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  
•       •       •

11222 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 9:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 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?
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report