Skip to content
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.

(CBC)   Stuck at a police checkpoint? Probably not a good time to light up that joint   (cbc.ca) divider line
    More: Spiffy, security checkpoint, vehicle inspection, Cpl  
•       •       •

5475 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jul 2011 at 4:47 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



79 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-07-12 12:16:57 AM  
files.myopera.comView Full Size


Is this the dude?..
 
2011-07-12 3:08:28 AM  
videoeyeball.typepad.comView Full Size
 
2011-07-12 3:30:54 AM  
Don't be so harsh subby, those situations are stressful.
 
2011-07-12 4:48:18 AM  
More like spliffy.
 
2011-07-12 4:51:40 AM  
FTFA: "Officers spent an hour trying to determine if the man was impaired. He passed the test, but they charged him with possession of marijuana."

So in other words, he passed the test, so he wasn't impaired, but we need to punish him anyway, because he doesn't agree with us.
 
2011-07-12 5:01:27 AM  
They see me relaxing, they hating
 
2011-07-12 5:02:29 AM  
NS? Unintentionally trolling cops but some how getting out of it? Was it this guy?
26.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2011-07-12 5:08:17 AM  
That's not a joint... that's an unfiltered cigarette. Why unfiltered tobacco? Well, you don't try to suck on your woman's teats through her sweater, do you?
 
2011-07-12 5:14:26 AM  
cinemasoldier.comView Full Size


/approves
 
2011-07-12 5:21:25 AM  
I always heard that smoking weed in front of a cop doubles the potency.
 
2011-07-12 5:25:21 AM  

Rohasman: That's not a joint... that's an unfiltered cigarette. Why unfiltered tobacco? Well, you don't try to suck on your woman's teats through her sweater, do you?


If I called them her "teats", about the only thing she would let me suck on is a shotgun

That being said, if that was the only way I could suck on them, then I would happily do so

/And considering they look kinda sexy jiggling under clothes if I get the rhythm going right, I don't mind in the least
 
2011-07-12 5:26:00 AM  

mocklety: I always heard that smoking weed in front of a cop doubles the potency.


This is true.
 
2011-07-12 5:31:17 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: mocklety: I always heard that smoking weed in front of a cop doubles the potency.

This is true.


Well, smoking weed with a cop...

/okay she worked at the jail, but had a badge and a gun and farked REALLY well...
 
2011-07-12 5:49:55 AM  
Ricky?
 
2011-07-12 6:03:49 AM  
Came for the Trailer Park Boys reference.

/leaving satisfied
 
2011-07-12 6:33:45 AM  
Ricky was on his way to harvest of course!
 
2011-07-12 7:15:53 AM  

untaken_name: So in other words, he passed the test, so he wasn't impaired, but we need to punish him anyway, because he doesn't agree with us.


They have to bust you harder if you show the law they are trying to enforce is a farce. It`s the law.
 
2011-07-12 7:34:29 AM  
Dope.
 
2011-07-12 7:55:03 AM  
You know, the people who argue that you can drive while stoned really aren't helping the cause.
 
2011-07-12 8:13:11 AM  
or is it?
 
2011-07-12 8:13:28 AM  

Bored Horde: You know, the people who argue that you can drive while stoned really aren't helping the cause.


But...he passed the sobriety test.
 
2011-07-12 8:15:47 AM  
stoppopculture.comView Full Size


overkill....
 
2011-07-12 8:24:43 AM  

AbbeySomeone: Don't be so harsh subby, those situations are stressful.


came here for this. If ever there was a time you needed something to take the edge off....
 
2011-07-12 8:55:41 AM  
Weed really does kill those brain-cells.
 
2011-07-12 9:04:54 AM  
Question: Would you trust a person who's high to take care of your kids, as in they just smoked a phattie and intend to continue doing so while baby sitting, still cool? Why? Why not?
 
2011-07-12 9:31:05 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Question: Would you trust a person who's high to take care of your kids, as in they just smoked a phattie and intend to continue doing so while baby sitting, still cool? Why? Why not?


No -- do not expose babby lungs to smoke. Doesn't matter if it's the regular or wacky kind.
 
2011-07-12 9:37:17 AM  

untaken_name: So in other words, he passed the test, so he wasn't impaired, but we need to punish him anyway, because he doesn't agree with us.


