"Is a hit the equivalent of a glass of wine or half a bottle of vodka? What about when a bit of pot is combined with a beer or two? How does a police officer judge the sobriety of a person who is high? Right now, people mostly just guess... It is a strange country that is filled with people who object to life-saving vaccines, insist on labelling G.M.O.s, protest the use of pesticides that, when used correctly, have not been shown to cause harm, and yet seem ready to smoke whatever a dealer hands them to put in their pipes."
From a (subscription-only) New Yorker piece titled "What Are We Smoking?"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५५ टिप्पण्या:
Cue the pro-pot protesters: Marijuana is totally safe! It's safer than drinking caffeinated soda! This is another piece of "Reefer Madness" propaganda! Etc. etc. etc.
It is a strange country that is filled with people who...
Hippies are inconsistent, illogical, and frequently full of shit. News at 11.
"Duuuuuuuuuude, don't harsh my mellow with that New Yorker shit. Pass me the bong."
"Reefer Madness" is mentioned in the article: "I am not suggesting that we all dust off our copies of “Reefer Madness,” or that getting high is inherently wrong—as long as you know how high you are getting and what it is you are smoking."
By the way, check out the name of the writer of "Reefer Madness." That's a source of levity around here.
When I was first arranging to meet Meade, I was all: Maybe you should tell me your real name.
How about the police pull people over for reckless driving and use the poor quality of the driving as evidence of the impairment. That might get more drunk and stoned drivers off the street than lurking police officers pulling people over for technicalities and then trying to prove, after the fact, that they were intoxicated or otherwise impaired.
Damn, I do need to get my period.
Let's hear from you Nannies!
You don't like marihoochie drug cigarettes so people ought to be locked for it. And I bet you call yourselves less intrusive, liberty lovin, small government conservatives.
I have been amused for years at the anti-tobacco obsession of the left while marijuana, a more toxic smoke source, is being hailed as virtuous.
Don;t expect logic from these people.
"When I was first arranging to meet Meade, I was all: Maybe you should tell me your real name."
And I was all like, "'ere."
The DUI threshold for marijuana should be empirically determined based on a study using driving tests of subjects using various levels of dope and backed up by their performance on road-side sobriety tests. The threshold should be the equivalent of the allowable state blood alcohol level.
If the suspect fails the roadside test then he goes downtown for a blood test, just like for booze.
You dummies want it legalized, you should be treated just like drunk drivers. Same laws, same consequences.
You will be just as dead killed by a stoner behind the wheel as a drunk on the road.
"It is a strange country"
Progs win, illogic and all. What more do you want?
It used to be you told the police officer you'd had only two beers he knew you were lying but that was before they invented the Imperial IPA.
garage mahal said...And I bet you call yourselves less intrusive, liberty lovin, small government conservatives.
Get your laws off my body! Oooh, here's Obamacare. Get your laws on my body, get your government in my bedroom! Oh, there's a bill for Obamacare coming due? Get your hands in his wallet!
I don't give a shit what kind of drugs people want to do, as long as I don't have to pay for it. Once you make me financially responsible for the choices other people make I'm going to insist on having a say in those choices. I don't want to be, but according to you fellas I'm morally and legally responsible for the health outcomes of others so I damn well want to have a say in what leads to those outcomes. But yeah, small government libertarians and conservatives are the real hypocrites, big time.
"It is a strange country that is filled with people who..."
Yeah, if you rely on the most boring cliche imaginable that says anti-vaccs, anti-GMO, greenist hippy types are the prototypical pot enthusiast. I smoke a few times a week and know a great deal of people who smoke regularly, all from a variety of backgrounds, and that description does not fit anybody I know.
Not strange at all to eschew vaccinations while smoking pot. The big idea is to oppose every attempt by the gumint to control and orchestrate our lives.
@Jimbino:
"The big idea is to oppose every attempt by the gumint to control and orchestrate our lives."
Oh, I thought the big idea was that it felt good to be high.
With respect to secondary effects, the issue should not be causes, but rather external effects. It doesn't matter, or shouldn't matter, if dangerous behaviors are caused by marijuana, alcohol, drowsiness, distractions, etc.
It is a strange country...
that denies vaccines are part of a risk management protocol with inherent risks.
that denies people choice through obfuscation (e.g. labeling).
that protests the use of mitigation (e.g. pesticides) without assessing risk.
that seeks an escape from reality through puff the hallucinating dragon.
that denies the evolution of human life from conception.
What are we smoking, indeed.
