The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
classic albums made with drugs Modulation Plugins
Old 4th February 2014
  #391
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Your fear is based on no personal experience, reading a government endorsed report deliberately slanted towards supporting the continuation of prohibition.
Since you didn't use the quote function I may be in error in assuming you are talking to me here. If so, simply disregard the following.

If not, and you're addressing me with this statement, why do you think you know what my opinion is based on? This is the second remark you've made in which you presume to know why I think what I think.

I've smoked pot before. I've smoked pot and driven before. I've driven drunk before. I've done all kinds of dumb things before.

But the fact that I've done those dumb things and lived to tell about it in no way means that they weren't dumb and dangerous, or that it is advisable for anyone else to do them.

For what it's worth, since the original thread is actually about music and drugs, I've performed live and in studio under the influence of pot or alcohol several times. Every time it was a wasted session.

I'm not saying that someone else hasn't had great, productive sessions while high or drunk. I have no problem with that experiment, since the worst case scenario is a wasted recording session or a bad show.

Driving while under the influence endangers other people's lives. It's a big deal. There's a lot at stake. You haven't even sniffed at the burden of proof that you need to meet in order to disregard common sense (and yes, that's based on my own experience driving stoned…you are NOT in control of your faculties the way you are sober) on this issue. "Secret German studies" or articles by NORML aren't going to cut it.
Old 4th February 2014
  #392
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Of course its far, far less risky than driving drunk,
Again, I have to ask, based on what? Studies? Can you post them?


Quote:
but to argue that a stoned driver is equally capable as a sober one? I don't know man... I don't think so.
Bravo. This is the issue that so many on the thread will not confront. All the comparisons to cell phone use, being tired, drinking, etc. are canards. Red Herrings. Irrelevant. The only comparison that matters is whether a person is as capable driving a car stoned as they are sober. I'm against all of those other things too.

By the very nature of using, the pot causes physiological, psychological, and perceptual changes. I guess those on this thread are arguing that those changes are actually favorable for the physiological and psychological skills used in operating a motor vehicle. I don't see how they can be the same, since they have by definition been changed—they have to either be better or worse for driving.

Do those changes make someone react faster to unexpected stimuli? No. Do they make them more aware of potential danger? Well, no. Do they clear out the thought process so that the person has an easier time concentrating on the task at hand. No.

So exactly what is the pot doing to make people better drivers?
Old 4th February 2014
  #393
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

A french study from 2005 shows cannabis to be the main contributing factor in 2.9% of fatal accidents, alcohol in 28.6%.

The prevalence of cannabis (2.9%) estimated for the driving population is similar to that for alcohol (2.7%). At least 2.5% (1.5% to 3.5%) of fatal crashes were estimated as being attributable to cannabis, compared with 28.6% for alcohol (26.8% to 30.5%).

( Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study | BMJ )


In the UK mobile phones cause statistically more accidents than alcohol.
Old 4th February 2014
  #394
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
I've smoked pot before. I've smoked pot and driven before. I've driven drunk before. I've done all kinds of dumb things before.

But the fact that I've done those dumb things and lived to tell about it in no way means that they weren't dumb and dangerous, or that it is advisable for anyone else to do them.
It does mean that you are a hypocrite and seriously overreacted to FFTT's comment.

Quote:
This is the issue that so many on the thread will not confront.
Like who? With the exception of FFTT I think everyone that commented agreed that you shouldn't drive stoned. It seems you have difficulty reading and comprehending.

You derailed an otherwise friendly thread with your threats of violence. Go and deal with your own issues before addressing others.

Alistair
Old 5th February 2014
  #395
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

If a driver smoked Marijuana a few days before the accident, but then drank alcohol the night of the accident, the propaganda will blame minute traces of
THC from days before as the cause, because they are selling this BS.

Minute traces of THC found in the bloodstream from prior use,
do not in any way prove impairment, they simply indicate defiance of the law.

In other words if you smoke a few puffs Friday night and you go to work Monday and something happens to warranty a drug test, they may find traces of THC, but there's ZERO proof of impairment. ZERO!!!

All they have proven is defiance of the law.







Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
A french study from 2005 shows cannabis to be the main contributing factor in 2.9% of fatal accidents, alcohol in 28.6%.

The prevalence of cannabis (2.9%) estimated for the driving population is similar to that for alcohol (2.7%). At least 2.5% (1.5% to 3.5%) of fatal crashes were estimated as being attributable to cannabis, compared with 28.6% for alcohol (26.8% to 30.5%).

( Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study | BMJ )


In the UK mobile phones cause statistically more accidents than alcohol.
Old 5th February 2014
  #396
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
you are NOT in control of your faculties the way you are sober) .
Speak for yourself, Buzz Killington. Just because you are a lightweight doesn't mean everyone is. I have driven stoned almost every day for years with no accidents. In fact all of the accidents I have ever been in I was sober.

And you need to try a nice fresh organic 100% sativa strain (inhaled through a vaporizer), it is not the mexican schwag that puts you to sleep. There is no loss of alertness, reflex or short term memory, unless you use huge amounts, which is not really possible with a vaporizer unless you are chain "smoking' it.
Old 5th February 2014
  #397
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
It does mean that you are a hypocrite and seriously overreacted to FFTT's comment.
I'm pretty sure that any third grader can understand that doing something dumb and dangerous, realizing it was dumb and dangerous, then advocating against it does not make anyone a hypocrite, nor does it have anything to do with whether I overracted to anything.

It seems that you think repeating that gets under my skin, btw. It doesn't. I think you grossly under-reacted, as, after all, we're talking about endangering innocent people's lives. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Quote:
With the exception of FFTT I think everyone that commented agreed that you shouldn't drive stoned.
There's a post right above this one that proves you wrong...and it's not the only one in the thread, just the most convenient.

Quote:
It seems you have difficulty reading and comprehending.
Well, one of us does, for sure. I don't think it's me, though.

Quote:
You derailed an otherwise friendly thread with your threats of violence.
Did I? What violence did I threaten? I told FFTT that if he hurt anyone in my family he better hope the police lock him away from me. That's it. If you're an aggressive sort of person I guess you might automatically assume that I said that because I planned to hurt him. But another interpretation is that I planned to talk to him about what damage he'd done, thus making him feel guilty, thus making it a very unpleasant encounter for him. It was a very revealing ink-blot sort of test, don't you think?

Quote:
Go and deal with your own issues before addressing others.
I think that's a very good idea for you. Given your knee-jerk over-reaction to my open-ended scenario, you might need anger management training.
Old 5th February 2014
  #398
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
I have driven stoned almost every day for years with no accidents. In fact all of the accidents I have ever been in I was sober.
There are alcoholics who drive every day drunk and don't have accidents for years. So what? Does that mean that being drunk doesn't impair people's abilities? Of course not.

This is simple from a logical viewpoint. The pot either has some effect on you (which it obviously does or you wouldn't bother to use it) or it doesn't. Since the effect, by definition, is different from a sober state, and since the differences are physiological, perceptual, and psychological and therefore I don't think you can make any valid argument that they have no effect on driving, you either have to conclude that the difference enhances the skills that make one a competent driver or that it diminishes them.

What you're trying to argue is that the effect isn't sufficient to diminish those skills to a significant degree. The preponderance of evidence disagrees with you. Sorry, but it does.
Old 5th February 2014
  #399
Gear Guru
 
AllAboutTone's Avatar
 

Old 5th February 2014
  #400
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllAboutTone View Post
+1

Alistair
Old 5th February 2014
  #401
I have nothing against pot, but anyone who advocates driving whilst stoned is fooling themselves.
Old 5th February 2014
  #402
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
you either have to conclude that the difference enhances the skills that make one a competent driver or that it diminishes them.

What you're trying to argue is that the effect isn't sufficient to diminish those skills to a significant degree. The preponderance of evidence disagrees with you. Sorry, but it does.
Ah so it has to be one way or the other. It either enhances your driving skills or diminishes them, sure. It's obvious you have little to no experience with cannabis at all. It is not a heavy intoxicant to anyone except lightweights like yourself.

