Pot <> Driving
- Thread starter Maktub
- Start date
So essentially driving while under the influence of weed is more dangerous than driving sober, but less than driving drunk, even at a 0.08 BAC (the point that many drunks whine about being too low since it's only a couple beers or glasses of wine or whatever). No kidding.
Man, I need to get in contact with whoever does the studies.
Science Guy: "Hey Cyrone, do you want to take part in a study involving marijuana?"
Me: "What do I have to do"
Science Guy: "Get stoned and do this driving simulation".
Me: "YESSSSSSSSS"
Science Guy: "Hey Cyrone, do you want to take part in a study involving marijuana?"
Me: "What do I have to do"
Science Guy: "Get stoned and do this driving simulation".
Me: "YESSSSSSSSS"
Yep, funny how misleading titles can be. Someone is going to read this and think that doubling is a huge difference.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Not surprised by this at all.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Don't knock until you've tried it. You might want to chase your doritos pizza with some ice cream sandwiches and gummy bears.
DutchJazzer
Banned
this war on drugs will ultimatly fail. but we know that already right?
so why does the government keep spending your tax money on it?
so why does the government keep spending your tax money on it?
I know I'll get ripped for this but here goes. My problem is I'm just failing to see all the good that legalizing drugs will do. I mean, we legalized booze again and look at all the great things that have come because of it. How many homes have been ruined, how many drunk driving deaths have there been, how many children have been beaten by a drunk parent? All for what, so someone can feel good for a few hours? Do the positives outweigh the negatives (serious question)? Sorry, but I get tired of reading in the news about lives being torn apart because someone made a choice to get high/plastered/wasted etc. and killed or hurt someone else. If we decide to legalize weed, are we going to keep going and legalize meth, prescription meds, cocaine, etc.? Where do you draw the line or do you draw a line? Final thought, I have a good friend who smoked weed for 18 years. When his first wife gave him the ultimatum (the drugs or the family) he threw her the car keys and told her to "get the hell out of my house". So she left with their two daughters. It wasn't until his second wife gave him the same ultimatum with their son that he finally gave it up. He told me later that anyone who says that marijuana is a harmless drug doesn't know what they're talking about.
"Harmless" is a nothing word. That being said it's not everyone who smokes weed's fault that your friend doesn't know how to prioritize his life's responsibilities. But he does seem like every other typical jackass who can't but the blame on his own actions and instead has to blame an inanimate object for his failings, though in his defense I'm basing what I know off of him by your description.
As for what good legalizing drugs will do, for one it will free up prison space for actual criminals...it will give communities tax money since it will become a commodity that has demand that can be taxed...and frankly, in a free society it's none of the government's business what I consume. At the point I'm causing harm to another or their property the government has an obligation to step in. But before then them and the rest of the moralizing jackass busybody's can go f themselves strong for all that I care. We let people do a ton of crap that is harmful to themselves in this country.
As for your point with the harm that drugs do, I would concede that point if there were a way to stop them. But there isn't, especially in a country like the United States where, some exceptions aside, civil liberties are valued. If booze were made illegal again maybe less people would drink but a ton of stills would pop up and there would still be a huge market for it. With pot the stuff literally grows on trees (well, on stems anyway) yet the prohibitionist policies have pushed the stuff to where an ounce of it is more expensive than like 5 ounces of silver. Yet silver takes thousands of years to develop and people have to mine it out of the earth, while pot takes a person putting a seed into the ground and growing it for a few months. The profit incentive to grow it is so large (since the demand is so large for it) that there will never be a reason not to grow/sell/buy it. So the supply can't be stopped. The demand ebbs and flows because frankly, people like drugs in this country. They say that don't, but the one legal drug sells like gangbusters here and people have no problem taking prescription drugs (I believe Utah is especially bad in that regard) or whatever. The legal stigma can drive people away, but IMO the social, economic, and liberty cost is not worth it.
That being said I'm not for all drugs being legal (meth and PCP and most super laboratory drugs are just too unpredictable), but any plant (and that does include opium and mushrooms) should be illegal, especially when really dangerous plants are perfectly legal to grow (like the castor bean plant, which contains ricin, an extremely deadly substance).
GVC
Well-Known Member
You do realize that the decrease in alcohol consumption post-prohibition was short-lived, and that by the end of prohibition, alcohol was being consumed more than it was before prohibition, right? Aside from that, prohibition was a boon to organized crime, and as a result led to a huge increase in violent crime, especially in urban centers. Not sure if you like gangster movies, but a huge portion of them take place during prohibition for a reason.
So alcohol prohibition did nothing to curb alcohol consumption or abuse, led to an increase in organized/violent crime AND was costly to the American tax payer.
Take a look at the Mexican cartels, competition for turf in American ghettos, broken families as a result of non-violent offender's having trouble finding work because they're felons or because they're in prison (keep in mind, something like 80% of the funds for the War on Drugs are for prosecuting marijuana crimes, and almost 90% of the marijuana arrests are for simple possession). And all this for billions of dollars!
Consider for just a minute that the criminal law might not be the best way to deal with the perceived "drug problem".
because people like you keep calling pot an evil drug!
or are you finally a pot head living in holland?
You or someone else has posted this exact story on here before. I appreciated it both times but it doesn't sway my opinion at all. It gives the case for not ingesting altering substances but excludes just about every other aspect.
I disagree with the notion that lab made = bad, and natural = maybe ok. Also, comparing growing ricin with the intent of killing someone is an entirely diferent dynamic than the controlling substance circumstance. It's a nice zing to throw but really doesn't add any substance. This is about individual liberties and that should not be weakened with some well-this-is-legal-so-that-should-be-too rant.
I'm not comfortable accepting either of those huge leaps in logic but I could be persuaded if anyone really cares to take up the case. I thought most criminologists--or whatever we should call them--go with some sort of displacement theory. If the criminal Kennedys aren't running booze then they would find another avenue to divert their ciminal attention into.
To me, the first fallacy seems to weaken the pro-pot position by insinuating that legalizing pot would actually lower the user/trier rate. I don't think that is something we can prove but I do think it is a notion that does not help the pro-pot cause.
1. Cartel wars over pot?
2. This new prison-industrial complex should scare the hell out of every citizen alive.
GVC
Well-Known Member
And what avenues would those be? As far as I can tell, the demand for recreational drugs (legal or illegal) is extremely inelastic. If cannabis were legalized tomorrow, most pot heads would stick with pot, and the organized criminals who sold pot yesterday would face a smaller market for their wares (whatever verboten thing they're able to control). This diversion can only go so far. We don't all have unlimited income and insatiable appetites for illicit substances. I have no desire to shoot heroine, and the legalization of weed wouldn't change that. Further, with regulation, you can potentially set the tax as high as possible to keep cannabis consumers happy and not looking for other ways to spend their recreation dollar (although, most of the cannabis users I know would use the extra cash to buy food), and low enough to make black market production unprofitable.
I don't follow. The point is, the War on Drugs is expensive, and, at least judging by the outcomes in countries (and American states) that have loosened their policy on cannabis, there doesn't seem to be much of an increase in usage when drugs are made legal (or decriminalized). Even if you think drugs are a problem- and, to a certain extent, I agree that drug abuse is a serious social issue- the current prohibition seems to be doing very little to curb use/abuse. Perhaps there are better ways to deal with issues of social hygiene/health. Unfortunately, a lot of us (me included) have been sold since birth the idea that if something is bad then it should be illegal, and drugs are bad. Very bad. We should be more concerned with outcomes than ideology.
1. I know, right? That's what happens when almost your whole drug budget is used to go after cannabis users. Of course, given the small number of users of other drugs, the only way to justify the huge expense that is the War on Drugs is to lock up as many of these people as possible.
2. No ****.
GVC
Well-Known Member
GVC
Well-Known Member
And, Franklin, I know you've challenged me to present a more rigorous argument in the past, but I'm pretty ****ing lazy and have more important **** on my plate, quite frankly (especially considering the negligible difference it would make on Jazzfanz). If you ask again sometime around the end of April, I may give it a go. I haven't found a single document that summarizes all the relevant points very well (****ing pot heads...).
April... I just spit out some clam-bud-tomatoe juice stuff.
Don't get me wrong, calling you or anyone else (nate) out was definitely not my intention. You have consistently provide excellent stuff on this in the past. I was sincerely asking for intel if available inside the minds here and didn't want to put you on the spot to provide it is all.
Also, for the record, I think the war against pot is as petty as it gets. I don't know what percentage of Americans have used but I know it's so incredibly high that calling all of us criminals is ridiculous beyond words.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I took no offense. You generally seem pretty reasonable. I try to qualify my statements, but I'm not always so careful and my bias is clear even to me. If you want to do some reading on your own, the site I linked to contains as comprehensive a collection of pot related literature as I've found. At the very least, it's a good starting point.
As for April, I'm supposed to be focused on my studies until then (although my performance this semester is unlikely to matter at all), and my pot addled mind can only handle so much at a time. I'll have a lot of time to waste in May and June (I'll be getting paid to informally study mathematical statistics...which is pretty ****ing awesome), so that's the time to challenge me with tasks like this.
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
Nah. If i'm high i'll just have a couple drinks and be fine.