[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Sounds a bit like, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It was intentional. It's funny that the NRA types don't see that. Not very good Libertarians at all, I'd say.

So you believe that then?

Sure I do. It's undeniable, a gun cannot make the decision to aim and shoot itself.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

No, that's you saying that. And Gunnair who wants to keep all the immigrants off the Island. I want immigration to focus on what's best for Canada, and, it seems so does the CPC with all the changes they're making to immigration law. So, feel free to produce an actual quote of mine that's anything near what you just wrote. But just making up bullshit is much easier, isn't it? More fun for you too.

Nope, I'm just for keeping the population down on southern Vancouver Island. It's you that stated all them Asians coming in was bad for Vancouver.

Sucks to be shown up like this with facts but I'm sure you'll get over it.

You're for keeping Asians away from Vancouver Island then. The same correlation you make about my not wanting Asians in Vancouver - that is who the immigrants are. I no more want to be flooded with Brits or Americans. While that would make integration somewhat easier, it's still way too many people who aren't needed coming into an area that's already overcrowded. And at least with Asians we get good restaurants out of the deal. Nope, sorry, you'll have to do much better.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No, not buying it. There's plenty of studies indicating that indicate canabis results in less attentiveness and loss of psychomotor skills. Based on my own experience, I'm more inclined to believe those.

I can believ that drivers who are high will more realistically assess risk of driving conditions, due to the induced paranoia of cannabis. (i.e. unlike most drivers, they will actually slow down in driving rain). Perhaps this mitigates other impacts.

I also note that some authorities test for cannabis in motoe vehicle accidents resuling in an injury or fatality, which indicate that using cannabis maks you two-three more times likely to get into a serious accident. Won't they fail to mention is that the test for cannabis doesn't test to see if you are high or not, it tests if you hve ben under the influence of pot some time in the the last three or four weeks.

See you do buy it, in your second paragraph. That is exactly what the studies I cited said. Except that with pot, the user's sense of impairment was higher that it was in reality.

Some studies have found that pot use, and pot use alone, actually make you a little less likely to get into an accident. The deadly combination is pot and alcohol. Hell even the Insurance bureau said so - they certainly have no axe to grind here, just provide accurate information to their members.

We have laws against being impaired, which is tested for with behavioral tests. If the person is impaired, charge them, doesn't matter what the substance or just mental state is that's causing it.

Pot isn't harmless, it can cause psychological problems and probably respiratory ones. But it's a lot less harmful than many other drugs, including alcohol.

[andyt]

Hyack Hyack:

Damn, isn't it about time you two got a room to kick back in, blow a couple doobs, spliffs whatever or......fuck it, fire up the freaking bong, get totally fucking wasted, then call it a night, kiss and make out.......up, that's it .....up.

I'm getting along just fine with someone who wants to engage me in an actual argument. If they just want to fling snide comments, that doesn't work so well.

[andyt]

@Khar. Among my sources I recall a Canadian senate study, the NHTSA, and an insurance bureau, as well as studies from various countries. Is it your assertion that they are all biased and lightweight. None of them said that pot doesn't cause impairment, but that users compensate for it and so may be slightly less likely to cause an accident. The insurance people looked at the data and found that pot smokers in the real world are not statistically likely to cause more accidents than straight people - so that actuaries can set their coverage accordingly.

I didn't read one comment in what I posted that we should just blithely allow people to smoke pot and drive. Just that driving on pot isn't the horror show some people want to make it out to be. If a cop on a roadblock sees some redeyed zonker driving, he can make him do a behavioral test to determine if he's fit to drive. I guess it makes it harder to have a concrete test that can result in severe criminal penalties just for being high, but that's life. People are already driving when stoned. I don't see a huge upturn of people smoking pot when it becomes legal - who are these super law abiding people? And if they are so law abiding, they'll also obey the laws against impaired driving, no?

As I say, I would love to ban everything if I thought prohibition worked. Drugs, including pot and alcohol cause a lot of misery in the world. (OTOH, they also cause a lot of good, allowing people to relax, since we don't teach more natural techniques). But prohibition doesn't seem to work, people still take drugs, and it creates a huge criminal culture. So we've gotta use our heads find what does work best - the least harmful approach. We'll never eliminate all harm from drugs.

[andyt]

Here's a pubmed study that more bears out what I'm saying. (Also the Norml article I posted made reference to a number of pubmed studies, if that is to be the standard.)

$1:

Detrimental effects of cannabis use vary in a dose-related fashion, and are more pronounced with highly automatic driving functions than with more complex tasks that require conscious control, whereas alcohol produces an opposite pattern of impairment. Because of both this and an increased awareness that they are impaired, marijuana smokers tend to compensate effectively while driving by utilizing a variety of behavioral strategies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19340636


And this:

$1:

The potential deleterious effects of marijuana use on driving ability seem to be self-evident; proof of such impairment has been more difficult.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3520605

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

I didn't read one comment in what I posted that we should just blithely allow people to smoke pot and drive. Just that driving on pot isn't the horror show some people want to make it out to be.

The whole thing is a distraction. Remember this one?

$1:

One recent review of several studies of pot smoking and car accidents suggested that driving after smoking marijuana might almost double the risk of being in a serious or fatal crash.

Assume for a second, that's true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/21distracted.html?pagewanted=all

$1:

Research shows that motorists talking on a phone are four times as likely to crash as other drivers, and are as likely to cause an accident as someone with a .08 blood alcohol content.
...
hands-free headsets did not eliminate the serious accident risk. The reason: a cellphone conversation itself, not just holding the phone, takes drivers’ focus off the road, studies showed.

None of the distractors are calling for a ban on cellphones, or bluetooth headsets. You ban the act of using them while driving.

[andyt]

Curtman Curtman:

The whole thing is a distraction. Remember this one?

No, I had forgotten about it. All that pot smoking in my youth must have impaired my memory.

If we want to keep pot illegal because it will reduce accidents, well we should be getting off our asses to make booze illegal, because that will prevent way way more accidents.

It's an interesting topic tho - how pot smokers actually compensate for their impairment to the point it may actually make them safer. One study said some pot smokers refused to continue to drive because they felt too impaired. The boozers on the other had were crashing around going "what's the problem?"

[Guy_Fawkes]

Behavioral tests can be easily defeated in court, that is why you are given a Breathalyzer. They do not have an accurate equivalent for pot. The only thing close to it would be to take a blood sample. I'm not a fan of having blood forcibly taken from me.

[andyt]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Behavioral tests can be easily defeated in court, that is why you are given a Breathalyzer. They do not have an accurate equivalent for pot. The only thing close to it would be to take a blood sample. I'm not a fan of having blood forcibly taken from me.

I understand your point. They don't really have a good standard for what constitutes pot impairment as far as blood levels are concerned, AFIK.

The thing is, people are now driving stoned. Legalizing pot, IMO, won't change that one way or another. If a behavioral test shows impairment, the cop can take you off the road - that's the important thing anyway. They can do it now. I don't see legalization making much of a difference here either way.

But as I say, if we really cared about stopping the carnage on the roads we'd ban alcohol.

[PluggyRug]

andyt andyt:

But as I say, if we really cared about stopping the carnage on the roads we'd ban alcohol.

....and traffic lights, just install roundabouts. Mind you the pot heads would just keep driving around forgetting which road is the exit.

[ShepherdsDog]

andyt andyt:

Hyack Hyack:

Damn, isn't it about time you two got a room to kick back in, blow a couple doobs, spliffs whatever or......fuck it, fire up the freaking bong, get totally fucking wasted, then call it a night, kiss and make out.......up, that's it .....up.

I'm getting along just fine with someone who wants to engage me in an actual argument. If they just want to fling snide comments, that doesn't work so well.

I read your links and diplomatically pointed out that they were bovine feces...all that needed to be said and all that you deserved trying to pass that compost off as credible. khar was a little more polite, but essentially said the same thing, after viewing your attempt at passing off advocacy as credible evidence.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

No, that's you saying that. And Gunnair who wants to keep all the immigrants off the Island. I want immigration to focus on what's best for Canada, and, it seems so does the CPC with all the changes they're making to immigration law. So, feel free to produce an actual quote of mine that's anything near what you just wrote. But just making up bullshit is much easier, isn't it? More fun for you too.

Nope, I'm just for keeping the population down on southern Vancouver Island. It's you that stated all them Asians coming in was bad for Vancouver.

Sucks to be shown up like this with facts but I'm sure you'll get over it.

You're for keeping Asians away from Vancouver Island then. The same correlation you make about my not wanting Asians in Vancouver - that is who the immigrants are. I no more want to be flooded with Brits or Americans. While that would make integration somewhat easier, it's still way too many people who aren't needed coming into an area that's already overcrowded. And at least with Asians we get good restaurants out of the deal. Nope, sorry, you'll have to do much better.

I'm equal opportunity - I don't want a population boom caused by any race.

You came out on the brown is bad notion, Andy.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

You came out on the brown is bad notion, Andy.

Got a link for that?

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

You came out on the brown is bad notion, Andy.

Got a link for that?

Desperate.

Don't make bigoted posts next time, Andy.