Marijuana Legalization and Regulation

[Azure]

Or all the illegal growers are moving like crazy to buy a bunch of land to grow their operations so when it is made legal, they are ahead of the game.

Who knows. Not much data on how things are going in Colorado outside of the fact that the pot economy is almost at a billion dollars.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

1) with a test for drunk drivers we can take away their license, put them in jail, or modify their vehicle so they have to blow as sober before driving. With MJ we do not have the test to even start that process. that is a problem for everyone, whether you are in favour/against/indifferent on the legalization argument.

2) Because it's currently illegal and those who wish to consume legally will be well up the willingness to spend curve. So do it. They will pay.

I agree with you on number 1, that's important to me as well. I think though, one may just have to go with a roadside sobriety test, as I don't think a easy legal test is around the corner. Technology isn't there yet.

I mean, it's illegal to drive on other prescription drugs. You can even get charged for being too tired. So I think we just throw it into one of those charges.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

^Agreed. If research shows that you are effectively 'intoxicated' while driving tired, they should have a roadside test that could address this concern.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

1) with a test for drunk drivers we can take away their license, put them in jail, or modify their vehicle so they have to blow as sober before driving. With MJ we do not have the test to even start that process. that is a problem for everyone, whether you are in favour/against/indifferent on the legalization argument.

2) Because it's currently illegal and those who wish to consume legally will be well up the willingness to spend curve. So do it. They will pay.

Relating to your first point...this is an issue now. So the problem already exists and should be addresses in parallel to legalization. How did the american states address this issue?

Funny story : My roommate from Toronto told me he drove very high on pot one night...he spent 5 min waiting at a stop sign waiting for it to turn green. While any kind of intoxication (including old age) should be closely addressed in the rules of the road.

This does illustrate anecdotally what most people would agree with and that is drunk and stoned on pot present different risk profiles for driving.

[Flash Walken]

From a post back in 2008

DOPE DRIVERS SAFE: STUDY

A study funded by the British government has concluded that regular marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis.

The study of 15 users, conducted by Britain's Transport Research Laboratory, found that the mellowing effects of marijuana made drivers more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. While marijuana did effect drivers, it was less dangerous than driving while fatigued or drunk.

Regular cannabis users were supplied with "Grade A" marijuana from the U.S. for the study. They took four weeks of tests on driving simulators to gauge their reaction time.

"MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE":

U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993:

"This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate, where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

...

More specifically, alcohol impaired both vehicle handling and traffic maneuvers. Marijuana, administered in a dose of 100 g/kg THC, on the other hand, did not significantly change mean driving performance as measured by this approach. Subjects' ratings of driving quality and effort to accomplish the task were strikingly different from the driving instructor's ratings. Both groups rated their driving performance following placebo as somewhat better than 'normal'. Following the active drug, ratings were significantly lower (35%, p.009) in the marijuana, but not (5%, ns) in the alcohol group. Perceived effort to accomplish the driving test was about the same in both groups following placebo. Following the active drug, a significant (p.033) increase in perceived effort was reported by the marijuana, but not the alcohol group. Thus, there is evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition, but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self-critical after consuming low doses of THC, as smoked marijuana. Drug plasma concentrations were neither related to absolute driving performance scores nor to the changes that occurred from placebo to drug conditions. With respect to THC, these results confirm the findings in previous studies. They are somewhat surprising for alcohol but may be due to the restricted range of ethanol concentrations in the plasma of different subjects. DISCUSSION The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance (cf. Smiley, 1986).

[Daradon]

Obviously stoned drivers are safer than drunk and fatigued.

However, as the one study says, it still affects them.

The one study that says it makes them safer, well most say the opposite. Not as bad as drinking, agreed, but not ideal either.

I have a very hard time believing that. And as I said to one poster here years ago who said he became a better driver stoned because he became less anxious, 'maybe you shouldn't be driving in the first place'.

Being stoned slows your reaction time. We know this not only from driving, but just hanging out with stoners.

Perhaps (PERHAPS) being stoned makes you cautious enough you cause less accidents. But it leaves you vulnerable to split second and emergency situations. If that study is in fact true, all it's saying, is that many people drive to aggressively too begin with.

[killer_carlson]

The one study of 15 whole people?

[FlamesAddiction]

There are actually roadside devices available that test for marijuana (and cocaine):

http://www.narcocheck.com/en/saliva-...liva-test.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-go-ahead.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/...ming_soon.html


Even without those devices, police are trained to conduct roadside tests that if the driver fails, they can be taken off the road.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Obviously stoned drivers are safer than drunk and fatigued.

However, as the one study says, it still affects them.

The one study that says it makes them safer, well most say the opposite. Not as bad as drinking, agreed, but not ideal either.

I have a very hard time believing that. And as I said to one poster here years ago who said he became a better driver stoned because he became less anxious, 'maybe you shouldn't be driving in the first place'.

Being stoned slows your reaction time. We know this not only from driving, but just hanging out with stoners.

Perhaps (PERHAPS) being stoned makes you cautious enough you cause less accidents. But it leaves you vulnerable to split second and emergency situations. If that study is in fact true, all it's saying, is that many people drive to aggressively too begin with.

I think if anything being stoned reduces your ability to drive defensively. You're not going to run a red light or cause an accident but you might not realize you're driving in someones blind spot.

Your driving ability will also obviously depend on how frequent of a user you are and how used to weed or tolerant of it you are.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or all the illegal growers are moving like crazy to buy a bunch of land to grow their operations so when it is made legal, they are ahead of the game.

Who knows. Not much data on how things are going in Colorado outside of the fact that the pot economy is almost at a billion dollars.

This is the plot of this season of Justified.

[AcGold]

A lot of speculation thrown around as fact in here.

[worth]

I've smoked some stuff that I could hardly walk after, let alone drive a car. If it is legalised, it needs to be treated like alcohol. It effects different people in different ways so I don't think we can just say smoke as much as you want and drive.

[Sliver]

I can't believe we're even talking about driving after smoking. You're intoxicated. It's a disservice to all the very legitimate reasons marijuana should be legalized for people to attempt to justify driving under the influence.

It's so basic it's really stupid to even be talking about this, but don't drive while high, obviously. If marijuana is legalized, it will be illegal to drive while stoned; same as it is now.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I can't believe we're even talking about driving after smoking. You're intoxicated. It's a disservice to all the very legitimate reasons marijuana should be legalized for people to attempt to justify driving under the influence.

It's so basic it's really stupid to even be talking about this, but don't drive while high, obviously. If marijuana is legalized, it will be illegal to drive while stoned; same as it is now.

Agreed, I am not a pot smoker. It gives me wicked paranoia. I am not against pot, or the legalization of pot.

However, it those who use it support their ability to drive while stoned.....While it will be tuff to support legalization.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This is the plot of this season of Justified.

I know. That is where I got the idea from.

[polak]

I think people are too quick to jump on the "it's an intoxicant, you CANT drive on it" bandwagon. I'm not a fan of bunch people baked driving either but you need to pick your battles.

If study after study shows that the effect is negligable then why do we have to spend money and resources fighting something that isn't a problem? Because you have a preconcived notion that it just has to be bad? "I got stoned and could barely hold the spoon for my half baked ben and jerry's".

It'd be like going after drivers with a BAC under .08 (which they're doing and I disagree with) instead of increasing resources fighting those that are over.

People jump right to the conclusion that everything must be done to keep people under the influence of marijuana off the roads simply cause when you say it outloud, it makes perfect sense, but they're ignoring studies that say otherwise. I'd prefer you invest the money and resources into combating people over the legal BAC limit and more importantly, people driving fatigued, something that is just as bad in some cases and almost nothing is done to fight it.

I haven't read the articles posted here specifically, just going off what I've seen in the past.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by polak

I think people are too quick to jump on the "it's an intoxicant, you CANT drive on it" bandwagon. I'm not a fan of bunch people baked driving either but you need to pick your battles.

If study after study shows that the effect is negligable then why do we have to spend money and resources fighting something that isn't a problem? Because you have a preconcived notion that it just has to be bad? "I got stoned and could barely hold the spoon for my half baked ben and jerry's".

It'd be like going after drivers with a BAC under .08 (which they're doing and I disagree with) instead of increasing resources fighting those that are over.

People jump right to the conclusion that everything must be done to keep people under the influence of marijuana off the roads simply cause when you say it outloud, it makes perfect sense, but they're ignoring studies that say otherwise. I'd prefer you invest the money and resources into combating people over the legal BAC limit and more importantly, people driving fatigued, something that is just as bad in some cases and almost nothing is done to fight it.

I haven't read the articles posted here specifically, just going off what I've seen in the past.

I'm strongly in favour of marijuana legalization. I think others in favour of legalization muddy the waters when they start talking about how it's safe to drive after smoking. As with most drugs, it's a function of the strength of the drug and dosage. You can't tell me it's safe to drive 20 minutes after sharing an eight-paper fatty with you and three of your closest friends. That's absurd.

The best way to help the pro-legalization cause is to echo the same things we all say about drinking and driving (i.e. it is bad).

[undercoverbrother]

Why can't we all agree that the best approach to driving is stone cold sober.

[FlamesAddiction]

Even if it didn't affect driving, it's still not a battle that the pro-legalization side should be fighting.

I think we are complacent because we drive so much, but it is actually one of the more dangerous things we do throughout our daily lives. Not just for us, but the people around us. There has to be a high level of caution exercised. Aside from just their own driving, but how would a high person react in an emergency situation? That is a difficult thing for a study to simulate.

I know from my own experience, I wouldn't trust myself driving under the influence and I know people that think they can drive high, but really they suck at it. When people are high, they tend to think everything they are doing is awesome.

[polak]

Woah Woah Woah.

I'm not trying to fight for some sort of "Right to Drive Stoned" or anything.

I'm arguing as to why it shouldn't be an issue or sticking point. Taking the "it's a non-factor" approach.

We have much bigger fish to fry in the DUI battle.