Assume marijuana is legalized, what laws controlling it would you like to see?

[AngryAmish]

I think everyone can agree that driving while impaired should be illegal (same as DUI). I would not want to live next door to a Amsterdam coffeehouse z9or liquor store or bar) so some restrictions on retail sales would be ok. Mail order only?

What do you suggest?

[EOTE]

1. What defines "impaired"?

The few tests that have been performed regarding marijuana and driving ability show that those under the influence of marijuana perform at least as well as the control group, if not better.

[pnwmom]

12. "The few tests" is key. We don't have enough data yet, but anyone who has

ever observed the effects of marijuana on others, while not partaking themselves, knows that marijuana can have an effect on alertness, attention, judgment, and other factors that are part of driving skills. So how do we measure that? How do we know how much is too much?

[EOTE]

34. There's really very little concept of "too much" when it comes to marijuana.

It's the quality of the marijuana that effects the high you receive than any quantity. You can smoke spliff after spliff of schwag and not really get any more high (although you might stay high for longer). But everything I've seen suggests that driving while under the influence of marijuana is NOTHING like alcohol. Sure, conduct more tests. Conduct lots of them. But I don't think we need to be imposing harsh sentencing for driving under the influence until it's well established that that's actually a bad thing.

[ohheckyeah]

60. I think there probably is enough data if we just

look for it.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

50. Dude! You were going 20 in a 70 mph zone.

That's impaired.

:rofl:

[EOTE]

54. Better than the inverse, I suppose.

Generally, the consensus seems to be that due to the paranoia that marijuana causes, those under the influence will take extra precautions. We have passing lanes, might as well make good use of them.

[joshcryer]

85. 20 in a 70 is dangerous, though, it was an apt joke, imo.

I think though that the fines should be less for someone driving under the influence of THC. You are going to be much more paranoid and cautious. I've had friends tell of their terrifying experiences driving while high. Pot actually discourages driving while influenced, more than anything.

Alcohol is another matter.

[trueblue2007]

120. IT DOESN'T MATTER. DEATH as result of accident

if your drunk or doped is still dead.

i KNOW what impaired is when smoking. i did it in my 20's and I'm SHOCKED AT HOW STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE I WAS. in that state.... my friends who were driving while high could have killed someone.

[RobinA]

118. That Would Be

me. Always hated driving high back in the day. I stopped 30 feet short of the stop sign you say?

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[nonperson]

2. Pattern marijuana legalization after alcohol laws

Regulate, restrict, control distribution through licensed vendors, tax. Just like alcohol. That's all it takes.

[pnwmom]

16. What about driving under the influence? How can that be patterned

after alcohol?

[Uncle Joe]

20. THC stays in your system long after any buzz or impairment, so sobriety tests outside of

bodily chemistry detection.

Other tests can be administered to determine whether someone is capable of operating a vehicle, just as they did for alcohol before breath tests were available.

[backscatter712]

28. Certain compounds of THC can be tested for that are short-lived, and more indicative of intoxication

I interned at my state capitol last spring, and got a ringside seat for the debates over a proposed law that would define per-se DUI on marijuana based on the blood level of delta-9-THC.

Yes, the tests exist. They're a bit of a pain because they're blood tests, not breath, sweat or saliva tests, but they exist.

[Uncle Joe]

32. Well there you go, that's what I love about the Internet.

Ask and most of the time you shall receive.:thumbsup:

[Maru Kitteh]

76. What we need is to have those tests be developed into a non-invasive form.

This would knock down one of the last arguments with any thread of validity to it.

[joshcryer]

87. Fail a physical test or refuse to take a physical test, you get the pin prick.

Shouldn't be too hard with current technology, imo.

[Maru Kitteh]

110. It's just that it would be very impractical due to the fact that any time the skin is broken

for testing it has to be done by trained medical personnel.

A non-invasive test for current levels remains the quickest way I can see to legalization everywhere, for everyone.

[RobinA]

119. How's This

for non-invasive? Walk the driver by a vending machine. If he gets four or more items, book'em!

[nonperson]

21. This is a commonly used argument by those opposed to legalization

But what does driving have to do with legalization? If you're driving impaired I don't care what you're impaired by. You shouldn't be driving.

On the other hand, if you're driving safely where's the probable cause for a stop?

[Warren Stupidity]

36. +1

[Webster Green]

52. No comparison.

The effects of cannabis are nothing like alcohol.

I wouldn't go anywhere without a joint for the road.

[immoderate]

69. Glad that someone is real about this.

I am never impaired as far as my driving skills go. I am very aware of everything around me. My reaction times are normal, if not better.

