DC and Legal Cannabis Goes on November Ballot

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
DC and Legal Cannabis Goes on November Ballot

 While their may be a long road ahead to total decriminilization, it sure looks like more favorable. 

While I personally do not smoke or use it, I have no problem with those who wish to. 

I feel the same way about it as the late comedian Bill Hicks mentioned in one of his videos :

 

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28678775

 

Washington DC to vote on cannabis legalisation referendum

 

Voters in Washington DC will join those in Oregon and Alaska to decide whether to legalise cannabis on Election Day, the city's election board has said.

The US capital city certified on Wednesday that legalisation supporters had gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.

It would allow adults over age 21 to possess up to 2oz (56g) of marijuana and to grow up to six plants at home.

Voters in Colorado and Washington state voted to legalise the drug in 2012.

Civil rights issue

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the justice department has said it will not challenge state laws in states where it is either legal for medical purposes or recreational use.

Washington's city council decriminalised marijuana in May, opting to punish possession of small amounts with a $25 (£15) ticket instead of a hefty fine, jail time and a criminal record. The council is also considering a separate bill allowing the sale and regulation of the drug.

Cannabis supporters in Washington DC (DC stands for District of Columbia) have argued legalisation is a civil rights issue. Surveys show blacks and white use marijuana at roughly the same rate, but black Washingtonians are far more likely to be arrested or fined for possession of marijuana.

"The District has one of the country's highest rates of racial disparities in arrest and is right at Congress' doorstep," said retired Maryland State Police Maj Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

"More and more political leaders from both sides of the aisle are beginning to follow their constituents in recognising that drug policy reform is one of the most effective ways to address the problems of our current criminal justice system."

Self-rule

A survey by the Washington Post suggests 63% of city residents support legalisation, but there is opposition in Congress.

Washington DC is not a state, and under the terms of the city's charter its laws are subject to review by Congress.

A spending bill currently pending in the Senate includes an amendment barring the city from spending money to legalise or reduce penalties for marijuana possession, which would complicate the District's recent decriminalisation move though not overturn it.

A similar legalisation ballot measure was halted 16 years ago by Congress, the Post reports.

But Congress declined to block Washington's decriminalisation ordinance earlier this year, and President Barack Obama has said he will not sign laws interfering with Washington's self-rule.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I find it kinda sad and

I find it kinda sad and kinda funny that 10 years ago Canada was on the verge of absolute decriminalisation while the US was so far off they felt the need to be making threats about it. Fast forward to today and the US is closer to absolute decriminalisation than Canada is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I find it kinda

Vastet wrote:
I find it kinda sad and kinda funny that 10 years ago Canada was on the verge of absolute decriminalisation while the US was so far off they felt the need to be making threats about it. Fast forward to today and the US is closer to absolute decriminalisation than Canada is.

 

Yep, that is rather ironic. 

I was going to include the Bill Hicks stand up video for this but could not get the HTML tags to work. Tried the <embed></embed> tag to no success. Oh well. Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd offer to help but

I'd offer to help but embedded videos really don't play nice with my system. There are a few topics I can't open because there are embedded videos within. I wouldn't be able to preview the result before posting it, and attempting to post it would freeze my system instantly. I'm not sure what would happen to the post in the process, so it's best I leave it be.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4885
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I really don't get it. Why

 I really don't get it. Why fight it? It is really ridiculous.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think it's a matter of

I think it's a matter of investment and mis-education. A lot of people really think it causes insanity and funds terrorists and other bullshit. While a lot of people in power have spent billions of tax dollars and they don't want to admit it was worse than a waste of money.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4885
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I think it's a

Vastet wrote:
I think it's a matter of investment and mis-education. A lot of people really think it causes insanity and funds terrorists and other bullshit. While a lot of people in power have spent billions of tax dollars and they don't want to admit it was worse than a waste of money.

I believe some beer companies are really against it. Googling the subject brings up a variety of articles on how they are lobbying against it. However there are a few which support it.

Not sure if they want money taken away from their pockets or they think that drinking beer and smoking weed is worse than just drinking beer (from a DUI point of view).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That is interesting. There's

That is interesting. There's a few other possibilities that come to mind. First and foremost being that one of the most common arguments for legalisation is that it's not as bad as alcohol. Maybe those companies feel threatened by that argument? I'd never considered it before but it makes a certain logical sense.
Most people I know who drink and toke have no problem mixing the two, so if they're worried about lost market share I'm not sure their concern is justified. Though in the long term it just might be. I don't see a clearly obvious shift away from alcohol as a result of legalisation of marijuana, but there's not really anything standing in the way either.
As far as DUI goes I doubt smoking weed would make it all that much worse. You could easily be worse at driving, but chances are you're well over the legal drinking limit anyway so what does it matter.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4885
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That is

Vastet wrote:
That is interesting. There's a few other possibilities that come to mind. First and foremost being that one of the most common arguments for legalisation is that it's not as bad as alcohol. Maybe those companies feel threatened by that argument? I'd never considered it before but it makes a certain logical sense. Most people I know who drink and toke have no problem mixing the two, so if they're worried about lost market share I'm not sure their concern is justified. Though in the long term it just might be. I don't see a clearly obvious shift away from alcohol as a result of legalisation of marijuana, but there's not really anything standing in the way either. As far as DUI goes I doubt smoking weed would make it all that much worse. You could easily be worse at driving, but chances are you're well over the legal drinking limit anyway so what does it matter.

