# Not Zach's Fault!



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

It's the media! They hate the Blazers. They would do anything to make them look bad. They've just been itching to write another negative story about the team. No, no, wait! It's the cop! He's a racist. He probably hates black basketball players, and can't wait to stop them at 2 in the morning when they're weaving all over the road. In fact, he's the product of a racist society that is just dying to pull a black man down. Zach is a victim in all of this. Some evil white cop or journalist probably planted a reefer in his glove compartment and when Zach went to get a roadmap, there it was! What could he do? He had to smoke it. It was entrapment, pure and simple. No, wait a minute! Hold everything! It wasn't the cop--it was Jerome Kersey. Yeah, that's the ticket. Kersey isn't doing his job teaching the players how to behave. If he was, Zach never would have gotten into this mess in the first place. Poor Zach. Too bad he's not playing for an organization that really cares for him and looks out for his best interests. I think we should all write a letter to Steve Patterson and tell him how disappointed we are in his efforts.

But no matter how you slice it, Zach is not to blame. The truth has dawned upon my soul like the dazzling light of a bright new morning.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I agree, this team is being picked on by everyone. Other people smoke weed, so why cant Zack do it, and drive all over the road with no licence or insurance? Ill tell you why, the racist white man who wants to keep a brother down, thats why. I bet they would even try to convict the guy with murder if he ran over someone that night.

Damn racists.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> It's the media! They hate the Blazers. They would do anything to make them look bad. They've just been itching to write another negative story about the team. No, no, wait! It's the cop! He's a racist. He probably hates black basketball players, and can't wait to stop them at 2 in the morning when they're weaving all over the road. In fact, he's the product of a racist society that is just dying to pull a black man down. Zach is a victim in all of this. Some evil white cop or journalist probably planted a reefer in his glove compartment and when Zach went to get a roadmap, there it was! What could he do? He had to smoke it. It was entrapment, pure and simple. No, wait a minute! Hold everything! It wasn't the cop--it was Jerome Kersey. Yeah, that's the ticket. Kersey isn't doing his job teaching the players how to behave. If he was, Zach never would have gotten into this mess in the first place. Poor Zach. Too bad he's not playing for an organization that really cares for him and looks out for his best interests. I think we should all write a letter to Steve Patterson and tell him how disappointed we are in his efforts.
> 
> But no matter how you slice it, Zach is not to blame. The truth has dawned upon my soul like the dazzling light of a bright new morning.


hm..for once I almost want to agree with all of what you said...

If Zach is guilty, it's Zach's fault, no one elses.

If he's not, and it's wrong place, wrong time, then well, we'll see what goes from there.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Welcome to Melodrama 101.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The whole point of this thread is kinda lost on me... it's beating a dead horse.

If I were to start a thread (labeled OT, of course) that Hitler were a bad guy because of some of the stuff he did, I'd be right, but it wouldn't make my point any more effective or entertaining if I couched it in heavy sarcasm.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

no its cracker night in P-town. That's the night that all the cracker cops get in their cracker cop cars and crack down on poor downtrodden Blazers who are minding their own business just tokin' a little chronic not hurtin anyone.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> The whole point of this thread is kinda lost on me... it's beating a dead horse.
> 
> If I were to start a thread (labeled OT, of course) that Hitler were a bad guy because of some of the stuff he did, I'd be right, but it wouldn't make my point any more effective or entertaining if I couched it in heavy sarcasm.
> ...



you're not funny though, so who cares?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> no its cracker night in P-town. That's the night that all the cracker cops get in their cracker cop cars and crack down on poor downtrodden Blazers who are minding their own business just tokin' a little chronic not hurtin anyone.


:laugh:


----------



## marshall (Jun 18, 2003)

> you're not funny though, so who cares?




Actually Ed is very funny and I think has the best opinions on this board. You on the other hand arent very funny and I actually wish you would post on another board where you might know what you are talking about.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> you're not funny though, so who cares?


From a dry wit who seems to consider multiple uses of the word "cracker" in a sentence clever, I'll take that as a compliment.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> From a dry wit who seems to consider multiple uses of the word "cracker" in a sentence clever, I'll take that as a compliment.
> ...



yeah you're hitler smack had me rollin!

