|
Salt Fish posted:Personally I'd be just as pissed if someone was texting, talking on the phone, eating food, doing their nails, drunk, falling asleep, distracted by loud music, trying to read directions, 16 years old, 90 years old, taking ambian, not paying attention, putting on makeup, trying to tie a tie, late for work, whatever else. There are a million reasons that people are lovely drivers and there is not a real reason to pick out cannabis. People who use cannabis are probably less likely to want to drive a car than any of these other dangerous drivers I just listed. And there's a reason why talking/texting while driving is becoming a ticketed offense.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
computer parts posted:And there's a reason why talking/texting while driving is becoming a ticketed offense. An excellent point! And, we notice that texting while you're not driving remains completely legal in spite of the risk that someone could get into a textual conversation and continue it while in their car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Didn't spot you guys talking about it yet, but the NY state assembly just passed a medical marijuana bill.:quote:On Monday, a bill that would allow medical marijuana use sailed through the New York State Assembly, passing with a clean 95-38. If the bill makes it through the Senate, folks with "severely debilitating or life-threatening conditions" could be prescribed pot by their doctors. Now onto the Senate and Governor Repubocrat. EDIT: Here is a more in-depth article about it: http://www.theweedblog.com/new-york-state-assembly-overwhelmingly-passes-medical-marijuana-bill/ Shageletic fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
quote:"Nothing is completely safe--I wouldn't say that about marijuana or anything else," Gottfried added. "President Bush almost choked to death tossing pretzels in his mouth." I laughed. That is an argument for legalization I have never heard!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:An excellent point! And, we notice that texting while you're not driving remains completely legal in spite of the risk that someone could get into a textual conversation and continue it while in their car. We also don't tax text messages to pay jaws of life operators! (I would choose this over excess weed taxation)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:I can say that since I started smoking pot I absolutely developed safer driving habits. I don't speed, I don't follow cars too closely, I don't try to speed through yellow lights, and I generally stay in the right lane of the highway unless I'm passing someone. Before I started smoking pot the goal of driving was to get somewhere as fast as possible - now I'm fine going a bit slower because I enjoy the process of being in a car (as long as I have good music to play), and since that change in mindset I've never had an accident, speeding ticket, or close call on the highway. As others have said, I think texting and driving is a far bigger health concern than smoking and driving - next time you're in traffic, try looking around at how many people are looking at their phones instead of the road. I wish people would stop bringing up this defense, because it's word for word what my friends say to justify driving while drunk. I don't give a poo poo how good you think you drive under the influence, I don't want people on the roads I use driving drunk, high, texting or otherwise distracted. Just because some activities make you drive more dangerously or are more common doesn't mean that gives other potentially risky behavior a pass. Just get high when you don't have a pressing need to drive in the immediate future, or take the bus or a cab or plan on having a sober friend drive you. I also don't like to tell people how to live their lives unless their actions increase the chance that their car will plow into me while I'm riding my bike.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
So how exactly did MJ become a schedule 1 drug anyway? There is quite literally zero reasonable logic for it to be listed higher than or equal to the worst possible things in the world to put in your body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
It's always been legislated against prior to the schedule system so it's probably just from that. Now why it was banned in the first place is because Mexicans and Black people used it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:So how exactly did MJ become a schedule 1 drug anyway? There is quite literally zero reasonable logic for it to be listed higher than or equal to the worst possible things in the world to put in your body. Existing separately banned drugs were consolidated into the new drug laws through Schedule I (and occasionally Schedule II).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:We also don't tax text messages to pay jaws of life operators! (I would choose this over excess weed taxation) It's not "excess weed taxation" if your entire platform for legalizing it was "legalize it and tax it like alcohol [which is taxed a shitton]"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
cafel posted:I wish people would stop bringing up this defense, because it's word for word what my friends say to justify driving while drunk. I don't give a poo poo how good you think you drive under the influence The difference is that marijuana is verifiably safer than alcohol while driving. Treating stoned driving like drunk driving is foolish because they are different chemicals that cause different effects. Both affect your driving, but not in the same way. Alcohol has shown to have a dangerous and deadly effect on driving performance even before you get to the point of being drunk, so the law says "no driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08%". With marijuana, we don't even really know if there is a level where you are both motivated to drive, and impaired enough to be a danger on the road. The federal government already lets you drive on THC (if you're safely able to). If it weren't for lost ticket revenue, the DUI problem would be self solving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Why does it even matter what the substance is? If you do something dangerous on the road to give a cop cause to pull you over then fail a sobriety test, that should be a DUI. Whether you just took a bong rip, had a few drinks, or prescribed medication is irrelevant to the safety of other drivers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:The difference is that marijuana is verifiably safer than alcohol while driving. Treating stoned driving like drunk driving is foolish because they are different chemicals that cause different effects. Both affect your driving, but not in the same way. Alcohol has shown to have a dangerous and deadly effect on driving performance even before you get to the point of being drunk, so the law says "no driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08%". With marijuana, we don't even really know if there is a level where you are both motivated to drive, and impaired enough to be a danger on the road. My point was more the 'When I drive under the influence I'm even more safe, I swear! And I haven't ever had a problem once while doing it, so it's perfectly fine!' is exactly the same words my friends say when I'm giving them poo poo for wanting to hop behind the wheel after they've had a few. I'm not trying to argue that alcohol and marijuana are 1:1 equivalents, but using the exact same justification puts me on edge, as I'm sure it does many in the general public. Studies and facts, not anecdotes and personal feelings, are what's persuasive and what you should present as evidence and people have linked a few such studies, which show that marijuana is not as big a risk as alcohol, but still a risk. As to the video, I've seen it already, back when it was posted on the Stranger's blog a couple months ago, and I agree that it shows that marijuana and alcohol don't have the exact same effects. But people who bring it up are ignoring a few points. One, these people are aware they're being tested and filmed for a news piece that's going to be seen by tens or hundreds of thousands of people. They're on the best driving behavior they can display and are hyper focused in closed course conditions. This is the best performance you could expect out of them and not fully indicative of a real world driving situation. Second, it's a sample size of three people so it's not exactly representative or rigorous. And finally, it still shows that while really high you are a danger to those on the road even under ideal conditions. This leads directly to my last point, the 'when you get high you don't go out, so it's pointless' argument. I'll acknowledge that the effects of marijuana make it unlikely that people will want to drive, but don't act like it's some kind of physical impossibility. And if it is impossible or vanishingly unlikely for someone under the influence of marijuana to drive, then what do laws against it hurt? Again, I drive and I ride bikes. On a bike it doesn't much matter if someone under the influence is doing 30mph in a 45 zone, if their slower reaction time and slower and more indecisive judgment causes them to hit me on my bike I'd be pretty hosed up regardless of their slower speed. Yeah, a drunk dude doing 60 will be a way worse outcome and more likely to occur, but I'd like to make both possibilities less likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
It looks as though New Hampshire is about to join the rest of New England, and finally pass a medical cannabis bill. We don't even have any decriminalization yet - technically you can get a year in jail and a $2k fine for a roach (cops and prosecutors are usually fairly lenient in practice but still). Obviously we're not being trailblazers here. Essentially the only reason we don't already have medical cannabis is because of (now former) Governor Lynch. Previously, our House and Senate passed it, twice, only to have Lynch the Governor veto it. What an rear end in a top hat. Anyway, it looks as though 2013 is our year for medical. The House and Senate have agreed to reconcile the difference between the two versions of the bill, and then it'll go to Governor Hassan, who has said she'll pass it. The bill sort of sucks, but it's a drat sight better than the situation currently. Highlights of the bill as it stands currently include: +Up to two ounces if you're a med patient -Have to be chronically ill (cancer, AIDS, Hep C) and currently receiving heavy medication for the condition (interferons, chemo, etc) with a doctor's note -You need a signed letter from the property owner saying it's okay for you to smoke on their property -No home growing (what the hell folks) -There will be allowed a max of four or five dispensaries, to open in 2015 -No provision for an affirmative defense in court before the exchanges are set up. In other words, even if you're a medical patient who gets approved, there's no way to legally obtain or use cannabis for two years Hopefully the final version is a bit less draconian once they're done hashing it out, but it seems as though it's going to be disappointing regardless. Meanwhile, we have a rather high rate of consumption - one of the highest in the nation. Well over half of our population supports full legalization, medical polls 80%+ and we're going to pass a hugely restrictive medical bill.  the smallest
