Partnership for a Drug Free Canada is disturbed that some people know the truth


TORONTO, Feb. 27, 2014 /CNW/ – A recent national study¹ commissioned by the Partnership for a Drug Free Canada revealed that almost 25% of parents of teenagers did not consider driving while high on cannabis to be as bad as drinking and driving. Meanwhile, almost a third of teens (32%) did not consider driving under the influence of cannabis to be as bad as alcohol.

Well, since I’m not aware of a single study that claims marijuana impairment is as dangerous to driving as alcohol impairment, nor a single scientist in the field that would claim it, I think it’s safe to say that it’s a verifiable fact that driving while high on cannabis (regardless of its potential for danger) is not as bad as drinking and driving.

What should be disturbing is that only 25% of the parents and 32% of the teens realized this (or, at least, were willing to admit that knowledge on a study commissioned by the Partnership for a Drug Free Canada).

What a bizarre factoid to use in their campaign.

From reading the rest of the press release, it appears that, to the Partnership, the correct answer to the question of “Which is more dangerous: cannabis impairment or alcohol impairment?” is “C: Facts don’t matter; impairment is impairment.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Partnership for a Drug Free Canada is disturbed that some people know the truth

  1. primus says:

    This appears to be just some Yahoo filler, with no place for comments. Wonder how much it cost PDFC to run it, or was it written off by Yahoo as a PSA?

    • Viggo Piggsko Flatmark says:

      It has a comment button primus, further down the page.

      • primus says:

        Thanks. I missed it. Doesn’t matter anyway, I don’t have nor do I want a Yahoo account so they won’t let me post. Asshats.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      primus, it’s a press release. They come up on a Google news search all the time. The Partnership for a Truth Free Canada may have paid a service like PR Newswire to spread their manure but I doubt that they paid a penny to Yahoo.

      list of websites with this press release.

  2. jean valjean says:

    21st century version of galileo’s persecutiom by the church for pointing out that the earth goes round the sun

  3. Krymsun says:

    Why does most everyone automatically jump to the automatic, knee-jerk, and FALSE assumption that cannabis impairs drivers much the same as does alcohol? Why let uninformed opinions be the basis of new laws? It took me very little time to do a search, and find actual scientific studies which indicate just how incorrect such an assumption is. Examples follow.


    Studies Show Marijuana Consumption Not Associated With Dangerous Driving, May Lead to Safer Drivers
    Anyone who consumes cannabis on a regular basis knows that it doesn’t make you a dangerous driver. Many people find that it makes them a safer, more focused driver; one that’s more aware of their surroundings and the dangers associated with controlling tons of gasoline-filled metal. Not only has this been an anecdotal truth for as long as cars and cannabis have been paired, science has also been clear that consuming marijuana doesn’t make you a dangerous driver, and may make some people safer drivers. More research is needed, but it’s hard to deny that of the research we have, marijuana hasn’t been found to increase a person’s risk of an accident. To back this claim up, here’s a list of studies and research conducted on this very topic, some of which were funded by national governments in hopes of different results.


    Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence
    “Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol. Below is a summary of some of the existing data.”


    The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers
    “There was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”
    REFERENCE: Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
    Report No. DOT HS 808 065, K. Terhune. 1992.


    Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance
    “Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution. .. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”
    REFERENCE: University of Adelaide study, 1995


    Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes
    “There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.. The more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”
    REFERENCE: Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies; Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232, A. Smiley. 1999.


    “Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a ‘change’ from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect ‘impairment’ in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.”
    REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000.


    Cannabis And Cannabinoids – Pharmacology, Toxicology And Therapy
    “At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven”.
    REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002.,Toxicology%20And%20Therapy.pdf


    Cannabis: Our position for a Canadian Public Policy
    “Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving. Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving. However it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. This in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk”
    REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002.


    “The evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.”
    REFERENCE: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential, 2002
    Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential, edited by Franjo Grotenhermen, MD and Ethan Russo, MD (Haworth Press 2002).,Toxicology%20And%20Therapy.pdf


    The Prevalence of Drug Use in Drivers, and Characteristics of the Drug-Positive Group
    “There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone.”
    REFERENCE: Accident Analysis and Prevention 32(5): 613-622. Longo, MC; Hunter, CE; Lokan, RJ; White, JM; and White, MA. (2000a).


    The Effect Of Cannabis Compared With Alcohol On Driving
    “Although cognitive studies suggest that cannabis use may lead to unsafe driving, experimental studies have suggested that it can have the opposite effect.” U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2009


    Why Medical Marijuana Laws Reduce Traffic Deaths
    “No differences were found during the baseline driving segment (and the) collision avoidance scenarios,”
    REFERENCE: Research published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 2010


    Top 10 Reasons Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers
    “20 years of study has concluded that marijuana smokers may actually have fewer accidents than other drivers.”


    Risk of severe driver injury by driving with psychoactive substances
    “The study found that those with a blood alcohol level of 0.12% were over 30 times more likely to get into a serious accident than someone who’s consumed any amount of cannabis. .. The least risky drug seemed to be cannabis and benzodiazepines and Z-drugs.”
    REFERENCE: Accident Analysis & Prevention; Volume 59, October 2013, Pages 346–356


    Cannabis: Summary Report
    “Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”
    REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs And Cannabinoids – Pharmacology,Toxicology And Therapy.pdf


    Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk
    “There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.”
    REFERENCE: British Medical Journal, 1999; M. Bates and T. Blakely

  4. claygooding says:

    If the truth won’t do then there is no way to fix it.
    All you can do is add more lies to cover and confuse the lies that are failing.

    Kind of like those +14 apples from -7 + -7,,,they don.t exist and there is no logical explanation why they should exist but it is the correct answer on a test.

    • primus says:

      The answer is -14, not +14. If I already borrowed 7 apples, I owe you 7, or -7. I then borrow another 7 apples, which I add to the first 7, leaving me owing you 14 apples, or -14. No wonder you hate math.

    • Crut says:

      Clay you’re thinking multiplication! -7 * -7 = +49

  5. Russell Olausen says:

    You might consider a head line I read from Alberta, Canada. Out right lying in propaganda should be frowned on.

  6. Duncan20903 says:


    Any person that is unable to understand that drinking alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis using any objective metric imaginable is in desperate need of a check up from the neck up. For crying out loud it isn’t even remotely close.

    Posting that assertion has a tendency of motivating someone to post the Linkletter excuse as a rebuttal. Which of course is evidence supporting the assertion that among the prohibitionist cohort it’s not unusual for a member to have a hollow space in their skull where most people keep a brain.

  7. N.T. Greene says:

    As always, reductio ad absurdum.

    The data isnt even really tied to a logical conclusion that favors them. But damn, those numbers are bad, amirite?

  8. Servetus says:

    Almost 25% of parents of teenagers and almost a third of teens (32%) have probably had the opportunity to make an informed comparison of their own on the alcohol v. cannabis and driving argument. Far be it that the Partnership for a Drug-Free Canada would let Canadians who’ve done their own individual testing participate in the debate. The Partnership never relies on primary sources of evidence or information to ascertain its own facts. To do so might make marijuana look good.

  9. DdC says:

    Maryland police chief believed Colorado marijuana overdose hoax story
    We all know cops aren’t the brightest bulbs on the shelf (after all, if they were smarter they wouldn’t be cops). But in case you needed a reminder of the mental heavyweights we are dealing with, Annapolis Police Chief Michael Pristoop had to publicly apologize yesterday for passing on a satirical, hoax news story claiming 37 marijuana deaths the day Colorado legalized pot sales. Even better: Pristoop admits that he believed the information was completely accurate, and even though none of it is true he still is sticking by his wrongheaded position. Read More >>

    Paranoid Freaks Should Not Hold Public Office…
    Drunk Correa at it Again…

    California state senator writes marijuana bill supported by cops
    California state Senator Lou Correa (D-Anaheim) has pulled off the impossible: he’s authored medical marijuana legislation that is actually supported by both the California League of Cities (which has both lobbied against pot dispensaries and helped cities actively ban them) as well as law enforcement, which has never supported a single pro-pot bill.

    As it turns out, the bill would require that any doctor who recommends marijuana for a patient must “have a bona fide doctor-patient relationship” with that person. That’s another way of saying that the doctor in question must be either the patient’s primary care physician or a doctor to whom the patient is referred by their primary care physician.

    While the physician restrictions in SB 1262 are highly objectionable and need to be defeated, it is nonetheless a welcome development that law enforcement has thrown in the towel and endorsed the licensing of medical marijuana dispensaries, an idea they have previously stoutly resisted,”
    NORML’s Dale Gierenger

    Are You Drunk Correa?
    CA SB 289 Clueless Legislation

    “You’re enough of a pro,” Nixon tells Shafer, “to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what the Congress feels and what the country feels, and what we’re planning to do, would make your commission just look bad as hell.”
    – Richard Milhouse Nixon

    Does a police advisory council have any business in the medical marijuana debate?
    Last month, the Minneapolis Violent Crimes Coordinating Council did something odd. Members decided to make their “strong opposition” to medical marijuana known by sending a letter to the bill’s chief legislative proponents, including State Rep. Carly Melin. It asserted that the chronic pain of individuals did not outweigh the interests of public safety.

    In response, Melin solicited the nonpartisan House Research Department for background information on the VCCC. She asked specifically about whether the council had the authority to issue opinions on pending legislation. Minneapolis City Pages has the rest.

    “We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that,”

    “I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance [a category of dangerous drugs] because of sound scientific proof.”

    “They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true,”
    ~ Sanjay Gupta

  10. darkcycle says:

    Uh-oh. The “Kill medical marijuana” bill in Washington has shown another life. They dropped the public hearing without explanation, but instead referred it directly to ways and means. This is bad. They cut any possible direct input from the public out with this move, so phone calls and letters to committee members (in the gonadal sense of the word). Kill this bitch.

  11. strayan says:

    OT: This is an excellent mainstream media expose on the regulated drugs trade in NZ:

  12. “C: Facts don’t matter; impairment is impairment.”

    With the introduction of new and cheaper and more portable testing methods I DO think this is the direction that things are getting pushed into. Facts don’t matter concerning impairment when the science of drug testing outpaces the common sense. We live in a society that thrives on drugs both legal and illegal. Who is going to write the manual that explains the exact interface of each drug to its proper dose related intoxication level and how it affects driving? All pharmaceuticals, all “illegals”, all over the counter. If they are trying to go this route, they have a lot of science and explaining to do. If this is not the thing that Partnership is talking about, why is marijuana being singled out as a drugged driving problem?

    Truth be known, you can no longer use this baseless logic from the reefer madness lies of the drug war. Three quarters of the public are aware of the genuine truth about the harmlessness of marijuana. The Partnership can no longer maintain its credibility with the public using logic like this. They have become a cheap useless propaganda tool for needless, baseless marijuana prohibition.

    • primus says:

      I agree that ‘impairment is impairment’ so why don’t they test for impairment? Oh, right, they do, with roadside sobriety tests. Even if you pass said RST, thus proving you are not impaired, they can still require that you blow the breathalyzer and will charge you if you blow over, even though you proved you weren’t impaired. There are also machines which test for impairment by tracking eye movements. The fact that they do not use these machines is proof that they don’t really want to stop impaired driving, they just want to punish people.

  13. DdC says:

    Anyone know if “two survive now” is a missprint? It’s repeated, but as far as I know there are still 4 surviving members.

    Florida Man: I’m ‘Living Proof’ For Legalizing Medical
    Whenever Irv Rosenfeld needs relief from the pain and swelling of hundreds of bone tumors, he lights up a joint – almost anywhere he wants. Legally. The program expanded to 13 people by the early 1990s, when the FDA stopped accepting applications, but just two survive now, he said.

    Federal IND Patients

    “I.N.D.” The “Federal” Medical Marijuana “F.D.A. Program”

    As of 2012, there were only four surviving patients.
    ☮Douglass, Barbara – Multiple sclerosis,
    August 30, 1991 Still Receives Med MJ
    ☮McMahon, George – Nail-patella syndrome
    March 16, 1990 Still Receives Med MJ
    ☮Musikka, Elvy – Glaucoma
    October 17, 1988 Still Receives Med MJ
    ☮Rosenfeld, Irvin -Rare bone disorder
    November 20, 1982 Still Receives Med MJ

  14. Stasi Hunters Invite Tyranny says:

    Fan Speed; Ridiculous
    Bring it on, UnCanadian Welfare-Cutting Traitors.
    Strike; Three. You; OUT

  15. Duncan20903 says:

    Res ipsa loquitur:

    Marijuana triggered deaths of two men, study says
    February 27, 2014

    Dr. David Nutt, who is chairman of Britain’s Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs and wasn’t involved in the study, said the researchers had presented an “exceptionally complete collection of evidence in support of their theory that, unusually, cannabis was the trigger for these two tragedies.”

    “People with vulnerable hearts should be informed of this risk with cannabis,” he said.

    Nutt said an additional strain to the heart from strenuous activities can have similarly fatal consequences in people with underlying heart conditions.

    • Crut says:

      Ooh, now they’re using the word “triggered”.

      Not good enough, I say. Headline skimmers will think that “triggered” = “caused”. I hope the first official to try and use this as ammunition get’s called out just like the sheriff did.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        When I started writing my post above it was going to make fun of the prohibitionists for grasping at straws but finding Dr, Nutt opining that the science was sound threw me for a loop. You might recall that a few years back Dr. Nutt got fired by the British government for asserting that MDMA was safer than horseback riding. Just like I’d presume that anything that comes out of the mouth of Calvina Fay is a bald faced lie Dr. Nutt had earned the opposite presumption. Of course everything that Ms. Fay says isn’t a lie because that’s just plain impossible. In a similar vein Dr. Nutt could be mistaken or even lying for some unknown reason. Perhaps he wants his job back, or is tired of being treated like a traitor by the foaming at the mouth cohort. Regardless, in the absence of any evidence of bad motives or incompetence his opinion has to be taken seriously.

        There was a not insubstantial period of time where Dr. Donald Tashkin was presumed to be a research hack selling scientific study results to order. But now his 2006 meta-study may be the most frequently referenced study by those on our side of the table. So was he in fact ever a research hack selling results to order? I can’t say for certain but the fact that he published the results of that study makes me conclude that I was mistaken in that presumption. While he most certainly wanted different results he admitted that he’d been proven wrong. We’re never going to have occasion to hear Ms. Fay or Kev-Kev admit that even if the fall into an ocean of facts that prove that they are wrong.

        That being said, it really doesn’t matter to me who makes a claim if my choice is to believe the claimant or my own two eyes. Ever since the existence of the endo-cannabinoid system was made public knowledge what I see with my own two eyes is always my choice. I played with a blood pressure cuff and recorded my pulse several times over a period of about weeks after reading the often quoted Mittleman study which claimed that cannabis may increase the chance of a cardiac event by a factor of 4.8x. Well like the poet said, shake the hand that shook the hand of PT Barnum and Charlie Chan, my pulse didn’t change, it stayed seventy-two come shine or rain…or even a dozen bong hits. My blood pressure also remained a constant 100/60. I worry more about losing my blood pressure than I do about my heart exploding or whatever the consequences of high blood pressure are.

        Isn’t the German custom to mix tobacco with their cannabis?

        Despite any of the above I don’t think that anyone could argue that the addictionologists in Germany are a different breed that American “addictionologists”.

        Doctors criticized for ‘cannabis can kill’ study

        They believe two of those deaths could not have been caused by anything other than cannabis, according to a study published in Forensic Science International this month under the title “Sudden unexpected death under acute influence of cannabis”.

        But on Wednesday the German Association for Drugs and Addiction (FDR), which is based in Hannover, told The Local the study did not help educate people about the dangers of the drug.

        “Cannabis does not paralyze the breathing or the heart,” head of the FDR Jost Leune said. “Deaths due to cannabis use are usually accidents that are not caused by the substance, but to the circumstances of use.”

        Leune added the dangers of marijuana were “exaggerated” and it was less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

      • allan says:

        omg… people that smoke pot die! I sure was thinking that smot poking gave eternal life. Damn…(or hallelujah!)

        • thelbert says:

          where i live, it is raining like a cow whizzin’ on flat rock. at least two people will die today just because it is raining in california. the possibility that someone may die is no reason to prohibit all others from living and pursuing happiness.

        • thelbert says:

          where i live, it is raining like a cow whizzin’ on a flat rock. at least two people will die today just because it is raining in california. the possibility that someone may die is no reason to prohibit all others from living and pursuing happiness.

        • DdC says:

          June 12, 2001

          Study Cites Heart Attack Peril for Older MJ Users

          Nor does marijuana pose a significant increased risk for a healthy 50-year-old.

          But for older people with conditions that make them prone to heart attacks,

          The increased risk, though still small, could-might-maybe-perhaps-potentially-may prove significant

          Same as walking up a flight of stairs. The study more (falsely) determines cannabis as cause of obesity and cigarette smoking, which are the actual causes of heart attacks.

