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.
Unfortunately for all your wasted ones and zeros and cut and paste the the law disagrees with you as does research... I'm sure you'll disagree with this research
If you actually read the report you will get out of it that alcohol and mj are not comparable... And that much more research is needed
I say unfortunately for you because with all the self qualifications and boasting you choose to share not one of them will be subject to voir dire.. As do I doubt you be called as an expert witness in any duid case...but I digress and this isn't important to the subject at hand... That being professional... Productive...and pot.
I think if you wanted to be successful with your point of you you would show time work studies related to different professions and pot use... I'll await those..this should be interesting
And..yep..you are only to happy to be snarkey which only reduces your otherwise substantive information.. But hey.. Have a good time bud... There are plenty if internet warriors ...
Perhaps you are more attached to normls point of view Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence - NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws
I did note they like to cite 18-18 year old literature.
What's your personal skin in the game.. Are you a drug user.. Marijuana user... Is getting high a pursuit you seek ? If you use drugs you lose brain cells to its pursuit..some perhaps cannot afford to exhaust their supply.. Don't you think?
There are several different levels of pot users
The weekend afficiandos
The daily abusers
The stoner or pot head population
If you do use and choose to share where might you fit in the discussion?
Yep you provided what I expected.
You've not provided a link between marijuana use and the cause accidents,
Quote:
Most drivers received both alcohol and drug testing. The State Toxicology Laboratory tested blood samples for both alcohol and drugs for 1,773 drivers involved in deadly crashes between 2010 and 2014. Of these 1,773 drivers tested, nearly 60 percent (1,061) were positive for alcohol, marijuana, or drugs.
Ok so of 1773 drivers how many crashed because of the presence of an intoxicant? Of those 1773 drivers how many, based on observations of the crash scene, would have had the accident regardless of the presence of an intoxicant?
You don't know? The report attached should say, right?
No.
So what's the carnage from solely THC (because that's what we're here for)? From the attached report
59 people, of which 33 were the driver, so we can eliminate the stupid who killed themselves. Leaving... 26 deaths, from 1773 drivers who tested positive for any drug or alcohol.
Of that 26 we don't know how many were the victims of another vehicle colliding with them, vs. them colliding with another person, even pedestrians aren't exempt from being responsible for them being killed in an MVA or being intoxicated and providing a positive result for that MVA, further we don't know of all MVA's not involving an intoxicant what the ratio's were of the drivers killed, occupants of the same car as the at fault driver, other drivers killed, occupants of other cars involved than the at fault driver, pedestrians killed by persons not intoxicated. While the report does say that the proportion of persons intoxicated that have THC in that cocktail has increased, it does not provide any indication whether the total proportion of people intoxicated on any substance has increased, so while people may be using cannabis more commonly, it does not indicate any increase in MVA's even, just that more people are using cannabis.
Even the numbers put through tox-screens don't provide a comparable cohort, near 90% of fatalities were given a toxicology screen compared to under 40% of surviving drivers, which could automatically skew the results towards fatal accidents.
It doesn't provide any comparison with a control so we can determine any increase in average rate, so you can't even say "it causes more accidents" all it shows is that some people had accidents while using THC only, significantly fewer than alcohol.
It's a junk report for trying to prove what you're saying, because the information and methodology used isn't contextual to your argument. It does show THC use is increasing in WA, which is kind of to be expected given that they've legalized recreational cannabis. What did you expect? It would fall. The report is solely to extend FARS data, it's not to prove anything substantive to prove your statements.
BNSF is a rough go to get in. They are VERY selective. I was UP, CSX and short line. You did well.
This is an issue that will go on for a while. Just realize that being stoned at work is not the same as enjoying MJ in off time. I know you don't agree, but there has to be a way to test for very recent use. Swabs can do that, but most federally regulated positions still use urinalysis or hair follicle.
There is a difference. You know this as well as I. The only reason the government doesn't is because their pockets are deep with big pharma and other powerful lobbyists.
BNSF does not hire engineers. They train their own when conductors apply from within. They have pipeline but it starts with conductor trainee.
Work three subdivisions in Idaho, Montana and ND but mainly Havre, Montana.
Because of the previous thread that was closed before we had a chance to solve all the world's problems, I thought it would be good to start a new one, one that addresses this question specifically.
I already know the answer, and when looking through past threads, I get the sense that most others do too. This is based simply on the fact that the number of posters who believe that the "stoner" stereotype is all there is to cannabis usage is such a small percentage of the total number of posters. I would like to verify this by taking a poll.
My guess would be if a person takes a bong hit or two to unwind after work fine.
The question is can such a person stop after the two hits or does this increase over time?
