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  
•       •       •

3783 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 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 34 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report