You steal a camera during MY Workshop? Fuck you, you piece of messed-up shit !

[dante]

Stoned people cause slightly fewer accidents than people on no drugs at all. They aren't just safer than drunks, they're marginally safer than people who aren't on anything.

That doesn't really jibe with your claim in post #17 that marijuana has no effect on one's cognitive skills or gross and fine motor skills. Please to explain?

How doesn't it jibe?

Well, MTCicero said:

True, it doesn't affect you in the same exact way that alcohol does, but pot certainly does affect one's cognitive abilities and fine and gross motor skills.

To which you replied

No it doesn't.

I take that to mean that you do not believe that pot affects one's cognitive abilities and fine and gross motor skills. Jump in if I've misunderstood that exchange.

However, in post #206, you assert that

Stoned people cause slightly fewer accidents than people on no drugs at all. They aren't just safer than drunks, they're marginally safer than people who aren't on anything.

But since the drivers are not accounting for any impairment of cognitive or motor skills, which we now know do not exist (cite), what is making the stoned drivers safer, and why do you agree with it?

 

[BCHH]

Driving once while under the influence of pot and coming back unscathed might be deemed lucky, so how many times would it have to be done to satisfy those in doubt?

How many times for someone drving under the influence of alcohol?

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Not sure I see your point here. If you think you see a contradiction then I retract the implication that I recognize any impairment. If it does not impair the ability to perform a task, then I don't se how it can be called an impairment at all, because what else does that word mean?

Well, yes. I would expect that if you categorically rejected the conclusions of a study, you'd say something like, "I categorically reject the conclusions of this study," and follow up with some logical reasons and so forth.

Answering, "thanks for the cite. I am one of those people who never seemed to suffer any impairment." implies, to me at any rate, that you're accepting the conclusions of the study, and implicitly recognizing that there are a class of people that do seem to suffer impairment (since you explicitly place yourself in the opposite class).

So. Do you categorically reject the conclusion of the study that regular marijuana users in our study showed cognitive impairment in the author's maze task?

No. I accept that it may have "impaired" performance in the maze task (it wouldn't have impaired ME, but that's just me).

I do not agree that the "impairment" (if it can even be called that. I'd just call it inexperience with altered cogntition) is significant enough to make driving dangerous.

 

[billfish678]

To be fair, I'd say "marijuana intoxication makes one more likely to steal" is what needs a cite. Fuck if I've ever heard of such a thing.

Neither I nor anyone I know has ever ripped a bong-load and felt immediately compelled to pull off an Ocean's 1x-style caper.

Well, I guess for a high pothead, grabbing a camera and stuffing it in a jacket IS an Oceans Eleven plot (btw my other post was composed and posted before I saw yours).

And fuck the cite shit. If you can't cite what you think and I can't cite what I think, then its all just our fucking opinions isnt it? And with Dio on your side that should give anyone pause.

 

[Shot From Guns]

For his next trick, Dio will prove that cigarettes don't cause cancer, because he had a great uncle who smoked two packs a day and lived to be 98!

 

[zut]

No. I accept that it may have "impaired" performance in the maze task (it wouldn't have impaired ME, but that's just me).

I do not agree that the "impairment" (if it can even be called that. I'd just call it inexperience with altered cogntition) is significant enough to make driving dangerous.

So, to recap, when you said:

Yes, [marijuana] affects cognition, but that's not the same as impairing it. Since it does not impair the ability to perform tasks, I don't see how it can be said to impair cognition. I would argue that it enhances cognition.

What you meant was:
"Sometimes marijuana does impair cognition. Also, marijuana does impair the ability to perform tasks. However, the degree of impairment is not enough to make driving dangerous. In fact, I would argue it makes it safer."

Is that a fair statement?

 

[ivan astikov]

Oh...did you mean on a percentage basis? That, like, 7% of pot smokers get into an accident while 14% of the regular population does? Yeah, no. I highly doubt that.

And you are welcome to doubt it. Meanwhile you have 2 - yes, 2! - people telling you from their own experience that driving under the influence of pot does not inhibit driving ability in any significant manner, and your counter-experience is... what?

 

[needscoffee]

I haven't smoked pot in years, but if someone wants to claim that marijuana impares cognition and motor skills, that's the person who needs to bring the cite, not me.

Would you let your kids in the car of a driver who was stoned?

 

[Crotalus]

It was a joke, moron.

This reminds of the fictional cliche in which the whole series, movie, book, whatever ends with the discovery that it was all a dream.

 

[PlainJain]

It was a joke, moron.

From post 231:

All you've done is call people names...

So we are on equal footing there. Next, how is that a joke? You've been arguing for pages that "actual empirical data shows that driving stoned does not increase the risk for accidents." Now referencing the sentence, "The actual empirical data shows that driving stoned does not increase the risk for accidents", you claim it was a joke. If that's true your entire position here is a joke. That's called trolling. Moron.

 

[MTCicero]

This has nothing to do with legalization, by the way. I fully support absolute legalization of marijuana for recreational use - just not while driving. Treat it like alcohol.

Seconded.

 

[Crotalus]

And you are welcome to doubt it. Meanwhile you have 2 - yes, 2! - people telling you from their own experience that driving under the influence of pot does not inhibit driving ability in any significant manner, and your counter-experience is... what?

How about the counter-experience that people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are notoriously bad judges of the degree to which they are under the influence?

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They're being more careful. Any change in cognition is fully compensated for, ergo, no meaningful "impairment" in the actual ability to perform the task.

 

[fuji]

Fair enough..but when your not high or drunk that is

Did you really used to steal shit when you used to get high or drunk? I mean, you have been high or drunk before, right?

To be more specific, I mostly meant "minor" in the sense that it was EASY to do and EASY to get away with. A spur of the moment grab rather than an Oceans Eleven heist plot if you will.

The kind of low impulse control dirtbag that we'd be talking about in this case is someone I wouldn't want near me when he was sober or anything else. And if his impulse control really was that bad even when sober, it'd be pretty obvious.

I just love all the potheads getting all hot and bothered here. I like to drink but you sure as shit won't see me saying statistically speaking that people that drink are NO different at all than people that don't. A good bit of being up the Nile River here if you ask me.

Sure, stoners as a group would tend to have some characteristics more than a control population would. I doubt that a propensity for pilferage is one of them.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Cigarettes totally cause cancer, but pot doesn't make you drive into trees. Hasn't anyone else here ever smoked pot?

 

[JThunder]

Folks, I agree that this thread is worth bookmarking. People should refer to it the next time Diogenes lauds his own intelligence. It's also worth referencing the next time a doper expresses admiration for knowledge and supposed scholarship.

 

[Shot From Guns]

Cigarettes totally cause cancer, but pot doesn't make you drive into trees.

Pot doesn't make you drive into trees. It does fuck with your motor skills, your coordination, and your reaction times. Whether or not that results in you driving into a tree depends on (a) whether or not you decide to drive fucked up and (b) how you compensate while driving for the fact that you're aware that you're fucked up.

The big problem everyone here is having, Dio, is that you've asserted that pot has absolutely no effect on your ability to drive, when the major scientific concensus is that it absolutely does.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Are the effects of habitual marijuana use any worse than the effects of habitual alcohol use?

The effects of chronic alcohol abuse are much, much, MUCH worse than for chronic chronic use. Pot doesn't pickle your brain and destroy your liver.

 

[Turek]

I AM the evidence.

Actually, you're just anecdotal bullshit.

 

[Bryan Ekers]

How about the counter-experience that people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are notoriously bad judges of the degree to which they are under the influence?

I'm prepared to buy that people who are stoned think they're safer drivers.