Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

xwesx · October 2018

Looks brilliant to me. I suppose that if you had enough volume, shipping like that would be worth the investment. With all the different sizes of vehicles, though, it seems like it would be quite a risk to invest in the transportation infrastructure. Either that, or vehicles would be even more homogenized than they already are.

berri · October 2018

I think the biggest issue with the Vega was, much like Corvair, they pushed the envelope and production line too fast resulting in early models that weren't really ready for prime time.

oldfarmer50 · October 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:

stickguy said:
I just hope it gets a lot more studying for medicinal benefits. Really seems promising in many issues, but big pharma certainly fought it!
You know I've been looking into that, and the hard, gold standard science supporting medical use is pretty scarce, as is the study of detrimental effects. The problem is that top-tier scientists are legally prohibited from testing the new strains that are on the market. So the few little weak samples they've tested from way back may not be at all like what people are now putting in their bodies. It's also been difficult for medical marijuana to outperform placebos in clinical testing done so far.

Modern MJ is a whole different animal than what us whiny old people tried back in the 60s. An acquaintance who is a very responsible mother and farm owner told me she and her husband shared one joint "just to try it" and were wasted for the whole afternoon. I don't know if I want people driving around that impaired.

oldfarmer50 · October 2018

snakeweasel said:

benjaminh said:

stickguy said:
40k miles a year must be largely highway, so any car should easily go 200k doing that.
That guy also has an Acura Legend with well over 500,000 miles on it. There's a different guy with a TSX that also has over half a million miles. Anecdotal stuff, but I'm not sure how many other brands of car have those kinds of anecdotes.

I think I mentioned it before that my parents got 250k miles out of a late 50's Ford. It helped that my uncle owned a service station. More than once I remember my uncle towing the car to his garage.

Hey, I got 160k miles out of a 69 Plymouth back in the days when 75k miles was about all you could expect.. Highway miles are easy miles.

oldfarmer50 · October 2018

qbrozen said:
I got one for ya. 16-17 year old drivers have twice as many accidents as 18-19 year olds. Therefore, my "statistical analysis" supports banning 16 and 17 year old drivers will have a far far greater impact on safety than banning recreational pot use.

But being 16 is a condition you grow out of. Can't say the same for being drugged.

oldfarmer50 · October 2018

berri said:
I think the biggest issue with the Vega was, much like Corvair, they pushed the envelope and production line too fast resulting in early models that weren't really ready for prime time.

Many Chevys of that era had engines that would pop heads if overheated. I believe they even installed a low coolant warning light in the Vegas because so many were blowing heads. My Chevy 2.8L suffered a similar fate.

berri · October 2018

IIRC some of that was using mixed aluminum (heads) and iron parts that contacted each other in the engine. Not ready for prime time, but not uncommon on modern cars anymore. Funny, the Vega was way more technically advanced than the Pinto, but in the end the Pinto won the sales race because GM jumped out in front technically prematurely.

tjc78 · October 2018

Ford did the iron block and aluminum heads in the late 80s / early 90s with the 3.8 V6. Failed for them too, you think they would have learned from GMs mistakes

berri · October 2018

I don't know if I want people driving around that impaired.

I hear you, but the same goes for someone consuming a six pack and hitting the road. Drunks also often drive aggressively, whereas stoners tend to just have the slow reaction time aspect. Both should be locked up when caught driving impaired because both are unsafe. Banning MJ is really no more effective than prohibition was on alcohol. MJ is widely available underground like booze was back then. I think serious legal consequences are a better deterrent. Ever price an attorney - they can make a doctor look cheap !

qbrozen · October 2018

oldfarmer50 said:

I got one for ya. 16-17 year old drivers have twice as many accidents as 18-19 year olds. Therefore, my "statistical analysis" supports banning 16 and 17 year old drivers will have a far far greater impact on safety than banning recreational pot use.
But being 16 is a condition you grow out of. Can't say the same for being drugged.

