Indeed which is why marijuana legalization has stronger public support than any of the presidential candidates and why when whitehouse.gov petitions started it was the top voted issue several times in a row.
Drunks are pretty easy to spot. We've all seen them drifting out of their lane. Distracted drivers do the same. Either is a solid case for a reckless driving ticket which is why I suggest going that route.
People might not know they are in a condition where their reactions are temporarily impaired such as after a grueling test. If you can't avoid the situation it seems a bit unfair to punish for it on the road. Reaction times I think are better assessed as a requirement to get and/or renew your license. The symptoms of impaired reaction times I'd think would be fair game for reckless driving though.
Those sources actually cover reaction time. Many of those studies show some impact from being heavily intoxicated on marijuana to reaction time but that drivers using marijuana unlike alcohol users are able to perceive their exact level of impairment and are accounting for it allowing more space between vehicles, wider turns, slower speeds, etc similar to an experienced driver encountering slippery road conditions. These defensive driving strategies allow for more time to react to surprises. More than that though, as someone who as a teenager drove under the influence a few times I suspect no small part of it is what is difficult to assess. Specifically that people under the influence of marijuana may be impaired but they are actually pay far more attention than your non-impaired driver. When you are constantly assessing your speed, checking your mirrors, etc the attentiveness means you spot potential issues sooner and have more time to defensively position to avoid problems.
We can speculate all day but the bottom line is that there is no statistically significant increase in accidents and injuries as a result of being under the influence of marijuana in any study looking for the same without begging the question.
Since the carcinogens are believed to be the products of combustion and the anti-carcinogens are not, it is plausible. I don't know of any research on it though.
Marijuana is after all schedule I with no medicinal value and more heavily restricted for research than any other schedule I substance. It is far more evil than heroin and cocaine which are prescribed medicinally.
Oh, does the truth expire? Being old is relevant for anti-marijuana studies because of DEA restriction and biased data produced during prohibition. I don't see how marijuana could have a greater impact on driving impairment from one day to the next.
“Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”
REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation.... 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 Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.
“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
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 evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”
REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.
“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.
There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”
REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.
“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.
… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”
REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.
DUI is a victimless crime. If only there were a charge that could replace it wherein the officer could charge people for driving like shit... oh wait, there is, it's called reckless driving. Accidents aren't always a victimless crime and manslaughter isn't a victimless crime but those are also already illegal whether under the influence or not.
Marijuana being legalized is already shown to reduce road fatalities:
How about the old fashioned way, we punish people for reckless driving and accidents. The officer can ticket for reckless driving at his discretion already. If your driving isn't showing impairment you aren't too intoxicated to drive. If your driving is showing impairment it really doesn't matter why, you need to be taken off the road.
There is also reason to believe that the NHS studies showing impairment as a result of marijuana are flawed and either overstated or outright incorrect. There is also evidence that despite the presence of carcinogens in the smoke there is are also anti-carcinogens in marijuana smoke and over a long term no increased incidence of cancer. The long term mental impairment has also been debunked.
But you won't find government sources for those of any kind because the DEA controls the only source of legal marijuana research cannabis and does not permit studies which are not negatively biased.
Yes that is what he is saying, as well as the article. Another article just came out showing that while the reports of thc being in the systems of users involved in road fatalities is up in states that have legalized road fatalities in those states have dropped dramatically alongside legalization. Part of the believed underlying reason is this very thing, the test does not establish if they are intoxicated and that many of those drivers prove to have very high blood alcohol levels at the time of the accidents proving they are definitely drunk.
Of course people will do stupid things. The question is at what point does it stop being necessary to per-emptively punish them when they aren't actually causing a problem.
Someone going 35 in a 55 with no hazards on can be ticketed by a police officer for reckless driving whether they are drunk, stoned, or sober. Given that road fatalities have dropped dramatically in states where marijuana is legalized is it really needed to catch people at checkpoints who aren't actually driving in an impaired fashion?
The statistics are in, there has been a massive reduction in road fatalities in Colorado since legalizing marijuana. There is a massive hype because it is more common for there to be thc in the system of someone involved but the test indicates whether someone used marijuana within the last 30 days not whether or not they are intoxicated now.
The summary indicates AAA suggests a combination of behavioral and psychological tests. I suggest simply looking for signs of reckless driving and ticketing anyone engaging in reckless driving without regard for the underlying cause.
I know the feel. Really, I think we've all been damaged by Gawker and have a valid claim. Someone should class action them into oblivion. For once I don't care that a lawyer is taking all the money while "risking" only a bit of his free time and I get maybe a $5 check. Just shut them down.
Also, worth mentioning that climate change is a much bigger issue than strip mining. Strip mining is no worse the natural geologic processes the Earth goes through reshaping itself every day.
If you look at my other postings under this story you'll actually find I support the gentleman, i don't believe this should be criminal and I believe he should present an affirmative defense arguing that the crime is outweighed by the public good in preventing an easily found and common type of vulnerability from being exploited by a malicious attacker.
