Latest drug addict loons.

[MSimon]

I guess it did not help his PTSD....

And the kicker? What ever he got - Prohibition did not prevent it. Just as alcohol prohibition did not prevent people from getting alcohol. Evidently history is not a strong point among the prohibitionists. There is a 1932 in your future.

[MSimon]

Teen marijuana use falls as more states legalize

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -legalize/

[MSimon]

Pot Use Among Colorado Teens Appears to Drop After Legalization

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... galization

[Diogenes]

I guess it did not help his PTSD....

And the kicker? What ever he got - Prohibition did not prevent it. Just as alcohol prohibition did not prevent people from getting alcohol. Evidently history is not a strong point among the prohibitionists.

I hear laws against murder don't prevent it either. Despite having laws, we occasionally have murders. Apparently the Murder prohibitionists just aren't very good students of history either.

Don't they know that if we just didn't have any laws against murder, we'd have far fewer murders?


Dope advocates are also not very good students of history.

There is a 1932 in your future.

The Rise of Nazism? Yeah, I've been watching it coming for a long time now. It's getting closer all the time. When it gets here, probably half the population will be on Soma, and so won't care.


You might count this as a good thing, but I don't.

[Diogenes]

Two Liberal sources citing volunteer data? That all you got?



One thing you can be sure of, if it shows up in the Washington Post, the New York Times, or USA Today, it's probably crap.

[TDPerk]

I hear laws against murder don't prevent it either.

The difference is that murder is actually something wrong in and of itself, where someone else's drug use is none of your business.

[williatw]

One thing you can be sure of, if it shows up in the Washington Post, the New York Times, or USA Today, it's probably crap.

Uhh...."Dio" didn't you just post something from USA Today like a few days ago?

'Sniper' accused killer used anti-psychotic meds, pot

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /23377299/

So I guess you must mean it is crap unless you post it...in which case it is the Gospel of St Jude.

[williatw]

If Marijuana Causes Lots Of Crashes, Why Are They So Hard To Count?



Jeff Michael of NHTSA (Image: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee)

Last year, during a congressional hearing on the threat posed by stoned drivers, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was asked how many crash fatalities are caused by marijuana each year. “That’s difficult to say,” replied Jeff Michael, NHTSA’s associate administrator for research and program development. “We don’t have a precise estimate.” The most he was willing to affirm was that the number is “probably not” zero.

Michael knows something that grandstanding politicians and anti-pot activists either do not understand or refuse to acknowledge: Although experiments show that marijuana impairs driving ability, the effects are not nearly as dramatic as those seen with alcohol, and measuring the real-world consequences has proven very difficult, as demonstrated by a landmark study that NHTSA released last Friday. In “the first large-scale [crash risk] study in the United States to include drugs other than alcohol,” NHTSA found that, once the data were adjusted for confounding variables, cannabis consumption was not associated with an increased probability of getting into an accident.

Some news outlets accurately reported that result, and some did not, apparently because some reporters actually read the study, while others were content to skim NHTSA’s press release. Such carelessness misleads policy makers who are grappling with the issue of how to determine when people are too stoned to drive. It also aids pot prohibitionists, who cite the prospect of more blood on the highways as an important reason to resist legalization.




The NHTSA study included more than 3,000 drivers who were involved in crashes during a 20-month period in Virginia Beach, Virginia, plus 6,000 controls who drove in the same area during the same period but did not get into accidents. As usual, the study found that alcohol use was strongly correlated with crash risk. After adjustment for confounding, the crash risk for drivers with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent was twice the crash risk for sober drivers; it was six times as high for drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent and 12 times as high at a BAC of 0.15 percent. But the picture for marijuana was quite different.




Over all, drivers who tested positive for active THC were 25 percent more likely to be involved in crashes. But once the researchers took sex, age, and race/ethnicity into account, the risk ratio shrank from 1.25 to 1.05 and was no longer statistically significant:

“
This analysis shows that the significant increased risk of crash involvement associated with THC and illegal drugs…is not found after adjusting for these demographic variables. This finding suggests that these demographic variables may have co-varied with drug use and accounted for most of the increased crash risk. For example, if the THC-positive drivers were predominantly young males, their apparent crash risk may have been related to age and gender rather than use of THC.

Further adjusting for alcohol consumption made the crash risk of cannabis consumers equal to that of drivers who tested negative for alcohol and all other drugs. In other words, the analysis, which NHTSA described as “the most precisely controlled study of its kind yet conducted,” provides no evidence that marijuana use increases crash risk. That result, the authors note, is similar to what the best-designed previous studies have found: a small or nonexistent increase in crash risk.






Several reporters understood this crucial point and communicated it to their readers. In a story headlined “Feds: No Link Between Pot and Car Crashes,” The Hill’s Jesse Byrnes reported that “marijuana use has not been found to increase the risk of car crashes, according to a new federal report.” Under the headline “U.S.: Pot Use Doesn’t Increase Crash Risk,” David Shepardson of The Detroit News reported that “a government study released late Friday found no evidence that marijuana use leads to a higher risk of getting into a traffic crash.” CBS News, Huffington Post reporter Matt Ferner, and Washington Post drug policy blogger Christopher Ingraham correctly noted the uncertainty about marijuana’s impact on highway safety, emphasizing that alcohol poses a much clearer and more serious risk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum ... -to-count/

[paperburn1]

Saying one more time, yes its my favorite quote.
There are lies, darn lies and statistics =Mark Twain

[paperburn1]

Saying one more time, yes its my favorite quote.
There are lies, darn lies and statistics =Mark Twain
No where do you see the numbers for pot and alcohol together, why because the synergy between the two is amazing.

[Diogenes]

I hear laws against murder don't prevent it either.

The difference is that murder is actually something wrong in and of itself, where someone else's drug use is none of your business.

You might thinks so, but I keep having to pay this tax bill over here, and that doesn't even address the number of times i've had to run interference for some of my dope smoking buddies getting caught in the consequences of their own dope smoking behavior. One of my dope smoking buddies just got arrested yesterday, and I'm pretty sure he's going to be calling me for bail.


It also doesn't address the people i've known who have Overdosed and left behind young children for other people to care for. I suppose you regard leaving a child alone in the world to fend for itself to be perfectly right and proper, and therefore not being a "harm" to anyone, but I have a different understanding of social and familial obligations.


You dope advocates are just spoiled rotten brats that have a self centered narcissistic view of your own role in life, and you are intellectually incapable of comprehending the DAMAGE caused by your indulgent hedonistic pastimes, especially amongst those people who can't handle it without crashing and burning of which there are far too many.

[Diogenes]

One thing you can be sure of, if it shows up in the Washington Post, the New York Times, or USA Today, it's probably crap.

Uhh...."Dio" didn't you just post something from USA Today like a few days ago?

Note the qualifier "Probably" ? That story ran on a lot of other sources too, but USA today had some of the best quotes and a picture of the bong. Couldn't pass it up.


But yeah, to answer your point, I'm another.

[GIThruster]

I could understand shifting the intention of this thread from simply acknowledging the latest wonky drug addict nonsense as it was intended, to having a real drug prohibition debate, if people would stop dragging that issue into every other thread in this forum. I am sick to death of listening to an unemployed, unemployable asshole recommending his way of life to others. simon is fully delusional, and people here are pandering to that delusion because it reinforces their sick views about life.

So what's it gonna be? Can we reserve just this thread for the pro-drug bullshit or is simon going to continue on, plaguing the entire forum with his advocacy because he wore out all the sensible people or they're too embarrassed to say what they really think?

[williatw]

You might thinks so, but I keep having to pay this tax bill over here, and that doesn't even address the number of times i've had to run interference for some of my dope smoking buddies getting caught in the consequences of their own dope smoking behavior. One of my dope smoking buddies just got arrested yesterday, and I'm pretty sure he's going to be calling me for bail.

And what was your "buddy" arrested for? Murder?, Mayhem? If I had to hazard a guess it was possession of narcotics; in other words a consequence of your WOD, not the drug use itself

It also doesn't address the people i've known who have Overdosed and left behind young children for other people to care for. I suppose you regard leaving a child alone in the world to fend for itself to be perfectly right and proper, and therefore not being a "harm" to anyone, but I have a different understanding of social and familial obligations.

Maybe if drug use wasn't so criminalized and was legal and regulated as to dosages and availability maybe allot fewer people would die of overdoses; in any case the biggest thing that separates users from their families isn't death by overdose it is jail; likely for possession, another consequence of the WOD. Drug abuse is a medical problem it should be addressed that way; not a criminal justice problem. No more than being addicted to harmful alcohol or mega-harmful tobacco is treated as a crime.

You dope advocates are just spoiled rotten brats that have a self centered narcissistic view of your own role in life, and you are intellectually incapable of comprehending the DAMAGE caused by your indulgent hedonistic pastimes, especially amongst those people who can't handle it without crashing and burning of which there are far too many.

So your going to help the person that can't handle it by declaring it a crime; so you can beat, arrest, jail, and ass-rape him; there that will learn him. How exactly does jailing 100's of thousands of mostly minority males stop the "indulgent hedonistic pastimes" of white upper middle class people who fear little likelihood of being thrown in jail?

[GIThruster]

And what was your "buddy" arrested for? Murder?, Mayhem? If I had to hazard a guess it was possession of narcotics; in other words a consequence of your WOD, not the drug use itself

You're equivocating again, William. Are you arguing against criminalization of narcotics or just the WOD? If someone is arrested for using, that may or may not have something to do with the WoD, but these drugs were illegal for many years before the WoD came along. You keep saying you're opposed to the WoD, but you're making arguments for legalization. Why can't you be consistent and say the truth? What is it you're advocating for?