I tend to lose track of where I am. Maybe even why I'm going there.

My GPS kind of closes that gap. :hippie:

--imm

[BOHICA12]

114. Nice sarcasm .....

....we don't let the buzzed self-evaluate either. "No way was I weaving officer, I drive better after 2 beers!"

[immoderate]

116. Yeah, well I've done a few hundred thousand miles that way, and I haven't hit anything...

or attracted the attention of traffic monitors, or heard any complaints from my passengers. Well, my mother always told me to slow down; does that count?

It requires a special kind of circularity to assume that any pot smoker is incapable of making judgments. Actual studies show that reactions are not impaired, AFAIK. Alcohol, you might know, is different. :shrug:

--imm

[Xithras]

47. As has been stated a gazillion times in similar threads...

Neither blood or breath tests are required for DWI convictions. As an example: Here in California, the law says that a BAC of 0.08 and above is too intoxicated to drive. HOWEVER...if you're weaving or otherwise driving in an unsafe manner, and you fail a field sobriety check, you can actually be arrested and prosecuted even if your BAC is only 0.04, half the legal limit. If you can't handle your alcohol and are drunk and dangerous while you're still below the legal limit, you're still going to be arrested and punished the same as someone who is OVER the limit. The ONLY difference is that the officer may have to testify a bit more in court to attest to your behavior. If he's got a dashcam, you're screwed.

FWIW, this is the same way they regularly prosecute people who are driving under the influence of legal drugs. I know a woman who was prosecuted for driving with too much Vicodin in her system. She ended up with the same fine, points, and suspension that a booze swilling drunk would have faced.

Marijuana is no different. If you are pulled over for unsafe driving, can't pass a field sobriety test, and the officer determines that you're too wasted to drive, you can be arrested and prosecuted under CURRENT law without a single modification. In most states, generic DWI laws aren't limited by substance. You merely need to demonstrate intoxication.

[joshcryer]

86. Sure, but that doesn't cover distribution laws or taxation laws.

Those of course could be covered under current laws as well, just change the schedule classification and add another word into the law books.

edit: apologies, I thought you were responding to the comment above the one you responded to. Consider this a response to that one.

[Imagevision]

3. Most importantly? that the tobacco companies keep their chemicals out of it...

[proud patriot]

106. +1

:thumbsup:

[dmallind]

4. Combo of cigarettes and alcohol as a model.

I don't want the air in public spaces reeking of dope smoke any more than ETS.

I don't want stoned people flying a plane I'm on any more than drunk ones.

Regulate who can sell it and how pure/strong it can be.

And tax the hell out of it. Legal weed could be significantly cheaper than illegal even if it were taxed 100% or more.

[A HERETIC I AM]

33. LOL>>>I love the second part of this statement;

"Regulate who can sell it and how pure/strong it can be."

Really?

Like how they regulate alcohol? Where you can buy pure grain alcohol or "181" proof?

(yes, I realize 181 isn't "pure" or 100%)
How about letting people grow PLANTS - a plant that can grow naturally from arctic circle to arctic circle and do with it what they wish?

How about keeping the rules for driving while under the influence just as they are?

How about the simple idea of leaving people alone?

BTW, are individuals restricted from growing tobacco plants in their backyard gardens or in their basements? If not, why not?

[Capitalocracy]

57. 181 is about as pure as you can get without it instantly evaporating.

And yeah, pure should be the ONLY form of marijuana allowed. They shouldn't be able to add a bunch of weird chemicals and crap like they do with cigarettes.

[joshcryer]

90. There are limits on tobacco growing and beer brewing. And you can sell neither without a license.

Sorry but that's how it works.

I know a lot of people are pining for the days people can legally sell pot, but once it's legalized (it'll happen eventually) the big corporations are going to be growing it and producing all sorts of THC derived stuff (THC cooking additives anyone?).

The illegal growers are making a killing off of that shit, a killing. They do not want it legalized. I've had this argument before with growers, complaining that the "quality" will "go down" because the corporations will take over (no, it'll be just the opposite as everyone will be able to get high from all sorts of derivatives, sweet tasting liquorish THC, etc, etc). I know a guy personally who made over $10k growing weed in his moms backyard (she knew what it was and was in on it so to speak). The effort he put in was ridiculous. I work 10 hour days in scorching heat doing construction and it takes me months to make that much money. I merely do not believe the reward is worth the risk. Expect that $10k crop to be worth $500 at best if it gets legalized.

[A HERETIC I AM]

93. And what exactly are the limitations on private tobacco growing?

It appears through a quick search that it is legal to grow it for your own use. Same with making your own beer or wine.

