> > You would have to pretend that someone smoking only pot would
> > drive badly -- which drivers on pot do not do.
> In my experience, that's is an incorrect assertion.
Your experience means nothing unless it can be validated
with facts...which it hasn't. You have only asserted your
experience.
> > No one has ever been
> > high on THC while driving and killed someone because their judgement
> > had been "suspended". On alcholhol? Yes. On pot? No.
> I don't want to sound rude, but you make an awful lot of sweeping statistical
> statements concerning the nature and effects of pot, with no seeming
> basis to them. I refuse to believe that in the history of motoring, there
> has *never* been an accident involving a death where a drugged driver
> was the cause.
That isn't rude, but it is ignorant. I've made no sweeping statistical
statements. I have mention many times that I am using the book "A Primer
of Drug Action" by Robert M Julien, M.D. as my reference. That sounds
like a very substantial basis. I was talking about a drive on pot and not a
drugged driver, since drugged can mean any drug and not just pot.
> This is what we've been talking about. Unless you can give me conclusive
> proof that there is *no* harmful effects of pot, then I cannot believe
> that. Unfortunately, you claim that there have been no studys into the
> long term effects, and the carcinogenic implications, so how can you
> possibly know?
Care to come up with any documented examples of someone dying of
an overdose of pot? I can gaurantee that you can't, because it can't happen.
That is a pretty clear indicator of the nature of pot. There have been studies
on the carcinogenic implications of pot and it is all there in that
book "A Primer of Drug Action".
What evidence do you have that it is so bad? If not, then how can you
know?