Pot Fuels Surge in Drugged Driving Deaths

[Asclepias]

Snip from the OP link:

Pot Fuels Surge in Drugged Driving Deaths - NBC News

“If the current trends continue, non-alcohol drugs, such as marijuana, will overtake alcohol in traffic fatalities around 2020.”

Yeah I read that. "If" a cow had nuts it would be a bull too.

Overall, though, drugged driving is closing the gap with drunk driving.

The rate of traffic deaths in which drivers tested positive for non-alcohol drugs climbed from 16.6 percent in 1999 to 28.3 percent in 2010, according to the Columbia study.

When scientists say "if" current trends continue with Co2 output then..." It would be the same, eh?

The article makes complete sense, especially given people are replacing pot for alcohol.

Yes it would be the same. What does that have to do with it? The article makes no sense. Its just some dumbasses that don't want weed or any other drug legalized and instead long for the good ole days when killing due to alcohol was the main culprit. The problem is they want to pick and choose which drug. The other problem is that you can test positive for weed even if you haven't smoked any in a while. I think it says so in the article. Lets say it does overtake alcohol. I'd rather people be high on weed than drunk on alcohol.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Yeah I read that. "If" a cow had nuts it would be a bull too.

Overall, though, drugged driving is closing the gap with drunk driving.

The rate of traffic deaths in which drivers tested positive for non-alcohol drugs climbed from 16.6 percent in 1999 to 28.3 percent in 2010, according to the Columbia study.

When scientists say "if" current trends continue with Co2 output then..." It would be the same, eh?

The article makes complete sense, especially given people are replacing pot for alcohol.

Yes it would be the same. What does that have to do with it? The article makes no sense. Its just some dumbasses that don't want weed or any other drug legalized and instead long for the good ole days when killing due to alcohol was the main culprit. The problem is they want to pick and choose which drug. The other problem is that you can test positive for weed even if you haven't smoked any in a while. I think it says so in the article. Lets say it does overtake alcohol. I'd rather people be high on weed than drunk on alcohol.

If the outcome of accidents are the same rate as alcohol once was and kills then I don't wish anyone were driving while under any influence of any drug. Heck, its illegal to drive while taking OTC cold medications in some states because it can cause you to be impaired while driving. I believe in this climate, when anyone sees anything negative about pot ,they don't want to accept that it can have negative consequences.

They note that California allowed medical marijuana in 2004. Since then, California has posted “marked increases in driver fatalities testing positive for marijuana,” Li said.

I don't believe the correlation is flawed, given the article cites information such as this as well:

Among dead male drivers, 4.0 tested positive for narcotics in 2010, up from 2.2 percent in 1999. Among female drivers killed, 7.6 percent tested positive for narcotics, up from 4.3 percent

If they have been testing since the drug was legalized as the paper claims then there must be truths to the study. There seems to be no way around the facts presented IMO.

 

[Asclepias]

When scientists say "if" current trends continue with Co2 output then..." It would be the same, eh?

The article makes complete sense, especially given people are replacing pot for alcohol.

Yes it would be the same. What does that have to do with it? The article makes no sense. Its just some dumbasses that don't want weed or any other drug legalized and instead long for the good ole days when killing due to alcohol was the main culprit. The problem is they want to pick and choose which drug. The other problem is that you can test positive for weed even if you haven't smoked any in a while. I think it says so in the article. Lets say it does overtake alcohol. I'd rather people be high on weed than drunk on alcohol.

If the outcome of accidents are the same rate as alcohol once was and kills then I don't wish anyone were driving while under any influence of any drug. Heck, its illegal to drive while taking OTC cold medications in some states because it can cause you to be impaired while driving. I believe in this climate, when anyone sees anything negative about pot ,they don't want to accept that it can have negative consequences.

They note that California allowed medical marijuana in 2004. Since then, California has posted “marked increases in driver fatalities testing positive for marijuana,” Li said.

I don't believe the correlation is flawed, given the article cites information such as this as well:

Among dead male drivers, 4.0 tested positive for narcotics in 2010, up from 2.2 percent in 1999. Among female drivers killed, 7.6 percent tested positive for narcotics, up from 4.3 percent

If they have been testing since the drug was legalized as the paper claims then there must be truths to the study. There seems to be no way around the facts presented IMO.

