Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[LogGrad98]

Uh, that's what I was referring to. Way to jump to conclusions.

State has more than one meaning. Most of us here are in the United States of America. Some states within the United States of America have legalized medicinal use of marijuana. We have been largely discussing American law (and America Jr.) regarding marijuana use. Why would you assume we would jump to the definition of state that would refer to another country in that context. Did you go beyond a few puffs today?

 

[GVC]

I thought pointing out that harm reduction strategies in other societies have been effective (with the implication that these other societies were the states I was referring to) made it clear I was talking about other countries. No worries, dude.

 

[CONAN]

ad hominem

Whatever, it's called an opinion and it's directed at the behavior anyway.

I am not breaking any laws in my state. I am a medical marijuana patient. The federal government is not prosecuting medical marijuana users for possession. I have a full time job, great relationships with both my family and my significant other, I vote, pay my taxes, etc. I would like to know how that is either legally or socially irresponsible?

Not sure why you're giving us your life description here. Whatever. I am talking to GVC who is breaking the law. If you're not than count yourself exempt on that responsibility.

It may not be religion, but you haven't explained the foundation of your argument other than to illustrate you are morally opposed to it.

Yes I have you guys just aren't reading. You already explained away your lack of criminal responsibility. Why would you have to explain that if I hadn't given that as a reason? I'm giving reasons plenty you guys just don't like them. I haven't even brought up morals in that context.

 

[CONAN]

I'm really not sure what you're looking for here.

Really? Does this sound familiar: I'm asking for some foundation and you're giving none. You made a pretty bold statement about it being ok to disobey laws that are unjust. If you believe that you gotta back it up. And you haven't. The best I can get from your post is everyone decides for themselves what laws they'll follow and what ones they won't. And as long as they've thought long and hard about it that's socially responsible. BS.

(I'm making reasonable assumptions here based on your cryptic response so it's possible I misread you)

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

see page 11

Thanks for being capable of replying without becoming a total *** about it. Interesting results.

 

[CONAN]

As I posted before, THC content dissipates at a much slower rate because it's fat soluble. Even 24 - 48 ours after consumption, you can still detect levels of THC in the blood consistent (or at least very close to) with the levels recommended as a zero per se level in the study discussed in this thread. That's problematic since the "high" potentially lasts only a few hours.

That's the only time I'm worried about people driving high (the first 90ish minutes). Blood tests work for that time period.

 

[GVC]

Really? Does this sound familiar: I'm asking for some foundation and you're giving none. You made a pretty bold statement about it being ok to disobey laws that are unjust. If you believe that you gotta back it up. And you haven't. The best I can get from your post is everyone decides for themselves what laws they'll follow and what ones they won't. And as long as they've thought long and hard about it that's socially responsible. BS.

(I'm making reasonable assumptions here based on your cryptic response so it's possible I misread you)

You apparently didn't read my whole post. Wow.

Again, is civil disobedience never appropriate? Who decides what is socially responsible?

 

[GVC]

I'm really not sure what you're looking for here. Everyone is going to have a different standard on this one, and come to their own conclusion. Hopefully, they're rational and flexible enough to change their mind when presented with new information.

If you're wondering about the specifics on why I think the current prohibition on cannabis is unjust, you can start in this thread.

- More arrests for simple possession in the US than all violent crimes combined (a number that's upward of 800 000 per year). Those arrested are often affected in one way or another for the rest of their lives (whether they go to prison or not). I'd argue that that penalty is especially extreme since the crime, as far as I can tell, isn't unduly harming anyone other than (potentially) the user himself. Id someone does something that harms someone else, punishment may be reasonable. Otherwise, it's unjust.

- In decriminalized states, there has been little evidence that decriminalization leads to an increase in use. Further, with resources devoted to other methods of combating addiction have proven a boon to many societies (harm reduction strategies have been both more effective and cheaper).

Conan, here is my post that you've partially read.

 

[CONAN]

You apparently didn't read my whole post. Wow.

So you feel you were misunderstood? Sucks huh? And now let's just move on to your questions even though you never answered mine. What a joke.

 

[GVC]

Thanks for being capable of replying without becoming a total *** about it. Interesting results.

Takes one to know one. Geez, dude. I meant no harm (obviously, I was an *** to you earlier in this thread).

 

[GVC]

So you feel you were misunderstood? Sucks huh? And now let's just move on to your questions even though you never answered mine. What a joke.

I did answer it. Holy ****.

 

[CONAN]

Conan, here is my post that you've partially read.

Again with the assumptions. I must've not read it all right cuz you put everything so clearly and the only way anyone on earth would ever misunderstand GVC is if they hadn't read it all cuz it's just so clear, right?

You wrote: "Everyone is going to have a different standard on this one, and come to their own conclusion." Tell me where I misinterpreted that and if you can't answer the question just say so.

 

[GVC]

That is what I wrote, and I fail to see what's wrong with it. I also added my opinion on why cannabis laws are unjust.

That is, if the penalty doesn't fit the crime, the penalty is unjust. If an activity doesn't infringe on others' basic rights (or, perhaps, cause societal harm...), then pursuing that activity isn't socially irresponsible, regardless of its legal status.

I'm all for the rule of law, but when that law punishes people for benign activities, it ought to be changed. If the law infringes on basic human rights, civil disobedience is appropriate.

I think we can both agree that if Christianity were outlawed tomorrow, and people were locked up for possession of the bible, that that particular law would be unjust. I think we can both agree that there are and have been unjust laws and governments. If someone were to choose to own a bible under an anti-Christian regime, I wouldn't consider it socially irresponsible. Would you?

 

[GVC]

And, again, is civil disobedience ever appropriate? Who, in your opinion, decides what behaviors are or aren't socially responsible?

 

[One Brow]

As I posted before, THC content dissipates at a much slower rate because it's fat soluble. Even 24 - 48 ours after consumption, you can still detect levels of THC in the blood consistent (or at least very close to) with the levels recommended as a zero per se level in the study discussed in this thread. That's problematic since the "high" potentially lasts only a few hours.

That would mean you would use a higher level as the intoxication guideline, then. Or, are you claim that intoxication wears off even while THC does not appreciably diminsih at all, and if so, what does cause intoxication to wear off?

 

[SaltyDawg]

That would mean you would use a higher level as the intoxication guideline, then. Or, are you claim that intoxication wears off even while THC does not appreciably diminsih at all, and if so, what does cause intoxication to wear off?

One person's "high out of his mind" level is the next person's "haven't got high in a few days" level. There is no way to accurately test how high someone is at a particular moment. You can only detect that they have been high at some point in the past- which could be 2 minutes or 2 weeks ago (or even months).

With reckless driving already being illegal anyway, there is really no need to worry about this.

 

[GVC]

That would mean you would use a higher level as the intoxication guideline, then. Or, are you claim that intoxication wears off even while THC does not appreciably diminish at all, and if so, what does cause intoxication to wear off?

It diminishes, but it's metabolized differently than alcohol. I shouldn't speak too strongly here, as I'm not terribly knowledgeable about this particular topic, but I'm fairly confident that there is a qualitative difference between testing for alcohol and THC (with the former being water soluble and the latter fat soluble). That's mostly what I was disagreeing with. Again, I think the study stated that levels as high as 6ng/ml were still potentially in the blood as much as 48 hours after consumption of cannabis, and I was assuming (there's that word again) that the levels diminished gradually over time (which would indicate that the levels could be above 7ng/ml long after intoxication has subsided).

If you go out and drink all night, and then clean yourself up for a day or two, the result of blood testing will be a lot different than if you do the same thing with cannabis.

 

[One Brow]

THC is in your system much longer than alcohol and the levels cannot be linked to a certain level of impairment. The national highway traffic safety administration even says
"It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations” because “[d]etection time is well past the window of intoxication and impairment.”

My understanding is that different people also react to the same blood alcohol levels differently, you it's hard to predict specific effects in one individual. The main difference seems to be in "detection time", which is different from "intoxication level time".

It's a simple idea, really. for a given person, will they have the same level of THC when intoxicated as they do 24 hours, or is there an "intoxication level" higher than a "non-intoxication level"?

 

[GVC]

for a given person, will they have the same level of THC when intoxicated as they do 24 hours, or is there an "intoxication level" higher than a "non-intoxication level"?

I don't understand the biology, but the one being fat soluble and the other water soluble makes a big difference, as THC continues to be stored in fat cells (if I'm understanding correctly) long after consumption. Alcohol passes through your system quite fast.

 

[One Brow]

One person's "high out of his mind" level is the next person's "haven't got high in a few days" level.

Again, you can make similar arguments with alcohol, yet that does not prevent us from having blood level limits. As a person who drinks rarely, I'm majorly impaired well below the legal limit.

Alcohol and THC both diminish over time, as opposed to vanishing in an instant, so for both they can be detectable after a person is no longer intoxicated. They both affect different people in different ways and at different rates. If you want to make an argument that THC is not equally well/poorly monitored by using some sort of blood level analysis, you ned to offer a significant difference.