If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   New cannabis legislation in Colorado aims to set a limit while driving and.. can't read the last bit the corner has been ripped off   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 178
    More: Spiffy, Colorado, marijuana legalization  
•       •       •

11215 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 9:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 10:00:30 AM
Wait, what??
 
2013-01-24 10:00:39 AM
Seriously?

farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2013-01-24 10:01:09 AM
I realize that Fark may have some kind of sponsored deal with the Daily Mail, but really? A British article about driving regulations in Colorado?
 
2013-01-24 10:01:52 AM
Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.
 
2013-01-24 10:02:33 AM
The current proposals set a limit of five nanograms of THC

I don't think my dealer sells nanograms.
 
2013-01-24 10:02:55 AM

Mateorocks: A British article about driving regulations in Colorado?


WHAT COULD THEY KNOW, THEY DRIVE ON THE WRONG FARKING SIDE OF THE ROAD FER CHRISSAKE!!!
 
2013-01-24 10:04:59 AM
further evidence of impairment, such as dangerous driving

Gee, there's a thought. Require that someone show evidence of creating a danger to themselves or the public before arresting them for creating a danger to themselves or the public? How quaint.
 
2013-01-24 10:06:58 AM

markie_farkie: Mateorocks: A British article about driving regulations in Colorado?

WHAT COULD THEY KNOW, THEY DRIVE ON THE WRONG FARKING SIDE OF THE ROAD FER CHRISSAKE!!!


Left Handed driving, Left Handed cigarettes.
 
2013-01-24 10:07:47 AM
Good luck with that. I understand the need to do so but it's going to be impossible to prove/enforce unless there are obvious other signs.
 
2013-01-24 10:08:52 AM

The Angry Hand of God: Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.


You're likely correct. It's the same sort of statistic that MADD publishes when they say 36% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol-related - what they don't tell you is they reached that figure by determining whether anyone involved in the accidents, driving or otherwise, had an elevated blood alcohol level - guy in the backseat had a shot and a couple of beers 3 hours prior to the accident? It's alcohol related.
 
2013-01-24 10:09:15 AM
I have to assume that any nanograms that are over three hours old will be excluded.
 
2013-01-24 10:12:14 AM
So they are just conveniently going to choose the same standard as Washington State has in their law?

There was lots of push back by the medical MJ community about that part of our initiative. Of course, in order to actually be tested you have to be pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence, and then they have to specifically suspect cannabis intoxication as the reason for the impairment.
 
2013-01-24 10:14:01 AM
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll another one...

Just like the other one.
 
2013-01-24 10:14:36 AM

Snapper Carr: The Angry Hand of God: Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.

You're likely correct. It's the same sort of statistic that MADD publishes when they say 36% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol-related - what they don't tell you is they reached that figure by determining whether anyone involved in the accidents, driving or otherwise, had an elevated blood alcohol level - guy in the backseat had a shot and a couple of beers 3 hours prior to the accident? It's alcohol related.


No it is Active THC. This isn't the drug test that they use for job applicants.A hour or two after your last toke your blood level should be down under 5 nanograms of ACTIVE THC. This still may be a bullshiat number, but let's argue with the facts.

And you are wrong about alcohol involved traffic fatalities. to be alcohol related one of the drivers has to be impaired.
 
2013-01-24 10:14:46 AM

Flibbertigibbet: it's going to be impossible to prove/enforce unless there are obvious other signs


Set up special courts with boxing style rings front and center and a microphone hanging from the ceiling.

"In this corner, Officer Friendly."
"In this corner, Pot Head."

Throw a doughnut in the middle. If Officer Friendly gets it, Pot Head gets 30 days in the slammer.
 
2013-01-24 10:14:59 AM
So it begins. Today cannabis, tomorrow cannibals.
 
2013-01-24 10:15:01 AM

The Angry Hand of God: Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.


That does complicate things. Is there a way (besides "the drivers smelled like a Phish concert") to detect use in the past couple of hours and not days ago that can be used in court? Otherwise they are going with that and it will be a wide net.
 
2013-01-24 10:17:47 AM

The Angry Hand of God: Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.


Yeah. Many are probably like a high profile case here. IIRC state law defines it as any THC in your bloodstream. She had THC in her bloodstream when she killed a bunch of teenagers.

However, THC had nothing to do with the accident, it was something like 24 hours ago IIRC. It was simply a case of falling asleep at the wheel because she had been up too long. Unfortunately she did it at just the wrong spot. Last I knew she was appealing her conviction because the law was unreasonable.
 
