Bob in Mich Posted May 6, 2016 Author Share Posted May 6, 2016 WGRZ in Buffalo had a segment on NY's medical cannabis program and some proposed changes. http://www.wgrz.com/news/families-say-medical-marijuana-a-life-changer/174445651 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Pot is perfectly safe: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/stoned-driving-fatal-accidents/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Pot is perfectly safe: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/stoned-driving-fatal-accidents/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Pot is perfectly safe: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/stoned-driving-fatal-accidents/index.html I think it goes without saying that like alcohol you shouldn't be driving while under the influence. If pot's so safe, why did these 8 people get killed in Ohio?: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/01/health/ohio-murders-pike-county/index.html This isn't even tangential to whatever point you were trying to make. That's like saying there was a robbery at a 7-11 and the store clerk was shot dead, therefore mini marts kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 I think it goes without saying that like alcohol you shouldn't be driving while under the influence. This isn't even tangential to whatever point you were trying to make. That's like saying there was a robbery at a 7-11 and the store clerk was shot dead, therefore mini marts kill people. Well then - how about this one: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/police-courts/woman-dies-from-burns-in-moselle-street-blaze-20160509 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Well then - how about this one: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/police-courts/woman-dies-from-burns-in-moselle-street-blaze-20160509 Pot should be banned because it causes extreme violations of building codes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Exactly - by stoned people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Exactly - by stoned people. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Way to catch on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 This isn't even tangential to whatever point you were trying to make. That's like saying there was a robbery at a 7-11 and the store clerk was shot dead, therefore mini marts kill people. He does this all the time. Ex alcoholic who can't make a salient point tries to shame marijuana smokers again. Weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 He does this all the time. Ex alcoholic who can't make a salient point tries to shame marijuana smokers again. Weak. Awfully weak. He should know that nothing he can do or say will match the shame of being a pothead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Pot is perfectly safe: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/stoned-driving-fatal-accidents/index.html From the article: "The significant increase in fatal crashes involving marijuana is alarming," said Peter Kissinger, CEO of the foundation, which funds scientifically rigorous studies for the drivers organization. "Washington serves as an eye-opening case study for what other states may experience with road safety after legalizing the drug." For one thing who funds scientifically lax studies? Kind of like Union of Concerned Scientist. Is there a Union of Unconcerned Scientist? Claiming your 'rigorous' or 'concerned' doesn't make it so. For me those types of descriptions raise a red flag. They are almost always less than objective. One could of course actually go to the source and read the Driver Toxicology Testing and the Involvement of Marijuana in Fatal Crashes, 2010-2014 document which states: Summary and ConclusionsThe information compiled in this report is a necessary first step toward gaining a better understanding of the role marijuana plays in fatal crash events occurring in Washington State. Second to alcohol, marijuana has persisted as the dominant drug involved in fatal crashes for over a decade. In 2014, the proportion of drivers involved in fatal crashes testing positive for THC increased, and therefore the number of fatalities involving THC also increased. While this report explains that trend and the characteristics of these drivers, this information is not sufficient to determine if marijuana directly contributed to the cause of these crashes. It appears that Mr. Kissinger is overstating his case and can hardly be viewed as an objective source. Also, it would have taken the journalist less than a half hour to actually check out the basis of Mr. Kissinger's assertions reinforcing my belief that most journalists are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted May 11, 2016 Author Share Posted May 11, 2016 Good points. Check the underlying study when possible because the author of articles which cite the study can spin things anyway they like. While some studies may be ambiguous, digging down to the study at least takes a layer of opinion off the information. John Oliver did a segment on 'scientific studies' and how they get spun on TV and in print. He makes lots of good points. I know I have linked to rat studies in this thread, to name one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 "While this report explains that trend and the characteristics of these drivers, this information is not sufficient to determine if marijuana directly contributed to the cause of these crashes." You're !@#$ing kid me, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 So what's the possible lesson learned here? Don't toke and drive. Genius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Awfully weak. He should know that nothing he can do or say will match the shame of being a pothead. When does the shame kick in ? After the 4th piece of pizza ? I don't get it. I know tons of successful stoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 When does the shame kick in ? After the 4th piece of pizza ? I don't get it. I know tons of successful stoners. I think you're right about there being no shame. It reads much more like guilt to me. There is a subtle difference. I'd agree that there are a lot of stoners who perceive themselves as successful and are indeed successful by strict definitions. Personally I find it sad that the goals they have achieved include the avoidance of meeting their full potential. But this is America and everyone gets to define their own success so Bravo I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 I think you're right about there being no shame. It reads much more like guilt to me. There is a subtle difference. I'd agree that there are a lot of stoners who perceive themselves as successful and are indeed successful by strict definitions. Personally I find it sad that the goals they have achieved include the avoidance of meeting their full potential. But this is America and everyone gets to define their own success so Bravo I suppose. So, if they self identify as successful people do they get a free membership in Who's Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 I think you're right about there being no shame. It reads much more like guilt to me. There is a subtle difference. I'd agree that there are a lot of stoners who perceive themselves as successful and are indeed successful by strict definitions. Personally I find it sad that the goals they have achieved include the avoidance of meeting their full potential. But this is America and everyone gets to define their own success so Bravo I suppose. So, if they self identify as successful people do they get a free membership in Who's Who? Do either one of you have a point to make ? Who are these theoretical people you speak of ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts