Comments 1 - 40 of 60       Last »     Search these comments

1   anonymous   2016 May 10, 10:26am  

Bigtime. And lots more blacks raping our white women!!

We need The State to ban cannabis to protect us!!

2   Rew   2016 May 10, 10:39am  

errc says

We need The State to ban cannabis to protect us!!

State doesn't need to "ban" it. It's a class 1 and already illegal.

If it is legalized, it won't be without larger societal costs, so tax tax tax it ... and tax it hard. Similar regulations around use should be used as in alcohol as well. That means we need field sobriety test for marijuana use, because it does affect motor skills, visual tracking, and while not as dangerous as driving while drunk, it's still not even close to as safe as driving while sober.

3   anonymous   2016 May 10, 10:47am  

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

4   Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses   2016 May 10, 10:54am  

Washington car crash deaths:

2010 : 460
2014 : 462

Population 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!

5   NuttBoxer   2016 May 10, 1:23pm  

How are they determining cannabis is the cause of the accident? Blood tests that will show any cannabis use possibly as far back as a month ago?

The more obvious corollary the article missed is that more cannabis use, means more people with traces amounts of it in their bloodstream. Whether they were "high" at the time of the accident, or that impairment directly caused the crash, requires more than the standard blood-alcohol test.

6   anonymous   2016 May 10, 2:06pm  

7   justme   2016 May 10, 3:57pm  

NuttBoxer says

How are they determining cannabis is the cause of the accident? Blood tests that will show any cannabis use possibly as far back as a month ago?

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.

8   BoomAndBustCycle   2016 May 10, 4:05pm  

Just mandate everyone drive a self-driving vehicle when Tesla is done with them... everyone gets a free government car. Deaths drop to zero... But the government doesn't care.

9   anonymous   2016 May 10, 4:10pm  

Researchers examined the lab results of drivers arrested for impaired driving, and, says AAA, the results suggest that legal limits for marijuana and driving are problematic because, in the foundation’s words: • “There is no science showing that drivers reliably become impaired at a specific level of marijuana in the blood. Depending on the individual, drivers with relatively high levels of marijuana in their system might not be impaired, while others with low levels may be unsafe behind the wheel. This finding is very different from alcohol, where it is clear that crash risk increases significantly at higher BAC levels. • “High THC levels may drop below legal thresholds before a test is administered to a suspected impaired driver. The average time to collect blood from a suspected driver is often more than two hours because taking a blood sample typically requires a warrant and transport to a facility. Active THC blood levels may decline significantly and could drop below legal limits during that time. • “Marijuana can affect people differently, making it challenging to develop consistent and fair guidelines. For example, frequent users of marijuana can exhibit persistent levels of the drug long after use, while drug levels can decline more rapidly among occasional users.” “There is understandably a strong desire by both lawmakers and the public to create legal limits for marijuana impairment, in the same manner as we do with alcohol,” says Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO. “In the case of marijuana, this approach is flawed and not supported by scientific research. It’s simply not possible today to determine whether a driver is impaired based solely on the amount of the drug in their body.”

10   Entitlemented   2016 May 10, 4:20pm  

Dont have to be a clinical statistician to by logical induction realize that using MJ, and other drugs with Alcohol will cause more accidents.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/ct-legalized-marijuana-drugged-driving-accidents-20150930-story.html

11   Ceffer   2016 May 10, 5:10pm  

They are working on standards for marijuana impairment now. It will happen eventually. It will be arbitrary, but it will exist.

Some people drive OK at legally drunk alcohol blood levels if they are chronic abusers of alcohol. It doesn't change the legal standard for impairment or make it a variable.

Some alcoholics are actually BETTER drivers with some alcohol on board, because they are more impaired by alcohol withdrawal than they are by being somewhat drunk.

12   anonymous   2016 May 10, 5:21pm  

The laws were already on the books, DWI includes while under the influence (of marijuana).

If you've ever consumed cannabis, you already know that it doesn't impair one's ability to operate a motor vehicle. It's the one time that both hands are firmly planted at 8 & 4, and you're paying extra attention to your speed and surrounding

13   anonymous   2016 May 10, 5:28pm  

Unless, of course, you are some lame ass ward of the State, who never tried cannabis because it was illegal. And now that it is legal, you smoke some potent chronic for the first time, and it rocks your world. Then your history of bad decisions goes +1 ( never 'experimenting' with marijuana because The State told you it was bad), and you get behind the wheel and drive while under the influence.

The same can be said for someone that smokes an unfiltered cigarette for the first time. It would cause you to wreck yourself.

It's not the act of driving after consuming marijuana that is dangerous, rather what is very dangerous is letting The State decided what you consume or don't consume your entire life, and then attempting to drive after popping your smoking cherry.

Veterans of the war on drugs have been driving while stoned for decades

14   Ceffer   2016 May 10, 5:49pm  

Tell a jury of your peers if you have an accident that damages property or lives that the marijuana in your bloodstream didn't affect your driving skills or judgment. That sounds like an easy sell.

It's all moot until you are caught or until you have an accident.

16   HEY YOU   2016 May 10, 7:27pm  

No one who is sober has ever had an accident or hurt or killed anyone.

17   Ceffer   2016 May 11, 2:05am  

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.

18   bob2356   2016 May 11, 3:47am  

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Washington car crash deaths:

2010 : 460

2014 : 462

Population 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.

19   NuttBoxer   2016 May 13, 1:16pm  

justme says

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

20   Rew   2016 May 13, 2:07pm  

errc says

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))

21   Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses   2016 May 13, 2:22pm  

Rew says

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.

Rew says

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!

22   bob2356   2016 May 13, 2:36pm  

Rew says

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.

23   Rew   2016 May 13, 5:09pm  

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.

24   bob2356   2016 May 13, 11:40pm  

Rew says

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?

25   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 May 14, 4:31am  

I wonder how many accidents involve white people. Probably a lot.

26   HydroCabron   2016 May 14, 9:02am  

YesYNot says

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.

27   indigenous   2016 May 14, 9:44am  

HydroCabron says

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...

28   Rew   2016 May 16, 10:09am  

bob2356 says

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.

29   anonymous   2016 May 16, 11:36am  

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.

30   bob2356   2016 May 16, 1:14pm  

Rew says

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.

31   Rew   2016 May 17, 1:02pm  

errc says

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.

bob2356 says

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.

32   Rew   2016 May 17, 1:03pm  

PCGyver says

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?

33   anonymous   2016 May 17, 1:28pm  

"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

34   marcus   2016 May 17, 1:52pm  

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.

35   anonymous   2016 May 17, 2:02pm  

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?

36   Rew   2016 May 17, 2:06pm  

errc says

"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.

37   anonymous   2016 May 17, 2:16pm  

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?

38   Rew   2016 May 17, 2:21pm  

errc says

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.

39   Rew   2016 May 17, 2:28pm  

errc says

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.

errc says

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.

errc says

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.

40   anonymous   2016 May 17, 2:40pm  

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?

Comments 1 - 40 of 60       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions