house votes to legalize marijuana!

Yep.

"For marijuana, the unadjusted odds ratio was 1.25, but after statistically adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and driver alcohol concentration (AC), 11 there was no significant contribution to crash risk from any drug."
There was only a barely significant odds increase prior to adjusting for confounding factors including the fact that the driver was also DRUNK.

 

Incorrect

 

And yet…
NHTSA’s Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk Study found that marijuana users aremore likely to be involved in crashes.

 

Thus illustrating the point that they are overcautious and disregard their own studies.

 

Nope

 

Yep

 

If this were true, Lucius Allen and his buddies couldn't have played basketball stoned at UCLA.

There is a lot of BS research on marijuana, for and against.

 

Its what the study from your link says .. you should try reading it .. "No significant difference" between stoned and sober .. Study never found no corrolation . never mind causation.. the Study you posted Now go figure out what the sources that you post actually say ..and get back to us

From your source - including the part you cherry picked out .. or just didn't read.

Now don't be complaining further .. saying "Nope Nope" to what your own source states .. this is getting silly.

 

I never have more than one beer or one glass of wine before I drive. I don't think I was "challenged" (whatever that means) in the sense I felt my driving skills were compromised.

 

My source said
NHTSA’s Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk Study found that marijuana users aremore likely to be involved in crashes

Clearly you’re someone who likes to drag people down endless rabbit holes with your foolishness. I’ll allow you the last word. I won’t see it but by all means post away anyway. Peace out.

 

They "found" based on what? Anti-drug warriors have made careers being against drugs.

 

You are the one down the rabbit hole .. in desperate denial that in this case "more likely" turned out to be " insignificant" .. not sure what your math-language challenge is .. but I cited from your own link for you..

Is there something about "No significant contribution" you don't understand ? even though "increased crash risk" was indicated.

So although they found a slight difference .. a slight increase in in the odds ratio estimate "When Unadjusted" .. after running the stats that slight difference was not significant.

 

So, you oppose the bill. Got it.

Some of your posts seem to support it, and some others oppose it.

Its the strongest argument against legalization.

 

I'd take it if that's the only thing on offer, but then I'm not a senator. The GOP and people like Manchin will not accept it with the social equity bullshit in it.

No, its not. As discussed, there is no significant contribution by marijuana to increased crash risk. The fact that you detect it more often during legalization is because more people start using it and it can be detected for up to 2 months after use.

 

https://reason.com/2022/04/21/congr...rijuana-businesses-by-passing-banking-reform/

"
It has been nearly 10 months since Schumer unveiled his "discussion draft," but so far it seems the discussion has been limited almost entirely to Democrats. "I've reached out already to a few Republicans to see what they want," Schumer said a couple of weeks ago. Last week MJBizDaily found that Schumer had approached just two GOP senators: Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski, Alaska's other senator. "In honesty," Murkowski said, "I'm not as familiar with what Schumer is looking for, so that's why it probably would be good of me to sit down and find out."

Schumer's office told MJBizDaily he picked Sullivan and Murkowski because "they appeared to be the most receptive on the Republican side." But seven other Republican senators—Steve Daines (Mont.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Susan Collins (Maine), and Roy Blunt (Mo.)—joined Sullivan and Murkowski in cosponsoring the SAFE Banking Act, which suggests they are interested in addressing the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws.

Schumer needs every Republican vote he can get. "At least two Democratic senators —Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Joe Manchin of West Virginia—have expressed skepticism about full legalization," MSNBC columnist Hayes Brown notes. "Given the likelihood of a Republican filibuster, that would require Schumer to get at least 12 GOP votes to move forward any comprehensive bill."

Schumer seems determined to ignore that reality. He has failed to engage in substantial outreach to Republicans, and the draft version of his bill, which runs 163 pages, is chock-full of unnecessarily contentious, burdensome, and prescriptive provisions that are apt to alienate potential allies across the aisle."

^^ This is what I mean. Schumer's bill is a pony for the show, its not supposed to race.

 

Will everything not originating directly from the woke Left be declared racist:

 

So are the alcohol users!

 

Agreed

 

I think his point was: but that reason has not led to making alcohol illegal, because someone might drive while impaired. For that matter, I'm sure texting while driving is a far more substantial contributor to accidents, than marijuana-- but are cell phones illegal? IOW, even if there was proven to be a correlation between accident risk and pot use-- though from the arguments I'm seeing here, it appears that no real link has been shown to exist-- it would not logically (and automatically) be a sound argument against legalization.

 

I’m for legalizing pot and have stated so at least twice previously in this thread. Hell, I say legalize all drugs

 

It's well-known that prohibition doesn't work. So...

I'd say legalize, which whould have 2 positive aspects:
-make them cheaper;
-hence, reduce trafficking and reduce crime.

But control: like liquor sold in state stores in Canada; it seems to be working pretty well, at least to a certain extent.