Vote for Pot? Can't Decide

[thefed]

vote yes. it's inevitable. don't fight it lol. i dont think it'll pass this time around tho...


if you can drink a beer and drive away from a bar, you should be able to the same with pot. enforcing DWI will be tougher though, as it stays in the system so long.

taxing it will help oyur shortfall in CA

it will eliminate a lot of black market situations. did you know that in amsterdam, where pot is legal, all OTHER heavier drug ovwerdoses are lower than any other country (source: drugs inc, nat geo special 2 day ago) This is because it is sold ina controlled environment....not pot in the left hand and heroin in the right (an extreme example...but I know first had that dealing with pot dealers opens the doors to EVERYTHING else...)

The $$ spent trying to stop its importation from canada an mexico will diminish, as it wont be 'as' profitible to do those things (this is a bit longer term...once it is legalized everywhere...for now, it wont make a diff)

the $$ wasted on jailing pot offenders can go to a good cause.

the list goes on

vote yes

 

[donheff]

Vote yes. Ha is right, the war on drugs is disastrous for America.

 

[Moemg]

I'd not only vote for it . I'd open one of these restaurants in the area .

 

[haha]

I see a big problem with taxing it. The federal government says it is illegal, but is willing to take a don't ask don't tell stance with regard to the medical marijuana.

But I can't see the feds ignoring California condoning, regulating and taxing it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I also can't see a big company willing to invest several hundred K to plant and harvest big fields of dope if they know that the feds could shut them down at any moment.

They made change their tune if federal taxpayers get tired of funding out of control California budget shortfalls. I wouldn't care if California closed their deficit by setting up state run brothels, just keep it from costing me anything.

Ha

 

[BTravlin]

If I had the opportunity I would definitely vote yes, and not because I want to use it, I don't.

Prohibition is wrecking our society, wrecking America, contributing to a vast overgrowth of police power, involving the armed forces in activities far removed from war waging (which may be part of the reason they are no good at that anymore).

As far as neighborhood grow houses, dealing and criminality, it would stop most of it dead. What do you care if your neighbor has a few plants and a grow light? Do you care if he makes beer or wine?

For that matter, what business of any of us is it if someone else wants to purchase and use marijuana?

It's more nanny state becomes police state.

Ha

Agreed. Prohibition doesn't work, never has and never will. Why expend a huge amount of our scarce resources trying to protect people from themselves? I'd rather use those resources to protect us all from others who want to hurt us.

Prohibition creates a huge black market controlled by criminals who use their huge profits to corrupt numerous aspects of society to get their drugs to market.

And marijuana is only a gateway drug because it's illegal and users have to go to criminals to get it. While the user is there the dealer offers up all the other drugs they traffic in.

Along this same line of reasoning I'd legalize all drugs. This would truly kill the cartels or at the very least turn them into legitimate tax paying global megacorps.

Legalize it all, regulate and tax it. Use some portion of the tax revenues to pay for treatment programs for those who get in over their heads. Cheaper and more humane in the long run than incarcerating them and turning them into lifelong criminals.

We might just save Mexico, a few South American countries and ourselves in the process.

 

[harley]

I see a big problem with taxing it. The federal government says it is illegal, but is willing to take a don't ask don't tell stance with regard to the medical marijuana.

But I can't see the feds ignoring California condoning, regulating and taxing it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I also can't see a big company willing to invest several hundred K to plant and harvest big fields of dope if they know that the feds could shut them down at any moment.

The feds stance on this is just a bluff. They don't have the manpower to enforce federal marijuana laws in CA. That's an estimated 3 million illegal users, not counting the medical users. Where are all these DEA agents going to come from? For that matter, Eric Holder's announcement wasn't a strong statement against legalization, it was a response to the letter sent out by 9 previous DEA heads criticizing him for his lack of response. The Obama administration has much bigger things to worry about.

And this is just the next big step in the eventual end of the incredibly costly (in dollars and societal damage) prohibition. This is how it happens, chipping away until it stops being worth it to continue.

The other only other legitimate concern I can see, DUI, already has methods to deal with the problem. Nothing will change there.

And as far as the prop being poorly written regarding local control of regulations, I seem to remember being in CA and not being able to buy liquor on Sunday on one side of the street, but being able to on the other side (city/county boundry). I know here in VA, beer and wine sales are totally locally controlled. And in MD, liquor is too. I don't see a problem here.

