re: First Comprehensive Study about CO Legalization Released

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.

quote:

---

Ah, so you must be for the freedom of drunk driving, yes?

---

Uh. What?

You must be for prohibition of alcohol.

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?

quote:

---

Yes. Exactly.

---

NSIS

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.

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.

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?

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.