Decrim Petition

[Shocker-maniac]

I don't know, maybe I'm silly, but this statistic from the source above seems somewhat astounding to me.

According to the 2010 NSDUH, marijuana accounted for 4.5 million of the estimated 7.1 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs.

[Play Angry]

Do you mean that you had expected it to be higher? Honest question, not sarcasm.

It's just saying that of the ~7 million Americans who use drugs banned at the federal level, 63% of them are in that category because of marijuana use.

[Shocker-maniac]

It's not speaking of usage, I would indeed expect utilizers to be much higher. However, it is referencing DEPENDENCE and ABUSE. Nearly 2/3 of the Americans that have a drug problem, have a marijuana problem. Yes, I am indeed surprised by that statistic. And judging by your earlier response that it is nearly impossible to be addicted to pot, I would think that you would be surprised by that, as well.

[Play Angry]

I think we are interpreting the term drug abuse differently is all.

Depending on the source, it means the recurring or habitual taking of illegal drugs. I am guessing, since it is a government website aimed at curbing use, that it is going to use the less selective definition to increase its pool, but I could be wrong and maybe they are being generous to my side of the argument.

[Shocker-maniac]

Dependence - the state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else.

Abuse - use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse

[Play Angry]

Isn't using an illegal drug probably going to be for a bad purpose or bad effect under that definition though?

This is kinda going down a rabbit hole so I'm fine with either agreeing to disagree or conceding that specific website as being 100% correct, even. Let's say the rate of addiction is actually 9% for argument's sake.

I still think this is a good discussion but would like it if folks responded to a few of my broader points.

[Shocker-maniac]

So what you are saying is that only 4.5 million Americans engage in the illegal use of marijuana? I would expect the number to be much higher.

I'm done for tonight. So you can engage in your broader discussion with others.

Have a good one!

[MoValley John]

This is an interesting take, but my point was really that the pre-referendum fearmongering was proven completely wrong.



Questionable assertion but really I don't think anyone advocates driving under any sort of influence as a justification for legalization.

Here is my knowledge on stoned driving. My wife is a lead nurse in one of our local trauma centers. People are carted in at least weekly that both the police and medical team know we're stoned leading up to the accident. They are almost never tried for impaired driving. The police would love to ticket them and the DA would love to try them, there is just one problem, and the problem is described in the article you presented. It is impossible to scientifically measure Marijuana levels in the body. If you look back to the article showing driving statistics in Colorado, they discuss metabolites. You can not assume someone testing positive for metabolites is A) stoned, or B) has even smoked pot in the last week. They train officers to recognize pot symptoms, but even that is a dicey proposition. Unless being stoned is a slam dunk, prosecutors won't try them, it's a lost cause. They won't waste taxpayer's money on it.

Stoned drivers get killed and kill people all the time. The challenge is documenting it. You can't document what you don't prosecute. I can't explain it any better, but if you don't believe me, I recommend that you talk to people that work in emergency medicine. They will talk to you and they will talk truthfully.

I can't blame you if you don't believe me, the government spent decades lying about pot, so you don't believe them. Unfortunately, people Don't believe the government and NORML is throwing out just as many lies. They take the fact that prosecutors are really hesitant to charge stoned drivers, and then lead people to believe that stoned driving is relatively safe.

[MoValley John]

On a whim, I Googled driving stoned and found this blog. It backs up everything I said down to training officers and difficulties in identifying impairment.

http://blog.esurance.com/is-driving-high-dangerous/

Please read it. If you believed driving stoned was relatively safe, this might change your mind. I do believe that pot should eventuality be legalized, but science nerds to figure out how to test for high drivers and we need to figure out how to regulate it. Regarding regulation, a friend of mine in Colorado has a son that deals pot. Business suffered when it was legalized. He is selling more than ever now. All he did was to drop the price below the store front pot stores. He's made up for everything he lost in margin by doubling his volume. He packages his stuff in store containers so it looks legal and Colorado doesn't get any sales tax.

Just like how moonshiners still operate in the south.

[Play Angry]

MVJ, I love ya and believe what you said in the posts above.

The article I posted though concerned total fatalities, not "stoned" fatalities. What you are saying is great and nobody should ever advocate driving under any influence. But it doesn't disprove the point that road fatalities failed to spike (in fact are below average), contrary to what opponents of the referendum strongly asserted leading up to the vote.

I have no doubt it happens. It's just not at nearly the rate we were promised after the bill had passed. I think we're kind of talking past each other and pretty much agree.

[MoValley John]

MVJ, I love ya and believe what you said in the posts above.

The article I posted though concerned total fatalities, not "stoned" fatalities. What you are saying is great and nobody should ever advocate driving under any influence, like I said before. But it doesn't disprove the point that road fatalities failed to spike (in fact are below average), contrary to what opponents of the referendum strongly asserted leading up to the vote.

I have no doubt it happens. It's just not at nearly the rate we were promised after the bill had passed. I think you're kind of talking past me here.

I understand the political fearmongering tossed about prior tolegalization, I rememberthe talkof traffic accidents increasing if pot was to be legalized, I just don't know why anyone would think that would be true. The fact of the matter is this, people that want too smoke pot are going to smoke pot whether or not it's legal. Those that are on the fence and were being held back by the legality of pot, got their prescription as soon as medical Marijuana was legalized. If you ever traveled to Denver when medical Marijuana wad legal but recreational pot was not, it was crazy. Pot dispensaries were on almost every corner. Moreover, walk in doctor clinics were rampant. You walked into the Dr., paid $50-$100, described vague symptoms, and walked out with a prescription. Back aches, head aches, insomnia, you say it, you get the script. Everybody in Colorado that wanted to smoke pot was doing it legally long before recreational use was legalized. As such, there is no way to expect a spike in accidents, they were already happening. This needs to be looked at 10 years down the road when a new generation is driving, those that never knew that pot smoking was taboo.

[MoValley John]

Here is a bit more stuff to back what I said. This is how easy it is to get a script for Marijuana.
http://www.coloradomedicalmarijuana....-referrals.htm

And here is information on filling your script if your doctor doesn't have a dispensary.
http://www.thecannabist.co/map/dispensary-list/
That list isn't close to all medical Marijuana dispensaries, just those that signed up. Next to nobody in Colorado was waiting for recreational pot to be legalized, therefore, no spike in traffic statistics.

[Aargh]

Sometimes we need to look at why laws were put in place to determine if they are still needed. One of the reasons marijuana was outlawed was becuse lawyers were using marijuana intoxication as a defense in murder trials. At that time, marijuana use was mostly confined to African-American populations and Hispanic populations.

If you look at the makeup of Congress in the 1930's, you will not find those groups well-reopresented. It was pretty apparent that those groups were using a dangerous drug, and attempting to get away with murder because of it. It was easy for Congress to pass a law outlawing it, so it could no longer be used as a defense in criminal proceedings.

The argument that marijuana usage leads to violent behavior has pretty much been disproven, but the laws based on that assumption remain on the books. Perhps it is time to re-examine whether criminalization is worth the cost.

As Libertarianism cannot be avoided in any thread in this Forum, I'll go there. When David Koch ran for Vice President on the Libertarian ticket a few elections back, 2 planks in the Libertarian platform were the elimination of the EPA and OSHA.

The EPA was formed because industry was dumping wastes into rivers. Cities were dumping raw sewage into rivers. Rivers were catching on fire. Anybody remember Love Canal? A housing development was built over an unregulated industrial waste site and the environment there was killing people who bought housing there.

OSHA was formed to end things like workers being required to walk 6" catwalks 30' above factory floors with no safety equipment.

When I look at the Libertarian movement I see pleas for small government, but it really looks more like, "Stop regulating ME! It's OK to regulate everybody else". A billionaire industrialist calling for an end to EPA and OSHA as a main priority for the country seems a bit self-serving.

[pogo]

So what is the benifit to society?

Increased tax revenues so the guvmint will lower my personal property taxes?

[Kung Wu]

Pot is a better drug than alcohol ... fact. Just ask the now deceased Bill Hicks:

(STRONG language warning)