This will stir the forum---LMAO

[Hijinx]

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled « CBS Seattle

Maybe Marijuana is not so harmless as some people think.

Don't kill the messenger, I only post them as I read them LOL.

 

[Railroad]

Impaired is, well, impaired. :shrug: Impaired drivers have accidents. Is this a surprise to anyone?

 

[GURPS]

Maybe Marijuana is not so harmless as some people think.

Impaired is, well, impaired. :shrug: Impaired drivers have accidents. Is this a surprise to anyone?

What Railroad said .....

 

[b23hqb]

Earlier post said it all - impaired is impaired. Being just a little buzzed, a lot buzzed, just a little boozed or snot-slinging drunk - under the influence, no matter what. No excuse, no one's fault but the imbiber.

 

[glhs837]

Hmmmm, unless testing has changed radically, they only know that sometime in the previous 30 days, the driver got high. Unless some eon can show me that the drivers were actually high while driving, this study means squat. Talk about junk science.

 

[Tech]

Has there been testing to determine the blood level needed to be impaired? Is there a test to determine the level in the blood? Will the field test kit involve a bag of Cheetos?

 

[Retrodeb54]

Impaired is, well, impaired. :shrug: Impaired drivers have accidents. Is this a surprise to anyone?

Exactly. OTC Sinus meds impair many people, glucose even a little out of balance impairs many. So many things can impair the ability to drive.

Everyday things that people don't even consider when they get behind the wheel.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

What a terrible piece of journalism. But I'm getting used to that here.

First off, this is only post-crash analysis, and doesn't cite any data relative to the effects of marijuana on the act of driving.

Secondly, THC can stay in the system for up to 90 days, and thus this only hints at a casual correlation that drivers who crash are sometimes marijuana users.

Are you people really this dumb?

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Hmmmm, unless testing has changed radically, they only know that sometime in the previous 30 days, the driver got high. Unless some eon can show me that the drivers were actually high while driving, this study means squat. Talk about junk science.

Yes, this. Sorry didn't see before posting my reply.

 

[glhs837]

Yes, this. Sorry didn't see before posting my reply.

No apologies needed, you expanded on my thoughts well.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Are you people really this dumb?

This is a rhetorical question, BTW. I already know the answer to it.

 

[Retrodeb54]

What a terrible piece of journalism. But I'm getting used to that here.

First off, this is only post-crash analysis, and doesn't cite any data relative to the effects of marijuana on the act of driving.

Secondly, THC can stay in the system for up to 90 days, and thus this only hints at a casual correlation that drivers who crash are sometimes marijuana users.

Are you people really this dumb?

Again, impaired is impaired. Pre/Post or while its happening, doesn't matter. Do you actually believe a buzz on pot doesn't impair? Hell, one of my milder asthma attacks causes lightheadedness enough that I wouldn't drive.

 

[mAlice]

Again, impaired is impaired. Pre/Post or while its happening, doesn't matter. Do you actually believe a buzz on pot doesn't impair? Hell, one of my milder asthma attacks causes lightheadedness enough that I wouldn't drive.

huh?

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Again, impaired is impaired. Pre/Post or while its happening, doesn't matter. Do you actually believe a buzz on pot doesn't impair? Hell, one of my milder asthma attacks causes lightheadedness enough that I wouldn't drive.

Impaired is impaired. OK, you've stated an equality. 2 = 2.

The point is, which I doubt you can wrap your head around, is that a positive THC test at the time of an accident does NOT equal impairment.

Do you understand that?

 

[tom88]

“The AMA today reiterated the widely held scientific view that marijuana is dangerous and should not be legalized,” said Stuart Gitlow, MD, Chair-Elect of the AMA Council on Science and Health and President of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

“We can only hope that the public will listen to science – not ‘Big Marijuana’ interests who stand to gain millions of dollars from increased addiction rates.”

The House of Delegates called for more efforts to discourage marijuana use, especially by young people, and said more research was needed to determine the consequence of long-term cannabis use.

AMA Opposes Legalization, Calls Marijuana 'Dangerous Drug

Regarding state initiatives to authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes:

• Medical treatment should be evidence-based and determined by professional standards of care; it should not be authorized by ballot initiatives.

• No medication approved by the FDA is smoked. Marijuana that is dispensed under a state-authorized program is not a specific product with controlled dosages. The buyer has no way of knowing the strength or purity of the product, as cannabis lacks the quality control of FDA-approved medicines.

American Psychiatric Association Position Statement On Marijuana As Medicine

 

[glhs837]

Again, impaired is impaired. Pre/Post or while its happening, doesn't matter. Do you actually believe a buzz on pot doesn't impair? Hell, one of my milder asthma attacks causes lightheadedness enough that I wouldn't drive.

No, of course not, but do you honestly think that a test that only shows that a driver had smoked pot within the last 30 or even up to 90 days shows that the drivers in question were high when they crashed? Unless that test shows that the driver in question was either a really heavy chronic user, or had smoked within say an hour of impact, these results don't mean anything.

You do realize, don't you, that there is currently no test equivalent to a breathalyzer? You read this, right?

Li added that police do not have a test as accurate as the Breathalyzer to check a driver’s marijuana intoxication level.
“In the case of marijuana, I would say in maybe five years or more you will see some testing method or technique that may not as accurate as the Breathalyzer, but is more accurate than the testing devices we have today,” Li said.

He hopes that in five years they might be able to determine whether someone is actually impaired by pot, but doesn't expect it to be as accurate as a vbreathalyzer.

 

[Sparx]

I did see on TV a test course set up testing pot smokers.
Long time users vs very infrequent users.
The difference between the two was pretty staggering...no pun intended.
No effects on driving skill for the long time user but very evident impairment on the infrequent user.
So I get from this; do it right or don't do it at all.
But I'm sure there are plenty of new users in CO and WA test.

 

[Retrodeb54]

huh?

That's as clear as I feel I can make my point. Correlation be damned, pot is impairing. Many things cause fatal accidents, they needn't bother trying to tell me if pot smoking does or doesn't. Of course it does as well as many other things do. Statistic are wasted on me, it (whatever subject matter) is or it isn't in my book.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear.

 

[SamSpade]

Maybe Marijuana is not so harmless as some people think.

Legalization was bound to lead to an increase of people driving while stoned.

My objection years ago was that the courts wouldn't have a lighter load because they were no longer prosecuting possession charges - rather, they'd have their hands just as full dealing with the irresponsible actions of people doing things while stoned.

Why? Because lots of people smoke in the privacy of home, and the cops rarely bust them - they get the morons who show no good sense smoking in public or driving off the road or doing dumb things. Legalizing pot doesn't make the same stupid people any smarter.

 

[Retrodeb54]

Impaired is impaired. OK, you've stated an equality. 2 = 2.

The point is, which I doubt you can wrap your head around, is that a positive THC test at the time of an accident does NOT equal impairment.

Do you understand that?

Wrap your childish name calling, pompous head around this if you can. STATISTICS mean nothing to me. They are never complete for anything never done with with all bases covered so they become null and void to me. They are just to appease people who think they need to know these things. I have no need to know their crap numbers. Like I said positive, pre/during or post is inaccurate. My opinion, my right.

Do you understand that?