• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War on Drugs rages on!

Absentglare said:
All of the above is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
No it's not. You are using a source to make contentions your source material doesn't even support. the whole cause of this argument is that we cannot claim MJ is dangerous to smoke and drive because anyone can test positive after three weeks. it's a weak contention because one must be showing signs of impairment before theyre tested in most cases.

Speculation.
Click to expand...

so was the original contention, speculation is ok as long as it is informed.



They have 1,700 or so samples in the study. Marijuana is dangerous while driving when combined with alcohol. Alcohol is dangerous when driving by itself. Marijuana is dramatically different risk-wise by itself.
Click to expand...
It's still dangerous to drive under the influence, different doesn't mean safe.

I mean I get you are fully committed to advocating for weed in every possible way, such as mandating postal workers provide personalized service to illegal marijuana stores, and that somehow THC doesn't impair your driving, but really you're seeing what you want to see.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Some quotes from your report

Not all accidents result in collection, it is not a "drag net search" that is standard procedure.

Furthermore the law only requires blood tests where feasible in all cases from deceased individuals from traffic collisions, (RCW 46.52.065) and this is noted in the report.
Click to expand...

Thank you for citing your claim. I concede that they don't test all the time.

EMNofSeattle said:
No it's not. You are using a source to make contentions your source material doesn't even support. the whole cause of this argument is that we cannot claim MJ is dangerous to smoke and drive because anyone can test positive after three weeks. it's a weak contention because one must be showing signs of impairment before theyre tested in most cases.
Click to expand...

No, you are confused. The claim is NOT that it's "not dangerous to smoke and drive." It's that "the test we have for detecting THC does not prove that the person was intoxicated at the time."

Authoritarians might not mind punishing innocent people, but i do.

And what happens when we cannot prove that someone did a crime ? We let them go because we live in a country that constitutionally guarantees due process.

EMNofSeattle said:
so was the original contention, speculation is ok as long as it is informed.
Click to expand...

Not really, no.

EMNofSeattle said:
It's still dangerous to drive under the influence, different doesn't mean safe.

I mean I get you are fully committed to advocating for weed in every possible way, such as mandating postal workers provide personalized service to illegal marijuana stores, and that somehow THC doesn't impair your driving, but really you're seeing what you want to see.
Click to expand...

If you bring another thread into this to allege any prejudice on my part, that shows the weakness of your argument, so thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom