New Analysis: Stoned Drivers Almost Twice As Likely To Cause Car Accident
There's no question at all that marijuana has been unfairly demonized, but it's also true that it's a mind-altering drug. And whether it's pot, alcohol or something else, the people who are using those drugs are frequently reluctant to admit their recreational choices may, at least under some circumstances, have serious negative consequences:
Drinking and driving is never a good idea, and neither is smoking pot and driving, a study finds. People who smoke marijuana within a few hours of getting behind the wheel may be almost twice as likely to cause an accident compared with those who are sober.
A review of nine studies on pot smoking and car crashes was done by researchers from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada. The authors wrote that previous studies have been somewhat inconclusive about marijuana's effect on automobile collisions, some showing it linked with a higher risk of crashes, and some showing a lower risk.
The research included in the meta-analysis included observational studies of drivers who had been treated for serious injuries following a crash, or who had been part of a fatal crash. Those crashes took place on public roads and included at least one moving vehicle, such as a car, van, truck, motorcycle or snowmobile. Evidence of marijuana was found via blood tests or self-reported drug use. The studies represented a sample of 49,411 people.
When results from the nine studies were grouped together, the risk of driving under the influence of marijuana was nearly twice that of driving while unimpaired.
Oh well; let's hope that another study comes around and disproves this. It's all the fuel the righties need to prevent MJ from becoming legal in any sort of way.
Here's some "balance" to this study:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
The meta study looked at 9 studies. 2 of those studies showed that smoking pot actually reduced your risk of getting into an accident.
Alcohol is a proven cause of automobile deaths and it's legal.
What.
...while alcohol is legal, drunk driving isn't. That being the case, why shouldn't pot be legal, while driving under the influence of it is illegal?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Back when pot was fun and you could smoke a doob and still function. Tried it for the first time in years last year, and I felt like I took some mescalin. Like Louis C.K. said - I didn't know they were working on it over the last 20 years like it was the cure for cancer. I couldn't imagine driving in that state. Not so fun anymore.
You are just weak.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
...makes you a nice person. Good luck with that.
It's just more intense these days. Which is why most stoners aren't stupid enough to operate heavy machinery when they're stoned.
If we're going to make things illegal based on their tendency to impair people, ALCOHOL should be at the top of the list.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
....aren't driving while high, and you know that?
...in that you're not going to get the same effect from 8 ounces of beer as you get from 8 ounces of grain alcohol.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
The Botany of Desire explains a lot better than I can, because quite frankly, right now, I'm in no shape to drive.
See what I did there?
me-oww!
A friend burned me a DVD of what I thought was this title, but I haven't seen it yet.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
about tulips, potatoes apples and pot. You'd really like it.
me-oww!
I'll try to dig up the disc.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
there's a blurb on each subject (like the marijuana page I linked. The book is an enjoyable read as well.
me-oww!
The last time I smoked the stuff was forty years ago. I sat in my sister's living room, basically paralyzed, listening to the electric clock in her kitchen. And the stuff now is many times stronger. No thanks.
The last time I smoked in my youth was Christmas day, 1971. I stopped because a person I respected said I should. Once I got some distance from it, I saw that it has the strange ability to convince its users that it's harmless. Several years ago some friends asked me to smoke a bit, and I did. At first it was fun, but then I was rather depressed for a few days afterward. Since I'm already a depressed person on medication, I decided it made no sense to counteract my antidepressant.
I don't like the fact that it stays in a person's system for a long time, thus affecting their reactions and perceptions for hours or days afterward. A bus or truck driver, train engineer, crane operator, subway or el train driver, airplane pilot (civilian or military), nurse, doctor, or other person whom we depend on to think clearly and react normally, could be influenced even if the last time they smoked was on the weekend or the night before. We have enough trouble with people using alcohol and then driving and operating other dangerous machinery.
Just because a chemical byproduct stays in the system for a certain amount of time doesn't mean that someone is buzzed for that long.
And the residue that remains in a users body differs from person to person, depending on body-fat content and exercise. I'm a wiry, active person, and if I smoke the same amount of the same weed as a friend of mine who's, uhm, fat and out of shape, I will metabolize every bit of residue out before he will.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Everything you wrote about the lingering effects of weed is also true for alcohol.
It makes no sense that weed is illegal while alcohol is literally around every corner, given that alcohol is much more damaging to the human body than marijuana.
Oh noes! A weed with supernatural mind controlling powers!!!!! BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!!
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
If you get some cheap Mexican ragweed, it won't be very strong. If you get something that's been developed to be stronger, it will be stronger.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I'm not a think as you high I am.
If not now, when?
Yoda, sure thing.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
I don't know who you've been talking to, but everyone I know who smokes weed knows they're not good drivers when they're stoned.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
I can drive a train, man. That's the thing i do.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
Driving impaired risks lives, and can never be condoned. But drunk drivers tend to be over confident and recklessly speed down the road. While stoned drivers are usually found in the right lane, going under the speed limit.
Thom Hartmann: Must see! The TRUE story of the Boston Tea Party
Drunk drivers are 2-3 times more likely to get in an accident than some that's high. Texting and driving is probably the same or more than a pot smoker.
this "analysis" is just more sham scare tactics, i am really sorry you picked THIS out of so many real news stories out there to blog about.
"Evidence of marijuana was found via blood tests or self-reported drug use."
and this means what? pot can stay in one's system, depending how often one smokes, for weeks, up to months. this doesn't indicate that the person was high at the time of driving. some people could have been bone sober but failed a test because of residual THC in the blood system.
past that, these 'researchers' aren't even conducting their own research. they are using 9 previous studies and trying to infer from that. in other words: meaningless.
listen, driving while impaired is bad. but this study seems like more witch hunting, simply looking for any angle that amps up people's unreasonable fear of pot.
should pot be legalized? oh, heavens no! think of all the traffic fatalities, there will be death on the highway *smacks head over and over*
I agree. Susie just lost a pile of cred with me on this one.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
I think it is also being covered on RawStory and probably the Huffington Post. It's basically no different than the coordinated mainstream news and their talking points.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/09/marij...
