• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

I believe that marijuana should be legal (discussion)

lordofthereef said:
Prove what? Take a shot of mouthwash and immediately after use a brethalyzer. If it was alcohol based it will read high than 0.0, the legal limit for all persons under 21.
Click to expand...

You might be right. But that means nothing in the real world. Actually, I think that was a trick some drunks used. They figured it would confuse the machines. So I think coppers know these tricks and if there is a doubt, there is the field sobriety test. In many jurisdictions, you also have a right to a blood test and ends the debate.
 
Bob Maxey said:
You might be right. But that means nothing in the real world. Actually, I think that was a trick some drunks used. They figured it would confuse the machines. So I think coppers know these tricks and if there is a doubt, there is the field sobriety test. In many jurisdictions, you also have a right to a blood test and ends the debate.
Click to expand...
Some points are just lost on some....
 
nlsme said:
Actually, it is well documented that mouthwash can cause a failed breathelyzer. And, please stop putting words in my mouth and telling me I am wrong. Did I ever say it can cause one to fail a field sobriety test? No, I said it CAN cause a failed test for BAC. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

So OK, lets see some of the documentation. Perhaps it exists only in Narnia.

And to be clear, are you confused between a breathalyze test and a blood alcohol test? that is to say, a blood test that looks at the amount of alcohol in your system?

I will agree that perhaps mouthwash will fool the breathalyzer. It wont fool a field sobriety or blood test.
 
Bob Maxey said:
So OK, lets see some of the documentation. Perhaps it exists only in Narnia.

And to be clear, are you confused between a breathalyze test and a blood alcohol test? that is to say, a blood test that looks at the amount of alcohol in your system?

I will agree that perhaps mouthwash will fool the breathalyzer. It wont fool a field sobriety or blood test.
Click to expand...
Did I say a blood test? Did I say a field sobriety test? No, right in the quote you quoted, it says BREATHALYZER. Again, stop putting words in my mouth, and then telling me I am wrong. BTW, a breathalyzer measures BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT. Say someone fails the breathalyzer, often, the blood test will not be administered for an hour or more, thereby increasing the odds that one will pass, even though they were above the limit while driving. So, again, why does there need to be a MORE accurate test for pot?
 
nlsme said:
Does it matter WHY someone is taking a drug? No, the fact is, people are taking them. Does it matter that a doctor has to prescribe them? NO, fact is, people are taking them. Does one need to "abuse" them in order to drive inebriated? No. Is there a test that determines when someone is inebriated while taking them? No. My arguement is that the test that is in place is more than satisfactory. There doesnt NEED to be a "better" test.
Click to expand...

You are right. Our (or at least my) point is that if the substance (MJ) is legalized for virtually anyone and everyone, there is far greater potential for people driving under the influence of marijuana than there is under the influence of an rx drug.
 
lordofthereef said:
You are right. Our (or at least my) point is that if the substance is legalized for virtually anyone and everyone, there is far greater potential for people driving under the influence of marijuana than there is under the influence of an rx drug.
Click to expand...
In the child support thread, you mention laws in place not for the majority, but the minority. Why does it not fit here? BTW, MILLIONS of people take RX drugs. Far more than smoke pot. Now, certainly pot usage will rise IF it were to be made legal, but I highly doubt it will reach the level of RX's.
 
Listen. The answer to the RX problem is A.) let it happen. or B.) Make all RX drug use illegal. Obviously, the latter isn't acceptable, right?

We are talking about legalizing a substance for the masses to use. Not by prescription, but for fun. I hardly think that this is comparable, at least in the ways you make the comparison.
 
lordofthereef said:
Listen. The answer to the RX problem is A.) let it happen. or B.) Make all RX drug use illegal. Obviously, the latter isn't acceptable, right?

We are talking about legalizing a substance for the masses to use. Not by prescription, but for fun. I hardly think that this is comparable, at least in the ways you make the comparison.
Click to expand...
The answer to the pot problem is A.) Let it happen. or B.) Make all pot usage illegal. Obviously, the former isn't acceptable, right? Differance is, there IS a test that can determine when someone is under the influence of pot, unlike the RX's. There CAN be a limit set, to where you don't have to just "let it happen".
 
The test, as I pointed out, may show intoxication. As I keep saying, may is not good enough. I am not saying I want pot use to be illegal. I am saying I would like a test that will do more than perhaps tell me whether a person is intoxicated.
 
The test can determine how much you smoked and how long it has been since you last smoked. Maybe the MAY comes from the fact there isn't a legal definition on intoxication with regards to pot? How can it tell if you are over a set limit, if there is no set limit? The test is plenty accurate, there just needs to be a standard set.
 
The test determines these numbers withing a 2-5 hour window, as far as I know. I am not sure what plenty accurate means to you. If you are stating 2-5 hours is plenty accurate, that is fine, for you. If that is all said test can accomplish, those results are pretty vague.

Maybe the MAY comes from what you say, maybe not. Wouldn't that be valuable information to know before professing that the test is "plenty accurate"?

As I mentioned, if that is enough for the people, wonderful. Personally, I don't feel that is enough.
 
lordofthereef said:
The test determines these numbers withing a 2-5 hour window, as far as I know. I am not sure what plenty accurate means to you. If you are stating 2-5 hours is plenty accurate, that is fine, for you. If that is all said test can accomplish, those results are pretty vague.

Maybe the MAY comes from what you say, maybe not. Wouldn't that be valuable information to know before professing that the test is "plenty accurate"?

As I mentioned, if that is enough for the people, wonderful. Personally, I don't feel that is enough.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting 2-5 hours? I saw "elapsed time since use". I say it is plenty accurate because the test can determine "elapsed time since last use", and "extent of use".
 
Bob Maxey said:
Or, perhaps dope smokers should accept that with use comes a bunch of problems and it simply might be best not to smoke.
Click to expand...

hmmm you could say the same towards drinkers, such as yourself, no?

nlsme said:
Does it matter WHY someone is taking a drug? No, the fact is, people are taking them. Does it matter that a doctor has to prescribe them? NO, fact is, people are taking them. Does one need to "abuse" them in order to drive inebriated? No. Is there a test that determines when someone is inebriated while taking them? No. My arguement is that the test that is in place is more than satisfactory. There doesnt NEED to be a "better" test.
Click to expand...

i never referred to the reasons someone is taking a substance other than to asses lordofthereef's statement, which turned out to be a typo.

you do realize, a better test would benefit YOU as a smoker, right? I agreed with you that there doesn't NEED to be one for legalization to happen, fyi
 
CLASS: Psychoactive cannabinoid
STREET NAMES: "Pot", "Grass", "Sensemilla", "Thai Sticks", "Acapulco Gold", "Reefer"
MAJOR METABOLITES: 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. (Note: delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol is the major psychoactive ingredient)
SYMPTOMS / EFFECTS:
Desired: Euphoria, Relaxation, Anti-nausea effect, Hallucinations
General: Sedation, sleepiness, ataxia, and short term memory impairment.
Physiological: Red conjunctiva (Whites of the eyes), increased pulse & blood pressure.
LENGTH OF TIME DETECTED:
Blood:
Delta-9-THC concentration usually drops below 5 ng/mL within 3-4 hours post dose. Frequent users may have longer detection times.
Urine:
11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC (inactive metabolite) detectable several days to several weeks, even longer for extremely heavy users. THC is a lipid soluble drug, therefore stores in the fat in the body and the amount of time it takes to clear the system is dependent on how much drug was used and over what period of time the drug is used. Delta-9-THC may also be detected.
DURATION OF EFFECTS: Approximately 2-5 hours (route of administration and dose dependant).
Click to expand...

I have bolded what I thought was pertinent. It may be pertinent to point out that if there is a more exact test then what I see here, great. I have just not seen evidence stating otherwise.
 
I understand that. If that is how it is going to be defined (ie you must not drive 2-5 hours after use), great! I would have thought we would want something that actually shows that a person is, in fact high, no? If not, like I said, if that is what the people want, let them have it. If that is what we end up getting, smokers are going to be bitching for all other reasons (and, if I might add, probably legitimate ones). I'd rather see it all ironed out FIRST.
 
lordofthereef said:
I have bolded what I thought was pertinent. It may be pertinent to point out that if there is a more exact test then what I see here, great. I have just not seen evidence stating otherwise.
Click to expand...

the problem is you're referring to the duration of marijuana's effects on the body, while he is referring to how accurately a test can tell if you've smoked recently.


EDIT: i see you've now discovered that. haha

i think we should all be able to agree on something (and i beleive it's the point that lordofthereef has been trying to make) and that's that there needs to be a test to show how high you are at the time of incident, rather than how long ago you smoked, etc.
 
tommy_ed said:
i think we should all be able to agree on something (and i beleive it's the point that lordofthereef has been trying to make) and that's that there needs to be a test to show how high you are at the time of incident, rather than how long ago you smoked, etc.
Click to expand...
The test CAN show IF you are UNDER the influence.
 
tommy_ed said:
i think we should all be able to agree on something (and i beleive it's the point that lordofthereef has been trying to make) and that's that there needs to be a test to show how high you are at the time of incident, rather than how long ago you smoked, etc.
Click to expand...

This is crucial IMO. And, there needs to be legally acceptable levels as well. Without that you have giant grey areas. Grey areas = complete officer discretion. I am not comfortable with that.

nlsme said:
The test CAN show IF you are UNDER the influence.
Click to expand...

If the effects last 3-5 hours I am not sure this is true. let me put it this way. If the test does, in fact, show that at the time it was run you definitely were or were not under the influence, great. That is all that I am asking for, we already have that, so there can be no better test because that is the best test, right? I simply haven't been presented with evidence that said test exists.

DUI Marijuana in California

There is a good link on current DUI Marijuana in California. Obviously, it doesn't really speak of currently levels. What seems to be implied is any detectable levels are high enough to be considered DUI (under current law). It does give some valuable incite on what, exactly, is done currently, on the scene.
 
My issue with tests based on "levels" is the tolerance factor. i had been pulled over for swerving after dropping my cigarrettes on the floor and the officer had no idea i had been smoking 30 minutes before that and in the few hours prior had smoked around 2 grams of the gooood stuff, even though i was pulled over because another car thought i was under the influence.

Now with laws based solely on blood test by levels i would have been screwed and my levels would have been sky high but i had such an enormous tolerance that in alcohol terms it would have been like drinking a beer or 2 during a game.

Where as today to smoke a tenth that amount i would be wayyyy to high to drive but would have way lower levels in a blood test.

They just passed medical laws in AZ and as it stands here is that if you have your script, reccomendation, whatever, and get pulled over to get a dui for the MJ you must fail a field sobriety test and fail the blood test. I think thats the best bet because it doesnt metabolize the same way as alcohol.
 
Because mj is illegal and i have chronic back and knee pain, caused during my military career I am currently on Valium, mobic, ambien and vicodin. This is the governments way of keeping me going since medical mj is illegal. So until I retire in two years, I am relegated to constant use of these drugs, which by the way are habit forming. As far as I know mj is not habit forming. Gotta love situaions like these.
 
Covart said:
Because mj is illegal and i have chronic back and knee pain, caused during my military career I am currently on Valium, mobic, ambien and vicodin. This is the governments way of keeping me going since medical mj is illegal. So until I retire in two years, I am relegated to constant use of these drugs, which by the way are habit forming. As far as I know mj is not habit forming. Gotta love situaions like these.
Click to expand...

My heart goes out to you, and thank you for your service and sacrifice!
icon14.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom