People arent getting it, so I will make it the subject. We need a pot test, BEFORE we legalize.

[Gman2]

We test for the chemicals that pot degrades into. We have no mainstream test for present level of intoxication. We cannot foist pot on society, till we reconcile this problem. It is not fair, to shove this on those not certain that it is a social good. We make ourselves yahoos, by yelling at those pointing this out. Make no mistake, I am propot, in fact, I am taking some meds right now. But, I am rational. And rational nonsmokers want rational reassurance. And if we FUCK THIS UP, we will have rightly blown our one chance.

[Bonobo]

1. Correct. nt

[H2O Man]

2. I propose a simple rule:

Those adults who want to smoke pot can. Those who don't, should not be forced to.

[Gman2]

4. In non-smoking sections?

[H2O Man]

5. Brownies.

[TexasObserver]

18. You're being too logical and too open minded.

Haven't you seen REEFER MADNESS?

[H2O Man]

20. Yes.

Okay -- a small change: Those who want to use it can't; and those who don't, must be forced to.

[TexasObserver]

31. I'm pretty big on freedom.

For me, it covers all things. I believe a person owns their body and can do anything they want to do to it, including kill it, tattoo it, pierce it, or ingest substances "bad" for it.

There are many things I wouldn't do that I think should be legal, from prostitution to street drug use. I don't find any difference between one who gets meds from a pharmacy and one who gets them from a dealer. They're social problems, not crimes.

[jmowreader]

143. I'm going to have to put Meth down into the list of social problems we don't need to promote

Assume we legalized meth. This would solve one problem immediately: no one would NEED to build a meth lab in his garage as professionals trained in chemical production, who could obtain pure amphetamine as a precursor instead of having to break down cold tablets in gasoline to get the pseudoephedrine out of them, would make the stuff. The reduction in Superfund sites and the vast reduction in violent crime--why go to a street corner guy when you can get your meth at Dr. Feelgood's?--would not offset child neglect and meth mouth. So...maybe we should legalize weed and LSD because they're both reasonably innocuous drugs, and maybe a reasonably benign downer for people who like that (whatcha think, make Valium OTC?) and keep opiates, cocaine products and meth illegal? Speed is no problem--you can get legal speed at any truck stop.

[fascisthunter]

89. lol

[madokie]

26. I think that rule would be good

[laughingliberal]

56. Oh noes! That might be something a free country would do! nt

[DJ13]

3. We also need to lower the strength

Its been hybridized in THC levels over the last 30 years to the point its not viable as a legal intoxicant.

[Fumesucker]

6. You can go to any liquor store and buy 190 proof grain alcohol..

And quite easily drink yourself into unconsciousness or even death..

Mix it with some juice and it's even hard to taste the stuff.

[Gman2]

7. Bogus, That is a myth.

Here's why! The pot nowadays, is grown indoors. And indoor lighting, suffers from lack of ultraviolet B. This, is crucial to the formation of THC. So, the mesh of THC precursors, isnt torn up, by the Ultra B. Therefore, it looks great, smells great, and would be judged weak against a true thai stick many years ago. All the fools that talk about the devil weed we have created, are repeating foolish blather, from all the other know nothings.

[H2O Man]

15. Respectfully disagree.

[Gman2]

21. I could point you to scholarly articles.

[H2O Man]

23. No need to.

[LiberalAndProud]

112. True. Speaking from experience.

The idea that we've manufactured super pot is bogus. It's just another lie in the continuing war on drugs. (Your kids aren't smoking the pot you remember.) Propoganda. Pure and simple.

[thunder rising]

11. WTF? Compared to Everclear?

[Winterblues]

12. What?????

:crazy: If you have good stuff you just smoke less...In fact because of it getting so much stronger people have to consume far fewer Carcinogens to get what they want from pot. That makes it far safer than the old poor quality Paraquat pot that you have to smoke joint after joint for the same high as a small bowl full gives you today.

[EOTE]

36. But that would be far too rational.

Everyone knows that we don't have the ability to moderate things for ourselves. That's why every person who has ever eaten at a buffet has left in a heavy duty stretcher. Nope, instead we must find a way to save ourselves from ourselves. That's why we have near beer instead of regular beer. Because if regular beer existed, everyone would die of alcohol poisoning well before they died of over-hydration.

[leeroysphitz]

88. /thread

[EOTE]

93. Is that HTML speak?

I'm not familiar. And can I ask who the guy is in your sig pic?

[leeroysphitz]

101. /thread= end thread. You said everything that needed to be said.

That guy is techno viking. Look him up on you tube it's a hoot.

[EOTE]

105. Good stuff.

Not much into techno myself, though I dabbled a bit with the rave scene in college. My favorite is this remix with Henry Rollins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf13MmZIcLs

[Tutankhamun]

121. Pot actually prevents cancer in tobacco smokers.

At least that's what the latest research is suggesting. People who smoke tobacco have a tremendously elevated risk of cancer. Obviously not a newsflash. However, people who also smoke marijuana have only a slightly higher risk of lung cancer than those who don't smoke tobacco at all.

[mike_c]

14. that is utterly ridiculous....

I don't know whether you're just repeating DEA talking points or whether you really believe that *based on personal experience,* but I can tell you that my SO and I smoke top quality Humboldt chronic just about every day. I'm a working scientist and educator, and she works with a non-profit community action agency. Neither of us is impaired in the least. We frequently work productively while we're "intoxicated" on marijuana, but more to the point, we NEVER suffer intoxication even remotely as damaging as would be the case with equivalent amounts of alcohol. (Full disclosure-- we don't drive when stoned unless absolutely necessary, just on general principles.)

The strength of good, high THC marijuana clones focuses and refines the effects-- it doesn't make them overwhelming or too strong to be "viable as legal intoxicants"-- just the opposite, in my view. We use a grinder that has a fine screen to collect the kif, the loosened trichomes and pure resin crystals, arguably the most potent part of today's high quality clones, and when we really feel like relaxing, we smoke THAT. I've been doing this for DECADES and have suffered no ill effects that I, my doctors, or my peers are aware of.

[Gman2]

29. And clones are another thing. They diminish vitality, and potency.

While I believe YOU are capable of making good decisions, I am not certain that every 18 yo is. But the old modern potency off the charts thingie, is old.

[mike_c]

43. well, they can certainly reduce reproductive vitality...

...but I don't think there's any direct evidence (e.g. botanical) that CLONING per se reduces fitness-- rather, strains with low fitness are DESIRABLE for cloning because energy that might have been directed toward seed set is allocated for chemical defense instead, in those specific lines. I mean, the counter argument is that cloning INCREASES fitness by opening a vegetative avenue for reproduction.

As for potency, clonal breeding is simply selective breeding, and no one is interested in cloning low potency strains except possibly for fiber production. But by the same token, cloning simply selects phenotypes that are already possible, i.e. it selects for expressed genotypes but doesn't change them, so arguably it has no real impact on potency at all-- just availability.

[Gman2]

46. Hybrid vigor is said to be 25%. Thats faster, bigger, stronger.

[mike_c]

91. clones don't lose any hybrid vigor they already had....

Loss of "hybrid vigor" results from inbreeding. Clones are asexual, so a clone of an outcrossed plant, with lots of "hybrid vigor" will be identical to the "parent." It's a genetic copy, so it loses nothing.

[Gman2]

99. Perhaps I am using the wrong term. From seed, will see a 25% increase in vitality.

[immoderate]

48. Nonsense.

In nearly 50 years of smoking, I have not come across anything as potent as the cheeba-cheeba from the mountains of Columbia that I smoked in 1970. I agree with the other poster who questioned the potency of hydroponically grown pot, as THC is formed as response to stressing the plant, e.g. depriving it of water, and I don't see how you do that if it is growing in water.

The comparison is usually made between the most potent plants and the dirt weed that most people got in the '60s and '70s. fact is most people don't get superstrong pot now or then. This is a strawman.

As far as testing goes, only performance testing is valid.

--imm

[EOTE]

59. That is one of the silliest things that I've ever heard.

Not solely because it's untrue (which it is), but because humans have the ability to self-titrate. It's even easier when your intoxicant is smoke-able, each hit off a joint is a small, small portion of a full dose. Believe me, there was some very, very strong marijuana available in the 60s and the 70s. And I've had some of the strongest stuff available today and I'm very functional on it. Higher THC levels are unequivocally a good thing. All it means is that there is less vegetative matter to smoke and less harm done to your lungs. If people want to get extremely high on schwag, that can be done too, they just need to smoke a lot more of it.

[Gman2]

76. And THC is another thing. There is a mix of cannabidol, and active delta 9 THC, chiefly.

The reason why Marinol doesnt do it for us patients, is cuz it's pure active delta 9 THC. That shit WILL make you paranoid. The breakdown of Active delta 9 THC into Cannabidol, or CBN, and that ratio, is what you refer to a REEFERS traits. Generally, patients are looking for a high ratio of THC to CBN, as that is the bulk of the therapeutic effect. To achieve this advantageous ratio, requires that the pot is fresh, has been both dried and CURED properly. Any shortcoming along that long three month plus line, and you have pot that has a high CBN ratio. This is referred to as couch lock. Care and doting, is what it takes to achieve medically proper smoke. Most people that think they know something, think that the genetics are responsible for the TRAITS. They certainly influence the smell flavor, but the up or down of it is largely controllable. By early or late harvest. And can be used to develop a smoke appropriate for beddybye time, or getting something done day smoke. The myths about pot are ridiculous.

[rd_kent]

84. Puh-lease! Its impossible to OD on pot, but you can drink yourself to death!

Regardless of the potency of pot, its still the safest drug out there! Its impossible to OD on pot.

[EOTE]

106. Nothing is impossible.

Give me a 20 lb brick of hash and a week or so and I'll find a way to get the job done. I might need a spotter to give me a slap or two when I fall asleep, but I'd find a way.

[rd_kent]

114. Dont know about hash, but one CANNOT OD on pot. Period.

Never been a single case of an overdose or a death due to pot. Ever.

[EOTE]

115. Hash IS pot.

It's simply the most THC and cannibinoid laden portion of pot compressed into bars or what have you. And I'm not denying that there hasn't been an OD on it (I know that there hasn't been), I'm just saying that with enough ambition, it could be done.

[rd_kent]

116. Well, maybe one could choke on a piece, but that would not really be because of pot.

You know what I am getting at though, right?

Pot is THE safest intoxicant there is. Why is it not legal?

[EOTE]

117. You'll hear no objections from me.

But any substance can produce death if consumed in great enough quantity, even water. Scientist don't know what the LD50 is for marijuana simply because no one has ever died from it, that's not to say that an LD50 doesn't exist. I would think the key to ODing on marijuana would be to use a great amount of hash and then some fat or alcohol so the THC and cannabinoids would have a method of getting into your bloodstream quickly. It would certainly take many pounds, but it could be done. I've made brownies in the past that contained a half gram of hash in each. Eating a single brownie would get me exactly where I wanted to be for about 6 to 8 hours, so that would be a recreational dose. There are 448 grams in a lb, so that would be about 900 recreational doses in a lb. I assume there have been people who have consumed at least a lb of hash in the past, so I got to assume that the LD50 for marijuana is at least 1000, but it's probably in the tens of thousands. For comparison, the LD50 ratio for alcohol is somewhere between 10 and 20.

[jmowreader]

144. You've been reading the DEA's emails, I see

I like the one that says we all have to be terrified of the Killer Weed because every year it's thirty times as strong as it was the last time the DEA sent out that message. Well...there are two ways to read this message.

