The Marijuana Debate

[pardus]

You do understand that drunk driving wasn't viewed as a serious offense for many years don't you?
I am not lamenting buzzed drivers, but think we need to aknowledge an increase in buzzed people causing injury to themselves and others, are their "field tests" to determine the presence of THC?

Not to my knowledge but the field sobriety test is not for alcohol alone, and if you are determined to be under the influence you can (depending on state laws) be medically tested via breath/blood/urine samples.

 

[TLDR20]

In Colorado they established a blood content standard, so I don't know how that is tested. Also as to how we will see an increase, the people that would be smoking pot are already doing so. I don't think people will flock to the drug if it is legalized. So I think accidents relating to MJ use will likely remain at a similar level.

 

[pardus]

This reminds me of the DADT debate and people not realizing that gays were already in the Military and already using the same showers and barracks as them.

Will marijuana use increase with it being de-criminalized/legalized? Yeah, maybe a little, but it won't be significant and it's not going to change society in a significantly bad way.

I'm certainly not going to start using it just because it's legal, if I wanted to use it I would and could now.

Existing laws will contain and control peoples behavior regardless of what they choose to ingest.

 

[Centermass]

This reminds me of the DADT debate and people not realizing that gays were already in the Military and already using the same showers and barracks as them.

Will marijuana use increase with it being de-criminalized/legalized? Yeah, maybe a little, but it won't be significant and it's not going to change society in a significantly bad way.

I'm certainly not going to start using it just because it's legal, if I wanted to use it I would and could now.

Existing laws will contain and control peoples behavior regardless of what they choose to ingest.

Laws are put in place for a reason. To maintain good order and discipline of society. Right now, in a majority of the country, it is still illegal to consume, possess, sell, manufacture, distribute.

Having a background in LE, I will tell you this. Ask any officer if they think it should be legalized and 4 out 5 will more than likely say yes.

That being said, here's there issue I have with the whole thing. It's the way this has been presented by the man at the top. He put the cart in front of the horse. We have (Or last time I checked, suppose to have) a system in place to enact laws, modify laws and remove laws. Want it legalized? Introduce legislation and have the law changed the way it should be. Not by a Monarch who basically chooses to approve this or disapprove that, based on his or her personal preferences.

I have no doubt it will. But if it is, it needs to be done right, starting with the legislative branch of government, so that the criminal element stays out of it, the cartels don't get their hooks into it anymore than they already have. Establish guidelines for its use, manufacture, distribution, possession and proper oversight to ensure it is and regulate it.


With that, what do you think about all this?

 

[Centermass]

Thank you. I'll be in the AO all day.

 

[reed11b]

What are the offset costs?
Will there be an increase in "buzzed" drivers, who cause more accidents increasing health care and workmans comp costs or lost productivity?
I think legalizing is coming, and we need to look at minimizing the negative impacts.

How much you want to bet, that now that ALL use is not illegal, someone will be able to test for THC intoxication? I.E. a way to bust MJ buzzed drivers.
Reed

 

[TLDR20]

How much you want to bet, that now that ALL use is not illegal, someone will be able to test for THC intoxication? I.E. a way to bust MJ buzzed drivers.
Reed

I am pretty sure they have that.

 

[reed11b]

I am pretty sure they have that.

My google fu must be weaker than yours. Share what you've got.
Reed

 

[pardus]

SOME Laws are put in place for a reason. To maintain good order and discipline of society. Right now, in a majority of the country, it is still illegal to consume, possess, sell, manufacture, distribute.

Having a background in LE, I will tell you this. Ask any officer if they think it should be legalized and 4 out 5 will more than likely say yes.

That being said, here's there issue I have with the whole thing. It's the way this has been presented by the man at the top. He put the cart in front of the horse. We have (Or last time I checked, suppose to have) a system in place to enact laws, modify laws and remove laws. Want it legalized? Introduce legislation and have the law changed the way it should be. Not by a Monarch who basically chooses to approve this or disapprove that, based on his or her personal preferences.

I have no doubt it will. But if it is, it needs to be done right, starting with the legislative branch of government, so that the criminal element stays out of it, the cartels don't get their hooks into it anymore than they already have. Establish guidelines for its use, manufacture, distribution, possession and proper oversight to ensure it is and regulate it.


With that, what do you think about all this?

A, I agree with your entire post with the exception of the addition I made. There are some stupid and terrible laws that are or have been in place in the past. MJ is legal with the proper tax stamp right? From the little ive read there was little good reason to have ever banned it in the first place.

B, you clapped at your own post? DICK!

 

[pardus]

My google fu must be weaker than yours. Share what you've got.
Reed

Weak? I think it's dying...

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood

 

[racing_kitty]

I'm on my phone, so I'll hunt the link later, but Colorado has already begun to address this issue of what level of THC constitutes DUI. According to a Colorado news source (I think it was a TV station's website outta Denver, but I can't remember), cops have a way to take an oral sample and test for THC. If the level of THC is higher than a certain point, the driver is arrested for DUI.

The article goes into a bit more detail. Don't think for a minute the 90lb brains that manage the local Greybar Hotels haven't been mulling that over.

 

[amlove21]

I have a few studies that demonstrate marijuana causes major health risks, and surprisingly most of what I find is centered on damage caused to adolescents, where adults seem to sustain far less impact if they consume marijuana after they're already adults.

But this study you link to, how marijuana is less harmful to your lungs sounds like we're basically making the argument that a .22 is less lethal than a 7.62. Part of the reason for that, isn't because of tobacco, but all the other additives in cigarette products that were not in them 30 to 40 years ago. I have a relative who is a tobacco farmer, and I've used his tobacco in my pipes (the only smoking vice I have anymore is the occasional pipe or a cigar). Smoking a tobacco leaf is not the same as smoking the chopped and sprayed product in a Marlboro. The amount of additives in that stuff is monstrous, making it more lethal, more addictive, and more toxic than just drying a tobacco leaf and shredding it yourself. Anyway, smoke of any kind in the lungs is toxic, but I wanted to point out that comparing the two isn't a great argument for using and a pretty weak one for legalization. You're basically saying they'll both kill you.

So then why is the President condoning it?

Uh, so if you have these studies demonstrating marijuana causing major health risks- you should get them peer reviewed and published, because they would be ground breaking. Literally the first of their kind. Are they prospective, double blind, human experiments? Especially the ones on adolescents- I wasn't aware that scientific bodies conducted human trials on children. Please, post links to these studies.

Also, post where the President condones marijuana use? This is an extremely slippery question; I know, I know, by a couple states getting MJ legalized, every republican in the world now paints President Obama as some ganja-mad cartel boss, but you find me the statement where President Obama says "Marijuana isn't harmful, we are going to legalize it, and kids should do it!"

Because that's condoning it. Not saying anything to the contrary isn't condoning it.

 

[reed11b]

Weak? I think it's dying...

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood

Won't come up on .gov computer, but if it's blood based, it's faulty. THC is fat soluable, so the amount in the bloodstream has very little to do with the level of intoxication.
Reed

 

[pardus]

Won't come up on .gov computer, but if it's blood based, it's faulty. THC is fat soluable, so the amount in the bloodstream has very little to do with the level of intoxication.
Reed

Well I guess the quoted studies are wrong then.

 

[DA SWO]

In Colorado they established a blood content standard, so I don't know how that is tested. Also as to how we will see an increase, the people that would be smoking pot are already doing so. I don't think people will flock to the drug if it is legalized. So I think accidents relating to MJ use will likely remain at a similar level.

I am willing to bet there are people who don't use it because it's illegal; and would (at least once) smoke it if it were legal
Basic safety rule: Increase the number of people engaged in an activity, and you increase the (raw) number of incidents.

 

[tova]

I wonder what the ramifications from a pulmonary stand point on an individual will be down the road?

It doesn't have to be down the road - there have already been toddlers coming into ERs under the influence of 2nd hand smoke from their home environments where it is in use. I get where it the amount of time and resources on keeping it illegal doesn't seem to deter usage; it should be allowed for true medical need - I also get that in some cultures, it is deeply engrained in their heritage. Yet when it comes in through apartment walls (at least in older apartments), interferes with someone like myself who has pulmonary issues, severe allergies to smoke, and affects my heart, I draw the line. No one has the right to interfere with my right to breathe - and yes, I get I have no right to interfere with others either - but - where someone's right to a "recreational" atmospheric condition ends, my right to my atmospheric condition begins - and I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of breathing (really don't want to go back on portable O2). If nothing else, at least have designated smoking areas/clubs (where there can be proper ventilation) for people who are so desperate enough to need an artificial high.

 

[goon175]

It doesn't have to be down the road - there have already been toddlers coming into ERs under the influence of 2nd hand smoke from their home environments where it is in use. I get where it the amount of time and resources on keeping it illegal doesn't seem to deter usage; it should be allowed for true medical need - I also get that in some cultures, it is deeply engrained in their heritage. Yet when it comes in through apartment walls (at least in older apartments), interferes with someone like myself who has pulmonary issues, severe allergies to smoke, and affects my heart, I draw the line. No one has the right to interfere with my right to breathe - and yes, I get I have no right to interfere with others either - but - where someone's right to a "recreational" atmospheric condition ends, my right to my atmospheric condition begins - and I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of breathing (really don't want to go back on portable O2). If nothing else, at least have designated smoking areas/clubs (where there can be proper ventilation) for people who are so desperate enough to need an artificial high.

How is that any different from cigarette smoke though? If you live in a no-smoking apt. complex, then I assume that means you can't smoke ANYTHING.

 

[tova]

How is that any different from cigarette smoke though? If you live in a no-smoking apt. complex, then I assume that means you can't smoke ANYTHING.

True - but not everyone lives in areas where non-smoking housing is encouraged and apartments that are non-smoking have few openings and many applicants.

 

[amlove21]

....snipped for length....

Where are those reports of infant pulmonary injury due to second hand marijuana smoke? I'd be eager to read them.

It's not as if people will be able to light up wherever they want- it's still smoking, so it's not as if the "no smoking" rules don't apply. Colorado is actually a Smoke Free State, meaning all restaurants are smoke free, as well as most other public places. I assume you wouldn't be denied your right to breathe now any more than you would then, regardless of the kind of smoke.

Won't come up on .gov computer, but if it's blood based, it's faulty. THC is fat soluable, so the amount in the bloodstream has very little to do with the level of intoxication.
Reed

Gonna disagree with you there. It's pretty simple, even with a fat soluble substance, to set and measure parameters for intoxicants, and it's done so across a wide spectrum. Metabolites, triglycerides, and other body substances change in relation to ingestion of an outside agent, and that can be accurately measured. Now, the trick is to do this without requiring bloodwork- like a finger stick/field testing kit.

I am willing to bet there are people who don't use it because it's illegal; and would (at least once) smoke it if it were legal
Basic safety rule: Increase the number of people engaged in an activity, and you increase the (raw) number of incidents.

Speaking statistically, the increase isn't going to be insane. Well, except for the fact that now people will surely report MJ use as the root cause, whereas before patients will straight up lie to you because it's illegal. I am sure there will be a healthy spin and knee-jerk report on the "reported use" of marijuana in the near future. Really, though, the penalization for honesty will be gone, and people will more freely report.

 

[TLDR20]

It doesn't have to be down the road - there have already been toddlers coming into ERs under the influence of 2nd hand smoke from their home environments where it is in use. I get where it the amount of time and resources on keeping it illegal doesn't seem to deter usage; it should be allowed for true medical need - I also get that in some cultures, it is deeply engrained in their heritage. Yet when it comes in through apartment walls (at least in older apartments), interferes with someone like myself who has pulmonary issues, severe allergies to smoke, and affects my heart, I draw the line. No one has the right to interfere with my right to breathe - and yes, I get I have no right to interfere with others either - but - where someone's right to a "recreational" atmospheric condition ends, my right to my atmospheric condition begins - and I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of breathing (really don't want to go back on portable O2). If nothing else, at least have designated smoking areas/clubs (where there can be proper ventilation) for people who are so desperate enough to need an artificial high.

So you are saying kids came into the ER for marijuana overdose due to second hand smoke inhalation?