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

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