420 Use and Health

[Crow]

"Weed the People: Over 35,000 Strong for Marijuana Legalization"

It was just last Thursday that the White House launched their petition website, “We the People.” That morning, NORML submitted a petition calling for the legalization of marijuana. In just four short days the petition has received over 35,000 signatures, making it the most signed petition on the website by nearly 15,000 names. Thousands of Americans are calling upon President Obama to end marijuana prohibition and more are joining in every minute.

While the caliber of the President’s response may, in the end, be questionable, what is unquestionable is that this outpouring of support generated a large, positive, media buzz for marijuana legalization. Including coverage on the Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC.

[Crow]

Try his tunes with the herb

I medicate as we speak.

[Joe234]

Try his tunes with the herb

Park Lane Special - Augustus Pablo

Rockers Dub - Augustus Pablo

King Tubby meets Rockers Uptown - Augustus Pablo

Supposedly the theme song of Grand Theft Auto

Salassie I Veranda / Kings David's Melody - Jah Levi aKa Hugh Mundell & Augusts Pablo.

[Crow]

A subtle way of breaking the ice (passing the bong)

Where have you been, Joe? I haven't seen you in ages (I think the last post had something to do with Countdown ).

[Joe234]

[Patients Against I-502]

The Line in the Sand

While I might not agree with everything Russ is saying in the video regarding I-502, he makes a lot of valid points. I applaud Russ for making a rant about this issue.

Russ presents the issues very fairly. We obviously disagree on whether all "legalization" efforts must be supported, but that is a judgement call each individual will have to make. We draw the line at the point of implementing new laws that will be used to convict innocent people. The rest is negotiable.

[Crow]

Cannabis is NOT an intoxicant. How can a *non-toxic* herb also be an *intoxicant*? We are talking about medicine. It's not just some poor excuse to get high.

For the sake of specificity: Cannabis is a psychoactive substance, and I will leave it at that because I've made my point (and I've allowed you to make yours).

If I-502 hits the ballot, I'm voting yes. But I will tell you this as well... If the other initiative (I-505) makes the ballot instead, I would also vote yes. I think its ridiculous and counter-productive to try and stifle cannabis reform. Sure, it may not be a perfect initiative; but it is a good, solid foundation for cannabis reform, and it allows for improvement when necessary.

We cannot have this "my way or the highway" mentality, we need to come together when the time comes to enact change (regardless which initiative makes the ballot).

[Bigblue1]

Y'all take weed pretty seriously! How's that for constructive commentary

Yeah what happened to those care free days when you could just get high for no reason. Now you need a prescription. WTF?

[Crow]

While I might not agree with everything Russ is saying in the video regarding I-502, he makes a lot of valid points. I applaud Russ for making a rant about this issue.

[Patients Against I-502]

Our Medicine is a Life and Death Matter

Y'all take weed pretty seriously! How's that for constructive commentary

When you use cannabis as your medicine, it's a pretty serious issue indeed. It is literally a matter of life and death for some. Peter McWilliams is just one example of the serious consequences of laws that prohibit people from using their medicine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams

I-502 prohibits terminally ill patients from taking the medicine their doctor recommends because our ability to live independently is dictated, in part, by our transportation needs. Patients Against New Approach Washington is all for the repeal of prohibition, but not if it means creating a brand new law that will be used to unfairly arrest, incarcerate and prosecute cannabis users.

---The Seattleite says "Duly noted. You don't think there should be a DUI limit for cannabis. The reality is though; if cannabis is to become legalised, there will need to be a DUI limit put in place (it doesn't matter if you append it to your initiative, it will be enacted by the legislature one way or another). I see no reason to intentionally stifle cannabis reform over a DUI provision. Especially when such a provision will be enacted regardless whether you directly propose the limit in your initiative or not."

First off, Patients Against New Approach Washington has ZERO problems with a DUI limit. We just want it to be an actual scientific marker of impairment and not some arbitrary number picked out of the sky by an insurance magnate and a couple of ACLU lawyers.

As for the legislature enacting a DUI limit, again I point to the Medical Marijuana laws that have been in place in Washington State for the past 14 years. The Legislature has had over a decade to put a DUI law in place, if driving under the influence of cannabis were really an issue, yet the Legislature has done absolutely NOTHING (short of completely withdrawing a similar proposal because it was not backed up by science). Why has the legislature done nothing? Because Driving Under The Influence of Cannabis simply is not an issue. It's propaganda. Unfortunately, that propaganda is now being perpetuated by those who call themselves "Legalization advocates."

---The Seattleite says "Again, what about arrest protection for patients as opposed to what we have now, which is only an affirmative defense? Do patients really want to keep the status quo because of a DUI provision that your group disagrees with?"

When it comes to the misleading claims that I-502 creates arrest protection for patients, read the law for yourself. It does not do anything of the sort. First and foremost, New Approach Washington claims left and right, up and down and all around that I-502 makes NO changes to the Medical Marijuana laws. That includes the "affirmative defense" for patients.

What I-502 does is create "arrest protection" (i.e. a legal exception) for just one ounce. If you have even a crumble over 28 grams, that arrest protection is out the window. In fact, under I-502, any cannabis user who possesses between 28 grams and 40 grams is actually worse off than they are today. Currently, one would face only a misdemeanor charge (up to 6 mos. in jail and $1,000 fine) and under I-502 that same user would face a gross misdemeanor (up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine).

---The Seattleite says "Your group seems to completely ignore that issue, and is deciding to use a fringe issue like 'DUI enforcement' in an attempt to completely stall cannabis reform, and incite fear amongst the medical cannabis community."

We're not ignoring anything. We're taking a critical look at all the facts and using them to make an educated decision. If anyone is ignoring issues, it's New Approach Washington. The fact is that innocent people WILL be convicted of DUI under I-502, even when they are NOT impaired. How can you defend this GROSS MISCARRAIGE OF JUSTICE????

---The Seattleite says "The reality is very few people are going to agree that there should be no DUI policy regarding cannabis."

Again, Patients Against New Approach Washington has never suggested that there should be no DUI policy regarding cannabis. We suggest that the current law, which is based on *impairment*, is an adequate method for keeping the public safe. Where are the statistics showing the current law isn't working?

---The Seattleite says "Regardless how harmless you think it may be to drive while stoned, it is still an intoxicant, and you're still posing a risk to yourself and others. I will agree that it is a smaller risk compared to alcohol, but its still a risk nonetheless."

Cannabis is NOT an intoxicant. How can a *non-toxic* herb also be an *intoxicant*? We are talking about medicine. It's not just some poor excuse to get high. Cannabis is a recognized treatment for a whole host of terminal illnesses and debilitating diseases. MS, Cancer, HIV/Aids, Glaucoma, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, ALS, Epilepsy, etc. These patients NEED their medicine. It's not as simple as a choice to medicate or not drive. For that matter, do you REALLY want an epileptic out on the road without their medicine because of exaggerated fears that they might be impaired? I can guarantee you that the risk is much higher from an epileptic on the road without their medicine than an epileptic on the road medicated by cannabis.

[Crow]

Y'all take weed pretty seriously! How's that for constructive commentary

Well put!

[Roo]

Y'all take weed pretty seriously! How's that for constructive commentary

[Crow]

"Patients Against I-502": Duly noted. You don't think there should be a DUI limit for cannabis. The reality is though; if cannabis is to become legalised, there will need to be a DUI limit put in place (it doesn't matter if you append it to your initiative, it will be enacted by the legislature one way or another). I see no reason to intentionally stifle cannabis reform over a DUI provision. Especially when such a provision will be enacted regardless whether you directly propose the limit in your initiative or not.

Again, what about arrest protection for patients as opposed to what we have now, which is only an affirmative defense? Do patients really want to keep the status quo because of a DUI provision that your group disagrees with?

Your group seems to completely ignore that issue, and is deciding to use a fringe issue like 'DUI enforcement' in an attempt to completely stall cannabis reform, and incite fear amongst the medical cannabis community.

The reality is very few people are going to agree that there should be no DUI policy regarding cannabis.

I am one that can absolutely drive after smoking. I know, because I do it everyday of my life and have been for over 25 years. It does not impair me. But as I stated above, I have gotten to high to drive in my past. BUT, i knew I was too high to drive, so I didn't. Unlike alcohol which makes you believe you can do anything.

The DUI for MJ is just the last stand for people that never want ot see it legalized but have been proven wrong in every other area, and its their last gasp.

Just because you're confident in your driving ability after getting stoned, doesn't make it right. Regardless how harmless you think it may be to drive while stoned, it is still an intoxicant, and you're still posing a risk to yourself and others. I will agree that it is a smaller risk compared to alcohol, but its still a risk nonetheless.

Also, just because you have the sense to not drive when you're very intoxicated, doesn't mean that others follow your example. Believe it or not, there are a lot of stupid people out there that wouldn't think twice about using the road system while they're stoned out of their mind.

[BadAxe]

As far as a limit needing to be put in place for the safety of others, you need only look as far as the roads in Washington state. Medical marijuana has been legal since 1998, yet the incidence of accidents has only gone down since then. In fact, Washington State has some of the safest roads in the nation, with just 4 other states having safer roads. If a 5 ng/ml limit is needed for the safety of others, why haven't we seen a major increase in accidents and other safety issues in the 14 years that medical cannabis use has been legal?

People just can't accept that MJ is not in the same category as alcohol. And they can't accept that it is not the death causing addicting drug that the fear mongerers made it out to be. So when they have nothing left to argue, they say, "Well, if its ever legal, there has ot be a DUI test for it", again, thinking it along the same lines as alcohol.

They just can not accept that it effects you differently. I am one that can absolutely drive after smoking. I know, because I do it everyday of my life and have been for over 25 years. It does not impair me. But as I stated above, I have gotten to high to drive in my past. BUT, i knew I was too high to drive, so I didn't. Unlike alcohol which makes you believe you can do anything.

The DUI for MJ is just the last stand for people that never want ot see it legalized but have been proven wrong in every other area, and its their last gasp.

[Patients Against I-502]

The TRUTH about I-502

While you may not like a set DUI limit for cannabis, it is the only way we're going to legalise cannabis at the state level. A DUI law will be enacted regardless if you append it to the initiative or not.

Yes, more research needs to be done in determining a more precise cut-off level, and as I've said before; I-502 earmarks funds for this specific purpose.



The BAC level has decreased because it has been determined that your reflex and reaction time is impaired at .10 (The first signs of impairment actually starts at around .06)

You're only making a presumption by saying that the 5 ng/ml limit is bound to decrease based solely on the BAC level being decreased over time. The two have no relation whatsoever.

As I've said before, there are ALREADY "per se" DUI provisions in place. You can still be arrested for DUI (even if you are a medical cannabis patient), all you have to do is fail the FST (field sobriety test).

While you may not agree with the 5 ng threshold; there needs to be a limit put in place for the safety of others, and it has been determined that the safest cut-off level [pending further research] is at 5 ng, and that most individuals that consume cannabis will drop below the threshold within 2-3 hours of use.

I just don't understand how a patient could be against this initiative when it ensures arrest protection. You should be well-aware that medical cannabis patients today only have an affirmative defense. If you're that concerned about your own driving ability, then I suggest that you wait a couple of hours before you get behind the wheel, or find a designated driver.

If more research needs to be done to determine a precise cut-off level, why not wait until that research is complete before we start picking arbitrary numbers and putting them into law?

If, as you say, the BAC level has no relation whatsoever to a 5 ng/limit, then why does New Approach Washington say this limit is "analogous" to alcohol? New Approach is trying to implement a law for THC levels that mirrors the current BAC laws. You are correct that the two have no relation whatsoever. Alcohol is an *intoxicant* that is secreted in the blood stream at the same rate it is secreted in the breath. Cannabis is a *non-toxic herb* that is metabolized differently by every single person who uses it. That is precisely why scientists say a single blood test cannot be used to determine impairment with the same level of confidence as alcohol. So WHY does New Approach Washington INSIST on doing so?

You mention that *most* individuals will drop below the 5 ng/ml limit within *2-3 hours* Again, the qualifier is *most* which is code for not everyone. The fact remains that there are an unknown number of people who will NOT drop below the 5 ng/ml limit in 2-3 hours and those people have no way of knowing WHEN they will drop below the 5 ng/ml limit. Don't forget that honest-to-God medical cannabis patients have to medicate every two hours on average, that studies show these types of people are rarely impaired by their medical use and that I-502 sets a 0.00 limit for those 21 and under. A patient will NEVER drop to 0.00 while using their medicine. Do you really think its ok to take the driving privileges away from people with terminal illnesses and debilitating diseases?

As far as a limit needing to be put in place for the safety of others, you need only look as far as the roads in Washington state. Medical marijuana has been legal since 1998, yet the incidence of accidents has only gone down since then. In fact, Washington State has some of the safest roads in the nation, with just 4 other states having safer roads. If a 5 ng/ml limit is needed for the safety of others, why haven't we seen a major increase in accidents and other safety issues in the 14 years that medical cannabis use has been legal?

Lastly, when you say "it has been determined that the safest cutoff level is 5 ng/ml," can you please tell me WHO or WHAT body has determined that. I've already provided 5 different links to research and legislative actions that prove the exact opposite. Do you think the science is wrong?

The information is out there for you to read for yourself. Try it. I would bet money that your jaw drops to the floor when you learn the truth. We've had many people write us who are absolutely flabbergasted when they figure out how the public is being manipulated with half-truths and outright distortion of the facts. https://facebook.com/PatientsAgainstNAW