Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

youbedead wrote:french fries + gravy + cheese curds=X

Fixed. Also, solve for X.

Hint:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And the "driving high" argument is pure BS. What proof do you have that stoners are as, more or less likely to drive high? None but what you think. I honestly think it will work out about the same as driving drunk, but even that is overhyped. Be honest, but don't answer aloud; have you ever driven drunk, even once? How many babies did you kill?

Maybe you're naive, but people do drink and drive and they have killed people. Why would people driving high be any less of a problem? "Oh it's alright, I've only had a few beers cones, I'll just pop over to Miccy D's."

Yeah, and a much larger percentage drink and drive and don't kill people. People who don't drink and drive kill people as well. By your logic, we should ban all driving. Half of it is scare tactics.

Edit: Not saying drinking and driving is a good idea, but the "someone MIGHT" excuse is just another form of slippery slope that has no real basis in reality.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Yeah, and a much larger percentage drink and drive and don't kill people. People who don't drink and drive kill people as well. By your logic, we should ban all driving. Half of it is scare tactics.

Driving while intoxicated is extremely dangerous.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf

Educate yourself.

Edited after reading your disclaimer.

The UK has the same penalties for people driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Monster Rain wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Yeah, and a much larger percentage drink and drive and don't kill people. People who don't drink and drive kill people as well. By your logic, we should ban all driving. Half of it is scare tactics.

Driving while intoxicated is extremely dangerous.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf

Educate yourself.

Edited after reading your disclaimer.

I never said otherwise. If anything, saying it's extremely dangerous and the fact that nothing happens a vast, vast majority of the time should take my argument a notch up.

"Extremely dangerous" is a relative term.

You are significantly more likely to die or kill someone else, or F up your car, or otherwise incur substantial negative consequences, if you get behind the wheel impaired.

In absolute terms, sure, maybe on any given night your odds of getting home safely with no problems are way higher than your odds of killing an infant in someone else's car. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

Considering the severity of the potential consequences when people make mistakes behind the wheel of a fast-moving, multi-thousand-pound chunk of metal and plastic, the only moral and ethical option is to minimize the chance of those kind of mistakes happening. And doing anything which increases those risks is as stupid as it is morally bankrupt.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And the "driving high" argument is pure BS. What proof do you have that stoners are as, more or less likely to drive high? None but what you think. I honestly think it will work out about the same as driving drunk, but even that is overhyped. Be honest, but don't answer aloud; have you ever driven drunk, even once? How many babies did you kill?

Maybe you're naive, but people do drink and drive and they have killed people. Why would people driving high be any less of a problem? "Oh it's alright, I've only had a few beers cones, I'll just pop over to Miccy D's."

Yeah, and a much larger percentage drink and drive and don't kill people. People who don't drink and drive kill people as well. By your logic, we should ban all driving. Half of it is scare tactics.

Edit: Not saying drinking and driving is a good idea, but the "someone MIGHT" excuse is just another form of slippery slope that has no real basis in reality.

While you're right that you'll most likely be fine, you have a 1/6 chance of making it though the day while driving intoxicated, I still wouldn't say a 16.7% chance of something bad happening while driving is a very

comforting stat though.

Cheesecat wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And the "driving high" argument is pure BS. What proof do you have that stoners are as, more or less likely to drive high? None but what you think. I honestly think it will work out about the same as driving drunk, but even that is overhyped. Be honest, but don't answer aloud; have you ever driven drunk, even once? How many babies did you kill?

Maybe you're naive, but people do drink and drive and they have killed people. Why would people driving high be any less of a problem? "Oh it's alright, I've only had a few beers cones, I'll just pop over to Miccy D's."

Yeah, and a much larger percentage drink and drive and don't kill people. People who don't drink and drive kill people as well. By your logic, we should ban all driving. Half of it is scare tactics.

Edit: Not saying drinking and driving is a good idea, but the "someone MIGHT" excuse is just another form of slippery slope that has no real basis in reality.

While you're right that you'll most likely be fine, you have a 1/6 chance of making it though the day while driving intoxicated, I still wouldn't say a 16.7% chance of something bad happening while driving is a very

comforting stat though.

I don't think you can accurately measure a statistic like that as most people have no reason to be honest. Life isn't a dice roll, it's a series of a billion tiny dice rolls.

And I've never said drunk driving was good, actually saying that no one ever should. I'm just saying that "might happen" is a horrible argument, even in leading to "higher chance." It even says in the study linked that alcohol may have not been the damage-causing factor. Getting back on topic (ish), does anyone think this is a legitimate reason to not legalize?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:"Extremely dangerous" is a relative term.

You are significantly more likely to die or kill someone else, or F up your car, or otherwise incur substantial negative consequences, if you get behind the wheel impaired.

In absolute terms, sure, maybe on any given night your odds of getting home safely with no problems are way higher than your odds of killing an infant in someone else's car. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

Considering the severity of the potential consequences when people make mistakes behind the wheel of a fast-moving, multi-thousand-pound chunk of metal and plastic, the only moral and ethical option is to minimize the chance of those kind of mistakes happening. And doing anything which increases those risks is as stupid as it is morally bankrupt.

Here's a fun study then... let's see what people's blood-caffeine level is when wrecking. How badly will that make caffeine look?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Here's a fun study then... let's see what people's blood-caffeine level is when wrecking. How badly will that make caffeine look?

The effects of caffeine and alcohol are pretty different.

I don't think it would make caffeine look bad at all, really.

Caffeine increases alertness and concentration so it's hardly likely to help cause car accidents.

If anything, the problem would be people who frequently drink caffeinated drinks and have gone without, thus leading to withdrawal symptoms including reduced concentration.

In such a case a blood test would reveal normal blood, so it would be useless.

Drinking and driving is totally bad news. Getting baked and driving has never been a problem for me or anyone I know. I drove a forklift in a paper recycling facility for 3 years as pee-on, co-ordinator, assistant plant manager baked out of my mind from 7am to 5 pm daily with an ex RCMP drug cop as my boss and was the only one to have a spotless driving record. No accidents, no feth ups. Go team weed. Weed and booze are two different things. I have tonnes of experience with both. Booze and Weed together and driving is super bad news.

People texting or emailing on their phones while driving is infinitely more dangerous than a few rips and driving. Or how about women trying to put on their make-up, smoke a cigarette and drink a coffee all at the same time in the morning rush hour? I'd rather have some baked hippy in his civic driving next to me than that.

Here's a fun study then... let's see what people's blood-caffeine level is when wrecking. How badly will that make caffeine look?

No, I see what he is getting at. The data is skewed because it measures accidents that involve one or more people with alcohol in their system. It does not measure accidents where alcohol was the sole cause of the accident. It is difficult to say if everyone of those accidents was caused by the presence on alcohol.

What he is questioning is that you probably could do the same research and measure how many accidents happen involving people with caffeine in their system. The numbers would probably be super high, leading people who only care about numbers to conclude that caffeine is causing accidents.

I'm not saying drinking and driving is good, I'm just saying the research is bad. 100% of car accidents involve people with water in their system, but water is not the cause of all accidents.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And I've never said drunk driving was good, actually saying that no one ever should. I'm just saying that "might happen" is a horrible argument, even in leading to "higher chance." It even says in the study linked that alcohol may have not been the damage-causing factor. Getting back on topic (ish), does anyone think this is a legitimate reason to not legalize?

No. In fact my only worry was the ability of traffic police to measure this. The fact that weed makes driving more dangerous (or doresn't according to Khornholio) wouldn't alone justify it being banned. If that were the case then so would alchohol.

Khornholio wrote:Drinking and driving is totally bad news. Getting baked and driving has never been a problem for me or anyone I know. I drove a forklift in a paper recycling facility for 3 years as pee-on, co-ordinator, assistant plant manager baked out of my mind from 7am to 5 pm daily with an ex RCMP drug cop as my boss and was the only one to have a spotless driving record. No accidents, no feth ups. Go team weed. Weed and booze are two different things. I have tonnes of experience with both. Booze and Weed together and driving is super bad news.

Well this is strange. My friend went for a drive after smoking. He crashed it into a tree at the end of the street. Though if we could have some certifiable record that proved one way or another that driving under the influence of pot is more dangerous then I'd be open to that.

People texting or emailing on their phones while driving is infinitely more dangerous than a few rips and driving. Or how about women trying to put on their make-up, smoke a cigarette and drink a coffee all at the same time in the morning rush hour? I'd rather have some baked hippy in his civic driving next to me than that.

Yeah, my roomate does this. She drives like a maniac.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Here's a fun study then... let's see what people's blood-caffeine level is when wrecking. How badly will that make caffeine look?

No, I see what he is getting at. The data is skewed because it measures accidents that involve one or more people with alcohol in their system. It does not measure accidents where alcohol was the sole cause of the accident. It is difficult to say if everyone of those accidents was caused by the presence on alcohol.

What he is questioning is that you probably could do the same research and measure how many accidents happen involving people with caffeine in their system. The numbers would probably be super high, leading people who only care about numbers to conclude that caffeine is causing accidents.

I'm not saying drinking and driving is good, I'm just saying the research is bad. 100% of car accidents involve people with water in their system, but water is not the cause of all accidents.

I understand his argument, that correlation is not causation, but I think he's mistaken to dismiss the idea and all the stats. And I thinking implying that ALL the research is bad is silly, and a terrible idea if one were to try to justify it being okay to drive intoxicated.

It's not hard to do a comparison between the number of people at fault in collisions in general, vs. the number of people found at fault in collisions who were found to have alcohol in their bloodstreams. Many, many studies have also been done on drivers showing the direct impact on reaction time, perception, general driving skill (etc.) of alcohol, comparing a given driver's sober ability to their impaired ability.

I know this won't come off as much of a valid argument to those who don't smoke, but driving high on THC is nowhere near as difficult as driving while drunk. I'm not saying that it doesn't impair your ability to drive somewhat, but even being the slightest bit tipsy while at the wheel is far worse than driving high could ever be. If you're too high to drive, you're already asleep.

It's not much to worry about. I'd be willing to bet that a country which legalizes weed won't even see a noticeable spike in their annual number of car crashes.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I know this won't come off as much of a valid argument to those who don't smoke, but driving high on THC is nowhere near as difficult as driving while drunk. I'm not saying that it doesn't impair your ability to drive somewhat, but even being the slightest bit tipsy while at the wheel is far worse than driving high could ever be. If you're too high to drive, you're already asleep.

It's not much to worry about. I'd be willing to bet that a country which legalizes weed won't even see a noticeable spike in their annual number of car crashes.

True dat.

When you're too baked to drive, you know and you announce "Man, I'm too baked to drive, dude. I'm just gonna lay down for about 5 minutes and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". Whereas when you're too drunk to drive, you don't know and act like a belligerent a$$hole demanding your keys, stumbling around, knocking gak over, cackling madly and possibly even pissing yourself.

The marijuana laws in place in Canada only hurt those medical patients who need it most, in all honesty. Whether pot is legalized or not makes do difference to the average pot smoker ie. me. In fact when I was in high school it was infinity easier for me to acquire weed than it was to acquire alcohol as I would have to go through an established, licensed vendor. (for those in the US that havn't been here we have liquor stores, you can't just pop down to your local 7-11 and pick up some beers)

Then their is the fact that the cops couldn't care less about your average joe carrying a gram on himself while spending way too much to stop the illegal growing/selling. It all seems slightly hippocratic to me without even having to enter the debate on alcohol vs. weed effects and which is worse yatta yatta.

Weed should just be legal, but as I said I can get it whenever I want anyways so the final outcome is of little consequence. I honestly just wish I could grow my own instead of supporting crime rings, but I guess thats what the government enjoys doing so...

Mannahnin wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Here's a fun study then... let's see what people's blood-caffeine level is when wrecking. How badly will that make caffeine look?

No, I see what he is getting at. The data is skewed because it measures accidents that involve one or more people with alcohol in their system. It does not measure accidents where alcohol was the sole cause of the accident. It is difficult to say if everyone of those accidents was caused by the presence on alcohol.

What he is questioning is that you probably could do the same research and measure how many accidents happen involving people with caffeine in their system. The numbers would probably be super high, leading people who only care about numbers to conclude that caffeine is causing accidents.

I'm not saying drinking and driving is good, I'm just saying the research is bad. 100% of car accidents involve people with water in their system, but water is not the cause of all accidents.

I understand his argument, that correlation is not causation, but I think he's mistaken to dismiss the idea and all the stats. And I thinking implying that ALL the research is bad is silly, and a terrible idea if one were to try to justify it being okay to drive intoxicated.

It's not hard to do a comparison between the number of people at fault in collisions in general, vs. the number of people found at fault in collisions who were found to have alcohol in their bloodstreams. Many, many studies have also been done on drivers showing the direct impact on reaction time, perception, general driving skill (etc.) of alcohol, comparing a given driver's sober ability to their impaired ability.

I'm only dismissing the idea so far as saying it has anything remotely to do with the argument for legal weed. It doesn't. I'd rather people use their honest reasons for not wanting it (we're horribly misinformed and have bought into the propaganda being the primary, I imagine though I'm sure sure there are legit arguments too) than try to bring in something completely unrelated.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm only dismissing the idea so far as saying it has anything remotely to do with the argument for legal weed. It doesn't. I'd rather people use their honest reasons for not wanting it (we're horribly misinformed and have bought into the propaganda being the primary, I imagine though I'm sure sure there are legit arguments too) than try to bring in something completely unrelated.

Well, that was really it...



...light me up then, eh bro?

*passes the bong*

Just remember...

I live in The Netherlands and I work for a legal drug store supplier (smartshop).

