Drug deaths, guess?
- Thread starter TexasFreedom
- Start date
Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:
drt4lfe
Active Member
drt4lfe
Active Member
A critical measure of the organization’s impact on dangerous driving behavior is the number of alcohol and drug related crashes (DUI/DUID caused crashes). DUI/DUID caused crashes are more than twice as likely to result in injuries or fatalities. In CY 2014, 34.1 percent of DUI/DUID caused crashes resulted in injuries or fatalities, compared to 11.5 percent of non-DUI/DUID caused crashes.
The Patrol’s goal with respect to DUI/DUID crash reduction was not met; the agency experienced a statewide increase of alcohol and drug caused injury and fatal crashes by 6.9 percent, instead of the 10.0 percent reduction called for in the 2014 Strategic Plan.
DUI/DUID Caused Fatal and Injury Crashes Investigated by CSP Troopers
The Patrol’s goal with respect to DUI/DUID crash reduction was not met; the agency experienced a statewide increase of alcohol and drug caused injury and fatal crashes by 6.9 percent, instead of the 10.0 percent reduction called for in the 2014 Strategic Plan.
DUI/DUID Caused Fatal and Injury Crashes Investigated by CSP Troopers
Gazrok
A True Doomsday Prepper
Many die from sleeping drivers too. Or do you propose outlawing sleeping as well?
See how silly this line can go?
My point is that so far, you can't even prove that a SINGLE death was CAUSED by it. Because, the drug stays in your system for DAYS, so there is almost NO empirical way to PROVE they were HIGH/IMPAIRED when in an accident vs. ANY other factor, EVEN in cases where it was the ONLY drug in their system. The entire argument is built on a lie. A statistical fantasy.
REREAD the links you cited again. Please point out where it specifically says MJ impairment, vs. the generic term DRUGS (which include substances that CERTAINLY can impair driving). And again, EVERY SINGLE STATISTIC you pointed out is false when it comes to weed, because there is NO way to prove impairment as it is in your system for days. The ONLY data that would apply, is in a case where the at fault driver failed a field sobriety test, while ONLY weed was in his system. Show me THAT, then I can consider your argument.
Last edited:
Silent Earth
A True Doomsday Prepper
Kill em all and let your gods sort them out.
Gazrok
A True Doomsday Prepper
the link you provided is the same as mine. you just need to avoid substituting the word "drugs" with "marijuana" because "drugs" is a catch all term, and a bogus one to use for statistics, because each has a MUCH different effect on driving....and impairment, as well as being in your system or not after the impairment wears off.
drt4lfe
Active Member
Many die from sleeping drivers too. Or do you propose outlawing sleeping as well?
See how silly this line can go?
My point is that so far, you can't even prove that a SINGLE death was CAUSED by it. Because, the drug stays in your system for DAYS, so there is almost NO empirical way to PROVE they were HIGH/IMPAIRED when in an accident vs. ANY other factor, EVEN in cases where it was the ONLY drug in their system. The entire argument is built on a lie. A statistical fantasy.
REREAD the links you cited again. Please point out where it specifically says MJ impairment, vs. the generic term DRUGS (which include substances that CERTAINLY can impair driving). And again, EVERY SINGLE STATISTIC you pointed out is false when it comes to weed, because there is NO way to prove impairment as it is in your system for days. The ONLY data that would apply, is in a case where the at fault driver failed a field sobriety test, while ONLY weed was in his system. Show me THAT, then I can consider your argument.
I never mentioned sleeping drivers, not sure how it got changed to that......I would not doubt the Colorado State Police as far as what causes the vehicle deaths they investigate....I see no reason why they would....they haul a lot of people in for blood tests and I see no reason why the people giving the blood test would also lie about the results unless someone is trying to hide the real number of high drivers using weed.....that I could believe....the Government oftens hides bad things that they said was good at one point.....my argument is valid.....I work with Impaired Drivers everyday after they were arrested, charged and found guilty, whether it was booze or drugs.....I see it everyday and weed drivers are very dangerous and have killed people and it will get worse......that I will bet you any amount of money on because it is a sure bet......weed is a dangerous drug regardless of what all the weed smokers say....behind the wheel is not where a weed smoker should be.....or a drunk.....they both kill and will kill more....just Fact...
There are many people that are dependent on opiates to have any quality of life. I use the word dependent not addicted because the doctor tells you that this will happen. I have family members that if not for the opiates, would not be able to even walk. They never use more than prescribed and if you didn't know they were taking the drug, you would never know from their demeanor.
My point being, that the people that use the drugs just to get high should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but those who use it properly, leave them alone.
