The ultimate facepalm moment. Like...I don't have words.

[Hammer St. James]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I pray prohibition nevers comes back, but yes, I think drunk driving cases would reduce if prohibition were re-introduced.

Would there still be DUI's? Of course. People are too stupid for there not to be.

You are correct that even if alcohol was straight up banned from being made, sold, and consumed and severe penalties were enacted to punish anyone with a drop of alcohol in their bloodstream, people would still find a way to get their hands on it. And because people would still find a way to get their hands on it, there would still be drunk drivers.

But you can't honestly believe the drunk driving numbers wouldn't be curtailed by a significant amount.



Look, we're not in a high school debate team. I'm obviously not going to convince anyone here that legalizing pot is a bad idea. All I can do is offer my opinion on why it's a bad idea, and you can do with that what you will.

I do not think smoking pot can kill you. In order for pot to kill you, you would need to smoke an ass-load of it. Even if a pot-smoker was a trillionaire, they would probably never smoke enough in one day for the THC toxicity to kill them. The point I was trying to make is that pot-smokers would probably never smoke enough to kill themselves from THC toxicity because they prize their precious plant more than any alcoholic prizes a single beer, regardless of income level.

While it's true that no one has died strictly from smoking pot, the study I mentioned earlier shows that there were 279 deaths where marijuana was listed as a "secondary suspect (contributing to death)." This says to me 279 individuals during that time period smoked pot, and then went and did something else while they were high that lead to their death.

There's my evidence of "stupid crap." And here's a pdf where you can review it:

link Page 3

Sidenote: I find it funny that the evidence I'm using to prove a point is the same evidence a pro-legalization group is using to prove theirs



Has it been debunked? To take a page out of Hammer's book, show us this evidence you're talking about.

While I have no doubt that marijuana can be used medically to relieve pain or whatever else they say it can do, I highly doubt the majority of pot smokers have any kind of medical ailment that gives them a legitimate reason to possess the ganja.

People want pot legalized just so they can get high. Period. End of story.

The fact that all the pro-legalization folks try to hide their motives behind medicinal usage is laughable to me.

Firstly, thanks for providing the link to the pdf file. Interesting read, yet vague in the description of those secondary causes. Without viewing the actual data on a case by case basis one can only ASSUME that the cause was an accident by the user performing "stupid shit". In a few cases that I have skimmed over the primary cause was a pre-existing condition involving the heart. One case in the UK the coroner erroneously cited THC as a secondary cause of death: http://msl.rsmjournals.com/content/e...11087.abstract

Although, the file you linked actually does strengthen the pro-pot stance using hard data that proves that the drugs given in place of pot are of more primary and second causes of death than pot itself. Don't get me started on Big Pharm.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, educated....or not.


Kalimus & Steve Dallas: I found a very informative page from an attorney in CA. This should answer some of the questions that you may have about grass, driving, and the law. http://www.shouselaw.com/dui-marijuana.html

[Brutal SS]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Has it been debunked? To take a page out of Hammer's book, show us this evidence you're talking about.

While I have no doubt that marijuana can be used medically to relieve pain or whatever else they say it can do, I highly doubt the majority of pot smokers have any kind of medical ailment that gives them a legitimate reason to possess the ganja.

People want pot legalized just so they can get high. Period. End of story.

The fact that all the pro-legalization folks try to hide their motives behind medicinal usage is laughable to me.

Have you ever seen these films/posters/articles? It doesn't sound like you have. "Reefer Madness" is pure fantasy, made up by the people who want to control it. People don't beat their mothers to death with frying pans as dipicted in the film, just because they were 'mentally derranged' from smoking it. What evidence can be pointed to to prove to you that references like these just are not reality based?

To even ask that question "has it been debunked?" demonstrates that you don't really care about what's true. May I suggest a bit of research on propaganda techniques, and maybe a little history on this topic. If you care about what is true, then you will pursue the truth wherever it leads; even if it challenges your whole world-view. It's called intellectual honesty. In this case, common sense should be enough, because the stuff in this propaganda film from 1936 is patently untrue.

I don't smoke or drink, but if someone drank a few beers in their home, is it my business (or yours)? I think not. Again, I personally don't have a dog in the fight, but who is it really hurting if someone had an ailment, or if someone who simply just wanted to be high? Why should you care if it isn't hurting you or anyone else if it's used responsibily?

[Hammer St. James]

Originally Posted by Brutal SS

If you care about what is true, then you will pursue the truth wherever it leads; even if it challenges your whole world-view. It's called intellectual honesty.

