In conjunction with legalizing marijuana, would you support drug-testing of certain professionals?

[coti]

I support legalizing marijuana. However, I believe there will be far-reaching consequences to its decriminalization and wonder how people have considered them.

So, to go along with legalization, would you support regular and/or mandated drug-testing of California professionals in occupations responsible for the safety of others, such as pilots, drivers, and surgeons?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. specifically for pot? or all drugs?

[coti]

2. I guess it would be for all (or many) of them. nt

[Duer 157099]

5. I think we'd suffer a great loss to the workforce if ALL drugs were tested for

Imagine if every person in that demographic (Responsible People) were tested for all drugs like anti-depressants or anti-anxiety or anti-ADD.

Why do those drugs, which very clearly have potential serious detrimental side-effects, get a free pass in our society? :shrug:

But what we're *really* worried about is P-O-T????

Really?

[coti]

9. Yeah, that's another aspect that workplaces are already having to deal with.

Drugs such as tranquilizers and painkillers being prescribed by doctors for legitimate ailments and employees, understandably, making use of them while working (though not always in safety-oriented positions), but still showing impairment on the job. It's difficult to work out and I don't really see any easy or good answers, mostly just judgment calls.

[musiclawyer]

3. This is a silly question to ask

if the presmise is because Cannabis will be legal in CA by this time next month.
CA employers with safety sensitive employees and DOT drivers already drug test. The issue is not whether such employers should test (they already can under State Law). The real issue is whether the State of CA will come up with a legal threshold for presumption of "impairment." Such does not yet exist. Even if that can be done, it will take time. So in the meantime, safety sensitive people will get fired for testing positive even though they were not impaired, and the Plaintiff's lawyers will be salivating. It's not an efficient way of resolving the issue. But it will get resolved eventually. Prop 19 is the much needed and necessary catalyst.

[coti]

6. Yeah, there are a lot of problems with this issue. It's a can of worms, for sure.

For example, I was thinking about exactly what I meant by "drivers" in the OP. When I wrote it, I was thinking of people like bus, taxi, forklift, bigrig drivers.

But what would be the reasoning behind testing them? Protection of others on the road or otherwise near them from their vehicle? Or just for passengers?

And, if it's everyone on the road, wouldn't that reasoning demand that pretty much everyone with a driver's license pass either one or a regular drug test?

Is that even practical?

Plus, it raises the impairment issue you mentioned. I don't think I would support drug-testing for driver's licenses.


But I do think that a post-legalization culture will have to address this and figure out ways to deal with it effectively and fairly- keeping people safe while not being overly-intrusive or draconian.

[RainDog]

50. excellent post

the most basic test for impairment is observational. this is for any substance, legal or illegal.

if someone shows impairment, it is a valid to request a test if this person's performance may impact on others' safety or well being.

an initial test would be performance related, not a test of bodily fluids. can someone successfully complete a cognitive or physical test of performance. if not, no matter what the substance, that person should not perform a job that requires the level of performance they were not able to meet.

drug testing, in and of itself, is stupid and wasteful. in the case of cannabis, it is the only substance that is tested for when someone is not actually under the influence.

[Lyric]

4. No, because THC shows up in your system for up to 30 days.

Should pilots, drivers, and surgeons be fired for consuming alcohol while NOT at work? Because that's exactly what would happen if we implemented marijuana testing. Those people could be fired for smoking a joint three weeks ago.

If we must test, then test for intoxication--not substances. There are field tests for reflexes, balance, memory, vision, etc. Test THOSE. That way, the only people being fired are the ones dumb and irresponsible enough to come to work intoxicated. Or at the very least, craft the testing rules so that when marijuana intoxication is suspected, the person has to fail the "field tests" as well as a blood test. That's the only fair way to do it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

84. Absolutely Correct ... there is no simple test right now to prove

you are high on pot

I drove a cab once and didn't smoke pot for 30 days to pass it
and it was just a piss test

They really don't have an adequate test right now
Did I smoke Pot after I got off my cabbie shift? Yes
Did I smoke during my shift? No

I needed to drive fast..... LOL

[Ichingcarpenter]

85. I recommend this post only because of the replies n/t

[Radical Activist]

7. It should be treated the same way as alcohol.

People who perform surgery or fly an airplane drunk would be fired. That doesn't mean they should take a breathalyzer before their workday.

[Ichingcarpenter]

88. No way to prove when was the last time you smoked

Last night, today or 10 days ago

[JI7]

8. there is already drug testing in many work places, Marijuana isn't the only drug there is

and you assume people will only use it if it becomes illegal. and that there areno other drugs.

it wont make any difference in this area.

[Chemical Bill]

10. Please provide evidence that cannabis impairs driving. n/t

[coti]

13. As far as PR is concerned, this is not the proper route to go for argument.

Googling "marijuana impairment driving" brings up plenty of studies on the issue, at least one of which concluded that marijuana does indeed impair reaction time.

[Ichingcarpenter]

89. No it doesn't

Give me your studies.

[cleanhippie]

105. Here are some

I have not read them, but like the person stated, google has lots...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=marijuana+impairment+driving&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

------------------

on edit: I just read the abstract of this one

http://journals.lww.com/behaviouralpharm/abstract/1998/11000/effects_of_marijuana_on_equilibrium,_psychomotor.15.aspx


and it does confirm that THC does impair driving, it is essentially the equivalent of a .05% BAC, which is LESS than the legal limit for driving and drinking.


Interesting stuff.

[Chemical Bill]

114. Those links took me to subscription websites.

Got anything I can actually read?

Bill

[cleanhippie]

117. I think you can read the abstracts

The second link I was talking about gives the abstract, which has the basics about the study.

Otherwise, one needs a subscription to those databases, very expensive unless you are a student at a school that gets it.

[Chemical Bill]

112. It's quite proper to demand proof of a claim.

Telling me to google it is not the same thing. Until I actually see a study that supports the premise of the OP then I will believe the OP to be invalid.

Bill

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. When I'm driving and I turn to the person in the back seat, joint in hand, and say 'ere...

My driving is impaired. Who am I to talk though? I can drive and roll some of the prettiest j's you've ever seen at the same time. NOT one handed.

[Lucian]

11. Only if the person is suspected of using it.

Otherwise, no, I would not support it.

It's the same with alcohol. If a person shows up to work drunk, then you test them.

[mike_c]

12. no....

I might support drug testing in some professions AFTER there is reason to suspect that drug abuse and poor judgment might have contributed to an accident, or a crime. But never as "prophilactic" testing.

[Nikia]

14. It is no one's business if someone uses legal drugs outside of work

And does not show up intoxicated. I think that legalization will encourage the development of tests that only detect within hours.

[coti]

15. So, you would be okay with someone who regularly smokes pot doing surgery on you,

or flying your airplane, as long as they did not smoke before going to work?

[Nikia]

16. We accept regular heavy drinkers

Who aren't intoxicated. If their work performance isn't suffering, it isn't our business.

[coti]

19. Does the work performance of regular, heavy drinkers typically suffer?

Though I don't think we should be focusing on equivocation- we should be looking at what we know about the effects of marijuana.

I think some alcohol-based arguments with regard to the use of marijuana are valid, but also that treatment of alcohol shouldn't be the main justification behind marijuana policy.

With what you know about the long-term effects of regular marijuana use, do you feel comfortable with a regular user performing these tasks where others' lives are so directly reliant on their performance?

One bad performance from a pilot can affect a whole lot of people, to say the least. I wouldn't want to be there when a regularly-smoking pilot's performance begins to "suffer."

[Warren Stupidity]

97. you've assumed that the work performance of regular heavy pot smokers suffers.

But yes if course regular heavy use of alcohol causes all sorts of problems, including neurological problems. There is no such evidence for marijuana.

What we don't want is people who are CURRENTLY IMPAIRED performing critical tasks. Drug testing has been pushed on us by the New Security State as yet another way to strip us of our rights and it has been pushed on us using the same fear tactics you echoed in your post.

[AngryAmish]

124. There is pretty good science that heavy users of cannabis suffer some short term memory loss

But it has to be very heavy use. Really heavy use. The sort of use that is beyond that of alcohol use - if you drank that much you would be a complete mess.

