Whether or not it ever gets legalised, it should be illegal for all road users to be under the influence of drugs/alcohol as it reduces one's reactions.

It is already. Hasn't stopped drunk driving has it? Prohibitions work!! :)

---

Whether or not it ever gets legalised, it should be illegal for all road users to be under the influence of drugs/alcohol as it reduces one's reactions.

It is already. Hasn't stopped drunk driving has it? Prohibitions work!! :)

:) That's ok then, now I'm back on the road, but this time in 26 tonners, any drunk/druggies hit me (or the other way round :) ), I end up maintaining a clean license while they...

---

Being a newly transformed modern day moderate liberal, I think people have a right to put what ever they find in nature into their mouths or lungs. Be it weed, mushrooms or frog licking.

No, the voters in CO that approved it are Republicans. About time they admitted they're no better than hippy libs.

"Junkie" is a rather harsh term, isn't it? That's putting a label on a minority of folks with a racist undertone.

Again, you gotta be joking! Whether or not it ever gets legalised, it should be illegal for all road users to be under the influence of drugs/alcohol as it reduces one's reactions.

If calling a druggie a junkie racist, then I'm racist & I should have the right to refuse to go on the road with them!

Sirius, you'll have to cut Guy some slack, he's trying out a new vocabulary and at times it appears that he goes a little overboard. Such as:

Being a newly transformed modern day moderate liberal, I think people have a right to put what ever they find in nature into their mouths or lungs. Be it weed, mushrooms or frog licking.

You might notice that the "rights" Guy mentions are more libertarian than moderate liberal. It's unclear why he believes the word "junkie" carries racist undertones, though the term typically refers to heroin addicts rather than marijuana users.

For more details of the survey Gary linked the source (a press release) is here. While the headline does state "Survey of California Drivers Shows Fourteen Percent Testing Positive for Drugs", the details introduce a caveat:

Over 1,300 drivers voluntarily agreed to provide breath and/or saliva samples at roadside locations set up in nine California cities. The samples were collected between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, the peak times of impaired driving. Breath samples were examined for alcohol, while saliva samples were tested for THC (the active ingredient in marijuana), major illegal drugs, plus prescription and over-the-counter medications that may adversely affect driving.

As the sample was not a random selection, it's unclear whether it was truly representative. As the survey was conducted over 10 out of 168 hours of the week, it's also unclear whether the sample, even if representative, is typical of CA drivers generally.

The survey itself can be viewed here and tells a slightly different story:

A random sample of nighttime drivers was interviewed on Friday and Saturday nights from 10 p.m. to midnight and 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. Data were collected on one weekend in eight communities and on two weekends in one community during the summer of 2012. The nine communities where data were collected were Eureka, San Rafael, and Redding in the northern part of the state; Fresno and Modesto in the central part of the state; and Anaheim, Ontario, Chula Vista, and Gardena in southern California.

Page 7 of the report (page 10 of the pdf) appears to show that the test was most sensitive to the detection of marijuana. It is not clear from the survey whether detection implies impaired driving ability.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Page 7 of the report (page 10 of the pdf) appears to show that the test was most sensitive to the detection of marijuana. It is not clear from the survey whether detection implies impaired driving ability.

Also not stated is that THC is retained by the body much longer than many other drugs, thus it is detectable for a longer period after consumption.

However in the case of pot (and anything but booze) any detectable amount is a criminal offense, impaired or not. Same as the magic .08 number for booze, doesn't matter if you are impaired at that point it is automatic.

Now the feds may have to do a study and see what level of THC results in impairment of the ability to drive. But until they make it legal at the Federal level that study isn't going to happen.

---

Page 7 of the report (page 10 of the pdf) appears to show that the test was most sensitive to the detection of marijuana. It is not clear from the survey whether detection implies impaired driving ability.

Also not stated is that THC is retained by the body much longer than many other drugs, thus it is detectable for a longer period after consumption.

However in the case of pot (and anything but booze) any detectable amount is a criminal offense, impaired or not. Same as the magic .08 number for booze, doesn't matter if you are impaired at that point it is automatic.

Now the feds may have to do a study and see what level of THC results in impairment of the ability to drive. But until they make it legal at the Federal level that study isn't going to happen.

Apparently saliva based tests (as used in the survey) for THC have a shorter window for positive results than blood tests for the chemicals it's metabolized into:

Delta 9 THC is the parent compound. When found in saliva, this means impairment, because the drug has entered the blood stream and affected the brain, thus affecting motor skills. Levels we have measured in saliva in the lab range from 0.5ng/mL to 150ng/mL (1 ng/mL = 1 part per billion). All of these mean the parent compound is available to the brain. The higher the level, the more drug ingested or the more recently the drug was used. Delta 9 THC has been measured up to 72 hours after smoking, in saliva.

source

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"Junkie" is a rather harsh term, isn't it? That's putting a label on a minority of folks with a racist undertone.

Again, you gotta be joking! Whether or not it ever gets legalised, it should be illegal for all road users to be under the influence of drugs/alcohol as it reduces one's reactions.

If calling a druggie a junkie racist, then I'm racist & I should have the right to refuse to go on the road with them!

"Junkie" is usually specific to a heroin user. There are no racist implications, and if it brings to mind a certain race then that is the persons own racism surfacing. Not unexpected.

---

Janice

Being a newly transformed modern day moderate liberal, I think people have a right to put what ever they find in nature into their mouths or lungs. Be it weed, mushrooms or frog licking.

No, the voters in CO that approved it are Republicans. About time they admitted they're no better than hippy libs.

What? Colorado is a blue state.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/co/colorado_romney_vs_obama-2023.html

Before 2008, it was red. Now, it is purple. Haven't spent time in CO. Would've thought you at least knew a little bit about Springs.
If Ted Nugent was a pothead, he'd fit right in with the pot smokers in CO. Possibly with the exception of Boulder. ;)

I'm surprised no one has posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZiL1PMF3xA

---

I'm surprised no one has posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZiL1PMF3xA

In honor of California: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ok4-H_w9Fs.

Page 7 of the report (page 10 of the pdf) appears to show that the test was most sensitive to the detection of marijuana. It is not clear from the survey whether detection implies impaired driving ability.

Also not stated is that THC is retained by the body much longer than many other drugs, thus it is detectable for a longer period after consumption.

However in the case of pot (and anything but booze) any detectable amount is a criminal offense, impaired or not. Same as the magic .08 number for booze, doesn't matter if you are impaired at that point it is automatic.

Now the feds may have to do a study and see what level of THC results in impairment of the ability to drive. But until they make it legal at the Federal level that study isn't going to happen.

A realistic post.

I think it's reasonable that:
a) People who smoke pot will smoke pot
b) people who drink will drink
c) set limits for marijuana like we do for alcohol.

I'd like to point out Soft's earlier post, it's also realistic.
Pot may not be healthy, it may even be worse than Ciggs.

Ciggs and Alcohol are legal, and what makes pot that much worse? A drunk driver is just as dangerous (if not more than) a stoned driver.

Much like guns, I argue deal with the person, and not the item.

---

#resist

Ciggs and Alcohol are legal, and what makes pot that much worse?

Eating excess amounts of fat and sugar aren't that bad either.

In the name of progress, we must legalize pot at the federal level. Once we do that, we must continue in our progress.

I think the next logical step in progress is to move some mild amphetamines and barbiturates from perscription-only to over-the-counter.

Just the "mild" ones right now.

You act as if legalizing pot is moving that line...
I think that pot belongs on the side of the line that alcohol and ciggs currently are. Regulated, taxed "sin" products. Illegal? no that hasn't worked.

---

#resist

You act as if legalizing pot is moving that line...

It IS moving the line. After we move the line to the other side of weed, it's then time to start working on moving the line again. That's leaning forward. That's progress.

Time to start boycotting posts by Guy. He has ceased contributing anything worthwhile to discussions.

You act as if legalizing pot is moving that line...

It IS moving the line. After we move the line to the other side of weed, it's then time to start working on moving the line again. That's leaning forward. That's progress.

Time to start boycotting posts by Guy. He has ceased contributing anything worthwhile to discussions.

It is not time to boycott Guy, he provides insight into an unusual view of the world. I say he should post freely and often.

---

he can post freely. And I am free to add to the ignore if his drivel gets any worse. The worm and I.D can keep him company.

---

Janice

honestly, Guy used to seem to have something to say. It may have been completely wrong, backwards looking self righteous and stubborn, but at least he adhered to those beliefs. Which made it honest disagreement. His mock liberal sarcasm has certainly lowered his standards, if in fact he had any.

---

Janice

Here is one that should be considered in the debate.

Schizophrenia: the Cannabis link:
Is this the 'tobacco moment' for cannabis?