|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.
Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. However, the role played by marijuana in crashes is often unclear because it can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because people frequently combine it with alcohol. Those involved in vehicle crashes with THC in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the incident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.
Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol. literally the entire page cites research that says marijuana + driving is a bad time, with the exception of the quoted bit. i don't have a problem with marijuana being used recreationally apart from it smelling like shit (and i semi-support it being used medically, though i want more research to really understand how it works as a painkiller, etc.). however, the idea that putting something in your body that alters your perception doesn't affect your ability to handle heavy machinery is laughable. you don't win support with alternative facts like those. Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro. Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving.
But a vast majority of laws like that are not just about the quantifiable externality you present, but about making decisions as a society for what is and isn't reasonable to expect of other citizens. Like, there's decent evidence that being tired can be just as dangerous as drunk driving. But it's not very reasonable to ask people to not drive any time they're tired, and there's not a good bright line, on one side of which you're legal to drive and on the other of which you're not.
The fact is, every time you drive there's a risk you kill someone, or wreck someone's house, or put them in a wheelchair, or any number of other catastrophic possibilities. But as a society we've decided to assume that risk so we can all get places quicker, buy cheaper stuff, etc. There are a huge number of things you can do to increase that risk, and some of those might be necessary risks to take, or at least banning them would be some combination of unreasonable and unenforceable. Others seem reasonable to restrict, and at least somewhat enforceable.
Put it this way: suppose the following behaviors all increase the risk of accidents:
-driving while intoxicated
-driving home after a really long, tiring shift
-driving at night
-driving in the rain
-driving a car with bad brakes
-driving without knowing how to drive
-driving really really fast
-driving while emotionally unstable
...and many others. How do we as a society decide which should or shouldn't be allowed? By your test, we would presumably decide based on which are most risky. By that measure we might (I don't know the actual risk associated with each, so I'm just guessing as an example) ban the following:
-driving at night
-driving after a long, tiring shift
-driving without knowing how to drive
-driving while emotionally unstable
And the rest would be legal. But two of these have clear enforcement problems - how do you define clearly who is or isn't emotionally unstable? - and three feel like completely unreasonable demands even if a decent bright line could be found (after working 12 hours to get the report in on time, the government says I have to sleep at the office?)
Instead we ban things when a reasonably enforceable standard can be defined, and when it seems like a fairly reasonable denand that people not do the banned thing. In this case granny might be a bigger danger than the drunk 18 yo, but it feels more reasonable to ask a guy to not drink before driving than to ask a woman to not drive... ever. And "don't drive when old" is a bit fuzzy, where "don't drive within X hours of drinking" or "don't drive with a BAC above Y" are pretty clear. Of course, a lot of places are trying to find ways to get people off the streets once they can't drive safely anymore (e.g. make people retake the test every X years), but we're always gonna be a lot more lenient with grandma than the drunk college student, because the drunk college student is endangering others' lives far more needlessly, even if in actuarial terms granny poses the bigger threat.
TL;DR: legal and illegal driving isn't and shouldn't be based purely on the quantifiable risk you pose to others.
|
United States42817 Posts
On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.
Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. However, the role played by marijuana in crashes is often unclear because it can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because people frequently combine it with alcohol. Those involved in vehicle crashes with THC in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the incident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.
Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol. literally the entire page cites research that says marijuana + driving is a bad time, with the exception of the quoted bit. i don't have a problem with marijuana being used recreationally apart from it smelling like shit (and i semi-support it being used medically, though i want more research to really understand how it works as a painkiller, etc.). however, the idea that putting something in your body that alters your perception doesn't affect your ability to handle heavy machinery is laughable. you don't win support with alternative facts like those. Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro. Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving.
So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive.
|
On April 21 2017 15:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.
Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. However, the role played by marijuana in crashes is often unclear because it can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because people frequently combine it with alcohol. Those involved in vehicle crashes with THC in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the incident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.
Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol. literally the entire page cites research that says marijuana + driving is a bad time, with the exception of the quoted bit. i don't have a problem with marijuana being used recreationally apart from it smelling like shit (and i semi-support it being used medically, though i want more research to really understand how it works as a painkiller, etc.). however, the idea that putting something in your body that alters your perception doesn't affect your ability to handle heavy machinery is laughable. you don't win support with alternative facts like those. Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro. Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving. So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive.
In fairness, there's a long list of other social remedies that would make implementation of such a system a more feasible idea, but sorta.
I mean it's not something I really see happening in an overnight way, but basically it's not terribly dissimilar to the idea that some people like about preventing vehicles from operating if one is under the influence/incapable of driving safely (they already do this for people being punished for alcohol related driving violations).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with?
|
Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle.
