Why do people around here make things up?

[Shattered]

(from link posted below) One study of drivers arrested for reckless driving who were not alcohol impaired did find that half of these individuals tested positive for marijuana. A second problem with these studies, however, is that a positive test for marijuana does not necessarily mean that the individual was under the influence at the time of the accident. THC stays in the blood stream much longer than other intoxicants, so a positive test may simply indicate recent use.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...a+stays+in+the+blood+stream+for+approximately

There's a shitload of information to be had here.. Hours of reading.

 

[Shattered]

I did not say this the study did...if you have a problem...please write the ones who did the study...you asked for a link and I provided one...now go back to school...you are flunking badly! :blah2:

While you're pretty big at sitting on your ass insulting people because you happened to find a link that supported that you said, you might want to try reading links that other people provide. I just found one that indicated marijuana use IS addictive, leads to other drug use, increased alcohol use, and most certainly does not leave your system after "24 hours".

Links can be found to support ALL sides of an argument if you take the time to look.

 

[archangel]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...a+stays+in+the+blood+stream+for+approximately

There's a shitload of information to be had here.. Hours of reading.

However the "Drunk Driver" test results were the same for both alcohol and MJ
The blood and or urine test is a secondary test...just a little food for thought from a former law enf ofcr...!

 

[Shattered]

However the "Drunk Driver" test results were the same for both alcohol and MJ
The blood and or urine test is a secondary test...just a little food for thought from a former law enf ofcr...!

I'm going to assume you're not an adept speed reader, so I seriously doubt you had time to read the link, and come up with a suitable retort for the points made.. Back to study hall with you.

 

[archangel]

While you're pretty big at sitting on your ass insulting people because you happened to find a link that supported that you said, you might want to try reading links that other people provide. I just found one that indicated marijuana use IS addictive, leads to other drug use, increased alcohol use, and most certainly does not leave your system after "24 hours".

Links can be found to support ALL sides of an argument if you take the time to look.

they questioned my opinion and asked for a supporting link...I provided one with other links...if you like to smoke the funny stuff...fine go for it...this was not the issue!

 

[Shattered]

they questioned my opinion and asked for a supporting link...I provided one with other links...if you like to smoke the funny stuff...fine go for it...this was not the issue!

Sorry, chucklehead.. You're barking up the wrong tree.. I'm about as anti-drug as you can get.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

3 quick notes about that

1. There is easier access to pot than alcohol even if it is legal in the area.

No, not really. There's a guy out by the lake that gets some every now and then, and he's very particular about the people that come and go from his house. Pot is actually fairly hard to come by around here.

2. By this logic however that would mean that pot usage would decrease if it were legalized.

I don't know if it would or not. There is always the argument that with legalization, the thrill is gone, but I know a lot of people that would take it up (again) if it were legalized.

3. Why are you still hanging out at highschool parties and if you aren't then how do you know they are drinking pepsi and bottled water? If it's an xtc thing it would make sense I suppose.

I'm not hanging out at high school parties. It's a small area, everybody knows everybody. If I'm out at the lake and I see the high school kids of some friends of mine, there is no problem with them coming over to me, or me (us) going over to them. Drinking just isn't a big thing with the teenagers around here. I've heard rumors about xtc, but if they are true it has been pretty limited.

 

[CivilLiberty]

but the fact is that THC is not nearly as much of an impairment in motor skills and judgment as Alcohol.

That's bullshit. Back it up.

Not bullshit at all. It's a well known FACT.

Here are just a few of the numerous peer reviewed references:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2063
Which states "A single glass of wine will impair your driving more than smoking a joint. And under certain test conditions, the complex way alcohol and cannabis combine to affect driving behaviour suggests that someone who has taken both may drive less recklessly than a person who is simply drunk."

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_research1.shtml
Which states "The results strongly suggest that the performance deficits and mood changes produced by alcohol are of a greater magnitude than those produced by marijuana."

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving6.pdf
This extensive report, which says "[marijuana] In comparison with alcohol however, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard,
particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.





The more you people make up your stats, the more we can just dismiss your intolerant views..

Here are a few more cites for your reference, all of which show that marijuana is not nearly as impairing as alcohol:


80. Kv'alseth, T.O., "Effects of Marijuana on Human Reaction Time and Motor Control," Perceptual and Motor Skills 45:935-39 (1977); Hansteen, R.W. et al, "Effects of Cannabis and Alcohol on Automobile Driving and Psychomotor Tracking," Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 282:240-56 (1976); Moskowitz, H. et al, "Marijuana: Effects on Simulated Driving Performance," Accident Analysis and Prevention 8:45-50 (1976); Moskowitz, H. et al, "Visual Search Behavior While Viewing Driving Scenes Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana," Human Factors 18:417-31 (1976).

81. Stein, A.C. et al, A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (1983).

82. Robbe, H. and O'Hanlon, J., Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1993).


Kindest Regards,

Andy

 

[archangel]

While you're pretty big at sitting on your ass insulting people because you happened to find a link that supported that you said, you might want to try reading links that other people provide. I just found one that indicated marijuana use IS addictive, leads to other drug use, increased alcohol use, and most certainly does not leave your system after "24 hours".

Links can be found to support ALL sides of an argument if you take the time to look.

I did see and read your links...I did not cite them as I felt powerman et al...had the option to read your posted links...so whats with your insults I directed nothing toward you...you interjected yourself into this discussion and gave your links...I said nothing :chillpill

 

[Shattered]

I did see and read your links...I did not cite them as I felt powerman et al...had the option to read your posted links...so whats with your insults I directed nothing toward you...you interjected yourself into this discussion and gave your links...I said nothing :chillpill

My only point is that no matter which side you're taking, links can be found to support *anything*. In the link I posted, there were probably 200+ examples of specific reference material proving the claims as posted, which refute every single post here that marijuana is non-addictive, doesn't cause accidents, doesn't impair motor skills, etc etc etc.

 

[CivilLiberty]

There is always the argument that with legalization, the thrill is gone, but I know a lot of people that would take it up (again) if it were legalized..

To see a parallel - in Amsterdam, where Marijuana is legal, they have HALF the percentage of users as we do in the US.


But also, consider our own alcohol prohibition - during prohibition, alcohol use WENT UP. And today, alcohol use and abuse levels are substantially LOWER than during prohibition. Why?


EDUCATION AND TREATMENT.


The use (and the small amount of abuse) of recreational substances is purely a SOCIAL issue, and is not served by prohibition which does nothing but create a black market that funnels profits to organized crime at the rate of 80 Billion a year in this country.


Andy

 

[archangel]

My only point is that no matter which side you're taking, links can be found to support *anything*. In the link I posted, there were probably 200+ examples of specific reference material proving the claims as posted, which refute every single post here that marijuana is non-addictive, doesn't cause accidents, doesn't impair motor skills, etc etc etc.

For every pro there is a con granted...however the argument I was having with powerman and nucular was them calling me a liar...so I posted one example out of thirty I found supporting my opinion....there was no need for you to start calling me names...my argument was not with you...so please keep it that way! Gotta run going out just came back to answer your blast.....

 

[Stephanie]

To see a parallel - in Amsterdam, where Marijuana is legal, they have HALF the percentage of users as we do in the US.


But also, consider our own alcohol prohibition - during prohibition, alcohol use WENT UP. And today, alcohol use and abuse levels are substantially LOWER than during prohibition. Why?


EDUCATION AND TREATMENT.


The use (and the small amount of abuse) of recreational substances is purely a SOCIAL issue, and is not served by prohibition which does nothing but create a black market that funnels profits to organized crime at the rate of 80 Billion a year in this country.


Andy

Amserdam is so overrun with addicts on their welfare system, it sucking them dry, and nobody is contribuiting to there work force, because they have to babysit, all there drug addicts. you are so off base.... But yet you think we all are sooooooooo stupid. Your are the.....

 

[Gunny]

Not bullshit at all. It's a well known FACT.

Here are just a few of the numerous peer reviewed references:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2063
Which states "A single glass of wine will impair your driving more than smoking a joint. And under certain test conditions, the complex way alcohol and cannabis combine to affect driving behaviour suggests that someone who has taken both may drive less recklessly than a person who is simply drunk."

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_research1.shtml
Which states "The results strongly suggest that the performance deficits and mood changes produced by alcohol are of a greater magnitude than those produced by marijuana."

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving6.pdf
This extensive report, which says "[marijuana] In comparison with alcohol however, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard,
particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.





The more you people make up your stats, the more we can just dismiss your intolerant views..

Here are a few more cites for your reference, all of which show that marijuana is not nearly as impairing as alcohol:


80. Kv'alseth, T.O., "Effects of Marijuana on Human Reaction Time and Motor Control," Perceptual and Motor Skills 45:935-39 (1977); Hansteen, R.W. et al, "Effects of Cannabis and Alcohol on Automobile Driving and Psychomotor Tracking," Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 282:240-56 (1976); Moskowitz, H. et al, "Marijuana: Effects on Simulated Driving Performance," Accident Analysis and Prevention 8:45-50 (1976); Moskowitz, H. et al, "Visual Search Behavior While Viewing Driving Scenes Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana," Human Factors 18:417-31 (1976).

81. Stein, A.C. et al, A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (1983).

82. Robbe, H. and O'Hanlon, J., Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1993).


Kindest Regards,

Andy

Dude, for one, you will not find any stats made up by me. I question yours ... that is all. And as I previously posted, stats are usually contrived to support the viewpoint of the person(s) compiling and/or throwing them around.

As far as tolerance goes, once again, you ASSUME much. Please be so kind as to SHOW ME where I have posted ANY intolerance concerning marijuana or its use.

 

[Gunny]

My only point is that no matter which side you're taking, links can be found to support *anything*. In the link I posted, there were probably 200+ examples of specific reference material proving the claims as posted, which refute every single post here that marijuana is non-addictive, doesn't cause accidents, doesn't impair motor skills, etc etc etc.

You tell 'em, Princess.

 

[hylandrdet]

Is that good enough proof around here?

Archangel just made up things out of thin air in an argument earlier and uses himself as the source of information. That is very cheap.

Hobbit has a habbit of doing the same. His source is always someone he knows.

Do people around here actually buy those cheap cop outs?

Archangel, I'm calling you out. You claim that marijuana causes more fatal car accidents than aclohol and that it is more addictive than nicotine. I say they are both lies. In this digital age we live in you should have no problem finding credible sources to prove me wrong. Go for it buddy.

Everyone knows that the "Truth" is defined as, "An opinion that the majority believes to be true". You can throw as many facts at them as possible, but if the "truth" they believe in is stronger than the facts, they will ignore your facts.

Case in point, I lost over 30 points in credibility simply because I wrote a catholic joke and a comparison of slavery to the holacaust. My writings on these issuse were factual, it was the powers that be who had the ultimate say as to its credibility. They had chosen to ignore the facts and therefore punished me for it!

You must accept the fact that you may be discriminated against simply because you are telling the truth and that some people can't handle the truth. Deal with it and move on.

For the record, marijuana and alcohol are one in the same in terms of automobile accidents.

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1130.html

 

[Merlin1047]

Everyone knows that the "Truth" is defined as, "An opinion that the majority believes to be true". You can throw as many facts at them as possible, but if the "truth" they believe in is stronger than the facts, they will ignore your facts.

Case in point, I lost over 30 points in credibility simply because I wrote a catholic joke and a comparison of slavery to the holacaust. My writings on these issuse were factual, it was the powers that be who had the ultimate say as to its credibility. They had chosen to ignore the facts and therefore punished me for it!

Batcrap. You got dinged by several people (including me) because your post was ridiculous, specious and stretched the truth beyond any recognition.

If you're going to post totally assinine conclusions, don't whine when other people tell you what they think about your thought processes (or lack thereof).

 

[007]

This thread sounds so much like a "he said, she said" ordeal, I can't hardly muster enough interest to comment.

But it appears to me this arguement is basically about, do you prefer grass or booze, or both, or neither, and who's side are you.

We should all know by now, pretty much, how certain people are going to comment. Our liberal shit bags are UNDOUBTABLY going to be pro ANYTHING, and support, anything that steps out of bounds of morality or law, uncluding drugs, even if they're illegal, as witnessed here in this thread. The consertives on the other hand see illegal drugs as illegal drugs, and purport they're illegal for a reason and should stay that way.

Thus the arguement rages on with no one winning. Some damn fine attitude in here though...

 

[007]

Dude, for one, you will not find any stats made up by me. I question yours ... that is all. And as I previously posted, stats are usually contrived to support the viewpoint of the person(s) compiling and/or throwing them around.

As far as tolerance goes, once again, you ASSUME much. Please be so kind as to SHOW ME where I have posted ANY intolerance concerning marijuana or its use.

Liberals just LUUUUUUUV to use those "buzz words" Gunny, like intolerant. Whether you are or not, they like to BRAND you with it so that you'll be thrown off course trying to defend yourself, giving them a temperary clear spot to sail ahead with their bullshit.

Thing is, in todays age of blogs and debate, all these caustic little liberal tricks have been recognized, and 99% of the time we all know they're just spewing their crap. So don't give another thought to this civil liberty jerk off calling you "intolerant". It comes right out of his rotten liberal play book.

 

[Gunny]

Liberals just LUUUUUUUV to use those "buzz words" Gunny, like intolerant. Whether you are or not, they like to BRAND you with it so that you'll be thrown off course trying to defend yourself, giving them a temperary clear spot to sail ahead with their bullshit.

Thing is, in todays age of blogs and debate, all these caustic little liberal tricks have been recognized, and 99% of the time we all know they're just spewing their crap. So don't give another thought to this civil liberty jerk off calling you "intolerant". It comes right out of his rotten liberal play book.

To the contrary, I find it amusing. It is obvious to anyone who has followed this thread that I based my opinion on personal experience and observation, not some contrived statistics, and I have not addressed my opinion on the use of marijuana.

Both accusations are nothing more than presumption on the part of the accuser.

Obviously, if one is not 100% for smoking pot and blind to its effects, then one must be 100% against. Heaven forbid anyone consider there may be a gray area between the two.