Posted on 08/28/2006 7:29:35 AM PDT by tang0r
U.S. Department of Transportation National Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS 808 939
Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance
July 1999
S.1 General Conclusions
In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has "slight" effects on driving performance (Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects' performance was more affected than their predecessors'. The present subjects showed impaired car following performance after THC 100 1lg/kg whereas the previous ones were not impaired by doses up to 300 1lg/kg. In the present study, road tracking performance after 200 ~g/kg was worse than the performance after 300 ~g/kg in the previous study. We believe that these differences are attributable to the groups' respective experience with THC smoking and to driving under the influence of THC. The present group was less experienced and probably had not developed the same degree of behavioral tolerance as their predecessors. Yet all of the individuals in both groups admitted to having occasionally driven under the influence of THC before entering the studies. Thus, the new data seem no less representative of how drivers normally operate under the influence of THC. The addition of these data to those previously collected merely broadens the range of reactions that might be expected to occur in real life. That range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety. Alcohol present in blood concentrations around the legal limit (0.10 g/dl) in most American States is more impairing than anything subjects have shown after THC alone in our studies. As mentioned, medicinal drugs have had worse effects on psychiatric patients' driving performance in other studies employing the same test procedures. If not blatantly dangerous, however, the effects of THC alone in this study were certainly more than slight. They were of sufficient magnitude to warrant concern. Drivers suffering the same degrees of impairment as the present subjects did after THC alone would be less than normally able to avoid collisions if confronted with the sudden need for evasive action. They would probably also be more likely to fall asleep during prolonged vehicle operation. In short, while the effects of THC alone in doses up to 200 1lg/kg might be categorized as "moderate" in the tests, they could easily become "severe" under exceptional circumstances.
Impaired operation of a motor vehicle on the roadways is against the law. It would remain so even if marijuana were legalized.
Impaired operation of a Lazy-Boy...no way!
As for bathtub gin, there is in fact still a criminal bootleg alcohol problem. One reason that booze is not manufactured by many small-timers is that it's illegal to do so, except under strict limits.
You have a rather blithe confidence in "regulation" to solve problems. Once there is an enormous "legitimate" profit in something, regulating it becomes very difficult in practice, politicians being the whores they are. As a crime victim, I've seen first hand how ineffective cops are enforcing present laws. I don't want them given the additional burden of trying to control the effects of another "legal" mind-altering drug.
Incidentally, people who think imprisonment for drug offenses, or any other crime, is not effective need to read a recent posting of an article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1691373/posts
The only way to win is to change human nature. There is no easy solution, and legalization is no solution at all...it's capitulation. The weakest minded among us will always look to chemistry to alter their state of mind. Must we always cater to the lowest and weakest among us?
Here's another reason to ban poison ivy: inhaling the smoke could, and probably would be, be fatal. I kid you not.
Good luck with that.
There is no easy solution, and legalization is no solution at all...it's capitulation.
That's either the answer of a stubborn person or an insane one. The stubborn person refuses to believe that the solution is exactly opposite of what they have been proposing. The insane person keeps repeating the same steps over and over and keeps hoping for a different outcome. We tried prohibition in the 30's. It didn't work then and it isn't working now.
Well, maybe I am being lured in by a lack of irony or sarcasm tags for your post, but it seems to me that you are making common cause with the leftist utopians.
Your words could easily have been uttered by Pol Pot, Robespierre, or any other "idealist" scourge of humanity!
Unlike yourself, I happen to like human nature.
The distilled spirits lobby will fight legalization of cannabis with everything they have. Also, the government can't make money off something anybody can grow on their own. Any new laws concerning this will have the gov't making more money or it won't happen. Right now LE can take your house, cars and any other property if a dog happens to smell drugs on the money in your pocket. The law is an ass when it comes to this subject.
aw heck! Oside took me for a ride. I've been punk'd!!
I stepped right into that one. Good show.
The point is...your not going to eliminate drugs until you eliminate the demand. To eliminate the demand you have to change the nature of humanity...which is not likely. Pol Pot and the others tried to change human nature...by force. To change the nature of a man he has to do it for himself due to his own desires.
That said...to throw open the flood gates to drugs is no solution.
They are illegal, the burden of proof is on those that would have them legal.
Lol! You didn't even bother to click on the link. The 22.5% is the official US government statistic! The UN claims the number of US incarcerated is higher than the official US government number of 22.5%.
Yup, it turns out we have 20ish percent of the prisoners in the would. There are many many factors to that. In countries where they just kill you for screwing up they have way fewer people in prison. In countries too poor to have cops they have very few people in prison too. OUr welfare state and it's destruction of the family unit is putting people in prison, not the lack of legality for drugs.
Thanks for the link. That ought to be required reading.
Well, one solution would be to stop seeing the "demand for drugs" as a problem that requires a remedy.
As I said, I like human nature, including its appetite for amusement and fresh experiences.
In my honest opinion, the WOD is a front for the protection of actual 'criminal' profits for the international dealers and their bought-and-paid-for political representaives in this country.
Without the WOD, there would still be a group of indigent abusers, but the costs to society and our political system would be abated.
In a city I am familiar with - Vancouver - there have been many approaches to the needle drug "problem" over the last 50 years, from 10 year penalties for possession, to the present city-sponsored 'needle-exchanges'; yet the number of 'addicts' has remained constant at about 10-12 thousand.
Fifty years.
End the WOD!
Do you think the fact that they're going to have to face opposition subsidized by their own tax dollars might have something to do with it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.