Harper turns out to be a loser (again)

[Victor Galis]

The government has made me at least 10% poorer in the last month alone.

[Provost Harrison]

Re: Harper turns out to be a loser (again)

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
...Prime Minister...House of Commons...Conservative government...Opposition...Tories...MP...

Never mind being the US's b*tch, you're obviously still the UK's ***** s

[Arrian]

Look at their money. Who's on the back?



-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Being of libertarian bent I am predisposed to agree but there are issues of public safety at hand. If drivers are impaired regardless of rationale the government does have the mandate to curtail activities (legal or illegal substances included) that put people at risk.

The problem is how they're handling it. I've already exposed why: they don't take into account the specific effect of each drug, the doses required, (because the suspects will be seen by undefined "specialists"), and ignore that some drugs can stay in your organism much longer than its real effect will last. What they're doing is testing you for drugs without having any solid basis, despite their claims of making it objective like an alcootest. In some way, it's just mandatory drug testing done on shady premices and aiming cheap political gain.

As for your pot refence showing better driving performance who did they have in the study the pot smoking equivalent of Dr. Johnny Fever.

It was quite serious, with a thousand or so subjects.

[Zylka]

Which is not the case of all drugs: some of them, at certain doses, actually improve your accuracy and reactiveness.

Oh, gosh! French scientists prove that at "certain" doses, marijuana improves your accuracy and reactiveness. What a slim crutch you adament wake-&-bakes have found, today. French Scientists have finally done it, have they?

Anchoring fact to complete acceptance of a SINGLE, individually measured study is generally known as the "Believe first word of anything that sides with my own anticdotal dogma" syndrome. "Dude, it totally relaxes you while u r driving... so why shouldn't it make you safer? And did u hear, Scientists in France have finally proven it through a SCIENTIFIC STUDY. The French have always been so forward thinking, so philisophical.. it's such a shame that countless other Western nations have contrary findings in studies of their own. They're so ignorant."

Right. And as soon as some wonder-liberal Belgian or Dutch scientists confirm this study, we might as well immortalize the idea like a law of Physics.

Moreover, the reason we forbid drunk driving is because it's proven to be detrimental to your driving.

Know what else driving under the influence of a "certain" dose of alcohol is claimed to be? That's right, beneficial to the driver's reaction time. And in amounts slightly ABOVE that of many legal limits.

The reason that it's made illegal well before that argued "certain dose" is because gauging the "beneficial" dose is variable between individual minds and body chemistries. Think it's different with marijuana? Of course you do. It should be left to each individual to decide just how stoned they are before they grab hold of the wheel, right?

And when you've managed putting that shotty disclaimer for marijuana together, approach this: Both methamphetamine and cocaine are also considered "beneficial" to driving at the magical certain dose. I suppose as long as each individual stays within that dose, it shouldn't be a problem to allow a driver to stay on the road after having just taken a toke of glass

But there will be no way to properly assess the amount of drugs in the body, only its presence.

How the hell do you know? Do you know what markers are used to detect what drug in the body, and whether these same markers are sought during intoxication, as opposed to after the fact? Are you a laboratory scientist who's since given up on increasingly efficient measures of drug detection? I'm going to hazard a guess and instead assume that you're an indignant stoned-driver wound up in parroting detection defficiencies that he reads on the internet.

If there's no current way to properly asses the amount of drugs in the body, then THERE'S NO WAY TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE AMOUNT OF DRUGS ONE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE BEFORE SLIDING THE SLOPE OF INTOXICATION BEHIND THE WHEEL. Use your head.

The bottom line is that Harper is BSing on a "though on crime" policy, with a botched legislation whose sole effect will be to make it a crime to commit a crime (drug consumption).

The bottom line is that in Canada you can smoke marijuana in your own home, on your own time, and outside the range of affecting a broader society without being criminalized. This Government policy's sole effect is initiating the step towards making irresponsible idiots who have gone well past their own self defined "beneficial dose" while driving accountable for putting others at risk.

There is no room in the courts, nor no legal ability for our judicial system to nail every waste of time individual who inhaled once before hitting the road. This is to nail the common sense case-lots of red-eye slur & swerve flakes who can't make proper decisions while driving.

Harassing hundreds of thousands of people for using drugs is pointless and a major right violation. This is just a symptom of a large scale wrong.

Ohhh, great. A real broad-ranged rhetorical statement on personal rights which completely removes the fact that this law is about taking dangerously intoxicated drivers off the road. Of course it's also well known that daily use of marijuana increases "authority is out to get us" ideation, so I can somewhat understand why this has turned into an irrational fear that they're out for an excuse to nail anyone who tokes, any time, and in any situation. As if they (and we) - have the time.

People can smoke joints on the STREET in every major city of Canada without being arrested, which is an allowance in itself well beyond what the law states. Now you want dangerously stoned drivers to be untouchable, because of your own hide-behind the technicalities perception of difficult assessment.

Want to continue hiding behind the technicalities? If so, I hope the next ***hole, nothing better to do with his time cop who catches you toking in public throws the book at you for whatever he damn well can. It's a two way street. If you can't admit to what you've been allowed in relaxation of enforcement, and still insist on fighting for danger upon parroted technicalities, then you deserve exactly the same - from the other end.

I don't want drunk drivers on my roads, nor do I don't want flake-stoners who can't assume their own ability to drive while intoxicated, and neither does the bulk of Society!

Dude get in touch with reality. At moderate doses marijuana reduces the probability of a car crash. Then it goes up, but you can sustain an awful lot of it before it becomes as bad as alcohol.

Dude, GROW UP. Stay off of OUR roads when you've just smoked a joint. It's called responsibility.

[DinoDoc]

Zylka

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Zylka
Oh, gosh! French scientists prove that at "certain" doses, marijuana improves your accuracy and reactiveness. What a slim crutch you adament wake-&-bakes have found, today. French Scientists have finally done it, have they?

Anchoring fact to complete acceptance of a SINGLE, individually measured study is generally known as the "Believe first word of anything that sides with my own anticdotal dogma" syndrome. "Dude, it totally relaxes you while u r driving... so why shouldn't it make you safer? And did u hear, Scientists in France have finally proven it through a SCIENTIFIC STUDY. The French have always been so forward thinking, so philisophical.. it's such a shame that countless other Western nations have contrary findings in studies of their own. They're so ignorant."

The fact remains that you have no clue what you're talking about. You have no idea of how various studies were conducted, many of them under direct supervision of departments whose job was to wage the "war on drugs", that people lost their jobs over publishing results incompatible with ideological aims, etc.
Amusing PCP rant though, hope you're not driving tonight.

The reason that it's made illegal well before that argued "certain dose" is because gauging the "beneficial" dose is variable between individual minds and body chemistries. Think it's different with marijuana? Of course you do. It should be left to each individual to decide just how stoned they are before they grab hold of the wheel, right?

And when you've managed putting that shotty disclaimer for marijuana together, approach this: Both methamphetamine and cocaine are also considered "beneficial" to driving at the magical certain dose. I suppose as long as each individual stays within that dose, it shouldn't be a problem to allow a driver to stay on the road after having just taken a toke of glass

Where's that statistical limit for other drugs? where did they find it? But thanks to your glorious input, we are now aware that once you smoked a joint and were so 0MFG!!1 5t0n3d that you've had the Revelation that anyone having any quantity of marijuana in his organism and driving should be arrested.

How the hell do you know? Do you know what markers are used to detect what drug in the body, and whether these same markers are sought during intoxication, as opposed to after the fact? Are you a laboratory scientist who's since given up on increasingly efficient measures of drug detection? I'm going to hazard a guess and instead assume that you're an indignant stoned-driver wound up in parroting detection defficiencies that he reads on the internet.

If there's no current way to properly asses the amount of drugs in the body, then THERE'S NO WAY TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE AMOUNT OF DRUGS ONE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE BEFORE SLIDING THE SLOPE OF INTOXICATION BEHIND THE WHEEL. Use your head.

Thanks again for your creativity. What I complained about was that "specialists" would "diagnose" suspects and establish whether or not they were "high".
As for the intrinsic chemical possibility of achieving a rigorous result, I'm not denying it, doofus. The claim is rather that police methods will not make proper use of it.

The bottom line is that in Canada you can smoke marijuana in your own home, on your own time, and outside the range of affecting a broader society without being criminalized. This Government policy's sole effect is initiating the step towards making irresponsible idiots who have gone well past their own self defined "beneficial dose" while driving accountable for putting others at risk.

People can smoke joints on the STREET in every major city of Canada without being arrested, which is an allowance in itself well beyond what the law states. Now you want dangerously stoned drivers to be untouchable, because of your own hide-behind the technicalities perception of difficult assessment.

Dude what have you been smoking?!?

Ohhh, great. A real broad-ranged rhetorical statement on personal rights which completely removes the fact that this law is about taking dangerously intoxicated drivers off the road. Of course it's also well known that daily use of marijuana increases "authority is out to get us" ideation, so I can somewhat understand why this has turned into an irrational fear that they're out for an excuse to nail anyone who tokes, any time, and in any situation. As if they (and we) - have the time.

Who gives a **** what it's "about"? What matters is the effect. Did you know the Patriot Act was about terrorism? NO SH1T?!?

Want to continue hiding behind the technicalities? If so, I hope the next ***hole, nothing better to do with his time cop who catches you toking in public throws the book at you for whatever he damn well can. It's a two way street. If you can't admit to what you've been allowed in relaxation of enforcement, and still insist on fighting for danger upon parroted technicalities, then you deserve exactly the same - from the other end.

Oh great, now they'll seize my stuff and walk away with it instead of arresting me. Don't forget to soak your brown shirt while you're on your way to kissing the Queen's ass, loser.

Dude, GROW UP. Stay off of OUR roads when you've just smoked a joint. It's called responsibility.

Very touching.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Zylka
Know what else driving under the influence of a "certain" dose of alcohol is claimed to be? That's right, beneficial to the driver's reaction time. And in amounts slightly ABOVE that of many legal limits.

I call BS.
Unless the legal limit is negative where you are something.
I've read many studies that show that reaction time decreases strictly as a function of alcohol consumption.


EDIT:
and since I know on poly these things turn into, show me your sources , no YOU show me your sources, Ive gotten a quick few ones already.

And also , before I go on, Im not saying that I nec. disagree with the rest of your post (though I may) but that's not a reason to invoke phony facts to prove your point.

On with the links :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1546181&dopt=Abstract

Effects of alcohol, practice, and task complexity on reaction time distributions.

"These plots revealed that whereas at all levels of choice the effect of alcohol could be expressed as a simple linear transformation of all RTs"


Maybe you got your facts confused with this?:
"Fillmore and Blackburn (2002) found that subjects who had drunk an impairing dose of alcohol reacted faster when they were warned that this was enough alcohol to slow their reaction time. Unwarned subjects who drank suffered more decreased reaction times. However, the warned subjects were also less inhibited and careful in their responses. Even subjects who drank some nonalcoholic beverage and then were warned (falsely) about impairment by alcohol reacted faster than unwarned subjects who drank the same beverage. "

http://biology.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm#Alcohol

"This review of the literature provides strong evidence that impairment of some driving-related skills begins with any departure from zero BAC."

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/Hs809028/Discussion.htm

That last link is actually very comprehensive if you go to the table of contents.


Research into the effects of alcohol on simple visual and auditory RT has concluded that even a low dose of alcohol can impari performance, generally demonstrated by an increase in RT.

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/2/197

etc...

In any case, they don't all make the exact point I was making very strongly, though they hint at it.
The first one does do it very clearly though.


after reading all this stuff, I now know you're even more wrong then I thought.
All the studies show that basically everybody gets a significant drop in driving ability well below the legal limits in most places.









AND THE LAST STRAW!!!!!
I also learned that
"If someone says...
"Why aren't you drinking?"
You could say...
"I don't drink" or
"You should've seen me last night, man. Then you'd have the ugly answer to that question." (You can say this even if you didn't drink last night!) or
"I'm taking the night off.""
That's right.
See http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/well...alcohol/stats/ for details




Now, you can either agree that you were wrong, or find some actual support for your point of view.

[Lonestar]

I think he was beign sarcastic, Thyme.

The fact remains that poor old Boris doesn't want to show social responsibility and is outraged, yes, outraged, that he can get nailed for driving under the influence.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Arrian
Look at their money. Who's on the back?



-Arrian

A variety of different people, animals and other things, almost none of which have anything to do with the UK.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I think he was beign sarcastic, Thyme.

The fact remains that poor old Boris doesn't want to show social responsibility and is outraged, yes, outraged, that he can get nailed for driving under the influence.

Ive reread the part Ive quoted a few times, in context too and feel no sarcasm.

Me meter could be broken but...

Even if it is sarcastic I dont see his point.

There ARE studies which are very on the edge (meaning it's not clear what the conclusion is) concerning the study of MJ.
If he thinks they are not legitimate, he should explain why instead of making this BS point.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Ive reread the part Ive quoted a few times, in context too and feel no sarcasm.

Now of course he'll probably claim it but whatever.

Even if it is sarcastic I dont see his point.

There ARE studies which are very on the edge (meaning it's not clear what the conclusion is) concerning the study of MJ.
If he thinks they are not legitimate, he should explain why instead of making this BS point.

Marijuana is a relaxation-inducing drug, yes? You can get nailed for driving after taking other relazation-inducing drugs, why should we give the potheads special treatment?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Dude get in touch with reality.

I find that statement absolutely hilarious coming from you.

[Dinner]

Accident.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Marijuana is a relaxation-inducing drug, yes? You can get nailed for driving after taking other relazation-inducing drugs, why should we give the potheads special treatment?

No reason.
What's that got to do with the (false) claim that alcohol enhances driving performance?