But there are 16 year olds taking your place behind you, so it is not like the accidents will decrease.

ab348 · October 2018

oldfarmer50 said:

berri said:
I think the biggest issue with the Vega was, much like Corvair, they pushed the envelope and production line too fast resulting in early models that weren't really ready for prime time.
Many Chevys of that era had engines that would pop heads if overheated. I believe they even installed a low coolant warning light in the Vegas because so many were blowing heads. My Chevy 2.8L suffered a similar fate.

I seem to remember reading that the bean counters nixed a coolant overflow bottle on the early Vegas, which when combined with a radiator of marginal size, could lead to premature overheating. They also put a low oil level switch in the starting circuit after many of the engines developed an oil consumption issue, so if the oil was low the thing would not turn over. Lots of them were thought to have failed engines when they actually just needed oil.

jmonroe1 · October 2018

berri said:
I don't know if I want people driving around that impaired.

I hear you, but the same goes for someone consuming a six pack and hitting the road. Drunks also often drive aggressively, whereas stoners tend to just have the slow reaction time aspect. Both should be locked up when caught driving impaired because both are unsafe. Banning MJ is really no more effective than prohibition was on alcohol. MJ is widely available underground like booze was back then. I think serious legal consequences are a better deterrent. Ever price an attorney - they can make a doctor look cheap !

It never bothered @andres3.

jmonroe

fintail · October 2018

Who is angry? This is fun, no need for projection

We all go sometime, and in another decade or two via some of that hanging up, we will be in the middle of a significant demographic shift. It's going to change more things than many want to imagine.

oldfarmer50 said:

"Hang em up" as in die? Wow! And I thought pot made you mellow. Maybe you should try Yoga. Get rid of all that anger.

driver100 · October 2018

qbrozen said:
I got one for ya. 16-17 year old drivers have twice as many accidents as 18-19 year olds. Therefore, my "statistical analysis" supports banning 16 and 17 year old drivers will have a far far greater impact on safety than banning recreational pot use.

If 16 and 17 year olds have the most accidents and you stop them from driving.....then the 18 and 19 year olds will have the most accidents because they will become the new inexperienced drivers. But, banning MJ just removes a lot of drivers who are under the influence.

stickguy · October 2018

well, by that logic, up to now there would be zero usage of it since it was illegal.

driver100 · October 2018

RE: Shipping Vegas;

30 Vegas to a single Vert-a-pac
Although Lordstown Assembly had a purpose-built exit off of the Ohio Turnpike built to make shipment easier, the Vega was designed for vertical shipment, nose down. General Motors and Southern Pacific designed "Vert-A-Pac" rail cars to hold 30 Vegas each, compared with conventional tri-level autoracks which held 18. The Vega was fitted with four removable cast-steel sockets on the underside and had plastic spacers—removed at unloading—to protect engine and transmission mounts. The rail car ramp/doors were opened and closed via forklift.

Vibration and low-speed crash tests ensured the cars would not shift or suffer damage in transit. The Vega was delivered topped with fluids, ready to drive to dealerships, so the engine was baffled to prevent oil entering the number one cylinder; the battery filler caps high on the rear edge of the casing prevented acid spills; a tube drained fuel from carburetor to vapor canister; and the windshield washer bottle stood at 45 degrees.

My question is....if it was such a great idea why don't they use something similar today.

This was interesting:
The Vega received praise and awards at its introduction, including 1971 Motor Trend Car of the Year.[1] Subsequently the car became widely known for a range of problems related to its engineering,[2] reliability,[3] safety,[4][5] propensity to rust, and engine durability. Despite a series of recalls and design upgrades, the Vega's problems tarnished both its own as well as General Motors' reputation. Production ended with the 1977 model year.
The name "vega" derives from[6] the brightest star in the constellation Lyra.

qbrozen · October 2018

driver100 said:

I got one for ya. 16-17 year old drivers have twice as many accidents as 18-19 year olds. Therefore, my "statistical analysis" supports banning 16 and 17 year old drivers will have a far far greater impact on safety than banning recreational pot use.
If 16 and 17 year olds have the most accidents and you stop them from driving.....then the 18 and 19 year olds will have the most accidents because they will become the new inexperienced drivers. But, banning MJ just removes a lot of drivers who are under the influence.

Oh, I am aware what I am [facetiously] proposing. In case anyone is missing my point (and many are, I'm sure), this is exactly why statistics can't be viewed in isolation and from one point of view.

By the way, if you do more digging on your own, you'll find that DUIs due to ONLY MJ is actually quite a small percentage. So banning it would not eliminate very many DUIs at all. And certainly far fewer than banning some other substances. Not that I condone that, either. Just pointing out that it is probably one of the least harmful and therefore a poor scapegoat.

oh, one more thing: just as banning 16-17 year olds would mean 18-19 year olds have more accidents, if eliminating MJ were actually successful, it would mean more alcohol consumption and impairment.

roadburner · October 2018

The problem with the Vega's engine was that it had an alusil(aluminum block) and an iron cylinder head. If it overheated the block warped- not the head. To quote Engine Builder magazine:

Aluminum blocks with unlined cylinders have been around a long time. One of the first (and worst) examples was the Chevy Vega engine back in the 1970s. Many of these engines burned oil from day one. The engines were cast from a high silicon hypereutectic A390 aluminum alloy that contains tiny hard particles of silicon dispersed throughout the metal matrix. The cylinder bores are then acid etched to remove just enough aluminum from the surface to expose some of the hard silicon particles. When done correctly, the exposed silicon particles provide a wear-resistant surface for the piston rings. But the Vega engine cylinders weren’t always finished properly at the factory. This was a low cost, high volume car (100 units per hour) so quality often suffered in the rush to keep the assembly line moving.

The oil consumption problem in these first generation hypereutectic aluminum blocks was also attributed to a poor cylinder head design that allowed too much oil to leak down the valve guides. The engines also had a tendency to overheat, warp and crack.

You would think the bad experience with these engines would have poisoned the idea of using unlined aluminum blocks in the future, but it didn’t. Casting an engine block from a hypereutectic aluminum alloy saves weight and cost by eliminating the need for iron liners. But it also requires a unique finishing process to create a wear-resistant bore surface for the piston rings. Manufacturers who produce “linerless” hypereutectic aluminum blocks today include Audi, BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Porsche, Volkswagen, Volvo, and Yamaha.

snakeweasel · October 2018

berri said:

I don't know if I want people driving around that impaired. I hear you, but the same goes for someone consuming a six pack and hitting the road. Drunks also often drive aggressively, whereas stoners tend to just have the slow reaction time aspect. Both should be locked up when caught driving impaired because both are unsafe. Banning MJ is really no more effective than prohibition was on alcohol. MJ is widely available underground like booze was back then. I think serious legal consequences are a better deterrent. Ever price an attorney - they can make a doctor look cheap !

You are touching on my complaint about marijuana. Pot and alcohol are not the same. Alcohol can be enjoyed with virtually no impairment to ones mental or mobility abilities. Yes I know by drinking to much you will get impaired by various degrees many people enjoy alcohol without that. Alcoholic beverages typically have complex aromas and flavors that build and finish off.

I can enjoy a bottle of beer, a glass of wine or a dram of whiskey fully enjoying the aromas, flavors and textures without feeling much, if any effects of the alcohol. At dinner I can also enjoy these aspects that would augment the flavors of the food and again not feel any effects if I am responsible with my consumption.

Pot is different because the only purpose of it is to get high to get that mind altering experience. You don't consume it for aromas, for taste or to complement a food flavor, you do it simply to chase that high. That is a textbook example of an addiction and makes it impossible to consume it responsibly.

suydam · October 2018

That’s just not true. MJ is just as much a social drug as is alcohol. For some, just like alcohol, a mild buzz to perk up the environment and sociability. For a few, bigger problems. But I think more people statistically have difficulties with alcohol than pot. By the way, if you want mind-altering, you’re talking about different drugs than either.

snakeweasel · October 2018

suydam said:

That’s just not true. MJ is just as much a social drug as is alcohol. For some, just like alcohol, a mild buzz to perk up the environment and sociability. For a few, bigger problems. But I think more people statistically have difficulties with alcohol than pot. By the way, if you want mind-altering, you’re talking about different drugs than either.

