Tourists Banned From Dutch Cannabis Cafes

[semi-pro waster]

Already exists as a siliva swab.

The problem is THC stays in the system for as long as 45 days and, afaik they have not decided on a 'safe' level to compare it to.

This all leads to murky waters when it comes to the courts.

Do the field sobriety tests in the US actually have a good detection rate? Just out of curiosity as something that could potentially be implemented here. I'd prefer a "proper" and scientifically acceptable test but in the meantime if that is the best available then I think it would make sense to look into adopting it.

In reality, given the vast ammount of people who smoke it in the country, if driving after a joint was overly dangerous we would know it by now. It would have been reported to death.

All the studies that show it decreases the likelyhood of having an accident were done on the behalf of the states in america that have started to allow its use, as it was of big conceren, just like some of you guys on here. You have to then couple that with motor accidents going down in the states that do (due to increased cannabis use) and the reduced alcohol related motor accidents have gone down there also.

It's all very counter intuitive I know :S but hey.

I'd feel somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of allowing cannabis smoking before driving here. Instinctively I find myself on the side of not being in favour of any intoxicating substances being allowed but perhaps if the evidence is clear (albeit counter-intuitive) that's not a logical position to hold.

Thanks for reading it!

I honestly think that if cannabis was legalised, use would not increase much more than it is currently.

I'd struggle to find any additional cost to public services either?
The possibilities for tax revenue would also be immense.

Decriminalising or legalising? It makes a bit of a difference so I'm seeking to clarify. It's arguably not a direct cost to public services but there'd almost certainly be a cost for regulation - you could posit the view that it would be paid for via tax revenue or by direct licensing but I suppose that depends on the precise details.

 

[Davepen]

Decriminalising or legalising? It makes you could posit the view that it would be paid for via tax revenue or by direct licensing but I suppose that depends on the precise details.

Of course, that's why we need places like Portugal and Amsterdam, to give us examples of places that a certain method has worked, or perhaps not worked.

 

[Threepwood]

Do the field sobriety tests in the US actually have a good detection rate? Just out of curiosity as something that could potentially be implemented here. I'd prefer a "proper" and scientifically acceptable test but in the meantime if that is the best available then I think it would make sense to look into adopting it.

The test is accurate so far as it will say if you have THC in your system or not, but it will not tell you what level is inside you. It's also an expensive test. THC stays in your system for upto 45 days so you can see how this will be one hell of a mess in court.

I'd feel somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of allowing cannabis smoking before driving here. Instinctively I find myself on the side of not being in favour of any intoxicating substances being allowed but perhaps if the evidence is clear (albeit counter-intuitive) that's not a logical position to hold.

First Let me begin with saying that obviously you can be too stoned to drive safely. I do not condone this type of behaviour, at all, but you have to be really very stoned for it to reach the kind of levels of danger that someone who is just over the alcohol limit exhibits. Drunk drivers take risks, stoned drivers avoid risks. Mixing the two however is more dangerous than just being drunk. But if we were to talk about having a single joint and driving? All the evidence points towards a safer driver.

Here are a couple of links if you would like to read some things about it.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/s...age-how-high-is-too-high-to-drive-85899381036

Different states are taking different stances with regards to how to deal with the stoners who are too stoned to drive, but all of the states that allow it's usage has seen a reduction in motor traffic fatal deaths. This is especially poignant when you consider the fact that in america motor fatalities are the leading cause of death among Americans ages 5 to 34

In one of the links above, they were astounded to see similar reductions in motor fatalities as when the drinking age was raised to 21.

Of course, that's why we need places like Portugal and Amsterdam, to give us examples of places that a certain method has worked, or perhaps not worked.

The trouble with legalisation and decriminalisation is the former can tax the drug itself, the latter cannot directly tax it, as it is still illegal. They get around this in Holland some how by taxing the profits a coffee shop makes overall. It's still a ****** system as they dont get proper returns from the drug on it's own. Legalisation would be far better in that respect.

I honestly think that if cannabis was legalised, use would not increase much more than it is currently.

The above links also mention that dope smoking amongst teenagers has not gone up in the states that now allow mary jane.