Post of the day!

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Hammer St. James

Kalimus & Steve Dallas: I found a very informative page from an attorney in CA. This should answer some of the questions that you may have about grass, driving, and the law. http://www.shouselaw.com/dui-marijuana.html

I had never read that before, but that pretty much confirms everything that I've been saying as a concern. Look how easy it is to argue your way out of the charge if you were high at the time. The prosecution's testimony is weak at best (that point made in how the defense lawyer discredits the officer), and the same thing I've said several times is in there...

"It is virtually impossible to detect when you actually used marijuana. Current chemical tests can only detect that marijuana was used, not when it was used, or whether it was still producing an intoxicating effect when you got pulled over. All that matters is whether you were under the influence of marijuana at the time you drove."

Originally Posted by Brutal SS

I don't smoke or drink, but if someone drank a few beers in their home, is it my business (or yours)? I think not. Again, I personally don't have a dog in the fight, but who is it really hurting if someone had an ailment, or if someone who simply just wanted to be high? Why should you care if it isn't hurting you or anyone else if it's used responsibily?

Brutal, I don't know that anybody is actually arguing that. I'm certainly not. If people actually would stay home and do their thing, and STAY there... I couldn't give a crap less what they do. The problem is that they won't, because so many people are not responsible. And to be completely honest and blunt (not saying YOU think this but...) anybody that thinks they WILL stay at home and only ever do it there is completely delusional. They don't even stay there NOW and it's illegal.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Brutal SS

Have you ever seen these films/posters/articles? It doesn't sound like you have. "Reefer Madness" is pure fantasy, made up by the people who want to control it. People don't beat their mothers to death with frying pans as dipicted in the film, just because they were 'mentally derranged' from smoking it. What evidence can be pointed to to prove to you that references like these just are not reality based?

Apparently we're talking about two different things. I guess I haven't seen any of the films/posters/articles that you're making reference to. If you feel like providing some material for the rest of us to see what you're talking about, by all means. But I have no interest in seeking out this stuff if it's just a bunch of misleading and lame propaganda like you propose it is.

Why would I want to seek out and watch anything if it's obvious that the people who made it are whack-jobs?

This is the same reason I try to refrain from watching anything made by Michael Moore. But that delves into politics and I don't want to see this discussion closed

Originally Posted by Brutal SS

To even ask that question "has it been debunked?" demonstrates that you don't really care about what's true. May I suggest a bit of research on propaganda techniques, and maybe a little history on this topic. If you care about what is true, then you will pursue the truth wherever it leads; even if it challenges your whole world-view. It's called intellectual honesty. In this case, common sense should be enough, because the stuff in this propaganda film from 1936 is patently untrue.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. This propaganda film you're speaking of was created in 1936?!

Why on Earth would anyone be taking a film created in 1936 as any kind of "truth" in relation to an issue occurring in the 2000's?

Originally Posted by Brutal SS

I don't smoke or drink, but if someone drank a few beers in their home, is it my business (or yours)? I think not. Again, I personally don't have a dog in the fight, but who is it really hurting if someone had an ailment, or if someone who simply just wanted to be high? Why should you care if it isn't hurting you or anyone else if it's used responsibily?

Let me be clear. What someone does in the privacy of their own home is their own business and no one else's. But the discussion we're having here is not only about what people do in the privacy of their home.

We're talking about legalizing a drug that alters your ability to function like a normal human being, and not in a good way. It impairs a person's judgement and ability to, for example, operate a motor vehicle.

I do not believe that arguing we should legalize one drug (weed) because another drug (alcohol) is legal is a legitimate reason. In fact, I would think that form of argument would actually undermine your intent to start out with. Look at how many people die everyday due to alcohol related incidents. And that's with a legalized drug. If we were to legalize marijuana, the availability to the everyday person who might not normally consider ever using it would be exponentially higher.

Even if your argument is that it's already available to anyone who wants it, you're still overlooking how penalties would be affected for possessing it. Right now, if you have any weed on you, and an officer finds it on you while driving, you get arrested. So most people who partake, refrain from operating a motor vehicle while high because they simply don't want to risk it. So, while marijuana is illegal, most people really do only use it in the privacy of their own home or residence.

But if it's legalized, the risk of "being caught" with any on you while driving is no longer there. So now that the officer can't arrest you for possession, the argument then becomes, how are we going to prove if someone is impaired while driving?

Alcohol intoxication is easily measurable. How high someone is, however, is not so easy to measure, just like kalimus has been saying.

How is it going to be proven that someone is impaired while driving due to marijuana? I will be honest here and say I have no idea if there is a test that can be performed by an officer (similar to a breathalyzer) that can conclusively determine how intoxicated a person is by marijuana. Yeah, they can administer a field sobriety test, but if the subject fails the sobriety test, then what? Is there a blood test at the station that can determine this intoxication level?

My concern is that if you legalize a psychoactive drug, what is going to be done to protect society from a bunch of people driving "drunk" on marijuana?

And to add to this, we have a hard enough time as it is eliminating the drunk drivers right now. So why should we be pushing to add another intoxicant to the legalized drug list before we solve the current issues first? Let's figure out a way to eliminate drunk drivers before we go and compound the problem with more legalized drugs.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I do not believe that arguing we should legalize one drug (weed) because another drug (alcohol) is legal is a legitimate reason.

Exactly!


And to add to this, we have a hard enough time as it is eliminating the drunk drivers right now. So why should we be pushing to add another intoxicant to the legalized drug list before we solve the current issues first? Let's figure out a way to eliminate drunk drivers before we go and compound the problem with more legalized drugs.

[Hammer St. James]

This link holds some surprising information about post-legalization traffic fatalities. http://www.alternet.org/drugs/153264...l_car_crashes/

Of course, you can't believe everything you read on the nets. It does give a starting point for possible cross reference.

[CamaroSkooter]

That link talks solely about medical marijuana, not full legalization. Which one are we debating here?

I've already said before that I have no doubt that marijuana can be used in a medical capacity to help certain individuals with specific ailments.

What I have a problem with is full legalization. This makes it legal for anyone (presumably over the age of 18 or 21, depending on how the law would be written) to purchase and consume the drug over-the-counter, like aspirin or cough syrup.

I'm not surprised that legalization of medical marijuana had these kinds of affects on the traffic studies, but then again most German institutes can make statistics say whatever they want to say (that's a joke, by the way).

What the study doesn't say is who can get a medical marijuana prescription in that research. I would tend to believe that the majority of the people getting medical marijuana prescriptions are over the age of 30 (this is a random guess) and maybe even older than that. You know, people who are responsible enough to know when they're high versus when they're too drunk to drive.

Like I've already stated (and you've agreed) marijuana affects you very quickly, whereas alcohol has a delay from the time of consumption to when the effects are felt. I'm sure some drunk drivers don't realize they're too drunk to drive until they're 5 or 10 minutes out on the road. This is just a personal theory, though. Feel free to shoot holes in it if you so desire.

But what happens when you start allowing anyone over 18 or 21 to freely purchase and smoke marijuana? I'm not fully convinced that a stoned 21-year-old will be any less of a hazard to the public than a drunk 21-year-old.

[Hammer St. James]

This thread's title is quite appropriate.

[CamaroSkooter]

Yup, smoking an illegal substance outside of a POLICE STATION definately deserves a

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Hammer St. James

This link holds some surprising information about post-legalization traffic fatalities. http://www.alternet.org/drugs/153264...l_car_crashes/

Of course, you can't believe everything you read on the nets. It does give a starting point for possible cross reference.

I think that's pretty interesting. Although I'm not sure if I buy "legalizing pot led to less drinking which in turn led to less fatalities" as a direct relation. I would like to see more types of that study however. I mean, if it can be proven that's REALLY what happens... well I might shift my view a little more.

The thing that sucks about studies like that, is they don't take into account other factors either. How much safer cars are now compared to 1990 (which I assure you contributes to reduced fatalities). I would have preferred them to make that connection to "accidents" to be honest. Drinking/driving is taken much more seriously now also. More DUI checkpoints, more education etc.

The other thing I don't like about studies, is that you can never tell what the opinion is of the people conducting the study, or the people wanting to participate. And this works on both sides, which is why I also don't believe weed is a "gateway drug" either, regardless of studies that have suggested it is, nor do I believe the "madness" stories that were talked about earlier. But those allegedly had "studies" to support them. That's all I'm saying. You don't have to lie on a study to get it to support your stance. You just have to choose which information you include, and be selective about the information you gather.

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

What the study doesn't say is who can get a medical marijuana prescription in that research. I would tend to believe that the majority of the people getting medical marijuana prescriptions are over the age of 30 (this is a random guess) and maybe even older than that. You know, people who are responsible enough to know when they're high versus when they're too drunk to drive.

