Re: virus: Pot
Fri, 20 Dec 96 11:32:31 GMT

XYZ wrote:

> > From:
> > > How many people have gone to a fast food restaurant, pulled out of
> > > it after eating and had an accident?
> >
> > That's irrelevant. That is the natural hazard of going on the road, no
> > matter what the location of the crash. These people have not been
> > affected by drugs, but people crash even when they're completely in
> > control of themselves.
> It is relevant.

I beg to differ

> They are both generalizations and not facts.

Wrong. You have said that more than one person has had an accident
following visiting a fast food restaurant. You have then denied that
if one person has had an accident coming out of a fast food restaurant,
it does not mean that someone else has. If you imagine the quantity
of people who visit fast food restaurants (which are usually situated
on main roads), and the quantity of fast food restuarants, then it
is more than likely that there is an accident ever day or two, the
world over, if not more. What I am saying is that you have equal risk
of having an accident, though, pulling out of, say, a petrol station,
or your own driveway. The fact that you're pulling out of a fast food
restaurant has no bearing on the probability of you having an
accident. Whereas, if you're high on pot, there is an increased probability,
compared to all other road users, that you're going to have an accident.
This increase in probablity makes you more unsafe than everyone else.
And "yes" is is dangerous on the roads, but there's no point making
it worse, is there?

> > > I have seen quite a few.
> > Perhaps you're jinxed :)
> Perhaps you are when it comes to pot?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't smoke pot any more (although I
am going to indulge on New Years Eve).

> > > By your
> > > logic, that is proof that driving to and from fast food restaurants can
> > > cause accidents...
> > My logic concludes no such thing. It concludes that if one person has
> > had a crash due to being on cannabis, then there must be others, as it
> > is extremely unlikely that they are a one off. You have merely reinforced my
> > argument by showing that there is more than one person who has crashed whilst
> > pulling out of a fast food resaurant.
> That is not logical.

See above and see if that helps you understand what I'm getting at.

> One example does not mean many.

Again, due to the quantities of possible opportunities for accidents,
there is the absolute probability that more than one person has had an
accident whilst on dope.

Here's a little, non-complex, probability explanation of it:

There are 56 million poeple living in England. For simplicity, lets say this
implies that there are 20,000,000 families in England. Each family has 2 cars,
approximately, meaning that there are 40,000,000 cars on Britains roads.
How many fast food outlest are there in England that are accessable by car?
In a 10 mile square of where I live, I can come up with about 10. Taking the
density, therefore, of drive in fast food restaurants to be 10 for every
100 square miles, then how many are there in England? England is approximately
500 miles North to South, and 300 miles East to West. I know that this is
not accurate, but I'm approximating as close as possible. This gives
England an area of 150,000 square miles. Therefore, there are an estimated
15,000 drive in fast food places (I have discounted all with no access for
cars). If we are to assume that these are drive ins because they are fairly
central, with a good intake of customers, then we can divide the number
or cars between the restaurants. That would mean that there are 2500
different cars using each restaurant. So how often does each car use the
restaurant? I would guess that people use them most when out with thier
friends, or on journeys. I would, therefore place an average value of about
once a week, as some people may use it every day, and others may use it
only once a month. If each car uses the restuarant once a week, then at
any one time (given that each car spends about 15 minutes at the restaurant)
then there should be approximately 4 cars. This means that every 3-4 minutes
there is a car pulling out of each fast food resuarant in the country. This
would mean there are 15,000 cars pulling onto main roads from fast food
retarants, every 3-4 minutes. And along each of those main roads there are
lots of cars travelling at 60 mph (if they're bothering to stick to the
speed limint). The probability, therefore, of a crash happening is
the probability of a car pulling out of a fast food restaurant, coupled
with the probability of a car being in the position to hit it, coupled
with the probability that they don't see eachother. So the probability of
a car pulling out of the restuarant is approximately 1/4 x 3/4 = 3/16
and the probability of another car coming past we shall assume to be one
car per minute (another guestimate), meaning that the probability is
1/15 (these are all relative to the 15 minute time span to which I have
reduced this). Finally (at last, I hear you sigh) the probability of the
first driver not looking properly will have to be guessed at again. I
shoud imagine that this probability would be somewhere around the 1/100.
Therefore the probability of crashing outside a fast food restaurant is
3/16 x 1/15 x 1/100 = 1.25 E-4 = 0.000125. That means that 1 in 8000 cars
should crash outside a fast food chain. If we, therefore, using my previous
logic, that this is the same as the probability of crashing anywhere, then
going on the road gives you a chance of crashing of 1/8000.

If the driver has taken drugs, then this number is reduced even further, therefore
it logically follows that there *must* have been more than one accident due
to smoking pot.

> > > What makes you really think that person had
> > > an accident because they were on pot and not some other reason?
> >
> > It's a proven fact that people drive worse on alcohol, and that impairs
> > the judgement and reaction time, and is the cause of many accidents.
> > I shall refrain from saying that pot does it in the same way, but the
> > general effect is similar - reduced reaction time, lower awareness to
> > surroundings etc...
> No such scientifically verfied test has ever shown that. That is a meme
> intended to mislead you.

If you'd ever smoked pot, you'd realise that it *does* impare reaction
time. Anyone out there who has tried pot will varify that it vastly
reduces the speed at which you do things.

> > > The fact that only one person has had this problem only indicates that
> > > it is one person's problem and not every pot smoker's problem.
> > Fair enough, but some people drive OK when they're pissed. That doesn't
> > mean that the law doesn't include them when they drink drive. IF there is
> > *any* possibility that the driver may cause danger on the roads
> > due to chemicals they've taken, then it should be illegal to drive under
> > the influence.
> But since pot doesn't cause danger on the roads anymore than
> being angry does. If that were the case, 99% of the people shouldn't
> be on the road because they can't be courteous drivers and being
> un-courteous is dangerous.

As I said, there's no point letting it become any worse than it already

> > > >But it
> > > > doesn't impare your abilities on the road for a start.
> > >
> > > And neither does pot.
> >
> > I'm arguing rationally (I hope :) that it does, if you intend to counter
> > it, then please back your argument up.
> there is no evidence to back up the claim that pot impares
> the abilities of drivers. Until there is, it would be wishful thinking
> to say that it does.

I think you're wrong.

Richard Jones
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."