Studies have shown that being DUI with weed is just as bad as alcohol, but the problem is how do you split things so they are equal punishment? There needs to be more studies to show (for example) how a person with a blood alcohol level of .08 is compared to a person smoking weed.

Personally I don't think there is an issue with profit. I would think that Anheuser Busch would start growing their own and even have a beer/weed hybrid. The thing that really bothers me is Monsanto will start getting patents on the different types of seeds for weed. Then no one will be able to grow them or make a profit because their sea of lawyers will sue any one.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I haven't seen any such

I haven't seen any such study. Link maybe?

From personal experience I would call bullshit. Driving in a video game is not so different from real life that intoxication doesn't impact skill. The more I drink the worse I do. To the point where I can't even drive straight without hitting something.

Weed on the other hand is quite different. It can fuck up my driving, but nowhere near as much as alcohol. Even blazed out of my tree I can still drive relatively straight, though the incoming burnout will put me to sleep so I won't be doing it for long (and I get easily distracted and talkative when I'm stoned, which exacerbates the direct effects).

More interesting is that, while not always true, smoking a little weed (just enough to feel it, not enough to get fried) can actually help me focus and get in the 'zone' as it were. Almost all of my recordbreaking game moments came while I was just a little buzzed. Whereas even a single shot of alcohol is enough to reduce my skills. Enough forced focus can overcome it somewhat, but only to a point (two or three shots absolute maximum, and not hammered down right after each other either). I've certainly never noticed it improving my driving. I have to stop playing action hreavy games when drinking because it totally fucks with my reactions and perceptions, and I'll just start getting pissed off that I can't do something I could almost do with my eyes closed when I'm sober.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4885
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I haven't seen

Vastet wrote:
I haven't seen any such study. Link maybe? From personal experience I would call bullshit. Driving in a video game is not so different from real life that intoxication doesn't impact skill. The more I drink the worse I do. To the point where I can't even drive straight without hitting something. Weed on the other hand is quite different. It can fuck up my driving, but nowhere near as much as alcohol. Even blazed out of my tree I can still drive relatively straight, though the incoming burnout will put me to sleep so I won't be doing it for long (and I get easily distracted and talkative when I'm stoned, which exacerbates the direct effects). More interesting is that, while not always true, smoking a little weed (just enough to feel it, not enough to get fried) can actually help me focus and get in the 'zone' as it were. Almost all of my recordbreaking game moments came while I was just a little buzzed. Whereas even a single shot of alcohol is enough to reduce my skills. Enough forced focus can overcome it somewhat, but only to a point (two or three shots absolute maximum, and not hammered down right after each other either). I've certainly never noticed it improving my driving. I have to stop playing action hreavy games when drinking because it totally fucks with my reactions and perceptions, and I'll just start getting pissed off that I can't do something I could almost do with my eyes closed when I'm sober.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/health/driving-under-the-influence-of-marijuana.html?_r=0 The deficits of being stoned really began to show up, she said, when people had to handle multiple tasks at once and were confronted with something unexpected. “But then he sees an old man in the middle of the street. All his senses say, ‘This guy is there but will be out of way by the time I get there.’ But then the old man drops his keys and he’s slower than the kid expected. By the time it takes to process a change in the situation, there’s an accident.”

There is a bunch of links with in the article you need to review. It covers what I was saying about "how do you measure a stoned driver"? You can't just give them a breath test, it won't work properly, THC works differently than alcohol.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The article basically

The article basically agrrees with me.

"Evidence suggests that is not the case. But it also suggests that we may not have as much to fear from stoned driving as from drunken driving."

"Still, it is clear that marijuana use causes deficits that affect driving ability, Dr. Huestis said. She noted that several researchers, working independently of one another, have come up with the same estimate: a twofold increase in the risk of an accident if there is any measurable amount of THC in the bloodstream.
The estimate is based on review papers that considered the results of many individual studies. The results were often contradictory — some of the papers showed no increase in risk, or even a decrease — but the twofold estimate is widely accepted." ~Scientists ignoring evidence? Sad.

"The estimate is low, however, compared with the dangers of drunken driving. A recent study of federal crash data found that 20-year-old drivers with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent — the legal limit for driving — had an almost 20-fold increase in the risk of a fatal accident compared with sober drivers. For older adults, up to age 34, the increase was ninefold."

