🏈 Ro's downward spiral saga continues...

[rueben]

Or you could stop being so damn judgemental about the non-violent behavior of other people.

Maybe, just maybe, we should be more judgemental of the actual violence that occurred in this incident ... by the cops.

:rolf::rolf::rolf:

 

[It Takes Eleven]

You're confirming my point: the reflex to criticize nonconformity, rather than questioning the requirement to conform. "Don't do this ... don't do that ... period." Like Pavlov's Dogs, just repeating what was beaten into you (metaphorically or possibly literally) without any critical thinking or curiously questioning the merits of the commands. In this thread we have posters heaping criticism on a guy who isn't [apparently] bothering or infringing on anyone else's rights. Yet only one poster (before me) expressed criticism of the cops. This is why we are losing freedom in this country. At the base of all our institutions and leaders are too many "good little citizens" who pile on offenders of [victimless] laws without first demanding a rationale for the laws. And if you agree that some laws are senseless and merely relics of an ignorant age, then you must expect people to break them. Hell, people already break useful laws as it is.

Not really, teach. This is a guy who is lucky he's a bad shot or he'd never have gotten a second chance in the league. Driving stoned or drunk on alcohol or purple drank infringes on my rights if I'm oncoming traffic. You've picked a bad case to argue for nonconformity.

RTR,

Tim

 

[musso]

Not really, teach. This is a guy who is lucky he's a bad shot or he'd never have gotten a second chance in the league.

I'm not addressing, much less defending, any past behavior of his. That's a Red Herring.

Driving stoned or drunk on alcohol or purple drank infringes on my rights if I'm oncoming traffic. You've picked a bad case to argue for nonconformity.

Claims require proof. Got any data for traffic accidents caused by marijuana, since that was the illicit substance he possessed in this incident?

 

[musso]

:rolf::rolf::rolf:

Are you implying McClain elected to be arrest and sent to jail?

 

[It Takes Eleven]

I'm not addressing, much less defending, any past behavior of his. That's a Red Herring.

Claims require proof. Got any data for traffic accidents caused by marijuana, since that was the illicit substance he possessed in this incident?

You weren't motivated to even check?

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/pdf/marijuana-driving-508.pdf

Even NORML states:

II. No Driving
The responsible cannabis consumer does not operate a motor vehicle or other dangerous machinery while impaired by cannabis, nor (like other responsible citizens) while impaired by any other substance or condition, including some medicines and fatigue.

Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs with motorists, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition. Public safety demands not only that impaired drivers be taken off the road, but that objective measures of impairment be developed and used, rather than chemical testing.

 

[musso]

You weren't motivated to even check?

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/pdf/marijuana-driving-508.pdf

You weren't motivated to even fully read your government source?

Although we know marijuana negatively affects a number of skills needed for safe driving, and some studies have shown an association between marijuana use and car crashes, it is unclear whether marijuana use actually increases the risk of car crashes.

Even NORML states:

II. No Driving
The responsible cannabis consumer does not operate a motor vehicle or other dangerous machinery while impaired by cannabis, nor (like other responsible citizens) while impaired by any other substance or condition, including some medicines and fatigue.

Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs with motorists, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition. Public safety demands not only that impaired drivers be taken off the road, but that objective measures of impairment be developed and used, rather than chemical testing.

So you're making another fallacious argument. Earlier you used a Red Herring, and now you're resorting to the Appeal to Authority. Evidence and reason precede authority, not vice versa.

Moreover, you're treading on a third fallacy of a Straw Man - arguing cannabis shouldn't be consumed while driving - when I haven't argued that it should. My defense of McClain doesn't require my defense of consuming while driving. I don't defend texting while driving either. I don't defend getting enraptured by an emotionally moving song while driving either. BUT THAT DOESN'T JUSTIFY ITS CRIMINALIZATION, especially for merely possession as the article claims. (Oddly enough, it says the officer smelled it, but McClain was only charged with possession.) I defended McClain, for starters, because he didn't injure or threaten anyone. Secondly, as your first source confirms, THERE ISN'T ANY PROOF of it causing auto accidents. Conceivably, yes, if someone was really, really high and tried to drive on a busy highway, but it just doesn't happen. It's not a public threat to the level requiring criminalization, and to my knowledge, there has been no death directly caused by pot. Plus, with the rising advocacy among NFL players to allow cannabis, something that is already widely used within the NFL and in the general public at large, it makes McClain's situation that much more absurd.

And another thing: no advocacy group like NORML is in the business of making frivolous claims (a) without concrete proof and (b) that go beyond their immediate goals. There is no benefit to them or any other anti-Drug War organization to argue secondary or tertiary points which can only be used against them in the court of public opinion. If anything, it pays to stay as close to conventional opinion as possible while deviating only when essential.

So, I'll give you another chance to answer my question: "Do you have any data on traffic accidents caused by marijuana?"

 

[rueben]

Are you implying McClain elected to be arrest and sent to jail?

You're killin' me! :rolf:

 

[JoshB]

You weren't motivated to even check?

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/pdf/marijuana-driving-508.pdf

Even NORML states:

II. No Driving
The responsible cannabis consumer does not operate a motor vehicle or other dangerous machinery while impaired by cannabis, nor (like other responsible citizens) while impaired by any other substance or condition, including some medicines and fatigue.

Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs with motorists, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition. Public safety demands not only that impaired drivers be taken off the road, but that objective measures of impairment be developed and used, rather than chemical testing.

Yeah but its almost possible to know if Marijuana is the cause of an accident. Just becuase its in someone's system doesn't mean they were high when they were driving. It could still be in your system even though you haven't smoked for two weeks. Until they come up with a better way of knowing whether someone is actually high DURING an accident these studies are kind of useless.

Regardless its stupid to take any mild altering substance while operating a vehicle, period.

 

[RTB_Eric]

Regardless its stupid to take any mild altering substance while operating a vehicle, period.

Move to a bigger city and experience some traffic during rush hour...you'll be blazin' as soon as you pull out of work.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

You weren't motivated to even fully read your government source?



So you're making another fallacious argument. Earlier you used a Red Herring, and now you're resorting to the Appeal to Authority. Evidence and reason precede authority, not vice versa.

Moreover, you're treading on a third fallacy of a Straw Man - arguing cannabis shouldn't be consumed while driving - when I haven't argued that it should. My defense of McClain doesn't require my defense of consuming while driving. I don't defend texting while driving either. I don't defend getting enraptured by an emotionally moving song while driving either. BUT THAT DOESN'T JUSTIFY ITS CRIMINALIZATION, especially for merely possession as the article claims. (Oddly enough, it says the officer smelled it, but McClain was only charged with possession.) I defended McClain, for starters, because he didn't injure or threaten anyone. Secondly, as your first source confirms, THERE ISN'T ANY PROOF of it causing auto accidents. Conceivably, yes, if someone was really, really high and tried to drive on a busy highway, but it just doesn't happen. It's not a public threat to the level requiring criminalization, and to my knowledge, there has been no death directly caused by pot. Plus, with the rising advocacy among NFL players to allow cannabis, something that is already widely used within the NFL and in the general public at large, it makes McClain's situation that much more absurd.

And another thing: no advocacy group like NORML is in the business of making frivolous claims (a) without concrete proof and (b) that go beyond their immediate goals. There is no benefit to them or any other anti-Drug War organization to argue secondary or tertiary points which can only be used against them in the court of public opinion. If anything, it pays to stay as close to conventional opinion as possible while deviating only when essential.

So, I'll give you another chance to answer my question: "Do you have any data on traffic accidents caused by marijuana?"

I don't need another chance. Many groups and organizations stipulate to the point. I don't need to go mining for data for something that's obvious. You apparently have more invested in this argument. Waste of effort to try to turn you.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/08/31/studies-show-results-of-legal-pot-in-colorado/

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Yeah but its almost possible to know if Marijuana is the cause of an accident. Just becuase its in someone's system doesn't mean they were high when they were driving. It could still be in your system even though you haven't smoked for two weeks. Until they come up with a better way of knowing whether someone is actually high DURING an accident these studies are kind of useless.

Regardless its stupid to take any mild altering substance while operating a vehicle, period.

I presume you meant "impossible" in the first sentence. I would think the level in your system would be somewhat similar to the level of alcohol in your system, that they would need to establish a threshold of what is acceptable. If it's legal in the jurisdiction, trace amounts wouldn't matter.

RTR,

Tim

 

[JoshB]

Move to a bigger city and experience some traffic during rush hour...you'll be blazin' as soon as you pull out of work.

Cant do it man, last time I was in Atlanta (few months ago) I almost had a full blown fuckin panic attack in that traffic. That shit is ridiculous.

I presume you meant "impossible" in the first sentence. I would think the level in your system would be somewhat similar to the level of alcohol in your system, that they would need to establish a threshold of what is acceptable. If it's legal in the jurisdiction, trace amounts wouldn't matter.

RTR,

Tim

Yes, I mean't impossible. I dont know enough about drug tests or whether or not they show "trace amounts" of weed or what so I can't really argue for what you're saying or against it, and weirdly I've never really seen anyone explain it.

 

[Tidestalker]

Yeah but its almost possible to know if Marijuana is the cause of an accident. Just becuase its in someone's system doesn't mean they were high when they were driving. It could still be in your system even though you haven't smoked for two weeks. Until they come up with a better way of knowing whether someone is actually high DURING an accident these studies are kind of useless.

Regardless its stupid to take any mild altering substance while operating a vehicle, period.

Agreed. How many of these bad drivers are causing accidents sober anyways? Just cause someone is high doesn't mean weed is the cause.

There's no real way to tell how impaired someone is when stoned. The "Pro's" can smoke for hours and be super normal. The "Joe's" can smoke a bowl and go full on retard. The amount in your system doesn't tell the story.

 

[TerryP]

The "Pro's" can smoke for hours and be super normal.

The "Pro's" must be smoking schwag if they're going for hours and are normal--which flies in the face of "Pro's."
In that same vein, guys that smoke a bowl and go full retard aren't getting in a car and driving the VAST majority of the time.

If your employer requires you to not test positive for drugs, either comply or go find a job that doesn't require it.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some to understand. It's not my business what Ro does. I'm certainly as far from a clinical psychologist as one can be. I do sense what I can only describe as amoral. Ro knows what he's supposed to do, he knows what he's not supposed to do. But, he doesn't see any value in the distinction between the two.

I find it interesting that the same people that will make the argument about "gimme my guns!" will say things like "he's dead to me" when it comes to this stuff...

You find an interest in making comparisons between things that are unrelated? One, a colloquialism--the other, a constitutional right debate. It's a cute sentence, bird--some style, some flair. No substance.

 

[planomateo]

Meanwhile, more accidents happen due to people on the damn phone...

 

[PurlJam]

Meanwhile, more accidents happen due to people on the damn phone...

 

[50+yeartidefan]

O wait...just blame it on the old gray haired people...you know ...the ones that wont stand for an entire game...
You know...blame IT.....lack of MJ tolerance...people on phones...the cops and the law...insufficient drug testing....the constitution.....what a turrible world we will leave behind..Turrible....just Turrible

 

[TerryP]

blame IT

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Lost me again....?????

 

[TerryP]

Lost me again....?????

Stephen King's, It

It (novel) - Wikipedia

Read the book. One of the best I've read in all genre's. That's Pennywise, the antagonist of the book.