Not much different than with drinking.
Can you do so in moderation?
Most people I know who smoke pot on a regular basis aren't necessarily lazy but they aren't much of a go getter either
I'm a recovering alcoholic and although my drinking caused a lot problems I was able to stay focused.
The years I smoked pot I pretty much did nothing. However I abused pot like I did alcohol so this doesn't prove much except I need to stay away from both.
Seems that in this topic there were tons of pages wasted with guys trying to argue that a person isn't more productive WHILE high. Again, from what I understand that wasn't the question at hand nor the premise of the topic. Whether or not a person can function at work WHILE high isn't even a question that needs asking, a person can't work high just like they can't work while drunk. That's as stupid as trying to prove that water is wet. It's like when someone brings up marijuana a group of those who oppose it throw out all logic and ability to debate.
The question was can a person have marijuana use and still function professionally. Yes a person can go home every single night from work and use marijuana and function fine at work the next day. Much better than they would if they drink alcohol every night after work. It wouldn't surprise me if many of your coworkers smoked it at night. You wouldn't even know unless they told you.
If you're silly enough to oppose that kind of marijuana use then that's fine and your opinion. Those who do also need to be waving the prohibition flag for the more dangerous alcohol drug as well (and we all know how great an idea alcohol prohibition was). Interesting that many of these people have staunch opposition to marijuana and yet have no problem with alcohol which has much more dangerous effects on the person and DOES have side effects which can carry on into the next day and effect productivity from getting drunk the night before.
Though he's not a white collar professional, I do understand the law enforcement guy's position. He's trained to oppose what is illegal by law, not what is dangerous via scientific study or fact. Plus it directly effects his job and pay should it become legalized, in a negative way. However if he's totally honest with himself he'll admit that law enforcement officers spend a lot more man hours cleaning up situations caused by alcohol-related; car accidents, fights, domestic abuse, child abuse, frat parties, and alcohol poisoning/abuse cases than the same incidents caused by marijuana use. In turn he would support a rollback to the 1920s and alcohol prohibition so that we can have a few modern Al Capone's to go along with the El Chapo's of today.
You've not provided a link between marijuana use and the cause accidents,
Ok so of 1773 drivers how many crashed because of the presence of an intoxicant? Of those 1773 drivers how many, based on observations of the crash scene, would have had the accident regardless of the presence of an intoxicant?
You don't know? The report attached should say, right?
No.
So what's the carnage from solely THC (because that's what we're here for)? From the attached report
59 people, of which 33 were the driver, so we can eliminate the stupid who killed themselves. Leaving... 26 deaths, from 1773 drivers who tested positive for any drug or alcohol.
Of that 26 we don't know how many were the victims of another vehicle colliding with them, vs. them colliding with another person, even pedestrians aren't exempt from being responsible for them being killed in an MVA or being intoxicated and providing a positive result for that MVA, further we don't know of all MVA's not involving an intoxicant what the ratio's were of the drivers killed, occupants of the same car as the at fault driver, other drivers killed, occupants of other cars involved than the at fault driver, pedestrians killed by persons not intoxicated. While the report does say that the proportion of persons intoxicated that have THC in that cocktail has increased, it does not provide any indication whether the total proportion of people intoxicated on any substance has increased, so while people may be using cannabis more commonly, it does not indicate any increase in MVA's even, just that more people are using cannabis.
Even the numbers put through tox-screens don't provide a comparable cohort, near 90% of fatalities were given a toxicology screen compared to under 40% of surviving drivers, which could automatically skew the results towards fatal accidents.
It doesn't provide any comparison with a control so we can determine any increase in average rate, so you can't even say "it causes more accidents" all it shows is that some people had accidents while using THC only, significantly fewer than alcohol.
It's a junk report for trying to prove what you're saying, because the information and methodology used isn't contextual to your argument. It does show THC use is increasing in WA, which is kind of to be expected given that they've legalized recreational cannabis. What did you expect? It would fall. The report is solely to extend FARS data, it's not to prove anything substantive to prove your statements.
Yep..you argued the exact points I thought you would..and referenced fars data predictably
I guess it's all about interpretation
I see flaws in fars..you perhaps see it as justification for marijuana and being ok to drive stoned
I see the need for better information..you perhaps see statistically insignificant issues for mj and driving.
There will be the test that will capture all aspects of mj use. A number of manufacturers are in testing and will cover a myriad of altered conditions and ways of introduction.. But..and there is a but mj intoxicated drivers have exploded... And as I have provided with statistical information from self reporting, generally unreliable but also squares with my opinion, that drivers in my area self report the following... Of the 100 duis approximately per month that make it to the probation part of the process over 50 percent report mj only or as is more frequently found mj and other intoxicants.. Alcohol.. Prescription meds.. Hard drugs. This is up from about 10 percent from three years ago. There are many factors for this... But..in my opinion this is sufficient to be statistically significant. In my case many people fall out of even rudimentary statistics in my area...felony injury duids automatically fall out and aren't eligible... Sentenced to prison fall out... Injury resulting in death fall out.. So the numbers would be higher...
We also know that mj co-use with alcohol creates a more intoxicated driver... Common sense right... But statistically significant in creating a very intoxicated driver using .08 as the measurement. You want solid a solid cause..it's not there yet.. But...it will be.. We have a huge influx of drivers operating under the influence of marijuana and imperfect roadside tests and there are struggles to capture this data.
But test we do..and convictions we get..you want one hundred percent causation... Do you think we will get there in the midst of current convictions... Beyond a reasonable doubt?... Apparently we are...
It doesn't matter what I think.. Or you think ..it matters what the court of appeals thinks
Currently peoples convictions for duid mj are standing...and being tested all the time
Please bring the fars report with you to court...not you personally..the generic you
It's a mess... And again you make my arguement for me... No drumbeat of legalization until we can address effectively mj drugged drivers on our roads
You failed to answer the question...
Are you a user
What is your bias
Do you consider yourself a professional productive member of society and a pot user?
I also wonder have you ever operated equipment under the influence of any intoxicant... And your honest opinion... Were you able to to so "better". Even more specific and staying on point with the thread gave you used mj and operated equipment and done so regularly...and how did you perform??? And if you don't use what do you think...get out of fars..nhsta.. What do you think.. ?good.. Or bad?
If so..why? And what profession are you in...so that we may guage the veracity of your information and to stay on point about the thread
I feel very comfortable in stating mj intoxicated drivers ARE not something I want coming at me... When 2-3 in 5 drivers are duid dui after 2am... Whether it's straight mj use or co-use with other drugs
If one is a true professionsl they wouldn't risk themself..their career.. The lives of others and ever operate anything with mj in their system . All the BS posts here by users only seek justification to be stoned any time they like
Last edited by notmeofficer; 05-15-2016 at 07:15 AM..
Yep..you argued the exact points I thought you would..and referenced fars data predictably
I guess it's all about interpretation
I see flaws in fars..you perhaps see it as justification for marijuana and being ok to drive stoned
I see the need for better information..you perhaps see statistically insignificant issues for mj and driving.
There will be the test that will capture all aspects of mj use. A number of manufacturers are in testing and will cover a myriad of altered conditions and ways of introduction.. But..and there is a but mj intoxicated drivers have exploded... And as I have provided with statistical information from self reporting, generally unreliable but also squares with my opinion, that drivers in my area self report the following... Of the 100 duis approximately per month that make it to the probation part of the process over 50 percent report mj only or as is more frequently found mj and other intoxicants.. Alcohol.. Prescription meds.. Hard drugs. This is up from about 10 percent from three years ago. There are many factors for this... But..in my opinion this is sufficient to be statistically significant. In my case many people fall out of even rudimentary statistics in my area...felony injury duids automatically fall out and aren't eligible... Sentenced to prison fall out... Injury resulting in death fall out.. So the numbers would be higher...
We also know that mj co-use with alcohol creates a more intoxicated driver... Common sense right... But statistically significant in creating a very intoxicated driver using .08 as the measurement. You want solid a solid cause..it's not there yet.. But...it will be.. We have a huge influx of drivers operating under the influence of marijuana and imperfect roadside tests and there are struggles to capture this data.
But test we do..and convictions we get..you want one hundred percent causation... Do you think we will get there in the midst of current convictions... Beyond a reasonable doubt?... Apparently we are...
It doesn't matter what I think.. Or you think ..it matters what the court of appeals thinks
Currently peoples convictions for duid mj are standing...and being tested all the time
Please bring the fars report with you to court...not you personally..the generic you
It's a mess... And again you make my arguement for me... No drumbeat of legalization until we can address effectively mj drugged drivers on our roads
You failed to answer the question...
Are you a user
What is your bias
Do you consider yourself a professional productive member of society and a pot user?
I also wonder have you ever operated equipment under the influence of any intoxicant... And your honest opinion... Were you able to to so "better". Even more specific and staying on point with the thread gave you used mj and operated equipment and done so regularly...and how did you perform??? And if you don't use what do you think...get out of fars..nhsta.. What do you think.. ?good.. Or bad?
If so..why? And what profession are you in...so that we may guage the veracity of your information and to stay on point about the thread
I feel very comfortable in stating mj intoxicated drivers ARE not something I want coming at me... When 2-3 in 5 drivers are duid dui after 2am... Whether it's straight mj use or co-use with other drugs
If one is a true professionsl they wouldn't risk themself..their career.. The lives of others and ever operate anything with mj in their system . All the BS posts here by users only seek justification to be stoned any time they like
Marijuana intoxicated drivers are already passing you and surrounding you all the time
Yep..you argued the exact points I thought you would..and referenced fars data predictably
I guess it's all about interpretation
I see flaws in fars..you perhaps see it as justification for marijuana and being ok to drive stoned
I see the need for better information..you perhaps see statistically insignificant issues for mj and driving.
There will be the test that will capture all aspects of mj use. A number of manufacturers are in testing and will cover a myriad of altered conditions and ways of introduction.. But..and there is a but mj intoxicated drivers have exploded... And as I have provided with statistical information from self reporting, generally unreliable but also squares with my opinion, that drivers in my area self report the following... Of the 100 duis approximately per month that make it to the probation part of the process over 50 percent report mj only or as is more frequently found mj and other intoxicants.. Alcohol.. Prescription meds.. Hard drugs. This is up from about 10 percent from three years ago. There are many factors for this... But..in my opinion this is sufficient to be statistically significant. In my case many people fall out of even rudimentary statistics in my area...felony injury duids automatically fall out and aren't eligible... Sentenced to prison fall out... Injury resulting in death fall out.. So the numbers would be higher...
We also know that mj co-use with alcohol creates a more intoxicated driver... Common sense right... But statistically significant in creating a very intoxicated driver using .08 as the measurement. You want solid a solid cause..it's not there yet.. But...it will be.. We have a huge influx of drivers operating under the influence of marijuana and imperfect roadside tests and there are struggles to capture this data.
But test we do..and convictions we get..you want one hundred percent causation... Do you think we will get there in the midst of current convictions... Beyond a reasonable doubt?... Apparently we are...
It doesn't matter what I think.. Or you think ..it matters what the court of appeals thinks
Currently peoples convictions for duid mj are standing...and being tested all the time
Please bring the fars report with you to court...not you personally..the generic you
It's a mess... And again you make my arguement for me... No drumbeat of legalization until we can address effectively mj drugged drivers on our roads
You failed to answer the question...
Are you a user
What is your bias
Do you consider yourself a professional productive member of society and a pot user?
I also wonder have you ever operated equipment under the influence of any intoxicant... And your honest opinion... Were you able to to so "better". Even more specific and staying on point with the thread gave you used mj and operated equipment and done so regularly...and how did you perform??? And if you don't use what do you think...get out of fars..nhsta.. What do you think.. ?good.. Or bad?
If so..why? And what profession are you in...so that we may guage the veracity of your information and to stay on point about the thread
I feel very comfortable in stating mj intoxicated drivers ARE not something I want coming at me... When 2-3 in 5 drivers are duid dui after 2am... Whether it's straight mj use or co-use with other drugs
If one is a true professionsl they wouldn't risk themself..their career.. The lives of others and ever operate anything with mj in their system . All the BS posts here by users only seek justification to be stoned any time they like
Your entire post is a non-sequitur and does not address anything I said in my post.
Did you understand anything I wrote in it? It's not about interpretation, the report states quite clearly it's purpose. The data is not sufficient to make the arguments you're claiming. It's not about interpretation, it's about you finding a report that you think confirms your position, and trying to pass it off as such.
You don't know what a true professional would or would not do. You're a cop, you work with cops, criminals, and the occasional ADA who is as near to a professional as you're likely to get in your working life. You may know professionals socially, but you don't work with them, so how would you know how professionals work? Beyond a few anecdotes given you by possible social contacts? Further depending on the industry, what and how they work varies, the one critical aspect is that a professional is expected to get the job done, by whatever means necessary.
The questions you ask are an attempt to discredit people posting, you've used the same tactic throughout the whole thread. People are entitled to their opinion regardless of their personal connection with the subject. If they should not then you being a drug cop should be the first to recuse yourself (which would be the professional thing to do), you have a financial interest in maintaining the prohibition of cannabis, because your salary is in partly dependent on that prohibition and regulation.
Yep..you argued the exact points I thought you would..and referenced fars data predictably
I guess it's all about interpretation
I see flaws in fars..you perhaps see it as justification for marijuana and being ok to drive stoned
I see the need for better information..you perhaps see statistically insignificant issues for mj and driving.
There will be the test that will capture all aspects of mj use. A number of manufacturers are in testing and will cover a myriad of altered conditions and ways of introduction.. But..and there is a but mj intoxicated drivers have exploded... And as I have provided with statistical information from self reporting, generally unreliable but also squares with my opinion, that drivers in my area self report the following... Of the 100 duis approximately per month that make it to the probation part of the process over 50 percent report mj only or as is more frequently found mj and other intoxicants.. Alcohol.. Prescription meds.. Hard drugs. This is up from about 10 percent from three years ago. There are many factors for this... But..in my opinion this is sufficient to be statistically significant. In my case many people fall out of even rudimentary statistics in my area...felony injury duids automatically fall out and aren't eligible... Sentenced to prison fall out... Injury resulting in death fall out.. So the numbers would be higher...
We also know that mj co-use with alcohol creates a more intoxicated driver... Common sense right... But statistically significant in creating a very intoxicated driver using .08 as the measurement. You want solid a solid cause..it's not there yet.. But...it will be.. We have a huge influx of drivers operating under the influence of marijuana and imperfect roadside tests and there are struggles to capture this data.
But test we do..and convictions we get..you want one hundred percent causation... Do you think we will get there in the midst of current convictions... Beyond a reasonable doubt?... Apparently we are...
It doesn't matter what I think.. Or you think ..it matters what the court of appeals thinks
Currently peoples convictions for duid mj are standing...and being tested all the time
Please bring the fars report with you to court...not you personally..the generic you
It's a mess... And again you make my arguement for me... No drumbeat of legalization until we can address effectively mj drugged drivers on our roads
You failed to answer the question...
Are you a user
What is your bias
Do you consider yourself a professional productive member of society and a pot user?
I also wonder have you ever operated equipment under the influence of any intoxicant... And your honest opinion... Were you able to to so "better". Even more specific and staying on point with the thread gave you used mj and operated equipment and done so regularly...and how did you perform??? And if you don't use what do you think...get out of fars..nhsta.. What do you think.. ?good.. Or bad?
If so..why? And what profession are you in...so that we may guage the veracity of your information and to stay on point about the thread
I feel very comfortable in stating mj intoxicated drivers ARE not something I want coming at me... When 2-3 in 5 drivers are duid dui after 2am... Whether it's straight mj use or co-use with other drugs
If one is a true professionsl they wouldn't risk themself..their career.. The lives of others and ever operate anything with mj in their system . All the BS posts here by users only seek justification to be stoned any time they like
Here is a review of the science in the AAA study...
The authors noted that of the drivers that failed the sobriety tests, 80 percent had THC levels of 1 ng/mL or greater. Yet, of those that passed the tests, 30 percent also had THC levels of 1 ng/mL or greater. “Based on this analysis, a quantitative threshold for per se laws for THC following cannabis use cannot be scientifically supported,” the study authors concluded.
*******************************
So basically we have laws in place that lack a scientific basis. This review of the study has a number of results of the tests that some may find interesting. Even Notme will notice that they agree that pot users are in fact more impaired than sober drivers.
These things have real impact. A woman has now been locked up for some years after she feel asleep at the wheel and mowed down a few teenagers doing public service for the NV courts. She was in fact guilty of driving while impaired...she had been way too long without sleep. But that would not have been punishable by a long jail term. So they used the pot law to send her up. The real flaw of course was children picking up trash on a freeway median without adequate protection. But of course that could not be accepted by the justice system.
BNSF does not hire engineers. They train their own when conductors apply from within. They have pipeline but it starts with conductor trainee.
Work three subdivisions in Idaho, Montana and ND but mainly Havre, Montana.
Wasn't shooting for engineer (why go lateral?). I was going for dispatcher or operations management (trainee or fast track). I know many very qualified people who have been denied by BNSF (many of them veterans like myself). Many have a Masters (like myself) in a direct or indirect field who got nothing but generic rejection letters. It's a tough go no matter how one looks at it.
That's besides the point of this thread. The true fact is that if the railroad and the federal government in general really cared about the dangers of marijuana at the workplace, they would utilize drug tests by mouth swab. This is the only way to test for recent use. And let me be very clear. Only recent use is a danger at the workplace. What anyone did (of a legal nature) on their own time far and away off the company clock is not their business. No more than a person who has a few beers or glasses of wine 10 or more hours from getting behind the throttle. Swabs test for use in the last 72 hours (sometimes longer). That is more than enough time to perform their job with complete clarity.
Just because you don't drink (or smoke) doesn't mean you have the right to deny what should be a right for other law abiding citizens. Nor does the government. Things are going to change, and that change is coming. Only time will tell.... Where you work, marijuana is not legal on a recreational basis (yet), but let's try to be fair when we're talking about impairment at work.
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.
