« First « Previous Comments 15 - 54 of 60 Next » Last » Search these comments
No one who is sober has ever had an accident or hurt or killed anyone.
That would be an excellent strategy with your insurance company.
Be sure to let them know that sober people get in accidents, too, and that being drunk or stoned behind the wheel is no grounds for increasing your insurance rates or dropping your insurance altogether. People who are stoned drive just as well as if they weren't stoned.
Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says
Washington car crash deaths:
2010 : 460
2014 : 462Population growth of Washington state is roughly 1.25% a year, so the rate is actually declining per person.
If marijuana was causing more traffic deaths, it sure the hell doesn't show up in the statistics!
They are very careful not to say caused more traffic deaths, just to imply it heavily by using the word involved. Crappy study. Garbage in garbage out. It's like the dot database during the 55mph speed limit days. If 4 cars were in an accident, all the drivers drunk on their ass and 1 was speeding then it was recorded as 4 speeding "related" accidents.
By measuring the *concentration* of THC in the blood, naturally. Much in the same way as alcohol tests test concentration of alcohol in the blood.
Right, which as I pointed out could implicate someone who smoked a month ago.
A study from the other side:
http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2016/05/new-study-says-there-is-no-scientific-basis-for-current-marijuana-dui-laws/?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2016_05_13_b2c_newsletter_a&utm_content=dui_laws
If it is legalized, it won't be without larger societal costs
I'll give you a chance to explain before calling you an uninformed moron
I will refrain from calling you a moron for not doing some simple investigation as well. Here are some general links that highlight that the societal costs of legalization are evident, and some show the current effects in areas where legalization has already occurred.
http://www.medicinenet.com/marijuana/article.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2797098/
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/treatment-statistics
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/marijuana
You can make an argument that the criminalization, and the "War on Drugs" cost vs the societal cost of legalized use is less. There are tradeoffs, and probably as a net, that's correct. But legalization does come with its own set of significant costs.
Marijuana, if nationally legalized (each state), might eventually give alcohol a run for its money as the most expensive (accidents + addiction) legal drug in the country. It has already been shown to hold its own against heroin in addiction centers and has a significantly high use in adolescents which has carry over affects into adult life with relation to drug use.
(this is where my joke about being too high to know this would go (wink))
Marijuana, if nationally legalized (each state), might eventually give alcohol a run for its money as the most expensive (accidents + addiction) legal drug in the country.
no chance in hell. Alcohol kills 6 people a day in the US from poisoning. Marijuana is zero. Car accidents etc are similarly one sided.
It has already been shown to hold its own against heroin in addiction centers and has a significantly high use in adolescents which has carry over affects into adult life with relation to drug use.
two fallacies together, so I'll address them one at a time.
marijuana users go to addiction treatment centers, because they are ordred to when they get arrested. HUGE SCAM. so to avoid jail time, you go to the treatment. Hence why the numbers are high.
next, your "gateway drug" as in marijuana leads to harder drug use has been so utterly thoroughly discredited by every objective research ever, it is hard to believe anyone would even hint at it today, but then again stupidity and patnet go together!
Here are some general links that highlight that the societal costs of legalization are evident, and some show the current effects in areas where legalization has already occurred.
http://www.medicinenet.com/marijuana/article.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2797098/
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/treatment-statistics
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/marijuana
Wow, 3 of the 4 are dependant for funding on the war on drugs and anti drug research, very objective sources. I didn't read anything about societal costs in medicenet, did I miss it?
There are no practical barriers to pot use even with the war on drugs. Anyone that wants to get pot easily can. Legalizing it won't increase usage by any substantial amount. How much did usage increase in states that legalized? I don't see your numbers.
Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says
no chance in hell. Alcohol kills 6 people a day in the US from poisoning. Marijuana is zero. Car accidents etc are similarly one sided.
Definitely a chance in hell ...
Cars:
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-washin/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865654011/Fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-up-in-Utah.html?pg=all
Long term (poisoning/health effects) akin to cigarets ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis
Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says
next, your "gateway drug" as in marijuana leads to harder drug use has been so utterly thoroughly discredited by every objective research ever, it is hard to believe anyone would even hint at it today, but then again stupidity and patnet go together!
