“The 22 Rules That Flip the Script With Women… And How You Can Use Them Tonight”

Most guys accidentally kill attraction before they even speak. They assume they need a bigger bank account, a better physique, or smoother lines. They miss the point.

Female desire operates on a specific set of psychological triggers.  Break them, and you're invisible. Follow them, and you become magnetic.

I learned this the hard way. Years of freezing up. Getting friend-zoned. Watching other guys walk away with the girl I wanted. Then I discovered a set of 22 simple rules that rewired my entire approach.

Read more...

Drugged driving: Will marijuana unleash devils on the roads?

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
175
Like it or not, legalization of marijuana is inevitable. There is a generational gap between people born before 1960 and afterwards, and the prohibitionist “Reefer Madness” generation has begun to die off. A fresh Gallup poll found a record “high” 50% nationwide support, with increased support from every demographic, from west to east, young and old, liberal to conservative, guys to girls. While polls will always disagree over exact numbers, Gallup is the landmark because they’ve been asking the question for the longest and most consistently. As the elderly croak, the national average has been shifting by around two percent every year for the past six years, except this year—by four percent, and support may ultimately reach 60 percent or higher. In this essay, I'm going to address one legitimate concern which people commonly have against legalization: drugged driving.

Right off the bat, I need to clarify I’m not advocating for driving impaired. But I do argue there is not much of a public safety concern, less than someone having one or two drinks at a restaurant dinner or home dinner party, which is three to four times more dangerous than smoking lucky pot at a potluck. Beer makes you delusional, Mary Jane makes you conscientious. As opposed to alcohol which causes you to drive faster and recklessly without abandon, weed causes you to drive slower and more cautiously. As opposed to alcohol which makes you think “I’m okay to drive,” marijuana makes you wait until it's true.
While it is well established that alcohol consumption increases accident risk, evidence of marijuana's culpability in on-road driving accidents and injury is far less clear. Although acute cannabis intoxication following inhalation has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment is seldom severe or long lasting. (By contrast, virtually no published research exists assessing the oral ingestion of cannabis edibles on psychomotor performance). In closed course and driving simulator studies, marijuana's acute effects on psychomotor performance include minor impairments in tracking (eye movement control) and reaction time (break latency), as well as variation in lateral positioning (weaving), headway (drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them), and speed (drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation). Notably, these impairments in performance are more likely to be manifested in driver simulator tests than in assessments of actual on-road behavior, where changes in performance are consistently nominal.
nominal = minimal
In general, cannabis-induced variations in driving behavior, when present, are less consistent or pronounced than the impairments exhibited by subjects under the influence of alcohol. Unlike subjects impaired by alcohol, individuals under the influence of cannabis tend to be aware of their impairment and try to compensate for it accordingly, either by driving more cautiously or by expressing an unwillingness to drive altogether. Further, numerous studies report that experienced cannabis users develop tolerance to many of the changes in cognitive or psychomotor performance associated with acute cannabis intoxication.

…A 2007 case-control study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health reviewed 10-years of US auto-fatality data. Investigators found that US drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% – a level well below the legal limit for intoxication – were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana. A 2005 review of auto accident fatality data from France reported similar results, finding that drivers who tested positive for any amount of alcohol had a four times greater risk of having a fatal accident than did drivers who tested positive for marijuana in their blood. In the latter study, even drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for higher concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml). Both studies noted that overall few traffic accidents appeared to be attributed to driver's operating a vehicle while impaired by cannabis (source).
There are no real accident statistics available for marijuana because it remains detectable in blood for upwards of seven days, long after a driver has reached sobriety. An article in the Los Angeles Times notes:
The most recent assessment by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], based on random roadside checks, found that 16.3% of all drivers nationwide at night were on various legal and illegal impairing drugs, half them high on marijuana. In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers, according to [California Highway Patrol] data, and law enforcement puts much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009 (source).
Yet, law enforcement cannot place “much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana” for those accidents; medical marijuana is simply more prevalent. Those drivers were not “high” because as the NHTSA noted in 2007, “It should be emphasized that this is a prevalence study, and not a study that addresses the risk that may be presented by drug use among drivers. For many drug types, drug presence can be detected long after any impairment that might affect driving has passed” (source). A 1993 study by the NHTSA concluded, “THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses. It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual’s ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in real driving.”(source). According to the Drug Policy Alliance, “Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well” (source), showing how it’s alcohol to blame. As Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, correctly argues, “If we as a society are really concerned about this then we will have impairment testing that looks for the impairment of the driver, whether that’s caused by marijuana use, whether they’re hungover, whether they’re taking too many pharmaceuticals, whether they’re sleep deficient… so impairment testing is the solution, drug testing is not. To deal with the accusation there will be more stoned drivers on the road after marijuana is legalized is missing the larger point, that already today there are thousands upon thousands of people who drive cars who the government could make the argument is impaired” (source).