So?

You want the quality of outdoor grown pot to go down? Legalize Industrial Hemp. You want high quality pot? Grow it inside, like most of the best stuff is these days.

BTW< I wasn't advocating for individuals to sell what they grow, but pot is a PLANT and it shouldn't be illegal to grow a plant and it sure as hell shouldn't be illegal to sell what you grow, any more than it is illegal to sell tomatoes you grow in your own garden.


"Sorry, but that's how it works"

[joshcryer]

97. Hmm, looks like tobacco personal use is indeed unlimited, I stand corrected.

I agree with you, though. It's illegal to sell home brew without a license (see: being taxed) and it is illegal to sell tobacco products without a license (see: being taxed). Pot would fall in the same category.

And the big manufacturers will make THC laced joints that people can buy by the pack (the hemp texture / burn / taste will be the same, it'll just be laced with tonnes of synthetic THC). It'll be extremely potent, probably have a THC content label on it like you have with alcohol.

People will be smoking that industrial hemp.

[A HERETIC I AM]

101. The point I was trying to make re: Hemp had to do with cross-pollinization...

in that if Hemp were legalized, the good ol' bees and other critters would do the job of rendering outdoor grown pot less potent because they would cross pollinate with the Hemp plants.

Sorry I was so cryptic.

[ohheckyeah]

61. Why regulate it for purity and strength?

If it's stronger people smoke less.

And why tax it? Why not let me grow my own?

[Capitalocracy]

64. I'd say tax sales of it, within bounds of reason

But that shouldn't preclude your growing your own

[joshcryer]

91. You can grow your own tobacco, enough for one person to get cancer on, even.

It's perfectly legal. You can also make your own beer, perfectly legally. There are issues with grain alcohol though, it varies widely by state to state (and homebrewing isn't completely legal state by state, but we're talking federally here, since the problem with marijuana is the federal illegality).

[Capitalocracy]

92. Well, grain alcohol's a little more complicated

There we're getting into you can blow yourself and those around you into pieces territory. But you should be able to grow your own marijuana... it's about as dangerous as growing tomatoes

[joshcryer]

89. I agree, some of the foulest smoke is from skukweed. Ugh.

I'd prefer cigarette smoke to that shit.

[pnwmom]

5. How do we measure a DUI for marijuana? Doesn't it persist longer

in the blood than alcohol?

[AngryAmish]

8. Much longer.

I assume a blood test (for presence) and a physical test that shows impairment - hopefully videoed.

[tekisui]

9. We can't and we don't need to.

Field sobriety test should be enough.

[pnwmom]

13. And what about the people who couldn't pass a field sobriety test cold sober?

Which could include a good fraction of those using medical marijuana.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. they should not be driving.

Although, again, there is no evidence that stoned people have more accidents than unstoned people. Pot use is not a significant factor in automobile accidents. You keep implying that it is.

[pnwmom]

71. Not true. Sobriety tests don't measure driving ability.

There are people, for example, with balance issues who are perfectly fine drivers but can't stand on one foot without tipping over.

[backscatter712]

30. Certain THC compounds have a short half-life, can be used as an indication of intoxication.

It's a different test than the piss-tests given by employers.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. we don't. Impaired is impaired.

If your driving is not impaired you are not impaired and there is no need for a test of anything. If your driving is impaired then a field sobriety test for impairment is sufficient.

You are VERY CONCERNED about the lack of the equivalent alcohol DUI test for marijuana. There is, as you know since this issue has been discussed by you here before, no evidence at all of any serious issue with respect to marijuana use and motor vehicle operation. It is not a significant factor in accidents. And yet you keep bringing it up, over and over and over again, as if it is. How about we stop doing real measurable and serious damage to society and to hundreds of thousand of human beings every year with our insane war on drugs by legalizing marijuana, and then if it turns out that there is a problem with driving under the influence of marijuana, despite the current lack of evidence for this problem, we deal with that surprising development then?

[TK421]

72. don't even wait for that! It impairs your speech, your thought patterns, your mood

those things, in turn will affect your driving skills...no matter how many people on here say how harmless smoking a joint before driving is, I will call absolute bullshit on it.

If you can't think clearly, and your reflexes are slowed ( both common symptoms of pot smoking ) then you should not be behind the wheel of two tons of ( potential ) death

I am so very sick and fucking tired of the attempted justification by some here for this event to even occur

[pnwmom]

73. A person suspected of driving while intoxicated can skip the sobriety tests

and just have a Breathalyzer or a blood test. What alternative would there be for a person who smoked marijuana? Field sobriety tests are notoriously subjective and inaccurate; and there are many medical conditions which don't impair driving ability but could cause difficulty in the sobriety test.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. first - there is no documented evidence of a problem

so until you can provide evidence that driving under the influence of marijuana is a significant factor in automobile accidents, your concern is nonsense.

