Political & Elections

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

RE: medical marijuana...

hope · Guru

I know! It's a very very complicated issue, isn't it?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

The "old fashioned way" is illegal, just for the record.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Heavy anything use is bad.

Obviously.

So is eating 5000 donuts, or smoking 5000 cigarettes, or drinking 5000 Diet Cokes or whatever. Moderation is good. Abstinence in some things is better, too.

Some people say that drinking in moderation has health benefits, particularly for women.

Another study will refute it.

There are negative effects to many things.

Personally, I would love researchers to be able to study this. Ancedotes are just anecdotes.

So are opinions.

hope · Guru

Do we base the legalization of any other drug on anecdotal evidence?

If anything, true believers should petition the goverment to allow extensive research into medical mj to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks.

Pushing for legalization at this stage is irresponsible, though you are free to do so, of course

In the meantime, if you really need/want it-- you can get it the old-fashioned way.

Here is another article. It's 10 years old, but I don't think anything has changed.

Study: Intelligence, cognition unaffected by heavy marijuana use

By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

The new study of cognitive changes caused by heavy marijuana use has found no lasting effects 28 days after quitting. Following a month of abstinence, men and women who smoked pot at least 5,000 times in their lives performed just as well on psychological tests as people who used pot sparingly or not at all, according to a report in the latest edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry.

That's the good news. The bad news, not included in the study, is that most heavy users admit that pot has had a negative effect on their physical and mental health as well their functioning on the job and socially.

"If there's one thing I've learned from studying marijuana for more than a decade, it's that proponents and opponents of the drug will put opposite spins on these findings," says Harrison Pope, a Harvard professor of psychiatry and leader of the research. "One day I'll get a letter that will say, 'we are shocked that you are so irresponsible as to publish a report that claims marijuana is almost harmless. That's a terrible disservice to our children.' The next day, I'll get a letter complaining that I'm 'irresponsible for implying there's something wrong with smoking marijuana. You have set back the legalization (of marijuana) movement by 20 years.'

"As a scientist, I'm struck by how passionately people hold opinions in both directions no matter what the evidence says. The other striking thing is how little we actually know about the effects of a drug that has been smoked for thousands of years and been studied for decades."

Withdrawal produces impairment

That shortage of knowledge motivated Pope and his colleagues at McLean Hospital, a Harvard-affiliated psychiatric facility in Belmont, to investigate the drug's long-term cognitive effects. They recruited 180 people, 63 of them heavy users who currently smoked pot daily, 45 former heavy users, and 72 who had used the drug no more than 50 times in their lives. Heavy use was defined as smoking pot at least 5,000 times. The subjects ranged in age from 30 to 55 years. Most of them were males because studies indicate that women are less likely to become heavy marijuana users.

All took batteries of intelligence, attention, learning and memory tests on days 0, 1, 7, and 28 after quitting the drug. (Daily urine samples confirmed whether or not they had stopped.) On days 0, 1 and 7, current heavy smokers scored significantly lower then the other groups on memory tests.

"By day 28, however, there were no significant differences among the groups on any of 10 different tests, and no significant association between cumulative lifetime marijuana use and test scores," Pope says. In other words, the researchers conclude that heavy marijuana use produces no irreversible mental deficits.

The investigators cannot say for sure why pot smokers remain impaired for days or weeks after giving up the drug. One possibility is that that they retain substantial amounts of a compound known as THC, the active ingredient of marijuana, in their systems. THC dissolves in body fat, then slowly percolates into the blood and brain over days and weeks after a joint is smoked.

Another explanation blames a withdrawal effect, similar but not as pronounced as the agitation, irritability, sleeping problems and appetite loss suffered by users of heroin or alcohol. Such symptoms impair attention and memory.

"Some of the deficits we saw were as bad, or even worse on day seven as on day one," Pope notes. "This suggests that withdrawal, rather than a residue of drug in the brain, accounts for the bulk of lingering impairments." A residue effect should decrease from day one to seven after quitting, but withdrawal problems would increase before they decrease.

Pot smokers who believe they are back to normal sometimes show detectable impairments on various tests. "That's a cause for concern," Pope points out. "You don't want to try landing a 747, driving a bus or train, or taking a calculus test a week after heavy marijuana use even if you feel normal."

Unsatisfied lives

Although researchers found no irreversible cognitive defects from a lifetime of marijuana consumption, pot users are not a happy lot. In a separate study, most heavy users admitted that the drug has a negative impact on all aspects of their lives from job performance and physical health to mental well being and satisfactory socializing.

Heavy smokers also have substantially smaller incomes and lower levels of education than nonusers or light users, despite the fact that the education and income levels of their families are the same. However, there's no way to determine if marijuana is the cause or if these people naturally have less ambition.

"It's a chicken and egg situation," Pope admits. "Probably the direction of causality goes both ways. In all likelihood, people who become frequent users are somewhat different at the outset; they may have lower cognitive abilities or less motivation. Once they start using the drug regularly, these differences become wider."

Asked if his conclusions would lead him to make any recommendations for or against legalizing marijuana, Pope answered "no, because so many other political and social factors are involved." He noted that alcohol, which is sold legally, causes cognitive deficits in long-term heavy users that do not disappear after 28 days and may be cumulative. However, he adds, "such toxicity is only one factor in the decision."

A number of investigations have linked marijuana to an increased risk of lung cancer. A recent Harvard study concluded that a middle-age person's chance of having a heart attack increases nearly five times during the first hour after smoking pot. That's especially meaningful for baby boomers who developed the habit in their teens and 20s and continue to use the drug in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Other researchers have associated pot with impaired disease resistance and adverse effects on fetuses when mothers smoke the drug during pregnancy.

On the other hand, many claims exist that marijuana eases the nausea produced by cancer drugs and relives the pain of diseases such as AIDS, severe arthritis, and glaucoma. Such claims led Canada recently to legalize its medical use.

Pope raises a caveat: "Is it better than other treatments for the same conditions? Given the association with lung cancer and other ills, does it provide more benefit than risk?"

Pro-pot people argue that, even if it's only equal in efficacy to prescription and over-the-counter drugs, it's much cheaper. "After all, it's only a weed," Pope points out.

All of these factors emphasize Pope's point that not much is really known about marijuana despite its long history of use and decades of study.

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 08:48:25 PM

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 08:51:09 PM

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 08:52:29 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

bout 10% of the users of Marijuana will get addicted. This is true.

However, for those living with chronic pain - not acute, short term pain or nausea associated with cancer/chemotherapy - this drug provides much needed relief. It also works amazingly well when dealing with Gluacoma.

I would rather take my chances if I was dealing with this kind of long term pain to try Marijuana than Oxy or Vicodin. My chances of getting addicted are so much less significant.

There are different ways that reduce the risk of using this drug and minimizing your long term risks- you don't have to smoke it in a joint. You can eat it. You can use a vaporizer pipe. There are even tinctures you can use.

There are studies that say it's useful for pain management and there are studies that say that it's overrated. Either way, we can find evidence and anecdotal information that supports our side.

It's been used for 6000 years. There is a reason for that. Because it works.

Big Pharma would have a big panic attack if weed was ever taken off the Class 1 list.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I'm at work. I'm on my phone and it is way too difficult to write a decent answer on here.

hope · Guru

romani: Where are you? smile

You wanted me to read the research; I offer you research that there is not enough research, which supports my original thesis, and you disappear?

No comments?

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 06:47:49 PM

hope · Guru

And here's another which goes to the topic of the OP:

Rather astonishing.

Researchers Find Study of Medical Marijuana Discouraged

By GARDINER HARRIS

Published: January 18, 2010

Despite the Obama administration’s tacit support of more liberal state medical marijuana laws, the federal government still discourages research into the medicinal uses of smoked marijuana. That may be one reason that — even though some patients swear by it — there is no good scientific evidence that legalizing marijuana’s use provides any benefits over current therapies.

Enlarge This Image

Mike Mergen for The New York Times

Buddy Coolen with marijuana plants he grows for medicinal use. He said smoking was “as good as any medicine I have.”

Enlarge This Image

Mike Mergen for The New York Times

Lyle E. Craker, a professor of plant sciences at the University of Massachusetts, has been trying to get permission from federal authorities for nearly nine years to grow a supply of the plant that he could study and provide to researchers for clinical trials.

But the Drug Enforcement Administration — more concerned about abuse than potential benefits — has refused, even after the agency’s own administrative law judge ruled in 2007 that Dr. Craker’s application should be approved, and even after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in March ended the Bush administration’s policy of raiding dispensers of medical marijuana that comply with state laws.

“All I want to be able to do is grow it so that it can be tested,” Dr. Craker said in comments echoed by other researchers.

Marijuana is the only major drug for which the federal government controls the only legal research supply and for which the government requires a special scientific review.

“The more it becomes clear to people that the federal government is blocking these studies, the more people are willing to defect by using politics instead of science to legalize medicinal uses at the state level,” said Rick Doblin, executive director of a nonprofit group dedicated to researching psychedelics for medical uses.

On Monday, his last full day in office, Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey signed a measure passed by the Legislature last week that made the state the 14th in the nation to legalize the use of marijuana to help with chronic illnesses.

The measure was pushed by a loose coalition of patients suffering from chronic illnesses like Lou Gehrig’s disease and multiple sclerosis who said marijuana eased their symptoms.

Studies have shown convincingly that marijuana can relieve nausea and improve appetite among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Studies also prove that marijuana can alleviate the aching and numbness that patients with H.I.V. and AIDS suffer.

There are strong hints that marijuana may ameliorate some of the neurological problems associated with such degenerative diseases as multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Igor Grant, director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, San Diego.

But there is no good evidence that legalizing the smoking of marijuana is needed to provide these effects. The Food and Drug Administration in 1985 approved Marinol, a prescription pill of marijuana’s active ingredient, T.H.C. Although a few small-scale studies done decades ago suggest that smoked marijuana may prove effective when Marinol does not, no conclusive research has confirmed this finding.

And Marinol is no panacea. There are at least three medicines that in most patients provide better relief from nausea and vomiting than Marinol, studies show.

Buddy Coolen, 31, of Warwick, R.I., said he tried or continued to use some of those medicines. “Smoking for me is as good as any medicine I have,” he said.

Eight years ago, Mr. Coolen contracted gastroparesis and cyclic vomiting syndrome. He lost 50 pounds and, despite being 5 foot 11, weighed 120 pounds.

His doctors gave him myriad anti-emetics, many of which he still takes. They also prescribed Marinol, but it did not work for him, Mr. Coolen said.

“My stepdad is old school and was really against marijuana, but then he saw what it did for me and totally changed his way of thinking,” Mr. Coolen said.

Some doctors and law enforcement officials say such anecdotes should not drive public policy. Dr. Eric Braverman, medical director of a multispecialty clinic in Manhattan, said legalizing marijuana was unnecessary and dangerous since Marinol provided the medicinal effects of the plant. “Our society will deteriorate,” he said.

Patients who call Dr. Braverman’s clinic are, when put on hold, told that the clinic may prescribe supplements and other alternative treatments that have even less scientific justification than marijuana. Dr. Braverman said such alternatives rendered marijuana unnecessary, but his embrace of alternatives is a reminder that medicine has long been driven by more than science.

About 20 percent of drug prescriptions are written for uses that are not approved by federal drug regulators; about half of the nation’s adults regularly take supplements; herbal and homeopathic remedies are popular.

The nation’s growing embrace of medical marijuana has stemmed from these alternative traditions.

The University of Mississippi has the nation’s only federally approved marijuana plantation. If they wish to investigate marijuana, researchers must apply to the National Institute on Drug Abuse to use the Mississippi marijuana and must get approvals from a special Public Health Service panel, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration.

But federal officials have repeatedly failed to act on marijuana research requests in a timely manner or have denied them, according to a 2007 ruling by an administrative law judge at the Drug Enforcement Administration. While refusing to approve a second marijuana producer, the government allowed the University of Mississippi to supply Mallinckrodt, a drug maker, with enough marijuana to eventually produce a generic version of Marinol.

“As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use,” said Shirley Simson, a spokeswoman for the drug abuse institute, known as NIDA. “We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”

The Drug Enforcement Administration said it was just following NIDA’s lead. “D.E.A. has never denied a research registration for marijuana and/or THC if NIDA approved the protocols for that individual entity,” a supervisory special agent, Gary Boggs, said by e-mail.

Researchers investigating LSD, Ecstasy and other illegal drugs can use any of a number of suppliers licensed by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Dr. Doblin said. And if a researcher wants to use a variety of marijuana that the University of Mississippi does not grow — and there are many with differing medicinal properties — they are out of luck, Dr. Doblin said.

Law enforcement tends to emphasize the abuse potential of medicines without regard to their positive effects. Bureaucratic battles between the D.E.A. and the F.D.A. over the availability of narcotics — highly effective but addictive medicines — have gone on for decades.

So medical marijuana may never have good science underlying its use. But for patients in desperate need, the ethics of providing access to the drug are clear, said Dr. Richard Payne, a professor of medicine and divinity and director of the Institute for Care on the End of Life at Duke Divinity School.

“It’s not a great drug,” he said, “but what’s the harm?”

More Articles in Health » A version of this article appeared in print on January 19, 2010, on page A14 of the New York edition.

hope · Guru

Ok. Took the time to find this for you.

Skip Navigation

NIDA NEWS

The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction from the National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIDA Home > InfoFacts > Drugged Driving

NIDA InfoFacts: Drugged Driving

PDF Version [480K]

En Español

What Is Drugged Driving?

“Have one [drink] for the road” was once a commonly used phrase in American culture. It has only been within the past 25 years that as a Nation, we have begun to recognize the dangers associated with drunk driving. And through a multipronged and concerted effort involving many stakeholders—including educators, media, legislators, law enforcement, and community organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving—the Nation has seen a decline in the numbers of people killed or injured as a result of drunk driving. But it is now time that we recognize and address the similar dangers that can occur with drugged driving.

The principal concern regarding drugged driving is that driving under the influence of any drug that acts on the brain could impair one’s motor skills, reaction time, and judgment. Drugged driving is a public health concern because it puts not only the driver at risk but also passengers and others who share the road.

However, despite the knowledge about a drug’s potentially lethal effects on driving performance and other concerns that have been acknowledged by some public health officials, policy officials, and constituent groups, drugged driving laws have lagged behind alcohol-related driving legislation, in part because of limitations in the current technology for determining drug levels and resulting impairment. For alcohol, detection of its blood concentration (BAC) is relatively simple, and concentrations greater than 0.08 percent have been shown to impair driving performance; thus, 0.08 percent is the legal limit in this country. But for illicit drugs, there is no agreed-upon limit for which impairment has been reliably demonstrated. Furthermore, determining current drug levels can be difficult, since some drugs linger in the body for a period of days or weeks after initial ingestion.

Some States (Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin) have passed “per se” laws, in which it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if there is any detectable level of a prohibited drug, or its metabolites, in the driver’s blood. Other State laws define “drugged driving” as driving when a drug “renders the driver incapable of driving safely” or “causes the driver to be impaired.”

In addition, 44 States and the District of Columbia have implemented Drug Evaluation and Classification Programs, designed to train police officers as Drug Recognition Experts. Officers learn to detect characteristics in a person’s behavior and appearance that may be associated with drug intoxication. If the officer suspects drug intoxication, a blood or urine sample is submitted to a laboratory for confirmation.

How Many People Take Drugs and Drive?

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) 2007 National Roadside Survey, more than 16 percent of weekend, nighttime drivers tested positive for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter medications. More than 11 percent tested positive for illicit drugs.¹ Another NHTSA study found that in 2009, among fatally injured drivers, 18 percent tested positive for at least one drug (e.g., illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter), an increase from 13 percent in 2005.² Together, these indicators are a sign that continued substance abuse education, prevention, and law enforcement efforts are critical to public health and safety.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 10.5 million people aged 12 or older reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the year prior to being surveyed.³ This corresponds to 4.2 percent of the population aged 12 or older, similar to the rate in 2008 (4 percent) and not significantly different from the rate in 2002 (4.7 percent). In 2009, the rate was highest among young adults aged 18 to 25 (12.8 percent). In addition, NSDUH reported the following:

In 2009, an estimated 12 percent of persons aged 12 or older (30.2 million persons) drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. This percentage has dropped since 2002, when it was 14.2 percent.
Driving under the influence of an illicit drug or alcohol was associated with age. In 2009, an estimated 6.3 percent of youth aged 16 or 17 drove under the influence. This percentage steadily increased with age to reach a peak of 24.8 percent among young adults aged 21 to 25. Beyond the age of 25, these rates showed a general decline with increasing age.
Also in 2009, among persons aged 12 or older, males were more likely than females (16.9 percent versus 9.2 percent, respectively) to drive under the influence of an illicit drug or alcohol in the past year.

In recent years, more attention has been given to drugs other than alcohol that have increasingly been recognized as hazards to road traffic safety. Some of this research has been done in other countries or in specific regions within the United States, and the prevalence rates for different drugs used vary accordingly. Overall, marijuana is the most prevalent illegal drug detected in impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Other drugs also implicated include benzodiazepines, cocaine, opiates, and amphetamines.⁴

A number of studies have examined illicit drug use in drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes, reckless driving, or fatal accidents. For example—

One study found that about 34 percent of motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a Maryland trauma center tested positive for “drugs only;” about 16 percent tested positive for “alcohol only.” Approximately 9.9 percent (or 1 in 10) tested positive for alcohol and drugs, and within this group, 50 percent were younger than age 18.⁵ Although it is interesting that more people in this study tested positive for “drugs only” compared with “alcohol only,” it should be noted that this represents one geographic location, so findings cannot be generalized. In fact, the majority of studies among similar populations have found higher prevalence rates of alcohol use compared with drug use.⁶
Studies conducted in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana.⁷
In a large study of almost 3,400 fatally injured drivers from three Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales, and Western Australia) between 1990 and 1999, drugs other than alcohol were present in 26.7 percent of the cases.⁸ These included cannabis (13.5 percent), opioids (4.9 percent), stimulants (4.1 percent), benzodiazepines (4.1 percent), and other psychotropic drugs (2.7 percent). Almost 10 percent of the cases involved both alcohol and other drugs.

Teens and Drugged Driving

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among young people aged 16 to 19.⁹ It is generally accepted that because teens are the least experienced drivers as a group, they have a higher risk of being involved in an accident compared with more experienced drivers. When this lack of experience is combined with the use of marijuana or other substances that impact cognitive and motor abilities, the results can be tragic.

Results from NIDA’s Monitoring the Future survey indicate that in 2007, more than 12 percent of high school seniors admitted to driving under the influence of marijuana in the 2 weeks prior to the survey.¹⁰

The 2007 State of Maryland Adolescent Survey indicates that 11.1 percent of the State’s licensed adolescent drivers reported driving under the influence of marijuana on three or more occasions, and 10 percent reported driving while using a drug other than marijuana (not including alcohol).¹¹

Why is Drugged Driving Hazardous?

Drugs acting on the brain can alter perception, cognition, attention, balance, coordination, reaction time, and other faculties required for safe driving. The effects of specific drugs of abuse differ depending on their mechanisms of action, the amount consumed, the history of the user, and other factors.

Marijuana
THC affects areas of the brain that control the body’s movements, balance, coordination, memory, and judgment, as well as sensations. Because these effects are multifaceted, more research is required to understand marijuana’s impact on the ability of drivers to react to complex and unpredictable situations. However, we do know that—

A meta-analysis of approximately 60 experimental studies—including laboratory, driving simulator, and on-road experiments—found that behavioral and cognitive skills related to driving performance were impaired in a dose-dependent fashion with increasing THC blood levels.¹²
Evidence from both real and simulated driving studies indicates that marijuana can negatively affect a driver’s attentiveness, perception of time and speed, and ability to draw on information obtained from past experiences.
A study of over 3,000 fatally injured drivers in Australia showed that when marijuana was present in the blood of the driver, he or she was much more likely to be at fault for the accident. Additionally, the higher the THC concentration, the more likely the driver was to be culpable.¹³
Research shows that impairment increases significantly when marijuana use is combined with alcohol.¹⁴ Studies have found that many drivers who test positive for alcohol also test positive for THC, making it clear that drinking and drugged driving are often linked behaviors.

Other Drugs
Prescription drugs: Many medications (e.g., benzodiazepines and opiate analgesics) act on systems in the brain that could impair driving ability. In fact, many prescription drugs come with warnings against the operation of machinery—including motor vehicles—for a specified period of time after use. When prescription drugs are taken without medical supervision (i.e., when abused), impaired driving and other harmful reactions can also result. In short, drugged driving is a dangerous activity that puts us all at risk.

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Results of the 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. U.S. Department of Transportation Report No. DOT HS 811 175. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2007.

2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers. U.S. Department of Transportation Report No. DOT HS 811 415. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010.

3 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, 2010.

4 Soderstrom CA, Dischinger PC, Kerns TJ, Kufera JA, Scalea TM. Epidemic increases in cocaine and opiate use by trauma center patients: Documentation with a large clinical toxicology database. J Trauma 51:557–564, 2001.

5 Walsh JM, Flegel R, Cangianelli LA, Atkins R, Soderstrom CA, Kerns TJ. Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a trauma center. Traffic Inj Prev 5(3):254–260, 2004.

6 Kelly E, Darke S, Ross J. A review of drug use and driving: Epidemiology, impairment, risk factors, and risk perceptions. Drug Alcohol Rev 23(3):319–344, 2004.

7 Ramaekers JG, Berghaus G, van Laar M, Drummer OH. Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Drug Alcohol Depend 73(2):109–119, 2004.

8 Drummer OH, Gerostamoulos J, Batziris H, et al. The incidence of drugs in drivers killed in Australian road traffic crashes. Forensic Sci Int 134:154–162, 2003.

9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2008. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html.

10 Personal communication with Monitoring the Future staff. August 31, 2009.

11 Maryland State Department of Education. 2007 Maryland Adolescent Survey. Available at: http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/newsroom/special_reports/adolescent_survey.htm.

12 Berghaus G, Sheer N, Schmidt P. Effects of cannabis on psychomotor skills and driving performance–A meta-analysis of experimental studies. In CN Kloeden and AJ McLean (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, pp. 403–409, 1995.

13 Drummer OH, Gerostamoulos J, Batziris H, Chu M, Caplehorn J, Robertson MD, Swann P. The involvement of drugs in drivers of motor vehicles killed in Australian road traffic crashes. Accid Anal Prev 36(2):239–248, 2004.

14 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Marijuana and alcohol combined severely impede driving performance. Ann Emer Med 35(4):398–399, 2000.

Revised 12/10

[InfoFacts Index]

Other NIDA Web Sites

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Questions? See our Contact Information.

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 12:36:43 PM

hope · Guru

Excuse me for using the word "confusing."

I don't understand what you are attempting to argue with me about, romani. If I had to vote in a referendum today about whether or not to legalize mj, I would vote no; not because I have my mind made up, but because I feel more research needs to be done. I vaguely remember reading an article recently on how experts are just beginning to understand how mj impairs driving ability, for example, and on how to best measure the amount of impairment.

You seem to be implying that I am lying about this. I'm sorry about that. I need to go now.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I actually think I said articles and propaganda, not research. And ONLY about those who opposed it. Finding support is absolutely no problem at all. I am missing it if I said that research was confusing.

hope · Guru

romani- Did you miss the posts below where I said a couple or more times that this is not my issue? People pick and choose what issues they are willing to devote time to. This is not one of them for me. That is actually my right, I believe? I made that clear; so in my defense I did not attempt to blather on about something about which I am not up-to-date, and, instead, stated I will wait for a consensus of the literature.

Go back and read your OP. Back then even you admitted that the competing research was confusing and some of it suspect.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I still want to know what evidence you want.

I put forth a lot of different studies and you chose to not look at them.

I will ask again: What is the point of new research if you're not going to look at it? I have asked this more than once.

hope · Guru

I will keep in mind in future debate that you are a mind reader, romani!

"You have your opinion- no amount of evidence is going to change that, so don't pretend like it would."

This is what you said after I expressed agreement with some points that razorsharp brought up, and said that I thought more research needed to be done to sort through the issues.

Your tone was unnecessary. If you want to use this forum as a soapbox for your pet issues, you are free to do so here (which is what is great about this forum), but please don't pretend *you* are open to hearing opposing viewpoints.

I admire people btw who are experts in all areas. I consider myself pretty well-informed, but, seriously, I don't feel I can weigh in deeply on economic debates, for example, or in-depth analysis of health care in this country, and many others. ( If anything, I feel I have more expertise in the area of education, since I've been a teacher and raised two sons through college.) Same with the MJ legalization debate. Must I take an interest in the minutia of EVERY topic? How does one find the time?!

All of which speaks to Winchester's points in the other thread. ;)

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 10:54:20 AM

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 10:56:39 AM

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 10:59:28 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

There are a lot of laws that are well-intended, but don't get the job done.

Recently, a study was done about graduated teen licensing. The intention of making it more difficult for young teens to get licenses has actually led to a higher amount of less experienced older drivers (age 18 and older) having fatal accidents.

Sounds great, right? Give 16 years more rules to learn how to drive, but make it super easy for an 18 year old to get a license without any training, whatsoever.

Honestly, its the same idea as alcohol use. Give them so many restrictions and make it illegal until they are 21 - and yet, it doesn't stop the kids one bit from drinking, does it? Just makes it harder for them to get served. But they do it and when they do, they often binge drink, aren't responsible and don't know how to properly use it. They often do this while away from the guidance of their parents.

Allow younger adults (ie 18) a chance to learn to drink responsibly? God forbid! The state must dictate to the kids when it's safe to drink.

It's okay for 16 year olds to get nicotine, but you can't drink till 21. I have always thought it was freaking ridiculous that you could send an enlisted 18 or 19 year old young adult to go fight and possibly die for their country, but they can't have a beer? That is idiotic.

What is more addictive? Nicotine or Alcohol?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Exactly, romani.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I wasn't been snarky. I apologize if I came off that way- but what I said was true. It doesn't seem to matter what "evidence" is out there since you have no interest in it and have no desire to revisit the issue.

Your logic, that I shouldn't care if it doesn't affect me, is just absurd. By that logic, I believe I'm the only one on this board who could speak about rape legislation and I believe Donna and I are the only two who could speak about LGBT issues and I believe Pima (or Bullet?) could speak about issues of the military. Obviously, it doesn't work that way. Obviously, we support keeping rape illegal even if we haven't been raped. Many straight people support LGBT equality. On the same note, MANY people support marijuana legalization even if they personally don't smoke.

And yes, both of my parents currently have medical marijuana. However, politicians and activists are trying to make it more and more difficult for patients to get their medication. The wait periods and checks that they have to do would NOT be done for nearly any other drug. Why do you need a card for marijuana, but not for oxy or vicodin? And the second that my parents, and many other patients, enter *many* other states, they can be arrested for possession. They also can't take their meds on a plane, but I can take all of mine (which are a lot more harmful than marijuana and are actually chemically addictive).

Finally, could you imagine needing to know all the possible ramifications every time we passed a new law? Nothing would ever get done. That's why we don't do that. And again, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is to say something isn't that harmful, there will still be people who ignore the evidence and simply say "no!"

This is a moot issue almost. Marijuana will be legal in my lifetime, it's just a matter of when. Same with gay marriage and many other issues. It's just frustrating that we're taking so long to give consenting adults more freedom over their bodies and lives.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Wednesday 21st of September 2011 10:35:39 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

You would be wrong on the addictive nature of Oxycontin v. Marijuana.

Far more people will become addicted to tobacco, Cocaine, Heroin or alcohol than they do Marjuana.

An interesting article on addiction is here:

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/19/is-marijuana-addictive-it-depends-how-you-define-addiction/

Just taking Oxy as prescribed will not lead to addiction, but even so - patients have to wean off the drug. It's an opium derivative. Taking it helps reduce pain - it works extremely well. You take more, you feel better. When dealing with chronic pain, you can become dangerously addicted to Oxy and other opium type drugs. That's why they are controlled substances.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/medication/question706.htm

longprime · Guru

its worser than oxycontin/percocet. When I had a surgery a month ago, I was limited to 2-tablets of tylenol every 6 hours (not 3 if needed). I could've had percocet 2/6hrs. I wonder why if the pain level is high enough that they would try 3 tylenols first before they try the percocet?

When I left the hospital they gave me a prescrip for percocet (forgot the quantity) where they could've said try tylenol first before you go to percocet- it's cheaper and maybe just as effective. Or they could have said-if tylenol doesn't work try some MJ. Both are nonaddictive, nonconstipative, and anti-nausea.

Drug companies have already done the research in the 60's. They didn't want to miss on the opportunity if mj became a authorized drug. Then they realized that mj was easily obtained on the street and that there's no profit in making a stand alone pill.

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 20th of September 2011 01:14:49 PM

hope · Guru

http://www.greeneradio.org/site/index.php/Medical-Marijuana/states-that-allow-medical-marijuana-in-2011.html

This is interesting--my mother was "prescribed" mj in the '80's in Connecticut, yet Connecticut is not listed as a state approving mm. I wonder how that worked?

hope · Guru

As I thought I said--if you want to work toward legalization go for it. I think I said that?

I am trying to get to the bottom of the rather snarky atttitude taken by roman simply for my saying there should be more research done before legalization. Is there a consensus? Have we considered the repercussions this may unleash on our society?It appears to me that in a repsonsible society there is work to be done before there are weed dispensaries in addition to bars on every corner.

We don't have enough problems already?

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 20th of September 2011 11:07:58 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I support legalization. I have never used, and don't expect I will.

There is absolutely no reason why this should be a Class 1 drug over Cocaine. Ridiculous.

There are multiple reasons why someone would prefer access to it through having a prescription. A couple of reasons - quality of the product. There are different forms of marijuana that provide different types of pain relief and this is far more controlled than getting through your local high school dropout drug dealer. Plus - I would guess that those selling pot on the streets don't really use the same kind of care in making sure your green is actually green, and not laced with chemicals that might kill you.

The other is pretty straightforward - if you get caught with possession, and you don't have a legal prescription, the legal ramifications are more serious.

Nobody wants their surgeon or pilot or teacher to smoke pot before operating on them - but neither do I want someone having a couple of glasses of wine and doing it either.

However, most responsible folks are responsible, and won't smoke and drive. The idiots will always be idiots - those people do it, no matter what.

We regulate cold medicine sales in pharmacies to cut down on meth production. I know more people who have gotten addicted to meth and went down the road of addiction due to meth and cocaine than I do recreational users or medicinal marijuana users who then jumped over to using harder drugs.

And I don't hang out with people who you think are drug abusers, either. An uncle got addicted to crack in his early adulthood. Messed him up for life. Never started with anything but crack. A cousin's kid started with coke - been sober out of rehab for a year. Never used pot, not once. A family friend's wife died who was a meth user and died of an asthma attack - husband used, too - straightened out his life after wifey died. Never used pot, either.

Cartera · Guru

It's been legal for medical reasons for a long time.

That is done on a state by state basis so it's not legal everywhere. Do you think that the only people who support legalizing marijuana are users? I know many people who support legalizing it and none of them partake.

hope · Guru

Now I'm confused. Are your parents having trouble getting prescriptions? It's been legal for medical reasons for a long time. So what is the problem. It sounds as if you want to push for general legalization--if you are not a user, why? I have never heard of adults/kids having trouble finding weed. Why are you so worked up about this if that's the case?

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I don't smoke. Neither do most of my friends. I said I don't smoke in the OP.

It's important because I believe in freedom of choice and my parents are both medical marijuana patients, which I stated in the OP.

hope · Guru

Last time I looked (admittedly, years ago) there was no consensus on the research.

Is there now?

If not, why open up this can of worms?

As for medical marijuana, the topic of the thread, my mother had a prescription for it back in the '80's to ease her nausea after radiation treatment. I certainly have no problem with that, but the idea of medical marijuana is already being abused. I wonder if people thought this would happen so quickly.

Why is this so important to you? Do you and your friends really have trouble finding weed (I'll remember to use that term for you, and not the old-fashioned "pot") when you want it?

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 20th of September 2011 10:10:18 AM

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 20th of September 2011 10:11:02 AM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

You said that more research needs to be done.
Research has been done- you just don't know what kind because you don't look into it.
I am confused as to why you said more research needs to be done if you don't care about the research.
Therefore, what I said was correct- that no amount of research will change your opinion.

ETA: What I'm saying is that you can't say "more research needs to be done" if you refuse to look at what research is out there. Perhaps the research that you want "to be done" has already been done.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Tuesday 20th of September 2011 09:56:42 AM

hope · Guru

I didn't dig up your link roman, because, as I said, it's not a big issue for me now that my kids are 21 and 25.

If you want to work toward legalizing it, go for it. Just be aware there may be some unforeseen consequences to that decision, which could rather change our society.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 20th of September 2011 09:46:33 AM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

If you look at my link, you'll see that there is "anti-pot" research there as well.

hope · Guru

"You have your opinion- no amount of evidence is going to change that, so don't pretend like it would."

Um, ok?

I could dig up some anti-pot research for you; I did this years ago when my kids were still in early high school. But it's really never been a big issue for me, other than how it may have affected my own kids, should they choose to use it (which I'm pretty sure they never have, and they've seen how it's affected the motivation of a friend or two).

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

More research? Really? There is a ridiculous amount of studies done on marijuana all over the world.

You have your opinion- no amount of evidence is going to change that, so don't pretend like it would.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884#human

There's a start, if you'd like.

hope · Guru

Obama still has time to create a Ministry of Marijuana. wink

longprime · Guru

Hope its a government study, Hope. evileye

hope · Guru

I am with razor on this one, simply because more research needs to be done on the detrimental effects of marijuana on persons and society.

But liberals are not big on considering unintended consequences. Libertarians either, apparently.

longprime · Guru

razor-

you need a toke evileye

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

What about pot brownies? No smoke.

Hookah illegal too?

Benefits? There are lots of legal things that don't benefit society. How about freedom of choice? How about the freedom to sell products you wish to adults?

Razorsharp · Guru

There are many many reasons that marijuana should never be legal. Here are three. First, it is harmful to your health. Smoking one joint is the same as smoking more than one cigarette. Our hospitals are full of stupid people who smoke, get cancer, and taxpayers have to pay for their stupidity. I see no reason for taxpayers to have to pay for the stupidity of potheads who wish to harm their own bodies simply because they think it is fun. Second, have you sever seen anyone smoke a lot of marijuana and try to drive? How many more people need to die on our highways simply because some pothead wants to have fun and feel out of control? Third, ever seen anyone show up to work after smoking pot? I have and the most obvious thing about the person was the lack of productivity. It turns out that being high makes you a rotten worker.

Nanny state? Well, the nanny state locks up people who wish to steal from me. It locks up people who which to do harm to themselves or to me. If potheads had no effect on me and presented no danger to me, I could care less what they did. The two examples above show the reasons it is right for the nanny state to make sure potheads get punished.

Simply because alcohol is legal is not much of a good reason to make pot legal. Two wrongs now make a right?

So what are the benefits to society of letting people smoke pot?

Cartera · Guru

Why? Because there is no upside to the excessive availability and consumption of alcohol. We would be a much better society without alcohol altogether.

Isn't this so "nanny state" of you? I agree that we'd be better off without alcohol but that's not going to happen. If alcohol is legal, then there is no reason for marijuana not to be legal.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

So are we saying that the government knows what's best for us?

Razor- can you show me where pot is a bad thing? Truly. I am curious.

Razorsharp · Guru

So you think having a liquor store on every corner is a good thing?

Many states still regulate the number and location of liquor stores. Some states actually run the liquor business itself. Why? Because there is no upside to the excessive availability and consumption of alcohol. We would be a much better society without alcohol altogether.

Cartera · Guru

I see no reason not to legalize marijuana. There may as well be a marijuana shop on every corner just as there are liquor stores.

Razorsharp · Guru

If you admit it ok to tax marijuana then you are admitting marijuana is not being used for medical purposes. Most states exempt prescription drugs from sales taxes because they are considered a medical necessity.

Most of the people who support medical marijuana do not do so because they are concerned about sick people not being helped. They want marijuana legalized for everyone.

There is no upside to legalizing marijuana for everyone.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

New government data shows drug-related deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the United States, the Los Angeles Times reported.

According to research by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, 37,485 people nationwide died from drug consumption in 2009, compared to 36,284 who died in traffic accidents.

It's not just street drugs that are the problem. Prescription pain and anxiety drugs now cause more deaths than cocaine and heroin combined, the Times said.

Traffic fatalities, like many major causes of preventable death, are declining, while drug-related deaths are spiking at an alarming rate. Drugs now claim a life every 14 minutes.

http://www.aol.com/2011/09/18/drug-related-deaths-outnu_n_968556.html?1316379192&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk1|96651

Now... I forget. How many people have died of marijuana complications in the last year? But, details, let's just keep shoving dangerous drugs on people!

longprime · Guru

Re Tax

Why do you think that special taxes are ok on Alcohol and Tobacco?

If you elminate taxes on these products you would not need that Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms enforcement agency, a good part of the FBI and IRS. Nor the state's monopoly of such. Nor business restriction business formation or free marketing of beverages at taverns, bars, and food outlets. Of course, there is also the consideration of Native American sovereignty.

After all It was supposedly all about, Taxation, then as it is now.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I am okay with the idea of taxing weed. It would probably improve the economy of California by leaps and bounds.

soccerguy315 · Guru

well, I don't self-identify with a particular party...

I don't see why taxing marijuana would be bad. No reason it shouldn't be treated like cigarettes and alcohol? Unless you are for getting rid of the taxes on those too? But I don't know that that would increase government revenue or employ more people.

longprime · Guru

a true R or TP would not laugh.

soccerguy315 · Guru

lol...

longprime · Guru

but taxation would reduce consumption, cause regulation, and restrict trade.

Wouldn't be better to have low/no tax, unrestricted free trade, employ people and garner income taxes? evileye