Marijuana is legal in Washington State

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, I mean, I don't use nor do I endorse the use of marijuana but it's agitating when people say the kind of stuff Jeelen did upthread. Especially so because they have no data or any real argument to back up the point they are making. They say it, therefore it must be so. I guess.

It's really interesting to me how worker rights are going to evolve wrt the issues I raised regarding drug testing and such.

 

[CaptainF]

Personally, I'd rather cops didn't smoke it, especially if it could inhibit job performance.

Cops are already smoking it.

Well public property is owned by the public so any laws or rules on public intoxication apply there.

As for police officers using it: the really tricky part here is that Marijuana will show up on a drug screening even when the testee is not under the influence. If you take a breathalizer or an alcohol urine test, you will not test positive unless you've drunk recently and it is actively in your system.

With marijuana, a heavy or long term user can test positive for several months after they have stopped using it.

What this means is that it's very difficult to screen whether or not a cop (or any worker) is high on the job the way you could screen if they were drunk on the job. Further complicating the issue is the fact that marijuana possession is still illegal under Federal law and therefore a marijuana-using cop is likely technically a criminal, which is unseemly to say the least.

It's not simply a matter of 'they should be allowed to do whatever they want'.

The metabolite that many drug tests look for is 11-COOH-THC, which is non-psychoactive and stays in your body long after you sober up. However, 11-OH-THC is the metabolite that is mildly psychoactive and if present in the blood indicates more recent consumption, within a few hours or so.

As wiki sez:

More sensitive tests are able to distinguish between 11-OH-THC and 11-COOH-THC, which can help determine how recently cannabis was consumed;[7][8] if only 11-COOH-THC is present then the cannabis was used some time ago and any impairment in cognitive ability or motor function will have dissipated, whereas if both 11-OH-THC and 11-COOH-THC are present then the cannabis was consumed more recently and motor impairment may still be present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC

 

[CaptainF]

Yeah, I mean, I don't use nor do I endorse the use of marijuana but it's agitating when people say the kind of stuff Jeelen did upthread. Especially so because they have no data or any real argument to back up the point they are making. They say it, therefore it must be so. I guess.

"Marijuana has been known to cause hysteria, paranoia and psychotic behavior...in people that don't use it."

It's really interesting to me how worker rights are going to evolve wrt the issues I raised regarding drug testing and such.

I think it's ridiculous that many employees are allowed to be strung out on pills all day long or show up to work hungover while they are prohibited from smoking weed in their free time.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The metabolite that many drug tests look for is 11-COOH-THC, which is non-psychoactive and stays in your body long after you sober up. However, 11-OH-THC is the metabolite that is mildly psychoactive and if present in the blood indicated more recent consumption, within a few hours or so.

Well then, they should only test for one and not the other. I take it there isn't a cheap or quick test for 11-OH-THC?

Why else wouldn't they test for that instead? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Agent327]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Do you even realize how many people are "dopeheads"?

I guess Francis Crick, Steve Jobs, Richard Feynman, Richard Branson, Stephen Jay Gould, Karey Mullis, Oliver Sacks and Sergey Brin never had any "genius ideas".

Slight correction: did any of the above have their brilliant ideas while on dope? No?

(And I wouldn't call Sagan a genius by any measure.)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

(And I wouldn't call Sagan a genius by any measure.)

Oh yeah you proved a lot there kiddo!

 

[Borachio]

Oh my goodness me! There's a marijuana evangelist in the neighbourhood.

Never mind. Give me a head start, and I should be able to outwit him. That, or reduce him to a helpless giggling wreck.

 

[choxorn]

Slight correction: did any of the above have their brilliant ideas while on dope? No?

(And I wouldn't call Sagan a genius by any measure.)

Crick figured out the structure of DNA while high. Try again.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I am still trippin over Carl Sagan not being a genius. If he isn't, then the word has no meaning.

 

[Borachio]

Well, maybe he was (I don't think so). But just think what he could have achieved if only he hadn't smoked so much dope?

And did Shakespeare smoke dope? I don't think so.

There's not a whiff about it in any of his plays, and I've seen (and smelled) them all. Apart from that one that's lost. Cardenio? Or something.

 

[CaptainF]

Slight correction: did any of the above have their brilliant ideas while on dope? No?

(And I wouldn't call Sagan a genius by any measure.)

So because the stupidity of your initial statement was exposed, you decide to change the goal posts. Classy!

Francis Crick figured out DNA's double helix while tripping on acid, as choxorn said.

This is a bit of info about Kary Mullis, a Nobel Prize winning scientist:

Link

The secret to Mullis' breakthrough? In a September, 1994 issue of California Monthly, Mullis says that he "took plenty of LSD" In the sixties and seventies, going so far as to call his "mind-opening" experimentation with psychedelics "much more important than any courses [he] ever took." A few years later, in an interview for BBC's Psychedelic Science documentary, Mullis mused aloud: "What if I had not taken LSD ever; would I have still invented PCR?" To which he replied, "I don't know. I doubt it. I seriously doubt it."

So, yeah, you're wrong.

Oh my goodness me! There's a marijuana evangelist in the neighbourhood.

Never mind. Give me a head start, and I should be able to outwit him. That, or reduce him to a helpless giggling wreck.

You're only proving my point about ignorance...

Oh wait, I forgot! Cheetos, goldfish, dope, tye-dye, hippies, peace, love maaaaaaaaaaan.

 

[Borachio]

Well. I have a feeling this conversation (such as it is) leads nowhere.

 

[CaptainF]

Well, maybe he was (I don't think so). But just think what he could have achieved if only he hadn't smoked so much dope?

Carl Sagan's own opinion seems to be that if he didn't smoke his life would be a lot less interesting.

Spoiler Carl Sagan :

I do not consider myself a religious person in the usual sense, but there is a religious aspect to some highs. The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling of communion with my surroundings, both animate and inanimate. Sometimes a kind of existential perception of the absurd comes over me and I see with awful certainty the hypocrisies and posturing of myself and my fellow men. And at other times, there is a different sense of the absurd, a playful and whimsical awareness. Both of these senses of the absurd can be communicated, and some of the most rewarding highs I’ve had have been in sharing talk and perceptions and humor. Cannabis brings us an awareness that we spend a lifetime being trained to overlook and forget and put out of our minds. A sense of what the world is really like can be maddening; cannabis has brought me some feelings for what it is like to be crazy, and how we use that word ‘crazy’ to avoid thinking about things that are too painful for us. In the Soviet Union political dissidents are routinely placed in insane asylums. The same kind of thing, a little more subtle perhaps, occurs here: ‘did you hear what Lenny Bruce said yesterday? He must be crazy.’ When high on cannabis I discovered that there’s somebody inside in those people we call mad.

When I’m high I can penetrate into the past, recall childhood memories, friends, relatives, playthings, streets, smells, sounds, and tastes from a vanished era. I can reconstruct the actual occurrences in childhood events only half understood at the time. Many but not all my cannabis trips have somewhere in them a symbolism significant to me which I won’t attempt to describe here, a kind of mandala embossed on the high. Free-associating to this mandala, both visually and as plays on words, has produced a very rich array of insights.

There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we’re down the next day. Some of the hardest work I’ve ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing. The problem is that ten even more interesting ideas or images have to be lost in the effort of recording one. It is easy to understand why someone might think it’s a waste of effort going to all that trouble to set the thought down, a kind of intrusion of the Protestant Ethic. But since I live almost all my life down I’ve made the effort – successfully, I think. Incidentally, I find that reasonably good insights can be remembered the next day, but only if some effort has been made to set them down another way. If I write the insight down or tell it to someone, then I can remember it with no assistance the following morning; but if I merely say to myself that I must make an effort to remember, I never do.

I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for. I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written eleven short essays on a wide range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics. Because of problems of space, I can’t go into the details of these essays, but from all external signs, such as public reactions and expert commentary, they seem to contain valid insights. I have used them in university commencement addresses, public lectures, and in my books.

Well. I have a feeling this conversation (such as it is) leads nowhere.

Huh, what were we talking about? I'm a "giggling wreck" over here! Hippy dippy trippy yippeeeeee!!!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well public property is owned by the public so any laws or rules on public intoxication apply there.

Fair enough.

As for police officers using it: the really tricky part here is that Marijuana will show up on a drug screening even when the testee is not under the influence. If you take a breathalizer or an alcohol urine test, you will not test positive unless you've drunk recently and it is actively in your system.

I guess whether the cop should be using a drug such as marijuana even OFF the job is an interesting question as well. I have no problem, at least in theory if necessary, a stipulation in the contract saying that they can't use at all.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that marijuana possession is still illegal under Federal law and therefore a marijuana-using cop is likely technically a criminal, which is unseemly to say the least

It's not simply a matter of 'they should be allowed to do whatever they want'.

I don't care about the Federal law. Unless you can show me where in the Constitution it gives the Federal government authority to regulate drugs, only state level laws against the same bear any ethical weight. Those who enforce the Federal laws are ethically equivalent to kidnappers. Washington should ignore them whatever they decide.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't care about the Federal law. Unless you can show me where in the Constitution it gives the Federal government authority to regulate drugs, only state level laws against the same bear any ethical weight. Those who enforce the Federal laws are ethically equivalent to kidnappers. Washington should ignore them whatever they decide.

To answer your loaded question: Commerce clause

 

[CaptainF]

Well then, they should only test for one and not the other. I take it there isn't a cheap or quick test for 11-OH-THC?

Why else wouldn't they test for that instead? Doesn't make sense to me.

If employers and cops only test for genuine intoxication and not for proof of usage, it gives them less ability to throw people in jail and collect fines/kickbacks!

I guess whether the cop should be using a drug such as marijuana even OFF the job is an interesting question as well. I have no problem, at least in theory if necessary, a stipulation in the contract saying that they can't use at all.

What sort of nonsense is that? If a substance is legal it's legal for everyone. Cops can drink to their hearts' content when not on the job, why should smoking pot be any different?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If employers and cops only test for genuine intoxication and not for proof of usage, it gives them less ability to throw people in jail and collect fines/kickbacks!

I had thoughts along these lines but I fear it may not be that simple. However, I really don't know.

 

[GhostWriter16]

To answer your loaded question: Commerce clause

Even if you really stretch that (I wish that clause were more specific) USAGE still cannot be a crime by any definition.

You could maybe argue that the importation from another state can constitutionally be illegal, but that's about it.

What sort of nonsense is that? If a substance is legal it's legal for everyone. Cops can drink to their hearts' content when not on the job, why should smoking pot be any different?

I don't know much about pot specifically so I have no idea. I would not, however, want the people responsible for keeping us safe using crack cocaine, even while not wanting it to be illegal either. It should certainly be part of an officer's contract not to use those kinds of drugs.

If pot is more like alcohol and/or cigarettes I have no issue with it in that context.

 

[Neomega]

Slight correction: did any of the above have their brilliant ideas while on dope? No?

(And I wouldn't call Sagan a genius by any measure.)

How do you know? I know a stoner math genius, that loves to work problems while high.

 

[CaptainF]

I had thoughts along these lines but I fear it may not be that simple. However, I really don't know.

In looking at this article, the issue does seem more complicated:

Link

Spoiler Marijuana Policy Project :

How long does it take for the psychoactive effects of marijuana to wear off?

Because smoked THC is rapidly transferred into the blood stream, THC levels in the blood rise quickly immediately after inhalation. Depending on the dose, THC typically reaches peak concentrations of more than 100 ng/mL five to 10 minutes after inhalation and then rapidly decreases to between one and four ng/mL within three to four hours.

However, heavy marijuana users’ blood can contain detectable amounts of THC even after periods of abstention. In one controlled study, six of 25 participants tested positive for active levels of THC after a full seven days of abstention, with the highest concentration detected being three ng/ml of whole blood.4 In addition, the blood serum of heavy to moderate users may contain more than two ng/mL of THC at 24 or even 48 hours after smoking a single joint, a level that studies have shown does not produce impairment.5

This is a particular concern for medical marijuana patients who are using marijuana in compliance with state laws and their doctors' advice, but who would likely test positive for marijuana while sober. While the Colorado Legislature debated a per se THC limit of five ng/ml, Denver News’ medical marijuana reviewer (and medical marijuana patient), William Breathes, subjected himself to blood draws to test his THC levels. After a 15-hour period of abstinence, Mr. Breathes’ THC levels were still 13.5 ng/ml. According to his physician, Mr. Breathes was in “no way incapacitated” at the time.6 This first-person account demonstrates the very real possibility that medical marijuana patients and other heavy marijuana users could face criminal charges under a per se system even if they are not actually impaired.

The graphic below shows the mean plasma levels of THC and its metabolites (11-OH-THC and THCCOOH) for six subjects smoking a marijuana cigarette containing 34 mg of THC, following several days of abstinence (which would reflect an occasional user's pattern of usage).7

Additionally, several studies show that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke (which could result from being in the same room with a person who is using marijuana) may cause a non-user to show THC concentrations in blood serum of several nanograms per milliliter.8

Does this mean that some DUID laws may actually criminalize sober drivers?

Yes, if they set a per se limit for THC. Furthermore, arresting and convicting motorists who only have marijuana metabolites in their systems (from having used marijuana days or weeks before) will certainly cause people who are completely sober to be arrested and wrongly convicted of driving under the influence of drugs.

The standard for scientists is to test blood and urine, but what about other bodily fluids, like saliva, or performance-based tests?

Because of the invasiveness of blood tests and the inadequacy of urine tests in determining impairment on the roadside (i.e., actual THC levels), police officials hope to institute roadside saliva testing in the near future. However, the technology for reliably testing saliva is still unavailable, and there are no national standards for testing saliva, as there are with blood and urine.

Significant work is being done to develop and implement modified field sobriety tests, which measure the behavior of drivers (reaction time, for example), rather than their bodily fluids.

MPP recommends a policy similar to most state laws on driving under the influence of alcohol: A driver who fails a roadside sobriety test should be required to submit to a blood test by a trained medical professional — or risk criminal and administrative sanctions. However, given the length of time after impairment THC can stay in a person’s system, no conviction for driving under the influence of marijuana should be based on a per se limit.

It appears that reliable, non-invasive tests aren't really available right now, but it also appears that even if someone has lots of THC in their blood that doesn't necessarily mean they are impaired, like with heavy users.

I don't know much about pot specifically so I have no idea. I would not, however, want the people responsible for keeping us safe using crack cocaine, even while not wanting it to be illegal either. It should certainly be part of an officer's contract not to use those kinds of drugs.

I think that if the War on Drugs didn't exist (and cocaine was legal), no one would smoke crack. Crack came about as a way for drug dealers to make more money off of smaller amounts of cocaine.

If pot is more like alcohol and/or cigarettes I have no issue with it in that context.

Pot is objectively less harmful than both alcohol and cigarettes.