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

[MsWhatsit]

Anecdote: When we were kiddos, once my brother was drunker than Jesus, and tried to improve his posture and mannerisms so that Pa would not catch on. It was late at night (/in the morning) so Pa knew he was drunk, and his absurdly upright posture just confirmed the suspicions. "Of course he was drunk," Pa said. "He was walking straight as a soldier." Excellent!

Since it is almost 2 am and we are in the Anecdote Zone (like the Twilight Zone except less creepy and with no talking puppets) I will say that this is bar none the most hilarious thing to witness drunk people do. "I am definitely not drunk! No, I always walk this way and talk like a robot and do not use contractions in my speech! I am super rational and capable right now! Oh shit, why is the floor on the ceiling!"

 

[Guinastasia]

I see I read your post wrong -- I thought you said you were being careful while DRIVING, but I was wrong. I appologize.


Dio? What I said stands.

 

[zut]

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?

 

[Shot From Guns]

No, it's more like putting a pack of ribeyes in my purse at the grocery store, only to remove them before I check out.

You really think a company is going to care about whether you actually got away with the theft you intended before firing you? Or banning you, if you're a customer instead of an employee?

I AM the evidence.

And I AM Spartacus!

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

No it doesn't.

That depends on how wasted you are. I've definitely been too stoned to think.

 

[MeanOldLady]

Since it is almost 2 am and we are in the Anecdote Zone (like the Twilight Zone except less creepy and with no talking puppets) I will say that this is bar none the most hilarious thing to witness drunk people do. "I am definitely not drunk! No, I always walk this way and talk like a robot and do not use contractions in my speech! I am super rational and capable right now! Oh shit, why is the floor on the ceiling!"

Ha ha ha! Do not use contractions! Hilarious. Oh man, I love the Anecdote Zone.

Seriously now, Cartooniverse, I'm sorry your camera was stolen.

 

[lieu]

Want to see my transcripts?

What's the fun in that? It's way better every time cricetus busts you.

 

[Vinyl Turnip]

Cite?

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.

 

[Freudian Slit]

The heat thread was started a couple of days ago; if I remember correctly, Cartooniverse is in New York, and is likely to be travelling today.

Well, he posted in that thread at 3:47 today...

 

[magellan01]

Diogenes, can you shut the fuck up already?

...

Don't show up to important shit high and/or drunk, and then wonder why people think you're an asshole who isn't serious. It's not more complicated than that.

MeanOldLady, this and your subsequent posts win the thread. You cracked me up. Like MsWhatsit, I love The Anecdote Zone. Funny stuff. Dio is your muse.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No it doesn't. It stands refuted by the cites in this thread.

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

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

 

[fuji]

Anecodtes are not evidence.The actual empirical data shows that driving stoned does not increase tthe risk for accidents. There's no way out of that box. That's a checkmate for me.

So... the nine people just in this thread who directly refute your assertion are supposed to privilege your interpretation of the findings of a scientist who draws conclusions based on probablistic inferences over their own direct experience of the matter at hand.

No, I'm saying that hard empirical data trumps anecdotal bullshit. Why the fuck do you think it should be otherwise?

:smack:

I AM the evidence.

 

[BCHH]

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?

You may have 2 - yes, 2! people saying it, you could have fifty, it still wouldn't matter because you are not impartial. The pot issue aside, I may think I am a terrific driver, when I, for example, may tailgate, don't stay in my lane, might be easily distracted, can't park for shit, don't signal, talk on the cell phone, etc...I cannot accurately judge my own skills, and neither can you.

 

[ivan astikov]

If I have to defend Dio's position here, so be it. I'm going to outright state that pot-smokers have less driving accidents than those who drive "straight". If it is such an outlandish claim, I'm sure there'll be a barrage of cites proving differently in a matter of moments.

 

[whole bean]

Yes, it 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.

Perhaps you have forgotten this post:

In conclusion, the regular marijuana users in our study showed cognitive impairment in the maze task and in the WCST on 17mg THC... This evidence is compatible with previous studies showing impaired cognitive function in regular users of marijuana.

Weinstein et al, "A Study Investigating the Acute Dose-response Effects of 13 Mg and 17 Mg Δ 9- Tetrahydrocannabinol on Cognitive-motor Skills, Subjective and Autonomic Measures in Regular Users of Marijuana," Journal of Psychopharmacology, Vol. 22 Issue 4, June 2008, 441-451.