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:So how exactly did MJ become a schedule 1 drug anyway? There is quite literally zero reasonable logic for it to be listed higher than or equal to the worst possible things in the world to put in your body. The difference between Schedule I and Schedule II is that Schedule I drugs do not have (in the mind of Congress) any accepted medical uses or established therapeutic doses. At the time the CSA was passed, that was probably true, but I think reinforces my argument that Schedule I should not exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
cafel posted:My point was more the 'When I drive under the influence I'm even more safe, I swear! And I haven't ever had a problem once while doing it, so it's perfectly fine!' is exactly the same words my friends say when I'm giving them poo poo for wanting to hop behind the wheel after they've had a few. I'm not trying to argue that alcohol and marijuana are 1:1 equivalents, but using the exact same justification puts me on edge, as I'm sure it does many in the general public. Studies and facts, not anecdotes and personal feelings, are what's persuasive and what you should present as evidence and people have linked a few such studies, which show that marijuana is not as big a risk as alcohol, but still a risk. Actually last page had this study: quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3442177/ The point I want to make is this; Alcohol impairs driving ability to such an extreme degree that bringing up drunk driving in the context of cannabis is inappropriate. Your point about the arguments that people make regarding the two substances is meaningless. If you accused me of being unable to drive because I just had my daily cup of coffee I'd make the exact same arguments as well. I think you said it best: quote:Studies and facts, not anecdotes and personal feelings, are what's persuasive And the science clearly demonstrates that cannabis and driving are not a serious social concern that can be compared in any meaningful way to drunk driving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
My main problem with impaired driving punishments is how incoherent the penalties are. Pot is treated exactly the same as driving drunk even though it doesn't cause nearly the same level of impairment, while texting is one of the worst things you can do yet the penalty is generally pretty light and it's rarely enforced. If the laws recognized various levels of impairment, and punished you accordingly, I wouldn't really have any issue with them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Actually last page had this study: Reading through that paper, it isn't a very apt comparison. It's talking about consumption in a controlled medicated sense. It does indicate that perhaps a very frequent and regular user who doesn't increase how much they smoke to overcome their increased tolerance would eventually be a safe driver at elevated levels. This doesn't cover people who increase their consumption to overcome their tolerance, new users or people who use it on an infrequent basis or dosage. And looking at the paper they sourced, this concerns drivers being treated for debilitating conditions which the cannabinoid helped relieve. It's not the best representation of recreational users. And I'm calling bullshit on your equating marijuana and caffeine. Someone linked these odds ratios two pages ago: Marijuana: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277079/ Alcohol: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22563862 Alcohol is significantly more dangerous, but marijuana in and off itself represents a significant increase in the risk of an accident. You bring me the study that shows the dose of caffeine in a cup of coffee significantly increase dangerous behavior on the road and I'll concede the point. The only thing close to the subject I can find with a cursory look is that a cup of caffeinated coffee actually improves your driving during prolonged simulated drives :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382640/ . MaxxBot posted:My main problem with impaired driving punishments is how incoherent the penalties are. Pot is treated exactly the same as driving drunk even though it doesn't cause nearly the same level of impairment, while texting is one of the worst things you can do yet the penalty is generally pretty light and it's rarely enforced. If the laws recognized various levels of impairment, and punished you accordingly, I wouldn't really have any issue with them. I agree and honestly I would prefer a system which tags prolonged distracted driving or repeat offenses are treated at or near the level of a DUI instead of an often minor fine. I have to drive three hours a day for my commute and the poo poo I see people pull should be much more heavily discouraged, if only to lower the statistical likelihood that they'll crash into me while I rack up the miles. I'm not a epidemiologist, but I've taken a few courses in environmental and behavioral epidemiology and the way we react to public health risks in society is often poorly thought out. As I've said I'm not saying alcohol and marijuana are 1:1 or should be treated exactly the same, but it doesn't mean we should have no laws concerning people driving under the influence of marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
I think the pro-DUI crowd is underestimating people's ability to do stupid dangerous stuff. If you've read any stories of crashes caused by people smoking loving salvia while driving you'd realize that a reasonable impairment value isn't the end of the world. The salvia stuff blows my mind though - they may not know what dimension they are in, but they will probably make it to taco bell and back amirite?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I think the pro-DUI crowd is underestimating people's ability to do stupid dangerous stuff. If you've read any stories of crashes caused by people smoking loving salvia while driving you'd realize that a reasonable impairment value isn't the end of the world. The salvia stuff blows my mind though - they may not know what dimension they are in, but they will probably make it to taco bell and back amirite? One main problem with an impairment level with cannabis is that establishing an impairment level for an individual that can be based on an objective measure - such as blood concentration - is difficult. Habitual, heavy smokers could be perfectly normal at a blood level that would render an infrequent user unable to function. Some strains have much shorter highs than others. If they're able to establish standards that account for that, I'd be all for it, but it will be hard and they'll have to do good research into what's appropriate. I'd rather them just give people an option for field sobriety tests instead of a blood / breath analyzer for THC. For example, from MPP: Marijuana Policy Project posted:
I'm all for sensible policy regarding driving while impaired, but at the same time you have to consider all of the other medications that, while they are legal to drive on, do impair a driver's ability to do so. Chemotherapy drugs could impair your ability to drive; so could taking many psych meds. They don't do blood tests for impairment with those, but they will conduct a field test if they suspect you're DUI. If you fail they will charge you accordingly. It is different from alcohol, and whatever policy is enacted needs to reflect that. Personally I'm all for just using field tests - you can pass a field test, you can drive home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
cafel posted:And I'm calling bullshit on your equating marijuana and caffeine. Someone linked these odds ratios two pages ago: I would recommend rereading my post because this criticism doesn't address what I wrote. Delta-Wye posted:I think the pro-DUI crowd is underestimating people's ability to do stupid dangerous stuff. If you've read any stories of crashes caused by people smoking loving salvia while driving you'd realize that a reasonable impairment value isn't the end of the world. The salvia stuff blows my mind though - they may not know what dimension they are in, but they will probably make it to taco bell and back amirite? Who will save us from this epidemic of people driving on salvia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnwS5sPOzb0 Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I would recommend rereading my post because this criticism doesn't address what I wrote. Going back and reading your post again I do see the point you were driving at. I don't think it hold much merit, because I was using a personal anecdote for why I found a mode of argument personally unconvincing, not why I wanted to implement certain policy. Regardless, most of that post was in reaction to this: Salt Fish posted:Actually last page had this study: and this: Salt Fish posted:And the science clearly demonstrates that cannabis and driving are not a serious social concern that can be compared in any meaningful way to drunk driving. Which I don't think are correct and the main thrust I was reacting to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I think the pro-DUI crowd is underestimating people's ability to do stupid dangerous stuff. If you've read any stories of crashes caused by people smoking loving salvia while driving you'd realize that a reasonable impairment value isn't the end of the world. The salvia stuff blows my mind though - they may not know what dimension they are in, but they will probably make it to taco bell and back amirite? The only way to drive on salvia is if you were in the drivers seat driving down the road while ripping a bong as hard as you can, and then you'd have 3 seconds of reality. Then you'd crash the car. Nobody would ever drive on salvia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
I don't think you guys are considering the social harm of smoking salvia while driving
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:The only way to drive on salvia is if you were in the drivers seat driving down the road while ripping a bong as hard as you can, and then you'd have 3 seconds of reality. Then you'd crash the car. Nobody stupid would ever drive on salvia. I'm certain I read a police report about a fellow who bought some at a headshop, was told it got him high, and smoked it on the way home thinking it was a marijuana analog. I can't find it now though, although I do find references to a crash on highway 494 or something but can't find the original info. Oops. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
cafel posted:
On the other hand, caffeine is known to cause fatigue; it is a known cause of insomnia and it's commonly used to pull all-nighters or to avoid the natural signs of tiredness. Plenty of people use Red Bull or coffee to stay up to study or finish work projects and plenty toss and turn all night after a post-dinner coffee. Fatigued driving is a serious problem and is often more impairing than cannabis. Tens of millions of Americans report driving while poorly rested and millions even report falling asleep behind the wheel. Caffeine is undoubtedly a considerable contributor to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
