1 In 5 Auto Accident Deaths Now Involves Marijuana Use
- Thread starter ripcord
- Start date
- Status
The character in the video I posted is "Joe Friday" from the 60's TV series "Dragnet". He was played by the pro cop actor Jack Webb.
Ok, makes sense now. I wasn't in a place to play the video.
A) Dunno, just list most all drugs
B) Ethyl Alcohol, Ethanol, Ethyl group with -OH makes it an alcohol
MeOH Methanol, CH3OH
CH3-CH2OH EtOH. An abbreviation
And yes it IS a drug.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
I’m not here to defend DWI types - no type of impairment belongs around equipment, roads, or worksites. But is not alcohol controlled down to percentage in the bottle - massive studies of percentage in the body - and there are many levels of follow up tests …
How does one do this with so many random clumps of pot?
You mean those who partake are otherwise Schmidty drivers when sober?
Their father never took them out to learn to drive maybe?
Similar to alcohol, once legalized the profitability of it quickly falls though
Besides a breathalyzer police can get folks do old school sobriety tests like walking touching your nose, alphabet in reverse.
Could combine a failed physical sobriety, erratic driving with a positive for Maryjane to fine those behaving badly.
It’s a weak argument because regardless of its status as being legal or illegal for personal use, it is still 100% illegal to drive intoxicated, and marijuana WAS EVERYWHERE before legalization. So as a law enforcement officer, you were in the exact same predicament pre and post-legalization, having no way of testing objectively for intoxication. I can not tell you how ubiquitous marijuana was growing up in NYS in the 80s and 90s. It was literally everywhere, all the time, and teens could get weed far more easily than they could alcohol. As the father of three teen boys, they've dabbled with marijuana, but my generation abused it so much more than theirs seems to be now that it's legal for adults. As for adults, those who abused weed before legalization continue to abuse it now and those who didn't still don't now. I don't know a single adult person who didn't consume marijuana at all pre-legalization who abuses it now post-legalization. It was just as accessible 10 years ago as it is today.
You mean like post #1, right?
No, I mean any post that makes the main argument “but, but, but alcohol is worse!”. Ok, we all know alcohol is bad. Who are they trying to convince? None of these posts directly address the topic/claim.
Last edited:
Although I agree with @alarmguy post - and yours @JeffKeryk but.....some things are more addictive to some than others. Unlike you, alcohol has no additive power over me.
But I know people called "puffers", people who have a few hits of weed a half dozen times a day. In other words, they are high all day long. They're unable to stop, making weed their version of your alcohol.
My vice back in the college days was cocaine. That stuff was savagely addictive to me. I could study ALL NIGHT LONG on that stuff. Play nights with coeds could last ALL NIGHT LONG. There's nothing better than a coked up chick.
Thank God it almost killed me one night. Fortunately I had enough self awareness that almost dying of a heart attack made me come to my senses. I still remember sitting in a chair in this downtown Victorian, a booming party surrounding me, my heart rate spinning out of control at probably 200bpm - and being so out of touch with reality I just sat there and didn't ask anyone for help. Instead, I sat there in wide-eyed terror for three hours thinking I was just moments from death.
Here's the irony, there was a movement to legalize coke back in the '70s. Too bad it wasn't. The taxes generated from it could have rebuilt our entire electrical grid, much like @Hermann says the taxes generated by legalized weed is rebuilding i-70 throughout his state.
I find it troubling that we live in a nation that legalizes NEW vices for the tax revenue. Maybe one day I'll get my old '70s wish that cocaine will be legalized. That'll fix things.
Scott
Last edited:
Same. I hate it. It makes me nausious. 50% of the cars I get in at work stink.
dnewton3
Staff member
You are so very wrong in making these statements. Your generalizations are founded in mythology and not facts.
Alcohol has a very predictable effect on human physiology; the absorption and desorption are well studied and understood.
Do NOT confuse that proven science with how it affects people's PERSONALITIES. What it does to the human body vs. what it does to a person's persona are two totally different things. As was once said by a famous comedian regarding alcohol, what it does in intensify your personality ... so what if you're a pain in the ass?Some people are happy drunks, some sad, some angry, some lovable, some sullen, etc ... The same goes for marijuana; it affect people differently in terms of personalities.
THC does not affect all people the same; that's part of the problem in coming up with a good hypothesis for study criteria. Whereas occasional recreational use may seem benign, it's commonly observed that chronic use can lead to developmental retardation in younger people. Whether this effect is temporary or permanent is yet to be understood. Further, it is a smoke which contains particulate which can affect the lungs, and cancer studies have not yet been done on the effects of smoking it in plant form. ALL of these are good reasons to study the use of THC in its many forms BEFORE making it legal.
If this were any other drug for some other purpose, people would decry the release of it upon the public and be readily willing to sue the maker/supplier for all manner of ills it may unleash. But because this is a recreational use topic for most folks, they want the freedom to indulge and have the consequences be darned. But in this case, the topic being auto accidents and marijuana correlation, I find it hypocritical of folks to advocate for open use without understanding the causation and effects.
I am not against making it legal for consumption. I am vehemently against making it legal BEFORE we understand, qualify, and quantify its physiological effects.
This thread is about driving impairment. The source of impairment is not well understood because the USA has made no significant study efforts to understand causation and effect. But ANY impairment behind the wheel is not a good thing, regardless of the origin of the intoxication.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2022
- Messages
- 5,936
jmoymmv. When young, we drove cross country and it didn't even occur to us that drinking Wild Irish Rose and traveling and being behind the wheel was not a bright thing to do. We even encountered police and didn't think twice. I recall a SC State Trooper telling us you can't park here you need to get off the interstate to sleep in your car.
And as late as 2005, I was pulled over by the state police after leaving a happy hour. In my mind I was trying to calculate all the fees and costs and inconvenience I was about to partake in, and guess what? The trooper let me go, provided I pull into a parking lot, and did not leave until I was sober. Pretty sure no dash cams or body cams back then. So from having done it, imho driving impaired is a bad thing. I'm not being hypocritical, I don't do it today and haven't in almost 20 years. Sometimes, it takes making mistakes, to realize that they are mistakes. I never got into weed, but it was always around. I actually felt square to say no thanks, because it was always around, despite being illegal.
Again I don't think it's hypocritical. Bobby Weir said to young people, nobody ever said heroin and meth made their lives better. They will wreck your life. As a matter of fact, you're better off without drugs.
Now we can say just aren't you the kettle calling the pot black. Or we can say that good advice is coming from someone who knows from experience.
I don't have a moral opinion on the subject, just saying that driving impaired is bad.
And as late as 2005, I was pulled over by the state police after leaving a happy hour. In my mind I was trying to calculate all the fees and costs and inconvenience I was about to partake in, and guess what? The trooper let me go, provided I pull into a parking lot, and did not leave until I was sober. Pretty sure no dash cams or body cams back then. So from having done it, imho driving impaired is a bad thing. I'm not being hypocritical, I don't do it today and haven't in almost 20 years. Sometimes, it takes making mistakes, to realize that they are mistakes. I never got into weed, but it was always around. I actually felt square to say no thanks, because it was always around, despite being illegal.
Again I don't think it's hypocritical. Bobby Weir said to young people, nobody ever said heroin and meth made their lives better. They will wreck your life. As a matter of fact, you're better off without drugs.
Now we can say just aren't you the kettle calling the pot black. Or we can say that good advice is coming from someone who knows from experience.
I don't have a moral opinion on the subject, just saying that driving impaired is bad.
In terms of genotoxicity, comparing weed to cigarettes would be a better comparison. Cigarettes contain nicotine plus VOCs and other known carcinogens. Much like how pipe tobacco smokers have a much lower rate of lung cancer compared to those who smoke cigarettes, the same applies to weed. Of course the risk is never zero.
dnewton3
Staff member
The problem that MANY PEOPLE have is that they cannot discern the difference between the two topics:
- what does an intoxicant do to the physiology of the human body?
- what does an intoxicant do to the personality of a human being?
The two are often conflated, and they should not be. Auto accidents are often a culmination of multiple inputs, resulting in a bad output. Vehicle speed, vehicle condition, environmental conditions, human abilities (or lack thereof), human emotion, etc .... These all play into an auto accident. So this is sort of a mathematical equation ... A x B x C x D ... = output. The more inputs, or the greater the magnitude of the inputs, the larger the result. Simply put, angry/aggressive people get into more accidents because of their personality, not their physiology. When their personality is multiplied by alcohol, it has a propensity to increase the likelihood of having an accident. It's not against the law to be grumpy; but it is against the law to be intoxicated behind the wheel.
What alcohol does the human body in terms of physiology is well known, well studied, and accepted legal evidence.
Read this document for a good understanding of the effects of alcohol on humans and auto accidents:
https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/Alcohol-Toxicology.pdf
We know exactly how quickly alcohol enters and exits the human system. The absorption and desorption rates are very consistent, easily tested and legally credible in terms of evidentiary admissibility.
The thing about THC (marijuana) is that there is no large-sample data to show how it affects human physiology; nothing that is accepted by any credible sources such as the FDA, DEA, NHTSA, NIH, etc ... No credible studies have yet shown how THC is the causation of degradation of the human condition ...
- how should THC be quantified in terms of intoxication?
- at what level of THC as a % of quantification does it affect human abilities (both cognitive and physical impairments)
- can THC be "normalized" (standardized) so that in some measure of X units, it can be predicted that Y level of intoxication will result?
What intoxicants do to the body are a different topic than what they do to a personality. DO NOT CONFUSE THE TWO TOPICS.
- what does an intoxicant do to the physiology of the human body?
- what does an intoxicant do to the personality of a human being?
The two are often conflated, and they should not be. Auto accidents are often a culmination of multiple inputs, resulting in a bad output. Vehicle speed, vehicle condition, environmental conditions, human abilities (or lack thereof), human emotion, etc .... These all play into an auto accident. So this is sort of a mathematical equation ... A x B x C x D ... = output. The more inputs, or the greater the magnitude of the inputs, the larger the result. Simply put, angry/aggressive people get into more accidents because of their personality, not their physiology. When their personality is multiplied by alcohol, it has a propensity to increase the likelihood of having an accident. It's not against the law to be grumpy; but it is against the law to be intoxicated behind the wheel.
