A few things: You and I might concentrate more while driving high, but what are the studies on reaction time and motor skills while high? Those two are crucial elements to driving, along with decision-making. If weed enhances or doesn't affect that stuff, then I'll buy into the idea that it helps on the road. Another thing is what about people who drink and smoke, and then drive?
This is kind of what I'd expect with the legalization of marijuana. Here are the questions I'd ask alongside the main one: 1. How many DUI's are involved in fatal car crashes if you include marijuana, alcohol and all drugs considered to impair driving including legally prescribed drugs? In 1994? In 2011? 2. How has the detection protocol for marijuana changed since 1994? Doing a hair snip doesn't tell you anything about the driver's level of impairment at the time of the accident, it just tells you he smoked marijuana at some point in the months preceding the accident. If they're doing hair snips now and were not in 1994 then the numbers don't mean anything in terms of causation of the accident. If they're doing piss tests the numbers are more valid but still may not show a significant increase in causation because piss tests show recent marijuana activity but don't give a good time frame for the usage. 3. What are the criteria for determining if a driver is impaired at the time of the accident? As I recall from a misspent youth it is very hard to determine if somebody is impaired on marijuana or just having an allergic reaction to something. You have to be pretty stoned for it to be obvious that you are impaired. So what is the breakdown for fatalities involving marijuana impaired drivers by season? Do we get a lot of those in hay fever season? Looking at the article again the words used are not "impaired drivers" but "marijuana-positive drivers". That suggests hair snip and probably non-story.
Saliva Test Detect Cannabis within 1 day. I believe urine (as well as saliva) tests can also tell you the level of THC in a person's body at the time of the test. There will be a Marijuana Breath-analyzers very soon if there's not one out now.
Yeah this link is just as biased and inconclusive as the one I posted if not worse. Of course more people are going to test positive for marijuana because it's legal and more people smoke now. That doesn't mean, however, that they were stoned at the time of the crash and it also doesn't mention who is at fault for the accident. It means they smoked between then and 3 weeks prior. At the very least they could say the percentage of accidents CAUSED by marijuana positive drivers but they won't even do that. Considering it's fox news, they probably intentionally left that part out because it countered the agenda they wanted to promote.
Man, I searched for them but couldn't find em. I remember the study was done at Harvard or another similar high end college. I'll have to dig deeper but I definitely remember reading them when they were done some 7-8 years ago.
You started the thread with a joke of a graph and article with a blatantly obvious agenda and then question other sources saying they have an agenda? Did you happen to look at the overall vehicle fatalities between 2002 and 2012? How about the fact that on your chart the fatalities have increased since weed became legal?
It's not my chart. That chart was copied directly from the website I sourced. I even said in my OP. "You be the judge" and admitted that the study was exaggerating a bit. I admitted that my link was biased and inconclusive in the very post you just quoted. I just found that article and posted it. No reason to get so upset. Everyone has an agenda, INCLUDING YOU. I'm just sick of people demonizing weed while chugging down alcohol in mass quantities. I very very strongly believing that weed is 100 times less harmful than alcohol. If you want me to post dozens of other articles and studies that show positive benefits (medical use, tumor reduction, preventing damage from alcohol on the brain etc)I can do that, but I didn't want to drag this off topic and use it as an excuse to promote my agenda. Obviously it's something I feel very strongly about. You don't like it, I don't give a fuck. And seriously, if I had such a huge agenda, I'd be posting new weed articles every week. This is the first one I've posted since I joined the site in November of 2011.
Really, you are going to respond to my comment about "your chart" first as if that was a key part of my response. It was simply wording referring to the chart you posted. I also wasn't getting upset, merely pointing out how much of a joke it was for you to claim agendas when everything about your original post screamed agenda. And where did I demonize weed? You make up an awful lot of shit that is nowhere to be found in my post. You then go on to point out completely unrelated "health benefits" of weed. If this is your example of your supposed superior skills at debating via an online forum I can see why others don't bother with you. You attack the minutia and accuse others of getting emotional instead of addressing the heart of what was actually posted. The information you posted was complete and utter crap, if you know something is crap and you post it anyway don't get upset when others call it crap. Your agenda was obvious, you do not need to be prolific in posting about a subject for you to have an agenda, your agenda was obvious based on the crap article you posted promoting it even if you qualify it as crap. In fact, knowingly posting a crap article to promote an agenda is even more proof that there is an agenda. I am curious what my agenda would be? I may have an agenda to stop people from polluting the forum with crap articles, yep that must be it.
Holy twisted panties, batman! You are spewing complete rhetoric and nonsense now. I haven't done anything you are accusing me of. Anybody's opinion on anything can be called an agenda. Where did I get upset about people saying bad things about the article I posted? I admitted it was biased and inconclusive, what more do you want? I put it up so people can discuss it. I didn't say that you personally demonized weed, I was giving reasons why I posted the article. You are over doing it, bud. I get that you don't like me, but seriously take a chill pill. I have a right to call his article crap just like you guys do mine. That's the beauty of these forums. Stop making it personal every time you disagree with me. Clearly, you're upset or you wouldn't have rushed to say this blatant lie. Look at the chart again. It was legalized in September of 2013. Therefor the only part that actually counts is the 2014 line, which is below the 2013 line for the most part. It is very slightly higher in a few parts, but as a whole it's lower. It really speaks volumes that even when I concede the point that my article was biased and inconclusive, people still get upset over it.
Really, you continually tell others "don't get so upset" but your statements such as the above or, "You don't like it, I don't give a fuck." clearly show it is you who is getting upset. Try and discuss something without all the drama. Do you even know what rhetoric means? It seems you mean it in the sense, "the undue use of exaggeration or display", please point it out in my post or explain what you think the definition is. This is just another of your weak attempts to attack rather than argue your points. As I have pointed out before, "anytime you don't have an actual argument you accuse the other of a straw man, personal insult, non sequitur." and now it is rhetoric. I truly don't give a fuck about you but when I see something like what you posted I will respond. You give yourself too much credit in thinking it is personal. The first legal shops open Jan 1st, 2014, before that people were able to grow their own but the real expansion came with the shops opening. Since Jan 1st 2014 your chart shows fatalities increase from just above 20 to over 40 in July 2014, not sure how you consider it lower as a whole, well I know why you do but no one with a modicum of common sense would compare it to any of those 2002 numbers since there is absolutely no relationship. As I previously pointed out NTSB records show how traffic fatalities have decreased significantly since the early to mid 2000's having nothing at all to do with weed being legal. So you agree that the article was crap but you are still arguing that that you think it shows some kind of decrease. Brilliant.
Do you really want to argue about arguing? You are seriously grasping for straws looking for ways to discredit me. "I don't give a fuck" means that I don't care. Why would I get upset about something I don't care about? PLUS, that statement came long after you accused me of being upset. Nice try. Keep twisting words around to force your conclusion. That's exactly like the articles that NSN and I posted LOL. Poor waterboy doesn't understand a basic chart. Certain months of the year have higher fatality rates than other months. This is due to things like spring break, summer vacations and a bunch more. People generally travel more during the nicer weather. The only fair way to compare them is to compare it to the same month during the previous years. This is why the chart breaks it down like that. I can't believe you didn't understand that. Fatalities increase from January to June every year. I'm not trying to say that the chart proves that weed is the reason for the lower rates each month, it is definitely presumptuous and forcing the conclusion, but your statement was flat out wrong for the obvious reasons I just mentioned. Just look at the average and look at the previous year. Even the lowest year since 2002 has a higher fatality rate in July than all other years in January except for the record highest year. So yes, the 2014 rates are lower than most 2013 rates of the same month and lower than average. I know it doesn't prove anything, however, except that your statement was horseshit. I'm glad I could be of assistance. Yes, the rates have gone down, they have also gone down nationwide as you so "kindly" pointed out. Claiming that weed is the reason is a flat out assumption. I admit this. Hopefully you will be man enough to admit that your statement was crap as well.
This is the thread where Barcs should be trying to get a rise out of people with homophobic tendencies, but he has been beaten so thoroughly that he can't get his bearings and take the offensive. Barcs, you are really like a child in an open field, wondering where the teet went, and are being bitten on the legs by predators. You must run. Pump those fat little toddler legs and hope to find a large rodent hole to dive into. Some day, when your internet balls drop, you will be ready for this battle. But your helm is too large and your little pudgy fingers cannot hold the spear. Run.
So a guy gets high because he was a anally gang raped & beat the shit out of his woman over it, its self medicating...
The saddest part about this entire thread is that I recently quit smoking weed. I'll be back for Mary Jane one day, but right now I have other priorities.
