T Nation

New Jersey Faces Bankruptcy

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
the studies I know show that people who are impaired by cannabis drive more carefully which offsets any negative effects of cannabis.

Ha ha…that sort of reminds of the careful drunk. Yea…I agree with you idiot…because someone is high or drunk they drive more carefully. Therefore, it’s actually safer to drive while high…right? Your reflexes are faster…judgement far better.

Ha ha…you fucking moron.[/quote]

I have shown you the the UK study, sponsored by the same government that has just re-classified cannabis to make it more illegal than it was before.

I can also show you the findings of the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA)or of the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia.

They all show that stoned drivers drive more carefully and, if anything, drive safer.

You in turn have just posted your superstitions and insults.

I am waiting.

PS: You complete lack of debating skill is actually quite amusing. I can only imagine I completely and utterly I would own you if we discussed this in German.

PPS: Never mind, I guess 100% is all there is.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Since driving is a privilege and not a right per se, I’d like to see every car come equipped with a breathiliser, just like we now have seatbelts and airbags. Too many people die here because of drunken driving. Of course, knowing how resourceful my fellow citizens are, they’ll switch to being meth-heads.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion:

Hey I have an idea why don’t we pass a law that everyone smoke a joint BEFORE getting behind the wheel. If you’re actually right (and that would be a first) we’ll have a much safer world.

You witless boob…[/quote]

I am waiting for at least some evidence that you are not simply supporting a prohibition that makes non violent people real time in jail because of some ideas that have no basis in reality.

I am also waiting for you to live up to your own expectations and standards. You are the one that hounded someone for 2 pages because he could not or would not support his claims, I expect the same from you.

Since it is you that claimed something and I have already shown one study that shows that you are wrong, plus offered to present more, I do not know what you are waiting for.

Your attempts to ridicule and ignore any-and everything that does not fit into your narrow world view become more and more apparent with each post you make.

To quote you:

Put up or shut up

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Since driving is a privilege and not a right per se, I’d like to see every car come equipped with a breathiliser, just like we now have seatbelts and airbags. Too many people die here because of drunken driving. Of course, knowing how resourceful my fellow citizens are, they’ll switch to being meth-heads.[/quote]

Since drunk drivers are mostly a danger to themselves and the real dangerous ones are the ones that drive over and over again while being really drunk that would help very little.

How seatbelts and airbags come into this I do not know, because I can take risks whenever I feel like it and it is none of your business.

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
By Robbe HWJ, O’Hanlon JF
November 1993

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

Abstract

Abstract: This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the results of one pilot and three actual driving studies. The pilot study’s major purpose was to establish the THC dose current marijuana users smoke to achieve their desired “high”.

From these results it was decided that the maximum THC dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 mcg / kg (0.3 mg / kg). The first driving study was conducted on a closed section of a primary highway. After smoking marijuana delivering THC doses of 0, 100, 200, and 300 mcg / kg, subjects drove a car while maintaining a constant speed and lateral position.

This study was replicated with a new group of subjects, but now in the presence of other traffic. In addition, a car following test was executed. The third driving study compared the effects of a modest dose of THC (100 mcg / kg) and alcohol )BAC of 0.04 g %) on city driving performance.

This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol.

Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.

Marijuana Use and Driving
By Robbe HWJ
November 1994

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving3.shtml

Abstract

Abstract: This article concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the major results of one laboratory and three on-road driving studies. The latter were conducted on a closed section of a primary highway, on a highway in the presence of other traffic and in urban traffic, respectively.

This program of research has shown that marijuana produces only a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol.

Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight into their performance and will compensate where they can (e.g., by increasing distance between vehicles or increasing effort). As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program.

Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance
By Hindrik W. J. Robbe, Ph.D. and James F. O’Hanlon, Ph.D.
1999?

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving5.shtml

In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has “slight” effects on driving performance (Robbe & O’Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects’ performance was more affected than their predecessors’.

The present subjects showed impaired car following performance after THC 100 1lg/kg whereas the previous ones were not impaired by doses up to 300 1lg/kg. In the present study, road tracking performance after 200 ~g/kg was worse than the performance after 300 ~g/kg in the previous study.

We believe that these differences are attributable to the groups’ respective experience with THC smoking and to driving under the influence of THC. The present group was less experienced and probably had not developed the same degree of behavioral tolerance as their predecessors.

Yet all of the individuals in both groups admitted to having occasionally driven under the influence of THC before entering the studies. Thus, the new data seem no less representative of how drivers normally operate under the influence of THC. The addition of these data to those previously collected merely broadens the range of reactions that might be expected to occur in real life.

That range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety. Alcohol present in blood concentrations around the legal limit (0.10 g/dl) in most American States is more impairing than anything subjects have shown after THC alone in our studies.

As mentioned, medicinal drugs have had worse effects on psychiatric patients’ driving performance in other studies employing the same test procedures. If not blatantly dangerous, however, the effects of THC alone in this study were certainly more than slight. They were of sufficient magnitude to warrant concern.

Drivers suffering the same degrees of impairment as the present subjects did after THC alone would be less than normally able to avoid collisions if confronted with the sudden need for evasive action. They would probably also be more likely to fall asleep during prolonged vehicle operation.

In short, while the effects of THC alone in doses up to 200 1lg/kg might be categorized as “moderate” in the tests, they could easily become “severe” under exceptional circumstances.

http://www.idmu.co.uk/candrivab.htm

Results: Overall, drug using drivers reported 9% fewer accidents than would be expected from a comparable population group. However, younger drug-using drivers showed increased risks compared to their peers, whereas drivers over 25 reported decreased incidence of accidents. Notable sex differences included drug-using women under 25 or over 40 reporting more accidents than their peers, whereas only males under 20 reported increased risks, with males over 25 reporting markedly lower risk.

Interpretation: Impairment of driving ability from cannabis appears most pronounced among young drivers, suggesting tasks requiring conscious thought or learning may be most affected, whereas “automatic” tasks may be less susceptible to disruption.

The overall effect of cannabis on driving suggests a trade-off between mild psychomotor impairment and improvement in driving behaviour. In males, improved behaviour may outweigh any psychomotor impairment, whereas in females there may be less scope for improvement in behaviour, drug-impairment may outweigh marginal behavioural improvements.

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Since driving is a privilege and not a right per se, I’d like to see every car come equipped with a breathiliser, just like we now have seatbelts and airbags. Too many people die here because of drunken driving. Of course, knowing how resourceful my fellow citizens are, they’ll switch to being meth-heads.

Since drunk drivers are mostly a danger to themselves and the real dangerous ones are the ones that drive over and over again while being really drunk that would help very little.

How seatbelts and airbags come into this I do not know, because I can take risks whenever I feel like it and it is none of your business.[/quote]

If seatbelts and airbags weren’t required by law, lots of people would simply buy cars without those, to save money. Okay, if all they did was kill themselves, fine. But too many people are killed by these knuckleheads along with themselves. You need to ask a cop about cleaning up some kid’s blood because of a drunken moron.

Anyway, many of our states here are going broke. They are having a lot of trouble borrowing and the citizenry is taxed to the limits. The cutbacks will be draconian or their bonds will collapse in value. Our bond market will be clobbered when that happens. Without our protection then, Putin will ‘visit’ Vienna.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Is your state next?

"Debt Quadruples

Eight months ago he told a group of mayors that without reducing the state’s debt burden, ``our financial situation will not allow us to make needed investments in critical infrastructure or rationally balance the books.’’

New Jersey’s debt has almost quadrupled since fiscal 1996 after previous governors borrowed to boost spending, balance budgets and avoid tax increases.

The state has had seven years of deficits and Corzine said next year’s will be at least $1.7 billion. New Jersey spent 7.4 percent of its income on debt service in fiscal 2007, second only to Connecticut at 12.6 percent, according to New York-based S&P.

``I’m willing to risk losing my job if that’s necessary to set our fiscal house in order and get New Jersey out from the debt burden constraining our future,’’ Corzine, 61, said in November."

Numerous states are nearly bankrupt and the citizens are taxed to the limit. California is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a4rssheZuR1k&refer=exclusive

How long have the democrats been in charge of Jersey? That might explain it better than anything else.

The fact that you think Republicans are a better option, makes your post amusing

The fact that you’re amused because I think the democrats are the worst choice for fiscal responsibility is amusing.

[/quote]

That might be true on a grand scale, but if I were looking to seriously reduce debt as a primary concern, I’d take a former Wall Street Executive like Corzine, democrat or not, over a typical politician with no financial smarts.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Since driving is a privilege and not a right per se, I’d like to see every car come equipped with a breathiliser, just like we now have seatbelts and airbags. Too many people die here because of drunken driving. Of course, knowing how resourceful my fellow citizens are, they’ll switch to being meth-heads.

Since drunk drivers are mostly a danger to themselves and the real dangerous ones are the ones that drive over and over again while being really drunk that would help very little.

How seatbelts and airbags come into this I do not know, because I can take risks whenever I feel like it and it is none of your business.

If seatbelts and airbags weren’t required by law, lots of people would simply buy cars without those, to save money. Okay, if all they did was kill themselves, fine. But too many people are killed by these knuckleheads along with themselves. You need to ask a cop about cleaning up some kid’s blood because of a drunken moron.

Anyway, many of our states here are going broke. They are having a lot of trouble borrowing and the citizenry is taxed to the limits. The cutbacks will be draconian or their bonds will collapse in value. Our bond market will be clobbered when that happens. Without our protection then, Putin will ‘visit’ Vienna.

[/quote]

Explain how I could possibly kill someone else without a seatbelt and airbags.

If anything would I not drive more carefully.

If you want people to drive really careful, make a metal spike mandatory that aims at the drivers heart.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion:

Hey I have an idea why don’t we pass a law that everyone smoke a joint BEFORE getting behind the wheel. If you’re actually right (and that would be a first) we’ll have a much safer world.

You witless boob…

I am waiting for at least some evidence that you are not simply supporting a prohibition that makes non violent people real time in jail because of some ideas that have no basis in reality.

I am also waiting for you to live up to your own expectations and standards. You are the one that hounded someone for 2 pages because he could not or would not support his claims, I expect the same from you.

Since it is you that claimed something and I have already shown one study that shows that you are wrong, plus offered to present more, I do not know what you are waiting for.

Your attempts to ridicule and ignore any-and everything that does not fit into your narrow world view become more and more apparent with each post you make.

To quote you:

Put up or shut up

Begin a thread on driving stoned, put forth your asinine thoughts and I’m sure you’ll be able to humiliate yourself to your total satisfaction…as well as mine. I’m no longer going to participate in your hijack of this or any other thread.

Got it…austrian asshole?

[/quote]

I get it.

You lose.

Not entirely graceful, but nonetheless.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion:

Hey I have an idea why don’t we pass a law that everyone smoke a joint BEFORE getting behind the wheel. If you’re actually right (and that would be a first) we’ll have a much safer world.

You witless boob…

I am waiting for at least some evidence that you are not simply supporting a prohibition that makes non violent people real time in jail because of some ideas that have no basis in reality.

I am also waiting for you to live up to your own expectations and standards. You are the one that hounded someone for 2 pages because he could not or would not support his claims, I expect the same from you.

Since it is you that claimed something and I have already shown one study that shows that you are wrong, plus offered to present more, I do not know what you are waiting for.

Your attempts to ridicule and ignore any-and everything that does not fit into your narrow world view become more and more apparent with each post you make.

To quote you:

Put up or shut up

Begin a thread on driving stoned, put forth your asinine thoughts and I’m sure you’ll be able to humiliate yourself to your total satisfaction…as well as mine. I’m no longer going to participate in your hijack of this or any other thread.

Got it…austrian asshole?

I get it.

You lose.

Not entirely graceful, but nonetheless.

I understand how you want to win something…anything so very badly. But hijacking this thread is not the answer to your personal insecurities. I will suggest it one more time asshole…begin a thread about how much safer it is to drive stoned (chuckle) and I will be glad to participate.

[/quote]

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2363887

I´m waiting.

In related news,

Record deficit for next president

[i]The White House has lifted its deficit forecast for 2009 to $482bn (£242bn) up from $407bn. […]

The forecast figure excludes about $80bn of war costs. [/i]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7529372.stm

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

The fact that you’re amused because I think the democrats are the worst choice for fiscal responsibility is amusing.

[/quote]

Now I know you’re joking. All one needs to do is compare the current administration’s fiscal actions… compared to Clinton’s.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

That might be true on a grand scale, but if I were looking to seriously reduce debt as a primary concern, I’d take a former Wall Street Executive like Corzine, democrat or not, over a typical politician with no financial smarts.[/quote]

This sounds like a reasonable approach. The problem is many an elected official has promised to reduce spending and size of gov’t. Somehow it just never happens. People with the best qualifications and best intensions end up just becoming anohter cog in the wheel.

Pressures from his liberal tax and spend party can’t help either. Unfortunately, I think it’s going to take a party effort to get anything done. Parties are unlikely to do anything that may cause short term discomfort to acheive a long term benefit.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

The fact that you’re amused because I think the democrats are the worst choice for fiscal responsibility is amusing.

Now I know you’re joking. All one needs to do is compare the current administration’s fiscal actions… compared to Clinton’s.[/quote]

So true, and so depressing. Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone?

Clinton actually made some sound fiscal decisions in the early part of his presidency.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

That might be true on a grand scale, but if I were looking to seriously reduce debt as a primary concern, I’d take a former Wall Street Executive like Corzine, democrat or not, over a typical politician with no financial smarts.

This sounds like a reasonable approach. The problem is many an elected official has promised to reduce spending and size of gov’t. Somehow it just never happens. People with the best qualifications and best intensions end up just becoming anohter cog in the wheel.

Pressures from his liberal tax and spend party can’t help either. Unfortunately, I think it’s going to take a party effort to get anything done. Parties are unlikely to do anything that may cause short term discomfort to acheive a long term benefit.[/quote]

Yeah, unfortunately you are probably 100% correct. Fuckin’ party politics. This is why we need to selectively nominate qualified people that DON’T want the job. At least they’d be impartial and likely to get the job done fastest so they could go back to their normal lives… Unfortunately I don’t think that ever worked save in ancient Rome, and then of course, eventually they picked a guy who did want to be Caesar and we all know how that turned out. However, given the choice, I’d still pick someone with the best qualifications (Wall Street) on the off chance that they are that rare person that gives the finger to the party and tries to do something good anyway.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

That might be true on a grand scale, but if I were looking to seriously reduce debt as a primary concern, I’d take a former Wall Street Executive like Corzine, democrat or not, over a typical politician with no financial smarts.

This sounds like a reasonable approach. The problem is many an elected official has promised to reduce spending and size of gov’t. Somehow it just never happens. [/quote]

The reason for that is the encumberance of debt. As time passes, each government entity is so overloaded that its a choice of paying interest on the debt or declaring bankruptcy. The debt is really what’s in charge, so to speak.

We are now at crosshairs — taxes are high and raising them hurts the economy and gets the people who raised taxes fired at the next election. No more debt can be issued because no one will buy it. The only choice remaining is to print money, something states can’t do.

I would not be surprised to see some major state bankruptcies in the next couple of years.

Now, why do you suppose the Fed doesn’t release it’s M3 money supply figures anymore? Print it up, boys!!!