- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: First Comprehensive Study about CO Legalization Released
Posted on 8/26/14 at 12:52 am to Asgard Device
Posted on 8/26/14 at 12:52 am to Asgard Device
quote:
Asgard Device
Ah, so you must be for the freedom of drunk driving, yes?
Posted on 8/26/14 at 12:54 am to Stingray
quote:
Ah, so you must be for the freedom of drunk driving, yes?
Strawman lulz.
People should be free from prosecution for any activity that does not violate somebody else's consent. Drunk driving doesn't fall under that, it is reckless.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 12:54 am to CherryGarciaMan
Most of the "testing positive for marijuana" increases can likely be explained by an increase in testing for marijuana. Also the overall implications of the report saying that a few thousand medical marijuana users would affect anything is pretty ridiculous. There is no data for the post legalization time frames.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 12:59 am to HempHead
quote:
Strawman lulz. People should be free from prosecution for any activity that does not violate somebody else's consent. Drunk driving doesn't fall under that, it is reckless.
He is for freedom, regardless what studies show. Obviously since the act of drunk driving does not infringe on any rights, he is for it, as he does not care what number of increased fatalities a study would get on legalized drunk driving.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 1:00 am to Stingray
quote:
Ah, so you must be for the freedom of drunk driving, yes?
Uh. What?
You must be for prohibition of alcohol.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 1:03 am to Stingray
quote:
He is for freedom, regardless what studies show. Obviously since the act of drunk driving does not infringe on any rights, he is for it, as he does not care what number of increased fatalities a study would get on legalized drunk driving
Posted on 8/26/14 at 1:03 am to HempHead
quote:
People should be free from prosecution for any activity that does not violate somebody else's consent
What does this even mean?
Like if someone in Alaska doesn't consent to you masterbating in your home, then you are open to prosecution if you jerk off?
Posted on 8/26/14 at 1:32 am to Stingray
quote:
What does this even mean?
You're kidding, right?
quote:
Like if someone in Alaska doesn't consent to you masterbating in your home, then you are open to prosecution if you jerk off?
Yes. Exactly.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 1:50 am to HempHead
quote:
Most assuredly sarcasm
I was being serious with you.
Educate me.
ETA: How does drunk driving violate someone's consent? How does it violate anyone's rights for that matter?(Which is what I assume violate someone's consent means)
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 1:57 am
Posted on 8/26/14 at 1:56 am to Stingray
Consent, in the context I was talking about, has everything to do with self-ownership and property.
If you don't aren't actively violating someone's person or property, do whatever the hell you want.
If you don't aren't actively violating someone's person or property, do whatever the hell you want.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 1:58 am to HempHead
Yeah, and the act of driving drunk violates someones property or person how?
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:40 am to Stingray
quote:
Yeah, and the act of driving drunk violates someones property or person how?
You are actively putting their person at risk. Think of it like firing a gun at somebody. It's not magically legal if you miss.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:45 am to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
You are actively putting their person at risk. Think of it like firing a gun at somebody. It's not magically legal if you miss.
I would rather think of the action what the action is, not some other action it is not.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:49 am to CherryGarciaMan
Something strikes me as VERY fishy with these statistics. The years chosen for one thing. Since when do they run toxicology reports on all arrestee's? Did they institute some sort of new policy after the law passed?'
Another thing that kept striking me as funny was that, even with pot being legal, there were still several states that surpassed them in general population use. What states were those I wonder?
Another thing that kept striking me as funny was that, even with pot being legal, there were still several states that surpassed them in general population use. What states were those I wonder?
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:00 am to Asgard Device
quote:
I already know I support freedom
Being impaired and potentially harming others os not freedom
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:02 am to CherryGarciaMan
Personally I think the crack down on drivers with certain THC levels is a sham, just a way for the government to come in on the heals of legalization and make more money. When I use to drink, I drove drunk many times. I think God I didn't injure anyone and know for a fact its stupid. I drove high for almost 4 years straight, after I quit drinking, and there's simply no comparison, in no way did it impair my driving. Now that I'm straight I probably drive more reckless than when I was high. I know its anecdotal, but the government should be ashamed for lumping 'high drivers' in the same category as 'drunk drivers'. That is all.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 12:51 pm to KeyserSoze999
quote:It's even less convincing than that, because that's not even what this study proves. If you read the FARS materials, they're going off simple positive toxicology reports, not measured THC levels. That means that they're looking at metabolites, which means they're taking advantage of the "long tail" of marijuana detection. All the increase in "fatalities involving operators testing positive for marijuana" means is that marijuana is becoming more popular among the general population.
Personally I think the crack down on drivers with certain THC levels is a sham, just a way for the government to come in on the heals of legalization and make more money. When I use to drink, I drove drunk many times. I think God I didn't injure anyone and know for a fact its stupid. I drove high for almost 4 years straight, after I quit drinking, and there's simply no comparison, in no way did it impair my driving. Now that I'm straight I probably drive more reckless than when I was high. I know its anecdotal, but the government should be ashamed for lumping 'high drivers' in the same category as 'drunk drivers'. That is all.
If reubens were becoming more popular among the general population, and you could detect sauerkraut for up to 2-6 weeks after consumption depending on frequency and body fat, I could spin you some statistics about sandwich-associated traffic fatalities. It wouldn't mean anything about DUI, let alone the relative impairment potentials of sandwiches and alcohol.
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 12:53 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News