They Killed Him And Found Nothing

[williatw]

What a load of crap.

Where is the causality? What other things changed in traffic demographics and control?
This is just as invalid as claiming that violent crimes are down because of medical pot.

Oooh! I know. I can publish a study that says the cost of dairy products is up because of pot legalization.

Idiots.

You are so hopelessly biased on this subject don't know why I bother to respond but here goes: The earlier study the one you probably like said that there was an increase in people in fatal car accidents testing positive for pot. Implying that pot smoking was causing an increase in fatal traffic fatalities. The rebuttal studies/interpretation is to point out that there has actually been a large decline in fatal accidents since the introduction of medical marijuana. Suggesting that possibly but by no means definitively that people are substituting pot for alcohol, which has a lower deleterious effect on driving skill as opposed to alcohol. Thereby contributing to (but by no means being the only factor) lowering fatal car accidents. In any case it almost indisputably hasn't made things worse, which the earlier study seem to be implying.

[GIThruster]

The rebuttal studies/interpretation is to point out that there has actually been a large decline in fatal accidents since the introduction of medical marijuana.

That'sa nonsense interpretation of the actual data, which is specific that 4 times as many people have accidents when high as when sober. Was on network news 2 days ago so I'm sure thereis a new study out.

[paperburn1]

And of course no mention of the study that show how dangerous it is to combine the two when driving or the fact that most deaths related to drunk driving just list "other contributing factors" for MJ/drug use.

Lies, darn lies, and statistics -Mark twain

[williatw]

That'sa nonsense interpretation of the actual data, which is specific that 4 times as many people have accidents when high as when sober. Was on network news 2 days ago so I'm sure thereis a new study out.

They test positive for marijuna use not neccessarily high on pot. It lingers in the system for a week the link said. Be that as it may the fact is that in California alone there was a greater overall decline in fatal car accidents than the nation as a whole esperienced during the same period in time accompanying the greater incident of people testing postive for pot. Clearly some kind of substitution is going on, which at worse isn't making the problem of fatal accidents increase and may (or may not) contribute to lowering them.

[ladajo]

They test positive for marijuna use not neccessarily high on pot. It lingers in the system for a week the link said.

It is not a go no-go test. It gives levels. They are not reporting the levels. This is the twist they are avoiding in your cited link, as it undoes the argument they seek to make.

In any event, my point is that the entire argument is specious.

Fatal accident rates are driven my many factors. You can not tie any one factor in as the driver. My point goes both ways.
However, that said, There is clear correllation as stated to accidents and being drunk and high. There is also plenty of data documenting impairment for pot usage.

It is idiotic to suggest in any way that using anything and driving is a better option than being straight. That is my point. This is the message they are seeking to subliminally plant and it is stupid.

Blood tests are a better detector of recent use, since they measure the active presence of THC in the system. Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs, where they can give a useful indication of whether the subject was actually under the influence.

Unlike urine, blood test results can give a useful indicator of whether one is under the influence of marijuana. Studies have shown that high THC blood levels are correlated with impaired driving. An expert panel review of scientific studies on driving under the influence of cannabis concluded that THC levels above 3.5 - 5 ng/ml in blood (or 7 - 10 ng/ml in serum) indicate likely impairment [Grotenhermen].

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drug ... ction.html

And you can read this article where it argues both ways, it trys to wash over the increased risk and even propagates the myth of "high drivers drive slower". Also, it is dated and suffers from
not accounting for more recent studies. The core point they seek to wash out is that 1.25 means a 25% higher chance. They also do not look to the combined effect of alcohol with pot.

And here is another one:

B – blood testing

Blood tests, unlike urinalysis, detect the presence illicit drugs, not inactive drug metabolites. In general, THC only remains detectable in the blood of cannabis consumers for a few hours (though low, residual levels may be detected in chronic smokers for up to 12-24+ hours if more sensitive technology is used). Because of this narrow detection window, blood tests are typically only administered in the workplace post-accident in order to estimate recent cannabis consumption. Therefore, most after-hours consumers have little to fear from a blood screen.

http://norml.org/legal/drug-testing/ite ... ug-testing

[GIThruster]

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news ... tudy-finds

"If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol," Li said. "But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increases to 24 times that of a sober person."

[williatw]

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news ... tudy-finds

"If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol," Li said. "But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increases to 24 times that of a sober person."

From your posted link:

In an endnote to the study, the researchers pointed to several limitations with the research. One is that marijuana can be detected in the blood up to one week after use. And, therefore, the researchers said, "the prevalence of nonalcohol drugs reported in this study should be interpreted as an indicator of drug use, not necessarily a measurement of drug impairment."

I am sorry gentlemen but I also re-read the reason link, where are they saying/implying that driving while high on pot is equal to driving sober? Their contention is that it is no worse than driving while drunk, possibly better (than driving while drunk). Their supporting evidence is the steep decline in overrall auto fatalities (more than in states with no medical marijuana laws) while pot positive testing has admittedly spiked upward. And I am sorry Git but who in their right mind could possibly think that driving while drunk & high on pot is a good thing? You seem to be trying to refute a point no one has made or suggested.

[GIThruster]

I am sorry gentlemen but I also re-read the reason link, where are they saying/implying that driving while high on pot is equal to driving sober? Their contention is that it is no worse than driving while drunk, possibly better (than driving while drunk)

That is not what the piece says and it does not imply this either. What it says is you are 3X more likely to be in a fatal accident if you have cannabis in your bloodstream, 12X more likely with alcohol and 24X more likely of you have both cannabis and alcohol.

The report on cannabis use in CO was that you are 4X more likely to be involved in an accident if you're high. That is the statistic that matters. Looking only at fatal accidents doesn't address the real issues, and arguing by comparison with alcohol likewise fails to look at the real issues.

[ladajo]

The point for me here is that they use Blood tests for accident victims. These test give a level return which can indicate how recent the use was, as well as that the blood test is for THC not a metabolite. It also does not tend to reside in the blood beyond 24-48 hours.

The article is misleading when it cites the one week quote. That is a misdirection.

The one link I provided is a great example where they try to misdirect the argument with misrepresentation, obfuscation and a basic pro-pot agenda to guide them.

The bottom line is as stated, driving while impaired with anything is incurring involuntary risk for others.

[williatw]

Gupta: 'I am doubling down' on medical marijuana
By Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent

(CNN) -- It's been eight months since I last wrote about medical marijuana, apologizing for having not dug deeply into the beneficial effects of this plant and for writing articles dismissing its potential. I apologized for my own role in previously misleading people, and I feel very badly that people have suffered for too long, unable to obtain the legitimate medicine that may have helped them.

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, defined as "the most dangerous" drugs "with no currently accepted medical use."

Neither of those statements has ever been factual. Even many of the most ardent critics of medical marijuana don't agree with the Schedule I classification, knowing how it's impeded the ability to conduct needed research on the plant.

Even the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, seems to have softened her stance; she told me she believes we need to loosen restrictions for researchers.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/health/gu ... index.html

[MSimon]

Well there have been studies. You can look for them if you like. I'm busy. And the studies show that EXPERIENCED pot uses are safer drivers than sober drivers. The effect is small. But it had shown up in a number of other studies but was considered statistically insignificant. This study showed it WAS statistically significant (but small).

And the effect is somewhat dose related. High is good. Double high is not.

BTW any of you Prohibitionists ever look into the body's natural protection against cancer? The endocannabinoid system. You might want to read about how it works. Or if you want to watch a video, Dr. Christina Sanchez, a biochemist from Spain explains it on video here: http://vimeo.com/83094404. Her English is pretty good so she will be easy to understand. About 5 1/2 minutes. She talks about cancer cell aptosis (self destruction) and other interesting stuff including breast cancer (some nice animated drawings of D cups and their internals in the video).

Now what do you think it will do to your social standing when people make the connection between killed by cancer and prohibition? BTW do you know who is standing in the way of human trials in the US? The your friends in the DEA. The whole edifice of prohibition is crumbling. I'd get out of the way when it starts crashing (if I was you - which, thank The Maker, I am not).

Or you might want to look into families with children with seizure disorders. A number of them are moving to Colorado to get high canibidiol low THC cannabis for their young ones. It controls those seizures like no other medicine in the pharmacopeia can. There was a strain of cannabis developed especially for them called Charlotte's Web. Care to take a university course on the subject? One is being offered at NYU:

http://faces.med.nyu.edu/research-educa ... conference

As I said. You might want to get out of the way when this evil system starts crashing. Because it will crash in ways that not even the crash of Alcohol Prohibition could. After all alcohol is not a cure for cancer.

[paperburn1]

Well there have been studies. You can look for them if you like. I'm busy. And the studies show that EXPERIENCED pot uses are safer drivers than sober drivers. The effect is small. But it had shown up in a number of other studies but was considered statistically insignificant. This study showed it WAS statistically significant (but small).
.

NO! There is no legitimate study that shows drunk driving or Buzz driving are any safer than driving sober. None, not one. That statement is pure fabrication. Anything you do that distracts you or alters your perception raises the possibility of an accident. Repeat There is no legitimate study that shows drunk driving or Buzz driving are any safer than driving sober.

[ladajo]

Don't let reality interfere with Simon rolling out his old fantasy trash.
It reduces the humor, he actually believes this stuff.

[MSimon]

Don't let reality interfere with Simon rolling out his old fantasy trash.
It reduces the humor, he actually believes this stuff.

Well since you asked so nicely and were unable to do the search on your own (pity - I wonder what you are doing that has rotted your brain so) I have some links for you:

http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2012 ... er-drivers

Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers Than Non-Marijuana Users, New Study Shows
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/655541

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/04/20/ ... e-say-yes/ - note the date. You are not keeping up boy.

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/04/au ... _safer.php - well I thought I'd throw in a stoner site just to make your blood boil and your head smoke. No charge. Heh.

Amazing that you are unable to keep up. With a doper. I think the alcohol has killed too many of your brain cells. Have you considered anti-depressants? Most of them grow brain cells. Take pot for instance.

Well anyway. Thanks for playing. I enjoyed the game immensely. Care for another round?

[MSimon]

Loved this quote from this link: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/655541

A similar study by the NHTSA shows that drivers with THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in their system have accident responsibility rates below that of drug free drivers.

Your own fn government lad. You really aren't keeping up.