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  
•       •       •

11218 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
 
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.
 
2013-01-24 10:50:34 AM

Urmuf Hamer: The more people that can use pot might/will, which will definitely increase


That's quite a definitive statement there.
 
2013-01-24 10:50:58 AM

Odd Bird: 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


Because we have lite the No on the vacancy sign!!!
 
2013-01-24 10:51:15 AM

REO-Weedwagon: 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.


Colorado Rules! I've lived here on and off for the last 34 years. Every time I move away, I get to missing it (and I have no idea which direction is West), and move back.

Truth is, I live in a freaking postcard picture, and all y'all spend thousands of dollars to come take pictures in my backyard. I'm all for that, keep on coming, we'd love to have you come visit! Anyitme you want to live the High Life, swing on by.

/we even have gambling to go with your weed!
 
2013-01-24 10:51:17 AM
I don't think smoking any amount of pot should be allowed before driving. Not because I'm anti weed or I don't think some folks are perfectly fine behind the wheel after toking (some people are BETTER after a couple toots) but because the way people react to it is WILDLY varied. I for one turn into a complete mess with even the slightest bit of a pot buzz. I lose all confidence and get super jittery. I think it might be a mild allergy or just how my brain is wired. I've also known a lot of people over the years who can't handle their smoke at all. At least with booze the results are a little more consistent and predictable.

The only thing I can think of to work around issues like this is to ban any amount of pot in the system then have tokers who drive pass a special skill test where they get stoned before hand. Then based on the results determine what amount they are able to handle.

The driving while stoned thing is one of the stickier problems with legalization.

get it? stickier?

lol I slay me...
 
2013-01-24 10:54:57 AM

Marcus Aurelius: 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?


By legalizing pot? I don't get it.
 
2013-01-24 10:55:04 AM
Are they going to add "running through a forest" to the roadside intoxication test?
 
2013-01-24 10:55:46 AM
Was the Aurora shooter a marijuana smoker?
 
2013-01-24 10:56:20 AM

here to help: I don't think smoking any amount of pot should be allowed before driving. Not because I'm anti weed or I don't think some folks are perfectly fine behind the wheel after toking (some people are BETTER after a couple toots) but because the way people react to it is WILDLY varied. I for one turn into a complete mess with even the slightest bit of a pot buzz. I lose all confidence and get super jittery. I think it might be a mild allergy or just how my brain is wired. I've also known a lot of people over the years who can't handle their smoke at all. At least with booze the results are a little more consistent and predictable.

The only thing I can think of to work around issues like this is to ban any amount of pot in the system then have tokers who drive pass a special skill test where they get stoned before hand. Then based on the results determine what amount they are able to handle.

The driving while stoned thing is one of the stickier problems with legalization.

get it? stickier?

lol I slay me...


You just need to start smoking it three or four or five times a day, and you'll feel much better. After awhile you won't even notice that you're high any more.
 
2013-01-24 10:57:12 AM

Odd Bird: Why does it suck?


It doesn't suck. It's great, and I moved here in '96. I'm as much of a transplant asshole as anyone.
 
2013-01-24 10:58:16 AM

garumph: Until people understand what the test is don't sound like ignorant assholes


So...as to the first half of this, why don't you explain it perfesser . For example, where are the numerous studies demonstrating that this quantity of presence in a sufficiently large number of subjects reliably indicates a strong likelihood of impairment rising above the level of typical impairments (cellphone/text use, kids, age, eating, smoking, fatigue) that we "tolerate" or at least perforce can not readily "prove"?

As to the second, pot to kettle...
 
2013-01-24 10:58:17 AM

Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: 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?

By legalizing pot? I don't get it.


Legalize the pot, but criminalize the driving. No one gets locked up for possession of less than an ounce any more unless they're on probation. Impaired driving, on the other hand, could introduce millions of new customers to the criminal justice system. Just think of all the lawyers and criminal justice workers we'll need to hire.
 
2013-01-24 10:58:27 AM

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


Psychotic maybe, but not especially unpredictable.
 
2013-01-24 10:58:51 AM
spentmiles 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.

You sound drunk.

/and fat.
 
2013-01-24 11:00:01 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.


I would like to know how many accidents involved ONLY the drug. I have the suspicion that if I pounded a fifth of Jim Bean and took one toke of a joint then got in a car accident, it would be classified as a drug related accident(rightly so) but should not be used as evidence that the drug was the sole factor that caused the accident.
 
2013-01-24 11:00:28 AM

Marcus Aurelius: here to help: I don't think smoking any amount of pot should be allowed before driving. Not because I'm anti weed or I don't think some folks are perfectly fine behind the wheel after toking (some people are BETTER after a couple toots) but because the way people react to it is WILDLY varied. I for one turn into a complete mess with even the slightest bit of a pot buzz. I lose all confidence and get super jittery. I think it might be a mild allergy or just how my brain is wired. I've also known a lot of people over the years who can't handle their smoke at all. At least with booze the results are a little more consistent and predictable.

The only thing I can think of to work around issues like this is to ban any amount of pot in the system then have tokers who drive pass a special skill test where they get stoned before hand. Then based on the results determine what amount they are able to handle.

The driving while stoned thing is one of the stickier problems with legalization.

get it? stickier?

lol I slay me...

You just need to start smoking it three or four or five times a day, and you'll feel much better. After awhile you won't even notice that you're high any more.


I'd like the SSRI and Xanax users off the road and locked up.
 
2013-01-24 11:00:36 AM

Mr_Fabulous: 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?


He's high. Give him a break until the psychosis wears off
 
2013-01-24 11:02:11 AM

StoPPeRmobile: I'd like the SSRI and Xanax users off the road and locked up.


Those drugs are protected by the pharmaceutical lobby, so good luck with that.
 
2013-01-24 11:03:23 AM

NallTWD: Not to mention nullification of a federal law doesn't fly.


www.mainedaytrips.com

Maybe not where you live.
 
2013-01-24 11:03:29 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: 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?

By legalizing pot? I don't get it.

Legalize the pot, but criminalize the driving. No one gets locked up for possession of less than an ounce any more unless they're on probation. Impaired driving, on the other hand, could introduce millions of new customers to the criminal justice system. Just think of all the lawyers and criminal justice workers we'll need to hire.


My implication being that the number of people arrested/jailed for possessing pot before CO voted last November is far greater than the number who will be arrested/jailed for DUI(M).

I mean, yeah - it sucks that the way they're going to implement testing it sucks all kinds of ass, but impaired driving is certainly something to do something about.
 
2013-01-24 11:04:00 AM

Marcus Aurelius: You just need to start smoking it three or four or five times a day, and you'll feel much better. After awhile you won't even notice that you're high any more.


lol... I used to be able to when I was young skeezeball. Something changed. Not sure what. The brain is a very strange gizmo. Sure has saved me a LOT of freaking money over the years though... which I can now waste on tasty tasty beer. ;-)
 
2013-01-24 11:09:47 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.


10/10

You should be getting some really good bites with this one.
 
2013-01-24 11:11:56 AM

here to help: I used to be able to when I was young skeezeball. Something changed. Not sure what. The brain is a very strange gizmo


Same thing happened to me. I just lost my mojo for it one day.*

* golf course exemption remains in place
 
2013-01-24 11:13:08 AM
scrapetv.com
 
2013-01-24 11:15:01 AM
These idiots who project a significant jump in cannabis users need to pull their heads out of their asses. Everyone who wants to smoke pot already does. Nobody was sitting on their hands until cannabis legislation finally rolled into their state to liberate them at last. "Now we can burn cannabis without incurring a $100 citation that wouldnt even have showed up on our criminal records in many states!"


Fun fact: drug prohibition actually creates more users. Portugal decriminalized all drug use over a decade ago, and drug use fell by half. They put money into helping addicts instead of locking them in holes like animals, and my goodness people actually started to get better. Imagine if we could take half the tweakers/crackhead/heroin junkie population and turn them into productive citizens in one fell swoop. Its possible here too, we just have to get over the alarmist ZOMG DRUGS1! mindset as a society.

If you still support cannabis prohibition, youre either an old fogey or a sister-banging fundie. Neither of these constituencies deserves a significant hand in voting on this issue, you are just too out of touch.

Also, the average pothead drives fine on his scheduled dose, way better than comparable use on alcohol. They also wont become violent or belligerent, slur, swerve all over the roads, beat their wives when they get home, pass out in their own piss or vomit, etc. A new user may be overwhelmed by cannabis, but regular pot smokers function just fine after a hit of weed.
 
2013-01-24 11:15:47 AM
This is the big challenge for marijuana legalization (which I support).  THC may be in the system long after the high, so determining the level of THC that would indicate impairment is a challenge.  Seems to me that lawmakers are just throwing numbers at a dartboard rather than having any scientific evidence as to impairment levels.  If it ultimately falls back on law enforcement to determine impairment levels based on observations, it's likely going to be abused by some cops.
 
2013-01-24 11:16:10 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.


Well, I thought the only way to really check for rabies was to crack it's skull open and check the brains. We should do the same for those deviant pot users. Crack a few stoner skulls open, and maybe the rest of those welfare spending deadbeats will get the message that we don't tolerate that devil drug. This is Amurica for God's sake. We don't want children raping pot-addicts here who overdose and cost tax payers money when a hospital has to try and save their worthless life.
 
2013-01-24 11:16:19 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.


0/10 could you be ANY more obvious?
 
2013-01-24 11:17:29 AM

Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: 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?

By legalizing pot? I don't get it.

Legalize the pot, but criminalize the driving. No one gets locked up for possession of less than an ounce any more unless they're on probation. Impaired driving, on the other hand, could introduce millions of new customers to the criminal justice system. Just think of all the lawyers and criminal justice workers we'll need to hire.

My implication being that the number of people arrested/jailed for possessing pot before CO voted last November is far greater than the number who will be arrested/jailed for DUI(M).

I mean, yeah - it sucks that the way they're going to implement testing it sucks all kinds of ass, but impaired driving is certainly something to do something about.


In most states, pot possession is a misdemeanor that can be pled down to disorderly conduct. The punishments are getting less and less harsh with each passing year. And with outright legalization, all those possession charges go out the window. We have to replace those missing criminals somehow. And a set of harsh, badly thought out impaired driving laws is just the ticket.
 
2013-01-24 11:19:24 AM

Mr_Fabulous: 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?


You must be new here...
 
2013-01-24 11:20:37 AM

People in this thread seem to want to attack my point of view, but this is why I feel this way:

How Marijuana Ruined My Life
by spentmiles


This past fall, while I was working at a call center in Colorado, one of my co-workers asked me to come to a party at his house. I didn't know if I wanted to go, but he said we'd play games and watch movies. That sounded fun, so I told him that I would go.

When I got there, the music was loud and people were drinking alcohol, which made me nervous. My father drank and used to beat us with a pipe when he was drunk.

I was turning to leave when I saw two men in the living room smoking marijuana. I froze in place, not sure what to do. Then one of the men held out the marijuana and asked me if I wanted to try it. I kicked him in the groin as hard as I could and then, scared the other man would attack me, I ran out of the house as fast as I could.

I went directly to the police and told them about the men who were smoking the drugs. They didn't seem to care until I told them that I'd managed to kick one of them. They arrested me for assault. They went out and found the guy whom I'd kicked and he wanted to press charges. I sat in jail for weeks, lost my job and my apartment.

I was then convicted in criminal court and had to serve an additional 90 days in the maximum security wing because I was a violent offender. In custody, I was raped repeatedly by my cell mate and his endless gang of thugs. I tried to kill myself by hanging, but I failed, leaving horrible scars on my neck.

The man I kicked sued me in civil court and won. He took my car and my savings and they put a garnish on my future wages. He probably used the money to buy more drugs.

If I'd only ran the moment I saw the marijuana, I would still have my life. It can ruin you and you don't even have to smoke it. Stay away please.
 
2013-01-24 11:21:18 AM

gweilo8888: 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.

0/10 could you be ANY more obvious?


media.tumblr.com

/i feel safer
 
2013-01-24 11:21:48 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!!!


And so do pot-heads. Coincidence?
 
2013-01-24 11:27:16 AM

Urmuf Hamer: garumph: Until people understand what the test is don't sound like ignorant assholes

So...as to the first half of this, why don't you explain it perfesser . For example, where are the numerous studies demonstrating that this quantity of presence in a sufficiently large number of subjects reliably indicates a strong likelihood of impairment rising above the level of typical impairments (cellphone/text use, kids, age, eating, smoking, fatigue) that we "tolerate" or at least perforce can not readily "prove"?

As to the second, pot to kettle...


We are pretty much arguing the same point but from a different angle. My point is that the folks that think the urine test that they use for employment is the one the cops are going to use. It isn't. They measure the amount of active THC in the blood stream. It decays pretty quickly for most smokers. You are down under 5ng after an hour or two. If you eat it, it can be a lot longer. Folks need to understand what the test is to be able to make an intelligent argument.

Is that number at all accurate at all for determining impairment? You don't think so at all, I'm not so sure. The studies are basically non-existant. One of my biggest arguments to legalize it in Washington state is so that we can actually get some studies to determine how to determine impairment.

I happen to espouse the belief that we should make the laws more restrictive then relax them as oppose to your view that we should kill more people then restrict it. I'm sure you will love the Target Zero initiative in Washington State.
 
2013-01-24 11:28:20 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.


CSB:  I was once DD for some friends.  Once of the guys in the back seat decided to lean forward and grab the steering wheel.  He yelled, "Go left!" and he forced the car into on-coming traffic.  We got lucky we didn't hit anyone.  I never let him in my car again.
 
2013-01-24 11:30:27 AM

Marcus Aurelius: In most states, pot possession is a misdemeanor that can be pled down to disorderly conduct. The punishments are getting less and less harsh with each passing year. And with outright legalization, all those possession charges go out the window. We have to replace those missing criminals somehow. And a set of harsh, badly thought out impaired driving laws is just the ticket.


And it would be so easy to put a little thought into it such that: a) impaired driving due to weed would be punishable, same as DUI (which is a good thing, don't you think?); and b) the test actually measured impairment.

// believe me, I know all about misdemeanor possession
 
2013-01-24 11:32:19 AM
FTA: "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."


I wonder how many of these fatal crashes "involved" alcohol, prescription meds and other intoxicants, and how many "involved" marijuana alone?

/Bet they didn't bother to differentiate
 
2013-01-24 11:32:46 AM

MythDragon: Mr_Fabulous: 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?

You must be new here...



I already grumbled and harrumphed in embarrassed disgust; what more do you want from me?
 
2013-01-24 11:33:29 AM

spentmiles: People in this thread seem to want to attack my point of view, but this is why I feel this way:

How Marijuana Ruined My Life
by spentmiles

This past fall, while I was working at a call center in Colorado, one of my co-workers asked me to come to a party at his house. I didn't know if I wanted to go, but he said we'd play games and watch movies. That sounded fun, so I told him that I would go.

When I got there, the music was loud and people were drinking alcohol, which made me nervous. My father drank and used to beat us with a pipe when he was drunk.

I was turning to leave when I saw two men in the living room smoking marijuana. I froze in place, not sure what to do. Then one of the men held out the marijuana and asked me if I wanted to try it. I kicked him in the groin as hard as I could and then, scared the other man would attack me, I ran out of the house as fast as I could.

I went directly to the police and told them about the men who were smoking the drugs. They didn't seem to care until I told them that I'd managed to kick one of them. They arrested me for assault. They went out and found the guy whom I'd kicked and he wanted to press charges. I sat in jail for weeks, lost my job and my apartment.

I was then convicted in criminal court and had to serve an additional 90 days in the maximum security wing because I was a violent offender. In custody, I was raped repeatedly by my cell mate and his endless gang of thugs. I tried to kill myself by hanging, but I failed, leaving horrible scars on my neck.

The man I kicked sued me in civil court and won. He took my car and my savings and they put a garnish on my future wages. He probably used the money to buy more drugs.

If I'd only ran the moment I saw the marijuana, I would still have my life. It can ruin you and you don't even have to smoke it. Stay away please.


If your story saves even ONE youth from a lifetime of weed addiction, then all that prison rape will have been worth it!
 
2013-01-24 11:33:37 AM

spentmiles: People in this thread seem to want to attack my point of view, but this is why I feel this way:

How Marijuana Ruined My Life
by spentmiles

This past fall, while I was working at a call center in Colorado, one of my co-workers asked me to come to a party at his house. I didn't know if I wanted to go, but he said we'd play games and watch movies. That sounded fun, so I told him that I would go.

When I got there, the music was loud and people were drinking alcohol, which made me nervous. My father drank and used to beat us with a pipe when he was drunk.