Err. It is against the law to drive under the influence of alcohol past a certain level. It is also against the law to drive is possession of an open alcoholic beverage container in your vehicle. These are not mutually exclusive.
 
2011-07-12 9:40:18 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Question: Would you trust a person who's high to take care of your kids, as in they just smoked a phattie and intend to continue doing so while baby sitting, still cool? Why? Why not?


Good friend of mine has been running daycare for years and she's been smoking since she was 12.

She became emancipated at 16...

She became legal guardian of her younger sister @ age 17...

She pays her rent, holds down a job, and took care of two babies THAT WEREN'T EVEN HERS for 4 years because she didn't want them to go into the system.

But don't listen to me, marijuana smokers are irresponsible people because smoking marijuana makes you do crazy things just like crack does.

/reefer madness
//should i mention my engineer friends that smoke too?
///how about the couple guys with MBAs I know that smoke?
 
2011-07-12 9:41:53 AM  

raggtopp: BumpInTheNight: Question: Would you trust a person who's high to take care of your kids, as in they just smoked a phattie and intend to continue doing so while baby sitting, still cool? Why? Why not?

Good friend of mine has been running daycare for years and she's been smoking since she was 12.

She became emancipated at 16...

She became legal guardian of her younger sister @ age 17...

She pays her rent, holds down a job, and took care of two babies THAT WEREN'T EVEN HERS for 4 years because she didn't want them to go into the system.

But don't listen to me, marijuana smokers are irresponsible people because smoking marijuana makes you do crazy things just like crack does.

/reefer madness
//should i mention my engineer friends that smoke too?
///how about the couple guys with MBAs I know that smoke?


So you don't mind trusting your kids to her while she's high?
 
2011-07-12 9:43:33 AM  

Stavr0: BumpInTheNight: Question: Would you trust a person who's high to take care of your kids, as in they just smoked a phattie and intend to continue doing so while baby sitting, still cool? Why? Why not?

No -- do not expose babby lungs to smoke. Doesn't matter if it's the regular or wacky kind.


(er double post sorry)
Aye def no exposing to the smoke but let's say they smoke it away from the kids and then return, all good now?
 
2011-07-12 9:53:15 AM  

BumpInTheNight: raggtopp: BumpInTheNight: Question: Would you trust a person who's high to take care of your kids, as in they just smoked a phattie and intend to continue doing so while baby sitting, still cool? Why? Why not?

Good friend of mine has been running daycare for years and she's been smoking since she was 12.

She became emancipated at 16...

She became legal guardian of her younger sister @ age 17...

She pays her rent, holds down a job, and took care of two babies THAT WEREN'T EVEN HERS for 4 years because she didn't want them to go into the system.

But don't listen to me, marijuana smokers are irresponsible people because smoking marijuana makes you do crazy things just like crack does.

/reefer madness
//should i mention my engineer friends that smoke too?
///how about the couple guys with MBAs I know that smoke?

So you don't mind trusting your kids to her while she's high?


100% I don't mind....you know why? Because I'm not ignorant of marijuana. I know that it doesn't make you lose your mind....ESPECIALLY if you are regular consumer of it. All you seem to know about pot is what the ADA babblespouts since you think it makes you crazy.

This is why we even have this retarded "war on pot" in the first place....reefer madness and the people that still believe it or try to further that idea.
 
2011-07-12 9:56:05 AM  

raggtopp: 100% I don't mind....you know why? Because I'm not ignorant of marijuana. I know that it doesn't make you lose your mind....ESPECIALLY if you are regular consumer of it. All you seem to know about pot is what the ADA babblespouts since you think it makes you crazy.

This is why we even have this retarded "war on pot" in the first place....reefer madness and the people that still believe it or try to further that idea.


You're making a lot of wild assumptions here, assumptions you are dead wrong about too. Go calm down, smoke a bowl or something, I'm sure your boss won't mind.
 
2011-07-12 10:02:53 AM  

BumpInTheNight: So you don't mind trusting your kids to her while she's high?


Dude. Stupid analogy.

Replace "weed" with alcohol. Would you let a drunk kid babysit your kid? Absolutely not.

Weed does not change who you are. It doesn't magically turn you into some freak. You're still yourself, you're still in your own mind and no magic pixie is telling you what to do to other people (that would be laced with LSD and you should probably see a doctor). You do not have any greater or less desire to fark anything that walks by.

Besides, as I always have to remind people IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE SMOKED! Pills, cookies, brownies, cokes, etc. work as well or even better (and lasts longer) than smoking it. Why burn most of your drug when you can ingest it all?
 
2011-07-12 10:05:20 AM  

BumpInTheNight: You're making a lot of wild assumptions here, assumptions you are dead wrong about too. Go calm down, smoke a bowl or something, I'm sure your boss won't mind.


Ah yes, it's clearly a wild assumption that you believe the outright lies that ADA publishes about marijuana...because you never made any deriding comments about marijuana or framed your questions in a patronizing manner...

No really kid, is this your first day on the internet? If you were attempting to troll it wasn't a very good one.

/lol @ the "calm down bro" comment...is this trolling 101?
 
2011-07-12 10:09:20 AM  

raggtopp: BumpInTheNight: You're making a lot of wild assumptions here, assumptions you are dead wrong about too. Go calm down, smoke a bowl or something, I'm sure your boss won't mind.

Ah yes, it's clearly a wild assumption that you believe the outright lies that ADA publishes about marijuana...because you never made any deriding comments about marijuana or framed your questions in a patronizing manner...

No really kid, is this your first day on the internet? If you were attempting to troll it wasn't a very good one.

/lol @ the "calm down bro" comment...is this trolling 101?


Actually, he hasn't stated anything that lets us know his stance on marijuana. He's simply asked a (stupid) question to draw you into a fight. It's a technique used when people want to seem smarter than you because they know that most readers will read with assumptions in place and then state those assumptions with emotion. Because he's not said anything and you injected some assumptions, he's probably giggling his ass off on the other side of the screen.

But I digress, he's simply trying to draw you into a fight and no matter which side you would have taken, he will argue the opposite because of the way he started this "discussion".

/I believe it's taught under "Trolling 201"; the intermediate class.
 
2011-07-12 10:11:27 AM  

WhoGAS: BumpInTheNight: So you don't mind trusting your kids to her while she's high?

Dude. Stupid analogy.

Replace "weed" with alcohol. Would you let a drunk kid babysit your kid? Absolutely not.

Weed does not change who you are. It doesn't magically turn you into some freak. You're still yourself, you're still in your own mind and no magic pixie is telling you what to do to other people (that would be laced with LSD and you should probably see a doctor). You do not have any greater or less desire to fark anything that walks by.

Besides, as I always have to remind people IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE SMOKED! Pills, cookies, brownies, cokes, etc. work as well or even better (and lasts longer) than smoking it. Why burn most of your drug when you can ingest it all?


Again with the wild arm flinging and accusatory nature while completely missing the question. No analogy intended, I'm just genuinely curious about how comfy the champions of stoned driving are with the idea of their baby sitter showing up high (regardless of how they got to that point). So far it seems they are, which is commendable to their conviction.

Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with it, nor would I be if I were transporting my kids in my car and in a situation where quick reactions were required of another driver near me and they were high. Not even assuming either party created the situation, just if I were given the choice to put my life in the hands of someone sober or high assuming all other factors were equal, I'd probably opt for the sober one.
 
2011-07-12 10:14:10 AM  
I have absolutely no problem with somebody smoking (drinking, shooting up, snorting, whatever) as long as they are not posing a potential danger to someone else. This, to me, is the very key of "moderation"- as long as you're clear-headed while watching my kids (from the time you show up to the time you leave), I don't care what you do in your own home. [For the same reason, I never drink around my kids.] But the moment your smoking in any way potentially impacts myself or my family, we have problems.
 
2011-07-12 10:16:38 AM  

WhoGAS: Actually, he hasn't stated anything that lets us know his stance on marijuana. He's simply asked a (stupid) question to draw you into a fight.


The MANNER in which the question was poised is just as important as the question itself. You even acknowledge what he's TRYING to do...because it's that obvious. Which is why I called him on it.

If he DOESN'T have the stance he's implying....then he's attempting to troll.
 
2011-07-12 10:22:44 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Again with the wild arm flinging and accusatory nature while completely missing the question.


Nothing accusatory at all in my post if you would have read it. First, I started by answering your question. A very clear no.

Secondly, I educated those who do not smoke (you only assumed that I was talking only to you) on a myth people seem to perpetrate.

Thirdly, I ended my post with yet more education to those who don't know (this one was partially based on your original question regarding smoke and smoking around the kid) that MJ is ingested as well as smoked.

Lastly, I do not see the "they" in your fantasy; I saw one, maybe two people say yes. Even if 100 people were okay with a stoned babysitter sitting their kids, within their own home where they are not driving anywhere, that's perfectly fine. Who are you to dictate how a person raises his or her kids even if you don't agree with it?

/Eagerly awaiting your next troll...but I have to get to work soon, so please make it a good one.
 
2011-07-12 10:24:35 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with it, nor would I be if I were transporting my kids in my car and in a situation where quick reactions were required of another driver near me and they were high. Not even assuming either party created the situation, just if I were given the choice to put my life in the hands of someone sober or high assuming all other factors were equal, I'd probably opt for the sober one.


But you hold your opinions why? Because you've actually been high or spent a decent amount of time with high individuals....or because you read somewhere that marijuana is bad?

There are people who I would NOT want to be in a car with while they were high....and there are also people I wouldn't even give a second thought about being in a car with while they were high. Not everyone is affected by it the same way, and regular users don't get "blown out." or get anywhere close to debilitating intoxication....I don't think it's even possible for a regular user to get to that point through smoking (maybe eating though.)

It should also be noted that there are people I wouldn't get into a car with when they are SOBER either.
 
2011-07-12 10:25:30 AM  
Fortunately for the man, stupidity is not against the law, he added.

"It's probably a good thing that it isn't. We wouldn't be able to write enough tickets All cops would be outlaws if it were."


Fixed that for him.
 
2011-07-12 10:52:23 AM  
I'll just respond to both of you without quoting because frankly that's annoying to do :P My own background: It used to be part of my life style but I felt it was hindering me so I stopped several years back, I know many people who do though and all the power to them as they tend pick and choose their times for it (kicking' on the porch sure, driving a busload of kids to school not so much).

Now when it comes to driving absolutely there's people who just have this knack for maintaining full abilities even under the strongest influences and I commend them but until there is a way to quantify that ability vs the current level of highness I'd rather they hold off a few minutes until they're not on the roads before getting into that state, as a courtesy. There's some prescription drug takers and as mentioned above by raggtopp even sober people I'd ask the same thing of but well we're not talking about them right now.

When it comes to my kids I'd rather people be at their full wits when in charge of them, being high no matter how well you can cope with that state is purposely hindering that (arguable yes but that's my opinion after much experience). I'd pick someone who didn't opt to get high while carrying out daily activities vs someone who did, personal choice. You make yours, I make mine. Additionally and this is just personal opinion here: I think someone who consciously chooses to use recreational stimulants (I dunno, whatever term for drugs & alcohol even in the smallest of quantities) beyond times of pure recreation have got some other problems they outta sort out so again I'd opt for someone who didn't need/want/whatever to use recreational mind-editors(still trying for a good word here) throughout the day.

What you do during your recreational time is of course your business and as long as its not endangering anyone else I haven't the slightest problem with it, but being on the road is not (in my opinion) one of those times.
 
2011-07-12 11:00:53 AM  

Bored Horde: You know, the people who argue that you can drive while stoned really aren't helping the cause.


You mean like the officers in this article? It's your contention that they are some sort of 5th column trying to undermine the arguments of stoners? Can I get some of whatever you're smoking?
 
2011-07-12 11:03:51 AM  

BumpInTheNight: What you do during your recreational time is of course your business and as long as its not endangering anyone else I haven't the slightest problem with it, but being on the road is not (in my opinion) one of those times.


I feel the same way about people driving with passengers, eating and drinking while driving, talking on phones while driving, listening to the radio while driving, being mad while driving, being stressed while driving, thinking about work while driving, thinking about disharmony in their home or work life while driving, or doing anything but paying 100% attention to driving, because driver inattention is the leading cause of accidents in this country. Guess we're both just going to have to get helmets and deal with it, aren't we?
 
2011-07-12 11:16:21 AM  

BumpInTheNight: I'll just respond to both of you without quoting because frankly that's annoying to do :P My own background: It used to be part of my life style but I felt it was hindering me so I stopped several years back, I know many people who do though and all the power to them as they tend pick and choose their times for it (kicking' on the porch sure, driving a busload of kids to school not so much).

