Shame on you!
Someone will see you smoking and have a heart attack
I wonder what it would be like if nobody was driving stoned.
Without my medicine I have physical and emotional problems, with it we are all good
2 Likes
I can tell you still haven’t read the papers. Here I even highlighted the relevant sections which demonstrate exactly what I’m talking about. This is the exact nitpicking that i was talking about when I first posted these studies.
Since I can’t read the papers for you, this is as close as I can get to directly injecting the words into your brain. Feel free to engage with any of these peer-reviewed, empirical points at any time.
Drugs are bad, mmm’kay.
2 Likes
I read the 2007 paper which seems to be the most complete. I don’t think they support your zero tolerance idea.
The 2015 1-pager is not so important to me.
The 1998 study is silly. Just read the methods. n=10 enough said. Gotta move on from the reefer madness days.
3 Likes
12 Likes
Wow, very telling that you chose to discount the most supportive and well cited paper because of it’s brevity. if you had read it, then you would have been able to see the numerous citations in the paper itself, and you would have seen the more than 150 citations of the paper by other authors. Since I can safely assume you don’t understand the concepts of statistical power I will refrain from a more detailed explanation of why this sample size is sufficient for the study being conducted, just know that if you had taken a statistics or research methods course you would know that sample size is a result of a calculation, not something you pull out of your ass. I can see I’m getting nowhere here, so feel free to come back when you’ve actually read something.
Ignore, he answered in dm’s
Hahaha
1 Like
Who funded the study?
1 Like
Was this study conducted with professional or amateur stoners?
3 Likes
Were they smoking indica or sativa?
6 Likes
Far too many unsited variables.
3 Likes
Guy was responding and stopped.
I’d bet 5$ to a charity of his choice that it this was funded by a group that has interest that lie on the other side of the fence…
2 Likes
So who where these test subjects?
If it was people like you high for the first time behind the wheel of course your gonna have a bad time you’re missing a lot of variables.
1 Like
The 1-pager is essentially an opinion piece. It presents similar facts as the 2007 paper but comes to a different conclusion. Number of times its cited means little to me.
Basic stats knowledge isn’t needed to see clearly that the 1998 paper is not applicable to daily users.
Sample size aside, their methods and conclusions don’t support your position of no tolerance. They essentially demonstrate that reaction time may be effected and people slouch…
If you gave this to a daily user it would not cause impairment.
1 Like
What bike is that?
1 Like
shut the fuuuuuck up dude. im getting sick and tired of these topics that are made literally for nothing else but complaining and arguing by entitled bitches who think they’re better than everyone else in this forum. Why the fuck would you be talking about something you know nothing about? You read a study or two and now you’re the fucking expert? You clearly dont smoke weed or understand it at all.
You realize 99% of users here have alt names and no one gives 1 fuck if they post a picture of operating heavy equipment under the influence? To me you’ll be referenced as Karen from now on. Just had to say fuck you one last time.
1 Like
Getting mad about it doesn’t make my cited results any less empirical or people who do so any less immoral for endangering others.
1 Like
No, the lack of data does…
2 Likes