Actually in my experience, it is true. Alcohol may be everywhere, but you can't just go into a store anytime you want and purchase it. But with mar1juana, all you have to do is call up a dealer, who usually happens to be a friend or friend of a friend, and have mar1juana on demand, delivered to you depending on the dealers friendliness.
To start with, Marinol (the brand name for dronabinol) is synthetic, so you cannot truly compare it to the effects of smoked mar1juana. In addition, the THC level you see is at virtually nil after 7.5 hours, thus no psychoactive effects. You can detect THC in urine for quite some time after ingestion because it stores in fat cells and releases slowly, but these metabolites have as much to do with impairment as ethyl glucuronide has to do with being drunk. Yes, you are wrong. THC is psychoactive, metabolites are not. Here is a story about a court case that was thrown out because, though she did have THC-COOH in his bloodstream, the presence of the non-psychoactive metabolite was not enough to convict her even under the "zero tolerance" policy that Michigan has on the books. Here is a clip... "In the case before the court, the defendant tested positive for the presence of the THC metabolite THC-COOH (a non-psychoactive compound produced during the body's biological process of converting THC into a water soluble form), but maintained that she was unimpaired at the time of her accident. The prosecution argued that it was not required under Michigan's "zero tolerance" drugged driving law to establish that the defendant's impairment caused the accident, only that she had an illegal substance present in her body. The appellate court upheld the trail court's ruling, affirming that mar1juana's metabolite is neither psychoactive nor classified as an illegal substance, and that the prosecution had failed to prove a causal relationship between the presence of a controlled substance in the defendant's body and the accident." When even the courts (not a body that is seen as friendly to drug users) rule that THC-COOH is "not psychoactive," I have to admit that I will take their words over those of someone who has obviously not done much research in this area.
OK so you post a link to NORML I post a link to Neuropharmacology Volume 27, Issue 7, July 1988, Pages 737-742. I will let people decide which one they feel is more
Nobody is going to understand what you just posted because, like your little graph above, it is completely lacking the relevant context. Your original claim was that cannabis users remain "under the influence" (which you clarified as involving behavioral changes) of the drug "for days." How does a graph with a 25 hour period support that claim? The issue is not whether one or some THC metabolites are psychoactive, but rather whether THC or any of its potentially psychoactive metabolites persist in the body in sufficient quantities to have psychoactive effects. Nothing you have posted lends any support to that proposition.
Are you really going to try and play "my link is better than yours" on this topic? Neither of the blurbs you posted contradict the court finding quoted in the link I posted. Who cares what outlet reported it, the quote I posted was directly from the court and was not opinion. The fact remains that the subject of your graph, THC-COOH, is not considered in a court of law to be psychoactive. I have no doubt that there might be a tiny amount of brain activity changed by the substance in question, but this activity is not considered "impairment" by the courts. The difference between your link and my link is that mine has context and information from which a conclusion can be drawn. Your information does come from an extremely reputable source, but has no context and doesn't further your point.
It supports this claim The quote was about chronic users. See what I said above and this And you can quote under the influence all you want to but I was speaking in terms of what the first person said. ie the original conversation you bogarted in on.
wrong it disproves your point that only THC is active which you made when you specifically referenced the levels of THC. It also shows that a chronic user who smokes even just twice per day will always but messed up. This is what the "pothead" stereotype comes from. People always fugged up. Your link is the one that makes no sense. They were trying to bust someone on a DUI offense. From the onset my argument specifially said that you are not "high" after even just 2-3 hours. That is a case of the court saying just because weed is in your urine you cannot be convicted of a DUI. It has nothing to do with the behavioral changes of chronic users.
The problem with you guys coming in on the third page without reading previous pages and just assuming the person's position based upon the current argument is you have no background whatsoever. The thing I don't understand is why you expect the person here from the start to bring you up to speed.
Dude, you need to stop. My azzhole of a dad talked just like you during the 60s. He spent 3 years in Vietnam and came back to Okinawa to run the Military Rehab center. By HIS experience alone (not a user) he'd call your observation obsolete.
You are making a lot of assumptions that aren't in evidence. I didn't point them out because I thought that maybe you could find them on your own. Since you can't, I will give you a few questions to research if you want your point to stand. How large does the depression of the amplitude of the spontaneous miniature junctional potential have to be to cause measurable impairment? Why did you mention 11-hydroxy-THC, the main metabolite of THC, when the only THC metabolite that stays in the system in significant amounts for a significant amount of time is THC-COOH? At what level of THC and 11-hydroxy-THC does a user stop being "messed up?" Once you answer those, I am sure there will be more since you seem to want to just pull out tangential references. You're the one who posted a graph that showed the levels of THC and its metabolites without any proof that these levels cause "behavioral changes." Then, you posted the Neuropharmacology clip that didn't speak to impairment or behavioral changes, just synaptic effects in the brain. I am certain that a sip of my Mountain Dew will create synaptic changes, but these changes do not necessarily indicate how much I will be affected, just as your link doesn't speak to how "messed up" a "chronic user" can be days after smoking. I think that you are basing your opinion on the Jeff Spicoli character or the people in your life who are like him. I have personally known doctors, lawyers, judges, police officers, architects, small business owners, CEOs, teachers, and many other professionals who are able to go home, smoke at night, and in the morning, they are far from "messed up." I would bet that you interact daily with at least a few people who you don't believe smoke pot (by the statistics, one out of every ten people smoke at least monthly) because they are not "messed up" and acting like a Cheech and Chong movie.
I've been messed up since 1969. I'm not sure how I've managed it but somehow I have a college degree, a professional career, I own my home, have money in the bank and been married for 35 years. You watch too much Dragnet. <object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/edp/http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehulu%2Ecom%2F/embed/JmtDht1jDT2LIcqR1AhLAw"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/edp/http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehulu%2Ecom%2F/embed/JmtDht1jDT2LIcqR1AhLAw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="296" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>
Come on Dudious, you should know that we outliers don't count in CaseyH mind. (cough) We are the lucky ones he would say. (cough, cough) I just don't think he is aware of who do and who do not. (cough, cough, cough) He'd be supremely surprised...or very disheartened. mmmmm....wakey bakey