To make fallacious assumptions that anything deviating from the "sober state" is somehow negative or diminishing in any way is obviously based on your view of alcohol and your absurd attempt to make a parallel assumption about cannabis.

You are trying to say that anecdotal evidence has no substance, but then you are trying to cite some "preponderance of evidence" of which there is scarcely any at all, if at all. Any evidence is inconclusive at best.

The thing about citing a statistic saying that a small percentage of accidents are caused by cannabis use is ignorant of the fact that many, many people drive after consuming cannabis, and just because someone gets in a wreck and has cannabis in their system proves exactly nothing. Cannabis stays in the system for weeks if not months, these stats do not prove even correlation.


You are out of your element, like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and....
Old 5th February 2014
  #403
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
I have nothing against pot, but anyone who advocates driving whilst stoned is fooling themselves.
No one "advocates" driving stoned, I don't think anyone advocates driving at all, except maybe car and oil companies.

What we are saying is that it is no more dangerous than while not on cannabis. If a person is too high to drive, which rarely happens, they will not drive. it is not like alcohol when you think you can do things you can't. Cannabis in fact can make you paranoid, especially about getting pulled over, so it can actually get your adrenaline going and make you hyper aware.

There are so many myths out there like "cannabis causes cancer" that is all bred from the stigmatization of cannabis (and lumping in with the hard drugs) and the mass acceptance of alcohol and tobacco by the powers that be.
Old 5th February 2014
  #404
"If a person is too high to drive, which rarely happens, they will not drive."

"What we are saying is that it is no more dangerous than while not on cannabis. "

The most obvious sign of bias is the failure to give any ground whatsoever while defending said bias.
Old 5th February 2014
  #405
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post

The most obvious sign of bias is the failure to give any ground whatsoever while defending said bias.
Brilliant quote. You are saying if someone is defending their bias, then they have bias. Very true. The most obvious sign of bias is definitely bias, just like the most obvious sign of water is wetness, and the most obvious sign of being obvious is the stating the obvious.
Old 5th February 2014
  #406
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllAboutTone View Post
Great triple, that...... +2
Old 5th February 2014
  #407
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post

And you need to try a nice fresh organic 100% sativa strain (inhaled through a vaporizer),
this is good advice! the sativa strains are less common, probably due to the size of the plants in comparison to the indica strain. for the growers, unless outdoors, the height of the plant can be an issue. indicas give a "heavy" stoned, sativas the opposite. with sativa i find that the world becomes a place of wonder all over again. observation is accentuated.

it is a murky world, the drug world. it generates misinformation, prejudice and lots of cash. i have read that the illegal drugs trade generates the equivalent of the pharmaceutical industry in profits. i cannot cite the source as it was some time ago i read the data. cannabis is a plant. a highly useful one. perhaps the most versatile plant on the planet. the idea that a plant is banned from cultivation due to one group of society's uneducated bias is a travesty. this is especially true if the only reason for the ban originally in the US, and the "developed" world followed, was to make money for a chemical company. yea dupont...you!
Erowid Cannabis Vault : Article - "The Truth About Marijuana"
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/pot/blunderof37.html
driving while stoned...i have read no conclusive tests one way or the other. just speculation depending on which science you want to cherry pick your conclusions from. neuroscientists have shown that our brains are not good at handling two complex duties at the same time. that is why when two people are having a walk and chatting, if the conversation becomes complex, the two people will stop walking in order to talk. the brain cannot handle the unconscious controls that it needs to generate for walking and handle the complexity of a conversation at the same time. you can draw your own conclusions if you think about driving and the brain doing something complex at the same time. something as simple as having an argument with the passenger or trying to figure out your expenses or working out a melody structure in your head. to be a safe driver, you should be concentrating on your driving. it takes very little to be thinking about something else. now you are a dangerous driver.
Old 5th February 2014
  #408
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Mostly bans and laws are all there to control the flow of money to arrive at the 'right' destinations, are they not? No news here......but the pot is pushing over the surface. One day Pfizer will be selling it.
Old 5th February 2014
  #409
Lives for gear
 
apartment dog's Avatar
 

John Cage took nothing when he wrote 4'33".











(or did he?)
Old 5th February 2014
  #410
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apartment dog View Post
John Cage took nothing when he wrote 4'33".











(or did he?)
Yes, but did he listen back to it a lot stoned though?
Old 5th February 2014
  #411
Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
Brilliant quote. You are saying if someone is defending their bias, then they have bias. Very true. The most obvious sign of bias is definitely bias, just like the most obvious sign of water is wetness, and the most obvious sign of being obvious is the stating the obvious.
Lol! Fair enough, it was late. However, once the technical error was scoffed at, I believe the point is evident.

Go ahead and defend your pot use, but implying that stoned people will always, if ever too high, display the common sense of deciding not to drive is simply silly and damages your position.
Old 5th February 2014
  #412
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Mostly bans and laws are all there to control the flow of money to arrive at the 'right' destinations, are they not?
so it seems historically.
Old 5th February 2014
  #413
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Ah so it has to be one way or the other.
Can you make a case that it doesn't? I'd put the things that we know cannabis does to factors like reaction time, altered sensory perception, etc. in the category of undisputed scientific fact. In order to make your case you either have to argue that they don't, in fact, alter those physiological and psychological factors and the consensus of science is all wrong on those things, or that they do alter them, but not enough to affect driving, or that they alter them, but in a way that is actually conducive to safer driving.

Can you make any of those arguments? I know that you and others have nibbled around the edges of a couple of those, but if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you gotta make full arguments, the burden of proof is on you, and you gotta have more than, "I drive stoned every day and haven't hit anyone.". So let's see it…let's see who is out of his element like a child wandering into a movie theatre.


Quote:
It's obvious you have little to no experience with cannabis at all. It is not a heavy intoxicant to anyone except lightweights like yourself.
So we should make it legal for burnouts like you to drive stoned, but disallow me? How will that work? Stoned driving tests? A red dot on your driver's license and a green one on mine, indicating that you have proven your manhood with regard to pot (which is the adolescent tone with which you write all of this, as though smoking pot daily is something to be proud of) and I haven't? I'll tell you what…I'm actually fine with that. I would love to have an official state administered test in which you were loaded up and then given a driving test. I think it should be fairly rigorous, with simulated hazards that required quick reaction time to avoid, but as long as it was and you could pass it stoned, o.k., I'm in. Would you be willing to grant the same exemption to someone who could pass it drunk?


Quote:
To make fallacious assumptions that anything deviating from the "sober state" is somehow negative or diminishing in any way is obviously based on your view of alcohol
I didn't make that assumption. The only assumption I made was that since we know for a fact that many of the physical traits necessary for safe driving are affected by pot, it's self-evident that the only three possible conclusions are that they enhance driving ability, diminish driving ability, or are not significant enough to affect driving ability either way.

Quote:
You are trying to say that anecdotal evidence has no substance, but then you are trying to cite some "preponderance of evidence" of which there is scarcely any at all, if at all. Any evidence is inconclusive at best.
As I have said before, the extraordinary claims are being made by those of you who claim that despite the pretty much universally accepted fact that cannabis affects the majority of individual factors inherent in driving, it doesn't actually negatively affect driving. That's an extraordinary claim. It goes against what would be reasonably expected given what is nearly universally accepted. So no, anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to support an extraordinary claim. Inconclusive evidence is not enough to support an extraordinary claim. You have a high burden of proof in that situation, and uncorroborated NORML articles, secret unique German studies, and anecdotal evidence is not enough to support it, especially when the potential consequences could be fatal to others on the road.

You're in the position of the creationist who claims that the earth is only 6000 years old. You can't just offer the Bible or claim that it is your own experience that God told you it was true as proof of that. While that may be somewhat of an exaggeration given the voluminous evidence that is universally accepted that supports a much older earth, the principle is the same: extraordinary claims bear the burden of proof, and the burden is high.

If you don't understand that basic principle of science, there is no longer any doubt as to who is the child wandering into the movie theatre.

