The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal

[DanG 1]

Why can't we do both at the same time? Why are the two even connected in your mind?

Cancer kills more people than drunk driving, so why don't we start worrying about drunk driving after we cure cancer, okay?

- Dan G

[AggieDave 6]

Drunk driving is a choice with consequences for all of society. I have no training or ability to cure cancer, but I do have the ability to help keep other people safe from drunk drivers.

Cancer isn't a choice. Unless you're suggesting tougher penalties for persons who contract cancer.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[BIGUN 1,312]

Quote

Cancer kills more people than drunk driving, so why don't we start worrying about drunk driving after we cure cancer, okay?

OK. We'll do it your way...

***A Reuters news story quoted Dr. Nuttall as saying, "Smoking cannabis on a regular basis actually depletes your lung of protective antioxidant substances...and this may have chronic long-term implications for young individuals." Those antioxidants protect cells against damage that can lead to cancer. The study found that marijuana users showed more signs of damage than those who smoked only cigarettes.



Marijuana- and tobacco-smoking are damaging to the lungs, but marijuana smoke has 50 to 70 percent more known carcinogens than tobacco smoke. In 1999, Dr. Zuo-Fend Zhang of the Jonsson Cancer Center at the University of California Los Angeles linked marijuana-smoking with head and neck cancers. He said, "Many people may think marijuana is harmless, but it's not. The carcinogens in marijuana are much stronger than those in tobacco." A year before, Dr. Marinel Ammenheuser and her colleagues at the University of Texas Medical Branch found evidence that marijuana-smoking causes the same kind of damage to DNA as tobacco.

Source:
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/medical-marijuana-causes-cancer/
http://www.motleyhealth.com/articles/2009/02/marijuana-causes-testicular-cancer.html
http://www.fitsugar.com/997104


And, yes there are studies upon studies for both sides... but what we don't need a study for is DUI and fatalities.... so, let's not add additionally impaired drivers to the road, please. Don't really care what you do in your house, drink, smoke, toke, coke, etc. Just please don't take it out on the road. Unfortunately, once things get "legalized" people will push the envelope.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[n23x 0]

So... How does that response in any way address what DanG said?

Why don't you just say this:

Just please don't take it out on the road, for ALL things that might impair your driving and be potentially harmful to others on the road.

Can you comment on your perceived increase in drivers under the influence, given the legalization or decriminalization of drugs? Or is this a binary, "one is too many", issue for you?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

And, yes there are studies upon studies for both sides... but what we don't need a study for is DUI and fatalities.... so, let's not add additionally impaired drivers to the road, please.

On what basis do you claim that more drug impaired drivers would use the roads if drugs were decriminalised?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[downwardspiral 0]

I recommend you watch Super High Me

Not trying to change your mind but being so firmly against legalization, it wouldn't hurt to at least know something about the plant and how people use it.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

And, yes there are studies upon studies for both sides... but what we don't need a study for is DUI and fatalities.... so, let's not add additionally impaired drivers to the road, please.

On what basis do you claim that more drug impaired drivers would use the roads if drugs were decriminalised?

Seems like a given that if people no longer have to discretely partake in their own homes, that more of them will be driving afterwards. Will it be a big problem? No idea. But I think it's common sense to expect some increase.

[nerdgirl 0]

I just want some empirical data.

( ... oy vey ... back to more (hopefully) thoughtful comments.)

Altho' I would not claim to fully understand Keith's opposition, I do very highly respect his opinion and I'm very much interested in understanding why his objection is so strong. I assume there's good reason and reasoning underlying it.

The issue of impaired driving is one that needs to be addressed.

When I was in grad school, there was an unsuccessful effort to get a methadone maintenance clinic (long term drug treatment for heroin addiction) located near where I lived (mid-sized midwest city). The closest one was over 100 miles away, still might be.

I viewed the issue through a public health lens - harm reduction. Harm reduction is *an* approach. One that I think is among the most effective. Common objections to harm reduction programs are that it substitutes one behavior for another and doesn't address root causes. Some of my neighbors viewed it very differently than I did.

Some humans have used recreational drugs throughout history. We've spent a lot of money, invested a lot of time, and LEOs and others have died trying to implement and enforce policies of the 'War on Drugs.'

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

The issue of impaired driving is one that needs to be addressed.

It's already addressed.

Quote

Driving under the influence: It is unlawful to drive while under the influence of marijuana (or alcohol or any other drug) by Vehicle Code 23152. "Under the influence" is not specifically defined in the statute, but is interpreted to imply some degree of impairment. Therefore the mere fact of having taken a toke of marijuana does not necessarily mean one is DUI. For evidence of impairment, officers may administer a field sobriety test. Arrestees may also be required to submit to their choice of a urine or blood test under Vehicle Code 23612. Since marijuana is detectable for much longer periods in urine than in blood (several days vs. several hours), a positive urine test constitutes much weaker proof of recent use and impairment than a positive blood test. If you haven't smoked marijuana recently and are not under the influence, you are better off to choose a blood test, since you will probably pass it. However, if you are a chronic smoker or have smoked recently, you are better off to choose a urine test; even though you can expect to test positive, the question will at least remain open as to whether you were actually "under the influence" at time of arrest.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[DZJ 0]

Not long ago I was in Humboldt County, California, where a literally mind-blowing quantity of marijuana is grown. This, I understand, is perfectly legal at the state level. Despite this it remains thoroughly illegal at the federal level, with periodic raids by federal authorities.

I don't know about decriminalisation, but it would seem that a coherent set of laws and policy would be a good point to start with.

(The same applies in Britain, incidentally, where our government happily commissions expert research and then pointedly ignores it when it doesn't report 'correct' findings.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Not long ago I was in Humboldt County, California, where a literally mind-blowing quantity of marijuana is grown. This, I understand, is perfectly legal at the state level. Despite this it remains thoroughly illegal at the federal level, with periodic raids by federal authorities.

Use of pot for medical purposes (with a rather liberal definition) is permitted in CA, but that does not cover the massive fields in Humboldt. Most of that is as illegal as anywhere else in the country.

I'm not sure how you become a legal grower, but most of the action centers around the distribution centers, of which there are many in San Francisco and Oakland. Unfortunately, a lot of crime surrounds them, and yes, they are frequently raided by the Feds, at least the Feds under Bush.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Seems like a given that if people no longer have to discretely partake in their own homes,

On what basis do you suggest that people have to discreetly partake in their own homes?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The idea is that there is a level in between: For example, parking in a no parking zone or simple speeding are against the law and you get sanctioned for it, but you don't get a criminal record.

So it's all about raising money? Then it is the same as "legalize it and tax the hell out of it", with the only difference that some will pay the tax for themselves and like 1,000 others who wasn't caught. Taxing it seems to be a more reasonable and less resource-waste approach.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Seems like a given that if people no longer have to discretely partake in their own homes,

On what basis do you suggest that people have to discreetly partake in their own homes?

It's the only place where one can safely commit the horrible crime of smoking pot with little fear the gestapo will bust down the door. I'm sure some is done at friend's house, and in California, people are a bit more brazen about doing it in public. But legalize it, and people will smoke it a lot more often in public. (unless the antismoking people extend their fight beyond cigarettes and ban smoking anywhere)

I'm not placing a value judgement on that, but I'm convinced that legalization translates to higher usage away from home.

I guess one question would be what the laws would say about public consumption. You can't drink outside in California. You can in Nevada. You can drink at a venue like a stadium or restaurant.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

This has been an issue of discussion many times here in SC, with little empirical data, as I recall. Eight years into a policy, the experience of Portugal may provide such.

and mexico...

Quote

Last month, the U.S. government’s own Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, released its policy-shaping “2009 International Narcotics Strategy Report.” As the bureau had to admit, “U.S.-purchased or stolen firearms account for an estimated 95% of the Mexico’s drug-related killings.”

Nowhere in the report was it emphasized, however, that there are at least 6,600 licensed gun dealers in the four states adjacent to the Mexico border. Or that legal loopholes grant thousands of other unlicensed gun "enthusiasts" and collectors across the country to sell their wares, without inspection or oversight, at weekend gun shows across the country.

“A vast arms bazaar is rampant along the four border states, enabled by porous to nonexistent American gun laws,” The New York Times editorialized on February 27, 2009, after the indictment of George Iknadosian, a gun-shop owner facing federal charges for knowingly providing weapons to members of the Sinaloa cartel. “There should be immense shame on this side of the border that America’s addiction to drugs is bolstered by its feckless gun controls.”

The shame is warranted, and worth pondering. The action that needs to be taken, on the other hand, can afford no such luxury, because the people who have the misfortune to live in one of Mexico’s deadly drug war zones have already become the casualties of our demanding drug habits, our orgiastic worship of guns, and our obsession with profit without concern for consequence.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/132120/mexico%27s_drug_war_bloodbath%3A_guns_from_the_u.s._are_destabilizing_the_country/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[BIGUN 1,312]

Quote

Marijuana isn’t harmless.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, overall drug use is down, but eighth- and 10th- graders are using it more often than they did in the 80s.

Teens are three and a half times more likely to attempt suicide if they smoke marijuana before they are 17, according to a study by Dr. Michael Lynskey of the School of Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

Children and young adults who use marijuana are 17 percent more likely to develop major depressive disorders later in life, 23 percent more likely to have alcohol dependence and a whopping 40 percent more likely to have substance use disorders, said Dr. Judith S. Brook of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

Things get worse when anyone does drugs and gets behind the wheel of a car. According to the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an estimated 32.8 million people 12 or older drove under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 10 percent to 22 percent of drivers involved in crashes had drugs in their system.

That year, more than 42,642 people died on U.S. roads. Not all of the deaths were caused by drugs, but many of them could have been prevented if drivers had not been under the influence of drugs while driving.

On Aug. 17, 2007, Richard Hill smoked some marijuana and then went for a drive on the wrong side of the road. He collided with Todd Kirtley’s car. His 10-year-old daughter, April, was in the car with him. Kirtley is now paralyzed and might never be able to walk again. Hill was sentenced to eight to 15 years in prison.

Kirtley will never see his daughter again.

Source: http://ocolly.com/2009/02/06/the-burning-question-should-marijuana-be-legalized-anti/

Note: "10 percent to 22 percent of drivers involved in crashes had drugs in their system. That year, more than 42,642 people died on U.S. roads." Using this stat, isn't it ironic that ~4000-8000 automobile fatalities are those with drugs in their system, but "generally" those in favor of legalizing marijuana throw rocks at the fatalities that are alcohol related?

On a personal note, my cousin Chris came back from Vietnam. He left a bright intelligent young man with the world in front of him. He was in the Navy and was did not see any combat. What he did see was an introduction to seemingly harmless marijuana. He came back from 'nam and would hang around the guys smoking dope... Marijuana turned into MJ and alcohol, both turned into smoking thai sticks, then coke, then heroin, then combinations of all. One night Chris on some combination of cocktails decided to drive home... He didn't make it and the father of the family driving the other vehicle didn't make it.

<not directed at nerdgirl>

So, here's my suggestion and you won't like it... Driving while impaired that results in the death of another should warrant the death penalty. I mean if it was a death penalty for the other person; doesn't it seem fair that it should be a death penalty for the impaired driver?

I'm willing to step to your side of voting for the legalization; if you are willing to step to my side of the death penalty being on the same bill for those who take a life while impaired. But, you won't agree to that will you?

Keith

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Butters 0]

Just because your cousin was irresponsible doesn't mean everyone is irresponsible. Should we take away the freedoms from the majority because of the actions of the minority? No!

PS: Should someone get the death penalty if they get in an accident that results in the death of another while eating, drinking, putting on make-up, talking on the cell-phone, texting on the cell-phone, etc...?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[BIGUN 1,312]

Quote

Just because your cousin was irresponsible doesn't mean everyone is irresponsible. Should we take away the freedoms from the majority because of the actions of the minority? No!

Without my cousin in the equation, did you read the part about 4000-8000 deaths PER YEAR. That's a whole lot of irresponsibility for which to account. You know... kinda like everyone jumping up and down about 4,000 soldiers dying over a five year period, but this many in just a one year time period.

Quote

PS: Should someone get the death penalty if they get in an accident that results in the death of another while eating, drinking, putting on make-up, talking on the cell-phone, texting on the cell-phone, etc...?

Impaired vs. distracted... but I am actually in agreement with you on this point. I do think the taking of any life whether distracted or impaired should be exceedingly severe.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Just because your cousin was irresponsible doesn't mean everyone is irresponsible. Should we take away the freedoms from the majority because of the actions of the minority? No!

Without my cousin in the equation, did you read the part about 4000-8000 deaths PER YEAR. That's a whole lot of irresponsibility for which to account. You know... kinda like everyone jumping up and down about 4,000 soldiers dying over a five year period, but this many in just a one year time period.

I did read the part about 4000-8000 deaths PER YEAR. Do you know what percent of our population that is? Once again, should we take away the freedoms from the majority because of the actions of the minority? No!

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Without my cousin in the equation, did you read the part about 4000-8000 deaths PER YEAR. That's a whole lot of irresponsibility for which to account.

I read it, but I don't see the foundation for the claim. For starters, the claim is that 10-22% of accidents involved drivers who testing positive for drugs, not 10-22% of fatalities. And testing positive may or may not translate to impaired.

We've long known that alcohol is involved in roughly half of the fatalities, so that's 20,000 of them.

BTW, the gateway myth was disproven a long time ago. Your cousin wasn't happy, so he kept looking for a new substance to solve his problem. Given that a rather large portion of Americans (not including me) have smoked pot, where are all the crackheads?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Teens are three and a half times more likely to attempt suicide if they smoke marijuana before they are 17, according to a study by Dr. Michael Lynskey of the School of Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

I cannot find the exact study case, but I really doubt it was a properly controlled double-blind study (which would get several groups of different teens, and have all groups to smoke marijuana). If the study limits itself to only those who already smoked, then it cannot answer the question whether the marijuana was a cause for those suicides, or whether those who were mentally likely to commit suicide started smoking marijuana.

Same with the rest of the study.

Quote

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 10 percent to 22 percent of drivers involved in crashes had drugs in their system.

Note that survey does not mention "illegal drugs", which makes it useless to prove your case.

Quote

That year, more than 42,642 people died on U.S. roads. Not all of the deaths were caused by drugs, but many of them could have been prevented if drivers had not been under the influence of drugs while driving.

This is called "speculation", and could link those death to everything, from alien invasion to global warming.

Quote

On Aug. 17, 2007, Richard Hill smoked some marijuana and then went for a drive on the wrong side of the road. He collided with Todd Kirtley’s car. His 10-year-old daughter, April, was in the car with him. Kirtley is now paralyzed and might never be able to walk again. Hill was sentenced to eight to 15 years in prison.

Yet another useless example. This was not illegal pot smoking which resulted in crash. This was driving under influence - which is already illegal. What is your point?

Quote

On a personal note, my cousin Chris came back from Vietnam. He left a bright intelligent young man with the world in front of him. He was in the Navy and was did not see any combat. What he did see was an introduction to seemingly harmless marijuana. He came back from 'nam and would hang around the guys smoking dope... Marijuana turned into MJ and alcohol, both turned into smoking thai sticks, then coke, then heroin, then combinations of all. One night Chris on some combination of cocktails decided to drive home... He didn't make it and the father of the family driving the other vehicle didn't make it.

This is a good example to prove that banning drugs has absolutely no effect on safety. They ARE banned; did it help Chris?

Quote

So, here's my suggestion and you won't like it... Driving while impaired that results in the death of another should warrant the death penalty. I mean if it was a death penalty for the other person; doesn't it seem fair that it should be a death penalty for the impaired driver?

What if another person left paralyzed, should we amputate arms and/or legs on the impaired driver? If an impaired driver collided with another car which had family of three and people from both cars died, should we also have death penalty for the members of impaired driver family?

Quote

I'm willing to step to your side of voting for the legalization; if you are willing to step to my side of the death penalty being on the same bill for those who take a life while impaired.

You're now sound like a Congressman who says "I gonna side up with you on providing benefits to disabled veterans if Chrysler gets a $5B loan".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[BIGUN 1,312]

Quote

Quote

Teens are three and a half times more likely to attempt suicide if they smoke marijuana before they are 17, according to a study by Dr. Michael Lynskey of the School of Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

I cannot find the exact study case, but I really doubt it was a properly controlled double-blind study (which would get several groups of different teens, and have all groups to smoke marijuana). If the study limits itself to only those who already smoked, then it cannot answer the question whether the marijuana was a cause for those suicides, or whether those who were mentally likely to commit suicide started smoking marijuana.

Same with the rest of the study.

Quote

(0.44 seconds) - Design Cross-sectional survey conducted in 1996-2000 among an Australian national volunteer sample of 311 young adult (median age, 30 years) monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs discordant for early cannabis use (before age 17 years). http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/4/427

Quote

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 10 percent to 22 percent of drivers involved in crashes had drugs in their system.

Note that survey does not mention "illegal drugs", which makes it useless to prove your case.

Quote

Conversely.... they didn't say cold medicine either; so I think it's safe to say what the intent was.

Quote

That year, more than 42,642 people died on U.S. roads. Not all of the deaths were caused by drugs, but many of them could have been prevented if drivers had not been under the influence of drugs while driving.

This is called "speculation", and could link those death to everything, from alien invasion to global warming.

Quote

You're extrapolating the parts instead of the sum and accuse me of,"speculation?"

Quote

On Aug. 17, 2007, Richard Hill smoked some marijuana and then went for a drive on the wrong side of the road. He collided with Todd Kirtley’s car. His 10-year-old daughter, April, was in the car with him. Kirtley is now paralyzed and might never be able to walk again. Hill was sentenced to eight to 15 years in prison.

Yet another useless example. This was not illegal pot smoking which resulted in crash. This was driving under influence - which is already illegal. What is your point?

Quote

Perhaps you should re-read the part where...smoked some marijuana and then went for a drive

Quote

On a personal note, my cousin Chris came back from Vietnam. He left a bright intelligent young man with the world in front of him. He was in the Navy and was did not see any combat. What he did see was an introduction to seemingly harmless marijuana. He came back from 'nam and would hang around the guys smoking dope... Marijuana turned into MJ and alcohol, both turned into smoking thai sticks, then coke, then heroin, then combinations of all. One night Chris on some combination of cocktails decided to drive home... He didn't make it and the father of the family driving the other vehicle didn't make it.

This is a good example to prove that banning drugs has absolutely no effect on safety. They ARE banned; did it help Chris?

Quote

The point being that Chris may have not gotten in the car IF he knew that he was facing a death penalty. Maybe not, but he would have been off the roads if he lived and they died.

Quote

So, here's my suggestion and you won't like it... Driving while impaired that results in the death of another should warrant the death penalty. I mean if it was a death penalty for the other person; doesn't it seem fair that it should be a death penalty for the impaired driver?

What if another person left paralyzed, should we amputate arms and/or legs on the impaired driver? If an impaired driver collided with another car which had family of three and people from both cars died, should we also have death penalty for the members of impaired driver family?

Quote

On point number 1) Life in prison. No Parole. On point number 2) Was the impaired driver killed? if not, then yes; Death Penalty... if the family got in the car with the impaired driver, then they should also face some form of contributory negligence penalty. Ya know a friends don't let friends drive impaired kind of thing.

Quote

I'm willing to step to your side of voting for the legalization; if you are willing to step to my side of the death penalty being on the same bill for those who take a life while impaired.

You're now sound like a Congressman who says "I gonna side up with you on providing benefits to disabled veterans if Chrysler gets a $5B loan".

Quote

That's apples and oranges... what I sound like is someone who's willing to be receptive to the legalization of cannabis if you're willing help keep drunk/impaired/high drivers off the road with exceedingly stiff penalties. Ya kinda need to work with me on this... you need my vote.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm willing to step to your side of voting for the legalization; if you are willing to step to my side of the death penalty being on the same bill for those who take a life while impaired. But, you won't agree to that will you?

I can't and don't presume to speak for nerdgirl, but I would personally be against supporting legislation that is based on the unsubstantiated (and incorrect, in my experienced opinion) assumption that marijuana impairs driving ability to an extent that requires taking steps to keep drivers off the street after they've smoked.

Would you favor the death penalty for someone who is causes a fatal accident because they were eating a Big Mac? How about if their impairment was caused by using their cell phone? Changing the stations on the car radio? Cold medicine? More than 12 hours since they slept? Talking to their kids in the back seat? Thinking about that meeting with the boss earlier in the day? Thinking about what to have for dinner tonight? Being young, inexperienced, and attending/having attended a school without a drivers education program? Being in a bad mood or driving while angry? Where should we draw the line?

Unfortunately, the driver's seat is not a sterile environment. Few drivers give 100% of their attention and optimal ability to the task at hand. Nearly everybody knowingly drives with some sort of impairment or distraction. Driving/riding as a passenger on public roads is not a safe activity. While it's safer than skydiving, participants are still subject to pay your money, take your chances. The fact is, drivers can do everything correctly, and still be involved in, or even cause, an accident, some of which, unfortunately, are fatal.

Singling out one of many activities or circumstances which can cause impairment, very minimal impairment at that (see this post for additional information and links to corroborating studies), without respect to the level of impairment caused by the activity or circumstance, is not an acceptable way to address the issue.

Quote

Note: "10 percent to 22 percent of drivers involved in crashes had drugs in their system. That year, more than 42,642 people died on U.S. roads." Using this stat, isn't it ironic that ~4000-8000 automobile fatalities are those with drugs in their system, but "generally" those in favor of legalizing marijuana throw rocks at the fatalities that are alcohol related?

Or, stated another way, 78 percent to 90 percent of drivers involved in crashes did not have drugs in their system. It would be foolish to use that statistic to support legislation to criminalize sober driving. The fact is, without knowing what percentage of drivers are driving with drugs in their system, knowing the percentage of drivers in the subset of drivers involved in crashes doesn't offer any meaningful information, especially without further breaking down the data in terms of which drug(s) are found in the system, and at what level they are detected. We cannot assume that the mere existence of drugs in the bloodstream is the primary factor of all accidents involving people who may have drugs in their system.

The editorial draws conclusions not supported by the data presented. It appeals to emotion rather than presenting a logical argument.

From the editorial:

Having never tried marijuana or any other illegal substance, I couldn’t tell you what drives people to take drugs. I couldn’t tell you what possesses them to seek out more drugs. I don’t even understand why they try them in the first place.

It’s like drug users are stuck in the third grade and the school bully tells them they should eat the brown thing he gave them that looks suspiciously like a cat turd.

He promises that it will be good, it will help them relax, it will help them focus, it will help them be anything in the world they want to be. And in the end, they take a bite of the turd and are surprised when it does none of those things. They just have a serious case of halitosis and a hankering for their next turd.

You can tell me how wonderful it is and how much it has opened your eyes to a new world of possibilities or how it’s just like alcohol but better. All I’m going to notice is that your breath smells like bull hockey and you probably need a bath.

In other words, Ms. Foster is admitting that she's arguing from a position of ignorance. You wouldn't ask your banker about the best way to install a shower head in your bathroom. You wouldn't seek advice about identifying the best diamonds among different pieces of jewelry. You wouldn't go to a bricklayer for advice about setting up a CD ladder. Why would you accept advice about drugs from someone who admits that they have no first hand experience with them?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

(0.44 seconds) - Design Cross-sectional survey conducted in 1996-2000 among an Australian national volunteer sample of 311 young adult (median age, 30 years) monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs discordant for early cannabis use (before age 17 years). http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/4/427

Some problems with this study are pretty obvious even for a layman like me. If you scroll this link down and read the extracts from "Related letters", the most problems will appear right away - "For example, drug use and problems were measured via uncorroborated self-report, which can be unreliable"

Quote

Quote

Conversely.... they didn't say cold medicine either; so I think it's safe to say what the intent was.

There are a lot of drugs which affect driving ability, but aren't cold medicine - like sleep aid drugs. Therefore your assumption is biased.

Quote

You're extrapolating the parts instead of the sum and accuse me of,"speculation?"

The sum is combination of parts, so if you have one or more parts incorrect, it's very likely that your sum is not valid either.

Quote

Perhaps you should re-read the part where...smoked some marijuana and then went for a drive

So what is your point? There are similar cases where the person drank some vodka and then went for a drive. Should drinking vodka be outlawed because of this? What is your point?

Quote

The point being that Chris may have not gotten in the car IF he knew that he was facing a death penalty. Maybe not, but he would have been off the roads if he lived and they died.

I doubt it. The DUI penalties are harsh - you just quoted a story where a drunk driver gets 15 years in prison. If risk of spending 15 years in prison did not affect his decision, it's not unlikely death penalty would. After all, most people go on the road without intention to kill someone, so he'd just think "this cannot happen to me" - as he likely did.

Quote

On point number 1) Life in prison. No Parole.

Well, this means that:

- All drunk drivers will hit-and-run if they are able. Next day some would submit to police and admit to hit-and-run, but not to drunk driving. The penalty for hit-and-run is very small comparing to prison for life, and even if you get caught while running, adding extra ten years over prison for life without parole is negligent.

- A lot of them will likely to resist arrest, including armed response. After all, they already got their prison for life without parole, which is not really different from death penalty, so killing couple of more cops doesn't really matter anymore. You cannot spend two lives in prison.

Those are just obvious consequences. I believe there will be more.

Quote

On point number 2) Was the impaired driver killed? if not, then yes; Death Penalty... if the family got in the car with the impaired driver, then they should also face some form of contributory negligence penalty.

No, the case I describe is different. For example, drunk driver A killed driver B and his wife and daughter, and was also killed in crash. Eye-for-eye now requires us to kill wife and daughter of drive A as well, right?

Quote

That's apples and oranges... what I sound like is someone who's willing to be receptive to the legalization of cannabis if you're willing help keep drunk/impaired/high drivers off the road with exceedingly stiff penalties. Ya kinda need to work with me on this... you need my vote.

Exactly, that's apples and oranges. We already have drunk/stoned drivers on the road. The drug control law does not help keeping him off the road like it didn't help Chris. I'd say your point is not grounded.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[BIGUN 1,312]

This is turning into a circular discussion that's going to land nowhere. Have a good night.

...My apologies to nerdgirl for hijacking the thread.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.