Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cmill216, Dec 10, 2010.
Wouldn't argue with you there, alcohol being the prime example.
At least with alcohol a relatively accurate, chemical-based in-field test can be administered to determine immediate levels of intoxication. With marijuana it's far more difficult to determine levels of intoxication in the field (sobriety tests, while useful, aren't fool-proof and are strongly prone to interpretation). You can have pot in your system and not be stoned.
True, and I've driven fine WHILE stoned, but that doesn't mean its ok to do. I guess to make it clear, you can't drive WHILE smoking a joint or blunt. Similar to not driving with an open alcohol container (bottle, can, etc.)
I actually think driving stoned is safer then driving drunk. Basically most people I been in a car with while they drove stoned were driving like 15 miles and hour. lol
Either way, I really hope I-502 passes in Washington, AND that the federal government stay out of the state and allow it to be a "test case" for decriminalization/legalization processes on a national level.
they have tests that can determine current level of mj intoxication like the IntelliPrint cannabis assay among others.
yeah mj doesn't affect reflexes and judgment like alcohol does. but it does impair so it shouldn't be allowed. the trick is accurate field testing for intoxication levels. not just a trace and you're busted even though it's been a week since any intake.
There's a blood test that can determine if you smoked in the last 4 to 5 hours.
Which is a good starting point for making sure that DUI's are not being given out with no merit.
It would be good to come up with a test where a simple prick of the finger and technology to take that and get immediate feedback would be fantastic. Certainly I think that is doable....and probably already out there considering we can do that with our blood sugar.....
unfortunately that isn't going to give the police and the for-profit system the results they want.
Just when I thought I couldn't love Elizabeth Warren more.
I can see a couple of logistical problems with this, though. How long will it take to obtain the blood sample? Does the level of THC (I assume that's what's being tested?) continue to fall at similar rates after the blood is drawn? How long does the test take? Realistically, it seems as though you'd have to be busted right after smoking for this to be at all effective in the field. But this is conjecture on my part.
If I recall, studies have indicated that one of the only prominent effects of smoking on the ability to drive has to do with the driver's ability to control lateral movement (side-to-side). Which isn't categorically insignificant, given the potential for accidents by "drifting" into neighboring lanes.
Still, I would tend to agree that alcohol impairs driving ability far more than marijuana does.
I totally agree with you guys on that...ANY problems I have with the driving after smoking is the fact that marijuana stays so long in the system, I'm afraid that there will be false DUI's all over the place. But, as has been mentioned a possible easy blood test on scene could take care of that problem.....
So, I'm not going to pretend I have much of a grasp on politics. All I know is that must, if not all of our constitutional rights have been taken away. How the **** is it possible that someone is not allowed to chose to do drugs if he or she chooses to? It in no way interferes with the lives of others. How is it legal to poison the **** out of the planet, atmosphere and each other with chemicals and cigarettes but we can't do drugs that effect nobody but our own selves? It's almost as ****ed as suicide being illegal. Nobody should have to right to force somebody to live, that's crazy.
I'm just wondering how the government got people so brain dead that they think we need all these law's to protect us? Did it start with the "Soviet Menace" and the illusion of us needing to destroy other countries in order to protect our "freedom"? Is it because 99% of the American population goes to work, comes home, drools to the TV and goes to bed? They're so damned content hiding behind their white picket fences that they don't know what the ****'s going on? Capitalism. Keep them fed, give them work, give the the illusion of freedom and they'll all think everything is as good as it get's.
This probably should be in the weed thread but basically when it comes to marijuana, the main reason it was targeted was because some people needed something to go after so they could feel good(read that the people who lost out on prohibition) , and others wanted to find an excuse to target the people using it(read that mexicans and black people), while others just wanted to stop hemp production(business that hemp is competition for). Put all three of those groups together plus a campaign based on fear you have have a large coalition of people stupid enough to let it pass.
By the way here is a nice quote from Harry J Anslinger, who was the head of the Bureau of Narcotics starting in the 30s(when they started going after the drug)
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
On on a belief system like that many people jumped on the bandwagon
Actually, most of the rights in the constitution are still protected.
There are a number of reasons drugs are illegal. Some of them are political (marijuana), others are illegal for more pragmatic reasons (hard drugs).
Hypothetically all these laws could be changed if people cared. But they don't. At least not enough do. Social views on some things are gradually changing though.
You have to keep in mind that the average citizen doesn't know the name of their congressman. Nor in most cases their senator. Paying attention has never been humanity's forte.
Go watch an episode of Intervention if you seriously think that drugs don't have any effect on anybody but those taking them.
Edit : Deleted
Your facts are a little mixed up.
The US Constitution never allowed for the protection of people's rights to use drugs. The rights from that document are, for the most part, with limited exceptions, still in place (right to bear arms, right to free speech, etc).
Sadly drug use/addiction does affect the lives of others many times. Now while there may be some casual users of marijuana who never let it affect their daily lives (they still go to work, pay their bills, take care of their families), there are plenty of users, particularly of hard drugs, that wreck the lives of their families and loved ones.
99% of the American population doesnt go to work and doesnt drool to the tv and then go to bed. That was a really bad generalization.
This thread is about legalizing cannabis, not legalizing other, more serious drugs.
Lumping dangerous and highly addictive drugs into the debate with cannabis, is a straw man argument.
I am not sure if this is directed at me, but nothing I wrote constitutes a straw man argument. I was responding to Smirnoff's post about the Constitution and what 99% of Americans do daily.
What I said is not a commentary on the legalization of marijuana or other drugs. I apologize if it became slightly off topic, but again, I was attempting to rectify some of the errors or generalizations in Smirnoff's post.
There is something to be said for the idea, assuming one had the proper treatment programs in place. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and today drug abuse is half what it once was.