But it is true, pot is used solely to get that high, alcohol can be used to get a high but is often consumed for its flavor and textures. Case in point I just finished a glass of wine, enjoyed the flavors, really enjoyed the wine and didn't get even a hint of a buzz.

As for mind altering both do change the way the mind operates, or more accurately interfere with the proper operation of the brain.

imidazol97 · October 2018

ab348 said:
That all good until you live in a country with socialized medicine like Canada. Then the already overburdened medical system gets to try to fix all the problems the foolhardy segment creates.

Overburdened? The doctor of a talk show host this morning texted him during the discussion about the problem of government regulations on healthcare. The doctor said a major hospital found that a number over 50% of their costs was for compliance--I assume that means the people to collect data and verify compliance is happening along with costs for systems to do same. This is for compliance with State and Federal regulations.

Too many folks thinking of ways to push paper or push data around.

driver100 · October 2018

qbrozen said:

driver100 said:

I got one for ya. 16-17 year old drivers have twice as many accidents as 18-19 year olds. Therefore, my "statistical analysis" supports banning 16 and 17 year old drivers will have a far far greater impact on safety than banning recreational pot use.
If 16 and 17 year olds have the most accidents and you stop them from driving.....then the 18 and 19 year olds will have the most accidents because they will become the new inexperienced drivers. But, banning MJ just removes a lot of drivers who are under the influence.

By the way, if you do more digging on your own, you'll find that DUIs due to ONLY MJ is actually quite a small percentage. So banning it would not eliminate very many DUIs at all.

Few DUI's reported because there wasn't an accurate certified way to test for it. They do know, that accident rates increased 6% more in states that legalized MJ.

abacomike · October 2018

driver100 said:

driver100 said:

I got one for ya. 16-17 year old drivers have twice as many accidents as 18-19 year olds. Therefore, my "statistical analysis" supports banning 16 and 17 year old drivers will have a far far greater impact on safety than banning recreational pot use.
If 16 and 17 year olds have the most accidents and you stop them from driving.....then the 18 and 19 year olds will have the most accidents because they will become the new inexperienced drivers. But, banning MJ just removes a lot of drivers who are under the influence.

By the way, if you do more digging on your own, you'll find that DUIs due to ONLY MJ is actually quite a small percentage. So banning it would not eliminate very many DUIs at all.

Few DUI's reported because there wasn't an accurate certified way to test for it. They do know, that accident rates increased 6% more in states that legalized MJ.

But marijuana usage is expanding geometrically over the past several years due to States legalizing its use. Thus DUI’s attributed to marijuana use will also be increasing. It will take quite a bit of time for statistics supporting increased marijuana use DUI’s to surface. I expect a huge increase in DUI’s arrtibuted to its use - it just takes time for these statistics to be generated and updated.

tjc78 · October 2018

I was really upset this morning.... house was 64 degrees and wife asked for the heat to be turned on

I usually can get to Halloween. I swear we only just turned off the AC a week ago, crazy weather!

abacomike · October 2018

tjc78 said:

I was really upset this morning.... house was 64 degrees and wife asked for the heat to be turned on I usually can get to Halloween. I swear we only just turned off the AC a week ago, crazy weather!

Still in the 90’s down here. I usually can’t turn off the AC until the end of November when “ab” and “driver” blow that cold Canadian air hard enough so it has the energy to get this far south. In other words, they have to become “blowhards”!

graphicguy · October 2018

abacomike said:

driver100 said:

driver100 said:

I got one for ya. 16-17 year old drivers have twice as many accidents as 18-19 year olds. Therefore, my "statistical analysis" supports banning 16 and 17 year old drivers will have a far far greater impact on safety than banning recreational pot use.
If 16 and 17 year olds have the most accidents and you stop them from driving.....then the 18 and 19 year olds will have the most accidents because they will become the new inexperienced drivers. But, banning MJ just removes a lot of drivers who are under the influence.

By the way, if you do more digging on your own, you'll find that DUIs due to ONLY MJ is actually quite a small percentage. So banning it would not eliminate very many DUIs at all.

Few DUI's reported because there wasn't an accurate certified way to test for it. They do know, that accident rates increased 6% more in states that legalized MJ.

But marijuana usage is expanding geometrically over the past several years due to States legalizing its use. Thus DUI’s attributed to marijuana use will also be increasing. It will take quite a bit of time for statistics supporting increased marijuana use DUI’s to surface. I expect a huge increase in DUI’s arrtibuted to its use - it just takes time for these statistics to be generated and updated.

I’m certain RB knows way more about this than I do. But, I’ve always thought the correlation between drinking/driving/accidents was skewed. If someone gets rear ended and that person had a bottle of wine with dinner, the person who caused the accident gets cited, and the person who was hit, also gets cited for DUI. That’s just one of many examples someone could make, but you get the point. Tying drinking and driving to accidents and deaths, regardless of the actual cause of the accident, skews the numbers.

I’m certain the same will be true for those involved in an accident having ingested marijuana.

I do not advocate drinking and driving, smoking and driving, texting and driving (which is the must greater problem out of all of these), etc. But, let’s not play fast and loose with the numbers.

Somehow I suspect this has been the goal of insurance industry to rake in more money. As the threshold for being cited as “drunk” while driving has been reduced further and further over the years, while the fines and insurance “premiums” have gone up and up as a result.

Let’s face facts....MADD is a big business now, and exists by piggy backing on the drinking and driving mania.

qbrozen · October 2018

driver100 said:

driver100 said:

I got one for ya. 16-17 year old drivers have twice as many accidents as 18-19 year olds. Therefore, my "statistical analysis" supports banning 16 and 17 year old drivers will have a far far greater impact on safety than banning recreational pot use.
If 16 and 17 year olds have the most accidents and you stop them from driving.....then the 18 and 19 year olds will have the most accidents because they will become the new inexperienced drivers. But, banning MJ just removes a lot of drivers who are under the influence.

By the way, if you do more digging on your own, you'll find that DUIs due to ONLY MJ is actually quite a small percentage. So banning it would not eliminate very many DUIs at all.

Few DUI's reported because there wasn't an accurate certified way to test for it. They do know, that accident rates increased 6% more in states that legalized MJ.

And, again, that is taking just one statistic and looking at it in a vacuum. Without looking at all possibilities, it is merely correlation, not causation.

BTW, California is on the low end when it comes to fatal traffic accidents. By looking at that single statistic, I could make the claim that legalized MJ makes the roads safer.

snakeweasel · October 2018

Got pulled over on the way to work today, first time in at least a dozen years.

I was making a left turn using a dedicated left turn lane several cars back. Now there is a gas station at this intersection and someone pulling out of the gas station was blocking the left turn lane, he was going to go straight. Well all the cars he was blocking decided to go around him which ment crossing the double yellow line into the oncoming traffic lane. This really wasn't an issue as oncoming traffic had a red as we had the green arrow. So I just followed the cars in front of me. Unfortunately a police officer saw all this and as I was the last car in the line I was the low hanging fruit.

So I was the one who got nabbed, however it was a catch and release as i got a written warning.

So much for it being revenue generation.

qbrozen · October 2018

snakeweasel said:
But it is true, pot is used solely to get that high, alcohol can be used to get a high but is often consumed for its flavor and textures.

This is just plain incorrect in so many ways. It is obvious your statement is based solely on your personal preferences. "Solely" and "often" are far from accurate if you look beyond your own personal space.

snakeweasel · October 2018

qbrozen said:

BTW, California is on the low end when it comes to fatal traffic accidents. By looking at that single statistic, I could make the claim that legalized MJ makes the roads safer.

That's because it's impossible to get in a fatal accident when you're in gridlock traffic.

snakeweasel · October 2018

qbrozen said:

snakeweasel said:
But it is true, pot is used solely to get that high, alcohol can be used to get a high but is often consumed for its flavor and textures.

This is just plain incorrect in so many ways. It is obvious your statement is based solely on your personal preferences. "Solely" and "often" are far from accurate if you look beyond your own personal space.

People don't do a little bit of pot just for the taste and don't consume enough to get high. Develope a THC free marijuana and you will die broke.

ab348 · October 2018

qbrozen said:

snakeweasel said:

But it is true, pot is used solely to get that high, alcohol can be used to get a high but is often consumed for its flavor and textures.

This is just plain incorrect in so many ways. It is obvious your statement is based solely on your personal preferences. "Solely" and "often" are far from accurate if you look beyond your own personal space.

You need to provide what it is used for (in a "recreational" setting) if you are going to make that argument. People aren't using it because it goes well with a nice steak.

roadburner · October 2018

graphicguy said:

I’m certain RB knows way more about this than I do. But, I’ve always thought the correlation between drinking/driving/accidents was skewed. If someone gets rear ended and that person had a bottle of wine with dinner, the person who caused the accident gets cited, and the person who was hit, also gets cited for DUI. That’s just one of many examples someone could make, but you get the point. Tying drinking and driving to accidents and deaths, regardless of the actual cause of the accident, skews the numbers.

I’m certain the same will be true for those involved in an accident having ingested marijuana.

I do not advocate drinking and driving, smoking and driving, texting and driving (which is the must greater problem out of all of these), etc. But, let’s not play fast and loose with the numbers.

Somehow I suspect this has been the goal of insurance industry to rake in more money. As the threshold for being cited as “drunk” while driving has been reduced further and further over the years, while the fines and insurance “premiums” have gone up and up as a result.

Let’s face facts....MADD is a big business now, and exists by piggy backing on the drinking and driving mania.

You are spot on; sometimes an accident is tabbed as "alcohol involved" if a passenger was intoxicated. Also, sometimes there are accidents that would have occurred regardless of the intoxication level, I know of one case where a driver was approaching a the blind crest of a hill and a teenager riding an off-road dirt bike popped over the hill in the wrong lane and hit the car head on. The "accident" for all intents and purposes was unavoidable from the driver's perspective, but because his BAC was right on .08 he was tried for vehicular homicide.
And yes, MADD is a racket.

fintail · October 2018

Geometrically? Where does that stat come from? In my area anyway, I suspect actual use isn't much higher than before - make no mistake, tons of people imbibed even when it wasn't legal, as this is a first world state, and enforcement was lax at its most severe.

Remember the three types of lies

- I'd prefer data from sources other than mindless puritans in Federal government, and money-grubbing insurance companies.

abacomike said:

But marijuana usage is expanding geometrically over the past several years due to States legalizing its use. Thus DUI’s attributed to marijuana use will also be increasing. It will take quite a bit of time for statistics supporting increased marijuana use DUI’s to surface. I expect a huge increase in DUI’s arrtibuted to its use - it just takes time for these statistics to be generated and updated.

fintail · October 2018

I know few people who drink for the taste. I also don't know any smokers of the material that scares people on the wrong side of history stuck in the 50s who have beaten the hell out of anyone after using their preferred vice - but plenty of people fall victim to the liquid fun every day. Where are the pearls clutchers?

qbrozen said:

This is just plain incorrect in so many ways. It is obvious your statement is based solely on your personal preferences. "Solely" and "often" are far from accurate if you look beyond your own personal space.

roadburner · October 2018

True marijuana DUI story: The KY State Police were running a sobriety checkpoint with some troopers from other counties. One of those troopers walked up to a car in line and smelled marijuana. The driver admitted that he had smoked the demon weed, but did not say when. The trooper ordered the driver to pull to the side and arrested him for DUI.
At trial the case collapsed because the trooper had not observed the defendant driving and had not performed any field sobriety tests. The driver walked away with only a misdemeanor possession conviction.

And that's the big problem with marijuana DUI cases; current lab tests can only prove that a defendant smoked marijuana sometime in the past couple of weeks. Contrast that with blood alcohol tests which can provide the percentage of alcohol in the bloodstream.

berri · October 2018

Pot is different because the only purpose of it is to get high to get that mind altering experience. You don't consume it for aromas, for taste or to complement a food flavor, you do it simply to chase that high. That is a textbook example of an addiction and makes it impossible to consume it responsibly.

I don't agree because you can have MJ as a cookie, brownie, candy, etc. Personally, I don't use it and don't drink much either. I think the biggest contributor to growing accident rates is distracted driving.

qbrozen · October 2018

ab348 said:

You need to provide what it is used for (in a "recreational" setting) if you are going to make that argument. People aren't using it because it goes well with a nice steak.

berri beat me to it. Believe it or not, some people LIKE the taste.
Plus, you can, in fact, take one hit and not be impaired any more than 1 drink. So, just like 1 drink won't necessarily make you "drunk," 1 hit won't necessarily make you "high." There are plenty of folks who will smoke/eat just a little to "take the edge off," exactly like folks who say the same about a drink or 2.

houdini2 · October 2018

berri said:
I've developed a pretty simplistic view toward pot: medical matters should be between the patient and doctor - period and from my experiences a stoner tends to be less obnoxious than a drunk. Legalizing pot let's the cops focus more on hard drugs instead of going for easy young people prey smoking a joint in order to meet the law enforcement government grant goals.

Law enforcement will fight legalizing pot to the bitter end. They have confiscated billions of dollars worth of dope, cars, homes, etc...... they get to keep a good portion of what is confiscated and add it to their budgets, and they don't want to lose it....

berri · October 2018

This government seizure stuff really gets to me. I think it is beyond the principles founding our nation. You even have states grabbing a citizen's mutual fund or bank account if they haven't had formal contact with the provider (and reinvesting interest or dividends doesn't count). Doesn't matter which political party either. It is legalized thievery.

snakeweasel · October 2018

berri said:

Pot is different because the only purpose of it is to get high to get that mind altering experience. You don't consume it for aromas, for taste or to complement a food flavor, you do it simply to chase that high. That is a textbook example of an addiction and makes it impossible to consume it responsibly. I don't agree because you can have MJ as a cookie, brownie, candy, etc. Personally, I don't use it and don't drink much either. I think the biggest contributor to growing accident rates is distracted driving.

I disagree because putting it in a brownie, a cookie, candy or any other food does not enhance the taste of the food. The food is just a delivery system for the MJ so you don't have to smoke it.

houdini2 · October 2018

Canada has the right idea on legalizing pot nationwide rather than piecemeal. If it is legal in some states and illegal in others that is just wrong. Same thing could be said about gun laws. Make some laws fair and reasonable nationwide.

qbrozen · October 2018

snakeweasel said:

I disagree because putting it in a brownie, a cookie, candy or any other food does not enhance the taste of the food. The food is just a delivery system for the MJ so you don't have to smoke it.

You really should avoid stating your opinions as if they are facts. I certainly don't understand consuming hard liquor in the name of taste, but I won't be so presumptuous as to claim nobody could possibly be consuming it because they like the taste.

houdini2 · October 2018

qbrozen said:

snakeweasel said:

I disagree because putting it in a brownie, a cookie, candy or any other food does not enhance the taste of the food. The food is just a delivery system for the MJ so you don't have to smoke it.
You really should avoid stating your opinions as if they are facts. I certainly don't understand consuming hard liquor in the name of taste, but I won't be so presumptuous as to claim nobody could possibly be consuming it because they like the taste.

There is that, plus the fact that pot might have some beneficial health effects for some people. I've never seen any claims that alcohol has any beneficial health effects.

tjc78 · October 2018

houdini2 said:

I disagree because putting it in a brownie, a cookie, candy or any other food does not enhance the taste of the food. The food is just a delivery system for the MJ so you don't have to smoke it.
You really should avoid stating your opinions as if they are facts. I certainly don't understand consuming hard liquor in the name of taste, but I won't be so presumptuous as to claim nobody could possibly be consuming it because they like the taste.
There is that, plus the fact that pot might have some beneficial health effects for some people. I don't think you can say that about alcohol.

There are many studies that suggest a glass of wine a day is healthy

ab348 · October 2018

fintail said:
I know few people who drink for the taste.

When I see comments like this I know the topic has veered into the ditch and is beyond saving. Ever hear of sommeliers? If what you said was accurate all liquor stores would sell would be everclear or vodka, and things like single-malt would never have gotten off the ground.

Let's all move on. Clearly this is one of those polarized topics that have become all too common of late.

graphicguy · October 2018

roadburner said:
True marijuana DUI story: The KY State Police were running a sobriety checkpoint with some troopers from other counties. One of those troopers walked up to a car in line and smelled marijuana. The driver admitted that he had smoked the demon weed, but did not say when. The trooper ordered the driver to pull to the side and arrested him for DUI.
At trial the case collapsed because the trooper had not observed the defendant driving and had not performed any field sobriety tests. The driver walked away with only a misdemeanor possession conviction.

And that's the big problem with marijuana DUI cases; current lab tests can only prove that a defendant smoked marijuana sometime in the past couple of weeks. Contrast that with blood alcohol tests which can provide the percentage of alcohol in the bloodstream.

You're getting ready to jump knee deep back into that whole scenario, right? Or, are you going to be adjudicating different types of cases?

It's going to be a push-pull as to who will benefit the most monetarily on the legalization of marijuana. With the latest developments, it seems the firms who are behind the legalization push are winning. Does that mean the state and municipalities lose given the fines and court costs will be reduced in deciding those cases? I don't know. I'm just asking the questions.

Perhaps a new state oversight budget is implemented to make up for the lost fines.

Again, will defer to RB, but I've heard KY has had a long tradition of growing marijuana with a "wink-wink" and a "nod-nod" by the localities to let those illegal activities continue. Not sure if those rumors are true or not.

OHIO tried to push it through a couple of years ago but failed. Too many hands in the pie arguing about who gets the biggest pieces. I expect that to change here, shortly. The infrastructure is pretty much in place for "all systems go" to roll it out.

What I do know, Ohio is looking for ways to reduce the prison population, namely because it's becoming unwieldy, and this is a perfect way to put a big dent in it.

henryn · October 2018

A few years back, I knew someone who worked in a fairly high position for an offshore oil drilling company. The company had a very strict zero tolerance drug policy, which made sense. You do not want anyone addicted to drugs going offshore for 2 weeks with no access. There were basically two problems with this. Number one, they still had alcoholics going offshore and trying to dry out on the job. And number two, so many people were failing the marijuana test that they were having a hard time keeping their rigs fully crewed.

Here are some numbers for you:

People who smoked marijuana in the last:
• 30-45 days can fail a urine drug test for THC
• 60-75 days can fail for a marijuana blood test
• up to 90 days can fail for a hair follicle drug test looking for moderate to high THC levels

If someone took a “hit” at a party two months ago, is that really grounds for blocking them from working for you? A decision was made, they no longer tested for marijuana.

About 5 years ago, I was at a party (small private party, about 8 or 9 people). Some of those present were partaking of marijuana, and offered it to me. I declined, saying that I had to pass random drug tests. One of the people present told me that she worked in a lab which performed drug tests for many large companies, and a number of government organizations. She told me “Pretty much all of the large corporations are no longer testing for marijuana. For the most part, only government organizations are testing for marijuana these days.”

Which would make sense, and would agree with what little I know. But as I have no way of finding out, I am going to take the safe route for now. Can’t you just see me going to HR and asking, “Oh, by the way, are you testing for marijuana in your random drug tests these days? I’m just asking for a friend.”

Mr_Shiftright · October 2018

suydam said:
That’s just not true. MJ is just as much a social drug as is alcohol. For some, just like alcohol, a mild buzz to perk up the environment and sociability. For a few, bigger problems. But I think more people statistically have difficulties with alcohol than pot. By the way, if you want mind-altering, you’re talking about different drugs than either.

It might be interesting to take one of those online reflex tests, and then down a beer or glass of chablis and take the test again.

Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles