Cancer and the drug companies

[husaberg]

No, he actually is fucking stupid.

So if I just search 'died from cannabis', is it the one at the top of the page?

You said this but you clearly meant something else then? Yeah everyone else but you are just plain stupid. That's why we don't understand all your conspiracies and free energy aye

[RDJ]

Evidence from Colorado and Portugal states otherwise.

Err. no. No it does not. You need to do more than just sample the statistics that give the result you want. Drug effects are geometric not additive.

[bogan]

The facts are not really clear. There is a lot of evidence that being stoned on cannabis is as dangerous for other road users, as being drunk. But being stoned is not uniquely dangerous. Being drunk is also lethal.

For an objective perspective this IMO is a reasonably objective assessment:

http://www.ibtimes.com/driving-high-...nction-1732863

The Short Answer: Both are Dangerous.

Yeh I'm not debating that aspect of it, but what about the motivation to get behind the wheel in the first place, which substance is the greater risk for that?

[Katman]

The argument that says "let's not reform our cannabis laws because we'll have people driving stoned" is laughable.

(One could argue that a stoned driver is probably safer than a pissed driver, but I won't go there).

Reforming our cannabis laws is not going to result in more cannabis users - or in people who suddenly think it's ok to drive stoned.

Driving while stoned would still be treated in the same manner that driving while pissed is.

The reality is that we have synthetic cannabis products out there that probably don't fall into the category of illegal vehicular use.

[RDJ]

Yeh I'm not debating that aspect of it, but what about the motivation to get behind the wheel in the first place, which substance is the greater risk for that?

A good point. I really haven't read and analysed enough to comment. I would simply say, that as substance A is already a known risk, we should not add to the roadgoing driving community, the additional risk of the effects of substance B. Were it up to me (which it clearly is not) then based on the evidentially lethal effects of both cannabis and alcohol I would require drivers to have zero levels of both... But again, I'm not in charge for which many readers, especially Katman and Yokel, are grateful I'm sure.

[mashman]

Err. no. No it does not. You need to do more than just sample the statistics that give the result you want. Drug effects are geometric not additive.

Sample statistics? This is an entire country over the space of 15ish years. It's a positive result, isn't that the result you want too? Cannabis has been used by society for millennia, and in numbers that are more than just a sample statistic. I think the verdict is in... and given that there's a large and willing population, I'm sure the medical profession will benefit with subjects to poke and prod. $50 will buy you a stoner for a week.

[sugilite:Me]

Yeh I'm not debating that aspect of it, but what about the motivation to get behind the wheel in the first place, which substance is the greater risk for that?

I think most anecdotal evidence points to alcohol turns most into wanna be F1 racers and the other users into Ena Sharples

[bogan]

A good point. I really haven't read and analysed enough to comment. I would simply say, that as substance A is already a known risk, we should not add to the roadgoing driving community, the additional risk of the effects of substance B. Were it up to me (which it clearly is not) then based on the evidentially lethal effects of both cannabis and alcohol I would require drivers to have zero levels of both... But again, I'm not in charge for which many readers, especially Katman and Yokel, are grateful I'm sure.

But could substance B be the lesser of those two evils? In my experience people don't tend to do one thing on one night etc. It'll be a cocktail on the one night; less booze, more weed, is that a safer cocktail?

[RDJ]

Sample statistics? This is an entire country over the space of 15ish years. It's a positive result, isn't that the result you want too? Cannabis has been used by society for millennia, and in numbers that are more than just a sample statistic. I think the verdict is in... and given that there's a large and willing population, I'm sure the medical profession will benefit with subjects to poke and prod. $50 will buy you a stoner for a week.

Yeah, y'know, go ahead and see how that works out for people on the roads. To have another growing population of non-alcohol-yet-still-drug-addicted drivers on the roads while functionally disabled in terms of reaction times, interaction with reality, and speed of reflexes. This is not going to work out well. I just hope it is not one of your disciples that hits my family or me...

[Katman]

But could substance B be the lesser of those two evils? In my experience people don't tend to do one thing on one night etc. It'll be a cocktail on the one night; less booze, more weed, is that a safer cocktail?

Cannabis law reform will not change user habits in the slightest.

If someone wants to try cannabis now it is readily available.

For anyone to suggest that suddenly more people will try it simply because it's legal is, once again, laughable.

And even if they did - who fucking cares? As long as their actions don't adversely impact on others then it is nobody else's business.

[mashman]

Yeah, y'know, go ahead and see how that works out for people on the roads. To have another growing population of non-alcohol-yet-still-drug-addicted drivers on the roads while functionally disabled in terms of reaction times, interaction with reality, and speed of reflexes. This is not going to work out well. I just hope it is not one of your disciples that hits my family or me...

My point is. The people who are willing to get stoned and then drive have likely been doing so for a very long time. Likely since before you were born. It's another thing that's happened every day since the horse was invented. You really reckon the stats are gonna change? It will still be illegal to smoker n drive won't it? I would still have the choice as to whether I got on the road in either condition? Sorry to let you in on these sorts of things, these really well known open secrets, but dude, you are surrounded by the fear you're peddling every day. Hope you sleep well tonight.

[RDJ]

My point is. The people who are willing to get stoned and then drive have likely been doing so for a very long time. Likely since before you were born. It's another thing that's happened every day since the horse was invented. You really reckon the stats are gonna change? It will still be illegal to smoker n drive won't it? I would still have the choice as to whether I got on the road in either condition? Sorry to let you in on these sorts of things really well known open secrets, but dude, you are surrounded by the fear you're peddling every day. Hope you sleep well tonight.

If you are sincere, thank you for your good wishes, but am working overnight :-) and actually, I doubt that the current population of cannabis smokers was driving before I was born, I was born quite a long time ago. But I appreciate the thought if it was well intended. I try not to peddle fear, just reality. I know the line between reality and the fear is blurred in later generations!

[bogan]

Cannabis law reform will not change user habits in the slightest.

If someone wants to try cannabis now it is readily available.

For anyone to suggest that suddenly more people will try it simply because it's legal is, once again, laughable.

And even if they did - who fucking cares? As long as their actions don't adversely impact on others then it is nobody else's business.

Depends on what circles you run in I guess.

More people would certainly try it if it were legal. The suddenality of that, is of little relevance.

[Katman]

More people would certainly try it if it were legal. The suddenality of that, is of little relevance.

I think you're absolutely wrong - it's already readily available for anyone who is remotely interested in trying it.

[bogan]

I think you're absolutely wrong - it's already readily available for anyone who is remotely interested in trying it.

Not in some circles, and remote interest for some is dependent on its legal state. Are you seriously suggesting legalisation wouldn't increase it useage?