| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Marijuana Doesn’t Make You More Likely To Crash Your Car
Follow TIS on Twitter: @Truth_is_Scary & Like TIS of Facebook- facebook.com/TruthisScary
Amy Ford, Director of Communications for the Colorado Dept. of Transportation, announces a new “Drive High, Get A DUI” campaign, a TV-and-radio attempt to remind drivers that newly legal weed should be treated like alcohol and not consumed before driving.
A study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that driving after smoking marijuana does not make you more likely to get into a car crash — especially when compared to driving after alcohol consumption.
Researchers studied 9,000 drivers over the past year to examine marijuana’s impact on driving. Although 25 percent of marijuana users were more likely to be involved in a car crash than people who did not use the drug, gender, age, and race/ethnicity of marijuana users were considered, demographic differences actually contributed substantially to crash risk. Younger drivers had a higher crash rate than older ones, and men crashed more than women.
On the other hand, drivers who consumed alcohol were significantly more likely to crash. Those with a 0.08 percent breath alcohol level crashed four times more than sober drivers, and people with a 0.15 percent level were 12 times more likely to crash.
In the study, testing positive for marijuana was defined as having delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinal (THC) in the system. The number of legal drug users and illegal drug users involved in crashes was statistically insignificant.
Nevertheless, marijuana use does impact drivers’ senses, the study warned, and the number of drivers with marijuana in their system is on the rise. According to the Office of Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection director, Jeff Michael, “Drivers should never get behind the wheel impaired, and we know that marijuana impairs judgment, reaction times and awareness.”
Source: http://truthisscary.com/2015/02/marijuana-doesnt-make-you-more-likely-to-crash-your-car/
blah blah blah,.. the government in any incarnation can pass all the legislation they like and it is the collective opinion of every single government employee that their CON-stitution, laws, regulations, policies, etc. automatically apply to everyone BUT if you ask them to prove that its applicable to you “as a private person”,.. they go blank, they can’t understand why you would ever question any of it!
Everyone has been told that the CON-stitution and law automatically apply to everyone. it’s everyones opinion that it applies, everyone feels it applies, everyone believes it applies, everyone assumes and presumes it applies. HOWEVER;
hearsay, opinions, feelings, beliefs, assumptions and presumptions aren’t proof of a damn thing.
What factual, first hand, irrefutable evidence can anyone offer that proves that their CON-stitution and laws apply to the private person simply because they are physically in what we commonly refer to as a state.
Keeping in mind that slavery and involuntary servitude is illegal “per their own law”. Further, no private person is a party to their CON-stitution nor is any private person a signatory to their CON-stitution, nor has any private person sworn an oath to be bound by or to obey the CONstitution and laws.
Your proof MUST be factual and first hand, your proof/evidence shall not be comprised of hearsay, your opinions, beliefs, feelings, assumptions, presumptions, hypotheticals, conjecture, sophistry, fraud, lies, scenarios or what if’s.
Good luck!
P.S. Indoctrination is defined as follows: “to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions”.
When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.
A crowd yields to instincts which an individual, acting alone, represses.
People instinctively follow the impulses of the herd.
A crowd never reasons, but follows its emotions; it accepts without proof what is “suggested” or “asserted”.