I was turning to leave when I saw two men in the living room smoking marijuana. I froze in place, not sure what to do. Then one of the men held out the marijuana and asked me if I wanted to try it. I kicked him in the groin as hard as I could and then, scared the other man would attack me, I ran out of the house as fast as I could.

I went directly to the police and told them about the men who were smoking the drugs. They didn't seem to care until I told them that I'd managed to kick one of them. They arrested me for assault. They went out and found the guy whom I'd kicked and he wanted to press charges. I sat in jail for weeks, lost my job and my apartment.

I was then convicted in criminal court and had to serve an additional 90 days in the maximum security wing because I was a violent offender. In custody, I was raped repeatedly by my cell mate and his endless gang of thugs. I tried to kill myself by hanging, but I failed, leaving horrible scars on my neck.

The man I kicked sued me in civil court and won. He took my car and my savings and they put a garnish on my future wages. He probably used the money to buy more drugs.

If I'd only ran the moment I saw the marijuana, I would still have my life. It can ruin you and you don't even have to smoke it. Stay away please.


Oh, you.

Fav'd.
 
2013-01-24 11:34:16 AM

StoPPeRmobile: gweilo8888: 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.

0/10 could you be ANY more obvious?

[media.tumblr.com image 311x311]

/i feel safer


What part of "0/10 could you be ANY more obvious?" did you not understand, Sparky?

/I've been here about a year longer than you have
 
2013-01-24 11:36:09 AM
Hogwash.

Cannibis does not impair motor coordination, that has been proven in the laboratory many times.
 
2013-01-24 11:38:03 AM

olddinosaur: Hogwash.

Cannibis does not impair motor coordination, that has been proven in the laboratory many times.


Evidence?

/Seriously, I'd love to see some peer-reviewed articles
//Driving while impaired should only be given when someone is actually impaired
 
2013-01-24 11:39:44 AM
I drive high to and from work pretty much every day. No accidents in the past 6-7 years.
 
2013-01-24 11:40:46 AM

macadamnut: NallTWD: Not to mention nullification of a federal law doesn't fly.

[www.mainedaytrips.com image 637x478]

Maybe not where you live.


So you are saying that when people feel strongly enough about something, believing it to be constitutionally or morally wrong, they will defy Federal law? Has Diane Feinstein been briefed on this?
 
2013-01-24 11:48:15 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.


The NHTSA did a fairly comprehensive set of driving tests years ago with marijuana, alcohol, a mixture of the two, and a non-intoxicated baseline. Marijuana had a fairly static negative effect on reaction times and a large negative effect on lane drift(more than alcohol) regardless of level of intoxication, while alcohol scaled based on intoxication level. Combined, the effects were magnified.

So, yea, marijuana has an immediate effect on driving. Now who knows if their test measures current intoxication, but that's a different story
 
2013-01-24 11:48:22 AM

Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: In most states, pot possession is a misdemeanor that can be pled down to disorderly conduct. The punishments are getting less and less harsh with each passing year. And with outright legalization, all those possession charges go out the window. We have to replace those missing criminals somehow. And a set of harsh, badly thought out impaired driving laws is just the ticket.

And it would be so easy to put a little thought into it such that: a) impaired driving due to weed would be punishable, same as DUI (which is a good thing, don't you think?); and b) the test actually measured impairment.

// believe me, I know all about misdemeanor possession


Whatever. As long as cops get to pull people over and draw blood. That would be so cool.
 
2013-01-24 11:50:09 AM
Yay, fill up the jails and have more traffic fatalities.  Legalizing marijuana is a great idea.  Look how well it went with alcohol.


If you need pot to get through life, you really have issues.
 
2013-01-24 11:50:32 AM

spentmiles: People in this thread seem to want to attack my point of view, but this is why I feel this way:

How Marijuana Ruined My Life
by spentmiles

This past fall, while I was working at a call center in Colorado, one of my co-workers asked me to come to a party at his house. I didn't know if I wanted to go, but he said we'd play games and watch movies. That sounded fun, so I told him that I would go.

When I got there, the music was loud and people were drinking alcohol, which made me nervous. My father drank and used to beat us with a pipe when he was drunk.

I was turning to leave when I saw two men in the living room smoking marijuana. I froze in place, not sure what to do. Then one of the men held out the marijuana and asked me if I wanted to try it. I kicked him in the groin as hard as I could and then, scared the other man would attack me, I ran out of the house as fast as I could.

I went directly to the police and told them about the men who were smoking the drugs. They didn't seem to care until I told them that I'd managed to kick one of them. They arrested me for assault. They went out and found the guy whom I'd kicked and he wanted to press charges. I sat in jail for weeks, lost my job and my apartment.

I was then convicted in criminal court and had to serve an additional 90 days in the maximum security wing because I was a violent offender. In custody, I was raped repeatedly by my cell mate and his endless gang of thugs. I tried to kill myself by hanging, but I failed, leaving horrible scars on my neck.

The man I kicked sued me in civil court and won. He took my car and my savings and they put a garnish on my future wages. He probably used the money to buy more drugs.

If I'd only ran the moment I saw the marijuana, I would still have my life. It can ruin you and you don't even have to smoke it. Stay away please.


EPIC
 
2013-01-24 11:50:34 AM
Oh look, it's the same limit that was set for WA state.

And for those who are still being willfully ignorant about what this means, studies were conducted on chronic smokers that showed they only got close to the limit immediately after smoking. None of this "I smoked on Friday and got pulled over and ticketed on Monday" bullshiat that people are clutching their pearls about is going to happen.
 
2013-01-24 11:55:28 AM

spentmiles: beautiful words.


I love you.
 
2013-01-24 11:56:05 AM

MythDragon: 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.

Well, I thought the only way to really check for rabies was to crack it's skull open and check the brains. We should do the same for those deviant pot users. Crack a few stoner skulls open, and maybe the rest of those welfare spending deadbeats will get the message that we don't tolerate that devil drug. This is Amurica for God's sake. We don't want children raping pot-addicts here who overdose and cost tax payers money when a hospital has to try and save their worthless life.


Woah woah woah woah there buddy. Since when are children raping potheads?
 
2013-01-24 11:58:55 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Whatever. As long as cops get to pull people over and draw blood. That would be so cool.


Officer: Son, I'm gonna need to draw some blood for your active-THC field test.
Dr (slicing into his arm): Reach in there and grab all you need, hoss.

// the only blood draws the cops'll do will be either down the station-house or extra-curricular
// I can see them maybe - MAYBE, if many things change - using the auto-pricker they used to use to test Fe levels before donating blood
// wouldn't that make publishing DUI arrests a HIPAA violation? The cop'd be doing a medical procedure, so your info would have to be jealously guarded by the state, no?
 
2013-01-24 11:59:15 AM
Five nanograms? The NIDA MINIMUM is 50 nanograms per deciliter. What the hell are these idiot politicians doing passing laws that go against NIDA guidelines for intoxication/recent usage?
 
2013-01-24 11:59:19 AM

tukatz: Yay, fill up the jails and have more traffic fatalities.  Legalizing marijuana is a great idea.  Look how well it went with alcohol.


If you need pot to get through life, you really have issues the munchies.


FTFY
 
2013-01-24 11:59:36 AM

un4gvn666: I drive high to and from work pretty much every day. No accidents in the past 6-7 years.



I drove stoned for over 11 years, and Ive never been in a car accident. I drove much safer when I was high; when Im not high I often break the speed limit and engage in certain riskier behaviors (failing to signal unless absolutely necessary, merging on crowded SoCal freeways without ample room, tailgating when that asshole cuts me off in the fast lane doing 55). Sober I have a a general impatience that cannabis negated completely.
 
2013-01-24 12:00:16 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: studies were conducted on chronic smokers that showed they only got close to the limit immediately after smoking


And those studies are BS. I've tested at 150nanograms per deciliter after three weeks of not smoking for a probation drug test.
 
2013-01-24 12:03:08 PM
Came here for pics of hot Colorado skier or hippie chick smoking pot....leaving disappointed.
 
2013-01-24 12:04:03 PM

tukatz: Yay, fill up the jails and have more traffic fatalities.  Legalizing marijuana is a great idea.  Look how well it went with alcohol.


If you need pot to get through life, you really have issues.


Delicious, smoky, fluffy issues.

/doesn't need to smoke
//likes to smoke
///time to smoke!
 
2013-01-24 12:06:01 PM

D_Evans45: un4gvn666: I drive high to and from work pretty much every day. No accidents in the past 6-7 years.