If we had an easily portable machine that could test your ability to drive without actually putting you behind the wheel, we'd use that rather than measuring someone's BAC. But we don't so instead we have to resort to objective heuristics that can be measured with equipment that can fit in the trunk of a police cruiser and which isn't subject to the cop's subjective evaluation (because we all know how prone to error that is).
BAC isn't the best heuristic, but it's got a good enough correlation with bad driving that there isn't any political will to find a better one.
|
On April 21 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 15:10 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.
Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. However, the role played by marijuana in crashes is often unclear because it can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because people frequently combine it with alcohol. Those involved in vehicle crashes with THC in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the incident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.
Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol. literally the entire page cites research that says marijuana + driving is a bad time, with the exception of the quoted bit. i don't have a problem with marijuana being used recreationally apart from it smelling like shit (and i semi-support it being used medically, though i want more research to really understand how it works as a painkiller, etc.). however, the idea that putting something in your body that alters your perception doesn't affect your ability to handle heavy machinery is laughable. you don't win support with alternative facts like those. Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro. Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving. So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive. In fairness, there's a long list of other social remedies that would make implementation of such a system a more feasible idea, but sorta. I mean it's not something I really see happening in an overnight way, but basically it's not terribly dissimilar to the idea that some people like about preventing vehicles from operating if one is under the influence/incapable of driving safely (they already do this for people being punished for alcohol related driving violations). _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with?
Last I heard they wanted to charge his with treason. xD
|
On April 21 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with?
I think psychologically most people reflexively consider that if they don't like it, it shouldn't be allowed (e.g. opposing gay marriage); or that if some policy targets people they don't like, they don't have to worry. That's how the War on Drugs / War on Terror were sold: drug dealers and terrorists no longer have rights, but it's okay because they're "bad". No matter if these same policies can be redirected towards others. Democratic partisans cheering on on Wikileaks prosecution follow this same principle, and I'm sure they'll find some way to rationalize it for themselves by deciding that WL are a "bad actor". They might not be so glib if the "failing NY Times" ends up prosecuted for the same thing.
That said, people that lean left are typically much more principled than many on the other side of the political spectrum. Nevertheless both sides have many partisan hacks that switch allegiance depending on expedient factors.
|
The sobriety tests in the usa, is that still like you have to walk a line and if you can do that you are fine no matter how much you have drank?
|
On April 21 2017 19:08 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 15:10 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.
Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. However, the role played by marijuana in crashes is often unclear because it can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because people frequently combine it with alcohol. Those involved in vehicle crashes with THC in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the incident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.
Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol. literally the entire page cites research that says marijuana + driving is a bad time, with the exception of the quoted bit. i don't have a problem with marijuana being used recreationally apart from it smelling like shit (and i semi-support it being used medically, though i want more research to really understand how it works as a painkiller, etc.). however, the idea that putting something in your body that alters your perception doesn't affect your ability to handle heavy machinery is laughable. you don't win support with alternative facts like those. Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro. Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving. So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive. In fairness, there's a long list of other social remedies that would make implementation of such a system a more feasible idea, but sorta. I mean it's not something I really see happening in an overnight way, but basically it's not terribly dissimilar to the idea that some people like about preventing vehicles from operating if one is under the influence/incapable of driving safely (they already do this for people being punished for alcohol related driving violations). _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with? Last I heard they wanted to charge his with treason. xD
How does the US charge a foreign citizen with treason? That doesn't make sense...
|
On April 21 2017 19:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 19:08 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 15:10 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.
Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. However, the role played by marijuana in crashes is often unclear because it can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because people frequently combine it with alcohol. Those involved in vehicle crashes with THC in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the incident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.
Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol. literally the entire page cites research that says marijuana + driving is a bad time, with the exception of the quoted bit. i don't have a problem with marijuana being used recreationally apart from it smelling like shit (and i semi-support it being used medically, though i want more research to really understand how it works as a painkiller, etc.). however, the idea that putting something in your body that alters your perception doesn't affect your ability to handle heavy machinery is laughable. you don't win support with alternative facts like those. Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro. Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving. So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive. In fairness, there's a long list of other social remedies that would make implementation of such a system a more feasible idea, but sorta. I mean it's not something I really see happening in an overnight way, but basically it's not terribly dissimilar to the idea that some people like about preventing vehicles from operating if one is under the influence/incapable of driving safely (they already do this for people being punished for alcohol related driving violations). _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with? Last I heard they wanted to charge his with treason. xD How does the US charge a foreign citizen with treason? That doesn't make sense...
I know...
|
On April 21 2017 19:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 19:08 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 15:10 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.
Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. However, the role played by marijuana in crashes is often unclear because it can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after intoxication and because people frequently combine it with alcohol. Those involved in vehicle crashes with THC in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the incident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.
Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol. literally the entire page cites research that says marijuana + driving is a bad time, with the exception of the quoted bit. i don't have a problem with marijuana being used recreationally apart from it smelling like shit (and i semi-support it being used medically, though i want more research to really understand how it works as a painkiller, etc.). however, the idea that putting something in your body that alters your perception doesn't affect your ability to handle heavy machinery is laughable. you don't win support with alternative facts like those. Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro. Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving. So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive. In fairness, there's a long list of other social remedies that would make implementation of such a system a more feasible idea, but sorta. I mean it's not something I really see happening in an overnight way, but basically it's not terribly dissimilar to the idea that some people like about preventing vehicles from operating if one is under the influence/incapable of driving safely (they already do this for people being punished for alcohol related driving violations). _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with? Last I heard they wanted to charge his with treason. xD How does the US charge a foreign citizen with treason? That doesn't make sense...
Last I heard Pompeo said that Assange collaborated with Chelsea Manning to "steal documents", which is probably not true, and difficult to prove and possibly irrelevant if true. But it might be fuel for some show trial nevertheless. As a precedent it would be terrible, because any interaction with the source, such as trying to establish a relation and trying to verify the documents, can become criminalized like that.
|
On April 21 2017 19:39 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 19:12 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 19:08 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 15:10 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
literally the entire page cites research that says marijuana + driving is a bad time, with the exception of the quoted bit.
i don't have a problem with marijuana being used recreationally apart from it smelling like shit (and i semi-support it being used medically, though i want more research to really understand how it works as a painkiller, etc.). however, the idea that putting something in your body that alters your perception doesn't affect your ability to handle heavy machinery is laughable. you don't win support with alternative facts like those.
Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro. Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving. So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive. In fairness, there's a long list of other social remedies that would make implementation of such a system a more feasible idea, but sorta. I mean it's not something I really see happening in an overnight way, but basically it's not terribly dissimilar to the idea that some people like about preventing vehicles from operating if one is under the influence/incapable of driving safely (they already do this for people being punished for alcohol related driving violations). _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with? Last I heard they wanted to charge his with treason. xD How does the US charge a foreign citizen with treason? That doesn't make sense... Last I heard Pompeo said that Assange collaborated with Chelsea Manning to "steal documents", which is probably not true, and difficult to prove and possibly irrelevant if true. But it might be fuel for some show trial nevertheless. As a precedent it would be terrible, because any interaction with the source, such as trying to establish a relation and trying to verify the documents, can become criminalized like that.
Sure, whatever. But it's still not treason. It's something else, and presumably whatever they charged Russian spies with when they caught them during the cold war. Presumably theft of classified information.
But it's inherently impossible for Assange to be treasonous to the US, because he isn't a citizen or even a resident. Treason is defined as the act of betraying one's country, and Assange's country is not the US. At best they could try to convince the Australians to prosecute Assange for treason, because he acted against the interests of Australia by acting against their ally (the US), but we're already 3 degrees of separation away here, and it doesn't seem like that would fly.
|
On April 21 2017 19:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 19:39 Grumbels wrote:On April 21 2017 19:12 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 19:08 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 15:10 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2017 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, the large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is totally an alternative fact bro.
Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving. My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found. But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving. So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive. In fairness, there's a long list of other social remedies that would make implementation of such a system a more feasible idea, but sorta. I mean it's not something I really see happening in an overnight way, but basically it's not terribly dissimilar to the idea that some people like about preventing vehicles from operating if one is under the influence/incapable of driving safely (they already do this for people being punished for alcohol related driving violations). _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with? Last I heard they wanted to charge his with treason. xD How does the US charge a foreign citizen with treason? That doesn't make sense... Last I heard Pompeo said that Assange collaborated with Chelsea Manning to "steal documents", which is probably not true, and difficult to prove and possibly irrelevant if true. But it might be fuel for some show trial nevertheless. As a precedent it would be terrible, because any interaction with the source, such as trying to establish a relation and trying to verify the documents, can become criminalized like that. Sure, whatever. But it's still not treason. It's something else, and presumably whatever they charged Russian spies with when they caught them during the cold war. Presumably theft of classified information. But it's inherently impossible for Assange to be treasonous to the US, because he isn't a citizen or even a resident. Treason is defined as the act of betraying one's country, and Assange's country is not the US. At best they could try to convince the Australians to prosecute Assange for treason, because he acted against the interests of Australia by acting against their ally (the US), but we're already 3 degrees of separation away here, and it doesn't seem like that would fly.
A good explanation for this is the pathological belief that the USA owns the entire world and that it has the right to punish anyone who threatens their interests. That's why you have the creepy concept of "Homeland Security", which for most nations is just the Ministry of Defense, but not for an imperial power like the USA. That's why you have the USA government bombing people in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya without any sort of legal authorization or vital national security interest.
|
|
|
Tough sell, Trump. Your talks on how fast everything would happen will be on repeat.
|
Moving the goalposts needs to have Trump's name next to it in the encyclopedia ASAP, I think. Except he's basically moving the endzone behind where his special teams returned the ball.
|
As a cannabis business owner (web programming related), and a regular cannabis consumer, I've had more accidents sober, than being "under the influence", and that goes for a lot of my clients. For those that don't smoke, smoking isn't about a high, it's about being able to intake a lot more of the surroundings around you, while being consciously aware, and awake. Drunk people take in their surroundings without being aware or awake, so what's worse?
People that are "paranoid" are just experiencing the fact that you're just way more aware of everything going on. I can't stand people who judge others because they smoke weed, while that same person drinks alcohol, which is way fucking worse. It's just hypocritical as fuck, but obviously those same people are just as ignorant. And we can't talk about success affecting both users because success is a trait that is worked for, not given. But I definitely know a lot more successful smokers than drinkers. *a drinker to me is some one that drinks everyday.
http://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/crime/st-lucie-county/2017/03/24/state-rep-edwin-pigman-arrested-dui-charge-st-lucie-county/99588938/
Also a FL state rep that is completely against any type of Cannabis was arrested for DUI - what a fucking joke.
|
On April 21 2017 19:11 pmh wrote:
The sobriety tests in the usa, is that still like you have to walk a line and if you can do that you are fine no matter how much you have drank?
there's several different tests; that's one of them, I'm not sure which ones they use most, I think they use a few different ones to check (as some don't tkae long at all to do)
They probably have field breathalyzers in many places which they use to get a reading. and refusing the breathalyzer test in some places isn't allowed (or more precisely, you can refuse and if you refuse your license is automatically revoked, though they might not get the evidence to convict you of DUI)
But I have no firsthand knowledge.
edit add: part of the point of line walking tests and such is there's a lot of different drugs you can be impaired by, and chemical tests can't check for everything; so you gotta have some that can always be used.
|
On April 21 2017 19:48 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 19:45 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 19:39 Grumbels wrote:On April 21 2017 19:12 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 19:08 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 15:10 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2017 09:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 21 2017 09:07 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Not to be the guy using anecdotal evidence to discount a well-controlled study, but if you've been in the car with someone driving before and after they got really stoned it could not be more fucking obvious. I don't know how the NHTSA study found what it found, but you shouldn't need a large controlled study to tell that pot can make you worse at driving.
My guess is that a couple confounding variables interfered. Like at low doses the effect is probably minimal, and for very habitual users it might actually help compared to getting sober. I've definitely known people who smoked every morning and night, and they were very out of it on the rare occasion they were sober. That said, I haven't read the study and couldn't say for sure how they found what they found.
But if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "pot doesn't negatively impact driving safely" is an absolutely outlandish claim. Really agree with this. I really think that legalizing pot is one of the biggest no-brainer political choices we should make as a society, but I think it's equally reasonable to say that you can't drive stoned. I've smoked a lot of hash and weed and I've been in cars with stoned drivers, and I just don't believe for a second that reaction times are not impaired for example. Now, I'd much, much rather be in a car with a stoned than a drunk driver - that's not even remotely close, but I think it is completely, 100% fair to say that neither should be permitted. I can also buy that people who are habitual smokers might not experience a similar decrease in reaction times, that it might even 'normalize' them in a sense. (alcoholics and heroin addicts can also improve their function through drinking or shooting up), and I can buy that small doses entails a negligible difference in ability (much like most countries permit you to drive after drinking 1 beer - norway doesn't though). The bold part is important. This is why DUI's shouldn't have shit to do with the amount/type of the substance in your system (save for some particular circumstances). I'd take some Nebraska Farmer blowing a .20 over some dumbass kid who just smoked a joint or some senior citizen that should have stopped driving a decade ago. Our "sobriety tests" as we call them should be exclusively assessing your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I suppose we could still make being able to drive well while under the influence a ticketable offence. But it makes no sense to me that a senior citizen who's reaction time is well below that of a hammered college student is perfectly legal, but a 18yo who's been drinking and driving since 13 (and can drive circles around said senior) can get the book thrown at them for blowing a .04 I don't care if your driving sucks because you shot up, took a pill, smoked a joint, didn't sleep, mad at your wife, what the hell ever, I care that your unable to meet a basic threshold for driving ability while in whatever state it is. Test that, not fucking wing it for anything other than alcohol (which we have a semi-decent way to measure) and then ignore how much it did or didn't impair their driving. So what you're saying is you want to legally enshrine the principle of "yeah, but I'm actually a better driver while drunk" and allow drunks to decide for themselves whether they think that covers them before they get behind the wheel. While they'll still get charged if they're not it justifies every drunk's decision to drive. In fairness, there's a long list of other social remedies that would make implementation of such a system a more feasible idea, but sorta. I mean it's not something I really see happening in an overnight way, but basically it's not terribly dissimilar to the idea that some people like about preventing vehicles from operating if one is under the influence/incapable of driving safely (they already do this for people being punished for alcohol related driving violations). _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Democrats don't like Wikileaks but what the hell do they think the US would be charging Assange with? Last I heard they wanted to charge his with treason. xD How does the US charge a foreign citizen with treason? That doesn't make sense... Last I heard Pompeo said that Assange collaborated with Chelsea Manning to "steal documents", which is probably not true, and difficult to prove and possibly irrelevant if true. But it might be fuel for some show trial nevertheless. As a precedent it would be terrible, because any interaction with the source, such as trying to establish a relation and trying to verify the documents, can become criminalized like that. Sure, whatever. But it's still not treason. It's something else, and presumably whatever they charged Russian spies with when they caught them during the cold war. Presumably theft of classified information. But it's inherently impossible for Assange to be treasonous to the US, because he isn't a citizen or even a resident. Treason is defined as the act of betraying one's country, and Assange's country is not the US. At best they could try to convince the Australians to prosecute Assange for treason, because he acted against the interests of Australia by acting against their ally (the US), but we're already 3 degrees of separation away here, and it doesn't seem like that would fly. A good explanation for this is the pathological belief that the USA owns the entire world and that it has the right to punish anyone who threatens their interests. That's why you have the creepy concept of "Homeland Security", which for most nations is just the Ministry of Defense, but not for an imperial power like the USA. That's why you have the USA government bombing people in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya without any sort of legal authorization or vital national security interest.
some of those do have legal authorization and national security interest. not all of them of course, but some do.
|
On April 21 2017 21:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:
As a cannabis business owner (web programming related), and a regular cannabis consumer, I've had more accidents sober, than being "under the influence", and that goes for a lot of my clients. For those that don't smoke, smoking isn't about a high, it's about being able to intake a lot more of the surroundings around you, while being consciously aware, and awake. Drunk people take in their surroundings without being aware or awake, so what's worse?
People that are "paranoid" are just experiencing the fact that you're just way more aware of everything going on. I can't stand people who judge others because they smoke weed, while that same person drinks alcohol, which is way fucking worse. It's just hypocritical as fuck, but obviously those same people are just as ignorant. And we can't talk about success affecting both users because success is a trait that is worked for, not given. But I definitely know a lot more successful smokers than drinkers.
I don't think anyone in the thread was "judging others for smoking weed?" I don't remember, maybe somebody was Reefer Madness'ing up the thread, but I think most people were just saying you shouldn't drive under the influence. Hardly hypocritical considering we say the same for alcohol, and even acknowledged driving drunk is worse.
But surely you can recognize "me and my clients have had way more accidents sober than high" is not a very carefully compiled statistic. And your assessment of the effects of weed on consciousness is a bit too subjective for us to go on.
Like, I know that stoners tend to feel smarter, more aware, more profound, etc. when they're high. But that's also just in their head a lot of the time. That's why if they write down that really profound thought they had and look at it the next day, they say "why the fuck did I write down 'lobster is the steak of prawns' ?" It's fine for that feeling to be in their head as long as they're just having fun, but if they're driving I don't care if they feel like they're good at driving, I care if they're gonna notice me and not change lanes into me, or if they're gonna drive 25 in a 65 zone because they haven't glanced at the spedometer in half an hour. Hell, a semi-common response to getting really stoned is near-paralysis, where you can see what's aroundyou but feel like you can't move. If that's the case is it really so hard to believe that driving stoned can be dangerous?
|
Recently I had 3-4 "regular" stoners tell me that being high doesn't impede with their driving, while they tried to play tabletennis... It was kinda hilarious  .
I highly doubt its worse than being drunk. But if your really stoned your driving is clearly not as good, how should it be? It Limits your senses atleast mine. Feeling smarter/more Aware while stoned? What? I usually feel dimmed by it, I still like it but giving it "sense enhancing" perks must be some dumb joke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