"The study’s lead author, Eduardo Romano, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, said that once he adjusted for demographics and the presence of alcohol, marijuana did not statistically increase the risk of a crash"

Now I have little argument on the multitasking bit except to say that sober people suck at it too. Maybe they suck at it less (there was no mention of any data to support those particular conclusions), but it can't be by much when cell phones are well on the way to passing alcohol as a leading cause of accidents. Talking, eating, and putting on makeup will increase the chances of an accident whether you're intoxicated or not. It's quite likely that someone who's high will be a bit more susceptible to it, but how much so hasn't been properly tested.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4885
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The article

Vastet wrote:
The article basically agrrees with me. "Evidence suggests that is not the case. But it also suggests that we may not have as much to fear from stoned driving as from drunken driving." "Still, it is clear that marijuana use causes deficits that affect driving ability, Dr. Huestis said. She noted that several researchers, working independently of one another, have come up with the same estimate: a twofold increase in the risk of an accident if there is any measurable amount of THC in the bloodstream. The estimate is based on review papers that considered the results of many individual studies. The results were often contradictory — some of the papers showed no increase in risk, or even a decrease — but the twofold estimate is widely accepted." ~Scientists ignoring evidence? Sad. "The estimate is low, however, compared with the dangers of drunken driving. A recent study of federal crash data found that 20-year-old drivers with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent — the legal limit for driving — had an almost 20-fold increase in the risk of a fatal accident compared with sober drivers. For older adults, up to age 34, the increase was ninefold." "The study’s lead author, Eduardo Romano, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, said that once he adjusted for demographics and the presence of alcohol, marijuana did not statistically increase the risk of a crash" Now I have little argument on the multitasking bit except to say that sober people suck at it too. Maybe they suck at it less (there was no mention of any data to support those particular conclusions), but it can't be by much when cell phones are well on the way to passing alcohol as a leading cause of accidents. Talking, eating, and putting on makeup will increase the chances of an accident whether you're intoxicated or not. It's quite likely that someone who's high will be a bit more susceptible to it, but how much so hasn't been properly tested.
 

Yep. I have only driven stoned a long, long, long time ago. I wasn't shitfaced but just a little high and paranoid. I think the paranoia caused me to be extra careful. I can also say that I've driven slightly drunk (don't know how drunk) but tipsy. All of which was done in my youth, so there are considerations to be taken because of age. I will say this much, I recall being more in control stoned than drunk. Again, where do you draw the line? What is .08% equal to when being stoned? 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/25/new-breathalyzer-can-detect-marijuana-cocaine-heroin

So who is controlling these devices? Who did studies on them? Are they certified by the feds? States don't determine how a breathalyzer works & standards, the feds do. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The problem with weed is a

The problem with weed is a lack of study I think. There should be some way to do a test that doesn't give false or misleading information. We haven't found one yet but I think there will be one some day.
At this point I'd say ANY intoxication while driving is bad. Just because some people handle it differently than others makes it impossible to make a law that depends on the amount of intoxication.
I can smoke weed till I pass out (which would take a LOT), and most people won't have a clue. I've adapted to it over a 20+ year period, and can function quite normally if I concentrate on it.
On the flip side some people get wrecked on a single puff. I had a friend in high school who hallucinated off the shit, as bad or worse than most do on lsd. He was a lot of fun to be around, though I'm not sure how much fun he was having. I'd never get in a car he was driving if he'd even been near people smoking.

I have to put my vote on 0 tolerance of any intoxicant when driving. But that said, I don't think the current method of testing for marijuana has any business being used, simply because it shows no difference between an hour and days since use. It's a dilemma.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4885
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The problem

Vastet wrote:
The problem with weed is a lack of study I think. There should be some way to do a test that doesn't give false or misleading information. We haven't found one yet but I think there will be one some day. At this point I'd say ANY intoxication while driving is bad. Just because some people handle it differently than others makes it impossible to make a law that depends on the amount of intoxication. I can smoke weed till I pass out (which would take a LOT), and most people won't have a clue. I've adapted to it over a 20+ year period, and can function quite normally if I concentrate on it. On the flip side some people get wrecked on a single puff. I had a friend in high school who hallucinated off the shit, as bad or worse than most do on lsd. He was a lot of fun to be around, though I'm not sure how much fun he was having. I'd never get in a car he was driving if he'd even been near people smoking. I have to put my vote on 0 tolerance of any intoxicant when driving. But that said, I don't think the current method of testing for marijuana has any business being used, simply because it shows no difference between an hour and days since use. It's a dilemma.

I agree with zero tolerance.

I remember a 60 Minutes report on weed with kids. One kid would smoke it and his grades went up; another kid smoked it and his grades went down.

I looked for the report but it was over six years ago so it is archived.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
We really need a LOT of

We really need a LOT of study on marijuana. Alcohol and tobacco have been studied for more than a century, while weed was impossible to study until VERY recently simply because it was illegal. Even lsd has been studied more thoroughly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.