Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[GVC]

That is what I wrote, and I fail to see what's wrong with it. I also added my opinion on why cannabis laws are unjust.

That is, if the penalty doesn't fit the crime, the penalty is unjust. If an activity doesn't infringe on others' basic rights (or, perhaps, cause societal harm...), then pursuing that activity isn't socially irresponsible, regardless of its legal status.

I'm all for the rule of law, but when that law punishes people for benign activities, it ought to be changed. If the law infringes on basic human rights, civil disobedience is appropriate.

I think we can both agree that if Christianity were outlawed tomorrow, and people were locked up for possession of the bible, that that particular law would be unjust. I think we can both agree that there are and have been unjust laws and governments. If someone were to choose to own a bible under an anti-Christian regime, I wouldn't consider it socially irresponsible. Would you?

 

[GVC]

And, again, is civil disobedience ever appropriate? Who, in your opinion, decides what behaviors are or aren't socially responsible?

 

[One Brow]

As I posted before, THC content dissipates at a much slower rate because it's fat soluble. Even 24 - 48 ours after consumption, you can still detect levels of THC in the blood consistent (or at least very close to) with the levels recommended as a zero per se level in the study discussed in this thread. That's problematic since the "high" potentially lasts only a few hours.

That would mean you would use a higher level as the intoxication guideline, then. Or, are you claim that intoxication wears off even while THC does not appreciably diminsih at all, and if so, what does cause intoxication to wear off?

 

[SaltyDawg]

That would mean you would use a higher level as the intoxication guideline, then. Or, are you claim that intoxication wears off even while THC does not appreciably diminsih at all, and if so, what does cause intoxication to wear off?

One person's "high out of his mind" level is the next person's "haven't got high in a few days" level. There is no way to accurately test how high someone is at a particular moment. You can only detect that they have been high at some point in the past- which could be 2 minutes or 2 weeks ago (or even months).

With reckless driving already being illegal anyway, there is really no need to worry about this.

 

[GVC]

That would mean you would use a higher level as the intoxication guideline, then. Or, are you claim that intoxication wears off even while THC does not appreciably diminish at all, and if so, what does cause intoxication to wear off?

It diminishes, but it's metabolized differently than alcohol. I shouldn't speak too strongly here, as I'm not terribly knowledgeable about this particular topic, but I'm fairly confident that there is a qualitative difference between testing for alcohol and THC (with the former being water soluble and the latter fat soluble). That's mostly what I was disagreeing with. Again, I think the study stated that levels as high as 6ng/ml were still potentially in the blood as much as 48 hours after consumption of cannabis, and I was assuming (there's that word again) that the levels diminished gradually over time (which would indicate that the levels could be above 7ng/ml long after intoxication has subsided).

If you go out and drink all night, and then clean yourself up for a day or two, the result of blood testing will be a lot different than if you do the same thing with cannabis.

 

[One Brow]

THC is in your system much longer than alcohol and the levels cannot be linked to a certain level of impairment. The national highway traffic safety administration even says
"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” because “[d]etection time is well past the window of intoxication and impairment.”

My understanding is that different people also react to the same blood alcohol levels differently, you it's hard to predict specific effects in one individual. The main difference seems to be in "detection time", which is different from "intoxication level time".

It's a simple idea, really. for a given person, will they have the same level of THC when intoxicated as they do 24 hours, or is there an "intoxication level" higher than a "non-intoxication level"?

 

[GVC]

for a given person, will they have the same level of THC when intoxicated as they do 24 hours, or is there an "intoxication level" higher than a "non-intoxication level"?

I don't understand the biology, but the one being fat soluble and the other water soluble makes a big difference, as THC continues to be stored in fat cells (if I'm understanding correctly) long after consumption. Alcohol passes through your system quite fast.

 

[One Brow]

One person's "high out of his mind" level is the next person's "haven't got high in a few days" level.

Again, you can make similar arguments with alcohol, yet that does not prevent us from having blood level limits. As a person who drinks rarely, I'm majorly impaired well below the legal limit.

Alcohol and THC both diminish over time, as opposed to vanishing in an instant, so for both they can be detectable after a person is no longer intoxicated. They both affect different people in different ways and at different rates. If you want to make an argument that THC is not equally well/poorly monitored by using some sort of blood level analysis, you ned to offer a significant difference.

 

[One Brow]

that the levels diminished gradually over time (which would indicate that the levels could be above 7ng/ml long after intoxication has subsided).

Whic is a good argument for saying the level should be 10, 15, 20, or 100ng/ml (whichever might be appropriate), as opposed to saying the testing can not be done.

 

[GVC]

I'm not sure. What I'm trying to get at is that a larger quantity of the drug is stored in your blood after it's psychotropic effects have subsided (than with alcohol). As I've stated before, I think driving while high is a bad idea. Also, like Nate, in a decriminalized or legalized regime, I'd be all for punishments for driving under the influence of cannabis, and for strict regulation of sales to minors (with severe penalties for those who break that particular law).

 

[Agoxlea]

Again, you can make similar arguments with alcohol, yet that does not prevent us from having blood level limits. As a person who drinks rarely, I'm majorly impaired well below the legal limit.

Alcohol and THC both diminish over time, as opposed to vanishing in an instant, so for both they can be detectable after a person is no longer intoxicated. They both affect different people in different ways and at different rates. If you want to make an argument that THC is not equally well/poorly monitored by using some sort of blood level analysis, you ned to offer a significant difference.

Refer to my previous quote from the nhsa. I don't know why, but I think gvc is one the right track.

 

[GVC]

I'm on the right track because I've heard a few pot heads yap about how drug tests are really only effective in detecting THC (not necessarily the best source for authoritative information, I know). The implication being that it's ok to be a binge drinker/Friday night meth junkie, as long as you cool off for a day or two before you return to work. If you smoke weed, however, you're pretty much ****ed.

When I was living in Washington, I worked in a sheet metal shop that had random drug tests. I rarely smoked at the time anyway, so there was no real issue. Anyway, the chick who worked in out office, and organized the testing was the only person to fail our baseline test, reportedly because she drank too much water beforehand...My boss was an extremely intelligent and fair man (as well as continuing to stick with the union, even when he moved on to management), and gave us the option of getting tested a week after our name was drawn (I didn't need to take him up on the offer).

We had a couple drunks in the shop, one of whom escaped a DUI conviction despite being found asleep at the wheel at an intersection. When he came to, he was firm in his stance that there was no way in hell he drove to where he was found by police. He'd have no problem passing a pee test (and, admittedly, he was an extremely productive employee).