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 34
    More: Spiffy, Colorado, marijuana legalization  
•       •       •

11219 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-24 10:04:59 AM
3 votes:
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 10:01:52 AM
3 votes:
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 12:26:07 PM
2 votes:

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 11:02:11 AM
2 votes:

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 10:58:17 AM
2 votes:

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 10:30:08 AM
2 votes:
How about...

waiting to see if there is a problem before you go looking for solutions.
2013-01-24 02:10:11 PM
1 votes:

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 12:27:50 PM
1 votes:

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 12:19:25 PM
1 votes:
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 12:14:35 PM
1 votes:
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 12:12:20 PM
1 votes:

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 12:06:40 PM
1 votes:

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 11:59:15 AM
1 votes:
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 11:38:03 AM
1 votes:

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 11:27:16 AM
1 votes:

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 11:17:29 AM
1 votes:

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 11:15:01 AM
1 votes:
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 11:00:28 AM
1 votes:

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 11:00:01 AM
1 votes:

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 10:58:51 AM
1 votes:
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 10:54:57 AM
1 votes:

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 10:48:05 AM
1 votes:

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


You must be new to America.
2013-01-24 10:43:46 AM
1 votes:

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 10:43:28 AM
1 votes:
my bullshiat law detector is going off...
2013-01-24 10:34:17 AM
1 votes:

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 10:20:36 AM
1 votes:
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 10:20:30 AM
1 votes:

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 10:19:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:14:36 AM
1 votes:

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 10:09:15 AM
1 votes:
I have to assume that any nanograms that are over three hours old will be excluded.
2013-01-24 10:08:52 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:58 AM
1 votes:

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 10:02:55 AM
1 votes:

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 10:01:09 AM
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report