In conclusion, nobody wants more dangerous roads and the roads are dangerous enough, but marijuana does not pose a great risk to public safety. Since marijuana prohibition arguably drives many people to choose to drink to have a good time, it's arguable that legalization actually may make the roads safer—less drinkers, less alcoholics, less traffic fatalities; marijuana is a proven “exit drug” away from alcohol (source). As Allen St. Pierre once reminisced, “In the twenty years I’ve worked at NORML and convening dozens of major pro-reform conferences, fundraising parties and events I’ve watched bar managers, restaurant owners and hotel catering managers from coast-to-coast do major double and triple takes on our alcohol consumption bills, insisting that there must be some kind of billing error. When, in fact, if 500 cannabis consumers are attending a NORML soiree, we as a group consume 50%-75% less alcohol than similar size events.”
 

“The 22 Rules That Turned Me From Invisible to Irresistible With Women… Starting Tonight”

You can skip the expensive cars, the fancy clothes, and the endless gym selfies. Completely unnecessary.

I used to freeze the second a beautiful woman looked my way. Frustrated. Awkward. Watching other guys walk away with the girl while I stood there tongue-tied.

Then I discovered 22 simple rules that rewired my entire dating life. The anxiety vanished. Conversations flowed effortlessly. Women started chasing me for a change.

These rules trigger a woman's subconscious attraction switches. And you can start using them tonight.

Read more...

backbreaker

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
11,546
Reaction score
572
Location
monrovia, CA
i have driven a car after.. hell while smoking 8 balls of crack cocaine before.. sometimes at the same time lol with the knee driving while i'm hitting the pipe (in a previous life of course) and it's safer than driving drunk, and i'm not bull****ting whatsoever. I might drive a little slow lol, but i was going to get where i was going to go.

anyone who pitches a ***** about marijuana crazed drivers are seriously barking up the wrong tree
 

Julius_Seizeher

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
76
Location
Midwest
Here's my take on the so-called "drug war".

Bear in mind, I am a Libertarian, which is usually considered to be far-right. But what Libertarianism is, in its essence, is dedication to the supremely inviolate principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility (the two are inseperable).

The drug laws are immoral and frankly unconstitutional because they violate the rights of all individuals, not just those who choose to abuse drugs. Do I support drug legalization because I want to do drugs? Hell no. But you should have every right to, if you so choose. I also deny the notion that making drugs legal would have everybody high on drugs; quite the contrary, I think it is for the very reason that drugs are illegal that people want to try them in the first place. Drugs are a symbol of rebellion, so steal their thunder; make drugs legal, and people will have no rebellious "street cred" to gain from abusing drugs.

Under a rule of law that bans the use or sale of drugs, it is a trespass to arrest a man for using or selling drugs. But it is an even greater trespass against the man who does not mess with drugs--because he is the one who pays more taxes to fund prisons for aholes who do drugs. There should be no state-sponsored jail time or state-sponsored rehab for drug abusers--why should I be robbed to pay for someone else's drug habit? To make drugs illegal is the same, in essence, as trying to outlaw suicide. Would you attempt to pass that into law? As an aside, they did just that in the USSR--suicide was made illegal, by punishment of death. With regards to crime, it is the drug laws that create all the crime associated with drugs; we do not have cartels murdering each other to smuggle beer over the border.

You see, there is no way for one individual's rights to be abrogated without attacking the rights of every individual. And it is only to individuals that rights can be guaranteed, not groups or sects. Is it any wonder that our legal system has never achieved the "social equilibrium" that it's professionals claim to seek? When you propose to tax or mitigate the rights of one group against another, the law then becomes a club that rival gangs fight to possess to bash each other with. Such is the fate of every democracy. Luckily, this is a constitutional Republic, where we are supposed to have guaranteed, inalienable rights protected from public whim by the rule of law, the US Constitution.

My generation needs to learn the lessons (right in front of our faces) of our elders' generations and stop the tribal warfare that our courtrooms have come to sanction. No rights can be guaranteed to any one group, sex, race, whatever--it is only to all individuals that a collection of rights can be guaranteed.
 

Aboleo

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
445
Reaction score
7
Location
Texas.
i don't think it will ever be legal. Atleast not here where i live among the bible thumpers. It's dumb law, but most of them are. Besides, it doesnt really have any negative side effects like cigarettes or alcohol. It makes you feel relaxed and happy, and makes people horny (Always a plus in my book, but to each his own)... With as much population as we have, i'm sure the government would rather people just died of lung cancer and/or liver falure than to lay around ****ing all the time.
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
175
Aboleo:
I don't think it will ever be legal. At least not here where I live among the bible thumpers.
When I started smoking weed, six years ago, at the relatively late age of 25 (I'm a late bloomer with everything in life), the prevailing attitude among stoners was legalization is a pipe dream, that it will never be legal. But much has changed in the landscape of public opinion in just six years.

There are 26 states which allow citizen-based ballot initiatives (see map), of which two are in the south, and you're right that your state of Texas sadly doesn't. Since many politicians privately support legalization but find it political suicide to come out of the closet, it is the strategy of reformers like NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance to focus on those 26 states (of which two only allow constitutional initiatives). The idea is once one state legalizes it and survives the inevitable court challenge, it will be open season for the other 25 with initiatives; and once legalization sweeps through many of those states, legislatures in the remaining 24 closed states may be more inclined to repeal their own laws. The federal government will be the last to hitch a ride on the reform wagon. How fast this will happen is anyone's guess.

As to the inevitable question of federal preemption, federal criminal law doesn't trump state law. The federal government and states have separate law enforcement resources and, surprisingly enough, states have no obligation to enforce federal laws. The key to winning the court challenge is to not require anyone to break federal law. As explained by Allen Hopper of the ACLU of Northern California,
Unlike the field of immigration law enforcement, Congress did not choose to fully occupy the field of drug law enforcement. Instead, as with many other areas of law, Congress specifically allowed the states wide latitude to legislate. Why? Perhaps Congress thought it best to allow a significant role for the states because criminal drug laws had historically been the purview of the states. Also, occupying the field of drug law enforcement would require immense federal resources. The federal government undertakes only a tiny percentage of all drug arrests. Over 95 percent of all marijuana arrests are made by state and local law enforcement, not federal agents.

So, Congress included in the [Controlled Substance Act] an express anti-preemption clause. Preemption of state drug laws is explicitly limited to the narrow set of circumstances where there is a "positive conflict" between states and federal law "so that the the two cannot consistently stand together." (21 U.S.C. Section 903). Federal courts have said this language creates a very limited type of preemption, applying only to situations where state law requires action that violates federal law. For instance, if California's medical marijuana law required pharmacies to stock marijuana and sell it to qualified patients, the state law would require those pharmacies to violate federal law. That state would be be preempted. But a change in California law to remove state criminal penalties for adult possession, cultivation and even licensed distribution of marijuana would not require anyone to do anything in violation of federal law. There would be no positive conflict.

The most obvious analogy is to state medical marijuana laws in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The federal government has never challenged any of those state medical marijuana laws as preempted by the CSA under the Supremacy Clause. California appellate courts have considered, and soundly rejected, federal preemption arguments raised by local officials in Garden Grove and San Diego opposed to medical marijuana laws. The California and US Supreme Courts let those courts of appeal decisions stand (source).
It'll be de facto legal. The DEA and FBI can storm, raid, and arrest all they want, but they have limited resources; it'll be like trying to catch all the rain from a hurricane in a small bucket.
 
Top