Why I've added a 3rd cam to my car. Psycho driver.

Im pro legalizing on the count of taking the business away from gangsters.
And i am pro making sure people that can not handle weed or alcohol or whatever in relation to tasks, get caught and punished for that as soon as possible.
I am also pro turning the Danish model of unrestricted access to cheap alcohol out with the more controlled Swedish model, that liquid are the cause of so much misery and cost for society, and really it dont have to be as there are not really any gains from it.
But it is one of those things Danish politicians will not dare to touch as it will cost them their comfortable gig.
 

Nothing like relying on the Daily Mail and other sensationalist tabloids offering up hysterical, out of context stories for your facts and news. :rolleyes:

If you were paying just a bit more attention to the content of the links you dug up you might have noticed that the articles report that the bus driver, "had methamphetamine and morphine in his blood system at the time." In addition, the articles you linked also report that the bus driver was consuming "synthetic cannabis" (whatever that is) as if that has anything whatsoever to do with the effects of the real thing.

And then there's this:

"The findings of this report "suggests" that when someone is driving when intoxicated by Cannabis they are twice as likely to have a car crash. Lets bring this into perspective with facts from other studies . . . If someone is tired or drowsy when driving they are also twice as likely to crash. If someone is talking on a mobile phone when driving they are four times more likely to crash. If someone is intoxicated with alcohol they are eleven times more likely to crash."
 
Last edited:
One thing is for sure, if something go wrong, then it will be known if you have been taking something.
At least that's how it is here, get involved in something with person damage and a blood test are mandatory.

So i think its safe to assume we always hear about it when things do wrong and substances have been involved, on the other hand we never hear about the person like me that have been driving high but never crashed or hurt some one.
I dont think i have been the only one able to manage that, actually i know my friend that have been smoking 2 X more than i ever have in the same period, he also never been in a crash.

And i do think most driving potheads manage to not hurt anyone, if the opposite was the case i dont understand why we dont see record numbers like we had in 1971 with 1213 killed in traffic.
It is actually strange to me cuz today there are so many more distractions to drivers, so i dont get why traffic deaths are so low now, only thing i can think off are the much safer cars now.
But i also think there have been a significant drop in accidents in general, so damn freaky if you ask me, maybe cars back then really was deathtraps, or there are some distractions in play back then i have missed.
 
Last edited:
But i also think there have been a significant drop in accidents in general, so damn freaky if you ask me, maybe cars back then really was deathtraps, or there are some distractions in play back then i have missed.

I would imagine that such things as seat belts, airbags, side impact bars, anti-lock brakes, collapsible vehicle chassis' and improved cabin design may have something to so with lower traffic fatalities.
 
Yeah even factoring the massive more cars on the streets now.
Here in Denmark there are 4 - 5 X as many cars on the streets compared to 1971, so cars must have become a lot safer.
But it still freak me that with that many more cars and many more distractions the total of car crashes in general are still much lower now, it cant be that drivers have become better too ?
So a driver today can drive a car post cupcake pictures on facetwitt while putting on makeup, and still be safer in general than a person just driving a car with whatever level of distractions back then. :unsure:
 
Nothing like relying on the Daily Mail and other sensationalist tabloids offering up hysterical, out of context stories for your facts and news. :rolleyes:
....
Well, Should I get those same studies reported by some other newspapers in order to give them more credibility? Unless you won't believe those studies are made by sensationalists journalist..
So here you go...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/
Long story short: marijuana impair driving ability but because people were aware about it they compensated driving slowly.

So, back to previous comments: does it have an adverse effect? Of course (it your driving ability would improve all racecar drivers would smoke weed before a race), but you'll drive slowly because of that,occasionally drifting.
 
Well, Should I get those same studies reported by some other newspapers in order to give them more credibility? Unless you won't believe those studies are made by sensationalists journalist..
So here you go...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/
Long story short: marijuana impair driving ability but because people were aware about it they compensated driving slowly.

So, back to previous comments: does it have an adverse effect? Of course (it your driving ability would improve all racecar drivers would smoke weed before a race), but you'll drive slowly because of that,occasionally drifting.

Well at least this time you've cited a study that refers to the actual cannabis herb rather that alarmist, misleading tabloid reports about someone consuming some unknown synthetic "cannabis" substance along with methamphetamine and morphine.

Nobody here has in any way advocated for driving while impaired on any substance, including cannabis. You posted all those links to a bogus story because I said I would have minor concerns about a bus driven by someone smoking marijuana whereas I would have major concerns about someone driving a public conveyance high on alcohol or opiates. Interestingly, these assertions are born out in this older study YOU now cite.

Some interesting quotes from your "study" consider your position on the issue.

"In contrast, epidemiological studies on the relationship between alcohol consumption and accident have been clear-cut and consistent, demonstrating that the risk of a motor vehicle accident increases significantly with Blood Alcohol Levels > 0.05%."

Aspects of the study suggest the surprising result that cannabis can improve driving skills.

"Although cognitive studies suggest that cannabis use may lead to unsafe driving, experimental studies have suggested that it can have the opposite effect."

"Most marijuana-intoxicated drivers SHOW ONLY MODEST IMPAIRMENTS on actual road tests."

"Some reviewers have concluded that there is no evidence that cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for crashes, and may actually reduce risk."

Again, nobody is advocating that people should operate a motor vehicle after smoking weed. But to equate the effect of the marijuana with alcohol or opiates is simply being an alarmist.
 
Last edited:
Sure, fatalities are up and down, data are still not reliable.

Having said that, should you board a bus, would you choose:
Bus A: driver just finished a couple of joints
Bus B: non smoker

I am not waiting for the data to be reliable or not, I know what I'd choose.
DUI and employment rules won't change - it will still be a firing offense if you're working while under the influence and there will probably still be regular drug tests for jobs that involve public safety and financial, like bus/taxi drivers, construction workers, doctors/medical, banking, and anything that involves obtaining/maintaining "clearance" for classified type info. alcohol has been legal for a very long time but they will still fire a drunkard in those positions. legalizing a different drug won't change the fact that they still don't want you doing that drug before/at work.
 
DUI and employment rules won't change - it will still be a firing offense if you're working while under the influence and there will probably still be regular drug tests for jobs that involve public safety and financial, like bus/taxi drivers, construction workers, doctors/medical, banking, and anything that involves obtaining/maintaining "clearance" for classified type info. alcohol has been legal for a very long time but they will still fire a drunkard in those positions. legalizing a different drug won't change the fact that they still don't want you doing that drug before/at work.
+1
 
DUI and employment rules won't change - it will still be a firing offense if you're working while under the influence and there will probably still be regular drug tests for jobs that involve public safety and financial, like bus/taxi drivers, construction workers, doctors/medical, banking, and anything that involves obtaining/maintaining "clearance" for classified type info. alcohol has been legal for a very long time but they will still fire a drunkard in those positions. legalizing a different drug won't change the fact that they still don't want you doing that drug before/at work.

Drivin' that train
High on cocaine
Casey Jones you'd better
Watch your speed
Trouble ahead
Trouble behind
And you know that notion
Just crossed my mind

:smuggrin:
 
Funny how some "pretty mundane" jobs or just being a athlete require regular drug tests, but that's not the case for politicians,,,,,,,, i just dont get that, you cant get to a position where you can mess things up / do more harm than that. :unsure:
 
Funny how some "pretty mundane" jobs or just being a athlete require regular drug tests, but that's not the case for politicians,,,,,,,, i just dont get that, you cant get to a position where you can mess things up / do more harm than that. :unsure:
I'm sure there's some drug use going on in government, but the drug that most of them are on isn't one that's smoked, injected, inhaled, swallowed, or otherwise put into their bodies. That's because that drug is called money. And while bribery is technically illegal, they get around that via "lobbying groups", which are just legalised bribery imho.

Besides, when was the last time a politician put in place a law that would stop them from doing something they wanted? Maybe when FDR imposed presidential term limits?
 
Back
Top