NFL and NFLPA joint agreement on pain management, potentially including marijuana

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Say it till the Cows come home, for all I care. You have no proof of what you claim. I already posted that you were probably right with regards to the speeds of most accidents but you would rather zero in on this one small thing. Whatever, it's your time to waste but you aint wasting mine. You didn't look up the studies and you didn't bother to research any of the data that shows it's unsafe to drive, while under the influence of weed apparently.

Why would you want a survey of a thousand pot heads? I mean, you have access to an actual 20 year study on the matter. Lastly, the "debate" is about sports and weed, not about speeding and weed. I mean, the thread is only 17 pages long and here you are, confused about what the thread is about?

As someone who is certified in SFSTs from a NHTSA approved course I can tell you speeding is not an indicator of being under the influence. However, driving too slow is one indicator that can be used to assert reasonable suspicion.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,904
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Doesn't make you right either. Did you look into the stats, as I suggested? Did you look at the results of studies or did you just ignore that? No real trick to it, if you just google the subject, the info is all over. Driving while under the influence of weed is definitely not safe. That's the main point, if you want to argue at what speed it becomes unsafe, that's up to you. Whatever speed it might be, its being reached.
The real danger is driving impaired is reaction time, even more than speed. Combine the two and you've got a missile and I can speak from experience driving under the influence of pot is as dangerous as being drunk, if your safety or the safety of others is dependent on that driver's response to impending danger.

The difference I see is that driving after a couple of drinks is not like driving after a couple of hits, the impairment with pot is immediate. That said, I won't even drive after one drink.

It's simple, wanna get high, don't drive. Same goes for drinking. And in my younger and stupid days, I did both and am damned lucky I didn't harm someone.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,904
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
As someone who is certified in SFSTs from a NHTSA approved course I can tell you speeding is not an indicator of being under the influence. However, driving too slow is one indicator that can be used to assert reasonable suspicion.
Hunched over the wheel, squinty eyed and frozen laugh face are other indicators.
 

Hennessy_King

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,718
Reaction score
25,515
The real danger is driving impaired is reaction time, even more than speed. Combine the two and you've got a missile and I can speak from experience driving under the influence of pot is as dangerous as being drunk, if your safety or the safety of others is dependent on that driver's response to impending danger.

The difference I see is that driving after a couple of drinks is not like driving after a couple of hits, the impairment with pot is immediate. That said, I won't even drive after one drink.

It's simple, wanna get high, don't drive. Same goes for drinking. And in my younger and stupid days, I did both and am damned lucky I didn't harm someone.
Im definitely a better driver drunk, than high.
 

RoboQB

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,686
Reaction score
9,772
As someone who is certified in SFSTs from a NHTSA approved course I can tell you speeding is not an indicator of being under the influence. However, driving too slow is one indicator that can be used to assert reasonable suspicion.

Thank you for posting.

Funny story to tell here.
Years ago, my buddy and I were driving down a road with a 35mph posted speed limit.
He was driving 11mph and got pulled over and was given a ticket. No weed was in the
car and we weren't on any drugs. My friend was just acting silly by being overly cautious.

However, I'd say the officer had probable cause... lol. (He might have just given a written warning)
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,007
Reaction score
27,366
I must be, I keep reading your drivel. Exactly what do you think I have failed to recognize? Seriously, what do you think it is?

Look, if you wanna be stuck on the speed at which accidents are taking place, be my guest. If you want to rely on the opinion of career weed smoker, knock yourself out. I'm just going to discuss what has some sort of credibility behind it, which are studies conducted on the matter. Like it or don't, nobody is going to care one way or the other.

Your side of the argument predicted that traffic fatalities and the like would increase with those obnoxiously biased NIDA studies. Colorado proves that wrong.

Your side of the argument predicted that use amongst children would increase with all those "gateway" NIDA studies. CO not only proves that wrong but that the opposite is true.

Your side of the argument predicted that use of other illegal drugs would increase using the same studies again. CO once again showed the opposite to be true.

Your side of the argument predicted that crime would increase. CO once again disproves that.

But have fun pointing to biased US NIDA studies from law enforcement.
 

Hennessy_King

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,718
Reaction score
25,515
Your side of the argument predicted that traffic fatalities and the like would increase with those obnoxiously biased NIDA studies. Colorado proves that wrong.

Your side of the argument predicted that use amongst children would increase with all those "gateway" NIDA studies. CO not only proves that wrong but that the opposite is true.

Your side of the argument predicted that use of other illegal drugs would increase using the same studies again. CO once again showed the opposite to be true.

Your side of the argument predicted that crime would increase. CO once again disproves that.

