House will vote on cannabis legalization bill in December

Edit what - you are the spouting unsupported nonsense and stating Pot should be treated like Alcohol and now project your issues oneto others "demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the Topic".

Have you ever smoked Pot on a regular basis ?

 

Potency is not the issue.

Consider the edibles like quicksand. By the time you realize you're in it, you're IN IT.

As for potency, if you're cooking yourself that's up to you. Commercial edibles are regulated as to content. Generally a gummy or other candy type has 0.1gm each. Let's say you get 10 pieces or 1 gram. Now it need be understood that when it comes to absorption of THC digestion is much more efficient than smoking. Depending o the individual as much as 90% is absorbed by consumption where as much as 70% is exhaled when smoking. Smoking's advantage is speed. So you put on Netflix and eat a candy. Not high yet, eat another, and another and another.About the time you run out of gummies, you get the desired high.

Problem is that most of the THC you consumed has not been absorbed. You're not nearly as high as you're going to be.

Some people use edible medicinally. The medicate to the desired state by inhalation then consume an edible or 2 to help them rest through the night.

 

What would an answer prove that slapping you up and down with both anecdotal evidence and studies that confirm the anecdotal references.hasn't already proven?

You're anger stems from my wanting to treat pot, a substance people use to get high, the same as alcohol, a substance people use to get high.

Can you not understand how ridiculous you're being?

 

Dude - one is a far greater risk than the other - this is what the studies prove. You are the one being ridiculous .. on some "refer madness" spoon fed propaganda trip

 

I first saw Reefer Madness about 50 years ago. Believe it or not in school. Science teacher showed it to demonstrate the danger of ignoring science.

Obviously you didn't get the message.

 

If they're putting others at risk then hell yes I'd like them put in prison for a long time. I cant believe how many 'strikes' we allow impaired drivers. We've got countless repeat offenders out there who get off with small fines, short-term license suspensions which they ignore, or probationary rehab programs which are a joke. They take their slap on the wrist, go right back to the bottle (booze or pill), and then back into the drivers seat putting every person they're near in mortal danger. If it were up to me I'd charge every impaired driver with attempted manslaughter and set a nation wide mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years, no parole.

 

It seems like you missed the origin of what you quoted but it was in response to @Giftedone 's attempt to sell us on the myth that driving while high isn't the same as driving while impaired. I have no issues with pot be it for medicinal or recreation. I have issue with people refusing to take responsibility for the potential and likely consequences - as such is the case with the 'legalize it' movement.

Also, it seems you didn't full understand what you quoted so lets go over that quickly. My words with respects to punitive recourse were "violations committed while under the influence". This is the language of sentence enhancement. A similar example would be how we treat a burglary vs a burglary where a firearm is used. This is not targeting people who are simply getting high but those who choose to get high and then commit other crimes such as driving while impaired.

 

Now you are projecting - it is you who has does not know the science - It is well established that the risks to driving from Alcohol are orders of magnitude higher than Pot - and that is including the dumb kid / first timer component.

You failed to understand the link you presented- but fortunately I explained it to you - and now you are without an argument.

 

Perhaps none that you knew of, until now.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving
Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.

 

Its not even close to the same - you are the one touting the refer madness myth.

Show a scientific study that compares Alcohol to Pot .. or an article that cites such a study -- and renders them comparable.

You are full of talk but - nothing to back it up .. and obviously have never smoked Pot on a regular basis.

 

Where is the comparison to driving while on Alcohol - and the study cited to back up the claim.

Aside from that - your response is Appeal to Authority Fallacy.


And Last - you apparently failed to read the link you presented.

Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use13—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.14–16 However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol.1

 

Oh, the old 'show me what I want to see, in exactly the way I want to see it, under the premise I stipulate, or I wont accept it' gambit? Well here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

They're comparable in that they both lead to impairment, they're contrastable in a number of ways. And can I ask something? Why the hell are you fighting so hard to make it ok for people to get stoned and drive? Because, you see, this all goes back to my original point on responsibility. Why cant people just wait to get high until they're home? What about that is so hard to accommodate?

 

Oh and now trace it back and learn why:

Testing for drug impairment is problematic due to the limitations of drug-detecting technology and the lack of an agreed-upon limit to determine impairment. The nationally recognized level of impairment for drunken driving is .08 g/mL blood alcohol concentration. But there is no similar national standard for drugged driving.​

You see due to the lack of ability for law enforcement to test on site, and no official metric to use even if they had, there was a gaping hole of data in their case studies. But then they NHTSA also did another case study of people who could be tested - dead people. And they found:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.d...s/13839-drugged_facts_flyer_101918_v8_002.pdf

/gasp Drug use among fatally injured drivers who were tested for drugs rose from 25% in 2007 to 42% in 2016, and marijuana presence doubled in this time frame.

 

Dude - what part of your own link did you not understand ? However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol.1

The gaping holes are in your argument.. and your continued reliance on fallacy is another.

So what if testing is problematic - that does not help your case ..

The absurd claim on the table is that Pot is equivalent to Alcohol.

You have yet to show significant impairment - At ALL - never mind come close to Alcohol.

You are up a creek without a paddle .. and need to backtrack near to the start line and come up with a credible argument ...

 

False, you stated that you “wont support legalizing marijuana” — even though it actually helps some people — because of what you describe as “dangerous nonsense” of the “pro-pot crowd doesn't assume any responsibility for the gravity of what they're asking for” based on the response of a single poster.

You would have a point if the “pro-pot crowd” — which is actually the “get the government out of arresting people over personal consumption crowd — was trying to make penalties non existent or fighting against DUI laws, but we aren’t. I fully support throwing the legal book at someone that is driving while impaired on any substance and I support not using government resources, taxpayer dollars, or the lives lost in the fight of this drug that has shown numerous medical benefits.

But no one is doing that, so you don't...

 

Define common in your context. For people with chronic pain it lowers the anxiety the suffering brings.

 

"Detrimental effects of cannabis use vary in a dose-related fashion, and are more pronounced with highly automatic driving functions than with more complex tasks that require conscious control, whereas with alcohol produces an opposite pattern of impairment. Because of both this and an increased awareness that they are impaired, marijuana smokers tend to compensate effectively while driving by utilizing a variety of behavioral strategies. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

 

All of the evidence proves you haven't the slightest clue about what you are speaking.

 

The key word in red.

And because the ability to compensate varies the effect is the same as drunk driving.

 

Your claim is simply false - and has been demonstrated false in previous post's - including your own link - which refuted your own claim - and a link by another poster - which also demonstrates your claim false - both of which support what I have been claiming.

Your claim that Pot is the same as Alcohol is simply false - and you have not provided support for claim . Claiming "Pot is Bad" does not help us with the question of how bad in relation to Alcohol.

What is our vote at .. 43 For - 1 Against 97.7% - Rare to get such a consensus - w/r to such an issue. Some folks think differently than you - folks of all walks of life.

 

I don't really know what you're labeling as "false" because my position is clearly defined. The dangerous nonsense in question, myths such as driving while high isn't an impairment, is an opinion shared across the 'legalize it' spectrum whenever the topic comes up. Simply search phrases like "weed makes me a better driver" or "marijuana doesn't impair driving" and you'll see a mudslide of these myths being espoused from stoners and marijuana related businesses. Add tags such as "+reddit +insta +twitter" to your search and you'll see those myths being parroted by countless individuals all over social media - its not just one PF poster. They wont even recognize the danger of what they're asking for demanding and so I'm not inclined to support their cause.

Now thankfully the people who can actually benefit from marijuana (as in excluding the liars who cry about phony headaches and an onset of anxiety that just so happens to present right after a dispensary opens nearby) can take advantage of sensible medicinal use laws, extracted cannabidiol products, and expert crafted strains such as avidekel which breed out the THC component leaving everything else in tact. We have great options for those who have a legitimate medical need for marijuana and its byproducts and we should pursue the development and use of these treatments. This is the side of marijuana I support. The people who just want to get stoned, well, as I've said a number of times now if they want to take some accountability for the consequences of what they're asking for then I just might support them too - but since they don't they can shove off. I'm standing firm on this and I'm not changing my mind but thanks for the conversation.

 

So you don’t support personal freedoms because you feel that a xx% isn’t responsible?

How do you feel on alcohol?
Vehicles?
Cell phones?
Caffeine?
Sugar?

We should ban all of those because some of the users are irresponsible, right?

 

If we're using the word 'freedom' loosely then, yes, that accurately represents my position. Because actual freedom isn't getting to do anything your heart desires; that's anarchy. True freedom is a structure that recognizes an order of importance must be used as a balance in order to ensure that freedom is equally available to all.

 

Why did you feel the need to edit out the reminder of my post? Do you feel the same way with alcohol or sugar?

I will have to disagree that there is any balance in destroying families and communities to fight something that is so insignificant.

“Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself” - Carter

 

Because I didn't want to play the 'lets list all the silly things we can ban' game. And the balance in freedom is in prioritizing the important things over the trivial things. There actually is a reason why 'life' comes before 'the pursuit of happiness' in our Deceleration of Independence, our country's formal notice of freedom, and its not just because it reads better that way. Its because the most critically essential part of freedom is the ability to be alive to experience it. Therefore when any other such freedom is regarded as being detrimental to that primary freedom it can be curtailed.