Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whereas you are the genius troll who maintains that "experienced" pot smokers do not suffer impairment in ability to drive when stoned as do drunks. Lay off the weed before posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making an ad hominem argument. You are also once again ignoring objective evidence in favor of your unsubstantiated beliefs.


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc...20808%20939.htm

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas you are the genius troll who maintains that "experienced" pot smokers do not suffer impairment in ability to drive when stoned as do drunks. Lay off the weed before posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making an ad hominem argument. You are also once again ignoring objective evidence in favor of your unsubstantiated beliefs.


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc...20808%20939.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

purnell,

Had I not assumed that Bluff did not equate the two levels of impairment, I would have corrected him already, purnell. There is some impairment to driving while stoned, although no where near the degree that alcohol impairs driving. (Many of us here could have told the DOT that and saved us taxpayers who knows how many $$$ with this study.)

If Bluff equates the levels of impairment then he does stand corrected.

RJT

Re: Evidence AGAINST Christianity
 

I was under the impression that he was equating the two. It is clear that THC intoxication impairs one's ability to safely drive a car in traffic, and if the poster to whom Bluff was referring believes that it doesn't, he is also ignoring the evidence.