""I am not suggesting that we all dust off our copies of “Reefer Madness,” or that getting high is inherently wrong—as long as you know how high you are getting and what it is you are smoking."
Neither of which people smoking pot in fact know.
When you smoke pot, how are you determining how high you are? Generally, the higher you get the the less well you are able to determine this. (this is also true for drinking liquor, only there if you are drunk driving cops can test your blood levels).
And if the local pot dealer sold pot laced with PCP, how would you know?
"Smoke anything they give you."
On a happy note my brother once got to tell two teenagers he arrested for possession that he was letting them go because the bag of weed they had paid for and smoked half of already was dogsh!t.
....I mean actual dried dogsh!t.
Any Marijuana use one week before driving. Otherwise you're too stupid to drive.
On a happy note my brother once got to tell two teenagers he arrested for possession that he was letting them go because the bag of weed they had paid for and smoked half of already was dogsh!t.
Did your brother consider making them smoke the other half before letting them go?
Some folks don't get the idea that pot tests do NOT show impairment, since pot, unlike booze, leaves traces of the active ingredients long after consumption and resulting impairment.
@jr565:
"Neither of which people smoking pot in fact know."
Anytime you consume something that has been prepared by a third-party, you have no way of knowing anything about the absolute safety of that item. The people in Kansas enjoying some ice cream had no way of knowing that that ice cream contained a microscopic organism that could harm (and in some cases kill) them. Yes, you are taking a certain amount of risk whenever you light some dried leaves on fire and inhale the smoke. But every time you get in your car and take it on public roads you are putting your life and others at a certain amount of risk. Over 30,000 people die in car accidents every year in the US and over a million die globally. How far do you need to expand your circle of relationships before you come across someone who died or was seriously injured in a car accident?
I knew this jimbino, so what's your solution?
Does the roadside sobriety test become the sole piece of evidence in impairment? Is it paired with a blood test that shows there was drugs in their system at some point, so we're putting two and two together? Do we just not worry about it, because pot impaired drivers are less plentiful than drunk drivers, so statistically, we're probably safe? I'm not being a jerk. I'd like to know how to handle these new situations.
All is proceeding as I have foreseen
Did your brother consider making them smoke the other half before letting them go?
He considered it time served, but he did give them the bag back.
When the lab guy told him the results he actually raced his Sgt. to the interview room to be the one that told them.
Somehow these "get your laws off my body" heroin addicts around here end up on government support pretty regularly using those same laws to reach into my pocket. Just sayin'.
You can't have a discussion about pot without people who were mis-informed by reefer madness it seems. I don't smoke pot myself, but a lot of people out here in Washington do. One thing you people will learn after you get out of your little ignorant bubbles is that if someone is too high to drive they invariably pull over or more likely don't even get off the couch. The other thing is stoners are better drivers when they are high. They usually drive under the speed limit and are overly aware/paranoid compared to a sober driver.
Notice none of these people above site any statistics that show pot causes more accidents. Here is just one study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/
"3.2.1 Studies that do not show impairment
Surprisingly, given the alarming results of cognitive studies, most marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on actual road tests.37, 38 Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol.39"
"Cannabis users perceive their driving under the influence as impaired and more cautious,40 and given a dose of 7 mg THC (about a third of a joint), drivers rated themselves as impaired even though their driving performance was not; in contrast, at a BAC 0.04% (slightly less than two “standard drinks” of a can of beer or small 5 oz. glass of wine; half the legal limit in most US states), driving performance was impaired even though drivers rated themselves as unimpaired.41"
@tim in vermont:
"Somehow these "get your laws off my body" heroin addicts around here end up on government support pretty regularly using those same laws to reach into my pocket. Just sayin'."
Even under a prohibitionist regime, those same addicts would still end up on government support. It would just be in the form of police, probation officers, parole officers, public defenders, prosecutors, courts, jails, and prisons.
Steve had it right at 11:04am....not the stuff about the period, the other stuff.
"The other thing is stoners are better drivers when they are high. They usually drive under the speed limit and are overly aware/paranoid compared to a sober driver."
I do notice that people high on pot THINK they are better drivers. But they are high on pot. So...
I got a right to get baked like hardtack and drive, d'ye hear! A RIGHT!"
The other thing is stoners are better drivers when they are high. They usually drive under the speed limit and are overly aware/paranoid compared to a sober driver.
Aren't a lot of drunks the same way? Going 35mph on a freeway posted 65mph is still endangering people, though not perhaps in the same way as a person doing 100mph. If a pot smoker acts like an 85 year old woman driving, well, they still need to be taken off the road, just like the 85 yr old woman.
Unless the conditions call for it, driving under the speed limit creates a hazardous condition.
I smoke pot almost every weekend. It's good stuff, usually shipped from CO or CA. My wife tried it once - didn't even smoke it, I blew her a "shotgun" hit and she inhaled the billowing smoke. Coughed for ten minutes, and said never again. She doesn't mind when I do it, though she doesn't like the smell much so I always go into the carport or outside.
She could confirm for you all that I drive perfectly fine on a few hits. Note: this does not mean I also drive fine when I'm stoned off my ass. Not the case at all. But 2-4 regular puffs on a joint or a pipe is, in my estimation, less of an impairment than even a single Sam Adams or Summer Shandy. If anything, my inclination to speed or race a yellow light drops to zero. I don't granny-drive - but instead of doing 10 over, I set the cruise for 3 or 4 over and am perfectly content.
Tolerance also plays a factor. Some high school kid toking his first bag of kindbud is gonna freak out after 2 hits. A guy like me, that might as well be a chaser.
They did studies that supposedly show there is less impairment with pot than booze, and it's worse when pot is mixed with booze.
But there is no way for us to determine whether pot impairment contributes to increased traffic accidents, beciase there is no test to show whether someone is actively impaired, only that they've had pot in the past.
Shouldn't the first question be whether pot actually impairs driving?
Unless we know the answer to that, all discussion is BS.
Anyone know of any studies?
I know of at least 2 by the US NHTSA where they gave people measured amounts of pot and ran them through an obstacle course. Smoke a bit more, run them through a different obstacle course and so on. They found slight, but probably not significant, improvement of driving skills on pot.
Another, in Australia back in the 90s also showed no impairment.
Anyone know of any scientifically valid studies that show different?
People seem to compare pot to alcohol but the entire mechanism of the 2 drugs is completely different. They are not at all comparable in terms of physiological effects.
John Henry
The big driving while high danger is distraction as you survey the donuts looking for the one you want to eat next, before the one you'll eat after that, and then again, and again. Did I have a donut? Better have another.
All I know for sure is Denver is a wasteland of unemployment (4.2%) and raising real estate prices because people must not have heard about the Devil's weed yet. Once they figure out what the Hell is going on here, well, by God, you'd best not be in their way as they get the flying *(^^ out of this misery-strewn ash heap of pot corpses.
Again, the answer to this is to arrest people for their actions, not their condition. Cops (and other drivers) can now have dashcams to record driving behavior and build a case for pulling people over. There is no blood test for arguing with your passengers or the idiot on the radio. There is no blood test for being tired and pissed off at your boss. There are dozens of things that impair one's ability to drive. Treat them all the same way. Quit relying on the pseudo science that says that blood test X predicts behavior Y, so we can put you in jail for blood test X.
When you get stupid on pot, you're the first person in the room to know you are stupid.
When you get stupid on alcohol, you're the last person in the room to know you are stupid.
My buddies were driving to Spokane for the 1974 World's Fair. Of course, there was a lot of marijuana to support the road trip, and the shotgunner was rolling reefers as fast as possible.
If you've ever driven across eastern Washington on I-90, then you know this is pedal-to-the-metal country.
Somewhere around George, Washington, they managed to catch a WSP (Washington State Patrol). The officer asked them to roll down their window, and then bellowed "How fast do you think you were going?". They sat stunned for a moment, and then said "55 mph" with great confidence.
The officer paused, and then screamed back "YOU WERE DOING 5 MPHs!!".
They lost their weed on the side of the road, and nobody was cited.
On a happy note my brother once got to tell two teenagers he arrested for possession that he was letting them go because the bag of weed they had paid for and smoked half of already was dogsh!t.
It's mostly Maui Wowie, man, but it's got some labrador in it.
Some buddies were smoking and driving at night in a heavy rainstorm back in the day. They came to a railroad crossing and the driver stopped and looked both ways. He then started back up. It was raining so hard and the car was so full of smoke he just kept his eye on the side of the road and kept the speedometer at 25 mph.
After a few minutes he heard a knock on the driver's window. He rolled it down and a guy is standing next to the car and asks, "you need a push? You've been spinning your tires for 5 minutes."
Colorado apparently has instituted limits for pot, so that toking too much can net you the same DUI as drinking too much. One big difference is that they are apparently talking just blood tests under the state's implied consent law, and no option for a breath test. But, the police can still request the same roadside sobriety test used with drinkers, etc.
NORML of course thinks that the CO limits do not take into account the fact that people can build up a tolerance for pot. But, to some extent, the same can be said of heavy drinkers, and the .08% for drinking is probably no more arbitrary than the 5 nanograms per milliliter THC limits under CO law.
Being in Hospice now, I'm a nearly daily user of marijuana, procured illegally. My source, however, has been developing strains primarily for medical use, based on different factors. For instance, does the user need it for pain management? Nausea suppression? Appetite enhancement and stimulation? I have 3 distinct strains that I use at different times and reason, sometimes grinding "cocktails" to load into my vape.
And it is very potent and effective. If I could drive - and I took myself off the road after beginning my second chemo protocol - I would NOT after huffing this stuff. This isn't the ganj I was smoking at Dead shows in 1980. We've moved waayyyy beyond that.
I see a lot of mocking on the thread, and that's ok. Folks in my position are real used to seeing that. But when when you're in a situation where you might squeeze an extra day of life out due to being able to eat and retain the calories and nutrition of a good, tasty meal, then this becomes deadly serious business. I fight tenaciously for each dear day of my life, and marijuana, thankfully, supplements a number of issues I have to deal with. With marijuana in the background, my pain is very well managed and my appetite is good. So life is good!
Funny little story. At the beginning of a trial I participated in at NIH, I was being interviewed by the Oncologists and Research Nurses. They asked if I smoked, an I replied that didn't smoke tobacco. Well, how about marijuana? Yes, says I. I use it to supplement my pain medication. They all nodded. How do you smoke it? Well, I roll a joint or load a pipe. They frowned. One of them said, from now on, we'd prefer that you use a bong or one of those new vaporizers. I just looked at them. Wait. Are you saying you're cool with me using weed as long as I minimize actual smoke inhalation? They all laughed, and the lead doc said, well, not officially! We are the Government, after all. But, the reality is that over 75% of our cancer trial participants use marijuana in conjunction with their treatment. We would rather all of you not increase your risk of lung cancer. Laughter ensued.
In my anecdotal experience after just over 3 years of treatment, the vast majority of of Oncology doctors and nurses are heavily in favor of medical marijuana. They're not real hung up on "the numbers" or "science." Only that their patients are left alone to find their own level of tolerance and comfort. Pretty simple, really.
Back in the day, I remember driving while high on several occasions -- and absolutely hating it. I don't remember spinning my wheels or going 5 MPH, but I promise that I never ever exceeded the posted speed limit! So paranoid.
Chef Mojo got the '4:20' comment!
@ Fabi:
ROTFLMAO!!! So I did! 4:20! THAT made my day. Thanks for pointing it out!
Achilles said...
You can't have a discussion about pot without people who were mis-informed by reefer madness it seems.
True, but some of the comments are hilarious. "It's so scary!"
The officer paused, and then screamed back "YOU WERE DOING 5 MPHs!!".
I see people on I70 in Colorado going 5mph all the time.
Going 35mph on a freeway posted 65mph is still endangering people, though not perhaps in the same way as a person doing 100mph.
I see people on I70 in Colorado going 35mpg all the time, until they get bunched up behind those 5mph people.
Cute campfire stories - "it's so scary!" - and baseless conjecture, but that nonsense never actually happens. That's why the CO accident rate is decreasing more than it is in adjacent states.
Anyone driving 5 mph thinking they are going 55 mph is either permanently impaired or smoking pot laced with something else.
It is a short term problem as self-controlled driving will eventually be banned in favor of driverless vehicles. Some new cars have 360 degree cameras, self-braking etc already. Then, smoke 'em if you've got 'em after you plug in your destination coordinates.
NotQuiteUnBuckley Warn us when we start so we can garrison the Texas border...
garage mahal said...
"Let's hear from you Nannies!
You don't like marihoochie drug cigarettes so people ought to be locked for it. And I bet you call yourselves less intrusive, liberty lovin, small government conservatives."
In your case I would advise you smoke as much as you can as often as you can. At this point you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
"Does the roadside sobriety test become the sole piece of evidence in impairment?"
The logical solution is this: both driver and cop need to submit to a roadside test of sobriety. If the driver outscores the cop, the cop does jail time, loses all hope of future employment, is divorced by his wife and spends the rest of his years in jail for failure to pay child support.
In theory that's funny, but do you actually envision that this would happen often enough to help? Do you find a great number of drunken highway patrolmen in your travels?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा