Party Season's Drug-Driving Danger

  Party Season's Drug-Driving Danger

Posted by FoM on December 30, 2001 at 09:17:04 PT
By David Price 
Source: BBC News 

BBC bosses have given the go ahead for a motorist to smoke an illegal cannabis joint then get behind the wheel of a car. The test was done as part of a documentary for BBC Radio Five Live highlighting the growing dangers of motorists driving while under the influence of illicit drugs. A woman in her thirties, Fiona (not her real name), volunteered to take part in the experiment. 
Fiona admitted to being a casual cannabis smoker but had never taken drugs and driven before. She was taken to the track in the East Midlands where a specialist firm had set up a series of tests and state of the art satellite monitoring equipment. Speed, acceleration, reflex and perception were measured by laser beam and results were recorded onto a computer. A series of cones 20 feet apart were put on the track and she was asked to weave between them in a controlled manner at a speed she thought safe. She carried out the test five times to measure her best time before moving onto the brake test. She was asked to accelerate up to 70 miles per hour on a straight section of track and hold that speed for a short distance. A flash of light in the distance was the signal to brake hard. The time and distance she took to come to a halt were then recorded. After completing the tests, Fiona smoked a cannabis cigarette which she provided. Twenty minutes after finishing the joint she was asked how she felt. Fiona said she felt "stoned" but was happy to resume testing. She turned on the ignition of the 2-litre engine and returned to the slalom test. To her horror, of the six cones she had to drive through she hit two and then ran over the last, which became trapped beneath the car wheels. She competently completed four more slalom tests but at a slower speed. Out of five brake tests, Fiona accelerated to 70 miles per hour but failed to keep driving at a steady speed. Her worst test showed that she was almost a second slower and took an extra 45 feet to stop. On one test she failed completely to see the flashing light that was the signal to begin braking.  Significantly altered  Timing expert, Mark Hargreaves who monitored all the tests said, "If she had been on a road those three cones she hit could have been three people. Her reaction times were significantly altered." In the drug impairment test Fiona had to : Walk nine steps heel to toe in a straight line, then turn and repeat. Result: She stumbled off the line on the third step. Close her eyes, stretch both arms out in front and on a command touch her nose with the index finger of either her left or right hand. Result: On command of 'left' she paused to work out which was her left then touched her cheek. Stand on one leg with other out in front and count to 30. Result: She stumbled before reaching five but insisted her balance was poor at the best of times. Hold her head back with eyes closed and count thirty seconds opening her eyes when finished. Result: At 16 seconds she thought she had had her eyes closed for 30. If she had been on a road those three cones she hit could have been three people. Her reaction times were significantly altered. -- Monitoring expert  Afterwards Fiona said: "When I was behind the wheel I felt more confident after smoking the joint. "I was really shocked when I hit the cones. I hadn't even realised I had hit the first one. "It was only when I got out that the tester told me. Smoking and driving is definitely not for me and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else."  Green light  All Out Productions' executive producer, David Cook consulted at length with Radio Five executives who gave the green light to the experiment. Mr Cook said afterwards: "We appreciate that this is a somewhat controversial section to the documentary but it was without doubt in the public interest. "There is a growing and disturbing trend among young people to mix drugs and driving. It can be fatal. Too many people think that drugs do not affect their driving. "We were confident that the tests were carried out in a controlled and safe environment. "We had the use of a private track, there was no other traffic, and every stage was carefully monitored." "I think the results clearly show that just one joint can seriously impair a person's driving efficiency. "If Fiona was on a road with all the attending hazards of city driving, an accident could easily have happened." Figures from the Department of Transport show that in Britain, one person in five killed on the road had traces of drugs in their bloodstream. A report by the Institute of Human Psychopharmacology suggested there is an annual death toll of 4,500 throughout the European Union. And at one Scottish rave nightclub, 90% of drivers leaving at the end of the night drove home after taking drugs. Nearly one third said they believed that the drugs did not affect their driving. These worrying statistics come as Britain enters festive party mode. Danger areas include the more remote areas of the UK where public transport is scarce and getting to parties involves driving. Note: Some people attending New Year parties will take drugs and drive.Newshawk: puff_tuffSource: BBC News (UK Web)Author: David PricePublished: Sunday, December 30, 2001Copyright: 2001 BBCWebsite: Articles: Record Rise in Hard Drugs Smuggled into UK of Tack in Drug Warning Campaign

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #33 posted by Xanaralk on January 03, 2002 at 10:20:12 PT
I drive stoned all of the time. I even make a special effort to smoke MORE for the trip. I never had an accident and everybody , pot smoker or not , sit in the car with me without any fears.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by DdC on January 03, 2002 at 00:28:56 PT
Consequences for the Liars!
Crancer Study, Washington Department of Motor Vehicles "Simulated driving scores for subjects experiencing a normal social "high" and the same subjects under control conditions are not significantly different. However, there are significantly more errors for alcohol intoxicated than for control subjects" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxU.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993: "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxProfessor Olaf Drummer, a forensic scientist the Royal College of Surgeons in Melbourne in 1996 
":Compared to alcohol, which makers people take more risks on the road, marijuana made drivers slow down and drive more carefully.... Cannabis is good for driving skills, as people tend to overcompensate for a perceived impairment.": xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThe USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy 1987
"Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users the term dependence with its obvious connotations, probably is mis-applied... The chief opposition to the drug rests on a moral and political, and not toxicologic, foundation".xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDubya's Driving Record not allowed into Canada??? 
The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs says: Driving while under the influence of alcohol is regarded as an extremely serious offence in Canada, and persons with convictions for this offence are inadmissible to Canada. Strikes and You're Out, Mr. Bush
With the revelation last night of the drunk driving arrest and conviction in 1976 of George W. Bush, this marks the THIRD arrest -- that we know of -- involving this man who would be President.cannabis vs alcohol (driving) use and driving kills kids and isn't part of the $20 billion WoD
Drinking Booze Drugs and Driving is the #1 cause of death for 18-24 year olds Studies Effects of Pot on Driving
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 19:35:48 PT:
It's already started!!!!
Read this story on MAP Inc.I knew this BS would be used as "PROOF" by the liars in the media.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by E_Johnson on January 01, 2002 at 10:49:11 PT
here's what I wrote them
Dear editors,That story on cannabis and driving was an absolute disgrace. In no way did your demonstration amount to any kind of scientifically controlled study from which meaningful public safety decisions can be derived. There was only one data point. Do you understand the concept of statistical error? When you only have one data point, your statistical error is as large as your data. No conclusions can derived from a
single data point that can be meaningfully applied to society as a whole.Study after study conducted in several countries under controlled scientific conditions using large numbers of people and large sets of accident data have shown that there is no increased risk of auto accidents from drivers stoned on cannabis. Do you not think that your viewers deserve to learn about the results of the last ten years of controlled scientific statistical studies on cannabis and driving?You really should be ashamed of yourselves for setting up some bad science to try to prove something that good science has been disproving for the last decade.I have never been this outraged before by anything in mainstream British journalism. What has gotten into your heads? What are you smoking or drinking to make you think this was meaningful information that you were providing to your viewers?Are you going to do your own physics experiments now? Why not have the BBC go looking for a black hole, or have the BBC do a one person study on how to cure cancer? Where were your science reporters during this demonstration? Out getting drunk from the absolute shame of it all?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by BGreen on January 01, 2002 at 04:06:15 PT:
I feel your wife's pain, lookinside
I sent these to FoM, but understandably, she doesn't have the resources to handle Letters to the Editor, so I hope she doesn't mind if I post the URL's.They're from John Ashcrofts' hometown newspaper, and I think they reflect that although some Missourians have been brainwashed by 20 years of Ashcrofts' un-Christian-like dictatorship, there are some that remain unaffected.Read the letter by S.T. Richards at: the rebuttal letter by Carl Smith at:
(Looks like Chip beat me to the MAP Inc. website:) positive about cannabis in the Springfield, Missouri newspaper is a slap in Ashcrofts' megalomaniacal face(s!)While I'm at it, just to show the typical hard-line stance the Springfield paper usually takes when it comes to "drugs," look at the way that they covered a story that's posted on the MAP Inc. website. way the media desensitizes people to the horror of the WOD is despicable. The Springfield paper uses "Drug Suspect" in the title and "suspected Stotts City meth lab operator" in the opening paragraph to describe the deceased. The Joplin paper refers to him in both places as a MAN. The vernacular of the prohibitionist newspaper can immediately harden the heart of the reader. They refer to cannabis users as "drug users," too, because they know that nobody gives a damn about what happens to "drug users."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by lookinside on December 31, 2001 at 19:53:37 PT:
we have great health wife tried everything the pharmiceutical companies said would help her various almost killed her...her recommending doctor finally decided that if my wife got benefit from cannabis, it was well worth insurance doesn't cover it...$12000 out of pocket for medicine last year and i can't even write it off...growing it is out of the question for several reasons...(all to do with our guvmint's attitude..)truth is, if you can't afford to buy medicine(and pay the taxes involved), the government figures you are just a problem and your demise will be quite welcome...i've talked to several canadians about their system, and am beginning to believe "socialized" medicine is by far the better system...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by Robbie on December 31, 2001 at 12:17:21 PT
Maybe they should call a drug
Sauron or SarumanSauron - it's calling to you!Saruman - Take this drug and change your life!! (to the Dark Side!)
Demo Undgrd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by observer on December 31, 2001 at 08:50:47 PT
Cannabis/Driving Studies
Cannabis/Driving StudiesAustralia: No Proof Cannabis Put Drivers At Risk (2001) Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000) CN AB: Pot Study Blows Smoke On Safety Of Puffing Drivers (2000) Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999)\1999\03\990325110700.htm Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998) Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998) the drug impairment test Fiona had to : Walk nine steps heel to toe in a straight line, then turn and repeat. Result: She stumbled off the line on the third step. Nice try: problem is, this is an UNcontrolled "test." People who have never ingested any cannabis or alcohol or anything can't do these tests. Did they forget to mention this? In other words, these type of "field sobriety" tests are basically pro-forma games that the police state uses as a ready-made pretext to haul you in. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by el_toonces on December 31, 2001 at 08:46:33 PT:
PS -- Love the PDR entry
Eric --Great entry from the PDR!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by el_toonces on December 31, 2001 at 08:45:01 PT:
State dependent learning?
In Psych 101, they teach about state dependent learning. This means that if you learn something -- a task or a set of facts to recall -- in one state of mind (i.e., straight, high, depressed, excited, etc.) you will likely have the best recall or reproduction accuracy when are you in the same mental state. Initially, if learn to drive (or practice it)when you are high, then you will likely drive best (or no better than while) high. This is easy to show and some undergrads do the simple experiments in dorm rooms with vodka or pot to prove the thesis (at least we did at Univ. of Mich).This means that the key factor in the BBC demo is the subject's prior lack of experienced driving while high. If this is correct, it means this "demo" is not inconsistent with the real studies (with controls, statistical verification, etc) and all of our experience that show that stoned drivers need not, of necessity, be bad drivers. But, if you prohibit the practice time, don't be surprised when people who are drunk or high for the first time cause problems.And, the worst substance anyway for driving is alcohol (note, see for how the government and corporations think about alcohol), Have a Safe and Happy New Year Everyone Here,El
Why Prohibit TV Ads about Alcohol (or Pot)?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by dddd on December 31, 2001 at 06:59:29 PT
I can barely afford to pay attention....
..much less health insurance...You're not alone BGreen,,,I am also one of the bleating underclass of those who cannot afford health insurance.......I think the last time I consulted a doctor,,,,,his name was Seuss!...dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by CorvallisEric on December 31, 2001 at 06:49:11 PT
Guessing game
From the patient information page of a Schedule III med:
Do not drive a car or operate machinery until you know how XXX affects you. While taking XXX, do not drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, or take other drugs that have an effect on the central nervous system (such as sedatives or hypnotics). Unless advised by your doctor, do not use XXX if you are pregnant or nursing.
And the answer is ...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by BGreen on December 31, 2001 at 06:30:46 PT:
A serious thought
One of the arguments the narcocracy has against medical cannabis is that there are other options, and even some supporters say that all of these options should be exhausted before cannabis should be used. I can't even afford to go to the doctor, let alone pay hundreds of dollars a month to pump chemicals in my body.I can grow cannabis for free if the helicopters stop their aerial attacks.Why don't MMJ supporters press this argument more often?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by BGreen on December 31, 2001 at 06:15:47 PT:
It doesn't really matter, because I don't have health insurance, and I couldn't afford to score at my local Rx.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by dddd on December 31, 2001 at 06:07:12 PT
....ah yes,,,,drug ads are one of my favorite things....they are to the point of running TV commercials that suggest you may be "depressed"....if being depressed is a valid condition to use a "drug",it makes Marijuana prohibition way more absurd,(obviously).......I wonder if there are many people who suffer from the opposite of depression??....CHD;..Chronic Happiness Disorder,,,or "Funns Syndrome"..........Maybe the drug companies would come out with new medications for CHD .....Dragitrin...........Sadron.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by BGreen on December 31, 2001 at 05:50:21 PT:
Double standard or typical BS?
The TV commercial for Ambien, a "sleeping aid," is a great example of the 'Madison Avenue' method of word play to push the so-called safe pharmaceuticals to the public. The Physicians Desk Reference (PDR) entry for Ambien states "Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), is a non-benzodiazepine hypnotic." "While zolpidem is a hypnotic agent with a chemical structure unrelated to benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or other drugs with known hypnotic properties, it interacts with a GABA-BZ receptor complex and shares some of the pharmacological properties of the benzodiazepines." All this means is though not chemically related to Valium, Xanax, Librium, etc., it does the same thing, i.e. it's a central nervous system depressant!The thing that gets me are the warnings at the end of the commercial (which, like most of the legal drugs hawked on TV, comprise half of the entire commercial,) which say that until you know how Ambien affects you, you should avoid driving or operating heavy machinery.They seem to be encouraging people to drive under the effects of a sedative, a sleeping pill, a schedule IV controlled substance, IF you FEEL you can.This is also from the PDR entry for Ambien under the heading of "Warnings:" "A variety of abnormal thinking and behavior changes have been reported to occur in association with the use of sedative/hypnotics. Some of these changes may be characterized by decreased inhibition (eg, aggressiveness and extroversion that seemed out of character), similar to effects produced by alcohol and other CNS depressants. Other reported behavioral changes have included bizarre behavior, agitation, hallucinations, and depersonalization. Amnesia and other neuropsychiatric symptoms may occur unpredictably. In primarily depressed patients, worsening of depression, including suicidal thinking, has been reported in association with the use of sedative/hypnotics."There are so many people doped up on prescription drugs and alcohol drivng around, I think the cannabis smoker represents a statistically insignificant threat to the public.Ain't that Amerika!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by CorvallisEric on December 31, 2001 at 05:40:26 PT
dddd comment #16
Good points well taken, especially about Hoodoo. I hope we get some more viewpoints on this.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by dddd on December 31, 2001 at 04:39:53 PT
...I think that there is no "rule",on the subject of consenting to a search.......If one actually has nothing to hide,,then they may want to take the stance of refusing to consent ,,and "mess" with the cop,,,,,but if you really do have some sort of contraband,,and you're not under severe suspicion by the cop,,then one could argue that pretending you have nothing to hide,could indeed be your best bet...........There are far too many variables to make a universial,or "correct" response.....In general,,I guess it is still best to not consent to a search,,but in our new world of enhanced police power,,I think the best policy is to do whatever you can to avoid having your life ruined by getting busted.............................I think there is such a thing as Hoodoo,,it's sort of like the art of exuding an innocent vibration,,that can help one to not get pulled over in the first other words,,if one is paranoid to begin with,,most cops will sense it,,if one is mentally ill-prepared to handle a law enforcement confrontation,,and they actually have stash on board,,the cop will see right through it,,and the hair on the back of the neck will stand up on both the "Buster",,and the "Bustee"... ..the best advise is to never carry contraband,,then you can give the cop a bunch of flak,,,and be the militant defender of whatever remains of your Constitutional rights................things just aint the same nowdays,,, and the new year is likely be riddled with unpleasant surprizes.....Your best defense is to pretend to be normal,,,,either that,,or abnormal,,yet's always best to try and not 'lock horns' with cops.........dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by CorvallisEric on December 31, 2001 at 03:25:42 PT
this is where you look the cop in the eye,and say;"no problem....I got nothing to yourself."
This is what I had thought for many years until I started my internet drug-policy obsession a couple years ago. Richard Cowan ( and and NORML are vehemently opposed to ever consenting to a search regardless of circumstances.
I can't make up my mind on this, though I'm inclined to think NORML is right but I totally HATE having to think this way. Furthermore, even though I've never had any significant contact with police, this issue has caused me an enormous amount of philosophical agony. I really want to love my country but find it impossible because of a few things like the need to lie and manipulate in order to preserve one's God-given freedom. Better sign off before I totally lose it - first time I've ever used bold all-caps.
NORML: Know and Exercise Your Rights
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by FoM on December 30, 2001 at 22:00:39 PT
Welcome home dddd! You were missed. Next time email me when you go away and I won't worry. That's my nature. Just a worrier at heart! Even more so these days. Hope you had a good time.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by dddd on December 30, 2001 at 21:44:36 PT
High-way Navagation preparation
....I've just returned from a drive ..LA to Seattle,and back.....It's almost exactly 2400 miles,round trip...I'd say I've made the trip at least 40 times,,,,,and every time I set out on this automotive extravaganza..I've always brought my old friend,Doctor Green along with me....Back in the old days,(70s),,it was not quite as spooky, but in todays world of law enforcement,,.like some episode of the show COPS,(without the camera crew)...a lonely stretch of highway...the thought of running into a drug-pig cowboy nightmare on the open road,is quite terrifying,,,"probable cause" is not something that the lone motorist can debate in such a situation..,now I dont recommend driving while stoned,,,getting stoned,and driving should be two seperate activities,,but I feel that there are those who have known Dr. Green for so long,,they can navigate the roads far more safely than your average cell-phone idiot,,or even an AM radio channel surfer,,you know,the kind of people who get mesmerized by Art Bell at 4:30 in the morning,,,crashing and burning in the ditch,,,cops and ambulances,,,the lights flash blindingly in the stoned persons eyes as they drive by the accident scene safely and carefully,also listening to Art Bell,,,but the stoned person is not an "Art Bell Abuser"..............
...anyway,,,dont get stoned while on the road,,if you must,do it very's beyond a priveledge..... .
..OK,back to my road trip,,and some tips,,....needless to say,,hide any and all items very well...My favorite is to leave the vehicle sorta messy,,,,and let's say you got a bit of weed in the car,,and you get pulled over. ..If you look like I usually do,,,you will be asked ;"You dont have any alcohol,drugs,or guns in the car do you?" that question will usually catch the neophyte off guard,,,,and of course you answer,"no",,butchya gotta remember,,that cop is studying you,and depending what you got pulled over for,and how you appear,,he is gonna zero in on your response,,,,so you should have that "no",all ready to say,,,,and let's say that you have several bushels of BC buds in the trunk,,,the next question,,right after you say "no",,will be;"then you dont mind if I search your car?".....this is where you look the cop in the eye,and say;"no problem....I got nothing to yourself."............OK...I know,,,,this sounds insane...this is consenting to a search,,,,,,but...keep in mind the alternative,,,let's say you did have those buds in your trunk.....If you hesitate,,or refuse,,then,,the investigation has just begun...if you welcome the cop to snoop around,,chances are,you will be able to continue down the road.............................The main thing,,,is ACT NORMAL!..........................I keep trying to pretend I'm normal.....but it aint easy.......................................One of my friends in Seattle said."This is a dark Christmas",,,,after thinking about it,,I had to agree,,,,,and I'm afraid it's going to be a dark new year,,,filled with more manifestations of the decay of civilizations...none the less,,I hope everyone has an extravagantly wonderful holiday season..there's no use letting unhappiness spoil the good fact,,I'll make this my new years message;;;;;;;;;;"Even in the midst of the darkest of times,,,remember,,,there are still alot of things that aren't that fucked."JAH is no secret......................................dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by CorvallisEric on December 30, 2001 at 20:16:21 PT
confident Fiona
Afterwards Fiona said: "When I was behind the wheel I felt more confident after smoking the joint."
1 - Doesn't that sound a little odd? Especially from a casual cannabis smoker but had never taken drugs and driven before. Is this a typical reaction from someone inexperienced driving stoned? Did the producers perhaps know Fiona's personality well enough to predict that she might be over-confident and therefore initially drive too fast? Most studies show stoned drivers going slower while thinking they are going faster. My own attempts (when I was young and foolish about the same time as Bush) felt more terrifying than confident.
2 - Did they perhaps test other drivers, but didn't like the results? The many words excusing the "controversial" exercise of using a real car make me a little suspicious. Also, this isn't presented as a scientific experiment, only a demonstration of Fiona's driving.
3 - I don't want to sound like I approve of driving drugged. I disapprove. But I realize that there are degrees of danger.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by i420 on December 30, 2001 at 18:19:54 PT
How bout some REAL test...
Who in the world is gonna smoke a joint and weave between cones on a roadway?? This is a joke. Maybe they should try some REAL experiments with some REAL cannabis users on a REAL roadway smoking REAL cannabis. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by lookinside on December 30, 2001 at 13:31:47 PT:
disregard the title...not all here this morning...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by lookinside on December 30, 2001 at 13:30:01 PT:
speaking from early experience.even in a test, if i was stoned, i would not be able to drive 70mph.I've always driven at my comfort level... I remember 2 experiences that illustrate the way i drove when stoned.on a trip of 90 miles on a freeway, it took me 4 hours to get home. I could NOT drive any faster. It was in the early AM BTW.another time, it was foggy and i had to drive 17 miles. over 2 hours to get where i was going.A tree would have time to get out of the way...LOLOn the other hand, in the 80s it was almost required to have a cold beer before leaving work. I really liked that and often had 10... I was VERY lucky. alcohol made me "king of the road" I remember one time driving at over 100MPH through downtown Sacramento at 5PM...seemed OK to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Dave in Florida on December 30, 2001 at 12:02:17 PT

Fiona admitted to being a casual cannabis smoker but had never taken drugs and driven before. 
They should try someone who has smoked and driven before. The smokers I know "know" when they can drive safely after smoking. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by aocp on December 30, 2001 at 11:46:54 PT

My interpretation
Since smoking cannabis allegedly causes deterioration of driving ability and we know that alcohol is far worse in this regard, then we should treat alcohol as we treat cannabis, under the law. This is not that hard to understand, except to boozers. They like their freedom.I love the infiltration of "drink responsibly" and "use responsibly" "this holiday season". It's as if they're telling us there's a difference between booze use and abuse!! Could this be true?!? Beyond that, why do we pay attention to this issue so much during the WASP holidays? Like Valentine's and Sweetest days, it's as if the issue is less important any other time of the year. Bollocks, i say. No gov't/culture tells me what to think and when to think it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on December 30, 2001 at 10:01:19 PT

My 2 cents
To me the better way would be to lower the speed limit on New Years Eve. 35 miles an hour and no one would get killed or not as many but since our society is built on go go go that wouldn't work but it would be safer. Just my opinion.Also while I'm thinking of it. They don't know how to handle the opium problem in Afghanistan and they talk about paying them to not grow or to supplement a crop but that won't work. My idea, besides changing the laws, would be wait until the poppies are harvested and have our government bid high and pay the farmers for their work and destroy the poppies then. If you pay someone to not grow they have time on their hands and will grow poppies somewhere else but if you let them grow and they know they will get a good price they won't have time to do more crops of poppies somewhere else. Just an idea.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by null on December 30, 2001 at 10:00:18 PT

statistics don't lie but liars use statistics
Figures from the Department of Transport show that in Britain, one person in five killed on the road had traces of drugs in their bloodstream. I've seen that figure before and it always burns me up. Notice that this statement does not say that the persons with drugs in their bloodstreams were at fault in the accident. Nor does the prescense of drugs in the bloodstream indicate inebriation. That is why you can fail a urine test some 30 days after your last toke. THC can hang around in your system for quite a while but you certainly aren't going to be high for 30 days from that toke! To say that 1 in 5 people killed in auto accidents is to say that 1 in 5 people use drugs. It does not indicate the drugs' fault for the accident!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by BGreen on December 30, 2001 at 09:40:56 PT:

Pseudo-science with a control group of one
The thing that makes this anything but hilarious is that it will be quoted as factual proof by prohibitionists, who thrive on this type of nonsense.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on December 30, 2001 at 09:31:38 PT

BBC thinks they've done science?
This kind of ignorance is dangerous.This was not an experiment of any kind. Where were the controls? Where was the uncertainty?The square root of one is one!
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment