Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Newly Legal Marijuana And Wow


Recommended Posts

There are no definitive studies to support such a conclusion. Many studies conclude that marijuana drivers are actually more cautious and drive slower than non-marijuana users. Marijuana does not have the same effects as alcohol on driving.

It might be better to assess the dangers from a less emotional point of view.

Incidentally, I am sick and tired of the carnage caused by irresponsible gun-owners. Can we finally get some laws to get guns out of the hands of everybody?!?!? Guns kill a hell of a lot more people than marijuana.

Anything that distorts our perception of time and space(MJ use does) while using heavy/dangerous equipment including driving needs to be avoided. More cautious and slower driving isn't necessarily the safer driving. The stone cold sober driver trying to merge into 65 mph traffic going 35 mph is a danger not only to themselves but to others as well.

Link to comment

Anything that distorts our perception of time and space(MJ use does) while using heavy/dangerous equipment including driving needs to be avoided. More cautious and slower driving isn't necessarily the safer driving. The stone cold sober driver trying to merge into 65 mph traffic going 35 mph is a danger not only to themselves but to others as well.

The number of fatalities per number of vehicles is twice as high in the US as in most western European countries. More than 33, 000 were killed last stat. year in US. That's the size of a small town where I live. I am assuming that a good number of those were alcohol related. How do people accept such numbers? (fatalities were due to illicit drugs I have no way of knowing).

Link to comment

Part of it has to do with our history. We're a pretty young country really and have emphasized personal liberty over personal responsibility. There is good and bad to be said about both. The rejects from other areas of the world made their way here. Even our Statue of Liberty memorializes them.

Add in that Prohibition formalized the conflict between rural Protestants and Catholic city dwellers. Here in California where I live anyone of age can buy all the alcohol they want at the local grocery store. While residents of Lynchburg; Tennessee can't buy the Jack Daniels whiskey that is produced there because it is a "Dry" county. Utah lies more in the middle with its state run liquor stores.

None of this excuses DUI, but it exemplifies part of the confusion that is the US.

Link to comment

Anything that distorts our perception of time and space(MJ use does) while using heavy/dangerous equipment including driving needs to be avoided.

From what I am reading, laboratory data that shows a time/space distortion in marijuana users does not translate into dangerous driving patterns. The supposition is that the user on the highway realizes that there is a distortion and is able to compensate.

More cautious and slower driving isn't necessarily the safer driving.

Maybe what we need is a law requiring that everyone smoke a bowl before starting the car, then everyone would be slower and safer . . . :)

The stone cold sober driver trying to merge into 65 mph traffic going 35 mph is a danger not only to themselves but to others as well.

No question, but what we need are competent correlation studies to establish a causal link between marijuana use and poor driving, and right now, most of what I am finding on the web does not do so. Conclusions supported by nothing more that our own suppositions do little to advance the debate beyond pure polemics, and right now I am not seeing the data connecting marijuana use to dangerous driving.

Edited by Mark Beesley
Link to comment

I live where prostitution is completely legal. Remarkably, we haven't yet had to explain to members that employing a legal prostitute in a licenced brothel is still a violation of the law of chastity.

Where do you live? Just the country, Hamba, you needn't give your street address. I didn't think there was anywhere where it was COMPLETELY legal. Even in Nevada, USA, it is regulated.

Link to comment

Part of it has to do with our history. We're a pretty young country really and have emphasized personal liberty over personal responsibility. There is good and bad to be said about both. The rejects from other areas of the world made their way here. Even our Statue of Liberty memorializes them.

Add in that Prohibition formalized the conflict between rural Protestants and Catholic city dwellers. Here in California where I live anyone of age can buy all the alcohol they want at the local grocery store. While residents of Lynchburg; Tennessee can't buy the Jack Daniels whiskey that is produced there because it is a "Dry" county. Utah lies more in the middle with its state run liquor stores.

None of this excuses DUI, but it exemplifies part of the confusion that is the US.

In the election before this one (where WA became, with CO, one of the Stoner States), we voted to dump our state liquor stores and let it all hang out in that respect. So far there have been no disasters as a result.

Link to comment

It sounds like your argument is that MJ is bad for you, and is useless recreation, it will not be served in heaven, and that it is not for our betterment, therefore it should be illegal. My point is that I can make the same argument about McDonalds. So, based on your argument, why keep McDonalds legal and not MJ?

Yeah, there's no fun in heaven, either. Is there any point of going snowboarding in heaven, for example? The attraction of snowboarding, and skiing, and any sport involving the risk of harm. If it were perfectly safe, would there be a thrill?

If you are an exalted being, then you know the outcome of every action from the beginning. This means that there is no thrill in sporting activity.

Or so I imagine. And no, I don't know why I even bring this up.

Link to comment

You are right, McDonald's and marijuana use are not equivalent.

A McDonald's addiction is much more debilitating to your health, will kill you quicker than a marijuana addiction, and is a greater cause of skyrocketing healthcare costs in this country than marijuana addiction.

I have to argue into this, actually.

The notion that eating at McDonald's is, per se, harmful to one's health, is baloney. Or as Joe Biden likes to put it, "Malarkey." The prototypical evidence for the adverse effects of a McDonalds diet is Morgan Spurlock's documentary film "Supersize Me".

http://en.wikipedia....i/Super_Size_Me

"Spurlock dined at McDonald's restaurants three times per day, eating every item on the chain's menu at least once. Spurlock consumed an average of 20.92 megajoules or 5,000 kcal (the equivalent of 9.26 Big Macs) per day during the experiment.

"As a result, the then-32-year-old Spurlock gained 24½ lbs. (11.1 kg), a 13% body mass increase, a cholesterol level of 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation in his liver. It took Spurlock fourteen months to lose the weight gained from his experiment using a vegan diet supervised by his future wife, a chef who specializes in gourmet vegan dishes."

I will not argue with Spurlock's results. He ate 5,000 calories per day, twice as much as he normally ate, supersized everytime he was asked, ate everything on his plate, and cut down on exercise. He got what should have gotten. Even if he had eaten at Denny's he might have gotten similar results, in my humble opinion.

However, taking his actions and the inevitable results and extrapolating to the generalization that eating at McDonalds will kill you, is ridiculous on its face. In fact, moderate usage of McDonalds can be unharmful, or even beneficial! If you eat wisely, McDonalds isn't bad for you at all. There was a response to Supersize Me that illustrated how that worked: "Me & Mickey D's".

From the Wikipedia article about Supersize Me:

Soso Whaley, an independent film producer, made a YouTube movie reply titled Me and Mickey D's, in which she also ate all meals at McDonald's, yet lost weight — 20 pounds over 60 days; 30 pounds in 90 days. Whaley's results were quite different because of the reduced calorie diet, and inclusion of exercise. Some of Whaley's requirements for her meals were the same as Spurlock's (had to eat everything on the menu over the course of the experiment, etc.); but some were different (she didn't have to clean the plate—Spurlock required himself to do so). Whaley also documented her meals by saving the receipts.

Here is a link to a YouTube playlist for this video:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=mh_lolz

Not that production values are as good as "Supersize Me", but the message is clear: Eat stupidly and your health will suffer -- regardless of where you eat.

NOW, what does this have to do with marijuana? Everything in the world. Use it stupidly, and you will suffer. But there is a difference between stupid use and wise use.

Just as for food, clothing, movie-viewing, alcohol consumption, extreme sports participation, and anything else you can think of.

Link to comment

It might be better to assess the dangers from a less emotional point of view.

Incidentally, I am sick and tired of the carnage caused by irresponsible gun-owners. Can we finally get some laws to get guns out of the hands of everybody?!?!? Guns kill a hell of a lot more people than marijuana.

Emotional point of view??? Lol... you're kidding...

And, just try to get your blinkety-blank paws on my gun!! Now that's emotional!!

GG

Link to comment

There are no definitive studies to support such a conclusion. Many studies conclude that marijuana drivers are actually more cautious and drive slower than non-marijuana users. Marijuana does not have the same effects as alcohol on driving.

It might be better to assess the dangers from a less emotional point of view.

Incidentally, I am sick and tired of the carnage caused by irresponsible gun-owners. Can we finally get some laws to get guns out of the hands of everybody?!?!? Guns kill a hell of a lot more people than marijuana.

While we are on the subject here is an interesting study that seems to blow your and the left's theories up that people are safer with out guns and there are less violent crimes. Please take the time to get informed.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-magazine-report-is-gun-control-helping-or-hurting-europe/

Pay particular attention to the easy to read tables.

Link to comment

Emotional point of view??? Lol... you're kidding...

And, just try to get your blinkety-blank paws on my gun!! Now that's emotional!!

GG

Of course Karl is trying to do that. He is all for goverment control when it makes no sense and for no goverment control when it does make sense.
Link to comment

I have to argue into this, actually.

Just as for food, clothing, movie-viewing, alcohol consumption, extreme sports participation, and anything else you can think of.

Good read I enjoyed this quite a bit.
Link to comment

Completely off-topic, but I just noticed that Selek got banned again! I will miss the old slash-and-burn. Greatly enjoyed him -- although I will admit that his rancor, when it came out, was always directed at things that annoyed me, too, so my ox was not the one being gored. I couldn't figure out what got him canned this time. Oh, well.

Will there be a selek2? Inquiring minds wonder.

Link to comment

Of course Karl is trying to do that. He is all for goverment control when it makes no sense and for no goverment control when it does make sense.

My name is Mark Beesley, not Karl. While I find some of Karl Marx's ideas intriguing and worthwhile, there is also much of his philosophy that I reject.

Your immature resort to name-calling is simply reflective of your own bankrupt arguments.

Sorry our interactions have degraded so viciously.

Link to comment

Completely off-topic, but I just noticed that Selek got banned again! I will miss the old slash-and-burn. Greatly enjoyed him -- although I will admit that his rancor, when it came out, was always directed at things that annoyed me, too, so my ox was not the one being gored. I couldn't figure out what got him canned this time. Oh, well.

Will there be a selek2? Inquiring minds wonder.

Ditto that. There was already a selek2 (that was the one banned recently); the original was banned a while back. The board is quite a bit more bland without him; we've sunken to tolerating being told how virtuous pot is, complete with examples of wonderful, responsible pot users. Makes you wonder, given the pot heads I'm familiar with, who seem to be the far more common example of users of the magical weed..

As Morningstar so aptly put it, "DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE!" Where's, like, perspective when you need it?

Link to comment

Ditto that. There was already a selek2 (that was the one banned recently); the original was banned a while back. The board is quite a bit more bland without him; we've sunken to tolerating being told how virtuous pot is, complete with examples of wonderful, responsible pot users. Makes you wonder, given the pot heads I'm familiar with, who seem to be the far more common example of users of the magical weed..

As Morningstar so aptly put it, "DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE!" Where's, like, perspective when you need it?

it is a shame that he wouldn't rein himself in, much more enjoyable place without the constant attacks though.

As for " pot heads". Many of you would shocked to learn who uses marijuana. Just because the DEA has an agenda does not that agenda is correct.

Looks like this thread has run its course.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...