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  
•       •       •

3777 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
 
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.
 
2013-03-02 04:34:58 PM
no marijuana limit.  allow unlimited use, retards
 
2013-03-02 04:35:28 PM

thenumber5: simple test

ask "Do you think everyone sees colors the same"


hahaha!

Or better yet hold up some greasy taco. If they lunge for it book'em
 
2013-03-02 04:35:53 PM

Mugato: 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.


Dude at .3 they probably smelled you coming.
 
2013-03-02 04:36:08 PM
A big problem will be establishing limits.

Pot is completely different from alcohol in terms of different people's tolerance levels.

Some can't function at all after ingesting 10-15 milligrams of THC (like me) while others hardly notice 75 milligrams or more.
I'm talking levels of pure THC, not weed.

Then the lawyers will waste millions arguing over testing methods etc...
 
2013-03-02 04:36:25 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!


Didya happen to notice that this article is about marijuana in Colorado, a state that has legalized it, or were you too busy trolling that you didn't even bother to RTFA?
 
2013-03-02 04:36:26 PM
I'm rather amazed that this is a controversial issue, but then again, this  is fark.
I like driving, and I like pot and alcohol. Sometimes when I'm drunk and or stoned, I think it would be fun to go driving, But I freaking DON'T, because while it might be fine to risk my own life, it would be incredibly unethical to risk OTHER peoples lives.

Case.
Farking.
Closed.

Some people shouldn't be allowed to use drugs; They're too stupid, self-absorbed and inept to handle their shiat.
 
2013-03-02 04:37:02 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!


img2-1.timeinc.net
 
2013-03-02 04:38:20 PM

Lsherm: Mugato: 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.

Dude at .3 they probably smelled you coming.


I'm not saying I'm proud of it but after 4 years or so, a random checkpoint is the only way they got me.

/again, not proud of it
//sober now
 
2013-03-02 04:39:53 PM
Show them a Cyriak animation or the iTunes visualizer.

If they stare, grin, and say, "Whoa, man," arrest them.
 
2013-03-02 04:41:07 PM

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


Stop bringing up facts in a Fark thread.
 
2013-03-02 04:41:24 PM
The simple fact remains that 99% of the people that smoke pot KNOW WHEN THEY SHOULDN'T DRIVE AND DON'T.  But those 1% that don't know are usually drunk as well.
 
2013-03-02 04:42:18 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.


This.

If you rarely smoke pot and have no tolerance, I certainly would not recommend getting behind the wheel of a car after a few tokes (or, for that matter, using a stove, bandsaw, combine, etc).

But people who have been toking for years can never even hope to achieve the levels of stoned-ness that were previously attainable when they were newbies. Pot is very different from alcohol in this sense; long-term alcoholics can still get black-out farked up on booze, but long-term stoners will never reach that functionally retarded, laughing-at-nothing, distracted-by-everything, watching-your-fingers-fing level of high that they reached early on in their smoking career. I really see no harm if these people drive while high (unless they are Asian women).
 
2013-03-02 04:43:02 PM
Driving while stoned can be dangerous, it's just that people usually exhibit better judgement whilst partaking in the weed.  Drunk people will be completely confident in their ability to drive, while stoned people are more likely to say "there's no way I'm driving while I'm this baked.  I should probably wait"
 
2013-03-02 04:43:47 PM
Listen, this is the United States of America, we're talking about here. There's no need for sensationalism or reckless speculation. I'm sure law-makers will do their civic duty with reverence, respect and regard (the three R's of being a law-maker, of course.) There will be no dicey politics or system-gaming. There will be no compromising or dereliction. Those in charge of running every minutia of our little lives will examine the facts, demand research, and scrutinize data before forming reasonable, well-thought-out, and fair legislation that doesn't impinge on freedoms any more than is necessary to protect the innocent lives around us. Discussion over, folks. There's no further need to comment. Sit back, relax, and let the politicians of our great nation do what they always do. Thank you. Good night.

// and all that without marijuana too!
 
2013-03-02 04:43:53 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.)


Words of wisdom. I take a lot of heavy duty psych meds daily and there is no restriction on my driving which I admit I think is really farked up. I know others in my town also on heavy mental health meds that drive without restriction by medical professionals or the division of motor vehicles. me wonders how many people are just like this across America and how few are unaware of the danger around them.
 
2013-03-02 04:48:16 PM

KrispyKritter: Words of wisdom. I take a lot of heavy duty psych meds daily and there is no restriction on my driving which I admit I think is really farked up. I know others in my town also on heavy mental health meds that drive without restriction by medical professionals or the division of motor vehicles. me wonders how many people are just like this across America and how few are unaware of the danger around them.


Kind of have to live with that one. What else is there? Tell people they can't drive while on those drugs?! Then they will stop taking the drugs and they will be a greater danger to themselves and other both in and out of the car.
 
2013-03-02 04:51:22 PM

KrispyKritter: 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.)

Words of wisdom. I take a lot of heavy duty psych meds daily and there is no restriction on my driving which I admit I think is really farked up. I know others in my town also on heavy mental health meds that drive without restriction by medical professionals or the division of motor vehicles. me wonders how many people are just like this across America and how few are unaware of the danger around them.


lucky you have never been tested

I have to keep the letter from my doctor on me saying i am safe to drive while on my meds
 
2013-03-02 04:51:22 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.  -

yes dad

(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.) -Okay mom jeeze . .


yeah, okay Pilgrim
*keys ignition in VW MicroBus"  got matches?  I just got the new Fugs tape so lets rock . . .
 
2013-03-02 04:51:26 PM
Texas Penal Code, "A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place." Furthermore, in the Texas legislature, the term "intoxication" has been defined in two ways:

1. Not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of 2 or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body, or

2. Having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. The law allows for intoxication by way of any intoxicating substance. It is no defense that the intoxicating substance was a prescribed drug; if any substance, legal or illegal, deprives a driver of the normal use of mental or physical faculties, the case may be prosecuted.
 
2013-03-02 04:59:28 PM

Sleeping Monkey: They are no more dangerous than texting drivers and most idiots on their cellphones.


oddly enough, those things are already illegal while driving.

Driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is already illegal though.  So it's sortof a silly question from the subby.  Difficulty is just in testing levels of other substances.
 
2013-03-02 04:59:39 PM
Just do the same roadside tests you do for booze.  Walk in a straight line, touch your nose, say the alphabet etc.  It's not that farking difficult.
 
2013-03-02 05:04:06 PM
Drunks drive through red lights.
Stoners sit forever at stop signs, waiting for them to turn green.
 
2013-03-02 05:05:48 PM
"lawyers, who claima one-size-fits-all standard for marijuana doesn't work because it affects the body differently than alcohol."

This is a non-argument.  Many laws are  like that.  Take plain old speed limits for example.  Can a few people reliably drive 100mph while most others don't have the reaction times for it?  Sure.  But trying to tailor 300 million individual speed limits for 300 million people would be a legislative,  regulatory and enforcement nightmare, if not impossibility   So we make a reasonable average for the average person on that road.  it is the nature of living in a civilized society.
 
2013-03-02 05:07:15 PM

SurfaceTension: I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.


It's vastly safer than alcohol, particularly for frequent users. Idiots come in all flavors and shouldn't be permitted to work a radio, use a phone, or do anything but pay attention to the road. For the rest of the people, they can still prioritize what's more important, dropping the cheeseburger or hitting the old lady.

my .02
 
2013-03-02 05:09:29 PM

Sleeping Monkey: 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.


