3 ms·

The study you linked has the same error that almost all of these 'studies' have. "The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuan

by Carrok 10y ago

The study you linked has the same error that almost all of these 'studies' have. "The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014." So they are testing the blood of deceased people, finding the presence of THC (which can remain the blood for weeks), and calling them 'marijuana-related crashes'. So quite literally by their own definition, someone could smoke some weed, a week later get drunk, go driving, crash, and now this is a 'marijuana related' crash? I don't buy it.

curiousgeorgio 10y ago
The study may have flaws (as all do), but it's a whole lot more conclusive than a claim such as "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show", a statement obviously trying to imply that marijuana is somehow safe for drivers, when it's obviously not. One could compare marijuana-related accidents to any number of other dangerous activities and make it look safe in comparison. Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? This article (especially the headline) is incredibly dangerous and misleading, as it's apparently trying to get people to respond with something like "see, marijuana doesn't harm anyone," when in reality, it does.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > The study may have flaws (as all do) This isn't "a flaw", it's a fatal flaw that invalidates the study. You're missing the point; saying marijuana-related accidents is itself an invalid statement as there is not way to quantify that correctly. You can therefore not conclude anything from marijuana-related anything other than people who want to control other people are happy to use invalid statistics to try and impose their will where it isn't welcome. > Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? Because it is not dangerous and irresponsible, that's your assumption, it is not a fact in evidence.

by Carrok 10y ago

curiousgeorgio 10y ago

The study may have flaws (as all do), but it's a whole lot more conclusive than a claim such as "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show", a statement obviously trying to imply that marijuana is somehow safe for drivers, when it's obviously not. One could compare marijuana-related accidents to any number of other dangerous activities and make it look safe in comparison. Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? This article (especially the headline) is incredibly dangerous and misleading, as it's apparently trying to get people to respond with something like "see, marijuana doesn't harm anyone," when in reality, it does.

gnaritas 10y ago
> The study may have flaws (as all do) This isn't "a flaw", it's a fatal flaw that invalidates the study. You're missing the point; saying marijuana-related accidents is itself an invalid statement as there is not way to quantify that correctly. You can therefore not conclude anything from marijuana-related anything other than people who want to control other people are happy to use invalid statistics to try and impose their will where it isn't welcome. > Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? Because it is not dangerous and irresponsible, that's your assumption, it is not a fact in evidence.