California votes to legalise Marijuana FOR EVERYONE!

TipTop said:
It has been estimated that 7 percent of all crashes and 44 percent of fatal crashes involve alcohol use.

http://www.enotes.com/drugs-alcohol-encyclopedia/accidents-injuries-from-alcohol
Click to expand...

This is just going to go on & on, simple fact is there isn't any clear evidence that cannabis can do whatever the media/blind sighted studies declare, whereas there is clear evidence to what alcohol can do.

You'll never change the opinion of someone who thinks cannabis is a bad drug simple as.

Personally from "experience" alcohol has caused more problems to a lot of people I know more so than cannabis has.
 
Biohazard said:
That wasn't what we are arguing here, and I think I'll give up soon for fear of you causing me damaged mental health. You are a bit slow on the uptake here, sure you've not had too many puffs yourself?
Click to expand...

Well I am, read my posts, I'm saying that I beleive that there is a connection between mental health issues and cannabis usage for a certain percentage of takers.

I've also seen more lives wrecked by cannabis, but maybe I should have made myself a bit clearer on that topic, I meant from mental illness, and I was also referring to the substance abuser, not the people around him/her.


I am arguing as horrific as your story is, there are far more horrific stories from drink.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be cause for concern with regards to cannabis, on some levels I do think it's worse as many of the problems associated with alcohol abuse can be reversed before any permanent damage is done.

All substances are dangerous, you have to be a **** face not to realise this.
Click to expand...

"**** face" lol

Of course I release that, where have I gave you the idea that I beleive otherwise?
I can't really see what you are arguing, other than arguing for the sake of it.

Life damages your mental health, what are we going to do about that?
Click to expand...

So that means we should legalise cannabis ? not sure where your going with that last point tbh.
 
Last edited:
deuse said:
Oh just for you

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldsctech/151/15105.htm#a2


You do like sticking up for druggies do you not :)
Click to expand...

errm the only mention of the word "accident" in it is.
4.8 Analysis of blood samples from road traffic fatalities in 1996-97 (the results of the first 15 months of a three year DETR study—Press Notice 94/Transport, 11 February 1998) showed that 8 per cent of the victims were positive for cannabis, including 10 per cent of the victims who were driving. However, it is not clear what figures would have been obtained from a random sample of road users not involved in accidents (DH Q 211); and some of those who tested positive may have taken the cannabis as much as 30 days before, so that the effects would have worn off long since (DH p 240). The interpretation of traffic accident data is further confounded by the fact that 22 per cent of the drivers found to be cannabis*positive also had evidence of alcohol intake; proportions of alcohol*positives among cannabis*positive drivers as high as 75 per cent have been reported in other countries in similar studies. Professor Hall considers cannabis's contribution to danger on the roads to be very small; in his view the major effect of cannabis use on driving may be in amplifying the impairments caused by alcohol (cp Keen Q 42). According to a survey of 1,333 regular cannabis users by the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit (IDMU) in 1994, users who drove reported a level of accidents no higher than the general population; those with the highest accident rates were more likely to be heavier poly-drug users.
Click to expand...


That's apparently the victims, who can't answer when they took the drug.

And between 25-75% of those people also had alcohol in their systems...

and says

Professor Hall considers cannabis's contribution to danger on the roads to be very small; in his view the major effect of cannabis use on driving may be in amplifying the impairments caused by alcohol
Click to expand...


Although I admit i read your first post as "6 out of 11" rather than percent.
 
Last edited:
Biohazard said:
Oh come on, have a laugh! :p

I am of course not serious, quite dissapointed tefal you normally 'get' me. :D
Click to expand...


How does :eek::mad: count as serious :p


Perhaps i should have added some sort of daily mail outrage headline like


"GOVERNMENT IMMIGRANTS DRUG OLD WAR VETERANS!" :p
 
California in sensible legislation based on actual risk shocker?

Well I never.

Can we have some of this sensible behaviour please?
 
Tefal said:
What that your personal "experience" is any more valid than anyone else's random personal "experience" on a subject you're both vastly unqualified in?
Click to expand...

I think that experiences can offer different levels of validity to a discussion regardless of qualifications, I don't think they should be just pushed to one side becuase they can't be backed up with hard scientific proof, I think personal observations are very important, that's part of science, most doctors well tell you that they beleive there is a connection from their observations but they can't prove it conclusively, but that doesn't mean that those observations should go unwarranted, and you don't always have to be 'qualified' to know that there is a connection between the two, but obviously proving it is another matter.

Dolph said:
California in sensible legislation based on actual risk shocker?

Well I never.

Can we have some of this sensible behaviour please?
Click to expand...

Only if you say that in latin.
 
lowrider007 said:
I think that experiences can offer different levels of validity to a discussion regardless of qualifications, I don't think they should be just pushed to one side becuase they can't be backed up with hard scientific proof, I think personal observations are very important, that's part of science, most doctors well tell you that they beleive there is a connection from their observations but they can't prove it conclusively, but that doesn't mean that those observations should go unwarranted, and you don't always have to be 'qualified' to know that there is a connection between the two, but obviously proving it is another matter.
Click to expand...

Most doctors don't know the first thing about psychopharmacology though so their opinion doesn't mean much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom