10,228 died from DUI crashes. In 2010 606 people died from an unintentional shooting.
Your selective cherrypicking of data aside…
What you’re saying is that the dangers you thrust upon the rest of society by owning a firearm is ethical and acceptable because it is less likely to harm people than drunk driving is.
That destroys your argument against driving under the influence of marijuana since it is also far less likely to harm people than drunk driving is as well.
Thanks for playing.
My argument is I wouldn’t operate a car or a firearm under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Numbers aside, it’s just not a great idea. We “protect” ourselves against much less likely events using such caution. Think of all the safety measures we have against unlikely, yet potentially lethal events? Things like the safety release valve on your hot water heater, or recalls on an item due to only a few injuries/deaths. Are all of these things prudent? What is the acceptable level of risk?
I will admit some hypocrisy here, as I am one to roll my eyes at nanny state laws and peoples over reaction to the dangers of certain subjects (not talking about guns here). The whole perceived and actual risk of something interests me greatly. And I do realize there is some grey area. One beer won’t completely impede your ability. Drugs have more variables of potency, doses, and how one reacts to them.
So, even though I currently lack the hard evidence to completely condemn driving stoned - I just can’t call it a “good idea” or present it as harmless. Would you like to go shooting with me after I toke up?
Of course we are not rational creatures. While I have never in my life mixed drinking and drugs with shooting, I have driven when I shouldn’t have after drinking.
I will admit some hypocrisy here, as I am one to roll my eyes at nanny state laws and peoples over reaction to the dangers of certain subjects … While I have never in my life mixed drinking and drugs with shooting, I have driven when I shouldn’t have after drinking.
I appreciate your honesty. I think a lot of people wouldn’t admit that. I’d say an overwhelming percentage of drinkers who are against marijuana (or fearful of its usage, etc.) have driven after consuming alcohol. Whether they admit it or not is another story. I’ve driven after drinking alcohol as well, but never any DUI convictions or anything like that.
So, even though I currently lack the hard evidence to completely condemn driving stoned - I just can’t call it a “good idea” or present it as harmless.
I think that goes back to drinking and driving.
As reflected in our breathalizer laws in most states, we as a society have determined that a certain amount of alcohol is an acceptable risk (harmless). I don’t think anyone would call it a “good idea” to drive after drinking, but if it’s done within moderation we consider it an acceptable risk.
As far as driving goes, I feel about the same with marijuana. If someone is well experienced with pot and handles themselves well under its influence, I think it’s ethical for them to drive a vehicle. If they partake too much and it cripples them, then I think it’s wrong to drive.
I also think it’s irresponsible to consume marijuana you’re not experienced with and jump into a car without first seeing how it affects you.
But, the nice thing about pot (unlike alcohol) is most people are not going to suddenly become more falsely self-assured in their ability to drive properly after they consume more of it.
As long was we’re confessing our sins…
Like an idiot, I smoked some weed with a girl in Hawaii just before I paddled out to surf in relatively large waves over a razor sharp reef. When the psychoactive effects hit me out in the water, it was a lot more powerful than I expected. I was so stoned another surfer even mocked me. I knew I’d done goofed.
Despite the embarrassment, there was no way in hell I was going to drop into any waves so I kept my stoned ass in the deeper water channel and just enjoyed myself by watching others surf while I was high. On the other hand, if she had given me a bunch of alcohol, I’m pretty sure I might not be alive today to talk about it (it was Pipeline).
In the past, I’ve partaken in some of the most powerful marijuana this planet has to offer here in Colorado. I wouldn’t have driven a car afterwards mostly because it would have been an unpleasant experience, not because I feared I was going to drive recklessly and endanger others. It just would have harshed my buzz having to deal with the responsibility of operating a vehicle and caused me some initial anxiety and sobered me up. Why bother partaking if I’m just going to harsh it by driving?
I’ve riden in a car with many people who were driving while high and never felt endangered. On the other hand, in my experiences with riding with people who’ve had even legal amounts of alcohol, I’ve definitely observed more reckless behavior and I’ve even asked to be let out of a car and took a cab. The two different experiences have been like night and day.
Most people who are stoned don’t really even want to drive, but I’ve seen plenty of people who have had their car keys taken away from them because alcohol severely damaged their judgement and inhibitions.
Should everyone drink and drive in all circumstances? Nope. And, I feel the same way with dope.
Would you like to go shooting with me after I toke up?
With someone I don’t know who has little or no experience with pot? Probably not.
On alcohol? Likewise, it depends on the company…
Wait, wait… pro-gun cowboys cherrypick data?
NEVER!
@Mister44 'merica: most guns per capita, most shootings (particularly mass shootings). Must be a coincidence. I also appreciate your honesty re hypocrisy but studies such as this one conducted in The Netherlands came through with conclusions that are pretty damning to your argument.
A prospective observational case-control study was conducted in the Tilburg region of The Netherlands from May 2000 to August 2001. Cases were car or van drivers involved in road crashes needing hospitalisation. Demographic and trauma related data was collected from hospital and ambulance records. Urine and/or blood samples were collected on admission.
…
The risk for road trauma was increased for single use of benzodiazepines (adjusted OR 5.1 (95% Cl: 1.8–14.0)) and alcohol (blood alcohol concentrations of 0.50–0.79 g/l, adjusted OR 5.5 (95% Cl: 1.3–23.2) and ≥0.8 g/l, adjusted OR 15.5 (95% Cl: 7.1–33.9)). High relative risks were estimated for drivers using combinations of drugs (adjusted OR 6.1 (95% Cl: 2.6–14.1)) and those using a combination of drugs and alcohol (OR 112.2 (95% Cl: 14.1–892)). Increased risks, although not statistically significantly, were assessed for drivers using amphetamines, cocaine, or opiates. No increased risk for road trauma was found for drivers exposed to cannabis.
So there you have it… a controlled study from a peer reviewed journal which tested based on accidents requiring hospitalisation found that alcohol consumption increases risk of road trauma but that cannabis has no increased risk. FANCY THAT!
Thanks man… need to blaze with you one day, fella.
Some things you’ve said are particularly salient and I think probably counterintuitive to anyone who does not smoke regularly. Here they are:
It just would have harshed my buzz having to deal with the responsibility of operating a vehicle and caused me some initial anxiety and sobered me up. Why bother partaking if I’m just going to harsh it by driving?
If I’m really blazed I know I’m really blazed and will not go anywhere for anything. Even the fridge seems too far at that point.
just before I paddled out to surf in relatively large waves over a razor sharp reef…
Damn man: we need to swap. Colorado guy loves surfing. Australian guy loves snowboarding. The reason this is particularly interesting is that you, despite being very high, identified the dangers and avoided the risk. When I snowboard I l∞ve to smoke weed, but there’s no fucking way I’m riding the park when I’m blazed. Unlike driving, a slight loss of balance could have me breaking my back so I know that park + weed = very risky and simply don’t do it (and yes, I learned this the hard way… closest I’ve ever come to a concussion).
I wonder why THAT is?
I would agree to this. Like most things, it’s not black and white. And with drugs, there are a lot more variables on how one is affected, where as alcohol is fairly consistent. And then there is the broader scope of weed not being the only drug out there people are driving under. I think my original issue was some of the attitudes of it being completely harmless, which in some cases it clearly is not.
So to be clear, I’m not one to demonize weed, nor do I want more regulations (I have been a voice for legalization for some time). I can appreciate having some sort of metric like we do with alcohol to determine impairment (which isn’t an exact science, but it’s at least a way to measure), but also am realistic enough to know that isn’t as easy and convenient as a breathalyzer. I don’t want people subjected to blood tests and the like on the whim of cop.
On the flip side, I would hope marijuana users were overzealous in their responsible use, both for the reasons of safety as well as the fact you can get in trouble doing it, and encourage others to behave the same way. Back to my hobby of shooting, one or two beers is not going to affect most people to point of actually becoming significantly more dangerous. But I have bowed out of outings because 1) the increase risk, even though minor, isn’t worth it to me and 2) I don’t want to be part of something that gives the sport a bad image, giving fuel to the anti crowds “drunk redneck” stereotype.
In both case, public perception is going to trump reality and I want to stack the deck as much in my favor as I can.
I don’t think I cherry picked anything. I compared accidental gun deaths vs vehicle deaths from being impaired while DUI. I make a point to note that it doesn’t separate what was alcohol vs drugs vs drug+alcohol. My point was that driving under the influence was obviously bad, and surmised that many of the gun deaths were also alcohol and drug related.
One study hardly makes things conclusive. As per previous comments, not everyone driving stoned is impaired enough to be a significant increased risk. I still can’t condone the practice as a “good idea”, and I would think one would want to practice their hobby to give it the best possible light in public.
[quote=“AcerPlatanoides, post:68, topic:23068”]
I wonder why THAT is? [/quote]
Just isn’t a stat they track, I guess. Or it’s buried and my 5 min google search didn’t find it.
you presume such a stat exists. your argument is faith based. gut based.
that’s not how you want other laws decided, is it?
[edit: I think driving stoned is a terrible idea]
Setting aside the actual usefulness of banning either… it’s a bit self-serving to compare the suggestion of banning a currently legal commercial industry with that of banning of a new one that hasn’t really gotten off the ground.
If both things are assumed to be bad, it’s not contradictory to focus on preventing the newer thing from being added into the mix. Getting rid of the established thing is a task of an entirely different scope.
I think driving stoned is a terrible idea
Keeping in mind that the effects of alcohol is more dangerous than pot…
Do you think that driving within the legal limits of alcohol consumption is a terrible idea as well? If not, why not?
I put it to you that the drugs trade is not an industry that needs to ‘get off the ground’. Be reined in and controlled sensibly, with an eye to tolerance and individual liberty, yes,
Setting aside the actual usefulness of banning either.
Now why would we do that?
If both things are assumed to be bad, it’s not contradictory to focus on preventing the newer thing from being added into the mix.
Actually, it is… unless one is to be an apologist for Dr. Kleiman’s ridiculous suggestion.
Getting rid of the established thing is a task of an entirely different scope.
No, it’s not… unless one is to be an apologist for Dr. Kleiman’s ridiculous suggestion.
Um wut. You don’t seem to understand this: One thing is, by the stats we have related to road accidents, seemingly less dangerous than another thing. That other thing has an almost globally accepted norm at which it’s okay to drive (0.05% BAC or above in the vast majority of countries where alcohol is legal) that will never change. Setting aside the other factors for which alcohol is worse than marijuana for health and for society in any aspect you’d care to name, it’s entirely reasonable for us to demand equal rights for something that is less dangerous, especially when the legal treatment of people who have been caught driving under the influence of cannabis is usually so starkly different from that of people who are caught driving drunk.
@Mister44 > One study hardly makes things conclusive.
I agree. Thing is that I’ve seen many studies that come to the same or similar conclusion but have yet to see research that suggests the opposite.
Simple: because you are setting it aside by hinging the the question of banning one on a stated desire to ban the other.
If you’re not willing to consider them independently, then you’re not making your decision based on whether banning either one of them would actually be useful.
I understand this just fine, thanks.
You guys both seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I support the idea of a ban, which is a question that I explicitly didn’t touch. Myself, I’d just prefer we actually looked at whether it would do any good. We don’t live in a world where no good is done unless you treat all things that are bad the same way. As you mentioned, the norms about alcohol aren’t likely to change… that does not mean we can’t take a hard look at what could happen if pot were treated the exact same way rather than the way it’s been treated up until now.
I don’t particularly think a ban on “pot bars” would actually work, or would actually have a real-world impact even if driving while stoned were just as dangerous as driving while drunk. But saying you have to call for banning existing bars for one drug before you can suggest a ban on new bars for the other is just silly.
[edit] I also have to notice that section of the article is a little disjointed… it says that they suggest “discouraging people from mixing marijuana and alcohol”, but then ties that to banning “establishments like pot bars” as though that would be directly related. Is there an assumption that people smoking pot away from home would then mix it with alcohol while people who didn’t, wouldn’t? The article doesn’t seem to say…
Okay… let’s all have a big study session while thousands/tens of thousands of people languish in jails or suffer legal or financial hardship because of something that, by all measures, is less dangerous than something that is already legally sanctioned.
Fuck that. Just as Cowicide is saying: the guy making the suggestion of stopping pot bars is obviously not well read on the subject and hence should shut the fuck up. His comment tacitly accepts the risk of alcohol to public safety and blatantly ignores all the research showing that marijuana is less dangerous a drug to use before driving.
[edited because my previous post was probably worthy of moderation for mean-spiritedness]
It would be really nice if you could respond to me, rather than setting up a strawman and replying to him as though he were me. The people with legal problems? They aren’t going to care whether “pot bars” exist or not.
The article states that the scientists think public resources should be spent on combating driving while drunk instead of driving while stoned, and includes suggestions that the legal BAC be lowered further. I understand you think not enough was said about fighting drunken driving, but that does not mean that pot can’t be treated differently from alcohol (based on an actual analysis of the risks) while still treating it much better than it has been up until now.
My point is clear. If someone is going to claim that pot bars are too dangerous for society, then it’s more than fair to ask them why they don’t support closing bars that serve a vastly more dangerous drug.
What I’m clearly showing is that he is basing his “recommendations” on bias, fear and ignorance instead of being rational. That is my point.
I think that driving under the influence is something I would be angry at myself for.
Whether it be lack of sleep, too much whiskey, a bad temper, low blood sugar, or marijuana.
It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about wise or unwise.
