Friday, May 10, 2019

CANNABIS ... AND 'THEY' WANT IT LEGALISED

Lead item on the 6.00 pm TV1 News.    The sole survivor of an horrific crash which claimed multiple lives just outside Waverley last year said that she and her partner (the driver) were high on cannabis when the vehicle they were in veered into the oncoming lane and smashed head-on into another car.    She said they had stopped off in Hawera to purchase more of the drug before continuing south.

Challenged by the son of one of the victims in the other car 'she' said she was truly sorry but that she was a victim too.

What an incredible example of f****d up thinking.   No responsibility ... I'm a victim too.

No you're not ... you helped contribute to the crime.    No sympathy here lady ... count yourself lucky that you're not doing time.

Cannabis ... and 'they' want it legalised.   I'll have more to say on this in my next post. 

23 comments:

Andrei said...

In the interests of accuracy Veteran it was actually synthetic cannabis which was legal at the time I believe while driving while impaired was and still is illegal and will remain so regardless of the legal status of cannabis.

A vehicle involved in the last horrific crash which took eight lives was unwarrented and had bald tyres and should not have been on the road but it was

A guy I knew years ago was killed along with his granddaughter by a disqualified drunk driver in an unregistered, unwarrented car who was many times over the legal limit for alcohol.

What can you do - there are psychos on the road - fortunately not too many

Psycho Milt said...

Also worth noting: synthetic "cannabis" is not a synthetic version of THC, it's whatever synthetic something-psychoactive someone made that gets marketed as "synthetic cannabis."

The drug they're talking about legalising had as much to do with this crash as Juju, god of the Congo did - ie nothing whatsoever.

Also: what Andrei said. People are often killed on the roads by drivers using the entirely legal drug alcohol. The legality or otherwise of the drug has nothing to do with it.

The Veteran said...

Andrei ... au contraire. Synthetic cannabis was made illegal in 2014. The crash happened last year. My main point was to express disgust of the 'lady' playing the victim card ... easy out and doesn't wash. Her child was a victim; the four in the other car were victims. The best thing anyone could say about her and her partner is that they were victims of their own stupidity. Others might prefer a more accurate descriptive.

Milt ... you can dance on a pin as much as you like. Your mob are proposing to legalise a mind altering drug. As I said, more about that in my next post.

Psycho Milt said...

Yes, they are. Much like previous governments have permitted the ongoing legalisation of the mind-altering drug alcohol. With the significant difference that the mind-altering drug Labour and the Greens are proposing to legalise is much less harmful than alcohol.

The proposed referendum is about whether smoking a plant should be a criminal offence or not. It's a real test for conservatives, because the person who answers yes to that question has no business doing any blathering about liberty and individual freedom. The only people who can answer yes to that question are authoritarians.

Andrei said...

The legality or illegality of synthetic cannabis at the time of this accident is neither here nor there - I wasn't sure of its status of synthetic cannabis at that time and expressed myself equivocably on that matter.

The point being that dicussing this accident bears no relevance to the debate over legalising cannabis. It has nothing to inform us on the consequences of our decision

We do have a problem with impaired drivers on our roads - impaired by substances legal, illegal as well as on occaision prescription medications.

On the Friday open thread someone, Egbut I suspect, is going on about a fatal traffic accident in Moscow, blaming Putin. In fact the gentleman in question suffered a ruptured aorta while riding his motorcycle and this too has nothing to reveal to us about anything other than bad things can happen on roads

I don't believe that legalizing cannabis will have any impact on the number of serious road accidents in reality.

Responsible citizens don't drive while impaired irresponsible citizens do

Snowflake said...

Who’s “They”, “Veteran”? And man you pwned yourself. Synthetic cannabis isn’t cannabis. Even so, I take it “you’re” in favour of prohibition now, given your no doubt sincere interest in both road safety and reducing drug related harm?

David said...

Road deaths where cannabis was cause = ?

Road deaths where alcohol was cause = ?

Look up the figures, then you might have a case.

Until then, you're just another grumpy old curmudgeon who likes things the way they are because that's the way they've always been and change makes you afraid.

Did you bother with the Johan Hari book I suggested? Have you taken the quiz?

Are you interested in being an informed commentator on the issue, or just a bag of prejudices to thrown around like so much manure?

Noel said...

https://www.aa.co.nz/about/newsroom/media-releases/safety/alarming-increase-in-drugged-driving-deaths/

Psycho Milt said...

Thanks Noel, that AA story perfectly highlights the dishonesty of anti-drug (well, the ones that aren't alcohol) campaigners on this issue.

The AA takes "the number of crash deaths where a driver subsequently tested positive for some form of potentially impairing drug and compares those numbers to crash deaths involving a drunk driver."

In it other words, it compares apples and oranges.

Here's the scam: you test the crash victims for alcohol and various other drugs. Alcohol in the blood is a pretty good proxy for measuring impairment, but the tests for the various other drugs only tell you whether the person used that drug in the last few days. It doesn't tell you anything about whether the person was impaired by a drug at the time of the crash. You avoid mentioning that part and only refer to the crash victim "having drugs in their system" or as a "drugged driver." Et voila, "drugged drivers" in crashes outnumber drunk drivers.

To avoid the comparing-apples-and-oranges fallacy, you'd need either a drugs test that was a useful proxy for impairment, or an alcohol test that measured whether the person had consumed alcohol in the previous few days. Without one or the other, there's no comparison.

By the way, Nick Smith has a PhD and should be well aware of how dishonest the claims he made about "drugged drivers" were.

The Veteran said...

Flake ... if you can't figure out who the 'they' are then truly, you're thicker than a sack full of hammers.

As for prohibition (and I assume you're talking about alcohol) and I accept it's nigh on impossible to put the genie back in the bottle even if I wanted to (which I don't) but you sure as hell can stop another genie getting out. Hold your breath and I'll explain why in my next post and then you can run wild as I'm sure you'll do.

David ... tell me, why is it that anyone who might have an opinion contrary to your own is NOT an informed commentator. That sort of statement confirms you as an arrogant and patronising socialist ... with nothing to be arrogant and patronising about.

David said...

Thanks Noel, but the issue is cannabis v alcohol, not someone who blacks out from prescription meds.

that said, the increase from 67 to 149 is quite high and shows the willingness of some to flought the law.

roadside testing for cannabis does not show a level of intoxication the way a test for alcohol does; it simply shows cannabis was used sometime in the past 7 or so days. The fact I got shitfaced last night does not affect my ability to drive sober in three days time, so why apply a different standard to those who chose to get stoned?

David said...

veteran

David ... tell me, why is it that anyone who might have an opinion contrary to your own is NOT an informed commentator.

It was, I thought, a fairly easy question to answer as your statements to date show an anti-bias, but not the reasoning behind it.

I await with delight your next post, and will then be able to judge the level of your information versus the level of your bias.

Snowflake said...

Ah the “other genie” fallacy so beloved by the alcohol industry to argue for their monopoly on legal drugs. They’ll be pleased you’re doing their job for them. Anyway, stop with the obfuscation; who’s “they”?

Noel said...

Was expecting that David. You are right there is no distinction made but you cannot say the figures are for mainly medical drugs.

Doesn't matter it's an offence along with excess alcohol.

David said...

You are right there is no distinction made but you cannot say the figures are for mainly medical drugs.

Nor can you say they're not as the figures don't differentiate, it is almost as if the AA is a shill for alcohol.

Psycho Milt said...

Doesn't matter it's an offence along with excess alcohol.

Driving while impaired is an offence, yes. Having days-old traces of a drug in your bloodstream isn't. You might have committed an offence several days ago when you took the drug, but that's a separate matter.

Noel said...

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/are-you-at-risk-of-failing-a-roadside-drug-test-after-a-wild-weekend/news-story/9d3acf6803063a6e26c310df9b8358c8

Psycho Milt said...

From that linked story:

Green MP David Shoebridge: “We need to have roadside drug testing that tests for all drugs and for impairment.

“Without that it’s a grossly misguided policy.”


And there's that same dishonesty again, this time from the NSW Police: “Between 2010 and 2014, 14 per cent of all fatalities involved a driver or rider with an illegal drug in their system.”

Note the careful wording: not "a driver or rider under the influence of drugs," but "with an illegal drug in their system." Which might have been there for days. What the actual percentage was is anybody's guess - all we can say is that it's less than 14%.

Noel said...

Yeah predicted that pick. Shoebridge has a fetish on police and drugs.
I favour “Generally speaking, cannabis usually won’t be detected after 12 hours"

Psycho Milt said...

People who won't be affected by bad laws often favour them. Would you favour random roadside testing that could have you arrested for drink driving because it identified traces of alcohol from a drink you had up to 12 hours ago? I sure as hell wouldn't, because I'd be quite likely to be falsely convicted of drink driving at some point.

Noel said...

12 hours isn't "days old" on my calendar.
What one do your use?

Psycho Milt said...

Both. The saliva test will allegedly capture traces from within the last 12 hours. If you're then taken for an evidential blood test, or your corpse is given a blood test if you're a crash victim, that test will pick up traces from anything up to a week ago, depending on the drug.

The question is still unanswered: would you favour the implementation of random roadside testing that could see you arrested for drunk driving based on a drink you had up to 12 hours ago?

Noel said...

Oh shit we haven't accurate impairment testing. That's a potential health (and death) issue. Good reason to can the referendum.