Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana

[iwannadie]

I think it's foolish to claim the police cannot test for intoxication, but feel free to draw your own conclusions. Mind you, this test was done 17 years ago...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199408253310807#t=articleDiscussion

It's been mentioned, but yes, we would have to change the laws, and improve testing. Yes, field sobriety testing would possibly need refined, although if you haven't given the police reason to stop you, this isn't normally an issue. Yes, we would have to have guidelines on its use (something like open container laws; prohibiting smoking in areas not designated for its use; limiting legal use to adults; still prohibiting driving under the influence of any intoxicant, etc), set thresholds for a level of intoxication, and the other obvious practical issues legalization would create. But claiming this is impossible, simply because we haven't done it yet, is silly.

Ok, the link you posted just proves my point even more I think. Those who were found to have traces of marijuana, we have no clue if they were actually impaired or not. Again, unlike alcohol the marijuana stays in your system for around 30 days. If marijuana were legal would those people face charges for driving under the influence in that situation?

Are cops then going to urine test everyone that shows suspicion of marijuana use along the side of the road? The test you linked to, they used a police van with trained personal and a private toilet setup. How many of these urine test vans do you really think will be commissioned to test for marijuana use?

I can see a likely traffic stop going like this.
You get pulled over because your car looks suspicious which can mean anything. The cop comes up, smells marijuana and questions you. You tell the officer yes, you have consumed legal marijuana but not within the past 48 hours. The cop says you are showing signs of being under the influence because your eyes are red. He has no means to prove or do a road side test so you are arrested for driving under the influence. You are taken in and have a blood test done which confirms the trace amounts of marijuana in your system. You now need bailed out of jail, need to hire a lawyer and prove that you were not under the influence when pulled over. You have no evidence to prove your innocence while the police report says you exhibited signs of being under the influence and the drug test confirmed it.

Maybe I am unlucky but I have been pulled over many times, never once ticketed for anything though. I always get the "Well your vehicle fit a description", "You only signaled 98 feet before turning, you need to signal 100 feet before turning." and other such things. To say, people only get pulled over because you did something wrong is a bit closed minded I feel.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

I think we need to distinguish an important difference between "under the influence" and "impaired." In order to be convicted of DWI, the state must prove that you were impaired (assuming it's from an illegal substance or in an illegal amount), not that you were under the influence. A person's BAC does not matter to the state, their impairment does.

You can get a DWI with a BAC below .08. Also, a professional drunk could pass an SFST while being far above .08. If such person passed SFST's but was still arrested for DWI for some reason, they could not be convicted of DWI. Some states have provisions for that situation though that they call "driving with excessive blood alcohol content" which only requires a BAC of .08 or higher.

I don't see why the exact same system should be used for MJ. The state would have to prove that you're impaired via physical coordination tests (similar to SFST's). If you pass the SFST's, you're deemed not impaired and go on your merry little way. If you're too stoned to pass SFST's, then you're impaired. Problems will arise with those who are for whatever reason unable to perform the SFST's however. For those occasions there would have to be a way to measure THC content.

To be honest, I have never partook - and I'm really foggy on exactly how MJ affects you or your ability to drive. It doesn't seem like you hear of many "stone-driving" accidents though :dunno:

 

[garr]

Before it is made Legal they should do some good long term health studies (or have they been done already?) on the use of Marijuana,
Inhaling & holding in that hot smoke cannot be good for your lungs!

A few years back I lost a 40 year old cousin to Lung cancer who did not smoke cigs, But he was a big Marijuana user.

 

[H8PVMT]

the half life of THC is anywhere from less than half a day to around 20, the half life of THC in your fatty cells is 8 days or so, testing anything but blood will give you the fact that they HAVE smoked pot in the near past, but taking a blood test will give you an accurate concentration of how much/when it went down.

taking into account that it can take up to 28 days to get completely out of your system if they legalize pot and arrest you for doing anything impared think of how much MORE paranoid pot heads will be

as a case in point, the Netherlands enjoy some of the lowest underage drug users (once a month or more) and have the lowest drug related deaths in the EU region, there is no doubt the normally sane Americans will go to town as soon as a legalization will occur but like everything else it will lose it's luster eventually and will normalize, granted I'm pretty sure pot is still technically illegal in the Netherlands, i believe they consider it a non crime as long as your not a moron about it, kind of like out in Western MA.

 

[old_man]

My concern is that there are way too many crappy drivers out there already. Adding one more thing doesn't make sense. I grew up in the 60/70s so I'm not a stranger to it. Matter of fact, I stayed stoned for around 6 weeks on my doctor's recommendation while I had chemo. It really helped.

There are lots of people doing legal drugs that shouldn't be driving. The problem is that people just don't take responsibility for their actions anymore. If they did, everything could be legal, but until they do, good luck.

 

[H8PVMT]

Before it is made Legal they should do some good long term health studies (or have they been done already?) on the use of Marijuana,
Inhaling & holding in that hot smoke cannot be good for your lungs!

A few years back I lost a 40 year old cousin to Lung cancer who did not smoke cigs, But he was a big Marijuana user.

i believe the science I learned in school was that one joint has the equivilent effects on the lungs as 10 cigarrettes, which is why I always preferred using my own grown plants made into brownies =)

 

[xcm]

burning one right now, dont need anyones permission. im a grown ass man....

 

[Darky]

No, I am saying, in America, the law shouldn't exist in the first place.

I am saying we should not be imprisoning citizens for possessing a PLANT.

Where exactly does the US Constitution give the Federal Government the right to imprison American citizens for possessing a plant.

Would you be ok with the coca plant? The opium plant? The whatever heroine comes from plant ? It's not just a PLANT. It is an intoxicant, it alters your reactions and mindset.

I think we need to distinguish an important difference between "under the influence" and "impaired." In order to be convicted of DWI, the state must prove that you were impaired (assuming it's from an illegal substance or in an illegal amount), not that you were under the influence. A person's BAC does not matter to the state, their impairment does.

You can get a DWI with a BAC below .08. Also, a professional drunk could pass an SFST while being far above .08. If such person passed SFST's but was still arrested for DWI for some reason, they could not be convicted of DWI. Some states have provisions for that situation though that they call "driving with excessive blood alcohol content" which only requires a BAC of .08 or higher.

I think you need to look at your laws more. Last I knew in the three states I've lived in, DUI=Driving Under the Influence. This was under the legal limit but still present. DWI=Driving While Intoxicated which meant you were over the limit. Nobody cares if you can pass the tests, if you are over the limit, you fail. In CA, I think they just do DUI, if you are over the limit, you're done; if you're under, it's the officer's discretion.

burning one right now, dont need anyones permission. im a grown ass man....

Then act like one.

 

[iwannadie]

i believe the science I learned in school was that one joint has the equivilent effects on the lungs as 10 cigarrettes, which is why I always preferred using my own grown plants made into brownies =)

Vaporizers are all the rage these days it seems.

 

[tbburg]

Would you be ok with the coca plant? The opium plant? The whatever heroine comes from plant,..

Heroin is a derivative of Opium, they both come from the opium poppy. :roll:

Then act like one.

Acting like a "grown-ass man", or "an adult", would require taking responsibility for one's actions, and accepting the consequences.
Most of our laws are the result of people being unable to deal with the last part of that sentence. This allows busybodies to jump in with the,"see! There's a problem! There ought to be a law!" Pretty soon there is.

The problem with reasonable, rational use of any intoxicant, is the use of most intoxicants removes the ability to think reasonably and/or rationally.

As far as the health risk, the biggest difference between smoking a cigarette and a doob is most likely the filter on the cig. Anything that cuts down on fine particulate matter is going to be a huge help. While the many chemical compounds inhaled with any kind of smoke don't help, the main danger is the consequences of long term inhalation of fine particulate matter of any type. They have different names for it when they can identify what the actual dust involved is: silicosis, asbestosis, black lung disease, etc. It all results from exposure to fine particles that your lungs can't expel. I read somewhere that the safest way to smoke tobacco is with a water pipe, which of course sets you up for possession of drug paraphernalia.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

I think you need to look at your laws more. Last I knew in the three states I've lived in, DUI=Driving Under the Influence. This was under the legal limit but still present. DWI=Driving While Intoxicated which meant you were over the limit. Nobody cares if you can pass the tests, if you are over the limit, you fail. In CA, I think they just do DUI, if you are over the limit, you're done; if you're under, it's the officer's discretion

:roflmao: No, you need to look at your laws more. In most if not all states (including California), it's the impairment (which is determined by SFST's) that matters, not BAC. Except in the case of the charge called "driving with excessive BAC" (or something similar) which only requires a BAC of .08 or higher. Also, in most places the term DWI has been replaced be the term DUI and the statute covers both driving under the influence of alcohol as well as drugs.

I'm not sure where you got the whole .04 being DUI and .08 being DWI thing :dunno:

 

[CherBear]

Heroin is a derivative of Opium, they both come from the opium poppy. :roll:
Acting like a "grown-ass man", or "an adult", would require taking responsibility for one's actions, and accepting the consequences.
Most of our laws are the result of people being unable to deal with the last part of that sentence. This allows busybodies to jump in with the,"see! There's a problem! There ought to be a law!" Pretty soon there is.

The problem with reasonable, rational use of any intoxicant, is the use of most intoxicants removes the ability to think reasonably and/or rationally.

As far as the health risk, the biggest difference between smoking a cigarette and a doob is most likely the filter on the cig. Anything that cuts down on fine particulate matter is going to be a huge help. While the many chemical compounds inhaled with any kind of smoke don't help, the main danger is the consequences of long term inhalation of fine particulate matter of any type. They have different names for it when they can identify what the actual dust involved is: silicosis, asbestosis, black lung disease, etc. It all results from exposure to fine particles that your lungs can't expel. I read somewhere that the safest way to smoke tobacco is with a water pipe, which of course sets you up for possession of drug paraphernalia.

Firstly, what is to stop anyone from rolling a filter into a joint? Not to mention that THC doesn't have to be smoked, it can be made into an edible form which removes all problems associated with smoking.

Secondly, a water pipe is not automatically drug paraphernalia, which is why "head shops" can exist. It becomes drug paraphernalia when it is used to consume drugs.

If I were to consider the effects of MJ vs Alchohol on society as a whole, the only thing I would see alcohol having advantage at would be the fact that breathalyzers give us an accurate measure of blood alcohol content. No such equivalent device exists for MJ yet, making it more difficult to define dwi etc.

 

[Darky]

:roflmao: No, you need to look at your laws more. In most if not all states (including California), it's the impairment (which is determined by SFST's) that matters, not BAC. Except in the case of the charge called "driving with excessive BAC" (or something similar) which only requires a BAC of .08 or higher. Also, in most places the term DWI has been replaced be the term DUI and the statute covers both driving under the influence of alcohol as well as drugs.

I'm not sure where you got the whole .04 being DUI and .08 being DWI thing :dunno:

http://www.lawadvicenow.com/law/traffic-law/the-difference-between-a-dui-vs-dwi/

http://www.duiarresthelp.com/states/california/dui-laws.php
http://www.duiarresthelp.com/states/arizona/dui-laws.php
http://www.duiarresthelp.com/states/new_york/dwi-laws.php

http://austin-tx-dwi.com/Texas_DUI_DWI

:dunno: These all seem to mirror what I said. Don't know what to tell ya...

 

[tbburg]

..,what is to stop anyone from rolling a filter into a joint? Not to mention that THC doesn't have to be smoked, it can be made into an edible form which removes all problems associated with smoking,..

True enough. I was responding to H8PVMTs post about the relative health effects between smoking weed and tobacco. I suggested earlier that any problem with 2nd hand smoke from MJ could be overcome by eating it.

.,a water pipe is not automatically drug paraphernalia, which is why "head shops" can exist. It becomes drug paraphernalia when it is used to consume drugs,...

I don't know how it works in every state. In Ohio, in the '90s, possession of a water pipe would lead to an arrest.

If I were to consider the effects of MJ vs Alchohol on society as a whole, the only thing I would see alcohol having advantage at would be the fact that breathalyzers give us an accurate measure of blood alcohol content. No such equivalent device exists for MJ yet, making it more difficult to define dwi etc.

Neither drug has a positive effect on society as a whole. There are a whole host of activities that either don't affect society as a whole, or have a negative effect. As a general rule, just because it's bad for you doesn't mean it should be illegal. Where it gets "sticky" is when an activity you do affects others.
If I had to guess, MJ probably has less negative consequences then alcohol. This may be due to the relative higher use of alcohol.

 

[ocean_jet]

Would you be ok with the coca plant? The opium plant? The whatever heroine comes from plant ? It's not just a PLANT. It is an

Ok with American citizen being imprisoned by their government for possession of a coca plant... or a poppy plant.

No. Not at all.

 

[ocean_jet]

Before it is made Legal they should do some good long term health studies (or have they been done already?) on the use of Marijuana,
Inhaling & holding in that hot smoke cannot be good for your lungs!

A few years back I lost a 40 year old cousin to Lung cancer who did not smoke cigs, But he was a big Marijuana user.

Sorry about your cousin...

But it isn't the role of the federal government to make sure we don't do unhealthy things to ourselves.

 

[H8PVMT]

just food for munching on, pot smokers are 40% more likely to get a raise/promotion according to a study a while back

 

[ocean_jet]

Acting like a "grown-ass man", or "an adult", would require taking responsibility for one's actions, and accepting the consequences.
Most of our laws are the result of people being unable to deal with the last part of that sentence.

BS.. drug laws about the government exerting control over its citizens.

MJ specifically was criminalized in large part by businesses influences on the US legislature....


the same crap that is happening today that both the tea-party and the OWS folks rail against.

 

[ocean_jet]

just food for munching on, pot smokers are 40% more likely to get a raise/promotion according to a study a while back

I'd love to see that study if you have it handy...

 

[Darky]

MJ specifically was criminalized in large part by businesses influences on the US legislature....

I'd love to see that study if you have it handy...

Ok with American citizen being imprisoned by their government for possession of a coca plant... or a poppy plant.

No. Not at all.

What possible use could one have for a coca plant besides refining into cocaine, or selling to someone else to refine into cocaine?

Where do you stand on DUI laws? Just more laws by the government to exert control over the populace? Pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about DUIs or driver's licenses or a whole bunch of stuff.