Schwarzenegger Decriminalizes Marijuana in California

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

It's DONE. Senate Bill 1449 is SIGNED. The new law takes effect January 1st, 2011.



If you are caught with less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in California, according to state law there will be no court costs. There will be no court appearance. There will be no misdemenors. There will be ABSOLUTELY NO JAIL TIME.


The worst thing that can happen to you, according to the law, is a fine not to exceed $100 dollars. It is counted as an "infraction". You will still be eligible for college loans. You will still be eligible for work. The infractions will not be available to anybody running a background check on you.

Bill Introduced - http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1449_bill_20100219_introduced.pdf
Bill Amended - http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1449_bill_20100405_amended_sen_v98.pdf
Bill Enrolled - http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1449_bill_20100902_enrolled.pdf

Floor of the assembly text: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1449_cfa_20100625_150316_asm_floor.html

Vote Record: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1449_vote_20100830_0517PM_asm_floor.html

(Voted: AYE 43. Voted: NO 33.) (PASS)

[silversurfer]

ARNOLD IS NUMERO UNO

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/abc11239v/arnold-joint-smoker.jpg

[sirgonzo420]

Ahnold has also said "it's not a drug; it's a leaf".... which is kinda stupid, seeing as how people generally smoke the buds and not the leaves of the cannabis plant.

Oh well - he's foreign and doesn't know any better.

[Ash_Williams]

Definitely a step in the right direction.

A libertarian once told me, we think the world is going into the shitter because we always are told the stories that make us angry. You read a libertarian newsletter and it's all about freedoms being trampled and so on, to get us mad and involved!

If you go and read a socialist newsletter, on the other hand, the news seems very good to us!

This didn't get posted here but a couple days ago the Ontario Superior Court struck down Canada's prostitution laws as unconstitutional. Some more news that will please a certain crowd and enrage another.

[ximmy]

About how much is "28.5 grams"... bulk I mean is it a baggy full... could I plant one in my backyard and sell the buds... ;D

[Gaillo]

While I'm no fan of Aaaaahhhhnolld, I'm even less of a fan of drug prohibition. Way to go California... a small step in the right direction toward individual rights! :)

[joe_momma]

This is bad news - I could tolerate legalization (I don't really care about smoking pot - adults making adult choices) as long as they accept the consequences.

However, I am strongly opposed to encouraging pot use because I ride a motorcycle - it is bad enough with the drunks and cell phone users now in addition to the the occasional "vapor trail" from someone sparking up in the car ahead - the spike in stoned driving poses a significant risk to me.

[SLV^GLD]

About how much is "28.5 grams"Stateside it's called an ounce.

[ximmy]

About how much is "28.5 grams"Stateside it's called an ounce.

[hoarder]

Far out hippy freaky outta sight man!

Now Californians can stay stoned legally while their state is annexed into Mexico.

[SLV^GLD]

That actually looks light considering how non-compressed the buds are. I would guess that to be between 10-15 grams without the bag. It looks like it might weigh an ounce with the bag because that is one thick looking bag. I googled "ounce of kind bud" to find this example of what a one ounce bag of non-compressed buds generally looks like:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/radiohead0o0/DSC00895.jpg

Properly delivered weights are for the raw goods and should not include the bag's weight, that particular behavior is known as "shady".

[ximmy]

yeah, but...

"This shit is top of the line. It's called G-13. It's genetically engineered by the U.S. Government. It's extremely potent, but a completely mellow high. No paranoia."

[Carbon]

... the spike in stoned driving poses a significant risk to me.



You're ill-informed. People who smoke and drive - drive slower and safer... not the other way around.

I've had a MC license for 30 years - I'd rather a bunch of smokers on the road while I'm out there than drinkers or teen's with cell phones any day of the week.

Read the facts and deprogram yourself before spewing your propaganda-driven fear.

[Serpo]

WOW at last...

[joe_momma]

... the spike in stoned driving poses a significant risk to me.



You're ill-informed. People who smoke and drive - drive slower and safer... not the other way around.

I've had a MC license for 30 years - I'd rather a bunch of smokers on the road while I'm out there than drinkers or teen's with cell phones any day of the week.

Read the facts and deprogram yourself before spewing your propaganda-driven fear.



I must disagree - the issues to me (I've ridden street bikes for 25 years) are:
1) There will be more impaired drivers on the road - simply put there will be more opportunity for errors
2) yes, they tend to drive slower though getting hit at 30 mph rather than 40 will still hurt
3) Stoned people have been known to do "stupid" things - they tend to miss stop signs, stop signals, and "do not enter" or "one way" signs (just like drunks and cell phoners)

If you can show clinical studies where a stoned driver is just as able to respond to typical road situations as a non-distracted/impaired driver I would greatly appreciate it - that way I would not have to spew my (misinformed) propaganda driven fear.

[platinumdude]

I am pretty sure this bill doesn't all driving under the influence. It would be treated the same and drinking alcohol and driving.

[Ash_Williams]

Smokers in general I find make fucking terrible drivers because they are out there for a smoke, not to drive. When I pass a driver that appears to be totally unaware of what is happening, it's usually a smoker or a cell-phoner, though sometimes just an old guy.

Just this noon hour I almost had one run into me as he blew through a red light where I was turning right. I caught up to him and sure enough he was chillin' with his smoke, not a care in the world. Window was open so I yelled over at him "What, the light wasn't fucking red enough for you?" and he looked back confused... no idea what the issue was... too busy exploring flavor country.

Gotta say, whatever laws are in place, you'll never catch me riding a motorcycle in the city. I've been smacked into on several occasions... the last was an 81 year old lady that got the pedals confused. Had she not hit my enormous station wagon first she would have likely have creamed someone in a smaller car or on the sidewalk and killed them. At least in a large car or truck you stand a chance of walking away.

[joe_momma]

I am pretty sure this bill doesn't all driving under the influence. It would be treated the same and drinking alcohol and driving.


Correct - this does not allow driving while stoned, but it stands to reason when possession is decriminalized there will be an increase in use. An increase in use will see corresponding rise in persons driving while using. (Typically, I'll pull up behind active burners just driving to and from work a couple of times a week now, when possession is illegal - this frequency will increase with decriminalization IMHO.)

As I understand it, the standard for driving under the influence of pot in California doesn't have a clinical test (where alcohol does - 0.08 BAC) - it seems to be up to the judgment of police officer to decide if you are or are not impaired [this is true for everything other than alcohol (e.g., cold medicine, NyQuil)] - a very subjective and arbitrary standard which sets the stage for abuse.

I do not think the urine/blood tests can conclusively show impairment at the time of the stop since THC remains in the body long after the effects have worn off. Perhaps a breathalyzer type test, but again, as I understand it, there is no legal definition is in place (if the pot breathalyzer exists).

A DUI in California will run upwards of $10,000 in costs. I do not smoke, but I'm not comfortable living a financially strapped state suddenly having the ability to subjectively decide someone is impaired based on the judgment of an individual (and having no recourse to dispute the allegation) based on smelling of pot, seeing evidence in the ash tray, and an officer's written statement.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) used stoned drivers on simulators, and concluded that the only statistically significant effect associated with marijuana use was slower driving.

A comprehensive 1992 study by the NHTSA found that marijuana is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. It concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers. While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

Another NHTSA study performed in 1993 dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia analyzed blood samples from 2,500 accidents, and found that drivers with cannabis in their system were actually slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without.

A University of Toronto study released in March 1999 found that moderate pot users typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed than non-users.

The British study also found that tiredness caused 10% of all fatal accidents, compared with 6% for alcohol.


Use may rise, but cannabis is not overhwhelmingly responsible for vehicle accidents - although I agree that some people are stupid. Those people would be stupid without cannabis, too. Don't you think it's interesting that cannabis lowers risk-taking behavior?

[Carbon]

Lol... I bet your one of those tough Harley drivers, all duded-out in black leather, skulls and crossbones. But just look at ya - cryin' for Joe's mommy because a law was actually diminished for the first time in decades and there's 1/1000000 chance it will negatively affect you.

Boo hoo. Suck it up big guy - freedom comes with risk... as does a police state. I'll take freedom.

[joe_momma]

Lol... I bet your one of those tough Harley drivers, all duded-out in black leather, skulls and crossbones. But just look at ya - cryin' for Joe's mommy because a law was actually diminished for the first time in decades and there's 1/1000000 chance it will negatively affect you.

Boo hoo. Suck it up big guy - freedom comes with risk... as does a police state. I'll take freedom.



Nope - a BMW - Harleys are too short.

By the way, I much prefer less regulation and more personal freedom and responsibility, but your personal freedom ends as soon as it affects someone else.

To insist that your freedom allows to you to force others to bear the risk of your choices is both foolish and short sighted.

[Horn]

yeah, but...

"This sh*t is top of the line. It's called G-13. It's genetically engineered by the U.S. Government. It's extremely potent, but a completely mellow high. No paranoia."


Its effect are currently being studied.

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/34500/Monster-Snail-34969.jpg

[ximmy]

yeah, but...

"This sh*t is top of the line. It's called G-13. It's genetically engineered by the U.S. Government. It's extremely potent, but a completely mellow high. No paranoia."


Its effect are currently being studied.

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/34500/Monster-Snail-34969.jpg
;D

off topic... btw... Do space aliens really prefer cat food?

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
By Robbe HWJ, O'Hanlon JF
November 1993

Conducted by Institute for Human Psychopharmacology University of Limburg Abstract 2A-6211 LS Maastricht -- Netherlands
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Disclaimer

This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers' name or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.

Abstract

Abstract: This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the results of one pilot and three actual driving studies. The pilot study's major purpose was to establish the THC dose current marijuana users smoke to achieve their desired "high". From these results it was decided that the maximum THC dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 mcg / kg (0.3 mg / kg). The first driving study was conducted on a closed section of a primary highway. After smoking marijuana delivering THC doses of 0, 100, 200, and 300 mcg / kg, subjects drove a car while maintaining a constant speed and lateral position. This study was replicated with a new group of subjects, but now in the presence of other traffic. In addition, a car following test was executed. The third driving study compared the effects of a modest dose of THC (100 mcg / kg) and alcohol )BAC of 0.04 g %) on city driving performance. This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.

Executive Summary

This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the results of one pilot and three actual driving studies which were conducted between April 1990 and March 1992. The program was funded by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), with the exception of the alcohol part of the city driving study which was sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Transport and Public Works. The project was conducted by the Institute for Drugs, Safety and Behavior of the University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. The major objectives of the program were to determine the dose-response relationship between delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana's main constituent, and objectively and subjectively measured aspects of real-world driving; and, to determine whether it is possible to correlate driving performance impairment with plasma concentrations of the drug or a metabolite. A variety of driving tests were employed, including: maintenance of a constant speed and lateral position during uninterrupted highway travel, following a leading car with varying speed on a highway, and city driving. The purpose of applying different tests was to determine whether similar changes in performance under the influence of THC occur in all, thereby indicating a general drug effect on driving ability.

Chapter One provides background information about the drug, its pharmacological properties, the prevalence of its use, and a review of marijuana smoking and traffic safety. THC's effects on the ability of drivers to operate safely in traffic situations have traditionally been determined in two ways: from epidemiological surveys of users' involvement in traffic accidents and from empirical studies to measure the drug's influence on skills related to driving, or driving itself. Epidemiology shows that people drive after marijuana use and that drivers involved in accidents often show the drug's presence. The results are, however, inconclusive because of the high proportion of cases which also involve alcohol use and the lack of proper control groups. There, the extent marijuana contributes to traffic accident causality remains obscure. Results from driving simulator and closed-course tests show that THC in single inhaled doses up to about 250 mcg / kg has relatively minor effects on driving performance, certainly less than blood alcohol concentrations (BAC's) in the range of 0.08-0.10 g-%.

Chapter Two describes the studies of the program and certain procedures that were common to all. These were subject recruiting, compliance with ethical and legal standards, screening for the presence of other illicit drugs and alcohol, blood sampling procedures and quantitative analyses. Subjects in all studies were recreational users of cannabis, i.e. smoking marijuana or hashish more than once a month but not daily. They were all healthy, between 21 and 40 years of age, had normal weight and binocular acuity, and were licensed to drive an automobile. Subjects were accompanied in every driving test by a licensed driving instructor, experienced in supervising subjects who operated under the influence of medicinal drugs in previous studies. Redundant control system in the test vehicle was available for controlling the car if emergency situations should arise. Marijuana and placebo marijuana cigarettes were supplied by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). [Isn't it curious that a study done in the Netherlands used NIDA supplied marijuana? It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get NIDA supplied marijuana in the U.S. for these kind of studies or medical studies.]

