|
SedanChair posted:Ah: I believe it to be the single largest positive effect legalization would have - the US had 33,561 traffic fatalities in 2012. Comparison in this case is hard but if the 10% figure is true, ~3300 lives per year most likely outweighs even the people no longer sent to prison.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Are there studies that do this comparison with the marijuana limit proscribed by legalized states? (and the .08 limit for alcohol too I suppose) http://www.druid-project.eu/Druid/EN/deliverales-list/downloads/Deliverable_1_1_2_B.pdf?__blob=publicationFile This is a meta-analysis of all the data where concentration is available in addition to positive/negative tests. Page 176 concludes that 4ng/mL is about the equivalent of .05 BAC. Which means that in terms of actual dose-response, 5ng/mL might be a little strict compared to .08 BAC but really not that far off. Despite this, the overall OR stubbornly hovers around 2 in every case-control study. http://eurad.net/filestore/PDF/Cannabispapersdrivingfeb2012Canada.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094417 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1309644/ The last French study even breaks out specifically those above the 5ng threshold, but still only gets the OR up to 2.12 when alcohol and regressors like age are accounted for (Table 3, multivariate column). I'm not an expert, but if the dose-response curves are nearly identical around the per se limit, but the epidemiology is skewed massively towards alcohol, my conclusion would be that this disparity stems from people who drive drunk tending to drive really drunk, while people who are really high are apparently not big on driving. So your typical drunk driver probably has a .15 or .20 BAC while your typical high driver isn't pushing far past the limit. This accords with other research on actual driving habits which routinely shows that high drivers are more aware they are impaired than drunk drivers. Elotana fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:This whole argument started because I thought it was fair for a cop to smell weed in your car and search it, and people were like nah there's no need for that, implying that there's no reason to give more than a token gesture towards preventing people from driving while high. So are you against the Bill of Rights in general, or just when it comes to people in possession of recently legalized substances?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
OK here's the thing though. "I smelled weed" is currently a way for police officers to have carte blanche to go snooping for whatever the gently caress they want right now. This is a policy that just happens to overwhelmingly be applied to minorities. If you continue to allow for police officers to use this an excuse to search people's cars at will for a substance that wouldn't even be illegal anymore, for the dubious benefit of preventing people from driving while stoned, it seems like the benefits are not outweighed by the disadvantages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
rscott posted:OK here's the thing though. "I smelled weed" is currently a way for police officers to have carte blanche to go snooping for whatever the gently caress they want right now. This is a policy that just happens to overwhelmingly be applied to minorities. If you continue to allow for police officers to use this an excuse to search people's cars at will for a substance that wouldn't even be illegal anymore, for the dubious benefit of preventing people from driving while stoned, it seems like the benefits are not outweighed by the disadvantages. He was so close, too, by admitting that sobriety tests are useful. I mean, if the officer asks you "What day is it" and you answer "I really need a fuckin' burrito right now", perhaps you shouldn't be driving, regardless of what the officer thinks he smells. Seriouspost: You hit the big issue straight on here. Police already harass people over weed they "smelled" to the point where any amount of bullshit has been done with no repercussions. Just within the past ten years, I've seen/heard of: - A friend's kid get stopped for four hours while the cops ran drug dogs over his car, making new "alerts" after they failed to find weed where the first "alert" happened, leaving him with his driver's seat torn open on the side of the road as they pulled away. No weed was found, and as far as I know the kid doesn't use. - Another friend get threatened with summary eviction for drugs because a cop said he smelled weed from outside said friend's apartment. The smell? His dog just poo poo on his carpet and he'd used air freshener to cover the smell. Said friend doesn't smoke weed. - A cop following someone around a college campus yelling "You're not fooling anyone!" after them because the cop said he could smell weed through the odor of clove cigarettes. (This person was me, and I had no weed on me, in me, or near me - and yes, I filed a fruitless complaint against the cop) But Volkerball literally doesn't care about the false positives. It's the equivalent of those anti-drunk-driving ads where they show cops watching obviously intoxicated people walk to their car, get into it, and drive off, only to arrest them at a checkpoint miles away - "only by hopefully catching people long after the fact can we prevent A Bad Thing, and no one should think ill of the cops who harass innocent people because we have to catch the bad guys".
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
I've learned from this thread that society can be saved if people hide their keys before they get stoned so they will never drive again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Yeah I posted a study earlier today that showed exactly that - 8-11% reduced traffic fatalities in a bunch of states examined one year after each of them allowed medical marijuana. That seems odd considering medical marijuana in most states is still a lot harder to get than say California "medical". If it's still turning up in states where to get medical weed you have to go to one of two dispensaries int he whole state and you also have to be dying of cancer, it just doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Thing is, even with a drug test you need to take into account rates of usage vs. age, etc. to determine the true likelihood of someone testing positive and truly being positive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:If you don't think that marijuana usage is increasing (which is fine), drug use in general is increasing, and the amount of people driving while stoned is increasing, I don't know what to tell you. That's something that we need to nip in the bud as marijuana becomes decriminalized. Not pretend it's not big deal. Why would there be a substantial increase in cannabis use and driving while stoned because of decriminalisation? Why would law abiding people who have abstained from cannabis because it is illegal be comfortable about breaking road laws following decriminalisation? KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Why would there be a substantial increase in cannabis use and driving while stoned because of decriminalisation? Why would law abiding people who have abstained from cannabis because it is illegal be comfortable about breaking road laws following decriminalisation? Seriously. When I am high driving sounds like the most stressful loving thing on earth. I couldn't conceive of doing it. If it can't be delivered to my door, I don't want it when I'm smoking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Project SAM Board member Dr Thurstone:quote:A toxicology report strongly suggests 18-year-old Michael Brown used cannabis shortly before his Aug. 9 shooting death by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., and that he was a heavy marijuana user. Now retracted of course because it's loving INSANE. Edit: got picked up by BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-30216293 KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Mark Kleiman delivers and an excellent presentation about cannabis and driving: http://youtu.be/voaoPaPYfHA?t=42s This really surprised me. In other news, Kevin Sabet's mob (Project SAM) are teaming up with The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/12/marijuana KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
KingEup posted:In other news, Kevin Sabet's mob (Project SAM) are teaming up with The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/12/marijuana quote:Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Mark Kleiman delivers and an excellent presentation about cannabis and driving: This is weird. He bases a lot of his arguments around another argument he made that I don't think has merit. He said that 22% of injuries were caused by the 5% of drunk drivers that had a history of violent crime, which supported the "mean drunk" theory. Then he uses this to imply that the impairment on their ability to function wasn't causing the accidents, but the alcohols effectiveness on recklessness and aggression. What about the other 78% of drunk driving injuries, with drivers who had never been implicated with violent crime? How many people were at .3 BAC and weren't even capable of speaking, much less a bar room brawler attitude? How many people drive drunk through a turn and go smashing through a cornfield? Do we just accept that they were all going 90 and being idiots instead of being blackout drunk, concentrating with the radio off, but their response time was too delayed to react? I don't agree with that. Also anyone saying you're 2 times as likely to get in an accident when you're "stoned out of your gourd" has never been stoned out of their gourd imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
You forgot to bold the free enterprise and limited government parts. Alternatively: "Partisan think tank found hypocritical. News at 11."
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Seriously. When I am high driving sounds like the most stressful loving thing on earth. I couldn't conceive of doing it. If it can't be delivered to my door, I don't want it when I'm smoking. That's what makes you such a sharp character when you get out on the road, is being paranoid as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Mark Kleiman delivers and an excellent presentation about cannabis and driving:
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
This is a cool sign with actual public health benefits in mind with zero nutjobbery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
I know cocaine is expensive, but heroin pure enough to be white isn't exactly cheap. Why would someone pull a bait and switch with another illegal drug and not the horse meds they normally try to pass off as coke? Especially one that would kill the person snorting it....
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I know cocaine is expensive, but heroin pure enough to be white isn't exactly cheap. Why would someone pull a bait and switch with another illegal drug and not the horse meds they normally try to pass off as coke? Especially one that would kill the person snorting it.... I've only ever (personally) known of one similar case from when my father was DEA in Panama in the 80's, and it was a matter of someone having stolen the drugs or otherwise coming into them improperly and not knowing what they were / not testing them. Small-time dealing operation that got its hands on "missing" cartel coke, if memory serves (it was a long time ago and dad didn't like to talk about it, since it ended with a lot of dead people).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I know cocaine is expensive, but heroin pure enough to be white isn't exactly cheap. Why would someone pull a bait and switch with another illegal drug and not the horse meds they normally try to pass off as coke? Especially one that would kill the person snorting it.... Dealer's/supplier's mistake. A mix up in handling or mislabeling. You cant really differentiate nondescript, odorless white powders from each other by eye, especially if they're in identical, 200-a-box plastic baggies. That tends to happen when your product is grey/illegal and you want it out of storage as soon as possible. Not to say that is be a valid excuse, it's not. Reminds me of that time when a grey area drug, Bromo-Dragonfly, was mislabeled for another which had an active dose about 10 times the former, or was it 100? Any ways it was quite the big difference in dosage. Cue a bunch of people overdosing by massive amounts due to the little 'mixup'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Powercrazy recommends you just return your gear for a refund or the real stuff:Powercrazy posted:Actually I have returned bad weed to my "black-market" dealer and been compensated and gotten a free bag. SedanChair also says the dealers he knows do returns: SedanChair posted:
KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
i'd stab you in the leg tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Powercrazy recommends you just return your gear for a refund or the real stuff: That'll be hard to do when dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:That'll be hard to do when dead. You aware of some kind of epidemic of deadly contaminated weed going around?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You aware of some kind of epidemic of deadly contaminated weed going around? I heard the dealers are lacing it all with PCP and formaldehyde!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You aware of some kind of epidemic of deadly contaminated weed going around? And that's not to mention all the sheer amount of diseases they inflict on your body already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
DC heads-up: Heritage Foundation is having their anti-drug public forum on Tuesday 11am-1pm in DC. Noted patriots Dr. Congressman Andy Harris MD M.D. and Kevin Sabet will be speaking. So if you're in DC put on some respectable big-boy attire and show up to represent. RSVP required: http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/12/marijuana EDIT: I just got back from Bogota last week so will be attending. Hit me up to grab a beer afterwards. I'm the guy shown in the old SA "littlest soldier" meme. Also, anyone who's an MD resident, call Sen Mikulski's office and urge her not to let the reactionaries sneak a "btw no changing weed laws" clause into DC's 2015 budget. The antis know they don't have the clout to properly block a DC law in the Oversight Committee, so again, and again led by Harris, they're doing an craven end-run around the process. And if you happen to be from the Eastern Shore of MD, make sure to call Harris and give him what-for, since he's your servant. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:I've learned from this thread that society can be saved if people hide their keys before they get stoned so they will never drive again. I've learned from this thread that marijuana must be completely legal with no restrictions whatsoever and you're Michelle Leonhart if you disagree. I mean I get D&D's a circlejerk, but you think people'd get sick of patting each other on the back over and over. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
AYC posted:I've learned from this thread that marijuana must be completely legal with no restrictions whatsoever and you're Michelle Leonhart if you disagree. Continuing to have the same opinion about something after having given it some thought: super annoying. People should arbitrarily change their political stances just to mix it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
AYC posted:I've learned from this thread that marijuana must be completely legal with no restrictions whatsoever and you're Michelle Leonhart if you disagree. "D&D always wants to shut out my opinions  " - person who claims to know what is better for others & wants to restrict them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
AYC posted:I've learned from this thread that marijuana must be completely legal with no restrictions whatsoever and you're Michelle Leonhart if you disagree. Most things should be completely legal with no-restrictions whatsoever (except for consumer protection laws). So I don't really understand what makes weed significantly interesting to you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
AYC posted:I've learned from this thread that marijuana must be completely legal with no restrictions whatsoever and you're Michelle Leonhart if you disagree. You're not Michelle Leonhart, just an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:DC heads-up: Heritage Foundation is having their anti-drug public forum on Tuesday 11am-1pm in DC. Noted patriots Dr. Congressman Andy Harris MD M.D. and Kevin Sabet will be speaking. So if you're in DC put on some respectable big-boy attire and show up to represent. RSVP required: http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/12/marijuana What are you going to do at this thing? I could go, but I ask myself, why? Just to yell at these idiots from the stands?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
AYC posted:I've learned from this thread that marijuana must be completely legal with no restrictions whatsoever and you're Michelle Leonhart if you disagree. Sounds like someone hasn't been reading the thread! Pretty much everyone in this thread has been on board with applying the same USDA/FDA/state level agricultural regulations for plants raised for human consumption to marijuana. There has also been broad consensus in the thread for labeling edibles and other extracts much in the same way as over the counter drugs (including accurate dosage and ingredient information). I don't believe that anyone has suggested exempting marijuana retailers or manufacturers from other regulatory requirements, including zoning regulations, consumer protection regulations, employment regulations, and so on. This is D&D, not some sort of libertarian fantasy forum. Can you actually cite a post where someone is arguing that marijuana should be completely unregulated? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Sounds like someone hasn't been reading the thread! Pretty much everyone in this thread has been on board with applying the same USDA/FDA/state level agricultural regulations for plants raised for human consumption to marijuana. There has also been broad consensus in the thread for labeling edibles and other extracts much in the same way as over the counter drugs (including accurate dosage and ingredient information). I don't believe that anyone has suggested exempting marijuana retailers or manufacturers from other regulatory requirements, including zoning regulations, consumer protection regulations, employment regulations, and so on. SedanChair posted:All of this "regulation" horseshit claptrap is superfluous. They've spent the better part of 100 years searching desperately with the entire resources of the federal government for any evidence that cannabis is harmful. They've found exactly nothing. It should be as legal as Cheetos. Wasn't that hard
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
rscott posted:Wasn't that hard I'm sure Cheetos are subject to FDA regulations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:I'm sure Cheetos are subject to FDA regulations. As I pointed out. AYC is just having trouble because he hung so much of his teen image on weed and he can't handle the idea that you would just get a bag of it at the store, no questions asked. "What did I feel cool about?" he asks himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
rscott posted:Wasn't that hard Context, how does it work? It's obvious from even a cursory reading of that post and the posts before it that SedanChair is referring to marijuana-specific regulations above and beyond what already exists for agricultural products intended for human consumption. So let's try this again - is anyone actually arguing for exempting marijuana from regulation, or is this just an attempt to derail the thread with a facetious argument? Has D&D turned into a libertarian haven while I wasn't paying attention, or is just this thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Context, how does it work? It's obvious from even a cursory reading of that post and the posts before it that SedanChair is referring to marijuana-specific regulations above and beyond what already exists for agricultural products intended for human consumption. The raw botanical material should be regulated like grapes. If you want to package cannabis as a cigarette then there should be consumer health warnings on the packaging. If you want to sell cannabis as a health product it should be regulated as a botanical drug substance or dietary supplement depending on the claims you're making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:54
|
|