]

221. Ummm...anti-science prohibitionist type: why no response to my link, which debunks yours?

:hi:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

129. They use it to block people like you out.

[asdjrocky]

150. Yes it is.

If you can figure out a way to smoke 160 pounds or so in 15 minutes or less. When you get it worked out let me know, because I know some people who would seriously like to try.

Just silly.

[grahamhgreen]

90. THERE ARE EFFECTIVE ROADSIDE TESTS, so please vote for it - links

http://www.google.com/search?q=roadside+marijuana+test&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

94. another supporter of the police state

Awesome justification for wanting to imprison the nearly 50% of the US population who now uses or has used cannabis in the past.

What fine analysis.

[TheKentuckian]

95. Fear based nanny state authoritarianism with a side of junk science.

How the hell do the known real life negatives of this prohibition outweigh the nearly hysterical supposition you put forward.

Gaaawwwwd this is silly. Prohibition does not work and is a toxic money sink.

Just remember when services are cut while for profit prisons blossom, remember that's exactly how you wanted it.

[MadHound]

99. Yet people will still continue to drive under the influence of pot, whether it is legal or not.

However if it is legalized, the very fact of legalization will indeed spur the technological developments needed for detection.

If it remains illegal, then that spur will not be present and thus will set back any development of such detection techniques.

[WillyT]

102. Ding, Ding, Ding... We HAVE A Winner !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:kick:

:hi:

[JonLP24]

103. I agree 100%

[wtmusic]

119. Cart < horse.

There's no doubt that pot use will become more widespread with legalization.

Me, I'd like to see the technological developments come together beforehand, instead of counting on a bunch of dead bodies to provide the political will afterwards. Since I'm particularly at risk.

[Lyric]

194. Change doesn't happen like that.

History shows that technological advancement responds fastest to pressing need--not to anticipated future need. You know this. Just look at how we respond to the impending fossil fuel crunch. So long as prices stay relatively low, we're not going to change our consumption habits much, if at all. But when gas costs $15 a gallon and is rationed...do you think alternative fuels research and development will stay this slow when half the country is rioting for food and fuel?

Necessity is the mother of invention. Comfort and familiarity are the parents of stagnation. If you want to see progress, you have to be brave enough to make changes.

[wtmusic]

201. Then I honestly hope one of your loved ones

isn't killed by someone stoned behind the wheel, and become an example for "pressing need".

That principle fails miserably when human lives are at stake.

[RainDog]

207. the point is that some people will drive under the influence whether it's legal or not

as far as concerns about an increase in use - I would imagine there would be a temporary uptick in use - tho some of this would be from people who already used privately.

however, over the long term, at least in two nations with decriminalization, usage has dropped. (you can read about them in the drug policy forum. there's a post about three nations' policies with links.) one reason is that teenagers do not have the same level of access when a substance is controlled. teens are, notoriously, the worst drivers out there - stoned or not - so this would be a positive - I don't think teenagers need to be getting high anyway, just like I don't think they should be drinking alcohol.

I don't know if you've ever smoked or otherwise ingested marijuana, but the effect is vastly different than alcohol. While alcohol tends to make people think they're better drivers than they are, people who have driven while under the influence of cannabis tend to overcompensate - they slow down.

and, you know, even tho there are tests for alcohol consumption for people who drink and drive - that doesn't stop some people. the majority of people, tho, do not engage in such socially irresponsible behavior. people have designated drivers now because of public service campaigns. the same can and will happen in the case of legal cannabis.

to pretend that an accurate breathalizer test for alcohol is what makes a difference about whether or not someone drinks and drives, tho, isn't really rational, it seems to me. the reason people do not drink and drive is because we as a society have used public service campaigns to discourage this. most people don't need such public service campaigns, however. most people will wait until they're sober enough to drive or they'll take a taxi or they'll already plan for a designated driver.

That's what we, as a society, need - rational responses to the FACT that people can and do and will and have since recorded history used substances to alter their consciousness. How do we, as a society, acknowledge this and create the safest circumstances for this reality.

