Posted on 07/11/2014 7:29:08 AM PDT by Kazan
Two new University of Colorado studies paint an ominous picture of the direction of the state since marijuana commercialization, but neither provides conclusive evidence that legal pot is causing harm.
One study shows more drivers involved in fatal car accidents in Colorado are testing positive for marijuana — and that Colorado has a higher percentage of such drivers testing positive for pot than other states even when controlled for several variables. But the data the researchers use does not reveal whether those drivers were impaired at the time of the crash or whether they were at fault.
"The primary result of this study may simply reflect a general increase in marijuana use during this ... time period in Colorado," the study's authors write.
The other study shows that perceptions of marijuana's risk have decreased across all age groups with the boom in marijuana businesses in the state. The study also finds that near-daily marijuana use among adults increased significantly starting in 2009, relative to states without medical marijuana laws. But the study's authors acknowledge that they cannot show Colorado's marijuana laws are the reason for the shifts in attitudes and use.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycamera.com ...
While that's too bad, that's no excuse for gutting the Constitution. That's a liberal style of argumentation. 'It's for the children.'
If you want the federal government to handle it, then it needs to go the way of other existential threats, and have the military in charge, as is the case for nerve gas.
Since it's being dealt with at the federal level as a police power, and the feds have no police power authority outside of federal enclaves, that police power needs to revert back to the States, where it belongs.
I will fight, and do fight, to put the feds back in the box, and stop the creeping over-reach that so-called conservatives champion.
I will, and do work to politically destroy progressives that want to extend the powers of the federal government past their constitutional limits.
/johnny
Not a federal function.
My state doesn't allow alcohol sales in some counties. I can't see us legalizing drugs.
/johnny
Wet/Dry counties are voted on by the residents of the county.
/johnny
Darwin’s non-survival of the unfittest is playing out in potlorado, and soon in Washington state too.
Good riddance.
“No surprise there. The dope dopes want their right to dope and don’t care who else gets hurt.”
Yup, potheads are sociopaths.
By the way, what did the obsessive compulsive pothead say when someone labeled him a sociopath?
He said, “’Sociopath’? Dude, that word has the letters p, o, and t in it.”
Don’t try to introduce science or freedom into the discussion. What will we do for arguments around here?
Like I said, in five years we'll know better. Then if it turns out legalizing marijuana is as bad or cause harm similar to alcohol, the American people will have to make a decision. Can you morally ban something that's not worse than or as bad as another substance? Even if all the naysayers prove to be right about the bad effects of weed, how can you ban it when you know alcohol has been so destructive? I'd say marijuana would have to be proven more destructive to general society before we could ban it.
Haha
Haha
And often not. Do you favor legality for domestically produced drugs?
drugs weren't a problem until they started becoming a problem,
Only there's no evidence that they were becoming a problem. Note that government say-so is not evidence ... unless you also think we should tightly restrict the 'greenhouse gases' that our government assures us are a deadly problem.
That you keep saying this tells me you haven't researched this topic at all. There were thousands of deaths from patent medicines at the end of the 19th century. The Pure food and drug labeling act was created to force people to explain what was in those medicines. The vast majority turned out to be Cocaine or Opium.
And often not. Do you favor legality for domestically produced drugs?
No answer?
drugs weren't a problem until they started becoming a problem, at which point we banned them
Only there's no evidence that they were becoming a problem. Note that government say-so is not evidence ... unless you also think we should tightly restrict the 'greenhouse gases' that our government assures us are a deadly problem.
There were thousands of deaths from patent medicines at the end of the 19th century. The Pure food and drug labeling act was created to force people to explain what was in those medicines. The vast majority turned out to be Cocaine or Opium.
You're moving the goalposts - you were talking about the alleged need for banning. The problem of people not knowing what they were ingesting was adequately addressed by labeling requirements ... no need nor defense for a ban. And let's note that labeling requirements can be effectively enforced only in a legal market; banned black market goods are not and can never be made to be accurately labeled.
The Children weren't the only victims, there were husbands and families that felt the loss of a loved one dying from drug overdose. I point out the infants, because losing a mother is particularly hurtful to an infant. No one will ever see to their interests as much as would their mother.
You are trying to ignore this as a "liberal argument" but it is a valid point. Those infants were victims of their mother's drug use. They were hurt, and hurt badly by their mothers exposure to drugs. Their mothers had no "right" to take drugs. They had a responsibility to not do so.
I will, and do work to politically destroy progressives that want to extend the powers of the federal government past their constitutional limits.
I disagree with you that fighting drugs is not within constitutional limits. If poison cat food from China is a federal issue, then so is poison from Columbia and Afghanistan.
One evil thing does not justify the creation of another evil thing. One piece of bad, does not make another piece of bad acceptable.
It doesn’t, but how can you justify criminalizing something while keeping something just as bad for society or worse legal?
THC is fat soluable but the blood tests used to test for immediate use go negative after a day. Urine tests show positive longer but blood is used if impairment is suspected. You might test fat if you want to gauge if somebody has used the drug within the last several months but you use blood tests if you want to check levels in relation to suspected impairment say within a few hours of an accident.
So how do I know this...because I am an ICU RN and we get overdosed patients who often show elevated thc levels along with what ever drug(usually alcohol) they may have taken. By the next morning both etoh and thc levels have subsided if we check their blood levels again. The urine thc may still show positive...related to slow fat leaching though it wouldn’t be a good sign of continued impairment.
So blood tests taken immediately after an accident, if they show etoh or pot, may be used to show evidence of impairment, especially in light of other signs of impairment. If the blood is negative for pot but the urine shows pot after such an accident, then true, it would not be a good sign of impairment related to pot.
So don’t smoke pot and then drive hoping to deny that one is impaired by saying”oh I smoked some last week” that’s why my urine is positive. They will be checking your blood and if you crashed or were caught driving erratically, and the blood is positive for pot...you are screwed!
Look at post 47 if you want to see some science. The blood tests for pot go negative after 12 to 24 hours though urine may show up to a 100 days depending on levels of pot use. THC in the blood taken after an accident is strongly indicative of possible impairment...though urine would not be. No thc in the blood then it would be hard for the cops to prove impairment just by urine tests alone.
You think mandatory blood tests for refusal to do “blow tests” will be checked for just etoh? It is checked for a broad spectrum of impairment causing substances!
Oh, everything you say is true and probation departments have used these techniques for years to determine how recent the use may have been or even if a claim of second hand smoke is plausible, but that’s not what this article said. It merely said “positive for pot” which doesn’t support the point they were trying to make at all. Merely being “positive for pot” doesn’t necessarily mean impaired.
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.