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  
•       •       •

3776 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2013 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-02 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!
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report