Impaired Reasoning - Should last week’s joint disqualify a pot smoker from driving today?

Reason ^ | June 28, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[LibertarianInExile]

"A hair test goes back 6 months. If some one has a past conviction for possession on their record why isn't that probable cause for a dwi arrest/conviction? It's all evidence of past use. This law is simply ridiculous."

Well, I can see that hair test not working because you technically wouldn't have the illegal substance in your blood at the time you were driving. But the law isn't ridiculous, the law is the law. What's ridiculous is that the legislature passed it. The police SHOULD enforce the law as is--enforce ALL the ridiculous laws, as is--and make the legislature change it. If ever sworn in as a cop, I'd be arresting fornicators, sodomits, and adulterers like you would not BELIEVE, if only to get them to change the stupid law.

[BenLurkin]

This article misstates one important fact -- marijuana impairs the user's judgment long after the "high" appears to be over.

As long as it is in the doper's system that person remains impaired.

[BenLurkin]

"Conclusions: Considerably low doses of ∆9-THC impaired memory. The failure of chronic ƒ´9-THC to produce tolerance in this model was surprising considering that a similar dosing regimen has been reported to produce tolerance in non-mnemonic behaviors. The results suggest that memory is particularly sensitive to the disruptive effects of ∆9-THC and chronic cannabis use is likely to elicit persistent impairment of cognitive function."

http://etd.vcu.edu/theses/available/etd-05032004-154113/

[Psycho_Bunny]

If you want to tell yourself that, ok. But don't pretend it's an actual fact.

[Figment]

"He admitted smoking marijuana, police said. The time frame in which he smoked is unclear"


What's the penalty for being stupid?

[BenLurkin]

I'm not making this up.

>"Cognitive impairment by continuing or overuse of cannabis creates a form of mild dementia that may persist for up to several weeks after discontinuing the drug. Individuals sensitive to the drug report a persistent ì hangoverî that diminishes the ability to pay attention and concentrate. The onset may be insidious, subtle, and gradual.

"Paranoia and delusional thinking are not uncommon effects of cannabis both acute and chronically. In chronic use paranoid and delusional thinking appear to be the consequences of the suppression of feelings, the dulling of feelings may alienate the cannabis users from others by diminishing empathetic capabilities."

http://www.rxcbc.org/exd.html

see also: http://etd.vcu.edu/theses/available/etd-05032004-154113/

" Medical opinion, however, holds that marijuana contains 360 compounds besides cannabinoids, and the smoke of a marijuana cigarette contains noxious vapors of carbon monoxide, acetaldehyde and vinyl chloride, as well as phenol, creosol and naphthalene. Marijuana smoke also has twice as many cancer-producing substances (benzanthracene and benzopyrene) as tobacco cigarettes. Prolonged smoking of marijuana can result in persistent impairment of memory and of psychomotor performance, as well as emphysema-like symptoms."

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/bala/1994/BA940313.html

"Chronic health effects of cannabis use

*selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
*prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
*development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
*cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/

[Figment]

"Exactly! This isn't about driving safely, this is about the nanny state being able to bilk perfectly good drivers out of more money"

According to post 17, it was about driving safely. The driver was stopped for driving erraticly and admitted smoking pot.

[MadLibDisease]

If impaired thinking disqualified an individual from driving there would be no liberals on the road

[Know your rights]

Those findings, if correct, show only that marijuana impairs the CHRONIC ABuser's judgment long after the "high" appears to be over. The same is true of chronic alcohol abusers ... but that's no reason to punish anyone who drives weeks after drinking.

[tallhappy]

Such as?

Such as the article of this thread.

[Know your rights]

My "Such as?" referred to "actual Americans seem to be enacting laws that are going in the opposite [anti-legalization] direction." I know of no such new laws ... but gave examples of laws in the pro-legalization direction.

[glorgau]

Yeah, I think the government should seize the cars of everyone in the immediate family of anyone who has ever smoked a joint. Also those neighbors that might have known (shown complicity). That will solve the problem.
</ sarcasm >

[robertpaulsen]

Seems to me that this is for the legislature to fix, not the courts.

Methinks the legislature is happy with the law, and the author is trying an end-around the will of the people. Figures.

[robertpaulsen]

Here's the facts of the case:

"In Docket No. 129269, defendant Delores M. Derror was driving east on snow- and slush-covered M-72 when she crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with another vehicle, killing the front-seat passenger, paralyzing two children in the rear seat, and injuring a third child. The accident occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. Derror admitted that she had smoked marijuana, at 2:00. p.m., earlier that day."

I thought we were told by the pro-marijuana-while-driving crowd that marijuana actually makes you a better driver.

[robertpaulsen]

"I know of no such new laws ..."

Only because you choose to remain ignorant of them.

tallhappy gave you, as an example, the article of this thread. In the article, the author gives a link to the court case. If you read the court case, you'd see the intent of the legislature.

"The dissent claims that the statute’s objective is to prevent people from driving under the influence of a controlled substance. Not so. The statute’s stated objective is to prevent persons from driving with any amount of a schedule 1 controlled substance in the body, whether or not the substance is still influencing them. This is clearly a legitimate exercise of the Legislature’s police power since 11-carboxy-THC is indisputably only present in the body after someone has ingested marijuana, i.e., done something illegal."

In other words, the Michigan legislature couldn't care less if marijuana is "influencing" you -- they simply don't want you driving after you smoked. That, to me, is a valid example of "actual Americans ... enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction."

[robertpaulsen]

"but that's no reason to punish anyone who drives weeks after drinking."

Who's doing that? This legislation concerns marijuana, not alcohol.

[tpaine]

Interesting that after all these years of such "REASON" by enlightened progressive open minded libertarian thinkers to weaken drug laws and normnalize drug use as legitimate and harmless, actual Americans seem to be enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction.

Go figure.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Interesting that after all these years actual Americans seem to be ~against~ enacting laws that prohibit drugs & guns.



FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts


It's easy to 'figure' t-happy.. -- Most people are not authoritarian socialists.

[jrg]

If impaired reasoning is a reason not to let someone drive, then how will democratic members of congress and RINOs get to work.

Oh, come on....Don't you know the "little people" drive them?

[RichInOC]

Should last week’s joint disqualify a pot smoker from driving today?

That depends, I guess. Is he still stoned?

[tallhappy]

Hey Joe Strummer, are you high?

This article. This example. This is pretty harsh and draconian. Comi8ng down on the stoners a lot more than anything I've ever heard of.