I know you’re joking, but doesn’t it bother you that this bullshit lie is STILL being repeated ad nasuem whenever Gore is mentioned “The man who invented the internet endorses the candidate of the internet!”? I mean, it’s not like the mainstream press refers to President Johnson as “the man who ordered the CIA to kill Kennedy, ha ha ha!”
Actually, there’s every reason to think that it is a fairly negligible issue. Some accidents require fast action. But other accidents are actually made WORSE by fast reactions: like slamming on the breaks immediately without thinking about the car behind you, or the fact that it might flip the car. Oftentimes people turn too hard and too soon to avoid collisions, losing control of the car because they freaked out. Pot smokers would be much less likely to do this. So driving while high could well raise the occurance of some accidents, while lowering the occurance of others, the net effect being not much, and that drowned out by the fact that pot smokers are much less aggressive (and thus much safer) drivers.
Er, right. Because smoking pot is exactly the same as filing fraudulent prescriptions for highly addictive drugs, then getting caught with fucking CRACK IN REHAB! :rolleyes:
Why do some people always parse “smoking pot” as “doing drugs” and then proceed to lump every dangerous drug in the world (except alcohol) into that category?
And I’m waiting for a study which addresses the totality of auto accidents, instead of just fatalities or just accidents which were caused by the impaired driver. Where are the studies which show that stoned drivers avoid accidents which are the other drivers’ fault just as well as sober drivers? In other words, how well do stoned drivers stomp on the brakes to avoid the random red-light runner? Better, worse, or as well as drunk or sober drivers?
To further clarify: so far, I’ve seen studies cited which address fatalities (a smallish percentage of all accidents), and studies which address accidents caused by those under the influence (at most, half of all multiple-car accidents). Until the rest of the data is in (since I doubt a sober driver who runs a red light will be held blameless for the injury or death of a drunk who happened to be in the intersection), whether or not driving stoned is as safe as driving sober (or even safer than driving drunk) is not answerable.
I’m also interested in how a certain micrograms-of-THC-per-kilogram figure was arrived at to indicate “moderate” marijuana use, and how that figure translates into “number of joints smoked,” or even “number of tokes.” We apparently know pretty well how alcohol affects the body, how long it takes to clear out, and how it affects BAC, but how well are the same things known for THC? Are the standards used in the studies cited so far truly comparing apples to apples, or are each set of researchers deciding on their own what “stoned” means in terms of THC levels? Assuming that the researchers know best seems inappropriate for this message board, regardless of the forum.
No, indeed I do not - not because I have a problem with it per se, simply because I’m not overly fond of its effect on me. There are also people out there who become dangerously intoxicated with one simple drink, when most of us would be perfectly safe driving home.
Well, I don’t think you’ll ever see real-life data on that. I’ve had plenty of close calls (stoned and sober) where I had to slam on the brakes and spill my soda all over the floor to avoid an accident. I never picked up the phone and reported them to anyone, though.
I think it’s fairly safe to assume that if stoned drivers are careful enough not to cause accidents, then they’re careful enough to avoid them, too. And if you want to talk about reaction time, well, we can just yank the licenses of 90% of the elderly right off the bat.
It’s also worth noting that many prominent sports stars have been arrested or tested positive for marijuana. In 1997, Charles Oakley told the New York Post, “You got guys out there playing high every night.” If a fast-paced NBA game doesn’t require good reaction time, I don’t know what does.
2500 people isn’t enough of a sample size? I’m also not sure what you’re trying to say with that “since I doubt a sober driver who runs a red light…” line.
That’s why the accident reports are the best indicators we have. Aside from the question of when the THC was ingested, they remove the artificial barriers. I agree with you that it would be nice to have more information. Whether that data has actually been compiled and supressed (which wouldn’t be a first), or it just doesn’t exist, I don’t know.
I do, however, feel that the information provided (in addition to my own anecdotal observations) is enough to convince me that pot is no menace on the roads.
Nope. he is not to be commended on those things any more than George Bush is to be commended for driving drunk and doing blow while Al Gore was serving in Vietnam.
Neutron Star pretty much killed this strawman as well as I could have. I didn’t say “doing drugs” was cool, I said smoking pot was cool. Pot is harmless. Alcohol and cocaine (the Bush family favorites) are quite dangerous.
Politicians and their relatives tend to get off with a slap on the wrist (or less). The casualties of the War On Some Drugs don’t include politicians and their kin.
Dio you allright buddy? You need to chill a bit…don’t get so worked up. Okay…breathe
Studies are bullshit dude. We both know the difference is about tolerance. Some folks get totally fucked up when they smoke. Some smoke weed like its tobacco. MoF they are better after taking a few hits.