:sigh:


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>marshall</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



who cares what you think rookie?


here's a quarter, call someone that gives a crap.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> here's a quarter, call someone that gives a crap.


Now that's funny! (I'm still laughing)


----------



## marshall (Jun 18, 2003)

Rookie. As in I am new to this board (no), maybe this will get my post number up. Having to get in an argument because some guy thinks he funny and says cracker alot. But that was another clever comment by you....Tommy


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll toss in another quarter since they raised the damn price of Phone calls to $.50.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I think it was funny. Some of you blazer fans need to get real. Zach is just the latest blazer to screw up big time. You could continue to shrug it off as if it were no big deal and keep your "Everyones against us/Not our fault" mentality, or you could open your eyes and see you have one of the worst assortment of players attitude wise in recent history, if not the worst ever. Something needs to be done.


----------



## marshall (Jun 18, 2003)

And nice use of a saying that my mom and dad use. Heres a quarter, pay phones are 35 cents or 50 cents...Maybe a quarter and a dime, or a quarter and 2 nickels, maybe even 2 WHOLE QUARTERS!!!!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> I think it was funny. Some of you blazer fans need to get real. Zach is just the latest blazer to screw up big time. You could continue to shrug it off as if it were no big deal and keep your "Everyones against us/Not our fault" mentality, or you could open your eyes and see you have one of the worst assortment of players attitude wise in recent history, if not the worst ever. Something needs to be done.


Why do you care one way or the other?

Other than deigning to teach us about what we should want from our team, I don't know what you are saying.

And why should we think that you're right? Why do your pearls of wisdom have greater value than those of us who watch every Blazers game, read every Blazers article, and post on this Blazers board every day?

At least Talkhard and Tommyboy have something invested in the team. When they are negative I think we all respect their views to a greater or lesser extent because they are a part of this little community (and a part of the greater Blazers fan community) that's gone through ups and downs.

You, on the other hand, seem to post only when something has gone wrong and you can once again say, "Remember 9 months ago when I told you your team was a bunch of losers? I told you so!"

Now, granted, the Blazers tend to mess up enough almost enough to make the "I told-you-so-ers" almost regular contributors, but we get enough grief from our own fans as to whom we should root for and why that outsiders telling us to "get real" gets old real quick.

Ed O.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> Welcome to Melodrama 101.


Funny! :laugh:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> yeah you're hitler smack had me rollin!


For what it's worth I haven't cracked a smile in this whole thread, though I have cringed a bit at the personal attacks. I'm pretty sure that Hitler stuff was an example of something else that wouldn't be funny and unnecessary in making a point. 

STOMP


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Why do you care one way or the other?
> ...


I never claimed to know more than blazers fans, but is there some kind of world wide media conspiracy against the Blazers? Even to the extent where their own town would bash them more than praise them? The blazers are one of the teams I watch, and the team keeps twisting further and further down the drain. Saying that you should stay by your team is also getting old to the rest of us, your starting to look like parents who turn the other way when their kid is making plans to take a gun to school, and end up saying "I dont know what happened, we were good parents" after the school gets shot up.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> I never claimed to know more than blazers fans, but is there some kind of world wide media conspiracy against the Blazers? Even to the extent where their own town would bash them more than praise them? The blazers are one of the teams I watch, and the team keeps twisting further and further down the drain. Saying that you should stay by your team is also getting old to the rest of us, your starting to look like parents who turn the other way when their kid is making plans to take a gun to school, and end up saying "I dont know what happened, we were good parents" after the school gets shot up.


I'm sorry if I missed it, but where are the posters that are blaming the media in regards to this situation? 

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 
> I never claimed to know more than blazers fans, but is there some kind of world wide media conspiracy against the Blazers? Even to the extent where their own town would bash them more than praise them?


I don't know of anyone who thinks there is a "conspiracy". I think that many Blazers fans are sick of the negative coverage of the team, but that doesn't amount to a conspiracy. As STOMP said, I don't see anyone saying anything about the media in regards to the latest episode (meaning ZR, in case something new happens as I type this).



