Jeff Sessions Is Wrong on Marijuana Policy

[EasyAce]

It's already out. It is everywhere. I live in a state where it is currently illegal and I can walk into about 5% of my rental units at any given time and find evidence of it. I know cops who have told me for the last 10 years that they do not bust people anymore for it unless they are involved in another crime.

I used to live in a state whose criminal laws include the "special circumstances" clause---including that you could face
a genuinely draconian sentence if you happened to commit a crime under the influence of one or another drug. The
concept of prosecuting just the crime itself, and sentencing appropriately, regardless of the "special circumstance,"
often meant that someone high might do more time for committing a burglary than someone stone cold
sober might for committing murder.

Lysander Spooner once observed, "Vices are not crimes." A distinction too often lost on lawmakers and law
enforcers alike.

I also know of cases involving someone whose line of work has absolutely nothing to do with the drug trade but who
are stripped of everything they worked to build and compelled to serve some kind of prison time because one or
another of their customers, without their prior knowledge, turned out to be using what they produce or offer on behalf
of drug business.

It was one such case, the Sam Zhadanov case, that finally convinced me the so-called War on Drugs wreaks more harm
than good: Zhadanov was a Russian emigre who turned a machinist's gift into a successful plastic molding business
that started by making his own inventions and graduated to making items to order for assorted toy, computer,
medical supply, and perfume concerns. Among the products he came to make were small glass vials which he sold
to perfume makers for those small sample bottles you use to sample a particular perfume in department stores.

Those little bottles turned out to be drug paraphernalia so far as Pennsylvania state law enforcement was concerned,
and Zhadanov---who had no idea they could or were being used in any such fashion---ended up losing his business
and serving five years in the pen when even his own attorneys convinced him to plead guilty because he couldn't
fight the case that should have been fought. You can get the whole story here.

Pot has become the 55 MPH speed limit. Pointless and unenforced because too many people have decided to disregard it.

Rather like Prohibition.

[Smokin Joe]

I used to live in a state whose criminal laws include the "special circumstances" clause---including that you could face
a genuinely draconian sentence if you happened to commit a crime under the influence of one or another drug. The
concept of prosecuting just the crime itself, and sentencing appropriately, regardless of the "special circumstance,"
often meant that someone high might do more time for committing a burglary than someone stone cold
sober might for committing murder.

Lysander Spooner once observed, "Vices are not crimes." A distinction too often lost on lawmakers and law
enforcers alike.

I also know of cases involving someone whose line of work has absolutely nothing to do with the drug trade but who
are stripped of everything they worked to build and compelled to serve some kind of prison time because one or
another of their customers, without their prior knowledge, turned out to be using what they produce or offer on behalf
of drug business.

It was one such case, the Sam Zhadanov case, that finally convinced me the so-called War on Drugs wreaks more harm
than good: Zhadanov was a Russian emigre who turned a machinist's gift into a successful plastic molding business
that started by making his own inventions and graduated to making items to order for assorted toy, computer,
medical supply, and perfume concerns. Among the products he came to make were small glass vials which he sold
to perfume makers for those small sample bottles you use to sample a particular perfume in department stores.

Those little bottles turned out to be drug paraphernalia so far as Pennsylvania state law enforcement was concerned,
and Zhadanov---who had no idea they could or were being used in any such fashion---ended up losing his business
and serving five years in the pen when even his own attorneys convinced him to plead guilty because he couldn't
fight the case that should have been fought. You can get the whole story here.

Rather like Prohibition.

Practically anything tubular can be used as drug paraphernalia. That doesn't mean the courts should go after the manufacturers of plumbing fittings, glass tubing, pens, air hose fittings, etc. as making paraphernalia, unless they are marketing it as such.
It is the user who determines the use of any item, and if the item has been used for that specific purpose, then they are the one who should be charged. In the case of the bottles, the manufacturer was making small vials. The user made those into paraphernalia by using them for that purpose. I think the guy should have a case against the law, and against his attorney for misfeasance.

I'm not a fan of the War on Drugs because of the way 4th Amendment and other Rights have been shredded in practice.

However, I work on oil rigs, and from the people I have seen under the influence (they are gone, fast, if they do get past the pre-hire drug tests) I can give you a huge list of jobs I don't want them doing. Pot smokers do have residual effects that, frankly, I wouldn't exactly want them flying the plane, driving the bus, running the locomotive, and a host of other activities, from electrician to doctor--making this legal isn't the answer.

What is your purpose in legalizing it? To get stoned legally? Or do you think it will actually help eliminate a problem?

[EasyAce]

I'm not a fan of the War on Drugs because of the way 4th Amendment and other Rights have been shredded in practice.

Shredded, hell---they've been nuked.

However, I work on oil rigs, and from the people I have seen under the influence (they are gone, fast, if they do get past the pre-hire drug tests) I can give you a huge list of jobs I don't want them doing. Pot smokers do have residual effects that, frankly, I wouldn't exactly want them flying the plane, driving the bus, running the locomotive, and a host of other activities, from electrician to doctor--making this legal isn't the answer.

It might surprise you, but you may be safer with a pot smoker on several of those jobs than an alcoholic. I'm not recommending you
hire according to that criteria, but it is something to think about.

You'd even be safer with a pot smoker on several of those jobs than someone doped up on pure codeine. I know, because when I
was in the Air Force, all four of my wisdom teeth blew up on me, not all at once. Two at one time, the other two at separate times.
All four times, I was given raw codeine pills for the pain after the anesthetic wore off. All four times, I was put on three days' medical
leave because of the codeine prescription. I'll put it this way: if you're high on pot, you can at least be sure you're walking on the
ground and functioning otherwise normally, with a codicil I'll note shortly. If you're stoned on that kind of codeine, you don't even
know if your feet are touching the ground.

What is your purpose in legalizing it? To get stoned legally? Or do you think it will actually help eliminate a problem?

The second. I genuinely believe it would eliminate a problem far more grave than any caused by someone who likes to
smoke marijuana. The aforementioned Zhadanov case was only one of the cases that convinced me. (It also convinced
a local county district attorney---with whom I'd developed a close relationship during my days as a radio newsman in
the 1990s---enough that I won a bet with him on the case. I mentioned it to him during a conversation about the
drug issue. He said it couldn't be true. I showed him the article I cited plus two others I'd seen. It won me a fine
lunch and a splendid bottle of scotch! But more important, it convinced him to change his own position on the matter.)

I've only smoked it twice in my life. The first time was in college, and I was such a putz with it I couldn't get any kind
of high. The second time was in the mid-1990s with my second wife. I'll divulge no details, I like to think this is a
family portal, but let's just say I understood at once why some who indulge far more often than I ever did or would
call it one of the world's most phenomenal aphrodisiacs. I haven't smoked it since, and I'm not entirely sure I'd
do it again.

And I would remind you of one more thing: Merely because many if not most druggies would like to see an end to the
War on Drugs, it doesn't mean that many if not most people who would like to see an end to the War on Drugs are
druggies.

(By the way, I don't know if you know this, but someone could flunk a drug test having done nothing worse than eat a
poppy-seed bagel the day before they take the test. I forget offhand what it is, but there's a trait in the poppy seed that
causes a false positive on drug tests. Since I've eaten bagels all my life and still have one for my breakfast once or twice
a week now, if I knew I was to take a drug test I wouldn't touch the poppy seed variety for three days before the test,
just to be safe!)

[Smokin Joe]

It might surprise you, but you may be safer with a pot smoker on several of those jobs than an alcoholic. I'm not recommending you
hire according to that criteria, but it is something to think about.

No to either, and I have seen both. Great way to get people mangled.

You'd even be safer with a pot smoker on several of those jobs than someone doped up on pure codeine. I know, because when I
was in the Air Force, all four of my wisdom teeth blew up on me, not all at once. Two at one time, the other two at separate times.
All four times, I was given raw codeine pills for the pain after the anesthetic wore off. All four times, I was put on three days' medical
leave because of the codeine prescription. I'll put it this way: if you're high on pot, you can at least be sure you're walking on the
ground and functioning otherwise normally, with a codicil I'll note shortly. If you're stoned on that kind of codeine, you don't even
know if your feet are touching the ground.

And you'd have no business running a drilling rig, driving a semi, flying an airplane, etc. Very simply, people who are wasted shouldn't be doing those things. People who are habitually wasted, don't even realize how messed up they are, and yes, that goes for a lot of drinkers, too.

The second. I genuinely believe it would eliminate a problem far more grave than any caused by someone who likes to
smoke marijuana.

You are playing the lesser evil game. I'm looking for something better.

The aforementioned Zhadanov case was only one of the cases that convinced me. (It also convinced
a local county district attorney---with whom I'd developed a close relationship during my days as a radio newsman in
the 1990s---enough that I won a bet with him on the case. I mentioned it to him during a conversation about the
drug issue. He said it couldn't be true. I showed him the article I cited plus two others I'd seen. It won me a fine
lunch and a splendid bottle of scotch! But more important, it convinced him to change his own position on the matter.)

the case you mentioned was not only piss poor prosecutorial discretion, but implies that the manufacturer is responsible for the misuse of the legal product, criminally. Think about the implications of that. Will Ziplock go to trial? How about Bic? How about the Bureau of Engraving for printing the C-notes coke snorters seem so fond of rolling into a tube?
That is just bad law, period, much the same as holding Smith and Wesson responsible for a bank robbery would be. It's jurisprudential nonsense and really a bad (dangerous) precedent to establish. Unless a particular device is banned by law, specifically, to prosecute a manufacturer for the manufacture of a device which ordinarily would be used legally is crap without specific characteristics which make it especially useful for ingesting illegal substances which serve n other purpose. That is a pretty tough standard, but what should be in place for manufacturers. As far as a particular device being paraphernalia, that would depend on its use, and that produces identifiable residues which would indicate that. That, however, is on the user, not the manufacturer (see examples above).

And I would remind you of one more thing: Merely because many if not most druggies would like to see an end to the
War on Drugs, it doesn't mean that many if not most people who would like to see an end to the War on Drugs are
druggies.

I didn't imply, I asked. I understand that there are people who think the war should end, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the militarization of police forces, no-knock raids, and all sorts of things which reduce the rights of the individual are something I am against.
However, I believe that among those who have not used drugs, and even some who have, the presence of laws against drug posession/use do act as a deterrent to varying degrees. I am all for the deterrent aspect, because I think prevention is important. I also think that once pot is legal, the other drugs become less stigmatized, and those can create some real problems. With the oil boom here, morons in the media portrayed this region as overwhelmed by just traffic accidents, so it was allegedly the wild west, anything goes, pimping and whoring and stealing and selling drugs were wide open money for the taking streets paved with gold. The effect of that Media bullsh*t was that this region became a mecca for drug dealers, thieves, and whores and pimps. It took a little doing to get rid of some of that, and there were drugs available here we hadn't had. I know a few now in their early 20s who have OD'd on heroin (with fentanyl), and I don't think a family in the region hasn't had a run in with a kid on meth. I can't summarize here how incredibly destructive those drugs are, not only to individuals but entire families, but I'd settle for nuked over that experience of having a relative or loved one on either drug. Imagine children or grandchildren you don't trust to not rip you off and will not allow in your home, and you begin to get the picture. Because the use won't be confined to adults, not even of the hard drugs, and especially not pot, I see the absence of push back against any or all of those substances as a wide open invitation to the destruction of a generation.
The question is one of how to fight it, but legalizing it is not it.
I question the use of prescription drugs to maintain mood in a generation which largely lacks coping skills to deal with adversity; self-medication beyond caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine really don't seem to be the way to teach those skills, and often were complicating enough for adolescents. Opening the door to other substances isn't likely a good idea.

That's my opinion, and the test beds for all those little lab rats (someone's sons and daughters) are effectively in place. In the States where marijuana use is tolerated or legalized there will be results in the not so distant future. The care I would exercise in that, however is that only that which is reported and acted upon will be documented, and the anecdotal reports I have received from friends and relatives in Colorado included that petit theft was seldom acted upon by police who had their hands full with other, more serious offenses after the legalization of pot in the Denver Area. According to my sources, incidents of minor theft (items stolen from vehicles and burglarized) skyrocketed. If it can be sold, don't leave it unattended if you want to keep it. Others may have had different experiences.
With that in mind, the greed of politicians who face dwindling revenue and who still have votes to buy and favors to repay for another source of tax revenue is a seductive force in all this, but even in Colorado, only about half of the marijuana is taxed and legal. There is still a thriving black market in the drug, and that is fed by the cartels, who are definitely interested in marketing other more compact and profitable product lines as well.
That said, there is no Constitutional Authority for the federal Government to regulate what people consume, and the matter should be decided at the State level. The legality/illegality of the drug should be posted next to the "Welcome to " sign at the border, just to warn people in states where it is not legal.

(By the way, I don't know if you know this, but someone could flunk a drug test having done nothing worse than eat a
poppy-seed bagel the day before they take the test. I forget offhand what it is, but there's a trait in the poppy seed that
causes a false positive on drug tests. Since I've eaten bagels all my life and still have one for my breakfast once or twice
a week now, if I knew I was to take a drug test I wouldn't touch the poppy seed variety for three days before the test,
just to be safe!)

I have heard that. Frankly, I grew up around sand. If I wanted something on my bagels that had a gritty texture and took the plaque from my teeth, I'd use sand. YMMV I'm no fan of poppy seeds in the first place (I like plain or onion bagels, myself). I don't know of anyone who has tested positive for opiates/opioids from eating bagels, and I'm not sure that isn't an urban legend.

[EasyAce]

The case you mentioned was not only piss poor prosecutorial discretion, but implies that the manufacturer is responsible for the misuse of the legal product, criminally. Think about the implications of that. Will Ziplock go to trial? How about Bic? How about the Bureau of Engraving for printing the C-notes coke snorters seem so fond of rolling into a tube?
That is just bad law, period, much the same as holding Smith and Wesson responsible for a bank robbery would be.

Or the dram shop laws that affected bartenders in a few states some time back. Some of those laws might still be in force for all I know.

Frankly, I grew up around sand. If I wanted something on my bagels that had a gritty texture and took the plaque from my teeth, I'd use sand. YMMV I'm no fan of poppy seeds in the first place (I like plain or onion bagels, myself). I don't know of anyone who has tested positive for opiates/opioids from eating bagels, and I'm not sure that isn't an urban legend.

I wish it was an urban legend. I first knew of it thanks to someone I knew who came up unclean on
a drug test and who used nothing stronger than ibuprofen or prescribed antibiotics when ill, and who
drank sparingly, as I do. He hadn't been ill and hadn't had a drink for several days before the test, but
he did have poppy seed bread the morning of the test. He was told by his doctor in due course that
that could happen, which didn't help him at the moment but kept him from having such breads
from then on any time he knew he was due for a job-mandated drug test!

(My own favourite bagels are onion, egg, and everything bagels. The problem is---they like me back!
I can't have more than one a week since I've been trying to lose 40 pounds.)
[/quote]

[Frank Cannon]

However, I work on oil rigs, and from the people I have seen under the influence (they are gone, fast, if they do get past the pre-hire drug tests) I can give you a huge list of jobs I don't want them doing. Pot smokers do have residual effects that, frankly, I wouldn't exactly want them flying the plane, driving the bus, running the locomotive, and a host of other activities, from electrician to doctor--making this legal isn't the answer.

What is your purpose in legalizing it? To get stoned legally? Or do you think it will actually help eliminate a problem?

Making Pot legal does not make it acceptable in all cases. It is going to be treated like booze. Right now you can get pulled over and get a DUI from prescription drugs. Anything that impairs your ability to drive a car will do it, not just being drunk.

[Smokin Joe]

Or the dram shop laws that affected bartenders in a few states some time back. Some of those laws might still be in force for all I know.

I believe they are in this state and Montana. That was about the time I quit bartending (slow time in the oil patch). It was as if the bartender (especially if you had off sale) was responsible for the conduct of your patrons after they left the premises. While I had always tried to talk people out of driving if they were showing the effects, there were some who just didn't appear anywhere near as intoxicated as what the numbers would say when they left. One fellow I know was putting down the shoulder of the highway, spoke with the policeman who stopped him to see what was up, and pegged the Breathalyzer. Well, the police thought the machine was broken, so they took him down and had blood drawn because they could smell the whiskey. The result was a .46, beyond what would be legally dead for most folks. They almost blew it off and let him go...
But a guy could be responsible for everything such a customer did for the next 12 hours...even if they bought the 6-pack for someone else.

I wish it was an urban legend. I first knew of it thanks to someone I knew who came up unclean on
a drug test and who used nothing stronger than ibuprofen or prescribed antibiotics when ill, and who
drank sparingly, as I do. He hadn't been ill and hadn't had a drink for several days before the test, but
he did have poppy seed bread the morning of the test. He was told by his doctor in due course that
that could happen, which didn't help him at the moment but kept him from having such breads
from then on any time he knew he was due for a job-mandated drug test!

I had never heard of it first hand, but everyone I know avoided the poppy seed varieties anyway--they had all heard the same story, and why chance losing your job over it?

(My own favourite bagels are onion, egg, and everything bagels. The problem is---they like me back!
I can't have more than one a week since I've been trying to lose 40 pounds.)

Yeah....I have the same problem.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It might surprise you, but you may be safer with a pot smoker on several of those jobs than an alcoholic. I'm not recommending you
hire according to that criteria, but it is something to think about.

A really bad idea, even thinking of being safe if a roughneck responsible for moving heavy and dangerous equipment while under the influence of pot or alcohol.

A blowout or someone gets killed is the likely result.

[Smokin Joe]

A really bad idea, even thinking of being safe if a roughneck responsible for moving heavy and dangerous equipment while under the influence of pot or alcohol.

A blowout or someone gets killed is the likely result.

Exactly. Imagine a pilot of a 747 heavy, on final at LAX, a helmsman on a supertanker, Amtrack Engineer, or just some guy hauling a trailerload of propane down I-95 at rush hour having a toke...

There are a host of demanding jobs in which there is no place for altered states or unclear minds.
IMHO, that should include running a country as well.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I'm not a fan of pot, but expending resources and ruining lives is a waste of time for the government. Sessions has bigger fish to fry.


Frank is right, this is a state issue.

[Jazzhead]

Ah. Glad to see a group of people who probably couldn't roll a joint if I bet a $1000 are chiming in on the evils of weed.

This is a states rights issue. The only people angry about legal pot are splinters of the temperance movement and the alcohol lobby (just look at who singularly is funding the anti pot movement). If Sessions has his shit together, which is debatable, he will find better things to go after in his 4 short years.

Agreed.   It's perplexing to see legal alcohol and illegal pot.   Ask most cops about who they'd rather encounter on the job - a raging drunk or a stoner.

[Smokin Joe]

Making Pot legal does not make it acceptable in all cases. It is going to be treated like booze. Right now you can get pulled over and get a DUI from prescription drugs. Anything that impairs your ability to drive a car will do it, not just being drunk.

While that may be true, the rule is subjective, based solely on the impressions of a police officer. I'm not saying all police officers would bump the quota with a fib, but it has been known to happen.
In the case of alcohol, though, people are summarily tested on the basis of an odor, and quantified results used to determine the level of impairment based on those tests.
Knowing body weight, time, the proof of the beverage consumed one can avoid the thresholds for intoxication established as "drunk" or "under the influence" and if one does so within the legal limits without being involved in an accident or incident, can usually expect to go free and drive on.
The effects of marijuana may be more subtle, and without the ability to quantify thresholds for 'DUImj" people can claim the officer was misreading a combination of fatigue, eye irritation from working around dust all day, and having relationship problems or a sick relative on their mind leading to a distracted demeanor. (Or just use Visine to 'get the red out'.)

How long before quantifiable results are demanded and thresholds established for marijuana? Can they be established, and can it reasonably be expected that a person--any person--could avoid those thresholds by specific usage parameters?

The answer, frankly, is no. There are too many variables surrounding the usage of marijuana for the amount of intoxication to be predictable and avoidable after you leave zero. That will cause serious difficulties in maintaining any sort of campaign to keep loaded drivers off the road and to have marijuana usage be a DUI offense, without an accident.

[txradioguy]

No to either, and I have seen both. Great way to get people mangled. And you'd have no business running a drilling rig, driving a semi, flying an airplane, etc. Very simply, people who are wasted shouldn't be doing those things. People who are habitually wasted, don't even realize how messed up they are, and yes, that goes for a lot of drinkers, too. You are playing the lesser evil game. I'm looking for something better.  the case you mentioned was not only piss poor prosecutorial discretion, but implies that the manufacturer is responsible for the misuse of the legal product, criminally. Think about the implications of that. Will Ziplock go to trial? How about Bic? How about the Bureau of Engraving for printing the C-notes coke snorters seem so fond of rolling into a tube?
That is just bad law, period, much the same as holding Smith and Wesson responsible for a bank robbery would be. It's jurisprudential nonsense and really a bad (dangerous) precedent to establish. Unless a particular device is banned by law, specifically, to prosecute a manufacturer for the manufacture of a device which ordinarily would be used legally is crap without specific characteristics which make it especially useful for ingesting illegal substances which serve n other purpose. That is a pretty tough standard, but what should be in place for manufacturers. As far as a particular device being paraphernalia, that would depend on its use, and that produces identifiable residues which would indicate that. That, however, is on the user, not the manufacturer (see examples above).

 I didn't imply, I asked. I understand that there are people who think the war should end, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the militarization of police forces, no-knock raids, and all sorts of things which reduce the rights of the individual are something I am against.
However, I believe that among those who have not used drugs, and even some who have, the presence of laws against drug posession/use do act as a deterrent to varying degrees. I am all for the deterrent aspect, because I think prevention is important. I also think that once pot is legal, the other drugs become less stigmatized, and those can create some real problems. With the oil boom here, morons in the media portrayed this region as overwhelmed by just traffic accidents, so it was allegedly the wild west, anything goes, pimping and whoring and stealing and selling drugs were wide open money for the taking streets paved with gold. The effect of that Media bullsh*t was that this region became a mecca for drug dealers, thieves, and whores and pimps. It took a little doing to get rid of some of that, and there were drugs available here we hadn't had. I know a few now in their early 20s who have OD'd on heroin (with fentanyl), and I don't think a family in the region hasn't had a run in with a kid on meth. I can't summarize here how incredibly destructive those drugs are, not only to individuals but entire families, but I'd settle for nuked over that experience of having a relative or loved one on either drug. Imagine children or grandchildren you don't trust to not rip you off and will not allow in your home, and you begin to get the picture. Because the use won't be confined to adults, not even of the hard drugs, and especially not pot, I see the absence of push back against any or all of those substances as a wide open invitation to the destruction of a generation.
The question is one of how to fight it, but legalizing it is not it.
I question the use of prescription drugs to maintain mood in a generation which largely lacks coping skills to deal with adversity; self-medication beyond caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine really don't seem to be the way to teach those skills, and often were complicating enough for adolescents. Opening the door to other substances isn't likely a good idea.

That's my opinion, and the test beds for all those little lab rats (someone's sons and daughters) are effectively in place. In the States where marijuana use is tolerated or legalized there will be results in the not so distant future. The care I would exercise in that, however is that only that which is reported and acted upon will be documented, and the anecdotal reports I have received from friends and relatives in Colorado included that petit theft was seldom acted upon by police who had their hands full with other, more serious offenses after the legalization of pot in the Denver Area. According to my sources, incidents of minor theft (items stolen from vehicles and burglarized) skyrocketed. If it can be sold, don't leave it unattended if you want to keep it. Others may have had different experiences.
With that in mind, the greed of politicians who face dwindling revenue and who still have votes to buy and favors to repay for another source of tax revenue is a seductive force in all this, but even in Colorado, only about half of the marijuana is taxed and legal. There is still a thriving black market in the drug, and that is fed by the cartels, who are definitely interested in marketing other more compact and profitable product lines as well.
That said, there is no Constitutional Authority for the federal Government to regulate what people consume, and the matter should be decided at the State level. The legality/illegality of the drug should be posted next to the "Welcome to " sign at the border, just to warn people in states where it is not legal.  I have heard that. Frankly, I grew up around sand. If I wanted something on my bagels that had a gritty texture and took the plaque from my teeth, I'd use sand. YMMV I'm no fan of poppy seeds in the first place (I like plain or onion bagels, myself). I don't know of anyone who has tested positive for opiates/opioids from eating bagels, and I'm not sure that isn't an urban legend.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Agree 100%

[the_doc]

(As I have already stipulated, alcohol abuse is socially injurious, but I suspect that the MJ culture could prove to be even more injurious.  We already have too many lazy drop-out stoners who can't name the VP of the U.S.;  who think Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat;  who think that Obama is the coolest President in history;  who think Hillary got railroaded during the election;  who think CO2 is destroying the planet;  who think George Bush killed more people than Josef Stalin;  et cetera.)   

I think it is very interesting that no one has clearly responded to what I said above.  I guess that means my arguments against legalizing MJ are unanswerable.

[txradioguy]

I think it is very interesting that no one has clearly responded to what I said above.  I guess that means my arguments against legalizing MJ are unanswerable.

Part of it might be due to the fact we were offline for a couple days.

But I'd say it's because you provided reasoning that few if anyone could find fault with.

[Frank Cannon]

How long before quantifiable results are demanded and thresholds established for marijuana? Can they be established, and can it reasonably be expected that a person--any person--could avoid those thresholds by specific usage parameters?

The answer, frankly, is no. There are too many variables surrounding the usage of marijuana for the amount of intoxication to be predictable and avoidable after you leave zero. That will cause serious difficulties in maintaining any sort of campaign to keep loaded drivers off the road and to have marijuana usage be a DUI offense, without an accident.

You are very ill informed. I don;t know where you live but in PA driving under the influence of pot is very quantifiable. It is in the DUI statutes...

It is illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, alcohol, other drugs, or a combination of substances. When alcohol is involved, a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent of the driver's blood, by volume (or 0.02 percent for a minor) will conclusively establish that the driver is under the influence (if the level is less, the prosecutor can still point to the driver's actions to prove that he was under the influence).

When marijuana is involved, a level of one nanogram per milliliter of marijuana or its metabolites in the driver's blood, by volume, will conclusively establish that the driver is under the influence. The prosecutor will not need to present proof of impairment in the driver’s faculties. However, absent the requisite marijuana blood concentration level, the prosecutor may still point to the driver’s actions to show that the driver was under the influence. (75 Pa. Con. Stat. § 3802.)

[Night Hides Not]

Shredded, hell---they've been nuked.

You'd even be safer with a pot smoker on several of those jobs than someone doped up on pure codeine. I know, because when I
was in the Air Force, all four of my wisdom teeth blew up on me, not all at once. Two at one time, the other two at separate times.
All four times, I was given raw codeine pills for the pain after the anesthetic wore off. All four times, I was put on three days' medical
leave because of the codeine prescription.

I was given codeine after all four wisdom teeth were extracted. I held off, because my drive home was 28 miles/40 minutes. Knocked me out cold. I suppose I could've gotten medical leave, but I was 26 and a dumbazz.

Went to work the next day, looking like a damn chipmunk.

[EasyAce]

I was given codeine after all four wisdom teeth were extracted. I held off, because my drive home was 28 miles/40 minutes. Knocked me out cold. I suppose I could've gotten medical leave, but I was 26 and a dumbazz.

Went to work the next day, looking like a damn chipmunk.

I didn't look like a chipmunk after the wisdoms were pulled (when I went in to the base hospital with
the first two, the dentist took one look at me and hollered "Allll-viiinnnnnnnnnnn!!"), but I felt like a high-
flying bird on that codeine!

[Smokin Joe]

You are very ill informed. I don;t know where you live but in PA driving under the influence of pot is very quantifiable. It is in the DUI statutes...

It is illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, alcohol, other drugs, or a combination of substances. When alcohol is involved, a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent of the driver's blood, by volume (or 0.02 percent for a minor) will conclusively establish that the driver is under the influence (if the level is less, the prosecutor can still point to the driver's actions to prove that he was under the influence).

When marijuana is involved, a level of one nanogram per milliliter of marijuana or its metabolites in the driver's blood, by volume, will conclusively establish that the driver is under the influence. The prosecutor will not need to present proof of impairment in the driver’s faculties. However, absent the requisite marijuana blood concentration level, the prosecutor may still point to the driver’s actions to show that the driver was under the influence. (75 Pa. Con. Stat. § 3802.)

Thank you for enlightening me, there, Frank. It has been roughly twelve years (maybe longer, whatever year Hurricane Fran was) since I drove in PA, it's a little out of the way from out here.

One nanogram per milliliter isn't a whole heck of a lot, that sounds like a threshold of detection sort of thing. I wonder about not presenting proof of impairment, which leaves things right back to the subjective standard.
That standard is likely the universal 'out', there is the same subjective standard here in ND, for alcohol or drugs, and the officer claiming the driver 'smelled of alcohol' (technically wrong, alcohol by itself is pretty much odorless, the cogeners in distilled liquor or the beer or wine have the smell.) or smelled the odor of marijuana is sufficient cause to suspect DUI.
The problem remains, there is no valid and viable test for actual level of intoxication with marijuana, and this presents an enforcement dilemma.
If you have noticed most drivers' conduct, regardless of mental state or intoxicants, you will find they may wander in their lane, drive a little too fast or slow, or even erratically--especially if they know they are being followed by a police unit. Even people who aren't doing anything wrong get a little case of 'black and white fever' when they see a police unit on their six.
Subjective standards might not receive the same weight as a quantifiable standard might, and if no marijuana is recovered while searching the driver and vehicle, all it would take is a judge sympathetic to one side or the other of the argument to essentially render the law either meaningless, or a hanging offense. Because many causes can lead to the same behaviour, that leaves a standard which is arguably vague, so long as any marijuana in the system is evidence of another crime (ingestion). If that is legal, however, prosecution becomes more difficult for DUI, and more subjective.
Usually, if you commit a crime, and you are mentally competent enough to know right from wrong, you are aware that you are committing a crime. You can pick a specific event or point where your behaviour went from legal to illegal and the line was crossed. Intent is involved.
Without a requirement for a quantifiable standard, and especially with 'medical' users, attempts to prosecute will become complicated.
Part of the reason I see this as an issue is that North Dakota voters approved 'medical' usage of marijuana this past election. Without a valid and viable means to predict intoxication, measure intoxication (metabolites per milliliter don't necessarily reflect intoxication levels, only past usage), and quantify effects of specific level thresholds, regulation will remain subjective and open to a capable defense.

[HonestJohn]

I think it is very interesting that no one has clearly responded to what I said above.  I guess that means my arguments against legalizing MJ are unanswerable.

Your quote:

(As I have already stipulated, alcohol abuse is socially injurious, but I suspect that the MJ culture could prove to be even more injurious.  We already have too many lazy drop-out stoners who can't name the VP of the U.S.;  who think Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat;  who think that Obama is the coolest President in history;  who think Hillary got railroaded during the election;  who think CO2 is destroying the planet;  who think George Bush killed more people than Josef Stalin;  et cetera.)

(I couldn't find it in your original post.)

The premise of this assertion is false (I suspect that the MJ culture could prove to be even more injurious).

For marijuana was legal and used in America from the time of the colonies to roughly the 1910s with no issue.  Thus it was no more injurious to the people of America than anything else during that time.

Only during the rise of the temperance movement did American views on marijuana change.

[txradioguy]

Doctors in the 40's used Cocaine to treat sinus congestion.

Should we legalize coke based on that fact?

[the_doc]

Your quote (quoting me):

(As I have already stipulated, alcohol abuse is socially injurious, but I suspect that the MJ culture could prove to be even more injurious.  We already have too many lazy drop-out stoners who can't name the VP of the U.S.;  who think Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat;  who think that Obama is the coolest President in history;  who think Hillary got railroaded during the election;  who think CO2 is destroying the planet;  who think George Bush killed more people than Josef Stalin;  et cetera.)

The premise of this assertion is false (I suspect that the MJ culture could prove to be even more injurious).

For marijuana was legal and used in America from the time of the colonies to roughly the 1910s with no issue.  Thus it was no more injurious to the people of America than anything else during that time.

Only during the rise of the temperance movement did American views on marijuana change.

Well, where do I start?  My assertion was that I suspect that the MJ culture could prove to be even more injurious.  That assertion of my suspicions is a correct assertion whether you agree with my suspicions or not.

I realize that you are trying to attack my suspicions by attacking what you perceive to be a premise, i.e. an element I am supposedly using in a hardnosed way of deduction.  But I respectfully submit that in your libertarian zeal, you have failed to notice what I said:  I suspect that the MJ culture could prove to be even more injurious.  (Pardon me for the double waffling.) 

Heck, I still believe that MJ legalization is socially dangerous.  Your points about the obscure history of MJ use in America and the Temperance Movement don't prove anything to the contrary.  As I said in my earlier post, we already have too many lazy drop-out stoners who can't name the VP of the U.S.;  who think Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat;  who think that Obama is the coolest President in history;  who think Hillary got railroaded during the election;  who think CO2 is destroying the planet;  who think George Bush killed more people than Josef Stalin;  et cetera.

In other words, this ain't 1910.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

My how we can understand the world of hallucinogenics.   Those who say yes are in that world.  All others are in the world we call normal.

[Frank Cannon]

One nanogram per milliliter isn't a whole heck of a lot, that sounds like a threshold of detection sort of thing. I wonder about not presenting proof of impairment, which leaves things right back to the subjective standard.
That standard is likely the universal 'out', there is the same subjective standard here in ND, for alcohol or drugs, and the officer claiming the driver 'smelled of alcohol' (technically wrong, alcohol by itself is pretty much odorless, the cogeners in distilled liquor or the beer or wine have the smell.) or smelled the odor of marijuana is sufficient cause to suspect DUI.
The problem remains, there is no valid and viable test for actual level of intoxication with marijuana, and this presents an enforcement dilemma.

Put the bong down dude and look around. There are valid and viable tests. They are in use. People get arrested using them and they hold up in court. There is no dilemma except in your mind.

Remember, a DUI stop is for IMPAIRED DRIVING meaning that the police have witnessed driving that is reckless. They are not just stopping everyone. Also the NHTSA found that stoned drivers are far less likely to crash than drunk ones mainly for the reason that alcohol works by shutting off your brain.

http://www.attn.com/stories/891/effects-of-marijuana-on-driving

[Smokin Joe]

Put the bong down dude and look around. There are valid and viable tests. They are in use. People get arrested using them and they hold up in court. There is no dilemma except in your mind.

Bong? Really??  Is that all the argument you have, that and a website that leans toward 'social justice'? 

Remember, a DUI stop is for IMPAIRED DRIVING meaning that the police have witnessed driving that is reckless. They are not just stopping everyone.

Wrong. Wrong, and Wrong. Ever heard of a "DUI checkpoint"? or "Safety Checks" (same thing, practiced by police nationwide, especially on holidays), where vehicles are stopped at random? For that matter, a light bulb out, too much mud on the plate, failure to use a turn signal, driving while black, (in some 'hoods', driving while white) can all get you pulled over. That is the first step in 'probable cause'. The "odor" of anything on today's list of things you aren't supposed to be using while you are on the road, can be cause for a search. In some jurisdictions, having a (tobacco) cigarette while junior is napping in the opposite corner of the car in his seat is a violation. You don't have to be driving badly at all to be pulled over.

At that point the machine goes into gear. Run the license and plates for wants or warrants, stolen vehicle, and when the screen goes up, past history will be on it, too.

If something is smelled--be it alcohol or pot, that's probable cause. Now, you get to show your prowess at standing on one foot and counting to ten, walking heel to toe, reciting the alphabet, etc. In ND, that's usually on an uneven shoulder, in winds ranging from 5 to 35 MPH, often gusting. Good luck. Nystagmus gaze test (again subjective), and a screening test for alcohol. Perform any of this with less than perfect grace, and have alcohol present, and you're on your way to a test which can quantify the amount of alcohol in your blood, and DUI or no.

Now, the killer: With alcohol, there is a screening test, an evidentiary blood/breath test to determine whether you are in violation of the law.

You say there is a standard in PA of one nanogram per milliliter, but no evidence is required aside from the subjective assessment of the officer. Smell pot, dude seems stoned. and he flunks, by the standard given in the circumstances above.
It is all up to the officer.

I don't smoke pot, but there should be a standard that is not just subjective to determine whether someone is DUI. If I was a pot smoker I would want one, and with the spread of 'medical Marijuana" there will likely have to be one. At present, the number is zero to be definitely sober. Otherwise, any distraction while driving can lead to a DUI, or even the checkpoint stop. If there is a threshold below which pot smokers can operate a vehicle 'safely', then it needs to be established, as it has for alcohol. Less than that leaves every medical user open to being busted.

Also the NHTSA found that stoned drivers are far less likely to crash than drunk ones mainly for the reason that alcohol works by shutting off your brain.

http://www.attn.com/stories/891/effects-of-marijuana-on-driving

In the cited study, the following statement is made:

Marijuana is the most frequently detected drug (other than alcohol) in crash-involved drivers as well as the general driving population (Terhune, 1982; Terhune et al., 1992; Lacey et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2005). There is evidence that marijuana use impairs psychomotor skills, divided attention, lane tracking, and cognitive functions (Robbe et al., 1993; Moskowitz, 1995; Hartman and Huestis, 2013). However, its role in contributing to the occurrence of crashes remains less clear.

Now, I left the last statement about the role of the second most frequently detected drug in crash-involved drivers being unclear for a reason.

Considering impairment of psychomotor skills, divided attention, lane tracking and cognitive functions, I'd say there just might be a connection between those and the wreck. If you knew you were going to be sharing the highway with a new crop of people who exhibit those traits, would that make you happy? Do you want your loved ones commuting in that herd? Not that there aren't people already out there who are--otherwise, pot would not have come in number two behind alcohol, but considering that pot is still illegal in a lot of places, that is pretty significant. Dump the legality barrier without the guidelines alcohol has, (for instance three beers in an hour will put most people over the limit), and risk an entire group of nOOb stoners at the wheel, emboldened by the drug now being 'legal', and without any means except their own impaired judgement to decide whether their performance as a driver will be safe, and none for LEOs but to wait for an obvious incident to be able to charge them for DUI. If someone is already driving erratically, they are literally an accident looking for a place to happen.
With alcohol, there is the means for a driver to ascertain whether they will be beyond an accepted standard of intoxication and deemed unsafe to drive, with all the criminal penalties which can apply if they are caught.
That standard will not exist, nor will the means of avoiding those levels of intoxication for pot smokers, short of recognizing they are stoned.

That article makes the statement:

Going against conventional logic, though, marijuana (as well as other drugs like antidepressants, painkillers, and stimulants), was found to cause no statistical change in the risk of a crash for a driver who had used the given substance prior to driving.

From the study, ( http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf )

Caution should be exercised in assuming that drug presence
implies driver impairment. Drug tests do not necessarily
indicate current impairment. Also, in some cases, drug presence can be detected for a period of days or weeks after ingestion.

and

Table 3 shows the unadjusted odds ratios for crash involvement
for selected drug classes (THC, antidepressants, narcotic
analgesics, sedatives and stimulants). It also shows the odds ratios for crash involvement for the two types of drugs: illegal drugs and legal (medicinal) drugs. From this table, it appears that THC is associated with a significantly
elevated risk of crashing (by about 1.25 times or 25%). Similarly, the use of any illegal drugs is associated with a significant increase in the risk of crashing (by 1.21 times or 21%).

This tends to not agree with the precept of the article. Current research is divided on whether Marijuana use constitutes a significant threat of dangerous operation on the highways, and to some extent, I expect the issue to be clouded by the biases of researchers, in at least some instances.

What is still missing, however, is a way to quantifiably assess the level of intoxication of a marijuana user, and a way for that user to avoid crossing the threshold from 'okay' to 'too high to drive'.

I would think everyone involved would welcome such a standard and a viable method of predicting when enough is enough, to eliminate prosecutorial gray areas, to establish technical innocence, and to increase the potential for safer driving out there.

Or is this the real reason behind the push for self-driving cars?