Driving while high, though not as stupid as driving while drunk, is still pretty high up on the moron list. Not much concentration left while your floating on a cloud.

That said. I've NEVER heard a single news story here about an accident because of pot. I did hear one a while back where van crashed and a whole garden worth of the gak fell out xD.

Conclusion, don't drive while under influence of psychoactive substances.

Also, legalizing weed doesn't stop crime at all, merely pushes it to background because people are ripping on the shops instead of dealers.

Soladrin wrote:
Also, legalizing weed doesn't stop crime at all, merely pushes it to background because people are ripping on the shops instead of dealers.

I don't think anyone here has seriously suggested that leglisation will put an end to crime.

Khornholio wrote:
True dat.

When you're too baked to drive, you know and you announce "Man, I'm too baked to drive, dude. I'm just gonna lay down for about 5 minutes and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". Whereas when you're too drunk to drive, you don't know and act like a belligerent a$$hole demanding your keys, stumbling around, knocking gak over, cackling madly and possibly even pissing yourself.

If there's one reason above all else that I'm proud to be Canadian, it's Trailer Park Boys and their weed-related shenanigans

Contains bad language. Young ears turn away!

Settle down folks. They've been talking about legalizing weed in Canada for longer than I've been alive. Currently its more unlikely than usual because the only party that does not support legalization or decriminilization in any way is the one in power.
For a while there California had a much better chance of legalizing it than Canada did but to my surprise they voted against it. Hippies and advocates will often bring up these number like 70-80% of Americans/Canadians support legalization but the politicians yadda, yadda, yadda. However a straight up referendum on the matter fails to even get 50% in liberal-minded California.
On the other hand, organizing potheads to do anything including voting is quite difficult.

Health problems can also be linked to those with mental problems.

People who have a family history of mental problems are prone to indanger thier lives when taking cannibis as they can become schizophrenic or psycotic.

So if you have family history of mental illness be careful when taking cannabis.

Kilkrazy wrote:Caffeine increases alertness and concentration so it's hardly likely to help cause car accidents.

If anything, the problem would be people who frequently drink caffeinated drinks and have gone without, thus leading to withdrawal symptoms including reduced concentration.

In such a case a blood test would reveal normal blood, so it would be useless.

Except for elevated stress hormones, that is, but they'd have to test for those - and it's a different test protocol.

Canada also has some awesome skiing.

In addition to the wimminz and good beer.

Melissia wrote:Just tax it like you would cigarettes. Just as hazardous and addictive anyway.

Yes, but we would be wasting even more money, o what... with the enforcing the law and patrolling the streets to stop people from driving under the influence of the smoke, and to enforce the legal age limit.......
We'd be wasting even more money on piety crap instead of the important things.
I don't think this is so good.....

Alcohol is widely available, easy to obtain, and deeply ingrained within British culture. Our streets aren't teeming with swerving cars driven by folks swigging bottles of vodka at the wheel, mostly because people are aware of the risks of driving whilst drunk. Most people are pretty sensible when it comes to doing things that could potentially endanger their lives.

With that in mind, I see no reason why legalisation of cannabis would massively increase the number of car accidents, provided people were made acutely aware of the effects of weed on motorists. Again, most people are, I think, sensible enough to understand that driving whilst high might not be safe.

I mean, gak, I don't even like being a PASSENGER in a car when I'm high! Paranoia!

The tax money gained from legalization (which would be considerable) would go towards educating people about the dangers of driving while stoned and go into healthcare to treat the problems of cannabis (which are minimal). Right now we have to pay for all of that anyway, plus policing, while all of the profit goes into the black market to literally generate more serious crimes.

I am all for decriminalization - where the average dude can grow a few plants in his garage and toke up when he feels like it. I am not sold on legalization. I wouldn't trust the Canuckistani Government to oversee any type of grow-op let alone sell their smoke. I remember when Allan Rock the then "Justice" minister opened Canada's first Medical Marijuana grow-op flanked by Mounties in full dress in an abandoned mine in Manitoba. 9 months later the weed was ready for cancer patients, except it sucked and was full of heavy elements. The government blew what every 17 year old boy who grow up on the prairie can do on the other side of Gramp's busted up old car for a grand total of $0.99.

I just need to know that the cops aren't going to bust in my house because I've got a few plants or chuck me in the clink because I've got a few nuggets on me. I don't need them to regulate what's in it with chemicals from their pharmaceutical interests (they ARE politicians -don't forget) and expensive study groups packed with their unemployable relatives (they ARE politicians -don't forget).

If they're going to tax it, put the tax on the seeds and get the hell out of my hippy garden.