cannabisnews.com: Congress Targets 'Drugged Driving' Congress Targets 'Drugged Driving' Posted by CN Staff on March 17, 2004 at 08:47:47 PT By Aparna H. Kumar, Associated Press Source: Associated Press Washington -- Citing estimates that 11 million people sometimes drive under the influence of illegal drugs, a growing chorus in Congress wants the government to do something about it. The states are wary. Eight states have specific laws on “drugged driving,” but their statutes are vague. None specifies an equivalent level to the 0.08 percent blood content that Congress established as the legal level for alcohol impairment. That’s partly because there’s no roadside test to detect the presence of drugs in the body — no handy “breathalyzer” as there is for alcohol. And even if blood or urine samples taken at a hospital test positive for drugs, there’s no standard for how high is too high to drive. “Zero tolerance” is the level some lawmakers want Congress to establish. A motorist found to have any controlled substance in his or her system would be considered unlawfully impaired. “Everyone who drives is affected by this,” said Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, citing a report from September by the Department of Health and Human Services estimating that during the previous year nearly 11 million people drove at one time or another under the influence of drugs. The same survey said three times as many people — 33.5 million — drove under the influence of alcohol in 2002. Portman introduced a bill last week that would create a model drug-impaired driving law for states to adopt to address what proponents say is a monumental problem that has gone largely ignored. Under Portman’s proposal, states that enact similar laws defining impaired as any detectable amount of drugs in a blood or urine sample would get money for training police and prosecutors and for driver counseling. They would also get grants to research field tests to measure motorists’ drug levels. Rather than offering a carrot, Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., prefers the stick approach. His bill would make states that don’t enact drug-impaired driving laws forfeit 1 percent of their annual federal highway money to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The amount forfeited would double each year up to 50 percent. Note: Bill would create model for states, funding procedures.Source: Associated Press Author: Aparna H. Kumar, Associated PressPublished: Wednesday, March 17, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Associated Press Related Articles:Legislation Says No To Driving While on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18504.shtmlBill Would Penalize People for Being Highhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18475.shtmlPorter To Push for States To Punish Drug DUIshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18471.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #19 posted by afterburner on July 17, 2006 at 08:53:22 PT 'Drugs & Driving A Dangerous Concoction' CN AB: Drugs Driving A Dangerous Concoction, Sherwood Park News, (12 Jul 2006) http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v06/n922/a07.html?176 Driver "also had Ativan, Zyprexia and Zithromax in his system," but of course they dwell mostly on "marijuana." [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by cloud7 on March 18, 2004 at 12:22:23 PT NORML alert Take Action Now! http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=5384696&type=COFriends:NORML needs your help convincing Congress to reject a pair of bills that would criminally punish marijuana smokers for "drugged driving" simply if inactive marijuana metabolites are detected in their bodily fluids - even if the individual is neither under the influence nor impaired to drive.H.R. 3907, sponsored by Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV), demands that state legislatures amend their DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) to enact mandatory minimum penalties for anyone convicted of driving under the influence of illegal drugs. Under the proposal, states have until 2006 to pass and enforce DUID laws "approved by the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," or lose portions of their federal highway funding.H.R. 3922, sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of legislators including Reps. Robert Portman (R-OH), Sander Levin (D-MI), Steven LaTourette (R-OH), Mark Souder (R-IN) and Jim Ramstad (R-MN), seeks to impose so-called "model" DUID legislation upon all 50 states - demanding they enact statutes sanctioning anyone who operates a motor vehicle "while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance."These bills represent an all out federal assault on the marijuana smoking community. Because inactive marijuana metabolites (inert compounds indicative of past drug use) remain detectable in the blood, and particularly urine, for days and sometimes weeks after past use, this legislation seeks to define sober drivers as if they were intoxicated. Someone who smokes marijuana is impaired as a driver at most for a few hours; certainly not for days or weeks. To treat all marijuana smokers as if they are impaired, even when the drug's effects have long worn off, is illogical and unfair.At a minimum, laws targeting drug drivers should identify "parent drugs" (i.e., THC), not simply inactive drug metabolites, and have scientifically sound cut-off levels similar to those that exist for drunk driving. "Zero tolerance" laws are neither a safe nor sensible way to identify impaired drivers; they are an attempt to misuse the traffic safety laws in order to identify and prosecute marijuana smokers per se.Please take two minutes to contact your member of the House of Representatives and tell them that these proposed per se laws are neither fair nor sound public policy by visiting: http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=5384696&type=COWith your help, we can turn back or amend these dangerous and unfounded proposals.Sincerely,Keith Stroup Executive Director NORML [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by FoM on March 17, 2004 at 20:57:24 PT A Comment on The Need for Speed I just finished watching the documentary The Need For Speed. I am deeply troubled by it. They worry about a little pot and impairment and want to test everyone but they give speed to military pilots and put them at the controls of big Jets with guns and bombs! This is the sort of thing that really makes my head spin. Where or where are we going with the current logic that we see in decision making in the U.S.? [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by John Markes on March 17, 2004 at 20:16:32 PT extortion? I didn't know the constitution granted the federal government the authority to use extortion against the states... [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by FoM on March 17, 2004 at 19:32:42 PT Friendly Reminder: The Need For Speed at 11PM ET It will be on Channel 375 on Direct-TV at 11 PM ET.***World Link TV: Upcoming Event: The Need For Speed Length: 01:00 Type of program: DocumentaryBroadcast TimeWednesday, March 17 11:00 PM and more datesNeed For Speed -- Going To War On Drugs Trailer 00:04:55: This five minute trailer is streamed directly from acftv and will adjust to suit your connection speed. Broadband is recommended for best quality. http://www.acftv.com/streaming/wmedia.asp?stream_id=1An exposé of how the Pentagon has been issuing a concoction of mind-altering drugs to its soldiers and airmen, resulting in the deaths of allied forces, innocent civilians and, almost certainly, their own men. Amphetamines, sedatives, anti-nerve agents, adrenaline and a whole variety of vaccines, including anthrax, make up a cocktail of chemicals banned by civilian authorities in the ordinary workplace, yet forced upon pilots flying multi-million dollar jets into combat and Special Forces soldiers operating behind enemy lines. In an extraordinary investigation, American military personnel speak for the first time to explain how they were used as guinea pigs in wars ranging from Panama, the Gulf, Bosnia, Afghanistan and right up until the recent conflict in Iraq. These are not dissidents, nor are they unpatriotic: they love their country and were ready to give their lives in its service. But they can no longer stand by and watch their comrades suffer as the Pentagon pushes more and more drugs onto the frontline. We hear a former White House Drug Czar express grave concerns about the use of amphetamines in the military. Also interviewed is a former Air Force Chief of Staff who banned the drugs as soon as he took over, only to see them re-introduced after his retirement. We are told the story of one pilot who sacrificed his career in pursuit of the truth and learn about the case of an infantryman who killed innocent civilians for reasons he cannot understand to this day. We discover that vital information on “friendly fire” incidents, including the deaths of nine British soldiers in the Gulf War, has been withheld.Filmed at locations throughout the United States and Britain, the film examines the true human costs of wars fought on drugs. For more information and to inquire about purchasing this film, click here.http://www.acftv.com/archive/article.asp?archive_id=19http://www.linktv.org/programming/programDescription.php4?code=need http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread18508.shtml#5 [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by ekim on March 17, 2004 at 18:53:56 PT Filburn was the spunky Ohio farmer Marijuana Case Grows Again Posted by CN Staff on January 24, 2004 at 10:32:31 PT By James Kilpatrick Source: Coshocton Tribune The restless ghost of Roscoe Filburn has returned. A good thing, too. Filburn was the spunky Ohio farmer who challenged the U.S. government in a famous case 60 years ago. Now his case figures in the plea of two seriously ill California women. They have sued for the right to obtain marijuana on a doctor's recommendation. Filburn lost, but the women so far are winning. The plaintiffs are Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson. Two years ago they brought suit against Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking an injunction to forestall their prosecution under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The act defines marijuana as a Schedule One substance with a "high potential for abuse." Congress has found that marijuana has "a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people." Moreover, "it has no currently acceptable medical use." So says Congress. The experience of the two women is to the contrary. Raich suffers from an inoperable brain tumor. She has tried 35 approved medications for relief of seizures and constant pain. None of them has worked, but marijuana has been a godsend. Two friends have grown cannabis for her without charge. They use "only soil, water, nutrients, growing equipment, supplies and lumber originating from or manufactured in California." Monson suffers from severe chronic back pain and recurring muscle spasms. Traditional medications "have utterly failed." Desperate for relief, she began growing marijuana solely for her own use. In August 2002 the sheriff of Butte County, joined by federal agents, raided her home. They seized and destroyed her six plants but have not filed criminal charges against her. In 1996 California adopted its Compassionate Use Act. The law ensures that seriously ill Californians have a right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes on the recommendation of a physician. Coverage is broad. The law applies to cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, "or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have adopted similar laws on medical use. In U.S. District Court, Judge Martin J. Jenkins denied the two women's petition for a preliminary injunction. They appealed to a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit. Judge Harry Pregerson, joined by Judge Richard A. Paez, came down emphatically on their side. To be sure, Pregerson acknowledged, in at least six cases in recent years the 9th Circuit has supported the government's reliance on the Controlled Substances Act. But the women's case, he noted, is significantly different in kind. Other defendants were charged with involvement in the national traffic in drugs. The women's supposed offense rested in the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for medical purposes. The marijuana at issue in this case "is not intended for, nor does it enter, the stream of commerce." The case does not raise the same policy concerns that go with the market in illicit drugs. Judge C. Arlen Beam of the 8th Circuit, sitting by designation, dissented. And here we get back to Roscoe Filburn on his small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, 60 years ago. Filburn had been given a wheat marketing quota based on 11.1 acres. Instead he harvested wheat, entirely for his own family purposes, from 23 acres. None of the wheat was ever in interstate commerce, but a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that Filburn's 239 bushels contributed inexorably to the national aggregate of wheat harvested in 1941. Said Judge Beam: "It is simply impossible to distinguish the relevant conduct surrounding the cultivation and use of the marijuana crop at issue in this case from the cultivation and use of the wheat crop in Filburn." He added, "If Congress cannot reach individual narcotic growers, possessors and users, its overall statutory scheme will be totally undermined." He regretted a result that might seem "unduly harsh" for seriously ill persons, but he could find no distinction as a matter of law. I thought the Supreme Court was wrong -- unanimously wrong -- in ruling against Roscoe Filburn in 1942. I believe Judge Pregerson is right -- clearly right -- in holding that the growing and use of a plant for clearly medical, personal, noncommercial purposes is beyond the reach of Congress under the Commerce Clause. I hope Attorney General Ashcroft will drop the case and let the two plaintiffs go literally to pot. Source: Coshocton Tribune (OH) Author: James Kilpatrick Published: Saturday, January 24, 2004 Copyright: 2004 Coshocton Tribune Website: http://www.coshoctontribune.com/ Contact: http://www.coshoctontribune.com/customerservice/contactus.html http://www.mmdetroit.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by ekim on March 17, 2004 at 18:37:45 PT Alaska will vote on Nov.2 2004 The words of the iniative AN INITIATIVE TO DECRIMINALIZE AND REGULATE CANNABIS (HEMP INCLUDING MARIJUANA) BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: I. Add the following section to the criminal code of the State of Alaska, any laws or policies to the contrary notwithstanding: (1) Persons, 21 years or older, shall not be prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, distribution, or consumption of: (a) Industrial hemp products. Hemp farmers and manufacturers of industrial hemp products shall not be subject to any special zoning or licensing fees that are discriminatory or prohibitive. (b) Hemp medicinal preparations. (c) Hemp products for nutritional use. (d) Hemp products for personal use in private. The State or any political subdivisions thereof may not require a permit or license for non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution or consumption of any hemp product. (2) Definitions: (a) The term "hemp" means hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, or any part or preparation of the plant Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis americana, or any species or variety of plant of the genus Cannabis. (b) The term "industrial hemp products" means all products made from hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, that are not designed or intended for human consumption, and includes, but is not limited to: paper, fiber, fuel, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feed, veterinary medicine, oil, plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, or weed control. (c) The term "hemp medicinal preparations" means all products made from hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption, for the treatment of any disease, the relief of pain, or for any healing purpose including the treatment or relief of asthma, glaucoma, arthritis, anorexia, migraine, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, nausea, stress, for use as an antiemetic, or as any healing agent, or as an adjunct to any medical procedure or herbal treatment. (d) The term "hemp products for nutritional use" means the use of any hemp product intended for human consumption as food, for example, but not limited to: seed protein, seed oil, seed cake, or gruel, or any preparation thereof. (e) The term "personal use" means the use of any product, preparation or potency of hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, intended for any relaxational, ritual, spiritual, or other personal purpose. (f) The term "hemp intoxicating products" means any hemp product other than industrial hemp products, hemp medicinal preparations, or hemp products for nutritional use. (3) Hemp medicinal preparations are hereby restored to the available list of medicines in Alaska. Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for or restricted from prescribing or recommending hemp preparations for medical purposes to patients of any age. (4) Nothing in this bill prevents the regulation of hemp intoxicating products in a manner similar to alcohol or tobacco. (5) The manufacturing, marketing, distribution or sales between adults of equipment or accessories designed or marketed for use in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing, packaging, storing, analyzing, consumption, or transportation of hemp, industrial hemp products, hemp medicinal preparations, hemp products for nutritional use, or hemp products for personal use shall not be prohibited. II. Nothing in this Act will bar the State or any political subdivisions thereof from enacting legislation, using reasonable standards to determine impairment, to regulate or prohibit persons under the influence of hemp from operating a motor vehicle, heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct which may affect public safety. III. Nothing in this Act will bar the State or any political subdivisions thereof from limiting the use of intoxicating hemp products in public places. IV. No part of this initiative shall be so construed as to nullify any prevailing laws concerning possession, use or manufacture of hemp intoxicating products by minors, nor any prevailing laws concerning a sale, barter or gift of hemp intoxicating products by or to minors. V. Severability: If any provision of this initiative, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this initiative to the extent that it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this initiative are severable. VI. If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this initiative receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts of this initiative shall become operative. VII. Purpose of Initiative: Construction. This initiative is an exercise of the powers of the Alaskan citizenry for the promotion and protection of the safety, welfare, health and privacy of the people, and the environment of the State, to allow for the industrial and medicinal type uses of hemp, to eliminate the evils associated with an illicit market for cannabis, and to promote temperance in the consumption of cannabis. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this initiative involves in the highest degree, the economic, social, environmental and moral well-being and the safety of the citizens of Alaska and the State. All provisions of this initiative shall be generously interpreted for the accomplishment of these purposes. VIII. Effective Date. This initiative shall be effective when enacted according to law. Free Hemp In Alaska, Scot Dunnachie-Chair, 2603 Spenard Rd, Anchorage, AK 99501 http://www.freehempinak.org/ http://www.hashbash.com [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by goneposthole on March 17, 2004 at 18:33:11 PT you are correct, sir on average about 23 gallons of gasoline are made from a 42 gallon barrel of crude oil. http://experts.about.com/q/2441/861336.htmYou would need about 80 million barrels of crude oil to make 2 billion gallons of gasoline. A four to five day supply.http://www.honan.net/thegift.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by mayan on March 17, 2004 at 18:25:30 PT Desperation Tactics Dan B is absolutely right. This bill has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with salvaging the sinking drug war. This law will mainly target cannabis smokers(who can test positive weeks after use). It's "1984" twenty years late. We must expose these fascists for what they are!The only way out is the way in...Bush, Clinton Officials on 9/11 Panel's List: Condoleezza Rice Declines to Testify: http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=132&mode=thread&order=0&thold=09/11 Nonsense: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/031704A.shtmlRush Limbaugh Attacks Widows and Children: http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04008.html 9/11 International Inquiry - San Francisco, March 26-28th: http://www.deceptiondollar.com/Inquiry911.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by AgaetisByrjun on March 17, 2004 at 18:02:42 PT Yeah, I get that I'm just saying that 47bil barrels is too conservative a figure: after all, only a portion of crude oil becomes gasoline/petrol. The rest is kerosene, propane, slag, et cetera -- so you'd actually need quite a few more barrels to get that much gasoline.And that's even more and even more. I agree with your sentiment, just pointing out that your figure is too low . [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by goneposthole on March 17, 2004 at 17:41:30 PT agaetisbyrjun 2 000 000 000/42=47 619 047,619 [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Virgil on March 17, 2004 at 15:59:54 PT Sounds like a job for the drug testing industry Yes impaired driving is illegal everywhere and swirving over the center line and following to close. Speeding in a work zone in SC is a fine and up to 30 days in jail. If the authorities were concerned about road safety they would enforce the speeding laws better. That would conserve gas and improve the air and lower the demand that is pushing up prices so that is not logical under Nazi thinking. Any dangerous move can get you a legal and financial hurting, but it will not help the drug testing industry. Let's get some testing laws on the books in every state and throw some federal power behind it. Make more laws and regulate us a better world there you Nazis.How about if you get a ticket charging everyone with interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties. If people wouldn't get pulled over the police could be arresting people using laughing grass and if all those people were locked up there would be utopia. I demand anyone that slows down a police officer in pothead hunting get a ticket for obstructing such officer in the performance of his duties. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by afterburner on March 17, 2004 at 15:22:18 PT: Thanks, Dankhank & observer We need to always challenge this latest scare tactic which has no factual basis, but seems intuitively obvious to the inexperienced, and presumably illiterate, minds.If cannabis is banned as a performance-enhancing herb in sports, why does law enforcement view it as a performance-impairing herb? Is coffee performance-impairing? Is tobacco performance-impairing? [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Dan B on March 17, 2004 at 15:15:55 PT End-Run "'Zero tolerance' is the level some lawmakers want Congress to establish. A motorist found to have any controlled substance in his or her system would be considered unlawfully impaired."These zero-tolerance laws are an end-run around outright prohibition. That is, the prohibitionist politicos see the handwriting on the wall: Americans are getting wise to the drug war, and its future is limited. Rather than keeping outright prohibition laws, then, they seek to make it virtually impossible to use cannabis without severe penalty by making it a crime to drive with any amount of cannabis in one's system. Think of it as a revision of the "Tax Act."Think about this: if cannabis users are not allowed to drive, even weeks after they have used cannabis, they will have a harder time keeping jobs, going to school, and going to the hospital for preventive and emergency care. Many will end up in jail or prison for "driving under the influence," even though the cannabis may have long since stopped affecting them (for better or worse) physically or mentally. The automobiles of those who drive "under the influence of cannabis" would be "forfeited," and heavy fines would be levied against the "offenders." The police would get the right to search anyone's system for any substance that has been deemed to "impair driving" (Note: like the current scheduling system, Congress's definition will supercede any rational or medical definition of impairment). In effect, they will get most of the "benefits" of cannabis prohibition without keeping prohibition itself. Call it "Prohibition Light."Of course, we know that cannabis does not adversely affect one's ability to drive, but that won't stop the prohibitionists. Only education of the American people will stop them, and it has to happen before these laws are passed. The states are correct to be wary of these laws. They will serve only to destroy more freedoms, more rights, more liberties. Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Dankhank on March 17, 2004 at 13:18:07 PT once more .......... http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/dot78.htm* It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic.----------------------------Table 1 shows that a modest dose of alcohol (bac=0.034 g%) produced a significant impairment in city driving, relative to placebo. More specifically, alcohol impaired both vehicle handling and traffic maneuvers. Marijuana, administered in a dose of 100 g/kg THC, on the other hand, did not significantly change mean driving performance as measured by this approach. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/driving.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by agaetisbyrjun on March 17, 2004 at 12:40:43 PT goneposthole That 7 million-barrel figure is too low; you'd need much more crude oil to get a 42 million-gallon petrol yield. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by goneposthole on March 17, 2004 at 11:06:19 PT driving while drugged I have driven an automobile after drinking alcohol and getting drunk.I have driven an automobile after smoking cannabis and being 'high'.I would rather drive high. When I drive drunk, I tend to be more obnoxious. I have been stopped and fined for speeding. Good thing the patrol officer was kind or it may have been a trip downtown.Based upon my own experience, driving while drunk is more dangerous than driving while high on cannabis. I would rather smoke cannabis than drink alcohol. The hangover is too much to bear anymore.Anyhow, driving is expensive. Time to slow down on the driving business. Walk or bike. Tough to do, I know. A hundred million cars and trucks using 20 gallons of petrol is 2 billion gallons. Divided by 42 equals 47 million barrels. Lots of oil. Lots.I don't know what the carrying capacity is for this planet, but the pace of resource depletion could slow some. Plenty of resources, just have to find a better way to utilize them. Starting wars and wreaking general havoc worldwide has its limits and is no answer. Always ends in a hideous clump.it's a green day today. May those that love us, love us; and those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts;and if He doesn't turn their hearts, may He turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping.-Old Irish Toast [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by JSM on March 17, 2004 at 10:22:48 PT DUI Of course there is not a single word in this mentioning prescription and/or over the counter substances and their impact on operating a motor vehicle especially when mixed with other substances whether legal or illegal. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by observer on March 17, 2004 at 10:13:53 PT Cannabis/Driving Studies (Not that facts make any difference when there are witches to be burnt and Jews to scapegoated...)Australia: No Proof Cannabis Put Drivers At Risk (2001) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1849/a09.html UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03\990325110700.htm Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.html [ Post Comment ] Post Comment