4 ms·

Marijuana has been good enough to prove itself without studies. So the more studies you have, the better. I believe.

gxs 9y ago
FYI this is a dangerous line of reasoning - it can be used to support whatever outcome one desires. If we can provide good research and complete facts, we should go out of our way to do it, rather than do some hand waving and accept all research that appears to support our claims. I see where you're coming from, but just some food for thought. Quick edit: It seems like I’ve been misunderstood - I was referring to the line of reasons being dangerous, not pot. Not sure how that happened since it’s the first line in my post.
- elf_code 9y ago
  I'm all in. Prove itself dangerous. Just some food for thought ;)
  - sparrish 9y ago
    There's a nice link in the article for how dangerous it is. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/ http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traf... I live in Colorado, I've seen a definite decrease in safe driving the past few years. It is dangerous.
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      I lean towards marijuana being a possible cause of the increase in bad driving but I can also see the huge influx of outsiders being another potential cause. People new to an area tend it make a lot more mistakes on the road.
      - naasking 9y ago
        If there's a huge influx of outsiders, then that alone would increase traffic accidents without needing to appeal to drugs as the culprit. The OP seems to be looking a little too hard to fit data to his beliefs.
    - jack9 9y ago
      This is the kind of poor correlative thinking that created the spurious war on drugs. Morally, you have to draw the line at what is "dangerous", when the danger emerges from a complex behavioral scenario. Some drug is vilified as a lampshade, because a physical substance is considered easier to control than irresponsible behavior. There is a diminishing return for prohibition that is hard to cost-benefit justify at any scale. e.g. the substance can create revenue outside of prohibition. This is the core error in the prescriptive "war on drugs" and decades later it's still confounding audiences as to why it's an incorrect conclusion. The punishment severity of drug offenses is something to look at (the inverse relationship between drug offenses recorded and severity of punishment). This has nothing to do with the danger of the drug itself, but does address the behavior more directly. "Treatment" for addiction is still in the dark ages as many debunkers study this topic routinely. If you chase that topic, you might see how consequence is the stick, not blaming the inanimate substance.
    - elf_code 9y ago
      Just like alcohol is dangerous. Precautions must be made, I agree with you. But this looks like all drugs must be included in the next studies, and articles.
    - nrclark 9y ago
      To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable way to test whether a driver is actively intoxicated from pot. Existing blood tests will tell you if a person has used it in the past week or two, but not whether they've used it in the past hour. So average measured blood-levels could well be up because more Coloradans are smoking, but that's no proof at all that more Coloradans are driving under the influence. I wouldn't necessarily say that weed is harmless or safer than alcohol, but articles like the Denver Post one are written with an unfair bias.
      - bionoid 9y ago
        > To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable way to test whether a driver is actively intoxicated from pot Police here use a spit test; supposedly it reveals use within the past 24 hours. But as far as I know, it can/will test positive for a regular user that did not smoke weed in the past 24 hours. So I guess you are right; it is not reliable (but it'll still get you convicted..)
  - xupybd 9y ago
    Do you mean "proof itself is dangerous"? If so can you elaborate, I'm not sure a sound argument can be made to support that claim but I'd love to hear it if it does exist.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- elf_code 9y ago
  Yes, I agree with you, gxs. We need more research, and complete facts, as you said. I didn't even read the whole article, but I know it's a regional fact (title says Colorado). I'm sure that Marijuana has many greater goods, since it's basically a plant. We could use it on to solve medicine problems, or pharmaceutical solutions, and even cloth. But this isn't being applied to the whole world. Marijuana is still considered a "bad drug" in other countries/states (alcohol and other medicines are "good drugs"). So, I'm not saying that this article has a good research. But I believe the more studies you have, the better.

gxs 9y ago

FYI this is a dangerous line of reasoning - it can be used to support whatever outcome one desires. If we can provide good research and complete facts, we should go out of our way to do it, rather than do some hand waving and accept all research that appears to support our claims. I see where you're coming from, but just some food for thought. Quick edit: It seems like I’ve been misunderstood - I was referring to the line of reasons being dangerous, not pot. Not sure how that happened since it’s the first line in my post.

elf_code 9y ago
I'm all in. Prove itself dangerous. Just some food for thought ;)
- sparrish 9y ago
  There's a nice link in the article for how dangerous it is. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/ http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traf... I live in Colorado, I've seen a definite decrease in safe driving the past few years. It is dangerous.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    I lean towards marijuana being a possible cause of the increase in bad driving but I can also see the huge influx of outsiders being another potential cause. People new to an area tend it make a lot more mistakes on the road.
    - naasking 9y ago
      If there's a huge influx of outsiders, then that alone would increase traffic accidents without needing to appeal to drugs as the culprit. The OP seems to be looking a little too hard to fit data to his beliefs.
  - jack9 9y ago
    This is the kind of poor correlative thinking that created the spurious war on drugs. Morally, you have to draw the line at what is "dangerous", when the danger emerges from a complex behavioral scenario. Some drug is vilified as a lampshade, because a physical substance is considered easier to control than irresponsible behavior. There is a diminishing return for prohibition that is hard to cost-benefit justify at any scale. e.g. the substance can create revenue outside of prohibition. This is the core error in the prescriptive "war on drugs" and decades later it's still confounding audiences as to why it's an incorrect conclusion. The punishment severity of drug offenses is something to look at (the inverse relationship between drug offenses recorded and severity of punishment). This has nothing to do with the danger of the drug itself, but does address the behavior more directly. "Treatment" for addiction is still in the dark ages as many debunkers study this topic routinely. If you chase that topic, you might see how consequence is the stick, not blaming the inanimate substance.
  - elf_code 9y ago
    Just like alcohol is dangerous. Precautions must be made, I agree with you. But this looks like all drugs must be included in the next studies, and articles.
  - nrclark 9y ago
    To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable way to test whether a driver is actively intoxicated from pot. Existing blood tests will tell you if a person has used it in the past week or two, but not whether they've used it in the past hour. So average measured blood-levels could well be up because more Coloradans are smoking, but that's no proof at all that more Coloradans are driving under the influence. I wouldn't necessarily say that weed is harmless or safer than alcohol, but articles like the Denver Post one are written with an unfair bias.
    - bionoid 9y ago
      > To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable way to test whether a driver is actively intoxicated from pot Police here use a spit test; supposedly it reveals use within the past 24 hours. But as far as I know, it can/will test positive for a regular user that did not smoke weed in the past 24 hours. So I guess you are right; it is not reliable (but it'll still get you convicted..)
- xupybd 9y ago
  Do you mean "proof itself is dangerous"? If so can you elaborate, I'm not sure a sound argument can be made to support that claim but I'd love to hear it if it does exist.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
elf_code 9y ago
Yes, I agree with you, gxs. We need more research, and complete facts, as you said. I didn't even read the whole article, but I know it's a regional fact (title says Colorado). I'm sure that Marijuana has many greater goods, since it's basically a plant. We could use it on to solve medicine problems, or pharmaceutical solutions, and even cloth. But this isn't being applied to the whole world. Marijuana is still considered a "bad drug" in other countries/states (alcohol and other medicines are "good drugs"). So, I'm not saying that this article has a good research. But I believe the more studies you have, the better.