But if everyone ran vulnerability scans the result would be a denial of service and if everyone is allowed to run them it becomes impossible to prosecute people you catch trying to break in unless you let them succeed first. Most people scanning the net for vulnerabilities are not doing so for the common good they are seeking hosts to compromise.
But he might have needed to establish the scope of the vulnerability so he could determine first if it was serious enough to risk the consequences of reporting it.
"That's even IF you assume that his reporting the SQL injection hole stopped anyone else from using it, and it didn't."
Assuming it didn't is a bold assumption. SQL injections are common and easy to find, someone else finding and using it is inevitable it is simply a question of when. As for using the credentials he obviously didn't do anything harmful with them if he reported it. Most likely he was discovering if they were valid credentials and how serious a vulnerability it was for the organization.
He crossed a line but the question is if the damage he caused by doing so outweighs the damage that would be caused by a malicious attacker crossing that line. The FBI finds thousands of excuses to cross the same line and then some on claim they are doing good that outweighs the bad. I doubt a jury would think this is criminal and they might well nullify simple unauthorized systems access if the prosecutor chooses to pursue it.
It doesn't actually have to be a law just the greater good. Medical necessity is an example of a common affirmative defense.
Slashdot can't simply take a poll but the prosecutor can in fact make a judgement call on whether or not to bring charges and prosecute even if a law was broken. There is a chance they might well do so because a jury can and may well nullify the law in a case like this. If he did some kind of damage while in the system that is one thing but if all he did was bring to light a serious vulnerability that presented an imminent threat to the integrity of elections his peers, the people impacted by that vulnerability, might well decide that isn't a crime at all and the prosecutor knows it.
"I'm sorry, but how does there being a number of people who could have broken the law mean the law should be ignored?"
His actions prevented future defrauding of the people which is a far greater crime than unauthorized systems access. It's akin to kicking you in the balls to stop you from shooting a nun. It's called an affirmative defense.
In Florida, the state in question, for instance, medical marijuana was illegal last I checked but medical necessity is considered valid as an affirmative defense if charged for possession/intoxication/production.
If that is as far as you go, no it shouldn't be illegal. If there are no damages (including potential damages from unauthorized review of the contents of the server) and any vulnerability found is reported it should not be illegal.
Especially when you are talking about a server with a public function and he is part of the community serviced by that server.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed which is why marijuana legalization has stronger public support than any of the presidential candidates and why when whitehouse.gov petitions started it was the top voted issue several times in a row.
Drunks are pretty easy to spot. We've all seen them drifting out of their lane. Distracted drivers do the same. Either is a solid case for a reckless driving ticket which is why I suggest going that route.
People might not know they are in a condition where their reactions are temporarily impaired such as after a grueling test. If you can't avoid the situation it seems a bit unfair to punish for it on the road. Reaction times I think are better assessed as a requirement to get and/or renew your license. The symptoms of impaired reaction times I'd think would be fair game for reckless driving though.
Those sources actually cover reaction time. Many of those studies show some impact from being heavily intoxicated on marijuana to reaction time but that drivers using marijuana unlike alcohol users are able to perceive their exact level of impairment and are accounting for it allowing more space between vehicles, wider turns, slower speeds, etc similar to an experienced driver encountering slippery road conditions. These defensive driving strategies allow for more time to react to surprises. More than that though, as someone who as a teenager drove under the influence a few times I suspect no small part of it is what is difficult to assess. Specifically that people under the influence of marijuana may be impaired but they are actually pay far more attention than your non-impaired driver. When you are constantly assessing your speed, checking your mirrors, etc the attentiveness means you spot potential issues sooner and have more time to defensively position to avoid problems.
We can speculate all day but the bottom line is that there is no statistically significant increase in accidents and injuries as a result of being under the influence of marijuana in any study looking for the same without begging the question.
Actually I'm not and provided the data from the Colorado DOT.
There was an increase in 2015 though which has no particular correlation to marijuana legalization.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29404240/colorado-sees-10-percent-increase-traffic-deaths-2015
Since the carcinogens are believed to be the products of combustion and the anti-carcinogens are not, it is plausible. I don't know of any research on it though.
Marijuana is after all schedule I with no medicinal value and more heavily restricted for research than any other schedule I substance. It is far more evil than heroin and cocaine which are prescribed medicinally.
I'm not arguing against the validity of UCLA. I only indicated you wouldn't find a government source as government sources were what was requested.
"If it's government sponsored, that would indicate possible nationwide adoption for the future"
Oh, does the truth expire? Being old is relevant for anti-marijuana studies because of DEA restriction and biased data produced during prohibition. I don't see how marijuana could have a greater impact on driving impairment from one day to the next.
There are definitely sources. But UCLA is not a government source.
Hope over to the NORML site. They have sources aplenty for all their claims.
“Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”
... 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: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation.
REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.
“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
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 evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”
REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.
“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.
There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”
REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.
“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.
… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”
REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.
“
DUI is a victimless crime. If only there were a charge that could replace it wherein the officer could charge people for driving like shit... oh wait, there is, it's called reckless driving. Accidents aren't always a victimless crime and manslaughter isn't a victimless crime but those are also already illegal whether under the influence or not.
Marijuana being legalized is already shown to reduce road fatalities:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
How about the old fashioned way, we punish people for reckless driving and accidents. The officer can ticket for reckless driving at his discretion already. If your driving isn't showing impairment you aren't too intoxicated to drive. If your driving is showing impairment it really doesn't matter why, you need to be taken off the road.
There is also reason to believe that the NHS studies showing impairment as a result of marijuana are flawed and either overstated or outright incorrect. There is also evidence that despite the presence of carcinogens in the smoke there is are also anti-carcinogens in marijuana smoke and over a long term no increased incidence of cancer. The long term mental impairment has also been debunked.
But you won't find government sources for those of any kind because the DEA controls the only source of legal marijuana research cannabis and does not permit studies which are not negatively biased.
Here is an article on the subject from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
Here is source data:
https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/fatal-crash-data-city-county
Yes that is what he is saying, as well as the article. Another article just came out showing that while the reports of thc being in the systems of users involved in road fatalities is up in states that have legalized road fatalities in those states have dropped dramatically alongside legalization. Part of the believed underlying reason is this very thing, the test does not establish if they are intoxicated and that many of those drivers prove to have very high blood alcohol levels at the time of the accidents proving they are definitely drunk.
Of course people will do stupid things. The question is at what point does it stop being necessary to per-emptively punish them when they aren't actually causing a problem.
Someone going 35 in a 55 with no hazards on can be ticketed by a police officer for reckless driving whether they are drunk, stoned, or sober. Given that road fatalities have dropped dramatically in states where marijuana is legalized is it really needed to catch people at checkpoints who aren't actually driving in an impaired fashion?
Yeah tell it to our massive prison population.
The statistics are in, there has been a massive reduction in road fatalities in Colorado since legalizing marijuana. There is a massive hype because it is more common for there to be thc in the system of someone involved but the test indicates whether someone used marijuana within the last 30 days not whether or not they are intoxicated now.
The summary indicates AAA suggests a combination of behavioral and psychological tests. I suggest simply looking for signs of reckless driving and ticketing anyone engaging in reckless driving without regard for the underlying cause.
I know the feel. Really, I think we've all been damaged by Gawker and have a valid claim. Someone should class action them into oblivion. For once I don't care that a lawyer is taking all the money while "risking" only a bit of his free time and I get maybe a $5 check. Just shut them down.
Also, worth mentioning that climate change is a much bigger issue than strip mining. Strip mining is no worse the natural geologic processes the Earth goes through reshaping itself every day.
What if you don't give a shit about the environment and just think they are sweet cars?
If you look at my other postings under this story you'll actually find I support the gentleman, i don't believe this should be criminal and I believe he should present an affirmative defense arguing that the crime is outweighed by the public good in preventing an easily found and common type of vulnerability from being exploited by a malicious attacker.
But if everyone ran vulnerability scans the result would be a denial of service and if everyone is allowed to run them it becomes impossible to prosecute people you catch trying to break in unless you let them succeed first. Most people scanning the net for vulnerabilities are not doing so for the common good they are seeking hosts to compromise.
But he might have needed to establish the scope of the vulnerability so he could determine first if it was serious enough to risk the consequences of reporting it.
"That's even IF you assume that his reporting the SQL injection hole stopped anyone else from using it, and it didn't."
Assuming it didn't is a bold assumption. SQL injections are common and easy to find, someone else finding and using it is inevitable it is simply a question of when. As for using the credentials he obviously didn't do anything harmful with them if he reported it. Most likely he was discovering if they were valid credentials and how serious a vulnerability it was for the organization.
He crossed a line but the question is if the damage he caused by doing so outweighs the damage that would be caused by a malicious attacker crossing that line. The FBI finds thousands of excuses to cross the same line and then some on claim they are doing good that outweighs the bad. I doubt a jury would think this is criminal and they might well nullify simple unauthorized systems access if the prosecutor chooses to pursue it.
It doesn't actually have to be a law just the greater good. Medical necessity is an example of a common affirmative defense.
Slashdot can't simply take a poll but the prosecutor can in fact make a judgement call on whether or not to bring charges and prosecute even if a law was broken. There is a chance they might well do so because a jury can and may well nullify the law in a case like this. If he did some kind of damage while in the system that is one thing but if all he did was bring to light a serious vulnerability that presented an imminent threat to the integrity of elections his peers, the people impacted by that vulnerability, might well decide that isn't a crime at all and the prosecutor knows it.
"I'm sorry, but how does there being a number of people who could have broken the law mean the law should be ignored?"
His actions prevented future defrauding of the people which is a far greater crime than unauthorized systems access. It's akin to kicking you in the balls to stop you from shooting a nun. It's called an affirmative defense.
In Florida, the state in question, for instance, medical marijuana was illegal last I checked but medical necessity is considered valid as an affirmative defense if charged for possession/intoxication/production.
If that is as far as you go, no it shouldn't be illegal. If there are no damages (including potential damages from unauthorized review of the contents of the server) and any vulnerability found is reported it should not be illegal.
Especially when you are talking about a server with a public function and he is part of the community serviced by that server.