Quite a long time ago I went to a "beach" with some colleagues. We build a fire, drank beer and smoked pot. It was quite fun, but the next day at work I saw one of the colleagues who was also at the beach. Half his face was covered in scabs. Turns out that he and another guy went to a nearby gas station to get cookies. Half way back he told the guy on the back of the scooter to take over driving because he needed to take a nap. The guy on the back of the scooter was already asleep. So know, you should not drive while stoned.

/csb
 
2013-03-02 05:09:37 PM

IamAwake: Sleeping Monkey: They are no more dangerous than texting drivers and most idiots on their cellphones.

oddly enough, those things are already illegal while driving.

Driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is already illegal though.  So it's sortof a silly question from the subby.  Difficulty is just in testing levels of other substances finding an arbitrarily low testable metric with which to net more infractions for the monetary enrichment of law enforcement and the general turgidness of narrow minded busy-bodies everywhere.


Fixt.
 
2013-03-02 05:13:46 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!


hahahaah hahahahahaha
could we also make alcohol at any level a DUI?
because I know a lot of people who cant drive after 1 drink ...
right?

RIGHT?

LOLOLOLOL
 
2013-03-02 05:15:20 PM

MNguy: Just do the same roadside tests you do for booze.  Walk in a straight line, touch your nose, say the alphabet etc.  It's not that farking difficult.


There are physiological tests that can be reasonable suspicion that someone is impaired.  Cannabis causes abnormal rebound pupil dilation, for example, not seen in a healthy person.   A fairly reliable and easy roadside test.  Not that these things mean you are immediately guilty, but they could be reasonable suspicion for further tests.
 
2013-03-02 05:16:56 PM

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

Stop bringing up facts in a Fark thread.


Dumb agreeing with stupid. Congrats.
 
2013-03-02 05:21:41 PM

Cast: SurfaceTension: I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.

It's vastly safer than alcohol, particularly for frequent users. Idiots come in all flavors and shouldn't be permitted to work a radio, use a phone, or do anything but pay attention to the road. For the rest of the people, they can still prioritize what's more important, dropping the cheeseburger or hitting the old lady.

my .02


OK, let me rephrase. I have been known to toke on occasion, and I know that when I do I am in no condition to drive. Nor am I in condition to JUDGE whether I can drive, or much else, either. And I doubt most people are in such a condition.
 
2013-03-02 05:22:45 PM
Perhaps if the Federal Guberment allowed reaseach on marijuana, scientists could come up with a more reliable way to test the levels of intoxication in a person after smoking. But since it is identified as schedule 1, this will never happen. Can't do research because it is illegal, can't make it legal because of the lack of research. Catch 420.
 
2013-03-02 05:35:17 PM

Cast: SurfaceTension: I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.

It's vastly safer than alcohol,


You're starting with the premise that some impaired driving is absolutely necessary.  You are assuming that people have to drive while under the influence of something, and the only question is what is causing the impairment.   This is a false premise.  As a society, we don't need to tolerate any impaired driving.

Let me put it this way.  Driving drunk is a lot safer than driving on heroin.  Do you think it's safe to conclude that driving drunk should be legal, just because driving on heroin is worse?  Probably not.  The "pot's not as bad as booze" argument is identical.
 
2013-03-02 05:40:04 PM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-03-02 05:40:54 PM
You guys are missing the bigger picture here.


Are stoned drivers such an issue that we should allow police to give roadside bloodtests to citizens?
 
2013-03-02 05:41:32 PM
www.droidforums.net

No, dumbshiats, we shouldn't have either.  What we should have is an ability to test skills necessary for safe driving--for any kind of impairment.
 
2013-03-02 05:42:48 PM

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

 
2013-03-02 05:44:45 PM
Yes, we should require all type "a" people to smoke a least two hits before getting behind the wheel

/SWIM tolerates it incredibly well, to the point that it's, honestly, safer than coffee - see the 'type-a' comment above
 
2013-03-02 05:46:05 PM

SurfaceTension: Cast: SurfaceTension: I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.

It's vastly safer than alcohol, particularly for frequent users. Idiots come in all flavors and shouldn't be permitted to work a radio, use a phone, or do anything but pay attention to the road. For the rest of the people, they can still prioritize what's more important, dropping the cheeseburger or hitting the old lady.

my .02

OK, let me rephrase. I have been known to toke on occasion, and I know that when I do I am in no condition to drive. Nor am I in condition to JUDGE whether I can drive, or much else, either. And I doubt most people are in such a condition.


But you already did judge your condition.  So, you just don't like the idea of the nebulous 'other idiot' being able to do the same so you lie to yourself about your ability to judge your impairment.

It's called 'feeling it' for a reason, duder.
 
2013-03-02 05:47:32 PM

FloydA: Cast: SurfaceTension: I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.

It's vastly safer than alcohol,

You're starting with the premise that some impaired driving is absolutely necessary.  You are assuming that people have to drive while under the influence of something, and the only question is what is causing the impairment.   This is a false premise.  As a society, we don't need to tolerate any impaired driving.

Let me put it this way.   Driving drunk is a lot safer than driving on heroin.  Do you think it's safe to conclude that driving drunk should be legal, just because driving on heroin is worse?  Probably not.  The "pot's not as bad as booze" argument is identical.


That's not necessarily true at all. Someone well tolerated to heroin wouldn't even show a sign of it.. but even a twenty year hardcore alcoholic never tolerates to alcohol's deleterious effects. Thus, heroin IS actually safer than alcohol, writ large.

Please do some research before you propagate obviously "out of your butt" edicts.
 
2013-03-02 05:49:40 PM
^^^ (it's very hard to defend alcohol against almost ANY other substance. It's that bad, but our society glosses over that because.. because nothing.)
 
2013-03-02 05:52:10 PM
Oh look a bunch of potheads whining that driving while stoned is illegal, and who think being able to drive is an inalienable right.
www.deviantart.com
 
2013-03-02 05:52:23 PM
There is no reliable mechanical test like the breathalyzer yet so this will be hard if not impossible to achieve at present.

The "not allowed to drive if there's even a trace in your system" argument is flat out, pants-on-head potatoed.
 
2013-03-02 05:54:36 PM
Things I have don e while stoned:

Gone to set a coffee cup on a table, released in in thin air and had the whole thing smash on the floor.

Left the Oven on for 6 hours after cooking delicious chicken tenders

Forgot what day it was and didn't show up for work.

There should definitely be a limit on how stoned is too stoned to drive. Of course, that's mostly a judgement call on the police officers part. a Legal THC limit would exist mostly to get people like me off the hook when we've been sober for a whole week but still have enough THC in our system to set off a drug test red flag.
 
2013-03-02 05:54:44 PM

GUTSU: Oh look a bunch of potheads whining that driving while stoned is illegal, and who think being able to drive is an inalienable right.
[www.deviantart.com image 471x266]


oh look, another bonehead robot here to tell us how superior they are! Which no one actually believes, Mr. Superior, however, your support of the liquor industry is appreciated. They need as many people to believe alcohol and weed are at least equal, instead of the real truth that the publics been getting screwed on purpose ever since the prohibition, cause of farks like you.
 
2013-03-02 05:58:07 PM

MagicPlasticTreeFrog: Things I have don e while stoned:

Gone to set a coffee cup on a table, released in in thin air and had the whole thing smash on the floor.

Left the Oven on for 6 hours after cooking delicious chicken tenders

Forgot what day it was and didn't show up for work.


And I watched a movie once and forgot to call my mom to tell her i was coming home late. Your point? That you want us to believe we are all like you?

here's a truth: not a single person is immune to alcohol's toxicity. No one. Weed can actually be a well-tolerated, completely acceptable part of someone's life, even to (gasp) drive!

It's called "tolerance", look it up.
 
2013-03-02 05:59:28 PM

LookForTheArrow: FloydA: Cast: SurfaceTension: I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.

It's vastly safer than alcohol,

You're starting with the premise that some impaired driving is absolutely necessary.  You are assuming that people have to drive while under the influence of something, and the only question is what is causing the impairment.   This is a false premise.  As a society, we don't need to tolerate any impaired driving.

Let me put it this way.   Driving drunk is a lot safer than driving on heroin.  Do you think it's safe to conclude that driving drunk should be legal, just because driving on heroin is worse?  Probably not.  The "pot's not as bad as booze" argument is identical.

That's not necessarily true at all. Someone well tolerated to heroin wouldn't even show a sign of it.. but even a twenty year hardcore alcoholic never tolerates to alcohol's deleterious effects. Thus, heroin IS actually safer than alcohol, writ large.

Please do some research before you propagate obviously "out of your butt" edicts.


Your desire to rationalize driving while high has led you to defend driving on heroin.  Think about how that looks to the rest of us.

The fact is that driving while impaired is a bad idea, no matter what is causing the impairment.  I don't care what drugs you or anyone else wants to take in the privacy of your own home, but stay off the road; if you are driving high, you are not driving safely, no matter what you think.
 
2013-03-02 06:00:28 PM

LookForTheArrow: GUTSU: Oh look a bunch of potheads whining that driving while stoned is illegal, and who think being able to drive is an inalienable right.
[www.deviantart.com image 471x266]

oh look, another bonehead robot here to tell us how superior they are! Which no one actually believes, Mr. Superior, however, your support of the liquor industry is appreciated. They need as many people to believe alcohol and weed are at least equal, instead of the real truth that the publics been getting screwed on purpose ever since the prohibition, cause of farks like you.


Oh sorry, I didn't realize just how much your ass was going to be chaffed by my comment. Feel free to whine and pout though.
 
2013-03-02 06:01:03 PM

FloydA: LookForTheArrow: FloydA: Cast: SurfaceTension: I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.

It's vastly safer than alcohol,

You're starting with the premise that some impaired driving is absolutely necessary.  You are assuming that people have to drive while under the influence of something, and the only question is what is causing the impairment.   This is a false premise.  As a society, we don't need to tolerate any impaired driving.

Let me put it this way.   Driving drunk is a lot safer than driving on heroin.  Do you think it's safe to conclude that driving drunk should be legal, just because driving on heroin is worse?  Probably not.  The "pot's not as bad as booze" argument is identical.

That's not necessarily true at all. Someone well tolerated to heroin wouldn't even show a sign of it.. but even a twenty year hardcore alcoholic never tolerates to alcohol's deleterious effects. Thus, heroin IS actually safer than alcohol, writ large.

Please do some research before you propagate obviously "out of your butt" edicts.

Your desire to rationalize driving while high has led you to defend driving on heroin.  Think about how that looks to the rest of us.

The fact is that driving while impaired is a bad idea, no matter what is causing the impairment.  I don't care what drugs you or anyone else wants to take in the privacy of your own home, but stay off the road; if you are driving high, you are not driving safely, no matter what you think.


TOLERANCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.  STUDY IT OUT.
 
2013-03-02 06:02:19 PM

LookForTheArrow: FloydA: LookForTheArrow: FloydA: Cast: SurfaceTension: I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.

It's vastly safer than alcohol,

You're starting with the premise that some impaired driving is absolutely necessary.  You are assuming that people have to drive while under the influence of something, and the only question is what is causing the impairment.   This is a false premise.  As a society, we don't need to tolerate any impaired driving.

Let me put it this way.   Driving drunk is a lot safer than driving on heroin.  Do you think it's safe to conclude that driving drunk should be legal, just because driving on heroin is worse?  Probably not.  The "pot's not as bad as booze" argument is identical.

That's not necessarily true at all. Someone well tolerated to heroin wouldn't even show a sign of it.. but even a twenty year hardcore alcoholic never tolerates to alcohol's deleterious effects. Thus, heroin IS actually safer than alcohol, writ large.

Please do some research before you propagate obviously "out of your butt" edicts.

Your desire to rationalize driving while high has led you to defend driving on heroin.  Think about how that looks to the rest of us.

The fact is that driving while impaired is a bad idea, no matter what is causing the impairment.  I don't care what drugs you or anyone else wants to take in the privacy of your own home, but stay off the road; if you are driving high, you are not driving safely, no matter what you think.

TOLERANCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.  STUDY IT OUT.



OK, you got me.  Successful troll.  Congratulations, I guess.
Bye
 
2013-03-02 06:04:17 PM
for the record, i'm just barking because i dont like people maintaining, in public, their ignorance of biochemistry. There is an amazing, absolutely amazing, thing called "tolerance" that means - for weed, and even heroin if we must discuss it - that one's ability to drive or do anything else is dependent on the amount of time one has been taking the substance.

YOU DO NOT develop a tolerance to the impairment caused by alcohol because it's a  toxin.Any of you who dont realize these "limits" your talking about might be very real for alcohol, actually mean  nothingfor a well tolerated user.

Stop ignoring science!
 
2013-03-02 06:06:00 PM
news flash , "FloydA": "science" is never trolling, esp. when it's topical to the article. You're wrong. you have a chance to learn something. Treasure it.
 
2013-03-02 06:06:52 PM

LookForTheArrow: but even a twenty year hardcore alcoholic never tolerates to alcohol's deleterious effects.


Dead wrong.  Alcohol tolerance in drinkers is medically very well established and long studied.  A quick google will show a dozen medical and science studies on the topic on page 1.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8488957


LookForTheArrow: Please do some research before you propagate obviously "out of your butt" edicts.

lol.
 
2013-03-02 06:10:32 PM
This wouldn't be a problem if we had a way to check for ourselves before getting in the car. Because as mentioned a lot of folks have it in their system and feel unaffected. A clear test before they get busted would be nice as well. Otherwise they are leaving it a gamble as the metabolic process for POT is VERY different from Alcohol.

The 1 hour rule per drink doesn't cut it.

As soon as we have something along the lines of an interlock test for weed then we can start throwing numbers out there.

"Don't smoke and drive - that's the point we're trying to make " No the point is you are trying to create an arbitrary revenue stream. Assholes will drink and drive or toke and drive regardless of limits set. Lets make the numbers realistic so we cooperate instead of fighting it out of general principle.
 
2013-03-02 06:11:00 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: LookForTheArrow: but even a twenty year hardcore alcoholic never tolerates to alcohol's deleterious effects.

Dead wrong.  Alcohol tolerance in drinkers is medically very well established and long studied.  A quick google will show a dozen medical and science studies on the topic on page 1.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8488957


LookForTheArrow: Please do some research before you propagate obviously "out of your butt" edicts.

lol.


You don't seem to understand the topic here. Are you implying that someone exists today, that, because of their long history with alcohol - can toss back ten drinks and not be affected in their driving performance? Because that's exactly what happens with Marijuana, our topic the moment.

I grant you  formof tolerance exists for alcohol but it's of a completely different magnitude and character to almost any other recreational substance that for the purposes of this conversation, my statement stands.
 
2013-03-02 06:13:34 PM
Just get out the automated cars. Seriously, it's beyond time. If that puts several thousand insurance agents out of a job, even better.
 
2013-03-02 06:15:20 PM
In otherwords, if I may stay topical myself (hey, no ones perfect), that any proposed limit for Marijuana would HAVE TO take into account the length of the users experience. This is not in the equation for alcohol.

if we enacted an across the board limit for marijuana, all we'd do is cause completely safe, responsible people to have their lives ruined, because a lot of cops and lawyers and corporate interests get a boner out of that sort of thing.

The answer is NO: we should not have a limit, like alcohol. If you are being prescribed weed, for instance, it's doubtful any limit should apply.
 
2013-03-02 06:18:27 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 now legal in 2 states. What a novel idea
 
2013-03-02 06:19:25 PM

LookForTheArrow: If you are being prescribed weed, for instance, it's doubtful any limit should apply.


Again wrong.  People are legally prescribed pain killers, sleeping pills, xanax, etc.  And it is illegal to drive while impaired by by any of these substances.
 
2013-03-02 06:24:44 PM
CNN had a good video about the current laws and how people drive. 6 times the current limit and still driving ok.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2013/02/13/dnt-driving-under-inf lu ence-marijuana.kiro
 
2013-03-02 06:25:00 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!


Hey's that a great idea, lets discuss it over some A

Brainsick: 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 now legal in 2 states. What a novel idea


Truly, it's as if these people get all their knowledge about medicine from CSI... brought to you by Pfizer.. sigh. Too bad they like completely ruining people's lives so some company can get a nice stock bonus. There's really nothing else to it. Thankfully, the truth is SO evident, even state legislatures are getting it right. If it's that obvious, i dont think some random fornicator is going to matter*

*anymore
 
2013-03-02 06:26:29 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: LookForTheArrow: If you are being prescribed weed, for instance, it's doubtful any limit should apply.

Again wrong.  People are legally prescribed pain killers, sleeping pills, xanax, etc.  And it is illegal to drive while impaired by by any of these substances.


i said nothing about any of those substances. That's my point, however, if you are well-tolerated you are NOT be definition  impaired, no matter what any test says. Thanks for the assist in making that clearer, though.
 
2013-03-02 06:27:19 PM
Wouldn't it be nice for a change if we based the law on reason instead of politics, popularity contests and whose lobbyist can supply the best looking hookers? There are millions of things that can distract drivers attention and yet we continue to make these idiotic laws focusing on the popular cause of the day. Why are certain distractions 'more equal' than others. Is it not enough to simply make it illegal to drive with your head up your ass?

We should punish poor judgement, bad situational awareness, and slow reflexes like a DUI. After all it is the same thing.

/Stupid is as stupid does
 
2013-03-02 06:28:47 PM
(^^^ and of course, my deeper point is that the type of tolerance you get to weed, benzos, pain-killers, etc. does not exist in for alcohol which has a tolerance many magnitudes less evident than any of the other agents in this thread. Thus alcohol limit actually makes sense, being a nearly fixed quantity. Other things not so much, unless you like running the lives of sober drivers because of a test that isn't relevant. Does that turn any of you on? Why?)
 
2013-03-02 06:29:14 PM
Hogwash.

Marijuana does not impair motor coordination, that has been proven time and again in the laboratory --- by "scientists" who admit they were looking for adverse effects!

Quite a few musicians have performed brilliantly when stoned, and many athletes have competed effectively while under the influence.  I don't recommend this, but I am aware of people who have flown supersonic jets while high in pot.

You can drive as well stoned as you can sober.
 
2013-03-02 06:50:57 PM

Mugato: 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.


I hope you mean a .03, otherwise you were dead.

OK, let's do this logically.

Now that you've stopped laughing, let's do this logically. Let's first find out IF there is a level of marijuana intoxication at which a noticeable level of impairment exists; in other words, could you even be stopped by police for weaving, swerving, failing to stop completely, etc., in the same way there is for alcohol intoxication? After all, you don't get stopped for being drunk per se, you get stopped for certain illegal driving behaviors and then the cops determine that the reason for these behaviors is that your blood alcohol level is too high.

So if at a certain level of pot intoxication, drivers begin to show these behaviors which allow traffic cops to pull them over, then that would be the level at which you'd be too impaired to drive. Let's pretend it was ".08 micrograms of THC per decaliter of blood" although that's certainly not how it would be measured. Then there would need to be a way to easily determine in the field that a person was in fact impaired because he had been using pot as opposed to drinking or some other drug--like a breathalyzer, only for pot. Maybe a saliva test which could determine the person's CURRENT level of intoxication (and not just that the person had used in the last 30 days).

Now the other problem is that pot doesn't always impair your motor skills--but it often does impair your judgement and decision-making ability. So a person could be physically able to drive stoned, but perhaps not able to drive for other reasons, say, it's snowing heavily or they've ALSO been drinking but think they're still okay to drive, which is another issue often overlooked by enthusiastic proponents of pot. Just because you can drive okay while you're stoned doesn't mean you should be driving anyway.
 
2013-03-02 06:59:17 PM

LookForTheArrow: (^^^ and of course, my deeper point is that the type of tolerance you get to weed, benzos, pain-killers, etc. does not exist in for alcohol which has a tolerance many magnitudes less evident than any of the other agents in this thread. Thus alcohol limit actually makes sense, being a nearly fixed quantity.


Are you really this stupid?  Because you are completely wrong.
 
2013-03-02 07:04:03 PM

MNguy: LookForTheArrow: (^^^ and of course, my deeper point is that the type of tolerance you get to weed, benzos, pain-killers, etc. does not exist in for alcohol which has a tolerance many magnitudes less evident than any of the other agents in this thread. Thus alcohol limit actually makes sense, being a nearly fixed quantity.

Are you really this stupid?  Because you are completely wrong.


no i'm experienced with reality. Please, illustrate where someone can have ten drinks and be okay. As the "Old Dinosaur" mentioned above, you can smoke a hell of a lot and not have any problems - esp. when you tolerate to it, and no one tolerates to alcohol in the same magnitude as weed. Therefore a single inflexible limit will  not work for marijuna.  It's not being "that stupid" when i'm quite correct, but your lack of addition to the conversation is noted.

You obviously get a boner trying to ruin responsible people's lives with your one size fits all idiocy though. The amount of marijuana or even heroin in someone's system has nothing to do with impairment compared with HOW LONG they've been using it, completely unlike alcohol.

You're looking a little slow on the uptake here, 'pardner.
 
2013-03-02 07:13:22 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 might want to rethink your statement.

jalopnik.com/heres-how-people-drive-when-theyre-really-really-sto-265 8 41647

Reality: People drive better stoned than 90% of sober Californians.
 
2013-03-02 07:13:53 PM
It's called a field sobriety test.

Can you pass it? If so, you are good enough to drive.
Can't? You are not good enough to drive, here is your dui ticket.

Fark, that was hard.
 
2013-03-02 07:15:33 PM

Gyrfalcon: I hope you mean a .03, otherwise you were dead.


No, .3. I said it wasn't anything to be proud of.
 
2013-03-02 07:19:21 PM

khyberkitsune: 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 might want to rethink your statement.

jalopnik.com/heres-how-people-drive-when-theyre-really-really-sto-265 8 41647

Reality: People drive better stoned than 90% of sober Californians.



You can't trick me that easily.  I've seen the way that sober Californians drive.
 
2013-03-02 07:27:22 PM

amundb: Perhaps if the Federal Guberment allowed reaseach on marijuana, scientists could come up with a more reliable way to test the levels of intoxication in a person after smoking. But since it is identified as schedule 1, this will never happen. Can't do research because it is illegal, can't make it legal because of the lack of research. Catch 420.


