USA Today reports that the increase in state-approved marijuana use is being accompanied by an increase in pot-related auto fatalities.
Gee…who could have seen that coming? Well, I did, among others, but never mind: far worse lies ahead. The consensus of American society is now that being able to get stupid for recreation is worth more death and addiction, and our cowardly political leaders have neither the wit nor the fortitude to swat away the lame rationalizations that have driven that position–“Hey, alcohol is worse, so why not add another destructive, useless drug to our societal pathologies?”—that have led to the dawning of a perpetually stoned America.
But not to worry: when the threat to our health posed by other non-essential pleasures looms, the government nannies are on it like piranha. The FDA, for example, has moved to make sure American can’t buy and eat cheese aged on wooden boards, because it, well, there really isn’t a good reason. Because they can, I guess. It couldn’t be because board-aged cheeses cause automobile accidents, workplace deaths and kids to fail at school, because we know our culture no longer cares about any of that.
Cheese-heads are out, pot-heads are in.
Cool.
It’s comforting that we have our priorities straight.
__________________________
Sources: USA Today, Overlawyered
Ethics Alarms 
I guess the FDA is concerned about mold growing on the cheese. Perhaps we should share this knowledge with our European friends. Why don’t they just mandate that we buy the stuff in an aerosol can? It’s soooo much healthier.
Actually the real reason for this action is that when you are stoned and have the munchies you don’t want to see your snacks undulating.
Quite possible that if you are stoned enough, you’ll eat the board, as well.
Great reply
Perhaps they don’t understand that my cheese was supposed to have mold growing on it. Next thing you know, we won’t be allowed mold on our pepperoni.
Yeah Jack, I saw the auto-accidents coming. I was always of the opinion that America’s war on drugs was damaging America, and that marijuana in particular should be decriminalized. But I was also of the opinion that there needed to be a roadside test, and consequences for driving under the influence, of which to the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been. It’s like America is incapable of doing the right thing the right way.
I think it’s logically inconsistent to take an anti-drug position, but be for alcohol. But that’s not really the issue, is it? Is it really the government’s job to tell you what you can and cannot do? Should the federal government have the power to throw you in jail for smoking a plant? Just the act of smoking the plant? If we believe the government has a duty to protect people from themselves, we SHOULD go back to prohibition, and ban cheese, and everything else that might hurt us, because big brother says so.
My thoughts anyway.
Here’s a quick summary idea: Fewer Laws, Harsher Penalties.
1. “I was always of the opinion that America’s war on drugs was damaging America, and that marijuana in particular should be decriminalized.” I just hate the “well, we can’t stop it efficiently, so lets legalize it” argument. This is a trope especially of teh Left, and is why we are getting open borders. If a conduct is harmful, and has minimal benefits compared to its harm, then just do a better job stopping it. Morality and Ethics 101: once the government says its OK, it becomes right. But it’s not right.
2.“But I was also of the opinion that there needed to be a roadside test, and consequences for driving under the influence, of which to the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been. It’s like America is incapable of doing the right thing the right way.” So because people want to drive stoned and drunk, I should be subject to police stops? Sounds like the TSA. Great.
3.”I think it’s logically inconsistent to take an anti-drug position, but be for alcohol.” I’m 100% against alcohol, which si a national scourge. But the horse left the barn , oh, 500 years ago. What is absurd is the argument that because we can’t control one deadly and addictive drug, it is inconssistent to try to control drugs that are not as embedded in the culture—like pot. If marijuana ever is as ubiquitous in the US as alcohol, we are doomed. And at that point, no law will work even a little.
3.”Is it really the government’s job to tell you what you can and cannot do?” When what you do makes you a burden on the rest of us, encourages children to become addicts and get people killed? Damn right it’s the government’s job. It tells us how fast we can drive and that we can’t take prescription drugs without genuine medical reasons. It’ government’s job to make sure society doesn’t descend into chaos. Is telling parents, workers, airline pilots, teachers and Presidents with their fingers on red buttons that it’s irresponsible to be stoned (who cares whether it shooting up or smoking a plant?) the government’s duty? Absolutely. Lots of stoned people make life for the rest of us worse. That’s a legitimate government concern.
I find it hilarious that the President and the anti-gun forces are willing to gut the individual right to self-defense “if it will save one child,” but the same people, many of them, are willing to make irresponsible conduct legal that will harm, and kill, children and adults because, hey, it’s relaxing, man!
My thoughts anyway.
1) The “people are gonna do it anyway” argument is related and equally flawed. You know, people are gonna murder anyways, so why make that illegal and punish it?
2) I don’t think he advocated for random stops and checks, rather, similar to alcohol stops, reasonable suspicion has to exist through conduct such as reckless driving, uncontrolled maneuvers, etc… meaning of course, someone blitzed off their rocker who manages not to endanger others through moral luck don’t get stopped.
Y’know…. I never would have painted you as a prohibitionist. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, because I kind of want to be wrong, but reading number three (a) there, you make it sound as if were it up to you, no one would be able to enjoy a beer after work, because alcohol is “a national scourge”. And I think that idea wraps up exactly what is wrong with the entire idea of prohibition. Far too often, FAR too often, we cater to the lowest common denominator. “Because a certain percentage of people abuse alcohol, no one should have alcohol, because some people drive faster than their cars, abilities, or the conditions allow, there are hard speed limits, because some people are obese and have heart conditions, we need to ban large sugary drinks, because a certain percentage of people will abuse MJ and drive, we need to continue the ban on MJ.” Now, I get that a certain amount of utilitarianism and thought is necessary to make informed decisions on this. But I utterly refuse to have my ability to enjoy anything that is not dangerous or damaging to anyone else infringed because of a lowest common denominator.
But more:
1. “well, we can’t stop it efficiently, so lets legalize it” First off, I didn’t say that. What I said was that the war on drugs is damaging America, and one of the things I would do was decriminalize MJ. I’m not talking about a border, that’s a red herring. If what we’re doing isn’t working, we should do something different. My opinion is that decriminalization is a good option for MJ. That will not be my opinion for everything.
2. You would not be subject to any more roadside tests than you are now. How many times have you been breathalyzed? Don’t drink and/or smoke and drive and don’t drive erratically, and you’ll be alright.
3.(a) “If marijuana ever is as ubiquitous in the US as alcohol, we are doomed.” Can you turn the rhetoric knob up one more notch? I just want to see what that looks like. Amsterdam. MJ is officially decriminalized, and has been for 30 years. Their government looked at public interest and struck a balance with the law that not only did not doom the country, but has been a major bump to tourism. Arguing against MJ decriminalization in America is not arguing against MJ, it’s arguing against Americans.
3.(b) was answered by what I said in my first paragraph. But I love your last point there, about gun control and drug laws. I like guns and drugs. I’ve never actually done drugs (make me #10? I think at this point). I like having the freedom to enjoy the little things in life. It is hypocritical, to take opposing views on gun control and drug laws.You’re right! Guns in America kill an average of 8000 people a year (granted, 60% are suicides, but that still leaves 3200) and MJ was attributed to cause 4080 car related deaths in 2012 (12% from the article you linked * 34,000 auto deaths in 2012).
1. I said, and meant, that if there was a way to eliminate alcohol, I would do it, but there isn’t a way, and hasn’t been a way, as Prohibition proved, so I am not a prohibitionist in any sense of the word, because starting a sociatally disrupting policy that can’t possibly work is stupid and unethical.
2. But pot and other recreational drugs are not and have never been as central to American culture, economy and social life as alcohol, so continuing laws making use illegal was never futile or pointless, until a bunch of elite pot fans, artists and irresponsible and none-too-bright politicians began glamorizing it in the 60’s, paying no attention to the horrible damage it was doing to the underclass, and kids.
3. However, anyone who says the pleasure of a beer after work is worth the millions of lives destroyed, ruined or ended every year by alcoholism, which is a scourge, and one I happen to know a great deal about, has despicable values and priorities. Yes, that undeniable pleasure and similar ones is not worth what it costs humanity, not even close. Nobody seems to question that calculus when applied to deaths from tobacco and the pleasure of a cigarette after sex or a good meal, but it’s the same thing. It’s not worth it.
4. Comparing one foreign city’s quirky libertine culture with a huge, diverse country is a terrific argument—a giant Amsterdam? I think there is one, and it is called “Hell.”
5. You do know that the right to protect yourself and own a gun is guaranteed in the Constitution for good reasons and that guns are, in fact,useful, at times essential, tools, while there is no right to make yourself useless and stupid, unemployable and dangerous, addicted and irresponsible by frying your brains embodied in that document, and that pot, unlike guns, has little societal utility? Of course you do. So you know your last paragraph is absurd.
Thanks! I was wondering what it would look like if you turned the rhetoric knob up to 11! You talk like pot is going to bring around the apocalypse. Millions of lives destroyed every year! Hell! Horrible Damage to the underclass! Scourge! (I really like that last one.)
1. You would do away with all alcohol, but realize that using history as a guide, it did more damage than good, and people rejected it. Unrequited prohibition? I see the difference between the two, but can you really not see the similarities?
2. I just don’t see reality backing up your theory. It’s like you’re attributing pot to the decline of everything. Aside from staggering prison statistics, I just don’t see anything macro being affected by pot.
3. Alcohol has been around since before history was recorded, and perhaps an element of darwinism or perhaps a measure of real need kept it from being the issue it is today… I just can’t get behind banning something outright because certain people abuse it. My family has a history of alcoholism, I’ve sat through Al-anon and Alateen, but there’s an element of personal responsibility I just can’t avoid. We might have to disagree on this one.
4. Canada then? Belgium? The Czech Republic? Israel? Italy? The Netherlands? Russia? Spain? Switzerland? Those are just the first world countries where Cannabis is decriminalized, and their examples can all be used in creating realistic, working guidelines.
5. The constitution wasn’t designed to grant rights, it was to limit government power. Rights are inherent in our humanity. I suppose if I wanted to get American Bumper-Stickery though, I could say “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Tex made a great point about the risk/reward analysis of actually living life, and while pot might not have the obvious utility of guns, I think it’s important to preserve as many choices as we can have, so while this conversation is about pot, I’d take the same position with a whole lot of other things too: “So long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, you should be able to do it. But you own the consequences of doing it.”
These conclusions derive entirely from “how much of life can we use government regulation to protect ourselves from?” It assumes the premise that it is the role of government to protect us from life. The entire progressive agenda as it formed in the late 1800s was built on “cleanliness is next to godliness” and after handling some basic and obvious needs has moved into the realm of triviality.
And of course, how can you argue with the logic of “well, if a certain manufacturing / design / preparation process increases risk of a product, why shouldn’t we stop it?” It is hard to argue against that. But is it? Life is experience. If millions of people really perceive an increased value (that is a better experience) from eating cheese that was aged on a board whose right is it to stop them?
If we really wanted to espouse this mindset, the only conclusion is that we should live in 100% sterile environments devoid of ANY action or interaction, because that might kill you. We should live 100% scripted lives that produce the bare minimum of nutrient intake.
But is that living? No. We have to accept risk in life and corporately we have to accept that sometimes people, in the act of commerce and civic interaction, die. Of even trivial matters, the control of which can only reduce the overall enjoyment of life for EVERYONE. So do we make everyone extremely miserable so everyone can live modestly longer lives (with no purpose)? I don’t think so.
On the flipside, a truly Progressive stance would be an utter ban on ALL drugs, alcohol included, because of the risks it poses to society. But we certainly know that the big push by the Democrats to make marijuana a big issue during the 2012 election cycle was to get a traditional Democrat voting block to the ballot. It had nothing to do with principle and certainly not consistent principle.
Humble
I agree with you that decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana would save us all a lot of headaches and costs, but I do not find being anti-drug logically inconsistent with allowing for the use of alcohol. I do not see the decriminalization/legalization advocates clamoring for legalization of crack, heroin, PCP or cocaine. The question is where do we draw the line.
I doubt that the move toward decriminalization or legalization is rooted in some belief of freedom to act as one chooses. Nor was the proscription against the drug based on the protection of the individual. I believe that the decisions are made based on the economics of the behavior. The economic and political cost to incarcerate a user became too high. Furthermore it did not affect the behavior in the first place. I call it a behavior because MJ advocates claim it is not addictive.
What I do find logically inconsistent is the idea that the government is hiking taxes on tobacco products as demand decreases They are extoling the dangers of primary and second hand smoke, as well as the impact of these substances on health care costs but make no mention of the social impact of having a stoned population. In MD tobacco generated well over 1/2 billion dollars in 2013. None of the revenue went to smoking prevention and less than 1% of the tobacco settlement monies received from the big tobacco companies went to public health initiatives. The state of MD and others enjoy a pure profit position when it comes to tobacco products while not being tarred with poisonous nature of the business on public health. Call me a cynic.
In Colorado where MJ is legal employers can fire a person after a positive THC test. Would you hire an employee that is known to be a drug user? If not, it won’t be long before we have a sizeable population of people using a legal substance that can no longer find work because of their chosen behavior. What will they do then, go on public assistance? Will they demand that laws be passed to protect them from being fired for MJ use?
I think you nailed it with this statement “It’s like America is incapable of doing the right thing the right way”.
“In Colorado where MJ is legal employers can fire a person after a positive THC test. Would you hire an employee that is known to be a drug user?”
That’s another great example of how our technology was never really developed to handle legal pot. Just like there’s no roadside test, the tests we have don’t give current numbers… THC can be stored in fatty cells and released gradually for up to a month. So for a profession where intoxication would matter… Say a Doctor, or lawyer, or taxi driver, or long haul driver or equipment operator or…. well you get my point. There is no way to tell if the guy smoked pot a week ago or an hour ago.
“…marijuana use is being accompanied by an increase in pot-related auto fatalities.” There are some significant flaws with drawing any firm conclusions from that study. I had trouble finding the original report, but I did find an earlier, less alarmist report on it. http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/marijuana-news-759/fatal-car-crashes-involving-pot-use-have-tripled-in-u-s-study-684515.html
1. It compared 2010 to 2000. It was still illegal in 2010 for recreational use, although 2000 was the year that Colorado allowed medical use.
2. As noted in the report, Marijuana can be detected for up to a week afterwards. The study can not demonstrate impairment. It’s entirely possible for a tripled rate of use to be accompanied by no increase in accident rates.
3. This is worth noting in general when discussing alcohol or drugs: An accident involves alcohol if any person involved in the crash is intoxicated. Regardless of driver/passenger status, or who actually caused the crash. I can only assume they use the same criteria for drug related accidents. Combined with point 2, I don’t see the study as evidence of anything beyond increased usage rates.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol-related_traffic_crashes_in_the_United_States
On a different note, I think your use of “accompanied by” is deceitful. It suggests, but does not technically assert, a relationship. IIRC, that was part of what you just complained about Rice doing.
I’m also going to need a cite for “more death” (I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that there is more addiction), but I’ll only accept it if it also accounts for beneficial effects. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/studies-claim-medical-marijuana-may-reduce-suicide-rates-traffic-fatalities/ Those studies may also be flawed of course, but if it reduces suicide rates more than it increases auto fatalities, it would be less death.
Small correction: A BAC of .01 is sufficient for “Alcohol related”. So, a passenger who drank one beer an hour before would be sufficient.
Your rationalizations remind me of the defenders of cigarettes who argued that the causal relationship between tobacco use and cancer hadn’t been proved. More people are driving impaired, and driving impaired causes more accidents, and more accidents cause more deaths. If you are determined not to believe that sanctioned pot use will kill people, fine—overwhelming evidence will arrive soon enough, of course. Me, I’ve seen enough already, but it should have been obvious that letting young people get stoned at will would also get them killed. And it will. And has.
The use of accompanied was ambiguous, not intentionally deceitful. I should have said,”Just as the states are looking to make it easier to get stoned, more auto fatalities are involving pot use.”
Wait and watch the statistical manipulation. If I were a gambling man, I’d bet defenders of pot legalization will say: the ratio of deaths from intoxicated driving to instances of intoxicated driving has not increased…
But that isn’t a useful statistic.
There was not a single rationalization in that post. I noted flaws with the study you linked to. You then proceeded to assert an increase anyways without any evidence. At no point did I say we should legalize it, I only pointed out technical issues with evidence you presented, and questioned the probability of a net increase in deaths.
I’m not claiming it won’t cause some individuals to drive impaired that otherwise wouldn’t, or that some of those impaired drivers will have accidents. However, at least some studies suggest that legalization has been correlated with a reduction in drunk driving, and marijuana’s effects on driving skills seems to be less than alcohol. If a significant number switch, the overall number of deaths would likely decrease with legalization. Useful statistics on cannabis impairment don’t seem to be available.
Basically, legalization will lead to specific deaths that wouldn’t have happened, but may decrease the total death rate.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/
I will backtrack on deceitful. I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. I wouldn’t give the same concession to Rice or the media.
With all due respect, I think the whole post is a rationalization, and an effort to avoid the natural conclusions of the data:
Columbia University researchers performing a toxicology examination of nearly 24,000 driving fatalities concluded that marijuana contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010, tripled from a decade earlier.
1. CONTRIBUTED TO, not “had someone in one of the cars who had smoked pot.”
2. Tripled from a decade earlier. The entire post was an effort to argue away that statistic.
NHTSA studies have found drugged driving to be particularly prevalent among younger motorists. One in eight high school seniors responding to a 2010 survey admitted to driving after smoking marijuana. Nearly a quarter of drivers killed in drug-related car crashes were younger than 25. Likewise, nearly half of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for marijuana were younger than 25.
Studies designed to show that pot legalization reduces drunk driving is obviously agenda driven. The problems of proving that are massive. Essentially you pulled everything you could out to question the central assertion: more kids are diving stones, and its not a good, safe or healthy development. I’m sure the pot lobby can shoot down all sorts of data using these techniques, and since the momentum is toward legalization, it will sufficiently muddy the debate to let us proceed to stoned America.
All these results show is that more people are using pot, hence more drivers are? THAT’s a deceitful argument.
You’re quoting the USA Today reporters, not the study’s authors, when you state “CONTRIBUTED TO, not…”. The study’s news release states:
http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/news/signs-point-sharp-rise-drugged-driving-fatalities
“The prevalence of non-alcohol drugs detected in fatally injured drivers in the U.S. has been steadily rising and tripled from 1999 to 2010 for drivers who tested positive for marijuana — the most commonly detected non-alcohol drug — suggesting that drugged driving may be playing an increasing role in fatal motor vehicle crashes.”
One of the authors, Dr. Guohua Li, stated:
“… ‘it is important to interpret the prevalence of non-alcohol drugs reported in this study as an indicator of drug use but not necessarily as a measurement of drug impairment. To control the ongoing epidemic of drugged driving, it is imperative to strengthen and expand drug testing and intervention programs for drivers.’”
The second sentence is a bit much for me given the first sentence, but it’s a policy question anyway. The first sentence is the focus for causation. The abstract is also reserved (link in the news release):
“… These results indicate that nonalcohol drugs, particularly marijuana, are increasingly detected in fatally injured drivers.”
Maybe the reporters got “contributed to” from the details. I didn’t pay to read the full study. But I doubt “contributed to” is in there when “detected in” is in the abstract and Columbia’s news release. Maybe it is causative as logic suggests, but this study doesn’t claim to be the proof the reporters declared it to be.
Agreed. Thanks for the clarification and analysis.
He in no way “rationalized” anything. He explained serious issues with your statement about the increase in accidents being caused by states legalizing pot. You know he’s right, too.
Your “it should have been obvious that letting young people get stoned at will would also get them killed. And it will. And has.” is nothing more than “think of the children/if it saves even one life.” Your rationale is the same used by people who advocate banning guns.
The NTSB study doesn’t deal with intoxication level, nor whether the intoxicated driver was at fault. And as Phlinn said, these numbers are from a period where all recreational use was still illegal.
Your support for the War on Drugs astonishes me, considering the vastly unethical behavior it actively encourages in law enforcement and government in general.
1. Of course he did. I’ve been listening to the full range of dodges and spin to justify drug use for decades—I know the drill.
2. Again, there is a Constitutional provision protecting guns, making the analogy a nullity. There’s no right to get stoned. Government has the power and the duty to prohibit dangerous conduct.
3. I have never endorsed the “War on Drugs.” I have said that they need to stay illegal.
4. What? Valid and important laws should be repealed because of enforcement misconduct? Wow. Well, there go ALL the laws, then.
That’s the second time you’ve rolled out the constitution in defense of guns now…. To quote you: “Legal is not the same as ethical” This is an ethics board. The constitution doesn’t null anything.
But maybe I’ve touched on something here. If guns didn’t have constitutional protection, and seeing as guns kill 8000 Americans annually, would government have the duty to prohibit dangerous conduct?
Of course it would. But guns, and properly too, are protected from an absolute prohibition, whereas drugs are not. Even drugs, under the safety and welfare clause, are not immune from limits and regulation, as long as it does not infringe on the right.
It already does, Humble. Murder is, you will note, illegal.
That’s because the Constitution, and its enabling document, the Declaration, define the ideals and values of the culture. They are not just laws. They are statements of rights and principles, meaning those values which are by the definition of this culture core to that culture. Breaching the values of the Constitution in this culture is per se unethical. The government’s role in defining ethics are epitomized by the constitution. It isn’t just a bunch of “laws.” It defines the culture of the US. It is as much an ethical document as a legal one.
And I apologize. I have not made that sufficiently clear, but it is the case. Laws that are unconstitutional are also, by our values, wrong: unethical.
Wow. I could have written this — if only pot were legal so I could calm myself down from the horror of agreeing with Scott.
That should tell you something…
Or HIM something…
Or YOU something.
But no. Drugs = bad, and consequences be damned; we will not stop until we stop people from doing things we don’t like.
Sounding stupid, Scott? Stoned? That would explain it.
No Jack, despite what you might think, not everyone who disagrees with you about legalizing pot is a dope fiend.
You ass.
No, but when they make comments like your last one, they sound like dope fiends. I should have clarified. Usually you are better at detecting sarcasm. I also recognize that in its extremities, the libertarian arguments for a drug-crippled America are not easily distinguishable from bad trips. Ron Paul’s argument for legalized heroin is pretty much the same as yours for pot.
Any alcoholics in your life Scott? I wonder. Some direct experiences with the attendant consequences of legalized addictive and consciousness altering drugs might be helpful as you feel your way back to rationality.
Several, most recovering, as well as a couple of recovering drug addicts.
The difference is that I don’t think I know how to live their life better than they do, be they actively in the grips of their addiction or not. I support people’s right to choose how they live their life, and that means they get to make mistakes. Horrible mistakes. Often life ruining (or ending) mistakes. But just because there are horrible possible outcomes doesn’t give you the fucking right to dictate what is and is not acceptable recreation, so long as the act does no direct harm to another. I support legalizing pot because the War of Drugs has lead to police having military grade gear – civilian departments in towns of less than 10,000 have APCs and the like. Money, cars and homes are confiscated on the suspicion of drugs, and even when proven that there is no drug interaction the people whose property was stolen have to take police departments to court to get it back. You and your War ruin countless lives, end futures, and in a very real sense war a war on the poorest because if nothing else they can’t afford council to avoid a felony drug conviction. You want ruined America? Look the fuck outside.
Oh, and one more thing…
You can actively go fuck yourself.
I’m done here.
How I LOVE dramatic and indignant exits!
“so long as the act does no direct harm to another.”
Oh, so only direct harm matters, does it? What a convenient theory. So a drugged out father does no direct damage to his children by being a lousy parent, or by not being able to provide support, or by being a deadly role model, so none of that counts. And he only indirectly causes my tax money to be paid cleaning up his mess.
This is how we get to the logic of “victimless crimes”…we just ignore the victims. Clever. But unpersuasive to anyone who hasn’t made up their mind via lock-step ideology.
Jack, you know what else causes car accidents? Eating in the car, drinking a soda in the car, changing radio stations, or hell, even additional people in the car. But we don’t outlaw those things. Just like we don’t outlaw driving while taking legal drugs that can be just as, if not more, harmful than pot. The nanny state does not work in these areas. Let this one go. We spend more on enforcement and it is doing no good. If someone does cause an accident — the remedy is through civil and/or criminal action, not through legislation.
You obviously are affected by people suffering from alcoholism in your life. As am I, as are many people. The cure for that is education and it is working — more and more with each generation. Let’s free up our prisons and over-burdened courts for true criminals please.
Beth, you are absolutely deluded. NOTHING is working against alcoholism, just as nothing will work once you allow drugs to be imbedded in the culture. Education? Kids are getting stoned in the fifth grade, despite 40 years of education. What worked was a consensus that using drugs were irresponsible and wrong. Now kids are told that they are cool. Or people like Scott say “I don’t care how much damage pot does to the poor and the young—hey, I can handle it, so my occasional toke is worth all the harm to the weak and the vulnerable. Ah, the nobility of libertarianism.
Hell, what’s there to teach? It’s bad for you, bad for society, period. The pot advocates have mocked all studies showing addiction and brain chemistry changes, but they are real, and especially dangerous for children. That the anti-drug efforts have been effective in keeping the damage from being much, much worse will be readily obvious in about 10 years, when it will be too late. I don’t relish saying “I told you so” then.
The removal of the societal consensus against drugs and the acceptance of irresponsible sex are th twin disasters left to us by the Sixties. Together, they are far more devastating to our welfare and future than any benefits of that decade can justify, civil rights excluded.
People who knowingly break laws are “true criminals.”
Oh, pot will be legal soon. The cultural momentum, fueled by selfishness and rationalizations, as well as just plain ethics muddleheadedness, guarantees it. Even though Alaska tried this, saw the signs of what lay ahead and backed off, I don’t see that happening again. And enough high-placed and influential spinners will hide the catastrophic results until it will be too late to do anything but resign ourselves to another few million or so crippled citizens, ruined families, addicted poor people, busted businesses, and wards of the state. And all so NORML members could have their comfy, risk-free tokes.
People might abuse something, so we must make it illegal!
So why not ban alcohol, or fatty foods, or gambling, or virtually anything else.
You think it will be ruinous. Fine. I don’t care. You and yours don’t get to decide what is safe or permissible – if I want to get home from work and have a joint, I shouldn’t have to risk a fucking felony in order to do so.
It’s an infantile position, Scott. If someone wants to go in a cave and get stupid, I don’t care. I do care if I have to pay for it, directly or indirectly, through treatment programs, healthcare, stupid mistakes on assembly lines, workers comp, lost jobs and productivity, badly raised kids, etc, etc, etc. You think alcoholism doesn’t cost you, Scott? A lot? You’re deluded. How about if it’s your father who’s getting drunk rather than working? I don’t care about victimless crimes, except that this isn’t victimless. I’ll give you this: agree not to have kids, not to use the roads, not to accept any kind of public assistance, not to be part of any workplace involving judgment, don’t drive, and fine—use all the pot you want. Otherwise, its a blight on society. I don’t care that uncreative, lazy pot-heads have to find ways to amuse themselves that don’t involve breaking laws and opting out of being responsible citizens. Tough. The problem is that so you can have your harmless joint, a million school kids develop toxic behaviors they don’t have the support system to handle. As I said—a selfish, irresponsible trade-off.
I don’t think suicides = auto fatalities for comparison. Not that the human lives aren’t inherently equal in value, but there is a substantive difference between someone killing themselves and someone being killed due to someone else’s negligence / intoxication. The latter statistic itself doesn’t have comparable values inside it… someone dying because of their own negligence / intoxication doesn’t even equal someone dying because of someone else’s negligence / intoxication.
Ethically, they are distinct. I thought about mentioning that. But the phrase I was responding to was “more death” which is an empirical measure that doesn’t distinguish anything. I don’t think you can wholly separate them though. Is there a point where you would consider X fewer suicides worth Y additional accidental fatalities?
I don’t have such a point personally. But the drug war requires enough force that it guarantees some innocent people will die fighting it.
Where’s the petitions for this? We have enough silly ones out there that making CHEESE should warrant some objection. Or are we going to be reduced to making it in our hidden basements under fluorescent lights in secret to get sophisticated cheeses? (or grown-up to the rest of the world)
Hey, I wouldn’t ask just anyone this, but you guys seem cool…can anyone hook me up with some board aged cheese? Just a taste, you know. I used to know a guy who brought it in from France, but he got busted. I just use a little bit on the weekend, to relax, and like, entertain my friends. It’s not like I have a problem or anything. I’m not like way into Fondue or anything heavy.
Hey, I wouldn’t ask just anyone this, but you guys seem cool…can anyone hook me up with some board aged cheese?
*************
Why don’t you make your own and then sell some of it?
Win / win.
Shh, I think the Plain people near here are starting a cheese dairy, and they do everything the old fashioned way…
Haven’t these people ever heard of lactobacillus? Cheese has it’s own little bacteria clean up crew. Not sure MJ does. But then, overuse of cheese results in one of the unforgivable social sins. Fat.
I couldn’t tell from the article, but has the overall rate of driving fatalities gone up in Colorado since 2000? Or the rate of DUI related fatalities?
As several people have noted, THC is detectable in the bloodstream for a very long time, long after the intoxication effects have worn off. I would also like to some metrics about how many people were charged with a DUI for marijuana, and whether that rate has increased.
But right now, the article is rather useless. At best, it indicates that more people smoke marijuana. But whether it is directly involved in more car crashes is still a question mark. I’m no fan of marijuana, but I hate lazy inflammatory articles like the one linked that don’t even bother to answer the question that they are reporting on.
Surely you understand that you literally don’t need a study for the statement “more marijuana use leads to more traffic fatalities”. Jack already showed the logical connections. Its mathematically true.
You may need a study to decide if the so-called quantifiable benefits outweigh or are outweighed by the negatives…
Actually, you would need a study for that. Does marijuana use impair driving? If so, how? How long can marijuana stay in the system before any impairment (if it exists) disappears? What level causes impairment? Etc. You would need to establish each step along the way to show that. Otherwise you are just taking it on faith, not very scientific.
Does marijuana cause intoxication / slowed motor skills / modified judgement and perception speeds?
Answer that question please. Just that one.
(PS, answering that question by saying “I don’t know” or “I need a study to show it” automatically grants you idiot status)
So requiring evidence of assertions makes one an idiot now? Only in America.
You’re an idiot.
(by the way, your subtle shift of terms doesn’t protect you), I said you’d be an idiot answering *that* particular question with an “I don’t know” or “I need a study done”. Since you expanded it to a generality of ALL assertions requiring evidence to try to cover yourself, you failed.
Of course certain other topics of unknown accuracy need to be studied. This one?
You’re an idiot.
I don’t know. I have never tried marijuana, so I don’t know the effects personally. But there should probably be some studies about the overall effects of marijuana on such things. That’s something I would want to see in a discussion about driving and marijuana.
You’re an idiot
To which I suspect you’ll reply, like an idiot, “well those effects don’t address driving”.
As though hopping in a car is a magical counter-intoxicant…
Really? Never tried it? Congratulations. You’re one of the four people I know who can say that…and I’m the fifth.
Make me 6 and my wife 7 and as far as I know, Sarge983 can be 8.
9.
10. This probably comes as no surprise to those who remember my post history and who some of my professional clients have been.
–Dwayne
Yep, never. A drug that makes me both fat and lazy is a drug I need to stay very far away from. I don’t need help in those areas. Plus, stoners are so boring. I couldn’t risk turning into one of those people.
This may be the first thing you have ever written that duplicates my position exactly. And the law-breaking thing, of course.
Make me number whatever you’re up to on the never tried it list.
Count me on the list of people you know, but know that I’m an elector who voted to legalize it in Colorado and have no regrets for my vote.
Never did it either, and never plan to. I’m not overtly fond of stoners either, given that they make my job even more awkward. Hell, the only time I even drink alcohol is during family holiday get-togethers. But like LeVier, I’d have voted for legalization had I lived in Colorado.
And I know some other people my age who can say the same (to my first sentence).
So, doing an admittedly short survey of the available literature does not support assertions that marijuana causes one to be a bad driver.
This is a study from the US Dept. of Transportation, showing that THC levels do not significantly effect diving skills (especially when compared to alcohol) and indeed often made drivers more cautious). http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/driving.htm
A survey of some of the studies out there: http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence
So, survey #1 uses an “it’s not the worst thing” rationalization. Good foundation so far.
And survey #2 is published by a pro-legal pot advocacy group. Solid sounding walls to build on that first excellent foundation…
Survey #1 does not use it’s not the worst thing”. It does go into detail exactly the pros and cons of THC, and its effects on driving. The results are mixed. It makes people more cautious drivers, especially in city driving. For long drives, it shows some mild impairment.
Link #2 doesn’t do any original research, it merely collects research that was already out there. You can quibble with the individual studies, I suppose, but you seem to quibbling with the people who collected the studies, which is rather irrelevant. The individual studies are either valid, or not.
What about all of the legally proscribed drugs that contain warnings on the side of “do not use while using heavy equipment” or “may impair driving”? A drug is a drug is a drug. We either become a society that encourages grown up behavior and appropriate punishments without prohibitions — or we go back to, well Prohibition. Pot is too easy to grow to regulate and punish. Our prisons are filled with “criminals” whose only crime was owning pot. Once in prison, the likelihood that they will commit real, serious crimes is virtually guaranteed — because they have had years taken from them where they could have been earning a college degree or a paycheck. It is virtually impossible for someone with a record to get gainful employment after prison. The enforcement of this law is doing more destruction to communities then possible increased traffic accidents. If the war on drug people feel that strongly on this issue, then all prescription meds that impair judgment also have to be outlawed because of potential risks to the public.
In any event, nothing in marijuana legalization states would prohibit employers from random drug testing of people in various jobs. I’m even subject to random drug testing and I don’t operate a train or a bus — but I do have access to important, confidential data.
Ok, I can be semi-sympathetic with certain aspects of some of those arguments. Not sure what it has to do with my comment to deery though….
Actually, deery is right. Because TCH stays in your system for up to a month, a toxicological study could find that someone had detectable THC in their system, but was not actually stoned, and was in an accident. Added to that, the increase of traffic accidents might also be attributed to more vehicles drving more miles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Has a lovely chart showing fatalities per vehicle mile traveled, it has generally gone down since… well… ever. This could be a cause of a correlation/causation error.
I’m skeptical, anyway. I would love to see the methodology.
No, for the point I’m making, which reiterates the logic of Jack’s assertion that deery opposed, I’m right. No study is needed.
Your point was “Surely you understand that you literally don’t need a study for the statement “more marijuana use leads to more traffic fatalities”. Jack already showed the logical connections.”
But that’s just not true. If you click on the link I quoted, there are fewer fatalities per mile driven even while pot consumption is rising. Hell, there are fewer fatalities period. 42,000 in 2000 to 33,000 in 2010 the ratio of fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled fell from 1.5 to 1.1.
Like I said, I’d love to see the methodology, but while it’s true that more people are smoking pot, and THC is apparent in more casualties, there is nothing that correlates increased pot usage to increased highway fatalities… Because pot usage has apparently tripled in the timeframe fatalities reduced 30% in frequency. In fact, the same data could be used to say that pot smoking makes driving safer… But that would be jumping to conclusions.
Nope:
1) smoking pot decreases reaction time, judgement time and motor skills
2) this increases risk in all aspects of life, most notably high speed situations.
3) increased risk, in the aggregate will increase quantity of times the risk results in the associated hazard.
It is simple logic based on probabilities. Literally undeniable. You can’t deny that marijuana has those affects on people’s motor skills and judgment and reaction time.
If overall *fatalities* per driven mile decrease, it would imply mitigating factors unrelated to inebriated drivers…
Such as better safety features in cars, faster emergency response time, better first aid protocols and better treatment at facilities.
““more marijuana use leads to more traffic fatalities””
Other mitigating factors? Absolutely! That was a tongue-in-cheek statement. But my point is that while all three of your points are true, there’s no data on it. What if someone who is smoking pot is less likely to drive? Or move… for that matter? What if behind the wheel, they drive an astonishing 15 mph on their quest to get munchies? When you make a statement of fact, the burden of proof lies with you, and there isn’t any proof here.
I just read a Canadian study that showed driving while using a cell phone is as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol and/or cannabis.
This isn’t the only time a similar study has reached a similar conclusion.
People who would never drive while under the influence of anything are still driving dangerously because they refuse to put their damn phones down.
These are the people who are causing accidents and these are the people who need to be punished.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710028/
Driving and cell phones
Alrighty folks. In Colorado, for stoned driving, we’ve set 5 nano grams of active THC per milliliter of blood. PA uses that threshold as a “guideline” as introducing evidence of impaired driving.
Active THC vs 11-Carboxy-THC.
The Michigan Supreme Court (People v Feezel, 2010) ruled that the marihuana metabolite “11-carboxy-THC” (the substance that stays in your body for up to three weeks) was a ‘derivative’ of marijuana As a derivative, 11-carboxy-THC was/is not a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Thus, a person who only has the metabolite cannot be prosecuted for zero tolerance drugged driving. Although it is illegal to drive with active THC, it is not illegal to drive with the 11-carboxy-THC metabolite.
So, to answer questions about testing, Active THC stays in your system roughly 4-6 hours. The stuff that stays there for weeks is the 11-Carboxy-THC.
Full disclosure: I have not used marijuana, but I have had its effects described to me in detail by people who have. My understanding of it is that it has at least two separate and notable effects, which can vary based on the particular strain. One of them is a relaxing effect, although some strains actually increase anxiety at some point after use. However, the relaxing effect makes it suitable for medical purposes such as treating seizures. The other effect I am aware of is an increase in the brain’s divergent thinking patterns; that is, it increases random association, enhancing creativity and making experiences more vivid. A user can increase this effect deliberately by increasing the quantity inhaled or ingested to the point where coherent thought is difficult, but this requires very high levels of intake. I am told that it is not chemically addictive, or toxic except inasmuch as inhaling smoke in general is toxic, but more on the level of incense rather than cigarettes.
In my opinion, people have a right to use the substance provided they do not take actions that put others at risk by doing so, such as driving. I see no reason to ban the substance, but one can certainly ban taking actions that become dangerous under its effects. As a transhumanist, I see nothing inherently wrong with using a form of technology to alter one’s mental state artificially. Marijuana does not seem like a harmful or dangerous way to do so, as long as one is responsible. I agree that people who use marijuana, or alcohol, for that matter, can become very boring and less able to have interesting conversations, although sometimes the opposite happens; it depends on who the person was to begin with and how they react.
On the other hand, the ethics system that I subscribe to and through which I come to the above conclusions is based on promoting consciousness. One of the root problems with this world is that humans get very easily addicted to mindsets, experiences, or control. Addictions are blind spots, limitations that a consciousness has picked up that allow it to be manipulated by the world instead of being its own master. An addiction occurs when a mindset, experience, or form of control automatically becomes a person’s first priority in certain situations even where the person would intellectually judge it to be subordinate to a more important goal. It is possible to get mentally addicted to pretty much anything: alcohol, marijuana, candy, sex, adrenaline, attention, solitude, et cetera. To a certain extent we all have addictions in that when our lives are changed we feel uncomfortable and stressed, but toning addictions down is part of empowering ourselves.
That being said, my ethics system leads me to disapprove of the use of marijuana (or other drugs, for that matter) as a means to induce apathy to escape the stress that would otherwise lead a person to self-improvement. My worldview draws a distinction between joy and well-being. Joy is a positive feeling towards one’s current circumstances. Well-being, however, I define as regularly developing new abilities or improving one’s point of view, or any sort of change that results in a person having a more harmonious relationship with the world and being able to promote harmony for other individuals. Here is where the “it’s the journey, not the destination” cliche comes in. Joy may be the destination that people try to reach because it is associated with a state of increased harmony, but consciousness, the process by which people try to reach asymptotically-increasing states of harmony, is what makes us people in the first place, with all the associated awareness and abilities, and it is consciousness that I prioritize.
Long story short: it’s okay to use drugs to augment one’s ability to improve oneself (especially if one has a disability that requires the use of drugs to bring mental functions within human normal), as a tool (yes, sometimes a crutch) to access mindsets you want to use but can’t invoke at will, or as a neutral form of recreation. Using drugs as a substitute for self-improvement so that one can stagnate without feeling bad about it is pathetic and not empowering at all.
I hope this post has been coherent, but I have an internal vocabulary that has developed in partial isolation, so if there is any confusion that you want resolved, please let me know.
I have noted that more than a few of the folks who are advocating legalization of pot are denying any experience with it. I’m not so lucky. I have used it, profusely, along with smack, crank, acid, Black Mollies, White Crosses and numerous other substances (somehow, I managed to miss crack and nose-candy altogether). I won’t say that I tried the other stuff because of the pot, but I doubt that I would have gone on to it had I never done any pot. So, from experience, I will tell all of you that if you want to make pot legal, take your best shot. I will do everything I can to stop you. It is NOT a victimless crime, it does not “expand your consciousness” and after a while, the high you get from it just isn’t enough. In addition to the things Tex has mentioned, it alters your time sense and negatively impacts memory. And I don’t need a study to tell me that.
A useful candid, ethical and most appreciated post. [Warning: Scott will now tell you to “eat a bowl of dicks.”]
I don’t mind. I generally agree with Scott even when he goes off on somebody. Just not here, on this subject. Way too personal to me.
More personal with you than me, for sure—and I consider it a very close to the bone issue myself.
I was recently reminded of this post. It’s worth noting that going by the preliminary numbers to date, this year hasn’t had any more fatal accidents since the same month in the previous year. If there is an upward affect, it’s too subtle to see in the data.
Radley balko plots out month by month data here. I suggest reading the whole thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
His raw information is from here.
http://www.coloradodot.info/library/traffic/traffic-manuals-guidelines/safety-crash-data/fatal-crash-data-city-county
That was supposed to be “since the same period in the previous year”. A couple of individual months were slightly higher.
I don’t use drugs (I even avoid prescriptions when I can) and I don’t drink any kind of alcohol. But I object to regulating anything where there is no victim. Simple use and possession in and of themselves impose no harm on anyone else. It is the after effects that can–CAN–not always DO–cause harm. But having said that, simply legitimizing marijuana use was throwing open the doors of the candy store. The sort of behavior that was highly controlled by individuals using marijuana is now less so, because now if there’s an incident, although compounded by the USE of the drug, it is no longer a whole different crime. It is an aggravating factor, but not another crime. So the psychological abandon with which users are now using is going to manifest itself in activity that was previously carefully guarded and watched so as to not betray the drug use. It is possible that we are merely seeing initial backlash, that when the excitement of legalized pot dies down, the numbers will level off. So let’s bring in the argument of “no life is worth this.” We need to be careful to avoid the knee-jerk reaction that happens when we experience loss, that of insinuating that our loss would not have happened if somethign were stricter. That may be true, but regulating all good behavior in the attempt to control bad behavior is the wrong approach. I personally don’t care if a stoner stones himself, I am not harmed in his actions. It is only the actions that harm others that should be controlled. For a comparison, check fatality rates immediately after the repeal of alcohol prohibition, if they exist.