---
True, but that those who don't wish to use can still be killed by a DUI driver on a Sat night. Or injured at work on Monday by someone that is still under the influence. Or have to pay for higher insurance due to such incidences.
OT. Let me get this straight......
- Thread starter harbest
- Start date
True, but that those who don't wish to use can still be killed by a DUI driver on a Sat night. Or injured at work on Monday by someone that is still under the influence. Or have to pay for higher insurance due to such incidences.
Ok, I am stupid as stipulated. And an old fart. And not cool or hip. Don't really care.
But you didn't answer any of the questions I have asked.
This may be news to you....
....
....but marijuana is already all around you. Judging by your continued posting, you're not dead yet.
And marijuana is the least of any rational person's worries when one realizes that opiates are even more dangerous threat which is all around you.
True. Then make the case for banning alcohol. Or just get out of the way and recognize that progress can sometimes be uncomfortable.
LOL
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing in this thread.[/QUOTE]
and that is no easy feat. SMH
a lot of "fake news" out there and I think quite on purpose in this thread.
The studies and reviews are there, if anyone really wants to know they can find them.
---
Guns are all around you...and your not dead yet. Is that news to you? Here's more news for you.....there are murderers out on the streets in the town where you live....and you are still alive...unless you are just a bot.
More breaking news.....drunk drivers kill people....yet you are still alive. Should we thus make drunk driving legal? That appears to be what passes for logic in your mind.
LOL
Here's my parting advice:
Put down the NRA magazine, read something other than Breitbart, and switch the channel from Fox News every now and then.
There's no point debating your level of stupid.
---
And yet you cannot answer one of my simple questions.....
And BTW, I am boring and I never have any fun.
You can be killed by a kid looking at his cell phone driving a car which is more likely to occur. DUI's occur every day now with things that are legal and illegal. I have no idea how long you think the effects are, but your comments about someone coming in with some type of Weed hangover on Monday and killing you just wreak of total ignorance on the topic which is fine. I get that an older generation who had so much BS about the plant shoved down their throats for so long won't have an open mind or any real knowledge on the subject, but this train isn't stopping for them. The blue print is there and the states realize it's a useless battle anymore. Medical first...give it 3-4 years and pass recreational.
Banning it has been tried- it didn't work. And why should drinkers who don't drink and drive have to go without anyway? This isn't Russia, after all.
Want to end DUI? Throw them all in jail for long sentences- or just shoot them at the side of the road when they fail the breathalyzer. No more DUI.
My sentiments exactly. My worries are when someone who does wish to use it abuses that privilege and harms or kills someone innocent. There is no justification for that to me. People who want to cross the line get what they deserve but when innocent people are harmed by their actions, that is wrong.
That happens every single day in this country with legal and illegal substances. You can't police the stupid or punish the masses for them...it doesn't work. During prohibition the murder rate when through the roof and people were still drinking. It just led to an illegal underground world and a bunch more criminal activity. Cell phones scare me a hell of a lot more than this being made legal...I see it all the GD time on the road. Do we ban cell phones now?
Nobody wants government... unless it benefits them or supports their agenda.
I'm sure a certain percentage already do. Much like the cops who arrest, lawyers who defend and prosecute, judges who preside...
Additionally, it is still regulated by employers drug screens. I work for a railroad and we have policy now that we can't take certain night time cough medicine's within 8 hours of reporting to work lest we be randomly tested and fail.
This is just a bunch of fear malarky. Yeah pot is 10, 20, 50X stronger than it was in the 1970s when people were smoking Mexican ditch weed. Ironically, the reason it's so powerful is because the DEA drove growing indoors, so growers/breeders developed strains that could produce more drug in a lot less space.
But users know the difference. Just like drinkers know you drink beer by the pint but whiskey by the shot. One is 5% alcohol and the other is 40%. It's not rocket science.
Edibles can be a problem if you consume too much, but that's not new, that's been true since the days of pot brownies. You won't die, you just feel queasy and sleepy until it wears off. Anyway, in states that have legalized, edibles are much higher quality and consumers can go into clean, well-lit stores and ask questions about dosage.
Yes it can be a problem if people come to work stoned -- but it's no different than coming to work drunk. It is not OK. The solution to that is generally to fire the employee.
As for "cognitive issues" -- such a vague term. Just a single puff of weed affects you cognitively, just like a single beer or glass of wine affects you cognitively. The question is, is it harmful, and the answer is -- look at the amount, the amount of impairment, and whether the impairment is causing a safety factor, such as driving while intoxicated.
In fact THC does not stay in the system much longer than alcohol. The body processes it out of the bloodstream just like alcohol. Metabolites (not THC but THC byproducts created by the body) will remain in the bloodstream for weeks but that doesn't mean the person is intoxicated.
Is there long-term harm from cannabis use? Maybe but the data hasn't found anything super dangerous. There may be an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia -- but nobody has found a causal link -- in other words it's just as likely that schizophrenics are more likely to use cannabis than cannabis users are to become schizophrenic. In any case, even if there's a risk it would be very low -- far lower than the behavioral and cognitive problems that result from regular alcohol use.
You'd think that pot smoking would cause cancer, and it probably does. But the studies done so far haven't been able to find much evidence of it. If there is a cancer risk it's a tiny fraction of what it is for tobacco.
But users know the difference. Just like drinkers know you drink beer by the pint but whiskey by the shot. One is 5% alcohol and the other is 40%. It's not rocket science.
Edibles can be a problem if you consume too much, but that's not new, that's been true since the days of pot brownies. You won't die, you just feel queasy and sleepy until it wears off. Anyway, in states that have legalized, edibles are much higher quality and consumers can go into clean, well-lit stores and ask questions about dosage.
Yes it can be a problem if people come to work stoned -- but it's no different than coming to work drunk. It is not OK. The solution to that is generally to fire the employee.
As for "cognitive issues" -- such a vague term. Just a single puff of weed affects you cognitively, just like a single beer or glass of wine affects you cognitively. The question is, is it harmful, and the answer is -- look at the amount, the amount of impairment, and whether the impairment is causing a safety factor, such as driving while intoxicated.
In fact THC does not stay in the system much longer than alcohol. The body processes it out of the bloodstream just like alcohol. Metabolites (not THC but THC byproducts created by the body) will remain in the bloodstream for weeks but that doesn't mean the person is intoxicated.
Is there long-term harm from cannabis use? Maybe but the data hasn't found anything super dangerous. There may be an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia -- but nobody has found a causal link -- in other words it's just as likely that schizophrenics are more likely to use cannabis than cannabis users are to become schizophrenic. In any case, even if there's a risk it would be very low -- far lower than the behavioral and cognitive problems that result from regular alcohol use.
You'd think that pot smoking would cause cancer, and it probably does. But the studies done so far haven't been able to find much evidence of it. If there is a cancer risk it's a tiny fraction of what it is for tobacco.
----
Thank you for your reasonable response. Very refreshing compared to the test board-like oracles that only traffic in insults.
I ask because I have seen some of the problems which few seem to want to address. I guess that admitting to any potential problem hurts your cause so its better to ignore such potential roadblocks on the path to legalization and just resort to insulting anyone that asks questions.
See, I know a guy that has a construction company. One of his guys, that was known to smoke every weekend and sometimes in between, fell 12' and had a piece of rebar pierce is his left lung. Fortunately he made a full recovery.
However, OSHA fined the owner and the company had a higher worker's comp rate for an extended period of time, I believe two years. If the worker had injured another worker, my friend and his company would likely have faced a major lawsuit.
So if one eats a wonder browny on Sunday afternoon that has the equivalence of four joints, how long is it before he/she is safe to drive a car, operate heavy equipment, do surgery, fly a plane or any other of the complex things people do? Who has the liability when one violates whatever standards that are established? How expensive is it to regularly test employees? What indications are there to justify testing an employee? How many times can you test a person before they claim harassment or some other offense?
And well, shucks, thanks to every one that pointed out that there are other causes of bad things happenin' to folks. Never coulda guessed that! Gollllllyyy!!!
Or realize that what some try and categorize as "progress" is really just plain stupidity.....
What's wrong, as you point out, is that we have a Bozo for a governor....
Sad.
************BINGO!************
It quantifiably is not, in a state with a republican originally anti-legalization governor no less.
Maybe let the people decide. Freedom and all....
States learned that legalizing marijuana can be a big source of revenue. I don't think it has a lot to do with health.
Any government above the local level should have nothing whatsoever to say regarding moral or social issues. They certainly should not be attempting to profit off of risky behavior, much less promote it. They should not be attempting to control the behavior of their citizens either. If our government held to that philosophy the power of our government might shrink back to a manageable level which is why politicians feel it necessary to stick their noses into everything. Power and money are too difficult to pass up for those of questionable character.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
I’ve read an entire page of replies, most of which bring up good points. Apologies if someone else—maybe on the second page—hits on the following seemingly unaddressed issue, but as one of the first responders pointed out there’s a lot to unpack in your post: Focusing narrowly on just the smoking issue, let’s say smoking either is legal. That doesn’t mean one should be allowed to go out into the jailyard and smoke either one.
Personally, I don’t care if pot is legalized for rec purposes or not, although I tend to think legalization is preferable if use is reasonably constrained. Others shouldn’t have to inhale your pot smoke, just like others shouldn’t have to inhale your cigarette smoke. In jail, guys may likely have a hard time escaping your smoke (of either kind), if allowed. So I see prohibiting criminals from smoking in the jail yard and possibly legalizing MJ as two entirely different sets of issues.
I believe studies show it lessens crime and the homeless camp thing just sounds made up.
Not sure that’s true. You can drink in Mexico at 18 and I think a lot more people go there than to Canada. We were in Ontario for spring break this year and weed is legal there, but you have to buy it through the mail. No shops yet. Still hard to get, but walking around downtown, every office building had a group out on smoke breaks before they went back into work.
Agree that this post has gone off the rails a bit with 2 topics - cigarettes being banned in prisons and legalizing marijuana.
But, for educational purposes, it should be pointed out that, in fact, THC does have a MUCH LONGER HALF LIFE than alcohol, with the potential for prolonged intoxication. THC is very lipophilic and once ingested is stored in adipose tissue, liver, lung and spleen, from which it is then redistributed into the bloodstream. Ultimately it is metabolized by the liver and studies have shown that infrequent THC users have a half life of about one day, with frequent users more along the lines of 5-10 days.
Smoking THC can cause lung damage, since about one third more tar is retained in the lungs while smoking it compared to cigarettes.
THC/CBD are carcinogenic; some of the cancers associated with its use include gliomas, as well as prostate and cervical cancer.
Marijuana affects judgment, motor coordination and reaction time and studies have shown a correlation between THC blood concentrations and driving ability.
Regular THC use in adolescents leads to higher rates of drop out from school.
Finally, recreational marijuana became legal in Colorado on Jan 1, 2014. The number of fatal crashes with drivers who tested positive for marijuana rose from 47 in 2013 to 115 in 2016 - a 145% increase.
Bottom line, it is not without it's potential negative side effects and dangers. It will become legal sooner rather than later, if nothing else because the states see taxing it as an income stream.
But, for educational purposes, it should be pointed out that, in fact, THC does have a MUCH LONGER HALF LIFE than alcohol, with the potential for prolonged intoxication. THC is very lipophilic and once ingested is stored in adipose tissue, liver, lung and spleen, from which it is then redistributed into the bloodstream. Ultimately it is metabolized by the liver and studies have shown that infrequent THC users have a half life of about one day, with frequent users more along the lines of 5-10 days.
Smoking THC can cause lung damage, since about one third more tar is retained in the lungs while smoking it compared to cigarettes.
THC/CBD are carcinogenic; some of the cancers associated with its use include gliomas, as well as prostate and cervical cancer.
Marijuana affects judgment, motor coordination and reaction time and studies have shown a correlation between THC blood concentrations and driving ability.
Regular THC use in adolescents leads to higher rates of drop out from school.
Finally, recreational marijuana became legal in Colorado on Jan 1, 2014. The number of fatal crashes with drivers who tested positive for marijuana rose from 47 in 2013 to 115 in 2016 - a 145% increase.
Bottom line, it is not without it's potential negative side effects and dangers. It will become legal sooner rather than later, if nothing else because the states see taxing it as an income stream.
Those years also coincide with the increased use of cell phones which is much more likely the cause
I've seen some pretty valid arguments about the "homeless" from both sides.
I was in CO a year before they legalized and I already thought they had a pretty big homeless problem. But I have also seen some studies where there does seem to be a correlation between some of the "younger" homeless and legalization.
Yep, more young people will give you both more accidents and more young homeless people.
Any data on whether or not those in the car accidents were actually impaired at the time of accident? Any data on the type of testing that was done to determine the presence of THC? In order to prove someone's agenda they probably did a hair test which will show positive results for 6 months or more. I'd also like to compare testing methods between the two years worth of data.
Oh, and BTW, two data points is a line, not a trend.
BBrown most of that rant was not for you, I just used your post to respond.
Last edited:
I don’t really understand the reluctance to legalize marijuana. It has been proven to be non addictive and there have been no proven cases of death as a result of overdose. Can’t say the same for alcohol and yet it is legal. I guess we have grown accustomed to it so we are willing to live with its perils, myself
Included.
Personally, I would prefer to legalize and regulate marijuana than allow illegal elements control it. Having teenage and young adult children, I can tell you getting marijuana in PA is not difficult. I also have a close friend with a grow in WA. Before he can sell any marijuana, the material is inspected for desease, pesticides, fungus and other pests. Everything is also assayed so you also know exactly how much THC or CBD is contained when you purchase it. BTW, it is not unusual for some of his bud to assay at over 30% THC.
Included.
Personally, I would prefer to legalize and regulate marijuana than allow illegal elements control it. Having teenage and young adult children, I can tell you getting marijuana in PA is not difficult. I also have a close friend with a grow in WA. Before he can sell any marijuana, the material is inspected for desease, pesticides, fungus and other pests. Everything is also assayed so you also know exactly how much THC or CBD is contained when you purchase it. BTW, it is not unusual for some of his bud to assay at over 30% THC.
Is this the same FDA which stood by silently while Purdue Pharma told a whole generation of doctors that Oxycontin, when prescribed in a clinical setting, was addictive in only 5 percent of patients ? That FDA? LOL.
Half-Life vs Effect
It is important to clarify that the half life of marijuana does not directly relate to the duration the user spends “high.” To put this into context, it is commonly understood that smoking marijuana is a different experience than eating marijuana. Let’s say in both situations 50 mg of THC was consumed. The person who smoked the marijuana may experience the high more rapidly, a result of direct absorption into the bloodstream via the lungs, as opposed to the user who eats a cookie. The process of breaking down and absorbing the THC via the digestive system takes more time, producing delayed effects which commonly last longer than smoked marijuana.
While each of these two experiences may have different durations wherein the effects are experienced, the process of storage and removal from the body remains unchanged. Therefore, the half life of marijuana is not the same thing as how long you can expect to be high.
THC and Its Metabolites
THC produces two metabolites which can be tested for in both urine and blood samples. Like THC and many of the other cannabinoids found in marijuana, these metabolites are highly lipid soluble, meaning they are more likely to be stored in fat in the body. As you may have heard, some people have a difficult time burning fat, allowing cannabinoids such as the THC found in marijuana to have a half life lasting several days to nearly two weeks. In cases of long, heavy marijuana use, a half life of over a month is possible.
Researchers in 2007 we able to show THC has a half life of just over four (4) days in non-frequent users. Frequent users of marijuana who were able to abstain for a month had a half life of between nine (9) and twelve (12) days. If nothing else, this illuminates just how easily cannabinoids can build up in the fat (aka lipids) of its users, showing how variable the half life of marijuana is along the way.
The testing I quoted was done on blood, not hair. You are correct - 2 data points is a line, not a trend. Other numbers to demonstrate a trend include 2013 with 47 deaths, 2014 with 66, 2015 with 88 and 2016 with 115. Yeah if you graph those numbers it is a pretty good upward trend.
72 of the 115 from 2016 (63%) were above the legal blood limit in Colorado for operating a motor vehicle while impaired.
Above the legal blood limit in Alcohol or Weed?
>>
During a town hall meeting, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson said “marijuana-related” traffic deaths, hospital visits and school suspensions in Colorado have “not significantly” increased since the state legalized the drug. That’s inaccurate. Statistics from various official sources show substantial increases.
But the limitations of the data make it impossible to know for sure how many of the documented incidents were directly caused by marijuana use. Unlike alcohol, for example, testing positive for marijuana doesn’t necessarily mean a person is under the influence of the drug at the time of the traffic accident.<<
>>
‘Marijuana-Related’ Traffic Deaths
The definition of “marijuana-related” in the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Traffic Area report makes it difficult to draw conclusions from the traffic fatality data, which were drawn from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In the introduction of its report, the Rocky Mountain HIDTA states that terms such as “marijuana-related” or “tested positive for marijuana” do “not necessarily prove that marijuana was the cause of the incident.” The section on “Impaired Driving” also states that, when it comes to traffic fatalities, “marijuana-related” entails “any time marijuana shows up in the toxicology report [of drivers]. It could be marijuana only or marijuana with other drugs and/or alcohol.”
From 2009 to 2012, the “medical marijuana commercialization years,” the average yearly marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by 48 percent compared with the “early medical marijuana era” between 2006 and 2008. In the first two years after the recreational use of marijuana became legal (2013 to 2014), the average yearly marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by another 41 percent.
From 2006 to 2014 overall, marijuana-related traffic deaths increased by 154 percent, from 37 fatalities with drivers testing positive for marijuana in 2006 to 94 in 2014 — hardly an insignificant increase, as Johnson claimed. For comparison, there were 170 alcohol-related fatalities per year in Colorado between 2003 and 2012, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Rocky Mountain HIDTA report emphasizes that the proportion of marijuana-related traffic fatalities to traffic fatalities as a whole increased as well: In 2014, marijuana-related traffic fatalities made up 19.26 percent of all traffic deaths, up from 6.92 percent in 2006.
But the increase in the proportion of marijuana-related traffic deaths could merely mean that more people are using the drug — not necessarily that more people are under the influence of marijuana when involved in fatal traffic accidents.
In fact, a January 2016 Rocky Mountain HIDTA update report, which only looked at youth and adult marijuana use, did note that 31.24 percent of college-aged adults (18 to 25) had reported using marijuana in the past month in 2013/2014, compared with 21.43 percent in 2005/2006. Likewise, 12.45 percent of adults 26-years-old and older used marijuana in the past month in 2013/2014, compared with 5.32 percent in 2005/2006.
It’s also worth noting that, according to the report, 37 percent of all drivers in 2014 who tested positive for marijuana, not just those involved in traffic fatalities, also had alcohol in their system. An additional 15 percent of all marijuana-positive drivers had other drugs in their system. And a further 15 percent of drivers had both alcohol and other drugs in their system, along with marijuana. Only 33 percent of tested drivers had only marijuana in their system.
Blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or greater is the legal threshold for driving while impaired in all 50 states. Blood alcohol concentration levels do correspond to a person’s intoxication level. However, marijuana and other drugs, such as cocaine and prescription pain killers, can stay in a person’s system for a few days, so the presence of the drug alone is not necessarily an indicator of intoxication.
Other states with legalized recreational marijuana also have seen similar trends in marijuana-related traffic fatalities. In May 2016, the American Automobile Association conducted an analysis of Washington’s marijuana-related fatalities and found that around twice as many “fatal-crash-involved drivers” had THC in their system in 2014 compared with previous years. Recreational marijuana became legal in Washington in November 2012.
Like the Rocky Mountain HIDTA’s 2015 report, the AAA report cautions that testing positive for THC doesn’t mean the driver was impaired or at fault for the crash. The AAA report added that many marijuana-positive drivers also had alcohol and other drugs in their system, “which in some cases likely contributed more significantly to the crash than did the THC.”
The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that “the role played by marijuana in [traffic] accidents is often unclear, because it can remain detectable in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because users frequently combine it with alcohol.” Though the NIDA adds, “The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.”
A February 2015 “Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk” study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did find “a statistically significant increase” in crash risk (1.25 times) for drivers who tested positive for THC. But after the researchers controlled for age, gender, ethnicity and alcohol concentration level, increased crash risk associated with marijuana was no longer significant. This suggests these other variables “account for much of the increased risk associated … with THC,” write the study authors.
There’s also some evidence that medical marijuana laws may contribute to decreasing traffic fatalities. One study published in The Journal of Law & Economics in 2013 reviewed traffic fatalities in the 19 states that had passed medical marijuana laws by 2010 and found that “legalization is associated with an 8–11 percent decrease in traffic fatalities” for the year after the laws took effect. The researchers from the University of Colorado, Denver and elsewhere also found that the decrease is more significant for alcohol-related fatalities at 13.2 percent.
To be clear, there is evidence that “marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time,” according to the NIDA.
There is also no doubt that marijuana intoxication alone has played a direct role in some fatal crashes. The Rocky Mountain HIDTA 2015 report, for example, cites a November 2014 case in which a teenager driving under the influence of only marijuana hit and killed a 16-year-old high school student. In addition to testing positive for marijuana, the teenager also showed visible signs of intoxication, such as having trouble walking in a straight line and smelling like the drug. Passengers in the car also said the driver had smoked marijuana in the car prior to driving.
Still, the question remains as to whether Colorado’s marijuana laws, or Washington’s for that matter, have directly led to surges in traffic fatalities overall. At this point, the data don’t conclusively prove that they have.<<
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Basketball NitBits: Penn State hoops trending well for SEC transfer
- Latest: interrobang