Alcohol is often seen as the "real" gateway drug. Yes, no human society on the planet has ever NOT used mind altering substances. To say marijuana use DOESN'T contribute to drug experimentation is dumb. Alcohol does, and so does smoking weed. It's fare to say you wouldn't want your 13 year old child habitually and heavily using either, right?
If there is higher availability of marijuana, there will be more users, and more societal ills from it. You and I won't be alive to see the full tally and how it turns out, but it is extremely clear where the story goes. My best historical markers are alcohol and cigarets.
Which drugs have been legalized that have zero societal costs and deaths associated with misuse and disease? Name me one.
If there is higher availability of marijuana, there will be more users, and more societal ills from it. You and I won't be alive to see the full tally and how it turns out, but it is extremely clear where the story goes. My best historical markers are alcohol and cigarets.
Where does the story go? Let's look at the marijuana usage rates in countries where it is legal vs the US. Legal countries like Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Croatia, Spain, Switzerland, etc., etc.? Hmm, it's lower rates than the US, many much lower. How can that be if there is higher availability? But wait, what about France, UK, and Czech where it is illegal and has less availability. High usage rates. How does that work exactly?
I wonder how many accidents involve white people. Probably a lot.
I wonder how many accidents involve white people.
"He din do nuffin! He din do nuffin!"
If it weren't for these voters, Trump wouldn't have a chance.
If it weren't for these voters, Trump wouldn't have a chance.
The irony is that you seen the Hillary supporters as any less ignorant...
Where does the story go? Let's look at the marijuana usage rates in countries where it is legal vs the US. Legal countries like Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Croatia, Spain, Switzerland, etc., etc.?
That is a very overly simplistic picture you are painting. Go deeper.
Those countries are examples of how regulation, taxes, and working to offset societal costs associated with drugs, can work. Legalize it, only if you are going to heavily regulate, tax, and treat for the ills it will bring. It wasn't legalization by itself that setup that difference in abuse rates.
It was the fact that they implemented aggressive and innovative drug addiction treatment programs as part of their social healthcare. That treatment, and NOT legalization, is where their lower drug abuse/use rates come from.
Legalize it, only if you are going to heavily regulate, tax, and treat for the ills it will bring.
------------
You keep repeating this nonsense, yet are too coward to explain.
What ills will legalization bring?
Why not just decriminalize marijuana, and leave it to "the free market " to sort it out? It's worked just fine for decades, with no societal costs whatsoever.
That is a very overly simplistic picture you are painting. Go deeper.
Those countries are examples of how regulation, taxes, and working to offset societal costs associated with drugs, can work. Legalize it, only if you are going to heavily regulate, tax, and treat for the ills it will bring. It wasn't legalization by itself that setup that difference in
abuse rates.
It was the fact that they implemented aggressive and innovative drug addiction treatment programs as part of their social healthcare. That treatment, and NOT legalization, is where their lower drug abuse/use rates come from.
You are being overly simplistic. The treatment program you are talking about is portugal and it's not particularly aggressive or innovative. Other countries have legalized or decriminalized without big social programs other than just regular addiction treatment that existed already and the use rates just don't change much. Netherlands doesn't have any type of special program at all and the use rate isn't even in the top 5. http://recoverybrands.com/drugs-in-america-vs-europe/
If we weren't spending billions on the war on drugs we could treat people rather than having them rot in very expensive jails or be on the street. What societal ills could be worse then the huge amount of crime driven by the high profits selling drugs right now? Take away the profits and the crime goes away. You don't see anyone doing drive by shootings to protect their turf selling alcohol. Oh wait they did used to do that, during prohibition. Duh.
Why not just decriminalize marijuana, and leave it to "the free market " to sort it out? It's worked just fine for decades, with no societal costs whatsoever.
Which "free market" do you describe? Show me a free market, and I'll show you a highly regulated one in order to maintain its freedom.
