house votes to legalize marijuana!

Says the guy who LITERALLY argued that he could drive when over the legal limit for drunkenness because he had a 'tolerance'

 

And they're a little prudish. The science shows no impairment for marijuana, and there is no way to establish a per se limit the way their is with BAC, which is why a generalized impairment test is best. If they can't do that, they can't operate machinery whether that's because they're sleepy, stoned, drunk, etc. I'm just pointing out that getting a little toasty is not going to put you out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...kers who drive on,it is combined with alcohol.
3.2.1 Studies that do not show impairment
Surprisingly, given the alarming results of cognitive studies, most marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on actual road tests.37, 38 Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol.39

 

Prudish? That's funny stuff. Anywho....
Per NHTSA site
There are many misconceptions about marijuana use, including rumors that marijuana can’t impair you or that marijuana use can actually make you a safer driver.

Several scientific studies indicate that this is false. Research shows that marijuana impairs motor skills, lane tracking and cognitive functions (Robbe et al., 1993; Moskowitz, 1995; Hartman & Huestis, 2013). A 2015 study on driving after smoking cannabis stated that THC in marijuana also hurts a driver’s ability to multitask, a critical skill needed behind the wheel.

I agree getting a little toasty is likely no big deal. It's no big deal if I have two beers when I'm out to dinner for couple of hours. It's when it's more than a "little" that can cause issues.

 

What do you mean "If thats the case" .. Is English not first language or something ? --

"no significant impairment" -- Thats what the NHTSA says .. both in the headline and link provided.. as per the results of the study they conducted .. and numerous other studies.

"Thats the case" no "if"s about it .. whether you believe them or not is another question .. which you clearly don't crying out "If thats the case"

and of course the Traffic Safety Administration is not going to recommend someone smoking pot prior to driving .. are you seriously not able to figure out how moronic it would be for them to do otherwise ?

"No significant impairment" mate .. deal with it.

 

Are you always so emotional? Why would NHTSA recommend NOT to drive under influence of pot if pot has no impact of driving ability? Seems odd to recommend against something so "safe".

 

LOL .. I gave you the link mate .. here it is again .. since according to you it is not sinking in.

Marijuana Doesn’t Pose Significant Risk in Car Crashes, NHTSA Says
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a...e-significant-risk-in-car-crashes-nhtsa-says/

Now I realize you are getting "angry" as the information posted conflicts with the propaganda pablum you have been ingesting and posting - but no need to project this anger onto others mate..

Its not me telling you there is no risk in driving while high .. its the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration telling you this.

Do you not understand who is telling you this mate .. say it slowly perhaps "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration" ..

Do you understand now ? No ? Try again but slower NHTSA .. until it sinks in . that the CDC has been feeding you lies and propaganda .. but don't blame me for your pain for goodness sakes.. Im just the messenger .. blame the the CDC clownshow .. thats who is at fault for this cognitive dissonance you are experiencing .. They the ones who fed you all those lies.

Now cease this twirling around crying "Your BS .. Your BS" .. Once again .. Don't blame me for the findings of the Traffic Safety Admin.. unless you think it will help make the pain go away .. and in that case .. go ahead .. but denial and self deception will come back to cause more pain in the future .. kind of a short term gain for long term loss kind of thing.

 

NHTSA continues to conduct research to better understand the relationship between marijuana impairment and increased crash risk. NHTSA’s Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk Study found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in crashes.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drug-impaired-driving

 

The bill we are discussing does not mandate 25% State tax. What are you talking about? States can do whatever they want with it, including banning sales or sell it tax-free.

Yes, they waited two years, because the Senate would not take it up for debate, but now they will after the House passed a bill.

Are you opposed to the bill, or supportive, or just a born pessimist? Hard to tell.

 

Government agency......You swore up and down its all lies and propaganda, and now you cling to them like you life depended on it....?

Do you have a more reliable source?