> The blazers are one of the teams I watch, and the team keeps twisting further and further down the drain. Saying that you should stay by your team is also getting old to the rest of us, your starting to look like parents who turn the other way when their kid is making plans to take a gun to school, and end up saying "I dont know what happened, we were good parents" after the school gets shot up.


Your analogy is weak in at least two respects:

-- the Blazers aren't hurting the NBA... their misadventures are like bug bites relative to the serious abrasion someone like Eddie Griffin are or the potential decapitation that Kobe could end up being.

-- fans aren't keepers of their team the same way that parents are keepers of their children. It's often said that teams must eventually answer to their fans, but with Paul Allen it's simply not true. He lost a reported $100m last year and if he decides that he's not going to do it again, the fans can stay away, he can be like Donald Sterling and he will come out ahead. If he chooses to stay the current course, attendance might decline a bit more but if the team wins the fans will be back in significant numbers.

Fans root for their teams for different reasons. If I choose to follow a team that's going further and further down the drain, then it's my choice, and I don't think that "wake up" arguments with no new insight or facts are really going to do anyone any good.

Ed O.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

This is not about hoops, it's about driving smashed or high and putting people at risk. Star treatment will go right out the window and people who defend the "all NBA players do it" will quickley care if it's their son, daughter, wife or loved one crunched under some idiot players 150K auto while he's bumping toons and getting stoned driving back home. 

These players make enough money to get a freaking taxi home.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 
> 
> I never claimed to know more than blazers fans, but is there some kind of world wide media conspiracy against the Blazers?


If you think the media don't twist things to better suit an interplay between good and evil, you need to pay more attention to how the media cover all sorts of stories, from international affairs to politics to sports.

No, it's not a conspiracy aimed directly at the Blazers. It's a tendency to characterize certain things as one way and then *only* reporting details that support that and ignoring details that don't support it.

In this case, the characterization is, "The Blazers are all that's wrong with sports." Now, that might be fine if it were their opinion, but it didn't impact what they report and what they didn't (i.e. they still reported fairly about the team). However, that characterization causes them to pick and choose what they report.

If the Blazers were leading the league (or in the top five) in team technical fouls, think it would be reported? I think it would spawn a "Blazers are bad for the NBA" story or two. So where's the reporting that the Blazers are in the *bottom five* for team technicals? Considering how bad the Blazers are supposed to be, you'd think *that* would be major news. But no mention.

A couple years ago, the Blazers were the only sports franchise ever to receive some national award for charitability, which is given to businesses that do the most to help others. Over the past decade, or something, the Blazers have employed the most receipiants of Sportsmanship awards (Steve Smith, Chris Dudley and someone else). Has that been reported, ever? Of course not. It would spoil their "Blazers are the bogey-man," stories.

If you think that's some kind of kooky conspiracy theory, you're entirely wrong. That's how the media works in every field, not just sports reporting. *That* sort of biased coverage is what Blazers fans find ridiculous and annoying. Not honest reporting of real wrong-doing committed by Blazers players.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> A couple years ago, the Blazers were the only sports franchise ever to receive some national award for charitability, which is given to businesses that do the most to help others. Over the past decade, or something, the Blazers have employed the most receipiants of Sportsmanship awards (Steve Smith, Chris Dudley and someone else). Has that been reported, ever? Of course not. It would spoil their "Blazers are the bogey-man," stories.


Brian Grant was the other one. And if you heard about it...doesn't that mean that it was reported somewhere? I personally remember a TON of articles about how Steve Smith donated 2 million to Michigan State and how Brian Grant liked to visit sick kids in the hospital and how Stoudamire donated $250,000 to Portland Public Schools and how Sheed does his coat drive and ornament drive every year and how the Blazers give away Christmas trees and serve food to the homeless at Thanksgiving and so on and so forth. That's what I can recall off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty more. 

True, some members of the media like to report what they want to report and downplay the stuff that doesn't fit the story. But you're guilty of the same thing in bashing the media. They do report the good things...it's just that with this current team, a lot of times there's more bad things to report than good.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Brian Grant was the other one. And if you heard about it...doesn't that mean that it was reported somewhere?


