StarDestroyer.Net BBS

At college, I had a pseudo-friend (we were on and off speaking terms) who admitted to driving while high back from college during rush hour on a main road. I'd actually seen him pull out of the parking lot once and take forever joining the main traffic. Heaven forbid he had to go on a dual carriageway. There was also a lack of real control given some dithering on the road, though all within the correct lane. I didn't half tell him what a dumbshit he was when I found out, but I'm sure he still does it, wherever he may be.

The fact is, I chastise my own father for drinking anything when driving, so I'm not about to let anyone I know smoke a spliff, however small, before getting behind a fucking ton of metal going some speed on a crowded road. Imagine if we got lax on other things. I'm sure having an airline pilot downing a few before jetting off or a surgeon smoking a quick one before an op would cause considerable uproar. So don't do it with something equally capable of harm.

Durandal wrote:

Broomstick wrote:They certainly can - and it's no more safe to drive a car while high on pot than drunk on alcohol. Pot, heroin, etc. all fuck up your judgement to one degree or another, and typically your coordination as well.

But not to the degree that alcohol tends to. Pot has a built-in defense mechanism against such activity by making the user lazy and unmotivated.

Alcohol has a built in defense mechanism against such activity by rendering the user unconcious at high doses.

It's not matter of a little pot vs. a vomiting drunk - a little alcohol impairs a little bit, a little pot impairs a little bit, and both of them in vast quantities impair a lot.

The Kernel wrote:

Broomstick wrote: Excuse, I wasn't aware I had to be a criminal to have an opinion on this subject. Are you saying you meet that qualification yourself?

Absolutely I'm a hardass when it comes to someone altering their ability to think and react then getting behind the wheel of a car. YOU'RE the idiot if you think that shit other than alcohol can't fuck you up and that somehow you're a "safe" driver when high. You're not, however much you protest to the contrary.

Ahh, and we come back with a strawman argument, how predictable for you.

Now you can show me where I said it was safe to drive high. Of course since I didn't say it, you won't find it. What you WILL find though is yourself saying that driving high and drunk are the same from a risk perspective which is total and complete bullshit and if you continue to disput this you will simply be mocked by everyone that knows better.

Yes, if you are impaired and get behind the wheel of a car you are a greater risk for hurting yourself or others - regardless of what is fucking you up. It is YOU are who misconstruing my statement into some sort of statement of one-to-one equivalency of effect, which I did not do.

As several others have pointed out, once you pass a certain point you are simply unsafe. At that point, driving slower doesn't make you safer, it just makes it easier for the cops to spot you on the road.

Original formula NyQuil, which contains alcohol and dextromethoraphan, will certainly fuck you up for driving and you could be arrested and prosecuted for driving under its influence.

I don't know where you live, but in all the states I've resided in the DUI laws aren't written specifically for alcohol - they can nail you for being under the influence of anything that can impair your ability to drive.

Nice way to dodge the issue, I never claimed that NyQuill didn't fuck you up behind the wheel, in fact that was the entire point of what I said. Learn how to read moron.

YOU brought up the NyQuil, not me - oh, boo-fucking-hoo, your counterexample turned out to be shit. Too bad. I dunno - were you toking before that post? If so, you might try debating sober next time.

I wasn't aware we had a "national" problem of that sort with alcohol, either, just some extremely well-publicized incidents.

That's right, domestic violence caused by alcohol isn't a national epidemic at all. No siree.

Not all domestice violence involves alcohol. Quit a bit involves drugs. In fact, I remember an episode when my in-laws put each other in the hospital after a fight broke out over who had smoked all the pot (turns out it was their daughter, not that she would ever admit that). So what does that prove? Nothing. Domestic violence is also caused by drugs, and by people who are simply assholes even when sober.

Back when I worked at the clinic the cokeheads were a fucking belligerent lot, more argumentative and combative as the drunks. While some drunks are "happy", cheerful, and easy going I never saw such a cokehead - they're all jittery, pissed off bundles of nerves. I particularly remember an incident when one of the nose-candy chicks shoved someone else out a second-story window, which sure as hell qualifies as agressive in my book.

I don't think it's even worth responding to this, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Yes, I do. It was a drug rehab clinic. I saw about 800 to 1200 addicts each and every working day. That's quite a lot of them. Universally, they ALL thought they could handle their shit much better than they actually could, a lot of them got fucked up due to the crime involved in the lifestyle and the contaminants in the drugs they used, and a fuck of a lot of them got in car accidents. Drugs - of any sort - make you more stupid than you would be otherwise. They impair your judgement, although they do that in different ways, which leads you to do really stupid shit.

Darth Wong wrote:I'm really tired of this "you don't do drugs so you're not allowed to say anything about the effects of drug use even if you have medical and observational evidence to back you up" mentality. It's a Special Pleading fallacy, where the drug user sets himself up to be immune to criticism from anyone who's not a fellow drug user.

Don't stawman my argument, that's not what I said at all. You can say all you want about, but to compare driving under the influence of alcohol and driving under the infuence of pot and claim that they are identical from a saftey perspective without having ever tried pot is the height of stupidity.

I don't have to own a pair of testicles to know that getting hit in them is extremely painful to their owners. I can deduce that from observation of what happens to men who get knocked in the nuts.

Likewise, I don't have to do drugs to know they fuck people up. I can deduce that from observing how fucking stupid people act while under their influence.

It's also quite presumptuous of you to assume I have no experience with any of these substnaces, now isn't it? I'm no teetotaler. But I keep my mind alterations well away from any driving or flying I might be doing. Hell, I don't ride my bicycle drunk, either. You are simply assuming that since I hold a different position from you on this topic I somehow must be stupid or naive or something of the sort when actually that is not true at all.

What it boils down to is special pleading to justify your drug use and, what is the unethical thing in my viewpoint, the act of putting other people at risk from your behavior by getting behind the wheel in an intoxicated state. You attempt to justify it by saying X is not as bad as Y, stating you keep off the highways, or that you slow down, or that you've never had and accident (yet!), but what it boils down to is that you are too fucking dishonest to admit you are in the wrong. You are in the wrong both legally AND morally if you drive in an impaired condition. It doesn't matter if the impairment is due to poor vision, epilepsy, senile dementia, or the ingestion of chemicals. It's wrong. End of story.

Like it or not, it is safer to drive high then stoned (not "safe", safer), and the reasons for this related to how each drug effects your body. If you have done either, then you aren't in a great position to understand these effects from a first hand perspective.

I'll rely on objective science, thank you very much, rather than your subjective anecdotes. An impaired driver is an impaired driver - telling me you're slightly less impaired than someone with a BAC of .25 doesn't impress me, nor does it exuse you driving high.

Darth Wong wrote:
Which is more bullshit since she is simply generalizing that they are both beyond the threshold of driving safety. You are interpreting the quote in a deliberately pedantic way, even though a pair of DRUNKS aren't even necessarily identical in impairment (note: SECOND fucking time I've made this point).

That still doesn't matter, anyone reasonably beyond the legal drinking limit is going to be far more impaired to drive then anyone who could actually turn the key stoned for many reasons, most of which you wouldn't understand unless you can appreciate the differences between the two. Although being high may impair certain functions, the ones related to driving are not typically affected in any significant way.

This doesn't make driving stoned safe, but it's a hell of a lot more safe than driving drunk and if you'd take even a casual look at the statistics on the subject, you'll see that marijuana impaired driving isn't born out as a significant contribution in driving fatalities when compared to alcohol.

The only argument that people use against this conclusion is to point to statstics about drugs combined with alcohol in driving fatalities, which is of course a giant red herring.

Totally irrelevant to the fact that neither is safe.

Which I never said it was. Way to continue to strawman my argument.

Broomstick wrote: Yes, if you are impaired and get behind the wheel of a car you are a greater risk for hurting yourself or others - regardless of what is fucking you up. It is YOU are who misconstruing my statement into some sort of statement of one-to-one equivalency of effect, which I did not do.

As several others have pointed out, once you pass a certain point you are simply unsafe. At that point, driving slower doesn't make you safer, it just makes it easier for the cops to spot you on the road.

Of course you are a greater risk driving stoned. Don't backpeddel on your previous statements though, that's not at all the extent of what you claimed.

YOU brought up the NyQuil, not me - oh, boo-fucking-hoo, your counterexample turned out to be shit. Too bad. I dunno - were you toking before that post? If so, you might try debating sober next time.

I love the way you get childish when you are wrong, it's one of your most defining characteristics. That and you rampant immaturity.

The point about NyQuil (which sailed right over your head) is that something that impairs your driving isn't going to be illegal by virtue of that fact alone.

Not all domestice violence involves alcohol. Quit a bit involves drugs. In fact, I remember an episode when my in-laws put each other in the hospital after a fight broke out over who had smoked all the pot (turns out it was their daughter, not that she would ever admit that). So what does that prove? Nothing. Domestic violence is also caused by drugs, and by people who are simply assholes even when sober.

Ahhh, anecdotal evidence now? Can't you muster even the perception of a rational argument?

81% of domestic violence cases involve alcohol on the part of the man doing the abusing. Source Drug usage doesn't touch these levels. If that's not an epidemic, I don't know what is.

Yes, I do. It was a drug rehab clinic. I saw about 800 to 1200 addicts each and every working day. That's quite a lot of them. Universally, they ALL thought they could handle their shit much better than they actually could, a lot of them got fucked up due to the crime involved in the lifestyle and the contaminants in the drugs they used, and a fuck of a lot of them got in car accidents. Drugs - of any sort - make you more stupid than you would be otherwise. They impair your judgement, although they do that in different ways, which leads you to do really stupid shit.

I see that the problem with taking cherry picked samples (replete with anecdotal evidence no less) passes you by completely. Not that I'm surprised.

I don't have to own a pair of testicles to know that getting hit in them is extremely painful to their owners. I can deduce that from observation of what happens to men who get knocked in the nuts.

Likewise, I don't have to do drugs to know they fuck people up. I can deduce that from observing how fucking stupid people act while under their influence.

What a wonderful clinical definition of the various motor impairment affects of pot vs. alcohol.

Since you made the claim that pot impairs driving at an equal level to alcohol, perhaps you would like to back that up with evidence?

It's also quite presumptuous of you to assume I have no experience with any of these substnaces, now isn't it? I'm no teetotaler. But I keep my mind alterations well away from any driving or flying I might be doing. Hell, I don't ride my bicycle drunk, either. You are simply assuming that since I hold a different position from you on this topic I somehow must be stupid or naive or something of the sort when actually that is not true at all.

Exactly my point, you don't have a clue how these things affect your ability to drive a car, even if you have a passing familiarity with them. You are also in no position to claim that both are equally dangerous in a person behind the wheel as all availible statistics on the subject show that you are full of shit.

What it boils down to is special pleading to justify your drug use and, what is the unethical thing in my viewpoint, the act of putting other people at risk from your behavior by getting behind the wheel in an intoxicated state. You attempt to justify it by saying X is not as bad as Y, stating you keep off the highways, or that you slow down, or that you've never had and accident (yet!), but what it boils down to is that you are too fucking dishonest to admit you are in the wrong. You are in the wrong both legally AND morally if you drive in an impaired condition. It doesn't matter if the impairment is due to poor vision, epilepsy, senile dementia, or the ingestion of chemicals. It's wrong. End of story.

Typical behavior from you, assuming that because I think you are full of shit I must be an advocate for driving under the influence.

For someone who just accussed me of assuming too much, you are assuming much yourself in figuring that I have ever gotten behind the wheel stoned at all, let alone am an advocate for it.

I'll rely on objective science, thank you very much, rather than your subjective anecdotes. An impaired driver is an impaired driver - telling me you're slightly less impaired than someone with a BAC of .25 doesn't impress me, nor does it exuse you driving high.

Excuse me dumb bitch but for someone who claims to believe in objective science, you haven't provided shit in the way of it. And since objective science isn't really applicable as much as statstics on the matter, perhaps you would care to provide some being the one making the claim?

Kernel do you know why drugs are not a "reported" part of domestic violence cases like alcohol is? it is because no one wants to admit they were just smoking weed, crack, meth or taking what ever pills or other drug of choice. BUT admiting to alcohol is more acceptable because it is not against the law to drink beer in your own home and be intoxicated in your own home. People are afraid that if they admit they were doing drugs that the police will charge them with the possession as well, especially if they still have some drugs hidden somewhere.

I can safely say that about 70% of the cases I deal with on a daily basis that involve domestic violence, the suspect is intoxicated. About 50% of the time the suspect will admit to drinking "one or two beers" but not to doing drugs. And even with the ones that admit to drinking alcoholic beverages, witnesses will say that they were just smoking crack, weed, meth etc... in addition to the alcohol. That and they really had like a twelve pack usually. So drugs and alcohol go hand in hand with the domestic violence. Drugs does not have a moral high ground to sit on and look down on alcohol when it comes to crimes committed by their users.

And to re-inforce the rest of the crowd driving stoned is not less dangerous than driving drunk. Both are deadly and stupid. I actually take many more people to jail for DWI for driving stoned than I do for being drunk and driving.

The Kernel wrote:This doesn't make driving stoned safe, but it's a hell of a lot more safe than driving drunk and if you'd take even a casual look at the statistics on the subject, you'll see that marijuana impaired driving isn't born out as a significant contribution in driving fatalities when compared to alcohol.

Show me these statistics.

Way to continue to strawman my argument.

You're actually lucky this thread tangent was split, asshole. Because in its original context in the obesity thread, one can see that the original point of contention was Durandal's assertion that marijuana is not socially harmful, which was in turn related to an argument over penalizing people for activities which cause harm to society. So saying "well, it's not quite as harmful as other drugs" is a complete distortion of the original point of contention and a typical weasely subject change of someone who has a pet subject and who must therefore shift negative discussions away from their original point (oooh, somebody bad-mouthed marijuana! Must don Marijuana Man superhero costume and defend the weed!!!! Quick Robin, activate the subject-change ray!).

PS. Your argument is tantamount to some asshole saying "you're an idiot if you think I'm just as dangerous as that other guy, because he had 15 beers and I only had 12!!" You are a safe driver when you are aware and co-ordinated; both alcohol and pot degrade these conditions. What part of this do you not understand?

I know this is sort of me-tooing, but I have to jump on this...

Although being high may impair certain functions, the ones related to driving are not typically affected in any significant way.

You're not serious with this shit, are you? Even if you could objectively prove that being baked makes you less of a hazard while driving then being drunk does, it is a certifiable fact that marijuana fucks up your concentration and fucks up your reaction time. That is a serious impairment in a situation where you could be forced to think and act quickly to save your life and others.

A study performed in France, BTW (here) found that approximately 1 out of 40 fatal car crashes involved cannabis. I bet the families of the people who got killed by these junkies get down on their knees and thank God everyday for the fact that their loved one was killed by a pothead rather than a drunkard.

It may not be as bad as alcohol, but being under the influence of marijuana makes the 2-ton guided torpedo you're driving a lot less safe.

The Kernel wrote:Of course you are a greater risk driving stoned.

Thank you for conceding that I am right.

YOU brought up the NyQuil, not me - oh, boo-fucking-hoo, your counterexample turned out to be shit. Too bad. I dunno - were you toking before that post? If so, you might try debating sober next time.

I love the way you get childish when you are wrong, it's one of your most defining characteristics. That and you rampant immaturity.

How charming - your counterexample tanked, you can't mount a defense, so you resort to personal attacks.

No, you dumbfuck - childish would be going "nyah-nyah- You're argument is poo-poo."

Please note the difference between that and simply mocking you.

The point about NyQuil (which sailed right over your head) is that something that impairs your driving isn't going to be illegal by virtue of that fact alone.

So?

Fucked in the head is still fucked in the head. Driving impaired is illegal REGARDLESS of whether you are impaired by something legal or illegal. You won't get an easy sentence before a judge simply because you got drunk on cough syrup or took over the counter sleeping aids or had a few too many beers vs. smoking weed. The act is still a felony.

Not all domestice violence involves alcohol. Quit a bit involves drugs. In fact, I remember an episode when my in-laws put each other in the hospital after a fight broke out over who had smoked all the pot (turns out it was their daughter, not that she would ever admit that). So what does that prove? Nothing. Domestic violence is also caused by drugs, and by people who are simply assholes even when sober.

Ahhh, anecdotal evidence now? Can't you muster even the perception of a rational argument?

If you can use your supposed prowess while driving "baked" as evidence that pot doesn't fuck you up for driving I can talk about my in-laws.

Your statements implied that pot wasn't a factor in domestic violence. It requires only one example to refute that position.

The domestic violence issue is a red herring, particularly if we're disussing driving ability. Domestic violence occurs in sober households as well those with drugs and/or alcohol. Alcohol does not cause domestic violence, although it can influence it.

81% of domestic violence cases involve alcohol on the part of the man doing the abusing. Source Drug usage doesn't touch these levels. If that's not an epidemic, I don't know what is.

Death from the Sea covered this quite well. Go back and re-read his post.

Yes, I do. It was a drug rehab clinic. I saw about 800 to 1200 addicts each and every working day. That's quite a lot of them. Universally, they ALL thought they could handle their shit much better than they actually could, a lot of them got fucked up due to the crime involved in the lifestyle and the contaminants in the drugs they used, and a fuck of a lot of them got in car accidents. Drugs - of any sort - make you more stupid than you would be otherwise. They impair your judgement, although they do that in different ways, which leads you to do really stupid shit.

I see that the problem with taking cherry picked samples (replete with anecdotal evidence no less) passes you by completely. Not that I'm surprised.

I guess you've smoked so much weed there just aren't many functioning brain cells left. You really can't comprehend the difference between "me and friends" and "I have made thousands of observations in the workplace?"

Oh, that's right - you can "handle" your drug of choice, it doesn't hardly affect you at all, doesn't impair YOUR judgement or your ability to function. Where have I heard that before, oh, like about a million times....?

I don't have to own a pair of testicles to know that getting hit in them is extremely painful to their owners. I can deduce that from observation of what happens to men who get knocked in the nuts.

Likewise, I don't have to do drugs to know they fuck people up. I can deduce that from observing how fucking stupid people act while under their influence.

What a wonderful clinical definition of the various motor impairment affects of pot vs. alcohol.

No, you goddamed retard, it was NOT a comparison of pot vs. alcohol. Holy shit, you are fucked in the reasoning department, aren't you?

What that ANALOGY was (look up the big word if you need to) was a refutation of your agrument that you have to blast your brain cells with drugs to "understand" their effects. No, I don't - I can see with my own eyes how fucked up people are. I don't have to be drunk to see people falling down and puking their guts up. I don't have to smoke weed to see a bunch of giggling idiots sitting around with no ambition, rapsodizing over a left thumbnail or a speck of dirt on the wall for hours on end. While that might be amusing to those involved it looks pretty silly and stupid to those who are still sober. I've also seem some pretty fucked up driving from the same sort of idiot.

Since you made the claim that pot impairs driving at an equal level to alcohol, perhaps you would like to back that up with evidence?

Nope, I don't - because you continually miscontrue my statement.

Let's go back to that, shall? Since you're providing evidence that drug use impairs short-term memory:

They certainly can - and it's no more safe to drive a car while high on pot than drunk on alcohol. Pot, heroin, etc. all fuck up your judgement to one degree or another, and typically your coordination as well.

I said it was "no more safe", then went on to say alcohol and drugs fuck you up "to one degree or another" without specifying that one was better or worse than another because, you imbecile, once you're impaired it doesn't really matter - you're unsafe.

You shouldn't be driving impaired. I don't care if it's due to "hard" drugs, alcohol, or an allergic reaction to your toothpaste.

It's also quite presumptuous of you to assume I have no experience with any of these substnaces, now isn't it? I'm no teetotaler. But I keep my mind alterations well away from any driving or flying I might be doing. Hell, I don't ride my bicycle drunk, either. You are simply assuming that since I hold a different position from you on this topic I somehow must be stupid or naive or something of the sort when actually that is not true at all.

Exactly my point, you don't have a clue how these things affect your ability to drive a car, even if you have a passing familiarity with them.

Oh, you went from

Anyone who thinks it is equally dangerous to be behind the wheel when stoned as when drunk is either someone who has never done drugs or an idiot (or in your case, probably both).

(emphasis added)

to

you don't have a clue how these things affect your ability to drive a car, even if you have a passing familiarity with them.

(again, emphasis added)

I see - it's no longer good enough to simply be an occassional user, you have to be someone who uses a LOT to have a legitimate opinion. Nice move of the bar, fuckhead.

What it boils down to is special pleading to justify your drug use and, what is the unethical thing in my viewpoint, the act of putting other people at risk from your behavior by getting behind the wheel in an intoxicated state. You attempt to justify it by saying X is not as bad as Y, stating you keep off the highways, or that you slow down, or that you've never had and accident (yet!), but what it boils down to is that you are too fucking dishonest to admit you are in the wrong. You are in the wrong both legally AND morally if you drive in an impaired condition. It doesn't matter if the impairment is due to poor vision, epilepsy, senile dementia, or the ingestion of chemicals. It's wrong. End of story.

Typical behavior from you, assuming that because I think you are full of shit I must be an advocate for driving under the influence.

I don't think you're an advocate for it. I don't think you think getting "baked" or high or whatever we're calling it is a GOOD thing for your driving skills. I DO think you're fooling yourself if you think you're not impaired and not a dangerous driver after smoking weed.


You just can't accept that two people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. I've concluded that a LOT of shit, both legal and illegal, can fuck up a person's driving skills, and that's not OK. YOU seem to think that as long as it's not alcohol, and therefore "not as bad", it's OK to drive around mentaly altered.

For someone who just accussed me of assuming too much, you are assuming much yourself in figuring that I have ever gotten behind the wheel stoned at all, let alone am an advocate for it.

You don't have to ever get behind the wheel while stoned to figure out that being stoned impairs your ability to drive.

Hell, I've never had so much as a single drink and gotten behind the wheel - does that mean I'm somehow unqualified to say "driving drunk is dangerous"? Of course not - because there is such abundant objective evidence that it is a Bad Idea. But even if there wasn't, my inability to walk a straight line while drunk might well lead me to independently conclude driving in such condition is a Bad Idea.

Thus - if you're stoned and either you don't give a fuck about things, or you're spending an inordinate amount of time fixated on a raindrop on your windshield that's hardly conducive to situational awareness and quick response.

This is really not such a hard concept to grasp. Except in your case, for some mysterious reason.

And since objective science isn't really applicable as much as statstics on the matter, perhaps you would care to provide some being the one making the claim?

Huh.

I thought objective science was how we got "statistics on the matter". You know - do some research, get some results, express them as percentages and statistics.

You've also got some real nerve dissing objective science on this board.

The Kernel wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Where the fuck do you get off accusing other people of strawman fallacies when you're pulling bullshit like this? And yes, you DID say that people who don't use drugs aren't allowed to talk.

Read what I was responding to that Broomstick said. She made the claim that they were identical.

That wasn't the question Mike asked you, you stupid piece of shit. He asked you where you got off saying people who didn't use drugs didn't have a right to talk - a question you haven't answered, by the way.

They certainly can - and it's no more safe to drive a car while high on pot than drunk on alcohol. Pot

My whole comment about personal experience directed at her was about this quote. Your comment is meaningless unless you intended to argue this point since that is ALL I claimed you needed firsthand experience with both to know.

And btw, I don't think even you with you lack of experience with either drug would agree that they are equal to someone behind the wheel; after all they both affect your body in drastically different ways.

Oh, look - he's sucking Mike's cock!

While I'm sure it's flaterting to Mr. Wong's ego to be told he's so uber-smart that he is the sole example of humanity that doesn't need to use drugs to "understand" drug use, I'd like to think that someone of his intelligence recognizes a suck-up with no problem.

Hyperion wrote:When someone tells me something *good* that alcohol does for you, I will be greatly surprised.

Moderate drinking - a single glass of wine or beer with dinner 2-3 nights a week - is linked to a reduced likelihood of heart disease.

Beer is loaded with B vitamins - although there are certainly other sources of such, and the "no alcohol" beverages with the alcohol removed still have these so the alcohol isn't an essential item here.

Alcohol stimulates the appetite. Usually not a problem in the US, but for people suffering from certain disorders a mild appetite stimulant is beneficial

Alcohol can also help you get to sleep. Unfortunately, it's not so good at keeping you asleep. On the other hand, unlike most sleeping pills, the aftereffects don't last nearly as long into the next day (I'm talking a single drink here again - not a hangover-inducing binge)

Alcohol is a mild sedative (we already know this) so a single drink after a long day can help a person relax.

Of course, in all of the above examples we're talking about use, not abuse, and post-consumption you still have the side effect of reduced coordination, judgement, and alertness.

Likewise, pot can reduce eye pressure in glaucoma, help people relax, and is also an appetite stimulant - all of which can be good if you're a nervous glaucoma patient with no appetite. It can reduce nausea after cancer chemotherapy. That doesn't erase its effects on memory or change the fact it alters your mental state.

As I've said before in this thread and in others - personally, I don't care if you indulge in an environment where you are not endangering others. You want to sit in your basement and get high as far as I'm concerned that's your business. But when you get behind the wheel of car then it's everybody's business because you are now a hazard.

Don't drive drunk. Don't drive high.

Darth Wong wrote:(oooh, somebody bad-mouthed marijuana! Must don Marijuana Man superhero costume and defend the weed!!!! Quick Robin, activate the subject-change ray!).

Strikes me less as "Marijuana Man" and more like "Don Quixote":

"Damn, those windmills threatened my marijuana! Quick, Sancho Panza, my lance!"

I really don't have time to finish the debate; however, I will address this point:

Darth Wong wrote: Show me these statistics.

Gladly:

1998 statistics released by NHTSA

In 1998, 15,935 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes, an average of one every 33 minutes. These deaths constituted approximately 38.4% of the total 41,471 total traffic fatalities. (NHTSA, 1999)

About 630,000 were injured in alcohol-related crashes, an average of one person injured approximately every minute. About 30,000 people a year will suffer permanent work-related disabilities. (Miller et al, 1998, 1996b)


Every weekday night from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m., one in 13 drivers is drunk (BAC of .08 or more). Between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. on weekend mornings, one in seven drivers is drunk. (Miller et al., 1996c)

Since 1982, annual alcohol-related traffic deaths have been reduced by 37%. (NHTSA, 1999) NHTSA estimates that between 90,307 and 128,520 lives have been saved between 1983 and 1996 due to the decrease in alcohol involvement in fatal crashes in the United States. (NHTSA, 1997)

About three in every ten Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. (NHTSA, 1999)


Economic costs of alcohol-related crashes are estimated to be $45 billion yearly. An additional $70.5 billion is lost in quality of life due to these crashes. (Miller et al, 1996b)

In 1998, there were nearly 2 alcohol-related traffic deaths per hour, 44 per day and 306 per week. That is the equivalent of 2 jetliners crashing week after week. (NHTSA, 1999)

While most drivers involved in fatal crashes have no prior conviction for DWI, those who do are at significantly greater risk of causing a drunk driving crash. (NHTSA, 1997)

A driver with a BAC of 0.15 is more than 300 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. (NHTSA, 1997)

During the period 1982 through 1999, approximately 349,472 persons lost their lives in alcohol-related traffic crashes. (NHTSA, 1999)

More Americans have died in alcohol-related traffic crashes than in all the wars the United States has been involved in since our country was founded. (NHTSA, 1996)

Drunk driving is the nation's most frequently committed violent crime. (MADD, 1998)

Source

Marijuana realted:

A newly released National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study indicates that alcohol is by far the leading cause of drug-related traffic accidents, while marijuana poses negligible danger except when combined with alcohol.

