|
I wondered what they'd been up to since they stopped making joysticks.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
So, just got done having someone with a master's degree preach to us about how making marijuana legal will increase the number of people addicted to marijuana and will lead to a generation of lazy potsmokers who will get on hard drugs like meth. God bless the southern us. What I'm wondering is, where can we find the latest info and studies on addiction?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:So, just got done having someone with a master's degree preach to us about how making marijuana legal will increase the number of people addicted to marijuana and will lead to a generation of lazy potsmokers who will get on hard drugs like meth. God bless the southern us. What I'm wondering is, where can we find the latest info and studies on addiction? The burden of proof is on his claim - digging up evidence to support the opposite claim is backwards. If he didn't back his rants up with anything of substance it's a good bet his views are not evidence based and no amount of evidence will sway him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The burden of proof is on his claim - digging up evidence to support the opposite claim is backwards. If he didn't back his rants up with anything of substance it's a good bet his views are not evidence based and no amount of evidence will sway him. No, I'm meaning mostly for my own personal use, because I don't really have a good solid place to find the data myself. I like to stay current on stuff like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
starry skies above posted:A fascinating discussion between Andrew Sullivan and David Frum re legalization. Frum says he's part of the same organization as Kevin Sabet (SMART) but he's more intelligent than Sabet and it's fair to say he's the smartest person I've seen arguing for continued prohibition. Andrew Sullivan comes off better but both are good debaters. The conversation is about a year old but still relevant: Late posting, but what happens when you're pulled over for driving stoned? How does the officer decided if you're too high?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Late posting, but what happens when you're pulled over for driving stoned? How does the officer decided if you're too high? Probably some kind of field sobriety test, but I'm curious too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
People who worry about others driving while stoned have never actually driven while stoned nor made the attempt nor driven with anyone who was stoned. Maybe they haven't even been stoned themselves. People just think of the stupid loving PSA where some dudes run over a girl riding her bike after getting their munchie fix in the drive thru. Note that the PSA's participants are black. Would you like a side of racism with your hysteria? Also, we'd probably just train cops to recognize that a driver is high as balls. Do we have field tests for coke, crack, or opiates? Huzanko fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
So what is it, should people drive while stoned or not? I have driven while stoned and I will no longer do it. It is not safe. Are you saying that there should not be an accurate test and that it should be up to police's judgement? Because that is something I disagree with heavily. Just another tool ripe for abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So what is it, should people drive while stoned or not? I have driven while stoned and I will no longer do it. It is not safe. They shouldn't but it's not nearly as dangerous as driving while drunk. Obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So what is it, should people drive while stoned or not? I have driven while stoned and I will no longer do it. It is not safe. It's a pretty bad idea to try driving while stoned. However, people already drive while drunk, so driving while under the influence is not a new problem, it's just there will be another substance of which to be under the influence. The "but what if people drive while stoned?!?" hand-wringing is just people throwing another barrier in front of legalization. You can drive while under the influence of a ton of substances, a lot of them legal, today. A field test would be fine but it isn't tough to tell when someone is high as gently caress. Also, a field test would be given after an accident or reckless driving occurs, so it's not like it would prevent anything. Also, again, is there even a field test for any substance aside from booze?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Also, again, is there even a field test for any substance aside from booze?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:So, just got done having someone with a master's degree preach to us about how making marijuana legal will increase the number of people addicted to marijuana and will lead to a generation of lazy potsmokers who will get on hard drugs like meth. God bless the southern us. What I'm wondering is, where can we find the latest info and studies on addiction? On the other hand there's some rigorous economics work suggesting that marijuana and alcohol are substitution goods for the vast majority of the population, and I would argue it is tremendously preferable to have lots of stoners rather than lots of drunks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:On the other hand there's some rigorous economics work suggesting that marijuana and alcohol are substitution goods for the vast majority of the population, and I would argue it is tremendously preferable to have lots of stoners rather than lots of drunks. Anecdotally, it has been for me since the legalization in Colorado. Much easier to wake up a little dehydrated and spacey from being high as balls compared to hungover with pounding headache. Especially as I get older. Pretty much see it as a 100% better substitute, though I think the calorie intake is a wash, booze calories vs munchies. That's mostly a matter of self-control though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Also, we'd probably just train cops to recognize that a driver is high as balls. Do we have field tests for coke, crack, or opiates? ...or antihistamines, gas, solvents, toilet cakes, nutmeg etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:They shouldn't but it's not nearly as dangerous as driving while drunk. Obviously. That's not the point he was making. He was implying that people who are stoned are okay to drive. And then some point about letting cops use their judgement to decide if someone is under the influence. Both of which are silly points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
