Some progress in southern Texas

[Screw-Rice]

It was condescending because anytime pot is challenged, advocates like to speak in absolutes without any actual backing, only speculation. There's always an alternate mysterious force at work.

As for testing, it's pretty simple to look up. THC levels spike in your blood the first hour and as your body metabolizes it, levels drop. Acting as if there is no way to prove this, is like saying very few people overdose because the levels were lower when their bodies were found.

 

[Rct851]

I think we're just not going to agree on your analogies or THC measuring being able to identify weed as the culprit of the accidents.

 

[2000gt4.6]

It was condescending because anytime pot is challenged, advocates like to speak in absolutes without any actual backing, only speculation. There's always an alternate mysterious force at work.

As for testing, it's pretty simple to look up. THC levels spike in your blood the first hour and as your body metabolizes it, levels drop. Acting as if there is no way to prove this, is like saying very few people overdose because the levels were lower when their bodies were found.

Huh, I wonder why they say the exact opposite here?

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...to-make-a-solid-test-for-driving-while-stoned

Also, can you provide evidence that this is what they are doing(extensive blood, urine, saliva testing) vs a simple blood test ? Because the freaking article you linked says they did not. Blood test only, 1 nanogram. Oh yeah, they also CHANGED THE TEST the year it came into effect, which by your own article, changed the results by 18 percent. Who isn't reading up on it again?

I am not an advocate nor a user. I simply do not see harm in it, and I believe cherry picking data is easy to do, especially when the organization (law enforcement) doing it has a vested interest in demonizing it for funding.

Unless the following questions can be answered it's nonsense:

1. How many of the tested also had alcohol in system? (Hint, youre own link says 33 percent only had THC)

2. How did the increase in overall deaths compare to previous year, and how did this trend vs states with no law? (Hint: in broad terms, all states saw fatality increases in this time period).

3. Why was the test changed, other than to change the result? Also, what does it take to get to one nanogram?

4. In how many of the fatalities with positive results was the positive tested driver determined to be at fault?

One last thought, and if nothing else I'd love to hear your informed opinion on this lol. According to CODOT, motorcycle driving deaths from 2013 to 2015 increased 20 percent. 106 deaths in 2015!!!!! Why in the world aren't we banning these horribly dangerous motorcycles who are killing our citizens at record rates??? There is NO reason to drive a motorcycle vs a car, you evil two wheeled demons will rationalize driving these unsafe terror machines any way you can. Is having the wind flow thru your hair really worth 100+ deaths a year? BAN THEM NOW!!!


See how easy it that was?

 

[Zemedici]

god would y'all get some avatars? I cant keep track of who's who

 

[Screw-Rice]

NPR, really? Lol.

Again do whatever you want, you can't tell users that it can inhibit any of their functions. Obviously everyone that uses, does so because it makes them hyper aware...

 

[Rct851]

My personal best gran turismo times suggest you might right.

NPR, really? Lol.

Obviously everyone that uses, does so because it makes them hyper aware...

 

[Screw-Rice]

My personal best gran turismo times suggest you might right.

Forza is better, don't make me pull studies to prove it!

 

[2000gt4.6]

NPR, really? Lol.

Again do whatever you want, you can't tell users that it can inhibit any of their functions. Obviously everyone that uses, does so because it makes them hyper aware...

Lol... In other words you were 100 percent wrong, accused others of not reading on the subject while not doing it yourself and have no response. Check.

Obviously it impairs judgement. Nobody in their right mind would advocate use why operating a motor vehicle.

But it's a very, very minor increase that took an obvious and intentional change in testing means just to measure.

People do self destructive things all the time. Motorcycles, cigarettes, liqour, fat foods, soda, drive modified cars (ouch huh) vote democrat....But that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Edit: Love calling out the NPR....they are actually against it if you read the article (you didn't) but they are 100 percent correct in that it's fat soluble...And therefore extremely difficult to measure current mental effects. But of course you know this as you have read so much on the subject in the last 20 years.....Right?

 

[Screw-Rice]

I was 100% wrong, huh? Okay, good to know. You complain of cherry picking, then cherry pick. So this obviously isn't going to go anywhere, so uh, light up in victory I guess. Try not to run into anyone though.

 

[Equalbracket]

Not sure where they got their info, but there was a rise in accidents the first year it was legalized, 94 dead tested positive. Which was higher than previous years, so to say there was no rise is false. Going from 10% of accidents where the driver tested positive to 19% testing positive is a large increase.

http://gazette.com/study-finds-fata...sen-since-legalized-marijuana/article/1559401

This is the frustration from those who don't do any form. We legalize it and instead of taking accountability and acknowledging it needs some more tweaking, the response is "well it must be another reason".

Well as I got that info from the chief of police I would assume his information was correct and relative to the area, not state wide.

It's ridiculous to legalize something in only a few states. 50% of the people that visit the dispensaries are from out of state, more traffic = possibility of more accident.

You sound like a Democrat, don't like it? Ban it!

 

[Screw-Rice]

Well as I got that info from the chief of police I would assume his information was correct and relative to the area, not state wide.

It's ridiculous to legalize something in only a few states. 50% of the people that visit the dispensaries are from out of state, more traffic = possibility of more accident.

You sound like a Democrat, don't like it? Ban it!

Yeah I'm totally a democrat, I mean it's completely ridiculous of me to think people should actually take responsibility for their actions, instead of blaming everything else.

 

[2000gt4.6]

I was 100% wrong, huh? Okay, good to know. You complain of cherry picking, then cherry pick. So this obviously isn't going to go anywhere, so uh, light up in victory I guess. Try not to run into anyone though.

Once again, I don't use and have no dog in the fight.

Where exactly am I cherry picking data? You're honestly going to post an article where they directly say they changed the testing method during the changeover...And claim that's not shady AF?


Comeon.