          Although the cannabis smokers were younger on average than non-smokers, they were more likely to be obese and smoke cigarettes—two significant contributing factors to cardiovascular ill-health.

          The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law, a group that favors legalization, called the study’s numbers ”tiny” and pointed out that the increased risk from smoking a joint was equivalent to the risk of vigorous exercise for an average person, or of sex for a person with heart disease.

          Comment by Ethan Russo, MD on June 12, 2001

          Marijuana Heart Risk Insignificant says Expert
          Everytime they rear their pointed little heads!

          Cannabis and Longevity
          The Tree of Life…
          Gen.3 [22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

  16. claygooding says:

    U.S. General Complains That Marijuana Legalization Makes Latin American Officials Less Eager To Join The War On Drugs

    Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, Gen. John F. Kelly, who is in charge of the U.S. Southern Command, complained that marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington has made it harder to enlist Latin American countries in the war on drugs:

    “”We’ve been encouraging these countries to be in the drug fight for 25 years. The levels of violence that our drug problem has caused in many of these countries is just astronomical.
    And so when we talk about decriminalizing, the example I would give you is the two states that voted to decriminalize marijuana, or legalize marijuana.
    Most of the…countries I deal with were in utter disbelief that we would, in their opinion, be going in that direction, particularly after 25 years of encouraging them to fight our drug problem in their countries and, you know, in their littorals.
    So that’s kind of where they are on it. They’re very polite to me, but every now and again when they’re not so polite, the term hypocrite gets into the discussion. But frankly, the crime rate is so high in many of these countries and the fact that they see us turning away from the drug fight…
    They’re starting to chatter a lot about, “Well, why don’t we just step back and let it flow?””

    This is a military expert that thinks he is actually “fighting” a drug war with a couple of billion dollars budget against cartels that can buy the same hardware he can,,just 800 times as much.

    • primus says:

      (Big Eyes, Singsong voice) AAAAWWWWW Muffin!!!!

    • Duncan20903 says:


      Hey General Kelly, go get your copy of “The Art of War” (you do have a copy, right?) and see what Mr. Sun has to say about what to do when you’re getting your butt kicked by a far superior enemy. Here’s a clue: he doesn’t advise doubling down, and he most certainly doesn’t consider surrender unthinkable.

  17. Tony Aroma says:

    I always wonder about people that use the term, “drug free.” Do they really mean that? Do they know what the word “drug” actually means and what a society with no drugs would be like? I think it’d be a lot like prehistoric times, when the only options for treating diseases were natural remedies. I don’t think that’s what they mean.

    • darkcycle says:

      No, many of the “Natural Remedies” are effective, not placebos and therefore must contain some sort of active agent, or drug. No. A truly drug free world has never existed, nor would it be remotely possible. The people who throw around that idea aren’t smart enough to wrap their heads around what they are really saying when they open their mouths.

      • Windy says:

        I shared a meme on FB awhile back that asks this question:

        Why do they call it “alternative medicine” when it is the original medicine that humans have been using for thousands of years? Chemical medications were discovered about 100 years ago.

        I’m not certain the age of chemical medications is only 100 years old, but allopathic medicine is most certainly MUCH younger than naturopathic herbal medicine.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      I saw a school for sale in WV and seriously considered buying so that I could own a school free drug zone. But looking at the WV statute I wasn’t convinced that the fact that it had been closed would make any difference to WV authorities.

  18. The second part of C is correct: impairment is impairment. Of course there are different shades and levels – and I believe driving stoned is better than driving drunk. But I also believe any impaired individual, high or drunk, caught behind the wheel should be punished. The severity should be weighed against property loss and any human tragedy.

    We all know freedom comes with responsibility. It is our responsibility, and will be even more so when legalization is the law of the land, to honor that hard-fought freedom by minimizing our risk to others in the public square.

    • claygooding says:

      That would be OK as long as they don’t charge me with the accident when I was waiting on a stop sign to turn green and a drunk rear ends me without touching a brake.

    • Windy says:

      My libertarian philosophy tells me that arrests for impairment SHOULD NOT occur unless and until some kind of damage is done by the impaired person. Arrest should follow the actual crime (remember real crimes have real victims), not predate it. It’s only logical.

      • DdC says:

        As an apolitical, I agree. No victim no crime. Inebriation is not a positive piss taste either. Everyone should stop comparing nature’s cannabis to corporate human inventions like booze.

        There are impairment field tests the cops don’t like because they like busting stoners, or they like to test piss. Impairment could mean granny or grandpa going 35 in a 65 zone. Although still no actual crime with a victim just breaking the speed limit. Too many of these lets make it easier for cops to bust people laws. Makes cops look like weak kneed cry babies.

        Militarizing cops has made them lackey’s for the DA and DEA. Their original intent was to maintain peace and safety not making political points busting as many as they can. Victim or not. Just another circumvention of the Constitution for the sake of more jail cells. Again treating over prevention or cures. In health or crime or war its all to make profits treating misery they create. I’d call it Fascism.

        Non-invasive Impairment tests
        FIT 2000 non-invasive 30-second impairment test. “FIT 2000 is directly relevant to employers interested in high quality, exacting, detail work, as well as general safety and quality, without violating the privacy of the employee’

  19. Duncan20903 says:


    Lately whenever I have the misfortune of hearing or reading the most recent hogwash that Kev-Kev regurgitates I have a flashback to Ronald Reagan saying, “well there you go again.”

    Smoked pot safe? Supporters blowing smoke: Front Burner”

    This is a once in a lifetime opportunity and may end without notice so hurry over to the comments column under “Dr.” Sabets screed. We may never get this opportunity again.

    P.S. I think this column is either a re-run or “Dr.” Sabet plagiarizes himself.

    • darkcycle says:

      Something’s not kosher with that comments section, Duncan. I wrote this: Let me see if I get this straight….Medical Marijuana becoming a massive industry=Bad. Massive industry (Big Pharma) selling Medical Marijuana (as extracts, pills lotions and sprays)= Good. I must have missed the part where massive industry went from good to bad. Seems to me nearly eveyrthing I buy, use, or consume in any way is produced, packaged, transported and sold by one massive industry or another. Didn’t we make a decision that capitalism was good here in the U.S., or was I just mislead?

      Joe Camel left the advertising industry when Clinton was still President. Tobacco advertising was curtailed by regulating the tobacco industry. Not by throwing people in jail for possessing a cigarette.

      Tobacco causes lung cancer. Cannabis smoking does not: In fact, in 40 years of intensive study, smoked cannabis has yet to be conclusively linked to any negative health outcome. And it’s not because they haven’t been deliberately looking for it.

      Smoking cannabis is an effective and economical delivery method, but most medical patients vaporize. Thus eliminating any concern future generated by smoking. But it is nice of you to at least pretend to concern. You seem unconcerned when it comes to CURRENT suffering, though. That is telling.

      It refused to post it saying “comments with profanity cannot be posted”. Now, not only did I re-read that three times, I WROTE it.

      • allan says:

        you said “cannabis”

      • Artie says:

        darkcycle, you may have missed the fine print at the end of the comments section:

        “All comments are filtered for vulgar language, for web addresses and for e-mail addresses. Those will cause comments to generate an error message or not to post. …”

        Maybe it would be OK without the link (or with a cleverly disguised one).

        • Windy says:

          The way to get around the “no links” requirement is to do it like this “www dot whatever dot com”, this is how we did it in our local paper’s online comments before they switched to using FB to comment. Now using links is not banned.

        • darkcycle says:

          Yep…it didn’t likey my linky. I’m in.

      • Windy says:

        My comment over there:
        Sabet has financial interests in the “rehab” industry, has a religious objection to all intoxicants, and has political connections to the lying governmental anti-fun drugs agencies. Nothing he says about cannabis or any other drug has one iota of truth in it. No one in this whole world has a legitimate right to tell any adult what s/he may ingest for fun or health. Why? Because FREEDOM!

  20. allan says:

    OT… forgot to post my most recent humble offering the other day:

    Project SAM Stands No Chance Against Cannabis Legalization

    as always, comments are welcome, here or there.

  21. thelbert says:

    i think backtalk from the hoi polloi qualifies as profanity to the upper strata.

  22. mr Ikasheeni says:

    Browsing through Steal this urine test, I read that 10 lbs. of weed is not a lot of weed. Is a mitigator for another POW south of the St Laurence, whenever we stop making mice of men (gender neutral) I thought NY was a decrim state.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I heard a radio ad for this the other day. While driving my parents high.

Comments are closed.