PS Your course says if you remove all kinds of factors: "NHTSA said stoners had a 25-percent higher risk of crashing"

 

Its a common argument, but IMO its an argument against legalization and its an argument for more DUI checkpoints.

He's an emotional beast, and it all spills out when he begins to lose arguments.

 

Or you could just stop driving DUI dude.
Checkpoints are unconstitutional.
And its not an argument against legalization

 

When did I say I started

The Supreme Court disagrees with you

Yes, it is. Testing for drugged drivers is a problem, and stats show that those States which legalized pot have seen a spike in stoners involved in car crashes. So there will be more of them driving drugged, and no reliable way to test them.

 

No it mandates a 5% which moves to 8% and the states that tax marijuana already have 10%-15% taxes. So you add those when discussing a total tax burden on the industry. See how that works dear?

They waited 2 years when they have the numbers in the ****ing senate and have for some time. Bills have previously passed the house for things like banking provisions and the senate has shut all that down despite having the numbers if the dems actually wanted to make some progress. You're missing the point: Progress is not the point, being seen to TRY is. But you don't want to try so hard as to succeed and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I'd support the bill without the social equity bullshit and with a far smaller tax. Pessimism? No, its realism based on past performance.

 

I'm for legalizing marijuana.

 

And they're a bit jumpy about it, overcautious etc IE prudish. Benadryl doesn't impair the average person, they just cast the widest net possible with statements like that.

 

But we’ve been told pot doesn’t impair so why would they recommend not to drive under influence of pot if pot doesn’t impair one’s ability to drive???

 

When you said you drive around past .08 because .08 is just a number etc. Its not, and if driving .08 you're driving DUI.

The Supreme Court's argument there is thin as **** and you know it. It plainly violates the unreasonable search and seizure provision. You don't have even so low a burden passed as RAS, much less PC, on every ****ing vehicle driving past a certain point ffs.

Because you can detect marijuana over 2 months after use, they're finding it present in people involved in crashes more often. That doesn't mean marijuana caused impairment which led to the crash ffs.
If they could detect alcohol use 2 months after it was active, they'd find an uptick in alcohol too.

There is a reliable way to test ANYONE for impairment: A generalized impairment test. It tests cognition and motor function. If you have those you're good to go.

 

See prudish.

 

Your excuse makes no logical sense.

 

A government agency errs on the side of caution. This is pointed out and illustrated to you by the fact that they don't want you taking antihistamines and driving either. This is pointed to by them pointing out that there is no significant impairment to driving from marijuana use in their own study (which you've had linked) yet they still don't want you to.

The evidence says its fine, the overcautious agency says "better not, just to be sure".
How is that difficult to grasp?

 

What caution? We've been told pot doesn't impair...so what possible caution are they erring on?

 

3.2.1 Studies that do not show impairment
Surprisingly, given the alarming results of cognitive studies, most marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on actual road tests.37, 38 Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol.39
^ Argue with the study that compiled the studies man. Not me.

Part of the confounding factor in those studies is that marijuana is detectible long after use. You find it present in samples even when it was used 2 months ago ffs.

 

The same one you're obsessed with: You've seen the science, it says no significant impairment, yet you're still unwilling to accept that and wish to ERR (which means to be incorrect) on the side of caution ( ie you're willing to be wrong and not do something that is safe just in case you're wrong about it being safe).

 

I already posted studies showing the opposite of your claim. But again...if pot doesn't impair why would NHTSA recommend against driving while under the influence??? You have no sound logical argument as to why.

 

Well......dear....you are arguing hard that the Senate bill has very high tax rates, but its not true, is it? The rate us 5% and then 8%. Whatever the States might, or might not, charge in the future (if ever) is irrelevant to the passage of the Senate bill. Tax on booze varies by State too. Its up to them.

Experienced users. LOL. So you you a high as a kite, you just tell the cops that you smoke A LOT, and you're an "experienced user" as if that should make you innocent of drugged driving.