[pnwmom]

104. You must never have been a sober person observing

people who are high. Lots of drinkers think they are more in control of their driving than they really are; same goes for people who are high on other drugs.

In order to do the studies you call for, researchers would have had to be giving an illegal substance to drivers and then studying their driving skills -- obviously, that hasn't been happening.

[JonLP24]

107. It has happened in other countries

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1068625.stm
Key part:"New Scientist magazine reports that the TRL team recruited 15 volunteers to complete tests on a sophisticated driving simulator while under the influence of low or high doses of cannabis.

The volunteers either smoked ready-rolled cannabis joints or rolled their own with resin supplied under government license."

I observed people on different substances and different times. Someone who is drunk is probably the easiest to spot. People who are drinking speak progressively louder as they get more alcohol in the system. OTOH, I knew this one guy who is highly functional while drunk, not saying he was OK to drive but you just couldn't tell when he was drunk. He drank all day everyday, enough to where I'm stumbling and he is just fine. He also would drink 1 or 2 beers before work. He was a serious addict, he said he needed to for the "shakes"

[jmowreader]

62. No. It does not. At least, not in a way that matters.

The chemical that persists in the blood (well, the fat) the longest isn't psychoactive. The two psychoactive chemicals (THC and its first-order metabolite) don't stay with you very long.

[tekisui]

6. The laws I would like to see:

Prevention of employers from requiring drug tests as a condition for employment.

Some regulation on growing so that harmful additives and chemicals are not allowed to enter the supply.

An age limit on purchase.

As far as DUI's go, a field sobriety test is sufficient. If one can operate vehicles after smoking, they should be allowed to do so. It is up to the individual to know their ability.

[dmallind]

14. Nobody EVER passes a field sobriety test

It does not matter if you can sing the alphabet backwards while hopping on one foot in a perfectly straight line, touching your nose with pinpoint precision. They are not designed to demonstrate sobriety - they are there as an excuse for the officer to get you out of the car so he can "smell alcohol/marijuana" as (sort-of) probable cause.

[nonperson]

22. BINGO!

They use alcohol, drugs, smells, sights, real or imagined, anything as an excuse to violate your rights.

Where is the probable cause for these stops? I'll tell you where. In the mind of the cop whose job it is to fuck with you whether or not you're doing anything that deserves being fucked with.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. model as combo of alcohol & cigs

[Canuckistanian]

10. Every member of Congress should be required to smoke one before taking office

And also before taking any vote on war.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Regulated similar to alcohol.

But impairment needs to be quantified. The burden of proof is on the law to show that a driver was impaired by it. Zero tolerance is bullshit.

[dmallind]

15. Same for alcohol? If not why not? nt

[pnwmom]

17. With alcohol, there are specific blood limits that denote impairment.

How would that work with marijuana?

[nonperson]

23. I've read that the accepted limit in states with medicinal marijuana laws

Is driving no less than three hours after use. Sounds pretty OK to me considering there are millions of drivers behind the wheel every day on all manner of prescription drugs, alcohol, cell phone texting, etc.

You'll never nerf the world but why is it some substances are banned while others are OK?

[dmallind]

24. only in law, not in fact.

There are drivers who are weaving all over creation at .04 and those who are capable of precise high speed maneuvers at 0.12. Just because an arbitrary, pressure-group-driven BAC number has been codified does NOT mean we can truly measure impairment.

[pnwmom]

70. Yes, there are outliers, but the current alcohol limits do a pretty good job

with the vast amount of drivers in the middle. What can we do comparable to that with marijuana?

[backscatter712]

29. There are blood tests for specific THC compounds with short half-lives.

They're more of a hassle than an alcohol breathalyzer test, because they're blood tests, not breath, sweat or saliva tests, but they do exist.

[RainDog]

77. I'm glad to know they've moved forward on this

here's some info for those asking about this issue -

THC is metabolized shortly after use - it then becomes "HO-THC" (also psychoactive) which breaks down, somewhat quickly, to COOH-THC - which is a non-psychoactive metabolite. The COOH-THC is what is stored in the body and excreted over time - of the known cannabinoids.

depending upon the level of use, the first two may remain in the body longer for some than for others, but after a long time - it's the non-psychoactive metabolite that would be in someone's system.

The half-life of THC and HO-THC is 30 hours in studies test subjects who received TCH intravenously and 23 hours for oral use - these figures have been studied a lot and it seems this is considered standard.

Research has also shown that test results that indicate the amt. of COOH-THC - the non-psychoactive metabolite measured in tests for the presence of cannabinoids, tend to overestimate the actual amt. of COOH-THC in test subjects - as much as 8 times higher than is actually present when subjects were also tested by more sensitive measures (gas chromatography) rather than the one (a urine test) used to determine the presence of COOH-THC in standard drug tests.

iow, not only is a urine test no indication of intoxication, it's also not a very reliable indication of the amt of THC consumed at some earlier time.

(I got this info is from various papers in peer-reviewed journals that have looked at the way THC is metabolized...they're available online)

obviously, the first way to deal with DUI is performance-based observation. if someone does not demonstrate impairment, there is no reason to test them for the same.

the effect of cannabis is felt within minutes after smoking and within an hour after ingesting. With smoking, on avg., someone remains high for a couple of hours but after an initial peak of 15 to 30 minutes, the alteration of consciousness (sense of time, visual acuity for the everyday, etc) slowly diminishes. Each time someone smokes, the initial effect and diminishing over time begins again. Because of improvements in hybrid strains, a bit of cannabis the size of an eraser on the end of a pencil is more than sufficient for someone to get high- I guess maybe people who wake and bake and bake and bake may not react as strongly as someone who does not. btw, I'm only reporting what others have said and, maybe, this time I had a migraine after not being around the stuff for years and years...

when someone consumes food with cannabis added, the effect occurs over a longer period of time - the effect is somewhat different than with smoking b/c the cannabis goes through the liver and is converted to HO-THC - so there is never the initial delta-9 THC effects (first experienced when cannabis is smoked) that eventually becomes the HO-THC effect as the THC breaks down. The peak effect from this mode is 2 to 4 hours after use.

So, again, what's important is if someone demonstrates impairment. If someone has ever gotten drunk from alcohol but has never smoked cannabis - there is no comparison between the two - the effects are totally different. Alcohol effects the entire body while cannabis... this isn't exactly right but as close as I can get.. cannabis is more of a cerebral experience - it heightens rather than diminishes focus and bodily sensations... yet, even as I type that - experiences vary from person to person and from hybrid to hybrid - so there are surely other experiences - but for a general description, that one seems fairly apt to me. No one slurs speech from cannabis. No one feels like they cannot control their motor functions - well, maybe I don't know enough cannabis smokers to say, but you have to have fine motor control to play a musical instrument, for instance.

[catabryna]

18. Pretty much the same as alcohol...

You are allowed to grow your own for personal use, just as you may brew your own beer or what-have-you.

However, until they find a good test for actual marijuana intoxication (as opposed to marijuana use), there's room for error when it comes to issuing a traffic citation. My guess, however, is that those citations are usually "weeded" out. ;)

[Bennyboy]

19. s soon as there is a study done, buy independent researchers

that shosw that driving under the influence of cannabis is dangerous to a level beyond talking on a cell phone then I will go for that. Until then (knowing one doesn't exist and knowing that all of the studies done so far (all in other countries) have shown quite the opposite including one that says cannabis is beneficial for males age 16-25 to drive while under the influence of cannabis)

Studies also show that it is not dangerous in the work place either due to more attention to detail, and dangerous situations and awareness..

Pot is NOT ALCOHOL and to say that they are equal is WRONG.

[robdogbucky]

37. Bingo, Bennyboy

(I just wanted an excuse to type the phrase.)

No, all seriousness aside, why is the burden on users to demonstrate some kind of impairment? It is only the uninformed that are coming up with this predictable drivel about comparing it to alcohol. It is not comparable, apples and oranges, no way, no how, no CAMP, no DEA jihad on cannabis, no more stupidity.

We always get these concern-troll mentality opinions when this comes up. Seems always from people that never did use(but always want to be politically correct and add that they do not object to others' using) or people that contend they used to use when they were young but don't anymore for (insert anectode about forgetting to turn off the stove once, etc.)

Why not consider the possibility that cannabis does not impair driving skills at all? We only have a small sampling of testing done so far (imagine that Concerntrollers?) and yet it points in the direction of no measurable impairment. These folks have never used and have never used and driven. The evidence for other drugs impairing driving ability and motor skills, but tell me what impairment of motor skills allowed Michael Phelps to win a record number of Olympic Gold Medals or Tim Lincecum to win two Cy Young awards, both while being inveterate potheads?