The problem with the addicts is that the pills are outrageously expensive. $80 per pill or so. They instead go and score heroin which is $10 per dose. Which leads to drugs laced with God knows what messing with the wrong crowd and getting into selling and prostitution.
The government takes the statistics from (all) drug users and makes it very difficult for the people that actually need the pain relief. The two categories need to stay seperate.
My point being, that the people that use the drugs just to get high should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but those who use it properly, leave them alone.
The problem with the addicts is that the pills are outrageously expensive. $80 per pill or so. They instead go and score heroin which is $10 per dose. Which leads to drugs laced with God knows what messing with the wrong crowd and getting into selling and prostitution.
The government takes the statistics from (all) drug users and makes it very difficult for the people that actually need the pain relief. The two categories need to stay seperate.
Gazrok
A True Doomsday Prepper
That's just it. It's NOT fact. It's pure fiction. As I said repeatedly, a blood test means NOTHING. It cannot prove impairment for weed. It stays in the system for days. ONLY a field sobriety test, with weed as the ONLY drug in the system, could PROVE impairment, and NONE of the articles or links you mentioned state this was done, so it's a complete BS interpretation of the data.
This is why statistics should be a mandatory class in high school vs. college, as should logical fallacies, because the use of these falsely interpreted stats are a direct appeal to authority fallacy. (It comes from the Police, so why would they lie?). It's not that they are lying per se, but they are incorrectly applying the data from the blood tests, to INFER impairment DUE to weed, even when in most cases other substances actually are the cause of impairment.
This is why statistics should be a mandatory class in high school vs. college, as should logical fallacies, because the use of these falsely interpreted stats are a direct appeal to authority fallacy. (It comes from the Police, so why would they lie?). It's not that they are lying per se, but they are incorrectly applying the data from the blood tests, to INFER impairment DUE to weed, even when in most cases other substances actually are the cause of impairment.
Maverick
Top Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 10,652
- Reaction score
- 26,523
As far as cannabis goes I don't care if one smokes it or not, I just don't want it around me or the property but as far as it being harmful, no worse than cigarettes and spirits. As long as the Feds keep it illegal I don't want it on the property, In the Feds eyes cannabis and firearms in the vicinity of one another isn't a good thing. I have too much invested in my life for the Feds to get an attitude with me.
I will say this, I've seen a whole lot of attitudes from folks that didn't get their nicotine fix Vs the ones that only smoked cannabis, that their tells me cigarettes have a far greater impact of bringing out Mr Hyde.
"Now the state of Colorado has offered up its answer. Under House Bill 1114, the answer is five nanograms. If a blood screen detects five or more nanograms of THC (that's delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) per milliliter of blood in a person's bloodstream, that individual is considered legally under the influence of drugs. Washington has also set its intoxication limit at five nanograms per milliliter.
But the question is not that simple. What is marijuana impairment -- what constitutes being "too high" to drive -- and how can we scientifically evaluate it, particularly in a law enforcement context? Moreover, how can police officers test for it conclusively at the roadside, where blood tests aren't available? How lawmakers define and answer these questions will have a lot to do with marijuana policy in the U.S. going forward, and unfortunately the body of science describing marijuana's effects on the brain and body -- though vast -- isn't exactly bound by broad consensus. Five nanograms per milliliter is a place for policy to start, but it's by no means the last word determining how high is too high."
https://www.popsci.com/science/arti...tates-how-will-police-regulate-stoned-driving
I will say this, I've seen a whole lot of attitudes from folks that didn't get their nicotine fix Vs the ones that only smoked cannabis, that their tells me cigarettes have a far greater impact of bringing out Mr Hyde.
"Now the state of Colorado has offered up its answer. Under House Bill 1114, the answer is five nanograms. If a blood screen detects five or more nanograms of THC (that's delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) per milliliter of blood in a person's bloodstream, that individual is considered legally under the influence of drugs. Washington has also set its intoxication limit at five nanograms per milliliter.
But the question is not that simple. What is marijuana impairment -- what constitutes being "too high" to drive -- and how can we scientifically evaluate it, particularly in a law enforcement context? Moreover, how can police officers test for it conclusively at the roadside, where blood tests aren't available? How lawmakers define and answer these questions will have a lot to do with marijuana policy in the U.S. going forward, and unfortunately the body of science describing marijuana's effects on the brain and body -- though vast -- isn't exactly bound by broad consensus. Five nanograms per milliliter is a place for policy to start, but it's by no means the last word determining how high is too high."
https://www.popsci.com/science/arti...tates-how-will-police-regulate-stoned-driving
Smoke is smoke, no matter which plant you get it from. (tobacco is a plant too you know)
Now, cigarettes have something added that probably contributes. I can smoke Virginia Red Cake tobacco in a pipe, or even get it second hand from someone else, and I have no reaction. But if I get just a slight whiff of someone smoking a cigarette I have an allergic reaction. Burning grass (both lawn grass and MJ) bothers me a little.
Gazrok
A True Doomsday Prepper
So far, 100% of those I know who use MJ and have also smoked cigarettes, totally agree.
Here's the thing...and why I'm so passionate on this. My wife is a chronic pain patient. The doctor prescribed drugs she has to take each day, just to get up and go to work....destroy her appetite and make her nauseous. A friend (who was going through chemo for cancer) suggested Cannabis. Just a couple of tokes before dinner, and she can actually eat food without nausea. So yeah, I think the demonization of this plant is absolutely ridiculous (even her docs said they can't "officially" recommend it, but did on the down low).
Maverick
Top Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 10,652
- Reaction score
- 26,523
Cannabis was political in the late 1930 as it was in the early 1970s and remains so today and the only reason it was totally banned in the early 70s was that the Supreme Court found the tax on cannabis illegal. Cannabis was in many medications in the US late 18oos and the early 20th century till the Feds got a corncob stuck up it's ###!
My 84 year old mother has glaucoma and macular degeneration. So I'm for anything to keep her happy and the pressure down in her eyes. It is funny to watch though. I always hated the stuff though. I could stay in bed all day.
Maverick
Top Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 10,652
- Reaction score
- 26,523
Being a fan of pipe smoking I never tried Virginia Red Cake I know McClelland (McClelland tobacco fan here) is one of the ones that make Virginia Red Cake, may have to try it. Currently smoking Matured Virginia no. 24, Dark Star and 7 Seas Royal
McClelland #5100 Red Cake. Some don't like it because they think it's too bland but I love it. If and when I take up pipe smoking again that will be the main tobacco. Then I'll spice it up occasionally with some Perique.
The biggest problem I had with the McClelland Red Cake was that it will burn out a pipe in no time if you're not careful. I ruined my favorite pipe with it.
It does need aging.
The biggest problem I had with the McClelland Red Cake was that it will burn out a pipe in no time if you're not careful. I ruined my favorite pipe with it.
It does need aging.
Gazrok
A True Doomsday Prepper
Just seems that with every new law concerning even prescription drugs....I'm made to feel like a damn criminal and drug dealer every time I go to the pharmacy.
She's prescribed Oxycontin even as a breakthrough pain med, and yet 9 times out of 10, I can never get it filled anywhere, because there are strict limits on how much a pharmacy can have....so they are always out. (Often, I've tried 6 different ones that day, and ALL are out of it....so at this point, we've given up, and the doc scolds us, and all we can say is....well doc, tell me where we can fill it, and we'll be glad to.) Luckily, she rarely needs it...but when she does, she basically just has to grin and bear it through the pain (or miss work, etc.).
Just sick of it.
If idiots want to OD and take crap they shouldn't be, I say let 'em. Let 'em screw themselves up. We spend way too much time and effort on it, and for what? Nothing.
She's prescribed Oxycontin even as a breakthrough pain med, and yet 9 times out of 10, I can never get it filled anywhere, because there are strict limits on how much a pharmacy can have....so they are always out. (Often, I've tried 6 different ones that day, and ALL are out of it....so at this point, we've given up, and the doc scolds us, and all we can say is....well doc, tell me where we can fill it, and we'll be glad to.) Luckily, she rarely needs it...but when she does, she basically just has to grin and bear it through the pain (or miss work, etc.).
Just sick of it.
If idiots want to OD and take crap they shouldn't be, I say let 'em. Let 'em screw themselves up. We spend way too much time and effort on it, and for what? Nothing.
Maverick
Top Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 10,652
- Reaction score
- 26,523
And its going to get worse Gaz, the US is issuing an order to reduce the availability of all opioids and only giving pharmacies a limited number of prescription that can be filled.
Gazrok
A True Doomsday Prepper
I know, I know. Bottom line, I'm going to do right by my wife. I just hate it that they keep making it harder for those who are LAWFULLY medicating, just to get a bunch of pillheads. (when all it will do for them, is jack the price, and increase crime to pay for it)....
Oh, and opiod scripts are only going to be good for 3 DAYS instead of a MONTH. So I'm basically going to now have 3 DAYS only to try and find a pharmacy to fill them. Lovely. (I think that's just a FL thing though). You can bet I'm not voting for any idiot who put his stamp on that nonsense.
Oh, and opiod scripts are only going to be good for 3 DAYS instead of a MONTH. So I'm basically going to now have 3 DAYS only to try and find a pharmacy to fill them. Lovely. (I think that's just a FL thing though). You can bet I'm not voting for any idiot who put his stamp on that nonsense.