Reason the studies are fucked is because average/recreational type folks usually are too stoned to even attempt driving.
My old man was/is an alcoholic and he drank hard when I was a kid. So, I understand where you’re coming from. I’d like to extrapolate but my PC must be loaded (real slow). So, I’m gonna post and maybe we can do this elsewhere.
Sorry to say, I have extensive experience in this area, personally, academically and clinically.
Well, luckily enough, the number of times someone has smoked pot is an empirical fact, not a judgment call.
Supposing pot were legal, how hard would it be to let people take a driver’s test while high? If you pass when you’re stoned, you get to drive when you’re stoned. I believe the average pot smoking driver is no worse than the average 16 year old driver.
So what’s the threshhold for experience? Once, ten times, a hundred? Getting into a car is always a judgment call, and any level of intoxication can affect that, no matter how “experienced” you are at smoking cheeba.
Since 16-24 year-old drivers are the risk group with the largest amount of accidents and fatal accidents among all drivers, I’m not sure you want that distinction. But we can accomodate you, I’m sure. I propose that we make you piss in a cup, and when you show up positive for doobage we can simply charge you what we charge 16 year olds for their insurance.
What’s that? You can’t afford $3,000-5,000/year? Well, that’s just a shame, isn’t it?
Yes. And they have started in the right direction in some areas with the whole banning phone use while driving. There’s nothing worse than watching some dipshit in front of me swerving around the road looking for the CD he wants to listen to. Gah.
Awwww…is widdle Diogenes getting cranky? I think someone needs a nappy-nap.
Now, I know reading and actually understanding someone’s point is a little difficult for you and that you actually prefer name-calling, strawmen and other childish things, but RTFirefly points out, the answer to my question is yes.
Since he posted that over twelve hours ago, I think its safe to assume he is well rested. And if sharpness of wit is any indication, you had a couple barbiturates with your de-caff.
Tell you what: spend about a month at your local emergency room, gathering statistics on people who arrive there primarily from alcohol, and those there for a muggles ovedose.
Well I feel both sides need to shut the fuck up about what peoples kids do. So Bush’s daughters had a underage drink and Gore’s son had a toke. Who gives a fuck other than to try and score a cheap dig it means nothing.
Oh and you can throw cites all you what. Smoking while stoned is stupid. I smoke a lot as in most days. When you’re stoned you’re much more likely to zone out for a short time thinking about something or find something you see more interesting than usual. This has to make it more likely that you will make a mistake. My father was a big drinker and driver in the day(the majority of Ireland’s drivers regularly did it till relatively recently) and never had a crash or incident this doesn’t mean he wasn’t taking a risk every time he did it.
Well those cites you want to ignore are showing that drinking alcohol and smoking pot are not the same. We allow people on Prozac to drive don’t we? There is no doubt that marijuana can affect judgment but since we are not all NASCAR pros that’s not always a bad thing, as the accident studies indicate.
Obviously I wouldn’t recommend anyone drive while actually loopy on anything. Alcohol seems to make you more likely to “go for it”, pot makes you less likely. That’s at least one plus regardless of driving abilities.
It’s a qualified yes to the wrong question. Eating a taco or or looking at chicks can slightly impair driving ability. The question is, does marijuana impair ability enough to make driving dangerous? The studies show that it does not.
They don’t exist, of course. There is absolutely no data available for ‘almost accidents’. there’s all sorts of data available for actual accidents. But no authorities are called (generally) for all those ‘I almost got in an accident’.
You may be able to retrieve data re: who was determined to be at fault in accidents, and, perhaps, data on if tests were done and who, if anyone was under the influence, however even that won’t really get at what you’re asking.
In order to get the data you’re demanding, we’d have to have available to us:
information on all drivers wrt being under the influence. (and in the case of pot, and most blood/urine tests, they test prescence of the chemicals, not 'is this person under the influence. ’ For example - a routine pain med like Tylenol 3 will loose it’s effectiveness (ie person won’t be ‘under the influence’) in 4- 8 hours; yet the chemicals are detectable for up to 72 hours -IIRC from the correction center days).
Information on ‘near accidents’.
Neither of which is tracked at all.
WRT the OP - as soon as I saw the headline, I knew there’d be a pit thread.
FWIW, IMHO, the ‘hypocricy’ was more irony wrt Bush - he’d (IIRC) signed legislation in Tx which increased the criminal penalties for the specific stuff that his daughters ended up doing. Ironic as hell. And not applicable to the Gore situation.
So, it wasn’t so much as a ‘family values’ gig for me, it was more of a “you wanted to see bigger penalities for this sorta thing, remember?”
