ShiningPlain

happy now?

you never know. and i wasn't talking about them anyway.

good job on proving me wrong about the study there.

well thanks master civil. i'm really glad that you took the time to make that very illustrated reply. and no they weren't... those were different questions. and if the full study was so referred, how come i didn't see you referring it? could it be that all you ever told me to do was re-read the study?!

nah i haven't mescalito. and i agree in a way when you say that study's mean shit... all of the tokers i know that don't have psychosis have had a good upbringing, and don't appear to have that fucked up gene. all of the stoners i know that do have psychosis haven't had a good upbringing, and/or have that fucked up gene.

oh well now i've finally bloody seen the full study! Limitations of the study It was not possible to perform an adjusted analysis of the effects of amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates, mainly because of the small number of drivers positive for these substances. This highlight, however, that these drugs are not a major issue in France at the moment (2003). Psychoactive medical drugs were only sought in the case of positive blood testing. No further study of this confounding effect was possible. good. Methods Study population and drug detection process We included all fatal crashes resulting in immediate death (including pedestrian fatalities) in the study. All the drivers involved were taken as soon as possible to the hospital, under the control of the police, for compulsory urine testing to detect four major drug families (cannabis, amphetamines, opiates, and cocaine). If the test was positive or impossible a blood sample was taken. This information was associated with the blood alcohol concentration in the police reports. These reports provided 10 748 drivers who had had full tests for drugs and alcohol. We considered urinary screening for drugs as positive above a concentration of 1000 ng/ml of urine for amphetamines, 300 ng/ml for cocaine and opiates, and 50 ng/ml of acid tetrahydrocannabinol for cannabis.We considered blood tests for drugs (using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry) positive above a concentration of 50 ng/ml for amphetamines and cocaine, 20 ng/ml for opiates, and 1 ng/ml of 9 tetrahydrocannabinol for cannabis. We considered drivers negative if their urine tests were negative or their blood concentrations below these thresholds. However, during the analyses of dose and effect, we no longer considered non-null below threshold concentrations as “negative.” not so good. The particular problem with cannabis is that it stays in a person's system for up to 30 hours but its effects wear off within a few hours. http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6717.shtml

spin doctors. amulte - i assume it's a good assumption then. you degrade me by always stating the obvious like i'm blind to it, even if i've wrote it myself. you haven't proved that they're inconclusive facts. you don't know what the people that lie about it have to gain?! well keeping it illegal of course! keeping people away from the best medicine for mind, body, and soul; and possibly making more money from keeping masses of people wanting materialism instead of enlightenment. torsten - you're just happy with the mystery because you already have your beliefs. i on the otherhand need solid facts. okay, now i understand that there were passengers in the cars. great. but guess what, the article didn't mention it! it doesn't say whether there were users of other drugs in the study... they failed to say that cannabis and alcohol were the main causes of "fatal crashes". i think speeding and tiredness would be the main causes of fatal crashes. and what are you saying, that the people that died with low-levels of thc in them don't have any excuses, but the straight people do? if so, what are all of them? it can't be too many things right? "i didn't want to run over the cat in the road."... "i wasn't looking."... etc. it doesn't tell us exactly, and that's what i'm talking about. it doesn't tell us how much more people were killed from the higher doses, and how much more damage was done to their cars than the others etc. it shouldn't be claiming that cannabis almost doubles the risk of fatal crashes then should it. and it appears that you're forgetting the tests that had thousands of members and were totally objective. what paragraph that says methods?? haven't i read the complete article or something? all they have at the link is the exact same thing you posted. i don't see it saying at all there were blood tests. all i see it saying is that there was a "blood concentration of cannabis". this can be picked up with urine tests, you see? it seems more important to publish a study that straight people can understand. and i haven't smoked any cannabis for 2 months! it isn't my fault that i have naturally shit short-term memory. i'm gonna take a memory course if that makes you feel better. i don't see why you should be so concerned though, because the only thing i forgot was that there were passengers in the cars. anyway, i think we're just trying to prove different points.

CHEMICALS STAY IN YOUR BODY FROM ONE HOUR TO A LIFETIME. The length of time any drug (illicit or prescribed) stays in your system will vary. The time depends on on your physiological makeup (e.g., your physical height, weight, your amount of body fat, your age, current state of health, whether or not you exercise mildly - aggressively - not at all.). One should consider whether or not one is currently undergoing any degree of stress (i.e., your "state of mind") at the time you ingest drugs can play a part as well. Other considerations include your "frequency" of use (1x per day? 3 - 5x per day?), the "quantity" of drug you used each time, and the "length of time" (days? weeks? months?) of your consistent drug-use prior to your drug test. Even the quality ("potency") of the drug you ingest determines "how long" the drug is detectable in your system when your urine is analyzed (tested) at the lab. Amount and Frequency of Use: Single, isolated, small doses are generally detectable at a lower boundary. Chronic and long-term use typically result in detection periods near or at the upper boundary. http://www.alwaystestclean.com/how_long.htm HOW DRUG TESTS WORK. Basically there is little difference between a blood drug test, a urine drug test or a saliva drug test. The tests all look for very small concentrations of contaminates, called metabolites, that can be used to determine which specific products have been used. The body naturally stores metabolites in the fatty cells and fast growing cells in your body. These metabolites leach out into the blood over time and are expelled mostly through the urinary tract. Metabolites stay in the fat for different periods of time causing you to fail a drug test many weeks or months in the future. Your fat content, activity level and your metabolism all have a major impact on how long chemicals can be detected in your system. Being your hair is a fast growing tissue it also stores metabolites. This is why a hair follicle drug test can detect metabolites for an extended period of time. Trace amounts of drug metabolites become entrapped in the core of the hair as it grows out from the body. These metabolite residues cannot be washed, bleached or flushed out of the hair follicles and are stable over a long period of time. An analysis of the hair fiber will produce an accurate drug history for about 90 - 120 days. It takes approximately 5 days for drugs to show up in a person's hair. As a side note, any hair can be used for a hair follicle test, This means under arm hair or even pubic hair. Shaving your head is not effective. Root Clean will cause you to pass your drug test for up to 8 hours after use. Companies mostly test for drugs in the urine and not the blood because the urine test is much cheaper with similar accuracy. Saliva drug tests are very cheap and less reliable so its use if somewhat limited. Hair follicle tests are the most accurate and enduring, but are very expensive and usually must be sent out to an independent laboratory for analysis. http://www.alwaystestclean.com/blood_drug_test.htm

