<p>STOP NITPICKING STUPID SPECIFIC SENTENCES.</p>
<p>You cannot safely drive while intoxicated from drugs/alcohol/glue. Period. No word games will change this.</p>
<p>^Was that a response to me?</p>
<p>If so, I was answering Tiiff’s request to cite when someone in this tread said driving while high off of weed was safe.</p>
<p>lol Pandem really hates things like nitpicking and semantics. :P</p>
<p>Driving high is no big deal. I would know - I do it all the time.</p>
<p>east89-
Seriously? You must have not really read my posts.</p>
<p>I guess we agree that I NEVER stated that driving high was safe. You quoted me as saying “is doesn’t REALLY negatively affect driving.” I think we can agree that that statement is not the equivilent to “driving while high is safe.” Please don’t put words in my mouth or misquote me. </p>
<p>Once again, for about the fourth time, I believe that driving drunk is worse than driving stoned (from MJ), and all of the studies I cited conclude such. I NEVER said driving high is 1) safe high is 2) a good idea 3) doesn’t impair driving. Please review ALL of my posts carefully, and if you have any doubts. Otherwise don’t throw yourself in a discussion when you clearly haven’t read previous posts. I am so tired of people putting words in my posts. Although I stated this NUMEROUS time, you must have missed this point along the way. Please understand what a person is arguing before drawing incorrect conclusions. It happens far too much on this forum. It doesn’t take that much time to read a discussion. </p>
<p>BeB:
Sithis is one member who questioned whether driving high was less dangerous:
“How is driving drunk less dangerous than driving high?” I am not going to go through all of these posts and quote eveyone, but it starts with post 37.
You also questioned it:
you quoted me first “Essentially, driving stoned IS safer than driving drunk and does not really negatively affect a driver.”
“Tell that to the husband and two children who lost their mother last week, killed by a driver stoned on weed.”
Perhaps you misreprented your argument.
"Any drug can impair judgment and reaction, you should stop pouting about how you can’t smoke pot as much as you’d like and start maturing. It’s people with attitudes like yours who kill people.</p>
<p>Grow up."</p>
<p>Hmmm…a “mature” person wouldn’t post the above sentence and assume that a person smokes weed, when they never said they did, because they do not endorse drug tests. I think making personal petty attacks like that makes you the immature one. As frustrated as I get with people on here, I never initiate personal attacks, and it’s sad that you feel the need to using an anonymous name on an internet board. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, more power to ya.</p>
<p>^^^My question of “How is driving drunk less dangerous than driving high?” was in response to this assertion from somni:
</p>
<p>I’m still not really sure why you brought it up, in context.</p>
<p>Employee testing is fair. It’s not a form of racial, sexual or preferential bias. At this point, marijuana and other such drugs are illegal. No matter how much you disagree with that (I would prefer to see them legalized, despite not smoking myself) that’s the law. Don’t want to obey it? Sucks. Go cry congress a river.</p>
<p>This is also my opinion on welfare, which is a similar debate at the moment; there are many people who say that in order to claim welfare you should not be forced to undergo drug testing. As someone earlier in this thread claimed, their argument is that “what we do on our own time is our business.” Weed costs money; when you’re receiving all your income from the government and smoking marijuana, you’re effectively spending your “welfare” money on drugs. Not cool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I read every post in this thread. I’m guessing you’re going to be immature next and comment on people’s comprehension skills. Either that, or you’ll make up some fake story about getting in an argument about a teacher about the reading comprehension skills of current college students, which resulted in that professor subsequently giving you an A for the semester. I’ve seen similar comments come from you before, so I wouldn’t put it past you. I’m not trying to be mean here because I see no point in being that childish. It just seems that’s how most of your posts are within the contents of discussions.</p>
<p>Now, if I erred and mistook your use of the word “really” as meaning truly–which is one of it’s actual definitions, hence the reason why I assumed that was the usage you were aiming for–I apologize. However, even if your usage of the word “really” was meant as an attempt to state that driving high posed no large detriment to driving abilities, you’re wrong, as per the evidence posted in the articles that you’ve mentioned several times.</p>
<p>For example, one of your articles stated that high drivers had slow reaction times to suddenly appearing obstacles. Therefore, someone could cut in-front of a high driver while the high driver is going 75 MPH, and due to the slowed reaction time caused by the weed, they might not be able to respond quick enough, causing a fatal accident. Other problems listed about issues with responding to sudden sounds, such as horns, could possibly yield similar consequences in specific situations. I think it’s safe to say that, based on the article, weed does REALLY negatively affect driving. I can’t argue that it doesn’t affect it to the extent of alcohol though, and I never disagreed with that point.</p>
<p>Anyway, I just thought I’d respond to that post. I’m done here, so I probably won’t read your response (no offense) if you feel so inclined to write one. You may want to mature on this forum and stop attempting to belittle people–barring those occasions when others initiate the offensive actions. Then again, you’ve said you do it to get people mad. I doubt any of your posts have infuriated anyway as of yet, though.</p>
<p>I guess we agree that I NEVER stated that driving high was safe. You quoted me as saying “is doesn’t REALLY negatively affect driving.” I think we can agree that that statement is not the equivilent to “driving while high is safe.” Please don’t put words in my mouth or misquote me. </p>
<p>Once again, for about the fourth time, I believe that driving drunk is worse than driving stoned (from MJ), and all of the studies I cited conclude such. I NEVER said driving high is 1) safe high is 2) a good idea 3) doesn’t impair driving. Please review ALL of my posts carefully, and if you have any doubts. Otherwise don’t throw yourself in a discussion when you clearly haven’t read previous posts. I am so tired of people putting words in my posts. Although I stated this NUMEROUS time, you must have missed this point along the way. Please understand what a person is arguing before drawing incorrect conclusions. It happens far too much on this forum. It doesn’t take that much time to read a discussion. ~ Tiff90</p>
<hr>
<p>You quoted me as saying “is doesn’t REALLY negatively affect driving.” ~ Tiff90</p>
<p>Then, a few seconds later she contradicts herself.</p>
<p>I NEVER said driving high is 1) safe high is 2) a good idea 3) doesn’t impair driving. ~ Tiff90</p>
<p>So which is it? First you said that it doesn’t negatively affect driving, then you say that you never said it doesn’t impair driving?</p>
<p>I NEVER said it was safe. Stop pretending I said/wrote something I didn’t. It’s like me saying you said drunk driving is safe. It didn’t happen, get over it. There was no condradiction, you are pretending there is one for whatever reason. Find something else to do. </p>
<p>East89-
It is always ironic when people go personal on a poster, even when they admit to being wrong, and then call the other person immature. I find it funny you some of my sarcastic posts seriously, I mean I’ve even told people they were sarcastic and they continue to act like they’re real. It says a lot more about you for taking every word on here seriously and then making immature attacks on someone who you don’t know on an internet board where you don’t even use your name. I only “belittle” people when they, like you admitted to doing, clearly misquote me or take what I said completely out of context. If you go to college and can’t understand a persons argument that is explicitly written on a board, you deserve a little snip. There was no need for you to make a 6 or 7 paragraph response when you spend only 1 sentence admitting you made a mistake. No need to get angry at me because you made a mistake. It seems like you needed to make some uneccasary comment because you couldn’t just say “you’re right, you didn’t say x.” That would have been the mature thing to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><em>sigh</em></p>
<p>I don’t even know why I’m going to bother responding to this (sorry for responding when I said I wouldn’t). When did I ever say I took your sarcastic posts seriously? Since you’re so big on comprehending correctly, go back through my statement, find that portion of text in which I stated that, read it back to me, and then we’ll go from there. Until then, stop it. I just said that you’d probably utilize one of those two methods of argument in your next response, while noting that the first was immature. If you want to infer that I took them seriously, just stop yourself right now since my words don’t denote such action on my behalf. I’m really not sure how me stating that you should probably find better means of posting than these vitriolic responses that you make was immature along with knowing how you may respond, but if that’s how you feel, then that’s cool. Hell, I even said I wasn’t trying to be mean just so we wouldn’t have some misunderstanding since that often happens on the web.</p>
<p>And please, stop taking other people on here so seriously. If you look in that other thread about black people not being allowed to vote in the 2000 election in Florida, I clearly said that I either chose to either ignore you or just laugh at your posts. I’m sure that many people who you feel are getting “mad” at you do the same. Usually, I don’t laugh at things I take seriously, so you may want to infer upon that statement and see what you come up with. Apparently, you deserve a little snip for that one. </p>
<p>Oh, also, the one sentence you speak of wasn’t the only portion of the text that was germane to the original topic of discussion. You may want to read the second and third paragraphs in their entirety. </p>
<p>Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go cry you a river because I’m just irate right now.</p>
<p>Go sit down somewhere. You’re done for the day, sweetheart.</p>
<p>East89-
Hahahaha I thought you weren’t going to comment? Couldn’t contain yourself, sweetheart? I think you are the one taking this a bit too seriously, sweetheart. Why so serious, sweetheart? Try some Midol, sweetheart. You thought I was serious with that “fake story” about the professor. I wasn’t. At all. Not even a little bit. That is one example of you taking something sarcastic seriously, sweetheart. You seriously bring stuff up from other threads? Don’t you have more, I don’t know, exciting things to do, sweetheart? I am surprised you bothered to respond since you are such a mature person. But then again you never said you were. I would be wrong to assume that you think or stated you are a mature person.
<em>sigh</em>.
Sweetheart, you are the one going on rants when nothing about this thread is addressed to you. You misquoted me, admitted to it, and then decided to make two ranting posts about how you don’t like my posts on this site.
<em>sigh</em>
Sorry, sweetheart, but I don’t think that is the mature thing to do. Or worthwhile. What are you trying to accomplish exactly, other than trying to upset me, sweetheart?
'<em>sigh</em>
I actually don’t try and make personal attacks on people to make myself feel better, sweetheart. Because in real life I talk to mature, intelligent people who don’t misinterpret what I say or write. And if they are wrong, they admit to it and move on instead of finding ways to belittle the other person. But I guess you aren’t the one trying to belittle, sweetheart. Maybe you should take a cold shower and think about how what you’re doing is, well, I guess really mature, well thought out, rational, respectful and a good use of your time, sweetheart. Have a wonderful day attacking people online, sweetheart. Don’t forget that midol, as a fellow woman I can say it works wonders for those, well, you know.
<em>sigh</em>
You responded exactly how I thought you would- personal attacks, not reasoning or logic, just out of anger and spite. I don’t remember ever personally offending you, but I guess I did and you just can’t get over it, sweetheart. Try some chocolate. Or midol. Or a nice gin and tonic. Or just sit in the corner, sweetheart.</p>
<p>LMAO. Thanks for that one, booski.</p>
<p>Small-time college forum debates are SRS BUSINESS.</p>
<h2>I NEVER said it was safe. Stop pretending I said/wrote something I didn’t. It’s like me saying you said drunk driving is safe. It didn’t happen, get over it. There was no condradiction, you are pretending there is one for whatever reason. Find something else to do. ~ Tiff 90</h2>
<p>Taken from post #61</p>
<p>"I would not drive with someone who was drunk, period. Stoned I would because it’s proven that it does not hurt driving performance. " ~ Tiff90</p>
<p>east89-
Just can’t contain yourself I see. So much for not responding.</p>
<p>We can agree that I never said “Driving stoned is safe.” Keep looking though. It’s totally worth your time. You are inferring something from a statement, which is fine, just stop pretending I said “driving stoned is safe,” or anything endorsing it. There were other people who said it was fine or safe or something of that nature, but not me. Never said it was safe, get over it. I can’t believe you are holding on to this, but I guess that’s the only point of your argument left.</p>
<p>^^^ Look at my above post.</p>
<p>You said several times the being stoned doesnt affect your ability to drive safely.</p>
<p>You are inferring something from a statement, which is fine, just stop pretending I said “driving stoned is safe,” or anything endorsing it. ~ Tiff 90</p>
<p>"I would not drive with someone who was drunk, period. Stoned I would because it’s proven that it does not hurt driving performance. " ~ Tiff90</p>
<p>So saying you’d drive with a stoned driver because it doesn’t hurt driving performance isn’t endorsing it?</p>
<p>I read it. You claim I said “driving stoned is safe.” Never happened. Once again, you are inferring something from my statement. I don’t see why it matters anyways, unless you just want to fight about something.</p>
<p>Well, when you say it doesn’t affect driving performance and that you would drive with a stoned drive, you obviously feel it’s safe.</p>
<p>I mean - what other conclusion could be made?</p>
<p>If you think it’s unsafe, then why would you drive with a person who was stoned?</p>