Actually here is an interesting article from the similar RawStory:
Study: Legalizing medical marijuana reduces traffic fatalities
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
Why are you jumping on Susie? She's just telling us about this, and thanks very much, but I like to know what's out there that some wingnut asshole could jump on. If you don't know what's being said, how can you defend against it?
Really, you guys are being awfully hair-trigger paranoid about this. Why don't you roll a doob and calm down?
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
i must have missed the part of susie's 'reporting' where she framed this as just 'wingnut asshole' messaging for all of us to brush up on to know how to debate this when it is brought up
seems more like she was posting this to spread the alarming news, for fuck's sake
There are millions of things to discuss, and what gets brought up in C&L occupies some mental bandwidth. It's like NBC yapping about the Cardassians or Britney Spears or whatever. It's a DISTRACTION fro mwhat is really important. And the one REALLY important thing about pot is that it is illegal, and it shouldn't be and everyone with even half an ounce of sense KNOWS THAT, including Susie. So, when you decide to spend your time to put such a bit of drivelling nonsense up as a point of discussion on C&L, then it has passed a "filter" and deemed worthy of discussion within the context of C&L. which has zillion of people reading it. The net effect is that by posting this UNCRITICALLY to C&L, it comes off as an endorsement of the very demonisation that it sees as less than reasonable. In other words: Stupid.
Susie - you want to do something of value? Spread THIS news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x28_I9oIVg
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
You wrote "Cardassians" and "demonisation".
Hey, it's funny if you're high.
If you're high you're more likely to wreck your car! Wow - REALLY? No kidding! And if you're drinking liquor? Yep - same problem. Gee Susie - nothing like stating the obvious, and thus subtly carrying water for the opposition who would rather keep the War on Drugs going. Good move, Ace.
There's PLENTY of horrifying stuff in this world to grace the pages of C&L, and such an imbicilic study as this IS NOT ONE OF THEM. Next thing you know C&L's going to be covering stories about Kim Cardassian and her interstellar empire of stupidity.
And before we get into the inevitable likker vs pot argument, I'll point out the difference in terms of driving under the influence of each:
When you're driving drunk, you go 30 kmph over the limit, drive like an asshole and KILL PEOPLE.
When you're driving stoned, you go 15 kmph UNDER the limit and miss your exit or spend half an hour trying to figure out a cloverleaf interchange.
And if it wasn't for a regular stream of some fine green bud, I'd be a raging mass of pain right now, but god forbid someone swipe my stash - they might smoke and drive and end up side-swiping a parked car or get lost in a park and run into a tree or something.
Grrrrr.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Um, the article references NINE studies. And why jump on Susie's ass just for reporting this? I smoke weed and I'm interested. Are we supposed to ignore everything that doesn't fit our own opinion?
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
the article is referencing one study that references nine other studies. in other words: pure mush
speaking for myself, its not that this 'doesn't fit my opinion', its that this seems like junk science posing as pseudo-research. and it seems to follow a similar pattern to create a climate of fear around something that should never have been illegal
Just can't hold their smoke.
Thass what it is!
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
LEGALIZE HEMP!!
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
Science. The method seems to be all the rage, but proper studies include a large number of test subjects and a control group. Meta analysis is a poor data extraction method.
I'd be interested to see a breakdown of these studies by age. Are younger smokers more likely to be in accidents than older smokers, etc..
If nothing else, younger drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident in general, so logic dictates that younger smokers would also be more likely.
The analysis (it's not really a study) is interesting, but then again, so is the analysis of the flight capabilities of the bumblebee - interesting but not necessarily relevant or even accurate.
There's a big problem with this particular analysis: unless you know how many people are driving stoned and/or driving drunk, as well as the total number of drivers, you have no real way of saying that stoned is more likely than drunk to have an accident.
We know that any drug, including alcohol, gives the user a certain degree of impairment, and that that impairment increases the risk of an accident. And we can say that X number of accidents a year involve an impaired driver. We can even say that X% of accidents involve an impaired driver. But when we start saying that an impaired driver is X times more likely to have an accident, we're guessing, because we don't really know how many impaired drivers *didn't* have an accident. We only know how many did.
To add to the problem, some of the studies this analysis looked at depend on self-reporting. If someone says "Yeah, I smoked some weed," then they mark the accident down in the 'impaired driver' column, even though there's no way to knowing what level of impairment existed at the time of the accident itself.
It's the same problem that we run into with gun statistics. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say "80 kajillion crimes were prevented last year by gun owners!" Well, not so much. Most of those numbers depend on self-reporting - Joe Blow says "Yeah, last year I scared off a burglar with my gun" and it's counted as a crime prevented by a gun owner. Except Joe Blow didn't scare off a burglar, Joe heard a noise outside but no one broke into the house. Which does nothing to prove that there was a burglar there. Odds are good that Joe heard the neighbor's dog, who couldn't care less that Joe had a gun.
but when the strong odor of
patchouli oilpot smoke reeks out of a monster SUV I'm riding alongside of on a narrow road with my bicycle, I get a bit nervous.Their homeworld was a place called Earth, located in an uninteresting part of the galaxy. They had an expression: pride goeth before a fall. Their pride was their undoing. I know. I was there....They did not listen, of course. Arrogant men never do.
Actually, I dropped the joint, and when I looked up (just crested the only hill in western Indiana, at 4AM, driving back from Chicago to Terre Haute) there was a deer in each lane. I hit the smaller one at about 65MPH, and when I got back to the motel at dawn, had to climb out the passenger's window of a rental Grand Am with about 500 miles on it. Later limped it back to Indy rental agency, blood streaked down the back window and trunk. Bubba at Avis just said, "Deer, huh?" Thankfully, I'd taken the optional $3.99/day (many years ago) full coverage...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
This one of the things that will have to be worked out as pot is inevitably legalized. As stated in the article driving high on anything is not a good idea no matter how in control you may think you are, that I think is a settled issue for most of us. The problem is that in many cases people in accidents are tested and found positive for pot because of the testing method the police use which will show you positive long after you are not. The test is NOT telling us that THC the active ingredient in pot is in the blood but rather that a precursor that THC causes to be in your blood system long long after you ingest marijuana and I mean days after, is present. This test has sent many people to prison or added to there sentences unfairly. So you could very easily be in an accident two or three days after you smoked marijuana and be positive according to the present method of testing. As i understand it there is another test which tells the level of THC in your system which is good for an 8 hour period BUT THEY DONT USE IT. Again I have to say as an adult most of us have learned that driving impaired on ANYTHING is really stupid. Still I hope that the issue I have just mentioned gets addressed soon.
Rarely to these studies separate the fact that marijuana related auto accidents usually have a 2nd drug involved...alcohol. Party people who both drink and smoke, and then get behind the wheel of a vehicle.
Thom Hartmann: Must see! The TRUE story of the Boston Tea Party
are so boring. Their arguments fall into 3 basic categories.
1.) "If pot is illegal then so should (Alcohol, cigarettes, insert various substance here)." - For the most part they are. If you look at the rest of the mind-altering drug class aside from Caffeine/Nicotine/Alcohol they're all controlled substances used for the treatment of mental illness or just a regular felony. The big three are under semi-control with only Caffeine currently running free. Nicotine is now under FDA control completely and Alcohol has a whole network setup around it's control and distribution.
2.) "Pot doesn't do X effect because I never experienced it. Not like Y drug does." - Ugh, anecdotal evidence doesn't help the case. Science has found out that *le gasp* Pot does all those things and then some. Just because YOU are great at functioning while high (at least according to your perception) doesn't mean everybody is affected the same way. Think of how we have happy or sad drunks. These arguments are attempting to move the issue from a societal level to a personal and then emotional level. It isn't an agreed upon status quo that they desire but a desire to feel accepted within the community when these arguments are made.
3.) "Pot isn't addictive like X drug." - Somewhat up for debate. Long term studies show it is quite addictive but not the same way smoking one cigarette is. Inevitably your desire for pot will become overwhelming and thus a negative effect.
I'm sure to get tons of people to cry foul on this but frankly this crusade to legalize pot is for roughly 15% of regular drug users in white suburbs to stop having to hide their bongs. It's a very rich and white issue that tends to masquerade as a progressive issue when it's a societal one of laziness and unwillingness to acknowledge their drug problem.
that strawman has been utterly ripped to shreds
on account of them conducting exceedingly predictable and lame lives, multiple scientific studies have shown.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Or even that you know what a square is? Just because I choose not to take mind-altering substances don't mean I don't have tremendous amounts of fun in my life. Then again, if I got to ride the drug waves some of my compatriots do I would think a normal existence to be boring as well...
LOL
It's a plant that makes some people feel real good, get. over. it. And yes, it fucks up with your sensory processes so no one should drive or perform other risky activities under its influence, duh.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
What kind of subjective argument can I have with somebody who calls me "uncool"? We're going to define it differently so why bother? I was merely reiterating I have a perfectly happy life without drug use. I don't care that you use a plant to alter your senses, I care that you use a plant against our societal system and wish to overthrow that system's control.
"use a plant against our societal system and wish to overthrow that system's control"?
thanks, you just gave me another reason to get high as often as possible! now excuse me, i'm off for a drive...
really are *that* threatened by a fucking weed?
Truly that must be the sign of an "exciting" life and system full of "meaning." Not.
LOL, good luck with that man.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
For me, it has less to do with you being "uncool" (whatever that means) and more about you being uninformed. As someone pointed out, your arguments are the most tired, discredited strawman arguments that ran their course during the 80's with "Just Say No". If you want to have a serious discussion about it, then know something about the debate besides "Pot is addictive! My psychic said so!"
The only point in your argument that rang true was this: "frankly this crusade to legalize pot is for roughly 15% of regular drug users in white suburbs to stop having to hide their bongs." Ignoring the numbers which you pulled out of your ass, why should we have to hide our bongs? Why should anyone else for that matter? (Pot use cuts across all races, genders, and economic classes in my experience) The whole point is let's get some consistency in the societal system which you seem to revere so much. Pot is not physically addictive. Cigarettes and alcohol, and painkillers are. Cigarettes, alcohol, and painkillers can be fatal with over-consumption. Pot is not. Tell me which should be illegal, based on your erroneous belief that the "system's control" is based on protecting you from yourself.
The fact is, you choose not to use the drug. Great! You should have that choice! Some of my buddies unwind with a six-pack on the weekends. I choose to unwind with a bowl. I make this choice because I am a very easy-going and happy stoner, but an unstable and angry drunk. But according to you, I'm supposed to abstain from my preferred vice (which harms no one I might add), because "our societal system" has continually criminalized a naturally growing plant for conflicting, hypocritical, and shifting reasons for nearly 100 years? I'm sorry but your pearl-clutching is not reason enough for me to follow a law that makes no sense and inflicts much more damage than it prevents.
gets right to the heart of Xeranar's position. What a killjoy.
.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Of course, I was attacking non-positions. Please enlighten me how I was wrong? The wording changes but the basic argument stays the same.
But this part:
"I'm sure to get tons of people to cry foul on this but frankly this crusade to legalize pot is for roughly 15% of regular drug users in white suburbs to stop having to hide their bongs. It's a very rich and white issue that tends to masquerade as a progressive issue when it's a societal one of laziness and unwillingness to acknowledge their drug problem."
That's fucking offensive. Here in NY, getting busted for misdemeanor possession or smoking in public is rampant, and is heavily biased against non-whites. That's a fact.
And what the hell does "it's a societal one (issue) of laziness and unwillingness to acknowledge their drug problem." mean?
Are you saying that everyone who smokes pot and wants it legalized has a drug problem? On what do you base that assertion besides your own opinion? The DSM for deciding if someone has a drug problem takes into account legal consequences, so I suppose anyone ever busted for Pot could technically be labeled as having a drug problem, but if Pot is legalized, much of that "problem" goes away *poof*...(or is it *puff*?)
...Xeranar traffics in hyperbole ("...it's an incredibly dangerous chemical.").
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
You're claiming it's unjust because mostly poor non-whites get busted. I'm claiming it's unjust because the richer white class doesn't. Ultimately if we started busting wealthier whites for their drug habit the law would change or they would stop doing it. Your trying to absolve your responsibility for breaking the law by changing the law and using the natural socioeconomic nature of society to justify it. Ultimately though go into most poorer neighborhoods and ask if they want weed legal, the majority will still say no. Just as the majority of wealthier whites wish it not to be. I'm not disputing your fact (as if it matters), I am pointing out your view of reality is flawed in what your fact justifies.
Also, if you're using a drug to escape from reality or relieve stress that isn't prescribed by a doctor it is effectively a drug "problem" the DSM agrees with me on this subject. Drug use is a plague on our society because we don't want to be bothered to make a better world to live in, instead we turn inward and start using falsifying chemicals to please our meager existence.
Minorities- especially African Americans- are prosecuted and imprisoned disproportionately for a vast array of crimes. Take drugs/drug-related crimes out of the mix and you'd still see DWB stops, you'd still see minorities busted on chickenshit loitering and vagrancy charges at higher rates than whites, etc., etc.....
But, Xeranar, it's only you who are wrong on this:
Are you going to try to tell me that drug use by neolithic peoples, some of whose cultures still exist separate from ours, were/are using psychoactive chemicals because their world has been so shitty to them for hundreds of thousands of years? Why in the hell didn't the so-called plague of drugs destroy their cultures?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Excellent point Andy K, and you can find much more recent examples. The desire of people to alter their perception of reality is well-documented. Imagine if Hunter S. Thompson, the Beatles, or Steve Jobs had never done LSD? Would we have "Fear and Loathing", "Yellow Submarine", or the iPhone? Who knows? What I do know is all of those people attributed their drug use to there success in their creative endeavors (Steve Jobs the most frankly and openly).
Additionally, many Native American religions use peyote to enhance and augment their spiritual journeys and see it as an essential part of their religion to communicate with spiritual beings.
Xeranar's posts drip with the self-righteous indignation of a person who has made a personal choice and then used that choice to inflate his opinion of himself as he looks down on all those who do use them to "please [their] meager existence." He is the worst type of person to argue with, the type whose entire self-worth is tied up in belittling and demonizing those who make different choices.
"Ultimately if we started busting wealthier whites for their drug habit the law would change or they would stop doing it."
What evidence do you have to support this claim? Because 40 years of the failed War on Drugs says you're full of shit.
man, you seem like you must be really a drag to hang out with. Just sayin'....
(Born in 1944 & driving since the age of 12; been rear ended 4 times; no other accidents)
If somebody who "lives to drive" smokes to enhance the driving experience, it will make him a safer driver. But if he's not using his high for the specific purpose of merging and flowing harmoniously with the traffic pattern, just trying to get to another bar or finding a pizza fix, he shouldn't be on the road.
Cobweb
Inattentive drivers are the problem. Talking on the cellphone. Texting. Lost in space. Those without periperal vision. Drunks. Elderly. Teenagers. Coffee drinkers. Slippery fingers. Nose-pickers
Why not just outlaw driving? It's NEVER going to be safe. If you want 100% safety, you are always going to be wanting.
Absolutely! I don't know about the nose pickers, but if I were a traffic cop, I would love to ticket anybody wandering from one side of the road to the other (with or without a cell phone stuck up his...) or who impede the flow of traffic by alternating between 45 and 60 for half a mile with a half dozen pissed off motorists following.
Cobweb
ornaments, either because they can't or won't.
(Fortunately, I don't drive much anymore; my blood pressure has dropped significantly w/o my rage at stupidity of drivers.)
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
...smoking dope contributes to car accidents!
Yeah? And the big surprise there is...? That's like, 'having sex contributes to pregnancies and STDs!' Or, 'eating too much junk food leads to obesity!' Or, 'Driving petrol fueled cars leads to environmental damage!'
There's no surprise that smoking dope or getting drunk or even not getting enough sleep leads to road accidents. This doesn't mean, however, that you should outlaw dope any more than booze, or pass laws requiring everyone get at least 8 hours sleep a night (although I might be in favour of that one), or prohibiting eating at fast food joints, or preventing anyone from having sex, or outlawing cars. Or any other nonsensically facile cause-and-effect reaction.
What it DOES mean is that smoking pot should be no different, legally, than drinking. It should be a responsible adult's decision to smoke dope or not smoke dope. But if pot is legalized, also pass laws making smoking pot and driving a car illegal - the same way that being drunk and driving is illegal. You make pot smokers responsible for their own actions, like grown-up adults are supposed to be.
Not to make a joke, but it's really a no-brainer...
...that we should focus more on public transportation.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
of public transportation (and now pretty much clean and sober), I have little tolerance for under-the-influence assholes on trains and buses. Fortunately, many bus drivers don't either.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
...when I was drinking. "Dude, you're sloppy. Go home."
Yeah, I was one of those functioning drunks. Not drunk at work, mind you, but , as one of my bartenders told me on numerous occasions, I was the least-drunk drunk she ever saw- she would know how much I had to drink, and she saw that I didn't act much different after the twelfth beer as I did before the first. Go figure.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
They had a tendency to be hard on the equipment. Then I had a tendency to be hard on their heads.
How have you been 'Feat? Haven't talked to you in a while. Hope you are doin' well.
"Better." It's what we should ask of ourselves and of our leaders.
Been offline more than less lately. Computer took a dive, so borrowing a friend's when I can; they're supposed to take me into civilization tomoro after Press the Meat so I can buy a new one. Just got laid off-- doing the footstamps and UI BS now. Staying in my friends' converted '69 Gillig schoolbus at 4000'. Rustic and cold, but better than the street.
Hope all's well with you.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
If you need a reference for a job interview, or some help on your resume, let me know. I'm a writer for the government and I can wordsmith. I've helped several people with their resumes and I'd be happy to help out, if I can with a new job.
Stay warm my friend. Better days are ahead.
My email is timothy_p_shannon[at]yahoo[dot]com. You can email me your resume if you'd like me to take a look at it.
I want to see you back to work, my friend. And if I can help, it would make me happy to do so.
[Edited to make email less attractive to email harvesters-Sitemonitor]
"Better." It's what we should ask of ourselves and of our leaders.
First time to be (soon) receiving UI and food stamps. Not looking forward to having to try to reenter the looking-for-work pool in this economy at 49. I'll definitely send you my resume once I get it up and redone on my new computer. A second set of eyes is always good. ;)
Stay warm yourself.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Obama is such a weakling for avoiding the hemp legalization questions. It sickens me to see such cowardice.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
Just fucking stop it.
The fact is that the majority of the population that actually votes doesn't think that legalization is a good idea. Ron Paul does better amongst 18-year olds than he does amongst 70-year olds (unless those amongst the latter happen to own what they call "wearin' sheets").
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
he was talking about hemp
but, i agree, had obama become a champion of legalization he would have been utterly destroyed (not to mention reinforcing a stereotype). i do wish that he would have not gone back on his statement regarding using the feds to crackdown on medical marijuana clinics in CA
That he is discussing people. As usual.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Just fucking stop it.
The majority does support legalization.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Results are based on telephone interviews with 2,034 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Aug. 3-5, 2001, Nov. 10-12, 2003, and Oct. 21-23, 2005. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
No mention of likely voters.
Look, I'm not saying that pot shouldn't be legalized. It should be.
But even if I support legalization, it's not at the top of my list of priorities when selecting my Reps/Senators/President, and I'm sure that are those who identify as progressives who, while they might vote for the same candidates as I do, don't support legalization...And then there's that vast majority of conservatives who vote for anti-legalization, law-and-order candidates simply because they're law-and-order candidates.
Like damned near every one of the issues in which progressives believe, I think the day is coming when we'll see pot legalized- but, like all of those other issues, we'll still have to wait a bit longer. But the polling trends suggest that the day will come sooner than the 40+ years that it took to get to 50% supporting legalization.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
and that O'Donnell makes in the clip is that the public's view on weed is evolving, but the president's and Congress' has remained static. The issue of pot legalization has ranked near the top on every online Q&A thingy the president hast done, including the one a few weeks ago in which it occupied the No. 1 position. It is dishonest and/or cowardly of him not to address the issue, especially considering our last three presidents and several members of Congress are admitted pot users.
Maybe if the president expressed support for decriminalization, that 50 percent would rise to 53 percent. And the same could be said for many issues. He just doesn't take a stand on anything. Instead, he just cynically calculates how to exploit ignorance. And that's the problem with politics today. Six states have legislative proposals to limit the teaching of evolution, or to include creationism along side evolution. Why? Because rather than use the power of their offices to enlighten the darkened regions of America, they would rather cynically exploit them for short-term political gain.
And what pisses me off, Andy, is that you are not as pissed off about that as I am. Not just you personally, but the middle-of-the-road Obama defenders you seem to represent. Just like with the AUMF question you refuse to answer. Try holding your president accountable for a change instead of just being a cheer leader for him. Make him earn your vote instead of constantly reassuring him he already has it no matter what. Exercise your franchise, in other words.
All Geronimo's doing is taking a shot at a single elected official without admitting that that elected official isn't some sort of dictator- benevolent or not- and, as usual, trying to reroute the topic of the thread to one of Geronimo's own choosing. And when Geronimo does this, he wants to:
A). Support Ron Paul
B). Bash anyone who isn't Ron Paul, usually, but not limited to, Barack Obama
C). Spout the type of conspiracy theory crap that belongs only in the writings of the late Robert Anton Wilson, in which Wilson mocked the piss out of conspiracy theorists without them even knowing it. Smoke a fat one and read him- he was a fucking comic genius.
G's a broken record. Don't pretend that he isn't.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I don't think Geronimo necessarily wants people to support Ron Paul. I think he wants people to acknowledge that whichever candidate refuses to adhere to the corporatist script is automatically misrepresented in the media. In this particular election, it has been Ron Paul. In other elections, it has been Dennis Kucinich or Larry Agran or whoever.
Additionally, the portion of the script that Ron Paul isn't adhering to pisses off both Republicans and Democrats, but especially Democrats, because as recently as four years ago, it was Democrats who were pissed off about warrantless wiretapping and AUMF and so forth. But now that Obama has embraced and expanded those policies, so-called "progressives" are circling the wagons around them. "I hate warrantless wiretapping. No, wait. Ron Paul hates it? Then I love it. No, wait..."
Oh. And he's not the only one who's a broken record around here.
Now there's a name I haven't seen in awhile.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I was a friendly acquaintance of RAW's, and I'd have to say that he would support Geronimo. He mocked on many levels. He also mocked those who mocked conspiracy theorists. He would have found Ron Paul supporters quite amusing I'm sure.
but some of y'all need some help with this creepy fixation with Obama at such visceral/personal level.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
It's a crazy expenditure of energy.
me-oww!
It's like they've completely missed that there is a republican Congress and conservative media working against him.
The guy has his own issues, this is to be sure, but he's also working with the deck stacked against him. It seems like a lot of people forget that.
"Better." It's what we should ask of ourselves and of our leaders.
whether the personification/hyperbole is meant to be positive or negative is not the issue; stop. making. this. personal. please.
;-)
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Guess who smokes more pot?
For Canada, this is basically saying people that still go to parties are more likely to be in accidents.
Which is true, but it doesn't mean parties cause accidents. Or that there will be fewer accidents if you grab all the young men and shave them some bald spots.
party. It's the exact reason one gets into the accident and stare decisis not withstanding it's an incredibly dangerous chemical.
The problem we face here (specifically this thread of discussion and the argument as a whole) is that the minority that wants it are a very focused single-issue group. Much like gun owners or anti-abortion people they are absolutely laser-focused on this subject and because the internet has managed to allow their numbers to coalesce they suddenly feel a majority is in their future. We've had drug culture for 40+ years in the mainstream. Cheech and Chong did a lot of great things but if you didn't win the battle for pot with that generation odds on this generation isn't going to get any closer. We as a society are more lackadaisical with the approach to drugs but it still doesn't mean we wish them legal.
...(ZOMG!) "incredibly dangerous", I'd like to see the adjectives you use for automobile exhaust...Or water, which leads directly to more deaths yearly than pot.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Mind-altering drugs are a very dangerous substance. Don't confuse it with toxins you simpleton. Your argument is pathetic and needs to find something real to stand on. Move it along before I school you on this.
But if you're exposed to too much of it, you can get skin cancer.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Answer me this question: have you ever ingested a mind-altering drug, other than alcohol? Because I don't let the illiterate tell me what I can and can't read.
Your outrageous claims about the danger are completely opposite my personal, on-going experience and the experiences of several dozen of my family, friends, and acquaintances.
So tell me, what sort of symptoms should I be on the look out for? I mean if I were to use some this dangerous chemical of which you speak...Like, would I get diabetes--wait no that's sugar. Umm--water retention and high blood pressure? oh no no no that's salt...extreme electrolytic imbalance, organ failure and dry drowning--nooooo--that's a water od...
me-oww!
The straw man of other illnesses. Smoking pot doesn't necessarily have the physical long-term affects comparatively but it is addictive and mind-altering. So while you list a number of imbecilic reactionary items the reality is you're sidestepping the issue because of your own drug use.
Teh weed isn't physically addicting. Psychologically, sure, it can be. So can golf be. So can the internet be. They can all give pleasure to the person involved. Psychological addictions of any sort will negatively impact some other part of the addict's life.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I'm not side stepping any reality and you know nothing of my drug use. You are making assumptions, and bad ones at that. And calling my list imbecilic does not make it so.
And you skipped over the symptoms I asked you about concerning what you label as with this dangerous chemical. I kind of think you have no idea what they are.
This article is about shitty driving while impaired, not your poorly informed opinion on pot.
me-oww!
Only doubles? What from .0001 percent chance to .0002 percent?
Anyway the real problem is that people are not paying attention to driving. I wonder how many accidents are caused by people grooving to music or chatting with their passengers.
Exactly. Not to mention the fact that there are so many studies that find no correlation, that they are no longer considered news. Those studies tend to end up in the waste bin - a tradition that Nixon started.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Abortion and Contraception are strawman moral dogma issues put fourth to create division.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
...how your uterus is doing.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Cop Makes the Conservative Case for Marijuana Legalization at CPAC: "The reactions have been almost 100 pecent in favor of what I’m doing"
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
He has yet to convince the members of evangelical mega-churches.That's the reality of the situation.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
And, again, C&L needs a science blogger/editor.
Fuck Off, Dalhousie University. People drive under the influence of all sorts of mind altering shit from excess caffeine to alcohol to cough syrup to huffed gas or paint to prescription drugs and any combinations of the aforementioned shit. Not to mention trying to find and light a cigarette, find and change the CD, and talking on their cell phones. I see assholes texting every day. Eating, partying down with a carload of pals, shaving, putting on make up. I passed an asshole on the freeway once who was reading a goddamned newspaper! I would never do that any of that stuff then drive or while driving. I'd no more smoke a bowl then hop in the driver's seat than I'd head to the car with an open container.
How can they tell how long ago where honest self reporting wasn't available? I've always been told you can't tell how long ago someone smoked pot and that it stays in your system for ages.
Of course people who smoke pot and drive high get into accidents. So do drunks, So do people not paying attention. You folks in Canada needed a study for that? You're becoming more and more like your neighbours to the south day by day...Look out! your CONservative gov't is about to launch an all out war on pot! They'll bring up these studies which Peter Mansbridge will gravely report on the National, then the Hell's Angels will start up with the pot war massacres and get people up in arms...
me-oww!
This is not surprising. I'm the last person you want to hitch a ride with after smoking. I don't smoke and drive. With that said, I still think it's hypocritical that alcohol and cigarettes are both legal drugs and pot is not. It comes down to big business and lobbying. Not to mention the stigma that's put on weed. If you look at the health consequences with alcohol, tobacco and weed, the less deadly is weed. Not to mention the buzz. How many fights have you been caused by weed. You get a bunch of drunk fucks in a bar and I'll guarantee you a fight. Get a bunch of people together smoking a bowl and the fight we'll be over classics like The Three Stooges or current Parks and Recreation.
