Smoking??????

[ShootingArts]

read for yourself

I'm glad you know that. Is there any proof to back that up?

yes there is proof

I apologize for not thinking you would actually be talking about his judgement being impared when he wasn't even high. That's a new one for me.

Really? Apparently you haven't been around regular users. It affects them in a variety of ways including brain damage. One of the areas of the brain it damages is the area associated with concentration.


Not one death has ever been linked to people dying from the physical affects of marijuana.

Not true at all. Do some research. Many deaths have been attributed to the physical affects of marijuana. What you are quoting is pure myth.



People die everyday from slipping in the shower but people still find the courage to clean themselves... hopefully. Marijuana hasn't killed anyone since people have been using it. I'm not saying some idiot didn't get high and die in a car crash. But it isn't the norm. People die everyday changing the radio station... they shouldn't make radios illegal should they?


There are around 300 million people in America. What percentage of those 300 million drive? 65%? 18 million Americans smoked marijuana last year... I imagine 7 percent of all drivers have marijuana in their system... not surprising 7 percent of all people involved in fatal crashes did have marijuana in their system. What an amazing study! Alert the presses.

Sarcasm doesn't work well especially since you have once more failed to read carefully before responding to something. This was a French study, presumably done in France or Europe. They didn't say that 2.5 percent of the people died due to pot, they said at least that many deaths are attributed to pot.

I'd truely love to hear the science behind this study... How could they possibly know that?

Had you grasped that they had eliminated other likely causes then it becomes a matter of statistics. 7% had used pot. 4.5 % of the people who used pot had other factors that could have contributed to the accident or were inside the number of unimpaired people who cause fatal accidents.

We are left with:
X number of people cause fatal accidents when they are totally unimpaired. Y number of people cause fatal accidents while under the influence of marijuana without alcohol or other contributing factors. It isn't really hard to crunch numbers and reach conclusions from there. Their conclusions were that not less than 250 to 300 people in their study group died as a result of someone having THC in their system. The number may be higher, statistically it can't be lower.

You don't truly want to consider any information since you have no intention of changing your opinion. I am sorry if this seems impolite but I am through discussing this with someone who can do the research for themselves and get the same answers. Then you can decide the validity of the answers for yourself also.

Time for me to move into Monday morning mode.

Hu

 

[DeadPoked]

ShootingArts I've made my points and you have made yours. It was a pleasure debating you. Have a great week, Sir.

 

[CrownCityCorey]

5 1/2 years smoke free!

 

[skiflyer]

Here's a fun one for the anti-smoke nazis... raise in lung cancer rates due to tobacco use, raise in lung cancer rates due to the industrial revolution, raise in lung cancer rates for smokers after the industrial revolution.... seems we hit some kind of critical mass with all our factories and power plants.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're an idiot if in this day and age you don't realize the damage you're doing to your life expectancy and you're smoking ... but I also think you're an idiot if you're convinced life expectancy is everyone's #1 concern and you do anything but eat a perfectly balanced macrobiotic diet and live outside a heppa filtrated bubble in the middle of a rainforest with lasers protecting you from the tarantulas and oversized snakes.

Virtually everything you do kills you faster than nature, but we drive cars and eat big macs anyway... it's all a risk vs. reward discussion. For some people smoking a cig. is a high reward, for others it's virtually no reward... the risk is pretty constant.

I'll also chime in with a make it illegal or let people do it on their own or other people's private property if that person so allows it. Don't keep collecting the tax and the lobbying money while you're signing the no smoking in a private business legislation.

 

[ShootingArts]

Agreed

To make matters worse, the last I knew the fed's still subsidize growing tobacco! Fine the companies a gazillion dollars, tax the cigarettes to ridiculous levels and then subsidize the farmers to grow tobacco? If the fed's have to subsidize the farmers couldn't they find something better for them to grow?

I will have to point out that the medical profession is seeing diseases and problems that they used to not see until people were in their fifties or older when people are in their twenties or thirties now so I don't think we have hit critical mass yet. The age is still going down.

Hu

Here's a fun one for the anti-smoke nazis... raise in lung cancer rates due to tobacco use, raise in lung cancer rates due to the industrial revolution, raise in lung cancer rates for smokers after the industrial revolution.... seems we hit some kind of critical mass with all our factories and power plants.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're an idiot if in this day and age you don't realize the damage you're doing to your life expectancy and you're smoking ... but I also think you're an idiot if you're convinced life expectancy is everyone's #1 concern and you do anything but eat a perfectly balanced macrobiotic diet and live outside a heppa filtrated bubble in the middle of a rainforest with lasers protecting you from the tarantulas and oversized snakes.

Virtually everything you do kills you faster than nature, but we drive cars and eat big macs anyway... it's all a risk vs. reward discussion. For some people smoking a cig. is a high reward, for others it's virtually no reward... the risk is pretty constant.

I'll also chime in with a make it illegal or let people do it on their own or other people's private property if that person so allows it. Don't keep collecting the tax and the lobbying money while you're signing the no smoking in a private business legislation.

 

[ShootingArts]

you too!

Have a great week too. Mine looks pretty busy so I really don't have time to do my homework to keep up the debate.

Enjoyed, no doubt we'll do it again sometime.

Hu

ShootingArts I've made my points and you have made yours. It was a pleasure debating you. Have a great week, Sir.

 

[DelaWho???]

Take a hard look at the amount of carcinogens in pot. Do you really think it is physically harmless to pack into your lungs?

Now take a hard look at the behavioral changes in heavy users. With THC staying in the system constantly, doesn't it seem very likely that there are more subtle and gradual changes in people who use moderate amounts?

People who want to use pot will. However ignoring all evidence that it is physically harmful and that people are impaired while under the influence is worse than short-sighted.

Hu

(a little research, included text)
Driving after smoking even a small amount of marijuana almost doubles the risk of a fatal highway accident, according to an extensive study of 10,748 drivers involved in fatal crashes between 2001 and 2003.
A study by the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research published in the British Medical Journal found that seven percent of drivers involved in a fatal highway crash used marijuana.

The researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana.

The researchers concluded that the risk of being responsible for a fatal crash increased as the blood concentration of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, increased. Even small amounts of marijuana could double the chance of a driver suffering an accident, researchers said, and larger doses could more than triple the risk.
(end included text)

To your first point, there are other methods of ingesting pot, such as eating or vaporizing. Both remove the hazard of the smoke of burning plant matter.
The only behavior changes in heavy pot users can be attributed to the lengths one must go to in order to obtain it. Because it is a black market commodity, the user puts himself at greater risks than the drug itself poses. Heavy tobacco users show much greatere signs of change than a pot head does. There is no such thing as a "THC fit", as there is a "nicotine fit" no physical withdarwl symptoms whatsoever. Long term alcohol users can experience tremors DT's and a host of other side effects. There is no comparable LD50 number when you look at pot vs alcohol or the robotussen in your medicine cabinet. The major hazard of pot is it's legal status.

To the hiway study you cited, by your own numbers 7% involved in fatal crashes used marijuana yet only 2.5% was listed as a direct cause. What are the numbers for speeding caused deaths? alcohol caused deaths? distracted driving deaths? I would wager they are all significantly higher than the 2.5% pot caused fatalities. Pot use can increase your chance of a fatality by 3x with larger amounts of thc in the system, raising the projected effect to 7.5%?. I think that there are much larger traffic safety issues to address.

Hu you certainly aren't swaying anyone here, and probably neither am I. I am however all about personal responsibility, and choices having consequences. I don't think it is the place of the gov't to tell me what I can or can't do to myself. If my actions result in the harm of others then I should be held responsible regardless of wht caused me to do the harm in the first place. It is the same with so called hate crimes. When someone does murder, does it really matter why murder (murder by definition precludes self defense) was done? Is the victim more dead because the crime was motivated by hate? Punish the deed, not the intent. Intent or lack there of should only be considered as mitigating or extenuating when dealing with punishment, if at all. Justice is supposed to be blind.

Banger

 

[ShootingArts]

already explained

Already explained the highway study above. After all other causes were accounted for at least 2.5 percent of the people died because of pot use. The real number may be higher however that 2.5% is over 250 people dead because of pot use and driving.

Pot is proven to damage the brain and cause behavioral changes also. Doesn't matter how you take it in or where you get it. As a matter of fact the information I read said that eating it actually did greater damage than smoking.

Hu

To your first point, there are other methods of ingesting pot, such as eating or vaporizing. Both remove the hazard of the smoke of burning plant matter.
The only behavior changes in heavy pot users can be attributed to the lengths one must go to in order to obtain it. Because it is a black market commodity, the user puts himself at greater risks than the drug itself poses. Heavy tobacco users show much greatere signs of change than a pot head does. There is no such thing as a "THC fit", as there is a "nicotine fit" no physical withdarwl symptoms whatsoever. Long term alcohol users can experience tremors DT's and a host of other side effects. There is no comparable LD50 number when you look at pot vs alcohol or the robotussen in your medicine cabinet. The major hazard of pot is it's legal status.

To the hiway study you cited, by your own numbers 7% involved in fatal crashes used marijuana yet only 2.5% was listed as a direct cause. What are the numbers for speeding caused deaths? alcohol caused deaths? distracted driving deaths? I would wager they are all significantly higher than the 2.5% pot caused fatalities. Pot use can increase your chance of a fatality by 3x with larger amounts of thc in the system, raising the projected effect to 7.5%?. I think that there are much larger traffic safety issues to address.

Hu you certainly aren't swaying anyone here, and probably neither am I. I am however all about personal responsibility, and choices having consequences. I don't think it is the place of the gov't to tell me what I can or can't do to myself. If my actions result in the harm of others then I should be held responsible regardless of wht caused me to do the harm in the first place. It is the same with so called hate crimes. When someone does murder, does it really matter why murder (murder by definition precludes self defense) was done? Is the victim more dead because the crime was motivated by hate? Punish the deed, not the intent. Intent or lack there of should only be considered as mitigating or extenuating when dealing with punishment, if at all. Justice is supposed to be blind.

Banger

 

[vin]

i never smoked in my entire life

 

[Joe Rogan]

I use morphine, responsibly. I wouldn't claim it to be harmless or pretend it wouldn't be abused if it was readily available. In fact both morphine and pot were once readily available. They were both abused and that is why they aren't readily available everywhere now.

As for how the people got killed, the wrecks, etc, you are right I'm not going to discuss it in depth. In all cases it boiled down to impaired judgment, impaired reaction time, or both.

Hu

That's an ignorant statement.
Marijuana was made illegal 100% because of economic reasons.
William Randolph Hearst and Harry Anslinger conspired to fool congress and the American public that blacks and Mexicans were smoking a dangerous new drug called "marijuana" (which actually wasn't even a term for cannabis, it was slang for a wild strain of tobacco that grows in Mexico) they told congress that the Mexicans and blacks were smoking this and raping white women.

Congress outlawed "Marijuana" not even knowing they were outlawing Hemp, the very plant that was used to write the Declaration of independence and the Constitution on. Why did they do it? Because a new invention had just been created called the "decorticator" that could make processing Hemp fiber much more economically feasible. This meant that Hemp - which is a far superior product for making paper, textiles, oil, etc, was going to be the new wonder crop.
Popular Science magazine even had it on the cover titled "Hemp, the new billion dollar crop." This would have meant that William Randolph Hearst would have had to spend millions of dollars converting his paper mills and all the acres of trees he used for them to hemp. Instead, he decided to use his power and influence as the biggest newspaper manufacturer in the country to demonize an incredibly useful plant with dopey propaganda that you're still spitting out today, over 70 years later.

If you don't know, don't open your mouth.

 

[Joe Rogan]

Already explained the highway study above. After all other causes were accounted for at least 2.5 percent of the people died because of pot use. The real number may be higher however that 2.5% is over 250 people dead because of pot use and driving.

Pot is proven to damage the brain and cause behavioral changes also. Doesn't matter how you take it in or where you get it. As a matter of fact the information I read said that eating it actually did greater damage than smoking.

Hu

What you're leaving out in that false statistic of 2.5% is that almost ALL of the cases where someone caused an accident and tested positive for marijuana, they also tested positive for alcohol, which is much more likely the cause of their impaired reaction time and judgment.
Marijuana on it's own not only doesn't impair reaction time, it's actually been statistically proven to make you a more cautious driver.

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

*
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. ?Legalization: Panacea or Pandora?s Box?. New York. (1995), p.36.

*
Swan, Neil. ?A Look at Marijuana?s Harmful Effects.? NIDA Notes. 9, 2(1994), p.14.

*
Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville, MD: American Council for Drug Education. (1982), p.7.

*
Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill. (1985), p.265.

 

[trustyrusty]

What you're leaving out in that false statistic of 2.5% is that almost ALL of the cases where someone caused an accident and tested positive for marijuana, they also tested positive for alcohol, which is much more likely the cause of their impaired reaction time and judgment.
Marijuana on it's own not only doesn't impair reaction time, it's actually been statistically proven to make you a more cautious driver.

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

*
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. ?Legalization: Panacea or Pandora?s Box?. New York. (1995), p.36.

*
Swan, Neil. ?A Look at Marijuana?s Harmful Effects.? NIDA Notes. 9, 2(1994), p.14.

*
Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville, MD: American Council for Drug Education. (1982), p.7.

*
Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill. (1985), p.265.

what about all the cigarette lung cancer related deaths, they coulda also smoked the doobage ... there's tar in that there weed too isn't there? I mean really, smoking tobacco is absolutely HORRIBLE for your lungs, but marijuana isn't? Even if there are no studies to prove that it is...I have a tough time believing it's not harmful.

 

[ShootingArts]

Joe read again

Joe,

Those that can't read earlier posts aren't going to get me to type it out in full again. You just made a totally rash and false claim yourself without checking the research. Nothing false at all about how the statistic was arrived at as I have pointed out repeatedly. Your name doesn't give you the right to start spouting BS without being called. 2.5% is the conservative number. It might have been as high as 7% and was almost certainly somewhere in between those two numbers. HOWEVER THE RESEARCHERS THREW OUT ALL DEATHS THAT COULD REASONABLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE NORMAL AMOUNT OF DEATHS OF UNIMPAIRED PEOPLE AND THE DEATHS THAT COULD BE DUE TO OTHER CAUSES OR MULTIPLE CAUSES.

Plain enough? I have repeated myself for the third time, this time in text striking enough that hopefully I won't need to repeat the same thing for the fourth time.

Hu

What you're leaving out in that false statistic of 2.5% is that almost ALL of the cases where someone caused an accident and tested positive for marijuana, they also tested positive for alcohol, which is much more likely the cause of their impaired reaction time and judgment.
Marijuana on it's own not only doesn't impair reaction time, it's actually been statistically proven to make you a more cautious driver.

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

*
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. ?Legalization: Panacea or Pandora?s Box?. New York. (1995), p.36.

*
Swan, Neil. ?A Look at Marijuana?s Harmful Effects.? NIDA Notes. 9, 2(1994), p.14.

*
Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville, MD: American Council for Drug Education. (1982), p.7.

*
Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill. (1985), p.265.

 

[DeadPoked]

what about all the cigarette lung cancer related deaths, they coulda also smoked the doobage ... there's tar in that there weed too isn't there? I mean really, smoking tobacco is absolutely HORRIBLE for your lungs, but marijuana isn't? Even if there are no studies to prove that it is...I have a tough time believing it's not harmful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer?page=2

http://cancer.about.com/od/smokingandcancer/f/marijuana.htm

This is not definitive proof that cannabis does not cause cancer, but most signs point to it not being cancerous. The problem with this research is that it doesn't span enough years for either side to say either way for certain.

In one of the studies it actually mentions that THC kills damaged cells before they turned into cancerous cells. How crazy is that? Hemp is one of the most amazing plants in the world and the fact that we're supressing all of its uses is nuts.

Today it's illegal to farm hemp in America. Why? Because of wackos like Aslinger and Hearst had there own interest for making it illegal. Guess what? George Washington & Thomas Jefferson farmed hemp. Should we posthumously impeach them?

 

[ShootingArts]

hemp vs marijuana

Guess what? George Washington & Thomas Jefferson farmed hemp. Should we posthumously impeach them?

Sorry, a bit too facile there. Hemp was grown for rope and rigging for ships by our founding fathers. Hemp still grows volunteer in large areas of the Midwest from when it was planted to support the WWII war effort. If you smoke it, it will give you a quick buzz mostly from oxygen deprivation and a vicious headache. The quick buzz can be obtained from smoking ragweed also, something I just happen to know since some friends mistook cured ragweed for pot. Marijuana is in the hemp family however not all hemp is marijuana.

More than you ever wanted to know about the difference between pot and industrial hemp. The industrial stuff will actually bring you down from a pot high according to this.

Hu

http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/content/hemp.mj.html

 

[Joe Rogan]

Joe,

Those that can't read earlier posts aren't going to get me to type it out in full again. You just made a totally rash and false claim yourself without checking the research. Nothing false at all about how the statistic was arrived at as I have pointed out repeatedly. Your name doesn't give you the right to start spouting BS without being called. 2.5% is the conservative number. It might have been as high as 7% and was almost certainly somewhere in between those two numbers. HOWEVER THE RESEARCHERS THREW OUT ALL DEATHS THAT COULD REASONABLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE NORMAL AMOUNT OF DEATHS OF UNIMPAIRED PEOPLE AND THE DEATHS THAT COULD BE DUE TO OTHER CAUSES OR MULTIPLE CAUSES.

Plain enough? I have repeated myself for the third time, this time in text striking enough that hopefully I won't need to repeat the same thing for the fourth time.

Hu

Cute how you never responded to the first BS post you made about marijuana being outlawed because it was abused. Here you're simply posting one biased statistic and ignoring your obviously false and misleading statement that made me react so strongly in the first place. By the way, most of those statistics are put out by Partnership for a Drug Free America, an organization funded by and supported by alcohol companies. Cute, huh?
They need people like you to parrot these statistics and say things like "marijuana was outlawed because it was abused." That's part of the way they keep it illegal and keep the competition against alcohol down.

Since you're obviously ignorant on the subject, I'm going to suggest some research for you.
Here's a series of articles and peer reviewed papers that support what I said and refute the ignorance you posted. Nothing against you, but there might be people out there that are going to read what you said and not look into it, and that bothers the hell out of me.
Here you go

Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents.

The effects of marijuana use on driving performance have been extensively researched over the last 20 years. All major studies show that marijuana consumption has little or no effect on driving ability, and may actually reduce accidents. Here's a summary of the biggest studies into pot use and driving.

A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the only significant affect of cannabis use was slower driving - arguably a positive effect of driving high.

A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

A 1993 NHTSA study dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that THC caused no impairment except for a slight deficiency in the driver's ability to "maintain a steady lateral position on the road." This means that the THC-dosed drivers had a little trouble staying smack in the center of their lanes, but showed no other problems. The study noted that the effects of even high doses of THC were far less than that of alcohol or many prescription drugs. The study concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

In Canada, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.

A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that "marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis."

According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, "the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of [accident] culpability."

The Canadian Senate issued a major report into all aspects of marijuana in 2002. Their chapter on Driving under the influence of cannabis concludes that "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

The most recent study into drugs and driving was published in the July 2004 Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention. Researchers at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research analyzed blood tests from those in traffic accidents, and found that even people with blood alcohol between 0.5% and 0.8% (below the legal limit) had a five-fold increase in the risk of serious accident. Drivers above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision. Drugs like Valium and Rohypnol produced results similar to alcohol, while cocaine and opiates showed only a small but "not statistically significant" increase in accident risk. As for the marijuana-only users? They showed absolutely no increased risk of accidents at all.


LINKS AND REFERENCES

1983 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Stein, AC et al., A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington DC: Department of Transportation (1983)
www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth12.shtml

1992 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, by K.W. Terhune, et al. of the Calspan Corp. Accident Research Group in Buffalo, NY (Report # DOT-HS-808-065)
www.drugsense.org/tfy/nhtsa1.htm

1993 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Marijuana and actual Driving Performance, By Hindrik WJ Robbe and James F O'Hanlon. Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, University of Limburg
www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

1998 University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia study:
www.ukcia.org/research/driving4.html

1999 University of Toronto Study, Marijuana Not a Factor in Driving Accidents:
newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin/19990329a.asp

2000 UK Transport Research Laboratory study on Cannabis and Driving:
www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1161/a02.html

2000 UK Department of Transportation's Cannabis and Driving report:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_504567.hcsp

2002 Report of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs
www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/repfinalvol1part4-e.htm

July 2004, Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15094417

For a less scientific and more amusing study of the combination of drugs and driving, go here:
www.techno.de/mixmag/interviews/Driving_on_drugs.html


A BETTER WAY TO TEST

Performance testing is better than drug testing
Cannabis Culture, January 2005
cannabisculture.com/articles/4130.html

Alternatives to Drug Testing: Performance testing Non-testers List
www.nontesterslist.com/nontesters/ptest.html

Performance testing can add an extra measure of safety
HR Magazine, February 1996
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_n2_v41/ai_18159115

An Alternative to Drug Testing
Inc Magazine, April 1995
www.inc.com/magazine/19950401/2235.html


MEDIA REPORTS ON "DRUGGED DRIVING" LAWS

UK Launches Drug Driving Tests
Daily Telegraph, December 22, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n1821/a02.html

Drug Office Out To Convince Teens Pot Impairs Driving
Lexington Herald-Leader, December 3, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n1726/a05.html

Growing danger: Drugged driving
USA Today, Oct 21, 2004
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-21-cover-drugged-driving_x.htm

Zero-tolerance drugged driving law doing the job
The Daily Press, July 8, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n977/a05.html

Lawmakers Aiming for 'Zero Tolerance' Of Pot-Smoking Drivers
The Athens News, May 5, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n683/a02.html

Drugged Driving Statutes Pushed
Boston Globe, March 21, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n464/a02.html

New Legislation To Allow Police To Conduct Roadside Tests for Drug Impaired Drivers
Ottawa Citizen, February 23, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n319/a07.html

Too Many One Toke Over Line, Police Say
Globe and Mail, February 1, 2003
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v03/n173/a01.html

Drug Czar, Prohibition Establishment Seek 'Zero Tolerance' for 'Drugged Driving'
The week online with DRCNet, November 22, 2002
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v02/n2157/a04.html

British Police Plan New Drug Tests For Drivers
Reuters, August 3, 2000
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v00/n1105/a12.html

Marjiuana Report Too Hot Too Handle
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, October 1998
www.norml.org.nz/Marijuana/Driving.htm#abc981014b

"Steer Clear of Pot" Media Campaign
US Office of National Drug Control Policy
www.mediacampaign.org/steerclear/index.html

 

[Joe Rogan]

Have fun reading

 

[spoonie]

Nothing like having a TENNESSEE BIG BUD then firing in a combo for the cash............

 

[chefjeff]

Someone here is a cop and has a big financial stake in continuing the drug war.

That's the reason he won't accept integrated facts about it and uses out-of-context info to "support" more violence against otherwise innocent citizens.

To accept the futility of the War on (some) Drugs (on citizens, actually), his whole life's purpose would need to be questioned and changed...something hard to do late in life.

Whoops! I dun did it again!

Jeff Livingston

 

[ShootingArts]

?????

Joe,

You are not just paranoid because you smoke dope, the world really is out to get you!! The French government conducted the research cited and reported it in a UK medical journal, one more bit of information posted for the third time.(anyone notice a trend here?) You and others continue to ignore what is written to jump on the same old tired horse. This American group or another is out to keep pot use illegal to make a buck or to keep control of the 'heads. This isn't really surprising though, there are still tobacco users in thread after thread about tobacco that claim there is no real proof that tobacco causes harm too. I finally spoke out in this thread after reading all the claims about pot by people who are looking at only what they choose to believe and might influence youngsters or people just starting to use.

I'm not a pilgrim. I came of age in the sixties and early seventies when pot use was probably at a peak. I can look at what became of a large group that smoked pot heavily and it isn't a pretty picture. Far too many died young and most reached nowhere near their potential as indicated prior to their use of pot. That little deal about brain damage and behavioral changes. Blow real and figurative smoke at other pot users all you want and drink deeply into the Kool-Aid of the culture. However, when you are putting this BS out in public for our children and grandchildren to read I will speak out and I speak out as someone that was there.

As for the studies that users like to cite, I noticed that they use fuzzy words like "substantial". Perhaps over 2.5% isn't "substantial" to the authors, over 250 out of less than 11,000 is substantial to me because this is 250 more senseless deaths. As long as we have the vehicles and highways we have now, there will be deaths. There needn't be deaths because people are impaired.

The myth that drivers are safer smoking pot or even as safe is just that, a myth. Driving drunk is defined by set standards. None of the studies I have seen claiming pot use isn't a substantial cause of highway deaths define "stoned". The alcohol in my mouthwash doesn't make me a drunk driver. Driving when I have smoked a joint the day before doesn't make me a stoned driver either although as has already been noted in this thread, it will make you test "dirty". How many of the drivers that had used marijuana in the studies were actually "high" on pot?

Hu

Cute how you never responded to the first BS post you made about marijuana being outlawed because it was abused. Here you're simply posting one biased statistic and ignoring your obviously false and misleading statement that made me react so strongly in the first place. By the way, most of those statistics are put out by Partnership for a Drug Free America, an organization funded by and supported by alcohol companies. Cute, huh?
They need people like you to parrot these statistics and say things like "marijuana was outlawed because it was abused." That's part of the way they keep it illegal and keep the competition against alcohol down.

Since you're obviously ignorant on the subject, I'm going to suggest some research for you.
Here's a series of articles and peer reviewed papers that support what I said and refute the ignorance you posted. Nothing against you, but there might be people out there that are going to read what you said and not look into it, and that bothers the hell out of me.
Here you go

Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents.

The effects of marijuana use on driving performance have been extensively researched over the last 20 years. All major studies show that marijuana consumption has little or no effect on driving ability, and may actually reduce accidents. Here's a summary of the biggest studies into pot use and driving.

A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the only significant affect of cannabis use was slower driving - arguably a positive effect of driving high.

A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

A 1993 NHTSA study dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that THC caused no impairment except for a slight deficiency in the driver's ability to "maintain a steady lateral position on the road." This means that the THC-dosed drivers had a little trouble staying smack in the center of their lanes, but showed no other problems. The study noted that the effects of even high doses of THC were far less than that of alcohol or many prescription drugs. The study concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

In Canada, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.

A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that "marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis."

According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, "the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of [accident] culpability."

The Canadian Senate issued a major report into all aspects of marijuana in 2002. Their chapter on Driving under the influence of cannabis concludes that "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

The most recent study into drugs and driving was published in the July 2004 Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention. Researchers at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research analyzed blood tests from those in traffic accidents, and found that even people with blood alcohol between 0.5% and 0.8% (below the legal limit) had a five-fold increase in the risk of serious accident. Drivers above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision. Drugs like Valium and Rohypnol produced results similar to alcohol, while cocaine and opiates showed only a small but "not statistically significant" increase in accident risk. As for the marijuana-only users? They showed absolutely no increased risk of accidents at all.


LINKS AND REFERENCES

1983 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Stein, AC et al., A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington DC: Department of Transportation (1983)
www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth12.shtml

1992 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, by K.W. Terhune, et al. of the Calspan Corp. Accident Research Group in Buffalo, NY (Report # DOT-HS-808-065)
www.drugsense.org/tfy/nhtsa1.htm

1993 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Marijuana and actual Driving Performance, By Hindrik WJ Robbe and James F O'Hanlon. Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, University of Limburg
www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

1998 University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia study:
www.ukcia.org/research/driving4.html

1999 University of Toronto Study, Marijuana Not a Factor in Driving Accidents:
newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin/19990329a.asp

2000 UK Transport Research Laboratory study on Cannabis and Driving:
www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1161/a02.html

2000 UK Department of Transportation's Cannabis and Driving report:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_504567.hcsp

2002 Report of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs
www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/repfinalvol1part4-e.htm

July 2004, Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15094417

For a less scientific and more amusing study of the combination of drugs and driving, go here:
www.techno.de/mixmag/interviews/Driving_on_drugs.html


A BETTER WAY TO TEST

Performance testing is better than drug testing
Cannabis Culture, January 2005
cannabisculture.com/articles/4130.html

Alternatives to Drug Testing: Performance testing Non-testers List
www.nontesterslist.com/nontesters/ptest.html

Performance testing can add an extra measure of safety
HR Magazine, February 1996
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_n2_v41/ai_18159115

An Alternative to Drug Testing
Inc Magazine, April 1995
www.inc.com/magazine/19950401/2235.html


MEDIA REPORTS ON "DRUGGED DRIVING" LAWS

UK Launches Drug Driving Tests
Daily Telegraph, December 22, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n1821/a02.html

Drug Office Out To Convince Teens Pot Impairs Driving
Lexington Herald-Leader, December 3, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n1726/a05.html

Growing danger: Drugged driving
USA Today, Oct 21, 2004
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-21-cover-drugged-driving_x.htm

Zero-tolerance drugged driving law doing the job
The Daily Press, July 8, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n977/a05.html

Lawmakers Aiming for 'Zero Tolerance' Of Pot-Smoking Drivers
The Athens News, May 5, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n683/a02.html

Drugged Driving Statutes Pushed
Boston Globe, March 21, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n464/a02.html

New Legislation To Allow Police To Conduct Roadside Tests for Drug Impaired Drivers
Ottawa Citizen, February 23, 2004
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n319/a07.html

Too Many One Toke Over Line, Police Say
Globe and Mail, February 1, 2003
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v03/n173/a01.html

Drug Czar, Prohibition Establishment Seek 'Zero Tolerance' for 'Drugged Driving'
The week online with DRCNet, November 22, 2002
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v02/n2157/a04.html

British Police Plan New Drug Tests For Drivers
Reuters, August 3, 2000
www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v00/n1105/a12.html

Marjiuana Report Too Hot Too Handle
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, October 1998
www.norml.org.nz/Marijuana/Driving.htm#abc981014b

"Steer Clear of Pot" Media Campaign
US Office of National Drug Control Policy
www.mediacampaign.org/steerclear/index.html