Pretending that prohibition stops this is, obviously, not the answer.

[Lyric]

193. I didn't see this post until after I'd already made the same points below.

Oops! :blush:

[walldude]

105. So you going to outlaw cell phones?

Makeup? GPS's? Food, Alcohol, idiots? Lots of things cause accidents, I believe Pot is just about on the bottom of the fucking list. The plus's far and I mean FAR OUTWEIGH the cons. This OP is nothing but fear mongering propaganda... 3 whole examples in a country of 300 million with 40 million pot smokers. Nice try.

[Romulox]

107. There's disturbing correllation between authoritarianism and lack of basic science literacy

in evidence on this thread.

[phleshdef]

110. By this BS logic, we should also prohibit Nyquil and Benadryl...

...because some idiot might drink a whole bottle of one or take a whole box of the other and decide to go driving. What about Ambien and other sleep aids, you gonna ban that too? There are no roadside tests for any of those things. Just because a cop can't prove if you were high or not when driving is NOT a reason to allow this costly, authoritarian nonsense to continue. Its petty and its irrelevant.

You can't guarantee that everyone out there on the road is going to be provably sober, with or without legalized marijuana. And a LOT of people use marijuana as is, right now, including a bunch of people that just posted in your thread. So guess what that means? People are getting high NOW and some of them are irresponsible enough to drive while high NOW. So whether or not you vote yes or no on this bill will have NO BEARING whatsoever on the very thing you are claiming to be concerned about, none.

[Lindsey]

112. While I don't necessarily advocate driving ater smoking pot,

I do know that when driving, they take extra precautions. If anything, they're even more careful but that's not why I'm not sure whether or not I'll vote for it. The logistics of the whole proposition is very, very flawed and was not thought out at all. Fortunately, I smoke for health purposes - through a Dr.- and smoke legally in the state due to this fact.Like I said, the proposition is so flawed that I just don't know if I'll vote for it.

[phleshdef]

181. I know people that can drive fine on alcohol too. Its just generally not a good idea in either case.

The whole point is that whether or not this proposition passes will have no bearing on any of the potential negatives of people using marijuana. People are all ready using it, a lot of people. There is no reason to continue wasting tax payer dollars and strained law enforcement prosecuting them for having it.

[Hekate]

113. It's an intoxicant: treat usage like alcohol consumption. Before breathalyzers, drivers ...

... could and most certainly would be pulled over for impaired driving. Before breathalyzers, there were field sobriety tests that should still be quite valid today, and I am sure they are used to supplement the breathalyzer results.

Bottom line: bad driving is cause for being pulled over and cited, and can get your car towed too.

I don't smoke pot, but I am sickened by its place in the "War on Drugs" and the filling of our prisons to overflowing.

End Prohibition, put the Mafia out of business.

Hekate

[Mz Pip]

115. The fact that marijuana was

illegal didn't stop Joe or Brian from toking up.

[flamingdem]

116. Pot Schmot, we'll have to drive more carefully but California needs the $! nt

[Earth_First]

117. :lmfao:

:rofl:

[RainDog]

120. blood tests are able to detect if someone is under the influence

blood tests indicate whether or not THC has been consumed within the last few hours - the window of time that would indicate intoxication.

saliva tests are also available but they're not as sensitive a blood tests. they can, however, detect the actual presence of THC, not metabolites.

the reality is that some people who drink will drive when they shouldn't and some people who use cannabis will drive when they shouldn't.

because some people are irresponsible is no reason to punish all people.

however, as your post indicates, people are irrational when they're afraid of something and will try to punish everyone for the actions of a few.

that's too bad. that's called collective punishment and it's never considered just.

[asdjrocky]

153. You're my hero RainDog.

:hi:

[Hepburn]

121. Jesus H. Christ Almighty...

...it's a DUI because it is "driving under the influence." That covers even a prescription RX, in the driver's name, taken per the instructions.

GMAB that this is a valid reason for a NO on 19.

:eyes;

[otohara]

127. Dry Mouth

oh noooooooooooooooooo!

sure beats pounding headache from alcohol.

[LawnLover]

128. Does Pot Cause Dangerous Driving?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9d8_1188900563

[Starbucks Anarchist]

130. Good to know you support the racist war on drugs.

[backscatter712]

138. Unrecced for Reefer Madness bullshit.

Yes, there is a roadside intoxication test for marijuana - a saliva test.

Sorry, wtmusic, now you'll have to come up with yet another lame excuse to play drug warrior and fight for the right to continue to put brown people in prison.

[Winston Wolf]

139. I'm Kicking This...

...to better expose your ignorance concerning this issue.

[pokerfan]

140. 10 drugs not to take before driving

A 90 second public service announcement that is also extremely funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw_zdwNZ1aE

Impaired driving is impaired driving. Period.

[laughingliberal]

141. Unrec. nt

[Winston Wolf]

142. Your Rationale (As You Proposed) Is...

I. Because one cannot test to see if one is under the influence of THC, then all THC related substances should be remain banned. This ban can be lifted if technology progresses to the point that we can demonstrate clearly that it was the influence of THC that caused an accident.

II. Because one can test for the levels of alcohol in one's bloodstream, it is perfectly fine to keep alcohol legal, for one can test a subject in question for the levels of alcohol in their body at the site of the accident.


By your logic, we should ban ALL mind altering substances that cannot be tested for on site, (aside from alcohol, because we can test for it) simply because one can abuse these substances, get in their car, cause an accident, and not be prosecuted for DWI in the same terms as a drunk driver.

So one bad apple ruins the bunch?

Can't that same argument be laid out against alcohol?

Why should being able to test for it make the drug any less dangerous to drive under?

[JackDragna]

143. Do you seriously think legalizing it will make problems worse?

It is really worth continuing the abysmal failure of drug interdiction and enforcement, which wastes billions and incarcerates harmless users? Why should the entire contingency for making something legal rest on whether police can have you blow into into a machine to test for its presence? What if such a test won't be available for years? Your position is untenable.

[pipi_k]

144. Wait a minute...if a person doesn't show evidence...

of any sort of intoxication or impairment, then there's no reason to test him/her, right?


If a person does show evidence of impairment, then s/he gets tested, first for alcohol, then perhaps for pot...

How is making pot legal going to make the situation any worse?

And with respects to all here who smoke(d) pot without being impaired, I personally could never do it. It never took much to make me quite impaired, so everyone is going to have a different reaction.

But let's say a person is impaired by pot and has, or is involved in, an accident. Making it illegal is only going to add more bad to the whole situation.


I can't see where that makes a whole lot of sense.

[ShamelessHussy]

146. i vote, legalize it, as much greater harm is done by the criminalization of it

i vote to do LESS harm

[asdjrocky]

149. Total logic fail.

By your standard anything, I mean anything, that can possibly impair you should be illegal.

Also, there are studies that show no impairment from cannabis use, but you didn't look into that did you?

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/08/Study-Shows-Marijuana-Use-Has-Little-Effect-Driving-Skills

Here's another-

Attention is further focussed on the effects of THC on driving performance. The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 mcg /kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. Standard deviation of lateral position in the road tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC's adverse effects. This is because road tracking is primarily controlled by an automatic information processing system which operates outside of conscious control The process is relatively impervious to environmental changes but highly vulnerable to internal factors that retard the flow of information through the system. THC and many other drugs are among these factors. When they interfere with the process that restricts SDLP, there is little the afflicted individual can do by way of compensation to restore the situation. Car following and, to a greater extent, city driving performance depend more on controlled information processing and are therefore more accesible for compensatory mechanisms that reduce the decrements or abolish them entirely.

It appears that performance is more affected by THC in laboratory than actual driving tests. Several reasons that may account for the apparent discrepancy are discussed. First, laboratory tests are experimentally controlled by drastic simplification which may affect a subjects motivation to perform the test by making it appear "unreal." Secondly, the restriction of response options in laboratory performance tests leave fewer possibilities for compensation. In real life, drivers always apply numerous skills in parallel and series. Should one become deficient, they are often able to compensate in a number of ways to achieve a satisfactory level of proficiency. Finally, after learning to drive, subjects possess such skills in abundance and one can only demonstrate how they vary with drug effects in the real task or a very close approximation thereof. Profound drug impairment constituting an obvious traffic safety hazard could as easily be demonstrated in a laboratory performance test as anywhere else. But THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses. It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in real driving.

Marijuana's effects on driving performance were compared to those of many other drugs. It was concluded that THC's effects after doses up to 300 mcg / kg never exceed alcohol's at BAC's of 0.08 g %; and were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs'. Yet THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies stronly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence. Still one can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol

Finally, the relation between driving impairment following marijuana smoking and plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH is discussed. It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his / her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

And one more for you-

The following articles may cast great doubt on the claims that cannabis use severely detrimentally effects driving skills. It seems that the Dutch Government are correct in not regarding cannabis driving as a serious problem after all.

http://ccguide.org/driving.php

You have no idea what you are saying.

[glen123098]

152. Unrecced

You think that pot should be illegal because it is harder to test for yet alcohol, which is far more deadly, should remain legal just because it is testable. In other words its perfectly fine people are dying, as long as we know whats causing it. I would respect your position a lot more if you also supported prohibition of alcohol, but as it stands, your position is very inconsistent. Also your post seems to consent to the fact that we do not deserve to do what we want with our own body, and its up to the government to tell us so. In that since, you're no different than a pro lifer.

[Rowdyboy]

154. Astonishingly, it is possible for people to disagree on some issues and still remain both friends...

and political allies. While I do disagree with you in this case, I don't live in California so my opinion really doesn't matter at all.

[Romulox]

161. Even if one of those "friends" advocating locking the other away for a victimless "crime"?

Some things cannot be compromised with. The brand of autoritarianism represented by the OP is one of them.

[HEyHEY]

155. Fair enough, however I think these deaths pale in comparison

To the lives taken through the drug trade or lives ruined by people thrown in prison for possession. As well, you'll note these accidents still occurred while weed is illegal. So, the legalization or criminalization of the drug made no difference.

[Bragi]

163. What about the health imapct of the war on drugs approach?

Since as a practical matter you are advocating the continued arrest and imprisonment of people for pot offenses, why do you not want to balance the known human cost of that against whatever increase in car accidents you envision may come with decriminalization?

[Bullet1987]

174. When people are high and they drive...they usually always drive slower and more cautious

Slower obviously because they're high...which would decrease the probability of an accident, not increase it like alcohol. Marijuana also doesn't distort your ability to see clearly like alcohol does. Now, I wouldn't advise a person that is HEAVILY stoned to get behind the wheel of a car because you're so high, you might fall asleep on the road.

[Dreamer Tatum]

176. Do you have anything other than the Journal of Your Rectum to prove your claim?

It is incredible the lengths that pro-legalization folks will go to in order to argue that pot is completely harmless and would not increase the average number of impaired drivers on the road.

Here is the BULLSHIT that dopers INSIST that everyone believe:

Legalization will bring in billions in tax revenue through legitimization for current users and new use by current non users

BUT

NO WAY will there be ANY more impaired drivers on the road and driving because pot doesn't alter your mind AT ALL

ALTHOUGH

users speak glowingly of being 'high,' 'baked,' 'comfortably numb,' and other tedious adjectives that SPEAK DIRECTLY TO their mental impairment

AND ANYWAY

marijuana has incredible promise as a drug to relieve pain and suffering

YET IF THAT WERE WHAT THEY WERE REALLY CLAIMING

then it seems curious that no one has an avatar of a Vicodin pill

BUT ALL THAT NOTWITHSTANDING

you are a complete and utter square if you don't buy in utterly to the concept that pot is equivalent to WATER in its utility to mankind.



I support legalization, but FUCKING COME ON, FOLKS. Just admit that you want to get high, and/or you want relief from pain, and you don't want cop hassles. You look STUPID when the centerpiece of your argument is, "OH YEAH???? WELL WHAT ABOUT ALCOHOL???"


Sheesh.

[Bullet1987]

178. The proof I have is that I've done it numerous times...call me stupid

But the only thing I had to worry about were pissed off drivers going around my car because I was driving 10 MPH under the speed limit.

[Dreamer Tatum]

179. The infamous Sample of One

Utterly unconvincing in any public policy debate EXCEPT, of course, when dope smokers state their case for the safety of driving while impaired.

[B Calm]

185. psss. . .people are driving right now high. They're going to do it anyway

so why not make it legal to smoke pot. It cost the US tax payer 60 thousand dollars a year to keep one pot abuser in prison. We have millions of people in prison for pot offenses!

[Dreamer Tatum]

197. Ummm...because pot advocates claim that billions in taxes would be collected

Which MUST mean that people who don't smoke now will start smoking.

So which is it: will it raise BILLIONS, or will the EXACT SAME number of people who drive high now, drive high after legalization?

Can't have both.

[B Calm]

198. One thing for certain, it wouldn't cost taxpayers 60 grand a year to

lock up and ruin the life of a citizen if it was made legal. Why do you love Nixon's war on drugs, don't you think it's time to end this madness?

Ask yourself why is it the alcohol industry is spending millions of dollars to defeat the legalization of pot and why you are on their side.

[Dreamer Tatum]

200. And there you have it.

Ask a pot advocate whether the streets will become more dangerous if pot is legal, and they
point somewhere else.

Thanks. I'm sure it will be SO much, like, COOLER, MAN, if my daughters get clobbered head-on
by someone nodding on pot rather than gin.

[B Calm]

205. There you have it, no matter how many facts you can point to, some

people will never open their eyes. Keep fighting your Nixon War on Drugs. . after all, it's successful at flushing tax dollars down the drain.

[Dreamer Tatum]

209. Facts? Show me facts on pot use and public safety and I'll read them.

Otherwise, go back to sleep.

[B Calm]

212. Did you vote for Richard Nixon?

[Chan790]

190. You mean other than the study by the British NHS and reported on widely by the BBC.

Stating that definitively. Or the hundreds of university studies (and yes if you make me, I will PM them ALL to you, you can spend the next 10 days noon to night reading them.) which all come to roughly the same conclusion.

There is only one side of this debate talking out their asses and you're on that side.

Studies versus anecdotes...studies win. All your side has is anecdotes.

[Dreamer Tatum]

196. There are studies that prove that pot doesn't alter one's mind?

Then what's the point?

Anyone who tries to claim that marijuana is at worst neutral when it comes to traffic danger is FULL. OF. SHIT.

And I'm fully for legalization.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

206. Nothing is stopping people from getting high and driving right now.

Same with DUIs.

The reason we bring up alcohol is because it's far more dangerous than pot -- that's a simple fact and it's hypocritical to keep alcohol legal and pot illegal. And guess what? We're also against a costly, useless and racist drug war. And since the OP's objection to legalization is the alleged lack of a THC roadside indicator, yes, Bullet1987's post is relevant to the OP he was replying to.

And many people who support Prop 19 already smoke pot anyway, so their support is hardly an excuse to get high. In fact, I'm curious as to why you support legalization, considering you seem dead set against it otherwise.

[RainDog]

208. you are entirely misrepresenting what that person said

he said that driving under the influence made him slow down - that the effects of cannabis were not like alcohol - that's not the same as saying there is no effect.

the tax revenue that people talk about stems from making a substance legal and taxing it - it wouldn't matter if there were more or fewer users when, at this time, there is no tax revenue from someone using cannabis as a recreational substance.

In CA, city and counties are already collecting tax revenue from medical marijuana facilities - so this is an accurate representation of the effect of legalization.

As I noted above - I think there will probably be a temporary increase but you can also look at studies of two nations with decriminalization to see that usage declined over time - when something is no longer forbidden fruit, people can and do alter their usage patterns.

Marijuana does have valid use as medicine - because some people have a cannabis avatar has absolutely nothing to do with this fact. The reality is that cannabis is used for a variety of purposes - some people use cannabis for religious practice, yoga, exercise, some people use it because of MS, CP, arthritis - some people use it to make paper, oil, food...

it's a substance with multiple uses and there is a subculture that wants to make this plant legal because of this reality.

Your remark about vicodin is absurd. There's really no correlation between the two - no history of prohibition and thus activists who support re-legalizing it...that's why people have the avatar - prohibition of cannabis is considered by many to be an example of authoritarianism.

The reason that people discuss alcohol in relation to cannabis is because we, as a nation, have an example in alcohol about the negative effects of prohibition. Alcohol is used as a comparison in regard to the recreational use of cannabis because the two are treated differently based upon nothing but prejudice. The reality is that marijuana is safer than alcohol, as a mind-altering recreational substance -in terms of health issues, addiction, potential for overdose, abuse and the effect.

Rational people can look at alcohol use and see that, while not all people use it responsibly, the majority do. Therefore, one argument for legalization is made by looking at the history of alcohol prohibition, consumption and regulation. This is the normal way that people communicate about an issue - they create analogies with existing circumstances.

What you see as a lame excuse is actually the way that people are able to understand a topic - yet you seem to want to misconstrue the reason for these comparisons - the point is that one is legal; therefore, the other should not be illegal based upon knowledge of the effects of both substances.

Your objection, in other words, is a product of your own irritability, not the value of the argument.

[Dreamer Tatum]

210. I'm sick and tired of being assured that pot is perfectly harmless in every way

when those same people roll their eyes in ecstasy at its mind-altering capabilities.

Bull-fucking-shit, is all I say. If it alters the mind, then if its legalization causes
more people to use it, then there will be more dangerous drivers on the road. Period. Paragraph.
Invoking the costliness of the war on drugs, Richard Nixon, the dangerousness of alcohol,
or anything else that doesn't address this concern with actual data is BULLSHIT.

[RainDog]

215. don't let facts get in the way of your anger

as I noted several times - studies indicate that decriminalization in Portugal and The Netherlands has reduced use. however, you choose to ignore this information repeatedly.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS THAT YOU ARE CHOOSING TO IGNORE.

Here are some more:

When cannabis is regulated, it will not be as easily available to teenagers, who, statistically, are the worse drivers out there, whether intoxicated or not. The honest truth is that now teenagers are able to buy pot in their schools but not alcohol. Why? Because one is legal, regulated and taxed while the other is part of an underground economy.

go ask some teenagers which is easier for them to buy: alcohol or cannabis.

If you really gave a fuck about safety issues, you'd understand legalization is good because it provides a way to keep cannabis (and hard drugs that are provided by illegal purveyors) away from teens... and this includes teens who drive.

Marijuana, according to the Nat'l Drug Policy Institute, is the most widely used drug among teens. It's the easiest and safest intoxicant for them to get, again, because it is sold in schools rather than stores that require I.D.s, by manufacturers that are regulated and by retailers who must account for their stock and must meet state guidelines for sales to adults only.

the truth is that THC is psychotropic for approximately 2 to 4 hours after use. if someone drives within that time frame, they are driving under the influence if they have x amt of THC in their bloodstream and, if they cause an accident, they will and should be charged for the accident and for disobeying the law concerning driving under the influence. it's really that simple. that's how it works for alcohol too.

the truth is that some people drive under the influence now. legalization allows organizations to engage in public safety campaigns to stigmatize drinking and driving and they can do the same for cannabis - there is a cut off point at which someone is considered incapacitated. Someone can drink a glass of wine and still drive without impairment. This is why there are limits. The same can and will be done for cannabis based upon active THC levels in blood or saliva.

Also, according to the NIDA, there were 15.2 million past-month users of cannabis. If teenagers are among those, and if legalization will reduce their access, if those who do use marijuana are encouraged to use safely, including not driving while intoxicated - it seems that this is the rational way to deal with issues of the use of intoxicating substances and the car culture in which we reside.

I hope you are also equally enraged about the proliferation of cell phones and the accidents that are linked to their use.

A Harvard study noted 1 in 20 car crashes are linked to cell phone use. Costs of cell phone use while driving add up to 43 billion per year.

but you know what? people don't ban cell phones because of this. why? because they do a cost/benefit analysis and conclude that the cost of banning them is greater than the cost of allowing their use. they also note that cell phone use can result in greater safety for responsible users because a cell phone can make it possible for people to get help if they have car trouble.

however, in order to reduce cell phone use while driving, technology exists to allow hands-free use - cell phone use is still a distraction, but such tech lessens the problem. In addition, public safety campaigns discourage cell phone use while driving. Some states have made it illegal to drive and use a cell phone - but they don't outlaw cell phones themselves.

again, this is how rational people deal with the real world. They look at reality and try to find ways to reduce harm based upon the various activities of some people (tho not all of them) who use a product. The same rational evaluation holds for cannabis use as well.

[Dreamer Tatum]

216. Then it won't raise much tax revenue at all

Which is fine.

You're ignoring my point: EITHER legalization will bring in tax dollars by the billions, OR it will have no impact on public safety.

You're arguing the latter, rather than the former. Most rabid pot advocates insist that both are true, which simply cannot be.

[RainDog]

219. If something is currently NOT TAXED - TAXING IT WILL RAISE REVENUE

This is something I had noted earlier.

the govt. figures on 15 million plus users per month is for the entire nation, not CA, but that figure can be used as an example.

If those 15 million users are paying NO TAX on use of an illegal product, when it is legal and taxed those 15 million will contribute tax revenue simply b/c it is legal and taxed.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Now there is zero revenue from all the people who use recreational cannabis. Legalization would produce more revenue than zero.

We already see this revenue model in CA and in Colorado in the medical mj dispensaries. People who previously acquired mj when undergoing chemo, or for use to alleviate symptoms of MS or CP now pay a tax as part of their payment for medical mj. (whether someone should have to pay tax for medical use is another issue, but considering what pharmaceutical cos charge for products, I'd rather have patients pay into funds to supplement state health care when they purchase a medicine rather than support CEO/stockholder profits.)

I don't know, but I would speculate that usage drops among teens because of a lack of easy access but increases (at least temporarily) among adults because it is no longer illegal. honestly, I would rather have adults consuming intoxicants than teens.

Again, I am speculating, but based upon what I know about current cannabis cultivation, the model for its use will be along the lines of wine or beer. Micro-breweries and vineyards sell a specialty product that is more expensive. Others, based upon cost, choose to drink less expensive wine. Some people will grow their own, just as some people are amateur winemakers. But most people will not because professionals can and will create a product with fairly standard effects.

At the same time, when legalization occurs, the cost of mj may drastically fall because the cost of production will fall - costs that are now factored by an illegal manufacturing and transportation market. Even if the cost of the product itself fall, the state may still levy a tax on this product that keeps the price at a "luxury item" level - or they may not chose to do this in order to cut out competition from illegal suppliers.

But, since we're talking about the financial aspect, it's not just taxation that is a financial issue with legalization. Jeffery Mirons, an economic prof. at Harvard, has studied cannabis economics for years. His latest estimate is that criminalization wastes 88 billion dollars per year.

He breaks it down this way: $41.3 billion is spent to prosecute the 'war on drugs' and $46.7 billion is lost in potential revenue from the taxation of legal drug sales."

[Milo_Bloom]

182. Is this a bad joke?

[Renew Deal]

188. It's surprising how angry some stoners are

:D

[B Calm]

189. Many of us are ex stoners banging are heads against the wall

trying to understand why some people think pot should be illegal. Is it because they support Mexican drug cartels? Is it because they support seeing our prisons full of non violent marijuana users at the cost 60 thousand dollars per prisoner per year? Or is it because they enjoy seeing our tax dollars being wasted fighting Richard Nixon's drug war?

[Romulox]

195. Most prohibitionists are emotive thinkers, for whom logical arguments are wasted.

:hi:

[Lyric]

191. I'm sorry--do you think that keeping marijuana illegal will stop people from driving while using?

How is this any different that what already happens? Some people are going to drive while impaired whether the drug is legal or not, and those people are going to go to jail whether the drug is legal or not. Legalization is about ceasing to imprison the people who AREN'T driving while impaired--the people who use responsibly. Driving while intoxicated will remain illegal, and simple field sobriety tests can determine whether or not someone is intoxicated. If there's an accident and injuries that make a field sobriety test impossible, then we have to rely on medical science to determine intoxication levels. That science is unlikely happen so long as marijuana remains illegal, because there's no NEED for it. There's no "legal THC limit" that we need to determine, because there is no LEGAL limit at ALL.

Scientific advancement tends to happen the fastest when there is a pressing need for a new technology. Keeping weed illegal eliminates the "pressing need" aspect of that equation. Make it legal, and all of the sudden there's a "pressing need" to determine exactly how much THC indicates "intoxication", which in turn spurs development of new tests and technologies. That's the way it worked for alcohol. We'd always had alcohol, but when we suddenly had lots of cars and interstates and the number of collisions started to rise, there was a "need" to develop ways of testing for alcohol intoxication.

So long as marijuana remains patently illegal, there is no need to know anything more than "We found THC in his bloodstream. Throw the book at him."

[Gormy Cuss]

192. That's the MADD argument against 19.

The arguments in favor are reduction in arrests,prosecution, and incarceration of people who will no longer be guilty of small amount possession or growing, reducing the criminal activity in the state by reducing the illegal production and sale, and actually enhancing state revenues through collection of levies attached to production and distribution of marijuana.

When weighing the pros and cons listed by the legislative analyst, it's hard for me to see why I should vote against it.

[wand94nard]

211. Pick one.

If you believe Pot effects your driving skills, endangers your life or the users life, will shorten ones life span, is additive and/or destroys our society - then end the contradiction and make Pot, Alcohol and Cigarettes illegal.

If you believe the opposite, then make Pot legal.

[RainDog]

217. you need to add cell phones to that list n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

213. Um, If It's Already Illegal, How Does Voting No Prevent Anything?

Another one who hasn't learned the lessons of prohibition. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and i don't mean by pot.
GAC

[JDPriestly]

218. Marijuana in the blood can be detected long after it is used.

People who smoke marijuana should realize that they could be considered under the influence of marijuana long after they have used it -- and be liable for an accident if they cause one.

I don't think this is a good reason to vote against the bill. It is a good reason not to smoke marijuana. I don't, and don't plan to start.

In fact, I think that legalizing marijuana will not increase the use of it very much. In fact, it might result in decreased marijuana use as it will not be a cultish, secret thing to do. The little thrill that rebellious youth and others with rebellious natures get from violating what they view as a silly rule will no longer be a part of smoking marijuana.

So, use could actually decrease in this state. After an initial period of enthusiasm, people will lose interest in marijuana. It makes you boring and fat will be the new take on marijuana. And, by the way, both are true for most people.

[RainDog]

220. actually, there are levels that are established for active THC in the blood stream

Blood and saliva tests are the most accurate measures of active THC, rather than metabolites, and these will be the tests that will be necessary to use because urine tests do not accurately indicate whether or not someone is under the influence.

this has been noted repeatedly on this thread. it's sort of boring to repeat false information.

I encourage you not to smoke marijuana because set and setting have a lot to do with the effects people claim as part of the experience. You don't seem to have the mindset to appreciate the positive.

Have you done a study of the 15 million users over the last month to estimate their ration of body fat and their intelligence? I didn't think so.

You should also do a study on churches to see how many fat people are there. According to your totally unscientific bias, may I also state that church makes people fat and stupid?

I have the same level of evidence that you do, so why not.

[JDPriestly]

222. It's not churches that make people fat. It's the potluck dinners and

the after-service donuts. And it's eating together, because generally I have read scientific studies showing that we eat more when in the company of others.