Massachusetts Ballot Initiative

[CaneBrain 95]

You sure they are the dangerous ones?Or are the ones impaired by ingesting mind altering substances the ones causing the deaths?

The ones causing deaths are:Drunks, morons, tired people, young people, old people.The ones ingesting mind altering substances (calling pot a mind altering substance is a stretch and a half btw) are at home eating Cheetos.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want that doesn't harm others.

This is really an overly simplistic view of the world and laws. Actions have consequences: Some Direct. Some Indirect. Me deciding to dance naked in the streets doesn't directly "harm" anyone else, but it affects many things around me and my neighborhood. I have no problem with laws preventing me from doing so even if it sounds like fun sometimes. If you've ever been the only sober one at a party where everyone else was drunk or stoned, you know how not fun it can be to be around stoned/drunk people. Likewise it is no fun to have one person in a group who is trashed. I don't see any problem limiting people's actions even if it isn't "harming" anyone. If I don't want to live in a community where people are ****ed up walking down the sidewalk, then as a society we can limit that behavior.Society can and does do more than limit visible offensive behavior that does no direct "harm". There are plenty of instances where society evaluates indirect impact to society as a whole and limits the behavior of individuals.Society imposes things like Seat Belt usage not just because of the harm caused to an individual when s/he is harmed in an accident, but also because of the burden on society of the individual's actions. There is a disproportionate usage of scarce economic resources such as insurance benefits and medical treatment by individuals not using (what society has determined are) reasonable means to prevent injuries. Therefore those individuals are forced to wear Seat Belts "for their own good" but really for the potential impact to society. Sure we could have some sort of "opt out" clause that an individual would sign saying: "I'm not going to use a Seat Belt. Please don't use any of Society's benefots to fix me if I get hurt." But that is a burdensome solution.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You seem to imply that smoking any amount of pot at all would impair a driver enough to cause the inability to control a motor vehicle safely. Is that what you are implying?

Yeah. Pretty much. Look. You're smoking the weed to alter your state of mind. That is the whole point. Do you really think that it doesn't affect your judgment and thought processes? Or does it just do so for things not related to effectively piloting a multiple ton vehicle capable of reaching high speeds in public?

Your example of the truck driver doesn't imply that he's hurting anyone else...

Until he plows into a Chevette with a mother and a couple of kids.I think that those of us who acknowledge that we've been high and wouldn't trust ourselves to drive while impaired are being honest. It rises above simple anecdotal "evidence". It is personal experience and knowledge of the drug's effects.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm okay with the guy smoking a joint driving a truck, as long as he's not impaired. You seem to imply that smoking any amount of pot at all would impair a driver enough to cause the inability to control a motor vehicle safely. Is that what you are implying?Henry said he's okay with anyone doing anything as long as it doesn't hurt others. Your example of the truck driver doesn't imply that he's hurting anyone else. I find it pretty funny that you act like an expert because you've smoked pot before.

But the study says that people who smoke pot are not impaired, in fact they are the same.Does that sound right to you?Of course a person who has a sip of a beer is not going to be a worse driver than if he didn't sip a beer, but to imply that smoking pot does not change anyone's ability to drive a car at all and therefore no laws should be placed on the books to prevent people from lighting up as much as they want and drive at the same time.You guys are trying to argue because you can't even for a moment allow for the possibility that maybe a person who is stoned shouldn't be allowed to drive a car ever.Your irrational defensive attitude about this is probably rooted in other irrational logic about the subject.Which is why you guys are losing the debate

[Balloon guy 158]

To recap:Pot Heads: Pot is good, look here's a study that says you can smoke pot and it doesn't impair your reflexes or your ability to concentrate on a fast moving situation such as you are faced with when driving.Me: Pretty sure it does affect you.PH: No it doesn't manMe: Yes it doesPH: No drinking is bad, so is being madMe: doesn't matter, you are different when you are stonedPH: Nuh Uh,. we have this studyMe: I think you are stoned now.PH: That's illegal search and seizure man.Me: Okay

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I realize that PH stands for potheads, but I kept reading it as Phil Hellmuth.

[Balloon guy 158]

I realize that PH stands for potheads, but I kept reading it as Phil Hellmuth.

I wonder if PH has ever smoked pot.I am going to go with the over/under on 4 times in his whole life.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I don't see any problem limiting people's actions even if it isn't "harming" anyone. If I don't want to live in a community where people are ****ed up walking down the sidewalk, then as a society we can limit that behavior.

This, of course, is the philosophical difference that will make your argument with HBLASK impossible. He agrees with the exact opposite, and therefore you'll end up comparing apples to oranges when trying to convince the other person.

Look. You're smoking the weed to alter your state of mind. That is the whole point. Do you really think that it doesn't affect your judgment and thought processes?

I drink coffee to alter my state of mind (and I do it often and vigorously). I'd argue that it makes me a better driver. Though this is probably a stupid point to be making.Look, in general, I'm not going to say that one study is conclusive. I'd have to be extremely well convinced to believe that smoking pot doesn't make you a worse driver. As someone who's smoked pot, I know it makes me stupid and awkward, and somewhat lethargic. I really don't want people freely smoking and driving, it sounds like trouble to me. Also, I would guess that people react very differently to pot, based on personal chemistry and past experience with the drug. There's probably a lot of variance with the results.Of course, none of this changes the fact that pot should be legal, and that anyone who is for pot staying illegal but for alcohol being legal is waging one of the silliest and most hypocritical arguments conceivable. Honestly, that argument has no grounds to stand on.It's amazing to me how some people can think that arguments they make against pot being legal are self consistent or relevant. I mean, some are laughably bad.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I wonder if PH has ever smoked pot.I am going to go with the over/under on 4 times in his whole life.

He's smoke every day if luck weren't involved.

[Balloon guy 158]

This, of course, is the philosophical difference that will make your argument with HBLASK impossible. He agrees with the exact opposite, and therefore you'll end up comparing apples to oranges when trying to convince the other person.I drink coffee to alter my state of mind (and I do it often and vigorously). I'd argue that it makes me a better driver. Though this is probably a stupid point to be making.Look, in general, I'm not going to say that one study is conclusive. I'd have to be extremely well convinced to believe that smoking pot doesn't make you a worse driver. As someone who's smoked pot, I know it makes me stupid and awkward, and somewhat lethargic. I really don't want people freely smoking and driving, it sounds like trouble to me. Also, I would guess that people react very differently to pot, based on personal chemistry and past experience with the drug. There's probably a lot of variance with the results.Of course, none of this changes the fact that pot should be legal, and that anyone who is for pot staying illegal but for alcohol being legal is waging one of the silliest and most hypocritical arguments conceivable. Honestly, that argument has no grounds to stand on.It's amazing to me how some people can think that arguments they make against pot being legal are self consistent or relevant. I mean, some are laughably bad.

That's all I was saying...but you can't place any limitations on what people want, or you are a fascist...

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

This, of course, is the philosophical difference that will make your argument with HBLASK impossible. He agrees with the exact opposite, and therefore you'll end up comparing apples to oranges when trying to convince the other person.I drink coffee to alter my state of mind (and I do it often and vigorously). I'd argue that it makes me a better driver. Though this is probably a stupid point to be making.Look, in general, I'm not going to say that one study is conclusive. I'd have to be extremely well convinced to believe that smoking pot doesn't make you a worse driver. As someone who's smoked pot, I know it makes me stupid and awkward, and somewhat lethargic. I really don't want people freely smoking and driving, it sounds like trouble to me. Also, I would guess that people react very differently to pot, based on personal chemistry and past experience with the drug. There's probably a lot of variance with the results.Of course, none of this changes the fact that pot should be legal, and that anyone who is for pot staying illegal but for alcohol being legal is waging one of the silliest and most hypocritical arguments conceivable. Honestly, that argument has no grounds to stand on.It's amazing to me how some people can think that arguments they make against pot being legal are self consistent or relevant. I mean, some are laughably bad.

I am pretty much in agreement with everything you said here....how often you gonna hear that?

[vbnautilus 48]

Look. You're smoking the weed to alter your state of mind. That is the whole point. Do you really think that it doesn't affect your judgment and thought processes? Or does it just do so for things not related to effectively piloting a multiple ton vehicle capable of reaching high speeds in public?

alter ≠ impairWhat if it makes you better?Is it ok to drive under the influence of caffeine? We can't simply say that because a substance has a psychoactive effect that it therefore impairs driving. Imo, the biggest problem with alcohol is impaired metacognitive abilities. That is, one cannot accurately judge how impaired one is to drive. Cannabis does not have this problem.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Is it ok to drive under the influence of caffeine? We can't simply say that because a substance has a psychoactive effect that it therefore impairs driving.

Frankly, if someone is overusing Caffeine, then no, it isn't OK to drive under the influence. Truckers or other motorists who are trying to battle fatigue by ingesting large doses of Caffeine are NOT safe.

An acute overdose of caffeine, usually in excess of about 300 milligrams, dependent on body weight and level of caffeine tolerance, can result in a state of central nervous system over-stimulation called caffeine intoxication (DSM-IV 305.90), or colloquially the "caffeine jitters". The symptoms of caffeine intoxication are not unlike overdoses of other stimulants. It may include restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushing of the face, increased urination, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, a rambling flow of thought and speech, irritability, irregular or rapid heart beat, and psychomotor agitation. In cases of much larger overdoses, mania, depression, lapses in judgment, disorientation, disinhibition, delusions, hallucinations, and psychosis may occur, and rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of skeletal muscle tissue) can be provoked.

Yeah. It is from Wikipedia.

[Jeepster80125 0]

But the study says that people who smoke pot are not impaired, in fact they are the same.Does that sound right to you?Of course a person who has a sip of a beer is not going to be a worse driver than if he didn't sip a beer, but to imply that smoking pot does not change anyone's ability to drive a car at all and therefore no laws should be placed on the books to prevent people from lighting up as much as they want and drive at the same time.You guys are trying to argue because you can't even for a moment allow for the possibility that maybe a person who is stoned shouldn't be allowed to drive a car ever.Your irrational defensive attitude about this is probably rooted in other irrational logic about the subject.Which is why you guys are losing the debate

I'm not going to address the study, that's not what I am talking about.I am not implying that pot use has zero effects. I am equating minimal pot use to having a sip of beer. It seems that you are implying that any amount of consumption impairs the ability to operate a motor vehicle. I think that's pretty silly.You seem to have little comprehension of my posts. You quote my post, then state the bolded. Let's address that, so you stay on topic and stop getting confused.I am not trying to argue anything except what I just stated, which is you are wrong when you think that any consumption leads to an inability to drive. I absolutely believe that over-consumption could lead to people being too impaired to drive. It depends on what your version of 'stoned' is. Would you care to set some parameters? I guess I don't equate taking a hit from a joint to be the same as being 'stoned'. But I'm not really sure what you mean by that term.

[vbnautilus 48]

Frankly, if someone is overusing Caffeine, then no, it isn't OK to drive under the influence. Truckers or other motorists who are trying to battle fatigue by ingesting large doses of Caffeine are NOT safe.

But there the problem is the fatigue causing impairment, not the caffeine. Regarding high doses of caffeine, that is sort of irrelevant since high enough doses of pretty much anything can cause an impairment.

[Jeepster80125 0]

But there the problem is the fatigue causing impairment, not the caffeine. Regarding high doses of caffeine, that is sort of irrelevant since high enough doses of pretty much anything can cause an impairment.

like religion?

[hblask 1]

You can tell me all day that being stoned doesn't effect your ability to drive. I've been stoned, I know that it does.Pretending that you would be cool with a truck driver with a joint hanging from his lips while he downshifts as he approaches heavy traffic on I-94 weakens your case.And it makes me start to think that maybe more of these studies are flat out lying.In fact you have weakened your case in my eyes, showing that you are willing to completely ignore the obvious as long as any study tells you what you want to hear.We should do a poll of how many people think that anyone who smokes pot is the same as the same person when he doesn't smoke pot. I mean there must be a reason they are smoking the pot...

Well, like I said, it's a surprising result, and because of the obvious effects that you point out, it is certainly not one that can be accepted at face value. It would need multiple confirmations under solidly scientific conditions. Personally, I suspect that it would not hold up. If this result is due to people driving more slowly, even that is not really safe; you want drivers who are attentive at highway speeds. So this one study is definitely not a reason to allow stoned driving.Having said that, if the result is repeated multiple times, with multiple conditions, so that all scientific objections are met, then yes, I would be willing to let that 18-wheeler drive stoned. Data needs to be more important than feelings when setting policy.

[dapokerbum 0]

So anyone that has used a drug frequently should be able to drive a car with no adverse effects if they take a smaller dose of said drug?Liquor = 1 drink, 1 beerWeed = One hitCoke = One lineMushrooms = 1 capetc, etcIs that where we are going with this argument?

[Jeepster80125 0]

So anyone that has used a drug frequently should be able to drive a car with no adverse effects if they take a smaller dose of said drug?Liquor = 1 drink, 1 beerWeed = One hitCoke = One lineMushrooms = 1 capetc, etcIs that where we are going with this argument?

Well, BG apparently doesn't have a problem with drinking and driving laws and enforcement, which state you can consume alcohol as long as you aren't too impaired to operate a motor vehicle. The government has decided that if your blood alcohol concentration is .08 or higher, you are legally drunk and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. In my state, if you blow .05-.079, you can be charged with driving while ability impaired. If your BAC is less than .05, you are legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle. You still aren't allowed to drive if your ability has been impaired though.BG thinks that any consumption of marijuana makes you impaired enough to NOT safely drive a vehicle. I think.I don't know that though, because BG likes being ambiguous and doesn't like to actually take a position, because his position is so foolish. I think.

[speedz99 145]

Is that where we are going with this argument?

I haven't read much of this thread, but I'm pretty sure that, no, that is not where anyone is going with any of the above arguments.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

BG thinks that any consumption of marijuana makes you impaired enough to NOT safely drive a vehicle. I think.

What he actually said is that being stoned makes you impaired.If I said that being drunk makes you impaired, you wouldn't say that I think any consumption of alcohol makes you impaired.I think that's the right analogy; I don't know anything about marijuana.

[dapokerbum 0]

Well, BG apparently doesn't have a problem with drinking and driving laws and enforcement, which state you can consume alcohol as long as you aren't too impaired to operate a motor vehicle. The government has decided that if your blood alcohol concentration is .08 or higher, you are legally drunk and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. In my state, if you blow .05-.079, you can be charged with driving while ability impaired. If your BAC is less than .05, you are legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle. You still aren't allowed to drive if your ability has been impaired though.BG thinks that any consumption of marijuana makes you impaired enough to NOT safely drive a vehicle. I think.I don't know that though, because BG likes being ambiguous and doesn't like to actually take a position, because his position is so foolish. I think.

I guess my main point was this:Are there certain drugs that minimal consumption will have no effect of your driving? and in turn are there other drugs that even a minimal dosage will impair your driving enough to make you stay off the roads?I believe that back in my MJ smoking days I could easily inhale two hits and be able to drive fine. However, it also has to do with the level of weed as there are the "one hit quit" variety where I wouldn't even want to be out in public after a hit!

[Jeepster80125 0]

What he actually said is that being stoned makes you impaired.If I said that being drunk makes you impaired, you wouldn't say that I think any consumption of alcohol makes you impaired.I think that's the right analogy; I don't know anything about marijuana.

I'm confused by his definition of stoned. I'm curious if he thinks that taking a single dose is enough to be impaired to the point where it's unsafe to operate a motor vehicle. It's convenient for him that we can use BAC as a threshold for alcohol, but there is no current amount that is legal vs. illegal like there is with alcohol. I'm just curious where he draws the line of not being impaired to being too impaired to drive.To me, there is a difference between taking a hit from a joint (his truck driver example), and someone being too 'stoned' or impaired to drive.

[speedz99 145]

I'm confused by his definition of stoned. I'm curious if he thinks that taking a single dose is enough to be impaired to the point where it's unsafe to operate a motor vehicle. It's convenient for him that we can use BAC as a threshold for alcohol, but there is no current amount that is legal vs. illegal like there is with alcohol. I'm just curious where he draws the line of not being impaired to being too impaired to drive.To me, there is a difference between taking a hit from a joint (his truck driver example), and someone being too 'stoned' or impaired to drive.

I think this is at the crux* of the issue. Until there is a way to objectively draw a line at "too high to drive safely", it has to be a zero tolerance policy.*I have no idea if I used that correctly

[vbnautilus 48]

like religion?

no, that impairs even in small doses.

I guess my main point was this:Are there certain drugs that minimal consumption will have no effect of your driving? and in turn are there other drugs that even a minimal dosage will impair your driving enough to make you stay off the roads?I believe that back in my MJ smoking days I could easily inhale two hits and be able to drive fine. However, it also has to do with the level of weed as there are the "one hit quit" variety where I wouldn't even want to be out in public after a hit!

What matters is whether or not you are impaired. With alcohol, the relationship between measurable blood levels and impairment is a well-studied issue and we have achieved some general guidelines as to what is acceptable. With other substances, we haven't put that work in yet. But I'm confident that with the right information we could generate some reasonable guidelines just as we have with alcohol. The issue of where to draw the line of impairment is not a substantive argument against the legalization of marijuana. However, it seems that given the kind of effect marijuana has on driving, the practicalities of dealing with such a legalization are likely to be easier than they are with alcohol. There are certainly drugs where any amount in the system is going to impair performance unacceptably (propofol?). We should regulate accordingly.