Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama: 'Doesn't make sense' for federal government to go after states that legalized marijuana (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  apparently (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stripe, CwV, mkor7, Futuristic Dreamer

    you've never had good shit.

    95% of all life forms that once existed on earth are now extinct. It is only a matter of time until the Republicans follow suit.

    by PRRedlin on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:27:48 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Had some fine herb last weekend (6+ / 0-)

      with some hashish.

      Didn't stay home.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:31:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good for you (0+ / 0-)

        for driving intoxicated.

        95% of all life forms that once existed on earth are now extinct. It is only a matter of time until the Republicans follow suit.

        by PRRedlin on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:33:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the links (0+ / 0-)

            I want to read these as soon as I have time. I was just in a discussion recently with some friends over the whole issue of driving under the influence and how to test for 'impairment' with marijuana now that it's legal in some states and if made legal elsewhere.

            •  Law enforcement asumption is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              qofdisks

              that cannabis does what alcohol does. Maybe because alcohol is what they know, maybe something else. Who knows.

              But all drugs work differently. Some prescription medications say don't drive, others don't. There is nothing inherent in the fact that it's "medication" that automatically proves driving impairment.

              Non-controlled substances also may have effects. A case could be made for not driving while in a caffeinated state, since caffeine could make you misjudge your reaction time and other capabilities.

              As far as I can tell there is no definitive link between cannabis and driving impairment, and a fair bit of evidence that such impairment is quite low if it exists at all.

              •  Assuming weed is like booze is a habit of the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                US Blues, nota bene

                the Stupid.

                Few things scream you don't know what you're talking about more than assuming weed is like booze.

                And cops aren't known for their treatises on relativity.

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:45:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  FIELD SOBRIETY TEST (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              qofdisks, US Blues, nota bene

              is still the definitive way to make the determination.

              Some are STUPIDLY preoccupied with an idea that they have to work HARDER to find the impairment.

              The blatant reality here is that if you CAN pass the FST, you CAN pass the FST.

              What idiots want is ways to punish people for driving high even if it doesn;t actually affect anything related to driving.

              This is because these people ASSUME marijuana is just like alcohol and high = drunk.

              Only stupid people think this.

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:40:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people (0+ / 0-)

            not to get high and drive.

            That some people might get high and drive is a really bad reason to put people in prison who get high and don't drive.

            I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

            by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:08:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thing is, the jury is still out (0+ / 0-)

              on whether getting high impairs driving ability.

              We do lots of things and drive. Eat, listen to the radio, talk to other people in the car, talk to other people on a cell phone, worry about life. All these things might have an effect on driving. None carry criminal penalties.

              OTOH cannabis carries criminal penalties and does not have a proven effect on driving. One wonders if its supposed effect on driving is being used as a red herring.

              What, conservatives using a red herring as a way of swaying public opinion to get what they want? Nobody could have ever predicted that...

              •  It's a bad red herring - that's the point (0+ / 0-)

                Legalize cannabis and set strict rules about the amount allowed in your system while you're operating a motor vehicle.

                If you smoke pot and aren't driving, you shouldn't be penalized because someone else might smoke pot and drive.

                I don't own a car. I ride a bike and take public transit. I have little sympathy for people being irresponsible behind the wheel. If you place the convince of driving under the influence, while on a cell phone, reading a newspaper, etc. above the safety of your community you shouldn't have the privilege of driving.

                I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

                by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 10:20:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  strict limits why exactly? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  qofdisks, US Blues

                  If there is no effect documented on driving (and the jury is still out on this) why are such rules needed? Other than to satisfy those of less flexible minds, who assume that since it "used to be" illegal, it still needs to be controlled.

                  People don't seem to be able to wrap their minds around the concept that cannabis just might be a way to have a good time and, unlike alcohol, still be able to drive safely.

                  •  Coming from a state where pot is a felony (0+ / 0-)

                    I really appreciate feeding into the "if pot's legal everyone will get high & drive" as a reason to throw people in jail who smoke pot and don't drive. Legalizing pot for people who aren't driving under the influence is a good first step.

                    I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

                    by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 04:41:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Cannabis is fat soluble (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  some other george

                  A person can test for more than the legal limit days later. In addition to the FACT that cannabis does not diminish driving ability your idea is simply foolish.

                  "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

                  by US Blues on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 02:14:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  We definitely do not want to encourage it. (5+ / 0-)

              But, by the same token, we don't want people unduly histrionic about it because it is routinely shown to not seriously impact driving skills.

              If driving high was a real problem we would actually know for sure. But we are really low on stoned driver incidents. Plenty of drunk driver incidents, but even in a country ate up with reefer mad propaganda we do not see stories about stoned drivers killing 44000 americans each year.

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:49:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The penalties for weed make people avoid (0+ / 0-)

                high driving.  Part of the reason accidents from weed are low is that people are aware of their impairment, and avoid driving high, or are more careful when driving high.  Claiming that driving high is safe, and not having penalties for doing it would encourage people to engage in risker behavior with weed and vehicles.

                I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

                by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 10:07:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Penalties don't stop drunks, arsonists, rapists, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  qofdisks, US Blues

                  and lots of others. And they don't seem to stop cannabis users from driving. From Time Magazine:

                  7% of California Drivers Test Positive for Marijuana, but Are They Impaired?

                  On any given Friday and Saturday night in California, 7% of drivers on the road test positive for marijuana, according to the state’s first comprehensive roadside survey of alcohol and drug use while driving. ...  That percentage is similar to the proportion of drivers who recorded some alcohol (not necessarily exceeding the legal limit for driving under the influence) in their blood.

                  So according to this study there are as many cannabis users as alcohol users on the road. That is, people don't "avoid driving high" as you put it.

                  And if they are "more careful when driving high" and can thus avoid accidents ... then what of it? All that means is that, in the end, no distinction can be made between the accident rates of cannabis drivers and non-cannabis drivers. What is the relevance of a distinction without a difference?

                  If cannabis was contributory to accidents then the literature ought to be able to demonstrate some accidents caused by cannabis. But the literature does not seem to support such causation.

                  Now, it's certainly possible that I missed something. Can you cite a reputable peer-reviewed study that documents this "riskier behavior" you referred to?

                  •  How high? There should be a legal limit (0+ / 0-)

                    just like we have with alcohol.

                    I still maintain that it should be illegal for somebody stoned off their ass to be behind the wheel of car.

                    If some states decriminalize or legalize cannabis except while driving, that would be a huge improvement over the status-quo.

                    I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

                    by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 01:56:12 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No. FIRST you must show there is a need. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      US Blues, nota bene

                      And so far no such need has been demonstrated.

                      Enacting such a policy without first showing causation is mere superstition. It's "because I feel like it" law, without any basis in fact.

                      If we are okay with enacting laws that are based on "I feel like it" instead of on good science, why not enact a law that says you can't drive while wearing the color yellow? It would make exactly as much sense.

                      Again: can you cite a reputable peer-reviewed study that documents the need for such a policy?

                      •  Such a study would be impossible to conduct (0+ / 0-)

                        for legal reasons. It's common sense that driving while really stoned is dangerous.

                        I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

                        by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 04:30:41 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not at all. CA did it, see previous comment. (0+ / 0-)

                          They tried to control for legal issues, in order to obtain accurate data. And in doing so, they gathered valuable information. This is hardly the first study to attempt to get some usable numbers about activity that people generally are reluctant to report. There are ways that studies like this are conducted so as to gather such information reliably. They use immunity, anonymity, and similar tools. These are known protocols.

                          Yes, it's certainly possible that, as you suggest, they may have under-reported the number of cannabis users. However, under-report would just makes my point even stronger. This would mean that even more people than they cite were driving stoned. And even more people driving under the influence of cannabis would surely influence traffic statistics even more noticeably, wouldn't it? But this doesn't show up in the statistics. If so many people are driving while stoned, where are the traffic accident reports that cite cannabis as a factor? I haven't found any. You'd think the anti-cannabis folks would be all over this. Apparently not, though.

                          But just for the sake of argument let's assume you are right, and far more people are driving stoned than driving drunk. If, in such a situation, alcohol is cited so much more as a factor in accidents than cannabis (as seems to be the case, from the literature), and yet as you suggest, cannabis is being used by drivers far more than alcohol, then cannabis is even more benign than we thought.

                          Science demands that we look at the evidence of reality. Reviewing published studies is looking at reality. Citing "common sense" is not. Your supposed "common sense" about driving while stoned seems to be unsupported by any scientific evidence. I have asked if you could cite any peer-reviewed studies on this, and your response has been "it's common sense". But in the research community "it's common sense" is not considered a valid argument. I have cited numerous studies in the literature that support what I'm saying. Can you cite any that support your position?

                  •  People avoid getting caught w/ pot (0+ / 0-)

                    where I'm from. You can go to jail for years if you are caught smoking pot.  You have to be really stupid to give police a reason to pull you over while you have evidence of pot in your car, or on your person.

                    I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

                    by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 04:46:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Cheech and Chong were all over this (3+ / 0-)
              How's my driving?

              Man, I think we're parked.

              ^_^

              America—We built that!

              by Mokurai on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:51:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  It is unreasonable because there is no test (0+ / 0-)

              that can distinguish if you are high now or last night or weeks ago. It doesn't impair driving. It can impair very difficult reading say like picking up Shakespeare for the first time.

        •  No human being has ever left their home (9+ / 0-)

          unless driving a motor vehicle.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 08:11:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  30 years of practice. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          US Blues

          If marijuana affected my motor skills or impaired my judgement I'd not be fond of it.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:37:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site