Legalizing marijuana. I don't get it.

[marillion]

There was an interesting show on BBC America a couple weeks ago, hosted by Nicky Taylor.. She was on a quest to discover the *ahem* ups and downs of pot.

She smoked different kinds in different situations, just to see what the affects would be. She found that one joint equals 3 normal cigarettes and can cause permanent lung damage. Her driving was impaired, although differently than with alcohol and that she gained weight from all the munchies among other things.

My biggest problem with it is the same problem I have with smoking in general. I think it's nasty. I'm also not a big fan of the "counter-culture" that is sterotyped along with pot smoking.. The hippy-dippy "lead singer from the Spin Doctors" crowd. I'm sure plenty of white collar rich folks smoke it too, but they are the vocal majority.

Sometimes I wish they'd legalize it just so the hippy-dippy crowd would just shut the hell up.

**on edit: Yes.. I realize there may be quite a few people around here that don't remember the Spin Doctors.

 

[KJbushway]

There was an interesting show on BBC America a couple weeks ago, hosted by Nicky Taylor.. She was on a quest to discover the *ahem* ups and downs of pot.

She smoked different kinds in different situations, just to see what the affects would be. She found that one joint equals 3 normal cigarettes and can cause permanent lung damage. Her driving was impaired, although differently than with alcohol and that she gained weight from all the munchies among other things.

My biggest problem with it is the same problem I have with smoking in general. I think it's nasty. I'm also not a big fan of the "counter-culture" that is sterotyped along with pot smoking.. The hippy-dippy "lead singer from the Spin Doctors" crowd. I'm sure plenty of white collar rich folks smoke it too, but they are the vocal majority.

Sometimes I wish they'd legalize it just so the hippy-dippy crowd would just shut the hell up.

**on edit: Yes.. I realize there may be quite a few people around here that don't remember the Spin Doctors.

The smoke part is only if you smoke the joint part, No filter.
However, that can be nulled if smoked by bong or humidifier.
If it became legal you would probably seen technology like E cigrattes, but for pot.
Munchies and slight impaired driving are the only side affects. To tell you the truth most don't drive unless they absolutely have to, and most just melo out, to lazy to move.
Like I have said look at the past surgeon general reports.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/18/former.surgeon.general.marijuana/index.html

 

[Pingfah]

There was an interesting show on BBC America a couple weeks ago, hosted by Nicky Taylor.. She was on a quest to discover the *ahem* ups and downs of pot.

She smoked different kinds in different situations, just to see what the affects would be. She found that one joint equals 3 normal cigarettes and can cause permanent lung damage. Her driving was impaired, although differently than with alcohol and that she gained weight from all the munchies among other things.

My biggest problem with it is the same problem I have with smoking in general. I think it's nasty. I'm also not a big fan of the "counter-culture" that is sterotyped along with pot smoking.. The hippy-dippy "lead singer from the Spin Doctors" crowd. I'm sure plenty of white collar rich folks smoke it too, but they are the vocal majority.

Sometimes I wish they'd legalize it just so the hippy-dippy crowd would just shut the hell up.

**on edit: Yes.. I realize there may be quite a few people around here that don't remember the Spin Doctors.

** Sadly i'm not one of them

Seriously though, as KJ notes, being a pot smoker doesn't really have to involve much actual smoking at all. A bowl contains a fraction of the amount of weed a joint does, and is probably more effective due to the speed and heat with which it is consumed. Then of course, you don't actually have to smoke the stuff at all, some people just eat it.

Of course, if her driving wasn't impaired she wasn't doing it right. I'd bloody hope it was impaired. Not that she should have been driving in the first place

 

[KJbushway]

^I know alot of country boys who didn't need any help sucking at driving. But what can you expect when they cancel driving tests on rainy days.

 

[Pingfah]

Well, i'd hesitate to call what you have there a "test" anyway, i'm not surprised 1 in 85 Americans dies in a car crash.

 

[KJbushway]

agreed.

 

[Gaith]

Well, i'd hesitate to call what you have there a "test" anyway, i'm not surprised 1 in 85 Americans dies in a car crash.

Citation pls.

 

[Pingfah]

Actually, the number is for all transport accidents, not just car crashes, sorry. And it is 1 in 77 not 85.

Chances of dying as the occupant of a car 1 in 244, but I imagine if you aggregated all the ones relating to some sort of car, truck or van accident you are talking about a much higher chance than that.

http://www.purewatergazette.net/oddsofdying.htm

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Actually, the number is for all transport accidents, not just car crashes, sorry. And it is 1 in 77 not 85.

Chances of dying as the occupant of a car 1 in 244, but I imagine if you aggregated all the ones relating to some sort of car, truck or van accident you are talking about a much higher chance than that.

http://www.purewatergazette.net/oddsofdying.htm

That sounds incredibly high.

If deaths from cars were a flu there would be mass hysteria.

 

[KJbushway]

Drunk driving is one of America's leading causes of Death or something.
I could be thinking of Cigaretts. But some year I remember that being an issue.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Drunk driving is one of America's leading causes of Death or something.
I could be thinking of Cigaretts. But some year I remember that being an issue.

I believe that was in 1997. Thankfully all cleared up.

 

[KJbushway]

Wow then my memory plays tricks on me. Could have sworn it was later than that. It could be by state then.

 

[CaptainStoner]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
By Robbe HWJ, O'Hanlon JF
November 1993
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

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.

 

[KJbushway]

Yeah I can see what they mean about someone who has driven while high to have the ability to compensate when driving drunk.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah I can see what they mean about someone who has driven while high to have the ability to compensate when driving drunk.

No, neither the quoted passage nor the linked text says this. What the quoted passage says is:

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.

But this sentence actually means:

Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that THC users seem better able to compensate for the adverse effects of THC while driving under the influence of THC.

And the quoted passage immediately goes on to say:

Still one can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., ... after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol

Inside the linked executive summary is the following paragraph:

Driving quality as rated by the subjects contrasted with observer ratings. Alcohol impaired driving performance according to the driving instructor but subjects did not perceive it; marijuana did not impair driving performance but the subjects themselves perceived their driving performance as such. Both groups reported about the same amount of effort in accomplishing the driving test following placebo Yet only subjects in the ;marijuana group reported significantly higher levels of invested effort following the active drug. Thus, there was evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self-critical after consuming low THC doses by smoking marijuana.

This backs up my reading of the quoted passage.

No, alcohol + driving = bad, no matter how you slice it.

 

[KJbushway]

I wasn't saying it was good. I simply thought it was saying something different. My bad.

 

[Aldo]

I can get behind those findings. When you're drunk you believe you can drive home no problem. When you're high (in my experience) I'm very cautious about driving (when I have to).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I used to be against legalizing this stuff. I am trying to keep an open mind about it, though. It does seem to have medicinal value for very sick people.

Plus, almost as importantly, it doesn't make people crazy - only stupid. That is, IMHO, what should be the core of our drug policy. Drugs that make people dangerous - make them menaces to OTHERS (and that cannot be used with moderation - unlike, say, alcohol) - should be controlled without mercy. But marijuana doesn't do that, does it? Can't really drive while stoned, I would guess...because you would have to find your feet first.

 

[CaptainStoner]

There's a lot of information in such studies as the one I linked but one thing that stands out to me is that even higher doses of cannabis did not produce an impairment above 0.08 BAC's level, which is still the common legal limit.
So ok, it's probably not wise to be skirting the legal limit of what is deemed too intoxicated to drive, but the point is that you're not going to exceed it with cannabis, and even though this was a government study the only negatives they could come up with were imagined situations with increasing variables.
I'd certainly be open to seeing data from more intensive testing, and compare it to other drugs including caffeine which gets a free pass otherwise.
My ballpark guess is that "mild" stimulants like caffeine and marijuana are a wash when it comes to driving and accidents. That even on this very important issue, it amounts to legislating preference.
And of course these tests are all for commonly smoked marijuana, not hashish or hash oil, or eaten products.

 

[RoJoHen]

I actually dislike that these conversations naturally turn to comparisons to alcohol, because I don't think that it's helpful. Of course alcohol is more dangerous and destructive overall. Hell, it's worse than a lot of drugs in several ways. Saying "well marijuana isn't as bad as alcohol" isn't exactly setting the bar very high.

I agree and disagree. I think alcohol prohibition taught us a valuable lesson: If you make it illegal, people are going to do it anyway! So what did we do? We made it legal again and started to tax it and regulate it. If people want to engage in activities that impair their judgment and motor skills, the least they can do is pay the government for the privilege.

The argument shouldn't be that alcohol is worse than pot. The argument should be that, illegal or not, a lot of people are still using it! It is no different than alcohol prohibition. It would simply make more sense for the government to legalize it, tax it, and regulate it.

And as for the driving thing, we have breathalyzers that test for blood alcohol levels to determine if someone is too intoxicated to drive. Why can't we come up with an equivalent test for being too stoned?