"You contend that pot has no effect, however my observations indicate otherwise. "
well no, i never said pot had NO effects, from personnal experience, it was harder for me to drive under the ingluence of alcool than it was from under the influence of pot...but i don't think i ever said it had NO effects!
"I fail to see how adding another intoxicant to the mix is going to make highway travel any safer. "
I understand a bit more what you mean, but do you agree that right now as we speak, a lot of people already smoke and drive at a high rate, so I fail to see why people will drive more under it's influence if pot were made to be legal...it would only push the research on adequate system to identify the substance accurately...would you start to smoke and drive if pot was made legal???
"Dude, push this in Canada if you want, we'll read the studies here in the States"
what do you mean by that? that your country is the only one to provide the proper information or studies? if this is not what you meant please tell me, i do not feel to safe about this one...
what do you mean by that? that your country is the only one to provide the proper information or studies? if this is not what you meant please tell me, i do not feel to safe about this one...
Iirc, you are from Canada.
Why push to legalize pot here in the States?
Push for legalization in your jurisdiction and conduct the studies there.
The results of that research could be applied to virtually any jurisdiction with similar demographics, and conclusions drawn as to the appropriateness of any action taken as a result thereof.
I have found no fault with any valid (and frequently peer reviewed) scientific research in Canada (or elsewhere), and as a scientist, frequently utilize the results of such research in my work.
I understand a bit more what you mean, but do you agree that right now as we speak, a lot of people already smoke and drive at a high rate, so I fail to see why people will drive more under it's influence if pot were made to be legal…
With pot illegal here, why would anyone take a chance on going out onto the highway when they can consume pot at a more secure location, without running the risk of being stopped for something as mundane as a burned out taillight and ending up facing drug charges? That does not mean people do not do so, just that no one reasonable person would place themselves at additional risk of getting busted.
Legalize pot, and that would no longer be a deterrent to those it deters now.
On that basis alone I would expect an increase in drivers under the influence.
Additionally, there is a contingent who have not tried or will not consume pot solely because it is illegal, and the possibility of a police record of drug arrests or convictions would make them less employable (and otherwise affect their lives) in the future.
With the criminal stigma removed, some of those people are going to try pot, and there would be a new group of new and novice users, regardless of their age or driving abilities.
I assume there would be a legal consumption age, as with alcohol, and it is likely that age would be near the age of legal consumption for alcoholic beverages as well. That age, in many jurisdictions, is within a few years of the age at which a driver's license can be obtained.
So there would be a contingent of relatively new drivers, also just reaching the legal consumption age, who would have yet to learn to cope with changes in reaction times, etc., from either intoxicant or both (pot and alcohol).
Relatively new drivers constitute a high risk group as it is (especially according to insurance company actuaries), simply because of their lack of driving experience, and in some cases, relative lack of emotional maturity.
You have stated that it is the experienced consumer of pot who can anticipate the level of intoxication they will get from consuming pot, who are less likely to get stoned and remain able to function.
This new consumer group would be the ones who are not experienced enough to anticipate their level of intoxication, whether with alcohol or pot, (or both) and would be more likely to have problems staying focused on what they are doing. They would start with a limited skill level, and degrade that by an unknown, and perhaps lethal quantity.
So, overall, yes, I would expect an increase in new users and drivers under the influence…and fatal accidents as well.
...it would only push the research on adequate system to identify the substance accurately
True, but not just identify, but also quantify the amount present. Currently, with pot an illegal substance, testing is done to identify the consumer, not to quantify the amount. Pre-employment, 'random' screening, post-accident testing, forensic toxicology, and tests to determine if parolees and probationers are refraining from the use of marijuana and other drugs do not need to produce quantified results, nor do they necessarily need to produce those results within minutes.
Unless the standard for driving under the influence were left subjective (at the discretion of the arresting officer--something few users would favor), there would need to be established legal limits for operating a motor vehicle, and the means to test whether the person was beyond that limit, quickly, quantifiably, repeatably, and accurately. Nothing less would pass an evidentiary standard.
At present, mere screening suffices when the substance is illegal because any quantity above zero is evidence of a violation, in the case of alcohol, screening provides probable cause to conduct an evidentiary breath or blood test and place the driver under arrest, if other factors of intoxication are in evidence (swerving, driving too slowly, slurred speech, impaired coordination, etc.)
For researchers, there would need to be conducted considerable research into what concentrations of what active ingredients in the body caused what level of impairment and the establishment of a quantified standard limit of consumption for determining intoxication.
What if no clear standards can be developed, if the results vary too much from person to person? What about latency (the time needed for the body to process and eliminate the active ingredients in a joint), and the effects thereof on determining intoxication levels?
Not to mention additional studies to verify those results.
It is likely there will be a significant contingent of any productive (read: taxpaying) population who would balk at their money being spent on such studies, for the purpose of facillitating the legalization of a substance they do not use.
The development of testing procedures and equipment would constitute a rich business opportunity for any company who devised them (buy stock!), but implementing such testing would also add a financial and personnel burden on the police and/or the medical community in obtaining the equipment, training personnel to conduct the test, and conducting the tests.
American emergency rooms tend to be busy enough, especially in urban areas, and Canadian medical facilities are notorious for their backlogs, at least in some areas. Why would you want to impose a further burden on the system? Taxpayers or medical consumers (insurance companies get their money from the insured) will pick up the tab. But taxpayers are us.
...would you start to smoke and drive if pot was made legal???
No, but I would not start smoking pot, anyway. As I have stated, I do not like being intoxicated.
what do you mean by that? that your country is the only one to provide the proper information or studies? if this is not what you meant please tell me, i do not feel to safe about this one...
Iirc, you are from Canada.
Why push to legalize pot here in the States?
Push for legalization in your jurisdiction and conduct the studies there.
The results of that research could be applied to virtually any jurisdiction with similar demographics, and conclusions drawn as to the appropriateness of any action taken as a result thereof.
I have found no fault with any valid (and frequently peer reviewed) scientific research in Canada (or elsewhere), and as a scientist, frequently utilize the results of such research in my work.
I understand a bit more what you mean, but do you agree that right now as we speak, a lot of people already smoke and drive at a high rate, so I fail to see why people will drive more under it's influence if pot were made to be legal…
With pot illegal here, why would anyone take a chance on going out onto the highway when they can consume pot at a more secure location, without running the risk of being stopped for something as mundane as a burned out taillight and ending up facing drug charges? That does not mean people do not do so, just that no one reasonable person would place themselves at additional risk of getting busted.
Legalize pot, and that would no longer be a deterrent to those it deters now.
On that basis alone I would expect an increase in drivers under the influence.
Additionally, there is a contingent who have not tried or will not consume pot solely because it is illegal, and the possibility of a police record of drug arrests or convictions would make them less employable (and otherwise affect their lives) in the future.
With the criminal stigma removed, some of those people are going to try pot, and there would be a new group of new and novice users, regardless of their age or driving abilities.
I assume there would be a legal consumption age, as with alcohol, and it is likely that age would be near the age of legal consumption for alcoholic beverages as well. That age, in many jurisdictions, is within a few years of the age at which a driver's license can be obtained.
So there would be a contingent of relatively new drivers, also just reaching the legal consumption age, who would have yet to learn to cope with changes in reaction times, etc., from either intoxicant or both (pot and alcohol).
Relatively new drivers constitute a high risk group as it is (especially according to insurance company actuaries), simply because of their lack of driving experience, and in some cases, relative lack of emotional maturity.
You have stated that it is the experienced consumer of pot who can anticipate the level of intoxication they will get from consuming pot, who are less likely to get stoned and remain able to function.
This new consumer group would be the ones who are not experienced enough to anticipate their level of intoxication, whether with alcohol or pot, (or both) and would be more likely to have problems staying focused on what they are doing. They would start with a limited skill level, and degrade that by an unknown, and perhaps lethal quantity.
So, overall, yes, I would expect an increase in new users and drivers under the influence…and fatal accidents as well.
...it would only push the research on adequate system to identify the substance accurately
True, but not just identify, but also quantify the amount present. Currently, with pot an illegal substance, testing is done to identify the consumer, not to quantify the amount. Pre-employment, 'random' screening, post-accident testing, forensic toxicology, and tests to determine if parolees and probationers are refraining from the use of marijuana and other drugs do not need to produce quantified results, nor do they necessarily need to produce those results within minutes.
Unless the standard for driving under the influence were left subjective (at the discretion of the arresting officer--something few users would favor), there would need to be established legal limits for operating a motor vehicle, and the means to test whether the person was beyond that limit, quickly, quantifiably, repeatably, and accurately. Nothing less would pass an evidentiary standard.
At present, mere screening suffices when the substance is illegal because any quantity above zero is evidence of a violation, in the case of alcohol, screening provides probable cause to conduct an evidentiary breath or blood test and place the driver under arrest, if other factors of intoxication are in evidence (swerving, driving too slowly, slurred speech, impaired coordination, etc.)
For researchers, there would need to be conducted considerable research into what concentrations of what active ingredients in the body caused what level of impairment and the establishment of a quantified standard limit of consumption for determining intoxication.
What if no clear standards can be developed, if the results vary too much from person to person? What about latency (the time needed for the body to process and eliminate the active ingredients in a joint), and the effects thereof on determining intoxication levels?
Not to mention additional studies to verify those results.
It is likely there will be a significant contingent of any productive (read: taxpaying) population who would balk at their money being spent on such studies, for the purpose of facillitating the legalization of a substance they do not use.
The development of testing procedures and equipment would constitute a rich business opportunity for any company who devised them (buy stock!), but implementing such testing would also add a financial and personnel burden on the police and/or the medical community in obtaining the equipment, training personnel to conduct the test, and conducting the tests.
American emergency rooms tend to be busy enough, especially in urban areas, and Canadian medical facilities are notorious for their backlogs, at least in some areas. Why would you want to impose a further burden on the system? Taxpayers or medical consumers (insurance companies get their money from the insured) will pick up the tab. But taxpayers are us.
...would you start to smoke and drive if pot was made legal???
No, but I would not start smoking pot, anyway. As I have stated, I do not like being intoxicated.