i'm defensive because cannabis is the most beneficial plant in history, yet also the most attacked and lied about "thing" in history. that aswell as the fact that people such as torsten keep putting this study before my experiences and facts, yet never proving that the study is correct; or that my experiences or facts are incorrect. EVERYONE, re-read this study... now, do you really believe it proves that cannabis almost doubles the risk of fatal crashes? i don't want to sound cynical or something, but i just honestly, unbiasedly can't see that it proves cannabis doubles the risk of fatal crashes. this is what i've critically taken from it: - it doesn't say how many (if any) of the people in these fatal crashes died. "i mean i believe some of the people did, but that's not the point." - it doesn't say if all of the people with thc in them died from their fatal crashes. - it doesn't say whether the people with thc in them had any other drug (besides alcohol of course) in them. - it doesn't mention that most of the people that had fatal crashes were cannabis-free. - it doesn't tell us how much more of a danger there is when the thc levels rise. - it doesn't note that epidemiological studies are not always trustworthy. - it doesn't say how long after the crashes the drug tests occurred. - it doesn't actually say whether the drug tests were blood tests or not. ah well, at least it gave the percentage of people who had BOTH alcohol and cannabis in them. i give it credit for that. personally, if i was serious about warning people of driving dangers, i would try my best to prove that there was a danger.

wandjina - you call me a preacher, just for getting mad when y'all ignore new things that i've brought to the table... you say i'm preaching to the converted, yet you've seen me say that i don't think this is "the converted"... YOU say that i'm just barking propaganda, yet I'M the ignorant one?... you say that I don't appear to respect other people's opinions, yet you don't make any mention of your "friends"... you say that maturity isn't just about age, yet you've told me to come back in 5 years... alot of the rest of your post is hypocritical and purely opinoinated... and you think i'm instantly going to completely respect your opinion? EDIT: ahh, FUCK! i had this other part wrote out, but just lost it then. and god knows how?! anyway, because of that shitty turn of fate, this one is going to be shorter... every view on this subject can be looked at as a reality, but the most important "reality" (or view) is always going to be the one that takes all other views into account. and believe it or not, i have looked at this topic from numerous views. it may not appear so on the forum, but i honestly don't yet have a completely open and shut case on cannabis and driving. all i know is that me and all of my stoner friends are fine when driving high, and that i've not yet read one study which would make me believe otherwise. this is one of the reasons why i've been asking for some clarity on this study! i really want to know more. i've taken interest in the study, and i've publicly noted the facts of it... all i'm waiting for now is for you guys to publicly note or refute the facts i've posted; which could possibly discredit thes study. and seriouslly, if you want me to believe in this thing, you've got to give me some concrete evidence that its findings are right.

you're a total hypocrite that is full of assumptions. - deal with that! i really wish you and others would stop dissing me all of the time for doing the simplest things. why can't i post a couple of articles without people such as you giving me shit?? why can't i be honest about something without people such as you giving me shit?? why can't i post facts about something without people such as you giving me shit?? i wasn't posting them as a threat or anything, i was just posting them to help the discussion! and please stop degrading me by telling me to do things like watch bowling for columbine! yes i've seen bowling for columbine; yes it's filled with disinformation; and yes i know that america is filled with fear! of course i know that america is filled with fear!! god, you treat me like a fucking simpleton just because i noted some facts that could discredit the first article of the thread. you didn't attempt to discredit the facts or anything (jeez, you don't even appear to have noticed them), you just hopped onto the bandwagon of calling me an immature, whining pothead. ps - maybe you just don't understand my writing style. i'm not ALWAYS talking to you lot when i go off. alot of the time i'm just talking to the people which LIE about pot for their own gain. for example, my first post: so? just sounds like more propaganda to me. it doesn't say whether these people were experienced smokers or not.. neither does it say how they got tested. we all know that thc stays in the human body for around 30 days, right? so... and it has already been proven by various studies that cannabis can make you a safer driver. this honestly just sounds like the same old story to me. how many times have "they" (government scientsists and what have you) told us now that cannabis causes many road fatalities? and how many times have they proved this? NONE; right? finding thc in many bodies of car crash victims is not a clear indicator that cannabis is causing many car crashes... and guess what? it never will be! that is totally an attack on all of the people that have LIED about the link between cannabis and psychosis. it's not meant to be an attack on torsten.

^ propaganda. don't any of you think it sucks that you have to think like torsten in order to stay here? i mean, he's the only moderator right?

get off my dick.

haha. i guess there's just some people that can handle the truth, and some people that can't.

i've already said all of this!