Spokane7
55°
July 3, 2011 in Nation/World
Pot and driving: Law enforcers struggle to define impairment level
It was his green tongue that helped give away Jimmy Candido Flores when police arrived at the fatal accident scene near Chico, Calif.
Flores had run off the road and killed a jogger, Carrie Jean Holliman, a 56-year-old Chico elementary school teacher. California Highway Patrol officers thought he might be impaired and conducted a sobriety examination. Flores’ tongue had a green coat typical of heavy marijuana users and a later test showed he had pot, as well as other drugs, in his blood.
After pleading guilty to manslaughter, Flores, a medical marijuana user, was sentenced in February to 10 years and 8 months in prison.
Holliman’s death and others like it across the nation hint at what experts say is an unrecognized crisis: stoned drivers.
The most recent assessment by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, based on random roadside checks, found that 16.3 percent of all drivers nationwide at night were on various legal and illegal impairing drugs, half them high on marijuana.
In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers, according to CHP data, and law enforcement puts much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55 percent over the 10 years ending in 2009.
“Marijuana is a significant and important contributing factor in a growing number of fatal accidents,” said Gil Kerlikowske, director of national drug control policy in the White House and former Seattle police chief. “There is no question, not only from the data but from what I have heard in my career as a law enforcement officer.”
As the medical marijuana movement has gained speed – one-third of the states now allow such sales – federal officials are pursuing scientific research into the impairing effects of the drug.
The issue is compounded by the lack of a national standard on the amount of the drug that drivers should be allowed to have in their blood. While 13 states have adopted zero-tolerance laws, 35 states including California have no formal standard, and instead rely on the judgment of police to determine impairment.
Even the most cautious approach of zero tolerance is fraught with complex medical issues about whether residual low levels of marijuana can impair a driver days after the drug is smoked. Marijuana advocates say some state and federal officials are trying to make it impossible for individuals to use marijuana and drive legally for days or weeks afterward.
The case against marijuana is not nearly as well understood as alcohol, which has been the subject of statistical and medical research for decades.
“A lot of effort has gone into the study of drugged driving and marijuana, because that is the most prevalent drug, but we are not nearly to the point where we are with alcohol,” said Jeffrey P. Michael, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s impaired-driving director. “We don’t know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.”
A $6 million study in Virginia Beach, Va., is attempting to remove any doubt that users of pot and other drugs are more likely to crash. Teams of federal researchers go to accident scenes and ask drivers to voluntarily provide samples of their blood. They later return to the same location, at the same time and on the same day of the week, asking two random motorists not involved in crashes for a blood sample.
The project aims to collect 7,500 blood samples and show whether drivers with specific blood levels of drugs are more likely to crash than those without the drugs, said John Lacey, a researcher at the nonprofit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
In other projects, test subjects are being given marijuana to smoke and then examined under high-powered scanners or put in advanced driving simulators to gauge how it affects their brains and their ability to drive.
Federal scientists envision a day when police could quickly swab saliva from drivers’ mouths and determine whether they have an illegal level of marijuana, but that will require years of research. Until then, police are in the same position they were with drunken driving in the 1950s, basing arrests on their professional judgment of each driver’s behavior and vital signs.
If police suspect a driver is stoned, they now administer a lengthy 12-point examination. The driver must walk a straight line and stand on one leg, estimate the passage of 30 seconds and have pupils, blood pressure and pulse checked.
Chuck Hayes, national coordinator for the International Association of Chiefs of Police based in Washington, D.C., says the system works well to identify impaired drivers, and any future legal limit or medical test would be just another tool rather than a revolutionary change.
“We are not concerned about levels or limits. We are concerned with impairment,” Hayes said.
Even among law enforcement experts, the need for a standard is debated. Many support tried-and-true policing methods that can ferret out stoned drivers.
“Everybody wants a magic number, because that makes it easy,” said Sarah Kerrigan, a toxicologist at Sam Houston State University in Texas and an expert witness in numerous trials.
“To have a law that says above a certain level you are impaired is not scientifically supportable. I don’t think police need the tool, but my opinion may be in the minority.”
But federal officials and local prosecutors argue that the lack of a standard makes convictions harder to obtain.
A San Diego jury last October acquitted Terry Barraclough, a 60-year-old technical writer and medical marijuana user, on manslaughter charges in a fatal crash that occurred shortly after he had smoked marijuana.
A blood test showed he had high levels of active marijuana ingredients in his blood, but the jury heard conflicting expert testimony from toxicologists about the possible effects.
Martin Doyle, the deputy district attorney who prosecuted Barraclough, said the acquittal shows that the lack of a formal legal limit on marijuana intoxication makes such prosecutions tough.
“We don’t have a limit in California, and that made my prosecution very difficult,” Doyle said. “We have a lapse in the law.”
But defense attorney Michael Cindrich said the failed prosecution shows that the San Diego district attorney was targeting medical marijuana users and that any legal limit would be unfair to the people who rely on the drug to treat their problems.
Indeed, Anthony Cardoza, an attorney who represented Flores in the Chico accident, said his client was not impaired and that allegations about his green tongue were ridiculous. Flores’ guilty plea was prompted by other legal issues, including a prior conviction for a drunken driving accident that caused an injury.
Marilyn Huestis, a toxicologist and one of the nation’s top experts on marijuana at the National Institute on Drug Abuse who is directing several research programs, said she believes there is no amount of marijuana that a person can consume and drive safely immediately afterward.
Supporters of marijuana legalization agree that the drug can impair a driver but argue that the effects wear off in a few hours. Huestis, however, said research is showing the effects of marijuana can linger.
Marijuana’s main ingredient – delta-9 THC – stays in the blood for an hour or more and then breaks down into metabolites that are both psychoactive and inert. But the impairing effects can linger, even after the THC is no longer in the blood, Huestis said. Because it can be absorbed into body tissue and slowly released for days, Huestis believes that heavy chronic daily users may be impaired in ways that are not yet understood.
A complicating factor is the tendency of many marijuana users to also use alcohol, which can sharply amplify impairment. Very little research has been conducted to determine whether it is possible to set limits on a combination of such drugs.
Paul Armentano, deputy director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said some states have laws that can punish users even when they are not high, pointing to a tough Arizona statute that allows conviction for impaired driving when an inert metabolite is detected in the blood.
Arizona officials said they wrote the law because there is no scientific agreement on how long marijuana impairs a driver. But proponents see something more sinister: an effort to put marijuana users in constant legal jeopardy.
“We are not setting a standard based on impairment, but one similar to saying that if you have one sip of alcohol you are too drunk to drive for the next week,” Armentano said.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
empyrius on July 03 at 2:25 a.m.
“Flores’ tongue had a green coat typical of heavy marijuana users”.
Never in my life has my tongue been green. They must be eating it or something; but alas, the sentence continues, “a later test showed he had pot, as well as other drugs, in his blood”.
“the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, … found that 16.3 percent of all drivers nationwide at night were on various legal and illegal impairing drugs, half them high on marijuana”.
And being that an estimated 8-11 million Americans smoke marijuana at least once a month, that would directly mirror the 8.15 percent of drivers “high on marijuana”. But even more, is that 8.15 percent solely “high on marijuana” or are they also drunk or on other drugs . . .
“In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers”. Yet no specific drugs are cited.
“Gil Kerlikowske, director of national drug control policy in the White House”, cites “data” and “from what I have heard”.
Well, from data I have seen (like the massive federal funds police agencies across the nation receive for persecuting marijuana conumsers), and, from what I have heard, too many law enforcement officers abuse alcohol too much to objectively analyze the effects of a “drug”, marijuana, that they don’t like anyway!
