Do you have adblock enabled?
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 65
    More: Interesting, Colorado, speed limits, marijuana, Greenwood Village  
•       •       •

3790 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2013 at 4:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-02 02:02:34 PM  
8 votes:
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 03:03:57 PM  
5 votes:

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 04:27:34 PM  
4 votes:
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 04:25:06 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:25:16 PM  
4 votes:

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 02:10:19 PM  
3 votes:
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 08:00:37 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:15:20 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:04:17 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:24:59 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:02:00 PM  
2 votes:
We already have a marijuana limit. It's 0.
2013-03-02 03:56:36 PM  
2 votes:
2013-03-02 02:44:11 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:37:47 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:11:51 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:02:49 PM  
2 votes:
Is there any evidence that stoned drivers are causing people to die?
2013-03-02 01:32:12 PM  
2 votes:
I can't imagine being able to drive at all when stoned.
2013-03-03 01:11:43 AM  
1 votes:
I think we should have a volunteer to test this theory:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
2013-03-02 10:30:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:23:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:28:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:04:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:38:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:15:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:59:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:44:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:28:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:13:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:29:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:27:19 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:13:34 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:06:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:06:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:58:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:54:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:52:23 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:52:10 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:40:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:22:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:15:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:09:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:07:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:51:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:51:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:48:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:43:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:43:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:41:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:36:08 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:34:58 PM  
1 votes:
no marijuana limit.  allow unlimited use, retards
2013-03-02 04:34:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:32:11 PM  
1 votes:
stoners, please stop driving stoned, and please stop pretending you are okay to drive when stoned.
2013-03-02 04:31:32 PM  
1 votes:
There are a few posters in this thread who need to get laid.  This is one of Rumsfeld' known knowns.
2013-03-02 04:31:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:28:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:23:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:21:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:20:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:13:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:06:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:29:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:18:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:24:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:14:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:01:40 PM  
1 votes:
Is there a way to test *how much* pot is in your system?  And quickly?
 
Displayed 65 of 65 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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