Tony Stewart runs over another racer...

[MMM_donuts]

from WebMD:


smoke weed, don't smoke weed .... but when you run out in front of a speeding race car, because your judgement is impaired, own your stupidity if you get a darwin award

I absolutely will not enter into a marijuana debate with you especially if you're quoting webMD. It is very clearly documented that the role of THC in driver impairment is controversial at best. If you are going to suggest that THC slowed his reaction time so that he was unable to back away from Stewart's car as it passed as a factor, then you will also have to take the other minor factors into account, which means Tony Stewart gets to share some of the blame.

Stick to your argument about the boy not getting out of the car. That's the money argument. The rest is trivial and only makes you all appear desperate to prove that your opinion is right in the face of controversy.

 

[GURPS]

you deny the effects ... post your own info

you maybe able to twist up a fat on, smoke up and then drive to the 7-11 for a bag of chips, but high speed racing requires you to 110 % on the ball


frankly it is irrelevant ...

.... Wards death will always be clouded by the fact he was under the influence, and made a Darwin Award level choice to run out onto a race track and paid for that choice with his life


smoke dope, don't smoke dope ..
... we now live n a soft police state because of the War on Drugs ... which has been a colossal waste of money, all because in the 1950's some racist need a reason to hassle blacks and Mexicans

 

[MMM_donuts]

Wards death will always be clouded by the fact he made a Darwin Award level choice to run out onto a race track and paid for that choice with his life.

Here, I've fixed that for you. You're welcome.

 

[Merlin99]

Here, I've fixed that for you. You're welcome.

.... Wards death will always be clouded by the fact he was under the influence, and made a Darwin Award level choice to race and paid for that choice with his life

I fixed it better, If you're impaired by anything at better than a 100 MPH than don't be suprised to end up suddenly dead.

 

[Merlin99]

You're welcome

 

[GURPS]

I fixed it better, If you're impaired by anything at better than a 100 MPH than don't be suprised to end up suddenly dead.

POT is 'ok' at any speed

 

[MMM_donuts]

Alright, well, if that's what you have to resort to in order to prove your point then go right ahead. It's a fallacy that goes against your own credibility.

The boy died because he got out of his car on an active racetrack.

 

[Midnightrider]

Hey, the report says he was meaningfully high. He was out there driving a race car IN a race. That's not the weed I remember. And drug testing is one thing. Doing something about it is another.

when did they begin to be able to make this determination? I thought the fconventional wisdom was that it was extremely dependant on tolerence and that levels dont really correlate to impairment

 

[Gilligan]

Alright, well, if that's what you have to resort to in order to prove your point then go right ahead. It's a fallacy that goes against your own credibility.

The boy died because he got out of his car on an active racetrack.

What is a fallacy?....that smoking pot results in driver impairment? I've seen plenty of research and study results that clearly show that it does. The questions that remain always revolve around not "if" but matters of degree...and detection, quantification..things like that.

I've also seen the results that show where smoking pot just before driving resulted in a "brief" period of heightened driver performance in some cases; an interesting result that has researchers puzzling a bit. In the one study, they tentatively attributed that observation to the driver "actively overcompensating for their own self-perception of their state of impairment". Frankly, I've no idea what that is supposed to mean.

 

[Merlin99]

The boy shouldn't have been on an active racetrack (or a highway) while impaired, in a car or out.

 

[Larry Gude]

when did they begin to be able to make this determination? I thought the fconventional wisdom was that it was extremely dependant on tolerence and that levels dont really correlate to impairment

#### if I know. I read that, started laughing and posted it. I never once suspected Stewart murdered that kid and it's a sad thing. It just gets less sad when Stupid Human Trick's enter into the equation. I mean, is there an 'acceptable' level of THC in the system for racing sprint cars???

 

[Midnightrider]

#### if I know. I read that, started laughing and posted it. I never once suspected Stewart murdered that kid and it's a sad thing. It just gets less sad when Stupid Human Trick's enter into the equation. I mean, is there an 'acceptable' level of THC in the system for racing sprint cars???

I know that they dont use THC levels in court because they dont correlate to being impaired. Considering THC can stay in a person's system out to something like 45 days while impairment doens't last more than a day, i would say that yes, there is a level that is ok for a sprint driver to have in his system. What level that is i dont know.....

 

[MMM_donuts]

What is a fallacy?....that smoking pot results in driver impairment? I've seen plenty of research and study results that clearly show that it does. The questions that remain always revolve around not "if" but matters of degree...and detection, quantification..things like that.

That smoking pot was a factor in that crash. You CANNOT definitively state that. It is not a fact.

And no you haven't because the research is mixed at best. You may have read reports of studies that draw conclusions based on interpretation but you've never read an accurate, unbiased study that states that weed clearly results in driver impairment.

 

[Larry Gude]

That smoking pot was a factor in that crash. You CANNOT definitively state that. It is not a fact.

.

Of course it was a factor. The questions are 'good or bad' and 'how much'?

The kid may have been a better driver high up to a point.

 

[MMM_donuts]

Besides, if you have to stretch it that far, which you don't, then you could go as far back as to say that none of this would've ever happened if Stewart hadn't wrecked the boy's car. Then he wouldn't have gotten out of the car and we wouldn't be asking how good of a driver Tony Stewart really is if he can't avoid another driver on a track in a spot where he knew he wrecked another car.

Seriously. That's all purely circumstantial. The only think we know is that the boy's body wouldn't have been run over had he stayed inside his car.

 

[Gilligan]

And no you haven't because the research is mixed at best. You may have read reports of studies that draw conclusions based on interpretation but you've never read an accurate, unbiased study that states that weed clearly results in driver impairment.

Actually, yes..yes I have. If I recall correctly, many of those reports/studies (or links) were available through an NHTSA web site. As for anything related to the Ward incident and pot, you clearly have me confused with other posters. I stuck with the "play in traffic, get killed" line of reasoning.

 

[Gilligan]

Besides, if you have to stretch it that far, which you don't, then you could go as far back as to say that none of this would've ever happened if Stewart hadn't wrecked the boy's car. r.

erm...now this is getting just silly. You just posted, literally: "This all wouldn't have happened if Stewart and Ward were not....racing".

 

[MMM_donuts]

Actually, yes..yes I have. If I recall correctly, many of those reports/studies (or links) were available through an NHTSA web site. As for anything related to the Ward incident and pot, you clearly have me confused with other posters. I stuck with the "play in traffic, get killed" line of reasoning.

Right now I'm really directing my comments to you as in you, the collective. Not you, specifically Gilligan.

I will add this. If you don't think studies conducted and reported by the NHTSA have any bias to them, you need to do a little more research on the history of that organization.

 

[Larry Gude]

Seriously. That's all purely circumstantial. The only think we know is that the boy's body wouldn't have been run over had he stayed inside his car.

No. Getting out of the car did not kill him. His actions after getting out killed him. That gets to state of mind and emotions and that gets to things like diet, intoxication, rest, whether or not he had to ####, simmer anger over his cousin and Stewarts prior run in, all of that.

 

[MMM_donuts]

erm...now this is getting just silly. You just posted, literally: "This all wouldn't have happened if Stewart and Ward were not....racing".

Yes! See? Ridiculous. You (collective) don't have to stretch that far to support your point. It hurts the argument you are trying to make.

If you think Stewart is innocent of all wrong doing then the obvious is all you need. The rest only discredits the argument.