The study, the most comprehensive drug accident survey to date, is dated October 1992, but is only now being released. A researcher familiar with the project says this is because it contradicts the government's official anti-drug line that illicit drugs are a major public safety hazard.

The study investigated blood samples from 1882 drivers killed in car, truck and motorcycle accidents in seven states during 1990 - 91. Alcohol was found in 51.5% of the specimens. Just 17.8% showed traces of other drugs; marijuana was a distant second to alcohol at 6.7%, followed by cocaine (5.3%), benzodiazepine tranquillizers (2.9%) and amphetamine (1.9%). Two-thirds of marijuana- and other-drug-using drivers were also positive for alcohol.

The report concluded that alcohol was by far the "dominant problem" in drug-related accidents. A responsibility analysis showed that alcohol-using drivers were conspicuously culpable in fatal accidents, especially at high blood concentrations or in combination with other drugs, including marijuana. However, those who used marijuana alone were found to be if anything less culpable than non-drug-users. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

Although California NORML's "Health Tips for Marijuana Smokers," by California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer, lists accidents and respiratory disease due to smoking as the two leading health hazards of marijuana, these findings are consistent with other studies, which have generally found that marijuana is rarely involved in driving accidents except when combined with alcohol.

The NHTSA report, "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers," by K.W. Terhune, et al. of the Calspan Corp. Accident Research Group in Buffalo, NY (Report # DOT-HS-808-065) is available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield VA 22161.

Source

And here's the kicker about the Marijuana statistics, they only show that it was in the blood of people during these times, not that it was a contirbuting factor to the accident or that people were even high at the time of the accident.

Face it, whether or not you want to accept it, there is no evidence that pot is even a danger behind the wheel. I personally think that anything to alter your state during driving is bad, but I also see see that there is no evidence to suggest pot is dangerous at all to driving.

Kernel, the studies may show that pot does not cause problems behind the wheel, but even as an admitted pothead, I don't consider getting stoned and driving as an ok thing to do, it's still an inebrient. It may not be anywhere near as bad as alcohol, especially in experienced long-term users, but it still causes significant degradation of one's sense of direction, and their logic functions. Stoners will do wierd things behind the wheel, driving slow, stopping at green lights, drving in the turn lane, waiting for stop signs to turn green, that stuff is common, and some stoners really have no business even trying to drive a block while stoned because of how they react. I would definitely consider driving stoned to be far safer overall than driving drunk though, but it's still a DWI thing in my book and should definitely be avoided if one has any other choice in transportation while in that state.

You really are a goddamn fuckwit, Kernel. That marijuana study you've so loudly been touting as your crowning piece of evidence is totally worthless for the purposes of this thread, it would seem.

The Kernel wrote:And here's the kicker about the Marijuana statistics, they only show that it was in the blood of people during these times, not that it was a contirbuting factor to the accident or that people were even high at the time of the accident.

Thank you for summing it up so concisely. Your evidence does not prove what you claim it does, namely that driving while high is less dangerous than driving while drunk. The reason why the study is so unreliable is that it takes the effective component of marijuana, THC, around 30 days to exit the body. So you can have concentrations in your body that indicate usage of marijuana without giving any indication whether or not you were stoned at a particular time.

The Kernel wrote:I also see see that there is no evidence to suggest pot is dangerous at all to driving.

Then you will kindly explain away Hyperion's comment above? You're acting like a whiny little bitch who's throwing a tantrum because nobody is buying your bullshit simply on your say so, and frankly you can fuck off. I didn't think you'd be this much of a trolling dipshit, but apparently you're just an immature brat who has no grasp of logic or reason as soon as his pet subjects come up for discussion. Asshat.

Edi

Oh for fuck's sake Kernel, showing that alcohol is by far the leading cause of substance-related car crash fatalities in America does not prove that it is proportionally far more dangerous than marijuana, because alcohol is also by far the leading form of substance abuse in America.

This is what your argument looks like:

Fact 1: Far more people use A than B, and more frequently.
Fact 2: Far more people have A than B in them when in impaired crashes.
Conclusion: B is safer than A, so don't talk bad about B.

Do you even realize how broken that logic is? You haven't provided jack shit for evidence.

Darth Wong wrote: Do you even realize how broken that logic is? You haven't provided jack shit for evidence.

Did you not read this part of the report?

However, those who used marijuana alone were found to be if anything less culpable than non-drug-users. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

Aparently not, because the conclusion is that marijuana does not contribute negatively at all to fatal accidents.

Darth Wong wrote: Fact 1: Far more people use A than B, and more frequently.
Fact 2: Far more people have A than B in them when in impaired crashes.
Conclusion: B is safer than A, so don't talk bad about B.