So in case you haven't guessed, yes.

edit: here are a few links that might help.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/20/the-drug-czars-lack-of-vigor-a

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/06/pot-prohibitionist-prevaricati

 

[veremchuka]

the war on drugs is a joke. we've waged it for what 30, 40 years, how's it working out? prisons are full of people for possession and dangerous thugs walk the street cuz there's no room for them.

there are a hundred reasons to not legalize it and another hundred to legalize it. taxing it would create a lot of revenue but would legalization put smugglers and dealers out of business? i say no because whatever the legal price is the bad guys will under cut it. it costs very little to produce literally tons of pot so they have a lot of room to drop their price lower than the legal price.

as far as a gateway drug this is bs, total BS. everyone that is a (name your addiction) addict started with pot but they also drank milk and ate bread and watched tv didn't they? if you have an addictive personality then you'll be an addict. i don't care whether you ever smoked pot or not, you'll get hooked on drugs or booze because you have the desire to use them. it is not pot it's the person.

i used to smoke large amounts of pot for decades and i just quit when i realized it was not making my life better but worse. i never used hard drugs, i don't have an addictive personality. i used to stop smoking cigarettes when the mood hit me after smoking for years - now talk to people that are cig smokers and see how many can do that! maybe 1/1000 th of 1%?

pot is much less dangerous than booze. virtually everyone that drinks is violent and gets into fights or exhibits anti social behavior. i never saw anyone act that way when high on pot and i was with a lot of drinkers and pot smokers over the years. another thing, i have driven literally tens of thousands of miles maybe 100's of thousands of miles high on pot and i never had an accident or got a ticket for any driving infraction ever tho i did tend to drive a bit slow!

i could count on 1 hand the number of times i have smoked pot in the past 5 years and when i did i was uncomfortable. i just don't miss it. now if it was legal i would definitely use it because i wouldn't have to fear being arrested and i'd like to try various types to see what is the best. but i suspect i'd stop soon because today i don't like feeling high.

now hashish was a totally different high than pot, vastly different like night and day. i'd love to have some of that! it wasn't all that easy to find 40 years ago and it's been literally 35+ years since i've smoked that. it was very apparent that hashish was a very mellow mind expanding peaceful high whereas pot was all body rushes and confusion in your thinking. i saw the show on drugs a few weeks ago and they said there are 2 types of cannabis - sativa and indicata and one is the typical pot high but the other is more like hashish.

 

[harley]

From amsterdammarijuanaseedbank.com:

The Sativa High :
The sativa high is often characterized as uplifting and energetic . The effects of a sativa marijuana are mostly cerebral. They give a feeling of optimism and well - being, as well as providing a good measure of pain relief for certain symptoms. A few pure sativas are also very high in THC content. They are known to have a quite spacey, or hallucinogenic, effect. Sativas are a good choice for daytime smoking.


The Indica High :
The indica highs are most often described as a pleasant body buzz. Indicas are great for relaxation, stress relief, and for an overall sense of calm and serenity. Marijuana indicas are also very effective for overall body pain relief, and often used in the treatment of insomnia. They are the late - evening choice of many smokers as an all - night sleep aid. A few pure indica strains are very potent in THC, and will cause the "couchlock" effect, enabling the smoker to simply sit still and enjoy the experience of the smoke.

 

[harley]

Also, don't forget Arizona is about to become the 15th state to allow medical marijuana. Or maybe the 16th, since South Dakota is also voting on it this time. That would be nearly 1/3 of the country that allows MM. The enforcement complications are going to get so far out of hand that there will be no real way to continue.

chip, chip, chip...

 

[lets-retire]

Probably an exaggeration to say someone who tests positive is still impaired. After all, depending on the circumstances, and the person, and the type of test, one could still be stoned for weeks...

Must've been some good chit...

Going off the DUI laws it really doesn't matter the effects of alcohol once it hits a certain level, the presumption is the person is intoxicated typically around .08 or .10. Right now any level of THC in the body while driving is enough to get a conviction. Physiologically the body still "suffers" the effects of the THC as long as the person tests positive, because the body is still metabolizing the THC, IIRC. I might be off on this a bit it has been a long time since I studied it. The problem becomes where to draw the line to say at XX level the person is presumed to be to impaired to drive.

 

[brewer12345]

Frankly, if offered the opportunity to vote on it in one of the ost over regulated states in the country, I would vote to legalize marijuana for everyone and even be willing to forgo any tax revenues. Why? Anyone who really wants this stuff (or anything else) can get it on their urban street corner of choice and the societal effects of attempted enforcement are so deleterious that I would happily be done with the drug wars. It ain't my drug of choice and I am not much of a gardener, so I am unlikely to be a consumer and would face being fired if I did so. Legalize it and stop trying to enforce stoopid prohibition efforts.

 

[harley]

Physiologically the body still "suffers" the effects of the THC as long as the person tests positive, because the body is still metabolizing the THC, IIRC. I might be off on this a bit it has been a long time since I studied it. The problem becomes where to draw the line to say at XX level the person is presumed to be to impaired to drive.

I don't think this is accurate at all. I agree that the law says a person is still impaired if they test positive 30 days after they smoked up, but the law says a lot of stupid things. I suspect after prohibition ends they will come up with more reasonable laws based on the effects of smoking and driving. And if someone wants it, someone else will come up with a more meaningful test.

From a study by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration in 1993 (my emphasis) - Erowid Cannabis Vault : Cannabis (Marijuana) & Driving Impairment Executive Summary

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

 

[HFWR]

From extensive, ahem, laboratory testing, I would say that within a few hours of ingesting marijuana, you are done being stoned.

Unless, of course...

 

[lets-retire]

I had to go back and research it again, because this topic got me thinking. The body does "suffer" the effects of the marijuana if the person is still testing positive. After the THC leaves the brain, it is transported in the blood for several days, returning to the brain but with a much lowered effect (typically manifesting in anti-motivational syndrome and difficulty in learning) when compared to the initial intoxication. The anti-motivational syndrome and difficulty learning both improve after extended periods without THC, indicating they are a direct result of the THC on the brain rather than a change in brain activity. The amount of time the THC is initially effecting the brain is dependent on the dose and method of ingestion and can be rather brief (again depending on method of ingestion and dose). If a person gets stoned only on Friday nights after work they will most likely not have any effects on Monday as most of the THC will have gone through their system. Then again if the person is getting stoned everyday after work, the body can not eliminate the THC out of their system faster than it is taken in so the amount of THC circulating through their system is going to increase over time and they will suffer poor performance at work from the lack of motivation and difficulty learning new processes.

The big problem becomes how to determine how intoxicated a person using marijuana actually is at a certain time. Unlike alcohol, THC and it's metabolites can remain in the body much longer and after the brain has ceased feeling the initial effects, so a scientific correlation between how much is discovered during a test and how much a person is effected is impossible with current testing methods.

Unlike some of the anecdotal evidence provided on this forum, studies have shown that a person high on THC does have many of the same driving problems a person drunk on alcohol has. Using anecdotal evidence I remember going to bed hammered on alcohol waking up three or four hours later and feeling perfectly fine. That does not mean I am sober. It simply means I remember how drunk I was and in comparison I feel sober. I suspect the same is going on with THC intoxication.

 

[Martha]

Here is a review of the literature on impairment and driving: http://www.ukcia.org/research/DoseRelatedRiskOfCrashes.pdf

It looks like just because you have evidence of marijuana in your blood does not mean that you are impaired, but there is clear impairment with recent use (based on experimental studies). The article did mention the effect Harley mentioned, that some have found users to take greater care when driving, but that greater care does not trump impairment when having to act reflexively.

And, from the review:

Only two culpability studies (Hunter et al., 1998;
Drummer et al., 2003a,b) determined recent cannabis use
by assessing THC in blood. While using identical methods
for establishing culpability of the driver these studies
generally showed that crash culpability for THC positive
cases increased with rising concentrations of THC in blood
(see Table 1). The study by Hunter et al. (also published
in Longo et al., 2000) in 2500 injured drivers failed to establish
a relation between relatively low concentrations of
THC and driver culpability but did find that culpable drivers
had a higher mean THC concentration, a difference that
approached statistical significance (P = 0.057).


So it appears that it is a line drawing issue. Maybe some of us can volunteer for the research.

 

[harley]

I had to go back and research it again, because this topic got me thinking. The body does "suffer" the effects of the marijuana if the person is still testing positive. After the THC leaves the brain, it is transported in the blood for several days, returning to the brain but with a much lowered effect (typically manifesting in anti-motivational syndrome and difficulty in learning) when compared to the initial intoxication. The anti-motivational syndrome and difficulty learning both improve after extended periods without THC, indicating they are a direct result of the THC on the brain rather than a change in brain activity. The amount of time the THC is initially effecting the brain is dependent on the dose and method of ingestion and can be rather brief (again depending on method of ingestion and dose). If a person gets stoned only on Friday nights after work they will most likely not have any effects on Monday as most of the THC will have gone through their system. Then again if the person is getting stoned everyday after work, the body can not eliminate the THC out of their system faster than it is taken in so the amount of THC circulating through their system is going to increase over time and they will suffer poor performance at work from the lack of motivation and difficulty learning new processes.

The big problem becomes how to determine how intoxicated a person using marijuana actually is at a certain time. Unlike alcohol, THC and it's metabolites can remain in the body much longer and after the brain has ceased feeling the initial effects, so a scientific correlation between how much is discovered during a test and how much a person is effected is impossible with current testing methods.

Unlike some of the anecdotal evidence provided on this forum, studies have shown that a person high on THC does have many of the same driving problems a person drunk on alcohol has. Using anecdotal evidence I remember going to bed hammered on alcohol waking up three or four hours later and feeling perfectly fine. That does not mean I am sober. It simply means I remember how drunk I was and in comparison I feel sober. I suspect the same is going on with THC intoxication.

The study I quoted in the post above was not anecdotal evidence. It was one of many (and I'll be glad to list more) scientific studies that show that pot use does not effect driving skills in the negative ways that alcohol use does. It definitely effects it, but nowhere near to the levels that alcohol does, and it results in more careful driving as opposed to more reckless. As a matter of fact, without links and attributions it appears your statement is more anecdotal than mine. Taking a month or more to remove THC residue from the fat cells does not indicate impairment over that time period in any way. It's just that alcohol is water soluble and THC is not. I'm not saying that there might not be some form of mild "hangover" or impairment the next day if you got really small, but for 30 days? C'mon.

And seriously, how many people have you ever known of who were pulled over for driving high? vs. driving drunk? I know studies show a significant number of people who get tested show up positive for THC, but as you say it's because they got high sometime in the last month or so. They aren't getting pulled over for "driving stoned" unless they're reenacting the old Cheech and Chong Up in Smoke routine where the inside of the car is so smoky they can't see.

On a personal and anecdotal level, just the fact that every major politician and newspaper in CA has come out against it would be enough for me to vote for it.

 

[lets-retire]

The study I quoted in the post above was not anecdotal evidence. It was one of many (and I'll be glad to list more) scientific studies that show that pot use does not effect driving skills in the negative ways that alcohol use does. It definitely effects it, but nowhere near to the levels that alcohol does, and it results in more careful driving as opposed to more reckless. As a matter of fact, without links and attributions it appears your statement is more anecdotal than mine. Taking a month or more to remove THC residue from the fat cells does not indicate impairment over that time period in any way. It's just that alcohol is water soluble and THC is not. I'm not saying that there might not be some form of mild "hangover" or impairment the next day if you got really small, but for 30 days? C'mon.

Then my comments about anecdotal evidence do not apply to you. I must say that you need to figure out your position. First you state the THC does not affect a person's ability to drive then you state it does affect their ability to drive but not to the same level as alcohol. It's relative effectiveness at getting someone to lose their ability to drive is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that it does effect a persons ability to to operate machinery and drive. Just because a person has to take more of it, to become as effected as alcohol doesn't matter. What matters is they took that much. If a drug does have that effect then that person must not be allowed to drive while under the influence of the drug or medication. The problem is going to be determining where to draw the intoxicated/sober line. One of the major problems with THC is the government placed it on the "no medical use" list so quickly, that good research was difficult to perform. That might also be the reason for conflicting results of many of the studies.

And seriously, how many people have you ever known of who were pulled over for driving high? vs. driving drunk? I know studies show a significant number of people who get tested show up positive for THC, but as you say it's because they got high sometime in the last month or so. They aren't getting pulled over for "driving stoned" unless they're reenacting the old Cheech and Chong Up in Smoke routine where the inside of the car is so smoky they can't see.

I've personally stopped, arrested, and obtained convictions on several people for THC intoxication. The reason for the traffic stops were normally the same as those for DUI (erratic driving, swerving, failure to stop, etc.) The field sobriety tests are the same, no matter what the person is suspected of be intoxicated by, with one exception. The only change in field sobriety tests is the nystagmus, for some drugs the nystagmus only shows up going vertically and not horizontally. The arrest is made based on the field sobriety tests, not the scientific testing conducted later. The case is won or lost based on the street sobriety tests because the scientific testing can't be beat. The testing is simply support and for the most part is irrelevant. I've seen people arrested and convicted of alcohol DUI, who only blew a .03 (you can blow that high by taking cold medicine). I've also seen people not arrested for DUI who blew .25 (over 3x the legal limit). That person was a functional drunk and was arrested for driving on a suspended license. He was known to the jail staff who administered a portable breath test.

On a personal and anecdotal level, just the fact that every major politician and newspaper in CA has come out against it would be enough for me to vote for it.

I can't dispute that reasoning, but then again I'm for legalization.

 

[HFWR]

Obviously, driving while impaired is a problem, whether one is drunk, stoned, or blabbing on a phone.

 

[harley]

Then my comments about anecdotal evidence do not apply to you. I must say that you need to figure out your position. First you state the THC does not affect a person's ability to drive then you state it does affect their ability to drive but not to the same level as alcohol.

I never said it didn't impair someone's ability to drive. I was responding to your ridiculous statement that having THC in your blood weeks after smoking would continue to impair your driving. And yes, I know you commented later that it didn't, really, but this is a threaded forum so things have to be taken in context.

I've personally stopped, arrested, and obtained convictions on several people for THC intoxication. The reason for the traffic stops were normally the same as those for DUI (erratic driving, swerving, failure to stop, etc.) The field sobriety tests are the same, no matter what the person is suspected of be intoxicated by, with one exception. The only change in field sobriety tests is the nystagmus, for some drugs the nystagmus only shows up going vertically and not horizontally. The arrest is made based on the field sobriety tests, not the scientific testing conducted later. The case is won or lost based on the street sobriety tests because the scientific testing can't be beat. The testing is simply support and for the most part is irrelevant. I've seen people arrested and convicted of alcohol DUI, who only blew a .03 (you can blow that high by taking cold medicine). I've also seen people not arrested for DUI who blew .25 (over 3x the legal limit). That person was a functional drunk and was arrested for driving on a suspended license. He was known to the jail staff who administered a portable breath test.

I didn't realize you were a cop. Seriously, what percentage of people that you pulled over for driving impaired were only high, as opposed to drunk (or both)? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I'm honestly curious. And I know you can't give accurate figures, just your best guess.

I have no problem getting stoned drivers off the road. If they are driving badly enough to get noticed, they deserve it. As HFWR says, booze, bongs, or cell phones. I don't want them driving.

 

[harley]

I can't decide whether to vote for the legalization of pot in California.

For me, the important issue is cutting down on neighborhood grow houses.

On one hand, if cultivation is made legal for commercial growers, the price should drop precipitously and it would no longer be worth it to turn a house into a grow house.

OTOH, the law would allow people to grow it in their house "for personal use."

OTOH, the feds say they will still enforce the national anti-pot laws, making it unlikely that RJ Reynolds will start growing large fields of dope.

What do you think?

So, Al, how are you leaning? I know we've gotten into picking a few nits, but based on the main thrust of discussion (basically the problems that come with prohibition vs. the ones that come with legalization) what do you think now? I can pretty much guarantee that if it passes nothing will change for a year or two, but I would bet that if it stays legal at the very least the grow houses and a lot of the violence will go away.

My main thought on this has always been that prohibition and the drug war have been a huge failure, so let's try legalization for a generation or so and see how it works out in comparison. Isn't that the scientific way to do things?

 

[TromboneAl]

So, Al, how are you leaning?

Based on the input in this thread, I plan to vote to legalize it. My vote will probably make the difference, and cause it to pass.

Another reason to vote for it, is that it would be interesting to see what happens if it passes.

 

[harley]

My work here is done.

 

[FUEGO]

My main thought on this has always been that prohibition and the drug war have been a huge failure, so let's try legalization for a generation or so and see how it works out in comparison. Isn't that the scientific way to do things?

The scientific way is to have California legalize it, and the other 49 states be the control group. Then we see how it works here and there.

I once heard our nation and our federal system of laws described as 50 different jurisdictions making their own laws and as it being a "laboratory of laws" since you could see a multitude of laws or policies and the outcome for each state.

 

[FUEGO]

Based on the input in this thread, I plan to vote to legalize it. My vote will probably make the difference, and cause it to pass.

Another reason to vote for it, is that it would be interesting to see what happens if it passes.

If it passes, next ER Forum Meetup is in NoCal out behind Al's house... BYOP

 

[lets-retire]

I never said it didn't impair someone's ability to drive. I was responding to your ridiculous statement that having THC in your blood weeks after smoking would continue to impair your driving. And yes, I know you commented later that it didn't, really, but this is a threaded forum so things have to be taken in context.

AH-HA. There's the cause of the communication break down. The longer lasting (a few days to weeks) effects of THC use are typically anti-motivational (laziness) and difficulty learning (although that could be because the person is unmotivated). I guess I didn't word that part clearly. I think we are on the same page now.

I didn't realize you were a cop. Seriously, what percentage of people that you pulled over for driving impaired were only high, as opposed to drunk (or both)? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I'm honestly curious. And I know you can't give accurate figures, just your best guess.

Of the stops I made, the THC intox rate was, I'd guess, approximately 5-10%. We didn't test for drug intox if the person showed a positive test for alcohol intox. It was just money spent without any real need other than stats. Almost all of the DUI stops I performed were on people driving through the city, not residents. It wasn't that non-residents were targeted. I think it was that I worked in a decent area and the residents for the most part obeyed the law.