cannabisnews.com: New Wrinkle in Pot Debate: Stoned Driving
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('New Wrinkle in Pot Debate: Stoned Driving');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/26/thread26889.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}






New Wrinkle in Pot Debate: Stoned Driving
Posted by CN Staff on March 19, 2012 at 04:33:49 PT
By Kristen Wyatt, Associated Press
Source: Associated Press
USA -- Angeline Chilton says she can’t drive unless she smokes pot. The suburban Denver woman says she’d never get behind the wheel right after smoking, but she does use medical marijuana twice a day to ease tremors caused by multiple sclerosis that previously left her homebound.“I don’t drink and drive, and I don’t smoke and drive,’’ she said. “But my body is completely saturated with THC.’’ Her case underscores a problem that no one’s sure how to solve: How do you tell if someone is too stoned to drive?
States that allow medical marijuana have grappled with determining impairment levels for years. And voters in Colorado and Washington state will decide this fall whether to legalize the drug for recreational use, bringing a new urgency to the issue.A Denver marijuana advocate says officials are scrambling for limits in part because more drivers acknowledge using the drug.“The explosion of medical marijuana patients has led to a lot of drivers sticking the (marijuana) card in law enforcement’s face, saying, `You can’t do anything to me, I’m legal,’’’ said Sean McAllister, a lawyer who defends people charged with driving under the influence of marijuana.It’s not that simple. Driving while impaired by any drug is illegal in all states.But it highlights the challenges law enforcement officers face using old tools to try to fix a new problem. Most convictions for drugged driving now are based on police observations, followed later by a blood test.Authorities envision a legal threshold for pot that would be comparable to the blood-alcohol standard used to determine drunken driving.But unlike alcohol, marijuana stays in the blood long after the high wears off a few hours after use, and there is no quick test to determine someone’s level of impairment — not that scientists haven’t been working on it.Dr. Marilyn Huestis of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a government research lab, says that soon there will be a saliva test to detect recent marijuana use.But government officials say that doesn’t address the question of impairment.“I’ll be dead — and so will lots of other people — from old age, before we know the impairment levels’’ for marijuana and other drugs, said White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske.Authorities recognize the need for a solution. Marijuana causes dizziness, slowed reaction time and drivers are more likely to drift and swerve while they’re high.Dr. Bob DuPont, president of the Institute for Behavior and Health, a non-government institute that works to reduce drug abuse, says research proves “the terrible carnage out there on the roads caused by marijuana.’’One recent review of several studies of pot smoking and car accidents suggested that driving after smoking marijuana might almost double the risk of being in a serious or fatal crash.And a recent nationwide census of fatal traffic accidents showed that while deadly crashes have declined in recent years, the percentage of mortally wounded drivers who later tested positive for drugs rose 18 percent between 2005 and 2011.DuPont, drug czar for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, wrote a paper last year on drugged driving for the Obama administration, which has made the issue a priority.Physicians say that while many tests can show whether someone has recently used pot, it’s more difficult to pinpoint impairment at any certain time.Urine and blood tests are better at showing whether someone used the drug in the past — which is why employers and probation officers use them. But determining current impairment is far trickier.“There’s no sure answer to that question,’’ said Dr. Guohua Li, a Columbia University researcher who reviewed marijuana use and motor vehicle crashes last year.His survey linked pot use to crash risk, but pointed out wide research gaps. Scientists do not have conclusive data to link marijuana dosing to accident likelihood; whether it matters if the drug is smoked or eaten; or how pot interacts with other drugs.The limited data has prompted a furious debate.Proposed solutions include setting limits on the amount of the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana, THC, that drivers can have in their blood. But THC limits to determine impairment are not widely agreed upon.Two states place the standard at 2 nanograms per milliliter of blood. Others have zero tolerance policies. And Colorado and Washington state are debating a threshold of 5 nanograms.Such an attempt failed the Colorado Legislature last year, amid opposition from Republicans and Democrats. State officials then set up a task force to settle the question — and the panel couldn’t agree.This year, Colorado lawmakers are debating a similar measure, but its sponsors concede they don’t know whether the “driving while high’’ bill will pass.In Washington state, the ballot measure on marijuana legalization includes a 5 nanogram THC limit.The measure’s backers say polling indicates such a driving limit could be crucial to winning public support for legalization.“Voters were very concerned about impaired driving,’’ said Alison Holcomb, campaign director for Washington’s legalization measure.Holcomb also pointed to a failed marijuana legalization proposal in California two years ago that did not include a driving THC limit.The White House, which has a goal of reducing drugged driving by 10 percent in the next three years, wants states to set a blood-level standard upon which to base convictions, but has not said what that limit should be.Administration officials insist marijuana should remain illegal, and Kerlikowske called it a “bogus argument’’ to say any legal level of THC in a driver is safe.But several factors can skew THC blood tests, including age, gender, weight and frequency of marijuana use. Also, THC can remain in the system weeks after a user sobers up, leading to the anxiety shared by many in the 16 medical marijuana states: They could be at risk for a positive test at any time, whether they had recently used the drug or not.A Colorado state forensic toxicologist testified recently that “5 nanograms is more than fair’’ to determine intoxication. But, for now the blood test proposals remain politically fraught, with supporters and opponents of marijuana legalization hinging support on the issue.Huestis, of the government-funded drug abuse institute, says an easy-to-use roadside saliva test that can determine recent marijuana use — as opposed to long-ago pot use — is in final testing stages and will be ready for police use soon.Researchers envision a day when marijuana tests are as common in police cars as Breathalyzers.Until then, lawmakers will consider measures such as Colorado’s marijuana DUI proposal, which marijuana activists say imperils drivers who frequently use the drug such as Chilton, the multiple sclerosis patient.She says that since she began using pot she has started driving again and for the first time in five years has landed a job.Chilton worries Colorado’s proposal jeopardizes her newfound freedom.Online:National Institute on Drug Abuse drugged driving report: http://goo.gl/ZAYwnSource: Associated Press (Wire)Author: Kristen Wyatt, Associated PressPublished: March 18, 2012Copyright: 2012 The Associated PressCannabisNews  -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #18 posted by FoM on March 22, 2012 at 18:23:44 PT
Hope
You did good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Hope on March 22, 2012 at 15:54:57 PT
  :0)
That wasn't "all", I'm sure, but there's a couple of them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on March 22, 2012 at 13:25:47 PT
Hope
Thank you for finding it all. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Hope on March 22, 2012 at 12:17:01 PT
2008
http://cannabisnews.com/news/23/thread23590.shtmlComment #1 posted by dankhank on January 10, 2008 at 15:09:04 PT
okaaay ...
NORML finally came to a sensible, from society's POV, regarding driving with substances in the body.
As usual they didn't go far enough ...cannabis should not be combined for ANY reason with barbiturates prior to driving.There are a number of mind-altering drugs drugs in the pharmacopoeia that bear the warning ... sic ..."Operation of automobiles and heavy machinery should be avoided until user understands the drugs effects."This warning is also on Marinol packages.Cannabis should not be mixed with alcohol for any reason especially before driving.remember what Fearless Frank said, "smokin' dope and drinking beer is like pissing in the wind."http://www.freaknet.org.uk/pages01/p01/wm01.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabulous_Furry_Freak_BrothersIt's been a while, so here it is again ...Driving studies.This is MY research ---------Dankhank Lawton OK DOT HS 808 078 "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance" Final Report, Nov. 1993 Conclusions on page 108 of the copy I received from the NHTSA are interesting and informative. A sample, "It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic." "Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving ability and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these."DOT HS 808 939 "Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance" July 1999 Conclusion on page 39 midway of paragraph 5.1 of the copy I received: The addition of the new data, (for marijuana), broadens the range of reactions that may be expected to occur