New state study highlights negative effects of marijuana.......

[Mr Person]

How long does it IMPARE your ability to see clearly? Dull your reaction time? Hm?

A few hours at most.*

then maybe it should be prudent to not drive for a month?

No. Because it only impairs an individual for a few hours at most.*

To say it affects people for a month because it is detectable for up to a month after use would either be grossly ignorant, or intentionally false.







*But, according to a recent study, regular smokers showed virtually no impairment in a driving simulator. Infrequent smokers showed significant impairment, though not as bad as those under the influence of marijuana.

 

[Mr Person]

So because other things are bad or happen more frequently...you should be allowed to murder a mother of a 3 year old child on your way to Taco Bell because you couldn't quite control your vehicle after that last hash brownie?

This is getting silly. Nobody said anything like that (as is usually the case with responses that begin along the lines of: so, what you're saying is_____________).

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

New state study highlights negative effects of marijuana on adolescent, young adult brains | FOX31 Denver



Duh.

Oh well, thins the herd for the kids smart enough to know better.

I agree, kids should be encouraged to stay away from weed, that encouragement should not be jail.....



your state "study", is a goup of dudes, reviewing existing information and coming to a committee conclusion, it really doesn't add any scientific information...

 

[Risky Thicket]

Everyone I have known personally all of these years who regularly smoked pot.....graduated to more dangerous drugs starting with cocaine. Smoking pot removes the taboos for many of them.

Not me. I know many who have smoked regularly and have not gone on to dangerous drugs. I also know people who smoke pot who successfully quit drinking.

As to people who regularly smoked pot and now use dangerous drugs, I haven't seen any research. I would venture to say that alcohol is most likely the gateway drug for most users of dangerous drugs.

 

[JasperL]

You're in Colorado. You know the immense increase in social problems that are rising because of legalizing marijuana. I don't have to tell you because it's the talk of the state these days.

Personally, I'm all for legalizing it because it culls the herd for my kids. I went to college with quite a few stoners. Most didn't come close to graduating, and those that did accomplished little to nothing afterward. Hey, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

I went to school with lots of drunks, and lots of people who smoked pot, and I can't see any correlation at all between the success or failure of those who did and didn't smoke pot or of those who did and didn't drink alcohol. The only cause and effect relationship I can see in my limited world is those who were routinely inebriated when they had work that needed to be done often don't so well, but that's sort of a given. Those who got inebriated at appropriate times, regardless of the substance, did and do just fine.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Oh, bull.

Crime is rising rapidly, and that once awesome downtown area is now just sea of homeless wastoids smoking openly in public scaring the kids.

And that started only after cannabis became legal? Proof?

 

[Mr Person]

*But, according to a recent study, regular smokers showed virtually no impairment in a driving simulator. Infrequent smokers showed significant impairment, though not as bad as those under the influence of marijuana.

The bolded should have read "under the influence of alcohol"

 

[Mr Person]

Everyone I have known personally all of these years who regularly smoked pot.....graduated to more dangerous drugs starting with cocaine. Smoking pot removes the taboos for many of them.

This is:

1. A repackaging of the already debunked "gateway drug" claim, which was fabricated by the government in order to convince you to support spending lots of tax dollars on its useless "War on Drugs";

2. Completely contradicted by experience; and

3. Overlooks a fairly obvious point: if you're willing to put a straw up your nose or a needle in your arm, you will by definition be willing to assume the risks of ingesting any lesser drug.

 

[Mr Person]

Marijuana is not physically (aka chemically) addictive.

It is only "psychologically addictive", but this is a misleading term because it has nothing to do with the substance - video games are also classed as "psychologically addictive - and everything to do with the individual. You wouldn't require a prescription for video games, would you?

Opiates are physically addictive. They may work better in the short term, but in the long term they are a nightmare. If a patient says they get the relief they require from marijuana, it would be cruel in the extreme to send them to opiates instead.

Sorry....I just do not by the marijuana as a pain killer claims.

Anonymous internet person proves that cancer and other terminal disease patients are lying when they say that marijuana relieves their pain by saying he "just do not by" those claims....

 

[Absentglare]

What other intent could you have when getting into a vehicle knowing you are impaired? Didn't you claim decision making WASN'T impaired by pot? Seems to me like that is BS if you get behind the wheel stoned.

Are you saying there are no possible catastrophic consequences for getting behind the wheel stoned? Are you saying the risk isn't even there? That it isn't considerably higher than coffee?



Then maybe it should be prudent to not drive for a month? How long does it IMPARE your ability to see clearly? Dull your reaction time? Hm?



Even more sad is that you want to defend people for making a blatantly horrific decision to get behind the wheel stoned. In what world is it ok to put other people's lives in danger?

What other intent could you have ?

Are you serious ? You're saying that the intent of "getting into a car" is the same as "committing to murder someone" ?

I don't know exactly what the risk of stoned driving is. For the most part, studies show that it's significantly lower risk than alcohol. Why ? Because of what i told you- alcohol impairs your judgement, one can be overconfident. Marijuana impairment is not the same in that way.

Fact is, no matter how enraged you are about your unjustifiable nonsense, it's, thankfully, not up to you.

 

[blackjack50]

A few hours at most.*




No. Because it only impairs an individual for a few hours at most.*

To say it affects people for a month because it is detectable for up to a month after use would either be grossly ignorant, or intentionally false.







*But, according to a recent study, regular smokers showed virtually no impairment in a driving simulator. Infrequent smokers showed significant impairment, though not as bad as those under the influence of marijuana.

I am not claiming anything about how long it impacts your driving, but if the only method to determine if you are impaired driving is not able to tell the last time you used...then maybe those who Partake should consider that?

And let me ask you a serious question: would you let a stoned friend drive your wife/daughter/mother home? Real people don't die in simulations.

 

[blackjack50]

What other intent could you have ?

Are you serious ? You're saying that the intent of "getting into a car" is the same as "committing to murder someone" ?

What part of 0 sympathy do you not understand?

I don't know exactly what the risk of stoned driving is. For the most part, studies show that it's significantly lower risk than alcohol. Why ? Because of what i told you- alcohol impairs your judgement, one can be overconfident. Marijuana impairment is not the same in that way.

Oh. Really?

Fact is, no matter how enraged you are about your unjustifiable nonsense, it's, thankfully, not up to you.

Would you allow someone to drive children home while stoned?

 

[Mr Person]

I am not claiming anything about how long it impacts your driving, but if the only method to determine if you are impaired driving is not able to tell the last time you used...then maybe those who Partake should consider that?

Well,

1. The police can perform field sobriety tests;

2. The police can seek a warrant to have a blood draw done. The amount of THC in the bloodstream can thus be determined, and an expert opinion could be given on whether that concentration is sufficient to produce intoxication vs. indicates some prior use that does not affect driving.

You're trying to say that police inability to determine someone is intoxicated by marijuana, despite the above options for testing for intoxication, should somehow excuse a monumentally stupid policy where THC metabolites detected in any amount are to be held against a driver?



3. You ASKED the following about how long it impairs driving:

"

Then maybe it should be prudent to not drive for a month? How long does it IMPARE your ability to see clearly? Dull your reaction time? Hm?

I told you.

 

[blackjack50]

Well,

1. The police can perform field sobriety tests;

2. The police can seek a warrant to have a blood draw done. The amount of THC in the bloodstream can thus be determined, and an expert opinion could be given on whether that concentration is sufficient to produce intoxication vs. indicates some prior use that does not affect driving.

You're trying to say that police inability to determine someone is intoxicated by marijuana, despite the above options for testing for intoxication, should somehow excuse a monumentally stupid policy where THC metabolites detected in any amount are to be held against a driver?



3. You ASKED the following about how long it impairs driving:

"

I told you.

Do you not understand the word "if?"

Or are you just ignoring it? Or just not see it?

The point IS that THC DOES IMPARE your ability to drive. I'm not the one claiming we should arrest someone a month after they smoked weed and drove. My statement was much simpler: "if" we can't determine (and you stated we can so then this wouldn't apply) the difference between someone who smoked yesterday or a month ago...then MAYBE the dumbass stoner should have some personal responsibility and not smoke a month prior to driving?

I'm being drastic to emphasize that I have no sympathy for impaired driving. There is 0 excuse. Period. It is a monumentally stupid thing to do and deserves to be treated as such.

 

[Surrealistik]

Why does that mean that we would have to legalize harder drugs? Not that most of this wasn't legal at some point in our history, it all was. But the War on Drugs is big money for big government.

Correction: it's big deficits for government (enforcement and incarceration costs, loss of revenue from legalization and taxation), and big profits for private prisons which not so coincidentally happen to be the WoD's biggest lobbyists and advocates.

 

[Absentglare]

What part of 0 sympathy do you not understand?



Oh. Really?



Would you allow someone to drive children home while stoned?

Allow ?

I'm not some authoritarian dictator. I believe in freedom. That freedom is checked through due process, not ignorance and bigotry.

 

[Casper]

New state study highlights negative effects of marijuana on adolescent, young adult brains | FOX31 Denver



Duh.

Oh well, thins the herd for the kids smart enough to know better.

Thing is pot is not legal in Colorado or any other state for Minors.

 

[Absentglare]

Correction: it's big deficits for government (enforcement and incarceration costs, loss of revenue from legalization and taxation), and big profits for private prisons which not so coincidentally happen to be the WoD's biggest lobbyists and advocates.

We fund both sides of the drug war and the profiteers have done a great job muddying the waters.

 

[bg85]

You're in Colorado. You know the immense increase in social problems that are rising because of legalizing marijuana. I don't have to tell you because it's the talk of the state these days.

I think it's hilarious that you're telling people in Colorado what the "talk of the state" is these days. Coloradoans continue to support the legalization of marijuana and support for it has actually increased since it first became legal.

 

[Mr Person]

The point IS that THC DOES IMPARE your ability to drive. I'm not the one claiming we should arrest someone a month after they smoked weed and drove. My statement was much simpler: "if" we can't determine (and you stated we can so then this wouldn't apply) the difference between someone who smoked yesterday or a month ago...then MAYBE the dumbass stoner should have some personal responsibility and not smoke a month prior to driving?

Well, I told you what I recall reading, namely, a study and the portions of the study that were publicly available without charge found:

1. Infrequent marijuana users exhibited significant impairment in individual tasks associated with driving and performance in a driving simulator, when stoned.

2. Frequent (ie, daily or near-deaily) users exhibited some (but less) impairment in individual tasks associated with driving.

3. The same frequent users exhibited very little impairment in a driving simulator.

4. Persons in varying states beyond legal intoxication performed far worse than any group of marijuana users in both tasks.

5. I also pointed out that there ARE indeed ways for the police to detect whether or not someone is intoxicated by marijuana to the point where their driving is or might be impaired. Namely, (1) failing roadside sobriety tests, (2) a blood draw that reveals the specific concentration of THC and THC metabolites in their bloodstream.



So basically, while driving under the influence of marijuana may be risky* depending on the user and amount used, it is fortunately far less dangerous than driving while intoxicated by alcohol.

Do you not understand the word "if?"

Or are you just ignoring it? Or just not see it?

For the third time, my statements regarding the effect of marijuana use on driving resulted from this comment of yours.

Then maybe it should be prudent to not drive for a month? How long does it IMPARE your ability to see clearly? Dull your reaction time? Hm?

I do not see the word "if" in those four clauses.

My statement was much simpler: "if" we can't determine (and you stated we can so then this wouldn't apply) the difference between someone who smoked yesterday or a month ago...then MAYBE the dumbass stoner should have some personal responsibility and not smoke a month prior to driving?

Oh, that "if"?

I ALSO already answered it, as you recognize, so what am I supposed to be confused about in regards to the word "if"?

You seem to have some sort of superiority complex vis a vis persons who use the drug marijuana (as opposed to persons who use the much worse drug ethanol). I'm sorry if you've lost someone to an intoxicated driver, but you really seem to be blowing this issue out of proportion.

It is alcohol users who wreak the real damage on the roads, not marijuana users. (In fact it is rather rare for someone to fail sobriety tests when only under the influence of marijuana. It just doesn't impair you in the way that alcohol does. Virtually all accidents said to be "marijuana related" are in fact situations where drunk people also happened to have marijuana in their systems).

 

[jmotivator]

Anyway, as far as adult users go, it is pretty much the safest drug taken for recreational purposes that exists.

 

[Mr Person]

You're in Colorado. You know the immense increase in social problems that are rising because of legalizing marijuana. I don't have to tell you because it's the talk of the state these days.

Personally, I'm all for legalizing it because it culls the herd for my kids. I went to college with quite a few stoners. Most didn't come close to graduating, and those that did accomplished little to nothing afterward. Hey, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

I went to college with quite a few stoners. The vast majority obtained advanced degrees and are highly productive members of society. One has convinced a number of governments world-wide to adopt anti-smoking initiatives, quite a few are hard working attorneys, one controls mind-boggling amounts of foreign currency exchanges, etc etc etc. Two of the last three Presidents of the most powerful country on the planet smoked pot.


Perhaps it has more to do with the college you went to and/or the specific group of people you chose to associate with?

So much for the authoritativeness of claimed anecdote....

 

[blackjack50]

Well, I told you what I recall reading, namely, a study and the portions of the study that were publicly available without charge found:

1. Infrequent marijuana users exhibited significant impairment in individual tasks associated with driving and performance in a driving simulator, when stoned.

2. Frequent (ie, daily or near-deaily) users exhibited some (but less) impairment in individual tasks associated with driving.

3. The same frequent users exhibited very little impairment in a driving simulator.

4. Persons in varying states beyond legal intoxication performed far worse than any group of marijuana users in both tasks.

5. I also pointed out that there ARE indeed ways for the police to detect whether or not someone is intoxicated by marijuana to the point where their driving is or might be impaired. Namely, (1) failing roadside sobriety tests, (2) a blood draw that reveals the specific concentration of THC and THC metabolites in their bloodstream.



So basically, while driving under the influence of marijuana may be risky* depending on the user and amount used, it is fortunately far less dangerous than driving while intoxicated by alcohol.








For the third time, my statements regarding the effect of marijuana use on driving resulted from this comment of yours.



I do not see the word "if" in those four clauses.






Oh, that "if"?

I ALSO already answered it, as you recognize, so what am I supposed to be confused about in regards to the word "if"?

You seem to have some sort of superiority complex vis a vis persons who use the drug marijuana (as opposed to persons who use the much worse drug ethanol). I'm sorry if you've lost someone to an intoxicated driver, but you really seem to be blowing this issue out of proportion.

It is alcohol users who wreak the real damage on the roads, not marijuana users. (In fact it is rather rare for someone to fail sobriety tests when only under the influence of marijuana. It just doesn't impair you in the way that alcohol does. Virtually all accidents said to be "marijuana related" are in fact situations where drunk people also happened to have marijuana in their systems).

I'm asking you a simple question: would you allow your child to ride in the car with someone who is high?

 

[Absentglare]

View attachment 67197463

Touché.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm asking you a simple question: would you allow your child to ride in the car with someone who is high?

Btw, for the record, stonewall50 and i seem to have been in a disagreement over what looks to be a misunderstanding.

When stonewall50 said this :

...
2) And after all that, pot while driving is still bad.

And i responded with this :

So is driving tired.

Or driving while using your cell phone.

Or driving while distracted by passengers.

Or driving while eating.

Or driving while having a seizure.

I don't think "hit by a stoned driver" is anywhere near frequent a cause of death as "hit by a drunk driver."

It looked like i was trying to claim that there's nothing wrong with stoned driving, that i was opposing his point. I can see how it looks that way, but it wasn't what i meant to say. I meant to simply elaborate because i don't believe in attaching overly strict punishments and i have concern over residual THC being used to criminalize drivers who may infrequently use marijuana in the safety of their own home.