Sure there is a way. You have to remember stats are used specifically to make political points. I just told you weed stays in your system long after the high has worn off. If more people are smoking weed then of course there is going to be an increase but that does not mean that the people were high. Also they did not mention if there was the presence of alcohol as well. Lots of people do both so I am wondering if this was accounted for. I dont see that defined in the article.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Yes it would be the same. What does that have to do with it? The article makes no sense. Its just some dumbasses that don't want weed or any other drug legalized and instead long for the good ole days when killing due to alcohol was the main culprit. The problem is they want to pick and choose which drug. The other problem is that you can test positive for weed even if you haven't smoked any in a while. I think it says so in the article. Lets say it does overtake alcohol. I'd rather people be high on weed than drunk on alcohol.

If the outcome of accidents are the same rate as alcohol once was and kills then I don't wish anyone were driving while under any influence of any drug. Heck, its illegal to drive while taking OTC cold medications in some states because it can cause you to be impaired while driving. I believe in this climate, when anyone sees anything negative about pot ,they don't want to accept that it can have negative consequences.



I don't believe the correlation is flawed, given the article cites information such as this as well:

Among dead male drivers, 4.0 tested positive for narcotics in 2010, up from 2.2 percent in 1999. Among female drivers killed, 7.6 percent tested positive for narcotics, up from 4.3 percent

If they have been testing since the drug was legalized as the paper claims then there must be truths to the study. There seems to be no way around the facts presented IMO.

Sure there is a way. You have to remember stats are used specifically to make political points. I just told you weed stays in your system long after the high has worn off. If more people are smoking weed then of course there is going to be an increase but that does not mean that the people were high. Also they did not mention if there was the presence of alcohol as well. Lots of people do both so I am wondering if this was accounted for. I dont see that defined in the article.

Yes, I see what you are saying about weed staying in your system. My point was if they studied all the states that have been testing within one hour of an accident and the rates of death occurring have been rising yet death rates were staying the same prior ( as the article is claiming) then there must be a correlation. Am I saying that where I am making sense?

Unless you are saying that these people would have died due to an accident and pot just happened to be in their system?

 

[The Rabbi]

We tried that skippy. Didn't work. A drug is a drug is a drug. All drugs lead to bad things.

Hence the stupidity of the post. Drugs will always be used. Legal or not people will use them.

Did you miss the article? Legalization has resulted in more use, which is exactly what I and others predicted. I would think we would want less use, not more. Some people will always murder or rape. That doesnt mean we should legalize murder or rape.

 

[Asclepias]

If the outcome of accidents are the same rate as alcohol once was and kills then I don't wish anyone were driving while under any influence of any drug. Heck, its illegal to drive while taking OTC cold medications in some states because it can cause you to be impaired while driving. I believe in this climate, when anyone sees anything negative about pot ,they don't want to accept that it can have negative consequences.



I don't believe the correlation is flawed, given the article cites information such as this as well:



If they have been testing since the drug was legalized as the paper claims then there must be truths to the study. There seems to be no way around the facts presented IMO.

Sure there is a way. You have to remember stats are used specifically to make political points. I just told you weed stays in your system long after the high has worn off. If more people are smoking weed then of course there is going to be an increase but that does not mean that the people were high. Also they did not mention if there was the presence of alcohol as well. Lots of people do both so I am wondering if this was accounted for. I dont see that defined in the article.

Yes, I see what you are saying about weed staying in your system. My point was if they studied all the states that have been testing within one hour of an accident and the rates of death occurring have been rising yet death rates were staying the same prior ( as the article is claiming) then there must be a correlation. Am I saying that where I am making sense?

Unless you are saying that these people would have died due to an accident and pot just happened to be in their system?

LOL! I think i get your point. Not only do I think that some of the people happened to have it in their system without being high, it doesn't specify if there was also alcohol or other drugs present in their system at the time. Are they saying they have determined the cause of the accident was weed?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Sure there is a way. You have to remember stats are used specifically to make political points. I just told you weed stays in your system long after the high has worn off. If more people are smoking weed then of course there is going to be an increase but that does not mean that the people were high. Also they did not mention if there was the presence of alcohol as well. Lots of people do both so I am wondering if this was accounted for. I dont see that defined in the article.

Yes, I see what you are saying about weed staying in your system. My point was if they studied all the states that have been testing within one hour of an accident and the rates of death occurring have been rising yet death rates were staying the same prior ( as the article is claiming) then there must be a correlation. Am I saying that where I am making sense?

Unless you are saying that these people would have died due to an accident and pot just happened to be in their system?

LOL! I think i get your point. Not only do I think that some of the people happened to have it in their system without being high, it doesn't specify if there was also alcohol or other drugs present in their system at the time. Are they saying they have determined the cause of the accident was weed?

No, I don't see that claimed at all ( pot the reason for the accident). And I don't see anything about alcohol. It irritates me I have to pay to see the study/paper. I really hate that. iI someone writes a story on such I would like to read the flippin study as well and not just their talking points. Gerrrr

 

[ABikerSailor]

The drug addiction industry has a financial interest in creating drug addicts. A few dead bodies won't stop them.

It's amazing how little you people who speak out against marijuana actually KNOW about it.

First off.....................pot is NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE. There are some of you who will state that it can be psychologically addictive, and yeah.........maybe, but so can other things like shopping, gambling, and relationships, among others.

Matter of fact, the government has been doing pot studies since the 1960's (with most of the testing being done on the military), and NONE of them have shown pot to be addictive.

Oh..............for 8 years, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA) in the U.S. Navy, and one of the things I was tasked with knowing was the average length of the effects (pot only keeps you high for 1-3 hours, and that's only if it's pretty high quality), but the traces of it will stay in your system for 10 - 30 days (depending on your body fat content, as THC adheres to the fat cells in your body). Incidentally, did you know that there is a counter to being high? It's called eating sugar, because your body will start to metabolize the sugar (which is why people get the munchies), and after 30 min or so of eating something, you are no longer high.

But.................keep swallowing the "Reefer Madness" bullshit if it suits you, because the rest of us are better informed.

And.......................in those studies, did they release the levels of THC in their bodies, or did they just release that those people were THC positive? Trust me...........you can have THC detected in your body without being high. Saw many a Sailor be discharged because they were positive, but yet were not high.

If the studies are to be workable, they've got to do it in a way like they do alcohol. I mean, you can have 1-2 beers and still be under the legal limit (.08), and allowed to drive. If they're going to charge someone with a DWI for cannabis, they should figure out at what level a person is impaired, and if they're under that level, let them go just like they do for those that drink alcohol.

 

[The Rabbi]

You would think they'd have thought of that before that legalized that shit.

 

[Snouter]

Some people will always murder or rape. That doesnt mean we should legalize murder or rape.

Indeed Zionists will be zionists. But we can't outlaw them can we?

 

[The Rabbi]

Some people will always murder or rape. That doesnt mean we should legalize murder or rape.

Indeed Zionists will be zionists. But we can't outlaw them can we?

Dumbshit.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You would think they'd have thought of that before that legalized that shit.

Actually, it was the voters of their respective states that voted to legalize it. And............those states have spent a lot of time researching what they could and couldn't do to enforce the laws. They HAVE figured out a lot, but with anything new, it's going to take some time before they have it working well.

I mean..................banks are just NOW starting to do business with pot dealers because of federal laws. Before banks were allowed to have dealings with legal pot dealers, those who sold it had to take their taxes to the IRS in cash. Now? They can do business with banks and pay with methods other than cash.

Matter of fact, watched a news story about that showing a legal dealer having to take in a paper sack full of money to pay their sales tax for that month.

They'll get it figured out.

However..........................my question is..................did that study being touted by some of the anti-pot people in this thread bother to check the level of THC in the body, or did it just check for positive/negative?

 

[CaféAuLait]

The drug addiction industry has a financial interest in creating drug addicts. A few dead bodies won't stop them.

It's amazing how little you people who speak out against marijuana actually KNOW about it.

First off.....................pot is NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE. There are some of you who will state that it can be psychologically addictive, and yeah.........maybe, but so can other things like shopping, gambling, and relationships, among others.

Matter of fact, the government has been doing pot studies since the 1960's (with most of the testing being done on the military), and NONE of them have shown pot to be addictive.