Marijuana Smoking Associated With Minimal Changes In Driving Performance, Study Finds
FRIDAY, 28 MAY 2010 13:00 PRESS RELEASE AUTOMOTIVE


Hartford, CT—(ENEWSPF)—May 28, 2010 Subjects exhibit virtually identical psychomotor skills on a battery of driving simulator tests prior to and shortly after smoking marijuana, according to clinical trial data published in the March issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. Investigators from Hartford Hospital in Connecticut and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine assessed the simulated driving performance of 85 subjects in a double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Volunteers responded to various simulated events associated with automobile crash risk — such as avoiding a driver who was entering an intersection illegally, deciding to stop or go through a changing traffic light, responding to the presence of emergency vehicles, avoiding colliding with a dog who entered into traffic, and maintaining safe driving during a secondary (in-the-car) auditory distraction. Subjects performed the tests sober and then again 30 minutes after smoking a single marijuana cigarette containing either 2.9 percent THC or zero THC (placebo).

Investigators reported that volunteers performed virtually the same after smoking cannabis as they did sober and/or after consuming a placebo. "No differences were found during the baseline driving segment (and the) collision avoidance scenarios," authors reported.

Investigators did note, "Participants receiving active marijuana decreased their speed more so than those receiving placebo cigarette during (the) distracted section of the drive." Authors hypothesized that subjects' reduction in speed on this task suggested that they may have been compensating for perceived impairment. "o other changes in driving performance were found," researchers concluded. A 2008 driving simulator study published in the scientific journal Accident, Analysis and Prevention also reported that drivers administered cannabis are likely to decrease their driving speed. "Average speed was the most sensitive driving performance variable affected by both THC and alcohol but with an opposite effect," investigators reported. "Smoking THC cigarettes caused drivers to drive slower in a dose-dependent manner, while alcohol caused drivers to drive significantly faster than in 'control' conditions.'"

Previous reviews assessing the crash culpability risk of drivers under the influence of cannabis have reported a positive association between recent marijuana exposure (as typically measured by the presence of active THC in the driver's blood) and a gradually increased, dose-dependent risk of vehicle accident. However, these studies have consistently found that this elevated risk is below the risk presented by drivers who have consumed legal quantities of alcohol. By contrast, studies have also reported that drivers engaged in the simultaneous use of both cannabis and alcohol can increase their risk of accident compared to the consumption of either substance alone.

NORML's white paper assessing the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills, "Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review," is available online at: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459.
Source: norml.org

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php/latest-news/automotive/16666-marijuana-smoking-associated-with-minimal-changes-in-driving-performance-study-finds-



You're just gonna have to get out there and drive under the influence of cannabis(like about 30% of the drivers you see every time you go out) and see for yourself. 50 years of direct experience is enough evidence for me.

Alcohol kills, tobacco kills, excessive speeding kills.

Cannabis enhances, improves, enlightens, calms.

Simple choices really.

It is a political and economic prohibition of common sense is all.

Legalize, research, test, use, educate, inform.


Peace





Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Bennyboy]

46. Excellent post...NT

[Warren Stupidity]

41. +1

[robdogbucky]

45. Didn't anyone think to look for the mountain of evidence

That would be obvious if there were any epidemic of cannabis-impaired driver-caused accidents and/or deaths?

Now compare that with the mountain of evidence about alcohol related accidents and/or deaths due to driving drunk.




Or the number of Emergency Room deaths due to cannabis intake?

Now compare that with the mountain of evidence about prescription drug overdose deaths, and/or deaths directly attributed to alcohol-caused diseases.



Now compare what is legal (alcohol) and the irreparable harm it causes day in, day out, year after year to how many lives are ruined because of the irrational and unjust (but no doubt profitable for many) cannabis prohibition.



War is an emergency, temporary no fly zone. Tax breaks create jobs. You can be gay and be in the military just don't talk about it. Religious congregations are told how to vote on civil matters in their tax-free churches on Sundays.



This is truly an insane society.





Jsut my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Warren Stupidity]

78. It is irrational.

No matter how many times it is pointed out that there is no evidence for this VAST CONCERN, the worriers continue on blithely, continuing to argue with the assumption that there must be a problem. It is the Drug Warrior mentality.

[meow mix]

25. personally none. except that conservatives should be forced to smoke it at the "re-education camps"

after the final stages of Project-X of course..
:evilgrin:

[damntexdem]

26. Ban tobacco companies from involvement with marijuana.

Subsidize the development of hemp-based industries, which have been unfairly excluded from the market for nearly 3/4 of a century.

[NashVegas]

56. Better - Ban All Publicly Traded Companies

[joshcryer]

100. Hemp-industries would be subsidized by the farm subsidies anyway. One conglomerate will always...

...wind up on top. It probably would be a chemical industry anyway. They'd produce synthetic THC in the lab by the gallon and lace industrial hemp with it for those who want to smoke joints. For those who want to smoke with other implements (such as vaporizors) they'd produce THC gels.

Hemp is far more valuable as an industrial product than it is as a thing to get high on, which is why I don't think they'll waste the crop on growing for people to get high on.

[backscatter712]

27. Not too different from alcohol regulation.

Nobody under 18 or 21 (except for documented medical reasons, with doctor's prescription), no DUI, that sort of thing.

[NYC Liberal]

31. Minimum age for purchase (18-19), current DUI laws, licensing for sale,

FDA regulation of content (to prevent any unknown, dangerous ingredients from being added)

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Same as wine and beer..

Zoning regs for retail outlets and cafes. Age restrictions on purchase. No restrictions on home production/use other than a limit on the amount that one can grow at home before one is in the business rather than just using it (i.e same as wine and beer.)

[Taverner]

40. The two-joint coffee break codified into law

We're almost there, Mister Carlin!!!

[izquierdista]

42. Cannot be sold by a corporation for profit

No advertising, no sales to minors, sales only through licensed non-profit groups.

[RebelOne]

43. Same as cigarettes and alcohol. Show ID to prove legal age. n/t

[woo me with science]

49. Must have graphic pictures on the packs, too.

This product will give you the munchies, Man.

[Honeycombe8]

80. Ditto. Same as ciggies & booze. nt

[randr]

44. Same laws that control the use of oregano

[jmowreader]

66. That's a help...

since there are people out there who should be forever barred from using oregano.

[randr]

81. I certainly hope those people know who they are and do not need the government to identify them

[JonLP24]

48. First and foremost

Drop and clear cannabis related offenses. I know this probably wouldn't happen but also pay back the fines those caught with it paid. I can live with just clearing that up though.

[LeftishBrit]

51. Penalties for impaired driving as you say...

Age restrictions, as for tobacco and alcohol.

Same bans on smoking in an enclosed public building as for tobacco (other people don't necessarily want to get high on one person's smoke).

Quality controls on the product; one of the problems with marijuana being illegal is not knowing what might be in it.

[ohheckyeah]

59. It's on the consumer to buy from a reliable

source. The government can't assure quality in our food I don't want it messing with pot.....next thing we know they will be allowing the addition of rat feces to pot.

[Initech]

53. That it can't be a publicly traded commodity so speculators won't jack the prices.

[War Horse]

55. Good question

Age limit, for one. 18?

I'd like to see as few regs as possible for cultivation (as in "grow your own...").

As for DUI, I honestly don't know. I see pitfalls whichever way we go, many have been pointed out in this thread already.

Driving while intoxicated is a bad idea no matter how you look at it. Sure, I'd much rather have drivers under the influence of cannabis than alcohol, but that doesn't mean that high drivers make safe drivers...

[KG]

58. none. MJ needs to be 'decriminalized'. no laws pertaining to it.

[Aerows]

63. Marijuana should be restricted to those 18 and older

and the drinking age should be lowered back down to 18, too. If you are old enough to vote for the country's future, and enlist in the military and die for your country, you are old enough to imbibe.

[jmowreader]

65. One you guys haven't listed yet

Prohibit employers from terminating people simply for being marijuana users if they would not similarly terminate people simply for being alcohol users.

I would write a rule for CDL holders that they can't use marijuana less than 24 hours before starting work, which would limit them to using it on 34-hour breaks and home time, and that they can't use marijuana within "reasonable proximity" of their trucks--"reasonable proximity" meaning in truck stop parking areas, rest areas and other places where someone could reasonably be expected to have to move the truck without warning, not in your house if the truck is in the driveway.

[Shagbark Hickory]

67. IT already is legalized compared to just about everywhere else on planet earth.

Possession of MJ in Vietnam can get you a 45 year prison sentence.

[marlakay]

68. same as booze as far as age and driving

18 if your in the military overseas. I think if your life is up for grabs you deserve a drink on time off!

They will have to come up with a test for smoking pot and driving. It's hard to tell now because it stays in your system so long.

[JonLP24]

75. You mean

in places like Iraq? If so, there is no drinking allowed by military in Iraq/Kuwait (never been to Afghanistan so I don't know) and a major reason for that is because alcohol is illegal in those countries. Same reason they don't allow soldiers have pornography.

[eridani]

74. The same laws that apply to alcohol n/t

[Taitertots]

82. 18+, No baked driving (already illegal), and no regressive taxation schemes

No arbitrary restrictions like mail order only...

[GoneOffShore]

88. +1

[The Midway Rebel]

83. Let me grow my own.

Nothing like fresh cut and properly cured homegrown.

[guitar man]

94. Exactly

If we can brew our own beer no reason we shouldn't be able to grow our own smoke :smoke:

[timtom]

84. None!

It's a flipping weed!

And mushrooms should be uncontrolled, as well.

Let's tax corporations and the incredibly wealthy instead!

[chrisa]

96. No restrictions? So companies should be able to throw sawdust in there?

I know you're making a blanket statement, but just making a point.

If weed were purely unregulated, companies would throw dangerous chemicals in there that could kill. There needs to be some kind of regulation to have a certain amount of safety.

[timtom]

111. Grow your own.

We don't need corporations co-opting our natural resources anymore than they already have.

We had no trouble in the 60's and 70's with it not being regulated (other than being illegal).

I always wondered about the whiskey rebellion. Well, not really wondered, but I was interested in that whole affair.

[chrisa]

95. No smoking and driving, product safety measures, no buyers under age of 18

but at the same time fighting against gangs that sell it illegally. Gangs will still try to sell pot illegally at a lower price than legal sellers, but those are the real criminals, not the smokers.

I think coffee houses would be fine, and even selling it in convenience stores. However, people shouldn't be able to walk around in public stoned out of their minds, just like how you can't be falling-on-the-floor drunk and walk around in public.

Also, smoking pot and driving should have serious consequences just like drinking and driving does.



(I don't smoke pot and never have)

[sofa king]

98. Strict regulation under improved environmental standards, and training opportunities.

I would insist that any land used for marijuana cultivation would have to comply with very strict agrarian and environmental regulations, with constant and careful inspection and observation by observers paid for by the taxes on the reefer. The objective would be to improve the quality of the soil being used while controlling all runoff and other hazards, and thereby raising the quality of the surrounding environment while paying for itself.

In this way, marijuana land could be used for controlled tests to see how our agrarian system as a whole can be improved and cleaned up. It will further enable the rest of the agricultural community to gather free ideas about how to improve their own conditions and products.

Along with the infrastructure of regulatory observers, taxes from dope should also fund educational opportunities for dope-growers. They're too high to realize it, but many growers are already pursuing their own natural inclination to be biologists, horticulturalists, arcologists, farmers and other types of agricultural scientists. Providing them with the opportunity to pursue inexpensive formal education in those fields from tax money generated by their own product will vastly benefit our nation, because some of them will inevitably broaden their fields of study so that they're not only the best dope-growers, but the best growers of all.

In this way, marijuana growers not only go legit, they will almost certainly lead the way through the difficult 21st Century to come, where food production will have to vastly improve while environmental conditions quickly decline. We're going to need them for a lot more than recreation, so we'd better damned well recognize their talents now.

[musiclawyer]

99. You all have missed the biggest issue

Safety sensitive Employers. They demand a "test" for impairment. Until we make it easy for them we will have problems with any initiative

[DirkGently]

108. Nothing different about pot compared to a million other chemicals people use legally.

[Hotler]

102. Be allowed to grow your own. 2-5 plants max. Enough to weed out the males. eom.

[DirkGently]

103. Keep the corporations out of it. Limit production facility size and interstate sales.

Intoxication is a red herring. Already illegal, and we're not inundated with pot-caused traffic and industrial accidents. Present laws will suffice.

[krabigirl]

109. None. nt

[roody]

112. +1

[JVS]

113. None.

Just wait and see if there comes to be a need for any laws and then act.

[MouseFitzgerald]

115. Treat it exactly like tobacco

It definitely shouldn't be illegal to be high while driving. Unless you want to make it illegal to drive after smoking tobacco there is no reason why marijuana should be treated any differently than tobacco.

[Rosa Menti]

117. Lived in A'dam

for more than a decade and a half. NEVER heard, read, witnessed a single story or account about anyone stopped or arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana.I have several Amsterdam police agents as friends. Amsterdam coffeeshops are innocuous, cause virtually no disturbances for the neighbors (a recent survey in the city indicated the same level or lower of disturbance when compared to bars and cafes/article June 25, 2001, Het Parool )and help regulate drug use for the under 16 crowd. The Dutch model works INCREDIBLY WELL. US media doesn't dare show the success of the "gedoogbeleid". Marijuana use is bad for the security state.

[Incitatus]

121. "I would not want to live next door to a Amsterdam coffeehouse "

That would be awesome.

[peopleb4money]

122. I say just make it illegal to sell it but legal to grow it. and gift it.

I don't want Monsanto and Phillip-Morris getting their filthy hands on this beautiful plant.