Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The 2nd Amendment-- The Facts........ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (676)	7/30/1999 3:20:00 PM
From: The Street	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10167

No. I will try and find the new study. I still say put breathalyzers on ALL cars. The thing is this: I can drink < 3 beers and be legally intoxicated in my state. That is assinine. At .08%. .10% makes more sense. But, mass produced, it would only ad $50 to a car. Why don't they do that? As for pot-- the problem is that there is no real test of "intoxication" for pot. Maybe just a field test and let a jury decide? No way coke makes you drive worse. Herion, X, Shrooms, etc. it would be pretty obvious-- the saucer pupils and all. I agree on being VERY harsh after DUI/DWI the first time. But, 1st degree murder? I don't know-- they are trying that in Georgia right now. Note: I had a DWI 15 years ago. Almost died. Since then I gave driven drunk twice, and over the limit a dozen times or so. Not bad for 15 years. But, I have had 3 friends get their 2nd DWI's and the game has changed. I have not driven over the limit in a long time. Just take taxi's now.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (676)	7/30/1999 6:06:00 PM
From: The Street	Respond to of 10167

Pubdate: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 Source: Age, The (Australia) Contact: letters@theage.fairfax.com.au Website: theage.com.au Copyright: 1998 David Syme & Co Ltd Author: Penelope Debelle CANNABIS CRASH RISK LESS: STUDY The largest study ever done linking road accidents with drugs and alcohol has found drivers with cannabis in their blood were no more at risk than those who were drug-free. In fact, the findings by a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and Transport SA showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an accident than those who were drug-free. A study spokesman, Dr Jason White, said the difference was not great enough to be statistically significant but could be explained by anecdotal evidence that marijuana smokers were more cautious and drove more slowly because of altered time perception. "Essentially it is the same as if there was no drug," Dr White said. "If there is any improvement (in driving) I don't think it is because of the drug itself but because of what people do because the drug is there." The study of 2500 accidents, which matched the blood alcohol levels of injured drivers with details from police reports, has policy implications for those who argue drug detection should be a new focus for road safety. In Victoria, legislation will be introduced into Parliament in the spring session to create a new offence of driving while impaired by drugs. Dr White said the study showed the importance of concentrating efforts on alcohol rather than other drugs. "In Victoria particularly there is a strong move to look at cannabis and the development of roadside testing," he said.