Chapter Three presents the results of the pilot study. It was conducted in a hospital under strict medical supervision to identify THC doses that recreational marijuana users were likely to consume before driving. Twenty-four subjects, twelve males and twelve females, participated. They were allowed to smoke part or all of the THC content in three cigarettes until achieving the desired psychological effect. Cigarettes were smoked through a plastic holder in a manner determined by the subjects. The only requirement was to smoke continuously for a perod not exceeding 15 minutes. When subjects voluntarily stopped smoking, cigarettes were carefully extinguished and retained for subsequent gravimetric estimation of THC consumed. Six subjects consumed one cigarette, thirteen smoked two and four smoked three. The average amount of THC consumed was 20.8 mg, after adjustment for body weight, 308 mcg / kg [of body weight]. There was no significant difference between males and females with respect to the weight adjusted preferred dose. It was decided that the maximum dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 mcg / kg. This is considerably higher than doses that have usually been administered to subjects in experimental studies (typically, 100-200 mcg / kg THC).

The study provided the opportunity for obtaining valuable information about THC's pharmacokinetics and its pharmacodynamic effects after marijuana smoking. Blood samples were repeatedly taken for measuring plasma concentrations of THC and its major inactive metabolite, THC-COOH. The subjects repeatedly performed certain simple laboratory tests, estimated their levels of intoxication and indicated their willingnes to drive under several specified conditions of urgency. Heart rate was measured at these times. The secondary purpose of the pilot study was that of specifying relationships between (THC) and (THC-COOH) with changes in the other physiological, performance or subjective variables. Other results from the pilot study showed that perceived "high" and heart rate are very sensitive measures of marijuana intoxication which confirms prior findings. Impairments in laboratory tests performance were found at the time of peak subjective feelings but generally, objective impairment dissipated more rapidly than lthe feelings themselves.

The first driving study, described in Chapter Four, was conducted on a highway closed to other traffic. One objective of the study was to determine whether it would be safe to repeat the study on a normal highway in the presence of other traffic. The second objective was to define the dose-effect relationship between inhaled THC dose and driving performance. The same twelve men and twelve women who participated in the pilot study served again as the subjects. They were treated on separate occasions with THC doses of 0, 100, 200, 300 mcg / kg. Treatments were administered double-blind and in a counterbalanced order. On each occasion, subjects performed a road tracking test beginning 40 minutes after initiation of smoking and repeated one hour later. The test, developed and standardized by O'Hanlon et al. (1982, 1986), involved maintaining a constant speed at 90 km / h (56 mph) and a steady lateral position between the delineated boundaries of the traffic lane. Subjects drove 22 km (13.6 mi) on a primary highway and were accompanied by a licensed driving instructor. The latter was charged with responsibility for ensuring safety at all times and was able to intervene, if necessary, using redundant vehicular controls. The primary dependent variable was the standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), which has been shown to be both highly reliable and very sensitive to the influence of sedative drugs and alcohol. Other dependent variables were mean speed, and standard deviation of speed and steering wheel angle. Blood samples were taken prior to each driving test; and, performance in critical tracking and hand steadiness tests, heart rate, and blood pressure were measured after its termination. Questionnaires were repeatedly administered to estimate the "high" and other subjective feelings.

All subjects were willing and able to finish the driving tests without great difficulty. The study demonstrated that marijuana impairs driving performance as measured by an increase in SDLP; all three THC doses significantly affected SDLP relative to placebo. The driving performance decrement after smoking marijuana persisted almost undiminished for two hours after smoking while drug plasma concentrations, perceived "high" and heart rate elevation had decreased. Marijuana's effects on SDLP were compared to those of alcohol obtained in a very similar study by Louwerens et al. (1985, 1987). It appeared that THC's effects on SDLP were equivalent to those associated with BAC's in the range of 0.03-0.07 g %. Other driving performance measures were not significantly affected by THC. Intersubject correlations between plasma concentrations of the drug and driving performance after every dose were essentially nil. Thus, driving impairment cannot be predicted by prevailing plasma concentrations of THC or THC-COOH. Driving impairment was also not related to performance in the laboratory tests. Both the observed degree of driving impairment, and what subjects said and did, indicated that normal safeguards would be sufficient for ensuring safety in further testing. Hence, the final conclusion was to repeat this study on a normal highway in the presence of other traffic.

The second driving study, described in Chapter Five, was conducted to come a step closer to driving reality than its predecessor. Driving tests were now conducted on a highway in the presence of other traffic. The major objective of this study was to confirm the relationship between inhaled THC dose and lateral position variability in the context of a standard road tracking test. A secondary objective was to measure performance in another actual driving test, i.e. car following. The third objective was to continue efforts to correlate plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH with driving performance impairment as measured in both tests.

A new group of sixteen subjects, equally comprised of men and women, participated in this study. A conservative approach was chosen in designing the present study in order to satisfy the series design where both active drug and placebo conditions were administered, double-blind, at each of three THC dose levels. THC doses were the same as those used in the previous study, namely 100, 200, and 300 mcg / kg. Cigarettes appeared identical at each level of treatment conditions and were smoked through a plastic holder in a fashion determined by the subject within a time limit of 10 minutes. If any subject would have reacted in an unacceptable manner to a lower dose, he / she would not have been permitted to receive a higher dose.

Two subjects at a time commenced smoking. Thirty minutes after onset of smoking the subjects performed a battery of laboratory tests (tracking, hand steadiness and body sway), yielded a blood sample, and rated their "high" and other subjective feelings. They were then transported to a primary highway where the driving tests were performed. Two instrumented vehicles were employed. The subjects performed the car following test on a 16 km (9.9 mi) segment of the highway for about twelve minutes. After conclusion of the car following test, both subjects then commenced the road tracking test in separate instrumented vehicles. The highway was the same as for the car following test. Subjects drove 64 km (40 mi) without stopping in about 50 minutes. At the conclusion of this test, both subjects participated again in the car following test. Subjects were then transported back to the laboratory where they rated subjective feelings, yielded a blood sample, and repeated the test battery. The subjects' heart rate was registered continuously during both driving tests.

The road tracking test was the same as in the previous study except for its duration and the presence of other traffic. Subjects were instructed to maintain a constant speed of 95 km / h (59 mph) and a steady lateral position between lane boundaries in the right traffic lane. They were allowed to deviate from this only if it would become necessary to pass a slower vehicle in the same lane. Data from the standart test were analyzed to yield the same performance measures as in the previous study; i.e. SDLP, mean and standard deviation of speed, and standard deviation of steering wheel angle. The car following test measures drivers' ability to perceive changes in a preceding vehicle's speed and to react in a manner maintaining a constant headway. It began as the preceding and the following vehicle, respectively driven by one of the driving instructors and the subject, operated in tandem on the slower traffic lane while travelling at a speed of 100 km / h (62 mph). The subject was instructed to maintain a 50 m (164 ft) headway however the preceding vehicle's speed might vary. After driving in this manner for about one minute, the operator of the preceding vehicle released the accelerator pedal allowing its speed to fall to 80 km / h (50 mph). Immediately thereafter, the operator of the preceding vehicle accelerated to 100 km / (62 mph). The duration of one deceleration and acceleration maneuver was approximately 50 seconds and six to eight, depending upon traffic density, were executed during one test. The subject's average reaction time to the movements of the leading vehicle, mean headway and coefficient of variation of headway during maneuvers were taken as the dependent variables from this.

All subjects were able to complete the series without suffering any untoward reaction while driving. Road tracking performance in the standard test was impaired in a dose-related manner by THC and confirmed the results obtained in the previous closed highway study. The 100 mcg / kg dose produced a slight elevation in mean SDLP, albeit nearly significant. The 200 mcg / kg dose produced a significant elevation, of dubious practical relevance. The 300 mcg / kg dose produced a highly significant elevation which may be viewed as practically relevant but unexceptional in comparison with similarly measured effects of many medicinal drugs. Following marijuana smoking subjects drove with an average speed that was only slightly lower than after placebo and very close to the prescribed level.

In the car following test, subjects maintained a headway of 45-50 m (148-164 ft) while driving in the successive placebo conditions. They lengthened mean headway by 8, 6 and 2 m (26.2, 19.7 and 6.6 ft) in the corresponding THC conditions after 100, 200 and 300 mcg / kg, respectively. The initially large drug-placebo difference and its subsequent decline is a surprising result. Our explanation for this observation is that the subjects' caution was greatest the first time they undertook the test under the influence of THC and progressively less thereafter. Reaction time to changes in the preceding vehicle's speed increased following THC treatment, relative to placebo. The administered THC dose was inversely related to the change in reaction time, as it was to headway. However, increased reaction times were partly due to longer headway. Statistical adjustment for this confounding resulted in smaller and non-significant increases in reaction time following marijuana treatment, the greatest impairment (0.32 s) being observed in the first test following the lowest THC dose. Headway variability followed a similar pattern as mean headway and reaction time; the greatest impairment was found following the lowest dose.

An important practical objective of this study was to determine whether degrees of driving impairment can be accurately predicted from either measured concentrations of THC in plasma or performance measured in potential roadside "sobriety" tests of tracking ability or hand and posture stability. The results, like many reported before, indicate that none of these measures accurately predicts changes in actual driving performance under the influence of THC.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

cont....


The program then proceeded into the third driving study, presented in Chapter Six, which involved tests conducted in high-density urban traffic. There were logical and safety reasons for restricting the THC dose to 100 mcg / kg. It was given to a group of regular cannabis users, along with placebo. For comparative purposes another group of regular alcohol users were treated with a modest dose of their preferred recreational drug, and again placebo, before undertaking the same city driving test. Two groups of sixteen new subjects apiece, equally comprised of men and women, participated. Subjects in the alcohol group were regular users of alcohol but not marijuana. Both groups were treated on separate occasions with active drug and placebo. Active marijuana was administered to deliver 100 mcg / kg THC. The driving test commenced 30 minutes after smoking. The alcohol dose was chosen to yield a BAC approaching 0.05 g % when the driving test commenced 45 minutes after onset of drinking. Active drug and placebo conditions were administered double-blind and in a counterbalanced order in each group.

Driving tests were conducted in daylight over a constant 17.5 km (10.9 mi) route within the city limits of Maastricht. Subjects drove their placebo and active drug rides through heavy, medium and low density traffic on the same day of the week, and at the same time of day. Two scoring methods were employed in the present study. The first, "molar" approach, required the driving instructor acting as the safety controller during the tests to retrospectively rate the driver's performance using a standard scale. The second, a more "molecular" approach, involved the employment of a specially trained observer who applied simple and strict criteria for recording when the driver made or failed to make each in a series of observable responses at predetermined points along a chosen route. Immediately prior to and following the driving tests subjects performed hand steadiness and time perception tests, yielded a blood sample, and were administered the same subjective questionnaires used in the previous studies.

The study showed that a modest dose of alcohol (BAC = 0.04 g %) produced a significant impairment in city driving as measured by the molar approach, relative to placebo. More specifically, alcohol impaired vehicle handling and traffic maneuvers. Marijuana, administered in a dose of 100 mcg / kg THC, on the other hand, did not signifcantly change mean driving performance as measured by this approach. Neither alcohol nor marijuana significantly affected driving performance measures obtained by the molecular approach indicating that it may be relatively insensitive to drug-induced changes.

Driving quality as rated by the subjects contrasted with observer ratings. Alcohol impaired driving performance according to the driving instructor but subjects did not perceive it; marijuana did not impair driving performance but the subjects themselves perceived their driving performance as such. Both groups reported about the same amount of effort in accomplishing the driving test following placebo Yet only subjects in the ;marijuana group reported significantly higher levels of invested effort following the active drug. Thus, there was evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self-critical after consuming low THC doses by smoking marijuana.

The laboratory performance tests also discriminated between the drugs' effects. Hand steadiness was impaired following THC and improved following alcohol, relative to placebo. The difference between the drugs' effects was significant, both before and after the driving test. Impairment after THC was about as much as that produced by the same dose in the previous study, indicating equivalent sensitivities of the present and previous groups. Production of time intervals was not affected by alcohol, but THC significantly shortened interval production, relative to placebo.

Drug plasma concentrations were neither related to absolute driving performance scores nor to the changes that occurred from placebo to drug conditions. With respect to THC, these results confirm the findings in previous studies. They are somewhat surprising for alcohol but may be due to the restricted range of ethanol concentrations in the plasma of different subjects.

Chapter Seven concludes the report with a general discussion of the results of the program and ends with list of conclusions and recommendations. It starts with a discussion of the THC dose which marijuana users actually prefer for achieving their desired "high." Several questions are raised and discussed, such as: how do people regulate their THC consumption, what role plays familiarization with the drug, and what would the preferred dose have been if marijuana of much higher potency were smoked. The discussion then continues with a description of the differences between the driving tests in terms of the type of information processing each requires, automatic vs controlled, and the relevance of each to traffic safety.

Attention is further focussed on the effects of THC on driving performance. The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 mcg /kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. Standard deviation of lateral position in the road tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC's adverse effects. This is because road tracking is primarily controlled by an automatic information processing system which operates outside of conscious control The process is relatively impervious to environmental changes but highly vulnerable to internal factors that retard the flow of information through the system. THC and many other drugs are among these factors. When they interfere with the process that restricts SDLP, there is little the afflicted individual can do by way of compensation to restore the situation. Car following and, to a greater extent, city driving performance depend more on controlled information processing and are therefore more accesible for compensatory mechanisms that reduce the decrements or abolish them entirely.

It appears that performance is more affected by THC in laboratory than actual driving tests. Several reasons that may account for the apparent discrepancy are discussed. First, laboratory tests are experimentally controlled by drastic simplification which may affect a subjects motivation to perform the test by making it appear "unreal." Secondly, the restriction of response options in laboratory performance tests leave fewer possibilities for compensation. In real life, drivers always apply numerous skills in parallel and series. Should one become deficient, they are often able to compensate in a number of ways to achieve a satisfactory level of proficiency. Finally, after learning to drive, subjects possess such skills in abundance and one can only demonstrate how they vary with drug effects in the real task or a very close approximation thereof. Profound drug impairment constituting an obvious traffic safety hazard could as easily be demonstrated in a laboratory performance test as anywhere else. But THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses. It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in real driving.

Marijuana's effects on driving performance were compared to those of many other drugs. It was concluded that THC's effects after doses up to 300 mcg / kg never exceed alcohol's at BAC's of 0.08 g %; and were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs'. Yet THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies stronly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence. Still one can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol

Finally, the relation between driving impairment following marijuana smoking and plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH is discussed. It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his / her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

It's probably always going to be illegal to smoke cannabis while driving.

People broke that law during cannabis-prohibition, and they'll break that law during the current decriminilization. Even after the effects of SB1449 take place, there will still be laws making it illegal to drive while smoking cannabis. That won't change. But people will break that law anyway, just like they currently do.


So why, if you KNOW FOR A FACT that people are going to smoke and drive whether it's illegal, legal, or decriminilized, would ANYBODY support the system that also adds on jail time for mere posession of a harmless plant? It is harmful ONLY if you do irresponsible things with it.

By supporting jail time, you're encouraging a system that turns young people into criminals. Young people don't become criminals by having a beer or smoking a joint. They become criminals when they go to jail for those mistakes, and are forced to become violent in order to survive. Or when the system rapes them of all their money and future work opportunities.


If they actually harm somebody, throw the book at them. Joe_mamma, I don't wish it on anybody to be in a motorcycle accident. They're horrible. I'd be first in line asking for capital punishment if somebody hit you off your bike. But I want to punish the actual crime - I don't want to engage in this wishy washy attempt to socially engineer behavior and make people act a certain way...especially since anecdotal evidence suggests that they're just going to do it anyway...

I know you're a good, freedom minded guy and that you're just expressing concern - but honestly I don't really see the negative with removing the jail time associated with smoking in your own living room.

[Horn]

;D

off topic... btw... Do space aliens really prefer cat food?


I own 3 of them, but never overheard them talking about it.

I will try to listen next time.

[joe_momma]

Thanks for the article TheNocturnalEgyptian - I'll read this when I get home.

The entire legalization of drugs issue is way to complex for a simple person like me. Had a sister-in-law who was a junkie (and all that that lifestyle entailed) - HepC killed her 5 years ago - watched my sister's family go through decades of pain.

Dunno that jail time is the answer for pot possession/use (or even appropriate) like every other recreational drug, it is something society needs to decide how to handle - it seems likely California will leaglize pot in the next couple of years (if not this November, in another couple of years), and as California goes, so goes the nation.

(Question is pot legal in Islamic countries? I'm pretty sure it is not in Saudi Arabia [where nothing is appear to be legal]?).

My "selfish" objection to decriminalizing pot is that it will make the streets more unsafe for others - again, as an adult do what you want to yourself, but never assume that you have the right to affect others in your own pursuit of freedom.

[joe_momma]

;D

off topic... btw... Do space aliens really prefer cat food?


I own 3 of them, but never overheard them talking about it.

I will try to listen next time.


Not sure about space aliens but I am certain raccoons and skunks really do.

[ximmy]

;D

off topic... btw... Do space aliens really prefer cat food?


I own 3 of them, but never overheard them talking about it.

I will try to listen next time.


Not sure about space aliens but I am certain raccoons and skunks really do.


I was just asking because the next time I offer them a peace pipe, should I (being a good host) have a cat food munchy platter as well...

[osoab]

;D

off topic... btw... Do space aliens really prefer cat food?


I own 3 of them, but never overheard them talking about it.

I will try to listen next time.


Not sure about space aliens but I am certain raccoons and skunks really do.


I was just asking because the next time I offer them a peace pipe, should I (being a good host) have a cat food munchy platter as well...


You think you are going to run into these guys ximmy? :ROFL:

http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/district-9-chinese-subtitles-560x308.jpg

[Horn]

http://api.ning.com/files/rKarppPCATO8dJfB5EuRzXxgPwWRS9uUjev*VhIDBY0D3nfiAb VCJrVHus3Z5bjTU7Ebm0WNFNfkdgDxZbkDztdnS9kcojT-/259849CIKh_w.jpg

[mike88]

so basically a 100.00/oz. tax[ infraction fee] keeps the G looking good to the puritan voters and produces some revenue for the state. legal prescription drugs are far more likely to impair a driver in my opinion. alcohol the worst of the three as far as acting stupid.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Thanks for the article TheNocturnalEgyptian - I'll read this when I get home.

The entire legalization of drugs issue is way to complex for a simple person like me. Had a sister-in-law who was a junkie (and all that that lifestyle entailed) - HepC killed her 5 years ago - watched my sister's family go through decades of pain.

Dunno that jail time is the answer for pot possession/use (or even appropriate) like every other recreational drug, it is something society needs to decide how to handle - it seems likely California will leaglize pot in the next couple of years (if not this November, in another couple of years), and as California goes, so goes the nation.

(Question is pot legal in Islamic countries? I'm pretty sure it is not in Saudi Arabia [where nothing is appear to be legal]?).

My "selfish" objection to decriminalizing pot is that it will make the streets more unsafe for others - again, as an adult do what you want to yourself, but never assume that you have the right to affect others in your own pursuit of freedom.



Good question, Joe_mamma.

Most Islamic countries see pot (kefir, as they call it) as less harmful than alcohol, but most still prohibit it. There is a large culture of use in places like morocco - in fact, kefir is their largest export. But in countries like Saudi Arabia, you can be deported or sent to jail for even having 1 molecule of cannabis on the bottom of your shoe! (They claim to have the technology to conveniently detect this.)

The short answer is, in most islamic countries, it's not legal, but people do it anyway, just like here.
And in most islamic countries, the illegality of the plant is a very recent development....just like here.

[Horn]

So when's cocaine going to be available?

I have silver starting to tarnish.

[willie pete]

Well IF I had to choose between a stoner or a drunk on the road, I'd have to go with the stoner....if the guy (girl) was drunk enough, they'd hit you and maybe not even know it....but a stoner would probably FREAKOUT :o :o Something else is the $$$'s it will save Kali in prosecuting minor,personal; use, cases

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

So when's cocaine going to be available?

I have silver starting to tarnish.


When the late Pope John Paul II visited Bolivia a few years ago, he was served, and did drink, coca tea. It was in all the newspapers. Apparently it is a cure for altitude sickness.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Mate_de_coca_Peru.jpg/250px-Mate_de_coca_Peru.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Mate_de_coca_Stevage.jpg/250px-Mate_de_coca_Stevage.jpg


Can't be too dangerous if the pope is drinking it, eh?

Now refining it to 100x concentration, and adding in all kinds of mystery filler - therein lies the danger.

[sirgonzo420]

yeah, but...

"This sh*t is top of the line. It's called G-13. It's genetically engineered by the U.S. Government. It's extremely potent, but a completely mellow high. No paranoia."


That's a quote from the show 'Weeds' isn't it?

[sirgonzo420]

So when's cocaine going to be available?

I have silver starting to tarnish.


When the late Pope John Paul II visited Bolivia a few years ago, he was served, and did drink, coca tea. It was in all the newspapers. Apparently it is a cure for altitude sickness.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Mate_de_coca_Peru.jpg/250px-Mate_de_coca_Peru.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Mate_de_coca_Stevage.jpg/250px-Mate_de_coca_Stevage.jpg


Can't be too dangerous if the pope is drinking it, eh?

Now refining it to 100x concentration, and adding in all kinds of mystery filler - therein lies the danger.


Popes have loved cocaine/cocaine products for years!

http://www.cocaine.org/cokepope.jpg

"His Holiness The Pope enjoyed the invigorating properties of coca wine. Leo XIII carried a personal hipflask to fortify himself in time of need. A grateful Pope awarded a Vatican gold medal to its distinguised orginator, the Corsican-born pharmacist and businessman Angelo Mariani. Mariani had a keen eye for the benefits of celebrity-endorsement."

http://www.cocaine.org/popecoke.htm

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

yeah, but...

"This sh*t is top of the line. It's called G-13. It's genetically engineered by the U.S. Government. It's extremely potent, but a completely mellow high. No paranoia."


That's a quote from the show 'Weeds' isn't it?




It's from the movie American Beauty. Good flick if you haven't seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnKhDL8AL6M

The above clip has the quote.
The below clip is just funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJ8zxV7Cjw&NR=1

[ximmy]

yeah, but...

"This sh*t is top of the line. It's called G-13. It's genetically engineered by the U.S. Government. It's extremely potent, but a completely mellow high. No paranoia."


That's a quote from the show 'Weeds' isn't it?




A must see movie...

The scene starts at the 8 min mark... ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzw_8zpjnU&feature=related

[sirgonzo420]

yeah, but...

"This sh*t is top of the line. It's called G-13. It's genetically engineered by the U.S. Government. It's extremely potent, but a completely mellow high. No paranoia."


That's a quote from the show 'Weeds' isn't it?




It's from the movie American Beauty. Good flick if you haven't seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnKhDL8AL6M

The above clip has the quote.
The below clip is just funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJ8zxV7Cjw&NR=1



DAMMIT!

I knew it was from something I'd seen... I was almost positive it was from Weeds!

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up - and yeah, that movie is one of the better ones I've seen.

[sirgonzo420]

yeah, but...

"This sh*t is top of the line. It's called G-13. It's genetically engineered by the U.S. Government. It's extremely potent, but a completely mellow high. No paranoia."


That's a quote from the show 'Weeds' isn't it?




A must see movie...

The scene starts at the 8 min mark... ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzw_8zpjnU&feature=related



After I responded to TheNocturnalEgyptian I noticed your post.

Yeah, I've seen that movie... which apparently is why the quote was so familiar.

It is a great movie... I remember being quite surprised at how good it was the first time I saw it.

I can't believe I couldn't place that damn quote!

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Better article: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october012010/schwarzenegger-marijuana.php

Arnold's exact words:

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am signing Senate Bill 1449.

This bill changes the crime of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor punishable only by a $100 fine to an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Under existing law, jail time cannot be imposed, probation cannot be ordered, nor can the base fine exceed $100 for someone convicted of this crime.

I am opposed to decriminalizing the possession and recreational use of marijuana and oppose Proposition 19, which is on the November ballot.

Unfortunately, Proposition 19 is a deeply flawed measure that, if passed, will adversely impact California’s businesses without bringing in the tax revenues to the state promised by its proponents.

Notwithstanding my opposition to Proposition 19, however, I am signing this measure because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an infraction in everything but name. The only difference is that because it is a misdemeanor, a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial and a defense attorney.

In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket.

As noted by the Judicial Council in its support of this measure, the appointment of counsel and the availability of a jury trial should be reserved for defendants who are facing loss of life, liberty, or property greater than $100.

For these reasons, I am signing this bill.

Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Horn]

So when's cocaine going to be available?

I have silver starting to tarnish.


When the late Pope John Paul II visited Bolivia a few years ago, he was served, and did drink, coca tea. It was in all the newspapers. Apparently it is a cure for altitude sickness.



Its good to be the Pope.

[joe_momma]

So when's cocaine going to be available?

I have silver starting to tarnish.


When the late Pope John Paul II visited Bolivia a few years ago, he was served, and did drink, coca tea. It was in all the newspapers. Apparently it is a cure for altitude sickness.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Mate_de_coca_Peru.jpg/250px-Mate_de_coca_Peru.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Mate_de_coca_Stevage.jpg/250px-Mate_de_coca_Stevage.jpg


Can't be too dangerous if the pope is drinking it, eh?

Now refining it to 100x concentration, and adding in all kinds of mystery filler - therein lies the danger.


Have to say the Coca leaf tea rocks!

Was in Cuzco as a tourist - Cuzco has no air for a sea level dweller like me - I could barely go up 10 steps without pausing to rest the tea really helped. I personally found that chewing the leaves was even better - though I suspect when my mouth began to become numb it was time to stop chewing.

Net net, I've nothing against most drugs (Meth, Opium variants, even processed cocaine seem me to be unsafe - but this is my personal line) - though I'd prefer tobacco use was stopped (nicotine use/addiction is not the same as smoking).

[bellevuebully]

Arnie decrims pot.

This week, a Canadian Supreme Court judge struck down our prostitution laws.......you probably hadn't heard that eh??? The decision was based on lack of constitutional footing. If the law stands, prostitution in Canada will be completely legal. Here is a relevant link.....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/867332--prostitution-laws-struck-down


Now let me ask you......what significance do you note with these two events?? ;)

[bellevuebully]

if I cross into Canada

will they search my car for pot?


Only if they want to.

Pot is not legal in Canada. Overlooked in some urban centres, notably Vancouver and Toronto, but by no means legal. Don't worry about bringing it.......we've got plenty.

[StackerKen]

???

Pot has been Decriminalized in Ca. for years now...been a $100 fine for at least 15 years or more

I don't get this story or the thread ???

[ShortJohnSilver]

In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket.

So perhaps the US will become more free as more states lose their sources of funds ... maybe a tad Pollyanna-ish, but it is a thought.

[willie pete]

???

Pot has been Decriminalized in Ca. for years now...been a $100 fine for at least 15 years or more

I don't get this story or the thread ???



No Kenster, I think the difference now is; it's not a misdemeanor anymore to possess under 28.5 grams, before it was, which meant a fine AND a court appearance AND possible jail time....now it's only a fine, no court appearance, no record, no arrest...nada

[joe_momma]

Arnie decrims pot.

This week, a Canadian Supreme Court judge struck down our prostitution laws.......you probably hadn't heard that eh??? The decision was based on lack of constitutional footing. If the law stands, prostitution in Canada will be completely legal. Here is a relevant link.....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/867332--prostitution-laws-struck-down


Now let me ask you......what significance do you note with these two events?? ;)


Vancouver BC has had (virtually) open prostitution since the 80s. I'm not very familiar with the Canadian laws, but provinces (in the US we'd call them states) have considerably more power - the Canucks seem to have avoided the FDR /elastic clause power grab that the US went with - not sure if the Supreme Court judge can force the other provinces to accept his ruling. (There are a number of states where prostitution is all but legal - Rhode Island, California come to mind).

Going to your second (and to me) more interesting question - anthropologists have often noted that when a civilization is about to implode there is a pattern of rapid rise in alcohol/drug use and abandonment of previous cultural mores. [Disclaimer - my recollection from the Anthro 202 class was that they usually talked about this in the context of pre-industurial cultures interacting with modern societies.

I'd suggest that we're seeing the last throes of the 60's cultural revolution - they've effectively removed the cultural standards that they'd grown up with, though the (lack of) structure they have since put in place may not be stable -

- the lack of a sense of acceptable behavior (not necessarily defined by Talmud/Christian/Islamic tradition) encourages less complex societies - without the agreed rule of law the rule of the strongest becomes the dominant theme

- the inability to own property (via social engineering tax policies, government redistributive entitlements, and suspension of contract law [think GM's bankruptcy - where primary creditors were denied their rights]) leads to a societal structure that encourages isolation - no pooled investment or incentive to accumulate an transfer wealth to children - essentially spend everything now rather than save and invest for the future

- One other issue - having nothing (directly) to do with the 60's cultural revolution - Technology has replaced muscle power - this has for the first time in history allowed mental ability to dominate physical advantages. From an evolutionary standpoint - suddenly the physically strongest male is not the best "breeding" candidate - what began in the 1700s in England has fully matured - a clever person may make a better mate (ensuring genetic survival) than the best hunter -

In the end, we're seeing the pain of a cultural shift - sex no longer means embracing the obligation to support offspring, accrued wealth no longer means personal success or survival, and successful breeding candidates no longer always have the largest muscles/quickest reflexes.

The cultural mores that remained (more or less) static from the late 1400s in Europe until the late 20th century no longer apply - how society will settle down will certainly be interesting.

Just my thoughts.....

[Gaillo]

Arnie decrims pot.

This week, a Canadian Supreme Court judge struck down our prostitution laws.......you probably hadn't heard that eh??? The decision was based on lack of constitutional footing. If the law stands, prostitution in Canada will be completely legal. Here is a relevant link.....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/867332--prostitution-laws-struck-down


Now let me ask you......what significance do you note with these two events?? ;)


Vancouver BC has had (virtually) open prostitution since the 80s. I'm not very familiar with the Canadian laws, but provinces (in the US we'd call them states) have considerably more power - the Canucks seem to have avoided the FDR /elastic clause power grab that the US went with - not sure if the Supreme Court judge can force the other provinces to accept his ruling. (There are a number of states where prostitution is all but legal - Rhode Island, California come to mind).

Going to your second (and to me) more interesting question - anthropologists have often noted that when a civilization is about to implode there is a pattern of rapid rise in alcohol/drug use and abandonment of previous cultural mores. [Disclaimer - my recollection from the Anthro 202 class was that they usually talked about this in the context of pre-industurial cultures interacting with modern societies.

I'd suggest that we're seeing the last throes of the 60's cultural revolution - they've effectively removed the cultural standards that they'd grown up with, though the (lack of) structure they have since put in place may not be stable -

- the lack of a sense of acceptable behavior (not necessarily defined by Talmud/Christian/Islamic tradition) encourages less complex societies - without the agreed rule of law the rule of the strongest becomes the dominant theme

- the inability to own property (via social engineering tax policies, government redistributive entitlements, and suspension of contract law [think GM's bankruptcy - where primary creditors were denied their rights]) leads to a societal structure that encourages isolation - no pooled investment or incentive to accumulate an transfer wealth to children - essentially spend everything now rather than save and invest for the future

- One other issue - having nothing (directly) to do with the 60's cultural revolution - Technology has replaced muscle power - this has for the first time in history allowed mental ability to dominate physical advantages. From an evolutionary standpoint - suddenly the physically strongest male is not the best "breeding" candidate - what began in the 1700s in England has fully matured - a clever person may make a better mate (ensuring genetic survival) than the best hunter -

In the end, we're seeing the pain of a cultural shift - sex no longer means embracing the obligation to support offspring, accrued wealth no longer means personal success or survival, and successful breeding candidates no longer always have the largest muscles/quickest reflexes.

The cultural mores that remained (more or less) static from the late 1400s in Europe until the late 20th century no longer apply - how society will settle down will certainly be interesting.

Just my thoughts.....



I can't decide whether to thank your post, for the many truths it contains... or to post a scathing reply based on the "property rights" you bring up. ALL property rights begin at the individual flesh... and who can (in good conscience) say what that flesh can partake of without guilt? ???

[Hatha Sunahara]

Nocturnal Egyptian--I think the Arabs call it Kif, or Keef. Kefir is a cultured milk drink that is quite good and good for you. I am a big advocate of both Kif, and Kefir.

Hatha

[bellevuebully]

Arnie decrims pot.

This week, a Canadian Supreme Court judge struck down our prostitution laws.......you probably hadn't heard that eh??? The decision was based on lack of constitutional footing. If the law stands, prostitution in Canada will be completely legal. Here is a relevant link.....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/867332--prostitution-laws-struck-down


Now let me ask you......what significance do you note with these two events?? ;)


Vancouver BC has had (virtually) open prostitution since the 80s....................



That was a very detailed answer, one which was much more fleshed out than I was expecting. In general I agree with you that it signifies a cultural shift. It is the motivating factor which I find interesting......the desperate lack of money.

I made a comment in a thread on gim1 that is fitting to serve my point. To paraphrase.......'morality will be tossed aside like a dirty rag in the name of profit (or in this case, fiscal survival). Regardless of what one's views are on prostitution and cannabis use, being moral or immoral, the point is that what they (.gov) once had a strong moral conviction on and in turn jammed down our throats, they now deem acceptable because they need the money.

Is that not the pinnacle of hypocrisy?

fwiw, I think both moves are positive for everyone.

[SLV^GLD]

Morality ceases to exist the moment it is legislated.

[crazychicken]

Legal funny weed, gays, lesbies, Speaker of the House!

One more step down the slippery slope!

With any luck San Andreas fault is getting ready to BURP!

"New oceanfront property"

CC

[StackerKen]

???

Pot has been Decriminalized in Ca. for years now...been a $100 fine for at least 15 years or more

I don't get this story or the thread ???



No Kenster, I think the difference now is; it's not a misdemeanor anymore to possess under 28.5 grams, before it was, which meant a fine AND a court appearance AND possible jail time....now it's only a fine, no court appearance, no record, no arrest...nada


I guess your right....with the new law I guess you can just mail in the fine..

I have had a couple "Pot tickets" back in the day.

I found this with a quick search

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0204.htm


In the 1970s, at least 11 states decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

When a state reduces the penalty for possessing a small amount of marijuana to a fine rather than imprisonment, it is said to have decriminalized marijuana

[YukonCornelius]

This is bad news - I could tolerate legalization (I don't really care about smoking pot - adults making adult choices) as long as they accept the consequences.

However, I am strongly opposed to encouraging pot use because I ride a motorcycle - it is bad enough with the drunks and cell phone users now in addition to the the occasional "vapor trail" from someone sparking up in the car ahead - the spike in stoned driving poses a significant risk to me.




I disagree for two reasons.

One, you're statement suggests this doesn't happen already.

Second, this would probably force LESS smoking and driving because people won't have to hop in their car for a smoke to avoid detection...they can finally smoke on their porches.

Just my opinion. And, as a fellow biker I wouldn't be more worried...most drivers are dumbasses anyways, with or without pot, booze, cell phone, etc.

[SLV^GLD]

The important distinction is that of decriminalization from legalization.

[willie pete]

The important distinction is that of decriminalization from legalization.


I doubt it will ever be "legalized" anywhere in the US, just decriminalized, as was before, it was still a misdemeanor, under a certain amount, along with a small fine there could've been jail time too, haven't researched the CPC, usually though, any misdemeanor crime has a possible jail sentence of up to a year in county jail, whereas a felony is any crime punishable with more than a year in jail, and also that would mean the State penal system and not the county penal system

[bellevuebully]

The important distinction is that of decriminalization from legalization.


I doubt it will ever be "legalized" anywhere in the US, just decriminalized, as was before, it was still a misdemeanor, under a certain amount, along with a small fine there could've been jail time too, haven't researched the CPC, usually though, any misdemeanor crime has a possible jail sentence of up to a year in county jail, whereas a felony is any crime punishable with more than a year in jail, and also that would mean the State penal system and not the county penal system


I would never want to see legalization. That's permission.

What I want is decriminalization. That's choice.