Sorry, Medical Marijuana Activists, Your Study Doesn't Prove that I-502 Will Nab Sober Drivers for DUIs

Comments

1
Motherfucking science, always ruining a perfectly good pyramid scheme.

Won't somebody please think of the dispensaries, doctors, advocates and drug lawyers? Please? Just one drug lawyer losing his job is a bigger blow than any number of possession arrests. And this bill would be a job killer if it shuts down the dispensaries!

Prohibition is good for you!
2
Great coverage of the science, Dominic. Keep beating this drum.

I'd like to point out two other things in the Karschner data set:

1. Not only is there only one participant in the study who came in above the 5.0 ng/ml threshold at all, the next closest was a woman who claimed to smoke 8 blunts a day, and had smoked the day of admission. Her level was 2.0 ng/ml on day 1.

2. This is a cohort of 25, self-reporting heavy cannabis users. (Seriously, who the fuck smokes half an ounce per day?) And 5.0 ng/ml is more than two standard deviations above the day 1 mean blood level of this cohort.

3
Maybe if this passes the dispensaries can get Costco to buy them out and then float an initiative to allow sales in non-state-run stores.
4
Ugh, I am so upset with these people. When I got my prescription renewed a few months ago, the naturopath I went to tried to feed this BS about DUIs to me, and got really upset when I fought back. I've had dispensary workers bring it up as well. Last time I walked into my local dispensary and sat down to wait, the coffee table only had one thing on it - a copy of Northwest Leaf, folded to their prominent editorial against I-502.

These people are using their position as medical practitioners to brainwash a bunch of stoners into voting against their own interests, so they can continue to profit from prohibition. It makes me sick, and it's probably the way we'll lost this thing.
5
So, basically this initiative is opposed by: dispensaries that don't want to lose their stranglehold on the market; pot smokers who want to get away with driving impaired.
6
But how can docs and dispensaries rake in cash if they can't scare people into keeping a cash premium for MJ under our current flawed regime?

@2 probably the same people who smoke more than 2 packs a day of tobacco cigarettes is my guess. Some people have flawed pain feedback mechanisms and over self-medicate, and, to be frank, if they do that much MJ they better NOT be on my roads unless someone else is driving them.
7
Science!
8
Great work as usual Dom! Thanks for staying on this.
9
And that very effectively quiets my worries about I502. Thanks Dom!
10
@6 No shit. I don't care how high your tolerance is, if you're at 4+ BLUNTS per day, stay the hell off the road. At that level of consumption it is inevitable that you will get very, very high.

Does that mean that some medical patients should not be driving? Yes. You are (in theory) taking medicine to manage a medical condition, sometimes the effects of medicine requires one to make lifestyle adjustments. It's not fair but it's life.

I live with a medical patient and he's been subject to the same scare tactics when he goes to his dispensary. I asked him "dude, when do you ever drive when you're that high?" His response was "actually, come to think of it, I don't." Common sense, people.
11
Thanks for the article, the amount of pseudoscience being spewed by the potentially dead grey-market industry that shouldn't exist TO BEGIN WITH is just massive.

I can't wait for them to dissolve.
12
@10: " No shit. I don't care how high your tolerance is, if you're at 4+ BLUNTS per day, stay the hell off the road. At that level of consumption it is inevitable that you will get very, very high."

The same ones who get into an argument about how "stoned driving" is different than "drunk driving", naturally.
13
Your right to weave your car while ROFL at how funny it is ends when it goes into my lane or onto my lawn.
14
@5: Or, more charitably: dispensaries that don't want to lose their stranglehold on the market; pot smokers who haven't read the science and only know what they've heard from the aforementioned dispensaries.
15
Buuuuut dude, I drive really excellent when I'm high. You know? Like really, really careful. And I never go faster than fifteen, man, I call it "flyin' at fifteen", man, it's awesome! And time just goes by so slow, I can see every little squirrel or whatever, dude, look, is that a bicycle, those handlebars are so weird, why are they like that? Is that Jeff? Oh, man, what street are we on? Where does Jeff live? What? Dude! I thought we were going to go see Jeff! Ha-hah, that's so funny, dude! We're not going to see Jeff at all! OH MAN THIS IS MY JAM, turn it up! Oh, fuck, dude, I dropped a coal in my crotch, no, man, it's still burning and it's right in my AGGGGHHHHH.

But it's cool. I'm cool. No way, I can drive, man.
16
who gives a shit about legalizing weed; we should legalize all drugs across the board if we want to see substantial results.
17
I agree with @16. I suggest we start by legalizing weed by voting for I-502 and then move on to the next drug.

Oh, and thanks Dom for exposing the non-science of the priviledged profit makers in the Medical Marijuana racket. If we lose this one, it will be in large part because these people want to protect their profits.
18
@16: "who gives a shit about legalizing weed; we should legalize all drugs across the board if we want to see substantial results."

Do you believe it's going to be just as easy to legalize marijuana as it will meth? Besides, doing this isn't at the expense of anything and could only help.
19
I just want to know what the process of determination is for THC in the bloodstream, who will be administering these tests, and what the level of suspicion will have to be for a cop to decide it's time to take this traffic stop to the next level. Also, will it be "above this level is bad-bad, but below it is still a fine because we are also zero-tolerance"? If you blow a .06 alcohol level, that's still illegal (though not a full DUI). Can we expect this to be similar? I'm afraid of the cops, damnit, though I want pot to be legal SO MUCH.
20
The problem i see with the strict 5 ng limit - and its ironclad tie to a DUI conviction (automatically guilty? really??) - is that such a limit has *no direct link whatsoever* to a driver's impairment.

Let's say, for example, that a driver is stopped for speeding - which law enforcement substance abuse training explicitly says is not an indicator of impairment - but the officer decides he doesn't like the "look" of the driver (long hair, tie-dyed t-shirt, or who-knows-what-else...?). At what point with this new law would an officer be able to subject a driver to a blood test, again assuming no evidence of impairment otherwise?

And btw ...these days an officer can stop anyone for a veritable plethora of reasons, from a burned-out tail- or brake-light, to 'apparent' lack of seatbelt wearing, to the slightest lane swerve, etc, etc....
21
The study was about frequent users.

Is there anything regarding how long active THC might linger for occasional users?
22
Legalize it! STFU about the details.
23
Reposting Mr. Martinelli's comments, because I think it's important to see how Dom's twisting these arguments. In context, the point was that it would affect drivers 16-20 years old, for whom there is no 5 ng limit--it's simply zero tolerance for any detectable amount:

"I responded to Dominic a couple hours after his e-mail inquiry regarding the study I mentioned where individuals can fail the 0 ng/ml test for patients under 21 even 6 days after smoking...24% had detectable active THC in their system, meaning they would fail a 0 ng test which is imposed upon those under 21, despite voters in our state declaring the access to medicinal cannabis for those under this age. These tests also are not based on medical patients, which are likely to consume cannabis at much higher rates than those tested in this study. Other studies on this website also make it very clear that the limit, whether 0 ng for those under 21, or the 5 ng limit for adults, is absolutely not based on science, which makes taking away our defense in court (not even including rebuttable presumption) all the more unacceptable.'

I'm pleased we can agree "that cut offs that result in automatic DUIs are bad policy (I believe that defendants should retain a defense in court, despite THC levels)." Speaking as part of the 11% New Approach Washington has disregarded, I do have a moral issue voting for something that ensnares a designated driver a week after he toked up with his dorm buddies.

That said, I will follow the scientific findings, wherever they lead.
24
I-502 will raise the price, thanks to taxes every step of the distribution process, by more than $400 per ounce to about $750 per ounce for the average patient, by the time they get it at the access point/dispensary level. Is this acceptable? Is taxing the bejeesus out of patient's medicine acceptable, and in a manner no pharmaceutical is whatsoever? Many patients say no, and are against I-502 for the untenably low DUI provision AS WELL AS the the incredible over tax being placed on medicine. The last thing Washington state needs is washington state interfering in medical cannabis.
25
@20 that same argument about impairment vs amount of intoxicant in the system can be made about alcohol or any other substance, there are plenty of people who shouldn't be on the road after two beers, just as their are plenty that are far less impaired with well over .08 BAC than the average driver. The reality is that, however flawed these measures are when you take individual differences into account, they are far more pragmatic than administering a battery of cognitive tests, and less prone to abuse than using police judgement.

26
@24: "I-502 will raise the price, thanks to taxes every step of the distribution process, by more than $400 per ounce to about $750 per ounce for the average patient"

Goddamn bullshit. The prices will drop through the floor with actual competition and homegrown options.
27
@21: "Is there anything regarding how long active THC might linger for occasional users?"

Even shorter periods of time. Since it resides in fat, it's not going to "burn" faster for constant users.
28
Hell yeah Dom, bringing some facts. Let's review:

Current legal limit: 0ng/mL. New legal limit : 5ng/mL.
29
Dan---I LOVE you BUT YOU ARE WRONG here (and you rarely are so I am surprised) and so are most of the posters. Per se MEANS GUILTY, even if you are not impaired. Cops no longer need to prove impairment with road side sobriety. If this passes you will be guilty, period.

We had to fight this in Colorado last year and now again this year in the legislature and in an initiative. 5 nano is nonsense, especially for medical patients. Science actually shows that THC effects everyone differently--it IS NOT LIKE alcohol.

Here is your proof : Mile Highs and Lows
THC blood test: Pot critic William Breathes nearly 3 times over proposed limit when sober

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/201…

You can easily reach William Breathes through the above link as he writes for the site on top of being a public guinea pig for all of us last year.

Also contact Rico Colibri who wrote an excellent white paper against the legislation last year and it is being updated for this year. If you call 1-888-eat-hemp, I can put you in contact with him.
30
@25 - you miss the point - the proposed new statute is *not* at all the same as laws regarding alcohol - however draconian the existing laws may seem, and in fact are.

WIth an alcohol stop, a defendant at least has a right to challenge the accusation. With this new proposed law, apparently everyone would have no such option ...*GUILTY* immediately if a blood test shows a certain miniscule concentration! - which, again, has no correlation whatsoever to an individual's degree of impairment, and thus no relation to that person's *alleged* danger to society.
31
Thanks Dom, I'm looking at this entire thing differently now because of your article. Sharing it on Facebook too to see what they think.
32
@29: Do you understand the difference between a blog post or white paper and a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal?
33
Thanx Dom! This has cleared up a lot for me.
34
I'm not sure what you're referring to, Nathatn, nor how you define "sober", but it doesn't take a study to see that I-502 is biased against medical MJ patients versus any other driver. It ignores the fact that marijuana leaves your motor skills intact, and thus would not be picked up on a field test and would never alone trigger a "probable cause" stop. There also is also no breathylizer test for MJ, so it essentially grants cops the right to draw your blood, which is an unconstitutional body search. The bogus Blood-MJ indicator in the initiative has no scientific basis to where anyone will be found "intoxicated," upon such test. If you smoke at all there will always be a trace amount in your blood even 30 days after you stop using it, so you may as well not drive.

As a patient, there is no other prescription drug for which you must have a separate card and be on a registry for, in violation of federal health privacy laws. As a "recreational user" The initiative is a small step forward, but a bad initiative overall, crafted by opportunistic cowards who now want to be famous for flipping prohibition they've been making their living on thusfar.
35
@34: "I-502 is biased against medical MJ patients versus any other driver. It ignores the fact that marijuana leaves your motor skills intact"

My god are you a huge fucking asshole. I support your every right to manage your pain however you see fit. I do not support your right to obliterate your pain and drive.
36
also

"crafted by opportunistic cowards who now want to be famous for flipping prohibition they've been making their living on thusfar."

actually the Medical Marijuana grey market is 100% against this, because it would affect their livelihood
37
Hey Dominic, when we were talking I said to you that drivers can fail the test hours and in some instances up to 6 days after smoking, which science has shown. The specific study I sent you (and due to time constraints I wasn't able to cite more) was one that points out that, without a doubt, that those under 21 will fail the 0 ng test many hours after consuming cannabis, leading to a large amount of innocent DUID's for an age group that our voters have decided can possess cannabis for medical purposes without any stricter DUID limits (stricter isn't even the word for it, arguably unconstitutional by taking away their defense in court is more like it).

That being said, I direct you to patientsagainsti502.org for further studies, as well as further information on what legal experts think of this issue (remember, NORML is endorsing I-502, but have fought against per se DUID policies throughout almost their entire existence).

In addition, I think it's clear that none of us support impaired driving. However, we're adamantly against a strict liability THC limit that instantly finds someone guilty, regardless of impairment. This sets bad precedent for the reform movement, and holds two distinct dangers: one, by pushing people away from the movement of legalization once I-502 is federally preempted because it's faulty law, leading individuals to believe we can never bring reform on the state level, and two, by pushing other reform efforts to adopt a similiar per se DUID, potentially setting up a huge legal fight even after cannabis is legal.

We should be fighting to educate the public, not pander to their fears by introducing a strict liability limit to a substance that science and studies show may not even cause substantial danger, especially in comparison to alcohol:

■1983 – A study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that there was no significant difference in drivers who had consumed cannabis and those who hadn’t, other than an average speed that was slightly lower. Stein, AC et al., A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington DC: Department of Transportation (1983)

■1992 - A deep and well-funded study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concluded that cannabis is rarely involved in accidents. The study, to the surprise of many, found that “the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers.” Robbe, H. and O’Hanlon, J., Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1993).

■1998 – In a study that took 2,500 drivers that were involved in accidents and tested their blood samples, it was found that drivers with only cannabis (compared to having alcohol or other drugs in their system as well) were actually slightly less likely to have been the cause of an accident. The findings were concluded that, “there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents.” The study was administered through the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia

■2000 – A study by the UK Transport Research Laboratory, commissioned through the British government, found the surprising (the study was commissioned to prove marijuana was impairing) results that cannabis users were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. It also concluded that “marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis.” http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/

■2004 – A study published in the Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, which found that those above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision, concluded that marijuana consuming drivers showed absolutely no increased risk. The study was conducted through the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094…

■2010 – A study by Hartford Hospital and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, found that sometimes drivers under the influence of marijuana over-compensated with slow driving – but they still concluded that marijuana had little effect on driving skills and that “The study didn’t find a lot of impairment.” The test was administered through realistic driving simulations. http://www.courant.com/health/hc-marijua…
38
"The specific study I sent you (and due to time constraints I wasn't able to cite more) was one that points out that, without a doubt, that those under 21 will fail the 0 ng test many hours after consuming cannabis, leading to a large amount of innocent DUID's for an age group that our voters have decided can possess cannabis for medical purposes without any stricter DUID limits (stricter isn't even the word for it, arguably unconstitutional by taking away their defense in court is more like it)."

This statement is misleading and false. Read 46.61.503 RCW and how I-502 would amend it. Then look into how this charge is dealt with in the real world without speculation. I cannot believe this scare tactic is still being used.
39
Alex Newhouse - NORML said it best in their recent PUBLIC plea to Patients Against I-502. I-502's DUI provision is "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific."

Read it for yourself here:
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/nor…
40
@39: Just another Medical Marijuana asshole who doesn't give a fuck about stoned driving or legalizing, because "fuck you, I've got mine".
41
@39 - did you read the rest of it, where NORML asks your group to stand down and get out of the way of this initiative? Hunh?

@40 has it.
42
All this rant on the DUI-C section is distracting from the numerous other provisions that make this a terrible piece of legislation.
Can Dominic possibly blog on the other sections or just be a tornado of miscommunication and drummer of drama? I'm thikning he can't since the drama and distraction is around the DUI-C section.
Anybody who suggest that others "stand-down" on their opinion of a possible law going into effect are as un-American as our recent "Decider" president select-Bush.
We all know the Nixon cronnies are behind this Schaffer Commision version of false legalization and the best they can do is tell people to stand down? HA!
43
Patients against I-502,

I know I'm right. Read the statute and how I-502 amends it. I deal with this stuff on a daily basis.
44
@37: Did you read the 2004 study? They specifically mentioned in their discussion section that the drawback of urine tests (rather than blood tests) is that they will register a positive result long after the pharmacological effects have subsided.
Also, your 2010 article doesn't say that driving high is safe, but specifically states the contrary. In particular, the test subjects drove as is they were less experienced than they were; learned patterns were definitely suppressed.
I can't find your 2000 study, as your link doesn't appear to lead to it. Similarly, the 1998 report seems to have gone astray, and isn't even linked to; searches for the quotation have been fruitless.
45
Hey venom, here is a link to the 1998 study: http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving4.h…

And a link to the 2000 study: http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1161/a…

My point with these studies are that when looking at driving while under the influence of cannabis in an unbiased manner, it becomes clear that the dangers are extremely overstated, and that alcohol is exponentially more dangerous than cannabis (15 times moreso according to the 2004 Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention study): Trying to institute a limit for THC that mirrors our limit for alcohol (as New Approach has tried to do, stating as much) makes little to no sense, especially when considering how long active THC metabolites can stay in our system (and considering the 5 ng limit will more harshly effect women and those who are overweight).

I've said it already, but I believe strongly that we should be educating the public on this issue rather than pandering to them by mandating such an unscientific limit in order to bring such faulty reform.
46
@45: You're not looking at DUI-cannabis in an unbiased manner; you are presenting a sample of studies that you feel support your stance on the issue. Various published papers have come to a variety of conclusions; I can cite easily, if you wish, an assortment of studies that DO conclude that cannabis use impairs driving abilities.
Your use of "exponentially" is incorrect.
Just because driving while drunk is more dangerous than driving while stoned does not mean that only the former should be legislated against. It is more dangerous, for example, to ride a motorcycle than to drive a car, but that doesn't mean that we should let people drive either without getting licensed.
On to the links you provided. Neither actually leads to a study; they lead to articles about studies, which are not acceptable, especially when such articles are written from biased (in this case, unabashedly pro-marijuana legalization) points of view. And don't you tell me that the UKCIA and MAPINC are not explicitly pro-legalization. Additionally, the difference reported in the 1998 study was not statistically significant. Additionally additionally, the 2000 study had a sample size of n=15. n=15? Are you shitting me?
47
@45: "when looking at driving while under the influence of cannabis in an unbiased manner, it becomes clear that the dangers are extremely overstated"

We don't trust you at your goddamned word. the studies do not come to the conclusions that you do.

"I've said it already, but I believe strongly that we should be educating the public on this issue rather than pandering to them by mandating such an unscientific limit in order to bring such faulty reform."

Continue voting against legalization, continue spouting pseudoscience and opinion masquerading as "fact" and we'll continue calling you childish and selfish assholes.
48
Venom, no one is saying it shouldn't be legislated against, we're saying that it needs to be done in a just and effective manner, and a per se limit that takes away the legal defense of someone over a specified limit (decided by a few lawyers/politicians), regardless of the circumstances, is not just. If driving while under the influence of cannabis was an issue, our legislatures could of adopted a per se policy years ago, especially after medical cannabis was first made legal (not even the law enforcement in our state has called for such a limit). How often do you hear of driving under the influence of cannabis being an issue? We have laws that explicitly state that drivers can be hit with a DUID if they can prove impairment, which is the fairest system we have at this point - a per se DUID limit is fixing a problem that's not there, and refusing to acknowledge the 6th amendment of our Constitution which gives us all the right to a fair trial. A trial without a defense is not a fair trial.

Also Venom, I could bring up further studies as well, these were simply a handful of studies that show that this issue is not cut and dry, the science is not there, and we need to rethink instituting such a dangerous limit without reconsidering the consequences.

That being said, it's hard to consider I-502 legalization, when legally all that it does is create a legal exception for individuals to possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis, and an exception to be licensed through the state (which won't last due to federal preemption): not quite legalization (although most of us would at least be neutral and not opposed if not for the per se DUID limit, which many within the cannabis reform movement have fought against for decades).
49
@48: What is so dangerous about the limit in the proposed law?Is there evidence indicating that a substantial fraction of people will be unimpaired with THC levels above 5ng/mL? Do you think that we should toss out the 0.08% limit for drunk driving?
50
Quote: "[O]ur legislatures could of adopted a per se policy years ago, especially after medical cannabis was first made legal."

Response: Legalizing marijuana for recreational use is a completely different ball game in unexplored territory to most people. And these people happen to also be the voters.

Quote: "I could bring up further studies as well, these were simply a handful of studies that show that this issue is not cut and dry, the science is not there, and we need to rethink instituting such a dangerous limit without reconsidering the consequences."

Response: Please post the other studies. But even if you do, i doubt it will change the fact that the science is immature, or in your words, "not there." Should the concerned public that has evolved within 70+ years of cannabis prohibition be more comfortable with your position or with NAW's, especially since it knows laws can and often do change?
51
@49 The 0.08 limit for alcohol is a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN marker of impairment. There is no other drug that metabolizes like alcohol. Picking an arbitrary limit for THC does not change the scientific fact that it is NOTHING like alcohol. Alcohol is not used to treat a wide variety of terminal and debilitating diseases. Alcohol has a fatal dose. Alcohol emboldens users to do things they would not otherwise do while sober. Washington voters long ago recognized that cannabis is medicine, you cannot overdose on cannabis and the only thing cannabis emboldens users to do is eat more and sleep better.

There are hordes of studies that show a 0ng/ml limit like the one contained in I-502 will cause unimpaired drivers to be wrongfully arrested and convicted of DUI. All of the research which Dominic has pulled from our website, in fact. Read it for yourself! It's not that difficult to see why cannabis users are concerned once you read the research for yourself.
52
@ NaFun - How courageous of NORML and others to ask the voters who actually live in Washington to stand down and stay silent. The same request could be made of NORML. Since they KNOW I- 502 is riddled with deficiencies, why don't they stand down and remain neutral? After all, NORML won't have to live with the direct consequences of a DUI law which it calls "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific."
53
@51: "the scientific fact that it is NOTHING like alcohol"

You say these things as if they are supposed to be convincing.

Tying up your opinions as if they are "scientific fact" convinces nobody. If you want to regurgitate scientific facts, you can. But "marijuana is nothing like alcohol and therefore frequent users are not impaired" is not a fact. It's a meaningless statement not grounded in any study undertaken so far.

You come off as a shill, not as a student of science, certainly not any form of medical expert.

"Since they KNOW I- 502 is riddled with deficiencies, why don't they stand down and remain neutral?"

Because they find it better than the situation we have now. We need to have the capacity to arrest stoned drivers, and your constant bleating that it is "impossible" for stoned drivers to be impaired isn't helping your cause look like anything but Medical Marijuana industry shills.

Get a clue, get a new line or reasoning, or don't play shocked when people who are pro-legalization tell you to shut the fuck up.
54
"The 0.08 limit for alcohol is a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN marker of impairment"

And yet, you believe that since alcohol is "SCIENCE-DIFFERENT" or whatever retardidism from marijuana, it is impossible to determine impairment (though many have) and that we should not continue to find a more accurate reading. Your disagreement is purely selfish and uses not medical expertise but stonerisms as its rationale. Drop this shit. It's as useless a line of reasoning as "HOW COULD A PLANT BE ILLEGAL, MANNN?"
55
"...0ng/ml limit like the one contained in I-502

The limit is zero for people for whom it will remain illegal to possess or consume cannabis for recreational purposes, i.e., persons under 21 years of age. You may think that 21 is a bad cutoff for either cannabis or alcohol (and I would agree) but this at least makes sense in the context of existing laws on minors and alcohol.

The limit for everyone else is 5 ng/ml. And the preponderance of science indicates that at 5 ng/ml delta9-THC in the plasma, most people are stoned, and therefore have no business behind the wheel of a car. Even among heavy, chronic users (see @2) that threshold is almost never reached after a few hours (much less days) abstention.

There has to be a limit set somewhere, and I think this one is pretty good.

These medical MJ activists either sincerely do not understand the science here, or are simply rent-seeking because of the business they enjoy in the gray market.
56
@55: Judging by the posters on these threads, they didn't so much as pick and choose the data, they've actively lied about marijuana not affecting consciousness and likely haven't even read the studies they're citing as supportive.
57
@51: "The 0.08 limit for alcohol is a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN marker of impairment."
Was it scientifically proven at the time it was instituted, or was that demonstrated afterwards? And is 0.08% BAC really such a sharp cutoff point, below which people are perfectly safe and above which they are road menaces?
"There is no other drug that metabolizes like alcohol."
>womenlaughingwithsalad.jpeg
In all seriousness, you might want to bone up on biochemistry before making that bold claim.
"Alcohol is not used to treat a wide variety of terminal and debilitating diseases."
Alcohol has better curative properties than marijuana. If you drink antifreeze, it is ethyl alcohol that will save your life. If you are dying of cancer, marijuana will alleviate the pain but not much else.
"Alcohol has a fatal dose."
So does marijuana; eat 50g of pure THC and you are likely to die. So does water.
"Alcohol emboldens users to do things they would not otherwise do while sober."
And nobody's ever gotten high and done something they regret later?
"There are hordes of studies that show a 0ng/ml limit like the one contained in I-502 will cause unimpaired drivers to be wrongfully arrested and convicted of DUI."
A horde, as defined in Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia, is a group of between 50 and 99 creatures. Use that term carefully. Also, please cite one study that comes to that specific conclusion. Extrapolation is very dangerous when you're trying to prove a point.

You're not sounding very credible anymore. Now you're telling me about how The Truth trumps The Facts.
58
Have YOU read the studies @56? Very obviously not. If you had, you would know the only person who's picking and choosing the data is Dominic Holden. Furthermore, "stonerisms" and "retardidisms" aside, this group has never once advocated driving impaired. We are well aware of the fact that it is possible to be impaired from cannabis. Our beef is with the "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific" (NORML's words, not ours) DUI policy contained in I-502. Until such time that cannabis intoxication can be measured in a scientifically sound manner, which will not cause UNIMPAIRED drivers to be wrongfully arrested and convicted, NAW has no business putting an ng/ml limit into law.

@ 55 - The limit will be 0ng/ml for many adults for whom it is already LEGAL to use cannabis. Washington's medical marijuana laws are approved for all adults 18 and over, with a doctor's recommendation. I-502 makes no allowance for this group of patients with terminal and debilitating diseases. Instead, I-502 subjects this LEGAL group of citizens to the very same arbitrary limits applied to children under 18. 18-21 year old patients are one of many categories of second-class citizens created by the ACLU's faulty policy.
59
@ 57 - a horde, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is "a large group or swarm." There are, in fact, a large group of studies to back up the scientific data being distributed by patients against I-502. Many of these studies are available at www.patientsagainsti502.org. Perhaps that doesn't meet your narrow definition of horde, as defined by a role-playing computer game, but it fits the definition the vast majority of real-life humans use.

Now, what was it you were saying about credibility?
60
@57--I don't have a linkable citation handy (though it is in a slide from a class I used to teach), but if you plot the probability of a fatal crash against BAL, it is essentially a "hockey stick" function that starts to inflect upward right around 0.08%, and really takes off from 0.10%. Off the top of my head, I think you are ~7x more likely to be in a fatal crash with a BAL of 0.1%, (compared to a BAL of 0%) and ~20x more likely with a BAL of 0.15%.

That's for the population generally. If break it into age groups, it shifts to the right a bit for people ~25-45 years of age, and to the left for people both older and younger. And for ages 16-18, it goes up almost linearly from 0 (i.e., there is almost no "safe" BAL in that group except 0). So yes, for some people, they are measurably impaired at BAL below 0.08%.

There isn't really a comparable data set for THC, both because blood THC is much more difficult to measure reliably, and because there hasn't been much of a policy reason to set a limit other than zero, until now.

But anyone who has smoked halfway decent weed surely knows that it isn't hard to reach a state in which you should not be driving. Even if reaction times are generally normal and risk taking behavior is not increased (both true, in the case of THC), your perceptions of space and time can be altered (and if not, you should really try to get better stuff), as can your ability to attend to multiple stimuli at once. Both of which absolutely will affect your ability to operate a car safely in an uncontrolled environment.

61
@60 is absolutely correct. There can most definitely be impairment caused by cannabis, especially for naive users. However, research has repeatedly shown that there is no nanogram limit in the blood which can be consistently correlated with impairment. That is why the current law requires police to prove impairment. I-502 removes the need for proof of impairment, replacing it instead with proof that a person was behind the wheel with a level that exceeds the limits laid out in I-502. Impairment is no longer a factor. It's simply an arbitrary number, picked out of the sky, so NAW can meet its perceived need for a cannabis DUI statute. That is what makes I-502 so dangerous.
62
@49: Here is what will happen with the 5ng rule:
- guilty people will be convicted
- innocent people will be convicted
- guilty people will be set free

Why? because cannabis does not metabolize in the human body at equal rates, just like all the studies indicate.

You bring up an even more valid point - No, it would be political suicide for any legislator to take up the cause of relaxing alcohol DUI from 0.08 back to 0.10 - which is exactly why we do not want these fallible statutes implemented in the first place. Once they become law, they will never go away, we can't "fix it later".
63
@53 - read the law yourself - we don't need a new law to arrest stoned drivers - BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE ONE!!! RCW 46.61.502
64
@61-Yes, but surely you recognize that there is going to be some sort of objective standard for marijuana legalization to become law? And 5 ng/ml is really pretty good. Really, it is. It could be much worse.
65
@59: One, Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia is not a role-playing game, but rather a turn-based strategy game. Do not confuse the Heroes of Might and Magic series with the Might and Magic series; though they share the same franchise and intellectual property, one is a series of RPGs and one a series of TBSs. I never said anything about the Webster's definition of "horde", but rather the Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia definition, so I'm not sure why you're trying to correct me.
Two, your usage of "swarm" seems rather ambitious. A swarm, as defined in Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia, is a group of between 250 and 499 creatures. Use that term carefully too.
Three, there "is" a large group of studies, not there "are" a large group of studies, to back up the scientific data being distributed by patients against I-502. OH WAIT, there actually isn't, as far as we know. None of the scientific papers linked to on www.patientsagainsti502.org make any clear case against the law, and almost all the links are accompanied by out-of-context quotes cherry-picked to make an appearance of consensus.

Now, what was it you were saying about credibility?

@60: Thank you very much, my good fellow!
66
"Meanwhile, other studies show drivers with more than 5ng/mL of THC have a higher risk for crashes."

Of the studies on marijuana impairment on the road go I've only seen ones that suggest while still dangerous to put it in a similar class to alcohol is not correct. I saw a picture on reddit where a stoned driver was depicted with a helmet on. You're more likely to be going 5mph in the shoulder with your blinkers on than to get aggressive and run into stationary objects because ALCOHOL RAGE. You're less likely to cause a crash, but I could see where crashes would happen to someone not focusing their entire attention on the road, FOR ANY REASON. I would consider marijuana more like trying to drive and read a newspaper, dumb but you could do so much worse.

I hate the idea of automatic DUI's for marijuana, though I totally understand that blurb would make people assume, QUITE WRONGLY, that this bill will do anything to stop stoned drivers, but it won't (this science proves it), it will give police officers another excuse to demand a blood test from you, I don't think the SPD needs more authority, I think blood tests should be reserved for extreme cases, if someone is driving stoned/impaired they should be able fail a sober test and then I'm totally down for them needing a blood test to find out why they failed the sobriety test. I have a friend who has a medical condition where he has permanent red eyes, he fucking hates marijuana. He's obviously not going to try and get pulled over but, will the officer use based just on his eyes that he needs a blood test? The second we give officers the power to assume you're stoned before having a valid reason suddenly we become guilty until proven innocent (I've been pulled over and had my car smell like weed, the officer said, but being that I wasn't high and the officer recognized that he only gave me a speeding ticket), and in this case it's a blood test, so it's not like within the next few hours you hear back what would they have to do suspend your license until the lab work came back on a completely arbitrary number in relation to your mental state? Just look at your fucking data. Someone smoked 8 fucking blunts and didn't even register above a 3.0? So now we're just punishing body chemistry in people who happen to smoke pot but don't process THC as fast. Imagine that person smoked 2 more and than got behind the wheel, they fail a sobriety test and when it comes back less than 5 they get no DUI, everyone's time wasted and based on this completely arbitrary number the person who put everyone else on the road at risk gets no punishment. Also marijuana doesn't just change your THC, in fact there are strains that have no THC that can still get you high. What about all those CVD high people? How are we going to stop them from doing their 'medication' and then driving somewhere? This is a pretty silly bill in that respect, but the urge in me to tell the federal government to back the fuck off is way to great to not vote for something that could radically reshape what it means to live in America. Seriously, it's nowhere near as bad as it is now, if the only people harassed for smoking marijuana are people IN THEIR CAR, I'll take progress where I can get it. There's so much work to be done, and this is a better first step than most. Are there any cases about alcohol prohibition that was similar to public safety? If the only problem most people seem to have is the idea that someone might get stoned and operate heavy machinery we've won. Game the fuck over.
67
@64 - we recognize that there needs to be an objective standard for measuring cannabis intoxication, and as Troy Barber pointed out, that standard exists now. Washington state already has a law to address stoned driving. That law is more than adequate. As even supporters of I-502 have pointed out, it is not difficult for officers to prove impairment under the current law. The fact that this law "could be much worse" does not make it "really pretty good." It remains "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific" as publicly acknowledged by NORML, and patient concerns are admittedly "understandable" according to NAW. As a bleeding heart libertarian, why would you advocate for government intrusion into our bodies? Do you know that I-502's unethical DUI clause comes with implied consent? You give police consent for a blood draw, simply by 'agreeing' to have a drivers license.

@65 - ROTFL. Talk about obfuscating the matter. That's 'obfuscating' as in 'confusing' and not related to the 'obfuscation' referring to software programming code. Is that clear and concise enough for you?
68
...and once again, the Perfect kicks the Good squa' in the nuts.
69
WHY THC BLOOD LEVEL TESTING DOES NOT WORK!!!
February 28th, 2012 | Author: mimi | Edit

In order to understand impairment from thc, one must first understand about two very important words: tolerance and titration. Let’s start with tolerance. In the medical field, we look at two main things:

“tolerance /tol·er·ance/ (tol´er-ans)
1. diminution of response to a stimulus after prolonged exposure.
2. the ability to endure unusually large doses of a poison or toxin.”
http://medical-dictionary.thefreediction…)
What this means is that after being exposed to a medication over the course of time, you don’t have effects as strong as when you first began to take said medication. It also means that over time one is able to take larger and larger doses, due to the decrease in effects.

Now we look at titration.
“titration (tītrā´shn),
n incremental increase in drug dosage to a level that provides the optimal therapeutic effect.” (Taken from the same site as tolerance definition) What this means is that a patient is started on a small dose of medication and that dose is increased, either in amount or frequency or both, over time, so that the patient “tolerates” the dose without having a lot of problems with side effects.

Cannabis is one of those meds which can be titrated and to which tolerances can develop. What is important to understand about all of this is that you cannot measure impairment (which is a side effect of many medications) by taking blood from a patient who has developed a tolerance to these higher medication dosages. It just does not work using the science we know today. Different patients on different doses will have different tolerance and impairment levels, and a fair and logical standard cannot be set using a standard blood level. There is far too much variation in the levels of titrated patients who show a tolerance to cannabis and absolutely no impairment.

And that is what it says in every study NAW cites. And as a professional in the medical field, I am appalled that the science of cannabis would be completely ignored and Reefer Madness continues to rear it’s ugly head. Perpetuating these fallacies when the science is quite clear is irresponsible at best. Using it to make criminals out of the innocent is disgusting. Using it to exchange one bad law for another is political diversion tactics, something most of us are really sick and tired of seeing.

I will not stop telling the truth!

I’m voting NO, because as a Registered Nurse with almost 20 years of experience, mostly in the field of home health, I know exactly what this will do. No one is considering the economic impact of taking away the legal driving privilege of so many. And I don’t just mean added costs, which will be immense, I am also talking about the loss of health and the loss of life.
As a nurse case manager, one of the major concerns for the homebound patient is lack of social interaction. Even going to the doctor can be a major accomplishment, with having to arrange for rides and face getting stranded, or trying to wait in the freezing cold when you don’t tolerate temperature extremes. The disabled bus won’t guarantee a seat or a pickup time in most places, and patients have often been left waiting in front of the doctor’s office or the grocery store for hours. Oh, and now a trip to the grocery store means only the amount you can carry from wherever you catch a ride or get dropped off.
It’s easier to stay home than get stranded. So they miss a few doctor appointments, maybe don’t get to the lab on time, and rely on a neighbor to pick up food. And now they aren’t eating so well and they already aren’t healthy, so it usually means a trip to the ER within 3-6 months for the chronically ill patient, and each stay they get weaker, and go out less. And eventually, many of them die, often within the first year.
So lock yourself up and away from society and tell me it’s okay to do that to someone who is dying. You try it first and see how it feels, cuz I can tell you it really sucks.
70
@67: Why does it matter what NORML thinks it is? NORML is opposing the proposed law, right? Now if the groups trying to get the law enacted were to admit that it's "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific", maybe you'd have something. But just because NORML says so doesn't make it so. You're not making much of a point here.
Also, as far as obfuscation goes, I attacked your lack of unbiased scientific justification and your patently incorrect assertions about the natures of tetrahydrocannabinol and ethanol. You nitpicked my definition of "horde" rather than address the issue.
Also, as far as obfuscation goes, obfuscation means the same thing in coding as it does in other subjects: deliberately clouding the true nature of something.
Also, "software programming code" is redundant.
Also, you took 199 characters to complain that I was being confusing. That is not very concise.
71
Uhh, wake up venomlash. NORML is SUPPORTING the initiative yet ADMITS PUBLICLY that the DUI proposal contained within is "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific." More than we can say for NAW, who continually tries to convince voters that their DUI language is "supported by science" but that patients concerns are also "understandable."

As far as obfuscation and nitpicking, it was YOU who began nitpicking the definition of "horde," rather than addressing the issues. See comment #57 if you need a reminder about the turn of events. Now, via comment number 70, you've resorted to counting characters to refute our claims. Pathetic.
72
@67: "As a bleeding heart libertarian, why would you advocate for government intrusion into our bodies? Do you know that I-502's unethical DUI clause comes with implied consent? You give police consent for a blood draw, simply by 'agreeing' to have a drivers license."

Patients Against I-502, you're not really trying to imply that I-502 introduces implied consent for blood draws, are you? I hope not, because the lawyers you claim as members know better. Implied consent for a blood draw has been codified in Washington law since 1968, passed by voters as Initiative 242.

Trying to suggest that I-502 advocates "government intrusion into our bodies" would be not only scare mongering but a flat out lie.

Alison Holcomb
Campaign Director
New Approach Washington
73
@71: NORML supports the initiative AS A WHOLE, but opposes the particular element establishing the 5ng/mL limit. They OPPOSE the limit, so they are calling it "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific". No organization that SUPPORTS the limit, to the best of our knowledge, is saying that. I'm not sure what you're carrying on about.
Whoa, now you're nitpicking about who started the nitpicking? Deep, brah!
A horde by any measure is a relatively large number. I did not claim that, say, 40 studies did not constitute a horde. I claimed that ~5 studies did not constitute a horde. If Chinggis Khan had marched into China with five soldiers at his back, the Chinese would have laughed at him and sent him packing back to Mongolia. But instead, he brought not just one horde, but lots of hordes, and so became the ruler of a vast empire ranging across the Asian continent. ("Lots", as defined in Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia, is a group of between 20 and 49 creatures. Just FYI.)
74
@ 73 - Please visit http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-a… for a "scientific and rational review" of per se DUIC limits. In this article from the nation's leading expert on cannabis DUI, a total of SIXTY-TWO footnotes can be found. These footnotes link to everything from scientific studies and national polls to peer-reviewed white papers and publications from the ONDCP and the White House Drug Control Strategy. If 62 footnotes doesn't qualify as a "horde," we're not sure what would.

@ 72 - We did not imply that I-502 introduces implied consent, we asserted that your supporters are advocating for further government intrusion into our bodies. Supporting a per se DUI law for cannabis does, in fact, promote such intrusion by suggesting that the contents of one's blood should be the sole measure of impairment. If you believe the contents of one's blood should be the lone basis for a criminal conviction, you are promoting government intrusion of the most invasive kind.
75
@74: Now, via comment number 74, you've resorted to counting citations to refute my claims. Pathetic.
62 published papers and articles from legitimate scientific journals? Why yes, that would be a horde! But is it a horde that agrees with you? Not exactly. For example, citation #47, Ramaekers et al. 2006, lays out the limits of intoxication for THC. Here's the abstract:
Cannabis use has been associated with increased risk of becoming involved in traffic accidents; however, the relation between THC concentration and driver impairment is relatively obscure. The present study was designed to define performance impairment as a function of THC in serum and oral fluid in order to provide a scientific framework to the development of per se limits for driving under the influence of cannabis. Twenty recreational users of cannabis participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way cross-over study. Subjects were administered single doses of 0, 250 and 500 μg/kg THC by smoking. Performance tests measuring skills related to driving were conducted at regular intervals between 15 min and 6 h post smoking and included measures of perceptual-motor control (Critical tracking task), motor impulsivity (Stop signal task) and cognitive function (Tower of London). Blood and oral fluid were collected throughout testing. Results showed a strong and linear relation between THC in serum and oral fluid. Linear relations between magnitude of performance impairment and THC in oral fluid and serum, however, were low. A more promising way to define threshold levels of impairment was found by comparing the proportion of observations showing impairment or no impairment as a function of THC concentration. The proportion of observations showing impairment progressively increased as a function of serum THC in every task. Binomial tests showed an initial and significant shift toward impairment in the Critical tracking task for serum THC concentrations between 2 and 5 ng/ml. At concentrations between 5 and 10 ng/ml approximately 75–90% of the observations were indicative of significant impairment in every performance test. At THC concentrations >30 ng/ml the proportion of observations indicative of significant impairment increased to a full 100% in every performance tests. It is concluded that serum THC concentrations between 2 and 5 ng/ml establish the lower and upper range of a THC limit for impairment.
Wait, that's a paper that Dom cited in the body of this article! It concludes that you actually CAN reliably set that kind of limit on THC concentration in the bloodstream! And so we come full circle.
See, when Chinggis Khan set out to conquer China, he made sure that all of his hordes were on his side and not fighting for the Chinese. You're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice, aren't you?
76
@32 yes, I do.
77
What Dominic is saying is that pain patients should stay home every day so he can get stoned. Forget that chronic smokers have an entirely different tolerance than casual users. Forget that 5 ng impairment is the amount established for casual users (yes, I checked the Pennsylvania studies where the 5 ng number comes from). Forget all that. Dominic wants to get stoned. And, even in his own words, he wrote that it takes a day to wear down. Guess what ? Most pain patients take pain meds every day. That is something you can't forget. So, Dominic would rather pain patients drive around wacked out on oxycontins because the smell of marijuana is to obvious and patients need to buy food and get out of the house whether Dominic likes it or not.
How much are these people impaired ? We don't know. The studies don't really specify. More than drinking but less than text messaging ? We don't know. But Dominic wants to get high, so it really doesn't matter, so he is willing to throw patients under this bus to do it.
He argues that "this law will pass." That may be true. Lots of bad laws pass,especially when voters ignore the facts or vote selfishly. Lots of bad initiatives pass. I can give you a list. The main thing is, if this initiative doesn't pass, Dominic may have to wait even longer until a good law comes around. And that can't happen. Dominic wants to get high yesterday, and he isn't willing to wait, even if it means passing a really bad law with lots of ill consequences. |Even if it means locking sick up at home.
Because he is so anxious to get high, Dominic isn't going to look at the facts no matter what the argument. The facts don't affect him. They affect other people. He doesn't have to look.
Because he is in such a hurry, Dominic is not even willing to consider the the likelyhood, the probability, the the Federal government is going to bitch slap this thing down so fast that he will not get what he wants for very long, maybe never. But the DUI provisions will remain. The people who grow now will not be able to grow under this initiative, so, not only will patients be screwed, but Dominic will have a much harder time scoring that joint. And the feds will have kept it illegal anyway.

And, in the extremely remote chance that the federal government doesn't assert that it is in charge of controlled substances and knocks down 502 in court (which will happen), even if they don't, they will get the state to comply by withholding millions and millions of dollars in all sorts of aid (school aid, law enforcement aid , etc.) And they don't even need to go to court to prove anything do that.
So, Dominic is so anxious to smoke a joint that he is screwing himself and every patient in Washington State.
78
What Dominic is saying is that pain patients should stay home every day so he can get stoned. Forget that chronic smokers have an entirely different tolerance than casual users. Forget that 5 ng impairment is the amount established for casual users (yes, I checked the Pennsylvania studies where the 5 ng number comes from). Forget all that. Dominic wants to get stoned. And, even in his own words, he wrote that it takes a day to wear down. Guess what ? Most pain patients take pain meds every day. That is something you can't forget.
How much are these people impaired ? We don't know. The studies don't really specify. More than drinking but less than text messaging ? We don't know. But Dominic wants to get high, so it really doesn't matter, so he is willing to throw patients under this bus to do it.
He argues that "this law will pass." That may be true. Lots of bad laws pass,especially when voters ignore the facts or vote selfishly. Lots of bad initiatives pass. I can give you a list. The main thing is, if this initiative doesn't pass, Dominic may have to wait even longer until a good law comes around. And that can't happen. Dominic wants to get high yesterday, and he isn't willing to wait, even if it means passing a really bad law with lots of ill consequences. |Even if it means locking sick at home.
Because he is so anxious to get high, Dominic isn't going to look at the facts no matter what the argument. The facts don't affect him. They affect other people. He doesn't have to look.
Because he is in such a hurry, Dominic is not even willing to consider the the likelyhood, the probability, the the Federal government is going to bitch slap this thing down so fast that he will not get what he wants for very long, maybe never. But the DUI provisions will remain. The people who grow now will not be able to grow under this initiative, so, not only will patients be screwed, but Dominic will have a much harder time scoring that joint.

And, in the extremely remote chance that the federal government doesn't assert that it is in charge of controlled substances and knocks down 502 in court (which will happen), even if they don't, they will get the state to comply by withholding millions and millions of dollars in all sorts of aid (school aid, law enforcement aid , etc.) And they don't even need to go to court to prove anything do that.
So, Dominic is so anxious to smoke a joint that he is screwing himself and every patient in Washington State.
79
@ 72 - Amen!
80
Are you really suggesting that it's ok to charge people who smoked the day before with a DUID? That's as ridiculous as someone who smoked a week ago.
81
@Allison so what changes? How does the DUI change? I thought you were going around telling people "Help us legalize it, don't worry about stoned drivers, we changed the way we deal with stoned drivers"

How did you change it?
82
Don't fall for lies from people who make money off the medical marijuana trade. In california there was a mass push from most dispensary owners against legalizing. Instead of getting people out to vote for it alot were doing the opposite. No law is gonna be perfect, but some state needs to get that first passed vote then alot more will fall in line. The small details can be teaked later
83
If the woman came in at 7ng, and according to the article, you drop 2.5 ng every four hours(roughly) then how come "the next day" she had only lost 4ng ( she was at 2.9)? That math doesn't quite add up.
Even if the study began at 5pm, and "the next day" was 6:00am the next morning, that would put her ng loss at roughly 1.5 ng per every 4 hours.
Which brings me to the next worry: On the I-502 website, they claim a typical smoke session puts 20 ng in your blood. That would mean, by my calculations, it would take 40 hours to get it below the limit. Am I wrong?
This is my frist time on this site, I am going to bookmark this page in hopes that the author will take the time to answer, because I am not trying to bash I-502, I just can't believe in things that don't make sense, and those numbers don't jive. Feel free to e-mail me a response: brande.beach@yahoo.com
84
Decriminalize it at the federal level and let states make the choice. This is not something for the feds to be deciding. As for driving, its like any other mind altering medication: You should not be driving under the influence of anything. You should not be drinking alcohol, texting, talking w/o hands free, on pharma like Vicodin and Oxy's (even w/o a valid prescription), eating your garbage fast food, reading the paper, beating your brat kids, and everything else that is distracting while driving. Pot is no different.

I am so sick of this BS argument. Pot was made illegal because some a-hole paper company CEO was afraid that hemp would cut into his profits. He spent LOTS of money lobbying congress with lies to protect his bottom dollar. Just like cocaine does not "make black men rape white women", pot is not the devil. I am so sick of the BS. You get drunk, others get high; its no different. Actually it is different, after working on an ambulance for many years as a medic, I would much rather deal with a stonier then a drunk. End of story.

Keep banning everything and stupid kids will find new ways to get high. Look at bath salts. Now we have people eating each others faces off. Christ, why can't people just relax and stop trying to tell each other what to do with their own bodies. If they are driving, then arrest them, if not then leave them alone.

I will say it again, stoners don't eat each others faces off. You keep banning [or raising taxes on] drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol, you will have people finding new, cheaper, creative ways to get messed up and these new ways are not going to be anywhere as "safe" as the old tried and tested methods. And if you are the republican type sitting around saying "people don't need to get messed up", you might not be singing that tune when you have riots on your mansion doorstep after everyone who has been quelled over the past few years with drugs wakes up and realizes your kind has destroyed this nation and all of our civil liberties.

A stoned population is a pacified one. Sure you come up with all sorts of new and creative ideas, sure you see through the congressional BS and corporate shrills; but seriously the motivation level to do anything about it goes into the crapper. Want America to settle down and fall into line? Legalize weed. Problem solved.
85
Sorry Dominic, but this is what Google is for: Karschener et al is the least of many greater studies and that it is being focused on is regrettable, but the nearly universal conclusion I find is that you cannot tell anything about impairment from blood tests "in a single sample", although there has yet to be developed an accurate way to determine impairment from any number of blood samples. I have studied Karschner et al and am in fact referring to it IN MY OWN DUID DEFENSE of 10.4 nanograms active THC, the day after last medical use, and there is much in it that supports med marijuana activist claims. I'm sure I use med mj much more often than the "heavy" user participants in Karschner's study, since "heavy" turns out to be a very very subjective, elastic term to non-smoking scientists. But I am also using many many other, better studies that prove the point of informed anti 1-502 proponents. Among various studies/research I find that definitions of "heavy users" can refer to things as casual as using at a couple times a week, not multiple times a day, and alternately I have seen studies as suspicious as to claim a sample set of multiple persons in one study smoking huge quantities up to entire half ounces one night and then having not even any cannabis in their systems the next day whatsoever! I also find tested marijuana fed to the subjects in closed, controlled smoking environments to saturate their blood with known quantity product, allowing them no outside marijuana for a period of time, to be of low potency, with as little as 3-4% THC; laughable by local standards, and unacceptable by any self-respecting smoker here, much less medical a dispensary, and hardly enough to guarantee a high level of residual THC in subsequent days of study.

There are many other reasons Karschener et al even claim the study is flawed themselves: having stored the blood samples for five years allowed THC to break down, and storing it in plastic containers that absorb THC reduces the levels further, and so they can only have "underestimated" the actual original levels of THC in the samples. But they said that the only thing that's for sure is that significant levels of THC remain for days after last usage. I am still researching, since I can not find the end of the information, it is pretty vast, but the story is consistent: scientists don't think too much of blood samples on their own, and even that it is more like supporting a field sobriety test instead of the other way around.

For some current, very important evidence that I've seen that matches my experience of what patients are up against take, just two minutes online to see the testimony to the House Judiciary Committee of Dr. Gil Mobley with some eye opening research made plain:

http://www.nooni502.org/media/dr-mobleys….

Oh, and in the meantime, for me as a patient who has a host of serious health problems much aided by the use of medically sanctioned marijuana, including but not limited to chronic pain, appetite disorder and nausea, and even as I am presumed innocent, the court has cruelly seen fit to take away my right to use my marijuana EVEN THOUGH PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR. If it happened to me, it can happen to you, folks.
86
Sorry Dominic, but this is what Google is for: Karschener et al is the least of many greater studies and that it is being focused on is regrettable, but the nearly universal conclusion I find is that you cannot tell anything about impairment from blood tests "in a single sample", although there has yet to be developed an accurate way to determine impairment from any number of blood samples. I have studied Karschner et al and am in fact referring to it IN MY OWN DUID DEFENSE of 10.4 nanograms active THC, the day after last medical use, and there is much in it that supports med marijuana activist claims. I'm sure I use med mj much more often than the "heavy" user participants in Karschner's study, since "heavy" turns out to be a very very subjective, elastic term to non-smoking scientists. But I am also using many many other, better studies that prove the point of informed anti 1-502 proponents. Among various studies/research I find that definitions of "heavy users" can refer to things as casual as using at a couple times a week, not multiple times a day, and alternately I have seen studies as suspicious as to claim a sample set of multiple persons in one study smoking huge quantities up to entire half ounces one night and then having not even any cannabis in their systems the next day whatsoever! I also find tested marijuana fed to the subjects in closed, controlled smoking environments to saturate their blood with known quantity product, allowing them no outside marijuana for a period of time, to be of low potency, with as little as 3-4% THC; laughable by local standards, and unacceptable by any self-respecting smoker here, much less medical a dispensary, and hardly enough to guarantee a high level of residual THC in subsequent days of study.

There are many other reasons Karschener et al even claim the study is flawed themselves: having stored the blood samples for five years allowed THC to break down, and storing it in plastic containers that absorb THC reduces the levels further, and so they can only have "underestimated" the actual original levels of THC in the samples. But they said that the only thing that's for sure is that significant levels of THC remain for days after last usage. I am still researching, since I can not find the end of the information, it is pretty vast, but the story is consistent: scientists don't think too much of blood samples on their own, and even that it is more like supporting a field sobriety test instead of the other way around.

For some current, very important evidence that I've seen that matches my experience of what patients are up against take, just two minutes online to see the testimony to the House Judiciary Committee of Dr. Gil Mobley with some eye opening research made plain:

http://www.nooni502.org/media/dr-mobleys….

Oh, and in the meantime, for me as a patient who has a host of serious health problems much aided by the use of medically sanctioned marijuana, including but not limited to chronic pain, appetite disorder and nausea, and even as I am presumed innocent, the court has cruelly seen fit to take away my right to use my marijuana EVEN THOUGH PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR. If it happened to me, it can happen to you, folks.
87
Sorry Dominic, but this is what Google is for: Karschener et al is the least of many greater studies and that it is being focused on is regrettable, but the nearly universal conclusion I find is that you cannot tell anything about impairment from blood tests "in a single sample", although there has yet to be developed an accurate way to determine impairment from any number of blood samples. I have studied Karschner et al and am in fact referring to it IN MY OWN DUID DEFENSE of 10.4 nanograms active THC, the day after last medical use, and there is much in it that supports med marijuana activist claims. I'm sure I use med mj much more often than the "heavy" user participants in Karschner's study, since "heavy" turns out to be a very very subjective, elastic term to non-smoking scientists. But I am also using many many other, better studies that prove the point of informed anti 1-502 proponents. Among various studies/research I find that definitions of "heavy users" can refer to things as casual as using at a couple times a week, not multiple times a day, and alternately I have seen studies as suspicious as to claim a sample set of multiple persons in one study smoking huge quantities up to entire half ounces one night and then having not even any cannabis in their systems the next day whatsoever! I also find tested marijuana fed to the subjects in closed, controlled smoking environments to saturate their blood with known quantity product, allowing them no outside marijuana for a period of time, to be of low potency, with as little as 3-4% THC; laughable by local standards, and unacceptable by any self-respecting smoker here, much less medical a dispensary, and hardly enough to guarantee a high level of residual THC in subsequent days of study.

There are many other reasons Karschener et al even claim the study is flawed themselves: having stored the blood samples for five years allowed THC to break down, and storing it in plastic containers that absorb THC reduces the levels further, and so they can only have "underestimated" the actual original levels of THC in the samples. But they said that the only thing that's for sure is that significant levels of THC remain for days after last usage. I am still researching, since I can not find the end of the information, it is pretty vast, but the story is consistent: scientists don't think too much of blood samples on their own, and even that it is more like supporting a field sobriety test instead of the other way around.

For some current, very important evidence that I've seen that matches my experience of what patients are up against take, just two minutes online to see the testimony to the House Judiciary Committee of Dr. Gil Mobley with some eye opening research made plain:

http://www.nooni502.org/media/dr-mobleys….

Oh, and in the meantime, for me as a patient who has a host of serious health problems much aided by the use of medically sanctioned marijuana, including but not limited to chronic pain, appetite disorder and nausea, and even as I am presumed innocent, the court has cruelly seen fit to take away my right to use my marijuana EVEN THOUGH PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR. If it happened to me, it can happen to you, folks.
88
It is not uncommon for studies I have found that say things that would support the 5ng DUI provision get their cannabis samples from, guess who?, law enforcement, customs seizures, etc. Consider the source.....so to speak. Interestingly, the study a study I find most repeatedly states that you cannot make any judgements of impairment from a blood sample is from the U.S. Dept of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance" 1993), and is one of the many many, oh how many, studies that discusses how little impairment cannabis actually causes to begin with. But I am quite sure the police, gov't, etc., have known about this since it was done in almost 20 years ago and have conveniently shoved it under the rug.

Watch these two minutes of current research of Dr. Gil Mobley to have your eyes opened. Mine were when I was charged DUI with 10.4 ng the day after I last smoked:

http://www.nooni502.org/media/dr-mobleys…