COLORADO GOVERNOR: LEGALIZING POT WAS BAD IDEA

[mrswdk]

Loots, why not just let people smoke weed and then pay for the health consequences of their smoking themselves? Why does the government have to take their money and then pay for the consequences on their behalf?

[_sabotage_]

Loot,

Marijuana is a medicine and has been shown to reduce lung cancer:

http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/14/1 ... -or-death/

We have quite a few known cancer causes products widely available with extremely limited regulation. As for tobacco, the regulation doesn't diminish the risk directly at all. All major tobacco brands lace their product with known carcinogens and up to 10% freebase nicotine.

Marijuana has CBDs which are a natural anti-psychosis, but this has often been reduced by growers in favour of THC. Charlottes Web was created with CBDs in mind, and near zero THC. I think that weed should be more balanced, but that's a consumers opinion which I hope the market would provide for.

I agree with operating a vehicle: for inexperienced smokers and drivers. I drive high every day. Always have. I've had exactly zero accidents, traffic violations, incidents. I'm much less likely to speed when high.

To act like suddenly these problems are going to arise is somewhat ludicrous. Marijuana became America' number one cash crop in 2002. It has been widely available for a very long time and the only thing regulation did was make it dangerous.

Marijuana was a common medicine prior to criminalization, has had many studies over many decades all reaching the same conclusion: it is not harmful.

I know this may be difficult to understand. There is a lot of good info though, and I suggest you take a look at some of it.

[thegreekdog]

It always makes me laugh when people who smoke weed spend a significant amount of time defending weed.

That being said, this:

I agree with operating a vehicle: for inexperienced smokers and drivers. I drive high every day. Always have. I've had exactly zero accidents, traffic violations, incidents. I'm much less likely to speed when high.

Is irresponsible and dangerous. I don't care how experienced you are, don't drive high.

I'm not a big "law and order" kind of guy and I'm supportive of doing whatever the f*ck drugs you want to do. As far as I'm concerned all drugs should be legal. People should be able to inject sunflower seed juice into their eyeballs for all I care.

But this is one situation I'm firmly in the government's camp - if you're going to do drugs, don't drive a car, don't operate heavy machinery. I don't care if you endanger yourself; I care if you endanger me. I don't give a f*ck if you're an experienced pothead who smokes all the time when driving to work. Stop doing it. Seriously. It's bad for everyone.

[_sabotage_]

Sure, as soon as they ban driving after consuming caffeine. I'd be surprised which one or lack of which one affects your driving more.

http://www.bcmj.org/council-health-prom ... le-crashes

The best evidence around cannabis and MVCs comes from modern “culpability studies” from Australia[7] and France,[8] which found that crashed drivers who used cannabis were more likely to have caused the crash than drug- and alcohol-free drivers. However, this risk was relatively small—comparable to that associated with alcohol levels between 0 and 0.05%.

This is of course within the legal limits of most places in the world, the US is 0.08%.

http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2013/03/18/caffeine-“can-significantly-protect-against-crash-risk”-long-distance-heav

Another article about caffeine. Summary: heavy long haul vehicle drivers have a 63% decreased risk of crashing if consuming caffeine. I guess we should force all them to consume it.

From the same article:
"Having a previous crash in the past five years increased the risk of crash by 81% and this remained significant."

Since I have never had an accident, I'm at a much lower risk than those who have had one. Please ban them all before you ban me. Thanks.


From http://www.dunlapandassociatesinc.com/c ... riving.pdf

BAC

Relative risk estimate
0.020 - 0.099%. 1.04
0.100 - 0.249%. 2.62
0.250 - 0.399%. >176.8


So it would appear that even at double the alcohol equivalency levels that marijuana is said to cause, the increased risk is 4%. At 0.04% BAC, the high end of the spectrum that marijuana is said to create, do we find:

"Statistically significant risk occurred at 0.04% BAC and small, non-significant elevations occurred at BACs closer to zero."

Or in other words, what the best available data tells us, is that a person who has had an accident is about 80% more likely to have an accident than me. Have you been involved in an accident in the last 5 years, TGD? If so...I have a young son and ask you to do the right thing.

[Phatscotty]

Alternatively, they could just not regulate it. But who would ever suggest such insanity?!?!

Only reason I push regulation is the problems the consumption causes can be paid for by the tax. That and I support centrally provided healthcare.

I'm pretty sure Colorado taxes the product already so I don't think that's the kind of regulation he's talking about.

I believe the tax got as high as 37.5%, for starters. The breakdown is in the history thread, but I'm tired

[thegreekdog]

Alternatively, they could just not regulate it. But who would ever suggest such insanity?!?!

Only reason I push regulation is the problems the consumption causes can be paid for by the tax. That and I support centrally provided healthcare.

I'm pretty sure Colorado taxes the product already so I don't think that's the kind of regulation he's talking about.

I believe the tax got as high as 37.5%, for starters. The breakdown is in the history thread, but I'm tired

That would surprise me.

[Phatscotty]

K, after a lengthy discussion with Patches, he brought it to my attention that weed can be decriminalized, but you can still be ticketed as a 'civil' offense for possession n such

So, basically, do nothing to people grow their own without interference, do nothing to people that buy and sell without interference, do nothing to people possessing, (possession in an automobile is another issue) do nothing to people that are under the effect.

You want a tax = basic state sales tax (if applicable)

[thegreekdog]

Sure, as soon as they ban driving after consuming caffeine. I'd be surprised which one or lack of which one affects your driving more.

http://www.bcmj.org/council-health-prom ... le-crashes

The best evidence around cannabis and MVCs comes from modern “culpability studies” from Australia[7] and France,[8] which found that crashed drivers who used cannabis were more likely to have caused the crash than drug- and alcohol-free drivers. However, this risk was relatively small—comparable to that associated with alcohol levels between 0 and 0.05%.

This is of course within the legal limits of most places in the world, the US is 0.08%.

http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2013/03/18/caffeine-“can-significantly-protect-against-crash-risk”-long-distance-heav

Another article about caffeine. Summary: heavy long haul vehicle drivers have a 63% decreased risk of crashing if consuming caffeine. I guess we should force all them to consume it.

From the same article:
"Having a previous crash in the past five years increased the risk of crash by 81% and this remained significant."

Since I have never had an accident, I'm at a much lower risk than those who have had one. Please ban them all before you ban me. Thanks.

It's a fairly simple concept so I'm surprised you cannot grasp it. If one is under the influence of a drug, whether legal or not, one should not operate a vehicle. I don't care whether you think caffeine is worse for some people than weed is for you.

The alternative is that you get a special permit to drive if you meet some amorphous definition of "it doesn't affect me bro" (in which case, honestly, why are you smoking it?) and then we ban the drivers who have had a previous crash in the last five years because they have an increased risk in crashing again. That seems overly complex to me. But hey, as long as you get to smoke your weed and drive...

Like I said, I'm all for legalizing drugs. I may have smoked weed on a regular basis in high school and college. And I was in no condition to drive, operate heavy machinery, whatever when I may have been high. So I don't know how the f*ck you can smoke weed and drive.

[AndyDufresne]

Sure, as soon as they ban driving after consuming caffeine. I'd be surprised which one or lack of which one affects your driving more...

etc...

--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Just cuz you're a light weight doesn't mean shit.

Listening to music you like while driving increases you risk of having an accident more than weed. Just cuz you imagine it to be differently, doesn't mean shit. If you have no intention of banning listening to music you like due to the increased risk, then you are discriminating.

I can think of several scenarios where I'd get high to drive. An hour trip with my wife and kid. My wife likes to use these opportunities to nag me about stuff, CC has been a topic several times during such drives. In her fervor she equates it to a voodoo spell over me and will persist at it for however long the drive is.

Sober, I will just say ok. As she continues, I go to I know. As she proceeds, I go to I'll play out my current games. When she points out this has been said, I go to the, it's basically the only site I engage with people on, just leave me alone.

This can get somewhat vexing and may involve a whole host of her favorite "I have him trapped" rants.

I specifically get high to avoid the routineness (and therein the drudgery) of this dialogue. I am more likely to be more relaxed and engaging. This usually allows the demands to be dissipated and not lead to a full fledged argument on the highway with a kid in the backseat.

Driving with controlling wife + weed = safe.

I would like to point out that I was getting high for several years and driving for several years before I started driving high. Young people's risk of accident doubles when driving high and I would suspect that accounts for most of the statistical significance of the overall rate. Many times I have felt unfit to drive and didn't. I think generally, to a certain extent, marijuana decreases the risk of engaging in dangerous behavior and allows for better judgement than drinking, ie you have the self control and intellectual capacity to know when not to drive. I do not support, and would not like any one reading this to feel I'm encouraging them to, driving when incapacitated in any way.

[AndyDufresne]

Just cuz you're a light weight doesn't mean shit.

Listening to music you like while driving increases you risk of having an accident more than weed. Just cuz you imagine it to be differently, doesn't mean shit. If you have no intention of banning listening to music you like due to the increased risk, then you are discriminating.

I can think of several scenarios where I'd get high to drive. An hour trip with my wife and kid. My wife likes to use these opportunities to nag me about stuff, CC has been a topic several times during such drives. In her fervor she equates it to a voodoo spell over me and will persist at it for however long the drive is.

Sober, I will just say ok. As she continues, I go to I know. As she proceeds, I go to I'll play out my current games. When she points out this has been said, I go to the, it's basically the only site I engage with people on, just leave me alone.

This can get somewhat vexing and may involve a whole host of her favorite "I have him trapped" rants.

I specifically get high to avoid the routineness (and therein the drudgery) of this dialogue. I am more likely to be more relaxed and engaging. This usually allows the demands to be dissipated and not lead to a full fledged argument on the highway with a kid in the backseat.

Driving with controlling wife + weed = safe.

I would like to point out that I was getting high for several years and driving for several years before I started driving high. Young people's risk of accident doubles when driving high and I would suspect that accounts for most of the statistical significance of the overall rate. Many times I have felt unfit to drive and didn't. I think generally, to a certain extent, marijuana decreases the risk of engaging in dangerous behavior and allows for better judgement than drinking, ie you have the self control and intellectual capacity to know when not to drive. I do not support, and would not like any one reading this to feel I'm encouraging them to, driving when incapacitated in any way.

--Andy

[Endgame422]

Scotty its 28.9 percent minimum currently
10 at the state level for retail
2.9 for retail and medical
15 at the county level
Some cities apply some extra as well so your 38.5 figure is basically the high end of the range. Although 32 or 33 is pretty standard.
My opinion is deregulate and treat it like anything else.
The idea of naturally occuring things being illegal just really makes no sense.
And as to the driving thing i wont defend how its great with personal experience or how its terrible with personal experiences,how about some data.
https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired-driving/druggeddriving/drugged-driving-statistics.html
Thats from the department of transportation and it shows that the percentage of high drivers has increased since 2003 and the number of fatalities has decreased.
While thats not conclusive its much better then i drive high all the time so it must be ok OR when i used to smoke when i was a teenager i could not even imagine driving so it must not be ok.
This whole thread seems to be a waste of energy though. Scotty is using it as a political talking point about regulation, loot can't be bothered to discuss it, sabotage and wdk seem to just be trolling, and TGD appears only interested in the driving aspect.
Oh and mr dufrense is doing what he does in every thread.posting star trek gifs(thanks andy)

[2dimes]

Andy is driving high when he posts. That is part of why it is usually just a gif.

[AndyDufresne]

Andy is driving high when he posts. That is part of why it is usually just a gif.

--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Endgame, I don't understand why you think your data is any better than mine, or what you consider trolling.

I spent nearly six years in jail for weed, I think I am entitled to an opinion.

[mrswdk]

So am I permitted to keep driving my scooter home from clubs while blind drunk then? Because I've never had an accident while doing that.

And on a side note: what's the deal with your wife? Is it purely because people sometimes criticize China?

[thegreekdog]

Just cuz you're a light weight doesn't mean shit.

Yeah, that's my point. Just because you're not a light weight also doesn't mean shit.

Listening to music you like while driving increases you risk of having an accident more than weed. Just cuz you imagine it to be differently, doesn't mean shit. If you have no intention of banning listening to music you like due to the increased risk, then you are discriminating.

No, no actually I'm not. Did you know, for example, that driving increases the risk of having an accident?

I mean shit, I've been listening to my radio for YEARS! When my wife is in the car, nagging me incessantly, all I need to do is spark up the radio and I'm good to go. Hell, I would say I drove better when I turned UP the radio!

Many times I have felt unfit to drive and didn't. I think generally, to a certain extent, marijuana decreases the risk of engaging in dangerous behavior and allows for better judgement than drinking, ie you have the self control and intellectual capacity to know when not to drive. I do not support, and would not like any one reading this to feel I'm encouraging them to, driving when incapacitated in any way.

Well that's good. I was beginning to worry when you kept saying things like "Turning your steering wheel to the left three times increases your risk of having an accident than more weed."

[thegreekdog]

Scotty its 28.9 percent minimum currently
10 at the state level for retail
2.9 for retail and medical
15 at the county level
Some cities apply some extra as well so your 38.5 figure is basically the high end of the range. Although 32 or 33 is pretty standard.
My opinion is deregulate and treat it like anything else.
The idea of naturally occuring things being illegal just really makes no sense.
And as to the driving thing i wont defend how its great with personal experience or how its terrible with personal experiences,how about some data.
https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired-driving/druggeddriving/drugged-driving-statistics.html
Thats from the department of transportation and it shows that the percentage of high drivers has increased since 2003 and the number of fatalities has decreased.
While thats not conclusive its much better then i drive high all the time so it must be ok OR when i used to smoke when i was a teenager i could not even imagine driving so it must not be ok.
This whole thread seems to be a waste of energy though. Scotty is using it as a political talking point about regulation, loot can't be bothered to discuss it, sabotage and wdk seem to just be trolling, and TGD appears only interested in the driving aspect.
Oh and mr dufrense is doing what he does in every thread.posting star trek gifs(thanks andy)

I'm sorry, what did you want to discusss? I'm here for you buddy.

The question is not whether there are more or less accidents. The question is whether X impairs your ability to drive and whether X and/or the need to drive are controllable. Alcohol impairs my ability to drive. Snow impairs my ability to drive. Listening to the radio does not impair my ability to drive. Texting impairs my ability to drive. The next question is whether any of those things should be illegal to protect the general public. My response is yes. You have the right to do whatever the f*ck you want as long as it doesn't hurt me. But people are certainly willing to have differring opinions. Again I think it's pretty easy to not drive while high. Either don't get high or don't drive while high. See? Easy.

Where are you getting your tax data from?

[_sabotage_]

Apparently it does mean something. It means you are roughly a percent more likely to have an accident, which going by other things which increase your chance to have an accident by 1%, is not something we care enough about to ban.

When they criminalized marijuana, one of the reasons was that it caused coloreds to rape white women. Your logic falls along those lines.

So far you have produced zero links, zero data, zero analysis. Not looking good for ya.

Mrs

My wife is the oldest of 5 (so she grew up bossing people around, one of her fondest memories is holding back her portion of sweets so that when the others finished she could use her remaining sweets as leverage against them) and was gifted her mothers temperament. Her mother was in the red guard, never learned to read or even speak mandarin very well. We've currently been separated for a week because I was watching citizenfour while she was doing other shit. She wanted me to watch something else (by my self) and I called her out for being controlling. She cut the internet cable with scissors. Joy.

As for drinking while driving your scooter, I'm sure there is relevant info on how it may increase the risk and and a reasonable level of risk that should be deemed unsafe, but it isn't 1%.

[_sabotage_]

TGD on your next post. Data shows music does impair your ability to drive. Data shows that marijuana impairs your ability less than music. I really fail to see your point at all.

[Endgame422]

First off you had no data and just a long story about how unbearable your wife is unless you get high.
Secondly of course your allowed an opinion but i think your just in here trying to f*ck with people(trolling)
I think this for a number of reasons
1 your track record of trolling(see shickingbrits)
2 argueing about TGD being a lightweight? Trying to be insulting is usually a fair sign that someone has thrown any meaningful discussion out the window
3 You seem to actually be eroding the pro legalization position by relating it to alcohol/drunk driving.
4 You stated that you routinely tell your wife whatever it is you think she wants to hear and frankly if your own wife gets bullshit from you why should i expect any better?
I could certainly be wrong here but what would you think if I had a known history of trolling,admitted to lying to people close to me, started being insulting, and undermined the position i was supposedly defending?
Your quacking like a duck here.
Again perhaps im wrong but it just does not add up on my end.

TGD my info came from the colorado deparment of revenuehttps://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data
And while i appreciate your sentiment of being here for me i just fail to see the relevance of the driving issue.
People will drive UTI no matter what the law says. They did for as long as marijuana was illegal and will continue.
Poor decision making is not something that you can really legislate. Aspirin is a great example here. 4 or 5 aspirin is enough to have an effect on driving but that does not mean aspirin should be illegal.
My point is wether or not it effects your driving(it does) has no bearing on wether or not it should be legal.
Which was kinda the point of this thread i thought
Andy The futurama gifs are excellent.thanks again.

[_sabotage_]

I never have trolled with any account. If you disagree with my conclusions, that doesn't make them wrong or falsely held.

I included very specific data on 4 aspects of driving:
How risks can be associated with alcohol, I provided the exact figures at different levels.
How risks are associated with marijuana and used the alcohol levels to compare as the data gave the comparison in such figures.
How driving is influenced by caffeine.
How risk is associated with those who had an accident in the last five years.

Since the only reply to this from TGD was: I used to get high and can't drive, I responded to that. Kind of hard to stick to the figures when the guy you're posting to doesn't acknowledge them in any way or form.

I would have been far happier had he used the data, but he has decided to turn it into whoever is the most vociferous.

Not relating it to alcohol/drunk driving, the data did and the data showed it is far within the "legal" limit. How is saying look, it's as bad as this which is also legal being against it? Lacking intelligence, a bit.

You are not married, or haven't been for long. No long term married guy would want to start an argument on the highway with his wife that's going to last an hour with no escape.

In short, you really seem to gather your opinions from the ether and not from my conduct. Please stop using your incompetent brain to analyze competent discussion into a mess of nonsense.

ps: my mother died in a car accident in...Colorado, sober.

[thegreekdog]

Apparently it does mean something. It means you are roughly a percent more likely to have an accident, which going by other things which increase your chance to have an accident by 1%, is not something we care enough about to ban.

When they criminalized marijuana, one of the reasons was that it caused coloreds to rape white women. Your logic falls along those lines.

What in the actual f*ck are you talking about? First, I'm not trying to ban marijuana. I'm trying to ban driving under the influence of marijuana, which up until today I thought was something 100% of peoples could get behind. Second... seriously?

So far you have produced zero links, zero data, zero analysis. Not looking good for ya.

Why is not it looking for me?

I'm using your anecdotal evidence and logic (_sabotage_ is a good driver when using pot = using pot and then driving should be legal; thegreekdog is a bad driver when using pot = using pot and then driving should be illegal).

I'm using your links. I don't need to find my own.

http://www.bcmj.org/council-health-prom ... le-crashes

There is clear evidence that canna­bis, like alcohol, impairs the psycho­motor skills required for safe driving.[2] Cannabis intoxication slows reaction time and impairs automated tasks such as tracking ability (staying within a lane) or monitoring the speedometer.
In simulator studies, high doses of cannabis caused drivers to “crash” into a sudden obstacle more often.

Seriously... you don't seem to understand debate. Are you high right now?

[thegreekdog]

TGD my info came from the colorado deparment of revenuehttps://www.colorado.gov/pacific ... a-tax-data
And while i appreciate your sentiment of being here for me i just fail to see the relevance of the driving issue.
People will drive UTI no matter what the law says. They did for as long as marijuana was illegal and will continue.
Poor decision making is not something that you can really legislate. Aspirin is a great example here. 4 or 5 aspirin is enough to have an effect on driving but that does not mean aspirin should be illegal.
My point is wether or not it effects your driving(it does) has no bearing on wether or not it should be legal.

Interesting; I did not realize the rates were that high (no pun intended).

I brought up the driving issue because of sabby's comment that he drives when he's high. It's already illegal to drive while intoxicated, so legalizing any drug does not add additional burdens. I do apologize that our discussion is sabotaging (no pun intended) this thread, but other than Loot, no one seems to be arguing for more regulation.

[Metsfanmax]

What in the actual f*ck are you talking about? First, I'm not trying to ban marijuana. I'm trying to ban driving under the influence of marijuana, which up until today I thought was something 100% of peoples could get behind.

Probably close to 100% of people could get behind that. But understand the politics of the situation. There are a lot of people who want marijuana to remain illegal, and use arguments like "stoned people are dangerous drivers" to defend that. If those in defense of legalization concede that in some cases marijuana can be dangerous, it gives ammunition to their opponents (even though the ammunition is weak and only matters because of how much this turns into an in-group versus out-group thing). The arms race means that defenders of legalization sometimes make bad arguments in defense of a good cause, just like in any other situation.