Well the US DOT actually did a study of driving performance under the influence of MJ:

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm
 
2013-03-02 07:28:39 PM

GUTSU: Oh look a bunch of potheads whining that driving while stoned is illegal, and who think being able to drive is an inalienable right.

cry_some_more.jpg



I used to chew some gum, drop some Visine and pass right through DUI checkpoints after smoking all night all the time. Me and the cops would wish each other a good night and I'd get on with my drive.

deal_with_it.jpg
 
2013-03-02 07:35:27 PM

LookForTheArrow: MNguy: LookForTheArrow: (^^^ and of course, my deeper point is that the type of tolerance you get to weed, benzos, pain-killers, etc. does not exist in for alcohol which has a tolerance many magnitudes less evident than any of the other agents in this thread. Thus alcohol limit actually makes sense, being a nearly fixed quantity.

Are you really this stupid?  Because you are completely wrong.

no i'm experienced with reality. Please, illustrate where someone can have ten drinks and be okay. As the "Old Dinosaur" mentioned above, you can smoke a hell of a lot and not have any problems - esp. when you tolerate to it, and no one tolerates to alcohol in the same magnitude as weed. Therefore a single inflexible limit will  not work for marijuna.  It's not being "that stupid" when i'm quite correct, but your lack of addition to the conversation is noted.

You obviously get a boner trying to ruin responsible people's lives with your one size fits all idiocy though. The amount of marijuana or even heroin in someone's system has nothing to do with impairment compared with HOW LONG they've been using it, completely unlike alcohol.

You're looking a little slow on the uptake here, 'pardner.


My point was that a .10 affects people differently, and someone with a tolerance for whiskey may be able to handle a car better @ that BAC than someone with no tolerance.  But you're obviously an idiot so I don't know why I bother.
 
2013-03-02 07:41:18 PM

MNguy: LookForTheArrow: MNguy: LookForTheArrow: (^^^ and of course, my deeper point is that the type of tolerance you get to weed, benzos, pain-killers, etc. does not exist in for alcohol which has a tolerance many magnitudes less evident than any of the other agents in this thread. Thus alcohol limit actually makes sense, being a nearly fixed quantity.

Are you really this stupid?  Because you are completely wrong.

no i'm experienced with reality. Please, illustrate where someone can have ten drinks and be okay. As the "Old Dinosaur" mentioned above, you can smoke a hell of a lot and not have any problems - esp. when you tolerate to it, and no one tolerates to alcohol in the same magnitude as weed. Therefore a single inflexible limit will  not work for marijuna.  It's not being "that stupid" when i'm quite correct, but your lack of addition to the conversation is noted.

You obviously get a boner trying to ruin responsible people's lives with your one size fits all idiocy though. The amount of marijuana or even heroin in someone's system has nothing to do with impairment compared with HOW LONG they've been using it, completely unlike alcohol.

You're looking a little slow on the uptake here, 'pardner.

My point was that a .10 affects people differently, and someone with a tolerance for whiskey may be able to handle a car better @ that BAC than someone with no tolerance.  But you're obviously an idiot so I don't know why I bother.


that's bullshiat. There is no comparison between alcohol and weed tolerance. You are bad and should feel bad, for misleading people publicly, just so you have something snarky to say. There is an upper limit for alcohol under which EVERYONE is impaired and that aint true for weed bucko. I know why I bother - because idiots like you should not mislead others about how bad alcohol (incredibly toxic) is and how weed is NOT the same boat (actually neuroprotective), and should not have the same, inflexible, limits.

i know how hard the concept you've been lied to your whole life is, but I dont sympathize. you seem to enjoy it.
 
2013-03-02 07:44:47 PM
LookForTheArrow:

that's bullshiat. There is no comparison between alcohol and weed tolerance. You are bad and should feel bad, for misleading people publicly, just so you have something snarky to say. There is an upper limit for alcohol under which EVERYONE is impaired and that aint true for weed bucko. I know why I bother - because idiots like you should not mislead others about how bad alcohol (incredibly toxic) is and how weed is NOT the same boat (actually neuroprotective), and should not have the same, inflexible, limits.

i know how hard the concep ...


You're either lying, mis-informed or a troll.  Pick one.
 
2013-03-02 07:49:02 PM

MNguy: LookForTheArrow:

that's bullshiat. There is no comparison between alcohol and weed tolerance. You are bad and should feel bad, for misleading people publicly, just so you have something snarky to say. There is an upper limit for alcohol under which EVERYONE is impaired and that aint true for weed bucko. I know why I bother - because idiots like you should not mislead others about how bad alcohol (incredibly toxic) is and how weed is NOT the same boat (actually neuroprotective), and should not have the same, inflexible, limits.

i know how hard the concep ...

You're either lying, mis-informed or a troll.  Pick one.


You dont choose anything for me, thank god. i'm well connected to a group of extradorinarily bright people who agree with me, on the science, on the practice, and on the morality of marijuana use versus alcohol. Carl Sagan called, and he told me you're an ass and it won't change no matter how many billions and billions of times you deny it.
 
2013-03-02 07:53:06 PM
Good job fark; I genuinely have no idea who's trolling who.
 
2013-03-02 07:59:38 PM

misanthropic1: Good job fark; I genuinely have no idea who's trolling who.


for the record there is nothing funny about ruining people's lives because of a one-size-fits-all premise with no scientific basis. It is proven that alcohol is toxic, it is proven that marijuana is not. You cannot tolerate high-dose alcohol (hear that MNGuy?) but you CAN tolerate to high-dose THC.

If it's trolling to protest ruining people's lives over bad science, as enacted by people ignorant of biochemistry, i'm trolling. but you'll find that word loses meaning when you apply it to mean "i wish it wasn't true" instead of "person posting to get a kick out of dissent".

i get no "kick" out of seeing people proclaim with a straight face that a person's life should be ruined for an activity that is wholly responsible and even advisable (when it suppresses seizures and nausea and the like, which can be quite dangerous while driving, for which marijuana is well known to do safely) for those who are experienced with the medication.

/it's not trolling to care, but it's trolling to pretend i'm trolling.
 
2013-03-02 07:59:38 PM
LookForTheArrow:

You dont choose anything for me, thank god. i'm well connected to a group of extradorinarily bright people who agree with me, on the science, on the practice, and on the morality of marijuana use versus alcohol. Carl Sagan called, and he told me you're an ass and it won't change no matter how many billions and billions of times you deny it.

I asked you to choose, but you seem incapacitated in some way.  Please don't drive a car tonight.
 
2013-03-02 08:00:37 PM
Absolutely not. We need fewer intrusive laws. Are we going to run a five-panel test on everyone who gets pulled over?
 
2013-03-02 08:01:04 PM

MNguy: LookForTheArrow:

that's bullshiat. There is no comparison between alcohol and weed tolerance. You are bad and should feel bad, for misleading people publicly, just so you have something snarky to say. There is an upper limit for alcohol under which EVERYONE is impaired and that aint true for weed bucko. I know why I bother - because idiots like you should not mislead others about how bad alcohol (incredibly toxic) is and how weed is NOT the same boat (actually neuroprotective), and should not have the same, inflexible, limits.

i know how hard the concep ...

You're either lying, mis-informed or a troll.  Pick one.


Cannabis and alcohol affect people via completely different mechanisms.  With pot it's 'all in your head' and the brain can become literally tolerant of the psychoactive compounds that mimic the natural brain chemicals normally inherent.  Not the same as with booze.  Drink too much booze and your body fails.  Ingest too much pot and you fall asleep.
 
2013-03-02 08:01:28 PM

MNguy: LookForTheArrow:


I asked you to choose, but you seem incapacitated in some way.  Please don't drive a car tonight.


what a farkin moron /ignore
 
2013-03-02 08:07:53 PM
One bong hit and the only place I can drive is a convenience store.
 