Ron Swanson: Bacon wrapped shrimp...that's my number one favorite food wrapped around my number three.
is intended to be a factual statement
Has anybody seriously suggested that it's a good idea to drive after partaking? This seems to be a study in search of a problem. Well, a study of studies...
There are already laws, at least in Kollyforniah about driving while intoxicated, I'm not seeing the point of this, although I guess the only thing the release of this "study" means is that the local dispensaries better batten down the hatches, here come the feds.
It's an election year, I suppose. Gotta start being tough on drugs. Disappointing to see the press release passed through C&L.
["Has anybody seriously suggested that it's a good idea to drive after partaking?"]
Yes, they have. It's a big myth among pot smokers that they are safer drivers than sober folk. "We drive slower than they do! So it's better to drive while stoned!" They say this all the time.
Why do so many people here have a problem with this post and the study being highlighted? It is true, it needs to be pointed out, and it is *not* an argument for keeping the stuff criminalized.
Your anecdotal evidence hasn't quite convinced me. Perhaps if you had added that when you talk to others, they have the same anecdotes as you, that would have been as convincing as this study.
Oh, living in the Emerald Triangle and having a medical recommendation, yes, yes, I have talked to a lot of "pot" smokers. Even if dopey dopers have suggested to you that they're better drivers, has there been any legislation proposed *anywhere* that says it should be OK to drive after ingesting? ***It's already illegal.***
I'll wait.
Saying "Pot smokers are safer drivers" is not the same as saying "Driving after smoking pot is safe."
And I've actually never heard anyone say that pot smokers are safer drivers than sober people, although I've heard the claim that they're safer drivers than drunks.
The reason they have more accidents is because they drive on the wrong side of the road over there.
heh
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Jesus. . . getting ONE STUDY accurate is very hard to do and every study has a list it needs to provide of all the biases and anomalies that effect the data. Then someone comes along and takes 9 OF THOSE VARIOUSLY FLAWED studies and comes up with a whole new set of data with biases and anomalies on top of biases and anomalies.
Meta data studies are the laziest form of finding results that there is. It is often done as the PRELIMINARY work for further detailed studies. . rather than providing answers. The only reason this study is getting any attention at all is because it feeds the media concern trolls about eeeeevilll drugs.
Please provide me a cross comparison of all drivers who had accidents while carrying a prescription for Oxy Codone or Percocets as compared to Marijuana. Please provide me a cross comparison of all drivers who had anger issues and road rage and how many had accidents on Marijuana vs without it. Please provide me with a list of all the drivers who reported extended use of marijuana their whole lives and then show me a percentage of how many of them had accidents compared to those who never had any.
I'm afraid that I need to agree that this is just media concern troll garbage that lets everyone lecture us on driving while impaired. . . There is no particular drug that should be singled out. . . yet here it is. . being singled out again. . . with the thinnest, weakest type of evidence that could call itself a study with a straight face.
Thanks for nothing.
One of the reasons it is being singled out because the effect on safe driving, if there is one, is so subtle that there is doubt, and even evidence that it may decrease the chances of accident. That, and it's another one of those stupid wedge issues - goes back to the division in the 60s between those that embraced the social revolution and those that didn't - it's almost as simple as the Elvis v. Beatles wedge issue.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
You just made the exact argument of why science tries to avoid subjectivity and relies on objectivity. The premise is that we wish to have zero accidents if possible. Naturally we are going to suffer random unavoidable accidents. That being said MOST drugs that would cause a problem are already prohibited while driving or offer a stern warning. So when we discuss these sorts of things the odds of prescription drugs causing an accident are still statistically higher but those are taken under medical direction for the most part and are a heavily restricted item.
Marijuana though is a hot-button topic and is threatening to become legal thus it is a more questioned drug when we face these issues. So this study isn't flawed so much as points out the issues that the pot defenders don't want to face. They make attempts to deflect and blame "concern trolls" when in reality they are fighting a losing battle to justify their drug habit.
I think I hated about the marijuana debate in California was the argument that "once it is legalized, people can smoke whereever they want! On the road, during work, everything's legal!"
...Except it doesn't have to be. Alcohol is completely legal, but if you're caught under the influence, you're in massive trouble. You can't drink a Coors in the middle of work, either.
Just impose the same regulations as alcohol on marijuana, and everything's fine.
If you smoke all day every day you barely get high. I smoke the finest green in California every day with little impact on my ability to drive, function, or program computers. I don't really ever get high. However, if I only smoke once a week or once a month I will get very high from the same green. I actually waste my money and wish I smoked less so I would actually get high. (I know this because the only two times I have ever stopped in over 20 years were to pass drug tests)
In addition, it stays in your blood for 30 days or more if you are a chronic user.
The entire study is completely flawed and based on nonsense. It could be that Marijuana users drive riskier in general because they are willing to take more risks like use illegal drugs.
Simply measuring the blood after the fact in no way is an indication if they smoked 5 minutes or 5 days ago.
I expect a hell of a lot better from Crooks And Liars then this flawed nonsense.
I just rode all the way to Costa Rica and back on a motorcycle and I smoked marijuana the whole time.
This article is beyond pathetic. You owe your readers a correction.
They gave Marijuana and placebos and tested the outcome. They didn't measure after the fact with hundreds of unknown variables like your supposed study.
Stop with the stupid. Please. Or do you not get science???
Open Your Mind
I'm staying with friends who, shall we say, have a very "green valley"-- quant and qual never an issue. He just quit drinking cold turkey (a case of beer a day drinker for years) this week, and have been watching him try to ease the pain with heavy amts of green. But it's doing little to nothing; he maxed out on the effect years ago. And I can't partake at all-- probation and job hunting. But watching it all "go to waste" in a sense hurts to see.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
shitty weed. Everyone tells me it's chronic but I get nothing from it.
I never had a problem with the hash I got in Japan. 3 tokes and I was good from some Dutch hash. 5 and I wasn't going anywhere.
"Better." It's what we should ask of ourselves and of our leaders.
Bag O' Weed
(fast-forward to 0:36)
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
money with the weekend crime shows? Just caught the end of some episode of SWAT Miami-Dade. Showed cops breaking into some growhouse with 29 plants, saying valued in excess of $1M?!! WTF are these guys smoking??
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
...over the course of a lifetime, maybe....
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
OK, there might be some problems with the study, but quit acting like right wingers. If a scientific study gives a result they don't like they just reject it out of hand. This is EXACTLY what a lot of you are doing.
Shame! I'm also interested in this meta-study. Just because they are compiling or averaging the results of 9 studies doesn't invalidate the meta study.
Seriously people!
But yeah, I'd like to know more about it, and how the performance of regular stoners versus every now and then stoners compares.
using blood test results when non-psychoactive remnants are detectable up to 30 days after ingestion and the infamously inaccurate so-called self-reported use which is simply a positive answer if it has been used in the last 48-72 hours. Both long after any actual effect would impair anyone. That right there is enough to skew the results
hard to justify since I'm sure they accounted for it. They're scientists. They know how this works and accounted for it. They still found pot smokers to be worse drivers. I remember a british show where the hostess would do something for I believe 2 weeks as much as possible. She dieted, she did exercise, and I remember the episode where she smoked pot. While she got drunk to show how a drunk drives their reaction times are shot and were ruinous. The pot high driving was even worse. She was more cautious but in a dangerous way. She drove with such nervousness that inevitably she would cause a major accident.
...we don't take driving seriously anymore. We shouldn't drive when overly tired, when we've had a drink, or desperately hungry, either. We should recognize that it's a dangerous activity and approach it with due caution. But cars have evolved to the point where they're so easy to drive that you only need about 1/10 of your attention to keep the thing on the road.
Oh, fucking please already!
are nearly as annoying as Ron Paul robots.
It's amazing how a stupid drug can control people and cause them to rationalize away reality.
This is exactly why we should stop wasting time trying to legalize the use of another mind-dumbing drug.
I don't want to be on the road while you spliff-smoking morons are giggling while crossing the center divider.
Find something else to put your passion into, if you can find a moment of clarity to do so.
What's the common link between automobile accidents caused by drunk drivers, stoned drivers, and drivers who are neither drunk nor stoned? See where I'm going with this?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
The basic problem with any assertion of Marijuana being a public health danger (via handling of motor vehicles) is that the drug itself has a tendency to sap motivation from its user. Most people who smoke pot, are going to be de-motivated from driving. This is directly contradictory to alcohol, where people attempt to engage in tasks despite being intoxicated.
That being said, I don't want to be on the road with anyone under the influence of something which dulls their reflexes, effects their judgement, or alters their mood. Unfortunately, if we want to apply such a rule uniformly, we're going to have to go after coffee and energy drink freaks too (I'm talking heavy usage - 5 cups before leaving the house and turning into a raging monster)
Shoddy science.
As a former firefighter, a paramedic, and a nurse who is certified in trauma resuscitation, and used to work in the ED of a trauma center, this is VERY. BAD. SCIENCE.
A meta analysis of 9 studies does not a ground breaker make.
FACT: Neither I, nor any other EMS worker I can point you to has EVER run on a serious accident, let alone with fatalities, where marijuana was the sole drug on board. NEVER. Nor can we point out a domestic violence case where the assailant was merely high. It JUST. DOESN'T. HAPPEN.
FACT: If I were to waste my day going back and doing an analysis of the raw data in the studies, I can ASSURE you that some other drug was also in these people's system - mainly alcohol, but also meth, cocaine, bath salts, spice, and so on. THESE are the drugs that cause serious accidents, not marijuana.
There is only one class in the community that thinks more about money than the rich, and that is the poor. The poor can think of nothing else.--Oscar Wilde
Wow! Two of us within 30 minutes. ;-)
Given the fact that pot residue stays in your system for 30 days or more there is nothing to indicate the people who tested positive were actually high at the time of the accident.
Here is another absolute FACT for you: Drivers are ten times more likely to CAUSE a serious auto accident if they have consumed a Happy Meal sometime in the previous ten years! It's true!
But it isn't because of the damn Happy Meal! It's because younger drivers tend to be less experienced and less careful.
Let's all relegate shit science to the place it belongs... GOP headquarters.
Hey! It's 4:20 somewhere, right?
in your intestines for years.
I can't think of a more clear cut case to ban cows, a most dastardly of beasts!
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
The roads are full of drivers who: are stoned on illegal weed, drunk on legal ETOH, high on legal pills, dingy on antihistamines or on the histamine itself, inattentive via phone, text, exhaustion from two jobs, crying baby, fighting siblings-- or driving while terminally stupid. On the roads of N GA and E TN, all of these apply, and bros, you DO NOT want to know what kinds of people are allowed licenses.
Count me in favor of anything which will get them off the roads. Public transport is a lovely thing, all GA counties have it, but requiring a 24-hour advance reservation does nothing for public safety. Weed is good, but not behind the wheel.
Most experimentation happens in early to late teens or early twenties. That also just so happens to be when drivers would be expected to have the least amount of driving skills amassed. It seems that a fair test would need to take that into consideration during the 'weighting' process.
I'd expect a 16 year old kid who was high only the 2nd time in her life to be impaired.
But what about a woman who had been driving for 20+ years and lost count of the number of times she's been high?
If you are feeling invincible, driving recklessly doesn't bother you.
Marijuana is a euphoric and a relaxant. That is not a good mix at high speed.
so... which is it?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Comments are restricted to registered users only.
Login - Register