2013-01-24 10:18:13 AM

ChipNASA: markie_farkie: Mateorocks: A British article about driving regulations in Colorado?

WHAT COULD THEY KNOW, THEY DRIVE ON THE WRONG FARKING SIDE OF THE ROAD FER CHRISSAKE!!!

Left Handed driving, Left Handed cigarettes.


Well played, sir.
 
2013-01-24 10:18:24 AM

garumph: Snapper Carr: The Angry Hand of God: Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.

You're likely correct. It's the same sort of statistic that MADD publishes when they say 36% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol-related - what they don't tell you is they reached that figure by determining whether anyone involved in the accidents, driving or otherwise, had an elevated blood alcohol level - guy in the backseat had a shot and a couple of beers 3 hours prior to the accident? It's alcohol related.

No it is Active THC. This isn't the drug test that they use for job applicants.A hour or two after your last toke your blood level should be down under 5 nanograms of ACTIVE THC. This still may be a bullshiat number, but let's argue with the facts.

And you are wrong about alcohol involved traffic fatalities. to be alcohol related one of the drivers has to be impaired.


"Until 2009, MADD continually inflated the drunk driving statistics. MADD has kept the drunk driving problem looking bigger than it is through inflating traffic fatality statistics. MADD spokespeople and literature cite high levels of alcohol-related traffic deaths. For example, almost 18,000 deaths were classified as alcohol-related in 2007. But, alcohol-related doesn't mean alcohol-caused. In fact, that figure includes anyone killed in a crash in which anyone involved (driver, pedestrian, cyclist, etc.) was estimated to have had any trace of alcohol."


http://thenewprohibition.com/mothers-against-drunk-driving.cfm
 
2013-01-24 10:19:45 AM

syberpud: The Angry Hand of God: Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.

That does complicate things. Is there a way (besides "the drivers smelled like a Phish concert") to detect use in the past couple of hours and not days ago that can be used in court? Otherwise they are going with that and it will be a wide net.


Yes, and that is the test the police are using. They can detect Active THC in the blood. The usual urine tests can just detect THC metabolite, which is fine for a job application where they are just concerned about usage in the last 30 days.

It is not the same test.
 
2013-01-24 10:20:30 AM

syberpud: The Angry Hand of God: Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.

That does complicate things. Is there a way (besides "the drivers smelled like a Phish concert") to detect use in the past couple of hours and not days ago that can be used in court? Otherwise they are going with that and it will be a wide net.


They would have to test you twice, with a three hour wait in between, and then take the difference as the amount you had "actively" in your system.

No anti-pot legislator in the country is nearly intelligent enough to recognize that reality.

Plus this way, we can lock up more freedom loving Americans! I can't think of a better way to make American freedom even more popular than locking up more Americans, can you?
 
2013-01-24 10:20:36 AM
Isn't there a law that allows you to commit a person for 72 hours of observation if they're exhibiting signs of psychosis? Marijuana, by definition, induces psychotic and unpredictable behavior in its users. If the police even suspect a driver is under the influence, then I'd think that 72 hours would be the absolute minimum they should be held. It's like when you get bitten by a dog - they have to keep the dog under observation to see if it has rabies. I'd feel safer knowing that these drug users are at least off the street for a few days while their highs wear off.
 
2013-01-24 10:22:17 AM

dofus: Flibbertigibbet: it's going to be impossible to prove/enforce unless there are obvious other signs

Set up special courts with boxing style rings front and center and a microphone hanging from the ceiling.

"In this corner, Officer Friendly."
"In this corner, Pot Head."

Throw a doughnut in the middle. If Officer Friendly gets it, Pot Head gets 30 days in the slammer.


You also need a greasy whore and a rolling dance floor
 
2013-01-24 10:23:15 AM
Living in Colorado... I am getting a "cough COUGH COUGH" kick out of this!


/ear!
 
2013-01-24 10:24:25 AM
This is so awesome. Colorado resorts can start advertising their weed friendliness which will push the squares and families off to Utah. Everybody wins!
 
2013-01-24 10:24:51 AM
farking big Enter button....


The rumor here is that the cops have the ability to test for 'active' THC in your body versus 'inactive'.
I am still trying to figure out how that works. Any Fark Chemist willing to try?
 