I am not aware of a test (breath, blood) that can determine current impairment via dope. So, without that person falling down, a positive marijuana test is not dispositive. Except if you are a driver in Illinois. Then you can't drive for a month after smoking dope.

[Warren Stupidity]

131. really heavy use as in 'impaired all the time" - of course.

But that is really not what the OP is about, it is about pushing the Fear Meme to support incarceration and other draconian punishments, and in particular in this case the ongoing stripping of basic constitutional rights, for example via mandatory drug testing, all because of unsubstantiated, i.e. bullshit, claims that a particular drug, marijuana in this case, is surely so DANGEROUS that without tossing the constitution and arbitrarily wrecking people's lives, KITTENS WILL DIE, or some other horror.

[cleanhippie]

108. You need to watch the movie "super high me". It just may change your mind about that.

[laughingliberal]

24. Yes. nt

[coti]

29. Would you argue with someone who didn't feel comfortable with it that they should,

and that there are no detrimental effects to long-term marijuana use, or would you characterize your response as a personal decision that you are willing to take the risk?

[RainDog]

44. what risk?

you are making all sorts of assumptions without any facts to back up your claims.

you assume you would KNOW that your doctor uses cannabis - maybe your doctor already does and you don't know it.

do you ask your doctor for a detailed history of her/his alcohol use when you go for a check up?

do you assume your doctor is unqualified if he or she drinks alcohol from time to time?

[coti]

59. This is like trying to discuss atheism with the choir. nt

[RainDog]

68. actually, atheism relies on facts, not fear. n/t

[coti]

70. And religion relies on dogma.

Like there being no detrimental effects of regular marijuana use.



I'm giving you facts.

[RainDog]

73. no you're not. it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about

based upon your description below - you are entirely ignorant about cannabis.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coti]

87. Nuh uh- don't play like you didn't totally flip your lid and start namecalling first,

based on a complete misunderstanding of how drugs work, no less.

I responded in exactly the way you deserved.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. What is with the name calling? What is the point of that?

You were asked to cite studies to back up your premise, and you stated that facts are not a good argument here because of 'p.r.'. Silly stuff.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coti]

100. It's not a good argument because it's WRONG. And it makes potsmokers look totally irresponsible.

Want to make a losing AND embarassing argument? Just deny that it has any effect on driving skill and rest on that.

Here are the studies that I had no idea someone even asked for, and wasn't looking for anymore because I'd already MENTIONED that they do, in fact, exist after looking:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=marijuana+impairment+driving&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

And, whaddaya know, there's plenty of them.

[phleshdef]

109. Cram your links. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Your studies can suck my stoned balls. Seriously. You are the one embarassing yourself because you are making an argument to a bunch of people who knew better than you on this topic before you typed one word. Its laughable that you are attempting to "inform us". Just quit it all ready. No one gives a good god damn what you think about marijuana usage. You don't know what you are talking about and when people don't know what they are talking about, their opinion is rendered worthless, which is pretty much where yours sits right now.

[RainDog]

110. actually, as I stated before, I was leaving for the day

I apologize for my tone.

I do not, however, apologize for my statement that talking about the way metabolites leave the body indicates withdrawal. If someone drinks a glass of wine and that wine is processed by the body, the body does not undergo withdrawal.

The same applies to cannabis.

Cannabis is not physically addictive, which was the point I wanted to make in relation to the presence of metabolites in someone's system after the fact.

I know you and your buddies are celebrating, but I think you are seriously misrepresenting evidence.

Cannabis is not physically addictive for the vast, vast majority of people who use it. As I noted in a link included below, those who claim to be physically addicted, according to studies, have reported mental health problems prior to making such a claim. iow there is no indication of causation for those people.

Here is why your statement about the action of metabolites is not accurate. You can go look for these papers yourself if this is not sufficient for you, but you may not claim that cannabis is physically addictive in the way in which you described the experience.

----

Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.

*
United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. 2002. June 24 2005.

*
Johnson, L.D., et al. “National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.” Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.

*
Kandel, D.B., et al. “Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.

*
Stephens, R.S., et al. “Adult marijuana users seeking treatment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.

[RainDog]

121. did you have a chance to read my link that showed YOU'RE WRONG?

because it would be sort of irresponsible to write what you did here and then refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong.

btw, you assume I am a pot smoker. you have no actual evidence to assume this. I have smoked cannabis in the past and, thus, I am aware of its effects.

however, as I noted when I initially replied to you about a generic scenario, I do not have direct experience of chronic use, etc.

it's not a good argument for you to make as you did on this thread and it makes people who are opposed to rational marijuana policy look totally irresponsible. sorry if this is a stereotype, but, who cares, right, if someone can score a few points - even when that person is dead wrong.

[RainDog]

116. I was in a hurry to leave and could not spend the time getting the information I wanted to include

but I have done so, below. I hope you have a chance to read about the effects of cannabis metabolites because it demonstrates that my claims are based upon scientific evidence in a study conducted at Stanford.

sometimes I get "outdone."

this person was making claims for any user that would be more representative of a long-term chronic user - which, as I noted below, is the same as saying that a person who drinks a glass of wine once or twice a month exhibits the same reaction to alcohol as someone who drinks until he passes out everyday.

It's frustrating to read this sort of thing when someone claims they want to discuss this issue because this is not representative of the millions of people who have consumed cannabis at some point in their lives and it is aggravating when someone tries pretend this is reality.

[RainDog]

33. yes

if they were not under the influence at that time, I would have no problem with this.

I think you are a little hysterical about this issue.

do you think it's okay for a doctor to have a glass of wine when s/he's not working? when s/he goes out to dinner? I do.

I do not think that glass of wine impairs her/him on the job. it's the same thing.

[coti]

35. I'm not feeling any hysteria. Actually, I see others as being a little cavalier about this.

Which I guess is why I posted the poll.

There is a lot of equivocation between alcohol and marijuana going on here, which is fair when considering general policy parallels. However, they have some qualitatively different short-term and long-term effects for both occasional and regular use, and there comes a point, like when discussing issues such as public safety, where I think it's important for people to recognize the effects of marijuana in more detail instead of talking about it in terms of alcohol in an attempt to avoid those issues.

[RainDog]

41. what are the differences between alcohol and cannabis?

what are the qualitative short-term and long-term effects for each that make you think others are cavalier?

for the purpose of clarity - how about this:

compare two typical stemmed red wine glasses 3/4 full of merlot to two tokes of pot - for clarity, say this is a hybrid indica/sativa.

since no two people are the same, maybe you can pick a generic "good experience" and a generic "bad experience" for both.

how long do the effects last for each?
what are the short-term effects of each?
what are the after effects of each?
what are the long-term effects of each?

I think that people have had so much bullshit rammed down their throats about cannabis that they don't really know what it's like to use it casually. However, just as everyone who drinks a glass of wine is not a wino, everyone who consumes cannabis is not a stoner.

[coti]

53. Two glasses of wine vs. two tokes of an indica/sativa strain

I'd expect the "morning after" effects of both- for occasional use- to be nearly negligible.

With a glass of water before going to bed (or even without), I'd expect someone who drank two glasses of wine to feel quite normal upon waking up.

The "morning after" effect of two tokes on a non-regular user I'd expect to be nearly the same, with the exception of lowered anxiety and a slight "dreamy" feeling. Maybe slightly decreased focus. So I hear, the hangover effect of marijuana is often pleasant.


With heavy use, one night, I'd expect the effect of alcohol withdrawal to be quite pronounced. Anxiety, headache, stomach ache, and in severe circumstances shaking (due to electrolyte imbalance), vomiting, sleepiness, inability to focus, and depression.

And, no, I wouldn't want a pilot or surgeon to be suffering those effects while trying to perform his job.

With heavy use, one night, I'd expect the effect of marijuana to be mostly the same as the "light use" effects above for marijuana, but amplified. Dreaminess probably more accurately described as lethargy, very low anxiety, significant decrease in ability to focus.


I'd expect heavy, long-term use of both to not be good at all. For alcohol, severe mental impairment, possibly psychosis, short and long-term memory loss, DT's, and severe depression, among many other things. On edit: I forgot "death" for the most severe cases.

Heavy, long-term use of marijuana, oddly enough, when withdrawal comes, leads to anxiety, inability to focus probably better characterized as dullness, and serious lethargy/lack of motivation/depression, among many other things.