What alcohol does the human body in terms of physiology is well known, well studied, and accepted legal evidence.
Read this document for a good understanding of the effects of alcohol on humans and auto accidents:
https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/Alcohol-Toxicology.pdf
We know exactly how quickly alcohol enters and exits the human system. The absorption and desorption rates are very consistent, easily tested and legally credible in terms of evidentiary admissibility.
The thing about THC (marijuana) is that there is no large-sample data to show how it affects human physiology; nothing that is accepted by any credible sources such as the FDA, DEA, NHTSA, NIH, etc ... No credible studies have yet shown how THC is the causation of degradation of the human condition ...
- how should THC be quantified in terms of intoxication?
- at what level of THC as a % of quantification does it affect human abilities (both cognitive and physical impairments)
- can THC be "normalized" (standardized) so that in some measure of X units, it can be predicted that Y level of intoxication will result?
What intoxicants do to the body are a different topic than what they do to a personality. DO NOT CONFUSE THE TWO TOPICS.
It is truly strange times..
Businesses have shown us time and time again they can not be trusted and they do not self-regulate. Modern governance theory explicitly states the ONLY goal of management is to maximize shareholder value, and well, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of examples in just the past few decades of management going beyond what is reasonable in pursuit of shareholder value.
The same people above who don't want business regulation because it's "over-reaching" have no problem advocating for regulation of individual liberties because some people can't be trusted to use a product responsibly. At the individual level, I understand that some people abuse alcohol, and I understand that some people abuse marijuana, but some people can find a way to abuse EVERYTHING. Why not regulate everything?
At the end of the day, leave me, my bottle of cabernet, and my 5mg gummies alone. If you can't control yourself then don't consume these products but I'm not responsible for your or other people's irresponsible behaviors.
It truly seems like people have no problems discriminating against what should or shouldn't be regulated based solely on whether or not they like something or not. Land of the free...remember...
Businesses have shown us time and time again they can not be trusted and they do not self-regulate. Modern governance theory explicitly states the ONLY goal of management is to maximize shareholder value, and well, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of examples in just the past few decades of management going beyond what is reasonable in pursuit of shareholder value.
The same people above who don't want business regulation because it's "over-reaching" have no problem advocating for regulation of individual liberties because some people can't be trusted to use a product responsibly. At the individual level, I understand that some people abuse alcohol, and I understand that some people abuse marijuana, but some people can find a way to abuse EVERYTHING. Why not regulate everything?
At the end of the day, leave me, my bottle of cabernet, and my 5mg gummies alone. If you can't control yourself then don't consume these products but I'm not responsible for your or other people's irresponsible behaviors.
It truly seems like people have no problems discriminating against what should or shouldn't be regulated based solely on whether or not they like something or not. Land of the free...remember...
I've had my fair share of nights being schmammered on the alcohol when I was younger and I'm a total pussy cat when drunk. I've been schmammered with lots of other people too and it's the rare bird in my personal history who gets aggressive. I've seen it happen, but that again is an individual's problem with alcohol, not a problem with alcohol itself, because the vast majority of drinkers do not act aggressively.
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
Any correlation with the impact of U.S. residents that use marijuana and the Chinese being the group with the highest percentage growth of legal and illegal marijuana growers in the U.S ?
Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/24/1238497863/chinese-marijuana-farms-new-mexicohttps://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/how...ons-cropped-up-in-small-town-america-45b7b598
https://www.graydc.com/2024/01/12/b...ration-illegally-run-by-chinese-nationals-us/
Last edited:
It's already against the law to drink and drive.
We tried the whole outlaw alcohol thing before. It didn't work out so well.
Liberty comes with risk.
Since one cannot control what others do, take measures to ensure your safety. That's the optimal choice.
dnewton3
Staff member
I, too, favor liberty.
My position is not that THC products should be forever illegal. Rather, my position is that before we make them legal, we should understand how they affect the human body, and be able to definitively describe that X% of a product consumed in Y hours equates to a level of Z intoxication. This is for the purpose of addressing the criminality of driving while intoxicated by THC.
Alcohol is well regulated, but that regulation does not directly interfere with those who enjoy it. Alcohol products are accurately labeled for their % content, and we can very well understand that "X" drinks in "Y" hours = "Z" BAC level. (see the link in my previous post)
When we can accurately label THC products for their % content, and predictably understand that "X" mg/ml consumed in "Y" hours = "Z" THCC level, and be able to associate that THCC level to some manner of quantifiable intoxication such that impairment is the high probability result, I'll be OK with legalizing it.
I would agree that consumption in the home isn't as big a problem in terms of risks. But that's not what this thread is about; this is about the dangers of THC intoxication while driving. You're right to "liberty" does have limits when the risks of adverse outcomes reach a predominantly high level in a public format. The key is to adequately define those limits using science and study data, not hyperbole and rhetoric. (not directed at you personally, but as a general statement in this emotional topic).
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
