Hippies.... Everywhere....

[totalburnout]

didnt top gear to a test with a guy who drove a course sober, then again after a joint? I believe he scored the same, if not better in some categories. Shit when im high and driving in MORE aware of everything cuz i dont want to fuck up haha

...I can't fight logic like this.

For the record, I'm not speaking from on top of a soapbox, I've experienced smoking before, I've experienced smoking and driving, I've been in a "hotbox'd" car, etc., etc. Marijuana does effect the way people drive to a varying degree, but when looking at legislation, one must look at the general populous and not just the "exceptional cases" and keep in mind the general safety of the people.

If we all possessed race car driver's skills, I think we would all agree that we could safely travel at greater speeds than the average person, but the fact is that not all people possess these skills and thus the entire group must be regulated within the limits of the least capable person. A car is held to the same speed limit as a tractor trailer for this very reason. Apply this concept to the common person driving under the influence versus the person who drives daily under the influence.

Another example, simply because I work out and am shape does not mean that exercise won't have effects on the state of my body. Sure the guy who doesn't work out is going to be practically going through convulsions if he were to try to keep with me step by step and I would be relatively unaffected compared to him, I am still affected.

I see that you came to this conclusion a bit in your post Cliff, but people like Sean don't seem to grasp that concept. Regardless, you seem to let that roll off your shoulders without thinking of the new situations that would come along with legalized marijuana. Legalized marijuana would mean a more open use, meaning its even less taboo than it is currently (even though its not very taboo) which would lead people to be more apt to smoke in public and be in a situation where they would be behind the wheels of a vehicle. I would be very surprised if any of you considered this fact.

 

[klyph]

...I can't fight logic like this.

You can't fight logic that's tested and proven? Obviously...

 

[totalburnout]

You can't fight logic that's tested and proven? Obviously...

Re-read the edited post I made**

Yes, because its "proven". Proven so much so that DUI deaths account for more than any other single incident on the road. That is how the logic is "proven."

We're going to use the experiment of a car publication to be the basis of our "scientiffic" proof?

Do we know if the driver was a professional driver? Was the driver a habitual smoker or was this the first time he ever smoked (most people either "don't" get high the first time or are so high they're curled up into a ball)? How much time lapse was there between the time he smoked and the time he drove?

There's a million more variables and questions that could and should be asked of the situation before we lazily use the experiment as proof.

Theoretically I could pound 6 shots, run to my car and drive a short distance before all the alcohol enters my blood stream. 30% of alcohol is absorbed by the time it reaches the stomach but there's still some digestion time left in there. Do you see where I'm going with this?

There's holes all over your argument. I know you're tending to the self fulfilling prophecy here and want so bad for the behavior that you agree with to be acceptable, but your argument blatantly shows this idea that you're only looking at the situation from the angle you wish most to see the situation.

 

[totalburnout]

Darkhand, you bring up some very good points.

I'm not sure if your math is even in the realm of realism, but nonetheless you have a pretty well thought out stance. Your thought process was refreshing to hear.

 

[Seany-izzle]

Watch the video before you blast it, and i doubt cliff was basing everything on that "experiment". If you think YOU'RE so right, go and get some testing done or find some legitiment sources. Find statistics to prove that marijuana causes accidents and such. As i'll try and do the same but proving it doesnt, and I was merely using it as a reference and not scientific fact. Also, what you say cliff is doing is exactly what you're doing, or atleast it comes off that way. You dont agree with it, other people do, so you're trying like hell to tell everyone you're right and we're wrong.

Oh and yes, i do get your concept that it affects everyone in different ways and that not everyone can handle it. But i give the general populous some credit and trust them enough to use this thing called SELF CONTROL. Just how some people cant handle alcohol, so they dont drink knowing what will happen and what has happened.

 

[Black Widow g2]

I wasn't suggesting that legalization of Cannabis was going to solve any problems. Just looking at the structure of our government and those who are in it, I realize that it would be quite profitable for them. They eventually would take the private sellers out of the picture and have their own working in the dispensories. They won't put any of that money into health care or education because no one cares about either. Health care is billion dollar business and if you're uninsured, you make the hospital even more rich. Now, as for education... why would they want us educated? It's apparent that we're not improving and it's largely because all the money spent goes to munitions and the like.

On the health care note, if it wasn't helpful to anyone and only a detriment to society, why would so many people say it's helped them? Read up (on both ends of the spectrum) and you will see there's a place for it. Of course, I do see those who 'abuse' the privilege... but then there are those who truly believe it works. Same with other alternative methods of healing. You might not believe that reiki or holistic methods work, but some people do, and that's half of what makes it work for them.

Aside from that, I don't really see a big problem as long as it's regulated PROPERLY... which most likely won't happen.

 

[Seany-izzle]

And on a side note, people in europe are tying to ban sports cars!!

 

[Black Widow g2]

I learned a lot in DUI class.

 

[klyph]

Legalized marijuana would mean a more open use, meaning its even less taboo than it is currently (even though its not very taboo) which would lead people to be more apt to smoke in public and be in a situation where they would be behind the wheels of a vehicle. I would be very surprised if any of you considered this fact.

There are laws against consuming controlled substances in public already in place, but they are usually only enforced if the offender is being a nuisance. A drunk can walk down the sidewalk without bothering anyone, yet if he becomes a problem, there are laws in place to reprimand him. I don't see stoners in public being an issue.
As far as increasing the likelihood of people driving stoned, It probably would increase slightly, but I see this as a very minor concern weighed against the benefits of such legislation.

Re-read the edited post I made**

Yes, because its "proven". Proven so much so that DUI deaths account for more than any other single incident on the road. That is how the logic is "proven."

Once again, you are misinterpreting DUI death statistics. Show me how many DUI deaths are due to marijuana and then use that in your argument. You're saying it will increase DUI's, but the majority of fatal DUI's has NOTHING to do with marijuana.

We're going to use the experiment of a car publication to be the basis of our "scientiffic" proof?

Do we know if the driver was a professional driver? Was the driver a habitual smoker or was this the first time he ever smoked (most people either "don't" get high the first time or are so high they're curled up into a ball)? How much time lapse was there between the time he smoked and the time he drove?

There's a million more variables and questions that could and should be asked of the situation before we lazily use the experiment as proof.

Theoretically I could pound 6 shots, run to my car and drive a short distance before all the alcohol enters my blood stream. 30% of alcohol is absorbed by the time it reaches the stomach but there's still some digestion time left in there. Do you see where I'm going with this?

There's holes all over your argument. I know you're tending to the self fulfilling prophecy here and want so bad for the behavior that you agree with to be acceptable, but your argument blatantly shows this idea that you're only looking at the situation from the angle you wish most to see the situation.

Yes, there are a lot of variables to consider, but I still stand by the fact that the benefits far outweigh the costs. I see the costs as amounting to a slightly higher nuisance level to non-smokers and religious fanatics, NOT an influential dramatic downfall of American society.

 

[DarkHand]

They won't put any of that money into health care or education because no one cares about either. Health care is billion dollar business and if you're uninsured, you make the hospital even more rich. Now, as for education... why would they want us educated?

You're right, there. My idea requires an open minded and fair government, so it's pretty much impossible.

 

[Black Widow g2]

Well, in all fairness, DUI is alcohol related, DWI is everything other than alcohol. (At least it is here in CA). DWI includes OVER THE COUNTER and PRESCRIPTION medication. So, did you know if you take too much Benadryl caplets, you are also warned that it can impair your judgement so you shouldn't operate a motor vehicle? No, because you won't find a disclaimer in there. Most OTC meds have amphetamines in them. But, they're legal. So, people assume it's okay to continue their normal lives while doped up. So, let's take ALL of it into account.

 

[Seany-izzle]

I see the costs as amounting to a slightly higher nuisance level to non-smokers and religious fanatics, NOT an influential dramatic downfall of American society.

no you fool!! weed will be the demise of the american way of life!!!!!

 

[totalburnout]

Well, in all fairness, DUI is alcohol related, DWI is everything other than alcohol. (At least it is here in CA). DWI includes OVER THE COUNTER and PRESCRIPTION medication. So, did you know if you take too much Benadryl caplets, you are also warned that it can impair your judgement so you shouldn't operate a motor vehicle? No, because you won't find a disclaimer in there. Most OTC meds have amphetamines in them. But, they're legal. So, people assume it's okay to continue their normal lives while doped up. So, let's take ALL of it into account.

Believe me, its listed on the label. The medicinal companies would be sued left and right if it were not listed as a caution or warning. Medications list "DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY" if they're known to impair.

 

[Black Widow g2]

Only on prescribed meds... if you read the insert, you'll find it, but who looks at those?

 

[totalburnout]

Only on prescribed meds... if you read the insert, you'll find it, but who looks at those?

So only on prescribed meds, yet in reality its actually there on the insert?

Ignorance of the law is never a viable defense.

Also, any medicine that needs a warning, has one directly listed on the package, not just in an insert. Its FDA regulated and also its kept to very tight standards because companies know they will be sued if the package does not explicitly describe the "Warnings". I just went in my medicine cabinet now to check the "WARNINGS" portion, which is usually directly under the directions.

Think of it this way, if what you were saying was true, then anyone who was stopped for a DUI on a medicine not listed with a warning label, could sue the company for liability including the fines, damages, and transportation costs associated with loss of the license.