Does that sound accurate?

[JonLP24]

56. Actually

Long term affects of cannabis is a hotly discussed topics among the scientific community. One thing that should be considered is correlation does not imply causation. I will say on personal experience, cannabis greatly subsided my severe anxiety attacks. I took Citalopram and Prozac and they didn't do anything for me.

On edit-Nice chatting with you. I'm going to play Borderlands, that will be more fun than this. :hi:

[coti]

57. Right.

Note in the last part I said, "when withdrawal comes," anxiety. Withdrawal won't come the next day for pot.

As long as a person continues smoking (unless they're one of those who gets anxious when high), they won't feel (serious) anxiety for a day or two as a withdrawal effect of smoking long-term.

In other words, the effect lasts longer than just three hours.

[RainDog]

65. but studies indicate that "withdrawal" from pot is like someone who stops drinking coffee

coffee is a perfectly legal substance that people use with no testing whatsoever.

if someone decides to stop drinking coffee they may have irritability for a couple of days but this is not a life-threatening or mentally incapacitating experience.

this is the reality of cannabis - it is less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. less addictive than either, less likely to cause long-term health effects... and yet you seem to think it requires "preventative" measures to keep someone in one profession or another from using it.

but you do not apply those same restrictions to other legal substances.

that's what makes no sense.

[coti]

69. From what I know, the comparison to caffeine withdrawal after months of daily use actually sounds

accurate, but I think I consider that type of withdrawal more significant than you do. There may be some similarity to at least the initial effects of quitting smoking, too (nicotine being a stimulant). Again, lack of focus, anxiety, irritability, like you said. It sounds like "bad mood" stuff, and not that big of a deal, but it's quite real and it affects cognitive ability, which is the biggest concern.

Anyway, the effect is there. And, for marijuana, when not withdrawing- and there is a gradiated disappearance of the drug in the body's system as THC metabolizes- the drug is still in decreasing effect.

The "morning after" effects I was describing for the first two marijuana scenarios weren't (at least what I would consider) "withdrawal" effects- more like "after effects." Effects that occur when the initial, acute effect of the drug has worn off, and it is still present in much lower amounts, but the body has not started "missing" it yet.

The effects in the last scenario were withdrawal from long-term use, but those would not occur during the morning after for marijuana use, at least not in any significant way. For example, the "morning after" effects for light use, but for a regular user, will likely be maintaining the "semi-stoned," dreamy, low-anxiety state that comes with smoking on a daily basis or multiple times per day. The morning after effects for heavier one-night use would be more pronounced.

To get to the withdrawal effect after regular use, my own personal estimation would require at least a day's worth of not smoking, probably more, or at least increasing with time. And there can be what is fairly called depression in that state, and lethargy, and inability to focus. So, another way of putting it is that it would be difficult to do a job requiring care and precision when not in the semi-stoned, "just smoked the night before" state.

None of the effects are as bad as alcohol, but there does seem to be a "you've gotta be recently stoned or you've gotta withdraw" kind of Catch-22 to marijuana use, and both of those situations have their psychological effects. It's not good for those types of jobs.

[RainDog]

72. no. this is not true. metabolites that remain in the system are WASTE PRODUCTS

they are the byproducts and are NOT psychoactive - as I've already mentioned below.

After effects are not the same thing as withdrawal - this is simply a ludicrous statement with no validity.

there is no "missing" aspect to having smoked cannabis and then going about your business the next day. that's asinine - that is a misrepresentation of the actual physiological experience - there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH A CLAIM.

You claim of someone being "semi-stoned" is also ridiculous for people who do not smoke 24/7. it's just not.

You obviously do not understand the use of cannabis based upon your description.

it's laughable that you think there's a "you've gotta be recently stoned or withdraw" to marijuana use. honestly, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read anyone claim about this substance.

you have no idea what you're talking about.

that much is clear.

you should not be involved in any decisions that involve employees and their consumption of cannabis while they are not at work because of your obvious ignorance.

take care.

[coti]

74. Let's REALLY talk facts, now, then,

since you're having trouble reading what I'm saying correctly.

I'm not saying "metabolites," a word you probably heard somewhere in stoner-lore and latched onto, are psychoactive.

I'm saying THC stays in your system beyond the three hours you actually feel it in its intensity.

Since we're trying to educate people, let me help you out:

In physiology, some chemicals have what's called a "half-life" that denotes, roughly, the amount time it takes for half of the chemical to metabolize and leave the body.

The half-life for THC is roughly 1.3 days for those who do not smoke very often:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/8665.html

That's Dr. Dean Edell, by the way, a well-respected physician, reporting this.

What this FACT means is that, EVEN AFTER 1.3 DAYS, roughly HALF of the THC a person smokes is STILL in their system and has not been metabolized into the "metabolites" you like to talk about. Hell, after a few hours, hardly any of it is gone.

With 50% remaining, in the 1.3 days following the first 1.3 days, another 25% would be gone. Then 12.5% in the next 1.3, etc., etc.

Further, by that study, the half-life was possibly even larger for more regular smokers- somewhere between 1 and 10 days.

Now, here's the educational part: Marijuana's HALF-LIFE is why you don't get an immediate withdrawal effect hours after smoking it. THC takes days to be metabolized, leading to more of what I already called an "after effect" the next morning than withdrawal.

Interesting side note, though- alcohol does not have a "half-life" because it undergoes steady-state metabolism.

http://hamsnetwork.org/metabolism/ (slightly farther than halfway down)

We metabolize roughly 13 mL of alcohol per hour, flat rate. And, because no matter how much you have in your system you keep metabolizing the same amount, you can ENTIRELY get rid of alcohol in your system within hours after drinking (the exact time depending on how much you drink). There isn't the logarithmic function you see with THC and other chemicals. And, get THIS: THAT'S why you get immediate alcohol withdrawals on waking up in the morning!

You piecing it together, now?

Chemical still present ----> no withdrawal

Chemical gone ----> withdrawal!

It's easy!

I'm glad we learned something today. ;)

[RainDog]

80. I am aware of the difference between THC and alcohol

and the way that each leaves the body.

withdrawal has nothing to do with this. if you drink a glass of water and a portion of that water is in your stomach an hour after you drink it you are not going through withdrawal as the water leaves your stomach.

that's the way in which you are ignorant, and remain so.

you assume withdrawal is a part of the experience when it is not.

maybe it's just a poor choice of words on your part, but since your entire post was made up of similar stupid assumptions, I doubt it.

there is no withdrawal because, as research after research has demonstrated, cannabis is not physically addictive for the millions of people who have used it in the past, may use it in present or who will decide to use it in the future.

edit to add - concerning the half-life and metabolites - avg good cannabis has 6% THC at this time. under 1% THC, there is no intoxicating effect and that level of THC is considered meager enough to qualify as non-psychotropic. recent studies have indicated that there is no measurable THC level that is the marker for its presence in someone's body after 3 to 4 days. If someone exercises, this happens sooner. If someone has a lot of body fat, it happens later but the 30 day claim that used to be made is not considered accurate.

again, I have to leave now but this Canadian study is available online.

and, again, to call something leaving your body "withdrawal" is a serious misrepresentation and indicates a lack of understanding.

[coti]

90. Let's dissect your non-sequitur, pointless post, piece by piece.

"I am aware of the difference between THC and alcohol and the way that each leaves the body."

It sure didn't seem like you were before. You responded to my posts in a way that did not show you were aware that THC has a half-life that goes well beyond the three hours of "experience" you get after smoking.

Just to reiterate: after three hours, the vast, vast majority of THC you put into your body remains there.

"withdrawal has nothing to do with this. if you drink a glass of water and a portion of that water is in your stomach an hour after you drink it you are not going through withdrawal as the water leaves your stomach." "that's the way in which you are ignorant, and remain so."

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this "glass of water" example. It seems like a non-sequitur to me- I don't know why a person would have "water withdrawal" absorbing the water they drank into their blood. Consequently, I'm going to use a lot of capital letters in response to emphasize key words of the following rough physiological explanation of what happens when you smoke:

After you SMOKE MARIJUANA, the THC ENTERS YOUR BLOOD (did you know this part, either?) THROUGH YOUR LUNGS and then, SLOWLY, begins to METABOLIZE in your CELLS, WHILE having an EFFECT on your BRAIN. It STAYS IN YOUR BODY, in your CELLS (because it is NONPOLAR and FAT-SOLUBLE) and BLOODSTREAM, and comes out in your URINE for DAYS afterward. WHILE the THC is STILL IN YOUR BODY, moving in and out of your BLOODSTREAM, it will STILL HAVE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT ON YOU, though MINUTE AS COMPARED TO THE FIRST THREE HOURS. According to the STUDY I NOTED, roughly ONE-HALF of the THC will METABOLIZE and "GO AWAY" in 1.3 DAYS (a little over 30 HOURS). EXTRAPOLATING BACKWARD in TIME using that same RATE (x = .5 ^ .1), over 93% of the THC INHALED will REMAIN in the BODY after the RECOGNIZABLE, 3-HOUR HIGH is OVER.

Thus, the so-called "MARIJUANA HANGOVER," complete with the PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS noted EARLIER that YOU RECOGNIZED- DREAMINESS and DECREASED ANXIETY, for example.

"you assume withdrawal is a part of the experience when it is not. maybe it's just a poor choice of words on your part, but since your entire post was made up of similar stupid assumptions, I doubt it. there is no withdrawal because, as research after research has demonstrated, cannabis is not physically addictive for the millions of people who have used it in the past, may use it in present or who will decide to use it in the future."

I like the way you refer to getting high as "the experience." LOL.

But let's address the word WITHDRAWAL. NO, marijuana has no PHYSIOLOGICALLY addictive properties, and thus no PHYSIOLOGICAL withdrawal effects. What it DOES HAVE is PSYCHOLOGICALLY ADDICTIVE PROPERTIES when USED REGULARLY- as has been noted by "RESEARCH AFTER RESEARCH," as you put it- and it, THUS, has DETRIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS on a person once its REGULAR USE is STOPPED. THOSE EFFECTS WERE NOTED IN PREVIOUS POSTS- ANXIETY, DEPRESSIVE DISORDERS/LACK OF MOTIVATION, IRRITABILITY, DIFFICULTY FOCUSING, etc. Note those are all PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS quite different from many of the PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS noted under ALCOHOL WITHDRAWALS, such as VOMITING and SHAKING and even DEATH. I called those COMMON, PREDICTABLE, and DETRIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS to STOPPING REGULAR MARIJUANA USE "WITHDRAWALS," but YOU can call them WHATEVER YOU LIKE.

"concerning the half-life and metabolites - avg good cannabis has 6% THC at this time. under 1% THC, there is no intoxicating effect and that level of THC is considered meager enough to qualify as non-psychotropic. recent studies have indicated that there is no measurable THC level that is the marker for its presence in someone's body after 3 to 4 days. If someone exercises, this happens sooner. If someone has a lot of body fat, it happens later but the 30 day claim that used to be made is not considered accurate."

NO, the THC POTENCY of MARIJUANA STRAINS has NO EFFECT on the HALF-LIFE ISSUE at all. At ISSUE is THC BLOOD CONCENTRATION, which will CREATE your HIGH at a RELATIVELY STABLE POINT, depending on REGULARITY OF USE. HALF of what gets you HIGH (or half of MORE than what gets you HIGH), WHATEVER that may BE, is HALF of what gets you HIGH, REGARDLESS of the % POTENCY of WHAT YOU SMOKED. TOTAL MATHEMATICAL NON-SEQUITUR regarding HALF-LIFE.

HOWEVER, what you WROTE about THC not being DETECTABLE after 3 to 4 DAYS is QUITE INTERESTING (THOUGH I'd bet that NUMBER CHANGES with REGULARITY of USE, again). AFTER 4 DAYS, roughly 12% of THC smoked should REMAIN in the BODY (x = .5 ^ (4/1.3)).

"again, I have to leave now but this Canadian study is available online."

GREAT. THANKS.

"and, again, to call something leaving your body 'withdrawal' is a serious misrepresentation"

NO, it ISN'T, not in the WAY I actually USED it.

"and indicates a lack of understanding."

NO, it CLEARLY DOESN'T.

[RainDog]

111. you are using information about chronic long-term users and extrapolating that for everyone

this is the same as saying that someone who can drink a glass of wine once or twice a month is the same as someone who drinks daily.

there is a difference.

I assume you agree on this point since it's generally accepted.

The example you gave of irritability, etc. etc. has to do with someone who is a chronic user, not a casual user. You are misrepresenting the experience by refusing to acknowledge that your example is the same as a doctor, for instance, who is an alcoholic. No one that I know of thinks a doctor who has a substance abuse problem should perform surgery, for instance.

I used the example of a glass of water because metabolites are molecules that your body processes. Your body processes water and uses it. It combines with other waste products and is excreted by your kidneys. If someone consumes too much water, that person can kill him or herself.

The same, however, can not be said for cannabis. There is no known level of cannabis that it is possible for anyone to consume that will result in death.

The point I wanted to make was that your extreme example is not representative of an avg person who might consume cannabis from time to time. There is not withdrawal with occasional, casual usage. Just like people may consume a glass of wine and function without any side effects after the fact, even while their bodies are metabolizing alcohol, they can do the same with cannabis.

When someone drinks a glass of wine that that wine is broken down into various molecules and excreted by your kidneys... are you drunk while that by product is in your kidney?

[RainDog]

113. further information about cannabis metabolites in the human body

from this source:

Health Aspects of Cannabis by Leo E. Hollister

Veterans Administration Medical Center and Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California

from PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS Copyright c 1986 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

One can measure in man the extraction of cannabis metabolites following single or repeated doses, to get some idea of their persistence. Following both single and repeated doses (at least single doses for several days), metabolites of cannabis of cannabis can be found in urine for varying periods, up to several days following the last dose (94). All of these metabolites are ones that are known to have no mental effects, except for a minuscule amount of unchanged THC which is excreted during the first 4 h following a dose, while the drug is having definite clinical effects. The excretion of these metabolites is not accompanied by any evidence of cannabis-like effects.

We may conjecture that THC rapidly leaves the blood to be sequestered in fatty tissues. It is either gradually metabolized in these tissues to inactive metabolites which are then excreted in the urine, or it may be gradually released from these tissues in small amounts to be metabolized by the liver before attaining effective plasma concentrations. In either case, there is no evidence of a continuing drug effect from this accumulation of drug in the body.

[coti]

125. What the FUCK are you TALKING ABOUT???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9326863&mesg_id=9328641

THREE. DISTINCTIVE. SCENARIOS.

AND I NEVER SAID THERE WOULD BE WITHDRAWAL FOR LIGHT USERS. EVER.

STOP WASTING MY FUCKING TIME.

[RainDog]

129. I would like to help provide information so that you will not make false statements

as I noted, based upon studies that have been available for decades, THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main psychoactive part of cannabis. It is, however, only one of many cannabinoids that are part of the cannabis plant. It is the cannabinoid that is responsible for the psychoactive experience of cannabis consumption.

THC is metabolized into 11-Hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (shortened to 11-OH-THC) soon after cannabis is consumed (the 3 or 4 hour window the doctor mentioned in his study thirty-plus years ago.) Some researchers speculate 11-OH-THC is responsible for an increase in appetite, rather than THC itself. 11-OH-THC has some psychoactive qualities.

11-OH-THC is further metabolized as 11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC (also known as 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, 11-COOH-THC, THC-COOH, or THC-11-oic acid.)

THIS is the metabolite that is stored in fat. It is not psychoactive. Current studies suggest it may have analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. But, again, it is not psychoactive.

11-COOH-THC..."has a long half-life in the body of up to several days (or even weeks in very heavy users),<3><4><5> making it the main metabolite tested for when blood or urine testing for cannabis use."

--so, to be clear, the metabolite that has a long half-life that remains in the human body is NOT PSYCHOACTIVE. However, because it breaks down over time (by combining with water-soluble glucuronide, which facilitates removal of the cannabis metabolite from the body...remember I mentioned water combining with other wastes...) this is what someone tests for to indicate PAST, not present, cannabis use.

It doesn't matter if someone smokes one bowl a year or one bowl a day... from the moment it is inhaled until 4 hours or so after consumption, the body immediately begins to break down THC into 11-OH-THC. Soon after this, the 11-OH THC is metabolized into 11-COOH-THC.

If someone does not consume cannabis after the initial four hour period (using that as an average, tho diff. people obviously have different metabolic rates) that person no longer has a psychoactive substance in his or her body.

This is just for future reference for you when you try to make an unsupported claim about a substance you do not seem to have spent much time learning about.

However, if you had actually wanted to learn something about it, you could have easily done so before you made the false claims you did repeatedly on this thread.

[coti]

130. Just to clarify- you're trying to argue that there's no such thing as a marijuana hangover

based on pharmacological inferences and while AGREEING with my contention that THC remains in the body for much longer than 3 hours.

But you haven't produced any direct studies of marijuana's "morning after" effects, so I did some more focused research of my own.

The most "on-point" studies, for the purposes of our subject, were performed on pilots over several trials in the mid-80's to early 90's by V.O. Leirer, J.A. Yesavage, and D.G. Morrow. These studies are cited and argued all over the Internet.

Here are two of the abstracts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2998213

"Ten experienced licensed private pilots were trained for 8 hours on a flight simulator landing task. They each smoked a cigarette containing 19 mg of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and 24 hours later their mean performance on the flight task showed trends toward impairment on all variables, with significant impairment in number and size of aileron changes, size of elevator changes, distance off center on landing, and vertical and lateral deviation on approach to landing. Despite these deficits, the pilots reported no awareness of impaired performance. These results may have implications for performance of complex tasks the day after smoking marijuana."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1849400

"This study finds evidence for 24-h carry-over effects of a moderate social dose of marijuana on a piloting task. In separate sessions, nine currently active pilots smoked one cigarette containing 20 mg of delta 9 THC and one Placebo cigarette. Using an aircraft simulator, pilots flew just before smoking, and 0.25, 4, 8, 24, and 48 h after smoking. Marijuana impaired performance at 0.25, 4, 8, and 24 h after smoking. While seven of the nine pilots showed some degree of impairment at 24 h after smoking, only one reported any awareness of the drug's effects. The results support our preliminary study and suggest that very complex human/machine performance can be impaired as long as 24 h after smoking a moderate social dose of marijuana, and that the user may be unaware of the drug's influence."


Another study was performed on non-pilots measuring "behavioral tasks of card sorting, free recall and time production" the morning after smoking marijuana:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2992898

"Thirteen male marijuana smokers participated in a study to determine whether marijuana smoked in the evening would result in measurable subjective or other behavioral effects the following morning. Subjects smoked either active (2.9% delta 9THC) or placebo (0.0% delta 9THC) marijuana cigarettes according to a standardized smoking regimen. Smoke inhalation was monitored by measuring expired air carbon monoxide (CO) levels before and after smoking. Acutely, active marijuana produced significant changes in heart rate, CO level, various measures of subjective effects, and behavioral tasks of card sorting, free recall and time production. When the test battery was repeated the following morning (approx. 9 h after smoking), significant changes were observed on two subjective effects scales and on the time production task after active, but not placebo, marijuana. These apparent 'hangover' effects were different from the acute effects of marijuana. The findings suggest that marijuana smoking can produce residual (hangover) effects the day after smoking. The precise nature and extent of these effects, as well as their practical implications, remain to be determined.


What's your explanation for this, since according to you, there is no psychoactive substance remaining in the body 4 hours after smoking marijuana?

There are more studies out there.


You should also read this excerpt from the book "Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence," Earleywine, 2002:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QUn92XLQqf8C&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=marijuana+hangover+studies&source=bl&ots=gmw4FDCKw-&sig=tRWuMBYrjoRmiTCy5XFDSEYGb08&hl=en&ei=ZAC7TJfHKZG-sQOX56TdDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=marijuana%20hangover%20studies&f=false

Pages 117 and 118. It's a fair treatment of the issue, discussing some of the studies cited above as well as others, but does suggest that there are residual, morning-after effects of smoking marijuana.

One of the studies it mentions reports that half of its subjects self-reported marijuana hangovers after at least 50 lifetime uses, while the other half didn't.

Similarly, I'm sure plenty of posters here will be along shortly to claim they've never experienced a marijuana hangover, but there's plenty of contradictory anecdotal evidence available out there by simply Googling "marijuana hangovers."

[RainDog]

132. well, to start, here's a quote from the link you provided

from "Understanding Marijuana" -

IN FACT, it is unclear from these data if marijuana IS THE ACTUAL SOURCE of...symptoms, given the frequency that people consume alcohol, marijuana and other drug simultaneously. (Earlywine & Newcomb, 1997). Controlled administration of marijuana in the absense of other drugs is the only way to illuminate this issue.

LABORATORY STUDIES DO NOT CONSISTENTLY CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF A MARIJUANA HANGOVER. Subjective experiences of hangover probably vary as dramatically as reaction to intoxication.

So, your own link indicates your claim is not grounded in scientific research. There is no indication of causation.

I am not the one claiming that THC does not remain in your body. It's the numerous doctors who have actually done controlled studies that indicate this is the truth. If you don't like the truth, you can take it up with the scientists who work in the field.

Feel free to check out the data via these references:

1. Skopp G, Pötsch L. Stability of 11-nor-delta(9)-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol glucuronide in plasma and urine assessed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Clinical Chemistry. 2002 Feb;48(2):301-6. PMID 11805011

2. Law B, Mason PA, Moffat AC, King LJ. Confirmation of cannabis use by the analysis of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol metabolites in blood and urine by combined HPLC and RIA. Journal of Analytical Toxicology. 1984 Jan-Feb;8(1):19-22. PMID 6323852

3. Huestis MA, Mitchell JM, Cone EJ. Detection times of marijuana metabolites in urine by immunoassay and GC-MS. Journal of Analytical Toxicology. 1995 Oct;19(6):443-9. PMID 8926739

4. Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd D. Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001 Oct; 58 (10) 909-15. PMID 11576028

5. Dietz L, Glaz-Sandberg A, Nguyen H, Skopp G, Mikus G, Aderjan R. The urinary disposition of intravenously administered 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. 2007 Jun;29(3):368-72. PMID 17529896

6. Huestis MA, Henningfield JE, Cone EJ. Blood cannabinoids. II. Models for the prediction of time of marijuana exposure from plasma concentrations of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THCCOOH) Journal of Analytical Toxicology. 1992 Sep-Oct;16(5):283-90. PMID 1338216

7. Huestis MA, Elsohly M, Nebro W, Barnes A, Gustafson RA, Smith ML. Estimating time of last oral ingestion of cannabis from plasma THC and THCCOOH concentrations. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. 2006 Aug;28(4):540-4. PMID 16885722

8. Ménétrey A, Augsburger M, Favrat B, Pin MA, Rothuizen LE, Appenzeller M, Buclin T, Mangin P, Giroud C. Assessment of driving capability through the use of clinical and psychomotor tests in relation to blood cannabinoids levels following oral administration of 20 mg dronabinol or of a cannabis decoction made with 20 or 60 mg Delta9-THC. Journal of Analytical Toxicology. 2005 Jul-Aug;29(5):327-38. PMID 16105257

9. Burstein SH, Hull K, Hunter SA, Latham V. Cannabinoids and pain responses: a possible role for prostaglandins. FASEB Journal. 1988 Nov;2(14):3022-6. PMID 2846397

10. Doyle SA, Burstein SH, Dewey WL, Welch SP. Further studies on the antinociceptive effects of delta 6-THC-7-oic acid. Agents and Actions. 1990 Aug;31(1-2):157-63. PMID 2178317

11. Burstein S, Hunter SA, Latham V, Renzulli L. A major metabolite of delta 1-tetrahydrocannabinol reduces its cataleptic effect in mice. Experientia. 1987 Apr 15;43(4):402-3. PMID 3032669

12. Burstein S, Hunter SA, Latham V, Renzulli L. Prostaglandins and cannabis--XVI. Antagonism of delta 1-tetrahydrocannabinol action by its metabolites. Biochemical Pharmacology. 1986 Aug 1;35(15):2553-8. PMID 3017356

[coti]

135. You're cherry-picking lines from the one book while ignoring the weight of the evidence

presented and tone. Like I said, it was a fair assessment of the issue. He even mentioned the reports of the pleasant effects of marijuana hangovers that I brought up at the beginning of this discussion.

Earleywine's concern about the source of marijuana hangovers was only related to studies based on self-reporting. In the controlled studies I cited, giving the controlled administration Earlywine correctly demands as necessary for accuracy, it was quite clear that marijuana was the source of resulting behavioral changes.

Of course, he was careful to note that not every study showed the same results, but he cited quite a few them suggesting marijuana has effects on users beyond the initial 3-hour high.


So, returning to your contention that no psychoactive substances remain in the body 3-4 hours after smoking marijuana, how do you explain the results of these studies showing morning-after effects of marijuana use?

After seeing the results of the pilot studies, would you really feel comfortable flying in an airplane piloted by someone who had been smoking bowls the night before?

I think that deserves an honest answer. It is the effect of smoking marijuana that is at issue here, and that's what these behavioral studies measure.

[RainDog]

136. again, the scientific research indicates the metabolic breakdown of THC

while you want to pretend this is my claim, I supplied numerous references to indicate this claim is not my claim but the claim of researchers in the field.

you claim I am cherry picking while you choose to IGNORE the truth that the breakdown of the composition of THC is not in dispute among those who study this issue.

I do not attempt to explain the claims because I am relaying EVIDENCE that has been available, as I have noted more than once, for decades.

You want me to make some claim about a subjective experience. Well, I can't. I cannot tell you about that person's ingestion of this or that outside of a controlled study.

What I can tell you is that your claim that THC as a psychoactive substance that remains in the body after the time of intoxication is false based upon the chemical analysis of the compounds that make up this plant. That does not require any subjective assessment.

What I can tell you is that I told the truth from the moment I noted that scientists recognize the chemical breakdown of cannabinoidss and you refused to accept this truth. That's your problem, not mine.

[coti]

138. IOW, you're saying the intense high of marijuana only lasts three hours. We already knew that.

*I* was honest when I said that, though the intense high lasts only three hours, there are often after-effects lasting longer than that. I've supplied the evidence backing up my assertion.

But now you're refusing to accept the likely effects of marijuana on people beyond that three hours, even though that's what's germane to this discussion. Is that honest?

[RainDog]

139. let me say this one last time because, honestly, this is tiresome

but first - let me note that you made erroneous assumptions about the chemical composition and breakdown of metabolites and brushed this off by dismissing this as "stoner lore" when, in fact, I am not a stoner. You pretended you knew something about the excretion of THC metabolites from the human body and insulted me by suggesting I created a pointless series of observations when, in fact, those observations were accurate while yours were not.

To put some perspective on this - I'm not a scientist. I do not do research into cannaboinoids. Therefore, I report on the science that I read. I began following this subject at the request of a friend because I am a librarian and I get my research geek on in this way. I was nominated for a Rhodes Scholarship when I was an undergrad based upon my research. (I was married, however, which made me ineligible... married to someone, btw, who has never ingested cannabis, fwiw.) I was a Phi Beta Kappa student. I received awards for my research. My undergrad work was cited by a Pulitzer-nominated scholar. I say all this to defend myself against your spurious accusation earlier - accusations that have no basis in reality - accusations that I made a claim that was not based upon the most recent science concerning this issue. Nevertheless, I am not a scientist. I want it to be clear, however, that you were incorrect in your stereotypical assumptions, just as you were incorrect about the chemical analysis of cannbinoids based upon decades of research and, in fact, even the link above the you provided.

These small-minded assumptions and erroneous claims about both the experience of and research into the psychoactive effects of cannabis have made you tiresome to me. I wanted to defend myself against your lies. I did. Yet you continue to want to argue this point.

Any claims made about the chemical composition of cannabis as the metabolites break down in the human body are part of the research into cannabis. I cannot account for subjective statements you or others wish to make.

I come to this subject because I think this is a pivotal moment in history - like the end of alcohol prohibition. I'm interested in those sorts of historical moments.

I think that this substance deserves to be treated like any other substance that is controlled and regulated for adult consumption. Like those other substances, I think that people in jobs that require them to exhibit certain facilities in those jobs need to be responsible for their usage of any substance. Since the research does not provide anything other than subjective claims about any "hangover" - and, in fact, the terms used to describe a hangover may have nothing whatsoever to do with the physiological experience of cannabis consumption, I have nothing to say to that because research does not support claims.

What I have learned from this interaction, however, is that you refuse to accept evidence that has been available for decades because you have chosen a position and will defend it no matter what. And for this reason, I am done with this.

[coti]

141. Hey- you came back five times looking for a response. You're getting it. Now you're tired?

Of course you are, because now you want to avoid the actual issue at hand.


For the record, in my previous post I said nothing incorrect about metabolism of THC (see edit below):

I said THC has a half-life of 1.3 days, which, when including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol's subsequent compositions, such as 11-OH-THC (which IS psychoactive and is even suspected of being the main culprit behind the marijuana high- YOU were wrong in your assertion that none of THC's metabolites are psychoactive- "they are the byproducts and are NOT psychoactive," you said) and THC-COOH, is absolutely correct.

I said that THC leaves the body as it is metabolized. This is absolutely correct.

I said that it's nonpolar and fat-soluble and moves in and out of cells as it is metabolized, which is absolutely correct.

I said that while THC is still in the body, it still has an effect on the smoker, though minute as compared to the first three hours. This is backed up by the studies I presented and is absolutely correct.

I said that 93% of THC inhaled (which includes its subsequent compositions) will remain in the body after the first three hours. Calculating by its half-life, this is correct.

It's all correct.


I was not rude to you until you started being rude to me. You called me ignorant, said I made "stupid assumptions." When I reacted, you deserved it.

Further, you continually misread and/or distorted my points, deliberately or otherwise conflating withdrawal with morning-after effects and using the narrow-minded physiological withdrawal definition- and then finally acknowledged the existence of psychological withdrawals, though perhaps inadvertantly. Not to mention your conflation of my carefully laid distinctions between light use, heavy use, and long-term users and non-users.

Frankly, I don't know if you were tired or what, but most of your posts until the most recent ones made no sense at all and showed very little comprehension of what I was saying.

From the beginning, you also were not candid about the morning-after effects of heavy marijuana use. You downplayed the dreaminess and lowered anxiety often seen in marijuana hangovers, and now refuse to acknowledge these effects at all. For a Phi Beta Kappa, Rhodes Scholar librarian, that's pretty sad.


On edit: Reading over my earlier posts, I guess I was wrong about something- how quickly THC is metabolized. It looks like I did make the erroneous assumption that the level of the waste products excreted was a good indicator of what level of THC-9 is still in the blood. One of the metabolites IS psychoactive, but it also gets metabolized pretty quickly.

However, the assumption came from what I believe to be my pretty well-founded understanding that marijuana hangovers do occur fairly often, and the idea they have to be explained by something- residual chemicals in the blood, something psychological, I don't know. The evidence is there that they exist, there's some kind of reason for them, and they are the result of smoking marijuana.

[RainDog]

115. I hope you get the chance to read the link to cannabis metabolites, below

because, oops, it turns out that I was right.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonLP24]

76. Withdrawals typically consist of irratibility for a week

My anxiety was coming from personal issues I was dealing with at the time.

[RainDog]

82. this person has no fucking clue tho pretends to n/t

[RainDog]

63. almost

given the hypothetical person you noted -

I would say that the two tokes would show absolutely no after effects for the "average" person. at the most, the psychotropic effects would last for a couple to four hours, the "dreamy" would be another couple of hours.

after 8 hours of sleep... no after effects. or maybe lower anxiety - but that one is hard to quantify... a feeling of well being vs a negative feeling - is that low anxiety?

heavy use for one night... after 8 hours of sleep - lower anxiety? does someone have to be anxious initially for this to be present? what if someone was not anxious beforehand? would their lack of anxiety be consistent? maybe it would be valid to say that such a person would not demonstrate agitation that might be common with someone who over-indulged in alcohol?

studies seem to indicate that 9 hours after consumption, there is little to no effect on any previously known information or short-term memory. obviously differences can and do exist between individuals.

http://www.idmu.co.uk/canmem.htm

but I can't speak as an authority on this - I would not expect any decrease in ability to focus after a heavy night of use with 8 hours of sleep.

from the study: n a study of the effects on long term memory, Darley et al reported "Marijuana had no effect on recall or recognition performance.

Short-term, immediate memory while under the influence is not the same as long-term memory and the capacity to recall information someone already knows.

the most recent study I know of indicates short-term memory issues are more prevalent when the cannabis has a significantly higher level of THC than CBD - but this impairment is while intoxicated, not afterward.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101001/full/news.2010.508.html#B1

I have seen habitual users do complicated tasks with perfect efficiency -while under the influence- things requiring physical dexterity, the ability to access memory, things requiring intricate motor skills - these people were musicians, not doctors - but the point is that people can and do perform jobs that require high level functioning of mental and physical skills while under the influence.

according to studies, only 1% of the population experiences any sort of physiological withdrawal when they stop using cannabis after long-term, extensive use. This is considered psychological withdrawal. The effects of withdrawal are considered the equivalent of someone who stops drinking coffee. That's what I have read about this substance in studies that look at the effects of quitting upon those who find they identify as someone with a substance abuse problem. Those who identified as people with substance abuse problems had previously been treated for mental health problems before the use of cannabis. So, is it the cannabis or the person's brain chemistry that is the issue? I don't know, but it seems to me that someone who deals with addiction can have a problem with any substance.

people probably wouldn't want a doctor to operate on them if that person was going through caffeine withdrawal, either - but we wouldn't test all doctors for caffeine consumption.

[Politicalboi]

128. Marijuana helps people sleep

So they can be alert in the morning after 8 to 9 hours from sound sleep. I have been smoking for 30 years, and I smoke everyday. I have a lot of energy at work, and no hang over. Alcohol is the bad guy. Marijuana is safer and I believe it can help others kick their habit. If I owned a business I would hire people who smoked pot over people who drink. And if my doctor smoked a joint the night before operating on me, I could care less. Pot is too over rated. Between my tolerance, and the degrading of the Marijuana today, it's really much ado about nothing.

[JonLP24]

34. I wouldn't mind

[fascisthunter]

93. YES, I would....

do you know what the effects feel like of smoking pot.

[cleanhippie]

107. Certainly. Why not?

We treat alcohol that way, why not cannabis?

[uppityperson]

137. Yes. I'd be much more concerned if they were tweakers. Heh, can you imagine that?

They'd either be hyper or snoozing.

Regarding pot, if it doesn't impact their work and are clean when working, sure.

[Rex]

17. Do you support a daily Breathalyzer test in the workplace of said positions?

[coti]

20. Daily? No. But that wasn't the question.

This thread is devolving into equivocation of alcohol and marijuana, which is understandable because the argument from analogy is easiest to make.

However, one should remember that in the past few years there have been a number of news stories about pilots losing their licenses for flying with "morning after" alcohol effects. Should they be treated the same for smoking marijuana the night before?

How about smoking marijuana twice per night, every night for three months straight?


It seems to me that there is a real safety issue here that should be addressed. It would be dangerous to simply dismiss it as an individual's own business. Marijuana isn't as inert in its effects on mental health as many argue it is, though it's certainly different than alcohol.

[Rex]

62. Well if a society can handle a far more dangerous drug like alcohol

then I'm not really fearing how weed will be used/abused in the workplace.

[LWolf]

18. Do we do mandatory alcohol testing for surgeons? nt

[Brickbat]

21. If one occupation is targeted, all should be.

[hayu_lol]

22. Really do need to test all the members of the Congress...

at least every 29 days.

[laughingliberal]

23. Nope. No one should be drug tested without cause. nt

[wildbilln864]

25. I don't know because...

cannabis use can show up two or three weeks after use while cocaine is completely gone in 48 hours. :shrug:

[MrSlayer]

26. No. Drug testing is a bullshit invasion of privacy.

Unless one is visibly intoxicated on the job I see no reason to test anyone.

[KansasVoter]

27. Are they tested for Alcohol now or Valium? Dumb!

[Xicano]

28. I always find this question difficult to answer.

But my answer is always "no"

The reason is because I believe it conflicts with both the letter and spirit of the 4th amendment and if we go down the road of "public safety" as an excuse to contradict the constitution then I feel Bush was correct when he is reported to have said the constitution is just a gawd damned piece of paper. Well, he would actually still be incorrect because its 4 pieces of paper not just 1 piece of paper.

I believe if we make the punishment life in prison for someone who causes death or cripples someone as a result of their violating the laws against operating dangerous equipment while under the influence that would suffice. Anyone willing to take the risk of losing their freedom for the rest of their lives are also going to be willing to get caught by a drug test.

"Public security" is the age old cry of the oppressor.

[coti]

30. This is definitely the best answer against.

Though I give more credit to preventative measures, as opposed to the threat of punishment.

[scarletwoman]

31. I am against all drug testing without cause. If someone fucks up bigtime and endangers others, okay,

test them. But ONLY if their fuckup has endangered someone else.

Mandatory drug testing is an invasion of privacy. The only criterion that should enter into your employment is how well you perform your job. What you put into your body on your own time is none of your employer's business.

sw

[JonLP24]

32. I don't care what a pilot does in his free time

A pilot can drink during his free time which I don't care about either.

[TexasObserver]

36. Unrecommended, and I'll explain why.

Since there are many who want a reason posted for an unrecommend vote, I'll use this one as an example.

The use of Unrecommend makes certain thread titles such as this one never see the Greatest Page, and never see the front page.

This thread seeks to infuse into the dialog an argument one expects to be the grist of the Fox news and right wing mills. It attempts to divert discussion into an area that warns us of the harm that can come if the evil weed is legalized.

Because I consider this thread and this thread title to be more appropriate in a right wing forum, I unrecommend it so that it never sees the front page.

[coti]

39. "It attempts to divert discussion into an area that warns us of the harm that can come if the evil

weed is legalized."

This is hyperbolic. Marijuana is not evil and nothing in my thread even comes close to claiming that.

Actually, what I'm trying to do (since it never, ever happens on DU, as most here would just rather argue that it isn't true) is to get people to recognize that maybe there's a possibility that there might just be a problem or two that could conceivably be created by some of the almost-always negligible effects of smoking marijuana every day.

It's unpleasant to bring up, but please don't flame me for thinking about long-term consequences and public safety and imagining my surgeon smoking three bowls the night before he cuts into me.


Put another way: it's an issue. Deal with it.

It doesn't mean it should be illegal. It shouldn't be.

But address it honestly.

[TexasObserver]

43. I said what I had to say, and your reply doesn't change my opinion.

Your calling my comments hyperbole is hyperbolicious!

The surgeon who just got high before operating?! Really?! That's your concern?!

He has any meds in the world available to him, but you're worried about weed?!



If you were really concerned about the problem of surgeons with a substance abuse problem, you'd have expressed it before a weed referendum was afoot.

[JonLP24]

45. Three bowls, he'll be fine in the morning no matter what job he does

Trust me, the surgeon won't feel the affects. It is nothing like a hangover, especially after just 3 bowls. That is an overreaction. Don't flame us who understand the effects and also realize drug testing for cannabis(it is fat soluble rather than water soluble like salt-like substances) it stays in the system a long time to process and it is really benign.

[coti]

58. No, it's not like an alcohol hangover.

But there is a psychological effect that does last.

[RainDog]

54. you are creating a strawman

you should have come out and said, in your original post... if someone smokes marijuana every day (and you should probably also indicate an amount, because that does matter) do you think this would be cause to fire this person or prohibit someone from doing a job EVEN THOUGH there is no evidence of impairment.

that's the argument you're making, basically.

you are calling the preventative. this is sort of the equivalent of a thought crime. you "might" do something, therefore, you must be prohibited before the fact?

you are creating a straw man by assuming the consumption of cannabis is done irresponsibly by ostensibly responsible people - people who are able to attain and maintain job that require some level of concentration and application of skills.

this is why I say that your posts are a little hysterical.

you are just creating a scary scenario in your own mind with nothing but your fear to back you up.

[coti]

60. I'm not sure what you're saying. There's no strawman or anything like that in the OP.

It's a straightforward question that is being polled, not an argument.

I'm making SOME arguments now, mostly just trying to get people to think at least a little bit. But there's no distortion of others' arguments in what I'm saying, and I'm certainly not hysterical. This is a legitimate issue.

As is heavy drinking for people in such positions, for the record.

[RainDog]

66. I wasn't referrring to the OP - I was replying to the post linked to my response.

What I am asking is why you think this substance requires some sort of special vigilance that you would not apply to currently legal substances.

I think it's fear simply because the substance is not legal at this time.

[coti]

71. Because it's easier to hide than booze, and, with long-term use,

it has a significant effect on people's mental health.

[hobbit709]

92. Since when?

Let's see you prove that assertion about long term effects.

[Ichingcarpenter]

86. Well, I recommended it only because of

the answers, the arguments for were shot down.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. No, because if someone smoked a joint last week it doesn't impair their performance

any more than if they had drank a beer last week.

Yet that's what "drug tests" test for.

[Iggo]

38. They're already smoking it, and the other fellers are already testing for it.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Especially not with marijuana that stays in your system

for so long after you're no longer high.

[RainDog]

46. THC does not stay in your system. Metabolites are the waste products.

that's what stays in your system. metabolites are not psychoactive. A metabolite of any form is the inert byproduct of any substance.

I find it hard to believe there is still so much misinformation about these things still.

[Blue_In_AK]

51. Whatever it is,

THC or metabolytes, it's enough to get you fired days after you've been high. I don't think people's jobs should depend on whether there are metabolytes in their system. If you're doing your job well, it shouldn't matter.

[eShirl]

79. I have given up trying to inform people of that, but you're absolutely right.

[HuckleB]

47. We need to develop tests to show if people are using while on the job.

Beyond that, they should be able to do what's legal.

[krabigirl]

48. No, not government-mandated. And no period, for THC, since it can stay for a month in the body

[Angry Dragon]

49. Only if politicians submit to daily drug tests

for all drugs and alcohol

[NMMNG]

52. It should be treated the same as alcohol

If said professionals aren't subjected to routine alcohol testing why would they be subjected to routine testing for pot?

I believe there will be far-reaching consequences to its decriminalization and wonder how people have considered them.

What far reaching consequences? People aren't allowed to get drunk on the job, or to go to work drunk. It would be the same rule with legal pot. They can't drive (or fly) drunk, nor would they be allowed to drive (or fly) stoned. Why are people having such a hard time with that concept?

[RainDog]

67. exactly n/t

[opihimoimoi]

55. UP in........SMOKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCZap4o777g

[Honeycombe8]

61. They are already tested. Legalization has nothing to do w/it. If not tested now or for booze, then

no.

[Swamp Rat]

64. Only white, middle-aged American males who are registered republicans should get tested

They should be tested every week: blood, breath, urine, and receive an anal probe once a month.

Everyone else on Earth gets a free pass. :)

[Warren Stupidity]

99. finally some sanity comes to an idiotic op

[coti]

101. An idiotic OP. A POLL.

And a poll asking if people should be smoking and, the next day, engaging in activities that could kill other people.

You've obviously thought this through very well.

[Warren Stupidity]

102. Your intentions were made clear by your subsequent posts. nt.

[coti]

119. Yes, I laid them out pretty clearly- getting people to actually think about long-term consequences

and maybe even recognize some of the medical and safety issues surrounding marijuana use.

You're right. I did say that a number of times.

You think there's something wrong with that, though, don't you?

Is that some kind of taboo for you? Are we not allowed to talk about that here?

Would you rather just not hear about it, bury your head in the sand?

Well, others want to talk about it. Like I said, this legalization is going to have far-reaching consequences and maybe we should start thinking ahead.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. you spewed the usual drug warrior crapola

complete with nonsense links to utter bullshit.

The major "far reaching consequences" of legalization will be:
1) lots of people no longer going to jail or otherwise criminally punished for pot;
2) decreased alcohol consumption;
3) drug dealer, dea agent, and prison guard unemployment.
4) loss of revenue to police departments from RICO seizures
5) increase in general state revenue from taxation
6) decrease in state budget expenditures for enforcement of prohibition laws

California, along with several other states, essentially legalized marijuana for anyone who cared to get a prescription quite a while ago. The difference with prop 19 is it generalizes the legalization and regulates it for taxation purposes.

I don't recall that as a consequence there were all these dire consequences you seem to fear. Perhaps you would like to present some contrary evidence? Or is this fear of yours, like the Fear if Same Sex Marriage, perhaps not quite an evidenced based view so much as a faith based one? Civilization will not collapse because surgeons can unwind after work with a joint.

"This report concludes that marijuana legalization would reduce government expenditure by $7.7 billion annually. Marijuana legalization would also generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. These budgetary impacts rely on a range of assumptions, but these probably bias the estimated expenditure reductions and tax revenues downward."

-- http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html (yr 2000 data)

It is no wonder that the opponents of legalization have to resort to FEAR tactics. What else do they have?

[eridani]

77. Drug testing no. Competence testing, yes

--i.e reaction time or other factors relevant to job performance. The reason it isn't done now is that too many people would flunk for lack of sleep.

[hobbit709]

78. Not until they prove what level impairs function.

you can test positive for drugs days or longer after taking them but can they prove you are still impaired by them that long after. Even the alcohol test has a lower limit below which you are not legally under the influence. But in drug testing, ANY detectable level is considered bad.

[Le Taz Hot]

83. No and here's why.

Drug testing should represent the user's state at the time of testing. Marijuana lasts up to 45 days in your system so, by the current standard, if I took one hit off of a joint 3 weeks ago, I'm pretty sure the affects will have worn off by today. However, if I'm tested today, I'd fail even though I'm not the least bit impaired. Conversely, let's say you tied one on the night before, come in the next day with a hangover and are drug tested. You'd test clean because the alcohol is out of your system; however, the affects of that alcohol remain and your chuggin' at maybe 60%. By your standards the person in scenario #1 is rejected and the person in scenario number 2 is accepted.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. only if alcohol consumption within the past six months is also considered

disqualifying.

What part of marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol don't you understand?

[fascisthunter]

95. I Think you Should Smoke a Joint NOW!

and just relax a bit

[Bluenorthwest]

96. Absurd premises all of them

If 'the safety of others' was the standard, our government officials who have great and awful powers of war and of life and death decisions would be tested constantly, but instead, they openly announce their 'cocktail parties' and are seen taking the drug alcohol with glee. While holding more the safety of millions in their hands, they have drinking parties, where they dress up and take the drug alcohol.
Alcohol is far less safe than marijuana. Alcohol kills thousands of people a year, and creates entire neighborhoods of abusers waiting to die in degradation. They look at skid row, and say 'let's have an alcohol party at the White House!'
Get real. That's what I say. Get real. If the President can drink and be President, and he can and does, then my driver-can smoke some pot if he or she wants to. Driving my car is not as big a deal as leading the free world, you know?

[bigwillq]

103. Don't believe in drug testing (nt)

[cleanhippie]

104. Only if it was to determine CURRENT intoxication levels...

Much like a breathalyzer. Testing someone for a drug that one may have taken before, but is not currently intoxicated by would serve what purpose?

[NorthCarolina]

106. I fully support drug testing of elected officials. eom

[Initech]

118. I personally think forced drug testing is a violation of the fourth amendment.

[Taitertots]

120. If they ever find an accurate test like BAC testing

Instead of a test that can't tell if you are impaired, which is all that is available now.

[lightningandsnow]

122. The problem with testing for marijuana is...

that since the substances in it are fat-soluble, you may not have had a joint in weeks, and still come up positive.

I support testing in safety-sensitive occupations, but only if the test accurately shows whether someone is currently intoxicated or not.

[lunasun]

126. How much alcohol testing do we need?

Some of the worst I ever seen on jobs were alcoholics yet unless they show up drunk for the test it is OK. The one for pot tests for the last 30 days out, not the last 3 hours! seems unfair
unfair to lump pot with heroin too!

[cynatnite]

133. My husband is a truck driver and he believes every driver should be regularly tested....

for pot, alcohol, and other drugs...both legal and illegal.

[Zephie]

140. We don't force these people not to drink on their off hours, why force them not to toke?

If they come into work under the influence that's one thing. If they want to smoke marijuana or drink on their off hours that's their own business.

[rainlillie]

142. After a major accident in my town, where the bus driver was drunk and stoned..

I think school bus drivers should be tested.