But have fun pointing to biased US NIDA studies from law enforcement.
They are just old dinosaurs that still think the war on drugs is a real thing. The only reason y weed aint legal is because they haven't figured out how to sell and make money off it.
 

America's Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
33,488
Reaction score
46,917
I see you are big on ad hominem too. It's amusing to watch you try to demonize and delegitimize those who smoke pot.

Colorado has had it legal for quite some time and completely disproves your claims. Traffic violations, accidents, and fatalities are unchanged. Use in children is down. Use of cocaine/heroin is down. etc.

But have fun waving your hands at NIDA studies prior to 2015. Fact is that NIDA would turn down any hypothesis that did not have a negative prediction from 1972-2015.
Let's see who is telling the truth and who is not? .......

Insurance Group Says Data Suggests Cannabis is Increasing Accident Rates

March 14, 2019 / By Jim Sams

bigstock_marijuana_on_a_background_of_t_18873482-200x300.jpg

Preliminary research indicates that the legalization of recreational marijuana in 10 states has increased accident rates, the Insurance Information Institute said Wednesday.

The group cited an October 2018 study by the Highway Loss Data Institute that shows collision claim frequency was 12.5% higher in Colorado and 9.7% higher in Washington than in nearby states that did not legalize recreational use of marijuana. Oregon also had a 1% greater rate of collision claims than neighboring states.

“When a state legalizes marijuana, more people use the drug,” states the institute’s white paper, released Wednesday. “More people using marijuana is associated with more people driving with THC in their systems. The standard personal auto policy does not address driving under the influence of any drug, including alcohol and marijuana. However, auto insurance rates may be affected by the spread of marijuana legalization, particularly if such legalization is associated with an increase in impaired driving and related accidents.”

Much of the institute’s is based on a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute released last fall. HLDI analysts estimated that the frequency of collision claims per insured vehicle year rose a combined 6 percent following the start of retail sales of recreational marijuana in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, compared with the control states of Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming. The combined-state analysis is based on collision loss data from January 2012 through October 2017.

A separate IIHS study examined police-reported crashes before and after retail sales began in Colorado, Oregon and Washington from 2012 to 2016. IIHS estimates that the three states combined saw a 5.2 percent increase in the rate of crashes per million vehicle registrations, compared with neighboring states that didn’t legalize marijuana sales.

Another study showed an increase in the number of drivers involved in fatal accidents who tested positive for marijuana use.

The National Bureau of Economic Research published in March 2018 found that the share of fatal accidents in which at least one driver tested positive for marijuana increased in Colorado and Washington after marijuana was legalized in both states in 2014. In Colorado the fraction of positive tests increased by 9% from 2013 to 2016; in Washington the increase was 28% during that period.
https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2019/03/14/289753.htm

Research Ties Marijuana Legalization to Car Accidents, Injuries
Researchers found that marijuana-related hospitalizations increased in Colorado after the state legalized recreational pot.
By Alexa Lardieri, Staff Writer May 15, 2019

THE LEGALIZATION OF recreational marijuana is associated with a rise of injuries, substance abuse and car accidents, according to new research.

A study published Wednesday in the journal BMJ Open found that Colorado hospital admissions for cannabis abuse increased after the drug was legalized in the state.

Researchers found that car accidents in Colorado increased 10% after legalization, and increases in alcohol abuse and overdoses that resulted in injury or death increased by 5%.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...ties-legalizing-pot-to-car-accidents-injuries

Exclusive: Traffic fatalities linked to marijuana are up sharply in Colorado. Is legalization to blame?
  • David Migoya
  • PUBLISHED: August 25, 2017 at 10:01 am | UPDATED: December 28, 2018 at 12:23 pm
cannabis_story_08102017_gss_0003.jpg

Barbara Deckert at the site of her fiancé's death on Aug. 10, 2017 in Brighton. Ron Edwards was killed by a driver who ran a red light and hit him on his motorcycle.

The number of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado who tested positive for marijuana has risen sharply each year since 2013, more than doubling in that time, federal and state data show. A Denver Post analysis of the data and coroner reports provides the most comprehensive look yet into whether roads in the state have become more dangerous since the drug’s legalization.

Increasingly potent levels of marijuana were found in positive-testing drivers who died in crashes in Front Range counties, according to coroner data since 2013 compiled by The Denver Post. Nearly a dozen in 2016 had levels five times the amount allowed by law, and one was at 22 times the limit. Levels were not as elevated in earlier years.

Last year, all of the drivers who survived and tested positive for marijuana use had the drug at levels that indicated use within a few hours of being tested, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation, which compiles information for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System.

The trends coincide with the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado that began with adult use in late 2012, followed by sales in 2014.

Police, victims’ families and safety advocates say the numbers of drivers testing positive for marijuana use — which have grown at a quicker rate than the increase in pot usage in Colorado since 2013 — are rising too quickly to ignore and highlight the potential dangers of mixing pot with driving.

“We went from zero to 100, and we’ve been chasing it ever since,” Greenwood Village Police Chief John Jackson said of the state’s implementation of legalized marijuana. “Nobody understands it and people are dying. That’s a huge public safety problem.”


The 2013-16 period saw a 40 percent increase in the number of all drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado, from 627 to 880, according to the NHTSA data. Those who tested positive for alcohol in fatal crashes from 2013 to 2015 — figures for 2016 were not available — grew 17 percent, from 129 to 151.

By contrast, the number of drivers who tested positive for marijuana use jumped 145 percent — from 47 in 2013 to 115 in 2016. During that time, the prevalence of testing drivers for marijuana use did not change appreciably, federal fatal-crash data show.

And the numbers probably are even higher.
https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww...25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/amp/
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Hunched over the wheel, squinty eyed and frozen laugh face are other indicators.

One of my favorites is the fear induced anxiety response. If they see you sit up, grab your seatbelt and go 10 & 2 with your hands? That's suspicious.
 

America's Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
33,488
Reaction score
46,917
Your side of the argument predicted that traffic fatalities and the like would increase with those obnoxiously biased NIDA studies. Colorado proves that wrong.

Your side of the argument predicted that use amongst children would increase with all those "gateway" NIDA studies. CO not only proves that wrong but that the opposite is true.

Your side of the argument predicted that use of other illegal drugs would increase using the same studies again. CO once again showed the opposite to be true.

Your side of the argument predicted that crime would increase. CO once again disproves that.

But have fun pointing to biased US NIDA studies from law enforcement.
I just finished providing recent studies from 3 different reputable websites and statistical data collected from the State of Colorado that totally disprove your misinformation. Stop spreading untruths.
 

RoboQB

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,686
Reaction score
9,772
Im definitely a better driver drunk, than high.

Henny, you're a dead ringer for Shannon Sharpe.

I'm picturing you having to drink before the show with Skip Bayless and
having to smoke on the way home to relax your nerves after being on
the show with Skip Bayless... lol.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
I'm not stuck on it. More like keeping you from ignoring the fact that you have no idea what
you're talking about. You rely on biased studies and have no actual knowledge on the topic.
But that's fine. Run along now. Go do your keyboard warrior bit, tough guy.

To the point that you distract from the actual point of the thread unfortunately. I mean, go back and read post 283. In that post, I acknowledge the fact that accidents at high rates of speed is probably not as big of an issue while being high but also question the validity of nobody who was high ever got in an accident going to fast. You don't have any proof that it's never happend, I mean, you don't right? You and I both know that you don't so why is this even a point of discussion? Go back and read further. Do you understand why the entire discussion on accidents was included? Did you actually read the point of it all? All of that was about liability and what happens if the NFL takes steps to allow weed into the NFL. None of it had anything to do with how fast or slow the accidents were happening. That was never the point of the discussion. It was all about liability, as it relates to the NFL. All you are doing now, is detracting from the discussion. Nobody cares how slow or fast the accidents are happening.

I'm also not going to get into an argument with you over what is bias and what is not. You want everybody re rely on your word because you have smoked weed for however long but that's not going to ever prove to be accepted as factual. If I came on here and said, I can drink Beer Sun up to Sun down and never get drunk, and then use that as a basis as to why people should be allowed to drink and drive, nobody is going to accept it as proof. If you can't see that, then we can't have a discussion at all so we should just stop right here. You gotta know that. You say I don't know what I'm talking about but are you sure? I understand what is being discussed here. You are out in left pasture trying to pin down something that isn't even relevant to the discussion. Are you honestly sure that it's I who doesn't fully understand what is being discussed here. Seriously, go back and reread it. See if I'm not telling the truth. Nobody cares about the speeds. It's about the NFL and Weed. It's not about 10K pot heads driving too slow to have car wrecks. Seriously.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,007
Reaction score
27,366
Where is your proof? @ColoCowboy is from there, and he said that recent Colorado studies proves otherwise.

Mixed findings on Colorado marijuana, traffic deaths

A striking finding in the new study was the death toll involving people driving around with a cocktail of drugs in their bodies. In one year, deaths where drivers tested positive for cannabis, any alcohol and other drugs tripled — from eight in 2016 to 25 last year.

The report also found that drunken driving deaths had increased again. Twenty-six percent of those killed in crashes, or 171 people, had blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater, Colorado’s drunken driving limit, compared to 161 in 2016 and 151 in 2015.

Meanwhile, traffic deaths generally continued to increase on state roads, going from 546 in 2015 to 608 in 2016 and spiking to 648 last year.

CDOT spokesman Sam Cole said the department considers the number of deaths in which the driver was marijuana-impaired under state law to be the most reliable indicator of its impact on the highways.

By that measure, marijuana-related deaths are clearly down.

“Presence does not indicate impairment,” he said. At the same time, “two years does not make a trend.”

https://gazette.com/news/mixed-find...cle_ec6a8f4c-a722-11e8-9c81-17b5312abb33.html

IOW, when you control for people actually on pot the trend is down. Nevermind that these samples are small. It's hardly an epidemic.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
That would be a first.

Of course it would because McDonalds would never, ever consider doing what the NFL is discussing. I don't blame them, I wouldn't either. There is no reason to. To me, regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's flat dumb for the NFL to ever allow Weed as part of policy. Just not smart IMO.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
As someone who is certified in SFSTs from a NHTSA approved course I can tell you speeding is not an indicator of being under the influence. However, driving too slow is one indicator that can be used to assert reasonable suspicion.

Right, which makes complete sense. This entire, driving too fast while under the influence was not a statement of fact or even stated as a indicator of being high. It was used in a hypothetical around liability. I.E., what happens the first time a player gets in an accident driving too fast and killing somebody? In truth, I could have said driving too slow or creating a dangerous obstruction and that probably should have been what I said but the point was what happens if the NFL approves Weed and a player gets in a serious accident while high? That was really the point of the driving thing. It was really never about driving to fast, those were just the words I used, probably because it's usually alcohol at play and it usually driving too fast. That's really the bottom line.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
Your side of the argument predicted that traffic fatalities and the like would increase with those obnoxiously biased NIDA studies. Colorado proves that wrong.

Your side of the argument predicted that use amongst children would increase with all those "gateway" NIDA studies. CO not only proves that wrong but that the opposite is true.

Your side of the argument predicted that use of other illegal drugs would increase using the same studies again. CO once again showed the opposite to be true.

Your side of the argument predicted that crime would increase. CO once again disproves that.

But have fun pointing to biased US NIDA studies from law enforcement.

Completely wrong, as usual. My point was not even close to that. I'll say it again people, this board is about Football and sports. This board is not about weed and should it be legal or not. My entire discussion was about the NFL and what happens if Weed is accepted.

And you Fuzzy, with this direction you are taking the discussion is going to get the thread closed down. Why would you want that?
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
They put actual studies online for people to read. You don't have to read an Insurance company's website try to make the case for a need to increase premiums. You can read the studies themselves. Check this out from NHTSA's Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk: A Case-Control Study, (emphasis added)-

"Conclusions

The study confirmed previous research indicating alcohol is a greater contributor to crash risk than drugs ... When age, gender, race/ethnicity, and alcohol consumption are taken into account, there was no significant contribution of drugs to crash risk. This finding seems to contradict previous studies (Asbridge, Hayden, & Cartwright, 2012; Blows et al., 2005; Hels et al., 2011) that indicate a statistically significant contribution of drugs to crash risk, even if sometimes small or moderate. However, the strength of this study lays in its rigorous methodology, stringent data collection procedures, controlled case-control matching, comprehensive laboratory testing, and sophisticated statistical analyses...

Additionally, because drug classes affect driving skills differently, overall crash risk estimates may underestimate the contribution of certain drugs to specific types of crashes. The role of THC may differ in its crash risk profile than stimulants. The results indicate that alcohol remains the main contributor to crash risk. Drugs other than alcohol, and when combined with alcohol was not a significant factor in crash risk."
 
Last edited:

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Of course it would because McDonalds would never, ever consider doing what the NFL is discussing. I don't blame them, I wouldn't either. There is no reason to. To me, regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's flat dumb for the NFL to ever allow Weed as part of policy. Just not smart IMO.

They "allow" opiates which are far more dangerous. Why doesn't your scenario already apply to them? They're considered a controlled dangerous substance. Should the NFL be held liable if a player taking an opioid is driving?
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Right, which makes complete sense. This entire, driving too fast while under the influence was not a statement of fact or even stated as a indicator of being high. It was used in a hypothetical around liability. I.E., what happens the first time a player gets in an accident driving too fast and killing somebody? In truth, I could have said driving too slow or creating a dangerous obstruction and that probably should have been what I said but the point was what happens if the NFL approves Weed and a player gets in a serious accident while high? That was really the point of the driving thing. It was really never about driving to fast, those were just the words I used, probably because it's usually alcohol at play and it usually driving too fast. That's really the bottom line.

Nothing happens because the player is on their own time. Do we start going after every company who has an employee get a DUI? Your stance is basically saying people are wards of their employer.
 
Top