I personally know some friends in college, that got medical marijuana prescriptions for "migraines" that they admit they don't actually have. They say they hear to do this from others who do the same thing, because those migraines are almost impossible to prove. You have to be having one at the time for the doctor to know. How many people do this? I'm not sure. Maybe it's very few. Maybe it's a lot. I don't know, but it does happen.

[Hammer St. James]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Yup, smoking an illegal substance outside of a POLICE STATION definately deserves a

The op did not produce evidence to that statement. Nowhere in in any of his posts did he state that the users where on government property while consuming. If you care to revisit his initial posting he states that they left the building for 20 minutes. Who is to say that they didn't drive to the gas station and blaze one on the road?

When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME. Remove preconception and prejudice from reasoning, view situations as they plainly exist, consider facts as they stand, investigate and cross reference to validate or disprove.

[Steve Dallas]

Many years ago when I was in my 20's, I used marijuana quite regularly...and that included driving.

When I wasn't high, I was speeding...and got numerous tickets for things like negligent & reckless driving because of my speed, even going to jail a couple of times.

When I was high, never ever got into an accident, and never went more than 1-3 mph over the speed limit. Never got a ticket in that condition.

I would never ever drive while high now. This does not prove anything either way. I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that smoking pot doesn't turn you into a raging maniac nor does it totally destroy your reflexes.

Heck, random thought here. You get all types of people who get drivers licences. When I was in drivers ed, one of the kids learning with me was so utterly uncoordinated that he would turn the wheel left on a right hand bend and cross the centerline on a regular basis. He got his license...and I would have been scared to drive anywhere near him.

Ya'll know my stance on drunk driving. I think my biggest concern there is that when yo do drink and kill or injure someone, you need to go to jail for a much longer time. I occasionally hear the argument "I can hold my liquor" or "it doesn't affect me the way it does other people"...and to some extent that can be true. .08 doesn't always effect people the same way.

Same goes for pot. It effects different people different ways. Heck, some people can use a cell phone safely in a car where others will totally lose focus on the road and be a danger. There are so many grey areas these days as far as texting, using the car radio, talking to passengers, pressing a button on your nav system. All of these are distractions and some people can deal with this a LOT better than others.

So what is the common theme between all of the above actions where they are being unsafe to other drivers? It's something that is observable and can be acted upon by a cop. Weaving, driving erratically, speeding, not signalling, and of course....getting into an accident can all result from any of the above actions, whether or not drugs are involved. Maybe we also need to make those "Warning signs" and the accidents themselves more painful in penalties, regardless of if we ever add marijuana to the mix.

I'm far less worried about people driving around stoned than I am about kids these days texting while driving or the continued lack of really making drunk driving penalties have any teeth to them. And enforcement of texting and other distracted driving infractions is also a joke. No teeth to the laws, really.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

I'm far less worried about people driving around stoned than I am about kids these days texting while driving or the continued lack of really making drunk driving penalties have any teeth to them. And enforcement of texting and other distracted driving infractions is also a joke. No teeth to the laws, really.

I'm really less worried about drunk drivers than texters in a way. At least the person who is drunk is looking at the road (unless they are drunk AND texting, which would be.... just awesome). So I would agree with you a little bit. But I believe the drunk is incapacitated the entire drive, while the texter is for short periods. Both are dangerous. Someone who is high might be less incapacitated than the drunk, and even the texter, but is still incapacitated at some level. But like you said earlier in your post, alcohol affects people differently. Someone at .05 might be "ok, and someone else might be worthless. That's why they have "wet reckless". Same goes to weed. Will one drag of pot make someone as bad a person that just got wrecked at a bar? I highly doubt it. But "how drunk" matters just as much as "how high" in my opinion. And like you alluded to, tolerance plays a big factor. The fact is, that pot still alters your mental state. So it's adding another variable to the problem. But ultimately I'm not debating which one is worse. I'm just debating you can prove one and not the other, so making it legal compounds the problem. If even ONE person in the entire country caused an accident because they were high after buying some pot at the gas station or whatever, the problem has been made worse, would you agree? And I know you already agree that the enforcement on the things that are already illegal to do while driving need to be stepped up.

I do agree with the enforcement of laws. Every time I step out on my balcony, I will see someone drive by that is looking right at their phone. If I was a cop, I would stand on that sidewalk everyday and just ticket. I could fun the entire state at the rate I see them go by .

I do find it odd that the only thing we seem to be discussing is the results of it's effect on driving. I'd be curious to know too... Lots (not all) smokers are used to smoking weed that's been "doctored" with another drug. If it were to be legal, do you think they would buy the legal stuff, and then doctor it illegally? Not a trick question, just curious.