2013-03-02 08:11:04 PM
Gyrfalcon: Mugato: 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.

I hope you mean a .03, otherwise you were dead.

.3, following the .02 per drink rule is (roughly) the equivalent of 15 beers in an adult male. Drunk off your ass, yes, but eminently survivable. There have been instances of people going over .5 and living.
 
2013-03-02 08:14:21 PM

LookForTheArrow: misanthropic1: Good job fark; I genuinely have no idea who's trolling who.

for the record there is nothing funny about ruining people's lives because of a one-size-fits-all premise with no scientific basis. It is proven that alcohol is toxic, it is proven that marijuana is not. You cannot tolerate high-dose alcohol (hear that MNGuy?) but you CAN tolerate to high-dose THC.

If it's trolling to protest ruining people's lives over bad science, as enacted by people ignorant of biochemistry, i'm trolling. but you'll find that word loses meaning when you apply it to mean "i wish it wasn't true" instead of "person posting to get a kick out of dissent".

i get no "kick" out of seeing people proclaim with a straight face that a person's life should be ruined for an activity that is wholly responsible and even advisable (when it suppresses seizures and nausea and the like, which can be quite dangerous while driving, for which marijuana is well known to do safely) for those who are experienced with the medication.

/it's not trolling to care, but it's trolling to pretend i'm trolling.


Who said I was talking about you, ya egomaniac?

/taking anyone seriously on fark, much less on a Saturday night, is usually a mistake
//I've often wondered if there is some message board out there where posters attempt to bolster enlightened, logical, empirically rational perspectives on current events, in hopes of advancing global dialogue
///I still wonder as to its existence, but I can assure you: this ain't it
////penis
 
2013-03-02 08:15:05 PM

lewismarktwo: MNguy: LookForTheArrow:

that's bullshiat. There is no comparison between alcohol and weed tolerance. You are bad and should feel bad, for misleading people publicly, just so you have something snarky to say. There is an upper limit for alcohol under which EVERYONE is impaired and that aint true for weed bucko. I know why I bother - because idiots like you should not mislead others about how bad alcohol (incredibly toxic) is and how weed is NOT the same boat (actually neuroprotective), and should not have the same, inflexible, limits.

i know how hard the concep ...

You're either lying, mis-informed or a troll.  Pick one.

Cannabis and alcohol affect people via completely different mechanisms.  With pot it's 'all in your head' and the brain can become literally tolerant of the psychoactive compounds that mimic the natural brain chemicals normally inherent.  Not the same as with booze.  Drink too much booze and your body fails.  Ingest too much pot and you fall asleep.


Touch your finger to your nose, walk in a straight line, etc.  This is really hard for potheads to understand.
 
2013-03-02 08:16:01 PM
m a y b e I s h o u l d s p e a k m o r e s l o w l y
 
2013-03-02 08:16:51 PM

misanthropic1: LookForTheArrow: misanthropic1: Good job fark; I genuinely have no idea who's trolling who.

for the record there is nothing funny about ruining people's lives because of a one-size-fits-all premise with no scientific basis. It is proven that alcohol is toxic, it is proven that marijuana is not. You cannot tolerate high-dose alcohol (hear that MNGuy?) but you CAN tolerate to high-dose THC.

If it's trolling to protest ruining people's lives over bad science, as enacted by people ignorant of biochemistry, i'm trolling. but you'll find that word loses meaning when you apply it to mean "i wish it wasn't true" instead of "person posting to get a kick out of dissent".

i get no "kick" out of seeing people proclaim with a straight face that a person's life should be ruined for an activity that is wholly responsible and even advisable (when it suppresses seizures and nausea and the like, which can be quite dangerous while driving, for which marijuana is well known to do safely) for those who are experienced with the medication.

/it's not trolling to care, but it's trolling to pretend i'm trolling.

Who said I was talking about you, ya egomaniac?

/taking anyone seriously on fark, much less on a Saturday night, is usually a mistake
//I've often wondered if there is some message board out there where posters attempt to bolster enlightened, logical, empirically rational perspectives on current events, in hopes of advancing global dialogue
///I still wonder as to its existence, but I can assure you: this ain't it
////penis


the fact i was accused upthread of the same is all. It was a contextual inference. Feel free to free-associate, it's fark after all.
 
2013-03-02 08:20:02 PM

lewismarktwo: Ingest too much pot and you fall asleep.


Which is really bad to do when you are driving.
 
2013-03-02 08:29:05 PM
Well.
You guys (and Dolls) are gonna think I'm full of shiat, which of course I am, such being the natural situation of we shiat filled Twinkies.
BUTT<===I do likw big butts...in a test with people who were smoking pot, people who were drinking alcohol, and people who were perfectly straight...er....um....lets say sober....ohtay then.
Turns out the safest drivers were the ones who were stoned.
Serious.
Not kidding.
Thank you.
G'bye
 
2013-03-02 08:33:36 PM
wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net
 
2013-03-02 08:34:10 PM

Thai_Mai_Xhu: Well.
You guys (and Dolls) are gonna think I'm full of shiat, which of course I am, such being the natural situation of we shiat filled Twinkies.
BUTT<===I do likw big butts...in a test with people who were smoking pot, people who were drinking alcohol, and people who were perfectly straight...er....um....lets say sober....ohtay then.
Turns out the safest drivers were the ones who were stoned.
Serious.
Not kidding.
Thank you.
G'bye


You make a great case
 
2013-03-02 08:38:04 PM

MNguy: m a y b e I s h o u l d s p e a k m o r e s l o w l y


i4.ytimg.com

agrees
 
2013-03-02 08:38:30 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: lewismarktwo: Ingest too much pot and you fall asleep.

Which is really bad to do when you are driving.


I'm going to take you at your word and respond again. Of course if a new user just ate an entire ounce while driving that might almost be sort of conceivable, albeit farfetched. Lets be real: nobody well-tolerated would ever fall asleep and certainly not uncontrollably like alcohol causes at any experience level. Any limit on marijuana must take into account the length of your use. To some here, it would be ironic that illustrating you smoke often is a-priori evidence you are not guilty at relatively low levels (the type of levels that are being suggested as illegal are moronic and have nothing to do with intoxication, see "arizona" upthread, but there it is. That's logical, and sensible, and doesn't destroy lives needlessly.

if you want to bust people who don't have a history of use, that actually might make sense. I'm not pro-pot as much as I'm pro-not-being-so-stupid-one-applies-ones-chemical-naivety-to-everyone- else-regardless-of-tolerance. We need more sensible legislation, not reglio-ego-alco-centrism.

The alcohol industry desperately would like to draw parallels between their unsafe product and marijuana, but it's falling flat to anyone who's got real world experience, that is, not TV shows.
 
2013-03-02 08:41:15 PM
this is a stupid question.  anything that alters your ability to think and react needs to be tested before you get behind the wheel of a 2 ton vehicle capable of killing someone.

if there were a test to sleep deprivation, id require that as well.
 
2013-03-02 08:45:26 PM

thisiszombocom: this is a stupid question.  anything that alters your ability to think and react needs to be tested before you get behind the wheel of a 2 ton vehicle capable of killing someone.


gadgetsteria.com

But how else can I Fark en route to the pickle factory?
 
2013-03-02 08:56:35 PM

LookForTheArrow: I'm going to take you at your word and respond again.


Don't bother.  You keep saying documentably false things like there's no such thing as alcohol tolerance.  I agree with several other people who have you pegged as a troll.
 
2013-03-02 09:01:14 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: LookForTheArrow: I'm going to take you at your word and respond again.

Don't bother.  You keep saying documentably false things like there's no such thing as alcohol tolerance.  I agree with several other people who have you pegged as a troll.


I think he's just saying there are different types of tolerance, man.
 
2013-03-02 09:04:43 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: LookForTheArrow: I'm going to take you at your word and respond again.

Don't bother.  You keep saying documentably false things like there's no such thing as alcohol tolerance.  I agree with several other people who have you pegged as a troll.


There is no one for whom a high dose of alcohol is not toxic. This is not true for THC. lewismarktwogets it, why are you being disingenuous? Do you really think anyone has a tolerance to alcohol that makes it safe for use at higher levels? THC is very safe, at higher levels, for executing complex tasks, for those acclimated, unlike any study you will ever find about alcohol, ever.

I happen to be topical, and correct. Sorry that pisses you off.
 
2013-03-02 09:08:14 PM

PreMortem: 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.


Still a federal crime and federal laws supercede state laws, dumbass.
 
2013-03-02 09:09:05 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: LookForTheArrow: I'm going to take you at your word and respond again.

Don't bother.  You keep saying documentably false things like there's no such thing as alcohol tolerance.  I agree with several other people who have you pegged as a troll.


(Remember, it's trolling if it's not something you learned on NCIS, brought you by Viagra, you nut bag)
 
2013-03-02 09:17:45 PM

lewismarktwo: I think he's just saying there are different types of tolerance, man.


Following up each of his rants with insults doesn't help convince anyone he's not a troll.  I'll stick with the group consensus.
 
2013-03-02 09:21:41 PM

thisisyourbrainonFark: thisiszombocom: this is a stupid question.  anything that alters your ability to think and react needs to be tested before you get behind the wheel of a 2 ton vehicle capable of killing someone.

[gadgetsteria.com image 551x368]

But how else can I Fark en route to the pickle factory?


Would that be the Pickle Factory in Nisswa?
 
2013-03-02 09:28:55 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: lewismarktwo: I think he's just saying there are different types of tolerance, man.

Following up each of his rants with insults doesn't help convince anyone he's not a troll.  I'll stick with the group consensus.


I notice you cannot refute alcohol is different than weed in tolerance, acclimation, and toxicity, so i'll just go ahead and say right now you're the reason we can't have nice things. You're also lacking in any sort of useful information (except for some limited attempt to show that alcohol and weed tolerance are similar which is bullshiat). You and the other people in this thread who would like to vilify healthy habits in favor of the liquor lobby.

That's the type of trolling we really dont need; people who watch too much TV, and enjoy putting people behind bars instead of learning something.

For everyone else that reads this thread, let me assure you, myelin sheath degradation, liver failure, and blackouts are unique to alcohol, so are the limits that are applied to alcohol.

Don't grow up to be one these people here who literally would rather see people in Jail then admit they have been deceived since D.A.R.E. And they are remarkably unruffled by it.
 
2013-03-02 09:39:26 PM

PreMortem: 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.


but what if the smoker was only a part time smoker, and smoked like once every 2 weeks

and what if with the smaller amount, it only takes 14 days to exist the system

how would we know it's been 30 days when he's only clean after 20
 
2013-03-02 10:16:49 PM
All drug users should die, we need to lace the grass with posion and slip it into the supply stream make the labels all say this could kill you then let Darwin go to work
 
2013-03-02 10:23:32 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: All drug users should die, we need to lace the grass with posion and slip it into the supply stream make the labels all say this could kill you then let Darwin go to work


says the guy whose son gained infinite prescience by ingesting drugs spice. I can't take that seriously :-) Anyway, i'm satisfied there's enough truth in this thread to give the younger lurkers some insight.

/Beware the straight laced, because it usually means "jacket", not "shoes".
 
2013-03-02 10:30:47 PM
MNguy:

You dont choose anything for me, thank god. i'm well connected to a group of extradorinarily bright people who agree with me, on the science, on the practice, and on the morality of marijuana use versus alcohol. Carl Sagan called, and he told me you're an ass and it won't change no matter how many billions and billions of times you deny it.

I asked you to choose, but you seem incapacitated in some way.  Please don't drive a car tonight.


The person you're talking to just claimed to have received a phone call from someone who has been dead for 16 years.  Keep that in mind when evaluating his posts.  You are being trolled.
 
2013-03-02 10:50:42 PM
Any sober person that knows stoners would say, yes. Potheads are usually unaware of the "dope" stuper they get in. It's got that slang name for a reason. But like every drunk driver that gets behind the wheel thinking they're ok you'll also have tons of potheads doing the same. You obiously can't rely on people to make good judgements. As it is now with it being illegal in almost all states and totally illegal to the feds smoking is still recluse so people try not to be out in the open reaking of it. That's probably the only reason why it's not much of a problem yet.
 
2013-03-02 11:07:19 PM
Absolutely because driving farked up is dangerous no matter what the substance.

Any one who thinks otherwise is a farking moran along with being an enabler.

And yeah I'm serious.
 
2013-03-03 01:00:49 AM

SuperDuper28: Any sober person that knows stoners would say, yes. Potheads are usually unaware of the "dope" stuper they get in. It's got that slang name for a reason. But like every drunk driver that gets behind the wheel thinking they're ok you'll also have tons of potheads doing the same. You obiously can't rely on people to make good judgements. As it is now with it being illegal in almost all states and totally illegal to the feds smoking is still recluse so people try not to be out in the open reaking of it. That's probably the only reason why it's not much of a problem yet.



The US government's research disagrees with you.

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm
 
2013-03-03 01:11:43 AM
I think we should have a volunteer to test this theory:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-03 01:17:46 AM
looks like someone should read this link about a certain someone dead 16 years:http://wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/EAC/CarlSagan.html

/read up
 
2013-03-03 01:37:07 AM

SuperDuper28: Any sober person that knows stoners would say, yes. Potheads are usually unaware of the "dope" stuper they get in. It's got that slang name for a reason. But like every drunk driver that gets behind the wheel thinking they're ok you'll also have tons of potheads doing the same. You obiously can't rely on people to make good judgements. As it is now with it being illegal in almost all states and totally illegal to the feds smoking is still recluse so people try not to be out in the open reaking of it. That's probably the only reason why it's not much of a problem yet.


yeah have you ever watched Tim and Eric when their high
it's not funny

they're only high in the outtakes
 
2013-03-03 02:27:15 AM
Can't stay in one's own lane even with the added incentive of a State-loaded gumball machine latched on one's tail?

Pull `em over suss the source.

That said: 5 shots of  Tequila, in rapid succession,  with a quick speed run from the bar to the driveway, before the shiat starts to loosen the hinges at C2  and disinhibition, briefly, outpaces, disintegration - is cutting it close.  Cop happens to arrive, tapping on the window just as the driver is overtaken by that `omnificoriant' dosed  right fist...  `(gnight you effin' pig!!)

5 inhalations of equatorial Sativa?  Dr. Lic. number and expiration date memorized? Check/Insurance Number memorized? (check), papers/registration folded neatly, within arm's reach? (Check).  Nothing in car but extra headlamps/taillights/etc? (Check).  Etremely polite face/behavior (always turn on inside passenger light - after dark- as cop approaches - really calms them down).

/don't bother trying to titrate the dose of Centrally acting depressants
 
2013-03-03 03:10:53 AM
So much stoner rationalization in this thread. My head asplodes.  You are no more special than any other DUI on the road risking other peoples' lives.  Stoner snowflakes.  Break Federal law, pay the consequences. I don't care what your state and your "doctor" says about your required prescription for farking weed.  Go have a beer and get over yourself, off of the roads.
 
2013-03-03 03:48:27 AM
Look no further than to Washington State. They have set a specific limit for a DUID (MJ DUI) of 5 or more nanograms per milliliter of active THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) (and not metabolite.) So 24 to 48 hours after that bong hit or doobie... you should be fine...
 
2013-03-03 04:25:34 AM

MylesHeartVodak: So much stoner rationalization in this thread. My head asplodes.  You are no more special than any other DUI on the road risking other peoples' lives.  Stoner snowflakes.  Break Federal law, pay the consequences. I don't care what your state and your "doctor" says about your required prescription for farking weed.  Go have a beer and get over yourself, off of the roads.


Except there is no national standard for DUI. Congress coerced states to set BAC limits at 0.08 under threat of losing highway funding, BUT DUI laws are still set by the states.

Colorado law enforcement is not going to enforce federal pot possession laws and seriously, if you think the feds are going to jump because a state trooper calls them up and says Myles has a quarter ounce of pot, come and get him you're fooling yourself. Yes, possession of pot is a federal offense, but sorry - it ain't gonna happen. CO state trooper is going to let Myles go. (I'm not even sure the state could hold you for the feds in a case like that, but IANAL).

Now of course CO state law does have a provision for impairment by any drug (or even fatigue) but it is not defined as any sort of limit except for BAC (0.05 BAC is an arrestable offense in CO), but you could have 10mg / ml of blood (assuming that's even possible) but if they can't establish impairment that's perfectly legal.

I believe they're actually debating whether to make 5 nanograms per milliliter of THC in your blood a hard limit such as 0.05 BAC. (I think a House committee has already passed that much, but it still has to get approval by the full House and then the Senate - I may be a little behind on the exact progress of the bill).

That's the issue here and there is much debate as to what the limit should be - or indeed if there should even be a limit at all.

It's difficult to say since most people have no idea how "stoned" 5 ng/ml is. Hell, most people don't even know how "drunk" 0.08 BAC is, let alone how "drunk" 0.05 BAC is. They've just been ingrained that 0.08 is too much and some that even a drop of alcohol is too much and should be cause for arrest.

THC levels in blood is going to be much trickier to guesstimate than BAC levels where we have charts showing body weight and number of drinks per hour. And drinks on those charts are fairly standard (1 glass of wine == 12 oz. of beer == 1 shot of hard liquor) even though alcohol content may vary among wines, beers and liquors.

If I take 1 bong hit of pot that is 9% THC content and I weigh 200 pounds, what's the THC level in my blood?

Can you define "bong hit"? Is there a standard? Is it as much smoke as my lungs can hold by inhaling just once? Or do you just pack it full and if I have to inhale 2-3 times to get it all is that a bong hit? Naturally people will have different lung capacities. People will also have different tolerances to marijuana which will make a huge difference.

What about "edibles"? How much pot is in a brownie? That's a bit like asking how long does it take to catch a fish?

If you want to set the limit at zero, that's (like) your opinion (man) but it's not one that has been defined by the law.
 
2013-03-03 05:22:12 AM
As a legalisation activist and heavy smoker: Yes, there should be. Driving while intoxicated is driving while intoxicated, regardless of which substance you've taken.
 
2013-03-03 05:39:15 AM

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


No. But that didn't stop similarly fake tests for alcohol.

Which is not to say we shouldn't look for a reasonable test, just that other semi-regulated substances are not a great example.
 
2013-03-03 06:54:20 AM

Billy Bathsalt: say the alphabet backwards


I hate that test. I've never driven drunk but I can't do that sober. Letters have no relationship with each other like numbers. You might as well ask,"What is F+T?"
 
2013-03-03 07:45:03 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: As a legalisation activist and heavy smoker: Yes, there should be. Driving while intoxicated is driving while intoxicated, regardless of which substance you've taken.


but POT doesn't MAKE YOU INTOXICATED..
 
2013-03-03 09:15:09 AM

Tobin_Lam: Billy Bathsalt: say the alphabet backwards

I hate that test. I've never driven drunk but I can't do that sober. Letters have no relationship with each other like numbers. You might as well ask,"What is F+T?"


That's a trick to get you to say 'I can't do that sober!' as an admission to not being sober.  Any honest cop isn't going to ask you to do it.
 
2013-03-03 09:19:53 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: As a legalisation activist and heavy smoker: Yes, there should be. Driving while intoxicated is driving while intoxicated, regardless of which substance you've taken.


Arbitrary limits would definitely help with legalization, but it isn't grounded in reality.  People are scared of the unknown and need to exert some control over things even when control isn't needed.  It will make them feel better about it.

I fully expect state legislature to pass an ill informed bill that limits THC levels to something appropriate for a 10 year old girl smoking weed for the first time after fasting for a week.  Actually,it would be a miracle if they were that sane.
 
2013-03-03 10:00:51 AM

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!


Same for alcohol and nicotine, right? How about Prozac?

Oh, your not concerned with safety, just punishing lawbreakers. Of course, marijuana isn't an illegal drug in CO or WA any more.
 
2013-03-03 10:39:00 AM

sammyk: 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.


NHTSA keeps these stats.  Something like 2 or 3 percent of traffic fatalities are from marijuana impairment.
 
2013-03-03 11:10:17 AM

Chilkoot Charlie: 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!

Same for alcohol and nicotine, right? How about Prozac?

Oh, your not concerned with safety, just punishing lawbreakers. Of course, marijuana isn't an illegal drug in CO or WA any more.


legal in CO WA?
i bet the next states are BU NG A!!!
 
2013-03-03 12:19:32 PM

BGates: sammyk: 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.

NHTSA keeps these stats.  Something like 2 or 3 percent of traffic fatalities are from marijuana impairment.


I seriously doubt that.  Maybe 2 to 3 percent of people who cause traffic fatalities test positive for THC metabolites.  I bet most of those would have happened regardless or are attributable to additional other reasons.
 
2013-03-03 12:33:13 PM

lewismarktwo: BGates: sammyk: 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.

NHTSA keeps these stats.  Something like 2 or 3 percent of traffic fatalities are from marijuana impairment.

I seriously doubt that.  Maybe 2 to 3 percent of people who cause traffic fatalities test positive for THC metabolites.  I bet most of those would have happened regardless or are attributable to additional other r ...


Doubt it all you want, but those are the facts.
 
2013-03-03 04:56:16 PM

Crazy Lee: (always turn on inside passenger light - after dark- as cop approaches - really calms them down)


putting both hands outside the door window also really helps (like your waiting for them across a teller's desk, perhaps). Truly, both sides are going to be nervous, so everything helps.
 
2013-03-03 05:16:46 PM

BGates: lewismarktwo:

...
Doubt it all you want, but those are the facts misleading statistics.
 
2013-03-04 03:29:11 AM

Ambivalence: Keeping mind that THC can remain in your blood in measurable quantities for over a week.


Maybe people who use marijuana on a regular basis need to find a form of transportation that does not involve operating a motor vehicle.
 
2013-03-05 01:11:27 AM

pciszek: Ambivalence: Keeping mind that THC can remain in your blood in measurable quantities for over a week.

Maybe people who use marijuana on a regular basis need to find a form of transportation that does not involve operating a motor vehicle.


maybe people who drink liquor should take two months to think about what they've done before they drive. In fact, perhaps we should all just realize, we've been trashed at least once in our lives, so we're all unfit to drive.

/stupid grasp of chemistry is stupid
//last post
 
Displayed 184 of 184 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report