Now as far as the contention of Marilyn Huestis (a federal employee at NIDA), about marijuana “lingering” in our bodies; b/c marijuana uniquely binds with our fatty tissues as marijuana also uniquely binds with the cannabinoid receptors, receptors in our bodies that God made to specfically interact with marjuana cannabiniods no less), now this indeed is a very interesting topic in itself that I shall address this upcoming afternoon.
Keep it green! And light a freedom joint to celebrate the Declaration of Independence that our Founding Fathers wrote on the pot plant: o yea baby!
George Washington was a stoner, so let us Washingtonians pay homage to our first and greatest president by being the 1st state to re-legalize our Lord’s awesome herb.
Praise Jesus
oneanddone on July 03 at 6:16 a.m.
MJ users are like 2 year olds. They want what they want when they want it. And they don’t care about the consequences. If people want to get stoned on any drug, including alcohol, they should stay out of a car. If they don’t, the penalty should be painful. If they hurt someone, send them to Arpaio in Az.
eagleproducer on July 03 at 8:20 a.m.
oneanddone: The only thing missing from your latest rant is divine blessing. Why do you chose to disappoint me so?
I’m with Emp, I’ve never seen anyone with a “green tongue” and I know some VERY HEAVY users. The reason we have canabinoid receptors in our brains is because our brains naturally produce canabinoids.
I can smoke an ounce of the best weed on earth and still drive safely. It’s nonsense to declare marijuana causes motor impairment, vision, etc. It’s just another way for the state to make money and try to control the choices of adults.
Thoreau on July 03 at 9:29 a.m.
Okay, but the article doesn’t mention limitations / testing / illegality of other drugs that alter perception, like Vicodin.
That’s okay with the cops and the gov’t, because it’s “FDA Approved”. In other words, the pharmaceutical lobby has paid for a free pass to sell their dangerous opiates.
When will our society understand that there is a glaring double standard out there, when it comes to marijuana issues?
I’d rather be driving with a driver who puffed, than one who popped opiate pain killers.
Just another example of the anti-marijuana school demonizing this most natural of plants.
Celebrate our Independence in a green way !
empyrius on July 03 at 9:31 a.m.
oneanddone did I anywhere advocate smoking a joint and hopping into your car to drive? No I did not.
I do not advocate drinking alcohol and driving either.
I do not advocate taking prescription pain killers and driving either. Not that anyone would ever take their prescription drugs and drive …: wink wink.
Common sense bro.
Now about how marijuana “lingers in the body”; if anybody wants an informed discussion upon this topic just let me know . . .
Peace
empyrius on July 03 at 9:32 a.m.
Amen Thoreau.
lewis8457 on July 03 at 9:32 a.m.
more stupid propaganda, i know a lot of users and no one has a green tongue. Lets put that number against drunk drivers and i think you will see the number of accidents with a stoned person at the wheel is about the same percentage as old people dying at the wheel and taking somebody else out in the process.
They need to get us to believe the weed is bad so they can keep it outlawed and spend billions of dollars fighting something that is unstop able.
Kind of like trying to get the rain to stop falling.
I know of no stoned person that has ever ran over another person in a cross walk while texting and speeding. But our wonderful highly trained and highly paid police officers seem to be able to.
Maybe there STONED!
mrd on July 03 at 10:02 a.m.
Keep mj users off the road. I’ve known stoners over the years and have seen the many negative effects of short and long term useage of mj and we don’t need them on the road. Many mj users are just fooling themselves but that is to be expected when you want your next high.
My disappointment is that they didn’t start working on the mj and driving issues earlier so standards could be set.
jddavis on July 03 at 10:17 a.m.
One hand on the wheel and the other buried in a bag of Cheeto’s, right Eagle?
SpokyDaBear on July 03 at 10:23 a.m.
The story is based out in California. One has to question why the editors at the Spokesman chose to include this story in their paper unless they are trying to stir up local trouble.
MJ is a helpful drug for cancer patients.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on July 03 at 10:43 a.m.
Sorry this article lost ALL credibility in its first line that said he had a “green tongue.” Probably not the best to say on here, but I am a pretty heavy user of marijuana…..I choose to do this over drinking alcohol and at the end of the day I enjoy smoking some bowls to relax and unwind after the day……but never in my whole life have I ever had a green tongue. NEVER. Maybe if you eat LARGE amounts of it you can, but no, never if you smoke it, never EVER if you smoke it, no matter how much you smoke.
Stupid article that lost any and all credibility in its first line.
Ed Byrnes on July 03 at 12:04 p.m.
It is clear that more research is needed on differential effects of cannabis by dosage on levels of impairment.
It is also clear that with cannabis, like alcohol or any other substance, individuals remain responsible for using good judgment, such as not driving when stoned. It is very easy to (a) stay home when using cannabis, (b) arrange in advance for a designated driver, or (c) use taxi cabs if one is going out and knows they are or will be using cannabis.
Drivers who are impaired, by anything, must stay off the road.
Since cannabis laws are changing in our society because of public attitudes continually becoming more favorable toward decriminalization and legalization we need to research on dosage differentiated impairment to accelerate immediately. The research I have seen includes studies pointing both directions and don’t differentiate dosage levels as either an independent variable or covariate.
Establishing impairment levels based on physiological markers is a good idea for any substance, legal or not, as a public safety issue. Broadly using the absence of such markers to argue against changing laws is an overgeneralization since establishing such markers for narcotics and benzodiazepenes would also enhance public safety. This is an issue that is bigger than cannabis alone.
Ed
woamike on July 03 at 12:25 p.m.
“I can smoke an ounce of the best weed on earth and still drive safely. It’s nonsense to declare marijuana causes motor impairment, vision, etc.”
So says one of Spokane’s “finest” educators, the Karl Marx loving, tax-avoiding and pot smoking, EP. I can’t wait to vote “no” on the next levy. Not a nickel more for schools that have been infiltrated by “educators” such as this. Get rid of vermin like EP in our schools and I’ll personally lead the charge for more funding.
“I am a pretty heavy user of marijuana”
So says the ever lucid lib in right wing land.
I’m “shocked” at this revelation. Who would have thunk it? OBVIOUSLY, pot has NO effect on judgement. . .
Standing by for all you pot-heads out there to sing the virtues of pot (including “medical” MJ), tell us why it’s “better” or “safer” than alcohol, why it should be legalized and why you justify your personal consumption of yet another mood/mind altering drug.
woamike on July 03 at 12:49 p.m.
Yes, Ed, keep calling it “cannabis” and keep intellectualizing about getting high (low?) on weed - It makes it more “legitimate” and “mainstream”. Tell us how to “responsibly” get high and take appropriate safety measures when getting wasted. Soon people will be talking about weed like they do a “fine” brandy. What a “joyous” day that will be.
What do you recommend the “safe” dosage levels for your pilot or surgeon be? How much time should expire from getting wasted to getting behind the control wheel or scalpel? Oh, that’s right, we’ll have to leave that to “experts” to study the issues in expensive government funded studies. I’m sure we’ll get plenty of volunteers from this board to get high on the tax-payer’s dime.
We already have myriad problems with the legitimized drug alcohol and you pot-heads want to legitimize yet another.
Thanks, for nothing.
Ed Byrnes on July 03 at 1:37 p.m.
woamlike: You paint all people who use cannabis with one broad brush stroke. When I post here do I engage in that kind of behavior? I am fine with our disagreeing though I do ask that you treat me how I treat others.
Ed
empyrius on July 03 at 1:46 p.m.
mrd didn’t you mean to write, “Many ALCOHOL users are just fooling themselves but that is to be expected when you want your next high” . . .
Great level-headed comment ebyrnes: thank you.
Yes woamike eagleproducer was a little over the top …; but you know, I still cannot find John Quincy Adam’s signature on the Declaration of Independence . . .
But here are three reasons why marijuana should be re-legalized:
1) God created the marijuana plant (and contrary to popular opinion the U.S. government is not wiser than our Creator).
2) The only legal mind-altering drug readily available to the public is alcohol, which leaves one with no choice at all if one wants to legally get a little buzz on; so people who prefer effects of a naturally occuring plant suffer from the tyranny of alcohol users! So much for a “democracy” protecting the rights of a minority population . . .
3) Why do you want to police the actions of fellow adult Americans who are harming you not? Yes, yes, I know that the re-legalization of marijuana may indirectly affect you in this way or that way, but the current illegality of marijuana directly affects you in that the massive profits drug cartels make provides them with the money to buy quite deadly weaponry that the U.S. government must then further militarize itself to combat (which is seriously ironic in that one of the primary qualities of the marijuana plant itlsef is the relaxing high it provides the consumer . . .).
The dead bodies of innocent Mexican children gunned down by vicious thugs directly affects us all!
Furthermore woamike, the term “wasted” immedialtey conjures the images of drunken bar-room brawlers and waking up with some woman whose name you cannot recall; but I have never seen somebody take a couple of puffs and deemed them “wasted”.
If anybody is interested in a rather interesting read check this out (you might have to google a few words and phrases): “Endocannabinoids and exercise”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1724924/pdf/v038p00536.pdf
Peace
SugarShane on July 03 at 2:36 p.m.
“Soon people will be talking about weed like they do a “fine” brandy. What a “joyous” day that will be”.
Obviously someone has no indication of Cannabis culture, thats been going on for years, why do you think different strains have such groovy names?
Speaking of smoking and driving, have you seen due date?
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/due-date-clip-its-weed/5kitkt1
woamike on July 03 at 2:42 p.m.
Ed,
I think you feign thin skin. I stand behind the substance of what I wrote: romanticize and intellectualize pot smoking until the cows come home, it is still a mood/mind altering DRUG that we should not legitimize.
You are the most “dangerous” of the pot advocates as you are soft, subtle and give the illusion of being rational, unlike your fellow smoker empyrius (and others). Weak minded people will likely follow you and I expect someday we wil have another legitimized mood/mind altering drug beside alcohol to burden society. This must bring you great satisfaction.
That you would use your advocacy on something more productive than giving getting high legitimacy. . .
SMARTGUY on July 03 at 3:04 p.m.
All of these comments from regular marijuana users leave out one fact. This drug builds a tolerance in a regular user, so they only get SO high. someone who has not smoked before, or for 6 months gets WAY higher then a regular user. After I quit for 16 weeks I was not able to drive safely on even one bong hit, and two bong hits was like a hit of acid. Of course the regular users do not know this fact because their addiction does not let them go more than a week or two without getting high. After two days without marijuana they are so bitchy, angry, easily frustrated, and whine so much, someone gives them some marijuana, just to shut them up. Of course they are not “addicted” just expermenting. This is why whenever they run out, they spend hours scraping their pipes and bongs for resin to quiet the urge. Go without for 10 weeks and take a bong of good green bud, you will see what I mean, if you can last that long.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on July 03 at 3:17 p.m.
woamike, nice that you resort to attacking people who don’t share your views other than bringing logical opinions and facts to why you think it should stay legalized. Not helping your point with ranting hateful posts attacking me and others.
SMARTGUY on July 03 at 3:52 p.m.
Lib in … plenty of facts and logical opinions in my post, yet no response
Ed Byrnes on July 03 at 3:56 p.m.
A thought about cannabis specifically and prohibition in general from a couple of dangerous intellectuals…
“Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.”
- William F. Buckley Jr.
Conservative scholar who hosted “Firing Line” for many years
“Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”
-Abraham Lincoln
SMARTGUY on July 03 at 4:18 p.m.
If prohabition is wrong, why not legalize all drugs?
Ed Byrnes on July 03 at 4:29 p.m.
SMARTGUY,
I appreciate your sharing your experiences and as a fellow human being I hope that on the basis of these experiences you avoid cannabis.
