420 Use and Health

[BadAxe]

Here's the thing about driving while high. I won't get into the arguement that regular smokers can and do drive just fine everyday. I have been driving high for 25 years, never been in an accident. But yes, I can see being too high to drive as well. So I won't argue with those that think you can't drive high. Its more of an individual thing, unlike alcohol, which actually does impair your ability to drive, everyone's.

But here is the main thing needed in this arguement. If you are too high to drive, being high DOES NOT fool you into believing you can drive. If you are too high to drive you say "Whoa, I am way too high, i am gonna stay right here". Unlike alcohol, which makes you say "Bah, I am just fine, give me my freaking keys". MJ does not twist reality and make you think you can do things that in reality you can not.

You could make MJ completely legally nationally today, and the amount of accidents caused by MJ would stay right about where it is now, almost non existant.

[sgreger1]

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.

Yah in most states you can pass a breathalyzer test and still get arrested for DUI if you fail a field sobriety test. This law probably won't change much, and like you say they are going to have to put limits on it at some point. And frankly, I don't like people driving around drunk and I don't really approve of people driving around high either. I think the limits in both circumstances are a bit low but either way you know they are going to put a set number to it at some point. Almost no point in trying to fight it.

[sgreger1]

SB 420 (California's amended medical cannabis law) only allows you to have 8 ounces of dried, cured cannabis, and up to 12 cannabis plants (6 mature, or 12 immature plants). While it is possible that you can possess larger amounts of cannabis (if recommended by your physician), you will have to prove this in court.

Bro, the docs out here give scrips for 99 plants and shit, the docs can override any of the rules. There's dudes out here running GIANT ****ing grow operations on a standard Rx. I had friend who had firearms, a giant grow operation, and literally hundreds of pounds of herb, and he got busted one time and was back at his house by the end of the same day. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter what the law says, it's the wild west out here when in comes to the med mj system. The only one who is actively prosecuting is Obama's DOJ, Obama has come out as the harshest anti-MJ president we've ever seen in CA and has been really accelerating the number of busts on legit MJ patients. But even accounting for that you can pretty much possess or grow whatever you want and all you have to do is show up for court like it was a speeding ticket or something. Then they've also decriminalized small amounts so the cops have pretty much given up entirely over here, having an ounce on you is not something most cops would even bother wasting the paper to write you a ticket for.

[Crow]

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.

Once a 5 ng/limit is put into law, that number will only decrease, just like the BAC level has.

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.

[Patients Against I-502]

What Science Says About I-502's Faulty DUI Proposal

Regarding the threshold... I-502 adds a per se threshold for THC and distinguishes THC from THC-COOH.

The initiative clarifies that THC-COOH, the inactive metabolite also known as carboxy-THC that is sometimes used to convict marijuana users of DUI under current law, is not to be considered in determining THC concentration for the purposes of the per se limit.



Scientists should continue to study the relationship between marijuana use and driving impairment, and I-502 earmarks funds for this specific purpose.

Alcohol BAC limits have changed over time as new information has become available, and further research may lead to recommendations to revise the THC concentration limit.

Research requires funding, and I-502 specifically earmarks a portion of new marijuana tax revenues for research and education regarding marijuana intoxication and impairment.

We've seen New Approach Washington's misleading FAQ sheets already, but thanks for using their arguments word for word. That makes it easier for us to wade through these deliberately-misleading statements.

Regarding BAC limits being "changed" over time, it's important to remember that limits have only been revised downward. Since the idea of a BAC limit was introduced, not one single lawmaker (on the local, state, or federal level) has argued for the BAC threshold to be raised. The same will be true with I-502's THC threshold. Once a 5 ng/limit is put into law, that number will only decrease, just like the BAC level has.

