Locked up for three joints!!?
- Thread starter csmoney123
- Start date
mookie brown
Active Member
Normally I wouldn't respond to crap remarks like this but I'll give it a try. It's gotta be something you say. Hmmmmm wait I'm thinking, one more second, Ok got it !! That you were able to think of something stupid to say all on your own. Bravo
patlpp
New Member
Normally I wouldn't respond to crap remarks like this but I'll give it a try. It's gotta be something you say. Hmmmmm wait I'm thinking, one more second, Ok got it !! That you were able to think of something stupid to say all on your own. Bravo
Mookie , I just ran across a little quote from Username Sadista
"....and if you're debating a fool, you are one
"It's futile, you're arguing with children.
except you aren't even presenting anything. you can't even rebut a simple scenario. you've offer ZERO evidence of any of your "opinions". when factual evidence is presented that disputes your claims you simply resort to insults.Mookie , I just ran across a little quote from Username Sadista
"....and if you're debating a fool, you are one
It's futile, you're arguing with children.
you've offered nothing but your hate. no scientific studies. no stats. no links. nothing. not even a story. just "pot makes you run over babies. i will bury you all."
then you call me childish.
patlpp
New Member
Why should I argue with someone with a reading comprehension of a crotch crab?except you aren't even presenting anything. you can't even rebut a simple scenario. you've offer ZERO evidence of any of your "opinions". when factual evidence is presented that disputes your claims you simply resort to insults.
you've offered nothing but your hate. no scientific studies. no stats. no links. nothing. not even a story. just "pot makes you run over babies. i will bury you all."
then you call me childish.
Funny how you responded to my comments when I wasn't directing them directly to you......feel a little defensive?
funny, you try to insult my reading comprehension, yet insult me when i "get it".
your attacks and insults will no longer be tolerated. you have offered nothing but hate to this thread. it's over now. please move on.
Cassiopeia
Member
Erm... comparing alcohol to marijuana is like comparing prescription drugs to herbal remedies. Doesn't make sense.
patlpp
New Member
[
Errn...The comparison was not the substance itself . THE COMPARISON WAS THAT IMPAIRED DRIVERS THINK THEY ARE NOT IMPAIRED, REGARDLESS OF THE SUBSTANCE.
patlpp
New Member
you guys are lame, seriously. you sound like a bunch of 1950's housewives.
After those comments then the shit started flying. You are an embarrassment to this forum: You instigate shit: "spent the day on the seadoo. smoked hash on the drive up to the lake. perfect dayyeah, the fact that the COP saw NO IMPAIRMENT pretty much proves it.so why are you jabbin up the rear?
" than give -rep. If you were a real man you would have had an impartial moderator dish out the -rep. I've seen you do this on other threads too. Misusing what little power you have in this world. I honestly think you are just rationalizing your own behavior driving stoned. You know it's wrong, but you can't stop doing it.P.S I saw you on your glass blowing video and by the looks of you, you definitely do not fit the profile of a pot smoker/driver. THATS why the Cop didn't key in. You must be delusional to think that him not catching you validates your skewed, pot-saturated perception that smoking/driving is safe.
neosapien
Well-Known Member
What a funny thread. Hello Money! Welcome and I wish you the best. Remember this Money, that the government got you and they want your money. They don't really care about your crime they care about that money. You will pay them money and in return they will set you free so you can make more money and give it to them.
As for what this thread has moved towards. All cannabis is different. Smoke some wafty sativa and sure, I will say you can be a BETTER driver, more alert atleast. Now smoke some fukin couch-lockin ass indica and your baked ass is gonna crash into the drive-thru prompter at burger King. Stay home! We smoke weed to be impaired. To say that you weren't impaired sounds to me like instead you just weren't high anymore. So in reality, like real life scenarios, I think both sides are correct. People+weed=dangerous
People+weed=notdangerous
As for what this thread has moved towards. All cannabis is different. Smoke some wafty sativa and sure, I will say you can be a BETTER driver, more alert atleast. Now smoke some fukin couch-lockin ass indica and your baked ass is gonna crash into the drive-thru prompter at burger King. Stay home! We smoke weed to be impaired. To say that you weren't impaired sounds to me like instead you just weren't high anymore. So in reality, like real life scenarios, I think both sides are correct. People+weed=dangerous
People+weed=notdangerous
mookie brown
Active Member
Comparing one death caused by someone driving stoned on marijuana compared to another death caused by someone driving on alcohol is the same thing. Someone died that didn't have to.
Everyone is going to do what they want, I just hope nobody causes an accident & please don't be driving next to me down the street taunting me with your pipe or joints while you drive. I'm not a snitch but I'll be the first one to call FiveO to get your ass off the road !!
patlpp
New Member
Watch out mookie , your next , I got dinged. But I repost my reply here to bring home a point. They are all rationalizing.After those comments then the shit started flying. You are an embarrassment to this forum: You instigate shit: "spent the day on the seadoo. smoked hash on the drive up to the lake. perfect day
PANGcake
Active Member
Here's a link to a good site covering U.S car accidents.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Here's an article from april 2009, the full "study" can be downloaded.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-11-marijuana-driving_N.htm
"Our study found that men with self-reported DUIC (driving under the influence of cannabis) tend to be associated with an increased risk of being involved in a car accident," study author Isabelle Richer, a doctoral candidate in the psychology department, said in the news release (USA Today, April 11, 2009).
//CaL
edit: LOL i got +rep for my avatar, not my thoughts on the subject And don't worry people, even if I knew how to -rep I wouldn't do it, we're discussing, debating, not kids throwing shit around, feel me? Just keep your criticism constructive and no personal insults. I appologize if any of my posts came out as insults.
And for the love of GOD (whatever that is, a subject for another thread) I hope you get outta those charges, guy who made the thread, even forgot who it was...thread got sidetracked, sorta, but still I think it's a good subject to bring up for discussion, DUI.
//CaL
edit 2: As for the "speed limit issue": "Speed limits are often set with an intention to reduce the number of road traffic casualties from traffic collisions"
Wikipedia speed limits
it also says: "By keeping speed limits "unreasonably" low, the logical conclusion to this effort is that more motorists will appear to "speed". This gives law enforcement personnel the authority to issue traffic citations and thus improve the ticketing authority's revenue. This policy has rarely been voiced or acknowledged."
Wikipedia speed limits - United States
The above seems to be an exception and of course if that is the reason, then the reason for "unreasonably" low speed limits is revenue, not the reason for speed limits in general. Understand the difference between enforcing speed limits and enforcing unreasonably low speed limits?
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Here's an article from april 2009, the full "study" can be downloaded.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-11-marijuana-driving_N.htm
"Our study found that men with self-reported DUIC (driving under the influence of cannabis) tend to be associated with an increased risk of being involved in a car accident," study author Isabelle Richer, a doctoral candidate in the psychology department, said in the news release (USA Today, April 11, 2009).
//CaL
edit: LOL i got +rep for my avatar, not my thoughts on the subject
And don't worry people, even if I knew how to -rep I wouldn't do it, we're discussing, debating, not kids throwing shit around, feel me? Just keep your criticism constructive and no personal insults. I appologize if any of my posts came out as insults. And for the love of GOD (whatever that is, a subject for another thread
) I hope you get outta those charges, guy who made the thread, even forgot who it was...thread got sidetracked, sorta, but still I think it's a good subject to bring up for discussion, DUI.//CaL
edit 2: As for the "speed limit issue": "Speed limits are often set with an intention to reduce the number of road traffic casualties from traffic collisions"
Wikipedia speed limits
it also says: "By keeping speed limits "unreasonably" low, the logical conclusion to this effort is that more motorists will appear to "speed". This gives law enforcement personnel the authority to issue traffic citations and thus improve the ticketing authority's revenue. This policy has rarely been voiced or acknowledged."
Wikipedia speed limits - United States
The above seems to be an exception and of course if that is the reason, then the reason for "unreasonably" low speed limits is revenue, not the reason for speed limits in general. Understand the difference between enforcing speed limits and enforcing unreasonably low speed limits?
patlpp
New Member
In the article "They found that 35% of the participants had been involved in one or more road crashes with material damage in the previous three years. Thirty percent admitted to using marijuana, and 80% of those said they drove under the influence of marijuana at least once in the previous year."
I really question this study. I see no indication that they asked those 35% if they were in the accident while stoned, nor give any statistical data as to the average accident rate for those never smoking (if there is such a thing) marijuana. Also 80% of 30% said they did drive stoned at least one time in an entire year and to reach a conclusion with that? That's like saying since I got drunk (I'm not comparing, I'm using an analogy) 310 days ago , I'm a riskier driver. The article is very poorly written in my opinion. I am against pot driving but still.
I really question this study. I see no indication that they asked those 35% if they were in the accident while stoned, nor give any statistical data as to the average accident rate for those never smoking (if there is such a thing) marijuana. Also 80% of 30% said they did drive stoned at least one time in an entire year and to reach a conclusion with that? That's like saying since I got drunk (I'm not comparing, I'm using an analogy) 310 days ago , I'm a riskier driver. The article is very poorly written in my opinion. I am against pot driving but still.
PANGcake
Active Member
It's a tendancy. Sure I also have my thoughts around that study, but I can't question it untill I've read the whole study, so can't you...
I bet if the whole study was read the researchers have explained their study results and the hows? and whys? they made the study the way they did. If a scientific journal is to be aknowledged and even published there are rigorous "controls", in most cases this process takes anything from 1 year to 18 months in general, speaking of own experience.
//CaL
patlpp
New Member
I usually approach it by questioning what is presented to me. There were no substantial references, I would have read them, and I could not see how they could have reached that conclusion given the content of the articles' data itself. So I had to rely on the journalist to support the conclusive statement of the title. The journalist did not convince me with his presentation of the numbers. I'm not saying the research itself was erroneous, but the journalists reporting of the numbers was poor and ambiguous. Am I correct in saying that 35% were in some kind of major accident in the last 3 years. Of those, 30% admitted to smoking pot or 30% of all respondents admitted to smoking pot. Is this pot smoking at any time in the past or just prior to the accident? And am I to believe because someone smoked sometime within the last year they are more prone to an accident? I guess when I said I questioned the study, I should have said that I question the article.
I think the conclusion to reach if any in this article is that "Individuals scoring high on impulsivity or sensation-seeking scales demonstrated an elevated risk of driving under the influence of cannabis," not "Men who smoke pot more likely to be in a road accident" My take on this is that impulsive risk-takers are more likely to consume marijuana and drive than those who don't, and that these groups statistically get in more accidents maybe? . The title just seemed a bit sensationalistic but I guess that's their job, to attract the reader.
PANGcake
Active Member
If anyone is interested in the subject here is: Accident analysis and prevention, 37
Taking up the subject MVC risk and DUIC.
//CaL
Taking up the subject MVC risk and DUIC.
//CaL
After those comments then the shit started flying. You are an embarrassment to this forum: You instigate shit: "spent the day on the seadoo. smoked hash on the drive up to the lake. perfect day
P.S I saw you on your glass blowing video and by the looks of you, you definitely do not fit the profile of a pot smoker/driver. THATS why the Cop didn't key in. You must be delusional to think that him not catching you validates your skewed, pot-saturated perception that smoking/driving is safe.
i never gave you negative rep. you were given an infraction for your direct insults. i gave generalized opinions. you on the other hand keep directly attacking and insulting me. you would get an infraction for this whether i was a mod or not. it is against the terms of use.
as you continue. it must really bother you that i drive stoned.
the cop didn't key in because i wasn't impaired. if i was he would have noticed. why is that so hard to admit? because i look "straight". seriously?
how many accidents have i been in in the past 20 years? i've been a daily smoker for the past 6. all day everyday.
patlpp
New Member
This is it for me FDD, you have the last word.i never gave you negative rep. you were given an infraction for your direct insults. i gave generalized opinions. you on the other hand keep directly attacking and insulting me. you would get an infraction for this whether i was a mod or not. it is against the terms of use.
[FONT="]So you calling me "Fucking Stupid" is within the term of use? Or FDD's term of use?[/FONT][FONT="] I did not directly insult you until you provoked me. "Arguing with children" is a direct insult to you? You usurped your power because I am striking a nerve that you are dangerous and have a substance abuse problem. [/FONT]
as you continue. it must really bother you that i drive stoned.
[FONT="]Yes it does. very very much. Mookie was forced to reflect on his tragedy and why it upsets him to drive home his point. I just wish, with the stature and maturity as yours, that you would respect that instead of taunting us with your admitted impaired driving. It hurts much more than insults do. [/FONT]
the cop didn't key in because i wasn't impaired. if i was he would have noticed. why is that so hard to admit? because i look "straight". seriously?[FONT="]
You are telling me you were smoking pot yet not high whatsoever? See ? Exactly my point. This is the correlation: The abuser THINKS he/she is in full control when he's not.
You are talking like a classic abuser:in denial. I see no difference in your perception in this matter than I do an alcoholic or any other addicted individual out of control with a substance. All I'm asking is let the sober wife drive OK? Don't drag an innocent family into your problems by causing that 1 accident in 20 years which maybe would not have happened otherwise if you were sober. I welcome more infractions if it helps you realize this[/FONT][FONT="].
[/FONT]