Correction: A stoned driver is as dangerous as someone who is at the legal BAC limit, or someone who is younger than 35 or older than 60.
Fucking irresponsible young/old people, driving around as if they aren’t a menace to society!!!1!
1 Like
What about stoned drivers under 35 or over 60? 
What about stoned, tired drivers? Or stoned and drunk drivers?
The sooner nobody drives, the better, I reckon.
1 Like
Think of all the driving stoners are not doing because of the stereotyped lethargy that plagues our lives. We should be given a medal for increasing road safety through lack of motivation!
2 Likes
You would also have entities that would work on creating the most addictive substances possible. Bonus points for being cheap to manufacture, safe, tastes good and nearly impossible to quit.
I’m all for pot legalization, but everything? I can’t believe we prescribe people oxycodone!
Or if it were legal you would have entities that would work on altering the more dangerous drugs to make them have the same effects the user wants, with out as severe of side effects.
So…an altered form of heroin that doesn’t make you throw up and doesn’t cause constipation, but still gives you that hundredfold mind-gasm that floats you above all your worries and wraps you in a blanket of infinite bliss. So basically a vastly improved version of one of the most potent opioids in existence.
2 Likes
Yeah but that is quite a “what if” hypothetical. I mean we should not do something because something like that could happen? I people could make such a drug they would already do it and make even more money in the black market trade. Legalizing drugs will drive down profit margins,
2 Likes
Recommended amount of water: about 3 liters
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/water/art-20044256
LD 50 of water: about 6 liters
So water would be around 2 in the above chart.
Can we please not restart alcohol prohibition in the name of legalizing weed?
1 Like
I am sure there is already lots of research in synthetic and natural opioids for the pharmaceutical industry. I am not suggesting pie in the sky science fiction designer drugs, but things like purity guarantees, dosing info, and the like would make drug use safer.
I mean with the prescription drug problem we have, we sort of already have legalized drugs to a degree. Though people still die because of people seeing pills on the secondary market.
1 Like
I believe when HST ran for sherriff (I always spell sherriff wrong- bet I am now) part of his platform was drug purity and dealer accountability.
Really? Because it seems like a no-brainer to me, especially if you are already a pharmaceutical company who produces one of the many highly addictive drugs we prescribe people.
Why in god’s name wouldn’t I want to sell Demerol to as many people as physically possible? Who cares if my profit margins are 1% if I can legally sell a product that has a >90% addiction rate to hundreds of millions of people to take it daily? Especially one that is entirely synthetic and extremely cheap to produce?
And then why wouldn’t I then “improve” my formula. And by improve, I mean, make it as addictive as humanly possible.
But The Man wants everyone to drive everywhere; that’s how folks can be milked for the most dough.
1 Like
No, you got it wrong. This study (as apparently flawed as it is) is pointing out the relative toxicity of various recreational drugs. The number of users doesn’t factor into it, its the toxicity of the substance itself under discussion.
And you’ve made the same mistake with air travel versus car travel, air travel isn’t statistically safer simply because far less people use it than road travel, that would be a useless point to make, and would mean that travelling on wild Lion back is among the safest known modes of transport. Air travel is still statistically safer than car travel when adjusted for the amount of use, because as @cowicide pointed out, aircraft are piloted and maintained in a highly regulated environment.
3 Likes
I was glad I had my stash of “do-not-ask” opiates when I got a (temporarily) misdiagnosed issue with a tooth. I kept it on hand just for an emergency like that.
No law is worth obeying when one is in pain like that.
I like the graphic, so I updated it to include marijuana 
HiRes: http://i.imgur.com/iXfsaVu.jpg
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm
The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkey would be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds (21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time. In addition, 92 mg/kg THC intravenously produced no fatalities in monkeys. These doses would be comparable to a 154-pound human smoking at one time almost three pounds (1.28 kg) of 1%-marihuana or 250,000 times the usual smoked dose and over a million times the minimal effective dose assuming 50% destruction of the THC by smoking.
3 Likes
I’ll drink to that.
4 Likes
While taking psychedelics and riding in a moving vehicle may be fun, the idea of driving under the influence is so unrealistically far out of the question that I’m not worried about it - it’s something that Just Wouldn’t Work, because the world changes speeds too often and changes shape and texture and interestingness in ways that are incompatible with being a safe pilot.
The idea of driving under the influence of marijuana scares me more, because I’m likely to feel adequately sobered up some time after consuming it, but may or may no actually be up to full speed, though at least unlike alcohol it leads most people to be more paranoid about their abilities rather than overconfident, and couch-lock inertia can also discourage driving.
(And dude, if you could, like, rename “Siri” as “Dude”, then you could get pizza without even getting off the couch, just by saying “Dude, let’s get pizza”. We should totally do that.)
1 Like
It’s called a field sobriety test, and they used them before they had breathalyzers. If you can’t tell you’re stoned from driving or outward behavior, you aren’t too stoned to drive. The problem with chemical tests that even with alcohol, tolerance varies widely (I wouldn’t drive at more than half the legal limit, at the outside, personally) and with weed tolerances vary enormously more than with alcohol.
3 Likes
Well that is a pessimistic view I think. Perhaps “addictability” would be a factor on the labeling. If it’s an informed decision why take the new highly addictive designer drug vs a different one with similar results and less addictability.
Remember too you want to have a BROAD appeal. Making something considered relatively safe, user friendly, and something you can do on the weekend or at night and still function the next day is going to get mass use, vs something that turns you into a drug feign with one use.
Unfortunately, the easy tests for cannabis consumption detect metabolites that show whether you’ve smoked within the last few weeks, not whether you’re currently impaired. One of the states that recently legalized recreational cannabis included a “quantity of THC in blood” rule, but there’s really been no adequate scientific testing to justify the numbers or determine whether that’s even the right thing to measure. (Another unfortunate side effect is that the backup field test, “cop making you walk a line while shining a flashlight in your eyes and yelling at you”, seems to vary widely in reliability according to the color, gender, clothing, and attitude of the driver, just as it does with alcohol.)
2 Likes
That’s why I think the best bet is performance-based tests of impairment, especially if measuring devices can be designed to do the job. It could cover a wide range of chemical impairments as well as fatigue. It might even cover stupid.