We'd also like to address New Approach's deliberate attempt to confuse people about THC and THC-COOH. NAW's FAQ sheet throws out a lot of scientific terms like "carboxy-THC," "inactive metabolites" and "THC-COOH." We're here to make it easy for you. ALL of these terms are fancy ways to refer to THC that is stored in our fat for anywhere between 30 and 90 days after last use. NAW says that this type of THC is *sometimes* used to convict marijuana users of DUI under current law. What they don't mention is their reason for using the qualifier of *sometimes* The reason inactive THC is only *sometimes* used to convict marijuana users of DUI is because the current law requires law enforcement to prove *impairment* That is one of the key difference between the current law and I-502's per se DUIC law. Under I-502, impairment is not the crime. The criminal act is having a blood level exceeding 5 ng/ml (over 21) or 0.00 (under 21) while also driving a vehicle. Therefore, whether you are impaired or stone-cold sober, if you exceed I-502's limits - you are guilty of a crime. Impairment no longer has to be proven in a court of law, like it does under the current statute for both alcohol and other drugs (prescribed and/or illicit).

Onto the science, which definitevely proves a 5 ng/ml limit will lead to INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING CONVICTED of a gross misdemeanor and possibly a Class C Felony. It's important to remember that if a 5 ng/ml limit will cause innocent people to be convicted, a 0.00 limit for under 21 will only increase that problem exponentially. We've footnoted all research and included links at the end of this post, so you can read it for yourself and make an educated decision about I-502.

New Approach WA cites two specific studies on its FAQ page about Driving Under The Influence of Cannabis or DUIC. One is a meta-analysis of 90 studies by Grotenherman et. al.(1) The other is a study by Karschner(2) of 25 frequent, long-term users. This is the only research New Approach has to "support" the nanogram limits proposed by I-502. We think it does little to support their claims and actually debunks those arguments.

· Grotenherman: Please see the Executive Summary. The first page discusses zero tolerance DUIC, as proposed in I-502 for drivers under 21. In the third-to-last paragraph, researchers state "This strict approach facilitates law enforcement but is not based on science and does not target impaired drivers." It goes on to say "the same applies to the increasing number of individuals who legally use cannabis for medicinal purposes and, while not acutely impaired, may present measurable THC concentrations at all times."

On page 16 of the report, in the section titled "Empirical Research on Cannabis and Driving," scientists conclude that "the evidence from epidemiological studies on cannabis and accident risk is still much less conclusive than for alcohol and alone is insufficient for adopting a science-based legal limit for THC in blood."

On page 31, under the heading "Summary and Discussion of Findings," the first sentence reads: "Scientific evidence on cannabis and driving is not yet sufficient to permit the selection of a numerical enforceable THC limit with the same level of confidence as for alcohol."


The study you've specifically alluded to is from Karschner:
25 frequent, long-term cannabis users resided at the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Participants were under continuous surveillance to prevent self-administration of cannabis. Their blood samples were frozen for 5 years. No Physical exams were performed to assess impairment when the samples were frozen or compared.

16 out of 25 participants (64%) tested positive for THC (not THC-COOH), but not necessarily on the first day. This indicates that THC levels are likely to rise as your body rids itself of stored cannabis. These levels are independent of last usage.

6 of the study participants (24%) displayed detectable THC concentrations (again, not THC-COOH), 6 full days after entering the unit. This is of great concern when considering a zero tolerance limit for drivers under age 21.

It is important to note that frequent, long term cannabis users are similar to medical cannabis patients, but they are not exact matches. The users in the Karschner study did not have a doctor’s recommendation to use cannabis. To date, no research has been done to accurately determine the impairment level of medical cannabis patients.

We also want to highlight a study from the U.S. Department of Transportation.(3) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was appointed by the Federal Government to study "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance." One of the main objectives was "to determine whether it is possible to predict driving impairment by plasma concentrations of THC and/or its metabolite, THC-COOH, in single samples." The report says "the answer is very clear." Researchers found that "it is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations."

Perhaps most importantly, the above studies (along with expert testimony and other pertinent research) led the Colorado Legislature to scrap its plan to implement the very same DUI limit proposed in I-502. Because the science is considered murky by some, lawmakers appointed an 8-person committee to study the issue in depth. This working group was unable to come to a consensus and chose to recommend that no limit be set at this time.(4 5)

1*Grotenhermen, et al..Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis (DUIC) 2005*http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICreport.2005.pdf*

2*Karschner, et al. Do Delta-9 THC Concentrations Indicate Recent Use in Chronic Cannabis Users?*Addiction.*2009 Dec;104(12):2041-8*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19804462*

3 US Department of Transportation 1993. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...g/dot78_1e.htm
*
4 DUID-Marijuana Working Group Recommendation. 2011. http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...ing_limits.php
*
5* Marijuana DUID Working Group Memorandum to Drug Policy Task Force
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute....up.summary.pdf

[Crow]

You can grow what you want, own what you want (20 lbs? no problem) etc etc.

SB 420 (California's amended medical cannabis law) only allows you to have 8 ounces of dried, cured cannabis, and up to 12 cannabis plants (6 mature, or 12 immature plants). While it is possible that you can possess larger amounts of cannabis (if recommended by your physician), you will have to prove this in court.

[sgreger1]

Seriously California's medical MJ law is so perfect right now I just hope nobody messes it up or changes it. It's semi off the radar, anyone can get a script, and it's almost entirely unregulated. You can grow what you want, own what you want (20 lbs? no problem) etc etc. And most importantly it keeps the titans of industry out of it and is left to the local growers. Best quality, easiest access, cheapest prices, almost no regulation, this is about as good as it gets. I will be voting against anything that changes it in any way.

[Crow]

[Crow]

Seattle, it's a bit like if you have a script for Vicodin, drive around on the shit they can still get you on DUI right?

Right. If you're on Vicodin (for example), and you fail the FST (field sobriety test), they can arrest you for DUI.

[EricHill78]

Seattle, it's a bit like if you have a script for Vicodin, drive around on the shit they can still get you on DUI right?

[Crow]

General Mills and Cheech-n-Chong Team Up To Sell Magic Brownies, Sort Of

General Mills selling ‘magic brownies’? Flaming Pole Festival in the desert? The need for fiber? Cheech-n-Chong?

Well…I guess the Baby Boomers are now squarely in control as they’ve successfully married ‘pot’ culture to a candy bar-like laxative through mass marketing.

Well done!

Watch the video at:
http://www.fiberone.com/magicbrownie/

[Crow]

First off, I'd like to say thanks for visiting SnusOn, and welcome to boards!

Washington's current DUI law already includes "implied consent" and "per se DUI" provisions.

If you drive on Washington roads, you are deemed to have given consent to tests of your breath and blood if you are "arrested for any offense where, at the time of arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe" you are DUI.

The fact that you are "entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state" (e.g. you have a prescription for oxycodone or a medical cannabis authorisation, for example) is not a defense.

Regarding the threshold... I-502 adds a per se threshold for THC and distinguishes THC from THC-COOH.

The initiative clarifies that THC-COOH, the inactive metabolite also known as carboxy-THC that is sometimes used to convict marijuana users of DUI under current law, is not to be considered in determining THC concentration for the purposes of the per se limit.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health and Harvard Medical School conducted a clinical study of THC concentrations in 25 daily or near-daily users of marijuana who, on average, had used marijuana for 8.8 years.

The study's participants reported daily or near-daily use ranging from 1 "blunt" to 1 ounce. More than half had used marijuana within 24 hours before admission.

Only 1 participant had a THC concentration above 5 ng/mL upon admission (7 ng/mL), and it dropped to 2.9 by the next morning. Just 3 participants had levels between 1.0 and 2.0 at the time of admission, 10 were below 1.0, and 9 had no positive THC test result at all.

Scientists should continue to study the relationship between marijuana use and driving impairment, and I-502 earmarks funds for this specific purpose.

Alcohol BAC limits have changed over time as new information has become available, and further research may lead to recommendations to revise the THC concentration limit.

Research requires funding, and I-502 specifically earmarks a portion of new marijuana tax revenues for research and education regarding marijuana intoxication and impairment.

One more thing to note... I-502 offers medical cannabis patients protection from arrest, whereas the current law only provides an affirmative defense.

[Patients Against I-502]

I don't see how it's a bummer. One ounce is a fair amount for a recreational user. If you run out, then you can always go to the store to get more.

Again, these limits and restrictions do not apply to medical cannabis patients.

