Posted on 07/28/2010 8:42:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
Click here to find out more!
A group called Public Safety First warns that "the pre-tax price of marijuana could substantially decline" and "consumption of marijuana would increase" if Californians vote to legalize the drug in November. Well, yes, that's sort of the idea.
Proposition 19, a California ballot initiative that would legalize cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal use while authorizing local governments to allow commercial production and sale, would move marijuana into a legal, regulated market, transforming criminals into consumers. Lower prices and increased use mean greater consumer satisfaction, something that should be welcomed rather than feared.
But Public Safety First, which is running the campaign against Proposition 19, is all about fear. Its website features photos of a doctor, a teacher, a judge and a cop with joints dangling ridiculously from their mouths, suggesting prohibition is the only thing that prevents people from getting stoned at work. It says "bus drivers, forklift operators, hospital technicians, crossing guards who might be stoned could be coming to your community."
Yes, these people might be stoned, but that is true whether or not Proposition 19 passes. And even if marijuana disappeared tomorrow, all of these people could come to work drunk. Yet Public Safety First is not campaigning for a return to alcohol prohibition, because it understands that workplace intoxication can be addressed through less sweeping measures that do not penalize responsible consumers for the sins of a reckless minority.
If we remove the terror-tinted lenses of Proposition 19's opponents, we start to see the benefits of treating marijuana more like alcohol. A recent RAND Corp. study estimates that the retail price of legal marijuana would be less than one-fifth the black-market price. Based on numbers in the RAND report, that translates into annual savings of $5 billion or so for current consumers -- money that would be available for other uses.
Some of those savings would be sucked up by sales and excise taxes on newly legal marijuana. The California Legislative Analyst's Office recently projected that "state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues" as a result of Proposition 19.
Lower prices, greater convenience and the elimination of legal risk can be expected to boost marijuana consumption. RAND considers it plausible that the number of current users would double, to about 4 million, or 14 percent of California's adult population. These new users also would receive a big consumer benefit, enjoying a wide variety of cannabis products that are worth as much to them as they are willing to pay -- on the order of $1 billion a year.
Continuing to look at this from a consumer's perspective, we need to consider not just the law enforcement money saved by the state of California (around $300 million a year, according to RAND), but the arrest-related costs that pot smokers no longer have to bear. About 75,000 people are arrested on marijuana charges in California each year, the vast majority for simple possession. While they typically do not spend much time behind bars, they face legal expenses and the lifelong handicap of a criminal record, costs that may dwarf the money spent on enforcement.
Those costs fall disproportionately on black people. A recent study by Queens College sociologist Harry Levine found that blacks in California's 25 largest counties are two to four times as likely as whites to be busted for marijuana possession, even though survey data indicate they are no more likely to smoke pot. The California NAACP cited these racially skewed numbers when it endorsed Proposition 19.
Public Safety First, of course, does not care what happens to pot smokers, whom it depicts as public menaces. But since research indicates that marijuana does not impair driving ability nearly as much as alcohol does, more pot smoking, if accompanied by less drinking, could actually improve public safety. The legal availability of a less dangerous intoxicant would benefit the general public as well as consumers.
Hmmm man gets drunk drives down road wrecks car damages property and people .... goes to court gets slap on wrist loses driver license for 6 months but goes out buys another car and drives anyway gets caught driving 22 times with no drivers license {wrist is starting to hurt now } still drives anyway till he gets drunk enough to kill himself or someone else or BOTH ...
Man smokes joint on way home from work drives 10 miles slower than posted speed limits stops at McDonald's on the way home to buy food cause hes hungry gets home with full stomach and relaxed goes to bed happy and wakes up ready to start a new day ... without killing anyone .....
Yep. That’s the way a pot head would frame it.
They pop people for it every day so I reckon they do. But absent that there is a violation in most places for failure to maintain reasonable control of a vehicle. That is a solid principle that doesn't need to distinguish why someone is driving unsafely (drunk, stoned, texting, falling asleep - unsafe is unsafe). If "safety" is what you want that ought to work just fine. No need to make people do parlor tricks or for the taxpayers to spend time & money on chemical tests. The government police just does it's job - observes unsafe driving, cites for it, and proves it in court.
From what I have seen in my trips around the horn, the more plausible scenario is what Atomic describes. But let's see what you have.
“The government police just does it’s job - observes unsafe driving, cites for it, and proves it in court.”
And with the billions of new tax dollars you hand the gubmint, they’ll be happy to make it as available as possible whenever and wherever...what a godsend for them...I’m sure they will use it just right...
From what I have seen in my trips around the horn, the more plausible scenario is what Atomic describes. But let’s see what you have.”
Yep...like I said, no field test, no way to prove anything...pot smoker’s dream...but like your boy said earlier, all it does is make you drowsy, less alert and slower...you must be right, those things couldn’t POSSIBLY impair a driver, could they? The pols are drooling over the billions you guys want to hand them.
Marijuana and Driving
Most times when people think of impaired driving, only alcohol comes to mind. Some students believe that drivers are just fine (or even more careful than normal and surely much better than while drunk) to drive when they’re high, right? Wrong - try again! Here’s the raw data that serves as proof that there are serious effects of driving stoned and that it needs to be taken as a very serious issue.
* Marijuana limits learning, memory, perception, judgment, coordination, reaction time, concentration and complex motor skills, like those needed to drive a vehicle. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. 1
* In addition to alcohol, drugs cause a serious highway safety problem. Drugs are estimated to be used by approximately 10-22% of drivers involved in crashes, often in combination with alcohol. 1
* In 2002, between 13 and 18 percent of young drivers aged 17 to 21 reported driving under the influence of an illicit drug during the past year. 2
* A roadside study of reckless drivers (not under the influence of alcohol) showed that one in three tested positive for marijuana and an additional 18 percent tested positive for marijuana and cocaine. 2
* A study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in collisions revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana and another 17 percent had both THC (the psychoactive chemical causes the “high” and impairment) and alcohol in their blood. 2
* In an ongoing study of non-fatally injured drivers, 23.5% of those drivers under 21 tested positive for drugs other than alcohol. 1
* While alcohol is the predominant substance in fatal crashes, marijuana is the second most frequently found substance in crash-involved drivers, according to a NHTSA study. Alcohol and marijuana are also frequently found together, which results in a dramatic decrease in driving performance and spike in impairment levels. 2
* Marijuana, even in low to moderate doses, negatively affects driving performance, such as the ability to avoid collisions with evasive action. The effect of combining moderate doses of alcohol and moderate doses of marijuana resulted in a dramatic decrease in driving performance and increased the level of impairment from a .04 BAC (alcohol alone) to impairment comparable to up to 0.14 BAC (alcohol and marijuana combined). 2
References:
1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Drug Impaired Driving. Retrieved on October 28, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
2. Office of National Drug Control Policy. Marijuana and Kids: Steer Clear of Pot Fact Sheet. Retrieved on November 25, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.mediacampaign.org/steerclear/factsheet.html#go17
http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/driving.html
The principal concern regarding drugged driving is that driving under the influence of any drug that acts on the brain could impair one’s motor skills, reaction time, and judgment. Drugged driving is a public health concern because it puts not only the driver at risk, but also passengers and others who share the road.
Despite these acknowledged concerns, drugged driving laws have lagged behind alcohol legislation, in part because of limitations in the current technology for determining drug levels, and resulting impairment. For alcohol, detection of its blood concentration (BAC) is relatively simple and concentrations greater than .08% have been shown to impair driving performance. Thus, 0.08% is the legal limit in this country. For illicit drugs, there is no agreed upon limit for which impairment has been reliably demonstrated. And determining current drug levels can be difficult, since some drugs linger in the body for a period of days or weeks after initial ingestion.
Some states (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin), have passed “per se” laws—in which it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if there is any detectable level of a prohibited drug, or its metabolites, in the driver’s blood. Other state laws define “drugged driving” as driving when a drug “renders the driver incapable of driving safely” or “causes the driver to be impaired.”
In addition, 44 states and the District of Columbia have implemented Drug Evaluation and Classification Programs, designed to train police officers as Drug Recognition Experts. Officers learn to detect characteristics in a person’s behavior and appearance that may be associated with drug intoxication. If the officer suspects drug intoxication a blood or urine sample is submitted to a laboratory for confirmation.
According to the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an estimated 10 million people age 12 and older reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the year prior to being surveyed. This corresponds to 4 percent of the population age 12 and older, similar to the rate in 2007 (4.2 percent), but lower than the rate in 2002 (4.7 percent). In 2008, the rate was highest among young adults age 18 to 25 (12.3 percent).2 In addition:
* In 2008, an estimated 12.4 percent of persons age 12 and older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. This percentage has dropped since 2002, when it was 14.2 percent. The 2008 estimate corresponds to 30.9 million persons.2
* Driving under the influence of an illicit drug or alcohol was associated with age. In 2008, an estimated 7.2 percent of youth age 16 or 17 drove under the influence. This percentage steadily increased with age to reach a peak of 26.1 percent among young adults age 21 to 25. Beyond the age of 25, these rates showed a general decline with increasing age.2
* Also in 2008, among persons age 12 and older, males were nearly twice as likely as females (16.0 percent versus 9.0 percent) to drive under the influence of an illicit drug or alcohol in the past year.2
A number of studies have examined illicit drug use in drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes, reckless driving, or fatal accidents. For example:
* One study found that about 34 percent of motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a Maryland trauma center tested positive for “drugs only”; about 16 percent tested positive for “alcohol only.” Approximately 9.9 percent (or 1 in 10) tested positive for alcohol and drugs, and within this group, 50 percent were younger than age 18.4 Although it is interesting that more people in this study tested positive for “drugs only” compared with “alcohol only,” it should be noted that this represents one geographic location, so findings cannot be generalized. In fact, the majority of studies among similar populations have found higher prevalence rates of alcohol compared with drug use.5
* Studies conducted in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana.6
* In a large study of almost 3,400 fatally injured drivers from three Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales, and Western Australia) between 1990 and 1999, drugs other than alcohol were present in 26.7 percent of the cases.7 These included cannabis (13.5 percent), opioids (4.9 percent), stimulants (4.1 percent), benzodiazepines (4.1 percent), and other psychotropic drugs (2.7 percent). Almost 10 percent of the cases involved both alcohol and drugs.
www.ndaa.org/pdf/drug_toxicology_for_prosecutors_04.pdf
There is a growing body of scientific evidence that driving under the influence of drugs has become a significant problem worldwide. Driving is a complex task which involves a variety of skills such as coordination, reaction time, tracking, judgment, attention and perception.Any drug
which affects mental or physical processes has the potential to impair driving at sufficient dose. According to the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, of the 9 million drivers who drove within two hours of drug use, the most commonly encountered drugs were marijuana and
cocaine. Despite mounting evidence that driving under the influence of illegal drugs other than alcohol is common, drugged drivers are less frequently detected, prosecuted, or referred to treatment when compared with drunk drivers (4).
• Drugs are used by approximately 10 - 22% of drivers involved in accidents, often in combination with alcohol (6).
• A study of fatally injured drivers from seven states showed that alcohol was present in more than 50% of the drivers; other drugs were present in 18% of the drivers (6).
• Positive drug findings in injured drivers who receive medical treatment range from less than 10% to as high as 40% (6).
• The incidence of drug-use among drivers arrested for motor vehicle offenses ranges between 15 - 50% (6).
jessduntno, I reckon you have some examples where someone “sparked one up” (after work or whenever) and caused damage or bodily harm. It would be interesting to see them, along with the related statistics vs. other causes of such mayhem.”
I excluded the articles from High Times and Let’s Smoke Some Shit.com because they didn’t have any statistics and they just had the kind of vague rambling you boys already posted.
Look on the bright side...these are just a bunch of statistics and facts that prove that if enacted, the gubmint will take billions and waste it...and pot heads will get busted and give billions more to lawyers to figger out a way to keep them from losing their ticket to ride...so it works out good for the pot heads AND pols and the lawyers, too!
By the way...why do some folks call pot CHRONIC?
“jessduntno, I reckon you have some examples where someone “sparked one up” (after work or whenever) and caused damage or bodily harm. It would be interesting to see them, along with the related statistics vs. other causes of such mayhem. From what I have seen in my trips around the horn, the more plausible scenario is what Atomic describes. But let’s see what you have.”
I think I gave you a pretty good list...just took a few minutes, but pretty complete. I included the links so you could check out the other stuff, too.
From your earlier post;
Me: Yeah...got a field sobriety test for that?
You: They pop people for it every day so I reckon they do.
Wellllll...from your first post, you seem to be saying it doesn’t happen; from the next post, you seem to be saying it happens all the time. Hard to argue with that logic...if they aren’t doing it, why are people getting popped for it every day? But no, there is no reliable field test and it is a time consuming...read expensive...ordeal to bust someone who is a chronic user. Alcohol is bad enough, this will be a nightmare to prove or disprove...but the bureaucrats will love this shite as much as the lawyers.
By the way, pot gets stored up in the system and you can test positive while driving even though you may not have just choked something down...kind of like a bad drunk, still hungover, the crap isn’t out of your system yet...that ought to make the “false positive” lawyer scams great - for them...you get popped, they’ll get you off...for a price...Top Gun Pot Busters...whoopee...open your wallets.
How’d you like those mortality rates I gave ya? Cool huh?, I figure we can REALLY grow the gubmint, add a few layers of new bureaucracy, lawyers, DEA and cops...increase the dead by a significant amount (especially in the young) but you can smoke all the weed you want...I guess this is why libertarians are so adamant that we make it legal...wait, isn’t a libertarian supposed to be AGAINST bigger gubmint?
I’ve heard it called chronic...I know that’s a little dated now...but there is no guessing why they call it dope.
You must be a blast at parties.
“You must be a blast at parties.”
Thanks. My friends and my fans have always had a good time...more or less...depending on the venue...small clubs are usually the best.
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.