Originally Posted by Mahratta

Yeah, that was kind of the point of that part of my post...



This is a judgment you're making based on your own conclusions, not statistical ones. Yes, driving on cannabis is probably unsafe relative to driving sober, but I don't see how you can be so certain in your point when you've got no evidence besides your anecdotes. In fact, comparing statistics on accidents attributed to cannabis in Canada and the prevalence of cannabis use among the general population in Canada, the opposite point is supported - either cannabis users don't drive much after use, or they haven't got into many accidents...

Because unless you know that you're going to get ass raped if you're not home by midnight, your fat ass generally does NOT move while you're high.

Originally Posted by Souldier

Because we all know how well alcohol awareness does when it comes to stopping drunk people driving. At the end of the day, nobody wants to be the DD, and nobody wants to spend money on a cab, drunk driving and high driving will happen.

So you are arguing that awareness and enforcement doesn't do anything? I think you are TOTALLY wrong. I believe that awareness and enforcement decreases the amount of drunk drivers on the road. Obviously it's not going to make it 0%, you're just asking for too much if that's what you want.

Originally Posted by Souldier

Because we all know how well alcohol awareness does when it comes to stopping drunk people driving. At the end of the day, nobody wants to be the DD, and nobody wants to spend money on a cab, drunk driving and high driving will happen.

Of course they will. Right now, high driving is happening, because pot-smoking is happening; I just think the government should get a cut.

Originally Posted by Souldier

Because we all know how well alcohol awareness does when it comes to stopping drunk people driving. At the end of the day, nobody wants to be the DD, and nobody wants to spend money on a cab, drunk driving and high driving will happen.

Again, you don't have much statistical evidence. A sizable portion of Canadians use cannabis, but there isn't a corresponding portion of accidents blamed on cannabis use. So again, either statisticians are all actually smoking pot and botching the sheets, cannabis is safer than alcohol when it comes to driving, or cannabis users just don't drive that much.

All in all, not a good argument on your part.

Originally Posted by jhan523

So you are arguing that awareness and enforcement doesn't do anything? I think you are TOTALLY wrong. I believe that awareness and enforcement decreases the amount of drunk drivers on the road. Obviously it's not going to make it 0%, you're just asking for too much if that's what you want.

It works to some extent, but there will be a net increase of marijuana users who choose to drive high once it's legalized.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Again, you don't have much statistical evidence. A sizable portion of Canadians use cannabis, but there isn't a corresponding portion of accidents blamed on cannabis use. So again, either statisticians are all actually smoking pot and botching the sheets, cannabis is safer than alcohol when it comes to driving, or cannabis users just don't drive that much.

All in all, not a good argument on your part.

You don't have any statistical evidence either. All marijuana debates usually end up devolving into anecdotal evidence VS anecdotal evidence, and are pretty much pointless.

Originally Posted by Souldier

You don't have any statistical evidence either. All marijuana debates usually end up devolving into anecdotal evidence VS anecdotal evidence, and are pretty much pointless.

I think you're misunderstanding - if there aren't any accidents on record that are attributed to cannabis use and records of a significant portion of Canadians (and presumably, Canadians of driving age and capability) using cannabis, then that's valid evidence for my point.

I don't understand the correlation between the # of people driving while high and marijuana being legal/illegal.

If you're going to drive high, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Either way you're ****ed if you get caught and if you're dumb enough to test your luck, then you probably won't care too much about getting caught either.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I think you're misunderstanding - if there aren't any accidents on record that are attributed to cannabis use, then that's valid evidence for my point.

There isn't? Because I just provided one piece of anecdotal evidence where an accident was caused by cannabis use, you would think that it would be on record somewhere.

Originally Posted by Souldier

There isn't? Because I just provided one piece of anecdotal evidence where an accident was caused by cannabis use, you would think that it would be on record somewhere.

Well, either find it, or admit you made your scenario up. My scenario was fictional, of course - meant to indicate how ridiculous your method of approaching the argument.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

I don't understand the correlation between the # of people driving while high and marijuana being legal/illegal.

If you're going to drive high, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

Precisely. Some 45% of Canadians (15+) have tried cannabis at some point or another, so it's not like legalizing it will suddenly open the floodgates on potential use (and thus, on potential driving under the influence).

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Well, either find it, or admit you made your scenario up. My scenario was fictional, of course - meant to indicate how ridiculous your method of approaching the argument.



Precisely. Some 45% of Canadians (15+) have tried cannabis at some point or another, so it's not like legalizing it will suddenly open the floodgates on potential use (and thus, on potential driving under the influence).

I don't think statistics exist for marijuana related accidents, there are probably statistics for drug related accidents, maybe not. But are you honestly naive enough to think there hasn't been a single accident from someone consuming marijuana and driving?

Originally Posted by Souldier

But are you honestly naive enough to think there hasn't been a single accident from someone consuming marijuana and driving?

Unfortunately, rhetoric and the ad hominem doesn't go very far to prove your point.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/n...atal-car-crash
http://www.caraccidentattorn eys.co...auto-accidents

Is anyone even arguing that marijuana wouldn't increase the likelihood of an accident?

Maybe show us a statistic that says "marijuana users are 50% more likely to drive" or whatever. People don't ****ing MOVE when they're high.

Regardless....still not a valid reason as to why the govt shouldn't capitalize on this.

^ Yeah - I think it's pretty unanimous that cannabis use does increase risk of an accident because of decreased motor function and awareness - I don't think that Souldier gets the point that most (the vast majority) of cannabis users do not drive after use, and thus that his argument isn't valid...

Originally Posted by Souldier

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/n...atal-car-crash
http://www.caraccidentattorn eys.co...auto-accidents

This still doesn't prove much - in fact, it reinforces my point. If only 2.5% of crashes (in France, presumably) can independently be verified to have been caused by cannabis use when around 30% of the French populace is estimated to have used cannabis, it either proves that cannabis users don't get into many accidents while high or that cannabis users, on the whole, don't drive very much after using (which is what everyone here's been arguing).

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats07/gpstab08a

Originally Posted by Mahratta

^ Yeah - I think it's pretty unanimous that cannabis use does increase risk of an accident because of decreased motor function and awareness - I don't think that Souldier gets the point that most (the vast majority) of cannabis users do not drive after use, and thus that his argument isn't valid...



This still doesn't prove much - in fact, it reinforces my point. If only 2.5% of crashes (in France, presumably) can independently be verified to have been caused by cannabis use when around 30% of the French populace is estimated to have used cannabis, it either proves that cannabis users don't get into many accidents while high or that cannabis users, on the whole, don't drive very much after using (which is what everyone here's been arguing).

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats07/gpstab08a

You go from having the argument that not a single person has been in an accident resulting from marijuana, but once I provide statistics and crush your argument, you change your argument into cannabis users "don't drive much" as a whole. My point is that cannabis users still do DRIVE, and they DO get into accidents and they DO kill innocent people. Whether that's every 1 in 100 or 50 in 100 cannabis users that drive, it does not matter.