If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   New cannabis legislation in Colorado aims to set a limit while driving and.. can't read the last bit the corner has been ripped off   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 178
    More: Spiffy, Colorado, marijuana legalization  
•       •       •

11221 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 9:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 02:10:11 PM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?


Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.

bhcompy: khyberkitsune: PROTIP: I'm a research director for a multinational horticulture company. I know this sort of biased bullshiat when I see it.

So you read the study, examined who conducted it and checked their prior work, crunched the numbers, came up with your own results that differ from their results, etc, right? Or you just dismissed it prima facie, because that's what it looks like. You might know bullshiat research, but you sure as hell didn't have the time to determine that this was bullshiat. In a way, you're worse than DEvans, because you claim to be an expert.


I've not only crunched their numbers but been a participant in similar tests.

Got some news for you - I directly participated in these. You obviously have not.
 
2013-01-24 02:14:10 PM

khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?

Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.


What input did you use?
 
2013-01-24 02:14:48 PM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?

Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.

What input did you use?


If you couldn't figure that out in 15 seconds you shouldn't be using GREP.
 
2013-01-24 02:16:05 PM

khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?

Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.

What input did you use?

If you couldn't figure that out in 15 seconds you shouldn't be using GREP.


I've never used it before. I was hoping to learn it. I'd like to start by repeating what you did to see if I can get the same results.

/Or are you just lying to me about what you said?
 
2013-01-24 02:22:31 PM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?

Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.

What input did you use?

If you couldn't figure that out in 15 seconds you shouldn't be using GREP.

I've never used it before. I was hoping to learn it. I'd like to start by repeating what you did to see if I can get the same results.

/Or are you just lying to me about what you said?


If you want the same results you first need to have full access to the library - which means you need to download it. Any GREP user would know this is the route for the fastest infosearch.

Be prepared to break the law like Aaron Swartz. Yes, laws and their order of structure are copyrighted.

/are you willing to break the law?
 
2013-01-24 02:29:39 PM

khyberkitsune: /are you willing to break the law?


Not particularly.

Instead, let's go back to this:

khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.


Why?  How is Nevada at fault?

I know that in many DUI cases, the drunk driver is assumed at fault.  In Nevada, wouldn't the same thing apply to drugged driving (Nevada law states that drugged driving is driving with any measurable about of illicit drugs in your system, even if you are not physically impaired; from here)?
 
2013-01-24 02:30:27 PM

khyberkitsune: I've not only crunched their numbers but been a participant in similar tests.

Got some news for you - I directly participated in these. You obviously have not.


And you have a study? Where can I read it? I mean, I totally want to read the study that you crunched the numbers on while also being a test subject. That totally generates unbiased results, and considering your totally unbiased approach in this thread I assume that you are completely infallible.
 
2013-01-24 02:39:11 PM
It's 2013 and we are still debating reaction times and motor control while high? I thought we moved on from ignorance like "black men raping white women and throwing them off balconies", but I guess not.

There are two main variables to consider before talking about anything else.

1) Baseline driving ability.

2) Amount and frequency of smoking.
 
2013-01-24 02:43:06 PM

bhcompy: khyberkitsune: PROTIP: I'm a research director for a multinational horticulture company. I know this sort of biased bullshiat when I see it.

So you read the study, examined who conducted it and checked their prior work, crunched the numbers, came up with your own results that differ from their results, etc, right? Or you just dismissed it prima facie, because that's what it looks like. You might know bullshiat research, but you sure as hell didn't have the time to determine that this was bullshiat. In a way, you're worse than DEvans, because you claim to be an expert.



Your empirical evidence is a study done on the roads halfway across the world, funded by the U.S. government, that directly contradicts what I personally experienced and witnessed as a cannabis user for over 11 years. Your study claims cannabis users drift across lanes moreso than alcohol users, which is ridiculous enough to dismiss at face value. You dont need an expert to conclude that the 'science' this is garbage. Might as well go tell a bunch of drunks that alcohol gives them the nods worse than heroin, youre gonna get the same reaction.

The only time I ever drifted across lanes is when my equilibrium was shot from excessive alcohol consumption. It simply isnt a symptom regular cannabis users face. It simply isnt true. Your science is flawed at best, teetering on complete bullshiat. Sorry guy, its reality, and your worthless links mean absolutely nothing.
 
2013-01-24 02:43:27 PM

bhcompy: khyberkitsune: I've not only crunched their numbers but been a participant in similar tests.

Got some news for you - I directly participated in these. You obviously have not.

And you have a study? Where can I read it? I mean, I totally want to read the study that you crunched the numbers on while also being a test subject. That totally generates unbiased results, and considering your totally unbiased approach in this thread I assume that you are completely infallible.


Probably not the study in question, but this might be relevant.
 
2013-01-24 02:48:55 PM

D_Evans45: Your science is flawed at best, teetering on complete bullshiat. Sorry guy, its reality, and your worthless links mean absolutely nothing.


Here's the thing, though:

It doesn't matter if the science is flawed.  If that's the available research, that's what the gov't is going to use.  The only way to counter it is to provide good research that comes up with different conclusions.  The gov't didn't write (and update) alcohol laws by talking to people at AA meetings.  And they're not going to base or update any of these laws by talking to people who smoke pot.  If we want these laws to reflect reality, we need to get good solid research published.
 
2013-01-24 03:08:51 PM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

Why?  How is Nevada at fault?



If state prosecutors pushed for the incarceration, I would also find fault with NV. A drunk driver swerves into his lane and smashed into him, he wasn't breaking any laws or posing a hazard to other drivers. So what, pot was present in his system? It obviously didnt cause the accident. If the pothead had left home 1 minute later, it would have been some other family on the receiving end. That family wouldnt deserve incarceration for doing nothing wrong, either.

Lets ignore the pedantic nuances of intoxication laws for a second and look at the big picture. This guy was hit by a car full of drunks whilst safely minding his own business, and sentenced to over a decade in prison for something he didnt have any hand in. Youre stupider than bhcompy if you fail to see the injustice here.

/But he had cannabis in his system, so its okay to trample all over his rights somehow
//Bunch of cold dumb farks
 
2013-01-24 03:16:40 PM

snocone: AssAsInAssassin: There's a similar bill in my state. It is utterly insane. 5ng/ml is about 1/1666 of an effective dose. Do the math:

1000 ml/liter.
6 liters of blood in an average person. That's 6,000 ml.
6,000 ml x 5 ng = 30,000 ng.
That's 3 micrograms of THC.
An effective dose of THC is about 5 mg.
There are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram.
5,000 / 3 = 1,666

A hamster wouldn't feel that. This bill would make anyone legally consuming THC guilty of DUI if they get pulled over.

I, for one, am quite certain that is the complete, whole and entire idea.


Agreed, can't make it illegal? make it legally impossible while pretending you are being reasonable.


If a pot user....

Commits a crime....punish them just like you would anyone else.

Causes a traffic accident...punish them just you would anyone else

Commits vehicular homicide....punish them just you would anyone else

Fails to properly use their turn signal....punish them just you would anyone else

Why do we need to make pot users suffer more for the same crimes so many others commit every day? Why? Because we are punishing the choice, even if it makes no difference to the situation we apparently want people that make choices we don't like to suffer more when we get the chance.

I'm fine with people driving while on marijuana. A good driver straight is a good driver high. A bad driver straight will still be a bad driver while high. Why differentiate?

For the children, of course, of course....
 
2013-01-24 03:21:36 PM

mgshamster: D_Evans45: ...

Here's the thing, though:

It doesn't matter if the science is flawed.  If that's the available research, that's what the gov't is going to use.



I know how the process works, Im merely discussing the quality evidence provided by my opponent.

And even if we got empirical evidence that cannabis use is safe on the roads, the government would still disregard it. Just one or two days ago, the DEA was in appeals court convincing everyone that cannabis has no therapeutic value whatsoever, and is as dangerous as methamphetamine, heroin, and crack cocaine. This same government has a patent on cannabanoids as neural protectants (please google I cant link practically with this device). They will keep on dismissing real science in pursuit of the science that fits their agenda.

This is only going to end once the majority of states have passed cannabis laws and sufficient breakdown is occuring between state and federal governments, probably at least a decade off.
 
2013-01-24 03:36:27 PM

Amos Quito: FTA: "Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug."


I wonder how many of these fatal crashes "involved" alcohol, prescription meds and other intoxicants, and how many "involved" marijuana alone?

/Bet they didn't bother to differentiate


NHTSA does. I can't remeber their stat for sure but it was around 5 or 6%.
 
2013-01-24 03:38:25 PM

BGates: Amos Quito: FTA: "Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug."


I wonder how many of these fatal crashes "involved" alcohol, prescription meds and other intoxicants, and how many "involved" marijuana alone?

/Bet they didn't bother to differentiate

NHTSA does. I can't remeber their stat for sure but it was around 5 or 6%.


But that was for the entire US. Since CO has a higher population that uses, It would most likely be higher.
 
2013-01-24 03:40:14 PM
There may be a problem with the cut off...

Occasional use can sometimes be detected much longer, as shown in Fig. 1 by the oral dose from a different controlled study [03]. This represents a subject who was given a strong oral dose of 20 mg of THC, equivalent to a strong brownie or two high-dose Marinol pills. The subject tested above the 50 ng/ml cutoff for up to six days after dosing.
From:
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.ht m l
 
2013-01-24 03:41:57 PM

D_Evans45: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

Why?  How is Nevada at fault?


If state prosecutors pushed for the incarceration, I would also find fault with NV. A drunk driver swerves into his lane and smashed into him, he wasn't breaking any laws or posing a hazard to other drivers. So what, pot was present in his system? It obviously didnt cause the accident. If the pothead had left home 1 minute later, it would have been some other family on the receiving end. That family wouldnt deserve incarceration for doing nothing wrong, either.

Lets ignore the pedantic nuances of intoxication laws for a second and look at the big picture. This guy was hit by a car full of drunks whilst safely minding his own business, and sentenced to over a decade in prison for something he didnt have any hand in. Youre stupider than bhcompy if you fail to see the injustice here.

/But he had cannabis in his system, so its okay to trample all over his rights somehow
//Bunch of cold dumb farks


I think you misunderstand me.  I agree completely that it was a travesty. However, I don't think they were incorrect, legally.

Either that, or he had a really bad lawyer.

I was watching a case on court tv about a year ago talking about a drunk driving case.  Both drivers were drunk. One was stopped at a stop light.  The light turned green, and he started going. A different drunk driver ran the red light from side and crashed into the first.  The second driver was killed.  When I was watching the case, the prosecutor got knowledge that the second driver was drunk struck from the record, so the jury only had the knowledge that one of the drivers was drunk (the one with the green light).  I never saw the end, so I don't know the verdict.

A similar thing could have happened in the case we've been talking about.
 
2013-01-24 03:44:04 PM

D_Evans45: mgshamster: D_Evans45: ...

Here's the thing, though:

It doesn't matter if the science is flawed.  If that's the available research, that's what the gov't is going to use.


I know how the process works, Im merely discussing the quality evidence provided by my opponent.

And even if we got empirical evidence that cannabis use is safe on the roads, the government would still disregard it. Just one or two days ago, the DEA was in appeals court convincing everyone that cannabis has no therapeutic value whatsoever, and is as dangerous as methamphetamine, heroin, and crack cocaine. This same government has a patent on cannabanoids as neural protectants (please google I cant link practically with this device). They will keep on dismissing real science in pursuit of the science that fits their agenda.

This is only going to end once the majority of states have passed cannabis laws and sufficient breakdown is occuring between state and federal governments, probably at least a decade off.


This reminds me of (I think it was last year?) the DEA threatened to prosecute some congressmen or local representatives with conspiring with drugs (or some such) because they were trying to write a law legalizing pot.
 
2013-01-24 03:44:40 PM

UseLessHuman: snocone: AssAsInAssassin: There's a similar bill in my state. It is utterly insane. 5ng/ml is about 1/1666 of an effective dose. Do the math:

1000 ml/liter.
6 liters of blood in an average person. That's 6,000 ml.
6,000 ml x 5 ng = 30,000 ng.
That's 3 micrograms of THC.
An effective dose of THC is about 5 mg.
There are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram.
5,000 / 3 = 1,666

A hamster wouldn't feel that. This bill would make anyone legally consuming THC guilty of DUI if they get pulled over.

I, for one, am quite certain that is the complete, whole and entire idea.

Agreed, can't make it illegal? make it legally impossible while pretending you are being reasonable.


If a pot user....

Commits a crime....punish them just like you would anyone else.

Causes a traffic accident...punish them just you would anyone else

Commits vehicular homicide....punish them just you would anyone else

Fails to properly use their turn signal....punish them just you would anyone else

Why do we need to make pot users suffer more for the same crimes so many others commit every day? Why? Because we are punishing the choice, even if it makes no difference to the situation we apparently want people that make choices we don't like to suffer more when we get the chance.

I'm fine with people driving while on marijuana. A good driver straight is a good driver high. A bad driver straight will still be a bad driver while high. Why differentiate?

For the children, of course, of course....


This entire dealeo is so blown all out of reality.
The sociopathic behavior rationalized by A BIG FARKING LIE in the first place is, well, best case is mass psychosis.
Amazing what people will do to each other for money!
 
2013-01-24 04:28:32 PM

mgshamster: This reminds me of (I think it was last year?) the DEA threatened to prosecute some congressmen or local representatives with conspiring with drugs (or some such) because they were trying to write a law legalizing pot.



Conspiring with drugs, thats a classic. I can see a wary congressman studiously eyeing a pound of buds and a kilo of cocaine across the table. "Are we gonna get these criminals high or what?"
 
2013-01-24 04:48:26 PM

D_Evans45: mgshamster: This reminds me of (I think it was last year?) the DEA threatened to prosecute some congressmen or local representatives with conspiring with drugs (or some such) because they were trying to write a law legalizing pot.


Conspiring with drugs, thats a classic. I can see a wary congressman studiously eyeing a pound of buds and a kilo of cocaine across the table. "Are we gonna get these criminals high or what?"


Here is it. The lawmaker was never actually charged with anything, but she did come under investigation by the DEA soon after she publicly made pro-marijuana statements.

FTA:  "The investigation began when a possible witness in a federal drug investigation was asked whether Sands might be part of a conspiracy to sell medical marijuana."
 
2013-01-24 05:07:33 PM

garumph: tokinGLX: garumph:
No it is Active THC. This isn't the drug test that they use for job applicants.A hour or two after your last toke your blood level should be down under 5 nanograms of ACTIVE THC. This still may be a bullshiat number, but let's argue with the facts.


the facts are, thc doesnt work like alcohol in the body.
from when this was discussed and shot down 2 years ago
how much active THC was in my blood even after a night of sleep and not smoking for fifteen hours
...
my test results show that it would not be uncommon to see such a high level in other people who use cannabis regularly -- like medical marijuana patients. "Your level was about 13.5 for whole blood... which would have made you incapacitated on a lab value,"

I totally agree with the fact that 5 ng is a bullshiat number. We need more study on how to determine marijuana impairment. I don't think some medical marijuana patients should be driving. Just like other prescription drugs it causes too much impairment to be on the road.

But the casual user isn't going to get busted because they lit up yesterday. Until people understand what the test is don't sound like ignorant assholes this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.


Sounds like it is some type of tolerance building up, so in order to be able to drive with a certain THC level people would need a certification test periodically to determine %delay in reaction time and %degradation of judgement, the results would be part of their DMV record, it makes no sense to put Cheech over there in jail for beng completely of sound mind at 15, and let someone else go who is baked at 4
 
2013-01-24 08:20:03 PM

bhcompy: The NHTSA did a fairly comprehensive set of driving tests years ago with marijuana, alcohol, a mixture of the two, and a non-intoxicated baseline. Marijuana had a fairly static negative effect on reaction times and a large negative effect on lane drift(more than alcohol) regardless of level of intoxication, while alcohol scaled based on intoxication level. Combined, the effects were magnified.


Even if cannabis intoxication impairs driving, I think the main point is always missed by dumbasses like you and the NHTSA.

If people are going to smoke and drive, they do not stop their decision to drive just because it is illegal. It doesn't go like this: "I'm so high! Hey let's drive to the gas station. NO WAIT. Pot is illegal hence and therefore thusly, I will not drive."

In reality, things go more like this: "Hey let's go driving to the gas station."

Legalizing could increase the ability for law enforcement to make things safe because a legalized drug can be better defined as far as legal boundaries and limitations of both users and law enforcement.
 
2013-01-24 09:08:15 PM

Lehk: garumph: tokinGLX: garumph:
No it is Active THC. This isn't the drug test that they use for job applicants.A hour or two after your last toke your blood level should be down under 5 nanograms of ACTIVE THC. This still may be a bullshiat number, but let's argue with the facts.


the facts are, thc doesnt work like alcohol in the body.
from when this was discussed and shot down 2 years ago
how much active THC was in my blood even after a night of sleep and not smoking for fifteen hours
...
my test results show that it would not be uncommon to see such a high level in other people who use cannabis regularly -- like medical marijuana patients. "Your level was about 13.5 for whole blood... which would have made you incapacitated on a lab value,"

I totally agree with the fact that 5 ng is a bullshiat number. We need more study on how to determine marijuana impairment. I don't think some medical marijuana patients should be driving. Just like other prescription drugs it causes too much impairment to be on the road.

But the casual user isn't going to get busted because they lit up yesterday. Until people understand what the test is don't sound like ignorant assholes this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.

Sounds like it is some type of tolerance building up, so in order to be able to drive with a certain THC level people would need a certification test periodically to determine %delay in reaction time and %degradation of judgement, the results would be part of their DMV record, it makes no sense to put Cheech over there in jail for beng completely of sound mind at 15, and let someone else go who is baked at 4


Why do you hate money?
 
2013-01-25 01:37:43 AM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: /are you willing to break the law?

Not particularly.

Instead, let's go back to this:

khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

Why?  How is Nevada at fault?

I know that in many DUI cases, the drunk driver is assumed at fault.  In Nevada, wouldn't the same thing apply to drugged driving (Nevada law states that drugged driving is driving with any measurable about of illicit drugs in your system, even if you are not physically impaired; from here)?


Depends on who they're defending/prosecuting. This has happened before, very rarely, but it has happened in the case of innocents.

bhcompy: And you have a study? Where can I read it? I mean, I totally want to read the study that you crunched the numbers on while also being a test subject.


That wouldn't happen, because I'd introduce bias. I was a subject in some, a researcher in others. Papers? We never published, being a private company with a product to sell, except the people we were selling to got the paperwork.

D_Evans45: bhcompy: khyberkitsune: PROTIP: I'm a research director for a multinational horticulture company. I know this sort of biased bullshiat when I see it.

So you read the study, examined who conducted it and checked their prior work, crunched the numbers, came up with your own results that differ from their results, etc, right? Or you just dismissed it prima facie, because that's what it looks like. You might know bullshiat research, but you sure as hell didn't have the time to determine that this was bullshiat. In a way, you're worse than DEvans, because you claim to be an expert.


Your empirical evidence is a study done on the roads halfway across the world, funded by the U.S. government, that directly contradicts what I personally experienced and witnessed as a cannabis user for over 11 years. Your study claims cannabis users drift across lanes moreso than alcohol users, which is ridiculous enough to dismiss at face value. You dont need an expert to conclude that the 'science' this is garbage. Might as well go tell a bunch of drunks that alcohol gives them the nods worse than heroin, youre gonna get the same reaction.

The only time I ever drifted across lanes is when my equilibrium was shot from excessive alcohol consumption. It simply isnt a symptom regular cannabis users face. It simply isnt true. Your science is flawed at best, teetering on complete bullshiat. Sorry guy, its reality, and your worthless links mean absolutely nothing.


I wouldn't say that. Different strokes for different folks, so to speak. I'm 6' 140 and I can hold my shiat far better than most people double my size. While anecdotal, I admit that I am a rare case, but again, I exist, so don't be so quick to say some things.

And while you guys are quick to say things that I have not stated, but are implied and you've stated them - not all of them are true all the time. Yes, they are true, and likely they're true to an unreasonable degree as far as punishment goes, but otherwise, what are we to do?

/was at work, at a porno shop, protecting (and selling) your freedom (as in the ball&chain+kid)
//sorry for the long delay, again.
 
2013-01-25 04:44:41 AM
bath salts
 
2013-01-25 11:09:21 AM

khyberkitsune: Depends on who they're defending/prosecuting. This has happened before, very rarely, but it has happened in the case of innocents.


Got examples? I try to pay attention to innocents falsely convicted. I've even have a lecture that I give on it for a forensic science class.
 
Displayed 28 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report