Third Party & Independents: Archives

Here are two short excerpts of marijuana and impairment and road safety (marijuana because it is probably the target of the law — it is most widely used and stays longest in the blood stream).

The question here is dual: Just because something is detectable, is it impairing? (Answer seems to be: no). And, is this law about securing the road or opening another avenue in the war on drugs?

It seems the better (and more honest) way to frame the issue is a War on Drugs issue, not a road safety issue, though certainly there are lot of nuts on the road, alcohol seems to be the biggest, most consistant, unsolved problem. I’ve read, but I can’t confirm if it’s true, that there has never been a mairjuana-related road fatality [Question A: Do they even keep that statistic?]

The New Scientisit (March ‘02):

And under certain test conditions, the complex way alcohol and cannabis combine to affect driving behaviour suggests that someone who has taken both may drive less recklessly than a person who is simply drunk.

And this from the Drug Polic Alliance (about) is similar to what you’ve written (re: the 2005 Transportation Appropriations bill):

The fact that traces or remains of a substance may be discovered within bodily fluids does not necessarily imply that the individual is impaired or even experiencing the intoxicating effects of a substance. Before a person can be accused of drug-impaired driving, supplementary research is required to establish “unlawful detectable amount” levels that coincide with likely impairment due to the use of various drugs.

Instead of identifying drivers who put others at risk on the roads, the government seeks to identify people who use marijuana.

Kind of ironic that we put ourselves in the position of ending Afghanistan opium production, but, instead assist it in producing 75% of the worlds opium by moving on to Iraq, then, we want to put pot smokers in the same class as drunk drivers. Ignorance knows no bounds, I guess.

My guess is this pot issue is simply a matter of ignorance. I suspect a poll of present and former pot smokers would indicate an overwhelming negation of such a bill here discussed, while those who have never smoked it or eaten brownies made of it, comprise the bulk of supporters of the law. A classic case of ignorance dictating law for the experienced. Since, ignorance abounds in our society of specialization where we depend on others to know for us, such a bill is not surprising.

Frankly, I don’t think the proposed bill has anything to do with ignorance.

It is an agenda.

If you illegitimize a segment of the population, and make them felons, you gain political
advantage.

While I think attitudes toward drugs are largely fueled by ignorance and fear, it is also fueled by law enforcement agency bureaucracies who gain political power and funding through intentional spreading of propoganda.

It also becomes a wedge issue of “law and order” that the right uses to bash the left. Right wing organizations are well aware that marijuana users tend to lean to the left politically.

It also funds bureaucracies and private corporations who profit from the U.S. incarceration rates, which are among the highest in the world.

The AMA has viewed marijuana as non addictive and relatively harmless since the seventies.
(especially when compared to alcohol)

The American Gulag system is designed to marginalize the poor, pot smokers, gays, chicanos and african americans by making them criminal and ineligble to vote.

It is well known that the prohibition of marijuana in the forties was largely based on racism.

The current drug policies of most corporations are the direct result of governmental influence,requirements (through contracts) and liability issues brought on by local prosecuters. These policies are not designed to catch cocaine, heroin, depressant users or alcholholics. They are designed to skew the harvest toward marijuana users.

America is out of step with the developed world with it’s drug policies and locked in a goose step with right wing causes. As with many issues one should ask who profits from this?

Why is the middle class being squeezed out of existance? Why is the disparity between the poor and rich increasing sharply in America?

Why does our drug policy make no sense? Who does it serve? What direction is our democracy and freedom heading?

America’s biggest problem isn’t Osama Bin Laden. The erosion of our democracy is occuring daily within our borders and with a White, Christian face.

Greg:

America is out of step with the developed world with it’s drug policies and locked in a goose step with right wing causes. As with many issues one should ask who profits from this?

It goes both ways, our drug policies are out of step with the rest of the world, but so are our drug practices, especially alcohol. We have a rediculious rates of alcohol related fatalities compared to Italy and France and other European countries — we frankly, as a people, don’t handle drugs well. Part of it might be an unaccepting political reality, but, then, another part might be an underlying cultural outlook of excess.

Yet, again, on the other hand, the people in this country who use drugs, it is my understanding, aren’t whacked-out and evil as the Ad Council portrays them as being.

