I'm glad I wont have to hear that "zero death" propaganda anymore, as well as the "safer driving" nonsense. Frank, you make a good point about accepting responsibility. In this day in age, do you think most adults are capable of handling such responsibility? It seems most people are very irresponsible these days. Why would anyone assume people would be able to handle responsible drug consumption (if such a thing exists), especially considering that said drug or drugs can inhibit our sense of responsibility? I think it's fairly obvious that society is not capable of handling this kind of responsibility.

someone is missing the point.....cannabis is safer than beer or aspirin.......yet we jail one million a year and waste 100 billion a year putting people in jail....It is a war started by racist 72 years ago and it still today destroys many more blacks than others.....it is against our rights as Americans......it today is a war for helping the ones who profit from the billions wasted........just like our other war same deal.......END THE WAR ON US AND OVERSEAS NOW TODAY THEY ARE BOTH A WASTE...PASS HEALTH CARE TO HELP THE FEW THAT WANT IT AND LEAVE THE HIPPIES ALONE......

Substantial evidence has been emerging in the past few years regarding the responsible use of marijuana by non-stereo typical 'stoners'. One of the most widely known articles titled "Stiletto Stoners" appeared recently in the magazine Marie Claire. There should be little doubt that responsible drug use exists. Countless people drink alcohol responsibly. Those that don't are actually by far the minority.

The ultimate point is that we are a nation founded on freedom, not a nation founded on following the beliefs of those around us. We don't have to agree that smoking marijuana, tobacco or drinking alcohol is a good thing for everyone. We do, however, have to acknowledge that we either agree that Americans have the right to make up their own minds what is right for them or acknowledge that we are no longer interested in being a free country. I ride motorcycles. I know they are more dangerous than cars. I choose to ride because I enjoy it. Based on seat-belt law precedence, motorcycles could be outlawed based on this alone. It is a domino effect. If I don't fight for the freedom that others find important, I shouldn't expect help when it is my freedom being curtailed. This holds true for ALL freedoms - of speech, of religion, etc. When one group starts dictating that what they feel is right or wrong should apply to everyone under law, we have fallen into tyranny.

Thank you for getting straight to the most important point of this entire debate. -very well stated.

The people who like to throw the word "freedom" around seem to fail to understand that our freedoms as Americans are not absolute. Sure, we have freedom of speech, but we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or incite a riot. We have the freedom to bear arms, but we cannot walk around the neighborhood with an assault rifle strapped to our shoulder. If we had absolute freedom we would live in anarchy. The reason we have restrictions on our freedoms is to keep some sort of order and safety. However, this is off the topic of conversation. The point of the blog was to disprove the propaganda put forth by legalization advocates in order to stop spreading, as Matt called it, "a dangerous myth". This was long overdue.

True, Dennis, whenever an act intended to express freedom creates danger for those within their surrounding; it is NOT protected speech. Just as yelling 'fire' in a movie theater or being caught driving under the influence of alcohol is not protected and is punishable by law (too leniently in my opinion). That is not the debate we are engaged in. You are using examples of irresponsible behavior and alluding to it as what the mainstream would do if marijuana were legalized. 

My point remains scientifically validated. The majority of people who currently use marijuana or those who would if it were legalized would use it responsibly. Sure, just like in the alcohol community, there would be some that would choose to behave irresponsibly and they are the ones who should suffer the full brunt of law.

That fact remains Dennis, that with 26 MILLION American citizens using cannabis in the last 12 months, and only 3 millin (already occupied) prison beds, we have neither the capability, nor the money to truly imprison everyone who CHOOSES to use cannabis. This is a multi-generational rejection of the futility and ignorance of the failed 'War on Drugs.'

No, drugs aren't good for you (though cannabis has some benefits), but Prohibition is WORSE.

Stoned driving is not safe, and should not be tolerated. But 'zero death' is not propoganda when you exclude death by misadventure. The use of cannabis has NEVER resulted in death from medical side-effects (complications/cancer, etc.)

DON'T TREAD ON ME!!

"Death by misadventure"? That's a good one. Is that a legal term? I've not heard of it, care to define? Well, depending on how broad you want to take your "exclusions", you could theoretically argue that no one person, substance, or action has led to a death. In the end it all just comes down to a vital organ failing to continue. It all comes down to responsibility and it seems that many legalization advocates make a habit of deferring responsibility. It was always something or someone else's fault. The windshield wasn't clear, or the driver was speeding, or why do the car manufacturers use heavy metals instead of cotton to make cars. If a drunk driver kills a motorist or pedestrian it is the fault of the drunk driver for not being responsible enough to handle the effects of alcohol. If a "stoned" driver causes a death it is the "stoned" driver's fault as well. End of story. End of zero death propaganda.

And sorry, I didn't realize I was treading on you.

Actually Dennis, it IS a legal term...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/death+by+misadventure

MISADVENTURE, crim. law, torts. An accident by which an injury occurs to another.
     2. When applied to homicide, misadventure is the act of a man who, in the performance of a lawful act, without any intention to do harm, and after using proper precaution to prevent danger, unfortunately kills another person. The act upon which the death ensues, must be neither malum in se, nor malum prohibitum. The usual examples under this head are, 1. When the death ensues from innocent recreations. 2. From moderate and lawful correction (q.v.) in foro domestico. 3. From acts lawful and indifferent in themselves, done with proper and ordinary caution. 4 Bl. Com. 182; 1 East, P C. 221.

Although, if we're talking in the context of those two articles he might not have used it 100% correctly. 

In that, IF those 2 people were only "stoned" & not also drunk - and it was only due to their being "high" that caused the accidents - then they might not have been "using proper precaution to prevent danger"...  and in those instances it might be the wrong word to use.

BUT, I think Claton was using the more general meaning of the word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Misadventure 

Misadventure –noun  an instance of bad fortune; mishap.

So "misadventure" might indeed be the wrong word, "irresponsible actions/driving" - would be more appropriate.

But I find it QUITE IRONIC that while re-reading your post - I saw that you had really already made the point I was going to make for me, (I'll explain).

You stated: "If a drunk driver kills a motorist or pedestrian it is the fault of the drunk driver for not being responsible enough to handle the effects of alcohol."

SO, in this case it's the _driver_ at fault for being irresponsible and driving "over the limit"... Right? Well then you can't blame the alcohol, and I doubt many people would even try to do so.

WHAT IF, the driver had some alcohol in their system but their blood level WAN"T above the limit of .07 (or whatever it is in that state/area) = then that could arguably be a "death by misadventure" if the person wasn't "above the limit" they aren't breaking the law... even if they drank some alcohol prior to the accident.  (Yes, they'd probably still get sued these days - but that's not the point.)

You also stated: "If a "stoned" driver causes a death it is the "stoned" driver's fault as well."

SO, in this case it's once again its (possibly) the driver's fault. But it's also arguable that the men in those articles plead guilty to being under the influence of Marijuana (instead of alcohol), because the penalties for "drunk drivers" are much harsher. Many people would (and actually already have in this thread) say, that its because so few drivers under the influence of marijuana alone, cause accidents.

So at some point we'd have to put our "realistic  world" glasses on (say those 'worn' by people that know from experience, personally or otherwise - just how stoned/high someone has to be before they're going to go out and get in a traffic accident.

And further still, you have to think about & decide whether or not - in the tiny handful of accidents where the driver is "high" & not drunk - if they would have gotten into that accident sober or not.

But, lets assume they were 'stoned outta their gourds' and when investigated, that is whats been attributed to have caused the accident...  as you pointed out that would be the fault of the _driver_, NOT the fraking marijuana!

It is always the fault of the driver Bryan, not the marijuana. Except in the highly unlikely occasion that the marijuana plant is actually operating the vehicle. The point that so many are missing is that irresponsible marijuana users have directly led to the death of another due to their use of the drug. End of "zero death" propaganda. Period. In the case of any drunk or stoned driving incident, the responsibility lies with the driver. It is the drivers fault for acting irresponsibly, but one cannot exclude the fact that it is the effects of the substance on the driver that lead to the accident.

Thanks for the definition. It's been several years since I took my law classes, although, if I interpret correctly, the legal term misadventure as defined above, cannot be applied to these marijuana cases due to the fact that the words "lawful act" are used profoundly in the definition. You pointed that out yourself.

Driving while high on pot is NOT dangerous.  Those of you who disagree most likely have never driven while high.  If anything, it makes you drive with calmness, safety and caution.  Failing to react in the correct amount of time means that a person WAS SIMPLY NOT PAYING ATTENTION, weed has nothing to do with it... it is just another myth that the government desperately needs the people to buy in to so that they can continue their ridiculous war against a PLANT!  (A plant that can provide medicine, clothing, food, etc.... see what I am getting at?)

I cannot believe people are seriously discussing, and agreeing with!, the idea that driving while high is dangerous.  Do you know what, in reality, is truly dangerous?  The fact that the MAJORITY of drivers on the road are "high" on prescription, synthetic drugs!  These include: ANTI DEPRESSANTS, ANTI ANXIETY PILLS, PAIN PILLS, ADD PILLS and all other brain-changing chemicals that are present today in America's Generation RX.  I bet most of you who agree that pot makes driving dangerous are probably all doped up on one of the prescription pills that I mentioned.  Many of you find these pills much safer than a natural substance...

And you know what Dennis... "I think it's fairly obvious that society is not capable of handling this kind of responsibility."  IT IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THROWING OUR FREEDOM IN THE GARBAGE.  I don't know about you, but I certainly am capable of responsibly deciding what can and cannot go into my body.  I don't need a lying, thieving government to tell me what medicines I can use and which ones I can't, and even worse- which ones I MUST use (H1N1 Vac? No Way).  We do not need more regulations, regulate yourself!  If you are self admittedly not capable of regulating yourself, then I find that rather embarassing to our race.

What is "fairly obvious" to me is that soooo many of you are sleeping if you hold everything the government says to be true.  You have been brainwashed into believing that you are not able to care for yourselves and that you need the government to lead the way.  You believe that the government cares about you and wants to protect you!  Oh no, you're not slaves, you're free! 

Wake up people. 

Well ok Dennis,

"In the case of any drunk or stoned driving incident, the responsibility lies with the driver. It is the drivers fault for acting irresponsibly, "

On this point (I think) we agree...

" but one cannot exclude the fact that it is the effects of the substance on the driver that lead to the accident."

But I can't agree with you on that last part,

And, while "the effects of the substance on the driver" might not be _excluded_ as the cause of the accident...

It's FAR from being _proven_ that it (in any way) "lead to the accident", you might assume that it did, but I think that's a plainly false assumption on your part (and many others peoples' as well).

People that support the continued 'Prohibiton of Marijuana', LOVE to use this as a "go-to example" of why we should continue Nixon's 40 year old war... on his so-called "public enemy #1" - that was (arguably) little more than an 'anti-left' political campaign policy.

Matt cited two articles that somewhat questionably attributed marijuana as the cause (or partial cause) of traffic accident related deaths.

Quote: "Marijuana causes far, far fewer deaths than alcohol (maybe 0.1%) , but the number is not zero. Fatal accidents like this one and this one confirm that."

I disagree, those 2 articles DO NOT confirm, much less prove - that marijuana caused fatalities in either case.

#1 "Driver in fatal Route 38 crash charged with DUI"

#2 "Man admits causing fatal crash while under influence of marijuana"

A neither a 'man charged with DUI', nor an 'admission of crashing while DUI of marijuana' - is truly proof that "driving under the influence" was the cause of said fatalities.

I'm sorry but that's just not "proof" - and it's certainly not proof of a _statistically significant_ number of deaths caused by marijuana intoxication. And it very poor support for the purposes of the argument => that this is (somehow) evidence significant enough to continue the prohibition of marijuana.

And lets say you DO find a couple instances that are proven as traffic deaths caused by people driving under the influence of marijuana.

It would STILL be rare enough that the number may as well be _zero_ for the purposes of the argument.

But, I'm going to ASSUME that Matt's opinion in the article was...

That the anti-prohibitionists, MJ law reformists, or any of the the other various pro-legalization (for medical use, or even recreational adult use) - shouldn't being trying to argue that driving while under the influence of marijuana is safe...

That they should focus on one argument/battle at a time!

And more importantly, they shouldn't even hint that they think driving while high is even remotely safe... even if it is - for some people and/or in some cases) - because that will make the underlying argument of decriminalization and/or legalization - all that much "harder to sell" to the people their trying to win over.

And that it may give their 'opponents' more 'ammunition' - when they argue that "legal marijuana" (medical or otherwise) will somehow(?) cause the sky to fall from the heavens... so to speak.

I think that was what he was getting at, and while I begrudgingly agree that trying to argue both at the same time isn't very wise. At the same time I'm not willing to capitulate that driving while 'high' is even remotely as dangerous as some people would like to make it seem.

I say that, Becuase until we have reliable way to test the actual impairment of drivers under the influence of marijuana, people will cite that as proof that it can't be allowed to be legal...

That argument being that, without a 'clear cut test'/standard like using BAC __% for driving drunk, that people will suddenly ALL start driving while stoned out of their senses & causing horrendous numbers of traffic deaths!

When in reality, their probably wouldn't be much _IF ANY_ rise in 'marijuana-only' related traffic accidents, most of the people that actually DO drive while 'high', drive slower & more cautiously than they do when they're sober.

Actually Dennis, I am all ABOUT responsibility. My father was killed by a drunk driver when I was five, and my mother became an alcoholic shortly thereafter. Despite this, I have NO desire to outlaw alcohol again, because of the disastrous results of the last time we tried it. We enable th eMafia to become one of the richest, and least responsible, organizations in the world. We are continuing to enable the Maxicen Cartels, by maintaining the illegality of their products. If every American could go to the local liquor store, and pick up a bag of cannabis, the MC are out of business. That's 60% of their income. What benefit are we getting from cannabis' illegality?! It's in EVERY state, and EVERY city, who can possibly think we have a CHANCE of actually eradicating it? It's been forty years of a FAILED 'War on Drugs,' and it isn't going away, just as alcohol didn't when IT was outlawed. It just went into outlaws hands, where they became VERY rich via some VERY stupid laws.

Yes, I feel if a stoned driver CAUSES an accident, then they are at fault, and should be held accountable. Unfortunately, at this time, even if they are NOT at fault, as soon as they are tested, and determined they have ANY level of cannabis in their system, they are automatically ASSUMED to be at fault, due to the heinous and ignorant drug laws in this country that fail to take into account the fact that cannabis can remain in the system for up to 60 DAYS. I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions, my father's murderer walked, other murderer's should not.

And yes, you ARE treading on me, when you take to your soapbox, and insist that I, and others like me who enjoy cannabis, should be locked up. YOU are doing your damndest to make sure my freedoms (and your own) are curtailed.

So how do we determine what the safe "driving while high" limit is?  Is it one joint? Two? Three?    While I do think pot should be legalized, it is irresponsible to say that driving while high is safe across the board.  Just like drinking impairs your motor skills so to does pot and to say that it doesn't is ridiculous.

your saying stating the truth is wrong?? Cannabis has caused 00 deaths since the begining of time. You can overdose and die from beer or asprin, but not bud talk to someone who knows.......

I would never say that stating the truth is wrong.  I WOULD say that it's wrong to assume that everyone can safely smoke cannabis and be able to drive.  Such blanket statements are dangerous, particularly when experienced drivers who are also inexperienced cannabis users get on the road high.  Common sense.

I meant to say "when INexperienced drivers who are also inexperienced cannabis users..."   Sorry for any confusion.   :)

how about this fact

100 million a year wasted

1,000,000 of our children destroyed yearly

wasted for support of a racist war........

Zero deaths is not propaganda.... car accidents don't count IMO because they are the result of irresponsible people, and even then the number of solely marijuana related traffic accidents is nil in comparison to alcohol.

The zero deaths comes from the direct physiological effects of cannabis itself.  It's non-toxic and will not kill you, you cannot overdose on it.

There will always be dumb people out there who get way too high and drive poorly because of it, but there are also many people out there that moderate their use so as to not be impaired enough to endanger anyone on the road.

I can have a shot of whiskey and still legally drive... get it?

The problem is that there is no currently accepted testing method for determining how high a person is at a given time.  With alcohol we have BAC which is a fair determinant in how intoxicated a person is, but with cannabis we only have tests for metabolites that can be in your system up to and beyond 30 days from the last use.

So what do we do? Legalize it and say that if you use it you can't drive at all?  The high only lasts hours and has pretty varied effects depending on the amount and type used.

Blood tests and mouth swabs are supposedly more effective, but still have a window of greater than 24 hours from use, and blood tests are a much more touchy subject and difficult to administer on the spot.

I for one KNOW that people can and do drive safely under the influence of cannabis.  The impairment caused by it's use is polar opposite to what happens when you drink.  High people tend to drive slower and more cautiously. 

You can't tell me because two people got in accidents while high, driving stoned is really that dangerous.  Seriously, sober people get in accidents and die every damn day!

I'd say people who drive around with their cell phones glued to their head are more dangerous than any stoner!

Here's an article talking about the testing and impairement issue:

Marijuana and DUI Laws: How Can We Best Guard Against Impaired Driving?

http://www.mpp.org/library/marijuana-and-dui-laws-how.html

As far as driving while impaired, that is exactly what we should be testing for - impairment. Police should be equipped with testing methods to determine an objective impairment rating. It doesn't matter whether you are impaired because of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, Benadryl or lack of sleep. Developing and using an objective test for impairment levels the playing field and would detect more dangerous drivers than just checking for a few things in the blood/urine/breath.

Christopher and Fred, I agree with you.  There are always going to be those people who abuse any substance rather than use it responsibly, and that should be taken into account.  Frankly, I don't want to be in rush hour traffic with a bunch of people who've had about four lattes before getting behind the wheel, so it's all relative. 

There just needs to be a balance of information.  I personally know people who smoke and drive safely; they are people who know their bodies and the effects and how to use responsibly.  I just think we need to not be in denial about those jackasses who abuse the stuff and jump behind the wheel and cause problems.

Several states now have laws against cell phone use while driving.  That doesn't detract from the legality or usefulness of cell phones, just acknowledges that they can be a factor in causing wrecks.  So can weed when it's misused, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal.

Blanket statements that imply cannabis has NO impact on driving do not help the campaign to legalize.  And I'd like to see it legal for everyone. 

I think it it impossable to prove eather way. But as a mater of expirence, I'm 55 yeays old. I have opperated large equipment, large trucks, and a few boats "high". I have never had a lost time accident from doing it, and I have drove over a million miles in a tractor trailer with 0 accidents. Let me be one of your test persons. We can end the debate quickly, as I can prove it is safe for ME to drive while high. I can't prove its safe for you to do it. Some people should not be given a license to drive regardless of altered states or not.

Romy, I have to agree. Those who insist there is NO affect are doing us a disservice. There is obviously SOME affect on your reflexes, judgement, visual acuity, etc.

I have heard of some studies that showed stoned drivers can actually take their intoxication into account, and aren't nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers (who not only lose judgement and motor skills, but also get a false sense of bravado, quite the opposite of cannabis, which sparks paranoia). Despite that evidence,  I still don't think it's a good idea, and should still be outlawed (sorry fellow cannabis aficionados, unless a study proves it to be absolutely indistinguishable, safety-wise, I CANNOT support it).

BTW, Good on ya Breckenridge, CO!! I now may be forced to choose between moving to CO, or CA, and taking my 6-figure paycheck with me!

Ok, who wants my tax money the most?

lol clayton, sorry but Portland's already been there, done that.  we've decriminalized under an ounce simply because it is the most asinine waste of time to subject our officers to policing for such minute amounts.

I wish that Mr. Kelley and change.org would be more responsible in their journalism and cite their sources regarding these so-called "legalization advocates" who "insist" that there is no effect while driving.  I am having a hard time with this huge gap in his argument where he says such a thing.

I have never ever heard any CRRH or NORML member or editorial ever claim such a thing.  EVER.  I work with not just legalization experts but medical doctors who regularly lecture about the effects of cannabinoids and how to use that for relief of physical pain, &c.

NOBODY wants preteens or adolescents getting high.  I think that suggestion (no matter how remote) is further slander on the legalization movement as a bunch o' freaken ogres.  good grief.

This article is not so much about the effect of marijuana on drivers but MORE about forcing cannabis consumers to take an additional driver's test where they some how prove their ability while under the influence (and already I can see so many ways this test could be duped or abused, because we don't have the technology to enforce accuracy).  The technology that would be used to determine THC levels in your blood is quite expensive...

ugh - I just can't see myself ever being convinced of this, and I say again that I'd LOVE any law that would effective make our roads more safe, since I'm always on a bike and have already been hit by a negligent driver.

Clayton, bring your $$ to Oregon, we need you!  I just heard last night that Oregon is opening its first cannabis cafe in NE Portland on the 13th of this month, AND now has a school in the Portland area dedicated to helping people grow medical marijuana.  The school has been a huge success and helped a lot of people.

Fred, areyou familiar with the Tao, this may be a time for yielding. Yielding a little propaganda to the squares could help the cause, we are getting closer it is big picture time. Not agreeing or disagreeing, just offering some strategy to consider.

Gary, Thank you. I think that what you wrote is the key question regarding this post.

I am familiar with your analogy, as well.

So...

Should we yield a little propaganda to the squares?

That is the question.

I made a sincere attempt, in threads below, to clarify that Matt Kelly is definitely talking about perpetuating propaganda/myths/BS. Many people here have done a very fine job of elucidating that too.

We can still debate the strategy though.

I am having trouble thinking of historical or modern examples of the wisdom of swallowing and regurgitating a little lie to get to the prize, but the examples may exist.

Does someone know of a good example of yielding a little propaganda to the squares to help the cause?

It is a strategy to consider. Mainstreaming the movement was bound to happen sooner or later.

I'm a reasonable person but if no one can offer me some effective reasoning I'm just going to stick to the facts--the true truths that we can use.

What's coming to my awareness, right now, are famous quotes:

"No compromise in pursuit of the truth." --Judi Bari

"You've got to turn on to politics, or politics will turn on you." --Ralph Nader 

I also just read the articles about the pot involved motor deaths referenced above.

Article 1 is about a man that was also speeding around 80mph just to keep someone from merging ahead of him. Was it the pot, the speed, both, or him being a deuce that doesn't know that if you can't merge ahead of someone doing the regular speed limit let them have the right of way. A little too suspect for me to take this one to heart. But my heart goes out to the family. I don't think they care which it was as compaired to the grief they have now.

Article 2 was about a guy that also failed to completely wipe all the frost from his windshield which limited his view. Pot or Lack of view?

I do have one that involves pot and nothing else though since I do want to be fair. My fiance's ex-husband's sister was killed by a driver who confessed to smoking a few blunts before getting behind the wheel. Said he fell asleep when questioned later. Here is where I draw the line.

I stated in Matt's article "Consensus Grows for DUI Protection" that I'm against people driving under the influence of pot under two conditions. One, that they have just started useing the plant and are still getting used to it's effects. And two, that they have been smoking blunts like a gangsta.

You don't need to over smoke the stuff to receive it's medicinal effects. Just a little will go a long way. And that's why I say we need a govenment regulated class to help people understand this. DPS, where you at?

Jim,

My sentiments exactly on that first article, but you overlook something in the second one.

The driver had ingested marijuana the night before and into the early morning.  Then he was on his way to work at 7 a.m.  Perhaps a lack of sleep had more to do with his accident.

He certainly wasn't high.  Highs don't last for hours on end.

You're absolutely right, I just figured people would have figured that in since they're both articles about being high at the time. Sorry to leave things out. I hate it when people do that.

Seniors and stubborn,worn down vehicle drivers drive too slow as well and are just as much of a hazard, but we don't stop them do we?

We need a class to teach responsible use. I'll say it over and over again if I have to.

But first, legalization..... or decriminalization. You say (Al-Kay-Da), I say (Al-Kia-da)... let's call the whole thing off.

I think the only reason they haven't legalized it, is because there isn't an accurate way to measure the effects. If someone could develop the equivalent of a breathalyzer for pot, it would be legal.

They can with a blood test. They just have to develope one like those new diabetes blood sugar tests that are supposed to be quick and painless. Of course if someone looks stoned out of their mind, they probably wouldn't feel it too bad anyway.

Ok but are we going to be administering blood tests on the side of the road?  You still have to send it off for testing.  It just doesn't seem very feasible.  I do believe that pot should be legalized but before that can happen we need to develop a way to test right then and there.

Well put Scott. You're much more eloquent than I am when it comes to speaking your mind. And your right, some people can handle driving under the influence just fine(veteran smokers) and some can't (newbies).

You asked for someone to try to give a better description of the effects while driving. 14 years of smoking and I still have trouble finding the exact words for it. Maybe I can describe it in sections. Like from initial use to veteran use. But I can only speak for me and the people I know that smoke. We seem to be about the same as veteran smokers.

The first time I smoked, it was a small self(poorly)rolled cigarrete. I coughed then stopped. Nothing happened, didn't smoke enough. If you don't know if it's effecting you, it isn't. Here's why.

Second use was much more different. A veteran smoker provided a method that was much more easier on the lungs for inhalation and absorption. After a few minutes it hit me like a sack of bricks. Like being thrown into a pool of sensation yet not so much or in a dizzy like way as to make you sick(Think James Spader when he first walked through the StarGate if you need a visual aid). Also no hang over afterwards then either. Thought wasn't slowed as opposed to distracted because there was just too much going on in me(yet I remember the entire experience). My body was processing a tingly feeling that was completely systemic. Close to that of feeling flushed when you become embarrassed and blood rushes to your face yet, all over. Almost like a blanket is now insulating you completely in a detached from reality yet right next door to it kind of way. A through the looking glass kind of view if you will. Pain relief was there without numbness, that was for sure because I could still feel, yet my motor functions were both impaired(suspected, never tested) and the same. Vision didn't change then(never has), but I can't speak for everyone. Some people claim to have visuals..... and some people claim to have seen a ghost. I, having never seen a ghost (high or sober), leave that up to the reader. Still, I didn't feel safe to drive because of the distracted feeling so I passed the keys to my buddy who was already used to the effects by then. I wasn't swaying or staggering on my way to the passenger seat but I didn't feel like moving much either. The urge to sit and just "be" was way more appealling for the moment...... that, and the radio seemed much more interesting to operate. All this and it felt pretty good too.

By the time we got to his house I was better, felt more confident(not to mention willing to move around), and then drove myself home. The tingly was still there but more behind me rather than surrounding me like it had been. This is my rough account of my first few times.

After that I kept the next few times of smoking at home where I wouldn't need to drive anywhere anytime soon after. The flushed feeling still came but faded to the background quicker and quicker. Still no visuals and I've had some of the finest possible to grow. Over smoking has always led to the same thing for me...... becoming super tired and taking a nap. Never have I blacked out and continued to do things unaware. And I've always woken up where I went to sleep.

Today there's still some of the looking in from the other side effect but motor functions are never in question anymore. Hacky sac is still one of my favorite activities after a small bowl (which is about the most I smoke starting out with followed by constant updates afterwards). The blanket has lightened up to a 800 hundred thread count silk sheet but it's still there. And focus is a shade away from un-effected yet house cleaning is fun for some reason beyond me.  Short term memory loss really doen't happen for me but I also read alot and love brain teasing puzzles which I believe helps counter that. Might be something in the brain exericise of reading and thinking but then again you might beleive that as much as I beleive you get visuals from it (guess I'll have to keep up the field research in this and post the results later). One benefit for me is I don't remember my dreams when I'm smoking( I take periods off from time to time). Let me explain. I have very lucid dreams when I don't smoke for a couple days(it's been a month since at the moment). Nothing crazy, just very real dreams of normal life. I don't like them cause they throw off my sense of time and reality and I have to double check things in the morning. When I smoke, I go to sleep then wake up, no confusion. That's about the best part for me.

So, does this mean that no one should be allowed to enjoy/receive medicinal benefits of this plant? No, it's my testament that steps need to be taken to ensure fair treatment of those who can use it safely, and likewise, help the ones that can't use it responsibly realize that they should have at least some restrictions place on their use of it...... like when it comes to driving.

All the more reason to have a Marijuana Safety Class. One to help weed out (wasn't meant to be a pun) the people that can't handle it....... or handle it yet, and certify the people that can as responsible users. Would something like that be so bad, I dont think so.

Sorry to just go on and on.

'A police investigation determined that Ford's vehicle had exceeded 80 miles per hour just before the crash and that he was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the collision, authorities said.'

The studies that have been done, all state that cannabis makes people tend to drive slower. What was the speed limit, 90 mph?

 "Authorities said'?? Unless those 'authorities' can show proof, as far as we know these 'authorities' are trying to procure some more easy drug war money. Where is the PROOF? It sure can't be from a urine test.

'Kewitt acknowledged that he had ingested marijuana the night before and into early morning, admitting that the marijuana diminished his ability to drive safely.'

'Kewitt also said he failed to clear frost from the entire windshield of his truck, limiting his vision as he drove.'

'As part of a plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend that Kewitt receive a sentence for vehicular homicide of 15 years with the state Department of Corrections with 10 years suspended and a $10,000 fine. The agreement calls for a suspended 10-year prison sentence for the negligent-vehicular-assault charge, and Kewitt will be ordered to pay restitution.'

5 years instead of 15 if he pleads guilty to marijuana being the cause of the deaths. Oh noooo, it wasn't my fault...the marijuana made me do it.

this idiot should do the whole 15 for driving with ice blocking his view.

Matt, Matt, Matt....Did you even read these articles, or just the headlines?

However, we must draw lines based on facts, not intuition or myths. We must recognize that impairment occurs in degrees, and that slight impairment, especially when compensated by other factors, should not be treated the same as severe impairment, such as that caused by alcohol.

For example, a pretty girl walking by might constitute a significant distraction, and so create genuine impairment to some men; should they be arrested for it? Several children fighting in the back of one's car might be a severe distraction, and so cause major impairment. That is very undesirable, but should it be illegal? What about cell phones? We must now use hands-free devices, yet the distraction of carrying on a heated discussion is still real, and may often cause impairment, yet we are permitted to use them while driving.

The fact is, many distractions and other factors produce impairments far more severe than does marijuana intoxication. Why must we agree to a special exception, i.e. a special prohibition, based on a myth, for pot? The fact is, driving while stoned is pretty safe, due to enhanced driver concentration and increased care in driving, and may therefore be even safer than driving straight!

I say let's be rational, for a change, right down the line.

See my main comment nearby...

Thanks Derek. It is true. Just because a person got stoned and then was involved in an accident, does not demonstrate cause and effect. I've been stoned 90% of the last 40 years, and every accident, and every traffic ticket, was earned in that tiny 10% window of time when I was NOT stoned. And I see a lot of similar reports. Look at the science, and you will find that being stoned has virtually no net effect on driving, except that it seems that stoned drivers may actually be involved in FEWER accidents. See my other posts, particularly the USDOT study summary, if you want the details.

I'm not "impaired"!!! Why do you not understand my speach?

Depends, how much did he smoke? If it was a crap load no, might forget what he's doing or leave something in there when he's done. If it was a small hit it might help steady his/her hands provided he's a verteran smoker and not just starting out. And better that than them drinking on the job.

But then again doctors have just a little bit more control than most people. Takes alot of discipline to go through that much school. Doubt they'd have the control issues that the average person would have. Please Donna

I know an anesthesiologist that enjoyed smoking on occasion, but would not partake, due to drug testing. A colleague of his turned him onto anti-depressants (Proczac, prescribed=legal). I noticed, immediately, the change in his demeanor, without being told of the use. He seemed foggy and somewhat separated, especially compared to his usual upbeat personality. Since these drugs are continuously administered, due to the severe side affects of coming off of them, he was "high" all of the time. Where as, if he were aloud to use marijuana, he would only have been using during his leisure time. He is not the type that would be "sparking up" on his way into surgery. But, because of the laws, he was coerced into taking a much more dangerous mind altering substance. So, in this instance, I would rather hear that my doctor is lighting up, after a long day, rather than dosing up, on his way to monitor my vitals during a procedure. Just goes to show two things 1. that the laws are negatively effecting people on every level 2. people are going to take mind altering drugs legal or not.

Most competent people will not allow themselves to be intoxicated on the job, by any substance, especially if their job is life and death critical, as in the case of a surgeon going into surgery. However, a single hit of marijuana, like a single glass of wine, does not incapacitate most people, in fact, it might have a positive impact, like enhancing one's level of concentration. As in the case of alcohol, below a certain threshold, marijuana may technically be "intoxicating," but it does not cause any significant impairment.

See my posts on driving under the influence of marijuana. According to official government standards used to determine impairment under the influence of alcohol, even relatively large doses of marijuana do not cause legal impairment.

By the way, the comments that I made about people doing what they think is necessary in order to be taken seriously extend to the Change.org endeavor.

You may be noticing how ending marijuana criminal penalty harms, ending the war on drugs, etc. is a cause that may be "kept in the closet" and ridiculed. That will need to change.

For example, when I log into the Change.org site and examine the entire front page right now I see absolutely nothing from/for this cause.

Arguably (one can do the math), it is one of the most popular topics and will persist to be so.

So why isn't there anything on the home page?

Okay, in fairness there was an email sent out today that had this topic as the lead. But, in fairness, the link was to an opinion piece that could have been co-written by the US Office of National Drug Control Policy.

I realize that this institutional attitude can change and I welcome seeing the shift.

Thanks. 

Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

NORML serves as an informational resource to the national media on marijuana-related stories, providing a perspective to offset the anti-marijuana propaganda from the government.

SUMMARIES

“At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.

To date …, seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers.  Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers.  Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected.

… The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. … [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.”

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.


“Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory.  [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk.  … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy.  Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.


“This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.

… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation.  ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.


“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:

1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.


“In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior.  However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired.  Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required.  … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects.  In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner.  Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.


“Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor … function.  … [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator.  This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively.”

REFERENCE: UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. London: United Kingdom. Chapter 4: Section 4.7.


“The evidence suggests that marijuana presents a real, but secondary safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor.”

REFERENCES: D. Gieringer. 1988. Marijuana, driving, and accident safety. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 93-101.



CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES

“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability.  … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group.  This is consistent with other findings.”

REFERENCE:

Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability.  Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.


“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury.  Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs.  When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.


“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991.  The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent.  … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers.  … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.



ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES

“Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; 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 strongly 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 formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.


“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance.  … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose.  The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a 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 when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.


TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)



DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES

“Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability.  Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical.  Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly. 

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable.  However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”

REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.


TABULATED SUMMARY OF SIMULATOR STUDIES OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)

...

"zero credence"? That seems like some kind of credence.

...

See... we can be serious AND keep it real.

Peace.

Thank you so much for delivering the scientifically sound facts, in this convenient place, about the known effects of marijuana intoxication on driving ability.

It is pretty clear, through the most even-handed, accurate assessments we have, that driving under the influence of marijuana does NOT significantly contribute to the incidence of traffic accidents. It is essentially a non-issue, which if given nothing else, the drug war establishment would like to impose on their "enemy." It is a false issue, which they hope will help prevent the "licenciousness" which they fear most. It is really just another plausible myth which is being used in the War Against Drugs.

Marijuana is not only the most pleasant social drug available, it is also the safest, on every level. It is virtually a crime to prohibit it.

You're welcome. I'm glad you appreciated it. Science, Reason, Compassion, Common Sense. It's my pleasure.

Exactly. It IS essentially a non-issue, false issue, plausible myth.

This post has been a good learning opportunity. Even people who support legalization can perpetuate the marijuana myths. It can even happen unknowingly by sharing unexamined logical fallacies.

I think Matt Kelly may have the best intentions of supporting marijuana legalization here. But I simply can not deny what I know. WE can not deny what we know. Now he knows.

If we actually took up the banner of Matt Kelly's cause--zero tolerance abstinence only-- based on his belief in a myth (and belief that it will make us sound respectable), I think we would find it used against us. I think we would regret it. What's the point???

Fortunately, or in spite of that, it just won't happen. Millions and millions of people are not going to knowingly fool themselves into this belief that is contrary to their experience AND contrary to the best available science!

Reality will not acquiesce! I will not give in. I will not give up!

Of course, an alternate path, "the high road" if you will, is not guaranteed to be easy. (But it's not guaranteed to be hard either.)

You will be ridiculed and "kept in the closet" but you can have faith that you will prevail.  We have fundamentally strong arguments. You could say that we have true truth for our use. What's better than that? What do you think? I KNOW that we can be confident.

"Marijuana is not only the most pleasant social drug available, it is also the safest, on every level. It is virtually a crime to prohibit it."

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm wondering why none of the debaters, pro or con, bring up the matter of dosage.  When we speak of the effects of other drugs we almost always talk about dosage.

"Is it safe to drive after one beer?"  "Is it safe to drive after a six-pack?"

Most people would answer "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second.  Why do we talk as if the effects of cannabis on driving without considering how much a person has consumed?

People can use a little bit and perform completely normally.  People can use a lot and be too stoned to stand up and very uncoordinated.  Are the advocates of driving under the influence telling me that a person who can't stand up is going to be a safe driver?

Hi Marc, I am trying to read as thoroughly as possible but it's inevitable that I'll miss responses or details in some people's positions!  I'm a latecomer so this comment board is scrolling down the screen like crazy.

But to address dosage, my clinic (we assist medical marijuana patients) is probably the only environment which has ever approached the question of dosage.

Unfortunately, I don't think that in a context of prohibition (a totally wasteful and unjust prohibition, mind you) that we can begin to make concrete statements about dosage.

I feel so blessed because I work in an environment where adults can talk about this subject like ADULTS.  From what I'm gleaning from those discussions, the dosage will completely vary from person to person.  I'm not totally sure (but I can ask around if someone here really wants to know) but it also depends on the method of delivery.  Our patients are generally advised to vaporize or orally consume medical cannabis, and whichever delivery one chooses is going to dictate how much they should consume.

I am sure there are other factors in play (like weight, &c) but I guess my first reaction is that how can we begin to discuss dosage or any other measurement when it's an herb that many people consume but hardly anyone wants to talk objectively about?

I might like your comment, if I understood what you meant by it... I MIGHT conclude that marijuana makes your ADHD problems worse, but I also might expect that it might improve them. Please clarify - I am interested.

People with ADHD usually already have driving problems. I would say this is because of our quicker than normal thought processes and attention span. Some people with ADHD, who smokes bud, drive better while high.

Quote from http://www.showmethefacts.org/medical-marijuana-facts/add-adhd/ :

"Current research has shown that certain strains of marijuana can provide focus to people with ADHD and many people have successfully used marijuana as a replacement to other medications (such as Ritalin)."

I quit taking ritalin years ago, and I now smoke illegally to try and be a little more normal. The quote is there to point out that marijuana can provide focus to ADHD people. Which would enhance driving abilities. I do wish I could grow, so that I could produce those certain strains I need, but WV is way to backwards to legalize any time soon.

You must have just smoked a phattie, because I posted that link in my first comment to explain which way I was leaning. That was a friendly stab at you... lol

Here it is again:

http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/ADHDcase1.htm

Sean - Thank you. This is completely consistent with my comment below, that begins "I agree... Pot has a very peculiar effect on concentration." The effects are complex, on a person w/o ADHD (or maybe I AM affected by that disorder? I HAVE though I might be AD without the HD part). You can read my comment below. It is not intended to give a compete account, largely because I don't understand it completely, but I'm pretty sure about it having a split personality, i.e. can either impede or enhance concentration, depending on circumstances. I would welcome hearing about other people's observations.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that indicates that cannabis is a very effective mood stabilizer in people who suffer bipolar disorder.  Bipolar and ADHD are very close cousins, and on the same mental health spectrum as OCD, Tourette's, and depression.  When I googled "marijuana and bipolar," I was astounded and touched at the stories of all the people it was helping to live a decent life.

I found this out when my bipolar son refused to continue taking Lithium because of the side effects.  He was 15 and had discovered that smoking weed helped him.  I had noticed a positive change, but at the time didn't know he had quit the Lithium.  He is now almost 22, uses only weed for meds, has had no episodes, and holds down a regular job and is self-supporting.  I'm so proud of him and I am no longer worried about him ending up on kidney dialysis when he's older due to prolonged Lithium use.

I agree completely (see MY comment below). Pot has a very peculiar effect on concentration. I find that although marijuana intoxication may cause confusion in complex, stressful situations, in more quiet environments, it facilitates much better concentration than can normally be achieved. That is what is known as 'the groove," and "a zone."

And that effect applies to driving. Whereas the ordinary, unaffected person often drives very casually, and carelessly I might add, the stoned driver is often highly conscious of his slightly impaired state, and compensates by concentrating more carefully on his driving. The net effect? He does NOT become involved in automobile accidents.

I've often held that driving safety does not depend on driving skill nearly so much as it does on "having one's eyes on the road." In the case of MJ intoxication, if one's reaction times are slightly depressed, but one's attention to the road is enhanced, the net effect is FEWER accidents, NOT more.

The only legitimate comparison between being drunk and being stoned is that there is no comparison. I believe that a single driver driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious hazard, however, I have absolutely NO FEAR of driving on roads full of pot-heads.

Funny thing, it SOUNDS like you're exagerating, or in self-denial when you say "driving high FOR ME, is not dangerous," but we who know know that you are not. See my posts. In MY experience, and also in that of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT), which has done a large-scale study to determine the effects of THC on driving, say that driving under the influence of even large doses of marijuana is LESS dangerous than driving under a legal minimum dose of alcohol. In other words, using the alcohol standard, pot smokers aren't impaired at all.

It's true, the only simple explanation for the War on Drugs is that it's a witch hunt, being perpetrated by fanatics who think we all must be pure as driven snow, by God, as pure as THEM. These people want to impose strict, arbitrary standards on everyone, but especially, THEIR particular standards. It's very much like Christians condemning other Christians for some tiny differences in doctrine. There is nothing strange about choosing MJ over alcohol and nicotine. Potheads are not trying to offend anyone by making an alternative choice. We are merely trying to chose the pleasantest drug, which lucky for us is also the kindest, cheapest and safest choice. It also permits us to perceive and confront reality in a way that suits our temperments. Someone here said that the drug warriors would "rather we went down to pub every night, got drunk, got in some punch-ups and spent the evening shouting at each other in the streets." Apparently true. Our quiet evenings catching a buzz, relaxing and watching TV (or reading, taking in a sunset, a movie, or engaging in pleasant conversation, etc.) apparently doesn't suit these people. I say "give that man a drink." I, for one, would much rather smoke a bone. That choice should be mine LEGALLY.

I feel very strongly that we should seriously challenge stereotypes (and faulty reasoning.)

Stereotypes are extremely popular. It is insidious.

If anything, the stoner stereotypes are probably what "harms the movement."

Here is an example of a phrase I don't use:

"What were you smoking?"

Do an internet search of that phrase (use the quotations) and you will see what I mean.

You probably know what I mean already. It has an entirely negative connotation and is insulting (and inaccurate. Some of the smartest people in the world smoke it and experience positive effects.)

Yet the phrase is widely used, even by people who smoke cannabis and think highly of it. People are parroting others.

That's one example out of many, many more.

Beliefs should be frequently examined and challenged to see if they withstand scrutiny.

One way we might help end the stereotypes is if we would all stop using slang to define what the substance is.

Are we all 'going to POT'? Potheads? What image do these derogatory terms conjer up? Why do we still use the name that Randolph Hearst chose to give this plant? The 'M' word is mexican slang, and was coined by Hearst the racist to play on the racial hatered of the time.

There should be a nationwide campaign to end the derogatory terms and the racial slang of the prohibitionists.

CANNABIS is the proper and correct name.  That's the name the rest of the world uses, and the name this country used until Hearst, DuPont and Anslinger began the conspiracy. When are we finally going to reclaim it?

Let's reclaim :

CANNABIS Sativa

CANNABIS Indica

CANNABIS Hemp

CANNABIS in all of its God given forms!

It's OK Anna, we know how THAT happens ;-)! But we also know that "the influence" also helps us to go places and do things that would otherwise be awkward at least. I myself DO try to make sense when I talk about MJ and the law.

You know, if other laws are formulated with the same kind of warped perceptions as those that go into drug law, we are in a LOT of trouble. We ARE in a lot of trouble, but NOT from SMOKING pot!

They (drug warrior types) have the nerve to criticize tokers for having warped perceptions? Hah! THEY are the ones who desperately need the reality check.

Thanks for bringing that up Anna. I noticed that but hadn't posted about it.

I think that it might be a pattern in Matt Kelly's writing. Here is an excerpt from another blog that he did:

"I'm solidly against driving under the influence of pot -- I give zero credence to the argument that one can drive safely while high." [...] "Here's the Marijuana Policy Project's position on driving under the influence of pot. Driving under the influence is a critical issue for the legalization community to discuss, and I'll post more on it next week."

--Matt Kelly, Change.org, October 10, 2009 (http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/ten_months_later_hardly_a_glitch_for_legal_pot_in_massachusetts)

 I actually wonder if most people click the links (like the one in his paragraph), leave a site, and then come back. If I didn't know better, or follow through, I could have assumed that Matt gave the MPP's position as support for his assertion that there is ZERO credence to driving safely while high. He could have also put that in to show that not everyone (like scientists) agrees with him totally. I think it was the former not the latter, but the point is that it was ambiguous or potentially misleading.

 In actuality, this is from the MPP's position on driving under the influence of pot, following that link:

The most meaningful recent study measuring driver "culpability" (i.e., who is at fault) in 3,400 crashes over a 10–year period indicated that drivers with THC concentrations of less than five ng/mL in their blood have a crash risk no higher than that of drug–free users.[2]

2. O.H. Drummer, et al., "The involvement of drugs in drivers of motor vehicles killed in Australian road traffic crashes," Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2004. 36, pp. 239–48.

Repeat: ...a crash risk among certain users no higher than that of drug–free users...from the most meaningful recent study of culpability...

"no higher"

It goes on... but there is evidently SOME credence. Right?

That's what it said.  Why should we listen to Matt and do what he says? Just because?

How are we "doing harm to the movement"?

Is it normal for the writer to not respond to any questions?

I think that it would be a good idea for Matt Kelly to post a thread here that responds to the extremely legitimate questions that we have all been posting.

Funny thing is, there actually might be some consensus (especially among users and most of the scientific community) nevertheless. I had not given it much thought until now.

I agree wholeheartedly Matthew.  I think that if Mr. Kelley is going to ignore these questions then perhaps he should try writing his articles the way experienced journalists do:  by citing sources and backing up his arguments with facts.

Otherwise, I hate to say it but once the holes are poked and questions are asked the whole thing just looks like a mess of hot air.

I don't want to seem rude, but...smokers, public safety advocates and our other brave outspoken activists have suffered enough public insult and slander!

That's a grand slam home run game over statement Richard.

I think that we should copy and paste what you wrote into emails that we send to all of our elected officials--local, state, and national.

Thanks Matt ;-) !

Anna, do you mean ME? I think by and large we are in agreement. But I do like to spell things out.

The reason that the state is or will demand extra levels of testing for marijuana, which has been shown to be relatively benign, while NOT making similar requirements for so many other drugs and activities which are demonstrably more dangerous is that they, or it, wants to harrass us, or otherwise make us pay for our imperiousness. How dare we?!

Why not make these demands of OTC pharmaceutical drug users, when those drugs cause similar or worse impairment? Because in this Capitalist society, big corporations rule. They want marijuana challenged (and eliminated if possible); they do NOT want their own products questioned.

Never underestimate soldiers in the drug war. As should be abundantly clear after all these years of Drug War, there is no low to which they won't stoop. If all else fails, they will continue to stretch the truth in order to pursue programs of harrassment against us. If they really cared about our health or well-being, they'd leave us alone.

They can test ME under the influence any day, provided they provide the hemp, and provided I can choose the level of the buzz, just as I would normally. Judging from my experience, and my driving record, I am perhaps even more competent under the influence than otherwise.

Please see my other posts here for a complete explanation.

I did not speak as concisely but I was speaking generally to change.org and the author of this article, actually, with my demand to "answer for yourself!".  Sorry for the confusion!~

Yes, I think we're generally on the same page.....

You're absolutely right. Inexperienced stoners should not be driving, but someone who is able to handle themselves on it should not be prohibited.

Absolutely. That's why marijuana must be legally available only to adults, especially because they will be experienced drivers. We should not forget that some substance WILL leak out to youths, perhaps even as much as they use now. However, we should also note that in most cases, even their driving will be safer than if they has just polished off a six-pack of beer. As for pre-teens, it cannot be "worse" (in quotes because it is not exactly clear that it's that bad) than it is currently. It is likely that legal pot will be harder for pre-teens to get than it is now. In most cases, at least, pre-teens will not be driving.

I should also note, with reference to my last post, that according to the DOT, adults using a normal  or even a large dose of THC are NOT legally impaired. I am PROJECTING that there must be cases when a person, especially a youth or inexperienced smoker or driver, is too stoned to drive. In my personal experience, that has been fairly rare, and I don't think it is commonly a problem.

Restoring cannabis to its formerly legal status and regulating the sales of herb will probably not allow substance to fall through the cracks to the youth, any more than prescription drugs, household items and alcohol have in previous decades.  Prohibition itself has been the single largest barrier to doing all we can to protect our society from that danger.

thanks for stepping up to post a clear request.

It has been customary in the past for writers to correct their errors (trust us, they're errors) and/or publicly retract the article if it was a newspaper or other publication.

Bloggers by custom have been able to address questions from their audience, especially on points of accuracy in an article.

It'd be great to walk away from this unpleasant encounter with some sense that change.org is not actually some flip flopping organization that tries to mobilize american citizens on actions that could be entirely misrepresented.  In short, this is becoming a huge credibility issue for me --

thanks-

In addition to being of top concern for 'We the People' via Change.org, "Marijuana Legalization" was the #1 Question for Change.gov, the Obama Administration's transition site (16 of the top 50 questions were drug-policy related.)

Number One.

Both sites: Change.gov & Change.org

#1

Yes, that does "say something".

So does this:

"And if the high didn't solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bull[feces] and cheap moralism."

Source: Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p. 87 Aug 1, 1996

I think we know what happened next at both sites.  (If someone would like to give a recap I would appreciate it.)

What do you think about hypocrisy, balderdash, and cheap moralism? Isn't that what is happening?

Yet, I do not want to give up. I mean this not simply as an indictment but as an opportunity.

Redemption is possible (but, alas, unlikely.)

The folly of disgraceful dismissal should not be underestimated.

oops, that was a mistake, should have been war on drugs, just missed by one box on my category checklist. it's fixed, thanks for pointing that out.

Matt, please explain the picture. If that is what happens with your vision after Cannabis, then of course don't you dare get behind the wheel.

The photo just seems like an attempt to mislead. When you include 2 examples that fall apart under scrutiny..... How about some truth.

You say below  : 'Whether you think I chose bad car accident anecdotes above (and I'll agree they aren't the strongest), do you agree that marijuana impairment has caused car accidents and deaths?'

Why should we agree to something that has no varifiable evidence? It also goes against everyones personal experience. Isn't it possible that you chose those examples because that is the closest you can come to 'evidence'? Show us the SCIENCE! The known science refutes your assertions.

I completely understand what you are saying that we should never be promoting driving while under the infuence. But in trying to make the point, you're flirting with the same 'reefer madness' mentality that we've been fighting for 75 years. Who's side are you on?

What personal experience do you have?

What's with the word 'POT'? Do you see the negative conotation associated with that slang?

Our movement will never prevail until we have scrapped all of the negative slang and reclaimed the true name. The same name that we called it when it was legal.

CANNABIS!

Get rid of that grossly misleading photo. Cannabis doesn't produce halucinations. Why do you want to make people think it does?

MJ,

It would be just as effective to take the negative connotation away.  I see nothing wrong with saying "I'm successful and I smoke pot." Or "I smoke pot to relieve my IBS." Or "I have a safe driving record and I smoke pot."  (had to throw that in :D)

Of course, I think people should stop saying things along the lines of "what were you smoking when you typed/said/did that?"

For the record, I do try to say cannabis more than any other term though.

   -Scott

As is usually the case, both ideas are quite valid.

I do both, myself.

I reclaim true names as well as take negative connotations away.

There are denotations (dictionary definitions) and connotations (common understood usages with additional meaning) for words.

There are classic examples of taking the negative out of word connotations.

The "B" word is now the name of a great feminist magazine: 'B--ch Magazine, A Feminist Response to Pop Culture'.

The "N" word has been infamously reappropriated, as well.

I think that I tend to say "cannabis" more than any other word for cannabis.

There's wisdom in saying "pot", while speaking positively about it.

The phrase "smoking pot" makes me wonder if one of the first instances of smoking cannabis happened accidentally in an enclosed area after all the liquid was cooked out of a pot that had some cannabis containing food or medicine being prepared. The result would be that the pot would start smoking and the cannabis would be inhaled.

That was the image that I conjured upon hearing about cannabis smoking for the first time.

When I was a child another child told me, "So-and-so and their friends are smoking pot and I'm going to tell on them."

Even now, the literal 'smoking pot' hypothesis seems plausible to me.

...

Since I'm feeling insightful right now, and since we are talking about words and logic, I decided to look at something that most people, myself included, didn't seem to understand.

(By the way, I am applying myself to a whole lot of other stuff too, like a full time job, a relationship, and working on a wide variety of issues/causes.)

"Bong Hits for Jesus" is what I'm talking about.

What did that sign mean?

The mainstream media and the US Supreme Court were continuously using words like 'cryptic', 'inarticulate', 'unintelligble', etc., to describe the phrase "Bong Hits for Jesus".

As far as I know, no one actually asked the student what his sign meant, and reported it. Did anyone even venture a guess?

I have a guess.

The logic could have been:

God gave this plant to use.

What would Jesus do?

Jesus would use the plant.

Bong Hits for Jesus!

(perhaps a response to pop culture, like in the magazine 'Adbusters')

It's actually pretty straightforward and I came up with it after reading so many posts in so many places talking about the judeo-christian "God" in conjunction with cannabis.

It seems plausible. Do you know what I mean?

Also, remember, that sign was displayed during an Olympic Torch Relay.

Michael Phelps. 8 Gold Medals. Torches a Bong.

Any questions?

I don't think that we have to make "it's safe to drive high" part of the messaging. I mean that we don't have to start out by saying that, nor do I think it would be "smart" to make signs/banners for marches/parades that say "it's safe to drive high".

Although... I am reminded of the US Supreme court Decision "Morse v. Frederick" aka "Bong Hits For Jesus".  Justice Stevens, dissenting, stated, "[C]arving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment, finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment." "Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting—however inarticulately—that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."

Drug Policy Alliance response:

"We take mild comfort that the decision clearly protects speech challenging the war on drugs. Never before has the Supreme Court stated so clearly that speech attacking the wisdom of the war on drugs is protected wherever it may occur," said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.

In other words, one "inarticulate" sign/statement by one person resulted in the Supreme Court of the USA stating it's position on attacking the wisdom of the war on drugs, specifically. It's protected speech.

What I'm using this reference to show is that sometimes we just don't know what is "smart" or not. So even though I may not make that statement someone might and it might be alright.

I'm reminded of an example from "Lord of the Rings" where Gandalf admonishes the idea that Gollum should be killed.

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. . . . even the very wise cannot see all ends.” --Gandalf

Again, the point is that sometimes actions and events work in unexpected ways.

I do think that we need to give a more precise variation of the "it's safe to drive high" statement though...as a response. We need to be ready.

Apparently, the cannabis movements are successful; seemingly without having to advocate for outlawing and discouraging cannabis use and driving. Bottom line...successful movements don't need to use pseudoscience and capitulation. They challenge that. (I can cite examples.)

 I am going to post this and then continue, later, to address the first question (and maybe a little more of the second.)

Thank you very much for the response (and the story category correction). I hope that there will be more to follow.

Matt,

NORML is saying what it says for political reasons. I understand that. I respect NORML for being what it is. Politics is described as being "the art of compromise." NORML used to say that Marijuana use, itself, should be discouraged (see: video footage from Grass The Movie). Keith Stroup explained to me why that was.

You mentioned that we can all find competing studies. I notice that so far nobody has presented anything contrary that withstands scrutiny.

At the top you state that: "Reliable scientific studies have shown that marijuana usage causes slower reaction time, impairs eye tracking and lateral awareness and that drivers fail to reliably regulate speed and the distance between their car and the car ahead of them." 

Do you realize how that statement is incomplete? Even though the study is reliable, that piece of information doesn't tell the whole story. The reader has to make assumptions...e.g. that therefore, because of the described effects true harm is occurring. (The effects of mitigating & nullifying factors were not described in that statement)

Thankfully, the reader doesn't have to make assumptions. There is considerably more scholarship then you suggest.

How about that work from the US Dept. of Transportation? (http://cannabis.thawkins.com/dot78.html) It's not weak or anecdotal. If anybody would be biased to your point of view wouldn't it be them? Why would they say all that stuff? (Note: Because it's true.)

More:

"In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group.  This is consistent with other findings.”

REFERENCE:

Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability.  Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

"Consistent with other findings."

"Accident Analysis and Prevention"

Wow! Heavy...

“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:

1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232

" AND  may  reduce  those  risks ! "

That's from a peer reviewed journal that uses the scientific method!

 In conclusion...

"The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society."

From Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. A decade after the book was published, the latest scientific evidence continues to support the original findings.

Thanks everyone, for the support! 

Excuse me if I became impassioned.  I can understand your argument but please acknowledge my question:

I work for a medical cannabis clinic.  Never did I EVER state that it is safe to drive high.

My objection was and still is based solely upon this presentation of an idea to promote an additional driving test by which people prove their ability under the influence.

That proposition seems to suggsest there IS a given setting where it IS safe to drive high.  The proposal to have the state sign off on a driver's license, thereby guaranteeing that it IS safe in their opinion is really causing some logic issues for me in regards to that proposal.

Also, I DO become impassioned because the people I see every day live with cancer, glaucoma, MS and other conditions which have already been deemed worthy of treatment from medical cannabis (according to the 16 or so states who have legalized medical cannabis).

The last thing these patients need in order to preserve their freedom of movement and mobility is to take an additional test proving their ability.

Also, I pointed out that the effects from vaporizing or consuming orally is different from smoking.

When a patient is determining dosage s/he is doing so based upon personal consultation with their doctors who approved medical use of cannabis.  This is why dosage is so difficult to address.

Hopefully my repeating this question will warrant having it addressed.  thank you.

I am sorry to post my one-millionth postscript on this board.  But I don't know that I've spelled out that I'm aware that this is a debate in the context of full reclamation and legalization - my question and vehement opposition here has been based upon medical use, which is already legal in some states and is on a totally different level of discussion.

However, I'd like to reiterate that Cannabis has powerful and highly effective medicinal properties.

When there is a proposal that the state become involved in legislating extra, special procedures to address recreational use/abuse of cannabis, this could very adversely affect the people who are NOT using it for recreational purposes, but very legitimate and very serious medical conditions.  If a patient were to test over a certain level in their blood (again, an expensive process that I would highly disapprove my tax dollars funding) there are a number of explanations for this -- will this mean that patients could become vulnerable to profiling and fines they most likely can't afford?

As I mentioned before, I'm a bike rider who is ALL FOR driver accountability, but I'd daresay the biggest challenge and most elusive change is dealing with our paradigm and perspective to this herb.

Very good points you make Matt.

I believe it may make the marijuana reform movement stronger if we keep driving while high illegal for the time being, but have a level system somewhat like the BAC scale with alcohol, so someone who smoked several hours ago wouldn't get in trouble vs someone who has a lit joint when the cop pulls him/her over.

Yet I do not believe that marijuana has soley been the cause for any accidents or death. I believe it was simply the driver's fault for being easily distracted, as I, personally, am not driving impaired due to consumption of marijuana.

'...making mountains out of molehills'. ???

Matt, whom do you presume your audience to be?

If you are speaking to users, you must know that they will look at the photo and shake their heads and see it as just more of the same drug war, reefer madness mentality. John Walters would be proud.

If you are speaking to non users, why do you want to leave them with an impression that cannabis is on par with LSD?

It's  the 'Drug Warriors', that have been making mountains, without even molehills as catalyst. An endeavor you seemingly wish to contribute to.

I'm not a 'pothead', Matt. I'm a CANNABIS user. What is the purpose of continuing the derogatory slang, to save yourself keystrokes? Maybe if the anti-prohibitionists of the 20's would have promoted the words 'booze' and 'hooch', .....weren't the ones using the slang names, the same ones that wanted to demonize the substance? 

I was going to propose that the title:

 "Pot and the Safe Driving Myth"

could be changed to something like:

 "The Myth of Unsafe Driving, Re: Cannabis Use",

and I thought that it might be seriously considered, but I see that it won't.

First of all, thank you Matt, for giving us a very thoughtful response, as well as for appreciating the work that we have done.

Many of us have driven, or have been in cars with people driving, and have seen unsafe driving.

I have been nearly killed many times. Once, I was a passenger in a vehicle that flipped end over end three times and landed in front of a paramedic's house on a rural road. The driver and the passenger were arguing and the driver slammed on the brakes, which locked and sent us toward a ditch. Hypothetically, if all things were equal, the usage of cannabis might have preempted an escalation of a major argument. But, who knows?

Another time, whether or not the driver of the vehicle had smoked cannabis that was unknowingly laced with cocaine (it was), the fact was that he had been up all night, had been drinking, had injured his foot earlier that night, and had almost no experience driving a standard (stick) transmission vehicle.

True stories.  I'm showing that there is always going to be much more to the story than an easy generalized explanation.

I couldn't resist reading that article about that French (British Medical Journal) study that you chose.

"The French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research found evidence of cannabis use among 7% of drivers involved in fatal crashes."

"Dr John Heyworth, past president of the British Association of Accident and Emergency Medicine, said" [of an increase in incidents] "few people had taken cannabis alone - often it was combined with alcohol or other types of drugs, such as cocaine or speed."

"Sometimes it is difficult to know whether a person's behaviour is linked to their injuries, or to the drugs they have taken," he said.

 [Note: I think the last statement in the article has a typo. I believe the intent was to say:

 "Sometimes it is difficult to know whether a person's injuries are linked to their behaviour, or to the drugs they have taken," he said.]

You said:

"Matthew, you're right that the Bates and Blakely study is a strong one because the tests are conducted in a real traffic environment.

One important consideration is that these controlled studies lacked real emergency."

I say:

It was the USDOT test that was conducted in a real traffic environment. The Bates and Blakely study was from a post real emergency environment.

The link didn't lead to a Matthew Baldock paper.

I also couldn't resist posting this from today's International Association for Cannabis as Medicine (IACM, http://www.cannabis-med.org/) - Bulletin of 8 November 2009:

UK: The government fires a chief drug adviser and causes dismay by the scientific community

After the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs,
David Nutt, had criticised the government for upgrading cannabis
to a class B narcotic he was asked by Home Secretary Alan
Johnson on 30 October to leave his job. Two members of this
drug advisory board resigned in protest to this behaviour of the
government. This reaction to Nutt's firing is prompting speculation
about more resignations from the Misuse of Drugs board, The
Times reported on 2 November. Nutt had also said that ecstasy
and LSD were less harmful than alcohol.

Johnson had said Nutt was fired because he campaigned against
the government position of drugs policy. Nutt said the government
of Gordon Brown was the first government in the history of the
Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971 to have gone against advice of its
scientific panel. "Some aspects of science should not be subject to
petty party politics," he told the BBC. "There's no point in having
drug laws that are meaningless or arbitrary just because politicians
find it useful and expedient occasionally to come down so-called
hard on drugs." Other scientists agree that politics should be based
on objective data. What angers them most is that politicians use
data when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.

More at:
- http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLV79496
- http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2009/11/02/Two-
resign-after-British-scientist-fired/UPI-68061257174855/

(Sources: Reuters of 31 October 2009, UPI of 2 November 2009)

That's a concern of mine, even with this issue. There is no point having drug laws (or public service announcements) that are meaningless or arbitrary just because politicians (or media representatives) find it useful and expedient occasionally to come down so-called
hard on drugs. Politics should be based on objective data.

The photo was "just a photo?"

Freud may have said that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", but, well, sometimes it isn't.

Yes, we did get talking! This topic is #1 for the month in the "Criminal Justice" category!

Bon Voyage!

According to a large US DOT study "Marijauna and Actual Driving Performance - Effects of THC on Driving Performance," using the same standards of performance used to judge whether drivers under the influence of alcohol are impaired, drivers under the influence of even a large dose of marijuana are NOT impaired. See http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1g.htm, and my other posts.

Right on!

Thanks Anna.

Yes, that is quite stunning.

I was excited to read the position paper last year from the American College of Physicians (ACP)

http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf

the country's second largest physician group. It has really good material in it, like parts about using vaporizers.  This is even bigger (coming from the first largest).

Everyone, please read the press release that Anna posted:

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5838

That's pretty big news.

Change.org,

This AMA recognition of therapeutic cannabis is a story worthy of a blog and more. It belongs on the front/home page.

!

I think that if Change.org were to hide or disregard the MOST POPULAR issue/cause (ending the war on drugs, legalizing cannabis for all uses--such as food, fiber, medicine, inspiration, etc.) it would be the height of folly.

Also, in the future I hope that it won't require an epic news-story to get something more prominent featured.

Please consider this:

The causes for ending the war on drugs, legalizing cannabis for all uses--such as food, fiber, medicine, inspiration, etc. are evidently the most popular of all. They appeal to the greatest cross section of society. The most numerous/the most diverse. Period.

By facilitating and focusing on these issues positively as an organization, you/we will be bringing (and retaining) hundreds of thousands of people into the realm of activism!

Then people WILL work on MANY more issues/causes.

It would be prudent, truly.

Thanks for sincerely considering this.

 ...

(Please feel free to repeat this request here and elsewhere.)

sorry to post and run again, but I wanted to drop by and link to another wave crashing in the UK on the same topic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8349300.stm

Uh oh.

It looks like Change.org is not reporting on the story that THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION has reversed the staunch anti-medicinal marijuana position that they had held.

I think I can see an obvious problem.

Look...

What "Cause" would the story go under?

Is therapeutic cannabis "Social Entrepreneurship" is it "Global Health", is it "Health Care"? Doesn't "Criminal Justice" somehow feel inappropriate?

Whoops.

It looks like somebody (or, quite likely, a CONSPIRACY of somebodies) has effectively marginalized one of the most popular causes nearly out of existence here.

What do you think?

(and if you would like to know why it is so popular, just ask)

Let's Roll

(pun intended)

Matthew, the AMA news is big, and it's on my list to work into my next pot post. Rather than imagining a conspiracy, please feel free to email me story ideas at matt [at] change.org

I'll try to get to the AMA story over the weekend, when I want to also report on some of the great stuff going at the Drug Policy Alliance conference.

Believe me, it's not a conspiracy, it's one person  trying to cover a range of issues that fall under the heading 'criminal justice'

Matt,

I believe you when you say that you are one person trying to cover a wide range of issues that fall under the heading of 'criminal justice'.

The fact that you are the only person working on this stuff--that you are the cannabis hemp movement's point person--is a big example of what's wrong with what happened/is happening.

Marijuana legalization seems to be something that you tacitly support but something that you are not particularly passionate about. That's fine. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) You should be able to focus on the many important things that you really would like to.

Because the decisions were made to make you responsible for so many things you can't be solely responsible for the lack of coverage of the top topic. 

The problem is that while I and most others are passionate about many many things, cannabis is something that THE MOST PEOPLE OVERALL are passionate about.

We voted here at Change.org!

It's true!

Yet, it is an issue that appears to be, truly, marginalized.

 See for yourself! Isn't it obvious?

...not a conspiracy?!

Are you kidding me?!

One might argue that it was a "good" or "practical" conspiracy, but how could it not accurately be considered conspiracy?

(I realize that the "C" word is bandied about a lot, but I don't feel like finding a euphemism this time.) 

What happened at Change.org & Change.gov was such a blatant example of conspiracy that I am nearly at a loss for words!

...(...)...

We the people were asked to vote on what our favorite issue is.

Overwhelmingly...

...at both sites...

...Cannabis was #1 !

Will you please confirm (or deny) this?

I know that it is true and I know that anyone should be able to research and discover this.

There is a clear subversion of democracy in this situation. Prove me wrong. I'm sorry that the powers that be here exert their difference of opinion to override the will of the voters. Sad but true. True.

It's not really a question of "did that happen?" it's a question of "why did that happen?" and "when will it ever change?"

Maybe it's only temporary? Maybe it was "for our own good".

I'm not pretending like I don't understand why this happened either. I think it was a calculated decision to, in Obama's words, "not spend a whole lot of political capital on this."

Today I log on to Change.org and what is one of the "Top Posts"? ...

"Biden Serves Fish Sticks to the Homeless"

...

It is the top post, with a total of five comments! It has many views  but then  it is on the front page. (This page "P&tSDM", strangely, doesn't have a view counter like others.)

About the post that you refer to (in regards to the Drug Policy Alliance and the American Medical Association)...

It should be on the front page.

But first...(I'll email you personally, also)

 ...a few problems:

For some reason there is not a video, or a link to a video, by Ethan Nadelmann. (That is what your post is mostly referring to.) So, I will have to search for it myself, which I don't think a lot of people will do.

Also, one sentence doesn't exactly do justice to the story of the reversal of the detrimental, longstanding, influential, AMA political position.

Question:

Why can't we post a comment to that article?

Do you notice that there are (0) comments to the story that I'm talking about: 'The Wind is at Our Back'? http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/the_wind_is_at_our_back

That's because the Comment feature is not working (again). Is that intentional, or just another mistake?

The very act of making Cannabis (food, inspiration, fiber, medicine, economics, ethics, etc.) a Cause at Change.org will do a world of good including but not limited to bringing people into the realm of activism.

Here is a summary, from Changes.org (with an "S"), of why I keep working on getting this issue up front:

If every marijuana using adult in the United States CAME OUT OF THE MARIJUANA CLOSET, there'd be political clout to STOP THE WAR ON DRUGS which has bankrupt the U.S. morally, politically and economically.

                       --Elizabeth Gips, Changes.org,

               Celebrating Our Growing Consciousness

What do you think?

My previous post seems to have left out the link to the study conclusion (it was in my submission):

I guess this site does not allow links? Too bad. I guess you'll have to find it yourselves.