I offer that thought on the basis that there are also people who should avoid alcohol, tobacco, or different types of prescription medications for similar reasons.
I respectfully suggest that your experience would not generalize to every individual who chooses to mildly alter their consciousness with cannabis. The same variety of experiences hold true for alcohol, tobacco and different prescription medications: Not every individual responds to an identical substance in an identical way.
Again I appreciate your bringing your experience to the discussion and ask you to consider that your experience is not the only possible experience that everyone has with cannabis. There are many recreational cannabis users who do so intermittently and for whom the lengths of abstinence that you stated in your post are routine and not problematic for them.
Ed
eagleproducer on July 03 at 4:50 p.m.
woamike: We don’t need your vote or money to keep schools going. Keep your brats at home, then you’d be doing someone a favor!
Where do you get off telling any adult what they can do with their body, especially an adult who is medically authorized to use Cannabis? You might want to revisit what this country was founded upon, just like every other member of the self-appointed morality police.
Get a life. The students in Spokane are lucky to have me as a teacher. I blow away the narrow minded morons like you who teach and kids actually enjoy learning while in my classes. And you better watch out what you ask for: If every liberal teacher who smoked weed left the profession you’d have a HUGE shortage of teachers.
SMARTGUY on July 03 at 4:53 p.m.
I have been growing and selling marajuana for thirty years to literaly hundreds of people, and stand by my opinions
jddavis on July 03 at 4:54 p.m.
EP—Seriously, you give yourself too much credit.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on July 03 at 5:01 p.m.
Eagle, if I had kids I would let you teach my kids any day over some of the people that post on here.
I actually would feel better knowing my teacher went home and smoked a bowl or two after work to relax over drinking a 6 pack of beer and beating his wife.
Sorry, we can be spending our money on better things than the lost drug war. We have locked up to many people on simple stupid possession charges and let out to many rapists, child molesters and murders to be able to hold the people arrested in this failed drug war.
jddavis on July 03 at 5:34 p.m.
Liberal—are you implying that teachers either smoke “a bowl or two” or drink “a six pack of beer and beat his {their} wife”? (Do female teachers drink a six and not beat their husbands?)
empyrius on July 03 at 5:42 p.m.
Did you read that ebyrnes? Woamike wrote that you are “soft, subtle and give the illusion of being rational, unlike your fellow smoker empyrius”. So I am hard, overt, and am rational (contrasting your “illusion” of rationality). Well, no need to be insulting ebyrnes like that woamike, but I do appreciate the compliment bro! Also woamike, if one does not advocate the re-legalization of marijuana in a newspaper article about marijuana, then where should we discuss re-legalizing marijuana?
SMARTGUY I have not had a puff in two weeks so will you give me some marijuana to shut me up???? I’ll meet you at the park and we can play some basketball and throw some burgers on the grill (I’ll bring my copy of Shakespeare too and we can groove on some verses) . . .
I must say though that the acid you dropped must have been some really really weak stuff b/c the acid I remember had me tripping!
But let me respond to a few of your assertions using the DEA’s own words:
You state, “This drug builds a tolerance in a regular user, so they only get SO high”.
The DEA contends that “We agree with the petitioner [Jon Gettman] that clinical studies do not
demonstrate tolerance to the “high” from marijuana”.
You state, “After two days without marijuana they are so bitchy, angry, easily frustrated, and whine so much, someone gives them some marijuana, just to shut them up”.
The DEA contends that, “Some authors describe a marijuana withdrawal syndrome consisting of
restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep EEG disturbances, nausea and cramping that resolves in days (Haney et al., 1999). This syndrome is mild compared to classical alcohol and barbiturate withdrawal phenomena, which may include agitation, paranoia, and seizures” (.20043).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-9306-filed
You can read through this entire document for some other points of argumentation, and your best bet would be trying to utilize the “statistics” regarding “drug mentions” and “emergency room visits” manufactured by a little revolving door group of government sponsored studies …: but I must admit to you that I have already thoroughly debunked the statistics these government sponsored “experts” have contrived.
Next SMARTGUY you state, “If prohabition [sic] is wrong, why not legalize all drugs”. While I must admit that the decriminalization of all drugs may have certain significant benefits to our society (you know, not criminalizing disease and addiction …), but cracked cocaine does not naturally occur, meth does not naturally occur; in stark contrast to a marijuana plant that grows from a seed, dirt, and water . . .
And now SMARTGUY you want to state that “I have been growing and selling marajuana [sic] for thirty years to literaly [sic] hundreds of people, and stand by my opinions”.
Omigosh! Now you are one of those “I want marijuana to stay illegal so I can make all the money selling it” types. Yea, I have meant your type far too often. Heavy sigh . . .
Again ebyrnes another well-mannered post at 4:29 p.m.: great job!
Peace
Ed Byrnes on July 03 at 7:33 p.m.
empyrius,
Thank you for confronting what was written about me, and for your thoughtful words about my postings.
Among the things that were written about me was that I was “…the most “dangerous” of the pot advocates…” which I consider a good thing. If my words are dangerous in discussing challenging the status quo I consider it a compliment.
Ed
SMARTGUY on July 03 at 8:04 p.m.
I no longer sell or grow because many of my customers and friends died in their late 40s and early 50s from heart attacks, marijuana is very hard on the heart. Also after thirty years of an eighth a day my memory was almost destroyed. You are wrong about the tolerance, stop for six months if you can, and write about it then. Danny Bonduce stopped for six months and described his first marijuana high afterwards the exact same way, like acid.The acid lasted much longer and was more intense but the effects were similar, it is classified as an hallucinogen for a reason. I was not tripping, just unsafe to drive the first few times I smoked again, until my tolerance went back up. Opium poppies grow naturally too. I said 6 months not two weeks, it is still in your system if you still test positive, took me 14 weeks to test negative. I do not know why you have such a strong opinion about legalizing, the dispensaries charged 16 dollars a gram, almost twice what I charged, before the tax man got involved. If they sell it in liquor stores you will still not be able to grow your own, and growing is more difficult then you think, especially when you are stoned all the time. You take the DEA’ s word on everything except to stop? All your arguments about alcohol make a better case for prohibition then legalizing something else. None of you seem to have a hard time getting it now, so why does legalization matter so much. If you want to smoke it go ahead, but legalizing it would encourage more people to try it, and become addicted.
misjustice on July 03 at 9:03 p.m.
I dunno, driving while under the influence of anything is dangerous; so if you are going to consume weed don’t drive afterwards. K?
I smoke it when I have it, and have also grown it. For years I did an indoors grow operation, for personal consumption only. And then for about 10 years I grew it outdoors, on my land, hidden in plain sight amongst my killer sunflowers and tomatoes. Growing my own meant that I did not contribute to “drug crime” and also that I had control over how the product was produced; no chemicals, no pesticides, no fungicides, just good pure water and sunshine and manure.
I have used for many years and most likely will never stop. I prefer weed over booze. I like how I feel when I use it, pure and simple. And if that makes me a horrible person, to folks like woamike, then so be it.
So, to recap; Socialist, Communist, Maoist, Taoist, Muslim, Radical, Hippy, Hyper-left Liberal, Liberal, Pot Smoking Rebel, Socialist, Live and Let Live, Live and Let Die, ObamaCare, Socialist, Hyper-Liberal, Slacker, Pot Smoker, The Nation Reading, Noam Chomsky Lecture Attender, ACLU/NAACP Lover, Carter Center Member, Crisis Line/Sexual Assault Victim’s Advocate Volunteer, U.S. Army Veteran, College Honors Graduate, Socialist, Liberal, Demoncrat, Soros, Muslim, NPR/PBS Supporter, Intellectual, Radical, ObamaCare, Socialist, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Heifer International, Political Science Major, Limo-Liberal, Arugula Eating and Chardonnay Drinking, Socialist, Pot Grower, Atheist, American.
