At 7/8/08 12:56 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:
At 7/7/08 12:05 PM, Bolo wrote:
You're only half correct on that front.
On what front. There was only one point in that post. People are idiots. It's their fucking fault that they die in the many ways that they do, because THEY are foolish, a drug doesn't have a fucking IQ.
Only half-correct on the front in which you stated in the original post you made that all crashes are caused by your level of competence as a driver. That is what you said, and it is a patently untrue as an absolute.
Crashes are also caused by the driver's state of mind; distraction, alteration, imbalance. Marijuana is responsible for alteration of brain state, and that makes driving while under its influence an unwarranted risk that puts innocent lives in harm's way.
A drug doesn't have an IQ, but people should. And if they aren't smart enough to make use of that common sense, it's the government's responsibility to clean up after them - or prevent accidents from happening by illegalizing the drug in the first place. Not for the druggie's own sake, but for the innocent lives the druggie stands to destroy by recklessness.
I already indicated it was a dangerous path.
Then why cover for the people who engage in that dangerous activity, not only to their own detriment, but to that of everyone around them?
There's a positive link between its use, and fatal crashes. If the additional factor of marijuana use tips the balance of danger even minutely toward more deaths on the road as a result of inattentiveness or distraction, there's no reason to take or allow the risk as an acceptable activity on our road systems. Research has shown that it causes such a threat, thus it has no business being present within a driver's body at all. If even one life could be saved as a result of abstinence from marijuana, then that's as good a reason as any to heavily prosecute those found in possession of it, or those who have ingested it, and are driving.
What is the total of marijuana users in these percentages that use other drugs? I mean I was just wondering.
I don't actually know. I couldn't find any research pertaining to that subject matter.
So either all of these marijuana users are, as you suggest, conspicuously bad drivers on their own ( odd that that trait would be limited to the marijuana-consuming demographic, though ), or being influenced by the drug which
wait for it, here it is, key words
"they had consumed."
I'm not quite sure what point you're attempting to make here. Yes, they had consumed marijuana. That's why they were driving poorly. From what I understood, you suggested before that all bad drivers are bad because of a low personal skill level, as opposed to other factors like presence of mind-altering substances.
The drug which is proven to affect memory, emotion, reflex and state of mind.
So does age.
Yes. Age does affect driving skill. But that's not the issue at hand here. Marijuana consumption is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have at least a minimal net negative effect on driving ability, from all statistics thusfar produced by scientific studies on car crash victims' marijuana use frequency.
Don't try to rationalize a dangerous activity that has caused many deaths over the last half-century.
That statement is broad, inaccurate, and irrelevant to my posts.
The statement is true. From everything I've seen, you're trying to rationalize the use of marijuana while driving as an acceptable risk - despite the fact that it is scientifically proven to cause a higher rate of car crash frequency from at least two major studies in the last five years.
It would be disturbing, to say the least, now that we know the link between usage and fatal crashes, to see the collective statistics from the sixties all the way up to today, on how many lives were cut short by drivers under the influence Marijuana.
Also what are you doing. Exactly what I am doing. Rationalizing it in different tones. And again I agree with you guys so I don't understand what the deal is. You are just misplacing the true source. The path is not the true one responsible, doesn't mean you shouldn't still have fuckin' roads signs/blocks. Fuck.
I'm not trying to rationalize anything, I'm trying to condemn people who would recklessly engage in an act which has the potential to destroy and maim human lives far beyond the limited sphere of their own selfish exploits. I'm trying to explain that cavalierly dangling lives on the edge of a precipice, and willingly pushing them over that edge by using marijuana irresponsibly is nothing short of murder.
Rationalize away, if you want, but when lives that had unknown potential are cut so pitilessly short, there is little other way to describe the act than homicide. Perhaps even fratricide; the killing of one's own brother by humanity.
Driving while under the influence of marijuana is illegal for a reason. If you participate in that act, you're a threat to everybody else on the road, and that is supremely selfish.
Driving drunk is illegal too.
There is a time and a place for alcohol, just as there is a time and a place for marijuana, and it is not on the road. Aside from that, driving drunk really has nothing to do with this topic, just as old age really has nothing to do with this topic. By pointing those out, you are diverting attention from the inevitable truth that marijuana does not belong in the bodies of people who intend to drive. There can be no equivocation on that point, because the evidence that marijuana acts in such a manner has already been presented.
Period. End of Discussion.