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.

(Washington Post)   We have an alcohol limit for drivers; should we have a marijuana limit?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 184
    More: Interesting, Colorado, speed limits, marijuana, Greenwood Village  
•       •       •

3778 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2013 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-02 01:32:12 PM  
I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.
 
2013-03-02 02:01:40 PM  
Is there a way to test *how much* pot is in your system?  And quickly?
 
2013-03-02 02:02:34 PM  
Yes, we should.  Driving while impaired should be illegal, regardless of the cause of the impairment.  Whether it's alcohol, pot, quaaludes, cough syrup, talking on your got-dam cell phone, or anything else that impairs your ability to drive, it should be illegal.  A second offense should result in permanent loss of driving privileges.

(And although I am all in favor of recreational use of pot, I can assure you that no, you do not actually "drive better when you're high."  You just fail to notice how poor your driving is.  Get home, THEN get high.)
 
2013-03-02 02:02:49 PM  
Is there any evidence that stoned drivers are causing people to die?
 
2013-03-02 02:10:19 PM  
It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It makes good logistic sense, and it's probably positive for the marijuana reform movement to have a legal limit. But its impractical, impossible to prove and will only cost the taxpayers more money than it would be worth trying to enforce it.
 
2013-03-02 02:11:51 PM  

sammyk: Is there any evidence that stoned drivers are causing people to die?


Yes, there is.  Is there any reason why one cause of impairment should be treated differently than another?  Someone might argue that stoned drivers are not as dangerous as drunk drivers, but that's a foolish argument.  Both are more dangerous than sober drivers.
 
2013-03-02 02:14:39 PM  

downstairs: Is there a way to test *how much* pot is in your system?  And quickly?


Keeping mind that THC can remain in your blood in measurable quantities for over a week.
 
2013-03-02 02:24:08 PM  

sammyk: Is there any evidence that stoned drivers are causing people to die?


Its probably more rare, because so many more people drink than smoke pot in general.  As well, since alcohol is legal, and is a social drug, bars are where a lot of people drink.  And when it comes to most bars, they're generally not in walking distance across America.  Except in the downtown areas of big cities.

And since pot is illegal, I think most smokers do so at home more often than not.

But as someone who's only tried pot a few times... no freaking way I could drive as well as I do sober.  I promise you that (though I've never tried).
 
2013-03-02 02:25:16 PM  

FloydA: Yes, there is. Is there any reason why one cause of impairment should be treated differently than another? Someone might argue that stoned drivers are not as dangerous as drunk drivers, but that's a foolish argument. Both are more dangerous than sober drivers.


They are no more dangerous than texting drivers and most idiots on their cellphones. But because the marijuana reform movement doesn't have the money or the lobbyists that the telcom industry has it probably will be considered more dangerous.
 
2013-03-02 02:37:47 PM  
Sleeping Monkey:
They are no more dangerous than texting drivers and most idiots on their cellphones. But because the marijuana reform movement doesn't have the money or the lobbyists that the telcom industry has it probably will be considered more dangerous.


I agree that those should also be illegal.  Ten states already ban driving while using a hand-held cell phone, and in most of those, it's a primary violation.  39 states ban texting while driving for all drivers (5 more states for "novice" drivers), and in most of those it is also a primary violation.
Source

I don't know of any statistics that show that driving on pot is more dangerous or less dangerous than driving while texting, but that's irrelevant, IMO.  Debating whether one form of impairment is worse than another is begging the question.  We should not be tolerating any impaired driving, no matter what the cause.
 
2013-03-02 02:40:01 PM  
I drive just fine stoned.  It's no big deal.  You guys do realize that stoniness is a gradiant.  It's not like you take one toke and you're suddenly bombed out of your mind... That would be like assuming people get staggeringly drunk from a single shot of alcohol.
 
2013-03-02 02:44:11 PM  
It's all about the money anyway. DUI laws aren't designed to stop drunk driving, they're designed to profit from drunk driving.
 
2013-03-02 02:46:07 PM  

Honest Bender: I drive just fine stoned.  It's no big deal.  You guys do realize that stoniness is a gradiant.  It's not like you take one toke and you're suddenly bombed out of your mind... That would be like assuming people get staggeringly drunk from a single shot of alcohol.


Well that's why the whole argument is about a "limit".  I don't know enough about pot to know how much is too much, how its measured, all that.  Just saying, I think most would agree with you.

I drink a lot.  If I'm having a glass of wine or two for dinner, I'm sure I'm ok to drive.  If I'm getting hammered after a long week, I'm either walking or drinking at home.

Same should go for pot, for those who partake.  (I do believe it should be completely legal).
 
2013-03-02 03:03:57 PM  

FloydA: Sleeping Monkey:
They are no more dangerous than texting drivers and most idiots on their cellphones. But because the marijuana reform movement doesn't have the money or the lobbyists that the telcom industry has it probably will be considered more dangerous.


I agree that those should also be illegal.  Ten states already ban driving while using a hand-held cell phone, and in most of those, it's a primary violation.  39 states ban texting while driving for all drivers (5 more states for "novice" drivers), and in most of those it is also a primary violation.
Source

I don't know of any statistics that show that driving on pot is more dangerous or less dangerous than driving while texting, but that's irrelevant, IMO.  Debating whether one form of impairment is worse than another is begging the question.  We should not be tolerating any impaired driving, no matter what the cause.


I just can't get behind the zero tolerance mentality unless there is clear proof of the danger. There is a reason our DUI laws are so draconian. People die in huge numbers due to drunk driving. There is a mountain of evidence that clearly shows how alcohol impairs your motor skills. On a daily basis you can find a news story in any community regarding a drunk driving fatality. But is extremely rare to hear about a traffic fatality that can be proven without a doubt it was caused by a driver using marijuana. Millions of people drive every day while high. I just do not see the level of injury and death due to it to justify throwing people under the legal bus the way we do drunk drivers. The two are not the same and should not be treated like they are.
 
2013-03-02 03:12:26 PM  

downstairs: Honest Bender: I drive just fine stoned.  It's no big deal.  You guys do realize that stoniness is a gradiant.  It's not like you take one toke and you're suddenly bombed out of your mind... That would be like assuming people get staggeringly drunk from a single shot of alcohol.

Well that's why the whole argument is about a "limit".  I don't know enough about pot to know how much is too much, how its measured, all that.  Just saying, I think most would agree with you.

I drink a lot.  If I'm having a glass of wine or two for dinner, I'm sure I'm ok to drive.  If I'm getting hammered after a long week, I'm either walking or drinking at home.

Same should go for pot, for those who partake.  (I do believe it should be completely legal).


One of the things that make this such a difficult issue is that pot does not affect people the same way. My wife for instance can't operate the remote when she smokes up. Me? I function fine at just about any activity to a certain point. After that i'm too lazy to get off the couch.
 
2013-03-02 03:18:12 PM  
I live in Denver, weed is legal and everyone is smoking it, but the only bad drivers I'm seeing on the roads are people on their cell phones. Seriously, Farmville can wait till you get home, idiots.
 
2013-03-02 03:29:16 PM  

FloydA: (And although I am all in favor of recreational use of pot, I can assure you that no, you do not actually "drive better when you're high." You just fail to notice how poor your driving is. Get home, THEN get high.)


A rule I live by, myself.
 
2013-03-02 03:56:36 PM  
 
2013-03-02 04:02:00 PM  
We already have a marijuana limit. It's 0.
 
2013-03-02 04:04:05 PM  

downstairs: Is there a way to test *how much* pot is in your system?  And quickly?


I would be very surprised if someone didn't invent this (if it doesn't already exist; I didn't check).  If I was a breathalyzer manufacturer, I'd be scrambling to be first to market.
 
2013-03-02 04:06:28 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It makes good logistic sense, and it's probably positive for the marijuana reform movement to have a legal limit. But its impractical, impossible to prove and will only cost the taxpayers more money than it would be worth trying to enforce it.


Pretty much this.  I agree with the principle, but because it's so easy to agree with that part it becomes just an excuse for some politician to seem tough on crime without accomplishing anything.
 
2013-03-02 04:06:54 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: It's all about the money anyway. DUI laws aren't designed to stop drunk driving, they're designed to profit from drunk driving.


Wrong.
 
2013-03-02 04:12:01 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: It's all about the money anyway. DUI laws aren't designed to stop drunk driving, they're designed to profit from drunk driving.


Ohwaityoureserious.jpg.

If DUI laws are designed to "profit" from Drunk Driving, you might want to go after those damn dirty DUI defense attorneys for keeping the profit conspiracy alive.
 
2013-03-02 04:12:16 PM  
No.
 
2013-03-02 04:13:13 PM  

Honest Bender: It's not like you take one toke and you're suddenly bombed out of your mind... That would be like assuming people get staggeringly drunk from a single shot of alcohol.


If someone isn't a frequent smoker and they take a hit of some high-quality weed, they can get pretty wasted. I don't know about "bombed out of your mind", but certainly in no position to drive for a few hours. I've been smoking on and off for decades, but if I go through a long period of abstinence and then take 1 hit of some white widow, I know I'd be wise to stay off the road for a couple hours, at least.
 
2013-03-02 04:13:39 PM  
How about an insulin limit?
 
2013-03-02 04:14:36 PM  
Just wanted you to know that there are legal limits on how drunk you can be and operate a tractor trailer.

Sleep tight.
 
2013-03-02 04:15:21 PM  
No way, man. Drugs are totally harmless.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-02 04:19:09 PM  

FloydA: Yes, we should.  Driving while impaired should be illegal, regardless of the cause of the impairment.  Whether it's alcohol, pot, quaaludes, cough syrup, talking on your got-dam cell phone, or anything else that impairs your ability to drive, it should be illegal.  A second offense should result in permanent loss of driving privileges.

(And although I am all in favor of recreational use of pot, I can assure you that no, you do not actually "drive better when you're high."  You just fail to notice how poor your driving is.  Get home, THEN get high.)


^^^^^THIS^^^^^^
So VERY much this. I will add if you are proven to be driving impaired and cause an injury beyond a bump-and-scrape you should lose your license.
For  very farking long time. And it should be hard as hell to get it back.
If there is a death? No license again. E V E R.
 
2013-03-02 04:19:15 PM  
There should be a minimum level of intoxication required to get a driver license.
 
2013-03-02 04:20:02 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Just wanted you to know that there are legal limits on how drunk you can be and operate a tractor trailer.

Sleep tight.


No worries, the meth counteracts the affects of the alcohol.
 
2013-03-02 04:20:20 PM  
Michael Elliott and other marijuana advocates argue that marijuana affects different people differently, and that setting a THC limit would free prosecutors from having to prove their cases and could lead to wrongful DUI convictions.
"When it comes to criminal law, we err on the side of protecting the freedom of our citizens and holding the criminal justice system to the highest standards of proof," said Elliott, a lawyer and executive director of the Colorado-based Medical Marijuana Industry Group.


HAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

Good luck, asshole.  People have been trying to use the same argument against DUIs for years, and it doesn't work.

High is high.  Some people might be able to handle it better than others, so pick an arbitrary limit like they did with booze and apply it across the board.
 
2013-03-02 04:21:21 PM  

Krieghund: We already have a marijuana limit. It's 0.


Which is just as dumb as NO limit, imho.

Until they invent a test, I'd say do results-based analysis, ie, you were weaving and then got into a wreck?

You were too stoned to drive.
 
2013-03-02 04:23:01 PM  
If you make marijuana legal, and if it is agreed it impairs driving, then a legal limit is an obvious requirement - there is no point making something legal and then saying you can't drive for the next 2-3 weeks until any traces of the drug you used can't be detected any more.
 
2013-03-02 04:23:19 PM  
Hell yes we should.

With all the extremely potent strains of home grown "medical" pot out there, there is a serious need to be able to keep impaired drivers off the road.
 
2013-03-02 04:24:59 PM  
They can already do a blood test to test for how many nanograms/litre of thc is in the blood. this is the best way of determaning, because within 4 hours almost all of it is gone from the blood stream.    Now we just need a quick prick version of it instead of having an actual needle go into you.  problem solved.  just hire some engineers, lets get this thing rolling.
 
2013-03-02 04:25:01 PM  
Is there a reliable way to distinguish between last weekend's blaze and marijuana that is currently impacting the driver?  If not, the only people who are going to benefit from such legislation are the lawyers who will battle in court for years.

The reality is there are already roadside sobriety tests that are used to determine whether a person is intoxicated, whether by alcohol or drugs.  Adding a test of questionable validity isn't going to help with prosecutions.  The blood alcohol test was added because it can quantify the level of active intoxicant in a person at the time of the alleged offense.  But marijuana can be detected days or weeks after it's no longer active.  The results of such a test wouldn't clarify anything.  Unless, of course, there's a reliable test that quantifies the amount that is currently active.
 
2013-03-02 04:25:06 PM  
There shouldn't be a limit for any substance.

Killing or injuring people with the car, causing property damage, speeding, failing to stay in the lane, ignoring red signals... these are already illegal.

I might be willing to let myself be convinced that there should be a limit for commercial vehicle operation (taxis, schoolbuses, trucks over 26,000 lbs, etc), and that persons "under the influence" get stiffer penalties for other vehicular crimes they commit, but DUI shouldn't be illegal for common passenger vehicles (cars, light trucks, etc).
 
2013-03-02 04:25:55 PM  
Look, man, if there's one thing I know, it's how to drive while I'm stoned. It's like you know your perspective's farked so you just let your hands work the controls as if you were straight.

www.a2review.net
 
2013-03-02 04:25:56 PM  
Atomic Spunk:[...] I don't know about "bombed out of your mind", but certainly in no position to drive for a few hours. I've been smoking on and off for decades, but if I go through a long period of abstinence and then take 1 hit of some white widow, I know I'd be wise to stay off the road for a couple hours, at least.

What's wrong with hitting a white widow? They won't yell, they won't tell, they'll rarely swell, and they're grateful as he.. Oh, you mean the other kind
 
2013-03-02 04:27:34 PM  
The problem I've seen every time this comes up is that THC is a weird drug in that the effects wear off long before the drug is "out of your system." Smoke a bowl, be high for two hours, but you can still detect it six months later. I don't want someone to get arrested driving today because she tested positive for a joint she smoked last week. If you can find a reliable way of testing "highness" for that instant, then I don't have a problem with a law prohibiting stoned driving.

Also, depends on the kind of weed, not just the person: I know plenty of people who do drive legitimately fine on sativas, but hand them an indica and they don't move for three hours. Unfortunately, such nuance rarely gets any inches on newspaper columns.
 
2013-03-02 04:28:02 PM  
I vote for the acceptable limit of THC being zero.  If that means it takes 30 days for a pot head to let his system clean out before he can drive, so be it.  If they dont like it they can always simply not do illegal drugs.  What a novel idea!
 
2013-03-02 04:31:12 PM  
I think the only reliable test is the physical field test: say the alphabet backwards, touch your nose with your eyes closed, balance on the guardrail of a tall bridge...
 
2013-03-02 04:31:32 PM  
There are a few posters in this thread who need to get laid.  This is one of Rumsfeld' known knowns.
 
2013-03-02 04:32:11 PM  
stoners, please stop driving stoned, and please stop pretending you are okay to drive when stoned.
 
2013-03-02 04:32:33 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Sleeping Monkey: It's all about the money anyway. DUI laws aren't designed to stop drunk driving, they're designed to profit from drunk driving.

Wrong.



I may agree with him. Remember alcoholism is a disease. You can't hold those people responsible, they are a victim. You have to blame the alcohol. If it would save just one life you may want to look into outlawing consumption of alcohol. I know millions and millions of people use alcohol safely every day but we need to protect ourselves from the few times that alcohol kills. If we can't outlaw it than maybe we should just limit the amount of alcohol allowed in a drink. Maybe .25%? I mean do you really need strong alcohol?
 
2013-03-02 04:33:26 PM  
simple test

ask "Do you think everyone sees colors the same"
 
2013-03-02 04:33:31 PM  
Hey dude, My clothes are made from hemp. That's why your geiger counter type device is acting so funny.
 
2013-03-02 04:33:56 PM  
This is nothing to be proud of but in college I drove drunk all the time, never an indecent. I was finally caught at a random DUI checkpoint. Blew a .3 and the cop was amazed at how lucid I was. Not sure what my point is but I don't know how one can judge what is and what isn't intoxicated.
 
2013-03-02 04:34:38 PM  

Ima4nic8or: I vote for the acceptable limit of THC being zero.  If that means it takes 30 days for a pot head to let his system clean out before he can drive, so be it.  If they dont like it they can always simply not do illegal drugs.  What a novel idea!


It's legal in Colorado now, dumbass.
 
Displayed 50 of 184 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