Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[CONAN]

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?

So going back to my original question so I can make sure I understand you, is it safe to assume you feel individuals decide which laws are just and unjust and so which laws to follow or not? I think that's a fair conclusion given what you've written but want to be sure before moving on.

 

[CONAN]

From my reading THC spikes within 10ish minutes and blood levels are going to be high for at least an hour but sometimes 2-3. After that it is a severe dropoff for a few hours and then from there a really big drop off usually sub 5 and more likely 2 (ng/ml). But obviously very general there given all the factors going into each hit.

 

[GVC]

is it safe to assume you feel individuals decide which laws are just and unjust and so which laws to follow or not?

Of course they do. Who else is going to make that decision for them?

I'd be thrilled if you'd answer some of my questions.

 

[One Brow]

https://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf

In 3.2, it mentions sobriety test failures are associated with levels above 25-30 ng/ml. By contrast, even a very heavy user had a concentration of only 20ng/ml.

From section 4, passive smoking can produce levels that high, but not easily.

Section 5 discusses saliva testing.

So, the issue seems to be getting the right level and perhaps the right test, but there is no reason to think testing is impossible.

 

[GVC]

So, the issue seems to be getting the right level and perhaps the right test, but there is no reason to think testing is impossible.

And with more and more decriminalized regimes, the tests are going to get better.

I hope you understand I wasn't arguing your main point. I was only taking issue with your statement that you can test for THC the same way you test for alcohol (which, due to the fat solubility of THC, seems to be inaccurate).

 

[SaltyDawg]

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.



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



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?



Continuing to repeat this is not proof.

1: You did not address the point. You keep trying to turn it into an alcohol test which simply isn't possible. A heavy drinker might be less impaired than a light drinker, but they will both absolutely be impaired. There is a variation on how a certain amount of alcohol impairs each person, no doubt, but it is nothing like the variation of THC in a heavy smoker's body compared to a light smoker's. You keep missing the fact that THC stays in your system for months after the high has worn off. Alcohol only stays in your system while you are drunk. The reason you can test for alcohol impairment levels is because it doesn't stay in your system after the "high" has worn off. This is nto the case with THC.

2: Yes, the level of alcohol impairment from .01% to .08% is different. That is my point. The THC level of impairment for a light smoker will be vastly different from that of a heavy smoker, whereas with alcohol the levels are still pretty close from a light drinker to a heavy drinker.

3: I don't know what controls the physiological response, but I know a tolerance is built up over time. In addition to that, with THC staying in your system for months, a heavy smoker will have more THC in his body at any given time than a light smoker.

4: You think I'm just saying it because I'm talking out of my rear end? how about you do a little research on it before you go talking out of your own rear end? Here's a source for you, from the people who would be doing the testing, the NHTSA:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
"Interpretation of Blood Concentrations:... 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.
Interpretation of Urine Test Results: Detection of total THC metabolites in urine, primarily THC-COOH-glucuronide, only indicates prior THC exposure. Detection time is well past the window of intoxication and impairment."

 

[SaltyDawg]

https://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf

In 3.2, it mentions sobriety test failures are associated with levels above 25-30 ng/ml. By contrast, even a very heavy user had a concentration of only 20ng/ml.

From section 4, passive smoking can produce levels that high, but not easily.

Section 5 discusses saliva testing.

So, the issue seems to be getting the right level and perhaps the right test, but there is no reason to think testing is impossible.

From 4.2:
"It was concluded that presence of cannabinoids in urine or blood is not unequivocal proof of active cannabis smoking."

 

[CONAN]

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.

And that's fine but I wouldn't call your position condescending just because you find something pathetic.

 

[CONAN]

Of course they do. Who else is going to make that decision for them?

The point is you said if a law is unjust then it's ok to break it. So if individuals make that call as you said, can you see the social issues there if we accept that as an excuse for social/criminal irresponsibility?

I'd be thrilled if you'd answer some of my questions.

Can we finish answering mine first? Is that ok question nazi?

 

[Archie Moses]

If you break the law - there's going to be consequences.

 

[Bronco70]

Purposely altering your brain is sad. That's not an outlandish position.

Sorry to be so late with this one, I haven't been to this thread for a while... GVC has touched on this, so I apologize if I am repeating anything.

Everybody does things that alter brain chemistry. That is basically what governs emotion and mood. You watch a scary movie, eat a favorite food, listen to music, cheer for a team, or have sex, you're altering the chemistry of your brain. (You'll have to take my word for it on that last one, Conan.)

What about people on anti-depressants? Are they all sad and pathetic? Or pain killers? Hell, Tylenol alters your brain and it's perception of pain. Is it bad that I use ibuprofen now and then?

Marijuana is not PCP.

 

[CONAN]

Everybody does things that alter brain chemistry. That is basically what governs emotion and mood. You watch a scary movie, eat a favorite food, listen to music, cheer for a team, or have sex, you're altering the chemistry of your brain. (You'll have to take my word for it on that last one, Conan.)

What about people on anti-depressants? Are they all sad and pathetic? Or pain killers? Hell, Tylenol alters your brain and it's perception of pain. Is it bad that I use ibuprofen now and then?

Straw man party up in here. All those things can be abused and thus be sad and pathetic. Nice try though, Sport.

Marijuana is not PCP.

Look at the big brain on this guy!