Marijuana Is Not Linked to Car Crashes

#26
#26
govols/cc said:
They also said that it's hard to base impairment on levels consumption of weed from person to person. How is that a positive? Yet every person with a BAC of .08 is stone cold drunk.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except that they clearly describe the trend regarding level of impairment from .08 to .10 to .15.

So yeah, there you go spewing again
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#27
#27
Give_All_Vol said:
This is probably the first time I've ever seen you bring anything of worth to one of these discussions. I have to agree that just excluding that subset of test subjects is kind of, well, not right.
Click to expand...

I'll talk to you, because you might be reasonable. You exclude the sub-set because it's good science. You acknowledge that it's there, but the logical explanation is that the result from the subset is due to other factors, not marijuana.

One important takeaway is even if you disagree with good science and want to just look at the raw data without trying to factor in other variables, it still has half the effect the minimum BAC has.
 
#28
#28
Give_All_Vol said:
Yeah, except that they clearly describe the trend regarding level of impairment from .08 to .10 to .15.

So yeah, there you go spewing again
Click to expand...

They give their increased risk levels in a clearly already biased study. Did they mention those that test positive for weed and alcohol or weed and anything else?
 
#29
#29
I don't understand the big deal. Everybody who wants to smoke already does. Including people on this forum. They havent been arrested, are employeed, etc. If you want to do smoke, it seems abundantly easy to simply break the law without any repercussions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
Give_All_Vol said:
This is probably the first time I've ever seen you bring anything of worth to one of these discussions. I have to agree that just excluding that subset of test subjects is kind of, well, not right.

Regardless, I think that we will see a large movement toward legalizing once there is a way that it can be proven that a driver was high at the time of operating a vehicle. Right now all you can tell is that a driver smoked in the last thirty days. That doesn't mean the driver was high at the time whatsoever! In my eye, that's a big blocker atm.
Click to expand...


:birgits_giggle:

I'm a huge fan of the backhanded complement. Well done sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
Obsessed said:
Great news. I don't do either.


But I save countless lives daily, not to mention property damage.

Old people, texting, and folks rolling a joint are what I deal with daily. I'm about to the point of putting them in the ditch and collecting the insurance money.
Click to expand...

You know what burns my beans? People and trucks that drive slow or drive the speed limit in the left lane. If we had more people properly using the left lane, you would save lives and save on road rage incidents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
n_huffhines said:
I'll talk to you, because you might be reasonable. You exclude the sub-set because it's good science. You acknowledge that it's there, but the logical explanation is that the result from the subset is due to other factors, not marijuana.

One important takeaway is even if you disagree with good science and want to just look at the raw data without trying to factor in other variables, it still has half the effect the minimum BAC has.
Click to expand...

I agree with almost everything here. I don't think you can definitively say that there isn't a link, based on this, if you have to throw out a large portion of the subjects. It doesn't mean anything one way or the other. Just that further testing needs to be done IMO.

In the grand scheme of things, I think we see eye to eye on the topic though.
 
#33
#33
McDad said:
I don't understand the big deal. Everybody who wants to smoke already does. Including people on this forum. They havent been arrested, are employeed, etc. If you want to do smoke, it seems abundantly easy to simply break the law without any repercussions.
Click to expand...

Lolwut. Is this an argument against legalization?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
McDad said:
I don't understand the big deal. Everybody who wants to smoke already does. Including people on this forum. They havent been arrested, are employeed, etc. If you want to do smoke, it seems abundantly easy to simply break the law without any repercussions.
Click to expand...

Obviously they want to smoke and drive and hope they get plowed by a drunk driver to prove which is worse.
 
#36
#36
McDad said:
I don't understand the big deal. Everybody who wants to smoke already does. Including people on this forum. They havent been arrested, are employeed, etc. If you want to do smoke, it seems abundantly easy to simply break the law without any repercussions.
Click to expand...

Is this a joke?
 
#37
#37
Rasputin_Vol said:
You know what burns my beans? People and trucks that drive slow or drive the speed limit in the left lane. If we had more people properly using the left lane, you would save lives and save on road rage incidents.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Pisses me off to no end.

The left lane has a specific use. Should only be used for that purpose.
 
#39
#39
McDad said:
No. I don't understand why MJ gets so much attention around here.
Click to expand...

Because of the internet. We can see just how much money prohibition has cost our country and who we lock up for it. It's an easy target.
 
#41
#41
Give_All_Vol said:
I agree with almost everything here. I don't think you can definitively say that there isn't a link, based on this, if you have to throw out a large portion of the subjects. It doesn't mean anything one way or the other. Just that further testing needs to be done IMO.

In the grand scheme of things, I think we see eye to eye on the topic though.
Click to expand...

They don't "throw it out" they control for it. No scientist would would have a problem with them controlling for other variables. It's what you're supposed to do.
 
#42
#42
#VFL__ said:
Because of the internet. We can see just how much money prohibition has cost our country and who we lock up for it. It's an easy target.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This point was made and ageeed with decades ago.
 
#43
#43
McDad said:
No. Im totally serious. Everybody who wants to smoke already does. Regardless of existing law.
Click to expand...

OK, that can't be true, but go on with your point about how legality has no impact on their lives, careers, etc.
 
#46
#46
n_huffhines said:
OK, that can't be true, but go on with your point about how legality has no impact on their lives, careers, etc.
Click to expand...

Am i incorrect? Everyone i know who wants to smoke does. They don't care they are breaking the law. They're smart about when they do it to minimize risk, though.
 
#48
#48
McDad said:
Am i incorrect? Everyone i know who wants to smoke does. They don't care they are breaking the law. They're smart about when they do it to minimize risk, though.
Click to expand...

I know lots of people who can't smoke because of their jobs. People like CPAs and Lawyers risk losing their license to practice if they smoke. Yeah, the guy doing sales at Telemerica can get away with it, but that guy isn't everybody.
 
#50
#50
n_huffhines said:
I know lots of people who can't smoke because of their jobs. People like CPAs and Lawyers risk losing their license to practice if they smoke. Yeah, the guy doing sales at Telemerica can get away with it, but that guy isn't everybody.
Click to expand...

I know self employeed people like doctors, business owners who smoke. Even in Colorado, a person can be terminated for testing positive. Legality and employment dont go hand in hand.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top