Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DON'T legalize marijuana...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:43 PM
Original message
DON'T legalize marijuana...
until there's a test that can prove you're actually stoned when you take it.

Look, folks, I fucking HATE the War on Marijuana as much as you do. I think pot should be as legal and regulated the same as alcohol.

Then I look at the flipside of the issue: one should not drive or operate heavy machinery while they're high. An employer would be fully within his rights to fire you if you came to work high, just like he can fire you if you come in drunk and for the same reason--you're going to kill someone doing that. The current marijuana test doesn't measure intoxication, it measures whether you've had marijuana in the last week and a half. You could smoke at a party on Friday, come down on Saturday and be completely sober on Monday, but if you walk in the door at your job on Monday morning and your boss hands you a cup, you're going to get popped.

When they invent a test that is cheap enough that any police department can afford it (so they can bust stoned drivers, a known Menace On The Highway), simple enough that a day's training will allow someone to correctly administer it, accurate enough to stand up in court, and that only measures intoxication, I'm all for legalizing it. Legalize weed with the test we have now, and every Repuke employer in America will use it to get rid of "those people." Which means that if you want to keep your job, you won't smoke.

What good is legal marijuana if you can't have any of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ret5hd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, let me put this on my list of issues...
that i absolutely KNOW i don't have to worry about TODAY!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. If I smoked pot (and I don't) I wouldn't want it legalized
It'll end up being controlled by some LCB/ABC government group where the product that is allowed to be sold will be weakass shit that is taxed to the high hilt.

You don't want your government with that kind of control.

But then again it's a shame because our country could really use the potential tax dollars that they could generate from legalized pot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You're probably right about the potency
I cannot imagine the local ABC store selling one-hit marijuana.

You can get 200 people fucked up royally on a single lid? Where's the profit in that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. but you could...
grow your own more potent plants at home couldn't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. That's always been an argument against legalization...
and I think it's really fallacious.

Sez the argument, no one will legalize marijuana because everyone will just grow their own.

You can grow your own tomatoes too, and I note no shortage of tomatoes in the supermarkets.

Everyone's not going to grow their own pot. Forget that meme. Oh believe me a lot of people WILL grow their own pot, and Home Depot will get filthy rich selling bedding plants, marijuana fertilizers, special pot dirt, special pot pots with marijuana leaves painted on them, everything you need to grow enough reefer to keep you happy all winter long.

But what if you run out?
What if you want to try a different strain than what you grew?
Or the pot you grew turned out to be little better than ditch weed because you failed to pee on it often enough?
Or you put the shit in the dryer at the laundromat to dry it, and someone stole your clothes (including the pillowcase with your year's supply of weed in it) while you were in the restroom?
What if you're having a pot party this weekend and there are only three joints left in the house? Or you need a quarter-cup of loose marijuana for your special spaghetti sauce and all the pot in the house is too good to cook with?

What if you just don't feel like growing marijuana?

People will buy marijuana. You know they will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I'm for legalization...
not against it! I completely agree with you! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. lol!
What if...
What if...
what if...

(Boy does THAT litany sound like yer speakin' from experience)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. All time worst reason for wanting it illegal.
You do realize people end up in jail for this 'crime' right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enuffs_enuffs Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. From a rather paranoid person to what seems to be another...
I'd rather have the possibility of growing my own, which COULD be possible as a legalized plant...

Remember it is legal to brew your own beer and distill your own spirits. It's not legal to sell w/o proper distribution paperwork, health inspections and hefty taxation. Washington his'self pushed home distilling. Perhaps the next politician might take Washington's example, and include a provision for people to grow their own... after legalization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Home distilling is not legal
The law on this is very strange.

When you make a distilled spirit, you first produce a product called beer. It's not like regular beer you get in the store, but that's what they call it. You then insert this beer (or wine, if you're making brandy) into your still and heat it to the boiling point of the alcohol in it. The alcohol is captured by the distilling apparatus and condensed back to liquid, which is your distilled spirit. You can do a number of things with it at that time--strain it through botanicals if you're making gin, age it in white oak casks if you're making an amber spirit, put gasoline in it if you're making E85, whatever.

It is legal to own beer. It is legal to own wine. And to own distilled spirits.
It is legal to make either beer or wine for your own use--up to 200 gallons per adult in the home per year.
And it's legal to own a still. It's even legal to use the damn thing--that's how you make distilled water, for one thing.
It is, however, NOT legal to take the beer which you have legally made, pour it into the still which you legally own, and apply heat.

