...if your mark on the world is leaving snide comments on subjects you apparently have no interest in, then I think you win.
Hey Jonathan - thanks - it was interesting to research/write. I don't have a link I'm sorry but there might be something on the ICADTS site that can help find that study if you're really keen.
Honestly, and perhaps embarrassingly, I didn't realise that's how odds worked. If you'd asked I would've probably said you add them together, but of course I can see why that makes no sense now.
I would say a couple of things - first that the risk of crashing with both pot and alcohol is higher, but even with lower levels of alcohol than would be considered impairing if consumed on its own. But I don't know if the 40x risk is reflective of that or not.
Second, these figures vary from study to study, although they tend to stay in the same order (pot, alcohol, pot+alcohol). The 'true' numbers might not multiply quite so tidily.
Related to that, it was really interesting to see the risk in Norway studies, compared to most other studies. They found risk of 200x or thereabouts, but an American research explained it to me thus: In Norway drink/driving and drug/driving are very socially unacceptable, and so those who do it tend to be 'outlaws on the edge of society', so they're crashing for other reasons, not just booze/pot.
Jeez, talk about thread-jacked Trev.
I've heard people talk about those signs that tell you your speed, I've only seen the ones that say "Slow Down". :/
Gah. What he's really saying is "Sure, it doesn't work as a meaningful test of impairment, but it might put people off smoking cannabis altogether."
No, I think what he's really saying is that having roadside testing might discourage stoned driving, not getting stoned. Random roadside testing for alcohol has definitely had an impact on drink driving - not so much on drinking per se.
Interesting to read the Reed obits both good and bad. I decided to unfriend a certain grumpy old music reviewer (oh okay, Gary Steel) because he couldn't help but write a snarky "never liked him/he had a lot of shit albums you know" update. He did the same thing when Amy Winehouse died, and you know, literally in some cases, life's too short.
And that word is a pretty massive caveat on the word "innocent". In normal speak, you're guilty if you did it, innocent if you didn't. "Not guilty" is a verdict, not a statement of fact.
The problem for me with all those trials is that the tea table discussions often came to the opposite conclusion to that of the jury which suggests the jury saw (important) evidence we did not.
Yeah, so you see my point - all the talk of flakiness around those cases might have more to do with those ill-informed dinner table discussions, rather than a spate of particularly flaky cases.
The Bain, Watson and Lundy cases were considered flaky as the cell doors closed.
Were they? Or is it that these three trials were some of the biggest to take place since we allowed cameras in the courtroom? (It was 1995, the same year as the Bain trial, though I can't recall if cameras were there in that instance). People were able to watch the evidence unfold night after night, back and forth, and obviously many were swayed by the defense counsel arguments in those cases, even if the jury wasn't. We saw the same thing again with Ewen Macdonald recently - was this another 'flaky' case, or a damn good defense lawyer doing his job well?
The police over-reach because they think they can
I'm not necessarily saying this isn't the case, but it's important not to conflate the police with the Crown (prosecution), whose job it is, if not to 'over-reach' exactly, to put together the best interpretation of facts and events it can to achieve a conviction.
One thing Lundy didn't seem to benefit from at his first trial was a particularly robust defence. I'm not saying that's the fault of his lawyer, but from my understanding, the lack of legal aid hours to mount a murder defence in the first instance can leave something to be desired.
IANAL, but I presume they could with something of the order of “but IF the time of death is presumed to be later, our evidence still shows Mr Lundy is guilty.”
Given that their job is to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I don't know they'd be doing them any favours taking a "but if you don't like that, how but *this* one, huh? we got dozens of these, just pick one" approach... especially as they then have to also say "disregard that stuff we said about the computer... disregard the eyewitness, she's mad... disregard etc..."