Now when it comes to driving absolutely there's people who just have this knack for maintaining full abilities even under the strongest influences and I commend them but until there is a way to quantify that ability vs the current level of highness I'd rather they hold off a few minutes until they're not on the roads before getting into that state, as a courtesy. There's some prescription drug takers and as mentioned above by raggtopp even sober people I'd ask the same thing of but well we're not talking about them right now.

When it comes to my kids I'd rather people be at their full wits when in charge of them, being high no matter how well you can cope with that state is purposely hindering that (arguable yes but that's my opinion after much experience). I'd pick someone who didn't opt to get high while carrying out daily activities vs someone who did, personal choice. You make yours, I make mine. Additionally and this is just personal opinion here: I think someone who consciously chooses to use recreational stimulants (I dunno, whatever term for drugs & alcohol even in the smallest of quantities) beyond times of pure recreation have got some other problems they outta sort out so again I'd opt for someone who didn't need/want/whatever to use recreational mind-editors(still trying for a good word here) throughout the day.

What you do during your recreational time is of course your business and as long as its not endangering anyone else I haven't the slightest problem with it, but being on the road is not (in my opinion) one of those times.


Well that wasn't really trollish at all...

I guess I actually have to agree with you about the driving, but let me explain why.

I fully support legislation that punishes people for driving while talking on their cellphone. I could drive a manual transmission vehicle with one hand, smoke a cig, and talk on a cellphone just fine while driving. But that is ME....and I am not representative of the whole.

It would be silly to say it's ok for EVERYONE to do something, when a good portion of the populace can't do that thing safely. Just because I can handle multi-tasking while driving doesn't mean others can.

Same thing applies to driving while high, drunk, or what have you. My uncle drove a truck with 2 snowmobiles on a trailer over 200 miles with a BAC of over .40....and the only reason he got caught was because he stopped at a random person's house, walked in their unlocked front door, dropped trou, pissed all over the carpet and passed out on their couch. He drove drunk more than he drove sober, and I don't believe he EVER crashed.

That doesn't mean I think driving drunk is ok...but I accept that there are some people that can do it just fine.

Still, I don't think you can compare driving high with driving drunk as their types of intoxication are markedly different. Marijuana is closer to caffeine or nicotine than it is to alcohol as far as severity of intoxication.
 
2011-07-12 11:18:20 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Sensible stuff


Now why didn't you just say so instead of trying to troll people into a negative discussion?

What you said is something I think most of us agree with; even those who you were trying to get to say, "Yes," to your asinine scenario. You really didn't need to drag a "stoned babysitter" (OMG!! THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!!!!) into your post because, if that's what you really think, it was a very good post.

Next time, if I may be as bold, please start with your extensive discourse and you'll see that most people agree.
 
2011-07-12 11:19:00 AM  
The local news is reporting that he didn't get charged with anything, as the amount of marijuana he had was too small. I think the CBC article might be incorrect on the 'being charged' part.

Glad to see Yarmouth, NS making an appearance on Fark.

/ 10th greenlight! First time seeing my hometown on here.
 
2011-07-12 11:22:23 AM  
I have friends like this, who will spark up a doob in the parking lot of the theatre on their way to the car or while driving or when they're walking out to get the mail. I'm like, it's still illegal, man.
 
2011-07-12 11:26:20 AM  

raggtopp: It would be silly to say it's ok for EVERYONE to do something, when a good portion of the populace can't do that thing safely.


See, I think it's silly to say that NO ONE can do something, just because some can't do it safely. You have no idea what portion of the population can or does drive safely on no drugs or some drugs or many drugs. Besides, there are already laws against negligent driving and causing accidents. Why make crimes out of things which have no damages and no victims? Remember, if there is some type of damage, and some type of victim, there is a criminal law which already covers the situation.
 
2011-07-12 11:41:50 AM  

untaken_name: See, I think it's silly to say that NO ONE can do something, just because some can't do it safely.


You're right, it IS silly to say that....unless you can't regulate it...which you of course can't in this particular case.

How are you going to discern who can and can't drive while intoxicated? How will police know who they can and can't pull over? Are you going to have special lanes like HOVs for intoxicated drivers? I could keep asking questions like these...

The most practical and logical solution is to just ban the practice BECAUSE THE MAJORITY CAN'T DO IT.
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.