Re: At What Age Would You Let Your Kids Take Dope?

PXHXZ@CADENCE.COM (PETE NOSPAM ZAKEL) 2005-08-10 11:55:34

In article <42f9e826.4047890@news-60.giganews.com> windswept@home.net (Way Back Jack) writes:

>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:55:55 -0500, Peter H. Proctor
> wrote:
>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:28:02 GMT, humpin@yomommas.com (Way Back Jack)
>>wrote:

>>>>I definitely know the second one is not true. The first probably isn't
>>>>either.

>>>It was reported that pot was responsible for both.

>> It may have been reported that the post-accident urine drug
>>screen was positive for cannabis metabolites. This does not mean pot
>>caused either accident.

>Sounds like a smoking gun to me.

Not at all. Had he had chocolate stains on his shirt, would you have claimed
the accident was caused by a Hershey bar?

Note that this person had drinking problems. *That* is more of a smoking gun.
Plus certain safety devices were not working, another smoking gun.

By your standards, had he been dead drunk but had smoked a joint a week ago,
it must be the marijuana.

-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)

Reporter, n.:
A writer who guesses his way to the truth and dispels it with a
tempest of words.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"