A quick read through the conclusions and/or the abstracts of a few other papers suggests that, while marijuana (or, to be more precise, the THC in marijuana) can and does impair cognitive and motor skills in most users, there are some users who show little or no effect from using the drug. This is generally explained by a combination of genetic predisposition (i.e., some people seem to have a sort of natural resistance to the effects) and accumulated tolerance (i.e., some people who smoke a lot can build up their tolerance for it, and avoid some of the worst effects).

[...]

But a blanket statement that it doesn't impair cognitive or motor function is simply unsupported by the recent medical literature.

Which you actually replied to:

Thanks for the cite. I am one of those people who never seemed to suffer any impairment.

[...]

I still maintain that whatever imparment occurs is still pretty negligable even for those more susceptable to it, and anyone who's ever been a stoner or around stoners knows that it's not even close to the same kind of impairment as being drunk.

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?

After the retraction, how do you address the studies cited by mhendo - the studies that showed THC does impair the ability to perform a task. Do you just ignore them in favor of studies that show no increase in vehicular accidents among marijuana users? If so, then you've lost the argument.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Anecodtes are not evidence.The actual empirical data shows that driving stoned does not increase tthe risk for accidents. There's no way out of that box. That's a checkmate for me.

That was a joke.

Bull-mother fucking-shit! It's back-peddling pure and simple. You've been arguing that this entire thread. I bet it's also a preemptive strike against the inevitable...

I AM the evidence.

Anecodtes are not evidence.

... contradiction. If you want to post looney speculations that you believe, fine. But now you are just lying in an attempt to salvage your position.

It was a joke, moron.

 

[billfish678]

For most of us, stealing an expensive item from a store isn't "minor stupid shit". Most of us recognize the moral and legal downside (possible felony depending on value of item).

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

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.

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.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This article comes from a subscription database of medical literature.

A quick read through the conclusions and/or the abstracts of a few other papers suggests that, while marijuana (or, to be more precise, the THC in marijuana) can and does impair cognitive and motor skills in most users, there are some users who show little or no effect from using the drug. This is generally explained by a combination of genetic predisposition (i.e., some people seem to have a sort of natural resistance to the effects) and accumulated tolerance (i.e., some people who smoke a lot can build up their tolerance for it, and avoid some of the worst effects).

Obviously, as the above-cited study and other similar studies demonstrate, the strength of the weed (its THC content) plays a role in levels of impairment, and in how long this impairment lasts.

I'm not trying to make an argument for or against weed here. I don't use it myself, but i know plenty of people who do, and i have no problem with people who use it. I have a medical marijuana dispensary within a couple of blocks of my house, and i think that's excellent. I'm also hoping California passes Prop 19 and legalizes the stuff in November. But a blanket statement that it doesn't impair cognitive or motor function is simply unsupported by the recent medical literature.

Thanks for the cite. I am one of those people who never seemed to suffer any impairment. My friends would often comment on it a lot that I seemed more straight when I was stoned than when I wasn't (I'm naturally kind of a space case. Pot actually seemed to clear me up and help me concentrate).

I still maintain that whatever imparment occurs is still pretty negligable even for those more susceptable to it, and anyone who's ever been a stoner or around stoners knows that it's not even close to the same kind of impairment as being drunk.

 

[Enderw24]

If I have to defend Dio's position here, so be it. I'm going to outright state that pot-smokers have less driving accidents than those who drive "straight". If it is such an outlandish claim, I'm sure there'll be a barrage of cites proving differently in a matter of moments.

Oh no. I fully believe this to be the truth. In the same way that people who drive a manual transmission with their feet have less driving accidents than those who drive "straight." It's not that it isn't a ridiculous thing to do and patently unsafe...it's just that there's less people out there attempting it so there are less accidents.

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.

Since it is almost 2 am and we are in the Anecdote Zone (like the Twilight Zone except less creepy and with no talking puppets) I will say that this is bar none the most hilarious thing to witness drunk people do. "I am definitely not drunk! No, I always walk this way and talk like a robot and do not use contractions in my speech! I am super rational and capable right now! Oh shit, why is the floor on the ceiling!"

They say that bad actors play drunk people by making them act drunk. The secret is to portray drunk people as attempting to act sober.