FINALLY. Thank you Stephen for the topic.

Correct - THC is fat soluable, as opposed to almost every other schedule 3 controlled substance. Correct - alchohol (and tobbacco) are responsible for epidemic deaths as a result of their use, as opposed to marijuana, which is responsible for absolutely no directly related deaths on file, anywhere. Correct - it is not fair to label someone as ‘intoxicated’ for having tested positive for marijuana and being charged with a DUI, when that positive reading is possibly the result of injestion of more than a month prior.

That is why all employement drug tests are impractical, and based on ignorance. As an example: I could be an alchoholic crack smoker, chronically abusing both drugs. Say I get hired for a job on a friday, and I am required to take a drug screen on tuesday. Well, I could drink every day, including test day, and do crack cocaine and/or powder cocaine up until sunday night, and be as clean as a completly sober person when I take the judgement whiz. However, say I’m a normal neighbor of yours … just a guy you see cutting his grass on saturdays, going to work everyday - whatever … but I smoke pot once a week or once a month for the same reasons that fat people go to McDonald’s for a 20 piece mcnugget indulgence. If I take that same test, I’m screwed. Is that fair?

By the way, I’m speaking from experiene here, so if you want to argue this, be forewarned.

I’m sure that there are an infinite number of variations to these examples, but the point is that the blanket screenings used today are inconclusive. Fact is, marijuana, if it is to be continually and incorrectly labeled as a narcotic (It is not addictive, nor harmful), then it should be given it’s own test - one that detects the amount of intoxification AT the relative time. If this cannot be done, then no such citation should be issued, unless the driver cannot pass the PHYSICAL road-side intoxification test,

We all know of people with less genetically inherited brain matter than can be compared with the amount of brain matter that can possibly be impared by marijuana … why do THEY get to drive? Shouldn’t there be an IQ test instead??

“We cannot enforce a law that cannot be enforced … that the people do not want enforced” — Fiorello LaGuardia

Now, how can we go on testing people at their place of employment when the tests are unfair? When they can easily be subverted: http://www.urinator.com/html/ When people are ardently aware of loopholes in the laws: http://www.norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516 While the government continues to spend who knows how many millions or whatever on propaganda websites like this one: http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteens.html to feed people more ‘truth as we see fit for you (buy more budweiser)’ BULL****!

Enough already!

If the government actually gave a wet fart to the thirsty about whether or not you took harmful drugs, there wouldn’t be such a thing as the “veterans hospital”, which is nothing more than a govenment sponsered crack dealer. Think I’m kidding? Explain to me why they allow these so called ‘doctors’, who are from Venezuala or wherever and have the minimal 2 years of certification in med school (for their place of origin), with just enough supervisal staff as fingers to man the puppets, do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of treatment for the people who made the ultimate gamble for their country, to prescribe meds all day long and misdiagnose combat-related illnesses. And we’re worried about whether or not trucks coming in from Mexico have the same enviromental specifications that ours do?! Pardon my french, but WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY!?

I’m just curious: Are any WatchBloggers in favor of strict drug laws? Does anybody here think that the legislation described above is actually a good idea?

-Cf

So let’s take this to absolute absurd.
If folks want to test for drugs, lets test for all drugs. I mean all drugs. Does asprin cause impairment?
It is well known that cold medications cause impairment.
So lets test drivers for all drugs and not give anyone who shows positive for anything a license.
By the way, pot stays in the system up to 6 weeks.

This discussion is giving me the munchies.

While I have and still do on occasion smoke marijuana,,,I am not advocating that it is a harmless drug.

If smoked regularly unfiltered it is significantly more harmful that tobacco. It does cause drowsiness, and impaired coordination. I do not recommend driving while high.

A study comes to mind that I read recently that driving while tired is as dangerous as driving while drunk. Emotional disturbance and mental distraction are also dangerous while driving.

I am bothered by the legislation to criminalize the use of cell phones while driving, however. I frankly find the use of a TV keeps me more attentive on long trips. I realize that this is probably not true for everyone. I learned not to have an involved conversation with my mother when she drove. She nearly had a serious accident once when I was with her because our conversation distracted her.

While driving is a privilege, it is also an economic necessesity to a suburbanized nation that was developed based on the car as principle means of transport. The recent development of urban towncenters, bike paths and public transport are positive steps but by no means significant in their impact on a reasonable alternative to the car.

Safe driving is a significant problem. More Americans will die on highways than from terror any given year. The use of Highway safety officers for drug interdiction and tax revenue contrubutes to the problem. I’m all for removing unsafe drivers, but the means to acheive this should not be the use of a clearly politically biased sledge hammer to punish a political segment of our society.

What I am concerned about is the use of the drug issue to marginalize the left politically. There are drunks on the left and right. But pot smokers tend to be left of center, and I for one believe that this has become a tool of the right to subjugate the left.

I wonder why you say pot smokers tend to be left of center? I wonder if that’s even true—not everybody, once they reach a higher income bracket, switches to coke, you know.

It’s true, I guess, or it used to be, that the so called counter-culture of the sixties (which is now completely mainstream and in control of most of this country’s institutions) smoked a lot of weed in their youth. But that seems a pretty outdated cultural model. Today’s left is pretty obsessively health-conscious, munching on organic celery, trying to ban smoking of any kind anywhere, pony-tailed peaceniks walking around in leotards with yoga mats under their arms. You get the picture.

The new generation of young conservatives is where the real party’s at—the freshest ideas, the best grass, the most hip and up to the minute coolness you can imagine. Pass me the bong and my Republican registration card.

not to mention that many violent offenders are being let out of prison to make room for non-violent drug offenders with longer mandatory sentences

Martin, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ashcroft under the Patriot Act made note of you comment above.

Chris Fahey, I am very strong on enforcement of laws which restrict selling controlled or illegal substances to minors. I am also for strong enforcement of laws prohibiting sale and use addictive drugs. Finally, I am strongly in favor of enforcement of laws prohibititing dispensing of anti-bacterial drugs for public health reasons. In fact, on this latter category, I think we need to strengthen laws that would revoke physician licenses who inappropriately risk public health by dispensing anti-bacterial drugs for colds and the like.

I am just as strongly opposed to the illegalization of non-physically addictive recreational drugs. Coffee and cigarettes do more harm (addictive substances) than things like pot or mescaline. That said, I strongly favor laws that enforce their safe use - as in not while driving, not within 36 hours of attending employment, or within 36 hours of any other activity which may jeopardize the life or welfare of the public.

We don’t usually think of it as an addictive drug, but sex, and the endorphins it produces, also have a psychologically addictive effect which is why our population on this planet is what it is. I think prostitution should be legalized under medical scrutiny and licensing, however, only in locations where the community standards will permit.

I think addicted individuals should be treated, not arrested. I think peddlers of addicting illegal drugs should be prosecuted AND rehabilitated vocationally. In time, the stigma of having a record for drug pushing could be greatly reduced if rehabs were implemented in the prisons.

One final note. A bit off topic, we need to recreate mentally ill hospitals and bring the homeless schizophrenic population back into institutions and halfway houses where their medication and rehabilitation can be effected and monitored.

> I frankly find the use of a TV keeps me
> more attentive on long trips.

YOU WATCH TV WHILE DRIVING?!?!?

-Cf

Martin,

Ha Ha. Witty comment. No I do not have at hand any scientific polls showing that potheads are left of center. My own experience is that many potheads like many non-potheads are mindless and do not think much beyond theier next bag of weed and/or munchies, but I have a sense that most marijuana law reformists are of a left wing bent.

I frankly have not met many conservatively swayed people who do not think that smoking pot is relatively innocuous.

I am well aware that William F Buckley has smoked grass offshore on his sloop and advocates the legalization and taxation of all drugs, but he seems to me to be the exception not the rule.

As some one who has had some direct experience in this field, I feel I couldn’t disagree more. In 1969 I was 16 and thus was on the tail end of the “hippie” generation. I too am against the use of pot or any other drug by persons under the age of 18. I think that teenagers have enough to deal with in the process of growing up.

>My own experience is that many potheads like many non-potheads are mindless and do not think much beyond theier next bag of weed and/or munchies, but I have a sense that most marijuana law reformists are of a left wing bent.