Just to expand a bit, according to this logic anything that affects driving performance in any way should be outlawed behind the wheel (this assumes the marijuana actually does negatively affect driving performance behind the wheel, which the NHTSA study does not back up at all). Congradulations, you've just outlawed coffee from being drunk while driving.

I find it interesting to see the outrage about this issue; casual drug use comes up every now and then and there is a militant anti-drug crowd on this board that most people who don't care about the issue simply shrug off as being not worth it to fight about the issue with. The truth is that people in this thread are behaving with not a shred of evidence to support their positions as is typical whenever drug use is brought up. I see a lot of chest beating going around, but the only thing I've seen you actually conclude definitively is that pot has some effect on a person's body in certain ways. Once again, congradulations for putting it on the same plateau as coffee and soda, but if you want to prove more, you are going to need actual evidence besides the same bullshit scare tactics morons like you have been fed since grade school.

Edi wrote: Thank you for summing it up so concisely. Your evidence does not prove what you claim it does, namely that driving while high is less dangerous than driving while drunk. The reason why the study is so unreliable is that it takes the effective component of marijuana, THC, around 30 days to exit the body. So you can have concentrations in your body that indicate usage of marijuana without giving any indication whether or not you were stoned at a particular time.

Doesn't matter at all, even if the report solely relied on this which it doesn't. It found no evidence at all that those with marijuana in their system but not alcohol were a risk, hence it wouldn't matter if some weren't stoned at the time.

Then you will kindly explain away Hyperion's comment above? You're acting like a whiny little bitch who's throwing a tantrum because nobody is buying your bullshit simply on your say so, and frankly you can fuck off. I didn't think you'd be this much of a trolling dipshit, but apparently you're just an immature brat who has no grasp of logic or reason as soon as his pet subjects come up for discussion. Asshat.

I don't have to explain away anecdotal evidence; whether or not Hyperion is personally comfortable with the idea of stoned driving is irrelevent to the point of whether it negatively effects those that DO choose to drive stoned.

I think it would be interesting to find out how many non-drug users/non-drinkers actually defend these fucktards. As far as I can tell its usually just the idiots defending their own stupidity.

Tell us, Kernel, how often do you drive while stoned?

The Kernel wrote:Did you not read this part of the report?

However, those who used marijuana alone were found to be if anything less culpable than non-drug-users. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

Aparently not, because the conclusion is that marijuana does not contribute negatively at all to fatal accidents.

I read it. I also noted its justifications for saying so, and found them rather unconvincing for numerous reasons, such as the fact that marijuana stays in the bloodstream for days or weeks after use, hence there will always be over-reporting based on presence in the bloodstream after a fatality. That's why it's better to do controlled experiments rather than looking at relatively uncontrolled statistics. And did you know that controlled-condition testing of drivers on marijuana has revealed serious impairment, exactly as predicted?

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ ... gs_web.pdf

Funny how every druggie apologist website on the Internet has a copy of the same article you linked to, but the NHTSA that they use as a source has also published tests showing that road use of cannabis is fucking dangerous. Tests which the pro-druggie websites ignore, of course, because they practice "selective" quoting of authorities in much the same manner as creationists do.

Just for clarification (I don't want to "me-too"), but is this guy seriously saying that it's perfectly safe to get behind the wheel of a car and drive. Has anyone tried getting some evidence from any medical experts on the effects of pot? I'm sure it'd be easy enough to find proof that the effects impair at least some of the faculties you need to drive.

all I got so far is this

NZ pot\accident study

http://www.ukcia.org/research/DoseRelat ... rashes.pdf

5. Conclusions
• THC has been shown to impair cognition, psychomotor
function, and actual driving performance in a dose related
manner.
• The degrees of impairment observed in laboratory or actual
driving tests after doses up to 300 g/kg THC were
comparable to the impairing effects of an alcohol dose
producing a BAC ≥ 0.05g/dl, the legal limit for driving
under the influence in most European countries.
• There is no indication that past use of THC alone affects
crash risks, but there is growing evidence that recent
use of THC increases the risk for motor vehicle accidents
compared to drug free drivers, particularly at higher concentrations.
• Detrimental effects of THC appear more prominent in
highly automated driving behavior, as compared to more
complex driving tasks that require conscious control.
• The effects of THC and alcohol on driving performance
and risk of motor vehicle crashes appear to be additive,
but the sum can be large and potentially dangerous. Combined
use of THC and alcohol produces severe driving
impairment and sharply increases the risk of drivers’ accident
culpability as compared to drug free drivers, even
at low doses.

The Kernel wrote: Congradulations, you've just outlawed coffee from being drunk while driving.

Ever dumped hot coffee on you lap while driving? It's a freakin' Hazard, I tell ya!


Seriously, tho... you're really reaching here, Kernel. Why don't you just sit down, smoke a bowl, and STFU.