Easy there, Evidence. I wasn’t kidding when I said I was high last night. I loooooooove marijuana. I’m a NORML Citizen. I’m saving to buy a vaporizer. I’d love to see marijuana legalized, and think it’s ridiculous that it is illegal while alcohol is legal. I’m well versed in the literature.
But in post #17, you said marijuana doesn’t affect (not impair, not enhance, but affect) cognitive skills. Full stop. You should have know that statement itself was stupid enough to bring everyone howling out of the woodwork, never mind the “I am my own cite” crap later on.
So, are you still going to stick by the statement that you do not believe that pot affects one’s cognitive abilities and fine and gross motor skills?
(BTW, I would like to petition the mods to change Dio’s status to Evidence. I will pay for a full year of his membership. At any rate, I am herewith pledging to call him Diogenes the Evidence for the rest of my stay on the board.)
Anecodtes are not evidence.The actual empirical data shows that driving stoned does not increase tthe risk for accidents. There’s no way out of that box. That’s a checkmate for me.
Take a look at the idiot’s post count. He won’t. He can’t. And while he used to have about a 10/1 idiot or troll/reasonable poster ratio, that ratio is now trending toward infinity.
By the way, I don’t think people should drive on acid. That was irreponsible on my part. I shouldn’t have done it, but I had no other way to get to work.
What is so unreasonable about simply pointing out the FACT that the effects of marijuana do not statistically increase the likelihood for getting into a car accident? To me, that is the same as saying it does not impair driving ability.
So… the nine people just in this thread who directly refute your assertion are supposed to privilege your interpretation of the findings of a scientist who draws conclusions based on probablistic inferences over their own direct experience of the matter at hand.
You are fucking insane, and a massive fucking hypocrite as well.
Not sure I see your point here. If you think you see a contradiction then I retract the implication that I recognize any impairment. If it does not impair the ability to perform a task, then I don’t se how it can be called an impairment at all, because what else does that word mean?
I’m unconvinced. In this case, you truly are the evidence.
And as to your question in post 269, a couple of things. The ability to drive was not the subject of your initial stupid statement in this endless Dio-centric thread. In response to MTCicero posting “but pot certainly does affect one’s cognitive abilities and fine and gross motor skills.”, you said “No it doesn’t.” Yes it does. The whole driving thing has been an exercise in moving goal posts that has nothing to do with your initial statement. And if part of the population of pot smokers elects to forgo driving because they sense that they are impaired, while drunks don’t sense that, it means that the accident statistics don’t prove that pot doesn’t affect the ability to drive, they prove that pot doesn’t affect the accident statistics. A similar thing could be said about being dead. It definitely affects the ability to drive, but it has a minimal impact on accident rates.
Bull-mother fucking-shit! It’s back-peddling pure and simple. You’ve been arguing that this entire thread. I bet it’s also a preemptive strike against the inevitable…
… contradiction. If you want to post looney speculations that you believe, fine. But now you are just lying in an attempt to salvage your position.