cafel posted:marijuana in and off itself represents a significant increase in the risk of an accident. You bring me the study that shows the dose of caffeine in a cup of coffee significantly increase dangerous behavior on the road and I'll concede the point. Comparing "marijuana" as an abstract to the very specific "cup of coffee" is a little disingenuous no? :P quote:
Yeah, I mean the deaths of tens of thousands every year from alcohol-related car fatalities is totally comparable to the maybe handful of marijuana related accidents. Let's completely disregard all the studies that show how THC isn't nearly as harmful as alcohol and base our marijuana traffic laws on alcohol!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Comparing "marijuana" as an abstract to the very specific "cup of coffee" is a little disingenuous no? :P Well the post I was responding to mentioned a morning cup of coffee. For "marijuana" substitute a joint or a single hit off a joint or whatever you feel is the correct comparison of usage to a single cup of coffee. quote:Yeah, I mean the deaths of tens of thousands every year from alcohol-related car fatalities is totally comparable to the maybe handful of marijuana related accidents. Let's completely disregard all the studies that show how THC isn't nearly as harmful as alcohol and base our marijuana traffic laws on alcohol! Well for one thing alcohol is much more prevalent then marijuana use, but then that leads us down the path of arguing whether or not legalization will increase usage and thus balance out some of the unequal total number of related crashes (I think usage will increase and related crashes will go up, but never meet the level of alcohol related crashes). Regardless, I'm not arguing that marijuana is or ever will be as big of a public health problem as alcohol, but 'handful' as a measurement seems a little disingenuous on your end, I'd prefer if we talked actual numbers on both sides. I've started looking for numbers on alcohol and marijuana related crashes, but I haven't found much beyond this Coalition for a Drug Free California piece, which I hold suspect. http://www.drugfreecalifornia.org/PDF/trafficaccidents.pdf The National Highway Safety Administration has stats on fatal crashes in which drugs were detected in the victims blood, but the data I can find isn't very granular and kinda useless. In addition there's the previously liked odds ratios and a meta-study I found which suggests driving within three hours of smoking marijuana significantly increases the risk of an injury crash, but is not significant when accounting for other high risk behaviors which tended to occur at the same time. Though that kind of goes against the narrative of the mellow non-risk-taking state while high. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15847617 That study you linked is better then the one Salt Fish posted, because it does deal with recreational users, but again this is heavy users with non-increasing dosages. It doesn't account for those who don't use frequently or who increase the doses they take in. I might look for more later, but it's starting to take more time then I'm willing to put in to this discussion. Suffice to say it's hard for me to make a decision based solely on the studies, because most of them take very noncommittal stances that marijuana might effect motor reflexes. The only definitive studies seemed to be championed by NORML and the DEA so I'm taking them with grains of salt. Most of the studies that have been linked in the thread so far have been slightly tangential or limited in some way. FreshlyShaven posted:On the other hand, caffeine is known to cause fatigue; it is a known cause of insomnia and it's commonly used to pull all-nighters or to avoid the natural signs of tiredness. Plenty of people use Red Bull or coffee to stay up to study or finish work projects and plenty toss and turn all night after a post-dinner coffee. Fatigued driving is a serious problem and is often more impairing than cannabis. Tens of millions of Americans report driving while poorly rested and millions even report falling asleep behind the wheel. Caffeine is undoubtedly a considerable contributor to that. True, but caffeine isn't the direct physical cause of this in the way alcohol, prescription medication or perhaps marijuana are. Driving while fatigued is in the same category as driving while distracted and in New Jersey it is considered Reckless Driving to drive without sleeping 24 hours before hand. I think other states should treat it in the same general way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why does it even matter what the substance is? If you do something dangerous on the road to give a cop cause to pull you over then fail a sobriety test, that should be a DUI. Whether you just took a bong rip, had a few drinks, or prescribed medication is irrelevant to the safety of other drivers. The rub is that lots of people, especially terrible drivers, can be pulled over and pass a sobriety test and yet still shouldn't be driving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:The rub is that lots of people, especially terrible drivers, can be pulled over and pass a sobriety test and yet still shouldn't be driving. Plus sobriety tests are subjective, which gives cops a lot of power in deciding things. This presents the likelihood that using such a test with no recourse to more objective physical tests such as blood tests would mean a lot of minority drivers would be put away for results that a white driver would pass with. Or even more polite drivers who are on the edge will pass where obnoxious and confrontational drivers would not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