in real life. This range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety.DOT HS 809 020 "Visual Search and Urban City Driving under the Influence of Marijuana and Alcohol" March 2000: Conclusion 1 on page 24 of the copy I received. "Low doses of marijuana, taken alone, did not impair city driving performance and did not diminish visual search frequency for traffic at intersections in this study."General Discussion, page 22 “Previous on-the-road studies have also demonstrated that subjects are generally aware of the impairing properties of THC and try to compensate for the drug's impairing properties by driving more carefully (Hansteen et al, 1976; Casswell, 1979; Peck et al, 1986; Robbe 1994). “DOT HS 809 642 "State of Knowledge of Drug Impaired Driving" Sept 2003: Experimental Research of Cannabis, page 41 midway: "The extensive studies by Robbe and O'Hanlon (1993), revealed that under the influence of Marijuana, drivers are aware of their impairment, and when experimental tasks allow it, they tend to actually decrease speed, avoid passing other cars, and reduce other risk-taking behaviors."DOT HS 808 065 "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers" Oct. 1992 In discussing the "Distribution of Ratings on Driver Responsibility" Table 5.12 page 64 of the copy I received, paragraph (p.65); "Responsibility, drugs and alcohol”, third paragraph, the following appears: "Note that the responsibility rates of the THC-only and Cocaine-only groups are actually lower than that of the drugfree drivers. Although these results too are inconclusive, they give no suggestion of impairment in the two groups. The low responsibility rate for THC was reminiscent of that found in young males by Williams and colleagues (1986).” This study is remarkable in it's propensity to attack itself as inconclusive.Forensic Science Review Vol. 14, Number One/Two, Jan 2002, surely must be the reference of note regarding metabolic functions and where the THC goes following ingestion. This review discusses THC and it's metabolites; THCCOOH, 11-OH-THC to mention the most discussed. Location and type of measured quantities of these and other metabolites should be easy to use to determine if a driver is "stoned" or was stoned yesterday, or last week. Mention was made of a man who had measurable levels of metabolites sixty-seven days after ingesting Cannabis.Chap IX paragraph D, "Summary" appears to be of two minds. While stating, "Studies examining Cannabis' causal effect through responsibility analysis have more frequently indicated that THC alone did not increase accident risk …," it continues optimistically suggesting that further exhaustive research may rebut that.All of the studies agree that combining Cannabis with any other drug, such as Alcohol ... a major deleterious effect on driving skills, as is benzoates with Cannabis … it rapidly becomes evident that Cannabis in combination with any number of other drugs is not to be desired, but that Cannabis and Cocaine alone in all six studies have the smallest perceived safety risk of all the drugs and drug combinations tested and against drug-free drivers.Thank You for taking the time to review this material and I must comment on the previous statement in bold and larger font, DOT HS 808 065. It strains a credulous mind; the government and legislatures are of two minds about the “War on Some Drugs.” The legislature harasses, imprisons and generally ruins hundreds of thousands of families every year for a perceived threat that is not supported in other government studies conducted supposedly to give guidance to legislators, and the rest of America, regarding what is a threat or not.Sir, I ask you to task your staff to order those studies from NHTSA or DOT and have someone review them. My observations are accurate, but we all insist on verification. SincerelyFinally, there is a dirty little secret we all know, but can't say, because mainstream America would never approve ...Driving and toking is not a problem for most all ...Where are all the accidents?Check the last minute of the movie "Dazed and Confused" and you will see three high school kids and one young, 25 or so, man driving to get Kiss tickets and tokin' on the way.Think of all the songs you've heard about tokin' and driving ...I would never tell anyone to drive stoned.but Big Pharma's warning is fine for this ...Operating autos or heavy machinery should be avoided until the drugs effects are on the user are known.http://web.archive.org/web/20040605230003/http://marinol.com/patient/pat03.html#9
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Hope on March 22, 2012 at 12:06:04 PT
Dankhank always had the lowdown on the Driving S.
Here are some. This first one doesn't have much, if any clickables, but I will find some. http://cannabisnews.com/news/26/thread26832.shtmlComment #15 posted by Dankhank on January 19, 2012 at 14:24:52 PT
prettierly formatted ...
These are older studies, but still valid. You may call the NHTSA and/or the DOT and speak to a functionary. Ask for more recent studies, "Drugs and Driving,"for example; mailed to me for free. You can start reading one at the end with the summary, but don't deny yourself the pleasure of the narrative as it can be interesting. :-)=
this is in the form of a letter to a judge from a few years ago, who sentenced a man found using cocaine and driving to keep a coffin in his house for a time. Funny thing, the studies I cite all agree that cocaine-only drivers are safe and can be safer than clear-headed drivers.Since there are newer folks on here I felt it good to put it up again.Peace to all who know and speak truth ...Sir: It is with great interest that I read the story about the defendant you sentenced to "living with a coffin" as a reminder of the "deadly consequences of your choices." The young man was convicted of possession of Cocaine and driving under the influence. In recent months I have been corresponding with a Dr Jim Frank of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding "Impaired Driving." During our discussions he offered and sent me six studies done by the Department of Transportation. After reading these studies, I picked out the most startling, I feel, comments many will read while insisting that since alcohol negatively affects driving skill, all other illegal drugs must, too. Here are some items I gleaned from each study provided by the NHTSA.This is MY research ---------Dankhank LawtonOK DOT HS 808 078 "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance" Final Report, Nov. 1993 Conclusions on page 108 of the copy I received from the NHTSA are interesting and informative. A sample, "It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic." "Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving ability and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these."DOT HS 808 939 "Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance" July 1999 Conclusion on page 39 midway of paragraph 5.1 of the copy I received: The addition of the new data, (for marijuana), broadens the range of reactions that may be expected to occur in real life. This range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety.DOT HS 809 020 "Visual Search and Urban City Driving under the Influence of Marijuana and Alcohol" March 2000: Conclusion 1 on page 24 of the copy I received. "Low doses of marijuana, taken alone, did not impair city driving performance and did not diminish visual search frequency for traffic at intersections in this study."General Discussion, page 22 “Previous on-the-road studies have also demonstrated that subjects are generally aware of the impairing properties of THC and try to compensate for the drug's impairing properties by driving more carefully (Hansteen et al, 1976; Casswell, 1979; Peck et al, 1986; Robbe 1994). “DOT HS 809 642 "State of Knowledge of Drug Impaired Driving" Sept 2003: Experimental Research of Cannabis, page 41 midway: "The extensive studies by Robbe and O'Hanlon (1993), revealed that under the influence of Marijuana, drivers are aware of their impairment, and when experimental tasks allow it, they tend to actually decrease speed, avoid passing other cars, and reduce other risk-taking behaviors."DOT HS 808 065 "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers" Oct. 1992 In discussing the "Distribution of Ratings on Driver Responsibility" Table 5.12 page 64 of the copy I received, paragraph (p.65); "Responsibility, drugs and alcohol”, third paragraph, the following appears: "Note that the responsibility rates of the THC-only and Cocaine-only groups are actually lower than that of the drugfree drivers. Although these results too are inconclusive, they give no suggestion of impairment in the two groups. The low responsibility rate for THC was reminiscent of that found in young males by Williams and colleagues (1986).” This study is remarkable in it's propensity to attack itself as inconclusive.Forensic Science Review Vol. 14, Number One/Two, Jan 2002, surely must be the reference of note regarding metabolic functions and where the THC goes following ingestion. This review discusses THC and it's metabolites; THCCOOH, 11-OH-THC to mention the most discussed. Location and type of measured quantities of these and other metabolites should be easy to use to determine if a driver is "stoned" or was stoned yesterday, or last week. Mention was made of a man who had measurable levels of metabolites sixty-seven days after ingesting Cannabis.Chap IX paragraph D, "Summary" appears to be of two minds. While stating, "Studies examining Cannabis' causal effect through responsibility analysis have more frequently indicated that THC alone did not increase accident risk …," it continues optimistically suggesting that further exhaustive research may rebut that.All of the studies agree that combining Cannabis with any other drug, such as Alcohol ... a major deleterious effect on driving skills, as is benzoates with Cannabis … it rapidly becomes evident that Cannabis in combination with any number of other drugs is not to be desired, but that Cannabis and Cocaine alone in all six studies have the smallest perceived safety risk of all the drugs and drug combinations tested and against drug-free drivers.Thank You for taking the time to review this material and I must comment on the previous statement in bold and larger font, DOT HS 808 065. It strains a credulous mind; the government and legislatures are of two minds about the “War on Some Drugs.” The legislature harasses, imprisons and generally ruins hundreds of thousands of families every year for a perceived threat that is not supported in other government studies conducted supposedly to give guidance to legislators, and the rest of America, regarding what is a threat or not.Sir, I ask you to task your staff to order those studies from NHTSA or DOT and have someone review them. My observations are accurate, but we all insist on verification.Sincerelya prettier post, FoM, please delete last if you think you should.and ... a shout-out to all who are still in evidence. This site kept me sane for long timeHope, glad you are still around ...FoM ... you still amaze us all with your determination and dedication to this site.[ Post Comment ]
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by dongenero on March 22, 2012 at 08:03:01 PT
museman #10
Wow, what a story. Sad and sorry that happened to you and that it happens to any citizen of the United States. No doubt, that same scenario has played out many thousands of times for US citizens across the country over the last several decades.What a sad state this country has come to at the hands of Cannabis Prohibition, the Controlled Substances Act and misuse of the Constitution and Commerce Clause? Truly egregious
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on March 22, 2012 at 04:47:49 PT
DankHank
It's really good to see you. I don't remember which one you mean but please feel free to post it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Dankhank on March 21, 2012 at 21:21:40 PT
driving studies ...
they never find the ones I post. ... Wonder, FoM, whether you could link to a post of mine with the studies I cite, or is that too much hubris on my part?Any how, we will win it all one day ...Peace, and hello, from Middle Georgia, to all long-time and newer posters to this wonderful site.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by museman on March 21, 2012 at 13:34:13 PT
blackhawks, DEA, and MONEY
Helicopters cost a lot of money in government dollars (a $1 screwdriver is billed to the taxpayers as a $150 'special tool.') to fly, Not to mention the 'special duty pay' that all those illustrious servants of Satan get for flying around looking for pot.Cartels? What a laugh. Its kind of like the US government proclaiming it is the 'champion of nuclear reform' while holding the universal record for the most amount of nuclear explosions, and the ONLY country to ever nuke another. Hypocrisy must be taught as a skill in 'law enforcement' 'schools.' It definitely is in Law School. (And public school.)And I bet there is a lot of people who just jump right in and think there is all these sneaky 'mexicans' in Utah trying to grow pot under everybody's nose!Smoke and Mirrors my friends. And nothing else.****Many years ago, I was charged with felony possession of cannabis. They wanted to charge me with growing and trafficking, but could find no evidence. Part of the terms of my plea bargain, (because the cops were idiots and made so many mistakes that the judge, against the sheriffs deep desire to 'hang me' (his words) had to pretty much let me go.)I had to do some community service, and a week in jail -at my choice and disposal- and was granted the reluctant agreement to drop charges after a year (unless of course they could bust me for something else).A few months later -it was late summer- A Huey came lumbering through the air and circled my house about 50 times. There was a 50 cal machine gun pointed at me and my children, and two guys with binoculars searching my corn patch for pot -as if I would really be that stupid!They flew round and round, then down the road where I saw a huge caravan of vehicles (through my binoculars) that were apparently awaiting the word. The helicopter landed. A deputy idiot I recognized got out and shook his head. And then all those vehicles started up and drove the 12 miles back into town. And the helicopter flew back to where ever it had come from.A few days later. I found out through the grapevine just how much that little exercise had cost the county.$5,000 to fly the Huey. But the cops didn't get extra pay that day.The deputy who had busted me was transferred the next week.It was an incredible waste of time, resource, and taxpayer money, all based on the career fantasies of just one wanna-be pot cop 'hero'. And the administration continues to bathe them in funding.And the politicians, lawyers, and other servants of the state continue to spout prohibitionist fear and propaganda. There is going to be some heavy duty reckoning soon I fear.LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Paint with light on March 21, 2012 at 11:57:59 PT
OT The slow death of prohibition
When I first read the title of this article I thought they must be talking about cannabis.Instead they are talking about alcohol.Notice the similarity of the arguments on both sides of the issue to our own.They even mentioned alcohol being a gateway drug.Also notice the map of laws against alcohol reflect the same attitudes about cannabis.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17291978Legal like alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by konagold on March 20, 2012 at 18:04:57 PT
many NTSB test prove them wrong
many studies show that in the real world cannabis ONLY drivers are less at fault for causing accidents than are drivers who have nothing in their systemswe need to respond to this repeated LIE with the truth just a quick google turned up the following"US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance: Final Report. November 1993. "It appears performance is more affected by THC in laboratory (settings) than (in) actual driving tests."According to the US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. State of Knowledge of Drugged Driving: FINAL REPORT. op. cit., "The extensive studies by Robbe and O'Hanlon (1993), revealed that under the influence of marijuana, drivers are aware of their impairment, and when the experimental task allows it, they tend to actually decrease speed, avoid passing other cars, and reduce other risk-taking behaviors."United Kingdom Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Road Safety Division Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Online document accessed November 24, 2007. "Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that ... 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." On the heels of a Ben Gurion University study showing that drivers under the influence of marijuana are less dangerous than drunk drivers, comes yet another study indicating that driving stoned might not be quite as bad as some think. Published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, the Hartford Hospital/University of Iowa study titled “Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance,” concludes that: " Under the influence of marijuana, participants decreased their speed and failed to show expected practice effects during a distracted drive. No differences were found during the baseline driving segment or collision avoidance scenarios. No differences attributable to sex were observed. This study enhances the current literature by identifying distracted driving and the integration of prior experience as particularly problematic under the influence of marijuana."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by disvet13 on March 19, 2012 at 18:12:08 PT:
ekim
i believe it was 150 dea agents. all those nazi's in training and they think they're standing for truth and justice. more prisons for the drug war and more dea agents jacked up with all the best military tactics and gear to wage war and imprison as many cannabis users while white collar crime has stolen the wealth of america with only a select few being tried for the benefit of the media. prison time for a plant that heals and treats and is more beneficial with virtually no side effects while the retirement funds were looted, the nations piggy bank was robbed, every man, women, and child is 45 thousand dollars in debt. i can't wait to hear how many billions they're increasing the funding for the new, improved drug war. they just sent 150 dea agents on one drug raid in utah. i had my first blackhawk helicopter on august first, hovering within 75 feet over my house, then on september 2nd, the exact same scenario. it used to be once, then its twice, by the end of this summer i expect it'll be at least 3 times. nazi's in training, prisons for all the undesirable criminal cannabis users. gotta feed the nazi machine.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Hope on March 19, 2012 at 16:14:55 PT
What?
"“The explosion of medical marijuana patients has led to a lot of drivers sticking the (marijuana) card in law enforcement’s face, saying, `You can’t do anything to me, I’m legal,’’’ said Sean McAllister, a lawyer who defends people charged with driving under the influence of marijuana."I don't believe that. Not put that way and I certainly wouldn't want to hire Sean McAllister, and his stupid attitude, to defend me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by CropReport on March 19, 2012 at 13:36:58 PT
CBD isn't being talked about
I make a seed that expresses high CBD and low-to-very low THC. If you're smoking material that is, say 11% CBD and only 0.4% THC, it seems like their saliva or blood test isn't going to do you any harm :)Just saying.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by afterburner on March 19, 2012 at 10:16:29 PT
Yep -- 1st Director, NIDA & 2nd W. H. Drug Czar
Robert DuPont
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_DuPont
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by museman on March 19, 2012 at 09:32:50 PT
words of the status quo
from this article;"a lawyer""law enforcement officers""Authorities""DuPont" -think there is any relation? Bet on it."drug czar""Physicians""State officials""lawmakers""The White House""Administration""government-funded"and a few repetitions.Who, and what is this story about now?LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Ryannn29 on March 19, 2012 at 08:22:06 PT:
but the problem is
You gain tolerance fast enough with cannabis that driving isn't ever a problem high... when I had just started my medical cannabis rec in cali, I had 4 bowls and drove my first time high, didn't have any problems whatsoever...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by ekim on March 19, 2012 at 06:42:47 PT
dateline
last night the show dateline showed the dea in Utah was doing raids on
public lands, saying that cartels had set up cannabis grows worth millions.The show showed a hundred dea all geared up and rolling out --
why cant we understand if we regulated cannabis it would hurt the cartels not help them.The story went on to say 50 percent of the cartels profits were from cannabis.I have wondered about the glaciers melting in Utah .
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment