Man answer the question, which was: Do you think that driving within the legal limits of alcohol consumption is a terrible idea as well? If not, why not?
Since you wrote “too much whisky” you have not answered the question because the law states that x amount is not “too much”.
I think helping you split my hairs is a terrible idea.
Excuse me? Is this in your standard internet argument boilerplate? For the last several days Cowicide and I have been responding to a multitude of comments that allege we’re saying that smoking weed and driving is safe - which neither of us have said. Who’da thought… a world where the stoners make more coherent, evidence-based arguments than non-stoners. Maybe you should toke up?
I’d also like to understand exactly what strawman you think I’ve, set up. You said: study this and treat them as separate entities. I said: people are languishing in jail and suffering financial/legal hardship because of being busted driving “while high”. Those people might already be in the system, but there will be hundreds or thousands more put in that position while inept focus groups discuss a topic that there’s already solid data on… it’s just data that doesn’t support your argument or the status quo and would suggest doing such research is a waste of time and resources. The reason I used quotation marks around the words “while high” is because many of the people who have been busted for driving while high have been busted because there were “detectable levels of drugs in their system”. Newsflash: marijuana is detectable for weeks after use - long after the high has worn off.
Finally your point that the article says “scientists” recommend the BAC is lowered further is incredibly misleading, since the article is entirely unspecific about where the 0.02% BAC figure comes from and the linked text goes to another NYT article that states:
the National Transportation Safety Board … recommended that the states reduce the allowable blood-alcohol concentration by more than a third, to 0.05 percent from 0.08 percent.
So they’re talking about lowering it to 0.05% BAC which was the figure I used in my previous comment and the BAC level used in the study I referred to in my first comment in this thread.
Split your hairs? I am unfamiliar with this idiom.
If you’re saying that you think I’m splitting hairs, I ask you how you think this argument would go if a cop pulled you over for speeding?
Pretty well if he/she were riding a luck dragon.
I will add that no law dictates my behavior in such matters. The legal limit is not part of my equation. I said my peace.
too much whiskey
What about “just enough” whiskey? Is it OK to drive in that case?
You seem to be saying that drinking in moderation is suitable for driving and that opinion would also be reflected in our laws involving breathalyzers. But consuming marijuana in any amount or circumstance isn’t OK?
I just don’t understand the logic behind that thinking considering we know for a fact that alcohol has far more adverse effects on motor coordination and judgment than marijuana does when it comes to driving a vehicle.
Your replies to me about “data that doesn’t support your argument” and people “languishing in jails” while we have a “study session” are pretty clearly not talking about anything I’ve actually written. Nothing I’ve argued would cause people to languish in prison, and I haven’t made any arguments that would be related to the data you mention. And yet, you’re acting as though you’re replying to me.
On the BAC thing, I pointed out that, according to the article, the specific scientists who you are saying were not talking about the dangers of alcohol, are actually saying something about it and making suggestions to limit it further. Now, the article may or may not be misleading. I personally don’t think it’s as misleading as you seem to, but if you think it is, you could kindly try asking the writer of the article to clear it up and leave me out of it. I’d recommend being a bit more reasonable when talking to her about it, though.
Incoherent much? Are you having trouble with the concept of chronology? You referenced my supposed strawman arguments before the comments you’ve just quoted.
Did you not write this:
Myself, I’d just prefer we actually looked at whether it would do any good.
and this:
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.
?
Do you think these ‘hard looks’ would be quick? If so you’ve got a naive idea about how quickly studies are done and changes are implemented (if ever). While we wait for these conclusions people will continue to be arrested and charged under the existing idiotic laws hence causing more people to unnecessarily languish in jail (as I made perfectly clear). The data I mentioned proves the dangers to society of driving while high are less than the dangers of driving under the legal BAC limit - contradicting your whole argument that we should look at it since we don’t know the dangers.
On the BAC thing: the article suggests (but does not directly quote) Dr Romano said that, but doesn’t point to where I can read that quote for myself. In any case I am not the one penning the article, nor quoting that section. If you’re gonna take a stance and use quotes to back up your stance then it’s intellectually dishonest to run and hide behind an author or a publication for defence because you didn’t check further into it yourself. I trust that Maggie’s portrayal of Dr Romano’s comments is accurate… I’m just not seeing where that number has come from.
@Nonentity I will from this point forth remember to ignore anything you have to say since you clearly lack any ability to stand behind the foolish things you’ve said. I will still poke you for my own entertainment though.
No, but you seem to be having trouble with both chronology and context. But since you’re now stooping to selectively quoting me to continue to argue against a stance I never took, I’ll step out of this and let you argue with yourself.
cow, since you are postulating things i might maybe think, i am afraid you are the only one capable of understanding that logic. it wasn’t me who thought that up, and for chrissakes, what a weak straw-man it is you’re trying to erect.
But please do go on at length about the only logical interpretations, and what i must have meant by not saying what you think i ought to have. I learn so much more about you when you do that. no reflection on me.
Mod note: Deep breaths. Relax. It has come to the point where we need to agree to disagree.
That is fantastic, 
Whether it be lack of sleep, too much whiskey, a bad temper, low blood sugar, or marijuana.
That basically says:
Combining alcohol (in moderation) and driving is ok.
Any amount of marijuana and driving is not ok.
I don’t know why you’d think I’d get anything else from that.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
