"Legalized" in Colorado.

[Famine]

So you agree Donjo's weedsmoking had nothing to do with the crashes he had then?

No-one ever drew that comparison for the negative to need agreeing with.

Anyway on these forums it's always black and white, and we should sometimes put some water in our wine. I'll agree it is not recommendable to hop into a car just after you got yourself stoned as a rock, as long as the people here that are in the opposite camp (people that do not smoke i suppose), could admit the effects of MJ and driving are not as dangerous as getting behind the wheel after drinking alcohol.

Where's the scientific evidence for that? Why will you only agree with reality if other people will agree with an unsupported statement you just made?

Why are people who agree with the scientific evidence that taking drugs impairs your driving automatically non-smokers? I agree that drinking impairs your driving - does that make me a non-drinker?

That statement that you have 10 times more chance of an accident after smoking a dubey sounds ridiculous to me (even tough i'm sure someone actually published that).

Does it?

What do you think the proportion of general population using drugs who think it's just fine to drive while on drugs is? More or less than 2% (1 in 50)? The proportion of crashes attributable to drugs is 15-20%. Do the math.

 

[mister dog]

The proportion of crashes attributable to drugs is 15-20%. Do the math.

Like to know how much of that percentage is actually MJ (because we are talking solely about weed).

You state 15-20% drug related accidents, but that's all drugs in general and can include stuff like heroin, crack or LCD.
And even still it's a lot less than accidents caused by alcohol, so i think the actual percentage of accidents cause by people stoned on MJ is not worth mentioning almost. Probably the same percentage caused by cats crossing the streets.

Where's the scientific evidence for that? Why will you only agree with reality if other people will agree with an unsupported statement you just made?

I think me smoking for a long time, and driving cars for many years without accidents has a better credibility value than a scientific study to be honest. You are talking to the guinea pig himself here.

 

[Famine]

Like to know how much of that percentage is actually MJ (because we are talking solely about weed).

No we aren't.

You state 15-20% drug related accidents, but that's all drugs in general and can include stuff like heroin, crack or LCD.
And even still it's a lot less than accidents caused by alcohol

Actually it's directly comparable - 20-25% for alcohol, 15-20% for drugs.

so i think the actual percentage of accidents cause by people stoned on MJ is not worth mentioning almost. Probably the same percentage caused by cats crossing the streets.

Of course it is.

I think me smoking for a long time, and driving cars for many years without accidents has a better credibility value than a scientific study to be honest.

You would. But you're just one person and not statistically significant. Personal testimony is not a foundation of knowledge - objective study is.

 

[mister dog]

No we aren't.

Well we should as the thread is about weed and it's consequences.

Actually it's directly comparable - 20-25% for alcohol, 15-20% for drugs.Of course it is.

My point being that from that figure you still need to deduct a big percentage if you want to compare how big the contributing factor of MJ is to accidents.

You would. But you're just one person and not statistically significant. Personal testimony is not a foundation of knowledge - objective study is.

True, but i'm sure there are thousands of others out there just like me, and you would never notice that they were stoned driving behind them (which does not have any scientific value again off course, just my 2 cents).

Ps. Where is the button to change fond color? I was copy pasting your post and some of mine went purple

 

[phonyk]

I had a friend who, for about five years, would regularly drive their car while drunk. During that time, this friend had three accidents, all of which resulted in total write offs. None of their accidents occurred while they were drunk.

To all trends there are exceptions. But they are exactly that - exceptions. You need to look at the trend as a whole rather than basing your entire opinion on the anecdotal evidence of one individual.

This friend took a lot of convincing that driving while drunk was dangerous and it was only a matter of time before it would result in an accident. They felt, as many people do about road laws unfortunately, that they were special and that the rules of the road were there for other people, and they should be free to disregard them. They believed the only risk they were taking when driving while drunk, was that they might get caught and lose their license.

Thankfully there is no sting in the tail for this story - my friend eventually relented and agreed to stop driving while drunk. Now, years later, they thank me for my stubbornness and perseverance in convincing them that they were doing something extremely dangerous, and will now quite willingly admit that it was absolutely only a matter of time before they were involved in a serious accident.

The point is - there are always the exceptions. There are always the people who can say that they knew someone who was a 60-a-day smoker who lived well into their nineties and never got cancer. But individuals do not disprove the overall statistics. They were the lucky ones.

You might not be.

 

[mister dog]

I had a friend who, for about five years, would regularly drive their car while drunk. During that time, this friend had three accidents, all of which resulted in total write offs. None of their accidents occurred while they were drunk.

To all trends there are exceptions. But they are exactly that - exceptions. You need to look at the trend as a whole rather than basing your entire opinion on the anecdotal evidence of one individual.

This friend took a lot of convincing that driving while drunk was dangerous and it was only a matter of time before it would result in an accident. They felt, as many people do about road laws unfortunately, that they were special and that the rules of the road were there for other people, and they should be free to disregard them. They believed the only risk they were taking when driving while drunk, was that they might get caught and lose their license.

Thankfully there is no sting in the tail for this story - my friend eventually relented and agreed to stop driving while drunk. Now, years later, they thank me for my stubbornness and perseverance in convincing them that they were doing something extremely dangerous, and will now quite willingly admit that it was absolutely only a matter of time before they were involved in a serious accident.

The point is - there are always the exceptions. There are always the people who can say that they knew someone who was a 60-a-day smoker who lived well into their nineties and never got cancer. But individuals do not disprove the overall statistics. They were the lucky ones.

You might not be.

Totally agree with being drunk and driving; you don't realize what you are doing anymore and you can't control your own body, even if you think you are the king at that moment. But as i said before there is a huge difference with being stoned of weed, as then you might be feeling a bit funny, but you still know what you are doing and you have perfect control over your body.

You really can't compare the 2 as the effect is totally different, and as such also the relation to driving a vehicle.

 

[phonyk]

I appreciate the point you're making, and absolutely; getting stoned does not impair your physical co-ordination to anything like the degree that being drunk does. But the thing is does undeniably effect is your reaction time and your decision making. So while your hands and feet may well do what you tell them, there is a much bigger lag between spotting a hazard and being able to take action to avoid it when you're high compared to when you're sober. This is the same reason you shouldn't drive if you've taken opiate-based meds like Codeine. In terms of physically controlling the car, a stoner may be fine, but when you're baked there is a significantly greater risk that you would not be able to take action to prevent an accident when a hazard occurs. I don't see how you could possibly argue against this point. And acknowledging that this is the case, it seems logical to say that you shouldn't be allowed to drive while high. Again, simply saying that you personally have not had an accident while high does not in any way disprove the fact that driving while high is dangerous. The statistics are conclusive; people who are high are more likely to get into an accident than those who aren't.

 

[Touring Mars]

I was just reading, I think it was yesterday, it's been legalized on a federal level, and that the legal age has been set to 21, like the drinking age in some states. I'll see if I can find the link.

It's not legal under federal law. Federal law also prohibits banks from handling any cash from the illegal drugs trade, which is going to give all of these new marijuana-related businesses (growers, cafes etc.) a major headache, because although state law now allows them to conduct their business, federal law prohibits them from doing anything with the money they make!

I've no idea how the difference between state and federal law really works in the US, but it will no doubt bring up some interesting issues, especially if and when more states follow Colorado's lead. I don't know why exactly, but it is a little surprising to me that Colorado should be the first state to legalise marijuana for general consumption. I know that it has been legal for medicinal purposes in other states for years, but there's a big difference between medicinal use and recreational use.

I can see the media having a field day when more and more stories of the negative consequences of marijuana use appear, as I guess they will. But what will be really interesting will be to see what impact legalisation has on the black market/illicit drug trade, and all the negative consequences that it brings with it. With some luck, the media will take both the positive and negative aspects of legalisation into account, but I fully expect to see at least some backlash.

The big question for me is, what happens now in terms of federal law? Surely it is an untenable situation that drugs are legal in some states but illegal under federal law?

 

[mister dog]

I appreciate the point you're making, and absolutely; getting stoned does not impair your physical co-ordination to anything like the degree that being drunk does. But the thing is does undeniably effect is your reaction time and your decision making. So while your hands and feet may well do what you tell them, there is a much bigger lag between spotting a hazard and being able to take action to avoid it when you're high compared to when you're sober. This is the same reason you shouldn't drive if you've taken opiate-based meds like Codeine. In terms of physically controlling the car, a stoner may be fine, but when you're baked there is a significantly greater risk that you would not be able to take action to prevent an accident when a hazard occurs. I don't see how you could possibly argue against this point. And acknowledging that this is the case, it seems logical to say that you shouldn't be allowed to drive while high. Again, simply saying that you personally have not had an accident while high does not in any way disprove the fact that driving while high is dangerous. The statistics are conclusive; people who are high are more likely to get into an accident than those who aren't.

I'm not really that sure about reaction time neither, i think this depends on the level of stonedness so to say. I actually remember setting better times playing racing games just after a joint, whilst when i'm drunk i'm all over the place and crashing

Anyway, i agree it has an effect sure, but i do not agree that it should be looked upon the same way as with alcohol and driving, as one deteriorates your ability to drive tons more than the other.

It's not legal under federal law. Federal law also prohibits banks from handling any cash from the illegal drugs trade, which is going to give all of these new marijuana-related businesses (growers, cafes etc.) a major headache, because although state law now allows them to conduct their business, federal law prohibits them from doing anything with the money they make!

I've no idea how the difference between state and federal law really works in the US, but it will no doubt bring up some interesting issues, especially if and when more states follow Colorado's lead. I don't know why exactly, but it is a little surprising to me that Colorado should be the first state to legalise marijuana for general consumption. I know that it has been legal for medicinal purposes in other states for years, but there's a big difference between medicinal use and recreational use.

I can see the media having a field day when more and more stories of the negative consequences of marijuana use appear, as I guess they will. But what will be really interesting will be to see what impact legalisation has on the black market/illicit drug trade, and all the negative consequences that it brings with it. With some luck, the media will take both the positive and negative aspects of legalisation into account, but I fully expect to see at least some backlash.

The big question for me is, what happens now in terms of federal law? Surely it is an untenable situation that drugs are legal in some states but illegal under federal law?

There is only one logical solution to this problem it seems, and that is to legalize all over the states (and preferably all over the world also for the sake of foreign bank accounts).

 

[Azuremen]

I'm quite interested in knowing what the quality of the legal weed is like in Colorado. Hopefully, for the smokers over there, they're not getting a dud bud.

Extremely good, though not quite up to par with West Coast varieties. From what I've heard from friends who've traveled, weed in Australia tends to be a bit more expensive and not quite the same quality. However, prices in Colorado have shot up to $400 per ounce (~28g) where as $200 to $250 was typical of quality product.

I've no idea how the difference between state and federal law really works in the US, but it will no doubt bring up some interesting issues, especially if and when more states follow Colorado's lead. I don't know why exactly, but it is a little surprising to me that Colorado should be the first state to legalise marijuana for general consumption. I know that it has been legal for medicinal purposes in other states for years, but there's a big difference between medicinal use and recreational use.

Legally speaking, there isn't much difference between medical and legal in terms of the Federal government - the DEA was raiding medical clinics and grow centers in states despite their legalization for medical. The bigger change is that the current administration has been pushing to relax on states legalizing and decriminalizing.

Being in the other state where it is currently legal (and has been for over a year), I can say the federal agencies execute federal policy. Which means being in a national park allows agencies like Border Patrol to press charges, or the US Coast Guard if out on, say, the Puget Sound.

As a side note, Washington beat Colorado by a day to allowing private possession and consumption back in 2012, but Colorado has beat Washington to public dispensaries.

The big question for me is, what happens now in terms of federal law? Surely it is an untenable situation that drugs are legal in some states but illegal under federal law?

In the past, the Fed would just blackmail states with funding for the highway system - Idaho's drinking age and Montana's speed limits come to mind - but that might not go over so well now...

 

[Cap'n Jack]

You'd be lucky to get an ounce of quality weed for $200 here, only if you've got the right connections and what's quality here might be different to over there. The current prices in Colorado sound quite comparable to here then I guess. No doubt they will sort things out over time and the price will drop quite a bit.

 

[DK]

Do you mean US$200 or AUS$200?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

US. It's more or less equivalent to our prices, not exactly.

 

[mister dog]

Damn what a ripoff, on the Spanish streets you can find it at around 4€ a gram... That's almost 4 times cheaper than in the Colorado pharmacies then.

If it really is that expensive, can you buy seeds and grow a plant or 2 yourself?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

If it really is that expensive, can you buy seeds and grow a plant or 2 yourself?

Well, I believe you can (or at one stage could) legally grow one or two plants for personal use only, but I haven't recently checked to see if that law still stands. Anyway, that take effort and you know how lazy the marijuana smoker is!

As far as price goes, I was referring to real good, quality weed. Prices are really not too bad and from my experience the difference between the cheaper stuff and more expensive stuff isn't hugely noticeable if you're buying from a good source.


Sorry if this subject beginning to cross the AUP! Not really quite sure how this subject stands now.

 

[counter345]

Anyway, that take effort and you know how lazy the marijuana smoker is!

That's a fairly vague accusation. Do you have any evidence or is this just personal testimony?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

@counter345 It was just a joke about the stereotypical stoner.

 

[Danoff]

I believe it is still completely legal in Colorado to grow your own - which is a downward pressure on prices.

 

[EvanJamesLee]

No thank you, I walk by the weed smoking neighborhood every once in a while and its a mess. There is trash everywhere, people aimlessly loiter around and it smells funny.

 

[Danoff]

No thank you, I walk by the weed smoking neighborhood every once in a while and its a mess. There is trash everywhere, people aimlessly loiter around and it smells funny.

"The weed smoking neighborhood" is this some sort of sanctioned area in Massachusetts where people can smoke weed? Or is this a place where illegal drugs are done... illegally.

 

[Azuremen]

No thank you, I walk by the weed smoking neighborhood every once in a while and its a mess. There is trash everywhere, people aimlessly loiter around and it smells funny.

And there we have it, folks - actual REAL evidence that weed ruins lives. I'm off to tell my friends who smoke that they best stop before they lose their 6 figure a year careers. Lord knows I wouldn't want them smelling funny and loitering around in trash.

 

[Joel]

No thank you, I walk by the weed smoking neighborhood every once in a while and its a mess. There is trash everywhere, people aimlessly loiter around and it smells funny.

Alcohol legalisation? No thanks, I walk by the club every now and then and it's a total mess. All these drunks throwing up on the sidewalks and walking out in front of traffic, people walking around everywhere and it smells like piss.