Marijuana Legalization and Regulation

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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).

And not show up at rallies dressed in ridiculous costumes and/or unbathed and looking feral.

I cringe every time I see the stereotypes at the rallies. They do themselves more harm than good. A lot of ordinary people use pot, but they make themselves a less visible than the caricatures you see at rallies.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by 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.

It isn't a "non-factor" though. We're talking about legalizing a recreational drug here much like alcohol. With the strength of weed now it's pretty easy to get ripped to the point that driving shouldn't be done. The same precautions should be looked at from a policing point of view as alcohol.

[polak]

Except study after study showed that it's nothing like driving after alcohol. You're all using the anecdotal approach.

It's pretty simple. Treat it exactly like driving under the influence of perscripton drugs. It probably deserves even less attention than that.

Swinging back to the anecdotal side of things, I'd love for any one to show me someone who would want to drive after smoking as much weed as you guys are talking about. That's the one thing marijuana has going for it. Lazyness and paranoia are like a built in safety from driving when you're obliterated. There is no notion of false confidence like there is with being drunk.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

It's pretty simple. Treat it exactly like driving under the influence of perscripton drugs. It probably deserves even less attention than that.

.

Perscription drugs that affect your ability to drive or perscription drugs that don't affect your ability to drive?


I think you (a royal you, not uust you per se) are down playing the importance of this issue, particularly to the driver's that might be hit by an impaired driver.


In short, if there is a chance it will impair your ability to drive, then why take the risk? There are options: bus, walking, cab, friends.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Perscription drugs that affect your ability to drive or perscription drugs that don't affect your ability to drive?


I think you (a royal you, not uust you per se) are down playing the importance of this issue, particularly to the driver's that might be hit by an impaired driver.


In short, if there is a chance it will impair your ability to drive, then why take the risk? There are options: bus, walking, cab, friends.

I think you're jumping off a cliff here.

The idea is, you can't test and assess for intoxication under marijuana the same way you can with alcohol, so it's ridiculous to assign them the same enforcement strategy.

No one is suggesting drivers drive impaired, quite the opposite, but if you can't breathalyze for it and evidence of it lasts a lot longer, you have to treat it differently.

The fact that it appears to be less harmful as an intoxicant for drivers than alcohol isn't an argument to drive intoxicated, it's an argument that using driving under the influence of marijuana as comparable to alcohol is not an honest, reasoned argument.

The argument that legalization of marijuana is a wrong policy decision because it may lead to more instances of drivers under the influence of marijuana is an invalid argument because they do not have the same effects.

'Intoxication' isn't 'intoxication'. If stoned drivers are potentially statistically less prone to accidents than sober drivers, that is compelling evidence that the perceptions of the drug are out of touch with the reality of the drug. It's a manipulation to try to say that's an argument for driving under the influence; it's an argument for a rational discussion on the effects of the drug and the ramification for it's legalization.

[polak]

And I think you are overestimating the importance of the issue due to a lifetime of being told that driving under the influence of anything is a huge problem.

" In “the first large-scale [crash risk] study in the United States to include drugs other than alcohol,” NHTSA found that, once the data were adjusted for confounding variables, cannabis consumption was not associated with an increased probability of getting into an accident."

Further adjusting for alcohol consumption made the crash risk of cannabis consumers equal to that of drivers who tested negative for alcohol and all other drugs. In other words, the analysis, which NHTSA described as “the most precisely controlled study of its kind yet conducted,” provides no evidence that marijuana use increases crash risk. That result, the authors note, is similar to what the best-designed previous studies have found: a small or nonexistent increase in crash risk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsul...hard-to-count/

This study is from this year.

If the NHTSA is saying it's a non-issue then why don't we listen??? Their whole existence revolves around traffic safety.

Now, I understand why you would want to keep people who are stoned off the road regardless, but unless you're going to employ a zero tolerance policy accross the board, I don't think Marijuana users are who we should be investing any resources into keeping off the roads, especially when you consider the difficulty involved in measuring and testing intoxication.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think you're jumping off a cliff here.

The idea is, you can't test and assess for intoxication under marijuana the same way you can with alcohol, so it's ridiculous to assign them the same enforcement strategy.

There are tests for marijuana that are similar in nature to breathalyzers. They are slowly being adopted in Canada (I think they have been used in England for some time now).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think you're jumping off a cliff here.

The idea is, you can't test and assess for intoxication under marijuana the same way you can with alcohol, so it's ridiculous to assign them the same enforcement strategy.

No one is suggesting drivers drive impaired, quite the opposite, but if you can't breathalyze for it and evidence of it lasts a lot longer, you have to treat it differently.

The fact that it appears to be less harmful as an intoxicant for drivers than alcohol isn't an argument to drive intoxicated, it's an argument that using driving under the influence of marijuana as comparable to alcohol is not an honest, reasoned argument.

The argument that legalization of marijuana is a wrong policy decision because it may lead to more instances of drivers under the influence of marijuana is an invalid argument because they do not have the same effects.

'Intoxication' isn't 'intoxication'. If stoned drivers are potentially statistically less prone to accidents than sober drivers, that is compelling evidence that the perceptions of the drug are out of touch with the reality of the drug. It's a manipulation to try to say that's an argument for driving under the influence; it's an argument for a rational discussion on the effects of the drug and the ramification for it's legalization.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to jump of a cliff.

I don't disagree with your points. I am fine with the legalization of pot. I can't say I am an advocator for it as I don't use, so it doesn't directly change my day to day life. I am not as you say:

argument that legalization of marijuana is a wrong policy decision because it may lead to more instances of drivers under the influence of marijuana is an invalid argument because they do not have the same effects.

If it came off that way, then believe me that is not how it was intended.

I think from reading you post that we can't take the "non-factor" approach mentioned by Polak (sorry Polak I really am not trying to poke you these last few days/weeks).

I think it is important that if we legalize pot we need to have a way of testing for the use while driving.

Will legalization of pot increase driving under the influence of pot, nah not necessarily, but it might increase the useage of pot. You might have a segment that didn't use out of fear (maybe not I don't know).

Flash, I think you will agree that the lead up to the evantual legalization of pot must include many difficult discussions, like driving while under the influence, legal age to buy and use pot, etc...

To me Polak's post read (whether he indended it or not) as discounting the concerns over the driving while under the influence of pot. I think that it all "needs to be on the table" if we as a society are going to move forward with the legalization of pot.

I am running on very little sleep, so if that don't make sense I am sorry.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

And I think you are overestimating the importance of the issue due to a lifetime of being told that driving under the influence of anything is a huge problem.





http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsul...hard-to-count/

This study is from this year.

If the NHTSA is saying it's a non-issue then why don't we listen??? Their whole existence revolves around traffic safety.

Now, I understand why you would want to keep people who are stoned off the road regardless, but unless you're going to employ a zero tolerance policy accross the board, I don't think Marijuana users are who we should be investing any resources into keeping off the roads, especially when you consider the difficulty involved in measuring and testing intoxication.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Pre...tudies-02-2015


Polak, in short they NHSTA says more study is needed.

But even as drinking and driving continues to fall, use of illegal drugs or medicines that can affect road safety is climbing. The number of weekend nighttime drivers with evidence of drugs in their system climbed from 16.3 percent in 2007 to 20 percent in 2014. The number of drivers with marijuana in their system grew by nearly 50 percent.

A second survey, the largest of its kind ever conducted, assessed whether marijuana use by drivers is associated with greater risk of crashes. The survey found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in accidents, but that the increased risk may be due in part because marijuana users are more likely to be in groups at higher risk of crashes. In particular, marijuana users are more likely to be young men – a group already at high risk.

Other studies using driving simulators and test tracks have found that marijuana at sufficient dosage levels will affect driver risk.

In short the answer, at least from your source, isn't in yet.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sorry, I wasn't trying to jump of a cliff.

I don't disagree with your points. I am fine with the legalization of pot. I can't say I am an advocator for it as I don't use, so it doesn't directly change my day to day life. I am not as you say:



If it came off that way, then believe me that is not how it was intended.

I think from reading you post that we can't take the "non-factor" approach mentioned by Polak (sorry Polak I really am not trying to poke you these last few days/weeks).

I think it is important that if we legalize pot we need to have a way of testing for the use while driving.

Will legalization of pot increase driving under the influence of pot, nah not necessarily, but it might increase the useage of pot. You might have a segment that didn't use out of fear (maybe not I don't know).

Flash, I think you will agree that the lead up to the evantual legalization of pot must include many difficult discussions, like driving while under the influence, legal age to buy and use pot, etc...

To me Polak's post read (whether he indended it or not) as discounting the concerns over the driving while under the influence of pot. I think that it all "needs to be on the table" if we as a society are going to move forward with the legalization of pot.

I am running on very little sleep, so if that don't make sense I am sorry.

Well, I can't speak for polak, but maybe if the same studies etc that we rely on for understanding the consequences of alcohol intoxication say marijuana intoxication may not increase the likelyhood of an accident, maybe polak is right, maybe it is negligible.

So far, the evidence points more strongly in that direction than the opposite. I haven't read the study he linked, but if the excerpt he posted is the conclusion, well, that's 2 studies separated by 2 decades drawing the same conclusion. The same agencies in Canada, Australia and Britain reached similar independent conclusions.

Maybe the simplest explanation is the correct one?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I can't speak for polak, but maybe if the same studies etc that we rely on for understanding the consequences of alcohol intoxication say marijuana intoxication may not increase the likelyhood of an accident, maybe polak is right, maybe it is negligible.

So far, the evidence points more strongly in that direction than the opposite. I haven't read the study he linked, but if the excerpt he posted is the conclusion, well, that's 2 studies separated by 2 decades drawing the same conclusion. The same agencies in Canada, Australia and Britain reached similar independent conclusions.

Maybe the simplest explanation is the correct one?

Yeah maybe the simplest explanationis the correct one.

My second post went to the NHSTA website, and I qouted it. Unless I read it wrong (which is possible) they believe more study is needed.

I guess if I was pushing for legalization of pot, I would be willing to conceed driving under the influence to get it legalized, ie:

If we agree to promote that driving under the influence of pot is bad you will legalize it? Done!

Granted this is a very simplistic approach, but I hope you get my point. If advocacy groups for legalization want to remove barriers to success, I would suggest that agreeing that it could be dangerous to drive while stoned might be a good step.


BTW, what are you thoughts on the legal age to use pot if it was legalized?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah maybe the simplest explanationis the correct one.

My second post went to the NHSTA website, and I qouted it. Unless I read it wrong (which is possible) they believe more study is needed.

I guess if I was pushing for legalization of pot, I would be willing to conceed driving under the influence to get it legalized, ie:

If we agree to promote that driving under the influence of pot is bad you will legalize it? Done!

Granted this is a very simplistic approach, but I hope you get my point. If advocacy groups for legalization want to remove barriers to success, I would suggest that agreeing that it could be dangerous to drive while stoned might be a good step.


BTW, what are you thoughts on the legal age to use pot if it was legalized?

I would probably raise the legal age to drink, smoke, and vote to 21, if I had the stroke.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I would probably raise the legal age to drink, smoke, and vote to 21, if I had the stroke.

Can I ask how you got to 21 as the age?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Can I ask how you got to 21 as the age?

In a truly idyllic society it would probably be 25 or 26, but any kind of delay I think is important. Happy middle ground is probably 21/22.

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

In short the answer, at least from your source, isn't in yet.

You can't blame marijuana for people belonging to demographics that routinely score poorly in driving. As much as CP likes to be all inclusive, certian demographics are crappy drivers, regardless of drug use.

Of course there are other studies that contest this one, Marijuana legalization is probably one of the most debated issues in the western world, but when a Governments department of highway safety is saying that it doesn't appear to be a factor, I tend to listen as they have nothing invested in the legalization of weed but have everything invested in the safety of drivers.

Oh and I definitely agree that more studies should be done on the matter, especially for when marijuana is legalized. I'm driving on the same roads as you and everyone else. Studies I support, uneducated reactions and laws based on misconceptions on the other hand...

TL;DR: As of now, almost all research is pointing to driving while under the influence of marijuana is negligable. Thus, investing enforcement resources into something more impactful would be a better use of those resources. More studies should clear this up before legalization becomes a thing anyways.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

You can't blame marijuana for people belonging to demographics that routinely score poorly in driving. As much as CP likes to be all inclusive, certian demographics are crappy drivers, regardless of drug use.

I wasn't which is why I included the second part.

Of course there are other studies that contest this one, Marijuana legalization is probably one of the most debated issues in the western world, but when a Governments department of highway safety is saying that it doesn't appear to be a factor, I tend to listen as they have nothing invested in the legalization of weed but have everything invested in the safety of drivers.

Oh and I definitely agree that more studies should be done on the matter, especially for when marijuana is legalized. I'm driving on the same roads as you and everyone else. Studies I support, uneducated reactions and laws based on misconceptions on the other hand...

TL;DR: As of now, almost all research is pointing to driving while under the influence of marijuana is negligable. Thus, investing enforcement resources into something more impactful would be a better use of those resources. More studies should clear this up before legalization becomes a thing anyways.

I am not sold that the NHSTA has a position yet.

If you read this article/press release:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Pre...tudies-02-2015

the last para sums it up:

NHTSA plans a series of additional studies to further understand the risk of drugged driving, including the Washington State Roadside Survey, which will assess risk in a state where marijuana has recently been legalized, and a simulator study with the National Institute on Drug Abuse to assess how drivers under the influence of drugs behave behind the wheel.

Have I missed something where the NHSTA says "it isn't a factor"?

[AcGold]

Since cannabis clearly isn't as bad as alcohol the punishment should not be as severe. I could smoke an infinite amount and still drive better than the average human, that being said many people can not and are worse drivers. Because cannabis related vehicular fatalities are nearly a non issue the solution is make the crime match the punishment.

The punishment now works just fine. My buddy got pulled over when his car wreaked of weed. Demerits, a small fine, a mark on his driving record and they took his car away for 2 days. Seems like a good punishment. I would prefer people don't smoke and drive even though I could with zero danger to anyone. Zero demerits, tickets or accidents ever so I'm doing pretty good. For the people that are worse when high they become hesitant and slow because they get anxious. A bad combo on the road, the issue is not reaction time or focus.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Since cannabis clearly isn't as bad as alcohol the punishment should not be as severe. I could smoke an infinite amount and still drive better than the average human, that being said many people can not and are worse drivers. Because cannabis related vehicular fatalities are nearly a non issue the solution is make the crime match the punishment.

The punishment now works just fine. My buddy got pulled over when his car wreaked of weed. Demerits, a small fine, a mark on his driving record and they took his car away for 2 days. Seems like a good punishment. I would prefer people don't smoke and drive even though I could with zero danger to anyone. Zero demerits, tickets or accidents ever so I'm doing pretty good. For the people that are worse when high they become hesitant and slow because they get anxious. A bad combo on the road, the issue is not reaction time or focus.

And this/these types of posts arguments are what I was getting at......

[AcGold]

How so? Do you know for a fact it's not true? I'm on the side of dont let people drive high so...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

How so? Do you know for a fact it's not true? I'm on the side of dont let people drive high so...

I am sorry but do you know for a fact that it is true? You make such a broad claim, with no support. How do you even quantify the average human's ability to drive? Have you fired up your bong and then taken on the "average human" in a driving challenge?