1) Cannabis that's 30 times as strong as it used to be would be excellent for health. If you can get fucked up by taking one or two hits, that would be better for the lungs than having to take twenty hits.

and

2) Cannabis that's 30 times as strong as it used to be would be fireproof.

[MineralMan]

8. It's Dave, man...Let me in!

Dave's not here, man.

[tkmorris]

17. Dave's not here

[endless october]

9. "rational" drug warriors commonly smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.

pot's been tested enough.

legalize now.

[Warpy]

10. Consider a few things

First, stoners know they're impaired. They're the ones who drive you nuts on the back streets, going well under the speed limit. They tend to overcompensate.

Second, if we had a test, it needs to measure the active drug in the bloodstream, not metabolites that might have attached to fat cells a month ago. The duration of a pot high isn't very long and even heavy users aren't stoned on the residual stuff coming out of their fat cells when the town goes dry. Any test would have to focus on recent ingestion, not simply whether or not it had been used in the past, the way tests to ferret out illegality are.

Finally, grass is nothing like alcohol. It doesn't make you feel superhuman, it doesn't disinhibit you, and you can't kid yourself that it hasn't made you just a little bit stupider than usual. Tests on comparative reaction time have been inconclusive, they've gone both ways.

The continued illegality of a naturally occurring wild plant is insane and is costing us one hell of a lot more in prison taxes and wasted lives than legalization will, even if an accurate test for recent ingestion is never developed.

After all, why not charge a reckless driver for recklessness, a reckless driver who causes a fatal crash with manslaughter? Why bring the excuse of substance abuse into it at all? We don't cite drivers for talking on the phone or being too tired. Just keep the bad behavior criminal and we'll do better.

[thunder rising]

16. Agreed! The OP is like, first let's over analyze then think about it. Just legalize it.

This is a full 180 evolution of Thunder Rising, I've been through every side of this issue. But our prisons are full and the problem still isn't close to being solved.

[Gman2]

19. Why have pre employment screening, why have breathalyzers?

To not only charge posthumously. To not need to develop an extensive case, for each incident.

[EOTE]

47. Thank you for that breath of sanity.

I can't believe how many of society's ills people are willing to live with because of some hysteria regarding a freaking plant. It's funny, if marijuana were already legalized and people were pondering making it illegal, do you think these same people would be saying: "Before we make pot illegal, we need to make sure we have a way to deal with the enormous increase in prison population from non-violent offenders" or "We need to make sure this won't create a police state which spends 10s of billions of dollars fighting a plant". Probably not. Instead, we've got to live with the enormous shit storm that prohibition has created and we can't get rid of it until we've got some incredibly petty issues taken care of. For fuck's sake, take care of the big stuff first.

[jmowreader]

145. Once more into the breach...

Half the police forces in the United States fund their operation through pot fines. You think they want to just give that up? Ah fuck no.

Legalize pot smoking WITHOUT this test and here's what happens:

On my screen is a list of seven states' maximum pot possession fines:

Connecticut: $1000 fine
Maine: $500 fine
Massachusetts: $500 fine
New Hampshire: $2000 fine
New York: $100 fine
Rhode Island: $500 fine
Vermont: $500 fine

Now let's say we've got all the sheriffs in America following Arpaio's lead and piss testing anyone he thinks looks suspicious, and charging anyone who pisses hot with DUI.

Connecticut: $1000 fine PLUS impound fees PLUS either 100 hours community service or two to 180 days in jail PLUS a substance abuse treatment program
Maine: $500 fine PLUS 30 days in jail
Massachusetts: Fine is $50 to the DWI Victim Trust Fund plus $250 assessment plus $500-$5000 as the actual fine, plus up to 30 months in prison and a court-appointed treatment program
New Hampshire: $500 fine plus two different treatment programs plus even more stuff for anyone caught in Aggravated DWI--one of the criteria for this is "juvenile under 16 in car," so if you smoked a joint on Friday night then got pulled over on Sunday morning with your family in the car you're getting charged with Aggravated DUI.
New York: $500-$1000 fine, plus mandatory surcharge, plus up to a year in prison and mandatory alcohol screening
Rhode Island: $100-$500 fine plus $500 highway assessment plus a year in jail and/or up to 60 hrs community service
Vermont: Up to $750 fine plus $160 minimum DUI surcharge plus up to 2 years in jail plus three different schools

If you were a money-hungry sheriff, which ticket would YOU rather issue?

And there ain't one prosecutor in America who'll stand up and say "y'know, this is bullshit. You're bringing me people who didn't drive stoned and telling me to charge them with driving stoned based on a fallacious test--that fucking test can pick up reefer you smoked a week and a half ago. These people didn't do anything wrong. I am not going to charge them." The REASON this won't happen is every prosecutor in America is an elected official, and they almost all run in competitive races. Any prosecutor who starts dropping charges against "stoned" drivers will see his opponents put up billboards with fatality traffic accidents and captions insinuating that the person in this picture was killed by someone DA Jones turned loose this week.

[Jokerman]

13. "foist pot on society"??? LOL

It was a part of our society long before any of us were born.

I would however agree that ANY drug testing should be only for current levels of influence, not for what someone may have done days or weeks ago. My employer may have the right to know if I am intoxicated on the job but what I do in my own time is none of their damn business.

[Uncle Joe]

69. Here is some stash that was foisted approximately 700 years before Jesus turned water in to wine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3620778

"2,700-year-old marijuana stash found"

Then Columbus discovered the "Land of the Free;" it was subsequently raped, pillaged, sold and developed to the highest bidder with the ultimate result of the U.S. now leading the world with the most people in prison; 2.3 million a large percentage for possession of this anciently foisted herb.

[boston bean]

22. I strongly believe that post should ONLY be legalized for medicinal

purposes and recreational purposes.

[bertman]

40. "post"?? What you smokin', bean?

[boston bean]

44. oops, didn't even notice until you mention it! LOL

I'll never tell though, until we can come up with a test for it, you'll never know either!

[JVS]

24. Zzzzz

[Gman2]

25. Yes, doing the work is boring. Lets just spark one.

[lame54]

27. we need to thin out our prison population - now

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. There's a thing called a field sobriety test.

If they pass a field sobriety test, there's no reason to fear intoxication.

[Gman2]

30. That'll cost likely four or more times what a breathalyzer bust costs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. It doesn't cost anything more than the policeman's salary.

Which he makes anyway, regardless of whether or not he conducts the test.

[Gman2]

38. The level of proof required, far exceeds telling a judge the machine said so.

[Javaman]

32. I call for a Doritos test!!

Everyone knows that a pot smoker can't resist the zesty taste and aroma of a fresh Dorito!

[Beacho]

34. It's been tested for millenia

I think that's enough

[Greyhound]

35. You're kidding, right?

There are hundreds of studies that have been conducted in other countries for decades, additionally we have the collected experience of centuries of it's use. Pretending that we don't know is just silly.

[Gman2]

39. What dont we know? Present level of intoxication, thats what!

[Lance_Boyle]

50. Why is any testing beyond the already-suggested field sobriety test needed?

If you fail the FST, you are not safe to drive. Easy enough.

[eShirl]

37. Why doesn't such a test already exist?

:shrug:

[Gman2]

42. I would like an answer to that too!

[jmowreader]

147. Because there's no money in such a test

Right now, weed is illegal. Because weed is illegal, the cop can put "driving erratically" (swerving slightly so you don't run over a dead large animal laying on the road, perhaps) together with "tested positive for THC" to get to "driving under the influence of a controlled substance." If weed was legal and prosecutors had the guts to throw out busts based on THC metabolite tests, there would be lots of money in this kind of test. (But as I said in another post in this thread, it would be political suicide for a prosecutor to throw out a driving-while-stoned case.)

[EOTE]

41. And why is an intoxication test necessary?

I'm assuming you think this is necessary so we have a way to test drivers, correct? Wouldn't it first be necessary to determine if marijuana use actually makes one a worse driver? You should know that Top Gear did a test regarding how well certain drivers do. They compared drunk drivers, high driver, sleep deprived drivers and a control group. The stoned drivers faired best, followed by the control group, the drunk drivers were next and the sleep deprived drivers were worst. So tell me why an intoxication test would be necessary? Just what is so scary about "foist"ing pot upon society? What is the problem to be reconciled, exactly?

[Gman2]

45. This is as much about perception, as facts. Allaying fears.

It is the right thing. Maybe in my younger years, I too would say stuff it granny. That is NOT how to win.

[EOTE]

49. I'm really not worried about the nanny state's perceptions.

Are you basically saying that before we concern ourselves with legalization, we need to worry about the minority of people in this country who AREN'T for legalization and their unfounded concerns? Wouldn't it make far more sense to work towards legalization first and then the minority of people who didn't support the legalization could see on their own that it works? Isn't what you're suggesting kind of like suggesting that gays should first have to prove that they won't destroy the institution of marriage before they're allowed to get married? Wouldn't it make more sense if we valued freedom above unfounded concerns of a minority of the population?

[Gman2]

52. I would rather we had our ducks in a row. Not like loser hippies.

[EOTE]

57. That's not a terribly good argument either.

Was it really necessary to get in a dig at hippies? Frankly, I'm not willing to wait for a test that may never come, and certainly never do any good, before I see legalization. I'd like to see it legalized in my lifetime, thanks. So I'm going to push for legalization, and if anyone tries to tell me why an intoxication test is needed first, I'm going to tell them why I think that's stupid.

[tekisui]

54. There really isn't a way, other than field sobriety, needed or possible.

I know people who could smoke a fully-packed bong and not really get intoxicated, yet. A test would show they had just ingested a good deal of THC, but their tolerance would make them be nearly completely sober. On the other hand, someone who rarely smokes can get quite high from one puff.

If the person is functional, alert and can pass a field sobriety test, they are no intoxicated.

And, the same is true in the opposite.

[Gman2]

61. Then you have to SELL that as adequate safety.

[jmowreader]

146. Thanks to MADD, that's not the case with alcohol

And it won't be the case with weed. Last week there was a thread on the "DUI Exception" to the Constitution that got fairly uniformly ripped on because--OMG!--the exalted MADD (the Anti-Saloon League of the 21st century) was maligned in it. And to that I say Good. I have NO tolerance whatsoever for drunk drivers, but simple common sense says you take a 150-pound man who's drank twice in his life and a 150-pound man who was in Field Station Augsburg for ten years, run 'em both up to 0.15BAC and give them both a motor skills test, the FSA guy is going to do much better at it than the new drinker. But according to our laws, they're both evil dangerous men who are going to go out and wipe out a school bus in the next ten minutes.

Another important reason to not rely on field sobriety tests is the attitude of cops. Let me take...oh, you...give you a couple of bowls and stand you in front of two cops. Cop Number 1 is tolerant of marijuana. Cop Number 2 thinks all pot smokers are dirty hippies and he should still be able to bust your ass for smoking weed. You think Cop Number 2 isn't going to notice the "faint aroma of marijuana smoke" coming from your jacket because you smoke grass with it in the house, and decide you're stoned before he even starts the test?

[Romulox]

60. It's a "they walk among us!" type argument. ANY ONE OF YOU may be a pot smoker.

And one cannot tell just from observing people acting reasonable in every other observable respect.

One simply must have full knowledge of the contents of a person's urine (or, barring that, a healthy stool sample) to determine if that person is acting reasonably in any given circumstance.

I mean, how else could we truly know that people driving in a manner that seems reasonable aren't really stoned? I mean truly know?

