Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[SaltyDawg]

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.

No, alcohol and THC do not diminish at anywhere near the same rate. THC stays in your system for months. Alcohol is gone in a matter of hours, a couple of days at the most. So while alcohol does not diminish in an instant, it is the closest thing to doing that. If you test at a high alcohol level, you are drunk. Period. If you test at a high THC level, you have been high at some point, but may or may not be high at the moment.

 

[One Brow]

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 ...

I agree that mere presence is not intoxication.

 

[One Brow]

No, alcohol and THC do not diminish at anywhere near the same rate.

Nor did any part of my post indicate that they do, nor is that relevant to being able to set a minimal intoxication level for THC.

If you test at a high THC level, you have been high at some point, but may or may not be high at the moment.

Even at 20ng/ml? 50? 100? You can have those levels and not be intoxicated? Do you have any evidence for that?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

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.

As I said before, tell a joke, how long a person laughs is directly correlated to how high they are.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Nor did any part of my post indicate that they do, nor is that relevant to being able to set a minimal intoxication level for THC.



Even at 20ng/ml? 50? 100? You can have those levels and not be intoxicated? Do you have any evidence for that?

You are completely missing that one person may be high out of his mind at one level, while the next person may have that same level in his blood while he is stone cold sober (but was high 3 days ago, and the high level of THC is still in his blood, and will remain in his blood for another month or 2).

It is not like alcohol. You have to understand that first and foremost. When you have alcohol in your system, you are impaired by it. And while there are slight variations from person to person, everyone is pretty close to being at the same level of impairment at any given BAC. Marijuana is not like that. Someone who doesn't smoke often will be high as a kite off a small amount, while the person who smokes often will have more than that in his system even when he's stone cold sober.

THC stays in your body long after the "high" is gone (months after). Alcohol leaves your body as the "high" leaves your body.

The logic behind an alcohol test is "you have it in your body so you must be drunk. We can tell how drunk by how much you have in your body." But with THC staying in your body for months, at varying levels, that simply won't work.

 

[Nate505]

That's not what is meant. And if I posted that than sorry. I don't think I did and I think some of you guys are being uber-defensive but if I said that in a post or even intimated it that wasn't my intention.

Let's get this out of the way or it's just gonna get messy in here: I'm not perfect. Far from it. I'm sure on another subject you guys could murder me on it. I got no doubts. But what we're talking about here involves you guys (potheads). And saying something is wrong doesn't mean I think I'm superior to or spiritually better (don't know how religion got brought in). It just means I think it's wrong. Get over it. I got family that do drugs. That doesn't mean I think I'm better than them. I disagree with what they do and have serious issues with it but that doesn't mean I'm better. I'm sure there are things they do better than me. Just like there are things you guys probably do better than me.

I disagree with fellow teachers and coaches all the time and we all have to deal with it. But there is repoire(sp?) there. There is none here.

If I can't post without you guys going postal about perceived slights (whether by your fault or mine) then there's really no point in continuing.

I hardly went postal. I'm just calling it how I see it. But when you say stuff like this "But I consider it more sad that someone has to alter their brain to be happy. Comon that's pretty pathetic. Is life so bad you have to change the way your brain views it" how exactly am I supposed to take it? Like "oh golly gee, he's totally right! My pot use is pathetic! Hallelujah I've see the f'ing light!" It comes off as condescending, especially when you don't know enough about the way we handle our personal responsibilities in our lives to make such a value judgement. Say I do need weed to alter my brain to be happy. So what? I'm not harming anyone else.

Frankly, if there is some guy who doesn't do any substance but lays on the couch all day watching reality tv and doesn't have a job but is dumb and happy that is far more "pathetic" to me than a person who may be smoking pot because they are depressed or whatever but otherwise holds down a job and fulfills the basic responsibilities that society expects people to follow.

 

[Nate505]

That is an erroneous conclusion, as even if states have decriminilized medical usage, the federal government has made it abundantly clear that is still regards the issue as a federal matter that they will enforce, hence there is no true decriminilization to compare to. Even if the feds do not prosecute users as much as before in those states, there is still that spectre that taints the results.

Anyone have any data on usage in other countries that went from illegal to legal?

When it comes to basic decriminalization (ie possession of roughly an ounce or less is a civil violation punishable at max with a fine), the Feds have no influence. If you can cite one case of the Feds prosecuting someone for possession of an ounce or less of pot, I'd like to see it. I'm not sure they ever have, and if so I'm guessing it took place 50 years ago or so.

Even in states with medical legalization, I don't think the Feds have ever prosecuted a possession case or a growing case that involved 10 or less plants.

 

[LogGrad98]

So you are claiming that despite the fact that the federal government still considers it a crime, I am literally the only person in the United States who thinks they may be arrested for possession even in states that have legalized it? In that case, why push for legalization, no arrest and no prosecution = tacit legality. So no problem. We can put this entire debate to rest.

/thread

Carry on.

 

[Nate505]

So you are claiming that the fact that the federal government still considers it a crime, I am literally the only person in the United States who thinks they may be arrested for possession even in states that have legalized it? In that case, why push for legalization, no arrest and no prosecution = tacit legality. So no problem. We can put this entire debate to rest.

/thread

Carry on.

First of all, no state has ever made it totally legal. Even in my state, a state that has made it legal for medical use, I have to go through the charade of getting a card (which involves paying a "doctor" $60 for an exam to get a recommendation and paying the state $90 to get the card, both of which have to be done every year). And without a card growing is a class 4 felony punishable by up to 6 years in prison, though in reality it probably nets a person a suspended sentence of a year or two. It's still a felony though, and that risk is more than most people are willing to take. Frankly, I would be fine if this state just made growing a small amount legal. On a rather basic level it seems absurd that growing a plant is a felony.

Second of all, if a state did make it legal for anyone to go into a store and buy the stuff, maybe it's possible you would see a token person arrested for possession. I sort of doubt it since it would be a PR nightmare for the Feds (and therefore for the current President in office, especially during a non lame duck year for them), but I guess it's possible. However, the Feds have explicitly stated they don't deal with piddly crap like this so I would be surprised to see it. But the reason there is a push for legalization on even a statewide level is because no state has ever done it yet. Decriminalized, yes (and those laws have been on the books in most states since the 70s), legalized, no.

 

[Agoxlea]

I had about half a gram in little cottonwood canyon 4 years ago and got prosecuted by the feds so yes they still do. 1 year of supervised probation and a $1000 fine plus random drug testing (which costed $250). All because I was roasting s'mores with a small crumb in my pocket.

 

[GVC]

I had about half a gram in little cottonwood canyon 4 years ago and got prosecuted by the feds so yes they still do. 1 year of supervised probation and a $1000 fine plus random drug testing (which costed $250). All because I was roasting s'mores with a small crumb in my pocket.

Wow.

 

[One Brow]

You are completely missing that one person may be high out of his mind at one level, while the next person may have that same level in his blood while he is stone cold sober (but was high 3 days ago, and the high level of THC is still in his blood, and will remain in his blood for another month or 2).

By "missing the point", you must mean "addressed the point", since I pointed out that heavy drinkers can be unimpaired at an alcohol level that would make me flat-out drunk, and that this has not prevented us from establishing blood-alcohol limits, and therefore would not be a barrier to establishing blood-THC limits. You unusual choice of words made it look like you completely ignored what I wrote in order to drag some irrelevant point back into the discussion.

It is not like alcohol. You have to understand that first and foremost. When you have alcohol in your system, you are impaired by it. And while there are slight variations from person to person, everyone is pretty close to being at the same level of impairment at any given BAC.

Yet, the level of impairment at .01% is different from that at .08%.

Marijuana is not like that. Someone who doesn't smoke often will be high as a kite off a small amount, while the person who smokes often will have more than that in his system even when he's stone cold sober.

Why? What controls the physiological response besides THC levels? If you don't know, how do you know this is true? Does a person who never smoked get high at 5 ng/ml?

The logic behind an alcohol test is "you have it in your body so you must be drunk. We can tell how drunk by how much you have in your body." But with THC staying in your body for months, at varying levels, that simply won't work.

Continuing to repeat this is not proof.