Prompted by “Driving simulator study – will we get science or junk science?”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/06/driving-study-will-we-get-science-or-junk-science/
“Of course, also not mentioned in the article is a small point that was brought up in the study:
‘SDLP is not directly validated to predict crash risk’
Ah, yes. SDLP results don’t necessarily equate to unsafe driving. It is simply an interesting variable worth looking at. That didn’t, however, stop the researcher from giving the opinion that marijuana driving laws are too lax. We’re likely to get a lot of that.”
Ah, yes. “Drugged driving” is the last main stand of cannabis prohibitionists.
The ‘certain drug’ prohibitionist mantra in general is (actually, must be for any possible prohibition legitimacy) ‘if we weaken drug laws, there will be disaster’.
Instead of drugged driving, it makes perfect sense for those prohibitionists to look at roughly a couple of decades of “weakening” drug laws (e.g. medical and recreational cannabis legality) and ignite their “See?! We told you so!” campaign.
Yet no such obviously prohibition-strengthening campaign exists — because no disaster exists — because prohibition is a complete sham that steals liberty and money from “We the taxpayers”. Of course, the mainstream media never reports that fact in their “unbiased” news.
Distracted driving is unwise and risky. That includes changing the radio station, talking to someone, eating, drinking, and so on. It also includes being in a bad mood — something that proper cannabis use remedies. It also includes the many traditional pharmaceuticals forcing the brain to submit in various ‘bloodletting by leeches’ ways (i.e. focused brain tinkering — instead of cannabis’ well-proven harmonious psychological symphony upon proper strain selection and amplification precisely from temperature controlled electronic vaporization — is ironically risky, when medical professionals still know far too little about the brain to avoid serious unintended consequences).
All of this (including “drugged driving”) will become moot when computers (at least optionally) take over driving — the serious technological press these days by many well-funded technologists perhaps achieving that goal even within my lifetime.
Putting aside the demonstrably evil and failed Certain Drug Prohibition (i.e. the well-proven and ironically actual judicially driven disaster widely and deeply against public safety), let’s look at the core reason why that prohibition exists — reason abuse (lies, spin, etc.)
The scientific method is the language of reality. Each hypothesis, theory, and experiment function as a question to reality, and experiment results form reality’s response for worst through best. That includes literally all technology.
When people violate that literally supreme relationship (logically speaking) by reason abuse, the results are naturally disastrous for our species — and that violation should be deemed a very serious criminal act in the form of severe fraud (where law is actually too lax).
While I could spiral off towards the obscenely many horribly violent results from subjective beliefs throughout history (and still happening during this authorship), I prefer to focus on whole truth (not the ‘partial truth = whole truth’ scam) to reinforce the scientific method against science abuse (a form of reason abuse too often leading to law abuse — the form of abuse understandably igniting a violent revolution to establish our nation).
Certain Drug Prohibition is not for public safety, but to empower thugs (even against good members of our judicial community), and I challenge anyone to prove the contrary (especially all of you pitiful ‘pot is dope for losers’ types ironically fooled by such thugs).
Metaphorically speaking, professional athletes can better master the complexities, but they can never ignore the basics. Any good American football coach teaches defenders to tackle low — not high. Certain Drug Prohibition is like a big, powerful running back steaming at full speed towards the end zone. Tackling high causes that strength to compel defenders backwards to the ground in failure. Tackling low wraps up the running back at the feet to lower legs (at least causing offensive stumbling, if not also fumbling).
All drug policy organizations focus upon tackling high (which is why legalization is happening at an unnecessarily agonizingly slow progress to the detriment of millions of non-violent lives — the defender is struggling hard to bring the running back down), while my freshly nascent Respect Cannabis campaign tackles low (right at the point of law itself by whole truth reasoning — that absolutely unconstitutional Certain Drug Prohibition law being the running back’s only strength when fueled by a deceived public mainstream).
Responsible entertainers leverage the necessary power of entertainment for effective education, so are in the best position to broadly publicly make that righteous tackle — i.e. publicly expose that deception/corruption by continuously pressing irrefutable reasoning for public safety. This defender will not rest until law is properly restored for us all.
Leave a Reply