And it CAN'T be a tax thing either--the 200 gallons of beer or wine you're allowed to make per year are tax-free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enuffs_enuffs Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-23-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
43. Ah, I see! Thanks!
From what I gather, you have to be a licensed distillery to produce spirits for consumption OR any other usage. I assumed alcohol meant for beverages would be treated differently... (smacks head and remembers "I live in the land of regulation.")

It seems to me that these laws are primarily concerned with protecting certain businesses. Definately won't see ADM, Segrams or any other producer of crops for distillation nor the distillers trying to change the laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-23-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. I think it's a reality-check thing
People who distill generally do it for money--we've all heard of moonshine and moonshiners. Homebrewers tend to do it because it's fun or they like beers they can't buy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Government already has great control because of the WOD.
Maybe someone out there can lend a hand on this: a couple years back when Patriot 2 was being considered, and there was some opposition, one of Bush-ka-hooey's people was sent on a speaking tour to shore up support and told a reporter: "I don't know what all the fuss about the Patriot Act is about. We've been doing the same thing for years in the war on drugs." (Who was it?)

Prohibition of drugs has drawn the blueprint for the first permanent layers of authoritarian control of domestic life in the U.S. This was obvious to some folks years ago, but with 9-11, the notion of the unitarian president acting in times of PermaWAR (war on terrorism = never-ending war and never-ending unitarian presidential power) combined with the Patriot Acts (proofed after years of WOD laws, rulings, and media compliance) has made the "foreign-domestic" circle complete. This is not going to go away soon. The GOPers are looking far beyond Iraq towards a new society in the U.S.

BTW, the two topics MSM does not won't to deal with are U.S. military intervention and the WOD: they are inextricably linked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gato Moteado Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. why regulate it?
should the government regulate lettuce and cucumbers too?

stoned drivers are a known menace on the highway? known by whom? which highway?

did you just take a bong hit? stop bogarting!

the government needs to stop worrying about what adults do in the privacy of their homes. and they should stop being so obsessed with our urine. i think elected officials should all have to take piss tests...start with the bush administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Little evidence to show impaired driving while pot-stoned.
There's only one thing worse than folks bogarting a joint: listening to their spiel while doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tazkcmo Donating Member (668 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Come down Saturday???
WOW! I'd love to smoke some pot on Friday and come down on Saturday!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
30. I noticed that as well...I think someone knows not what they are talking about...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. New test kit...
each kit comes with 12 individually wrapped twinkies and a Diet SunDrop.

If the suspect consumes these items, you can bet your behind that they:
1) have the munchies (we'll eat anything while stoned)

2) have cotton mouth (we'll drink anything due to cotton mouth)

3) are in fact, stoned...

Ghost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. The same field sobriety checks used for alcohol should apply
Peoples' tolerance to cannabis, and both the manner and degree in which it affects them varies so greatly that I doubt a blood level test would be accurate.

The same problem affects alcohol testing, though IMO to a lesser degree. If I ran the Zoo, tests for impaired driving would consist solely of objective task performance measures. The source of the impairment would be irrelevant - You can't drive if you are too drunk, too stoned, too old, too sleepy, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. Impairment tests do not have to be chemical detectors.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people every year are caught up in the stupid prohibition and processed through our 'justice system', but don't legalize it, no keep on doing the same stupid thing, and we keep on inventing endless bullshit excuses for why we should incarcerate pot smokers.

So, since this is a huge public safety issue, you can of course provide the statistics for automobile fatalities attributed to marijuana usage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. Maybe someone knows...
does marijuana affect your eyes in some way? Maybe change the way your pupils react to light, or make them jerk around?

Here's what I'm thinking: If there was something your eyes did while you're fucked up that they don't do when you're not, a little machine could be constructed with light sources, video cameras and a computer. You look into the little machine and it will look into your eyes to see if you're wasted.

These could be built for a couple hundred apiece, sold for $500 and put in the trunk of every cop car in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
12. It would be pretty menacing
with all those drivers going 5 MPH clutching the wheel.

Just a joke.

It should be legalized IMO but not regulated by the government, that would be a mess. I do understand what you are saying about the tests but we might wait forever for anything like that to ever be approved, just another way to keep it illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
percussivemadness Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
13. you can do anything equally as well stoned that you can straight
the difference is, when you are stoned you realise it isn`t worth the effort.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Hi percussivemadness!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaksavage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
14. Legalize it
Have small family farms grow the product
distribute through liquor stores
tax it

they sell 151 rum and the like
so I doubt they would restrict potency
more the high potency would be expensive
sobriety tests can catch dopers, and pot stinks
sobriety checkpoints cut drunken driving dramatically

I have smoked pot with moms, dads, doctors lawyers, judges, engineers, policemen, firemen, and young and old folks.
it can be abused, but is relatively non toxic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. How is what you're saying about firing any different than it is now?
Employers are already firing people who test positive under the stupid test, on a regular basis. Are you suggesting there would be more employers doing testing if the drug were legal than they do now? I find that hard to believe. Anyone who drives a truck or a bus is already facing this, and probably other industries as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. Pot's not legal now, which is one of the reasons they test
Let's say you're applying for a job that doesn't involve heavy machinery, like being a receptionist. Your job is to count the petty cash, answer the phone and type memos. That's a pretty safe job.

Because weed is illegal, I know that if you're smoking it you associate with the criminal element (pot dealers) and, since weed is expensive and receptionists aren't the highest-paid members of the staff, there's always the possibility that you could "borrow" some of the petty cash to fuel your Friday-evening pot parties. So I send you to pee in a cup before I hire you.

If weed was legal and sold in stores for a reasonable price, which it would be because it's no harder to grow (and a hell of a lot easier to process) than tobacco, both concerns would disappear.

Now let's say the world came to an end and I became a Repuke Big Businessman. You're my receptionist and I don't fucking like you. You drive a car made by the same people who shot me twice during The Big One, you wear too much makeup and you squeak when you talk. I can't can you for your Toyota, your makeup or your squeaky voice, but I can get rid of you for being high on the clock. So I wait till Monday morning, because I know you smoke pot on Friday nights, and send you for a urinalysis. It comes up positive, you're stoned, you're gone. The test says you're fucked up and the test is always right, so leave now and we'll ship the contents of your desk to your home. Maybe.

That's why we need an "intoxication" test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mechatanketra Donating Member (903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. Um ..."at will employment"?
What makes you think you can't fire a receptionist for her car, makeup, or voice? Is she contracted instead of waged? (And how high must she have been to sign a contract that specifies you can fire her for smoking pot when she knows she smokes pot?)

The only statutory bans on firing I'm aware of are discrimination against race, religion, gender, or handicapped status. For non-contract employees, at least, you can fire them because you had a bad dream about them. The law doesn't care. (Lovely country we have.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-23-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. Most people wouldn't fire a receptionist for those things
There's too much of a risk of getting caught up in a discrimination suit. Even if you prevail over the terminated employee, you've still spent time and money you didn't want to spend.

Besides, it's way too easy to find other things to can someone over--eventually most people will be late for work or they'll clock out early on Fridays and that's always a popular way to get rid of someone and make it look justifiable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
16. Ummm, there already is a test and every cop knows it.
The "eyes" have it. It shows immediately on imbibing and goes away as the effects wear off-usually a couple of hours. Body fat can retain cannabinoids for up to three weeks, reflecting history only and depends on the person and a lot of other factors, but the immediate physical effects are detectable and can be photographed for later evaluation, if necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
19. the cop could show you a clip from Half Baked or Beavis and Butthead
if you chuckle you're going to jail.

Just kidding. Honestly i would rather they test for ability than chemical quantity: test reflexes, reaction time, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Ding! Ding! We have a winner -- performance testing.
If you can maneuver, who cares what you smoked?

And for those who think potency would suffer, there are pot stores in Amsterdam and in California (yes, California) where you can buy some pretty potent weed. (Medical card is needed in California.)

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. Bingo - enough of this business of pee in a cup to get a job!
The only person I ever saw get hurt at work because of drugs was a woman who was on tranquilizers taken as prescribed. You know, the kind that has the warning :"DO NOT OPERATE MACHINERY WHILE TAKING THIS DRUG!" You're either able to do the job or you're not. I'd love to see some simple tests that a supervisor could use. How about when people show up for work not having slept since they left the day before? That's not illegal, but they sure shouldn't be there! The first Lost Time accident I saw took place when the guy had been working 12 hours or more a day for 12 days before! He managed to smash his hand up with a giant wrench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroglodyteScholar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
28. I want whatever you're talking about...
...where you smoke on Friday and don't come down until Saturday. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
29. Then outlaw cars.
Weed is natural, cars aren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
retread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
31. Uuuhhh. What was the question?? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
32. Cops can say "I smell alcohol" and take you downtown. Same for weed.
I know a guy at ASU who got pulled over for suspected DUI, blew a .000 on the breathalyzer, walked the straight line perfectly and was still hauled away in cuffs, just because the cop said "I can smell alcohol on your breath".

Similarly, a lot of people are quite obvious when they are stoned in public. The bloodshot, beady "laser" eyes, smell, coughing, altering of speech, general demeanor, and so on all give it away.

If employers are serious about having a drug-free workplace, they would do well to forgo the pee cup and look for the telltale signs, whether or not ganja is legalized or even decriminalized.

I don't see where you get the conclusion that we should refrain from legalizing cannabis (marijuana is a racist term meant to associate the herb with Mexicans) based on this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jonathan50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
34. Some facts on the matter..
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/ddimp.htm

Drugs and Driving Impairment
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/driving.php
Arthur J. McBay (canoe@med.unc.edu)

Forensic Toxicology Consultant

V-306 Carolina Meadows

Chapel Hill, NC 27514

ABSTRACT The objective of this review is to evaluate whether the results of blood drug concentrations could be used by expert witnesses as a basis for scientifically acceptable opinions on driving impairment in adversarial proceedings. Research findings on actual driving performance will be used whenever available.

The adverse effects on driving performance of one drug, alcohol has been well established. Experts can testify to its effects based upon blood and breath alcohol concentrations.

The effects of a few other drugs on actual driving performance have been compared to its likely effects at various blood alcohol concentrations (BACs).

In an actual driving study the impairing effects of the highest smoking dose of marijuana, 3.7% THC, never exceeded those of alcohol’s at BAC of 0.8 mg/mL.. Several studies came to the conclusion that it appears to be impossible to conclude anything about a driver’s impairment based on THC and THC-COOH blood concentrations. A study of chronic heavy marijuana users which included those who drove trucks, buses and taxis concluded that, no real consequence of prolonged use of the drug was uncovered. Amphetamines and cocaine can improve the performance of fatigued drivers.


http://www.ccguide.org.uk/driving.php

RESEARCH for a computer game company has found a small amount of cannabis could help players' performance, making them drive faster and safer.

The experiment was carried out for Acclaim Entertainment to see how cannabis would affect people playing its new game, Burnout. A group of 20 experienced games enthusiasts and drivers between 21 and 40 took part in the test to study reaction times, speed, concentration levels and road safety.

Ten of them then smoked about 0.15 milligrams of cannabis, or about half a "joint", while the other ten had had no stimulant for at least 72 hours prior to the test. They were then given a demonstration of Burnout and asked to take the controls.

The researchers say 80 per cent of those who had smoked cannabis demonstrated superior reaction times to those who had not. About 60 per cent finished a lap faster, while 70 per cent experienced a lower number of collisions, and more than half reached a higher level in the game.

When playing in competition with each other, the drivers who had smoked cannabis won eight out of the ten matches. The company claims drivers under the influence of cannabis appeared to have more confidence in their ability and be much calmer.

Simon Smith-Wright, Burnout's communications director, admitted the findings do not translate into real life, but insisted small amounts of the drug helped driving.

He said: "The results of our tests clearly indicate that a small or moderate amount of cannabis is actually quite beneficial to someone's driving performance.



IT'S official: smoking dope makes you a worse driver. But cannabis has less effect on driving ability than alcohol, according to a study by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) in Crowthorne, Berkshire.

The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions asked the TRL Safety Department to investigate the effect of cannabis intoxication on driving ability. Cannabis is by far the most common illegal drug found in the bloodstream of road accident victims, and THC-the active ingredient in cannabis-can remain in the body for more than a month.

Barry Sexton and his colleagues at the TRL recruited 15 volunteers to complete driving tests while under the influence of low or high doses of cannabis, or no drug at all. The volunteers either smoked readyrolled cannabis joints or rolled their own with resin supplied under government licence. They were then put through their paces on a sophisticated driving simulator.

The researchers measured their accuracy at steering the car, known as "tracking ability", and other psychomotor responses, such as hazard perception and braking responses. They took blood and saliva samples at regular intervals and also tested the subjects' coordination, balance and timing.

The first thing the researchers noticed was that the subjects drove more slowly under the influence of dope, compensating for their intoxication by driving more cautiously. Tracking ability was the only test criterion that was adversely affected: the volunteers found it very difficult to follow a figure-of-eight loop of road when given a high dose. Reaction times to motorway hazards and performance on cognitive tests in the lab were not significantly affected.

Trials previously completed under similar test conditions at the TRL have shown that alcohol and tiredness have a more adverse effect on driving ability, affecting higher cognitive processes. The results of the cannabis and driving study agree with similar research carried out in Australia, the US and Holland.



TAKING the high road may not be so dangerous after all. Ministers are set to be embarrassed by government-funded research which shows that driving under the influence of drugs makes motorists more cautious and has a limited impact on their risk of crashing.

In the study, conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory, "grade A" cannabis specially imported from America was given to 15 regular users. The doped- up drivers were then put through four weeks of tests on driving simulators to gauge reaction times and awareness.

Regular smokers were used because previous tests in America using first- timers resulted in the volunteers falling over and feeling ill. The laboratory found its guinea pigs through what it described as a "snowballing technique" - one known user was asked to find another after being promised anonymity and exemption from prosecution agreed with the Home Office.

Instead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accidents, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously.

Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking. Research by the Australian Drugs Foundation found that cannabis was the only drug tested that decreased the relative risk of having an accident.

The findings will embarrass ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) who commissioned the study after pressure from motoring organisations and anti-drug campaigners. Lord Whitty, the transport minister, will receive the report later this month.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. great post man!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jonathan50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Thanks...
Back when I used to play video games I found that a mild buzz would help me find "the zone" easier. The zone being that place where you can concentrate so intently on the game that the world just basically goes away and only you and the game are left.

I always got my highest scores with a mild buzz..

If I got totally wasted it was another story, hard to play well then, but usually I didn't care enough to try..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
35. I'm really high right now
on Vicodin. Yesterday, I slipped on black ice and fell in the parking lot of my local MetroNorth Station. I was in the emergency room until well after 1 am. I can't walk. I can't sit. I can lie in bed and I can stand still. They gave me big vicodins and robaxin. Nothing's broken, just banged up.

There's no way in god's green earth I should be driving a car--not that I'd be physically capable of doing it.

I'm pretty high, but realistically, I'm only about 1/50th as high as I used to get when I smoked pot. I gotta agree with you.

PS guess what, DU'ers, I'm not going to sue anyone over this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jonathan50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. I used to ride fast motorcycles on both cannabis and lsd..
Never had a problem..

The only crashes I ever had I was straight as a board..

I wouldn't even think of getting on a bike drunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
38. Well, that's a terrible argument.
"When they invent a test that is cheap enough that any police department can afford it (so they can bust stoned drivers, a known Menace On The Highway), simple enough that a day's training will allow someone to correctly administer it, accurate enough to stand up in court, and that only measures intoxication, I'm all for legalizing it."

How's about a field sobriety test? If they're sober enough to stand on one foot, touch their nose with their nose with their eyes closed, and recite the alphabet backwards, they're sober enought to operate machinery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
40. so what exactly is the road test for Vicodin use? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-22-07 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
42. Field Sobriety Test.
You can be considered "intoxicated" on over-the-counter cold medicine if it impairs your driving, and you can receive a DUI from it. The determinant isn't whether a driver has or has not taken cold medicine, it is how it affects their driving. If a driver is "intoxicated" while driving because they were smoking pot, it should be treated no differently than if they were intoxicated in any other way. The test should be for intoxication, not the simple presence of a drug that can persist for 40 days in some people. Laws already exist for people driving under the influence. If we're legalizing pot, why does anything further need to be said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jonathan50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-23-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Actually the latest urine tests for cannabis....
Can only detect cannabis for about two to three weeks after last consumption.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6821

Marijuana Detection Time Shorter Than Previously Assumed

February 23, 2006 - Columbia, MO, USA

Columbia, MO: The length of time cannabis metabolites may be detected, on average, on a standard urine screen is typically no longer than ten days for chronic users and between 3-4 days for infrequent users, according to a literature review published in the current issue of the journal Drug Court Review.

"Recent scientific literature indicates that it is uncommon for occasional marijuana smokers to test positive for cannabinoid in urine for longer than seven days" at 20 ng/ml or above on the EMIT (Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique) test, the author concludes. "Following smoking cessation, chronic smokers would not be expected to remain positive for longer than 21 days, even when using the 20 ng/ml cannabinoid cutoff."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-23-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Who's high even after one week?
There's no reason to prove the existence of marijuana in someone's urine if they were driving in a way worthy of DUI if marijuana is legal anyway. If you're driving recklessly and endangering others, that's already illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-23-07 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
48. This is at best an argument for workers' rights
against invasion of their urinary tract. Which, oh, happens already every day, and people get fired for having been stoned in private a month before.

As for driving: total confusion of DUI with marijuana use. DUI is illegal. If there isn't a test now... well what the hell does that mean? I guess it's tough to nail people for DUI pot. So?

As for importance (to others): Obviously you all need to be stopped and searched in your neighborhood by cops on a fishing expedition, arrested for doing something that is only your own business and no one else's, and held in a jail for a day or two, or sentenced to a "short" prison sentence where you can work for a corp at sub-minimum wage, or otherwise have your lives ruined like tens of thousands of others in this country who possess or deal in marijuana.

Then you might understand the "urgency" of this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC