Yes. If you believe there's no difference between driving sober and driving stoned, you've either never done it or are lying to yourself. Granted, I've never sat around and calculated the % of THC in a joint, so I have no idea how much these test groups smoked. But you're telling me they would definitely be feeling the effects, then I can tell you they would definitely have some impairment issues when they drive. I'm not saying smoking a joint will make you crash your car or drive in both lanes like alcohol might -- but it certainly impairs your judgment and reaction time. I don't need a bunch of scientist to tell me it doesn't -- I know it does. If you're truly taking this in "real world conditions", then you also have to factor in how it could potentially distract you while driving as well. Fair point -- mar1juana can affect people in different ways. But I've never heard of anyone on just weed not being able to tell what a car is.
mar1juana being illegal is still one of the biggest jokes in the HISTORY of this country.... semi short and sweet article on the reasons why... http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/3/7/mar1juana-reconsidered-imagine-that-scientists-at/ if you have a little more time: Marihuana Reconsidered by Dr. Lester Grinspoon is well worth the read. I can't find the exact quote from the interview in the movie, The Union: The Business Behind Getting High, but it went something like this After writing the book in 1971 Dr. Grinspoon speaking to a good friend said he believed that once the country was given the truth and was made aware that they had been lied to all this time about the dangers of mar1juana that it would take, maybe 10 years for it to become legal. His friend responded....10 years? So little faith in the people of this country? ...yet here we are today nearly 40 years later with countless studies that have proven over and over again that mar1juana is practically harmless and can help some very sick people... and then there's the ungodly amount of money we refuse to cash in on...continuing to be the only industrialized nation who doesn't grow industrial hemp...widely viewed as one of the most versatile and potentially lucrative plants on the face of the earth
Nobody is saying there is "no difference," but what science showed in this instance is that there are "minimal changes" in driving performance when under the influence of mar1juana. Yes, as the study noted these people are likely to drive more slowly because of their perceived impairment. You may not feel that you need scientists to tell you, but what they are saying is that there are minimal effects on driving when someone has been smoking mar1juana. I would love to see more studies that take into account distractions, but the fact remains that science has shown "minimal effects" on drivers.
They should test on noobs to see how well they drive. My main issue is about using controlled studies without any regard to sample size to "prove" that drugs are safer while driving 1500+ lb machines. Part of this you can blame on scientific hesitance to thoroughly examine taboo issues. Regardless, it's an undeveloped field that warrants caution when promoting new studies. I think you're too eager to debate. I'm not against decriminalization. Here's a bone for you. A logical reason it can be illegal is liability. Unlike alcohol, it's not as cheap, quick, and easy to determine drug content in your bloodstream. So if you're pulled over, the police can't gauge by how much you exceeded the limit (should there be one to determine severity). That case alone would make it a civil liberties nightmare. If you get high in the workplace, who pays when that person screws up royally? Not all employers force drug test, but it would be necessary for they want to cover their asses. Finally, there are countermeasures against signs to tell if you're high or have been high before. Part of the reason to get high is to impair judgment and reasoning. The idea that a study would see increased judgment and reasoning avoids the obvious. Yeah, some people can put all their focus on a singular task like driving. The brain doesn't handle one thing at a time in the real world, and not everyone can accomplish that singular focus.
As brought to my attention in another thread, watch; The Union: The Business of Getting High Great documentary that discusses the legalities of mar1juana.
Devils Advocate-ish: The primary argument for alot of folx about MJ is . .. . it should be legal because Alcohol and Tobacco are and it it no more dangerous. Which seems more like an argument that Alcohol and Tobacco should be illegal than MJ should be legal. So . . . What are the Benefits of MJ? Rocket River I don't smoke MJ or use it. . but I think HEMP would be useful
No, they should test on lots of different kinds of people in order to get a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. Unfortunately, this will not happen while we are under prohibition. Where have I said anything about drugs being "safer?" This study shows pretty clearly that mar1juana users experience "minimal changes in driving performance" when under the influence. I don't think that operating any "1500+ lb machine" is "safe," but this study is a pretty clear counter to people who have fears of mar1juana smokers making the roadways unsafe for the rest of us. Agreed, I would love to see more studies, which will happen when prohibition ends. On this issue, yes, I am eager to debate because prohibition is a problem that affects so many different parts of our society. I am against decriminalization, defined as the removal of criminal sanctions for possession and use while maintaining the prohibition on manufacture and sales. Decrim keeps all of the problems with prohibition, including higher crime rates, adulterated products, and the inability to use the legal system in case of conflict. At the same time, we don't get any of the benefits of a strong system of regulation which include tax revenue, reduced accessibility for minors, and the ability to target treatment options for addicts. Not really, a roadside sobriety test is a very effective way to determine if someone is too impaired to drive and once arrested, a blood test is SOP for drunk driving already, so nobody's civil liberties would be violated any more than they would be in they were drinking and driving. If you get drunk in the workplace, it is the exact same issue. All employers that have fear of liability in case of drugged employees already drug test, the only difference is that they would be able to reduce the number of drug tests if they were only concerned about people who have been involved in accidents. More reason to drop prohibition and engage in further study to determine the effects of mar1juana on drivers in more real world situations.
You can make that argument, but I would interject the reality that we have already tried to prohibit the use of alcohol in this country with disastrous results. Prohibition of drugs is simply the continuation of that disastrous policy and what I would like to see in its stead is a strong system of regulation so that we can solve the problems that come with drug use in society rather than continuing a policy that makes all of those problems worse. There is a good book on the subject, here is a site that describes it and provides some excerpts... Yes, it would. If legalized, industrial hemp (mar1juana strains without significant levels of THC) would immediately become one of the biggest cash crops in the nation.
Legalization seems politically impossible to me. I'm not even considering the issue of refusing the tests. If the cop pulls you over and you've smoked a couple days before and suspects that you're high because you're slow and stupid, what's to say the blood tests will confirm that you were high at the time you were pulled over? A lot more would be placed upon the officer's discretion and trustworthiness. Which is also impacted depending upon the lawyer hired. If your accident kills somebody, and the subsequent investigation shows that he employee was high at the time, more emphasis would be placed upon the employer for not preventing the accident. I'm glad we agree these studies aren't accurate or as credible as they appear to sound.
When you're high as ****, you're driving like 5 MPH down to the Whataburger to order 17 apple pies. Completely different than when you're drunk. Completely different.
I'm not a smoker, never will be. Yet I think it is absurd that if Alcohol and tobacco are legal, that mar1juana be illegal. It seems even less dangerous than those not to mention the countless cancers and alcohol related deaths in the world. Yet it is not even a question to make those illegal, so why is mar1juana illegal if its not any more addicting(arguable i'm told) and people under the Alcohol influence just act crazy and unlike them selves, with MJ they just get more relaxed usually. There has got to be an agenda somewhere and the prescripted meds are another thing, they have such a heavy influence, yet no word of how many issues they cause while driving. Side note, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both grew mary jane
Andy, the biggest hole in your argument is the point Invisible Fan brought up -- enforcement. Sobriety test is not the end-all answer to that problem. I thought I remembered the Netherlands introducing breathalyzers for mar1juana, but I haven't heard anything since -- which makes me believe they weren't that effective.
The main reason, in my mind, that mar1juana remains illegal today is our government won't admit it was wrong. After decades of lying, they fear the consequences of finally admitting the truth. All the people in jail, all the people who were forced into treatment to not go to jail, the billions upon billions of tax dollars they have wasted over all these years. How do they explain that to them. "Whoops sorry, we were lying for the last 75 years or so, didn't know how to break it to everyone and decided it would be easier to just keep the lie going." There is just no way that our government can believe the bs they put out there. So instead of admitting there mistake and coming clean, they have decided its best to perpetuate the lie and try to fool the masses as long as they can.
We used roadside sobriety tests for decades before the breathalyser came out and I believe that properly administered, these tests are an effective way to test impairment of just about any kind.
I don't know if the anti-legalization crowd will be appeased by a drugged driving study whose conclusions seem intuitively wrong. "Duuuuuude! I'm totally fine. It's science man....hand me the keys...we're going to Taco Bell" MJ does affect perception and judgement. Otherwise...what's the point? Maybe...in a controlled study...concentrating on the test...after one joint...away from the distraction of giggling friends, open bags of doritos, music, and other facets of 'real world' driving there's not much impact. Except that the study's finding of slower driving seems to suggest there IS a change in judgement. So why not find a way to measure and test that impairment, as we do with alcohol, instead of denying it exists? Plus....read the pet peeve threads. Do we really want a whole bunch more drivers driving well under the speed limit?
Frankly, I have my reservations too. The average joint in Morocco is easily 8-9%, and in Amsterdam the average is around there. A BC joint has to be at least around there as well. The average smoker IMO does not stop at one 2.5% joint per session. I could be wrong, but I would be very very shocked.