2013-01-24 10:26:48 AM
LOL, get ready for blood tests every time you are pulled over
 
2013-01-24 10:30:08 AM
How about...

waiting to see if there is a problem before you go looking for solutions.
 
2013-01-24 10:31:10 AM
Not to mention nullification of a federal law doesn't fly.
 
2013-01-24 10:31:11 AM

garumph: No it is Active THC. This isn't the drug test that they use for job applicants.A hour or two after your last toke your blood level should be down under 5 nanograms of ACTIVE THC. This still may be a bullshiat number, but let's argue with the facts.


Yeah I remember watching something the other day about how a medical marijuana patient had in general 10 nanograms of Active THC 8 hours after last taking any. This would make medical marijuana patients unable to drive ever.
 
2013-01-24 10:32:03 AM

spentmiles: Isn't there a law that allows you to commit a person for 72 hours of observation if they're exhibiting signs of psychosis? Marijuana, by definition, induces psychotic and unpredictable behavior in its users. If the police even suspect a driver is under the influence, then I'd think that 72 hours would be the absolute minimum they should be held. It's like when you get bitten by a dog - they have to keep the dog under observation to see if it has rabies. I'd feel safer knowing that these drug users are at least off the street for a few days while their highs wear off.


I always wondered what the word "marijuana" meant. Now I can tell everyone it means "induces psychotic and unpredictable behavior"!

/you'll get some bites, don't worry
 
2013-01-24 10:32:40 AM

syberpud: That does complicate things. Is there a way (besides "the drivers smelled like a Phish concert") to detect use in the past couple of hours and not days ago that can be used in court? Otherwise they are going with that and it will be a wide net.


This, and amen. I agree that you shouldn't get baked and drive. I am also concerned that there is really no good test to see if you have smoked in the last few hours. It's a very real problem, legally speaking.

IS there a good blood test for recent use? Does anyone have any scholarly links?
 
2013-01-24 10:33:16 AM
CSB from Colorado four weeks ago/

Me and a few friends twist up a jay the size of a pine tree and get into the car. My sober girlfriend drives us slowly around to look at Christmas lights. We get pulled over because I have a brake light out and didn't know it. We've looked like a cropduster for the past hour with smoke pouring from the windows. The cop asks my girl if "she's been imbibing." She says no and tells him which hospital she works at, and they know some common people in the ER. The cop says, "well just get that brake light fixed, and tell ya, that smells like some pretty good stuff." I f*cking love Colorado.

/CSB

But seriously, Colorado sucks. Don't move here.
 
2013-01-24 10:33:40 AM
so how much is 5 nanograms?
 
2013-01-24 10:34:17 AM

spentmiles: Marijuana, by definition, induces psychotic and unpredictable behavior in its users.


You believe that the definition of "marijuana" is 'that which induces psychosis'?

Were you dropped on your head or something?
 
2013-01-24 10:34:51 AM

Dixon Cider: farking big Enter button....


The rumor here is that the cops have the ability to test for 'active' THC in your body versus 'inactive'.
I am still trying to figure out how that works. Any Fark Chemist willing to try?


Link. Basically it is the difference between measuring THC-COOH in the blood vs the metabolite in the urine. the urine test is quick and easy but doesn't measure the amount of active THC in your system.
 
2013-01-24 10:35:18 AM

SlothB77: so how much is 5 nanograms?


You'll need to know about the milliliters too.
 
2013-01-24 10:35:32 AM

Marcus Aurelius: spentmiles: Isn't there a law that allows you to commit a person for 72 hours of observation if they're exhibiting signs of psychosis? Marijuana, by definition, induces psychotic and unpredictable behavior in its users. If the police even suspect a driver is under the influence, then I'd think that 72 hours would be the absolute minimum they should be held. It's like when you get bitten by a dog - they have to keep the dog under observation to see if it has rabies. I'd feel safer knowing that these drug users are at least off the street for a few days while their highs wear off.

I always wondered what the word "marijuana" meant. Now I can tell everyone it means "induces psychotic and unpredictable behavior"!

/you'll get some bites, don't worry


Grumble, grumble, harrumph...
 
2013-01-24 10:36:22 AM
garumph:
No it is Active THC. This isn't the drug test that they use for job applicants.A hour or two after your last toke your blood level should be down under 5 nanograms of ACTIVE THC. This still may be a bullshiat number, but let's argue with the facts.


the facts are, thc doesnt work like alcohol in the body.
from when this was discussed and shot down 2 years ago
how much active THC was in my blood even after a night of sleep and not smoking for fifteen hours
...
my test results show that it would not be uncommon to see such a high level in other people who use cannabis regularly -- like medical marijuana patients. "Your level was about 13.5 for whole blood... which would have made you incapacitated on a lab value,"
 
2013-01-24 10:41:02 AM

garumph: Dixon Cider: farking big Enter button....


The rumor here is that the cops have the ability to test for 'active' THC in your body versus 'inactive'.
I am still trying to figure out how that works. Any Fark Chemist willing to try?

Link. Basically it is the difference between measuring THC-COOH in the blood vs the metabolite in the urine. the urine test is quick and easy but doesn't measure the amount of active THC in your system.


Thaaaanks, man
 
2013-01-24 10:41:08 AM

tokinGLX: garumph:
No it is Active THC. This isn't the drug test that they use for job applicants.A hour or two after your last toke your blood level should be down under 5 nanograms of ACTIVE THC. This still may be a bullshiat number, but let's argue with the facts.


the facts are, thc doesnt work like alcohol in the body.
from when this was discussed and shot down 2 years ago
how much active THC was in my blood even after a night of sleep and not smoking for fifteen hours
...
my test results show that it would not be uncommon to see such a high level in other people who use cannabis regularly -- like medical marijuana patients. "Your level was about 13.5 for whole blood... which would have made you incapacitated on a lab value,"


I totally agree with the fact that 5 ng is a bullshiat number. We need more study on how to determine marijuana impairment. I don't think some medical marijuana patients should be driving. Just like other prescription drugs it causes too much impairment to be on the road.

But the casual user isn't going to get busted because they lit up yesterday. Until people understand what the test is don't sound like ignorant assholes this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.
 
2013-01-24 10:41:43 AM
syberpud

The Angry Hand of God: Supporters of the introduction of tighter sanctions have pointed to evidence from 2011 revealing that 13 per cent of fatal crashes in the state involved the drug.

Oh, really? Just a guess, but I think this actually means they found marijuana that may have been smoked at some point in the past 30 days in their system.

That does complicate things. Is there a way (besides "the drivers smelled like a Phish concert") to detect use in the past couple of hours and not days ago that can be used in court? Otherwise they are going with that and it will be a wide net.


Cops by me in NJ used to have this "pupil chart" they carried with them to determine what drug you were on and when you last used. IDK if it ever "stood up" in court.
 
2013-01-24 10:43:28 AM
my bullshiat law detector is going off...
 
2013-01-24 10:43:41 AM

REO-Weedwagon: CSB from Colorado four weeks ago/ .../CSB

But seriously, Colorado sucks. Don't move here.


Why does it suck?

and that was a CSB
 
2013-01-24 10:43:46 AM

Rapmaster2000: This is so awesome. Colorado resorts can start advertising their weed friendliness which will push the squares and families off to Utah. Everybody wins!


I like CO because I can still feel mildly hip there.  San Francisco makes me feel closed-minded and lame.
 
2013-01-24 10:46:49 AM
The stupid here, in the colorado bill and in arbitrary vehicular operating restrictions is strong. The myriad causes for auto accidents are only incompletely understood and the impact of pot smoking on driving is not well understood as it has been insufficiently studied.

Being old and having accidents seems rather common, as does momentary inattention due to brain farting, cellphones, eating, kids in cars, over timidity, over aggressiveness, poor car maintenance... WTF?

This is equivalent to blaming cell phones owners, coffee drinkers, child herders, cigarette smokers, old people and people on doctor approved meds, just because these things can be known about them and are KNOWN to have been proximate causes for accidents.

The more people that can use pot might/will, which will definitely increase the number of people that when investigated and tested exhibit evidence of pot use being involved in accidents.
 
2013-01-24 10:48:05 AM

garumph: the casual user isn't going to get busted because they lit up yesterday


You must be new to America.
 
2013-01-24 10:48:31 AM
FTA: "The proposal is aimed at addressing the concerns of medical marijuana users, who are often chronically over the five nanogram limit."
 
2013-01-24 10:48:40 AM
Hey Todd, what's up man? Yeah? Cool man, cool. Hey man, I really dug your demo tape you gave me last time I was there. You really had some cool beats going on. Oh yeah, totally man, it was really cool. Hey listen man, I was wondering if you could help me out. I got 87-cents I just dug outta my center console. Is there any way you could set me up with a few nanograms? Dude, I totally appreciate it.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report