Mr. GOH! Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 DUIs are indeed an issue. It's good that the police are vigilant. The police do NOT need to do a whole car search to charge someone with a DUI, nor make pretextual stops. I'd be okay with mandatory checkpoints on main roads out of CO, too, if DUI is really the concern. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Let's not forget the whole clenched buttcheeks incident from a while back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staySICK Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Clenched buttcheeks. Nevar Forget 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 DUIs are indeed an issue. It's good that the police are vigilant. The police do NOT need to do a whole car search to charge someone with a DUI, nor make pretextual stops. I'd be okay with mandatory checkpoints on main roads out of CO, too, if DUI is really the concern. DUIs for weed though? More than a bit ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Weed doesn't impair drivers as much as alcohol does, but it does slow reaction times. Being very high and driving has been found to significantly increase the likelihood of being in an accident. On the other hand, stoned driving laws don't seem to be effective in reducing stoned driving. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between weed and over-the-counter drugs that impair driving, like some allergy medications and pain killers. I suspect there are any number of legally-available substances that impair driving as much or more than marijuana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I don't know about other states, but the DUI law in Kansas has a section making it illegal to operate or attempt to operate a motor vehicle while "under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle". Even legal/validly prescribed drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) I'm all for legalization but I don't really think it's unreasonable to ask people not to drive while stoned. Edited January 4, 2014 by Mister Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredEffinChopin Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I don't think that's an unreasonable request. What would be unreasonable though, is if we start using that as a pretense to let LE get in peoples' faces and/or cars; which it kind of already is. If I had a nickel for every story I've heard that began with cops "smelling pot" when someone is pulled over... I see a lot of this idea from pundits and writers, that legalization presents a problem in the form of stoned drivers. The thing is, I don't think the sentence "Damn, I'd be the illest pothead if only it wasn't illegal" was ever uttered. In other words, pot smokers have been doing their thing despite the law for quite a while now, and the decision whether or not to drive stoned has always been left at their discretion. Since we all don't know someone whose family has been destroyed by a stoned driver, I think it's kind of silly to start acting like this is suddenly a problem to be bracing ourselves for. I'd be open to any serious studies on the topic (a brief search didn't yield much conclusive, in my opinion, and I believe the lack of research in itself says something on the topic) that might say otherwise down the line, but I'd hope that those studies also include every possible medication, emotional state, physical state, and model of vehicle that could possibly stand a slightly higher chance of experiencing an accident. Not JUST a study on pot, but a study on driving that includes pot and any other number of legal and illegal factors in regards to accident rates. While I do think that there is potential for someone with marijuana to cause a slip up, I don't think that it's significant. I'm more concerned about the elderly, personally, or people who work 14 hour shifts. Frankly, as I see more and more giant touch screen displays on peoples' dashboards, I just don't want to hear about the dangers of potheads on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I personally have my doubts that marijuana impairs driving to a dangerous degree the way alcohol does, but if I were buying up weed in Colorado I would still give the benefit of the doubt to the people who are worried about it and save it for when I'm at home or at a friend's house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecha Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Weed doesn't impair drivers as much as alcohol does, but it does slow reaction times. Being very high and driving has been found to significantly increase the likelihood of being in an accident. On the other hand, stoned driving laws don't seem to be effective in reducing stoned driving. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between weed and over-the-counter drugs that impair driving, like some allergy medications and pain killers. I suspect there are any number of legally-available substances that impair driving as much or more than marijuana. I take Rxed painkillers(opiates) around the clock due to chronic pain. I'm always worried that if I get in a wreck(even if it is the other driver's fault) that'll I'll be in so much shit. But...how the hell am I supposed to pay bills in a city with no bus transportation :/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 TME: yes, every state has subjective DUI laws; if you're too fucked up to drive due to the use of any substance, you have committed a crime. What folks are pushing for re: marijuana is a per se law that says regardless of any reflex tests, if you have X amount of index substance Y per a blood test/breathalyzer/follicle tests/etc, you are committing a crime regardless of actual impairment. Alcohol is very, very convenient to test this way as it has pretty similar effects on everyone for a given BAC percentage. Other drugs, including marijuana, are not so cut and dry, whether because the index substance is too attenuated from the mechanism of inebriation or because people have radically different tolerances. I imagine laws will get passed saying that any amount of marijuana in your system will make you guilty of a DUI, even if you are no longer feeling the effects of marijuana. This is unjust because it is possible to have THC in your blood days after you smoked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Aren't there also certain foods or drinks that will give a false positive on a test for THC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Anything with poppy seeds can. It only gives a false positive on the quick tests though, if they send it to an actual lab for verification they can tell the difference. *Edit* - Wait, no, poppy seeds give you a false positive for opiates, not THC. Edited January 4, 2014 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecha Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) I think you mean Seseme Seeds TME...unless I'm totally mistaken. Nevermind. Totally mistaken. Now HERE is what can give false positives...supposedly. http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_testing.shtml Edited January 4, 2014 by Vecha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) The thing is, I don't think the sentence "Damn, I'd be the illest pothead if only it wasn't illegal" was ever uttered. What if I told you I had a roommate, a friend, and someone that might qualify as an acquaintance say near the same phrase? Truth is anyone who wants to smoke will find it, sometimes very easily, but others hold back because of the illegal status. Edited January 4, 2014 by Atomsk88 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I think the point was that anyone who wants to become a pothead, and not a casual user, would likely already be using. I know of several people's parents who are going to buy legal weed once it's available here but they are not going to become potheads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-kills-net-neutrality-152413671.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 This ruling was obvious from the moment the FCC passed their ass-backward regulations. They just need to reclassify ISPs as telecommunicatinos providers so they're subject to the general regulations instead of trying to have their cake and eat it too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Regardless, I'm pretty fucking sad right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I attended today a luncheon put on by the county chamber, coming as a representative of the company I work for. There were people I know there, so I didn't feel too out of place. There were 2 groups of speakers, and the topic was the ACA. The first group got up and made the opening clarification that they work for the state and do not make the laws. This was important, as they endured no harsh questions, just questions about how people can be covered and some of the details we all wanted to know about. The second speaker was from an insurance broker, who also is on the committee for Covered California. She gave her presentation and threw out some very generalized things in support of Covered California. Then came the Q&A portion, and there were some very tough, very specific questions. Nothing she could readily answer without bringing up more questions. And one of her answers directly conflicted with a Federal study that came out last week, which she was called out on. It was getting real ugly. But, the host cut everyone off, and the speaker wrapped up her last question with a suggestion: Vote and let your voice be heard. Man, I had a good time at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 So due to EU stopping supplies of various drugs that many states use for executions Ohio is one of several states trialing new drug mixes. It seems their new drug mix hasn't worked so well and took over ten minutes to kill the inmate. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/ohio-dennis-mcguire-execution/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Apparently when it comes to health care we as a people won't even entertain the idea of trying a new approach but fuck, you take away our ability to kill people and we are all over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25726591 Oh yeah a retired policeman shot and killed someone because they used their phone in the cinema. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 How fitting that the movie they were watching was called Lone Survivor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 That's not really a political issue, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.