People really do make the laws to seem lacking, but rarely do they actually understand the laws.

 

[totalburnout]

As far as increasing the likelihood of people driving stoned, It probably would increase slightly, but I see this as a very minor concern weighed against the benefits of such legislation.

Yes, which is an oversight on your part. I know because you see no fault in the behavior you can completely overlook it, when in fact its very serious. I'm sure you'll be the first one to complain about "stupid people" driving and how driving tests need to be more stringent, but clearly you'll also be on the bandwagon of the people to lobby for lenience on those who drive under the influence.

Once again, you are misinterpreting DUI death statistics. Show me how many DUI deaths are due to marijuana and then use that in your argument. You're saying it will increase DUI's, but the majority of fatal DUI's has NOTHING to do with marijuana.

I'm not a part of the federal database. To find actual statistics on accidents that are generally all lumped together would be very difficult. I'm not disputing that alcohol may impair driving skills on a larger scale than marijuana but I'm also not insisting as you are that its no big deal. This can have a significant impact, yet again something that you overlooked because it fits into your agenda rather than the benefit of society as a whole.

I bet you would want your little girl out on the road with drivers who are impaired or generally lacking in their driving skills. Think of the country's people in the same regards. The government is supposed to look at the people as its children who's health and best interest it must always protect.

Yes, there are a lot of variables to consider, but I still stand by the fact that the benefits far outweigh the costs. I see the costs as amounting to a slightly higher nuisance level to non-smokers and religious fanatics, NOT an influential dramatic downfall of American society.

Sure when you never look at the costs, the benefits will outweigh the costs. This is exactly the approach you have taken in your analysis.

 

[totalburnout]

no you fool!! weed will be the demise of the american way of life!!!!!

Sean, let me put it this way...

You may be a nice guy and a great guy, but I wouldn't want you teaching my children. Paralleling this idea, I also would not want you to be behind the creation and implementation of laws.

Your outlook on life may be great for you, but frankly its irresponsible and doesn't consider the effects on others, in my opinion.

You can debate until you're blue in the face, but you never seem to form a valid argument but rather just employ the use of sarcasm and snide remarks.

 

[totalburnout]

Australia did some research on it and their finding was driving under marijuana intoxication was almost identical to driving sober because those drivers are aware of their intoxication and adjust accordingly. Of course, I haven't been able to find it since I read it.

I know you said you couldn't find the article, but I would love to read that article.

It seems as though that would also argue the point, those who are intoxicated by alcohol and know they're intoxicated by alcohol would drive almost as identical. Clearly this is not the case, so I would find it difficult to believe that users intoxicated by other substances would drive nearly the same. It just seems highly improbable when you think of the situation.

I know when under the influence I could "fake it" when driving a short distance, but eventually I would zone out, make a mistake, or react far too slowly if something were ever to happen. I'm sure people who have smoked can attest to the feeling of "holy s#)%( how am I home already?" where you lose track of time and simply seem to arrive at your destination.

Like I said, I'm not speaking out of ignorance here before. I've done plenty of dumb things and am simply honest enough with myself to admit how the situation played out.

For the record, I think the food industry should be regulated as well and unhealthy foods taken out of the supermarket and restaurants. There's a problem when unhealthy food is cheaper to purchase and more readily available than healthy food and when the common person doesn't possess the information necessary to make sound decisions. I've actually done primary research on this topic. So yes, in sort I think thats the direction this country should be heading.

 

[totalburnout]

Oh and yes, i do get your concept that it affects everyone in different ways and that not everyone can handle it. But i give the general populous some credit and trust them enough to use this thing called SELF CONTROL. Just how some people cant handle alcohol, so they dont drink knowing what will happen and what has happened.

Funny, you have actually given people the benefit of the doubt in this situation? Rarely, rarely, rarely have I ever heard someone on these message boards or in other walks of life, have faith in humanity.

To understand your line of thinking here, you give the "general populous" the benefit of the doubt, but clearly scrutinize the government which is composed of people elected from society. So therefore you are not giving these politicians the benefit of the doubt, but on the same token you are but shouldn't be giving the citizens who elected these officials the benefit of the doubt. Basically by saying the government is failing, you are saying that the people we have elected are failing. I don't disagree with this sentiment, but it leaves me with little faith in the average person.

My hypothesis is that you're simply saying that you believe in the general public because right now it supports your argument.

Also self control, thats what has gotten this country into a health epidemic where the majority of people are obese or self control that led to DUI being the leading cause of death on the roads. People seem to be real responsible when left to their own devices.

 

[CRX-YEM]

A Ferrari or a Porsche, however...

you can't get laid in a porsche, but the second you get out you get laid.