My very late $0.02:
I’ve been high and I’ve been drunk. I’d much rather pass a high driver than a drunk one driving down the road.
Bullshit. They didn’t post the study because they don’t have the right to. So they cite it, which is the proper course of action when making an assertion.
Which goes double for you… you wanna question NORML’s cites? Get some cites of your own, bucko. Fact remains: Marijuana does not significantly hamper a person’s ability to drive.
How is this sentence any different if you are sober or stoned?
Still, it’s rare when a Federal court rules to limit the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause. They usualy rule that Congress can regulate anything they darned well please.
We have a licencing system for sober drivers. I would whole-heartedly support a licencing system for drivers under the influence of chemical X, and that would be a pretty good solution to this problem. Although, you would have to be tested under the influence of a LOOOOT of dope, because of the aforementioned inability to determine the ‘blood-alcohol’ level for thc. Benefit of the doubt goes to the public.
As a general rule, I don’t debate. It’s pretty obvious that both of our minds are made up. That you stated your opinion as fact is discouraging. Consider this excerpt from a 2001 journal entry of mine.
“Got fucking wired after work tonight, and [accidently] went over the curb out of the parking lot. [Name] was flippin out, but the rest of us thought it was hilarious.”
We have a system that’s essentially a formality. And it’s not for sober drivers. It’s for drivers. Long as you’re sober the day you take the test - not that they test your BAC, of course - it’s not that tough.
So? How is this good evidence that weed should be illegal?
Taking the drivers test qualifies you to drive under the rules of the road. That means that you aren’t allowed to drive drunk.
If the same test were administered at a 2% blood alcohol level, the passing testee would then be allowed to drive with a blood alcohol level of up to 2%. (The number 2 was picked randomly. I have no idea how drunk someone with a 2% b.a. would be.)
My excerpt isn’t supposed to be evidence that weed should be illegal. It’s evidence that driving under the influence of weed should be illegal.
Sure you’re not ALLOWED. You think nobody’s ever done it? I agree that driving under the influence of weed should be illegal, maybe I misunderstood something earlier.
If your blood alcohol level was 2%… it couldn’t be. You’d have long since died. .5% is more than enough.
Didn’t mean to duplicate your whole post, Sua–just saw it now. I had scanned down this last page, and every post seemed to be dealing with DUI.
I’m a little, no, quite surprised by the number of posters in this thread thinking along the same lines. Did the whole world turn rational when I wasn’t looking?
Sounds more like evidence that some people shouldn’t be allowed to drive under the influence of weed (or maybe just you ;)). If we banned everything that could possibly influence anyone to do something dangerous, there would be nothing left.
You don’t have to be high to drive over a curb or get into an accident. If you want to ban everything that has as much negative impact on driving as weed does, you’ll have to ban cell phones, radios, cup holders, and driving with less than a full night’s sleep.
That said, I wouldn’t object to keeping it illegal to drive while high if marijuana were legalized, at least until we better understand how it affects users (of all levels of experience) and how to objectively measure its effects. Inexperienced smokers definitely shouldn’t be driving while high, because they don’t understand how weed will affect them, and because its effects on them may not have “stabilized” yet. Inexperienced drivers also shouldn’t be driving while high, but neither should they be messing with their sandwiches, cell phones, or radios.
Irrelevent. The contention - as supported by the aforementioned cite - is that being stoned does not make you any more of a dangerous driver than sobriety.
Even if the statistics show that Chemical X does not significantly impair one’s ability to drive? Are you suggesting that we should make people take the driver’s test thousands of times, so we can see how they drive while, say, sleepy, angry, hungry, or after taking aspirin, caffeine, or smoking a cigarette, etc?
No. Driving drunk should remain illegal because there is statistical evidence that a drunk is a more dangerous driver. There is NO such evidence for weed. Ergo, you have no argument.
I didn’t state my opinion as fact. I stated the results of the cited studies as fact. That you would dishonestly represent my posts in such a manner is discouraging. My advice? Stay away from the debating, since you don’t know how to do it.
So you did something dumb once while stoned… a phenomenon which I am SUUUURE has never happened whilst you were sober. Right?
We’re talking about driving while stoned. “Drunk” and “stoned” are two very different things, as supported by the cited article and studies. Care to assert differently? Cite it, chuckles.
No, it’s evidence that YOU did something dumb ONCE while driving. Y’know what? PEOPLE DO THAT ALL THE TIME, WHEN THEY’RE SOBER. Did you not notice that this has been said several times already? Pay attention!
Get evidence, not stoner memoirs.