Drugs

[Rubin0]

Re: Drugs

Yet at the same time it's acceptable for someone who has never smoked weed to say that it is most definitely not okay to drive while stoned?

Also, wouldn't this be subjective? Just because one person never gets into a car accident after driving drunk numerous times makes it okay for every person? No.


I've never shot a gun before but that doesn't mean that I can't decipher whether shooting a person in the head is right or wrong.

[Yieldsign]

Re: Drugs

Okay so let me say this. Driving is a privilege, not a right. It's a privilege that can be and should be taken away if you are under the influence. You are responsible as a licensed driver to not drive under the influence, whether it be alcohol or another substance that alters your state of mind. Is that factual enough? A person saying that they drive better after smoking pot is subjective, but since it agrees with the rest of the pot heads' opinions on this board, that is an acceptable argument? Please.

I don't see how "criminalize drugs" follows from "drugs impair driving" and "you are responsible to not drive under the influence." How about instead we make driving under the influence a crime (oh wait, it's called DUI and it is a crime) and revoke licenses when people do that (oh wait, we do!)? Seems like a pretty reasonable solution to me.

So far this has actually been a pretty reasonable drug thread.

Bear in mind a few things going forward though:

1/ Posts that are just "yeah" "no" or "I agree" are going to get deleted. If you have nothing to add, don't add anything.

2/ We as a site can't actually support the use of illegal drugs, and while you're free to talk about drugs as specifically as you like in the abstract, please don't post about how -you- do drugs, or that others -should- do drugs which are currently illegal.

Really, we have to use dumb "SWIM" acronyms? You know I don't think I've heard of a single forum being shut down or prosecuted because its members admitted to drug use. I mean, come on, there's an entire forum predicated on drug use (bluelight.ru) and it's been been up for almost a decade. I highly doubt that someone saying "I smoked pot" is going to jeopardize this forum... however, using annoying acronyms and round about ways of expressing our opinions muddles the context of the argument and makes it difficult to decipher.

But if these rules can't bend, then whatever. Another admin seems to see no problem with it (aperson)...

[Rubin0]

Re: Drugs

I never said that I thought drugs should be criminalized. I said I don't support drugs. I don't support the use of drugs. But I don't care whether it is legal to take drugs or not. People are going to do it regardless if it is legal or not. My main stance on the legal issue is that people who are caught under the influence while driving should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. People can do as many drugs as they want, I don't care. I keep those people as far out of my life as possible. This is why I fully support frequent drug testing for job applicants and employees, random highway stops, and general deterrence in situations where drug use is undesirable and even dangerous.

I personally would not want to hire a drug user or a person that has a history of DUI's. I think it says a lot about a person's character and I wouldn't want to risk sacrificing my business for someone who has a drug habit.

[aperson]

Re: Drugs

Evidence? I can't believe I even have to provide evidence over something like this.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/pot_driving.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/376174/the_simple_truth_about_driving_under.html?cat=71

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_1d9f6f8a-2137-11e0-a0be-001cc4c002e0.html

I will elaborate in a minute, I'm stuck on the phone with girlfriend aggro.

Here's a link to an actual scientific study:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

Now, this is done by the US government so you know it's going to be biased toward wanting the outcome to be that yes, weed does make you a bad driver. Let's see what their abstract says:

Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. The first was conducted on a highway closed to other traffic. Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo. They performed a 22-km road tracking test beginning 30 and 90 minutes after smoking. Their lateral position variability increased significantly after each THC dose relative to placebo in a dose-dependent manner for two hours after smoking. The second study was conducted on a highway in the presence of other traffic. Subjects (16) were treated with the same THC doses as before. They performed a 64-km road tracking test preceded and followed by 16-km car following tests. Results confirmed those of the previous study. Car following performance was only slightly impaired. The third study was conducted in high-density urban traffic. Separate groups of 16 subjects were treated with 100 g/kg THC and placebo; and, ethanol (mean BAC .034 g%) and placebo. Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance.

So you have three studies here. The first found a significant correlation, though the actual effect was quite small, read: Car following performance was only slightly impaired.. And in the third study in high-density urban traffic, and there was no significant difference between the stoned and the sober group. And I think their abstract conclusion is a pretty fair evaluation: These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance.

Digging in to the studies that show significant differences, the first study shows that there was only a significant difference in one of the dependent variables they were measuring (standard deviation of lateral position), which has been previously shown to be highly sensitive to any mood / sedative changes. You can read it here.

In the second test, they also measured the standard deviation of lateral position and only got significant results in the highest dose case. Furthermore, they showed that as dose increased, the mean distance behind the car they were trying to precisely follow decreased. After adjusting for what they thought caused this variation, the results were statistically insignificant. You can view this article here.

And the third study, as I previously noted caused no significant difference.

So what we have here is a study from the government saying that marijuana usage and driving is barely statistically significant to the point that it isn't necessarily replicated between studies. And additionally, they claim that in each study where it is significant the effect size is minimal. So there is evidence from your own government department of transportation that it is questionable whether smoking and driving causes any impairment or not.

In the future, if you are going to cite sources I would recommend making them actual studies, like I provided, and not blog posts.

[ichliebekase]

Re: Drugs

Whats your opinion on drugs? All of us have done drugs at least once in our life (even if we didn't know that said substance is considered a drug) legal or illegal.

Do you support specific drugs? Why do you support these drugs? What are the pros/cons to this drug? Do you support drug groups, anti-drug groups? Do you support the business behind it or no?

Please, do tell.

Also in trying to support your point of view please pull some actual facts.

This is the OP. Everyone needs to get off their damn high horses and learn to accept someone else's opinion when it is asked for.

And you called rushy the troll.

[blackout650]

Re: Drugs

My opinion? Weed is a plant. God put plants on the ground. If it wasn't ment to be smoked then god wouldn't have put in the ground for us to smoke. Simple as that. It should be legalized. That's my opinion

[aperson]

Re: Drugs

And you called rushy the troll.

If you post your opinions and someone asks you for evidence or justification you damn well better provide it or else you either a) don't believe in your position or b) don't believe in it firmly enough to have teased it out and thus shouldn't have strong beliefs either way. If you take route a, you are trolling. If you take route b yet you still have strong beliefs on the matter, you are ignorant and tunnel-visioned. So yes, I wanted to find out whether he was in camp a or camp b.

Also that's so cute that you underhandedly call me a troll when all I've done in this thread is post mountains of information that everyone who disagrees with seems to mysteriously gloss over.

[MrGiggles]

Re: Drugs

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving.shtml

Most studies I've seen cited consider marijuana to be much less of an impairment to driving than alcohol, but still an impairment. In addition, drunk and high is worse than either alone. I'm sure that as pressure for legalization increases and medical pot grows more widespread, more studies will reach a more solid conclusion, but until then it's best to err on the side of safety.

[awein999]

Re: Drugs

This is the OP. Everyone needs to get off their damn high horses and learn to accept someone else's opinion when it is asked for.

And you called rushy the troll.

I would agree with the first two sentences if this wasn't in the critical thinking thread. In this thread your posts are taken very seriously. Don't post if you aren't willing to have your post scrutinized.

[aperson]

Re: Drugs

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._driving.shtml

Most studies I've seen cited consider marijuana to be much less of an impairment to driving than alcohol, but still an impairment. In addition, drunk and high is worse than either alone. I'm sure that as pressure for legalization increases and medical pot grows more widespread, more studies will reach a more solid conclusion, but until then it's best to err on the side of safety.

Definitely. We're never going to see widespread research done on it until it enters the medical domain. Since statistical significance seems to waver in and out between different studies it's obvious that we haven't gathered enough of a mountain of research to be certain either way. As such, it's irresponsible to drive around stoned. However, anyone who says that you shouldn't drive stoned because it impairs your driving is lying. They should be saying that you shouldn't drive stoned because there is the possibility that it impairs your driving. There is a big difference between the two.

[Rubin0]

Re: Drugs

I have a few rebuttal studies but I don't have the time or energy to explain them and I would prefer to not just post the link. Maybe tomorrow. Also I don't appreciate such a condescending tone from an administrator, especially because he seems to take a subject so personally. I am not here to explain to a bunch of 15 year old's what a standard deviation is which is why it is easier to post things that everyone can understand. I'll put forth more effort in the future to avoid being spoken to like an idiot.

[Yieldsign]

Re: Drugs

I have a few rebuttal studies but I don't have the time or energy to explain them and I would prefer to not just post the link. Maybe tomorrow. Also I don't appreciate such a condescending tone from an administrator, especially because he seems to take a subject so personally. I am not here to explain to a bunch of 15 year old's what a standard deviation is which is why it is easier to post things that everyone can understand. I'll put forth more effort in the future to avoid being spoken to like an idiot.

If you don't want to put the effort into making an articulate and informative post, then don't post in CT. Posting blog posts and other insignificant sources is NOT an acceptable alternative to the above.

Also, it's hard not to be slightly condescending when most posters who have argued contrary to us have been not only "condescending" themselves but in some cases actually judgmental and abrasive.

[aperson]

Re: Drugs

If you are making causal claims in a Critical Thinking thread you should be posting studies to back up your claims. This has nothing to do with "explain[ing] to a bunch of 15 year old's what a standard deviation is" and everything to do with "standard discourse for rigorous discussion."

Edit: Please post the links. I'm completely willing to read over them myself.

[~kitty~]

Re: Drugs

Alcohol is a more dangerous drug than Weed. Why are we arguing over the dangers? I think alcohol is only legal because of how it's ingrained into our culture, as well as many others. Question: When was weed introduced?

EDIT: http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/ is this considered a legit source?

[aperson]

Re: Drugs

EDIT: http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/ is this considered a legit source?

I clicked the first link I saw on there and was brought to a graph of relative dangers so yeah, at least they are doing some research.

Also I agree, it's ridiculous how much more dangerous alcohol is than weed.