1.) dont need anything out statements are about your link and your pdf, therefore thats all that is needed and your link and your PDF prove our statements right
these are the facts proved by your link and your PDF that we pointed out
the OP and PDF does NOT show the drivers were high at the time of the accident. FACT
the OP and PDF does NOT show the accident was cause by the driver that had weed in his system. FACT
the OP and PDF does NOT show that when the accident was cause by the driver that had weed in his system that it was because of the impairment. FACT
facts win again
do you have anything factual that impact these facts?
2.) true this is why i didnt give them
3.) already done by me and muiltiple posters, who is us? nobody agrees with the fallacies you presented.
It's not opinion, it's fact. You do not possess the knowledge that marijuana was a factor in any of those wrecks. It's from your own source itself, tested positive for does not mean high at the time.
So less you have more data, links to support the data, all you have is supposition, assumption, and opinion.
false, facts were already posted by me and many others and theres two links that support and prove those facts to be true.No you can't post anything but opinion, thought so
and all you and the other guy have presented are your own opinions with no data to say otherwise
No you can't post anything but opinion, thought so
It is, IN FACT, his opinion - does that count?
and all you and the other guy have presented are your own opinions with no data to say otherwise
i havent posted any opinion i posted facts, if you disagree id love for you to point out what is opinion in these statements
the OP and PDF does NOT show the drivers were high at the time of the accident. FACT
the OP and PDF does NOT show the accident was cause by the driver that had weed in his system. FACT
the OP and PDF does NOT show that when the accident was cause by the driver that had weed in his system that it was because of the impairment. FACT
which one is opinion, please point it out and then prove its opinion, id love to read it lol.
I read the OP piece, and it seems pretty clear to me that they're not trying to fool anyone - with findings such as “If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol,” Li said. “But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.” it's quite clear that the authors of the study are concluding that marijuana use is a contributing factor and has a causal relationship to an increased risk.
No study, that I know of, claims that a fatal accident that involves a driver with a high blood alcohol level was solely and clearly caused by the alcohol consumption. There's no way to statistically prove such. These studies, and those involving alcohol consumption only, simply conclude the incidence of drug and alcohol use and the percentages of fatal accidents that are so affected.
So it is, quite clearly, just your opinion that the drivers weren't high - that's not a matter totally determined by level of the drug in the system - you have no facts that prove they weren't high - just your opinion that the accident wasn't caused by a driver that had weed in his system - in fact, the quote above seems to prove the opposite - and just your opinion that the accident wasn't caused by the driver's impairment - the quote above seems to prove the opposite.
You can bluster all you like - doesn't change the FACT that you view the study's findings the way you choose to view them - that makes it your opinion. I'm sure drunks also feel it wasn't the alcohol that caused their crashes either.
Because your OP is the data of our proof. The claim is that you have no real knowledge of the effects of marijuana legalization apon traffic fatality rates. The proof is that your numbers cite only positive tests for marijuana. But testing positive doesn't mean that one is currently high, and so you do not know if those who had tested positive were high at the time of the wreck and that being high was the cause of the wreck. Ergo, you lack the knowledge. You cannot demonstrate your claim and haven't done so.
Supposition, assumption, and opinion is all you've presented. That doesn't demonstrate knowledge, sorry.
very funny you dodged the questions>
I NEVER claimed they werent high
I NEVER claimed that the driver didnt cause the accident
I NEVER claimed that their impairment if present didnt cause the accident
you just posted 3 lies and nobody is fooled
if you disagree simple qoute me saying those lies, ill wait but you will fail because you made it up
posting lies wont help you i will ask you AGAIN which statement is my opinion and not fact
so now that facts prove your post 100% factually wrong and expose the lies you posted, i will ask my questions again since you dodged them and tried to make stuff up
the OP and PDF does NOT show the drivers were high at the time of the accident. FACT
the OP and PDF does NOT show the accident was cause by the driver that had weed in his system. FACT
the OP and PDF does NOT show that when the accident was cause by the driver that had weed in his system that it was because of the impairment. FACT
which one is opinion, please point it out and then prove its opinion? weird you cant do this.
This is no different from laws involving alcohol consumption. It's a fundemental misunderstanding of impairment and the conclusions reached from such a study. When similar studies are done solely involving fatal accidents and those with blood alcohol levels above zero, there is no way to tell if the driver was drunk or impaired just as there's no way to determine the level of impairment related to marijuana use. It is simply noted that when it comes to fatal accidents, someone with alcohol in their system is 13 times more likely to die or kill and someone with alcohol and marijuana in their system is 24 times more likely to die or kill.
Same thing happens with alcohol. What's your point, exactly? I had a cop once tell me that he pulled over a driver for a busted tail light to find that he was blew a .2 (aka, he should be dead). The only way he could tell he was drunk was the smell. I'm not entirely sure what your point is because we still ticket hardcore drunks for driving over the limit when they may not technically be impaired.
1.)I gave you a reasoned answer.
2.) You're welcome to your own opinion on the validity of my answer
3.) and now, you go back on ignore.
A Fraternity Hazing Gone Wrong : NPRWOW, water impairs us? Do tell, do tell!:lamo
I read the OP piece, and it seems pretty clear to me that they're not trying to fool anyone - with findings such as “If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol,” Li said. “But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.” it's quite clear that the authors of the study are concluding that marijuana use is a contributing factor and has a causal relationship to an increased risk.
No study, that I know of, claims that a fatal accident that involves a driver with a high blood alcohol level was solely and clearly caused by the alcohol consumption. There's no way to statistically prove such. These studies, and those involving alcohol consumption only, simply conclude the incidence of drug and alcohol use and the percentages of fatal accidents that are so affected.
So it is, quite clearly, just your opinion that the drivers weren't high - that's not a matter totally determined by level of the drug in the system - you have no facts that prove they weren't high - just your opinion that the accident wasn't caused by a driver that had weed in his system - in fact, the quote above seems to prove the opposite - and just your opinion that the accident wasn't caused by the driver's impairment - the quote above seems to prove the opposite.
You can bluster all you like - doesn't change the FACT that you view the study's findings the way you choose to view them - that makes it your opinion. I'm sure drunks also feel it wasn't the alcohol that caused their crashes either.
no we are not, now we are talking about speculation
Because your OP is the data of our proof. The claim is that you have no real knowledge of the effects of marijuana legalization apon traffic fatality rates. The proof is that your numbers cite only positive tests for marijuana. But testing positive doesn't mean that one is currently high, and so you do not know if those who had tested positive were high at the time of the wreck and that being high was the cause of the wreck. Ergo, you lack the knowledge. You cannot demonstrate your claim and haven't done so.
Supposition, assumption, and opinion is all you've presented. That doesn't demonstrate knowledge, sorry.
Actually, it could just be that alchohol increases risk 37 times and Thc is irrelevant.
This angle isn't new.they've been conflating presence with impairment for years and years.
We need to wait until "levels" are established. THEN studies will be accurate and relevant.
Now, its the same thing as saying someone saw you drunk at a bar last week so your accident must be alcohol related.
Broken causal link.
the speculation started in the OP. There is a difference between having weed in your system and being high. You dont seem to comprehend that.
I gave you a reasoned answer. You're welcome to your own opinion on the validity of my answer - and now, you go back on ignore.
no your proof has yet to have been provided, only opinion you have had to this point:doh
another posted lieI fully understand, unfortunatley the guys here that are only offering opinion and have not documented that everyone of them in the study only had it in their system. You are failing to comprehend that.