Additionally, I know of no country, regardless of its drug policy, which doesn't regulate marijuana : where it can be used, whom it can be sold to, who can legally sell it, how much, and so on. In fact Amsterdam is being looked at as a model of what not to do with marijuana: poorly defined grey area legalities due to tolerant non-enforcement of laws. The US is looking at that as a model as what not to do with regards to marijuana drug policy.
There is a societal cost to caffeine/coffee/red-meat almost anything. We can argue over the degree/severity of the cost, but there absolutely is one for legalizing marijuana.
Our legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) already do not generate enough money to cover their societal costs. Highly likely marijuana will be the same. I think at this point though, due to the ineffectiveness seen in current drug policy and "the war on drugs" the gains made from legalization with taxation and regulation would be better than nothing.
Other countries have legalized or decriminalized without big social programs other than just regular addiction treatment that existed already and the use rates just don't change much.
The trick is they already had well funded programs in place and they expanded on them in preparation for the impact legalization would have. For a nation our size we spend something like a paltry 28 billion on addiction treatment, and likely because of that, we have some of the highest total drug use and addiction rates in the world (if not the highest by sheer population affected/drug users). As far as innovative or aggressive, Europe in general, hands down blows away what we have for drug abuse treatment.
Marijuana use has real negative health affects on people. We are made to breathe air at ambient temperature, not hot smoke, and that alone does damage in itself, regardless of getting into debates on the chemical effects on the brain.
A new study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finds that drivers who use marijuana are at a significantly lower risk for a crash than drivers who use alcohol.
How do they compare to those who are sober?
What about those who are both drinking and using marijuana?
"Marijuana use has real negative health affects on people."
Rather than simply alluding to this notion, why not just come out and say what they are?
"We are made to breathe air at ambient temperature, not hot smoke, and that alone does damage in itself"
Simple solution, don't smoke! Marijuana can be consumed in many ways other than smoking
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29404240/colorado-sees-10-percent-increase-traffic-deaths-2015
The numbers (fatalities) are up and down, they may be up and down for this (marijuana connection) as well. Also, if more people are using marijuana, then of course the percentage of traffic deaths would have a higher percentage of people who have recently used. Also can't help but wonder if testing for this increases becasue of the change in laws, naturally leading to an exaggerated increase in the stats.
I think you need to see data over a number of years to draw conclusions. The most telling thing will be whether the number of fatalities goes up and stays up. I question the inference people want to make, because my recollection of experimenting with this decades ago is that it makes a person ultra focussed on what they are doing, and if anything might cause one to drive too slow and too cautiously - that is, like a very old person.
Which "free market" do you describe? Show me a free market, and I'll show you a highly regulated one in order to maintain its freedom.
-----------
The "black" market that existed for the past eight decades, sure seemed to work just fine. It delivered hundreds of billions of pounds of cannabis to hundreds of millions of people in need of medicine.
The way i see it, the government owes society its 40 acres and a mule in reperations for the damages they've caused with prohibition.
Everyone should be allowed to grow cannabis flowers , and consume them, if they choose to.
Who is harmed in this free market solution, other than rentiers looking to add unnecessary costs with no proven added benefits?
"Marijuana use has real negative health affects on people."
Rather than simply alluding to this notion, why not just come out and say what they are?
There are lots ... read away ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Long-term_effects
http://www.healthline.com/health/addiction/marijuana/effects-on-body
... and as the drug continues to be embraced by mainstream societies around the world, more studies will find more ill effects."We are made to breathe air at ambient temperature, not hot smoke, and that alone does damage in itself"
Simple solution, don't smoke! Marijuana can be consumed in many ways other than smoking
Are you saying you want to force all marijuana users to only oral consumption as part of regulation? Seems un-enforceable and pretty counter to your stance on personal freedoms in general. The damage smoking marijuana does will remain present and associated with the drug because of the prevalence of that method of ingestion. No magic wand waves this damage to the country/people away. It can be offset, some, by taxation.
No, you fucking nitwit. What im saying is, you can't demonize marijuana, because smoking it is harmful, when smoking ANYTHING is harmful.
Cannabis can be decarboxylated, and then eaten.
Anything can be harmful when put to fire and inhaled as smoke. You arent advocating against chairs on the grounds that smoking a chair can cause harm. So why apply it to cannabis? Is it because your arguments and convictions are so weak?
Why not just be honest and say youre afraid that weed will make mexicans crazy and the blacks will all be raping your white women?
Everyone should be allowed to grow cannabis flowers , and consume them, if they choose to.
I agree, provided we set laws regarding impairment, age of use, and where use can occur.
This drug isn't remarkably different from alcohol or tobacco, other than the fact that we demonized it and made it illegal. The negative effects of legalization/use need to be offset by taxes just like they are for the other two drugs. I too believe that the costs of the current legislation are too high compared to legalization, but the BS around the plant not being harmful, not contributing to accidents, and being risk free is disingenuous.
We need to continue to protect youthful minds and brain development from it. We need to understand what sensible use is. Just like the positive effects of alcohol and tobacco marijuana has some too. But it doesn't get some magical fanciful pass of being a "risk free all natural wonder cure". That's blatantly false.
Anything can be harmful when put to fire and inhaled as smoke. You arent advocating against chairs on the grounds that smoking a chair can cause harm. So why apply it to cannabis? Is it because your arguments and convictions are so weak?
I don't see a high rate of people desiring to smoke furniture lately. Not sure we need to implement taxes and use regulation for that. Let me know when society tips toward that being an actual thing, and then yes, we absolutely should consider regulations on the whicker industry.
No, you fucking nitwit. What im saying is, you can't demonize marijuana, because smoking it is harmful, when smoking ANYTHING is harmful.
Right. So smoking it is bad. People do it. Great. So IF it is going to come under the umbrella of legal use, that's a point where we can offset the harm people do to themselves with taxes. I would like to pay less for your medical bills if you are a heavy marijuana user. I also wouldn't like to pay for your addiction treatment, or be responsible for any downward slide into the safety net you run to when getting high pushes you down a few productivity levels.
Why not just be honest and say youre afraid that weed will make mexicans crazy and the blacks will all be raping your white women?
Actually I'm afraid it will lead to more rates of spontaneous human combustion.
This drug isn't remarkably different from alcohol or tobacco
---------------
Now you're off the reservation. Cannabis is non-toxic! You cannot overdose on it! Alcohol and tobacco are both deadly toxins, that will kill you!
The negative effects of legalization/use need to be offset by taxes just like they are for the other two drugs
--------------
How do taxes currently offset the negative effects of alcohol and tobacco?
"We need to continue to protect youthful minds and brain development from it"
-------------------
Oh bull-fucking-shit! WHAT ARE YOU PROTECTING THE CHILDREN, FROM?
Are you protecting children from the harms of too much apple juice? Too many pb&j's? Then fuck off. Science has proven that (excess) sugar consumption is very harmful. Where are all the demands to protect young, developing minds, from the known dangers of the most prominent gateway drug, sugar?
Where has regulation and taxes ever served as a method of harm reduction?
You're in fucking lala land
Im going to do, something i dont often like to do, and thats give out a diagnosis over the internet. You are suffering of malnutrition. It is starving your brain of vital nutrients, and making you stupid. Put down the red bull and go eat an avacado.
I would like to pay less for your medical bills if you are a heavy marijuana user.
You dont pay anything for medical bills that dont exist. I am the one paying far too much for your medical bills!
You marijuana prohibitionists live in constant fear of a phantom. And the same idiots, who blame everything on republicans, voted for republican legislation that forces me to pay, for your ignorance and malnutrition. This is insanity
Where has regulation and taxes ever served as a method of harm reduction?
In the US the taxes collected go into general state funds which are used in healthcare and all sorts of things. You are right, the taxes not only reduce use and ill effects of alcohol and cigarettes, the money gathered contributes to the overall state budget for a whole host of other things. Sadly, current taxes on both in California do not outweigh costs of the damage done.
http://www.tax-rates.org/california/excise-tax
I am the one paying far too much for your medical bills!
You marijuana prohibitionists live in constant fear of a phantom. And the same idiots, who blame everything on republicans, voted for republican legislation that forces me to pay, for your ignorance and malnutrition. This is insanity
How do you know anything about my health or consumption habits? Sorry if I wrongly assumed you were a marijuana user. You're right, I should have been more generic and stated that I don't want to pay for increased health care associated with prevalent marijuana use.
Are you ok over there? Can you continue a civil debate or do you need a little break?
Are you protecting children from the harms of too much apple juice? Too many pb&j's? Then fuck off. Science has proven that (excess) sugar consumption is very harmful. Where are all the demands to protect young, developing minds, from the known dangers of the most prominent gateway drug, sugar?
Soda taxes were passed in Berkley. Mexico has really severe problems with coke/pepsi consumption and their soda tax is being looked at as a potential example to follow here in the US. Europe is already implementing many more things in this vein (sugar/fat/soda taxes).
Marijuana isn't as acceptable in society as sugar and soda. The perceived harms are higher, rightly or wrongly so.
You dont pay anything for medical bills that dont exist.
Dude, you're all right, but your unceasing conviction that you never have to get sick and die if you eat right is, well, pretty much wrong.
Diet is a contributing, but far from determinant factor in all sorts of diseases, and it won't save you.
Or do you believe that your super-special non-government-pyramid eating habits will allow you to recover from fatal car accidents?
uana isn't as acceptable in society as sugar and soda. The perceived harms are higher, rightly or wrongly so.
Gross. Reading your tripe leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd wash it away with toothpaste, but as we all know, using toothpaste is worse than brushing with no toothpaste at all. I'd like to cleanse my ears of your filth, but everyone knows you're never to put q-tips in your ears. You chapped my ass, so i could use some baby powder, but that would kill me.
So i guess you're only socially acceptable solutions are a stiff drink, a pack of cigarettes, and some ice cream. You know, the socially acceptable vices that you accept, so long as they are taxed.
I mean, i could simply smoke a joint, and be over it. But you'd force me to pay for the police to destroy me, a private prison to house me, and you'd remove me from the tax base. So i couldn't contribute to the incredible costs of enforcing marijuana prohibition.
At least you can sleep well, as an ignorant Clonton voter!
o recover from fatal car accidents?
There is no recovering from fatality. However, i know first hand that when a drunk driver almost kills you, in a vehicle accident, that your automobile insurance is first in line to pay the medical bills. Not my worthless health insurance.
And stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to be able to escape death. What i have argued many times, is that private health insurance is a scam. Which it is. You're welcome to explain why that is false, but I'm tipping you dont have a counter, so you'll resort to personal attacks.
Pretty much all violent crime stems from alcohol. If the alcohol made me do it, hasnt worked as a defense, why would marijuana be different?
You's have brains, try using them for once
So i guess you're only socially acceptable solutions are a stiff drink, a pack of cigarettes, and some ice cream. You know, the socially acceptable vices that you accept, so long as they are taxed.
Yes, my stance is I'm for legalization with regulation and taxes. You know, one of those West Coast liberal types.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179195/majority-continues-support-pot-legalization.aspx?g_source=marijuana&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
Based on Gallup, you are like a super progressive Bernie supporter?
You chapped my ass
At-least I used all natural lube though, right?
And stop putting words in my mouth ... so you'll resort to personal attacks.
:) That got me to laugh.
While my tone is terse, and my choice of words is brash, i won't apologize for the truth; no matter how much the truth hurts people so entangled in falsehoods.
I'd wash it away with toothpaste, but as we all know, using toothpaste is worse than brushing with no toothpaste at all.... You chapped my ass, so i could use some baby powder, but that would kill me.
Note to self... Add to errc's dossier... Does NOT have minty fresh breath... May have ovaries.
;)
I wonder if his breath smells like his ass???
Inhalation, of course! That would explain the concern of talc-induced cancer.
« First « Previous Comments 15 - 54 of 60 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=30499
#politics