Dells Extreme World operator charged in accident smoked pot three days earlier

djDaemon said:
You mean, aside from the fact that it helps slow cancer progression and help chemo patients lead pseudo-normal lives?

This remains one of the lamest defenses for marijuana. You can synthesize THC and administer it in precise doses, the way you can any other commercial drug.

I consider it a basic human right to do things that have absolutely zero impact on those around me.

That's the rub, isn't it? It does in fact impact other people, just as any other public health issue does (including smoking and alcohol consumption).

The science that it doesn't hurt anybody is not at all convincing. Comparing it to alcohol doesn't work for me either, since there is no data correlating frequent alcohol use to other drugs.

Jeff said:That's the rub, isn't it? It does in fact impact other people, just as any other public health issue does (including smoking and alcohol consumption).

Something as basic as driving a car impacts everyone around us as well. Why stop with marijuana? Why not make driving cars illegal? Why not make it illegal to buy potato chips and soda?

PS, I love that the ad I am seeing right now is for addiction treatment!

Because its a discussion forum, and conversations tend to evolve.
Weren't you the poster that kept reminding us "it is about Glen Beck" time and time again on that Six Flags Muslim Day thread? Must not have been in the "evolving" mood on that subject. ;)

Somebody asked it earlier, and nobody answered. Was this guy running the ride 2-3 days earlier? Seems that would be simple police work. I'd typically believe that they have already investigated that fact. But I typically would think they might drug test ANYBODY who just dropped a person 100' without a net for no apparent reason.

That family certainly has a lot of parties to be pissed at over this accident.

Well, it's not that there was no apparent reason. The reason was the ride malfunctioned by not raising to it's full drop point. He failed to do the visual check necessary to recognize that fact. But let's not forget that had the ride operated correctly, this would not have happened.

EDIT: The bold functionality is on overdrive again. I did not bold my post. I just want to be clear that I was not adding that much emphasis. :)

djDaemon said:

You mean, aside from the fact that it helps slow cancer progression

From a medical point of view, I doubt you will find many physicians who will believe this. Although THC is an excellent anti-nausea medication and can be prescribed for oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy, it has no role as an anti-cancer agent. I am aware of only two clinical studies published in the medical literature that clearly demonstrate that use of marijuana is beneficial in the treatment of testicular cancer. Here are the links to the results of those two studies:

Study #1

Study #2

Aamilj said:
And yes, there should have been fail-safe's, but that is secondary to this man's negligence. If I push somebody off the Grand Canyon is it my fault, or the Park Service for not installing a fence? The guy admits he knew procedures and did not follow them. A 33 year man knows the consequences of dropping somebody from that high without a net. He obviously did not take his job seriously. And now a little girl is fighting to breathe.

I realize this is pages old but I'm catching up. Are you... serious? Your Grand Canyon analogy is so completely different that it's utterly meaningless. If he had taken the girl up a crane and pushed her off, it would be like pushing someone off the Grand Canyon. She strapped into an amusement ride that she had no reason to believe was anything other than totally safe, and the absurdly poor design let someone hurt her.

It's clear from the article that he knew the consequences of dropping a girl from that height sans-net, and that's why he reacted the way that he did. He didn't go 'Oh look, no net. Meh, she'll be fine *drop*', he failed to visually inspect that the net was in place before pressing the drop button, but he should never have to make that check. He should be able to mash the drop button like a caffeine-addled video game addict, but if the net's not in place, the ride design should be such that the girl can't fall. Period.

I for one feel immensely sorry for the guy, and no, I don't think the pot smoking days earlier has any relevance to the story, nor would a drug test have proved anything. As mentioned earlier, pee-in-a-cup tests don't tell you *when* the person was last stoned, only that he was, at some point in the last ~30 days, stoned. Life isn't like CSI; a drug test wouldn't have told you any more than the guy did himself. If the police and he both asserted that he was not visibly impaired at the time of the accident, there isn't a test that would give you more info.

Aamilj said:
Because its a discussion forum, and conversations tend to evolve.
Weren't you the poster that kept reminding us "it is about Glen Beck" time and time again on that Six Flags Muslim Day thread?

That discussion did evolve from just Glenn Beck, what I kept saying was that just because you don't like the ICAN (or whatever the acronym) doesn't mean we all had to.

And this discussion, like that, is still relevant to the topic.

And yes, there should have been fail-safe's, but that is secondary to this man's negligence.

Um, yeah, the point of a failsafe is a secondary measure to negligence. The problem here is that not only was he negligent, but there wasn't any failsafe. It isn't an either/or like you make it out, both his correct operation and a failsafe should be in effect, otherwise you have teenage girls that drop 40 feet to the ground.

BBSpeed26 said:
Life isn't like CSI; a drug test wouldn't have told you any more than the guy did himself. If the police and he both asserted that he was not visibly impaired at the time of the accident, there isn't a test that would give you more info.

Unfortunately, that couldn't be more wrong. Once the suspect admitted to using marijuana, a tox screen is even more important. Sure he admitted to using marijuana, but how about the cocaine, meth, and oxycodone he forgot to mention. People whose tox screen is positive for one substance, frequently are positive for multiple substances. A blood alcohol and tox screen were absolutely mandatory. These omissions have major implications for both the civil and criminal suits. The police screwed up big time. The cops were just as guilty of "blanking out" as the ride op was.

Another point concerning tox screens. The initial screen is qualitative and will give a positive or negative result. Positive results for any of the substances are usually then followed up with a quantitative test. Obviously there is no legal limit for serum levels of marijuana or cocaine unlike alcohol. Obviously people metabolize drugs differently. However if the quantitative level is very high, it could be evidence against the excuse, "Hey man, I just smoked one bowl three days ago."

sws said:

Once the suspect admitted to using marijuana, a tox screen is even more important. Sure he admitted to using marijuana, but how about the cocaine, meth, and oxycodone he forgot to mention. People whose tox screen is positive for one substance, frequently are positive for multiple substances.

I'll agree with the first part. Just because he admitted to one doesn't mean he couldn't have been on other substances. But I'm going to call shenanigans on the second part.

Every person I know who smokes pot would test positive for pot and that's it (maybe they'd blow over on a breathalyzer). They aren't doing a plethora of drugs just because they smoke pot.

Juggalotus said:

Every person I know who smokes pot would test positive for pot and that's it (maybe they'd blow over on a breathalyzer). They aren't doing a plethora of drugs just because they smoke pot.

Perhaps that is true for your friends, and I won't disagree with that. However in my clinical experience, when tox screens I've ordered on patients come back positive for one substance, they frequently are positive for polysubstances. I suspect the difference is that we are talking about screening two different populations - friends that you know vs patients presenting to my ER.

^I tend to think the "pot only" crowd...and it is by no means a small population....typically won't show up in your ER....they might present at Denny's at 3am for an infusion of Moons over My-Hammy though.

Jeff said:
This remains one of the lamest defenses for marijuana. You can synthesize THC and administer it in precise doses, the way you can any other commercial drug.

What sense does it make to go through all the effort to synthesize something that exists naturally and grows wonderfully right here in the US? There's no logic in that.

That's the rub, isn't it? It does in fact impact other people, just as any other public health issue does (including smoking and alcohol consumption).

This is where you lose me completely. OK, so alcohol and tobacco are legal, and I'm fairly certain you consume alcohol, which suggests you're OK with both the legality of alcohol and social impact resulting from your consumption of it.

But you're not OK with marijuana, because it's not legal, even though its illegality results not from objective reasoning, but rather from a corrupt agenda. Again, weed isn't illegal because it makes bad stuff happen. It's illegal because of corruption.

The science that it doesn't hurt anybody is not at all convincing.

Well, it certainly should be. Go research how many people have died as a result of consuming marijuana. Then go research how many people have been killed by a toked-out stoner behind the wheel of a car. Go research how "Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage", and see how many cases you can find where "marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

If you're not convinced after all that, then, well, I don't know what else to tell you, aside from perhaps that ignorance is bliss. :)

Indeed, the charge is reckless injury, but I would have to wonder even it were my child, would I want a park operator to serve 25 years in prison for such a mistake?

And yes, there should have been fail-safe's, but that is secondary to this man's negligence.

Um, yeah, the point of a failsafe is a secondary measure to negligence. The problem here is that not only was he negligent, but there wasn't any failsafe. It isn't an either/or like you make it out, both his correct operation and a failsafe should be in effect, otherwise you have teenage girls that drop 40 feet to the ground.

I think we are in 100% agreement. I consider it a foregone conclusion that the manufacturer will find themselves in court. I'm not sure the other negligent party (the 33 year old) will be found guilty of anything. I consider this a 50/50 responsibility. But now we may have a 33/33/33 when you add police negligence to the equation.

The doctor says it better than me. The family deserved to have this guy fully drug screened. Justice deserved to have this guy fully drug screened. Since the police made a subjective decision that he was "ok." We now do not have objective data.

This was not a traffic ticket where police might be forgiven for using subjective observation. This was an innocent girl that still may not make it out alive. We are talking a possible negligent homicide, and the police felt it ok to trust their instincts?

Don't you agree the family and justice deserved a drug screen? I'll take it a step further and say the 33 year old deserved to have a drug screen to clear his name. Now we will never now what substances he had in his body. I certainly am not satisfied that a little dope was all that was there. I can't imagine the family is. Had we had the simple screen, all parties would know.

On a side note, it appears to me that the fact he admits he smokes weed has elevated his status for some of you. To the point that a few have said "I feel sorry for him." While I understand the clique mentality among the dope smoking crowd, I do not understand "feeling sorry" for this guy. He had a job to do. He knew his job. The consequences of failure at his job was opening himself up to negligent homicide charges should his innocent victims die. From the article, it sounds like he knew himself how major the screw-up was. After sympathy for the victim, I've little left for the guy who ultimately was responsible for her safety that day!

Aamilj said:
On a side note, it appears to me that the fact he admits he smokes weed has elevated his status for some of you. To the point that a few have said "I feel sorry for him." While I understand the clique mentality among the dope smoking crowd, I do not understand "feeling sorry" for this guy.

It just so happens that the first article to make him appear human is also the one with the bold headline about his having smoked pot a few days before.

Previous articles hadn't said much about his reaction to the accident, which leaves one wondering if he even cared about having just dropped the girl.

This article tells us what his reaction was, and it was one that is very human. He realized he screwed up and may have killed someone. He didn't go to work that day intending on injuring a rider. But now he has to live with that the rest of his life.

He has to go to bed at night with her face in his dreams, knowing that she trusted him to provide her with a safe ride and he failed. No person, no human being, wants that on their conscience.

And that's why I feel sorry for him just as much as I feel sorry for her.

You're right, it is his fault that he is in this situation, but that doesn't mean he is somehow worthless, or less human than the rest of us.

You're right, it is his fault that he is in this situation, but that doesn't mean he is somehow worthless, or less human than the rest of us.

And just because he smoked weed 3 days prior doesn't mean he's worthless or less human either.

While I understand the clique mentality among the dope smoking crowd, I do not understand "feeling sorry" for this guy.

I resent that comment. I don't smoke dope, and am morally opposed, which I have stated. That doesn't mean I can't feel sorry that this happened to the guy. And you know what? I'd even agree with someone that said that there could be a link with his smoking weed, and his blanking out, which may have caused the accident.

My sympathy for the guy also has nothing to do with his pot smoking. You really need to read things a little more carefully before you start throwing out such ridiculous generalizations.

dj, your argument is that the law against pot is not objective, but is a result of a corrupt agenda. Can't someone say the exact same things about speed limits and can't Rockin' Raceway man say the same thing about ride safety issues?

I know you can produce studies to "prove" that there is no harmful effect from pot and other seems to be able to produce studies that "prove" that there is (and honestly I don't know and don't particularly care which is "objectively right" if such a thing even exists) so there is obviously a gray area. To make it black and white and say, "It's okay for me to break laws that I disagree with because I see them as black and white (while others don't), but it's not okay for you to break laws you disagree with because you see them as black and white (while others don't)" just doesn't work.

What you say is "objectively harmless" is clearly not to many people including law makers and some on this board. And what others (like "Rockin' Raceway man" or "120 MPH on the freeway man") might say is "objectively harmless" is probably not to you.

You cannot be objective and throw in a moral judgment in the same sentence.

"for some of you"

The irony of being asked to read more carefully.

Any comments about whether any of you believe the girl's family has a right to be upset at the police?