Here's the other thing about this entire discussion: It seems like those of you who will not concede that it's a bad idea to drive stoned somehow think that it weakens a case for legalization if you admit it. I don't care if you smoke every day. I am in favor of pot legalization for recreational as well as medicinal use. I just don't want people driving under the influence.

Forget about the canard comparisons…I also don't want them driving while texting, drunk, under the influence of Nyquil, tired, eating, arguing, or anything else that makes them more dangerous on the road. The only difference is that no one here is claiming that any of those things don't make you a more dangerous driver. If they did, I would ask them to meet the same burden of proof.
Old 8th February 2014
  #414
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Mostly bans and laws are all there to control the flow of money to arrive at the 'right' destinations, are they not?
Of course not.
Old 8th February 2014
  #415
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv View Post
Of course not.
They are not?
Old 8th February 2014
  #416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Yes, but did he listen back to it a lot stoned though?
When he did, he undoubtably said it sounded better
Old 8th February 2014
  #417
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

I never once said people should carelessly drive after smoking marijuana, but I
will continue to insist that the typical mild influence of marijuana is nothing like
the effects of alcohol.

I would not fear driving after smoking where I would absolutely be fearful of driving under the influence of alcohol.

One member here has taken it upon himself to pass judgement on others with no real world experience to back it up.

This government issued report I read says that Marijuana is bad, so it must be true, right? BS.
Old 8th February 2014
  #418
Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTT View Post
I would not fear driving after smoking...
Funny, many drinkers say the same thing.

For the record. I would definitely fear you driving after smoking.
Old 8th February 2014
  #419
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
...but I
will continue to insist that the typical mild influence of marijuana is nothing like
the effects of alcohol.
Why would you continue to insist that? There's no need, for two reasons: First, no one's disputed it. Second, unfortunately for you, it's a non-sequitor. It's not relevant. Whether alcohol impairs your ability to drive more than pot has nothing to do with whether pot impairs you compared to sober.

Quote:
I would not fear driving after smoking where I would absolutely be fearful of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Bully for you. However, that's just another transparent and immature attempt to avoid the point. There are plenty of people out there who ain't at all scared to drive down the road texting up a storm. According to your logic, and the logic of everyone here who argues some form of, "I been driving stoned for years with nary an accident on my record," that means it's not dangerous to drive and text since they're not scared to do it and there are people who can honestly tell you they drive and text every day and have done so for years and have never had an accident.

Quote:
One member here has taken it upon himself to pass judgement on others with no real world experience to back it up.
It's amazing that you even might be talking about me here, but I don't know who else you must mean. If you are, I strongly suggest you put down your bong, because if what it does for your reading comprehension and retention are anything close to what it does for your ability to drive, the entire area in which you live is at risk. As I very clearly said before, I've driven stoned before. Even had a little argument with another poster who apparently thinks that a person must be silent about any mistake they make in life or risk being a hypocrite. Please either know what you are talking about or refrain from accusations. Thanks.

Quote:
This government issued report I read says that Marijuana is bad, so it must be true, right? BS.
Yet again, who on this thread said pot was bad?
Old 9th February 2014
  #420
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
If you are, I strongly suggest you put down your bong
That's why you lose all credibility, you say you don't think pot is bad, but then this shows what you are really thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
As I very clearly said before, I've driven stoned before.
That wouldn't be some of that anecdotal evidence that you so vehemently lambaste, would it?


The evidence is just not there, and until it is, we are all speculating. The evidence is very difficult to obtain, because there are vastly different strains of pot, whatever you might think, that have very different effects. A sativa and indica are two different plants. And people will drive stoned no matter what you do.

Driving is one of those things that people take HUGE risks on, it is the most dangerous thing we do every day. And there are many, many things that they could so to make it more safer, like installing a breathalyzer on every car, lowering the speed limit, making it illegal to pass on the highway, requiring larger safer cars, making mandatory 20 year sentences for drunk driving etc. that would make it much safer to drive than outlawing stoned driving.

So even if you have a valid point, it is moot.
Top Mentioned Products
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Wiggy Neve Slut / So much gear, so little time
34
jammybastard / So much gear, so little time
102
eligit / So much gear, so little time
24

Forum Jump
Forum Jump