Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[CONAN]

The obligation isn't to prove that ALL civil disobedience is justified, but only that there are cases where laws are unjust and civil disobedience is acceptable.

Disagree.

you are trying to argue that weed is bad because there is a law against it.

That's just one factor. It's not all of it. Like I said, I feel the same about alcohol and there are no laws against adult drinking.

Therefore, the obligation falls on you to prove that it is a just law.

It's not on me to prove that. I'm not the one arguing that individuals decide which laws to follow and which not to.

 

[Agoxlea]

"Difficult to establish" refers to a current state based on current testing methods. The entire purpse of that site is to discuss testing in raod-side stops, etc., not the theoretical limitations on what can be tested.

If I have not been clear before, let me try to make this crystal clear: you ned to provide evidence that the THC level (not THC metabolite level) of a light/non-smoker is lower when the smoker describes themself as feeling high that the THC level of a heavy smoker when they are not high. This is different from saying the residual THC level of a heavy smoker, after the high, is higher than the residual level of the non-smoker. That's why evidence of the latter is insufficient to make your case. This is also different from saying that the current test methods are not geared to detecting actual intoxicatory levels. Further, it's a very straightforward notion.

For example, look at 2.10 and 3.2 on https://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf to see the beginnings of such an approach. I don't know if a test can be developed that is as reliable as a blood-alcohol test (which itself is not precise) or not, but I see no evidence that it connot.

You have the goal posts, very specifcally laid out. I won't move them. Can you cross them?

I doubt anyone on this message board has enough expertise to know whether a more advanced test would be possible. I'm going to say it's probably safe to say it is, but really who knows. I am not even going to argue with you on whether a non-existent test would be possible, because I honestly don't know and that is a strange argument to be making. Most things are usually figured out eventually though.

 

[Agoxlea]

Disagree.

That wasn't my opinion, that is how logic works. If I can prove (which I'm assuming we all agree already) that there are cases where civil disobedience can be justified, then your obligation becomes to prove that the law being protested is in fact just.

That's just one factor. It's not all of it. Like I said, I feel the same about alcohol and there are no laws against adult drinking.

Ok, if you concede on that point then we still have "socially" and "chemically" as reasons you are opposed. I would like a reason for either, but specific comments like this without any reasoning other than the fact it is how you feel is why people assume you are opposed to them based on religion. If it isn't for religious reasons, the invitation is still open to explain the basis of your opinions.

It's not on me to prove that. I'm not the one arguing that individuals decide which laws to follow and which not to.

But are you in favor of that in specific instances. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK, etc. More relevant would be the Whiskey Rebellion. If you agree that even just one of them were protesting unjust laws then that establishes that there are instances where a law was unjust. Return to step one of proving the law is just.

 

[CONAN]

Laws apply to everyone, just or unjust.

That's not what you said. You said the law doesn't apply to you because it is unjust. You don't have to follow it because you believe it's wrong. You can't have it both ways. Look, if you want to break the law cuz you think it's bad that's fine. But have some intellectual honesty here. Show some accountability. Breaking the law is breaking the law and that line of thinking by members of society is irresponsible. Unless you are in favor of anarchy in which case GTFO.

With that said, I try to make good value judgements, give people the benefit of the doubt, and treat them not only as I'd like to be treated, but as they'd like to be treated. I'm not in favor of behaviors that are cruel or otherwise harmful to other individuals or society as a whole, and I try to act in accordance with those values.

That's a nice sentiment and all but it's just sugar-coating social and criminal irresponsibility (those two can be lumped together I guess). You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

I readily admit to being socially and criminally irresponsible. There are laws I don't follow for whatever reason. But I'm still breaking the law and I'm not going to paint it any other way so I feel better about it.

 

[One Brow]

I am not even going to argue with you on whether a non-existent test would be possible, because I honestly don't know and that is a strange argument to be making. Most things are usually figured out eventually though.

I agree it is a strange argument to make, and I agree that it will get figured out (although that will possibly require decriminalization). Thank you for the conversation.