Keep it lit; but don’t drive under the influence…
Just sayin’…
; )
idahocity on July 03 at 10:05 p.m.
i saw a guy drive by my house a few years ago trying to light his pipe and smoke it while he was driving. the pipe must have been barely an inch long because his hands and face were on top of the steeering wheel. he was crawling along, it was absurd,
i built a fence around my yard shortly after so my little girl wouldn’t wonder anywhere near the busy street.
i don’t use marijuana, but if i did i think i would just hit it before i started moving if i made the, what i think is dangerous, choice to use and travel.
an anecdotal, i have witnessed stoned people drive surprisingly well back in my collegiate days.
empyrius on July 03 at 11:12 p.m.
No problem ebyrnes! You have been by far the most thoughtful, non-combative, and linguistically composed poster on this thread. You may prove to be quite a compelling force in our war against the war on our Lord’s good green herb! Awesome!
Ok SMARTGUY, here we go:
You write, “after thirty years of an eighth a day my memory was almost destroyed”.
So for thirty years you suffered from a severe drug problem! I have never known anybody that smoked an eighth a day for any extended period of time; but because you could not control yourself you now believe that no mentally and physically healthy Americans can control themselves either. That is a vast projection of your personal failings upon tens of millions of other people and I can only conclude that your objectivity has been severely compromised by your extreme lifelong drug abuse.
You then write, “You are wrong about the tolerance”.
I did not offer my opinion about tolerance; I simply provided the opinion of the DEA.
Anything Danny Bonaduce has to say does not interest me in the least.
You are correct in that acid is classified as a hallucinogen. Marijuana is not classified as a hallucinogen.
Opium poppies do grow naturally …, in Afghanistan. But I do not think any of us bloggers here have the resources to take on the U.S. military, the Afghan drug lords, and the private American “contractors” that stand between us and those poppy fields! And I most certainly do not advocate the legalization of the unnatural heroin synthesized from those poppies that somehow make it to our American streets.
And you write that “If they sell it in liquor stores you will still not be able to grow your own”.
Why not? Jack Daniels manufactures their own alcohol, breweries in Spokane manufacture their own beer, and I know people that manufacture beer in their basements – legally.
You go on to write, “All your arguments about alcohol make a better case for prohibition then legalizing something else”.
You mean because so many tens of thousands of people die every year directly because of alcohol, that marijuana then should be illegal? Because a drunk murders a family with his car I should then not be able to smoke a little herb?!? How about instead of taking my God-given right to consume the marijuana plant away b/c of alcohol abusers why don’t you seek the prohibition of alcohol . . .
Lastly, you write, “why does legalization matter so much. If you want to smoke it go ahead, but legalizing it would encourage more people to try it, and become addicted”.
Because the re-legalization of marijuana would then allow responsible adult marijuana consumers to no longer by labeled criminals! And while legalization would probably very well encourage more people to try it, and yes, perhaps even some of those people may become lifelong drug abusers like you, the billions of dollars saved from no longer persecuting marijuana consumers, coupled with the massive resources that could then be reallocated to far more productive endeavors, in addition to the ample taxes to be garnered from the legal trade of the marijuana plant, would profoundly over-compensate for the few thousand people that could possibly develop abusive habits.
In conclusion, the most striking aspect of this overwhelming hypocrisy is this. There are three well moneyed and well armed (armed with guns and lawyers) primary forces that are against the re-legalization of marijuana; drug companies, vicious and well-connected gangs of thugs, and the U.S. government (did I just repeat myself?)! Seeing such powerful forces fighting against the legalization of marijuana makes one fact unmistakably clear:
We, the people of Washington State, must rid ourselves of this axis of evil now! And soon this shall democratically come to pass!
Peace
babydriver on December 08 at 6:39 p.m.
Eagleproducer, gimme a break.
Smoke an ounce of the good stuff and still drive? An OUNCE??? Please edit that.