Re: virus: Pot

XYZ Customer Support (
Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:35:21 -0700

> From:

> > How many people have gone to a fast food restaurant, pulled out of
> > it after eating and had an accident?
> That's irrelevant. That is the natural hazard of going on the road, no
> matter what the location of the crash. These people have not been
> affected by drugs, but people crash even when they're completely in
> control of themselves.

It is relevant. They are both generalizations and not facts.

> > I have seen quite a few.

> Perhaps you're jinxed :)

Perhaps you are when it comes to pot?

> > By your
> > logic, that is proof that driving to and from fast food restaurants can
> > cause accidents...

> My logic concludes no such thing. It concludes that if one person has
> had a crash due to being on cannabis, then there must be others, as it
> is extremely unlikely that they are a one off. You have merely reinforced my
> argument by showing that there is more than one person who has crashed whilst
> pulling out of a fast food resaurant.

That is not logical. One example does not mean many. You will
have to first show that it isn't an exception or freak accident.

> > What makes you really think that person had
> > an accident because they were on pot and not some other reason?
> It's a proven fact that people drive worse on alcohol, and that impairs
> the judgement and reaction time, and is the cause of many accidents.
> I shall refrain from saying that pot does it in the same way, but the
> general effect is similar - reduced reaction time, lower awareness to
> surroundings etc...

No such scientifically verfied test has ever shown that. That is a meme
intended to mislead you.

> > The fact that only one person has had this problem only indicates that
> > it is one person's problem and not every pot smoker's problem.

> Fair enough, but some people drive OK when they're pissed. That doesn't
> mean that the law doesn't include them when they drink drive. IF there is
> *any* possibility that the driver may cause danger on the roads
> due to chemicals they've taken, then it should be illegal to drive under
> the influence.

But since pot doesn't cause danger on the roads anymore than
being angry does. If that were the case, 99% of the people shouldn't
be on the road because they can't be courteous drivers and being
un-courteous is dangerous.

> > >But it
> > > doesn't impare your abilities on the road for a start.
> >
> > And neither does pot.
> I'm arguing rationally (I hope :) that it does, if you intend to counter
> it, then please back your argument up.

there is no evidence to back up the claim that pot impares
the abilities of drivers. Until there is, it would be wishful thinking
to say that it does.

> Nah, man, we live in the dark ages, like you said ;P

We? Not me!

> >Or don't you want to
> > get out of bed and find one? Hehehe

> Watch it young man, I've got a 9-5 job, drinking tea and eating cakes,
> I'll have you know

Hehehe! you got me there!