• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pot and driving:

This article is retarded. "Green tongue" is complete nonsense, and anyone who would believe such has no real knowledge about cannabis.

Mt. Dew slushies cause green tongue.....
 
Hard to find something to this effect. Pretty much everything that comes up about pot in google is about smoking it. Which, yeah, doesn't turn tongues green. ;) But here is another article that has a suspect with a green tougne because he ate it. (he admitted to eating it to hide evidence)

Green Tongue Points to Pot

Chewing on marijuana could probably cause a green tongue, smoking it does not.

Besides, who in their right mind would chew on marijuana or eat it raw, other than trying to avoid the law?
 
Chewing on marijuana could probably cause a green tongue, smoking it does not.

Besides, who in their right mind would chew on marijuana or eat it raw, other than trying to avoid the law?

The funny thing is, raw cannabis contains THC/CBD-acid which in no way causes the euphoric response many people use cannabis for. When i see people on here claim that we have prescription medications (which are in fact THC-acid or a synthetic version) and therefore the need to smoke/eat/vape is wrong, it is a sure sign they really have no idea wha they are talking about.

CBD-acid is effective in relieving symptoms of ulcerative colitis, crohns, or IBD. As a means of alleviating nausea from chemo, advanced HIV, etc..., it is not effective (nor is THC-acid).

Digsbe, this is something people in your field should be aware of before they make judgment calls.
 
Cannabis use is associated with disturbances in concentration and memory. New research by neuroscientists at the University of Bristol, published in the Journal of Neuroscience, has found that brain activity becomes uncoordinated and inaccurate during these altered states of mind, leading to neurophysiological and behavioral impairments reminiscent of those seen in schizophrenia.
How cannabis causes 'cognitive chaos' in the brain
 
If anything we need to keep marijuana illegal and reverse medical marijuana laws. To be honest medical marijuana is just a gateway to legalization and is one of the most absurd "medical" treatments that I can think of.

In my own observation, smoking marijuana can enhance a cancer patient's appetite and can make chemo more bearable. But I do realize that "medical marijuana" is a gateway and also a racket.
 
I missed this the first time. I'll just add my two cents. I care less if people smoke. Until we can answer the questions listed in this article I will be for it remaining illegal. If we can develop a failsafe way of determining impairment, I'll change my position.
 
Funny how they focus on how the guy had smoked pot, yet decided the "other drugs" needed no further elaboration. Since he was using medical marijuana I wonder if any of those other drugs happened to be common prescriptions. Someone who smoked pot right before getting in a vehicle is still considerably less likely to crash than someone who is well under the legal alcohol limit or using certain prescription medication. The same goes for most other illicit substances. Of course, since the pharmaceutical industry dominates the medical research field a study they fund may very well conclude otherwise. The same goes for any government study. However, it will just be the same old "correlation equals causation" arguments our fraudulent scientific establishment has used to shut down any positions they disagree with.

No need for a legal limit exists when it comes to most illicit substances. However, the notion that it does seriously impair someone's driving ability is used as one of many scare tactics to perpetuate the drug war. Another one is to focus on health effects, especially by making the link that marijuana when smoked has the same effects as tobacco (an ironic argument given the latter is legal). They focus on things produced when smoking it that cause cancer in tobacco smokers while excluding the proven cancer-fighting effect of THC. Studies actually looking at the health of users shoot down all the scary theories about its use.

Alcohol is the king of deadly substances yet is readily promoted with sports arenas even named after major brands. Yet apparently we are supposed to fear marijuana being legal.
 
Funny how they focus on how the guy had smoked pot, yet decided the "other drugs" needed no further elaboration.

I would be happy to elaborate on the effects of driving while on acid if that helps.
 
Funny how they focus on how the guy had smoked pot, yet decided the "other drugs" needed no further elaboration. Since he was using medical marijuana I wonder if any of those other drugs happened to be common prescriptions. Someone who smoked pot right before getting in a vehicle is still considerably less likely to crash than someone who is well under the legal alcohol limit or using certain prescription medication. The same goes for most other illicit substances. Of course, since the pharmaceutical industry dominates the medical research field a study they fund may very well conclude otherwise. The same goes for any government study. However, it will just be the same old "correlation equals causation" arguments our fraudulent scientific establishment has used to shut down any positions they disagree with.

No need for a legal limit exists when it comes to most illicit substances. However, the notion that it does seriously impair someone's driving ability is used as one of many scare tactics to perpetuate the drug war. Another one is to focus on health effects, especially by making the link that marijuana when smoked has the same effects as tobacco (an ironic argument given the latter is legal). They focus on things produced when smoking it that cause cancer in tobacco smokers while excluding the proven cancer-fighting effect of THC. Studies actually looking at the health of users shoot down all the scary theories about its use.

Alcohol is the king of deadly substances yet is readily promoted with sports arenas even named after major brands. Yet apparently we are supposed to fear marijuana being legal.

Anyone who has ever gotten high knows you are full of crap. A scare tactic? Please.

There are valid measurements for ones influence with alcohol.
 
Funny how they focus on how the guy had smoked pot, yet decided the "other drugs" needed no further elaboration. Since he was using medical marijuana I wonder if any of those other drugs happened to be common prescriptions. Someone who smoked pot right before getting in a vehicle is still considerably less likely to crash than someone who is well under the legal alcohol limit or using certain prescription medication. The same goes for most other illicit substances. Of course, since the pharmaceutical industry dominates the medical research field a study they fund may very well conclude otherwise. The same goes for any government study. However, it will just be the same old "correlation equals causation" arguments our fraudulent scientific establishment has used to shut down any positions they disagree with.

No need for a legal limit exists when it comes to most illicit substances. However, the notion that it does seriously impair someone's driving ability is used as one of many scare tactics to perpetuate the drug war. Another one is to focus on health effects, especially by making the link that marijuana when smoked has the same effects as tobacco (an ironic argument given the latter is legal). They focus on things produced when smoking it that cause cancer in tobacco smokers while excluding the proven cancer-fighting effect of THC. Studies actually looking at the health of users shoot down all the scary theories about its use.

Alcohol is the king of deadly substances yet is readily promoted with sports arenas even named after major brands. Yet apparently we are supposed to fear marijuana being legal.

Couldn't agree more. I wonder what other drugs were in his system.
 
If anything we need to keep marijuana illegal and reverse medical marijuana laws. To be honest medical marijuana is just a gateway to legalization and is one of the most absurd "medical" treatments that I can think of.

The effects of smoking it is just one aspect. . . undeniably - it has many alternative (to smoking) uses. I think it's silly to overlook at these many other aspects of it in an attempt to prevent people from smoking occasionally.

You can give me 2 reasons to keep it illegal - I can give you 30 reasons why it should be grown for it's non-smoking uses.
 
Anyone who has ever gotten high knows you are full of crap. A scare tactic? Please.

"Anyone"? I know that is just bull**** on your part. However, the fact is that scientific research has found that the negative effects of marijuana on driving are either negligible or non-existent. Most of the accidents where the culpable party used marijuana involve other, more serious, mitigating factors like alcohol. Yes, it is a scare tactic. The drug war is built on scare tactics that keep people distracted from the reality that the drug war has nothing to do with protecting anyone from the effects of drug use.

Pharmaceutical companies want to maintain their legal oligopoly on the market for opiates and cannabinoids. Law enforcement want to have surefire ways to keep all them rowdy black youth in check. Intelligence agencies want to preserve the lucrative resources of their organized crime partners. The Military-Industrial Complex wants to keep up its use as a casus belli for intervention against groups threatening American imperial dominance.

A lot of big interests in business and government have a very strong desire to keep people from sympathizing with legalization efforts and therefore have to keep the populace docile. Thus they make sure their mouthpieces in the establishment media maintain the party line.
 
"Anyone"? I know that is just bull**** on your part. However, the fact is that scientific research has found that the negative effects of marijuana on driving are either negligible or non-existent.

Sorry, totally dismissable bull****. I'd be embarrassed to even claim this.
 
Here's my true life experience. Sometime between 1971 and 1975, I smoked pot and watched TV (no booze or anything else) with a friend until midnight and then said "i gotta go," the ol' lady will be lookin' for me. I left at 12 midnight and drove the 14 miles home at what I felt was the maximum handling capability of the car. I felt the lean in the corners. I felt I was at maximum cornering speeds. This trip was rural and I'm also watching out for deer, raccoons, possums, etc. I arrived home and the ol' lady was readin' the riot act. Wowser, what's this? It was 4:00 am. The fourteen miles took me 4 friggin' hours and the trip is just as I described in my memory. I never smoked pot and drove after that. That's the whole story, for what it's worth. I know there are big differences between individuals and effects.
 
Here's my true life experience. Sometime between 1971 and 1975, I smoked pot and watched TV (no booze or anything else) with a friend until midnight and then said "i gotta go," the ol' lady will be lookin' for me. I left at 12 midnight and drove the 14 miles home at what I felt was the maximum handling capability of the car. I felt the lean in the corners. I felt I was at maximum cornering speeds. This trip was rural and I'm also watching out for deer, raccoons, possums, etc. I arrived home and the ol' lady was readin' the riot act. Wowser, what's this? It was 4:00 am. The fourteen miles took me 4 friggin' hours and the trip is just as I described in my memory. I never smoked pot and drove after that. That's the whole story, for what it's worth. I know there are big differences between individuals and effects.

And this is why laying blanket statements, and trying to enforce overarching laws about those statements, don't work. Just like drunk driving...what's the legal limit? Does anyone know? One beer? Two beers? Should we install tubes that must be blown into in ALL cars sold in the US, in order for the car to be started, like we do in some states with convicted DUIs? And would those tubes work with other drugs, or just booze?

Not for nothing, the most dangerously I ever drove was when I had about 10 more minutes left to go, and I had to **** like no one's business...
 
Here's my true life experience. Sometime between 1971 and 1975, I smoked pot and watched TV (no booze or anything else) with a friend until midnight and then said "i gotta go," the ol' lady will be lookin' for me. I left at 12 midnight and drove the 14 miles home at what I felt was the maximum handling capability of the car. I felt the lean in the corners. I felt I was at maximum cornering speeds. This trip was rural and I'm also watching out for deer, raccoons, possums, etc. I arrived home and the ol' lady was readin' the riot act. Wowser, what's this? It was 4:00 am. The fourteen miles took me 4 friggin' hours and the trip is just as I described in my memory. I never smoked pot and drove after that. That's the whole story, for what it's worth. I know there are big differences between individuals and effects.

Back during my smoking days, I rarely drove while high but when I did, I was extra careful and hyper aware of everything. And every car was a cop. :lol: I don't recommend driving while high, and yet over the counter drugs can be just as dangerous if not more so.
 
there has to be a way to test for an impairment level of THC. someone who just smoked might not be safe to drive. someone who smoked yesterday most likely is ok. however, both will test positive for THC. the difference is that the levels will probably be much higher in someone who just smoked.
 
there has to be a way to test for an impairment level of THC. someone who just smoked might not be safe to drive. someone who smoked yesterday most likely is ok. however, both will test positive for THC. the difference is that the levels will probably be much higher in someone who just smoked.

Not really. THC is fat soluble. How can that be measured?
 
there has to be a way to test for an impairment level of THC. someone who just smoked might not be safe to drive. someone who smoked yesterday most likely is ok. however, both will test positive for THC. the difference is that the levels will probably be much higher in someone who just smoked.

Generally a conversation will do it. You can usually tell when someone is stoned off their ass by talking to them. I can tell even over the phone.
 
Generally a conversation will do it. You can usually tell when someone is stoned off their ass by talking to them. I can tell even over the phone.

Yes - if it were legalized then we'd rely on one's actions to determine whether or not they were fit to drive - or responsible for an incident. People think that if it's legalized then we'd have no recourse for dangerous drivers when that's not true at all.

There are many other things that aren't regulated but do just as strongly effect - probably even more so than the effects of weed - on one's ability to drive such as driving while tired or sick.

What if you're in an accident because you dosed off behind the wheel? You can still be brought up on charges if you were deemed negligent and at direct fault. It should be your *actions* that matter - not necessarily your blood content or how many hours of sleep you didn't get.
 
Sorry, totally dismissable bull****. I'd be embarrassed to even claim this.

I have driven while high, and found it to be far more frightening a prospect to driving while drunk ( except when really really pissed but not blacked out drunk)
 
Back during my smoking days, I rarely drove while high but when I did, I was extra careful and hyper aware of everything. And every car was a cop. :lol: I don't recommend driving while high, and yet over the counter drugs can be just as dangerous if not more so.

You can be arrested for operating a car under their influence.
 
Yes - if it were legalized then we'd rely on one's actions to determine whether or not they were fit to drive - or responsible for an incident. People think that if it's legalized then we'd have no recourse for dangerous drivers when that's not true at all.

There are many other things that aren't regulated but do just as strongly effect - probably even more so than the effects of weed - on one's ability to drive such as driving while tired or sick.

What if you're in an accident because you dosed off behind the wheel? You can still be brought up on charges if you were deemed negligent and at direct fault. It should be your *actions* that matter - not necessarily your blood content or how many hours of sleep you didn't get.

Your position is that it should be legal to drive drunk as long as you get home safely?
 
Aside from the DUI factor, almost all the negative press on marijuana, including the bunk studies that it 'does nothing', is the direct product of the pharmaceutical industry. They have so much money - so much - that they can fund entire studies within their facilities and produce skewed results, and then publish those results via the newspapers. Corporate research in America is not always subject to peer review.

Every single person - EVERY one - that I have met who uses medical marijuana for this problems, has had improvement and alleviation of pain and symptoms.

If marijuana were legalized tomorrow, it would replace a slew of pharmaceutical drugs that are basically poison for the body. It would also open the gateway to hemp, which would replace other industries. I'm telling you, the reason why it's illegal and continues to be, is industry. They will lobby until the cows come home, investing millions of dollars, to stop this native plant from being legalized.

digsbe said:
As I've said though. We have the active THC molecule in pill form as dronabinol. It's medically unnecessary to legalize marijuana. And it's medically illogical to approve of a method of delivery that includes bringing into the body carcinogens and other harmful chemicals. I'm not arguing that MJ has no medical benefits. I'm arguing that MJ is unnecessary and we have better alternatives.

Just wanted to address all of the incorrect points in this.

Pot is not proven to cause cancer, not in the least. Both the AMA and the British Medical Association have determined that there is no evidence that it causes cancer. Now, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but there is not one recorded case in existence of someone who smoked pot and got cancer. Not one. Every so-called study that finds the cancer link has done research on people who smoke pot and tobacco, so the controls are not effective. The tar can be problematic, as it can lead to a higher incidence of bronchitis, but that's it. No cancer link established concretely, and trust me, I have researched this thoroughly.

Secondly... pot in a pill is ineffective. THC is only one cannabinoid in the cannabis plant, there are dozens of others, many of which modern science has not even fully examined yet. This is because there is no profit incentive to do so. It's the same reason why there are many people who can't get the same effect from vaporizing; they need all of the active compounds and vaporizing doesn't do that. So, putting one chemical into a pill is a far cry from the whole plant and its entire chemistry. Maybe if we legalized it, we could do better research into all of its components.

And finally... there are MANY forms of therapy that pot comes in. There are people who use cannabis-based cream to apply to their sore, arthritic joints. It works like a charm. There are people who eat pot in cooked form in order to relax their bodies and offset anxiety. Pot isn't just smoked. It can be taken in many different forms, so even if there is a correlative cancer link, and even if smoking it is controversial, there are many other ways to take it which cannot be possibly be cancerous.

This is about the pharmaceutical industry and its obscene profits. They don't want this medicine becoming widely available again like it was before the 1920's and the Reefer Madness campaign. They have no right to tell me or anyone what medicine I can or cannot use, and I certainly will not buy their expensive, poisonous crap if I can be using a safe, natural, and stress-relieving alternative.

People who DUI with pot are taking a big risk, but that has nothing to do with the medical benefits and the freedom of choice in medicine. There is plenty of research that clearly concludes pot is an effective medical treatment. Throwing people in jail for that is a crime against humanity. The War on Drugs needs to end NOW.
 
Back
Top Bottom