[Lint Head]

51. For one thing pot is not toxic.

There is no real intoxication. The term intoxication should be mainly for drugs that are fatal.
Alcohol = fatal, Loritab = fatal, Heroin = fatal, Cocaine = fatal, Xanax = fatal

Intoxication has been used loosely even by some medical professionals. It means a level of being high or stoned.

There should be another word used to measure the 'stoned-ness' that Cannabis creates. It is not and has never been toxic.

[Gman2]

53. I have literally passed out, after a bong toke. Not toxic, but potent.

[EOTE]

63. It was most likely due to hyperventilation and not the marijuana.

I assume you're talking about almost immediately after the bong toke, right?

[Gman2]

65. One toke, Got up about a minute later, and down I go. I am NOT a liteweight.

On the other hand, I bought a REAL cuban cigar, and had to pull over, as I was too stoned to drive.

[EOTE]

66. I've smoked pure THC and it's never done anything close to that for me.

I'd say more likely to be low blood sugar or something similar. I've toked up plenty of times with heavyweights and lightweights alike and none have ever passed out due to a bong rip. Sure, some have turned in early due to them getting sleepy, but none have ever actually passed out. I don't know what your Cuban cigar anecdote has to do with anything either, a cigar shouldn't be getting you stoned at all. Perhaps you were inhaling a bit too much and got too buzzed by the nicotine, but that, once again, has nothing to do with marijuana.

[Gman2]

67. Furthermore, a highschool friend, would always pass out, with a hash, hotknife.

Wouldnt hit his head, but like shrivel on the floor.

[laughingliberal]

72. Well, I went into a 3 hour blackout once after a Manhattan

The difference in tolerance is not always an indication of the strength of the substance. It was no stronger than Manhattans I had drank on other nights with no problems. Just one of those things.

[mike_c]

92. oddly, the only time that happend to me was thirty years ago...

...smoking what I would consider ditch weed, today. But yeah, took a hit, stood up, felt light-headed, and fell across the table. I don't think it had anything to do with potency, however. Maybe, as another DUer suggested, it had to do with hyperventilation, but that doesn't gibe with my memory. :shrug:

[laughingliberal]

55. I don't even know what you're suggesting. We don't have the ability to quantify the level of any

drugs except alcohol in a cost effective manner. It's just been withing the last decade that we even had the ability to quantify levels of narcotics in the blood stream and it is prohibitively expensive even now. And, yet, they are still legal for physicians to prescribe.

[Gman2]

74. So, make it a priority, or status quo? Railroad innocent tokers, or deal with it?

[laughingliberal]

90. I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana just as it is. Sorry nt

[Romulox]

58. The OP is incoherent. Unrec. nt

[Gman2]

68. Dont tell me, you want to administer an internet sobriety test.

[Tailormyst]

62. I would like to volunteer as a test subject

[librechik]

64. I'm sure the entities which produce Fed pot supplies right now

the researchers and physicians etc have plenty of tests to cover their asses on supplying the pot to patients. Once it's legal, they will simply use those for the wider production. We don't see those tests and levels now because it's a very small segment of the overall market. Once it starts showing up in liquor stores in Des Moines there will be a demand for good levels for intoxication and I am sure they already exist (so far as they can--pot is not a normal "intoxicant")

[surrealAmerican]

70. Has any other legal "recreational" drug ever gone through such a process?

When alcohol was "re-legalized" after prohibition, did we need a study like the one you suggest? Was tobacco every subjected to safety testing as a condition of its ability to be sold? I don't see any precedent for what you suggest.

[Gman2]

73. This is the moral equivalent of dealing with that small guantanamo problem.

If you hit a drunk, that stumbles in front of your car, they WILL drug test you. If you hit a joint two months ago, you REALLY could be up on felony charges, just like it would, if someone hit you, and you had been drinking. You did NOTHING to cause the accident. It's like a gun being near a crime. So, to say, status quo, full steam ahead, legalize, is naive. And shows the ham fisted approach to social advance, just like the teabaggers accuse. The test is STILL needed, as those that legally smoke, as the law permits, will STILL be in legal jeopardy, immorally. AS MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS ARE NOW!

[surrealAmerican]

98. I really wish you could have made this point without attacking mine.

I happen to agree that the current test is worthless in establishing weather or not a driver is impaired. It should not be administered in the circumstance of a fatal accident, but this does not mean that marijuana should not be legalized if there is no useful test.

[The Midway Rebel]

71. Recc'd...

'cause dope smokers are often the funniest writers on the internets.

[immoderate]

75. Suppose there is none. What if it doesn't exist?

Just keep all those people in jail for smoking a harmless weed? I have a ten year old misdemeanor for possession of a couple of joints. Should I continue to lose job opportunities?

--imm

[Gman2]

77. Those are also questions to ask. In addition to a test.

[immoderate]

79. And in the meantime, let's fill up those jail cells with harmless people?

Priorities? Suppose a million more people will be subjected to our legal system while we wait for this test, which may not exist.

Anyway, nothing will be as accurate as a field sobriety test, which does exist.

--imm

[Gman2]

81. A million patients now might be subject to immoral imprisonment.

Two wrongs, dont do right.

[immoderate]

85. I don't understand.

--imm

[Gman2]

86. If you are a patient, and you kill/maim someone, they will test you, and when the report

comes back positive for pot, you are charged with the crime of using a drug, driving, and due to that, killing someone. You go byebye. The test, only knows the products that pot breaks down into, as much as 2 months ago. Or more. So, you are ruined, cuz the test didnt say you hadnt sparked up and were not high. They assume you were. Guilty. Jobs, same. How do we deal with REAL patients, wanting to keep using their drug? As of now, you cannot smoke and have a real job. We NEED to address the problems, that any idiot could see coming. To barge ahead, and ignore that need, is to mismanage the entire deal. And we ARE being graded.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

78. yes by all means

Let us allow MILLIONS of people to rot in prison (12,000 people already arrested for simple possession in 2010!) and millions of dollars to be spent (about 65 MILLION DOLLARS ALREADY in 2010) so that you can find your "test".

Brilliant analysis, "Gman2". There's no getting past your razor-sharp understanding of the issue. :eyes:

[Gman2]

80. Anything less than doing this right, is bound to failure of one sort or another.

I almost was one of those rotting in jail, I know the stakes. I educated the cops. for more than an hour, in handcuffs. I still say, that protecting all those already patients, in addition to allowing MILLIONS more, to undergo legal jeopardy every time they get behind the wheel, or hurt on the job, etc.is crucial. You accuse me foolishly as tineared, to the plight of those who have suffered.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

87. ya got nuttin

Sorry, no one here seems to be buyin' it, I'm afraid.....

[JackRiddler]

82. God forbid anyone should smoke it without any threat of sanction, eh?

This is an incredibly foolish post.

An inexcusable injustice is being perpetrated on millions of people right now because of the patently irrational, repressive prohibition of marijuana.

Deadly, highly intoxicating substances are legal, but the weed that has never been shown to kill anyone still lands people in prison and is the subject of a deadly international trade that has turned whole countries into hellish police-and-mafia states.

And you seem to think this injustice must continue, um, until the state and the corporations have invented a foolproof method to spy on peoples' bloodstreams, because otherwise, um...

You see, otherwise, um... if it's legal, people will be able to SMOKE something LEGAL... without the authorities being able to determine with certainty whether they DID...

and then, you see...

non-smokers will be FOIST UPON! Yeah, that's it. Foist upon.

The minority of Americans who have never smoked pot and the almost non-existent proportion of Americans who don't have pot-smokers among their friends and families will have to go to bed knowing that somewhere, others can smoke a recreational drug without consequences, instead of fearing for the loss of their freedom.

And civilization tumbles into ruins. Got it.

You know something, it's also too bad they ended segregation on buses before there was a foolproof way to test someone's race. Right?

[Gman2]

95. So, you think the status quo is fine by you?

That we, the patients that need it for our very lives, and all those that will also do likewise, are subject to murder/manslaughter charges at any moment is, what would you characterize it as? Just? You need to stop jerkin' your leg, and think. And that goes for everyone.

[EOTE]

110. So what happens currently if a MM patient is involved in an accident involving a vehicle?

Say that accident is fatal, how do things change at that point? I assume you know the answer to these questions, right?

[mdmc]

83. YOU LIE!

[bridgit]

94. Truths are out there: Medicinal marijuana effective for HIV neuropathic pain

Medicinal marijuana effective for HIV neuropathic pain

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the impact of smoked medical cannabis, or marijuana, on the neuropathic pain associated with HIV, researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine found that reported pain relief was greater with cannabis than with a placebo. The study, sponsored by the University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research based at UC San Diego, will be published on line, August 6 in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology.

Led by Ronald J. Ellis, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of neurosciences at UCSD School of Medicine, the study looked at 28 HIV patients with neuropathic pain not adequately controlled by other pain-relievers, including opiates. They took part in the controlled study as outpatients at the UCSD Medical Center. The proportion of subjects achieving pain reduction of 30 percent or more was greater for those smoking cannabis than those smoking the placebo.

"Neuropathy is a chronic and significant problem in HIV patients as there are few existing treatments that offer adequate pain management to sufferers," Ellis said. "We found that smoked cannabis was generally well-tolerated and effective when added to the patient's existing pain medication, resulting in increased pain relief."

Each trial participant participated in five study phases over seven weeks. During two five-day phases, randomly selected participants smoked either cannabis or placebo cigarettes made from whole plant material with cannabinoids (the psychoactive compound found in marijuana) removed, both provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Outcome was tested by standardized tests measuring analgesia (lessened pain sensation), improvement in function and relief of pain-associated emotional distress.

Using verbal descriptors of pain magnitude, cannabis was associated with an average reduction of pain intensity from ‘strong' ‘to mild-to-moderate' in cannabis smokers, according to Ellis. Also, cannabis was associated with a sizeable (46% versus 18% for placebo) proportion of patients reporting clinically meaningful pain relief.

The study's findings are consistent with and extend other recent research supporting the short-term efficacy of cannabis for neuropathic pain, also sponsored by the CMCR.

"This study adds to a growing body of evidence that indicates that cannabis is effective, in the short-term at least, in the management of neuropathic pain," commented Igor Grant, M.D., professor of psychiatry and director of the CMCR.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18348

I think that to concentrate on any perceived lack of "mainstream test for present level of intoxication" of the matter, as though, A) we were the *only* ones able to see the need for this important scientific information having lapsed and intend to fill it, and, B) (though more easily read by the opposition as) a precursory attempt to absolve in advance: a landscape of EMT's, fender benders and worse - may be a less important way to position this vital produce

[Gman2]

96. Do you forget to remember, that we have to convince not quite rational majorities?

[bridgit]

100. TY for making *my* point

:thumbsup:

[Generic Other]

97. We have anecdotal evidence of millions of smokers for years

What the hell are we testing for? In all those statistics they've collected, there seems to be very little evidence of massive lawlessness committed under the influence of pot. If they could find such evidence they would already be using it in their arguments. Instead they tell us smokers have no ambition, grow manboobs, lose their minds--scare tactics with no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims.

Suppose you had a test? Then what? You won't have a clue who to administer it to, because users aren't going to exhibit reefer madness type of behavior anyway. While I usually don't need a test to determine whether someone is drunk, I can almost never tell someone is stoned if they try and hide the fact from me.

And that right there is the reason rational folks ought to see that the weed is not posing much of a threat to them.

