Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

[dean]

I'm only going to briefly somewhat add to this discussion here as I'm on borrowed time.  I certainly do have other stories etc to add just not now.

One thing I will mention is that in this country [Australia] we have what they call 'booze buses' which are essentially alcohol breathalyzers in a bit of a convoy.  The purpose is of course to bust drink drivers and be a general deterrent against drink driving.  Now most if not all of these buses in my state are also drug buses, ie, they can test if you have been on drugs.  Now I haven't experienced these myself, only the alcohol testing side, but I imagine they are mainly testing for the usual suspects such as MJ and ecstasy etc.  The 'party drugs' you know.

The first person busted with this was a middle aged business man with a couple of kids who later had his conviction overturned due to a mistake: he had never smoked and fought to clear his name that had been smeared as the first busted by these new buses.

I bring this case up as I have heard that these drug tests can only test if you have drugs in your system, and that it cannot test if you are directly under the influence or not, or even if you had some that day or two weeks ago.  This is probably why they don't automatically screen you for drugs as well as doing the usual 'breath here'.

That alone is probably the only reason why I'd say no to legalizing MJ.  Here in Australia if you give above a .05 blood alcohol content reading you are breaking the law and are punished accordingly.  If what I have heard is correct, then there is no way to adequately regulate marijuana use legally and therefore the system is more open to abuse.

People get hit by drunk drivers all the time, and drug users all the time, but by having this whole .05 bac law it makes most [not all] people more responsible when they drink and drive.  As the ad campaign here says: "if you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot."  More recently the slogan has also added:  "If you drive on drugs you're out of your mind."

Most people generally know how much they can drink and still be responsible to drive.  If there is no way to properly test and punish those using drugs whilst driving adequately then, well, I don't think it's too far fetched to say that some folks will be more inclined to drive then wait it out, just by thinking 'I'm okay' when they are in fact not.

Of course, people still drive on drugs, and still will, but the assumption with making MJ legal is that use will go up, or at the very least the people who already use it will be more open and less concerned with hiding it, especially from the public or the police.  I know people who do smoke, and when they do they are actually responsible in that they make a point not to drive straight away, but I also do think that it's likely that they've driven whilst still slightly 'affected.'

Eh, I've more to say, but that is probably the biggest reason for me on not legalizing marijuana. 

 

[AndyC]

Around here we have the RIDE program (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere). Basically, around the weekends, holidays, etc., the cops set up checkpoints at likely places, talk to drivers, use roadside screening devices, etc. Very effective, both for catching drunk drivers and as a deterrant.

What is interesting is that they also pick up quite a few pot smokers as well, with a pretty obvious smell of smoke lingering around the car, not to mention paraphernalia and usually a stash in the glovebox or the console.

People are smoking and driving. Right now, they can be charged with possession. If that were not the case, it is true that there is no easy and effective way for cops to measure THC in the blood as there is for alcohol, or a definite number that is too much. That, to me, makes legalization impossible.

[Rev. Powell]

This study confirms that THC levels can't be reliably tested in blood samples even when the subject is still impaired.  It also confirmed that the impairment effect of THC on driving was less than alcohol, although still measurable.

The problem with legalization is that we really can't predict what the effect on society would be.  It's all theoretical, extrapolating from studies and from the Dutch experience, which may not translate to other cultures.  That's why I favor decriminalization rather than legalization.

Of course, de facto decriminalization may already be upon us, because the government simply doesn't have the resources to go after millions of American recreational pot smokers.  I doubt most people caught with small amounts of marijuana for personal use suffer much of a penalty in reality; there's no space to put all of them in jail.  So, maybe I'm for the status quo after all.

[ghouck]

The problem with this argument that you and I are having is that you are arguing from your personal experience, and there's no way for me to counter that without attacking your credibility, which I wouldn't want to do.

All in all, the arguement made FOR MJ is largely "I didn't see it, so it didn't happen" when it comes to the uglier side of the drug, which is exactly the situation you describe. Your lack of the same experiences I have do not discredit mine, as you have pointed out.

It also confirmed that the impairment effect of THC on driving was less than alcohol, although still measurable.

Keep in mind that those types of tests removes some key elements, just removing the fear of getting busted makes quite a difference. Also, I didn't see anything comparing levels of intoxication to those of alcohol. For all I know those tests could only show the reactions of a person with the mildest of contact highs, which obviously wouldn't mean much. I read through it, , but didn't see anything describing levels of intoxication or such, or if I did, I didn't understand it. It's a bummer they worded it so damn boring and official, it makes it hard to weed through and make sense of.

[Torgo]

Yes, I've felt that pot should have been legalized quite some time ago.

[Rev. Powell]

The problem with this argument that you and I are having is that you are arguing from your personal experience, and there's no way for me to counter that without attacking your credibility, which I wouldn't want to do.

All in all, the arguement made FOR MJ is largely "I didn't see it, so it didn't happen" when it comes to the uglier side of the drug, which is exactly the situation you describe. Your lack of the same experiences I have do not discredit mine, as you have pointed out.

It also confirmed that the impairment effect of THC on driving was less than alcohol, although still measurable.

Keep in mind that those types of tests removes some key elements, just removing the fear of getting busted makes quite a difference. Also, I didn't see anything comparing levels of intoxication to those of alcohol. For all I know those tests could only show the reactions of a person with the mildest of contact highs, which obviously wouldn't mean much. I read through it, , but didn't see anything describing levels of intoxication or such, or if I did, I didn't understand it. It's a bummer they worded it so damn boring and official, it makes it hard to weed through and make sense of.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing FOR marijuana per se, we're only talking about how damaging it is to society, and what kind of social policy we should adopt to deal with its problems.   I'm not some pothead, I haven't smoked any in well over a decade and I don't have any plans or desire to return to it.

The authors of the study are aware that the study can't replicate actual field conditions: "Although THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program, one can still easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have a dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. Because these possibilities are real, the results of the present studies should not be considered as the final word."

The comparison with alcohol comes from study 3: "For comparative purposes, another group of 16 regular users of alcohol, but not marijuana, were treated with a modest dose of their preferred recreational drug, ethanol, and again placebo, before undertaking the same city driving test... Table 1 shows that a modest dose of alcohol (bac=0.034 g%) produced a significant impairment in city driving, relative to placebo. 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. "

It is hard to read reports like these, though, and even harder to draw real life conclusions from them.  Obviously, no one believes that toking up and driving is a good idea.

[ghouck]

I guess what I am asking is where in the grand scale of things are the levels of THC they speak of? I'm not getting a "THIS is a small amount, typical of a casual user, THIS is how much one would expect if they were doing so FOR intoxication, THIS is some frat boy trying to set a record, THIS much scares Kieth Richards" feel for the amounts they describe, which I guess is a hard one to articulate.

[Rev. Powell]

I can't answer that.  They talk about blood plasma levels of THC and so on.  But I assume since they were from the US Dept. of Transportation that they used levels they thought would produce useful results.  Anyway, I originally only cited the study because it confirmed that the scientists couldn't detect THC levels in people who were obviously still intoxicated, a point AndyC brought up.

[BeyondTheGrave]

I never smoked weed or did any drug for that matter (Besides beer) but I would legalize it. I remember back in college one of my professors had a huge discussion about how MJ was bad. I just kept thinking "Man alcohol is way worse than this."