 

[CONAN]

No, this is just his usual strategy. If he can't refute a counterpoint, he resorts to juvenile antagonism. I give him a B- for the effort. Sometimes he's a little more clever than that.

I love that I have a biographer following me around thread to thread.

 

[One Brow]

That's not what you said. You said the law doesn't apply to you because it is unjust. You don't have to follow it because you believe it's wrong.

Actually, the law still applies to people who choose to break it, and GVC has been clear he agrees with that sentiment.

 

[CONAN]

If I can prove (which I'm assuming we all agree already) that there are cases where civil disobedience can be justified, then your obligation becomes to prove that the law being protested is in fact just.

That's irrelevant. I'm asking who decides what laws are just and unjust. And besides, it is just upon you to show how a law is unjust.

Ok, if you concede on that point

But I'm not conceding. That's my point is that it is criminally/legally/socially irresponsible to smoke weed. I'm saying that's a piece of the pie. Are you conceding it is or denying the responsibility? Once that is established I got no problem moving on to the other factors but this is a big deal. If a pothead isn't going to accept criminal/social irresponsibility then what's the point.

But are you in favor of that in specific instances. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK, etc. More relevant would be the Whiskey Rebellion. If you agree that even just one of them were protesting unjust laws then that establishes that there are instances where a law was unjust. Return to step one of proving the law is just.

The point isn't are there unjust laws out there. The point isn't whether people have made stands against unjust laws. Because for every Ghandi out there you have 1 million times that number of people against laws that were perfectly just. Straw man city here.

And even Gandi took accountability.

 

[CONAN]

Actually, the law still applies to people who choose to break it, and GVC has been clear he agrees with that sentiment.

No he hasn't. He said the law doesn't apply to him because he doesn't believe it's a just law so he doesn't have to follow it and feels no responsibility for consequences of breaking it.

 

[Agoxlea]

I agree it is a strange argument to make, and I agree that it will get figured out (although that will possibly require decriminalization). Thank you for the conversation.

Yeah of course. I just misunderstood. I think currently the test isn't accurate enough to make a law against driving under the influence, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that one is possible. If there were a test even as reliable as BAC i'd be down for a DUI for marijuana.

 

[CONAN]

Yeah of course. I just misunderstood. I think currently the test isn't accurate enough to make a law against driving under the influence, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that one is possible. If there were a test even as reliable as BAC i'd be down for a DUI for marijuana.

It's not that they can't test. It's just not cost-effective. A cop giving a blood test mulitiple times a night? Yikes.

 

[Agoxlea]

It's not that they can't test. It's just not cost-effective. A cop giving a blood test mulitiple times a night? Yikes.

They can do a blood test, but a blood test isn't currently able to detect current impairment. So yes they can test but it isn't useful. A blood test is a voluntary alternative to a breathalyzer for alcohol. Refer to the NHTSA.

Interpretation of Blood Concentrations:
It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. THC concentrations typically peak during the act of smoking, while peak 11-OH THC concentrations occur approximately 9-23 minutes after the start of smoking. Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often < 5 ng/mL at 3 hours. Significant THC concentrations (7 to 18 ng/mL) are noted following even a single puff or hit of a marijuana cigarette. Peak plasma THC concentrations ranged from 46-188 ng/mL in 6 subjects after they smoked 8.8 mg THC over 10 minutes. Chronic users can have mean plasma levels of THC-COOH of 45 ng/mL, 12 hours after use; corresponding THC levels are, however, less than 1 ng/mL. Following oral administration, THC concentrations peak at 1-3 hours and are lower than after smoking. Dronabinol and THC-COOH are present in equal concentrations in plasma and concentrations peak at approximately 2-4 hours after dosing.

It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations. It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method. Mathematical models have been developed to estimate the time of marijuana exposure within a 95% confidence interval. Knowing the elapsed time from marijuana exposure can then be used to predict impairment in concurrent cognitive and psychomotor effects based on data in the published literature.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm