Oops. More bad news for pot heads

As a trucker, I have a problem with legalized pot. Not merely yet another drug even more widely consumed, rather the cocktail effect with the plethora of other legal and illegal substances.

Frankly, it's tough enough out there. This link, seems to me, is an almost inevitable result and difficult to argue against.

You will make the attempt, however:

www.ibtimes.com...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Interesting...

I say interesting, because the same drug has been linked to a decline in traffic fatalities and RTAs in the same regions as specified in this article you linked to. I see no reason why this article in the IBT, ought to push aside all the data which has been published since legalisation efforts really came to the fore.

The article is certainly outweighed by other articles in other publications, stating the precise opposite thing. Of course, this is the International Business Times, and as anyone who knows anything about weed at all will tell you, big businesses do not profit from it, and some lose revenue to it, especially drug companies.

So they have a vested interest in ensuring that weed looks bad from a laypersons point of view.

Probably biased, propagandist fake news article? Yeah, theres a pretty good chance.

Complete at total hogwash. People are more prone to drive under the influence of weed because cops don't have a breathalyzer for it...really. That's what stops drunks from doing it?

I'm not going to argue the fact that smoking while driving is just plain stupid. Like drinking and driving. And of course accidents will increase because now more stupid people can get their hands on the god given plant and make even more stupid choices.

To put weed on such a bad light because of a 3% rise in accidents is completely ludicrous and a waste of money for proving the inevitable.

The benefits of making this plant legal out weighs by # tonnes.

As a trucker, which would you rather have on the road? Pot smokers or drunk people?

I mean, it's really a no brainer. Where's your thread about alcohol?

This link, seems to me, is an almost inevitable result and difficult to argue against.

You will make the attempt, however:

Nice attempt to shut down discussion trucker. Deride opposing positions even before they are posted.
But how about this simplistic reply.

Drinking and driving is illegal. Fact
Smoking and driving is illegal. Fact.

It is the law breakers that cause the problems you are concerned about.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: nwtrucker

Interesting...

I say interesting, because the same drug has been linked to a decline in traffic fatalities and RTAs in the same regions as specified in this article you linked to. I see no reason why this article in the IBT, ought to push aside all the data which has been published since legalisation efforts really came to the fore.

The article is certainly outweighed by other articles in other publications, stating the precise opposite thing. Of course, this is the International Business Times, and as anyone who knows anything about weed at all will tell you, big businesses do not profit from it, and some lose revenue to it, especially drug companies.

So they have a vested interest in ensuring that weed looks bad from a laypersons point of view.

Probably biased, propagandist fake news article? Yeah, theres a pretty good chance.

Of course propaganda is a factor. My view of it is that scale is well balanced on both sides. The financial interests on both sides is well entrenched, both Big Pharma and all the smaller investors in the growing, distribution and sales of legalized pot.

Seeing my view is anecdotal, where the rubber meets the road, I will lean towards this being more likely and valid than those against. It is frankly ludicrous to buy into the spin that it lessens accidents.

Every trucking company tests for drugs before hiring and randomly as employees. The insurance companies void coverage when drugs are involved for good reason.

Sorry, but any mind-altering drug will alter perceptions. Modify that with a mixture of other drugs and the overall situation will worsen. Ignore it at your peril, if not yours then your children or theirs.....

originally posted by: Flesh699
As a trucker, which would you rather have on the road? Pot smokers or drunk people?

I mean, it's really a no brainer. Where's your thread about alcohol?

Neither.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Simple, you do not drink and drive, and you do not toke and drive, so what is the problem?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Flesh699
As a trucker, which would you rather have on the road? Pot smokers or drunk people?

I mean, it's really a no brainer. Where's your thread about alcohol?

Neither.

Your main drug concern with OTRT should be meth and you know it!

You know what's going on when you see the Esclades and Hummers cruzing around the Loves and Little America.

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
Complete at total hogwash. People are more prone to drive under the influence of weed because cops don't have a breathalyzer for it...really. That's what stops drunks from doing it?

I'm not going to argue the fact that smoking while driving is just plain stupid. Like drinking and driving. And of course accidents will increase because now more stupid people can get their hands on the god given plant and make even more stupid choices.

To put weed on such a bad light because of a 3% rise in accidents is completely ludicrous and a waste of money for proving the inevitable.

The benefits of making this plant legal out weighs by # tonnes.

Your first para says hogwash. Yet you say you won't argue the fact against smoking and driving. 3%? What percentile do you think smoke and drive? Or mix drugs while driving? Likely that 3% is a fairly accurate percentile of those that do 'smoke and drive'.

I have, in fact mixed a doobie and booze....ONCE, many decades back, and to this day, I cannot remember driving that 30 miles.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Flesh699
As a trucker, which would you rather have on the road? Pot smokers or drunk people?

I mean, it's really a no brainer. Where's your thread about alcohol?

Neither.

nwtrucker@ - You are right to be concerned because I just learned that alcohol consumption has risen by 17% for women and 4% for men. Women have also been identified as being high functioning alcoholics, which to me is alarming, however I doubt these types would also risk taking MJ too as that would affect their functioning level.

You, as a professional driver should know defensive driving tactics and be extra cautious in states where it is legal. So, it's up to you to apply your skills on the road and good luck.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Flesh699
As a trucker, which would you rather have on the road? Pot smokers or drunk people?

I mean, it's really a no brainer. Where's your thread about alcohol?

Neither.

Then why complain about what FREE and CONSENTING adults do with their resources, in their home, with their body, in their home?

There will be more and more of this kind of nonsense coming from america as it works it's way back to the 40s.

A new reefer madness film is around the corner I'm sure.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I am perfectly aware of how mind altering substances operate, but that is not what is in question here.

What is in question is that it cannot be the case that weed being legal in a state, both contributes positively and negatively to fatality statistics in RTAs, or the number of serious RTAs that occur in a given period.

One of these positions has been widely reported since legalisation first came about, with statistics to back it up. So, that is years of articles, studies, analysis, all of which totally vindicated those who surmised that weed would not negatively effect RTA statistics and other crime stats, and in fact had the opposite effect. Then you have this one article now, which for some reason says the precise opposite... again, something is squiffy here.

And on your supposition that weed lessens accidents, I would posit that, indeed, it probably does. You see, drunk people, and people high on substances other than weed, are WAY more likely to be involved in behaviour which is a danger to themselves and others, than are those who are smoking weed. Those other substances I refer to, tend to motivate people to act, to rise to their feet and do stupid crap. Weed, on the other hand, has a largely mellowing effect, where by persons affected by it, tend toward sedate behaviours, tend to chill out.

You show me a group of stoners, and I will show you a group of people who are statistically far less likely to be involved with violence, criminal damage, theft, arson or making trouble for people. They may want to sit home, listen to some Bob Marley or Wheezer tracks, and play Tony Hawk games on their original Playstations, because its retro as hell and they can dig that on a fundamental level, but they generally do not get high, then run off in a mad rush, to mess things up for other people. Drink, however, DOES make that happen. Other drugs, like coke, meth, and other pills, powders, tabs and all manner of crazy crap of that nature, do make people go out and cause havoc. Weed smokers however, tend to just get comfortable, smoke them a bowl, and chill out for the afternoon or evening.

So is a person less likely to have an accident while driving high, than driving drunk? Nope. Are they less likely to even get in the car if they are high though? Yes, absolutely they are less likely to even get in the car. They are less likely to leave the damned HOUSE, leave alone get into a car, when high. You are talking about a drug that can make reasonable sit in their pants, eating cereal by the handful, with no milk, like potato chips. This is not a motivational substance we are talking about here.

If it's legal then it's legal. I see alcohol do more harm in a week on the roads than weed in a damn decade. Never have I ever read about one "passing out" or "blacking out" behind the wheel of a vehicle after smoking weed. But I'm sure we can Google hundreds of horror stories involving alcohol......the silent LEGAL KILLER of many person on the roadways of America. A responsible person would never consume weed or alcohol and drive. Why you ask? Cause it's illegal. Texting cause more accidents than weed smoking & driving. And hey. texting is legal.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: nwtrucker

Simple, you do not drink and drive, and you do not toke and drive, so what is the problem?

Look at the source of this article. Read between the lines here. This isn't Big pharma writing it, it's a business venue.

In this case, the relevant 'business' would be auto insurance. For those that might not consider this aspect, if in an accident and it is proven one is 'impaired' your insurance is null and void. In the case of pot, I would guess it would be harder to prove as it would take a blood test , yet there it is. Get stoned and in an accident and the insurance industry is serving notice that if they can prove it? Your in a financial nightmare. Toast.

Rightly so, IMO. No different than booze.

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
If it's legal then it's legal. I see alcohol do more harm in a week on the roads than weed in a damn decade. Never have I ever read about one "passing out" or "blacking out" behind the wheel of a vehicle after smoking weed. But I'm sure we can Google hundreds of horror stories involving alcohol......the silent LEGAL KILLER of many person on the roadways of America. A responsible person would never consume weed or alcohol and drive. Why you ask? Cause it's illegal. Texting cause more accidents than weed smoking & driving. And hey. texting is legal.

Yep. I agree....LOL. Yet you use that as a justification for pot?....even more LOL.

originally posted by: Flesh699
As a trucker, which would you rather have on the road? Pot smokers or drunk people?

I mean, it's really a no brainer. Where's your thread about alcohol?

Thats the problem with some folks

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: nwtrucker

I am perfectly aware of how mind altering substances operate, but that is not what is in question here.

What is in question is that it cannot be the case that weed being legal in a state, both contributes positively and negatively to fatality statistics in RTAs, or the number of serious RTAs that occur in a given period.

One of these positions has been widely reported since legalisation first came about, with statistics to back it up. So, that is years of articles, studies, analysis, all of which totally vindicated those who surmised that weed would not negatively effect RTA statistics and other crime stats, and in fact had the opposite effect. Then you have this one article now, which for some reason says the precise opposite... again, something is squiffy here.

And on your supposition that weed lessens accidents, I would posit that, indeed, it probably does. You see, drunk people, and people high on substances other than weed, are WAY more likely to be involved in behaviour which is a danger to themselves and others, than are those who are smoking weed. Those other substances I refer to, tend to motivate people to act, to rise to their feet and do stupid crap. Weed, on the other hand, has a largely mellowing effect, where by persons affected by it, tend toward sedate behaviours, tend to chill out.

You show me a group of stoners, and I will show you a group of people who are statistically far less likely to be involved with violence, criminal damage, theft, arson or making trouble for people. They may want to sit home, listen to some Bob Marley or Wheezer tracks, and play Tony Hawk games on their original Playstations, because its retro as hell and they can dig that on a fundamental level, but they generally do not get high, then run off in a mad rush, to mess things up for other people. Drink, however, DOES make that happen. Other drugs, like coke, meth, and other pills, powders, tabs and all manner of crazy crap of that nature, do make people go out and cause havoc. Weed smokers however, tend to just get comfortable, smoke them a bowl, and chill out for the afternoon or evening.

So is a person less likely to have an accident while driving high, than driving drunk? Nope. Are they less likely to even get in the car if they are high though? Yes, absolutely they are less likely to even get in the car. They are less likely to leave the damned HOUSE, leave alone get into a car, when high. You are talking about a drug that can make reasonable sit in their pants, eating cereal by the handful, with no milk, like potato chips. This is not a motivational substance we are talking about here.

As I posted earlier. This is a business article. Read that insurance. They base their underwriting guidelines based on statistics. Period. Get in an accident and it is proven your stoned? Your insurance will be null and void. Just like booze.

I have mixed both once, decades back. Can't even remember driving that 30 miles to this day. Youth? Those with mental issues or stress? Those that use to the degree that the high becomes the normal operating basis, like habitual drinkers? A tad under the weather? Any of the above?

Again anecdotal. A little worse right across the boards.

a reply to: nwtrucker
damn , I knew this at 16 . Everyone else just now figuring it out ? I realized a friend driving stoned probably wasnt a good idea on my way through a house in the backseat of a 69 ford....In the front door and out the back door of a 2 story house. Friend said he didnt see it there...