AP: Sessions to end policy of federal nonintervention in state legal weed

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stokely

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2017
1,519
1,902
136
I'm guessing cell phones cause orders of magnitude more accidents (and deaths) than MJ. Screaming kids and parents turning around to threaten to turn this car around probably cause more too. Ban cell phones and kids!

Bottom line, what we have now is an abject failure unless you are in a cartel, part of a law enforcement group that gets funded by the war on drugs, or you own a private prison. Demand will always ensure a supply, so who should benefit by this supply?
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,381
8,131
126
Hell, even peanuts result in far more emergency room visits and deaths. There's 200,000 emergency room visits a year from food allergies. 90,000 of those are anaphylaxis of which about 80% are from nut based allergies. 1 in about every 7 minutes someone is being admitted to the ED with a peanut reaction.

Where's the peanut madness?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
i throw peanut shells out the window in legume crazed madness, fuck all yall haters
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,025
2,593
136
So, you're okay with death contributed to by marijuana...................
I am as well.
I also ok with some death contributed to by food and water, slippage in bathrooms, unprotected sex, etc etc

Rather the question to ask is what is a societally responsible and manageable amount of adverse consequences of marijuana should we allow, the very same question we ask about cigarettes. With tobacco, the more we have learned the more society has generally cracked down. The same happened with alcohol not (remember the MADD movement? Nowadays a DUI is basically a death sentence employment wise. 40 years ago it was something basically overlooked) . The reverse appears to be happening with MMJ. After a hard initial crackdown, the more we learn the more it's clear we were too harsh.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Therefore your question to me was dishonest in the first place. If the benefit doesn't outweigh the harm there's no reason to do it & inflict collateral damage.
oooh i just love to see your wiggle, wiggle, slither and tapdance. Have the balls to answer a question honestly for once in your life. Don't wait for your Party talking points, just stand up and speak the truth for a change.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Theres no definitive link betweeb MJ and vehicle accidents and lives lost. The concern trolling and faux outrage is nothing new.

we accept yearly losses by the hundreds of thousands in USA from just alcohol and tobacco. pretending like all of a sudden we need to be concerned about MJ is merely attempt to duhvert, and will only slow the process to legalization and the subsequent science to finding a generalized intoxication guideline and more immediate testing to confirm MJ was ingested in a recent enough instance to attribute to an accident.

But anyways, get them potheads!!
Why lie about it cheeser when it's so easy to check?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425742/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-car-accident-rates/?utm_term=.0b4cd1bab34d

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-washin/

http://www.bcmj.org/council-health-promotion/cannabis-and-motor-vehicle-crashes
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
There is no argument against legal marijuana that does not apply equally or to a far greater extent against legal alcohol. It is simply not a particularly dangerous drug, as all the evidence indicates.

I always find it funny that conservatives are all about big government so long as it comes to things like marijuana. It’s obvious to everyone paying attention that it’s due to tribalism and the culture war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Zaus

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,521
2,111
146
I don't think anyone is advocating driving while stoned. Driving under the adverse influence of any substance should be and is vigorously prosecuted. In one of the examples quoted by taj, there was a 3% increase in non-fatal accidents. It is correlative, but statistically not terribly significant, especially weighed against the societal costs of continued prohibition. Perhaps what that 3% shows is that education of the dangers of driving while intoxicated on THC need some adjustment, this is all new territory. Taxation will pay for awareness and enforcement campaigns.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
From one of the 'links'

"Roughly 10 percent of Washington state drivers involved in fatal car crashes between 2010 and 2014 tested positive for recent marijuana use, with the percentage of drivers who had used pot within hours of a crash doubling between 2013 and 2014, according to a new study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety."

And HOW exactly did they ascertain recent use much less last use? In younger times I had chosen to clean naturally as opposed to subbing or diluting when thinking of job hopping... I have documented self paid weekly 1 panel THCA tests that I would take at Concentra that I would have sent to GC/MS for quantification to see how quickly I was unloading to see when it would be OK to go take the real pre-employment one. I have myself documented taking over 60 days on two different occasions to fall under the threshold. So I will always call bullshit on these "studies" that pretend to know several different thing especially when using the terms recent use and last use. I could have gotten into an accident one month well into cleaning out and they would have used quantification to GUESS recent/last use and would have claiming my last use was withing the past day or two which would have been complete, and utter bullshit...

Sounds like the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety would certainly know when all those drivers last smoked, what level they came up with as being "intoxicated", etc!!! FFS...
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
I don't think anyone is advocating driving while stoned. Driving under the adverse influence of any substance should be and is vigorously prosecuted. In one of the examples quoted by taj, there was a 3% increase in non-fatal accidents. It is correlative, but statistically not terribly significant, especially weighed against the societal costs of continued prohibition. Perhaps what that 3% shows is that education of the dangers of driving while intoxicated on THC need some adjustment, this is all new territory. Taxation will pay for awareness and enforcement campaigns.

I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that people weren't already on the roads, stoned, for decades before any whispers of legalization on State levels were a thought... It's those who make the illogical leap that making it legal is going to do one of several things including: A) Make more pot smokers B) Make more pot smokers decide to drive instead of stay home. In addition the article about the 3% makes another illogical leap that the tick up in accidents were due to MJ. Could be Vicodins, could be beer, could be more tired people on the road.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
I don't think anyone is advocating driving while stoned. Driving under the adverse influence of any substance should be and is vigorously prosecuted. In one of the examples quoted by taj, there was a 3% increase in non-fatal accidents. It is correlative, but statistically not terribly significant, especially weighed against the societal costs of continued prohibition. Perhaps what that 3% shows is that education of the dangers of driving while intoxicated on THC need some adjustment, this is all new territory. Taxation will pay for awareness and enforcement campaigns.
that example was also discussed earlier in the thread with Starbuck. Testing doesnt indicate intoxication at this point. 3% increase could be from others factors. I offered that a couple people I knew of heading out to WA to look for work due to legalization. The 3% increase could be just from more people on the roads. The study also compared to neighboring states, which I doubt saw much of an rise in population compared to WA.

The next study showed no increase in fatalities. The part about that study that stood out to me was that it compared WA to states with similar traffic patterns.

Even the AAA article's initial big scurry headline ended up being a "we just dont know".

Im not really arguing about anything youre saying...seems a reasonable assessment, sans the correlative part. in this case, we still cant go with correlation == causation, as theres more science and research to be done. I dont exactly feel like the current Fed admin will be objective in this regard.
 
Last edited:

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,521
2,111
146
that example was also discussed earlier in the thread with Starbuck. Testing doesnt indicate intoxication at this point. 3% increase could be from others factors. I offered that a couple people I knew of heading out to WA to look for work due to legalization. Even the AAA article's initial big scurry headline ended up being a "we just dont know".
Yeah, I think I'm mostly with you, but don't want to minimize concern out of any internal bias I might have. If there are increases, the good news is that they seem quite modest, and it's not getting anyone killed.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,381
8,131
126
Yep, most states already have a law on the books about operating while impaired. That doesn't have to be just alcohol. It could be opiods, pot, sleep aids...hell I'm gonked out of my fucking head if I take a benadryl. I'd never drive after popping one of those because I'm a drowsy, slobbering mess for about 4 hours. Those are still illegal and I can be ticketed. Pot is no different.

The Washington post one basically saw a 3% uptick in minor collisions and zero change in fatalities. Some of that could easily be attributed to pot tourism and people simply not knowing their way around. Anyone ever drive Academy in Colorado Springs? That's miserable enough sober and prime to a ton of accidents. Throw in out of towners that aren't used to driving there and you are vulnerable to more traffic accidents.

As for the Washington times article, unless I missed it, they never mentioned how many of those accidents also involved alcohol. That's really the killer, mixing pot and booze. They are bad enough on their own, but downright deadly when mixed behind the wheel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,521
2,111
146
Yeah, you better not have anything to do or anywhere to go after mixing the two. I think people still underestimate how profoundly alcohol impairs judgement and reflexes even in fairly moderate amounts; mix it with most other things and you're in real trouble if you have to do anything requiring thought or coordination.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
oooh i just love to see your wiggle, wiggle, slither and tapdance. Have the balls to answer a question honestly for once in your life. Don't wait for your Party talking points, just stand up and speak the truth for a change.

Dishonest? you fairly define the term. If you're truly a legalization advocate, then you'll recognize there's a downside. I do. Would you favor legalization if the upside were not greater in your own estimation?

You're trying to have it both ways.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
From one of the 'links'

"Roughly 10 percent of Washington state drivers involved in fatal car crashes between 2010 and 2014 tested positive for recent marijuana use, with the percentage of drivers who had used pot within hours of a crash doubling between 2013 and 2014, according to a new study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety."

And HOW exactly did they ascertain recent use much less last use? In younger times I had chosen to clean naturally as opposed to subbing or diluting when thinking of job hopping... I have documented self paid weekly 1 panel THCA tests that I would take at Concentra that I would have sent to GC/MS for quantification to see how quickly I was unloading to see when it would be OK to go take the real pre-employment one. I have myself documented taking over 60 days on two different occasions to fall under the threshold. So I will always call bullshit on these "studies" that pretend to know several different thing especially when using the terms recent use and last use. I could have gotten into an accident one month well into cleaning out and they would have used quantification to GUESS recent/last use and would have claiming my last use was withing the past day or two which would have been complete, and utter bullshit...

Sounds like the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety would certainly know when all those drivers last smoked, what level they came up with as being "intoxicated", etc!!! FFS...
Maybe they just asked the drivers?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Maybe some of them were dead, too. Considering the fatal car crash part. However let's go on the surviving driver angle... I know that had I been smoking pot recently before killing someone behind the wheel I'd certainly admit to recent use... Not buying the honest pot smoker indicting themselves angle...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
CO & WA broke prohibition forever, particularly CO. State authorities have been stripped of statutes against cannabis at the Constitutional level. They have no law to enforce other than that defined by A64. The legislature can't change that & the Constitution can't be changed w/o a vote of the people. Oil & gas interests pushed for & passed a constitutional amendment making it even harder to change the Constitution.

President Mitt could have killed retail cannabis in its crib but then we'd just have a huge black market. Now, of course, it's way too late given the outright success of legalization here.

It is, however, amusing to watch ol' Jeff pissing into the wind. He's on the wrong side of History and of the truth as well.