Er no, I meant reported nationally, sorry. I should have been clearer. Things of this nature, and all the examples you bring up, I've only read in things like the Oregonian. Not on ESPN's front page.



> But you're guilty of the same thing in bashing the media. They do report the good things...it's just that with this current team, a lot of times there's more bad things to report than good.


As I said, I meant the national media (as that's what counts, since that's 99.9999% of what the nation outside Portland sees).

And I disagree that I'm guilty of the same thing because I literally never see anything (*anything*...maybe I've missed something, but I can't recall even a single instance, outside of things about success *on* the court, like "Pippen is leading the team to victories") positive reported in the national media about the Blazers.

I'm not picking and choosing what I say about the media. I don't recall any instances of national reporting of off-court / behavioural positives about the Blazers.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Er no, I meant reported nationally, sorry. I should have been clearer. Things of this nature, and all the examples you bring up, I've mostly only read in things like the Oregonian. Not on ESPN's front page.
> 
> As I said, I meant the national media (as that's what counts, since that's 99.9999% of what the nation outside Portland sees).
> ...


Okay, fair enough. The national media doesn't really report much if anything positive about the Blazers. I'd definitely agree about that.

Negativity sells and when you're a small market like we are, there's no big risk in thrashing the horrible/evil players in podunk Portland. 

The last national media stuff I can recall being reported was the Steve Smith donation and a couple things about Brian Grant.

It's not right and it's not fair, but what can you expect when 80% of our (current) starting lineup has been busted for smoking weed? They're bringing it on themselves.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> If the Blazers were leading the league (or in the top five) in team technical fouls, think it would be reported? I think it would spawn a "Blazers are bad for the NBA" story or two. So where's the reporting that the Blazers are in the bottom five for team technicals? Considering how bad the Blazers are supposed to be, you'd think that would be major news. But no mention.


Are you kidding me? Why on earth would the national press write a story about Portland being in the bottom 5 for technical fouls when Wells is cursing the coach, Wallace is sleeping through practice, and Randolph is getting arrested? It wouldn't make much sense, now, would it? If the Blazers had truly cleaned up their act and were behaving on the court as well as off it, then THAT would be a story. But recent events just show that this Portland bunch is still dysfunctional. Maybe you can't measure it in T's anymore--just mug shots.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Are you kidding me? Why on earth would the national press write a story about Portland being in the bottom 5 for technical fouls ...


You can almost HEAR the point flying right over TH's head.

Ed O.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

there was weed in his car and he was under the influence. How is that not his fault


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> there was weed in his car and he was under the influence. How is that not his fault


Woah! The sound of that point flying over WCE's head sounded just like the sound the the point that flew over TH's head.

Ed O.
(apologies if you caught the incredibly over-the-top sarcasm of the original post and were responding in jest...)


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Woah! The sound of that point flying over WCE's head sounded just like the sound the the point that flew over TH's head.
> ...


 

im not good with sarcasm


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> You can almost HEAR the point flying right over TH's head.


I got his point, Ed O, I just disagree with it completely. It makes no sense. By the way, that sound you hear is the wind howling through the vast empty spaces in your head.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

need I remind people to not let these conversations get personal?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> I got his point, Ed O, I just disagree with it completely. It makes no sense.


Yup, fairness in reporting never makes sense, when the press can feed your dislike of the Blazers.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Get real people!!!! They get bad press because that's exactly what they've brought on themselves!!! 

(That whoosh you may be hearing is the sound of defenders of this behavior attempting to blow smoke up someone's arse)


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Get real people!!!! They get bad press because that's exactly what they've brought on themselves!!!
> 
> (That whoosh you may be hearing is the sound of defenders of this behavior attempting to blow smoke up someone's arse)



spoken like a true pro and I applaud you for it.


after having been through drug treatment myself and seen my sister, brother, father, uncle, and grandmother all go through treatment for various drug or alcohol addictions, and sitting through hundreds of AA and NA Anonymous meetings I can say with 100% certainty it never ceases to amaze me the way the human mind can justify poor behavior, whether its your own or someone elses that you admire.


in Zachs case, several excuses have been offered already ranging from race, racism, corrupt police, spiteful media and the idea that everyone else is doing it so its no biggie. 

the only person responsible for what Zach Randolph does is Zach Randolph. The buck stops with him.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Does everyone that defend Zach have to be labelled as "making excuses for him." IMO it's more a lack of a judgemental attitude towards him, like an adult waving a finger at a child. Why do that on a message board he doesn't even read? 

Zach harmed no one. He's a basketball player, a 22 year old and a flawed human. 

It's entertainment. The only standard I hold for Zach is to play hard like he has been and learn from his mistakes. Of course you don't want to cheer for a guy if he's a menace to society, but this incident doesn't prove that he is. 

I can't believe how much people have piled on Zach today. I can understand Damon and Sheed. Those guys are 30 years old and still doing stupid stuff. And Bonzi too because he is flat out getting worse on and off the court. But Zach??


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

Get real Goldmember. It's obviously not the media's fault for Zach's situation here. Take a chill pill or something and please don't go to the Blazer games and just sit there like a lump on a long...you know, crossed arms and a frown on your face.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> Zach harmed no one.
> 
> Of course you don't want to cheer for a guy if he's a menace to society, but this incident doesn't prove that he is.
> ...


Intoxicated drivers maim and kill innocent people every hour of every day. They are a terrible menace to our society. Zach was arrested for this. Damon, Sheed, and Bonzi have done some stupid stuff, but they have never faced charges on anything close to this serious as far as putting the general public at mortal risk. 

Of course Zach has had some other very serious missteps prior to this. Those are all about to be shown the light of day and turned over nationally again and again. I'm sure that many will look at his track record and take this incident as proof of what a menace to society he is. With all the warnings he's had from management ect. of what not to do, its unbelievable to me that this latest incident happened. I don't care if it's just a combo of youth and stupidity, he's going to be boo'd everywhere he plays (including Portland). IMO, he's earned it. 

STOMP


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> Get real Goldmember. It's obviously not the media's fault for Zach's situation here.


When did I say anything about the media? Please think before you post.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> When did I say anything about the media? Please think before you post.


I _think_ there was sarcasm brimming from antibody's post, but it was so heavy and/or random that I couldn't follow it, either.



Ed O.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Intoxicated drivers maim and kill innocent people every hour of every day. They are a terrible menace to our society. Zach was arrested for this. Damon, Sheed, and Bonzi have done some stupid stuff, but they have never faced charges on anything close to this serious as far as putting the general public at mortal risk.
> ...


You obviously have no clue as to what it's like driving under the influence of marijuana, because the influence marijuana has on your driving is nill. If anything, it makes you drive slower and more carefully. At 2 in the morning I seriously doubt Zach was putting anyone at risk any more than some nag talking on her cellphone in 5 o'clock traffic. If you want to call him a menace to society fine, I just hope no one puts such a microscope on you. If you want to hold it against Zach forever that's your porogative but I don't see the point of it.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i have a clue because I've done it.


you have no clue.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

And so have I.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> 
> You obviously have no clue as to what it's like driving under the influence of marijuana, because the influence marijuana has on your driving is nill. If anything, it makes you drive slower and more carefully.


That has to be *the* most uniformed thing I've ever ead on this forum. I'd link you some studies but I'm sure that would be a waste ofd time. :no:


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

What do studies show?


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

OK, let's try this.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol11N1/Marijuana.html

"Driving and marijuana do not mix; that's the bottom line," said Dr. Stephen J. Heishman, a research psychologist in the Clinical Pharmacology Branch of NIDA's Division of Intramural Research. Figures from previous studies of automobile accident victims show that from 6 to 12 percent of nonfatally injured drivers and 4 to 16 percent of fatally injured drivers had tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their bloodstream, Dr. Heishman said. One study showed that 32 percent of drivers in a shock trauma unit in Baltimore had marijuana in their bloodstream, he noted. However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving.

In a laboratory study at NIDA's Addiction Research Center in Baltimore that controlled for alcohol's confounding effect, Dr. Heishman tested marijuana's effects on the functional components of driving. Study subjects smoked a marijuana cigarette, waited 10 minutes, then smoked another cigarette. Both cigarettes contained either 0, 1.8, or 3.6 percent THC. Twenty minutes after smoking the cigarettes, the subjects were given a standard sobriety test similar to a roadside sobriety test. The test showed that marijuana significantly impaired their ability to stand on one leg for 30 seconds or touch their finger to their nose. As the dose of THC increased, the subjects swayed more, raised their arms, and had to put their feet down in an attempt to maintain their balance. Subjects also committed 2.5 times more errors when they attempted to touch their nose with their finger.

The data from these laboratory studies show that marijuana impairs balance and coordination - functional components important to driving - in a dose-related way, said Dr. Heishman. These effects may be related to reported marijuana-induced impairment of automobile driving, he stated.


My thought is that the biggest danger exist when the user feels safe driving under the influence of marijuana. The old alcohol or mj question about driving is ridiculous...why does it have to be either? I believe mj to be less dangerous...but nil is a major stretch.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> What do studies show?


Well, there goes your little nil debate out the window.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Yeah Delaying your reaction time, ability to focus and ability to process things really make you a more cautious driver. 

Btw if you are planning to head through Wilsonville, let me know in advance so I can make sure to not be on the road when you are around.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Here's a couple more.


http://www.estreet.com/orgs/dsi/Enforce/MarijuanaImpairsDriving.html


http://www.taima.org/en/driving.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer... -Alcohol Driving Study -- DOT HS 808 939.htm

this was interesting in the last one: "While the effects of THC alone in doses up to 200 :8/kg might be categorized as "moderate", they become "severe" when THC is combined with a moderate dose of alcohol. "


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Don't drive while impared. No excuses.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> this was interesting in the last one: "While the effects of THC alone in doses up to 200 :8/kg might be categorized as "moderate", they become "severe" when THC is combined with a moderate dose of alcohol. "


Is there evidence that Zach had been drinking?


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> OK, let's try this.
> However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving.


This line pretty much blows the whole thing out of the water as far as I'm concerned. 

Besides, in the 6-12 percent or whatever it was that tested positive it wasn't proven that marijuana was the reason the accident happen in the first place. Just because these wrecks happened doesn't mean they wouldn't have happened anyway if the person was completely sober. You don't have to be on something to get in a wreck. 



> Study subjects smoked a marijuana cigarette, waited 10 minutes, then smoked another cigarette. Both cigarettes contained either 0, 1.8, or 3.6 percent THC. Twenty minutes after smoking the cigarettes, the subjects were given a standard sobriety test similar to a roadside sobriety test. The test showed that marijuana significantly impaired their ability to stand on one leg for 30 seconds or touch their finger to their nose. As the dose of THC increased, the subjects swayed more, raised their arms, and had to put their feet down in an attempt to maintain their balance. Subjects also committed 2.5 times more errors when they attempted to touch their nose with their finger.


This is not a actual study on driving, just components that may effect driving. Still, no real proof here.



> I believe mj to be less dangerous...but nil is a major stretch.


Nil was probably a stretch on my part. It has nill effect on me I should say (so don't worry Schilly). But I can see that some people might not be able to handle it. 

Having said that, I'm not convinced at all that Zach was a danger to anyone at 2 am. At that time of night there's no traffic and no peds. I think you guys are overreacting. 

Back to that study, it proved nothing to me (although, I didn't read the others). What I've seen in my own personal life, (and I've known a lot of stoners) is that they are pretty much all more carefull drivers when they're high because they don't want to get pulled over. Weed makes you paranoid, and thus cautious. Alcohol on the other hand turns you into a different person entirely - a sloshy mess of nothing that is incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions at that time. Drunk drivers are a menace indeed, but stoners, nah! 

Play hard Zach.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

did anybody see channel 8 tonight? they reported now that Zach did have a valid License and also valid insurance they had wrong info and they were sorry about that.


Sorry if already posted.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> 
> This line pretty much blows the whole thing out of the water as far as I'm concerned.
> ...


Your right, it did not affect Zach, he was swerving on the road for fun. Also, if a test is conducted where they have smokes with 0%-. 1.8% or 3.6% THC then yes it was a valid marijuana vs. driving test. If you dont realise that then you are not educated. 
So I will explain it to you.

The people who smoked 0% had no MJ in them, and got in less accidents then the people who smoked 1.8-3.6%. How is that not previlant and clear. Please read next time before you write stuff like that off.

Its obvious that marijuana has an effect on driving, and its not a good one. 

Thanks for comming out though.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> What I've seen in my own personal life, (and I've known a lot of stoners) is that they are pretty much all more carefull drivers when they're high because they don't want to get pulled over. Weed makes you paranoid, and thus cautious.
> 
> Play hard Zach.


 So lets all drive stoned. There would be no more accidents right? Go smoke another blunt, because this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

If you dont want to hear the reality about smoking weed thats one thing, but dont bring in "first hand" BS like this. 
What a joke.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

goldmember, you're entire post is living breathing proof that weed negatively impacts brain function.


here's a suggestion. Quit smoking permanently. It obviously has created a dream world within which you live and you are in such denial about reality that you can't even acknowledge facts from fiction. In your dreamworld everyone drives around stoned like you no problem, just mindin' your own bidness not harmin no one. But in the REAL world when you get stoned it actually does affect your reaction, your judgement and your ability to handle a vehicle as safely as you otherwise would sober. Maybe not you, but 99.99999% of the rest of the world though. 

honestly, i hope you get a DUII and are forced into treatment and lose your license. Maybe you'll wake up then, but I doubt it.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> The people who smoked 0% had no MJ in them, and got in less accidents then the people who smoked 1.8-3.6%. How is that not previlant and clear. Please read next time before you write stuff like that off.


That's not what it said. It said that the people who had 1.8-3.6% of THC had a harder time with a field sobriety test, *not* that they got into more accidents. What you said is your own interpertation that I will not except as fact. 



> Its obvious that marijuana has an effect on driving, and its not a good one.


Maybe not. But in Zach's case, I doubt it. 



> Thanks for comming out though.


Just for the record, I don't make it a habit of rolling around stoned. I did when I was younger though and never had a problem. If anything, it made me a better driver in the long run.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Please Tommyboy, don't make it personal. You don't know me.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If it has nil effect on you, why would you bother doing it? Seems like a waste of time and money. :no:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> 
> That's not what it said. It said that the people who had 1.8-3.6% of THC had a harder time with a field sobriety test, *not* that they got into more accidents. What you said is your own interpertation that I will not except as fact.
> ...


Maybe you dont understand what a sobriety test is meant for. Are you saying sobriety has nothing to do with driving ability? Kudos for not wanting to make it personal, because neither do I, but I do think your a little off on this one. I smoked weed back in the day, and know it affected my judgement to the point where I could have killed behind the wheel.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

go hit the pipe with some chronic for about 30 minutes and 10 hits later then hop behind the wheel and head on down the road while you're seeing tracers and totally whacked out of your mind.

just mindin my own bidness, not hurtin anyone...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> 
> You obviously have no clue as to what it's like driving under the influence of marijuana, because the influence marijuana has on your driving is nill. If anything, it makes you drive slower and more carefully. At 2 in the morning I seriously doubt Zach was putting anyone at risk any more than some nag talking on her cellphone in 5 o'clock traffic. If you want to call him a menace to society fine, I just hope no one puts such a microscope on you. If you want to hold it against Zach forever that's your porogative but I don't see the point of it.


You ever think you didn't notice you were driving bad, because...YOU WERE STONED!

I don't want this to sound like an attack but that is some really damb crap to try to justify, you sound really dumb trying to justify it, especially with the clinical evidence that has been offered up. To disregard that amount of info is truely show your ignoranca and denial of the fact that you have jeopordized other people with your behavior.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Driving is clearly dangerous, even if you are serious, clear headed and totally sober. There is no sound excuse for making it more dangerous for others, as well as yourself, by adding intoxicants of any kind. Zach was doing something wrong. He should take responsibility for it, and I hope he is doing that.

Having said that, the degree of effect of any intoxicant on accidents is complex. For the stats sited, I did not see any controls for age. Younger drivers get in more accidents. Younger drivers also are more likely to have THC in their systems. Is the accident due to youth (poor judgement, lack of experience, etc) or the THC?? 

Also, I didn't catch any info (I was skimming, so maybe I missed it), but what sort of test for THC were they talking about. Since components of THC last so long in the body, the positive test may not indicate real time impairment.

Practically speaking, I do not doubt that THC impairs driving ability. I also do not doubt that cell phone use while driving, impairs driving ability. Zach was wrong. Talkhard was stirring the pot, as usual.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bwatcher</b>!
> 
> Practically speaking, I do not doubt that THC impairs driving ability. I also do not doubt that cell phone use while driving, impairs driving ability. Zach was wrong.


Exactly. Studies have found that drivers on cell phones are as impaired as drunk drivers, due to lack of concentration.

Basically, we have socially acceptable ways to be dangerous to others on the road (cell phone use) and socially unacceptable ways (drinking, drugs).

Zach was wrong, but I'd love to see either those who use cell phones while driving be raked over the you-could-have-killed-someone coals that Zach is, or for people who don't get angry at cell phone-using drivers to chill on Randolph.

Double standards are bad. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the people who express outrage at Randolph's exploits jeopardize others every day, talking on a cell phone while driving.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

No double standard here. I read a study a few years back here on driving here in the Bay Area. It found that three times as many fatal accidents had been caused by drivers who were using their cell phones then drivers who were found to have been impared by drugs and alcohol. This undoubtably reflects the vast amounts of people who use cells in the car as compared to those who get behind the wheel messed up, but nonetheless, paying as much attention as possible to whats going on around you while you're manuvering 2000 lbs at high speeds is a good idea IMO. When I'm entering an intersection on my bike or in my car, I look for those idiots babbling away to their hand because I've seen so many stupid actions on their part. One of those idiots nearly killed me running a stop sign and set me on my couch for 6 months. 

I've got a cell. When I'm in my car and I need to make or take a call, I pull over. I support any and all legislation to make talking on cells illegal while driving. I also support strengthening laws in regards to driving impaired. I'm for lowering the limit on whats termed a "drunk driver" and for stiffer penalties for those over the line. It may interest Gold, Sambonis, and others who drive while impaired to know that if you are unfortunate enough to be involved (not necessarily at fault) in a fatal accident (God forbid), you will be piss tested by the police. If the tests come back positive, you will face much stiffer penalties financially and legally. 

STOMP


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

it s h aard 4 me 2 ty pe this msg az i driv my tr uc & talk on my
ce ll ph one at t he sa me time.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Give yourself bonus points if you're also balancing not spilling your beer on your laptop too Tb  

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

To clarify, I wasn't trying to imply that *everyone* criticizing Randolph was guilty of a double-standard.

Just those who criticize him harshly and either do the same thing with a cell phone or see no problem with those who do so.

I wouldn't venture to guess how many are in that boat. Just that I wouldn't be surprised if some were.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> Give yourself bonus points if you're also balancing not spilling your beer on your laptop too Tb
> 
> STOMP



i d ont dr ink anym ore but i wz smo kin a cigg & eat ing a burg er too.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> i d ont dr ink anym ore but i wz smo kin a cigg & eat ing a burg er too.


It's a wonder you get your lipstick on cleanly.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> You obviously have no clue as to what it's like driving under the influence of marijuana, because the influence marijuana has on your driving is nill.


Pretty amazing insights you have here. Even if you were right that I don't have a good idea of what smoking pot is like, you are projecting that everyone experiences the same lucid and careful state as you each and every time you toke out behind the wheel. It's a medical fact that drugs effect people differently which undoubtably extends to pot as well. 

Please pay as much attention as possible whenever you are driving. As someone else pointed out earlier, driving is dangerous. Health and life itself are a fragile state which can be lost in a moment. Thanks

STOMP


----------

