Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not even worth a discussion. OK if usage while driving goes from 5% to 8% (throwing out random numbers), but the accident rate remains the same as before, did it contribute to more accidents? If testing for marijuana increases, the data will say it did, but it really didn't. The studies are absolutely meaningless.
That logic doesn't work. The accident rate won't remain the same if you double the usage. Unless we discover that there is no impact while driving stoned.
I have not data mined the number of accidents while under hallucinogenic effect. So I'm not willing to comment if it is a big problem. Anyways, the study doesn't talk about testing. It talks about usage. Furthermore, when it is easily obtained, I suspect people use it more per month. Note: the study didn't ask how often people use it per month only if they use it monthly. So it might be that legal usage by itself increases the events per month. I don't know. But if I am a betting man, the monthly events (usage per month) are going up year after year. Dispensaries are selling more products (and their stock prices are surely betting on this happening), it is fair to expect more people driving under the influence.
If you disagree with this, your bias could be getting in the way. I am NOT saying it is a big problem. And I suspect texting and driving might be more of a problem. Hell, texting and stoned or texting while on Red Bulls probably might be even worse. I suspect you are letting your personal bias enter into the stats. Just as Bible thumpers are calling it a "gateway drug".
What we agree on is that this is not currently a pressing issue. I'm more worried about texters and driving all the while I see them swerving and hitting the "texting strips" (you might call them rumble strips).
I would be more concerned about the thousands and thousands of senior citizens in AZ, who should have been taken off the road ten years ago.
"Thousands and thousands"? If you say so. My concern is people north of 80 (and some younger). But yes, there is a problem with senility and driving. Truth be told, I'm more concerned with idiotic drivers of all ages including geezers who can barely drive.
Seems like a lawyer's wet dream. So again, the claim that cannabis DUIs are on the rise isn't supported with anything substantial beyond a seemingly faulty tool or circumstances.
Yes, a good DUI attorney will challenge the results of a DDT5000 reading. However, the fact remains: According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, the number of marijuana impaired drivers involved in deadly crashes has risen every year between 2017 and 2019, the most recent years for which data is available.
And there is no reason not to believe their stats or that the same couldn't happen in AZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitN8V
The increase in usage due to legal status is almost certainly not enough to move the needle an iota.
Nonsense. Of course, it will. AZ will likely be no different than Colorado. The legalization makes it more readily available to the casual user who smokes once in a blue moon or the recreational user who gets high a couple of times a month. And the daily/heavy users (such as I was) who found a way to scam a pot medical card will no longer be constrained by the price of good pot. They can easily (given the weather) grow their own and smoke to their heart’s content. Add it all up and more people are going to be driving high. No doubt about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
That logic doesn't work. The accident rate won't remain the same if you double the usage. Unless we discover that there is no impact while driving stoned.
I have not data mined the number of accidents while under hallucinogenic effect. So I'm not willing to comment if it is a big problem. Anyways, the study doesn't talk about testing. It talks about usage. Furthermore, when it is easily obtained, I suspect people use it more per month. Note: the study didn't ask how often people use it per month only if they use it monthly. So it might be that legal usage by itself increases the events per month. I don't know. But if I am a betting man, the monthly events (usage per month) are going up year after year. Dispensaries are selling more products (and their stock prices are surely betting on this happening), it is fair to expect more people driving under the influence.
If you disagree with this, your bias could be getting in the way. I am NOT saying it is a big problem. And I suspect texting and driving might be more of a problem. Hell, texting and stoned or texting while on Red Bulls probably might be even worse. I suspect you are letting your personal bias enter into the stats. Just as Bible thumpers are calling it a "gateway drug".
What we agree on is that this is not currently a pressing issue. I'm more worried about texters and driving all the while I see them swerving and hitting the "texting strips" (you might call them rumble strips).
Given the accessibility of course they will.
I started off posting in this thread to mentioned a friend of mine who is visiting from Cal. While driving home one evening I pointed out the pot shop on Higley and University in Mesa. I then asked my friend if he wanted to check it out. You bet he said.
What we agree on is that this is not currently a pressing issue.
The amount of poor drivers I see regularly as I travel throughout the Phx metro is no longer surprising and you need to be extra careful crossing a busy intersection. The 45 mile speed limits means those who hit on the gas to catch a light instead of slowing down as they approach an intersection are asking for trouble. There are no fender-benders here. The accidents I've seen over the past two years esp. during rush hour are very bad news. Major smash ups.
Yes, a good DUI attorney will challenge the results of a DDT5000 reading. However, the fact remains: According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, the number of marijuana impaired drivers involved in deadly crashes has risen every year between 2017 and 2019, the most recent years for which data is available.
And there is no reason not to believe their stats or that the same couldn't happen in AZ.
Nonsense. Of course, it will. AZ will likely be no different than Colorado. The legalization makes it more readily available to the casual user who smokes once in a blue moon or the recreational user who gets high a couple of times a month. And the daily/heavy users (such as I was) who found a way to scam a pot medical card will no longer be constrained by the price of good pot. They can easily (given the weather) grow their own and smoke to their heart’s content. Add it all up and more people are going to be driving high. No doubt about it.
I’ve pointed out numerous times why the CO statistics are meaningless. The sky isn’t falling, pot heads aren’t going to magically appear, no one cared about the law before. You seem to be really digging your heels in on the idea that prohibition was effective in limiting usage. It wasn’t and therefore the opposite will also be a non-event.
I’ve pointed out numerous times why the CO statistics are meaningless. The sky isn’t falling, pot heads aren’t going to magically appear, no one cared about the law before. You seem to be really digging your heels in on the idea that prohibition was effective in limiting usage. It wasn’t and therefore the opposite will also be a non-event.
It doesn't matter what you think or "pointed out" regarding the CO stats. The Colorado Department of Transportation provided them and it's safe to say they know more about what's happening in CO than you or I.
You seem to be really digging your heels in on the idea that prohibition was effective in limiting usage.
What I have repeatedly said is the legalization of pot brings about its own set of problems... which it does. This doesn't mean I feel prohibition was effective in limiting it's usage. People like myself who often like to get high would have scammed a pot medical card. Yet, the cost of buying decent pot was (and still is...) quite expensive. This is limiting. Today, you can cut down on the cost by growing a number of pot plants in your yard. The weather is perfect. With regards to the casual or recreational user what was limiting was the access. That's gone.
I've always supported the legalization of pot and knew this day was coming. The stigma surrounding those who like to get high faded years ago. Add to this the tax revenue governments officials are salivating over I expect more States to fall in line. Nevertheless we in AZ will likely see the same problems as in CO.
It doesn't matter what you think or "pointed out" regarding the CO stats. The Colorado Department of Transportation provided them and it's safe to say they know more about what's happening in CO than you or I.
You seem to be really digging your heels in on the idea that prohibition was effective in limiting usage.
What I have repeatedly said is the legalization of pot brings about its own set of problems... which it does. This doesn't mean I feel prohibition was effective in limiting it's usage. People like myself who often like to get high would have scammed a pot medical card. Yet, the cost of buying decent pot was (and still is...) quite expensive. This is limiting. Today, you can cut down on the cost by growing a number of pot plants in your yard. The weather is perfect. With regards to the casual or recreational user what was limiting was the access. That's gone.
I've always supported the legalization of pot and knew this day was coming. The stigma surrounding those who like to get high faded years ago. Add to this the tax revenue governments officials are salivating over I expect more States to fall in line. Nevertheless we in AZ will likely see the same problems as in CO.
There’s too much to unpack here but if you acknowledge that prohibition wasn’t effective in limiting usage, you can’t then also argue that legalization increases usage. No one gave a single thought about weed’s legal status. Prohibition was ineffective. End of story.
There’s too much to unpack here but if you acknowledge that prohibition wasn’t effective in limiting usage, you can’t then also argue that legalization increases usage. No one gave a single thought about weed’s legal status. Prohibition was ineffective. End of story.
Not really but...Pre-legalization the casual user got high when the drug was offered. The recreational user called around looking to score a half ounce to take with him camping or simply to have on hand when needed. Neither was particularly interested in scamming their way to owning a medical pot card because getting high isn't that important. The daily or heavy user likely secured a pot card so legalization doesn't change much except.... they can now legally grow pot in their backyard. Pot esp. good pot is expensive.
But they could always grow pot in their backyard you say. Maybe but my neighbors have been in my yard at various times. So what? Well, I wouldn't want to deal with a nosy neighbor who doesn't like me growing pot plants and calls the authorities. However, today that's no longer an issue. I have an AZ room with a locked door and can grow up to 12 plants should I choose. I can high, high, high. I wouldn't always have to pay $xxx for an ounce if I wanted to smoke.
The casual user? With legalization the casual user is more likely to suggest, "Hey let's grab a couple of pre-rolled joints at the pot shop off University and Higley. We can take them with us." The recreational user same thing. No need to call anyone or make arraignments or any song/dance to buy pot. The shop on University and Higley has whatever you want seven days a week.
All of which means AZ will likely experiences the same problems as CO regarding those who drive after they've been smoking pot.
Prohibition was ineffective. End of story.
Never suggested it was effective. My point is legalization isn't without problems
You're correct, John3232, and I hope you don't think that I was trying to say that it's a complete non issue. I don't believe that it is a non issue, but I also don't feel a "sky is falling" effect here in Colorado, where I presently reside.
There will be many people who get high and try to drive. There will be many people who get high and refuse to get off a couch. There have in fact been more overall traffic accidents since we legalized weed here. It is true.
Sadly, there are also other effects...and I know that there will be pro pot folks who will be mad about me saying this...but my life experience with many, MANY stoners, myself included at a previous time in my life tells me that people who enjoy cannabis often also make poor life choices, it seems to me that one of the effects is less caring. It relieves stress, which we think is great, but sometimes you SHOULD be stressed. Like when calling in to work will cost you your job, and thence your housing...and so on. And it isn't just a "when under the influence" effect. It is a lifestyle effect. Whether people who do unwise things also choose to smoke weed, or weed makes people more apt to do unwise things... We had a couple leave a child in a car with their gun, while they went into a dispensary near here to buy some weed, and the child got the gun out and it ended in tragedy. Last week, I believe.
So...I really hate alcohol for a bunch of personal reasons and I definitely think it makes no sense for it to be legal when weed isn't. I even believe that if we get proper medical testing to really for sure separate fact from the pro pot crowd's propaganda, there probably is some solid medical value to cannabis. I am not strictly anti weed. But I've been annoyed for years...decades maybe...about the pro cannabis crowd's position that it's this miracle plant that only ever does good and never harm for anyone. You can't tell me there is no potential for addiction when I watched a partner choose it over food and shelter. You can't tell me that it's not part of someone ruining their life, when I've SEEN IT HAPPEN more times than I can count. I will give you that it isn't a gateway drug. Only insofar as it was illegal, and brought people into contact with dealers of harder drugs due to the black market, was it ever that in my opinion. You don't smoke weed and think, "wow, maybe heroin would be fun too!"
I just want people to be realistic. Overall I support individual liberty and decision making in this, but that doesn't mean I think that "everybody must get stoned" or that there are no concerns or possible negatives.
i dont imagine any intelligent person thinks there is no risk to smoking pot...
the same negatives you mention here also go for alcohol, sometimes even MORE SO than with pot..
pick your poison, either one isnt great for you, but there is no doubt in my mind that alcohol ruins many more lives than smoking a joint does..
and, dont forget the worst legal drug we deal with, tobacco...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
