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.

(Westword)   Michele Bachmann was not busted driving stoned. Repeat: Not stoned   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 64
    More: Obvious, Michele Bachmann, Larimer County, prompt corner, kidney stones, Fort Collins Coloradoan, denials, Lucky Charms  
•       •       •

6168 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2014 at 2:03 PM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-09 05:38:46 PM

La Maudite: fusillade762: La Maudite: Of course she wasn't stoned. She told us herself she's not a witch.

That was a different Tea Party nutjob.
[www.adweek.com image 425x240]

I just can't tell them apart. They all look the same to me.


The hotter chick is the not a witch, Michelle Bachmann has never denied being one.
 
2014-01-09 05:38:58 PM

busy chillin': Everybody knows she drinks Bacardi and gets a what what, you know she represents.


I like the fact that if you're in danger and odd-sized you can count on her.

/two banana plants up to a thrill seeking shark...
 
2014-01-09 06:45:09 PM
How could you tell?
 
2014-01-09 08:25:03 PM
When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way
 
2014-01-09 11:26:23 PM

Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.


If THC is in your system, you are impaired. You might not feel high, but your reflexes and concentration are diminished and you are a danger. The thing is that you become assimilated to it so you don't recognize it.

Truck drivers are automatically tested after an accident and if thc is in their system, they are charged with being under the influence of marijuana and are blamed for the accident, even if they smoked a joint while on vacation weeks before the accident happened. They also get random tested and if it appears in their system, they are done. They should do the same for car drivers.
 
2014-01-09 11:45:49 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.

If THC is in your system, you are impaired. You might not feel high, but your reflexes and concentration are diminished and you are a danger. The thing is that you become assimilated to it so you don't recognize it.

Truck drivers are automatically tested after an accident and if thc is in their system, they are charged with being under the influence of marijuana and are blamed for the accident, even if they smoked a joint while on vacation weeks before the accident happened. They also get random tested and if it appears in their system, they are done. They should do the same for car drivers.


Even a first timer is not affect 24 hours after smoking put, and someone saying otherwise is either totally ignorant or being wilfully obtuse.

Which is it?

They but people who get in accidents and have drugs in their system because it's illegal, because they have it in their work contract, and because they don't have a test for how impaired you are, they just have a present/not present test.

This doesn't mean that the person is actually impaired at that point, and it still means that busting someone who smoked pot 3 weeks before for a DUI is still bullshiat. For example, I can take one of my Lortabs for my back and you expect me not to drive for 4 days? At least we know who the high one around here is, I guess.

Look at it this way: they have tests that can deserving alcohol in your system for 3 months. You saying that we can't drive for three months after having a beer with dinner? Of course not, because they have a yardstick for measuring impairment. Not so for pot. By your logic, we can't drive for 3 months after a beer because at least SOME alcohol is detectable in the system.
 
2014-01-10 02:36:00 AM

Mikey1969: totally ignorant or being wilfully obtuse


You're talking to one of the most consistently lame trolls Fark has. Your typing is wasted.
 
2014-01-10 05:14:44 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.

If THC is in your system, you are impaired. You might not feel high, but your reflexes and concentration are diminished and you are a danger. The thing is that you become assimilated to it so you don't recognize it.

Truck drivers are automatically tested after an accident and if thc is in their system, they are charged with being under the influence of marijuana and are blamed for the accident, even if they smoked a joint while on vacation weeks before the accident happened. They also get random tested and if it appears in their system, they are done. They should do the same for car drivers.


If the stuff is so bad, why would a strong, confident Conservative Woman who liberals are terrified of smoke it?
 
2014-01-10 08:57:26 AM
Well, stoned would explain some of her actions, but so does bat crap crazy

Just because:

i238.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-10 01:36:05 PM

Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.


You'd think it would be obvious from watching them drive. It's not thoughtcrime or anything.
 
2014-01-10 07:15:57 PM

Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.

If THC is in your system, you are impaired. You might not feel high, but your reflexes and concentration are diminished and you are a danger. The thing is that you become assimilated to it so you don't recognize it.

Truck drivers are automatically tested after an accident and if thc is in their system, they are charged with being under the influence of marijuana and are blamed for the accident, even if they smoked a joint while on vacation weeks before the accident happened. They also get random tested and if it appears in their system, they are done. They should do the same for car drivers.

Even a first timer is not affect 24 hours after smoking put, and someone saying otherwise is either totally ignorant or being wilfully obtuse.

Which is it?

They but people who get in accidents and have drugs in their system because it's illegal, because they have it in their work contract, and because they don't have a test for how impaired you are, they just have a present/not present test.

This doesn't mean that the person is actually impaired at that point, and it still means that bust ...


Again, you are defining "under the influence" as "feeling high". If THC is in your system, you are under its influence, regardless of how "high" you might feel.

To accept your notion, your solution to deal with a testing dilemma is to let marijuana smokers drive without consequence. With truckers, the solution to dealing with the dilemma is to assume the driver just smoked the joint and was high as a kite.

There is a simple solution that doesn't allow dopers to kill people, don't let them drive automobiles.

If conservatives weren't dumb as rocks, they could create such a shiat storm and poison this  marijuana renaissance by making leftists vote to allow stoned driving, which is exactly what they'd do if conservatives in Colorado or Washington brought forth a bill like what I'm suggesting. You know, maybe the Democrats would have to go along with it so as not to be blamed for all the traffic deaths where the driver had pot in his system.
 
2014-01-10 08:32:36 PM
OK, so no driving for 3 months after a beer. Got it.
 
2014-01-11 12:51:20 AM

Mikey1969: OK, so no driving for 3 months after a beer. Got it.


Why? We were discussing whether someone should be allowed to drive while the intoxicant is in his system. Why is it so important to you that pot smokers be allowed to kill people with cars?
 
2014-01-11 01:10:18 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Mikey1969: OK, so no driving for 3 months after a beer. Got it.

Why? We were discussing whether someone should be allowed to drive while the intoxicant is in his system. Why is it so important to you that pot smokers be allowed to kill people with cars?


I only have myself to blame for responding to your dumb ass, I've been warned after all, but I'm going to answer one more time, just because it's a slow night....

If you think that people shouldn't be able to drive when they have any trace of pot in their system, then someone with half a brain would say that someone shouldn't be able to drive If there is any trace of alcohol in their system. As I said, this can be up to 3 months with some tests.

It is equally idiots to say that someone is still stoned 30 days after smoking pot as it is to say that someone is still drunk 3 months after going to the bar.

If you persist on your course, I don't give a Fark, I'm done, but if you do, you have to be the absolute stupidest person alive, next to the country attorneys in Maricopa County.

Have a nice life, and dont worry about writing.... We won't miss you.
 
Displayed 14 of 64 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report