house votes to legalize marijuana!

Marijuana Doesn’t Pose Significant Risk in Car Crashes, NHTSA Says

Do you know what the term "Not significant" means ?

Need to upgrade your understanding ... as you clearly don't. Just because something is "More likey" does not mean that likelihood is significant. You are conflating the two.

and as always .. "Data" not headlines .. as it would be foolish to make such assessment on the basis of a headline.

 

NHTSA’s Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk Study found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in crashes.

 

I did not say about Gov't agencies " its all lies and propaganda" Keep your falsehoods to yourself mate.. you are welcome to your personal fantasy .. is part of the cognitive dissonance thing I mentioned earlier - desperate to run from the reality that stuff you have been posting from the CDC and other sources has now been proven lies and propaganda -- you feel the need to demonize the messenger .
.
Marijuana Doesn’t Pose Significant Risk in Car Crashes, NHTSA Says
"The main takeaway: When factoring age, sex, and race, there was no “significant increased risk of crash involvement” due to marijuana use.

Excluding those demographics, NHTSA said stoners had a 25-percent higher risk of crashing but at the same time attributed that increase to a greater representation of younger, predominantly male drivers who already top actuarial spreadsheets for loss and damages"

So no - it does not say if you remove all kinds of factors .. it says "Excluding those demographics" .. and clearly you didn't know what this meant.. it means that none of your 25% applies to "those demographics" .. going on to say that the difference was due to one demographic.. Which points to a cause other than Pot..

and lastly -- for the third time 25% greater risk ? How is that "Significant" in terms of harm ? The NHTSA says not significant ?

The glaring problem with your analysis .. is that clearly you have no idea what the number means .. no relative comparison by which to guage "risk of harm" .. absolutely no idea.

But for those in similar predicament - as is the case for most folks .. Stats is not something many folks do as a hobby .. - the article clears things up "The Main Takaway" -- "No significant increased risk of crash involvement"

Now would you like to prove me dead wrong ... tell me what the 25% means .. put some context to the number ..tell is what the increased risk of harm is .. say compared to alcohol .. where some studies have put the risk at 70 times the average .. and btw .. what is the average .. as you will need that number for your calculation what does 25% greater than the average rate mean in context .. or would you like me to school you yet again ? - or do you want to just accept the fact that the risk of harm is "Insignificant" when you do the calculation .. as the NHTSA has done .. and accept the fact that not all information coming from the Gov't is lies

 

Yea, you called it lies and propaganda, but here you are taking government sources for gospel.

I deleted the anger & butt-hurt (90% of your post).

 

I didn't say all stuff from Gov't was lies and Propaganda .. and I know you are "angry and butt-hurt" because the CDC info you presented was proven to be false narrative "lies- but just because the info you posted was false doesn't mean you should make up falsehoods about the messenger.

So once again .. so you don't forget .. and we find you returning to the same vomit at a later date .. pretending to forget this conversation.


Marijuana Doesn’t Pose Significant Risk in Car Crashes, NHTSA Says
"The main takeaway: When factoring age, sex, and race, there was no “significant increased risk of crash involvement” due to marijuana use.

 

Marijuana Doesn’t Pose Significant Risk in Car Crashes, NHTSA Says
"The main takeaway: When factoring age, sex, and race, there was no “significant increased risk of crash involvement” due to marijuana use.

Need to learn what the word "Significant" means mate .. So you can understand what you are reading better

 

Have you felt challenged driving while high?

 

Notice I posted that more pot laws aren't enforced for some reason.

 

NHTSA’s Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk Study found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in crashes.

You keep getting more and more emotional

 

Marijuana Doesn’t Pose Significant Risk in Car Crashes, NHTSA Says
"The main takeaway: When factoring age, sex, and race, there was no “significant increased risk of crash involvement” due to marijuana use.

Need to learn what the word "Significant" means mate .. So you can understand what you are reading better -- no need to get emotional about it

 

NHTSA’s Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk Study found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in crashes.

 

If the people want it then so be it.

People wanted prohibition to end, it did, and alcohol related auto deaths and alcohol related medical issues increased.

 

Yes mate . by a fraction of a rounding error in terms of risk of harm.. we know .. statistically insignificant .. not meeting the test of Corrolation .. never mind Causation

 

And I already posted studies counter to your own, and another poster has shown where the NHTSA admits no significant impairment.
They do it to ERR (as in be wrong) on the side of caution (in case they're not right about the data).

As already explained to you.

 

I'm arguing that the Senate bill will create a high total tax as the states which legalize marijuana assert a 10-15% tax rate, making the total closer to 25%.
Again: TOTAL. Try to read dear, I know its difficult when you're totes able to drive because .08 is just a number.

Argue with the study broseph.

 

More Florida weirdness. In FL the support for legal pot was over 60%, but thats not enough to win the votes, and now FL GOP/courts are blocking it from even making it to the ballots (they already foiled it for this year)

Nikki Fried’s run for Florida governor is inextricably tied to her marijuana advocacy
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/po...-politics/article260597857.html#storylink=cpy
In her run for governor, Nikki Fried is focusing on the issue she’s best known for: marijuana. The Democratic agriculture commissioner wants to see weed legalized for recreational use. She wants to overhaul the regulations imposed on medical marijuana companies. She’s seeking to expunge the criminal records of those convicted with nonviolent cannabis offenses. On Wednesday, Fried’s advocacy even pushed her into a bit of intra-party warfare, when she announced she would sue President Joe Biden’s administration over a federal rule restricting medical marijuana users from buying guns or keeping a concealed-carry permit.

 

Where on earth are you getting the idea that 'more pot laws aren't enforced"?
Possession of marijuana is still illegal in most states.

 

Senate will create 5% tax. Period. Get over it. 'Dear'.

 

And senate should leave it out and let the states legalize it.
The house bill that's 10 pages removes the penalties at the fed level and passes the choice to the states as is proper.

 

And to be honest - This is a joke

\

these are not studies that tell you risk of accident - and when you look into some of these studies ..(although I didn't look into these) there a joke as well.. Any moron could get cash to do a study showing "Pot Bad" .. and they tried and tried .. and still couldn't do it ..

Just cause some politically biased org does a study .. doesn't mean it is not "bad science" w/r to the claims made. but regardless .. these studies do not even tell you risk of accident..

When we get to the "Crash Risk" .. the headline is entirely misleading .. when you actually read the study .. and of course the poster didn't..

 

Nope

 

NHTSA has updated its stance based on update into.
So again, why would they recommend not driving under influence of pot if there is no impairment??? Uh huh

 

So, the 5% tax is your beef? Who knows, maybe they'll negotiate it to zero if GOP agrees to vote for it, but we all know that 5% is a non-issue for them. They will use drugged driving argument to reject it. Its a much more powerful line.

PS There is a federal booze tax + State taxes

 

No, its kept its stance the same despite updated information that shows its stance was overcautious.

 

As stated: The 5% tax which graduates to 8% and the social equity bullshit that will kill the bill is my beef.

Drugged driving isn't an argument, generalized impairment tests catch impairment.

Yes and the federal booze tax is low to accommodate state taxes.