I drove stoned for over 11 years, and Ive never been in a car accident. I drove much safer when I was high; when Im not high I often break the speed limit and engage in certain riskier behaviors (failing to signal unless absolutely necessary, merging on crowded SoCal freeways without ample room, tailgating when that asshole cuts me off in the fast lane doing 55). Sober I have a a general impatience that cannabis negated completely.


Exactly. I never exceed 60 mph on the highway to work, because I'm so stoned I just don't give a shiat about being in a hurry. My wallet benefits immensely without all those speeding tickets I was getting as a young sober kid.
 
2013-01-24 12:06:40 PM

tukatz: Yay, fill up the jails and have more traffic fatalities.  Legalizing marijuana is a great idea.  Look how well it went with alcohol.

If you need pot to get through life, you really have issues.


People have been drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis for tens of thousands of years. This plus-size banana republic we live in has been around for less than 250.

Our government has no mandate to regulate these innate human behaviors.

/don't need herb to get through life

//want it, and will have it.
 
2013-01-24 12:12:20 PM

bhcompy: The NHTSA did a fairly comprehensive set of driving tests years ago with marijuana, alcohol, a mixture of the two, and a non-intoxicated baseline. Marijuana had a fairly static negative effect on reaction times and a large negative effect on lane drift(more than alcohol) regardless of level of intoxication, while alcohol scaled based on intoxication level. Combined, the effects were magnified.



The NHTSA is full of shiat then. The assertion that cannabis users "lane drift" more than alcohol users is completely false. The NHTSA is just another government organization.

The DEA just confirmed that THC has absolutely no therapeutic effects whatsoever the other day. They are equally full of shiat.
 
2013-01-24 12:13:14 PM

Dr Dreidel: StoPPeRmobile: Whatever. As long as cops get to pull people over and draw blood. That would be so cool.

Officer: Son, I'm gonna need to draw some blood for your active-THC field test.
Dr (slicing into his arm): Reach in there and grab all you need, hoss.

// the only blood draws the cops'll do will be either down the station-house or extra-curricular
// I can see them maybe - MAYBE, if many things change - using the auto-pricker they used to use to test Fe levels before donating blood
// wouldn't that make publishing DUI arrests a HIPAA violation? The cop'd be doing a medical procedure, so your info would have to be jealously guarded by the state, no?


Only criminals fear the law. What are you afraid of? Are you all potted up?
 
2013-01-24 12:14:35 PM
Are you experienced?

For 50 years, that has been painfully obvious to the experienced the the inexperienced are full of chit.

How about something completely new and completely different and the farkin' legislators educate themselves before passing edicts.
No point in waitng around.
 
2013-01-24 12:19:25 PM
There's a similar bill in my state. It is utterly insane. 5ng/ml is about 1/1666 of an effective dose. Do the math:

1000 ml/liter.
6 liters of blood in an average person. That's 6,000 ml.
6,000 ml x 5 ng = 30,000 ng.
That's 3 micrograms of THC.
An effective dose of THC is about 5 mg.
There are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram.
5,000 / 3 = 1,666

A hamster wouldn't feel that. This bill would make anyone legally consuming THC guilty of DUI if they get pulled over.
 
2013-01-24 12:20:45 PM
It ain't easy being a Colorado evangelical carpetbagger these days. It all started a few years ago when alcohol sales were made legal on Sundays. Right after that the dark-hued fellow absconded the American presidency, probably drunk on Thunderbird. That alone filled up fainting couches. Now, oh holy sh*t, now the maryjane is legal AND the state house if filled with a majority of liberals who are about to legalize the queers gettin' hitched.
www.addictinginfo.org
 
2013-01-24 12:21:42 PM
CORRECTION

AssAsInAssassin:
There's a similar bill in my state. It is utterly insane. 5ng/ml is about 1/166 of an effective dose. Do the math:

1000 ml/liter.
6 liters of blood in an average person. That's 6,000 ml.
6,000 ml x 5 ng = 30,000 ng.
That's 30 micrograms of THC.
An effective dose of THC is about 5 mg.
There are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram.
5,000 / 3 = 1,66

A guinea pig wouldn't feel that. This bill would make anyone legally consuming THC guilty of DUI if they get pulled over.
 
2013-01-24 12:24:39 PM
The proposal is aimed at addressing the concerns of medical marijuana users, who are often chronically over the five nanogram limit.
 
2013-01-24 12:26:07 PM

AssAsInAssassin: There's a similar bill in my state. It is utterly insane. 5ng/ml is about 1/1666 of an effective dose. Do the math:

1000 ml/liter.
6 liters of blood in an average person. That's 6,000 ml.
6,000 ml x 5 ng = 30,000 ng.
That's 3 micrograms of THC.
An effective dose of THC is about 5 mg.
There are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram.
5,000 / 3 = 1,666

A hamster wouldn't feel that. This bill would make anyone legally consuming THC guilty of DUI if they get pulled over.


I, for one, am quite certain that is the complete, whole and entire idea.
 
2013-01-24 12:27:50 PM

AssAsInAssassin: There's a similar bill in my state. It is utterly insane. 5ng/ml is about 1/1666 of an effective dose. Do the math:

1000 ml/liter.
6 liters of blood in an average person. That's 6,000 ml.
6,000 ml x 5 ng = 30,000 ng.
That's 3 micrograms of THC.
An effective dose of THC is about 5 mg.
There are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram.
5,000 / 3 = 1,666

A hamster wouldn't feel that. This bill would make anyone legally consuming THC guilty of DUI if they get pulled over.


Probably the most effective means of prohibition ever conceived.

/ah, victimless crimes
//yeah yeah, the state is the victim
///i feel safer
 
2013-01-24 12:27:52 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Only criminals fear the law. What are you afraid of? Are you all potted up?


I live in DC. I'm afraid I'll never get representation in Congress...

// not all potted up at the moment
// maybe 4.20% potted up
 
2013-01-24 12:34:06 PM

D_Evans45: bhcompy: The NHTSA did a fairly comprehensive set of driving tests years ago with marijuana, alcohol, a mixture of the two, and a non-intoxicated baseline. Marijuana had a fairly static negative effect on reaction times and a large negative effect on lane drift(more than alcohol) regardless of level of intoxication, while alcohol scaled based on intoxication level. Combined, the effects were magnified.


The NHTSA is full of shiat then. The assertion that cannabis users "lane drift" more than alcohol users is completely false. The NHTSA is just another government organization.

The DEA just confirmed that THC has absolutely no therapeutic effects whatsoever the other day. They are equally full of shiat.


Surprise, surprise. D_Evans45 says fark science like some evangelical Christian because of his blind love of marijuana. Didn't see that coming. Nope.

The study was done by a public university in the Netherlands, commissioned by the NHTSA. The data is what it is. Sorry, bro.

Link(fark won't accept the link for html) : https://psy.psych.colostate.edu/Research/Fall/article8.pdf
 
2013-01-24 12:41:54 PM

bhcompy: D_Evans45: bhcompy: The NHTSA did a fairly comprehensive set of driving tests years ago with marijuana, alcohol, a mixture of the two, and a non-intoxicated baseline. Marijuana had a fairly static negative effect on reaction times and a large negative effect on lane drift(more than alcohol) regardless of level of intoxication, while alcohol scaled based on intoxication level. Combined, the effects were magnified.


The NHTSA is full of shiat then. The assertion that cannabis users "lane drift" more than alcohol users is completely false. The NHTSA is just another government organization.

The DEA just confirmed that THC has absolutely no therapeutic effects whatsoever the other day. They are equally full of shiat.

Surprise, surprise. D_Evans45 says fark science like some evangelical Christian because of his blind love of marijuana. Didn't see that coming. Nope.

The study was done by a public university in the Netherlands, commissioned by the NHTSA. The data is what it is. Sorry, bro.

Link(fark won't accept the link for html) : https://psy.psych.colostate.edu/Research/Fall/article8.pdf


Regardless, 30 micrograms of THC isn't enough to cause impairment. The bill is nothing but a back-door attempt to criminalize all users who drive. No one could pass the test even the day after smoking a joint.
 
2013-01-24 12:43:49 PM
Smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol is like pissing into the wind.
 
2013-01-24 12:45:53 PM

bhcompy: D_Evans45: bhcompy: The NHTSA did a fairly comprehensive set of driving tests years ago with marijuana, alcohol, a mixture of the two, and a non-intoxicated baseline. Marijuana had a fairly static negative effect on reaction times and a large negative effect on lane drift(more than alcohol) regardless of level of intoxication, while alcohol scaled based on intoxication level. Combined, the effects were magnified.


The NHTSA is full of shiat then. The assertion that cannabis users "lane drift" more than alcohol users is completely false. The NHTSA is just another government organization.

The DEA just confirmed that THC has absolutely no therapeutic effects whatsoever the other day. They are equally full of shiat.

Surprise, surprise. D_Evans45 says fark science like some evangelical Christian because of his blind love of marijuana. Didn't see that coming. Nope.

The study was done by a public university in the Netherlands, commissioned by the NHTSA. The data is what it is. Sorry, bro.

Link(fark won't accept the link for html) : https://psy.psych.colostate.edu/Research/Fall/article8.pdf


Commissioned AND PAID FOR by a government agency with a vested conflict of interest.

Sorry, your ability to see past bias is obviously broken.
 
2013-01-24 12:49:13 PM
The main problem with testing is the same problem with alcohol: humans have very different metabolisms. Some people process things incredibly quickly, especially if they have low body fat. Other people have clearance rates 1/10th as fast. So guy #1 will test positive for something that guy #2 won't, which makes the testing itself unfair. The only tests that actually pick up the true intoxicant levels cost 20x what the state is willing to pay.
 
2013-01-24 12:52:31 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: The main problem with testing is the same problem with alcohol: humans have very different metabolisms. Some people process things incredibly quickly, especially if they have low body fat. Other people have clearance rates 1/10th as fast. So guy #1 will test positive for something that guy #2 won't, which makes the testing itself unfair. The only tests that actually pick up the true intoxicant levels cost 20x what the state is willing to pay.


Didn't read your comment, but... awesome name, bro.
 
2013-01-24 12:54:30 PM

khyberkitsune: Commissioned AND PAID FOR by a government agency with a vested conflict of interest.

Sorry, your ability to see past bias is obviously broken.


You do realize that you have a conflict of interest yourself, right?

I am pro-legalization. Strongly so. People who can safely drive while stoned do exist, but they are strongly in the minority, People who *believe* themselves to be able to drive high, but who are noticeably impaired, however... not such a big minority. The impairment isn't as extreme as it is with alcohol, but it is there and it is significant. I have seen it myself with multiple people; noticeably worse reaction times, noticeably shorter attention spans, making more basic driving errors than they normally did, and so forth. Only one or two people in my personal experience failed to show these issues.
 
2013-01-24 12:56:16 PM

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


Let me guess.... you are a D.A.R.E. kid aren't you.


/ Say HIGH to Miss Information when you see her again.
 
2013-01-24 12:57:19 PM
The inexperienced will never "get" that the intoxicating effects are completely different between alcohol and marijuana.
The driving deficiencies are entirely different because the chemistry and stuff,,,
 
2013-01-24 12:58:41 PM

khyberkitsune: Commissioned AND PAID FOR by a government agency with a vested conflict of interest.

Sorry, your ability to see past bias is obviously broken.


And conducted by a public university that has no incentive to fudge results because universities live off research dollars. This wasn't conducted by the Cato Institute
 
2013-01-24 01:00:26 PM
Snorted at the headline subby.

/All my magazines have little pieces torn off the back cover.
 
2013-01-24 01:01:29 PM
I've never had any problem flying while wearing this.
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-24 01:06:48 PM

bhcompy: Surprise, surprise. D_Evans45 says fark science like some evangelical Christian because of his blind love of marijuana. Didn't see that coming. Nope.

The study was done by a public university in the Netherlands, commissioned by the NHTSA. The data is what it is. Sorry, bro.



Yeah Im sure the DEA also had some 'scientific studies' backing up their assertions that cannabis has absolutely no therapeutic effect, and is just as dangerous as heroin, crack, and meth. Scientific studies can be full of shiat.

You said it yourself, it was funded by the NHTSA. Excuse me if Im not falling all over myself to correct my position over bullshiat science from biased gov't agencies.
 
2013-01-24 01:09:57 PM

Mr_Fabulous: MythDragon: Mr_Fabulous: 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?

You must be new here...


I already grumbled and harrumphed in embarrassed disgust; what more do you want from me?


Spentmiles is one of those guys you need to mark in a color that warns you that he is bat-shiat insane, yet highly entertaining.
 
2013-01-24 01:21:57 PM

Marcus Aurelius: That's quite a definitive statement there.


You quote me completely out of context, not withstanding the bait. Did you have a point? Or just your middling trollfu skills showy offy?
 
2013-01-24 01:25:37 PM

gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Commissioned AND PAID FOR by a government agency with a vested conflict of interest.

Sorry, your ability to see past bias is obviously broken.

You do realize that you have a conflict of interest yourself, right?

I am pro-legalization. Strongly so. People who can safely drive while stoned do exist, but they are strongly in the minority, People who *believe* themselves to be able to drive high, but who are noticeably impaired, however... not such a big minority. The impairment isn't as extreme as it is with alcohol, but it is there and it is significant. I have seen it myself with multiple people; noticeably worse reaction times, noticeably shorter attention spans, making more basic driving errors than they normally did, and so forth. Only one or two people in my personal experience failed to show these issues.


Ask a passenger,that is all potted, up to critique your driving. Watch what they catch that you don't. Learn.

/exterminate bias
 
2013-01-24 01:26:06 PM

bhcompy: And conducted by a public university that has no incentive to fudge results because universities live off research dollars


Which are paid for by companies with vested interests, so if that university wants those dollars, they'll have to play nice. Try again when you give me a party totally non-committed to the idea paying for the research.

PROTIP: I'm a research director for a multinational horticulture company. I know this sort of biased bullshiat when I see it.

gweilo8888: You do realize that you have a conflict of interest yourself, right?


No, I don't. I'm a medical user, but I also know from probation/parole and many other nice things like job drug testing, that this is bullshiat. Not because of the testing, no, purely because the chosen cutoff limit is well under NIDA guidelines which are (despite the obvious bias) more fair and honest versus what is being proposed here in this law re-write. And even with the NIDA being a government organization, they at least have the relief of not having to lie under oath like the DEA.
 
2013-01-24 01:28:19 PM

REO-Weedwagon: 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.


CO resident here too. Awesome story. I've been waiting to hear some stories of stuff like this happening.
 
2013-01-24 01:28:24 PM

StoPPeRmobile: gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Commissioned AND PAID FOR by a government agency with a vested conflict of interest.

Sorry, your ability to see past bias is obviously broken.

You do realize that you have a conflict of interest yourself, right?

I am pro-legalization. Strongly so. People who can safely drive while stoned do exist, but they are strongly in the minority, People who *believe* themselves to be able to drive high, but who are noticeably impaired, however... not such a big minority. The impairment isn't as extreme as it is with alcohol, but it is there and it is significant. I have seen it myself with multiple people; noticeably worse reaction times, noticeably shorter attention spans, making more basic driving errors than they normally did, and so forth. Only one or two people in my personal experience failed to show these issues.

Ask a passenger,that is all potted, up to critique your driving. Watch what they catch that you don't. Learn.

/exterminate bias


Done it, many times, showing a cop both drunk, and stoned, individually.

Stoned won more awards than the supposedly sober drivers on the road.

/SoCal, so take it for what it's worth.
 
2013-01-24 01:29:23 PM

gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Commissioned AND PAID FOR by a government agency with a vested conflict of interest.

Sorry, your ability to see past bias is obviously broken.

You do realize that you have a conflict of interest yourself, right?

I am pro-legalization. Strongly so. People who can safely drive while stoned do exist, but they are strongly in the minority, People who *believe* themselves to be able to drive high, but who are noticeably impaired, however... not such a big minority. The impairment isn't as extreme as it is with alcohol, but it is there and it is significant. I have seen it myself with multiple people; noticeably worse reaction times, noticeably shorter attention spans, making more basic driving errors than they normally did, and so forth. Only one or two people in my personal experience failed to show these issues.


This seems more like correlation to me. My stance is that those people who seem impaired and short of attention are probably just bad drivers. You may be more apt to pay attention, since you're obviously concerned and judgmental. I don't drive.. much, but I am a Colorado MMJ "patient". You could fill me full of cheeba chews, spark a cone, hand me a Dixie Elixir, and I'd STILL be a better driver than 90% of the soberites in Denver right now. Do you have any idea how many rollovers there are in any given week on 25 and 70? It's insane. People here just suck at driving.