Oh..............for 8 years, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA) in the U.S. Navy, and one of the things I was tasked with knowing was the average length of the effects (pot only keeps you high for 1-3 hours, and that's only if it's pretty high quality), but the traces of it will stay in your system for 10 - 30 days (depending on your body fat content, as THC adheres to the fat cells in your body). Incidentally, did you know that there is a counter to being high? It's called eating sugar, because your body will start to metabolize the sugar (which is why people get the munchies), and after 30 min or so of eating something, you are no longer high.

But.................keep swallowing the "Reefer Madness" bullshit if it suits you, because the rest of us are better informed.

And.......................in those studies, did they release the levels of THC in their bodies, or did they just release that those people were THC positive? Trust me...........you can have THC detected in your body without being high. Saw many a Sailor be discharged because they were positive, but yet were not high.

If the studies are to be workable, they've got to do it in a way like they do alcohol. I mean, you can have 1-2 beers and still be under the legal limit (.08), and allowed to drive. If they're going to charge someone with a DWI for cannabis, they should figure out at what level a person is impaired, and if they're under that level, let them go just like they do for those that drink alcohol.

Five nanograms per milliliter of blood is the limit in Colorado and Washington state.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The drug addiction industry has a financial interest in creating drug addicts. A few dead bodies won't stop them.

It's amazing how little you people who speak out against marijuana actually KNOW about it.

First off.....................pot is NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE. There are some of you who will state that it can be psychologically addictive, and yeah.........maybe, but so can other things like shopping, gambling, and relationships, among others.

Matter of fact, the government has been doing pot studies since the 1960's (with most of the testing being done on the military), and NONE of them have shown pot to be addictive.

Oh..............for 8 years, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA) in the U.S. Navy, and one of the things I was tasked with knowing was the average length of the effects (pot only keeps you high for 1-3 hours, and that's only if it's pretty high quality), but the traces of it will stay in your system for 10 - 30 days (depending on your body fat content, as THC adheres to the fat cells in your body). Incidentally, did you know that there is a counter to being high? It's called eating sugar, because your body will start to metabolize the sugar (which is why people get the munchies), and after 30 min or so of eating something, you are no longer high.

But.................keep swallowing the "Reefer Madness" bullshit if it suits you, because the rest of us are better informed.

And.......................in those studies, did they release the levels of THC in their bodies, or did they just release that those people were THC positive? Trust me...........you can have THC detected in your body without being high. Saw many a Sailor be discharged because they were positive, but yet were not high.

If the studies are to be workable, they've got to do it in a way like they do alcohol. I mean, you can have 1-2 beers and still be under the legal limit (.08), and allowed to drive. If they're going to charge someone with a DWI for cannabis, they should figure out at what level a person is impaired, and if they're under that level, let them go just like they do for those that drink alcohol.

Five nanograms per milliliter of blood is the limit in Colorado and Washington state.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Freewill]

I assume that most of these accidents are low speed or a rear end accident because the person failed to move at a stop light? Maybe some of them are caused by a distraction from too much snack food?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If the pot is still in your system, you're still impaired. You're just like the boozers who say "i drive better when i'm drunk".

Its in your fat cells for a month, but your arent high for a fucking month you lying shit head. You already know this. If you have to lie about marijuana, then clearly you have no real facts that support your ignorant views. Stop making dishonest threads.

In your fat cells? HAHAHA. Do you ever read anything besides reader's digest?

 

[Victory67]

States are going to have to have a THC concentration limit for drivers.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

First off.....................pot is NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE. l.

I've heard that media lie all my life. You affirmative action babies are all so gullible. "The TV people told me".

HAHAHAHA

 

[hjmick]

I can't believe you people continue to entertain this half-wit and his idiotic threads...

 

[BlindBoo]

Weve already gone over this in your other thread. Weed will still show up on a piss test a month later. Just because you fail a piss test doesnt mean you smoked any that day. Are you really going to pretend like you dont know this now? Quit making these dishonest threads.

If the pot is still in your system, you're still impaired. You're just like the boozers who say "i drive better when i'm drunk".

Cannabis contain many Cannabinols that remain in the body but do not get you high. They would have to test specific levels of Tetrahydrocannabinol to determine if it could have been a factor. But I know you've been informed of this but you keep bouncing this bit of propaganda off the walls.....and I see the same fishes biting!