[Gman2]

102. So, you are telling me, that there will be no problems.?

Right now, they will test you, for pre-employment, and after a work accident. Also if you get in some other trouble, or car accident. When the report comes back, the accident, more often than not, results in it becoming a crime, and you are done. Same with work accident. Ceilingtile falls on your head. Cuts scalp. They WILL drugtest. You took a toke a month ago. You are FIRED. And they can say your firing is drug related if they want. You are done. Lives are ruined, RIGHT NOW. The cops I schooled in handcuffs, said they had NO IDEA what the laws are. This is AFTER their fascist, bad boy, bad boy, whatcha gonna do. The test is needed NOW. Every patient, and then every user of legal pot, will be at risk.

Without a test, there is no reason to feel that you can partake. Your employment, your health record, your very freedom, depend on LUCK. That is NOT good policy. And writ large, it is CLOWN PATROL!

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

103. no one is buying your garbage here

Move along, nothing to see here, just another idiot creating a solution in search of a problem...

[Gman2]

104. No brain, no headache.

[GreenMetalFlake]

111. So your approach is to tell those who disagree that they haven't a brain?

Yet you expect people to take you seriously?

Doubtful. Very.

[Gman2]

118. When a mondo-dumbass calls my facts garbage, STFU!

[GreenMetalFlake]

120. ??? Hateful much?

[Gman2]

122. You been handcuffed and taunted lately? Fired for a failed patient Drug Test?

Gone to prison for manslaughter for a simple, not your fault accident? I thought not. Then listen up.

[GreenMetalFlake]

126. "Listen up?" No can do with the likes of you.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

131. Riiiiiiigggght

None of your arguments even cross the basic threshold for comprehensibility. You're a total clown.

[Gman2]

139. And you would cost political capital you need'nt. Oh, wise one.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

132. "Facts"??? Hilarious!

You haven't listed a single fact in any of your posts!

I love the fact that when cornered your only reply is to "STFU": it shows your ignorance and lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever.

And if you want to call names, I'll bite: let's compare incomes and lifestyles. C'mon, let's do it. I'm more than happy to lay it out for you and describe my level of education, employment, IQ, possessions, mates: whatever you wish to use as a basis for comparison. Let's see who leads the more successful, interesting and fulfilling life, shall we? I'm willing to bet quite a bit that you end up exposed as bitter loser.

[Gman2]

138. Tell your mama what you achieved. Here, you are your words. Period!

[EOTE]

107. OK, I see your logic now.

So what you're saying is that it must be illegal because it's illegal right now. Because companies and law enforcement currently test to see if you've consumed an illegal drug, that means they must continue to do so when it is legal or else it must remain illegal. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Gman2]

109. At leasst I use logic. It is decriminalized RIGHT NOW, and you can be convicted.

For driving, and something happens outside of your control. Or someone hurts you at work. How are potties gonna get and keep jobs? They cant now! None of you think of the potential downs, just like how we wound up with this health care. I wont get sick! Not me, someone else. Leave the system as it is. You cowards are just like all the other cowards. Nothing wrong here, maintain the status quo, it is always correct.

[EOTE]

113. I'm afraid you've crossed the line into utter incomprehensibility.

You're the one who is for maintaining the status quo. You're the one who accepts the myriad travesties caused by marijuana prohibition simply because of a silly test which would pretty much be worthless and is completely unnecessary.

[Gman2]

119. Not true, at all. I want the oppressive laws addressed. Now, before they cause REAL trouble.

[Gman2]

127. Just as an aside, if I was Bill Mahr, I would pay to develop that test.

[backscatter712]

108. Oh jeez...

[Capn Sunshine]

123. This thread is useless without pictures

:smoke:

[Spike89]

124. Not true

We don't have roadside tests that can tell how many hours of sleep you've had, but you can certainly get a ticket for impaired/reckless driving. Your argument assumes we have a test for all legal causes of possible intoxication when in fact, alcohol is really the only one. You are aware that blowing below the legal limit doesn't automatically get you off, right?

Rational nonsmokers know that there are plenty of pot smokers driving even though it is illegal. Rational people also know there are tons of over the counter and prescription drugs taken every day -- by drivers who can't be scientifically tested for intoxication if they're pulled over. Rational people also know that police don't have a problem making tickets for impaired driving hold up in court, even when the driver blows below the legal limit.

Sure, it'd be nice if there was some tool to determine whenever someone was overly stoned, but it is red herring to suggest that we can't legalize it because we can't detect it. The argument is in itself absurd.If you can't detect impairment, maybe there isn't a problem...

[Gman2]

125. When I was young, I drove drunk, perfectly. Does'nt mean I wasnt a problem.

[Gman2]

129. For all you brain surgeons out there, what do they do if they accuse you of toking?

They will use the test they DO HAVE. Which one you want them to use on you, if it involves traffic deaths? Hair? Three month plus window? Zero tolerance on job accidents? Do you know that if you test positive for pot, they may try to NOT pay the workmans comp claim, and at the very least, will insist on your firing?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

134. again, you seem a bit confused

The scenarios you describe are no different if cannabis is legal or illegal. You may want a better test for THC in the bloodstream (and there may be a need for it) but delaying legalization because of its lack is one of the most idiotic f**king ideas expressed on this board for a long time.

There are literally millions of people in prison for possession only and YOU want to keep them in (and paid for with millions of taxpayer dollars) while you search for a theoretical test that might not even exist. Your braindead idea has a real human cost, clown, and no one here seems to think it is worth it in the slightest.

Keep whining about your "test" by all means: just don't expect those of us dedicated to ending the idiotic War on Cannabis Patients to wait for your fantasy.

[Gman2]

136. Dont you get it. The war is on me. And the more people you put under the herb umbrella,

the more people subjected to bad law.

[Spike89]

149. They will not use those tests for "sobriety checks"

Why would legalizing pot change that? Of course they do currently use those tests to screen for employment, insurance, and such. If pot were legal, it's debatable on whether this would continue--we don't allow tests for legal drugs. If they were going to use hair or urine testing as a method of determining intoxication, they'd be doing it already.

If they accuse you of being high, then like all accusations, it is up to them to prove it. The hair or urine tests are clearly not intoxication tests and would not constitute proof. Field sobriety tests and other evidence (such as an ashtray full of roaches, a cloud of smoke in the car, etc.) would still be needed.

I still don't understand how this has anything to do with legalization. Having pot be a controlled substance makes it much more likely the police and other agencies will use the existing tests innappropriately. If it is a legal substance, unfair and stupid testing practices would almost certainly not be used as much as they currently are. I haven't heard a rational explanation of why this wouldn't be the case.

[jmowreader]

148. They're working on roadside tests for fatigued drivers

This is the Minnesota Driver Fatigue Checklist for commercial drivers:

1. Overall Truck Condition
Exterior Dirty
Vehicle Maintenance Not Performed
Trailer Interior Dirty
Obvious Lack of Overall Care

2. Condition of Sleeper
No Bedclothing & Blanket
No Mattress
Berth does not qualify as sleeper berth
Items/debris/tools on mattress
Berth obviously unused
Television, DVDs, videos in berth
Clothing in berth
Video game system
Reading material in berth

3. Condition of Cab
Debris in cab
Wastebasket full/overflowing
Food or food wrappers in cab
Urine bottle present
Clothing in cab
Empty soda/caffeinated drink cans/bottles
Pets in vehicle
Cell phone
Computer

4. Driving behaviors
Speed: change speed for no apparent reason
Lane position/weaving
Missed turn
Missed red light/stop sign
Fail to respond to traffic situation
Tailgating
Unnecessary braking
Fail to use turn signals
Crash
Hours of Service violation
Log not current
No logbook present
False log

5. Driver medical condition
Snoring
Diagnosed with sleep apnea
CPAP machine
Restless leg syndrome
Acid reflux condition
Dental problems
Grinding of teeth
Active dreams
Sleepwalking

6. Driver physical condition
Driver dirty/disheveled
Unshaven
Lack of attention/unable to maintain focus
Eyes: bloodshot
Eyes: watery/tearing
Yawns during interview
Clothing dirty/disheveled
Driver ill
Head bobbing
Droopy eyelids
Distant stare
Use of OTC medications
Use of prescription meds
Use of contraband substances
Alcohol detected
Job/home related stress
Appears irritable
Allergies
Use of caffeine or stimulants
Noticeable body odor
Money concerns
Physical movements: rubbing head, face, eyes
Easily confused or slow to respond
Overly agreeable, overly quick to agree

Total hours of last sleep period
Total hours of sleep last 24 hours
Hours since last sleep period
Hours since last rest stop or bathroom break
Driver height
Driver weight
Driver neck size

At the bottom it asks the driver to rate his alertness level...since this form is an official government document the cop can say that if you put down "completely alert" and he thinks you're not it's falsifying a government document.

Fail this, and they haven't said exactly what it takes to fail it, and you have to sit for 10 hours to sleep.

[quaker bill]

128. I think you could find many volunteers

willing to personally validate the protocol.

[krabigirl]

130. Ok, can I volunteer?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

133. Way back when, before there were breathalyzers

The test for alcohol was something like touching your nose with your finger, or walking a straight line. Of course some folks can do both blind drunk and others can't do either on their best sober days.

Test for pot: Put a plate of brownies on the hood of the cop car, see if the suspect can keep his hands off. Scarf one brownie, and you're done.

:hi:

[Gman2]

140. Wish it were that simple, Like your style.

[jmowreader]

135. Come to my side, Gman...

This is something I've been saying for a while, and I always get the same answer: you can use behavioral and/or performance tests to prove intoxication. Not true from a legal standpoint. The Law in its infinite majesty says you can determine the level of alcohol intoxication by a chemical test, so therefore you can determine the level of cannabis intoxication the same way. (Never mind that ethanol and THC are two completely different chemicals.)

Besides, if we don't have an intoxication test, you know what's going to happen? Joe Fucking Arpaio is going to buy himself an EMIT system and start pulling over anyone with hair touching his ears for a urine test...anyone who pisses hot is charged with DUI. The increased revenue from owning this machine will cause every other sheriff in America to do the same thing. This will make pot de facto illicit even though it's de jure licit--I don't think anyone who smokes a joint wants to go without driving for ten days.

[Gman2]

137. I understand your concern. And vigilance will be required.

[Exultant Democracy]

141. Test to what ends? If it is a public safety concern I would be interested in any data

you have on the public dangers associated with pot smokers.

[Bluenorthwest]

142. Hysterical ravings are best when comprehensible

You do understand that you are talking about a natural plant used for a longer period of time than alcohol? So who is 'we' and how does the word 'foist' apply here? Nature provided, no one foisted anything. Foist means deceit, fraud, and false claims of worth. You either do not understand the language well, or you are no form of advocate at all.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

150. One Final Nail in this Coffin of Idiocy

Prohibition of Alcohol was repealed in the US on Dec. 5, 1933 but effective Blood Alcohol Content measures were not developed until the early 1940s: the Breathalyzer we use today wasn't invented until 1954. By your argument, the pathetically failed experiment known as Prohibition should have continued for AT LEAST another SEVEN YEARS IF NOT LONGER.

Does anyone here really believe Prohibition, with all of its crime, graft and sleaze, should have continued another decade because the police did not have a way to measure the amount of alcohol in one's blood stream? It's a joke, a con designed by a neo-Prohibitionist (I mean, you even give yourself the nickname of a federal cop) who doesn't give a damn about the terrible human cost of the War On Cannabis Patients. F'n brilliant.