That being said.. The FEW people I do know that seem "overly" effected or ridiculous when they're high (to the point where they would be a liability anywhere, road or not) seem to be way more aware of their inebriated state than those that are drunk. This generally leads to them making better decisions even when "impaired" to use their terminology.

In short, I think a person's propensity to try and do stupid things when on "substance x" should be a very serious consideration when regulating it. Alcohol is king on that list IMHO
 
2013-01-24 01:35:08 PM
 
2013-01-24 01:39:07 PM

10up: In short, I think a person's propensity to try and do stupid things when on "substance x" should be a very serious consideration when regulating it. Alcohol is king on that list IMHO


I'll back that. Alcohol has a bad combination of traits. It gives you bad ideas and the willingness to carry them out.
 
2013-01-24 01:39:36 PM

khyberkitsune: StoPPeRmobile: gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Commissioned AND PAID FOR by a government agency with a vested conflict of interest.

Sorry, your ability to see past bias is obviously broken.

You do realize that you have a conflict of interest yourself, right?

I am pro-legalization. Strongly so. People who can safely drive while stoned do exist, but they are strongly in the minority, People who *believe* themselves to be able to drive high, but who are noticeably impaired, however... not such a big minority. The impairment isn't as extreme as it is with alcohol, but it is there and it is significant. I have seen it myself with multiple people; noticeably worse reaction times, noticeably shorter attention spans, making more basic driving errors than they normally did, and so forth. Only one or two people in my personal experience failed to show these issues.

Ask a passenger,that is all potted, up to critique your driving. Watch what they catch that you don't. Learn.

/exterminate bias

Done it, many times, showing a cop both drunk, and stoned, individually.

Stoned won more awards than the supposedly sober drivers on the road.

/SoCal, so take it for what it's worth.


Thanks.
 
2013-01-24 01:44:40 PM

garumph: I'm not so sure. The studies are basically non-existant.


This IS my point

garumph: I happen to espouse the belief that we should make the laws more restrictive then relax them


And OH HELL THE PHCK NO First, laws don't work that way. We've been more than 90 years trying to undo the racist, classist political ploy Anslinger and others started and benefited from at the detriment of our society and culture. It has cost us 100s of billions and millions of lives, degraded respect for and clogged our legal system, to say nothing of providing neither safety nor liberty (neither of which anyone espousing your latter POV deserves? ironic: obsure?), nor the revenue streams, both tax and real economy to which via open commerce they could have contributed

garumph:(As) oppose (sic) to your view that we should kill more people then restrict it.

WTF?! From whence the phck do you pretend to glean my view? And beyond punk btch trollery why ruin an otherwise fairly reasonably presented explanation of your stance by ascribing mine in such caricature?

My view, since you presumed, is that politicians grandstand, and data and analysis are treated as encumbrances, not information. And scared uninformed assholes will stampede towards 'safety' at the mere inference of danger. And boy gee howdy them drugs and them drug users shere is dangerus honey. Hey! hold my beer and watch this! Phcking senile mammal.
 
2013-01-24 01:46:30 PM

StoPPeRmobile: khyberkitsune: StoPPeRmobile: gweilo8888: khyberkitsune: Commissioned AND PAID FOR by a government agency with a vested conflict of interest.

Sorry, your ability to see past bias is obviously broken.

You do realize that you have a conflict of interest yourself, right?

I am pro-legalization. Strongly so. People who can safely drive while stoned do exist, but they are strongly in the minority, People who *believe* themselves to be able to drive high, but who are noticeably impaired, however... not such a big minority. The impairment isn't as extreme as it is with alcohol, but it is there and it is significant. I have seen it myself with multiple people; noticeably worse reaction times, noticeably shorter attention spans, making more basic driving errors than they normally did, and so forth. Only one or two people in my personal experience failed to show these issues.

Ask a passenger,that is all potted, up to critique your driving. Watch what they catch that you don't. Learn.

/exterminate bias

Done it, many times, showing a cop both drunk, and stoned, individually.

Stoned won more awards than the supposedly sober drivers on the road.

/SoCal, so take it for what it's worth.

Thanks.


It may also help that I have one sharp memory, even stoned or drunk, so I raise the baseline way above most people.

/6' 140lbs and can maintain with a proven .4
//years of practice in the backwoods of Tennessee, Padawan, in snow and ice.
///started in Ice Storm of '94 Memphis
 
2013-01-24 01:58:32 PM
A not so CSB:

Back in the 90s, Nevada had a zero tolerance law for pot. Not sure if they still do.  Anyways, one of my brother's friends was driving home from work near the California/Nevada border, and he was still on the Nevada side.  As he was driving, an oncoming car crossed over the line and hit his car head on.  The people in the other car were all drunk. They were all killed.  My brother's friend had THC in his system from smoking on the weekend.  Nevada convicted him, claiming that he was impaired from pot and the accident was his fault (even though they were the ones to cross over the line and hit him). He served about 12 years.
 
2013-01-24 02:01:46 PM

mgshamster: A not so CSB:

Back in the 90s, Nevada had a zero tolerance law for pot. Not sure if they still do.  Anyways, one of my brother's friends was driving home from work near the California/Nevada border, and he was still on the Nevada side.  As he was driving, an oncoming car crossed over the line and hit his car head on.  The people in the other car were all drunk. They were all killed.  My brother's friend had THC in his system from smoking on the weekend.  Nevada convicted him, claiming that he was impaired from pot and the accident was his fault (even though they were the ones to cross over the line and hit him). He served about 12 years.


Sounds like he needs to be suing the state for negligence and conspiracy to witness.
 
2013-01-24 02:02:24 PM
Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.
 
2013-01-24 02:08:14 PM

khyberkitsune: PROTIP: I'm a research director for a multinational horticulture company. I know this sort of biased bullshiat when I see it.


So you read the study, examined who conducted it and checked their prior work, crunched the numbers, came up with your own results that differ from their results, etc, right? Or you just dismissed it prima facie, because that's what it looks like. You might know bullshiat research, but you sure as hell didn't have the time to determine that this was bullshiat. In a way, you're worse than DEvans, because you claim to be an expert.
 
2013-01-24 02:08:28 PM

khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.


You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?
 
2013-01-24 02:10:11 PM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?


Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.

bhcompy: khyberkitsune: PROTIP: I'm a research director for a multinational horticulture company. I know this sort of biased bullshiat when I see it.

So you read the study, examined who conducted it and checked their prior work, crunched the numbers, came up with your own results that differ from their results, etc, right? Or you just dismissed it prima facie, because that's what it looks like. You might know bullshiat research, but you sure as hell didn't have the time to determine that this was bullshiat. In a way, you're worse than DEvans, because you claim to be an expert.


I've not only crunched their numbers but been a participant in similar tests.

Got some news for you - I directly participated in these. You obviously have not.
 
2013-01-24 02:14:10 PM

khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?

Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.


What input did you use?
 
2013-01-24 02:14:48 PM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?

Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.

What input did you use?


If you couldn't figure that out in 15 seconds you shouldn't be using GREP.
 
2013-01-24 02:16:05 PM

khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?

Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.

What input did you use?

If you couldn't figure that out in 15 seconds you shouldn't be using GREP.


I've never used it before. I was hoping to learn it. I'd like to start by repeating what you did to see if I can get the same results.

/Or are you just lying to me about what you said?
 
2013-01-24 02:22:31 PM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

You reviewed the legal statutes in 38 seconds?

Grep is a wonderful tool, learn it.

What input did you use?

If you couldn't figure that out in 15 seconds you shouldn't be using GREP.

I've never used it before. I was hoping to learn it. I'd like to start by repeating what you did to see if I can get the same results.

/Or are you just lying to me about what you said?


If you want the same results you first need to have full access to the library - which means you need to download it. Any GREP user would know this is the route for the fastest infosearch.

Be prepared to break the law like Aaron Swartz. Yes, laws and their order of structure are copyrighted.

/are you willing to break the law?
 
2013-01-24 02:29:39 PM

khyberkitsune: /are you willing to break the law?


Not particularly.

Instead, let's go back to this:

khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.


Why?  How is Nevada at fault?

I know that in many DUI cases, the drunk driver is assumed at fault.  In Nevada, wouldn't the same thing apply to drugged driving (Nevada law states that drugged driving is driving with any measurable about of illicit drugs in your system, even if you are not physically impaired; from here)?
 
2013-01-24 02:30:27 PM

khyberkitsune: I've not only crunched their numbers but been a participant in similar tests.

Got some news for you - I directly participated in these. You obviously have not.


And you have a study? Where can I read it? I mean, I totally want to read the study that you crunched the numbers on while also being a test subject. That totally generates unbiased results, and considering your totally unbiased approach in this thread I assume that you are completely infallible.
 
2013-01-24 02:39:11 PM
It's 2013 and we are still debating reaction times and motor control while high? I thought we moved on from ignorance like "black men raping white women and throwing them off balconies", but I guess not.

There are two main variables to consider before talking about anything else.

1) Baseline driving ability.

2) Amount and frequency of smoking.
 
2013-01-24 02:43:06 PM

bhcompy: khyberkitsune: PROTIP: I'm a research director for a multinational horticulture company. I know this sort of biased bullshiat when I see it.

So you read the study, examined who conducted it and checked their prior work, crunched the numbers, came up with your own results that differ from their results, etc, right? Or you just dismissed it prima facie, because that's what it looks like. You might know bullshiat research, but you sure as hell didn't have the time to determine that this was bullshiat. In a way, you're worse than DEvans, because you claim to be an expert.



Your empirical evidence is a study done on the roads halfway across the world, funded by the U.S. government, that directly contradicts what I personally experienced and witnessed as a cannabis user for over 11 years. Your study claims cannabis users drift across lanes moreso than alcohol users, which is ridiculous enough to dismiss at face value. You dont need an expert to conclude that the 'science' this is garbage. Might as well go tell a bunch of drunks that alcohol gives them the nods worse than heroin, youre gonna get the same reaction.

The only time I ever drifted across lanes is when my equilibrium was shot from excessive alcohol consumption. It simply isnt a symptom regular cannabis users face. It simply isnt true. Your science is flawed at best, teetering on complete bullshiat. Sorry guy, its reality, and your worthless links mean absolutely nothing.
 
2013-01-24 02:43:27 PM

bhcompy: khyberkitsune: I've not only crunched their numbers but been a participant in similar tests.

Got some news for you - I directly participated in these. You obviously have not.

And you have a study? Where can I read it? I mean, I totally want to read the study that you crunched the numbers on while also being a test subject. That totally generates unbiased results, and considering your totally unbiased approach in this thread I assume that you are completely infallible.


Probably not the study in question, but this might be relevant.
 
2013-01-24 02:48:55 PM

D_Evans45: Your science is flawed at best, teetering on complete bullshiat. Sorry guy, its reality, and your worthless links mean absolutely nothing.


Here's the thing, though:

It doesn't matter if the science is flawed.  If that's the available research, that's what the gov't is going to use.  The only way to counter it is to provide good research that comes up with different conclusions.  The gov't didn't write (and update) alcohol laws by talking to people at AA meetings.  And they're not going to base or update any of these laws by talking to people who smoke pot.  If we want these laws to reflect reality, we need to get good solid research published.
 
2013-01-24 03:08:51 PM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

Why?  How is Nevada at fault?



If state prosecutors pushed for the incarceration, I would also find fault with NV. A drunk driver swerves into his lane and smashed into him, he wasn't breaking any laws or posing a hazard to other drivers. So what, pot was present in his system? It obviously didnt cause the accident. If the pothead had left home 1 minute later, it would have been some other family on the receiving end. That family wouldnt deserve incarceration for doing nothing wrong, either.

Lets ignore the pedantic nuances of intoxication laws for a second and look at the big picture. This guy was hit by a car full of drunks whilst safely minding his own business, and sentenced to over a decade in prison for something he didnt have any hand in. Youre stupider than bhcompy if you fail to see the injustice here.

/But he had cannabis in his system, so its okay to trample all over his rights somehow
//Bunch of cold dumb farks
 
2013-01-24 03:16:40 PM

snocone: AssAsInAssassin: There's a similar bill in my state. It is utterly insane. 5ng/ml is about 1/1666 of an effective dose. Do the math:

1000 ml/liter.
6 liters of blood in an average person. That's 6,000 ml.
6,000 ml x 5 ng = 30,000 ng.
That's 3 micrograms of THC.
An effective dose of THC is about 5 mg.
There are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram.
5,000 / 3 = 1,666

A hamster wouldn't feel that. This bill would make anyone legally consuming THC guilty of DUI if they get pulled over.

I, for one, am quite certain that is the complete, whole and entire idea.


Agreed, can't make it illegal? make it legally impossible while pretending you are being reasonable.


If a pot user....

Commits a crime....punish them just like you would anyone else.

Causes a traffic accident...punish them just you would anyone else

Commits vehicular homicide....punish them just you would anyone else

Fails to properly use their turn signal....punish them just you would anyone else

Why do we need to make pot users suffer more for the same crimes so many others commit every day? Why? Because we are punishing the choice, even if it makes no difference to the situation we apparently want people that make choices we don't like to suffer more when we get the chance.

I'm fine with people driving while on marijuana. A good driver straight is a good driver high. A bad driver straight will still be a bad driver while high. Why differentiate?

For the children, of course, of course....
 
2013-01-24 03:21:36 PM

mgshamster: D_Evans45: ...

Here's the thing, though:

It doesn't matter if the science is flawed.  If that's the available research, that's what the gov't is going to use.



I know how the process works, Im merely discussing the quality evidence provided by my opponent.

And even if we got empirical evidence that cannabis use is safe on the roads, the government would still disregard it. Just one or two days ago, the DEA was in appeals court convincing everyone that cannabis has no therapeutic value whatsoever, and is as dangerous as methamphetamine, heroin, and crack cocaine. This same government has a patent on cannabanoids as neural protectants (please google I cant link practically with this device). They will keep on dismissing real science in pursuit of the science that fits their agenda.

This is only going to end once the majority of states have passed cannabis laws and sufficient breakdown is occuring between state and federal governments, probably at least a decade off.
 
2013-01-24 03:36:27 PM

Amos Quito: FTA: "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."


I wonder how many of these fatal crashes "involved" alcohol, prescription meds and other intoxicants, and how many "involved" marijuana alone?

/Bet they didn't bother to differentiate


NHTSA does. I can't remeber their stat for sure but it was around 5 or 6%.
 
2013-01-24 03:38:25 PM

BGates: Amos Quito: FTA: "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."


I wonder how many of these fatal crashes "involved" alcohol, prescription meds and other intoxicants, and how many "involved" marijuana alone?

/Bet they didn't bother to differentiate

NHTSA does. I can't remeber their stat for sure but it was around 5 or 6%.


But that was for the entire US. Since CO has a higher population that uses, It would most likely be higher.
 
2013-01-24 03:40:14 PM
There may be a problem with the cut off...

Occasional use can sometimes be detected much longer, as shown in Fig. 1 by the oral dose from a different controlled study [03]. This represents a subject who was given a strong oral dose of 20 mg of THC, equivalent to a strong brownie or two high-dose Marinol pills. The subject tested above the 50 ng/ml cutoff for up to six days after dosing.
From:
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.ht m l
 
2013-01-24 03:41:57 PM

D_Evans45: mgshamster: khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

Why?  How is Nevada at fault?


If state prosecutors pushed for the incarceration, I would also find fault with NV. A drunk driver swerves into his lane and smashed into him, he wasn't breaking any laws or posing a hazard to other drivers. So what, pot was present in his system? It obviously didnt cause the accident. If the pothead had left home 1 minute later, it would have been some other family on the receiving end. That family wouldnt deserve incarceration for doing nothing wrong, either.

Lets ignore the pedantic nuances of intoxication laws for a second and look at the big picture. This guy was hit by a car full of drunks whilst safely minding his own business, and sentenced to over a decade in prison for something he didnt have any hand in. Youre stupider than bhcompy if you fail to see the injustice here.

/But he had cannabis in his system, so its okay to trample all over his rights somehow
//Bunch of cold dumb farks


I think you misunderstand me.  I agree completely that it was a travesty. However, I don't think they were incorrect, legally.

Either that, or he had a really bad lawyer.

I was watching a case on court tv about a year ago talking about a drunk driving case.  Both drivers were drunk. One was stopped at a stop light.  The light turned green, and he started going. A different drunk driver ran the red light from side and crashed into the first.  The second driver was killed.  When I was watching the case, the prosecutor got knowledge that the second driver was drunk struck from the record, so the jury only had the knowledge that one of the drivers was drunk (the one with the green light).  I never saw the end, so I don't know the verdict.

A similar thing could have happened in the case we've been talking about.
 
2013-01-24 03:44:04 PM

D_Evans45: mgshamster: D_Evans45: ...

Here's the thing, though:

It doesn't matter if the science is flawed.  If that's the available research, that's what the gov't is going to use.


I know how the process works, Im merely discussing the quality evidence provided by my opponent.

And even if we got empirical evidence that cannabis use is safe on the roads, the government would still disregard it. Just one or two days ago, the DEA was in appeals court convincing everyone that cannabis has no therapeutic value whatsoever, and is as dangerous as methamphetamine, heroin, and crack cocaine. This same government has a patent on cannabanoids as neural protectants (please google I cant link practically with this device). They will keep on dismissing real science in pursuit of the science that fits their agenda.

This is only going to end once the majority of states have passed cannabis laws and sufficient breakdown is occuring between state and federal governments, probably at least a decade off.


This reminds me of (I think it was last year?) the DEA threatened to prosecute some congressmen or local representatives with conspiring with drugs (or some such) because they were trying to write a law legalizing pot.
 
2013-01-24 03:44:40 PM

UseLessHuman: snocone: AssAsInAssassin: There's a similar bill in my state. It is utterly insane. 5ng/ml is about 1/1666 of an effective dose. Do the math:

1000 ml/liter.
6 liters of blood in an average person. That's 6,000 ml.
6,000 ml x 5 ng = 30,000 ng.
That's 3 micrograms of THC.
An effective dose of THC is about 5 mg.
There are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram.
5,000 / 3 = 1,666

A hamster wouldn't feel that. This bill would make anyone legally consuming THC guilty of DUI if they get pulled over.

I, for one, am quite certain that is the complete, whole and entire idea.

Agreed, can't make it illegal? make it legally impossible while pretending you are being reasonable.


If a pot user....

Commits a crime....punish them just like you would anyone else.

Causes a traffic accident...punish them just you would anyone else

Commits vehicular homicide....punish them just you would anyone else

Fails to properly use their turn signal....punish them just you would anyone else

Why do we need to make pot users suffer more for the same crimes so many others commit every day? Why? Because we are punishing the choice, even if it makes no difference to the situation we apparently want people that make choices we don't like to suffer more when we get the chance.

I'm fine with people driving while on marijuana. A good driver straight is a good driver high. A bad driver straight will still be a bad driver while high. Why differentiate?

For the children, of course, of course....


This entire dealeo is so blown all out of reality.
The sociopathic behavior rationalized by A BIG FARKING LIE in the first place is, well, best case is mass psychosis.
Amazing what people will do to each other for money!
 
2013-01-24 04:28:32 PM

mgshamster: This reminds me of (I think it was last year?) the DEA threatened to prosecute some congressmen or local representatives with conspiring with drugs (or some such) because they were trying to write a law legalizing pot.



Conspiring with drugs, thats a classic. I can see a wary congressman studiously eyeing a pound of buds and a kilo of cocaine across the table. "Are we gonna get these criminals high or what?"
 
2013-01-24 04:48:26 PM

D_Evans45: mgshamster: This reminds me of (I think it was last year?) the DEA threatened to prosecute some congressmen or local representatives with conspiring with drugs (or some such) because they were trying to write a law legalizing pot.


Conspiring with drugs, thats a classic. I can see a wary congressman studiously eyeing a pound of buds and a kilo of cocaine across the table. "Are we gonna get these criminals high or what?"


Here is it. The lawmaker was never actually charged with anything, but she did come under investigation by the DEA soon after she publicly made pro-marijuana statements.

FTA:  "The investigation began when a possible witness in a federal drug investigation was asked whether Sands might be part of a conspiracy to sell medical marijuana."
 
2013-01-24 05:07:33 PM

garumph: 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.


Sounds like it is some type of tolerance building up, so in order to be able to drive with a certain THC level people would need a certification test periodically to determine %delay in reaction time and %degradation of judgement, the results would be part of their DMV record, it makes no sense to put Cheech over there in jail for beng completely of sound mind at 15, and let someone else go who is baked at 4
 
2013-01-24 08:20:03 PM

bhcompy: The NHTSA did a fairly comprehensive set of driving tests years ago with marijuana, alcohol, a mixture of the two, and a non-intoxicated baseline. Marijuana had a fairly static negative effect on reaction times and a large negative effect on lane drift(more than alcohol) regardless of level of intoxication, while alcohol scaled based on intoxication level. Combined, the effects were magnified.


Even if cannabis intoxication impairs driving, I think the main point is always missed by dumbasses like you and the NHTSA.

If people are going to smoke and drive, they do not stop their decision to drive just because it is illegal. It doesn't go like this: "I'm so high! Hey let's drive to the gas station. NO WAIT. Pot is illegal hence and therefore thusly, I will not drive."

In reality, things go more like this: "Hey let's go driving to the gas station."

Legalizing could increase the ability for law enforcement to make things safe because a legalized drug can be better defined as far as legal boundaries and limitations of both users and law enforcement.
 
2013-01-24 09:08:15 PM

Lehk: garumph: 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.

Sounds like it is some type of tolerance building up, so in order to be able to drive with a certain THC level people would need a certification test periodically to determine %delay in reaction time and %degradation of judgement, the results would be part of their DMV record, it makes no sense to put Cheech over there in jail for beng completely of sound mind at 15, and let someone else go who is baked at 4


Why do you hate money?
 
2013-01-25 01:37:43 AM

mgshamster: khyberkitsune: /are you willing to break the law?

Not particularly.

Instead, let's go back to this:

khyberkitsune: Sorry, I screwed up. After a review of legal statutes, Nevada should be sued for aiding and abetting.

Why?  How is Nevada at fault?

I know that in many DUI cases, the drunk driver is assumed at fault.  In Nevada, wouldn't the same thing apply to drugged driving (Nevada law states that drugged driving is driving with any measurable about of illicit drugs in your system, even if you are not physically impaired; from here)?


Depends on who they're defending/prosecuting. This has happened before, very rarely, but it has happened in the case of innocents.

bhcompy: And you have a study? Where can I read it? I mean, I totally want to read the study that you crunched the numbers on while also being a test subject.


That wouldn't happen, because I'd introduce bias. I was a subject in some, a researcher in others. Papers? We never published, being a private company with a product to sell, except the people we were selling to got the paperwork.

D_Evans45: bhcompy: khyberkitsune: PROTIP: I'm a research director for a multinational horticulture company. I know this sort of biased bullshiat when I see it.

So you read the study, examined who conducted it and checked their prior work, crunched the numbers, came up with your own results that differ from their results, etc, right? Or you just dismissed it prima facie, because that's what it looks like. You might know bullshiat research, but you sure as hell didn't have the time to determine that this was bullshiat. In a way, you're worse than DEvans, because you claim to be an expert.


Your empirical evidence is a study done on the roads halfway across the world, funded by the U.S. government, that directly contradicts what I personally experienced and witnessed as a cannabis user for over 11 years. Your study claims cannabis users drift across lanes moreso than alcohol users, which is ridiculous enough to dismiss at face value. You dont need an expert to conclude that the 'science' this is garbage. Might as well go tell a bunch of drunks that alcohol gives them the nods worse than heroin, youre gonna get the same reaction.

The only time I ever drifted across lanes is when my equilibrium was shot from excessive alcohol consumption. It simply isnt a symptom regular cannabis users face. It simply isnt true. Your science is flawed at best, teetering on complete bullshiat. Sorry guy, its reality, and your worthless links mean absolutely nothing.


I wouldn't say that. Different strokes for different folks, so to speak. I'm 6' 140 and I can hold my shiat far better than most people double my size. While anecdotal, I admit that I am a rare case, but again, I exist, so don't be so quick to say some things.

And while you guys are quick to say things that I have not stated, but are implied and you've stated them - not all of them are true all the time. Yes, they are true, and likely they're true to an unreasonable degree as far as punishment goes, but otherwise, what are we to do?

/was at work, at a porno shop, protecting (and selling) your freedom (as in the ball&chain+kid)
//sorry for the long delay, again.
 
2013-01-25 04:44:41 AM
bath salts
 
2013-01-25 11:09:21 AM

khyberkitsune: Depends on who they're defending/prosecuting. This has happened before, very rarely, but it has happened in the case of innocents.


Got examples? I try to pay attention to innocents falsely convicted. I've even have a lecture that I give on it for a forensic science class.
 
Displayed 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report