The "Patients Against New Approach Washington" are misinformed.

Misinformed? Have you bothered to read the scientific data for yourself? Have you even read I-502 in its entirety? We are backed by two MD's, two lawyers, a prominent patient advocate and the Co-Founder and Executive Director of Seattle Hempfest. Do you really believe these extremely intelligent folks are MISINFORMED?

Patients Against New Approach Washington's number one goal is to help the general public wade through the "misinformation" (mostly doled out by New Approach Washington itself) and get to the FACTS. The fact remains that I-502 trades off the future of countless INNOCENT people, so that another subset of the population can have their 1 oz. decrim. Is it right to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate innocent people, just so we can stop doing the exact same thing to others.

"Patients Against New Approach Washington" firmly believes that creating a brand new law (aka prohibition) that targets cannabis users is counterintuitive and undermines the very goals of repealing prohibition. The last thing we should be doing is creating a brand new, unnecessary prohibition in the process of trying to repeal another.

You can learn more by visiting https://facebook.com/PatientsAgainstNAW. Come see the arguments we present and decide for yourself. We're confident that the vast majority of voters will make the right decision when presented with ALL the facts.

[Patients Against I-502]

New Approach is the WRONG Approach!

Washington (US)

"Washington Democratic Party Endorses Marijuana Legalization"



It is worth noting that I-502 will have no affect on medical cannabis laws in Washington. Patients will still be able to cultivate up to 15 plants, and possess up to 24 ounces of dried, cured cannabis (60-day supply). Collective gardens are also exempt from I-502.

I-502 will most definitely have a detrimental affect on patients. Sure, you can have your medical marijuana laws, you just can't drive. Nice trade off, NAW. I-502 puts a new DUI law in place (aka a new PROHIBITION) that will assuredly lead to INNOCENT people being convicted of DUI, even if they are not impaired in the least. I-502's new "per se" law makes it so that impairment is no longer the basis of the crime, the crime will now be having a certain amount of THC in your blood while also driving a car.

Countless studies have shown, time and time again, that there is no correlation between impairment and a person's plasma concentrations of THC.

Let me put this in perspective: It's the equivalent of measuring the nicotine in your body and setting an arbitrary limit at which they have ranDUMBly decided you are impaired. If you have X amount of nicotine in your body, you are guilty of "Per Se DUI" even if you were not impaired by that nicotine. In this case, they've substituted cannabis for nicotine, but what's to stop them from trying to implement this same system with other drugs.

New Approach has plenty of slick talk to distract you from this issue, but it all comes back down to this: The current DUI law is not broken. Neither cops nor prosecutors have called for a new tool to get stoned drivers off the street. Neither cops nor the courts have deemed the current system ineffective. Under the laws as they stand now, the burden of proof is on the officers to prove impairment. Under I-502's "per se" scenario, not only are you automatically presumed guilty because of the THC content in your blood, you have no "rebuttable presumption" (i.e. the right to defend yourself in court).

To see links to the scientific research and other valuable information about I-502, please visit https://facebook.com/PatientsAgainstNaw

[Crow]

"We the People Want to End Marijuana Prohibition"

Today, the White House launched its new, long-awaited website “We the People.” The administration describes the site as a “tool [that] provides you with a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country.”

The White House further promises, “If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.” The White House has set this threshold at 5,000 signatures within 30 days.

Demand the Obama administration to explain their support for marijuana prohibition. If they can not, then why do they continue to endorse this failed public policy?

Below is the petition NORML has submitted for consideration:

We Petition the Obama Administration to: Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol.

We the people want to know when we can have our “perfectly legitimate” discussion on marijuana legalization. Marijuana prohibition has resulted in the arrest of over 20 million Americans since 1965, countless lives ruined and hundreds of billions of tax dollars squandered and yet this policy has still failed to achieve its stated goals of lowering use rates, limiting the drug’s access, and creating safer communities.

Isn’t it time to legalize and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol? If not, please explain why you feel that the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past?

Click here to sign.

(NOTE: The White House has been experiencing technical difficulties with their website, please be patient and allow the petition time to load, if you receive an error message; retry later)