Interesting, thanks for the link.
What is also interesting is that the overall numbers for the periods studied haven't significantly changed 1311 vs 1324 but the makeup has. I wonder if there are certain people who are just more likely to drive intoxicated regardless of the intoxicant and the real problem are said people, ie remove pot legalization and they'll just go back to driving drunk.
STrawman calling, he's mocking you.
A lot of the legalized states aren't tracking the effects of their legalization. Colorado doesn't separate DUI into Booze and MJ.
Any fool that's been around a stoner knows that person shouldn't be damned driving. To think legalizing MJ isn't' going to increase driving problems is lying to themselves.
I'd advise that you try not to use terms that you clearly don't understand. No strawman there whatsoever.
Even the CHP did a study as far back as 1993 and concluded that people under the influence of MJ were far less of a danger than those who drove when drunk. This isn't about saving lives for you, since you choose to ignore and remain oblivious to relevant data. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25800/25867/DOT-HS-808-078.pdf
Seeing as I never mentioned prohibition, you might want to rethink your comments.
Irrelevant. I asked you a question, and you seem unable to answer it.
You stated "The difference I think is, I want to save lives, you could give two ****s less about people dying.", indicating you car about people dying, and alcohol is the single greatest contributor known to traffic fatalities.
Therefore, it would follow that since you care about saving lives, you'd want to at least consider removing alcohol as a factor from that.
So, again: are you or are you not in favor of reintroducing Prohibition. If not, why not?
Why are you afraid to answer that?
I answered it, you just didn't like that I won't fall into your rhetorical logic trap. I said, we have enough problems with one group of impaired drivers, why add more?
Ergo, I answered your question. You have this impression you are bright and witty, about to pull of a slick move. You are amusingly mistaken.
I answered it, you just didn't like that I won't fall into your rhetorical logic trap. I said, we have enough problems with one group of impaired drivers, why add more?
Ergo, I answered your question. You have this impression you are bright and witty, about to pull of a slick move. You are amusingly mistaken.
Drug-driving deaths more than double in US
What a shock, high people killing more people on the roads....
[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.today.com/health/driving-while-high-marijuana-causing-spike-fatal-accidents-t91746
I don't get the desire or demand to legalize pot, do you WANT to kill people? FFS what is wrong with the lot of you?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Hilarious coming from someone that accuses me of being a Nanny Stater.
That means a lab test would only find a trace amount of THC in the blood of occasional smokers after a few hours. "You could have smoked a good amount, just waited two hours, still be pretty intoxicated and yet pass the drug test [for driving]," says Haney.
And if you eat the weed instead of smoking it, Haney says, your blood never carries that much THC. "With oral THC, it takes several hours for [blood THC] to peak, but it remains very low compared to the smoked route, even though they're very high. It's a hundredfold difference," she says.
"Blood isn't taken in the U.S. until 1.5 to four hours after the [traffic] incident," Huestis says. By then, THC levels would have fallen significantly, and these people might have been impaired but passed the test. At the same time, a heavy user living in a state like Washington would get a DUI even if she or he hadn't smoked in weeks.
As a result, it gets difficult to even understand how risky blazed driving is. Traffic studies that rely on blood THC measures could also be inaccurate if blood is drawn too late and THC has already left the system. And some state traffic databases, including Colorado's, according to state traffic officials, link accidents to 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC, a byproduct of marijuana metabolism that marks only recent exposure and not intoxication. That might result in an overestimation of marijuana-related accidents.
Drug-driving deaths more than double in US
What a shock, high people killing more people on the roads....
[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.today.com/health/driving-while-high-marijuana-causing-spike-fatal-accidents-t91746
I don't get the desire or demand to legalize pot, do you WANT to kill people? FFS what is wrong with the lot of you?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Impaired Drivers = wrecks. More MJ users... more chance of impaired drivers.
WHOOOSH common sense just skull ****ed your post.
The article you posted was thoroughly debunked due to the terrible standards they rushed to impose .... in 2014.
Legal MJ does not mean more MJ users. Availability isn't an issue for anyone who is interested in it. Why would anyone hold back if they were inclined to try it? Just because it's illegal? The law itself is grossly hypocritical on MJ. As bad as heroine and worse than cocaine and meth on the federal level, and a civil offense at the state level, in most places where it isn't fully legal, that gets you the equivalent to a speeding ticket, when the police bother to enforce it.
You're not keeping it from anyone by keeping it illegal, just protecting a black market that honest dollars get pumped into and illegal businesses profit from.
Drug-driving deaths more than double in US
What a shock, high people killing more people on the roads....
[/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.today.com/health/driving-while-high-marijuana-causing-spike-fatal-accidents-t91746
I don't get the desire or demand to legalize pot, do you WANT to kill people? FFS what is wrong with the lot of you?[/FONT][/COLOR]
WTSC data show the total number of traffic fatalities rose by 6 percent last year (from 436 to 462) after falling the previous six years (including 2013, the first full year in which recreational use was legal, although state-licensed pot stores were not open yet). The number of fatalities from accidents in which the driver tested positive for marijuana (which does not necessarily mean he was impaired by marijuana) rose by 55 percent (from 64 to 99). Meanwhile, the number of fatalities from accidents in which the driver was deemed to be impaired by alcohol fell by 13 percent (from 127 to 111). That number had declined or remained steady in the previous six years, except for a 14 percent increase in 2009.
The 6 percent increase in total fatalities is consistent with the idea that legalization raises the number of dangerously impaired drivers. But that increase occurred entirely in the first half of 2014, before the pot shops started to open, which is a bit of a puzzle.
Do you actually have any evidence more people have died? Because:
Is Marijuana Causing More Car Crashes in Washington? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Sure thing bub. Sure thing.
One additional death due to the legalization of marijuana is too many.
Marijuana Legalization in Washington State: One-Year Status Report | Drug Policy Alliance
Violent crime has decreased in Washington and other crime rates have remained stable since the passage of I-502.
Reason likes legalization. Common sense says "Let people get high, more will drive. High people don't drive so well."
You can flop around all you want spud, but reality cannot be dismissed with a url link.
Which of course is absolute bull****, and you're smart enough to know it Renae. The only reliable way to determine if someone is under the influence of pot is to have watched them smoke or ingest it. Blood or urine will only tell you if there is pot in their system and how much residual THC, all of which could simply denote they smoked last week.
What makes this OP and these articles such bull**** is that the testing for sobriety is a new thing. How are they seeing an increase in something they haven't tested routinely for before?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?