I've been in 1 accident while sober and 0 while stoned. I've only driven high twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:That's not the point he was making. He was implying that people who are stoned are okay to drive. And then some point about letting cops use their judgement to decide if someone is under the influence. Both of which are silly points. Agreed. While driving stoned may be less of a risk than driving drunk it's still a risk. Don't do it. Anything else gives the prohibitionists ammunition but more importantly puts lives at risk. MrChupon posted:Anecdotally, it has been for me since the legalization in Colorado. Much easier to wake up a little dehydrated and spacey from being high as balls compared to hungover with pounding headache. Especially as I get older. Pretty much see it as a 100% better substitute, though I think the calorie intake is a wash, booze calories vs munchies. That's mostly a matter of self-control though. Agreed, what I really wish for is a real medical/academic study on long-term affects of marijuana use as I feel if I smoke for months on end I'm a little lethargic but maybe it's just placebo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-releases-2-impaired-driving-studies-02-2015 If you want to see what studies show rather than anecdotes, second study here Page 5, Table 4, Table 5 500excf type r fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:That's not the point he was making. He was implying that people who are stoned are okay to drive. And then some point about letting cops use their judgement to decide if someone is under the influence. Both of which are silly points. I don't really think it's for any of us to say what point he was making, but those studies above support exactly what I said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:That's not the point he was making. He was implying that people who are stoned are okay to drive. And then some point about letting cops use their judgement to decide if someone is under the influence. Both of which are silly points. Actually those weren't my points at all, just your intentional misreading of them. My point was only that people who hand-wring about stoned drivers sound, to me, like people who have no experience being stoned. I don't think people should drive while impaired at all, but stoned driving is less dangerous than drunk driving and booze is legal already. My point is that it's just a concern troll, really. Another barrier to legalization - no one is actually worried about this. My second point was that if a field test cannot be developed for cannabis intoxication(?) then police will just have to be trained tor recognize that someone is impaired and I believe they are already are. Ever been stopped for anything, ever? They never whip out the breathalyzer as a matter of course; they do it if they believe you're impaired. I guess maybe somewhere it's SOP to breath test anyone for running a light or a stop sign or speeding or anything, but not in my experience or anyone else's that I know. Also, how high is too high and how do we get numerical readings for that? It's just a stupid thing to worry about with regards to legalization when you can ALREADY drive while intoxicated with a variety of substances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Actual studies on driving while stoned show that the impairment is offset by the driver being aware of their impairment and hence taking more caution than normal and makes an effort to be situation aware, resulting in LESS chance of accident. A stoned driver is also more likely to say gently caress it and not drive in the first place. Absolutly do not drive while impaired of course but the evidence I've seen simply states a stoned driver is no real more risk than any other driver who is paying attention on the task of driving. You are more a danger when loving with your iDevice and certainly much more dangerous drunk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Actual studies on driving while stoned show that the impairment is offset by the driver being aware of their impairment and hence taking more caution than normal and makes an effort to be situation aware, resulting in LESS chance of accident. A stoned driver is also more likely to say gently caress it and not drive in the first place. One issue that's ignored is why people go out in the first place - there aren't exactly weed bars around, so most consumption is done at (someone's) home. This means there's a lot fewer reasons to actually be on the road in the first place. With legalization and/or the lifting of regulations that some weed advocates want, you could see a lot more incentive to be out and about while stoned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Actual studies on driving while stoned show that the impairment is offset by the driver being aware of their impairment and hence taking more caution than normal and makes an effort to be situation aware, resulting in LESS chance of accident. But you can't rely on everyone who's impaired to be conscientious that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But you can't rely on everyone who's impaired to be conscientious that way. The evidence seems to be saying otherwise. Granted it's early days in this question and could be contradicted later, but so far the conclusion seen so far is impairment is offset by caution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
EX250 Type R posted:http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-releases-2-impaired-driving-studies-02-2015 Nevvy Z posted:I don't really think it's for any of us to say what point he was making, but those studies above support exactly what I said. NHTSA posted:“Drivers should never get behind the wheel impaired, and we know that marijuana impairs judgment, reaction times and awareness,” said Jeff Michael, NHTSA’s associate administrator for research and program development. “These findings highlight the importance of research to better understand how marijuana use affects drivers so states and communities can craft the best safety policies.” Driving stoned may not be as bad a drunk or distracted driving but anyone operating a 3000lb potential piece of death ought not to be high.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:The evidence seems to be saying otherwise. Granted it's early days in this question and could be contradicted later, but so far the conclusion seen so far is impairment is offset by caution. Among people who bother to be cautious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Among people who bother to be cautious. Interestingly, that comment applies much more to the average driver - Your average driver has no clue what situation awareness is in the first place. However one of the things you should be aware of is that the stoners and driving is one of the few times it's been observed any kind of impairment leads to a higher situation awareness. As far as I am aware, there has been no real study that shows anything other than stoners do not have more crashes than their age and risk groups. That's what lead to further study as to why as there is no denying weed inhibits driving skills. The why is simply drivers on weed give more of a poo poo about not crashing. As said, I do not support impaired driving in any fashion. I just find it interesting that the assertions about death dealing pot heads behind the wheel just do not pan out. I dont get why this increase in situation awareness doesn't happen with drunk drivers either - why does it happen with weed and not alcohol?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:
Probably because alcohol is a pretty strong depressant? EDIT VV yeah SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:As said, I do not support impaired driving in any fashion. I just find it interesting that the assertions about death dealing pot heads behind the wheel just do not pan out. I dont get why this increase in situation awareness doesn't happen with drunk drivers either - why does it happen with weed and not alcohol?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
IME, it's more that you just stop giving a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
So apparently the Washington State Liquor Control Board are being sued because a report they paid for by Mark Kleiman's consulting firm BOTEC was a steaming pile of horseshit. http://mjbizdaily.com/seattle-dispe...oversight-board That's one state that won't be coming back for more. KingEup fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Reminder that RI and VT have been the two states with the credible chance of legalizing Recreational legislatively prior to the 2016 election. RI just submitted a new bipartisan bill, and state polling shows 57% support in general for legalization: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2016/53876/marijuana-legalization-bill-filed-in-rhode-island-senate/ I'm less clear on where VT is, other than the they've been slowly sliding towards a seemingly-inevitable legislative legalization for a couple years now. For this November's VT governor race, the D candidates support legalization while the R candidates are against it, though the latter with that incrementalist "let's watch the four legal states and see how they turns out first" excuse for inaction. VT Senate Finance committee approved a draft legalization bill with 25% tax rate, voting 6-1. Senate Judiciary had previously approved their own draft but insist that home cultivation not be legal as a "line in the sand". Apparently those committee findings could mean the VT Senate is close to a floor vote... One cute knock-on effect of VT's weed limbo, the VT police academy is no longer training K9s to sniff for weed since there's enough of a chance it'll be legal that they don't want to teach the dogs a potentially useless skill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Wouldn't current drug dogs that have been trained to find weed be a liability if it were legal? It's not like the dog can tell the officer what it smells, just that something is there. That seems to me like it would possibly not be enough evidence for probable cause.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Wouldn't current drug dogs that have been trained to find weed be a liability if it were legal? It's not like the dog can tell the officer what it smells, just that something is there. That seems to me like it would possibly not be enough evidence for probable cause. Apparently it's a pretty big issue, since you either need to just retire any drug dog who is sensitized to weed, or "retrain" then to some nebulous standard and stand by for huge lawsuits when some guy gets pinged and searched with one joint of weed and recently-fired murder weapon, and alleges that your dog alerted to his legal weed and violated due process. I vaguely want to say some state-level LEO association tried some ridiculous concern trolling last year where they wept for the poor dogs they'd be compelled to euthanize by brutal potheads if weed were legal. This being a separate concern-troll masterpiece from when the DEA in Colorado unironically argued that legal pot would kill your pets because they would eat your pot brownies (while admitting it would be the chocolate that harms dogs, not the ganja, but still...).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
If my dog got into a batch of brownies, I would rather they had weed in them. AFAIK, pot makes dogs throw up, so it might actually save his dumb rear end. I could totally see my dog killing himself that way, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If my dog got into a batch of brownies, I would rather they had weed in them. AFAIK, pot makes dogs throw up, so it might actually save his dumb rear end. IIRC, the Colorado DEA head argued that the weed would slow down the dog's metabolism and make the dog less likely to hurl up the chocolate. This was an actual argument by a serious federal employee, presumably with a master's degree and a couple decades of ambiguous career experience. I dunno how you can give a bitter grapes speech about "fine, I hope your dogs die you stupid hippies" and walk out of the room thinking you looked smart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
When your job depends on you justifying its existence for the first time in your career, you come up with some weird arguments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Reminder that RI and VT have been the two states with the credible chance of legalizing Recreational legislatively prior to the 2016 election. I've been following the Vermont legalization push, and one other thing is what they're actually legalizing at this point after bargaining through committee is a half ounce, and retail sales in state stores. It's going to be rather restrictive at first which is fine but I'm a bit disappointed it's not even an ounce. At this point even if they pass it, it isn't scheduled to take effect until 2018. I understand their concerns though - if they're the first state anywhere nearby with fully legal sales, they really don't want people diverting that to other states. There is a good chance it's going to pass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:I've been following the Vermont legalization push, and one other thing is what they're actually legalizing at this point after bargaining through committee is a half ounce, and retail sales in state stores. It's going to be rather restrictive at first which is fine but I'm a bit disappointed it's not even an ounce. At this point even if they pass it, it isn't scheduled to take effect until 2018. I understand their concerns though - if they're the first state anywhere nearby with fully legal sales, they really don't want people diverting that to other states. There is a good chance it's going to pass. In Colorado, it's trivial to head all over town buying ounces to get as much as you want, so it's doubly stupid since its not going to stop anyone from taking it out of state. There are like 600 dispensaries here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Broken Machine posted:I've been following the Vermont legalization push, and one other thing is what they're actually legalizing at this point after bargaining through committee is a half ounce, and retail sales in state stores. It's going to be rather restrictive at first which is fine but I'm a bit disappointed it's not even an ounce. At this point even if they pass it, it isn't scheduled to take effect until 2018. I understand their concerns though - if they're the first state anywhere nearby with fully legal sales, they really don't want people diverting that to other states. There is a good chance it's going to pass. If any New England state legalizes you can expect it to be trafficked all over NY and New England because possession of an oz is like getting a speeding ticket but with fewer consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 18:54
|
|