cafel posted:Well the post I was responding to mentioned a morning cup of coffee. For "marijuana" substitute a joint or a single hit off a joint or whatever you feel is the correct comparison of usage to a single cup of coffee. In that case I absolutely disagree. For a seasoned smoker with a decent tolerance, 1 small hit could be very comparable to a cup of coffee in terms of actual driving risk. If I had been able to find a more concrete number than "a handful" of weed-crashes I would've said so. Hell, if there were actual statistics showing that marijuana caused a significant number of car accidents, it'd be the #1 thing linked on the DEA site. I'm gonna count the fact that neither of us can find a hard number as confirmation of marijuana's relative safety. (until someone finds real statistics to prove me wrong)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
cafel posted:True, but caffeine isn't the direct physical cause of this in the way alcohol, prescription medication or perhaps marijuana are. High doses are. Caffeine intoxication is an actual thing: http://qmies.blogit.fi/files/2009/04/substance-use-disorders.pdf I seem to recall a case reported in the media of a MVA involving a man suffering from caffeine induced psychosis: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2010468284_dige10m.html KingEup fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
cafel posted:Well for one thing alcohol is much more prevalent then marijuana use, but then that leads us down the path of arguing whether or not legalization will increase usage and thus balance out some of the unequal total number of related crashes (I think usage will increase and related crashes will go up, but never meet the level of alcohol related crashes). Regardless, I'm not arguing that marijuana is or ever will be as big of a public health problem as alcohol, but 'handful' as a measurement seems a little disingenuous on your end, I'd prefer if we talked actual numbers on both sides. I've started looking for numbers on alcohol and marijuana related crashes, but I haven't found much beyond this Coalition for a Drug Free California piece, which I hold suspect. http://www.drugfreecalifornia.org/PDF/trafficaccidents.pdf The National Highway Safety Administration has stats on fatal crashes in which drugs were detected in the victims blood, but the data I can find isn't very granular and kinda useless. Here, I annotated a graph for you (includes data from the Netherlands where cannabis is de facto lawful): 
KingEup fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
cafel posted:Plus sobriety tests are subjective, which gives cops a lot of power in deciding things. This presents the likelihood that using such a test with no recourse to more objective physical tests such as blood tests would mean a lot of minority drivers would be put away for results that a white driver would pass with. Or even more polite drivers who are on the edge will pass where obnoxious and confrontational drivers would not. To be fair, obnoxious and confrontational drivers need to be taken off the road anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
People should be far more concerned about people driving on benzos like Xanax. You can straight up black out on that poo poo very easily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Or driving after a breakup or a particularly emotional rerun of the gilmour girls
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Or after a weekend long GTA session
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:People should be far more concerned about people driving on benzos like Xanax. You can straight up black out on that poo poo very easily. The fact that you never hear anyone banging on about road safety issues and the 1000+% increase is Xanax supply leads me to believe 'driving high' (on cannabis) is a phantom menace designed to stall reform. The fact it's repeated ad nauseum by the ONDCP's drug tzar is also rather telling. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Speaking as a heavy cannabis user, you're a loving dumbass for driving high. As a driver of a motor vehicle, your job is to focus on the road and pay attention to your surroundings. You're driving a 2,000+ lb. death trap at great speed. It doesn't matter if you just finished a joint, a six pack, a tab of LSD, or are busy with some other distraction (like texting or using a laptop, etc.); you're loving stupid for driving under the influence. You need to keep your attention where it counts. No one is perfect, and accidents are sometimes unavoidable. But with your mind altered, you should not drive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
KingEup posted:The fact that you never hear anyone banging on about road safety issues and the 1000+% increase is Xanax supply leads me to believe 'driving high' (on cannabis) is a phantom menace designed to stall reform. No, if anything will stall reform its whiny babies who complain about the amazing progress that is being made because you can't yet stroll into 7-11 and buy Heroin. This sort of thing needs to move in steps. Even if weed made everyone into better drivers, it is feared by many people. It is widely believed that not including DUI laws into the last California Marijuana legalization attempt killed the law. If you truly want acceptance, you show the hypocrisy of terrible drug laws by putting legalization with limits out in the public. When the other states see that weed doesn't drive everyone insane/makes lots of tax money, you will see real pressure towards the government. Mrit fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 04:00
|
|