Happy 4:20!
- Thread starter Wicked Color
- Start date
Comparing alcohol and weed in the way you did is what is naieve... Alcohol impares you motor functions far far more than weed and feel free to show me one example of a stoner dad beating or horribly neglecting his kid like you see with alcohol. It just simply doesn't exsist. There are obviously stoners who do bad things, but correlation does not mean causeation especially in this case. Even if it was the case you can not punish people for doing something that MIGHT make you do something bad that hurts someone. Punish the actual crimes with actual victims.
Yes people are not getting imprisoned anymore in states with mmj and decriminalized laws unless they are repeat offenders or have a certain amount that makes it look like they are distributing....however that is only a few sates and only with recent changes in laws. And there are many states where you can and will be imprisoned for years on a simple possession charge.
Yes people are not getting imprisoned anymore in states with mmj and decriminalized laws unless they are repeat offenders or have a certain amount that makes it look like they are distributing....however that is only a few sates and only with recent changes in laws. And there are many states where you can and will be imprisoned for years on a simple possession charge.
[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]
I see what you are saying here. There are very horrible things that happen because of the drug trade. But like you said, if you look at our own history with alcohol laws it become very obvious that those things are directly related to it being illegal and driven into the black market and controlled by gangs and criminals. In fact the Mexico gangs fund their more heinous crimes from the money they make from drugs. If you legalize, tax and regulate you take away the funding for these gangs and they will wither away just like mob when prohibition was repealed.[/FONT]
Just wanted to clarify my previous post, as I was short on time for a reply.
I think the rally has served it's purpose. It raised public awareness and perhaps helped gather support for the decriminalization of mj and implementation of our current medical laws. It does seem that each year more and more people are using the rally as an excuse to smoke in public.
Bringing it out into the open raised awareness and gave access to mmj to those in need...and gave the right to use mmj in the privacy of their home. Rallying was a defiant act prior to the passing of the current laws, and I'd argue that it was necessary to really bring attention to the issue. But, why continue now....tradition? At this point, the public smoke-out is just an abuse of the laws in place. Yes...there are those that support legalization, and perhaps they feel that the rally is still necessary to keep pushing forward.
However, my issue with this is the divide / controversy it creates. We already have dispensaries strewn throughout the city, billboards on main roads, and guys spinning signs and yelling 420 every few miles. It is clearly getting to the point where those that oppose the current laws are seeing it ALL over the place on a daily basis. Do we really need to draw even more attention to the issue. This is coming from a supporter of legalization: it's time to stop "shouting" for the cause, take what has been given, and coherently support legislation and daily practices that appease both sides.
If you want to support legalization, I'm all for it. Go vote. It's time to stop (figuratively and literally) blowing smoke in people's face to get the point across. I'm willing to bet if things were toned down a bit with the advertising and rallying, a few of the detractors on the fence would be less inclined to oppose legalization. Many of those that are opposed look at the current conditions and worry that things will progress in a direction that they don't want to see. They see legalization as deregulation...when in fact most of the laws to legalize mmj tend to regulate it more than the laws currently in place. Just look at the bill they attempted to pass in CA last year; it met opposition on both sides due to the high amount of regulation for growers and patients.
I've had long conversations with many people on the subject...you'd be surprised at how much common ground there is when people set aside emotion and really look at things logically. For example...yes I believe that mmj is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. However, mmj still has detrimental developmental effects when used as a child/teen. Our society is blitzing tobacco and alcohol companies to tone down ads to keep them away from kids...meanwhile I've seen mmj billboards in plainsight of elementary school bus stops. I think both sides should be able to agree that such blatant displays (rally included) can be unnecessary and damaging to the push for legalization.
I think the rally has served it's purpose. It raised public awareness and perhaps helped gather support for the decriminalization of mj and implementation of our current medical laws. It does seem that each year more and more people are using the rally as an excuse to smoke in public.
Bringing it out into the open raised awareness and gave access to mmj to those in need...and gave the right to use mmj in the privacy of their home. Rallying was a defiant act prior to the passing of the current laws, and I'd argue that it was necessary to really bring attention to the issue. But, why continue now....tradition? At this point, the public smoke-out is just an abuse of the laws in place. Yes...there are those that support legalization, and perhaps they feel that the rally is still necessary to keep pushing forward.
However, my issue with this is the divide / controversy it creates. We already have dispensaries strewn throughout the city, billboards on main roads, and guys spinning signs and yelling 420 every few miles. It is clearly getting to the point where those that oppose the current laws are seeing it ALL over the place on a daily basis. Do we really need to draw even more attention to the issue. This is coming from a supporter of legalization: it's time to stop "shouting" for the cause, take what has been given, and coherently support legislation and daily practices that appease both sides.
If you want to support legalization, I'm all for it. Go vote. It's time to stop (figuratively and literally) blowing smoke in people's face to get the point across. I'm willing to bet if things were toned down a bit with the advertising and rallying, a few of the detractors on the fence would be less inclined to oppose legalization. Many of those that are opposed look at the current conditions and worry that things will progress in a direction that they don't want to see. They see legalization as deregulation...when in fact most of the laws to legalize mmj tend to regulate it more than the laws currently in place. Just look at the bill they attempted to pass in CA last year; it met opposition on both sides due to the high amount of regulation for growers and patients.
I've had long conversations with many people on the subject...you'd be surprised at how much common ground there is when people set aside emotion and really look at things logically. For example...yes I believe that mmj is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. However, mmj still has detrimental developmental effects when used as a child/teen. Our society is blitzing tobacco and alcohol companies to tone down ads to keep them away from kids...meanwhile I've seen mmj billboards in plainsight of elementary school bus stops. I think both sides should be able to agree that such blatant displays (rally included) can be unnecessary and damaging to the push for legalization.
The problems with topics like these in a forum such as this, is that from reading sides it's sounds as if you're writing to change people's minds which probably won't happen haha. That doesn't mean at all that you shouldn't have these conversations, they're a great way to talk about things that effect our real world. But like Aaron said in the beginning, different strokes for different folks. My reasoning isn't going to change your mind, and mine probably won't change yours 
I just read this entire forum and would have to say I am surprised at both sides. It is nice to have a topic so heated in debate over the years, come to a point like in this thread where so many people are so open minded on each side. Way to go MASC peeps for not going over board and keeping this a very interesting read.
+1
Now, this isn't meant to change anyone's mind....but
I spent most of my childhood raised around an alcoholic. I've never seen a stoner that was a big an a$$hole as that man.
I don't smoke anymore but I'm tired of hearing some of the people against legalization use the excuse that it's a gateway drug........one word, bullsh!t. Alcohol is by far a bigger gateway drug. And who is going to start smoking just because it's legal? I think life works the opposite, legalize it and there may be less users.
The other side keeps calling it medical marijuana.....second word, bullsh!t. It's marijuana and most the people with red cards have no medical problems at all.
I say legalize it, tax it, and increase penalties for being high at work. Personally I think legalization would help the economy. Besides the tax benefits, we would
also see stampedes to the nearest 7-11 to take care of the munchies.
Now, this isn't meant to change anyone's mind....but
I spent most of my childhood raised around an alcoholic. I've never seen a stoner that was a big an a$$hole as that man.
I don't smoke anymore but I'm tired of hearing some of the people against legalization use the excuse that it's a gateway drug........one word, bullsh!t. Alcohol is by far a bigger gateway drug. And who is going to start smoking just because it's legal? I think life works the opposite, legalize it and there may be less users.
The other side keeps calling it medical marijuana.....second word, bullsh!t. It's marijuana and most the people with red cards have no medical problems at all.
I say legalize it, tax it, and increase penalties for being high at work. Personally I think legalization would help the economy. Besides the tax benefits, we would
also see stampedes to the nearest 7-11 to take care of the munchies.
I won't comment on anything else though it'd be nice for discussion. However, I will respond to this as it was from what I commented on earlier...
The comparison is not naive in the least. Alcohol, in the EXACT same manner as mj, impairs motor functions in relation to the amount consumed. While mj does effect most in the same manner which stereo-typically is calm and mellow, that isn't a rule. Just as alcohol is a depressant and should do the same, for many it does, for many it doesn't.
As far as the comment about showing you ONE example of a stoner dad beating or horribly neglecting a child...I can give you probably over a HUNDRED from first hand experience. All examples directly correlated to MJ. Of course, many prescribed narcotics can have the same effect and ultimately people are responsible for their actions when under the influence of ANYTHING. DUID's are also very common with people using prescribed medications (narcotics).
As far as the comment on laws in other states, I would love and challenge you to find me cases where people are being imprisoned for years on a simple (MJ) possession charge. Without being a complete dirtbag with 10 pages of criminal history and without a felony distribution charge, I find that EXTREMELY hard to agree with and believe.
However, I will respond to this as it was from what I commented on earlier...The comparison is not naive in the least. Alcohol, in the EXACT same manner as mj, impairs motor functions in relation to the amount consumed. While mj does effect most in the same manner which stereo-typically is calm and mellow, that isn't a rule. Just as alcohol is a depressant and should do the same, for many it does, for many it doesn't.
As far as the comment about showing you ONE example of a stoner dad beating or horribly neglecting a child...I can give you probably over a HUNDRED from first hand experience. All examples directly correlated to MJ. Of course, many prescribed narcotics can have the same effect and ultimately people are responsible for their actions when under the influence of ANYTHING. DUID's are also very common with people using prescribed medications (narcotics).
As far as the comment on laws in other states, I would love and challenge you to find me cases where people are being imprisoned for years on a simple (MJ) possession charge. Without being a complete dirtbag with 10 pages of criminal history and without a felony distribution charge, I find that EXTREMELY hard to agree with and believe.
Just some facts. With sources listed at the end.
http://truththeory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/marijuanalegalization.jpg
http://truththeory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/marijuanalegalization.jpg
Scientifically, this is inaccurate.
Alcohol greatly influences (increases) the effect of GABA receptors in the brain, which are the primary receptors that control the body's regulation/impairment of a wide rain of brain functions ranging from memory and cognition to motor function. What alcohol does is ENHANCE the ability of bound GABA receptors to inhibit those brain functions.
Cannabinoids selectively bind to CB1 receptors. When CB1 receptors are bound, they actually reduce the release of GABA neurotransmitters in the brain. What you end up with is actually the OPPOSITE of the effect of alcohol on the brain. There is reduced inhibition of those brain functions regulated by GABA receptors, as the amount of GABA-binding neurotransmitters released in the brain is reduced when CB1 receptors are bound. That being said, cannabinoids DO effect motor function, but they do so directly through the CB1 receptors. The CB1 receptors play a small role in impairment of motor function when bound, however their overall effect on motor function is less than the effect you see from increasing GABA receptor function with alcohol impairment. There are also studies that have suggest that although low and high doses of cannabinoids do impair motor function, moderate doses actually may enhance motor function, likely due to the regulation of the release of GABA neurotransmitters.
Although both effect motor function, they do so through drastically different pathways in the brain. Alcohol does have a direct correlation between the amount consumed and the effects on brain activity as it enhances the impairment of bound receptors. Cannabinoids bind directly to CB1 receptors in the brain, once the receptors are saturated, they have no additional effect on brain function. There is a limit to the dose-response relationship with cannabinoids as there are a finite amount of CB1 receptors in the brain. The limit to the dose-response relationship with alcohol's effect on the GABA receptors is DEATH as it can severely inhibit brain functioning by enhancing GABA's ability to impair vital functions.
I'm not citing the above information to attempt to sway anybody's opinion...but the nerdy research scientist in me had to state the facts.
Alcohol greatly influences (increases) the effect of GABA receptors in the brain, which are the primary receptors that control the body's regulation/impairment of a wide rain of brain functions ranging from memory and cognition to motor function. What alcohol does is ENHANCE the ability of bound GABA receptors to inhibit those brain functions.
Cannabinoids selectively bind to CB1 receptors. When CB1 receptors are bound, they actually reduce the release of GABA neurotransmitters in the brain. What you end up with is actually the OPPOSITE of the effect of alcohol on the brain. There is reduced inhibition of those brain functions regulated by GABA receptors, as the amount of GABA-binding neurotransmitters released in the brain is reduced when CB1 receptors are bound. That being said, cannabinoids DO effect motor function, but they do so directly through the CB1 receptors. The CB1 receptors play a small role in impairment of motor function when bound, however their overall effect on motor function is less than the effect you see from increasing GABA receptor function with alcohol impairment. There are also studies that have suggest that although low and high doses of cannabinoids do impair motor function, moderate doses actually may enhance motor function, likely due to the regulation of the release of GABA neurotransmitters.
Although both effect motor function, they do so through drastically different pathways in the brain. Alcohol does have a direct correlation between the amount consumed and the effects on brain activity as it enhances the impairment of bound receptors. Cannabinoids bind directly to CB1 receptors in the brain, once the receptors are saturated, they have no additional effect on brain function. There is a limit to the dose-response relationship with cannabinoids as there are a finite amount of CB1 receptors in the brain. The limit to the dose-response relationship with alcohol's effect on the GABA receptors is DEATH as it can severely inhibit brain functioning by enhancing GABA's ability to impair vital functions.
I'm not citing the above information to attempt to sway anybody's opinion...but the nerdy research scientist in me had to state the facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just thought of this while looking at the picture, why would the US stop spending all that money (7.7billion) on enforcing the drug laws? If anything, it would increase. For the taxation to work, growers would need to register. Anything with the gov't is a slow process though. So, people like my neighbor would still be illegally growing until he registers...if he registers at all. Who knows what hoops the growers will have to jump through. I bet a lot of them won't register though, because of the tax they'll have to pay.
A bigger issue will be the "imported" crops. Will we spend more money to verify they aren't using child labor...etc.
A bigger issue will be the "imported" crops. Will we spend more money to verify they aren't using child labor...etc.
I hope these "facts" weren't in response to my "challenge/request"?!? I honestly got a pretty good laugh from that link.
I should probably clarify a few things from the legal system perspective. Imprisonment is time spent as a result of a sentence from a conviction within a county jail, state pen, or federal pen. Imprisonment is not a simple "arrest".
Statistics are the most easily and frequently twisted form of propaganda used by either side of an issue. That's why I got a good laugh from that link. The one thing that actually hacked me off with that mis-information, was they were obviously (blatantly to me) including ALL drug related crime into their stats. This is about marijuana...NOT cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. So WHY include those stats into the mix. I can completely guarantee you that the "half of all federal prisoners in the US are serving sentences for drug offenses" statistic is almost entirely for "hard" drugs. Nobody is in federal prison for marijuana charges without any extenuating factors (i.e. violence enhanced, weapon enhanced, organized crime or racketeering involved, etc). The "half" they are talking about in federal prison are there for those previously mentioned enhancers, concerning "hard" drugs. Are there a few with a marijuana denominator, no doubt...however, they are the exception not the rule.
The "$121 billion spent to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders" stat, is also including DRUGS (all drugs)....not marijuana by itself. Then when it mentions the "10 million arrested for possession of marijuana" stat, this is very twist-able as a statistic. Many do not know in the general public, for statistical reasons, that a simple cite-and-release marijuana possession ticket is considered an "arrest". You might receive a ticket and walk away, or for some reason (usually if there are extenuating factors) may be "booked and released". Either way, there is no "imprisonment" here.
Just thought I would enlighten on how easy it is to twist and bend statistics toward a certain side of an argument. The link might as well be for legalizing ALL drugs the way it was laid out, IMHO.
There is much more "science" to both substances than you have here, as I'm positive you know from what you brought forth. Just as with alcohol there is a certain impairment/saturation level that anything beyond is negligible in terms of further impairment, until you reach full on overdose.
I was simply speaking in real-life terms. Someone smoking a small joint about an hour before driving might have little/negligible impairment. Someone smoking a larger amount from whatever apparatus of choice an hour before driving would have much more impairment. That's where the rubber meets the road. My ONLY commentary on your post is this...whenever I see "There are also studies that have suggest..." the skeptical has to come out. This should be for anyone on either side of an issue in my opinion. Studies? By whom, for what purpose, with what intent...and on and on. "Studies" = skeptical I just don't want anyone to think that the research scientist in you was putting out ALL fact, when "studies" are involved. lol
This..."moderate doses actually may enhance motor function"...is laughable to me. It may increase "certain" neurological functions (if even true), but that does NOT mean it is not impairing others simultaneously. Other than that, I'm around both sides enough to call BS on that.
I honestly got a pretty good laugh from that link. I should probably clarify a few things from the legal system perspective. Imprisonment is time spent as a result of a sentence from a conviction within a county jail, state pen, or federal pen. Imprisonment is not a simple "arrest".
Statistics are the most easily and frequently twisted form of propaganda used by either side of an issue. That's why I got a good laugh from that link. The one thing that actually hacked me off with that mis-information, was they were obviously (blatantly to me) including ALL drug related crime into their stats. This is about marijuana...NOT cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. So WHY include those stats into the mix. I can completely guarantee you that the "half of all federal prisoners in the US are serving sentences for drug offenses" statistic is almost entirely for "hard" drugs. Nobody is in federal prison for marijuana charges without any extenuating factors (i.e. violence enhanced, weapon enhanced, organized crime or racketeering involved, etc). The "half" they are talking about in federal prison are there for those previously mentioned enhancers, concerning "hard" drugs. Are there a few with a marijuana denominator, no doubt...however, they are the exception not the rule.
The "$121 billion spent to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders" stat, is also including DRUGS (all drugs)....not marijuana by itself. Then when it mentions the "10 million arrested for possession of marijuana" stat, this is very twist-able as a statistic. Many do not know in the general public, for statistical reasons, that a simple cite-and-release marijuana possession ticket is considered an "arrest". You might receive a ticket and walk away, or for some reason (usually if there are extenuating factors) may be "booked and released". Either way, there is no "imprisonment" here.
Just thought I would enlighten on how easy it is to twist and bend statistics toward a certain side of an argument.
The link might as well be for legalizing ALL drugs the way it was laid out, IMHO.There is much more "science" to both substances than you have here, as I'm positive you know from what you brought forth. Just as with alcohol there is a certain impairment/saturation level that anything beyond is negligible in terms of further impairment, until you reach full on overdose.
I was simply speaking in real-life terms. Someone smoking a small joint about an hour before driving might have little/negligible impairment. Someone smoking a larger amount from whatever apparatus of choice an hour before driving would have much more impairment. That's where the rubber meets the road. My ONLY commentary on your post is this...whenever I see "There are also studies that have suggest..." the skeptical has to come out. This should be for anyone on either side of an issue in my opinion. Studies? By whom, for what purpose, with what intent...and on and on. "Studies" = skeptical
I just don't want anyone to think that the research scientist in you was putting out ALL fact, when "studies" are involved. lolThis..."moderate doses actually may enhance motor function"...is laughable to me. It may increase "certain" neurological functions (if even true), but that does NOT mean it is not impairing others simultaneously. Other than that, I'm around both sides enough to call BS on that.
Oh man, you guys keep me going.
You are a forward thinker! Most do not look at the big picture unfortunately, which leaves statistics (like the one from that link above) to be manipulated. Costs associated with legalizing marijuana from the government side of it would be astronomical. The regulatory agencies and administrative hurdles would drop any "cost savings" tremendously. The "$7.7 Billion on prohibitions costs" would simply turn from "prohibitions costs" to "regulatory costs". And the "6.2 Billion on marijuana tax revenues" would buy what, 3 Stealth Bombers in the grand scheme of things?!? The idea that a $6.2 Billion dollar drop-in-the-bucket amount of money in the total economy..."would bolster a floundering economy" is just a complete joke.
AND, you are completely correct. Why would people just automatically start taking a huge cut out of their "profit" by claiming their revenue from cultivating/selling marijuana. You are absolutely right, regulations will be prohibitive to people wanting to jump through hoops while losing straight profit to taxation. Unlawful practices will not subside nearly as much as those that would desire you believe so. The "bigger" issues of importation, how it was cultivated, etc...is continued big picture thinking.
Here is another big picture thought to ponder. I know this is supposed to be a victimless crime...however, I'll paint a picture for you...
Sometime soon (if it hasn't been released already), National Jewish which is renowned for its research and treatment in the respiratory field, has been conducting studies of cultivation sites. The way the law sits right now, ordinary "caregivers" can run cultivation operations out of homes (which is probably 90% of cultivation right now - legal or not), which is what they in fact do. Most (not all) operations are run out of rental homes (note this).
The study is going to release the findings that these "grow" homes are in fact breeding deadly amounts of mold spores that have far reaching, and damaging affects on those peoples health that come into contact with the site. So much so that law enforcement is now going to treat cultivation operations just like meth labs. The studies have measured spore counts, literally off the charts in these operations, even ones that are set up with good ventilation and seemingly well planned/executed. To the point that similar to some meth lab sites, the home would literally be condemned and have to be demolished rather than abated.
SO, a family buys one of these homes after the renters are through with their operation or have been evicted. Now this family is exposed to deadly levels of mold (that routinely cause death) that they are completely oblivious to. These type's of by-products that create unwitting victims scare me the most.
LOL...okay, OFF the box now. Just thought I would throw some more food for thought out there since it was prompted. I could go on and on, but will spare you all. Great topic for "friendly" discussion.
Man....i need a beer.
You are a forward thinker!
Most do not look at the big picture unfortunately, which leaves statistics (like the one from that link above) to be manipulated. Costs associated with legalizing marijuana from the government side of it would be astronomical. The regulatory agencies and administrative hurdles would drop any "cost savings" tremendously. The "$7.7 Billion on prohibitions costs" would simply turn from "prohibitions costs" to "regulatory costs". And the "6.2 Billion on marijuana tax revenues" would buy what, 3 Stealth Bombers in the grand scheme of things?!? The idea that a $6.2 Billion dollar drop-in-the-bucket amount of money in the total economy..."would bolster a floundering economy" is just a complete joke. AND, you are completely correct. Why would people just automatically start taking a huge cut out of their "profit" by claiming their revenue from cultivating/selling marijuana. You are absolutely right, regulations will be prohibitive to people wanting to jump through hoops while losing straight profit to taxation. Unlawful practices will not subside nearly as much as those that would desire you believe so. The "bigger" issues of importation, how it was cultivated, etc...is continued big picture thinking.
Here is another big picture thought to ponder. I know this is supposed to be a victimless crime...however, I'll paint a picture for you...
Sometime soon (if it hasn't been released already), National Jewish which is renowned for its research and treatment in the respiratory field, has been conducting studies of cultivation sites. The way the law sits right now, ordinary "caregivers" can run cultivation operations out of homes (which is probably 90% of cultivation right now - legal or not), which is what they in fact do. Most (not all) operations are run out of rental homes (note this).
The study is going to release the findings that these "grow" homes are in fact breeding deadly amounts of mold spores that have far reaching, and damaging affects on those peoples health that come into contact with the site. So much so that law enforcement is now going to treat cultivation operations just like meth labs. The studies have measured spore counts, literally off the charts in these operations, even ones that are set up with good ventilation and seemingly well planned/executed. To the point that similar to some meth lab sites, the home would literally be condemned and have to be demolished rather than abated.
SO, a family buys one of these homes after the renters are through with their operation or have been evicted. Now this family is exposed to deadly levels of mold (that routinely cause death) that they are completely oblivious to. These type's of by-products that create unwitting victims scare me the most.
LOL...okay, OFF the box now. Just thought I would throw some more food for thought out there since it was prompted. I could go on and on, but will spare you all. Great topic for "friendly" discussion.
Man....i need a beer.
In response to the mold, they must not use eagle 2, or a sulfur burner.
When other industries have a hazard they simply regulate the production standards.
Why would they give up some profit? How about to legitimize their operation? I know a bunch of growers that are licensed and pay taxes, and no govt agent was knocking on their doors to make em do so.
Bottom line is prohibition never has worked.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
When other industries have a hazard they simply regulate the production standards.
Why would they give up some profit? How about to legitimize their operation? I know a bunch of growers that are licensed and pay taxes, and no govt agent was knocking on their doors to make em do so.
Bottom line is prohibition never has worked.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
ShelbyJK500;162042 said:
There is much more "science" to both substances than you have here, as I'm positive you know from what you brought forth. Just as with alcohol there is a certain impairment/saturation level that anything beyond is negligible in terms of further impairment, until you reach full on overdose.
I was simply speaking in real-life terms. Someone smoking a small joint about an hour before driving might have little/negligible impairment. Someone smoking a larger amount from whatever apparatus of choice an hour before driving would have much more impairment. That's where the rubber meets the road. My ONLY commentary on your post is this...whenever I see "There are also studies that have suggest..." the skeptical has to come out. This should be for anyone on either side of an issue in my opinion. Studies? By whom, for what purpose, with what intent...and on and on. "Studies" = skeptical I just don't want anyone to think that the research scientist in you was putting out ALL fact, when "studies" are involved. lol
This..."moderate doses actually may enhance motor function"...is laughable to me. It may increase "certain" neurological functions (if even true), but that does NOT mean it is not impairing others simultaneously. Other than that, I'm around both sides enough to call BS on that.
I was simply speaking in real-life terms. Someone smoking a small joint about an hour before driving might have little/negligible impairment. Someone smoking a larger amount from whatever apparatus of choice an hour before driving would have much more impairment. That's where the rubber meets the road. My ONLY commentary on your post is this...whenever I see "There are also studies that have suggest..." the skeptical has to come out. This should be for anyone on either side of an issue in my opinion. Studies? By whom, for what purpose, with what intent...and on and on. "Studies" = skeptical
I just don't want anyone to think that the research scientist in you was putting out ALL fact, when "studies" are involved. lolThis..."moderate doses actually may enhance motor function"...is laughable to me. It may increase "certain" neurological functions (if even true), but that does NOT mean it is not impairing others simultaneously. Other than that, I'm around both sides enough to call BS on that.
What's the gripe with "studies"...there aren't a bunch of stoners getting published for a popularity contest. There are soundly designed research studies being conducted by both universities and private entities. I'm not quoting statistics as the media often does...in fact, I've been conducting phase 2 and 3 clinical studies as my job for the past several years and studied epidemiology in grad school. So, if anybody reads these articles and picks them apart, it's me. And yes, there are definitely studies that have poor data and design, and others that provide sound data. I was referring to the latter in my discussion. The fact that one is skeptical of these studies can't dismiss the biological plausibility of the results garnered from the research though. Do i really believe that moderate consumption enhances motor function? No. But results like that are often retested in order to confirm or dismiss their validity and there is continuing research on that subject.
The "gold standard" in clinical research is a randomized, controlled trial.
The following study illustrates a weak association between the THC in oral fluid and the and the observed level of impairment:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16723194
full text here: http://bj-diagnostik.net/downloads/service/oraline_THC_6.pdf
Conversely, the following study (also a randomized controlled trial) demonstrated a linear relationship between the dose received and the amount of motor control impairment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19099294
I could link numerous articles all day...but I think the 2 above studies are sufficient to illustrate a few simple points. Research studies are not all smoke and mirrors with the underhanded purpose of supporting one's opinion. More research needs to be done in order to reach a conclusion on the subject. And to answer your question on the "who and why" on conducting these studies...many of these studies are being done in order to determine legal limits for the oral concentration of THC in motorists...just like the studies that were done with alcohol for the same purpose.
As for the issue of THC potentially enhancing neurological function (not talking motor function here, but cognition and memory), that's not all necessarily a sham either. And, just to be clear, I don't claim that it doesn't simultaneously impair motor function...just stating that it does not effect the brain in the same manner as alcohol, which DOES impede memory and cognition. Take a look at marinol -it's a pharmaceutical, FDA approved medication and the active component is THC. Not something that's widely publicized, but it IS available by prescription throughout the US...yes, even in states without MMJ laws. Marinol is currently utilized to treat nausea and emesis, but is also undergoing research for the treatment of Alzheimer's patients...and no, it's not just used in patients with dementia that forget to eat Although it's ability to demonstrate long-term reversal of the symptoms is doubtful, there is strong evidence indicating that it slows the progression of the illness AND improves cognition in those patients at low doses.
The following study illustrates a weak association between the THC in oral fluid and the and the observed level of impairment:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16723194
full text here: http://bj-diagnostik.net/downloads/service/oraline_THC_6.pdf
Conversely, the following study (also a randomized controlled trial) demonstrated a linear relationship between the dose received and the amount of motor control impairment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19099294
I could link numerous articles all day...but I think the 2 above studies are sufficient to illustrate a few simple points. Research studies are not all smoke and mirrors with the underhanded purpose of supporting one's opinion. More research needs to be done in order to reach a conclusion on the subject. And to answer your question on the "who and why" on conducting these studies...many of these studies are being done in order to determine legal limits for the oral concentration of THC in motorists...just like the studies that were done with alcohol for the same purpose.
As for the issue of THC potentially enhancing neurological function (not talking motor function here, but cognition and memory), that's not all necessarily a sham either. And, just to be clear, I don't claim that it doesn't simultaneously impair motor function...just stating that it does not effect the brain in the same manner as alcohol, which DOES impede memory and cognition. Take a look at marinol -it's a pharmaceutical, FDA approved medication and the active component is THC. Not something that's widely publicized, but it IS available by prescription throughout the US...yes, even in states without MMJ laws. Marinol is currently utilized to treat nausea and emesis, but is also undergoing research for the treatment of Alzheimer's patients...and no, it's not just used in patients with dementia that forget to eat
Although it's ability to demonstrate long-term reversal of the symptoms is doubtful, there is strong evidence indicating that it slows the progression of the illness AND improves cognition in those patients at low doses.
Comparing MJ to alcohol just because they are both drugs is like saying aspirin is the same as oxycontin because they are both pain killing pills, flat out ignorant, regardless of studies, education, whos paying, or how old you are, its simply just not based in reality, I dont care how much rhetoric the academy spoon fed all the recruits, or how good the cool aid tasted.