Pot Legalization PR: Driving Under the Influence.

[RadiationTherapy]

I know there have been studies done; I know there are links. But from a public relations standpoint, justifying, in any way, driving under the influence of pot is a shot in the foot. In my opinion, it is important to demonstrate the harmlessness of responsible ingestion rather than the VERY controversial subject of stoned driving. I have been observing various manifestations of this argument from 'pot is safer than alcohol to drive under the influence of' all the way to 'stoned drivers are better/safer than sober ones.' The potential veracity notwithstanding, can we get past the point where people get arrested for smoking a joint in their yard first?

[Gman2]

1. I was crucified, for an OP on just that.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Gman2/39

[RadiationTherapy]

17. I remember that.

We may be able to get around the need for a test before legalization if there wasn't such a casual attitude about committing the act (DUI).

[Ian David]

2. The fact that there are people who believe it is perfectly safe to drive under the influence of pot

... or even PREFERABLE to drive under the influence, has convinced me to reverse my decision to support either legalization or decriminalization.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8090252&mesg_id=8090554

I will now actively work to oppose legalizing or decriminalizing pot.

[shanti]

5. would you vote to make alcohol illegal?

your argument makes just as much sense...

btw, i note that you are in massachussetts...is there an initiative to legalize cannabis there?

[Ian David]

7. People generally understand that driving drunk is a bad idea.

Plus, there are easy ways to test someone's blood alcohol level.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a roadside test for THC.

[uncle ray]

10. there is sober, drunk and there is one or two beers.

likewise there is stoned, sober and something in between.

i don't have a problem with a driver who has had a beer or two, or a toke or two.

that is why i support actual testing for impairment regardless of what drug you are on. they can test for THC but they can't effectively test THC impairment.

[Ian David]

12. The test for THC impairment should be throwing a ball at your face at a set speed.

If you get a black eye, you're impaired.

Those machines they use for batting practice should work.

Okay, maybe the ones they use for tennis balls.

[wtmusic]

25. LOL except 70mph might be a tad fastnt

[Alexander]

6. That's a ridiculous position to take.

Should alcohol be banned, because some people drive under the influence of that? Should prescription medications all be made illegal, because some people drive under the influence of them?

[wroberts189]

15. Maybe if some had some smoke PERHAPS THEY WOULD SLOW THE F*CK DOWN..

This country is so full of hypocrisy. The people following the law and driving the speed limit become the danger as everyone else is hauling ass at 70-80-90...sometimes even faster and if anyone who drives a lot does not see this they got their hands over their eyes. I once had to drive a U-haul that could only do 60 from MA to CT and it was terrifying as people honked as they could not get from behind me as the left lane was too full and running 80mph.

I am no fan of 65 on the highway but if your going to do that law then strictly enforce it. Do not tell me pot will make highways dangerous when they already are for much more serious reasons.

It will not be the high guy causing the accident it will be the BMW cruising at 90 coming up from behind him.

[RadiationTherapy]

16. I understand, but we need PR to make this change happen.

Justifying driving while high will slow the change process in my opinion.

[wroberts189]

42. Boxer is just playing it safe. People are already doing it. But you are right..

It is not a good selling point. And it is a good scary bit of hyperbole.

With 52% in favor she knows it will probably pass despite what position she takes.

[ima_sinnic]

19. the drug cartels thank you, as do the for-profit prison pigs & drugwarmongers

because of people like you (full of themselves and their own self-righteous misconceptions), our prisons are full of nonviolent victimless "criminals" whose lives have been essentially ruined because of the profit-mongering, soulless PTB that "actively work" to keep pot illegal as it so enriches their own bottom line to keep it that way. So you're in good company. Your war on drugs is a perfect excuse to go meddling in Latin America, on the pretext of "stopping the flow of drugs" (but try not to notice the bodies littering the path). And your war on drugs is sooo efficacious! it's really slowed down the flow, eh? lol. our tax dollars at work, aren't you happy?

please, continue "actively working" to make ingestion of a freaking PLANT illegal while war criminals run around loose, collecting huge pensions and perks and the world goes to hell. so glad your priorities are so clear (to you)--I feel so fortunate knowing the sanctimonious hand-wringers are making the world safer for me, a pot smoker since 1967.

[MindPilot]

22. +10000 I wish I could rec a single post. n/t

[Mike K]

43. Well said! Speaks for me.

[Hawkeye-X]

21. I have driven under the influence of pot before

And it just made me more aware of what the hell is going on around people.

If you oppose legalization, then you should make alcohol and cigarettes illegal to use as well.

[emilyg]

34. +1

[Starbucks Anarchist]

44. So because a few people advocate stoned driving, you think it should still be illegal?

The war on pot is a racist, classist and profit-driven industry. Advocating for its existence is anti-liberal and anti-human rights.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. the problem is that you can't tell if someone smoked 5 minutes ago or 5 hours ago

so you can't prove that someone is driving under the influence.

With alcohol you can give a Breathalyzer and establish, within a reasonable doubt, if someone is driving drunk.

Until some similar test is created for pot this argument won't go away.

[tekisui]

11. Field sobriety tests should be the only measure, for anything.

Alcohol and pot effect people differently. If you are good to drive, you are good to drive.

[blueamy66]

27. How about 30 days ago?

Doesn't the THC stay in ones system that long?

[wtmusic]

4. Pot makes you smarter, richer, younger,

more attractive, AND a better driver. ONLY people high on pot will be able to use their cellphone while driving.

It cures cancer and just about anything, actually. Pot rocks. :smoke:

[JonLP24]

8. For some reason

I NEVER seen anyone in favor of legalization make those points.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Fine, quantify the safe level.

They've determined .08 bac as the point at which driving becomes meaningfully impaired. Do the same for pot.

My belief is that threshold is very high. No pun intended.

[RadiationTherapy]

13. Yes, but AFTER legalizing, right?

This is an, understandably, huge hang-up for people (DUI).

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. No, before. It then takes away that particular red herring. n/t

[bemildred]

14. "Driving impaired" means you are doing something empirically wrong in your driving.

It ought to be observable. I'm not defending driving stoned, or not, I'm just saying you have to use words in a meaningful way or you are just making noise. It seems clear to me that the issue ought to be your driving, not when was the last time you ingested cannabis.

[RadiationTherapy]

18. I understand and agree; my point has to do with the damage done to the movement

due to the casual attitude toward the act (DUI).

[bemildred]

36. Yes, I know.

I just thought I should point out the correct way to view the problem.

[wtmusic]

24. You go to jail for driving with a high blood alcohol level

whether your driving is impaired or not. Seems we shouldn't have to wait until someone gets t-boned at an intersection before drawing the line.

[MindPilot]

29. The problem I have with that is it really is prior restraint.

Say you are coming home from a couple drinks after work at .09 and you get t-boned by someone who is perfectly sober but blows the light. You are still going to jail and the accident is listed as alcohol-related even though your BAC was not a factor in the crash and you were likely not impaired.

How many times does that actually happen? Who knows, but it is certainly my primary motivation for not driving after drinking. I know my limits (believe me they are low) and I have no fear that I will cause a crash, but I do fear that I will fall victim to someone else's screw-up.

[wtmusic]

32. Alcohol impairs the ability to drive well underneath legal limits

and every drunk who causes a wreck got into their car having no fear they would cause a crash, either.

Funny how that works.

[MindPilot]

35. Being stupid impairs driving ability too.

But unfortunately no one gets sent to jail for that.

[wtmusic]

38. True, they should probably make driving license tests harder.

Psychomotor impairment under the influence of cannabis however, as with alcohol, is well-established.

"A Dutch double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study examining male volunteers aged 18–45 years with a self-reported history of regular cannabis use concluded that smoking of cannabis with high THC levels (marijuana with 9–23% THC), as currently sold in coffee shops in the Netherlands, may lead to higher THC blood-serum concentrations. This is reflected by an increase of the occurrence of impaired psychomotor skills, particularly among younger or inexperienced cannabis smokers, who do not adapt their smoking style to the higher THC content.<107> High THC concentrations in cannabis was associated with a dose-related increase of physical effects (such as increase of heart rate, and decrease of blood pressure) and psychomotor effects (such as reacting more slowly, being less concentrated, making more mistakes during performance testing, having less motor control, and experiencing drowsiness). It was also observed during the study that the effects from a single joint at times lasted for more than eight hours. Reaction times remained impaired five hours after smoking, when the THC serum concentrations were significantly reduced, but still present. The researchers suggested that THC may accumulate in blood-serum when cannabis is smoked several times per day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis

[bemildred]

37. That is a circular argument.

Completely sober and un-doped up people get T-boned and do the T-boning. The primary issue OUGHT TO BE the impaired driving, not the cause of the impairment, unless your concern is not really the impaired driving, but something else.

[wtmusic]

40. You are saying there is no correlation between sobriety and driving safely?

I really don't think you want to go down that er, road.

[bemildred]

41. No, that is not what I am saying. nt

[MindPilot]

20. This is a big Reefer Madness red herring from the anti-legalization crowd

They are trying to peddle the fear that legalization will automatically result in a whole shitload of formerly sober and responsible people falling victim to THC's irresistible urge to drive stoned.

Trust me, the people who can drive stoned are already doing it and they're not getting caught because they are getting down the road just fine.

[wtmusic]

26. And the people who can't drive stoned, well they just know better

than to try and drive! :silly:

[RadiationTherapy]

30. I understand and agree; this is about PR not about the argument of pot DUI itself.

[devilgrrl]

23. I know many people that don't drink or use pot and they are the WORST drivers EVER!

Lot of those on the roads too!

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. LOL

I have a good friend who has been sober for decades and he is probably the worst driver I know. Never drives high or drunk but still can't drive worth a shit.

[Politicalboi]

28. They didn't have all this technology in the 50's 60's or 70's

For drunk drivers. If your stoned and weaving on the road you should get pulled over. Pot of yesteryear would make your eyes all red and glazed, the shit today does none of that. That's because it's not as good as it used to be. Simply my opinion. There is NOTHING out there that can impair my driving. So it's going to be real hard for the cop to tell if you have been smoking pot. Unless of course he smells it. Some day they will have a test strip to put in your mouth, and if it turns a certain color your busted.

[MindPilot]

31. But, but, but today's pot is gabillions of times stronger!11!1!

Haven't you been watching the news? Just looking at a joint will make you comatose.

That's why legalizing it is so bad! And it will make people drive. I knew a guy who was texting and when he saw the letters THC, it made him drive through a playground at recess!

Seriously, you're right; if you are weaving all over the place then you should be pulled over regardless of the reason. But the flip side is true too; if there is nothing wrong with your driving then you should be left the hell alone.

[anAustralianobserver]

45. When it is legalised people will be in a better postition to know their limits.

How often do you pass people who are driving stoned? Probably every time you drive.

Maybe when it's legalised they should prohibit driving stoned for a few years until society adjusts; then introduce limits.

We already have roadside pot testing in Australia (saliva strip with follow-up blood test) but it isn't very common (I don't know anyone who's been tested).

One study in 2005 in Australia showed 1 in 50 people were driving with any amount of either speed, pot or ecstacy in their system. Only 1 in 250 were driving beyond the Australian alcohol limit of 0.05 (It would be interesting to know what proportion had any amount of alcohol in their system).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/random-drug-tests-snare-one-in-50-drivers/2005/07/14/1120934349881.html

edit: according to the article, the 1 in 50 statistic was an underestimate as the saliva tests are not as accurate for pot as for speed.