The comment that youth is mindless would seem more to the point. Folks that abuse alcohol, in my experience, are not known for ablity for deep thought either.
I have used pot occasionaly since I was 14 and find that as I grow older that I use it less and less. The same cannot be said for those that abuse alcohol.

I was being a bit facetious about the mindlessness of potheads.

I did not find in my youth many intellectuals among the people I associated with who were regular pot smokers.

That doesn’t mean that I did not know many intellectuals who smoked pot while I was in college.

Many of them are now quite conservative and would not touch a joint.

Many friends who drank and partied heavily in college do not drink now, or drink very little.

I have a few friends ( I’m now in my forties)who smoke weed regularly and are quite stable and intelligent people. Some drink more than they should.

Some do not smoke because they don’t want to influence their kids negatively. Some because they don’t want to risk their jobs or jail.

I will smoke it if it’s around, if I’m in a job where there’s no random testing. I drink only socially and lightly. I didn’t like most of the people associated with the drug scene, so I don’t have many connections.

A small company I worked for in the eighties decided to impose a random drug test policy. As a supervisor of some of the field techs ( mostly in their 20’s), I became aware of a great deal of resentment of this policy as an erosion of their riht to privacy. I polled the engineering staff who were mostly over 45 and they agreed it was an invasive policy. I circulated a petition and the policy was repealed to test only in the event of an accident or other reasonable cause.

Now most engineering companies that do business with governmental agencies are required contractually to impose a random drug test policy if any employee works in a “safety impact position” (i.e. drive a car to a project site)

Sadly, most Americans have just resigned themselves to surrendering their rights for economic safety. The issue to most is not about drugs. It’s about appeasing their employer.

To me, this is another example of the subtle fascism that is creeping into our nation. Corporatism was a tatic frst used by Mussolini.

I included that last part just for you Martin :)

I think there may be a generational divide between Republicans concerning drugs—at least to some degree. We tend to be more permissive—which maybe we shouldn’t be, considering the availability of stuff now which our parents never dreamed of.

But I don’t know how this differs between older and younger generations of Democrats or the population in general.

I’m mostly on the libertarian-wing of the Republican party, so I basically think people should be allowed to use drugs if that’s what they want to do. On the other hand, I now regret about 90% of my own experiences with drugs, and think the club/party scene (at least in NY, SF and LA) is something to be avoided at all cost.

But people have to make their own mistakes, as if you could stop them. I’d like to see a correlational study between brain-cell loss and voting habits. I guess we’re all still paying for the sixties in that sense.

I am in the entertainment field therefore I also saw my share of drug use, but I make it a policy not to use if I am working. Out of respect for my employer. I feel that what I do on my time is my own business. I also work with high voltages of electricity and water, so it is important to pay attention. I do occasionaly have a drink, but it is almost always socially.
I think that there has always been a double standard in regards to pot and drink, going all the way back to the depression. My understanding is that William Randolf Hearst had a lot to do with the criminalization of pot because he owned vast tracts of pulp forest and didn’t want the competition from hemp paper.
As far as connections, the people that I know are just regular folks. I meet more unsavory people on the job.

Have I driven impaired? Absolutely, but rarely, I don’t make a habit of it. I am more afraid of mothers who have children in the car, or women doing their make-up.

I guess they are trying to make us safe from that epidemic of “high on pot” drivers out there. Because, you know, there are so MANY of them.

And of course THC traces are so reliable in showing if a person is currently high. *smirk*

Congress steps through the looking glass, yet again.

Someone earlier mentioned that we drink-and-drive much more then Europe.

I’ve always believed that this is because of our laws. In Europe (I lived there) you could normally drink at any age, at least if your parents gave you permission (yes I know there are laws that you can’t purchase or whatever until 16). Therefor, it’s not cool. In America, the youth say “Alcohol illegal, therfor it’s cool, therefor we should drink until we’re so drunk we think we can drink while drunk and throw up along the way” In Europe, it would be like drinking Coke til you threw up. You’re not cool, you’re a sick freak!

Never underestimate the size of the sick freak demographic, LOL.

Regarding the jailing of non-violent offenders, one aspect of this debate which should be taken under consideration is:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/30/news/midcaps/prison_companies/

For more information, Google on : “prison industry” + “fastest growing”