It’s possible the person driving the car was drunk. It’s also possible they were tired beyond belief and struggling to keep their eyelids open. It’s very unlikely the person was smoking pot, or had smoked pot.
What I was pointing out was that the driving behavior matched EXACTLY what the study found when people smoked pot before getting behind the wheel. For you to say that the driving behavior was “classic drunk driver” sorta shoots a hole in your arguments that smoking pot makes you “almost as safe” as a sober driver.
How dare you. How DARE you insinuate this? What evidence do you have (beyond your own speculation)? Your own cite has been proven misinterpreted! Jesus H. Tapdancin’ Christ, apparently you know something we don’t, and aren’t telling. I simply can’t believe you even rationalize things this way, nay, even think this way.
I dare you to give me an infinte list of benefits. I will give you a list of people who will use drugs just for the high (hence, abusing them). I simply dare you. Apparently, my submachine gun question to you falls on deaf ears.
**
Your ethics are pathetic. Condoning someone who’s smoked pot all night long as safe to drive? Thank God you ain’t in charge. . .
So, now you are a law enforcement officer? Or are you making this bullshit up as you go, from your own speculation?
Given your demonstrated obvious ignorance, apparently I do know more on the subject that you.
Okay, this is beyond rediculous. If using a drug to get high=abuse, then you must advocate total prohibition of alcohol? Or is it okay to “abuse” alcohol but not any other drug? Apparently in your narrow low-level-of-moral-development world, there is no use without abuse. Or, no, wait… all those people are drinking alcohol for the taste, right? Puh-leeze.
What about taking aspirin for a headache? Do you consider that drug abuse? It’s simply someone taking something to “feel good”.
re: tommy gun- WTF are you talking about, you ignorant shit? I could go buy a full-auto Thompson tomorrow if I had the urge. Laws in your state may vary.
Hope you’re having fun out there on planet law-and-order. Send me a postcard sometime.
At what point has anyone but you shown any ignorance in this discussion? It has been said in many ways, both politely and angrily, that you are wrong. Let me repeat that for you: YOU ARE WRONG!
Saying that you can do something safer than someone else does not discount the danger implicit in doing it, and as was said earlier, why would you introduce another variable into the situation? That’s just plain stupid.
Sir, I am all for the legalization of marijuana. I think the prohibition of it is silly. But it is still illegal, and your justifications for its legalization are not convincing. Even the most hardcore pothead would have second thoughts in rationalizing doing something like driving while impaired. Remarkably, you have shown no such reservation.
If we didn’t have law and order, we would have anarchy, and then we’d be in real trouble. I agree that some laws are silly, but for the most part I think our government gets it right. So ease up a little.
And one more thing, on a more personal note…If you EVER get high and “accidentally” kill someone, say…my wife and newborn son, you had better make certain that you die in the wreck too. Because at that point, your shoddy justifications and excuses will mean absolutely nothing to me, and then you and I get to have ourselves a little conversation.
I trust that statement requires no further elucidation. I would hope that you would get the message with that, and would further hope that it serves to make you understand why your arguments are both ridiculous and pointless to an average person like myself.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Go ahead, say it again. One more time. Feel better now?
Yes, it is still illegal. Thanks for pointing that out. Fortunately for me, I choose to not allow the tyranny of unjust government to rule my life. You (obviously) have chosen to let the gummint make your choices for you.
Note the part I bolded up there. In the case of alcohol, there is a legal limit. On this side of the limit, you are considered to be “not impaired”. On that side of the limit, you are considered to be “impaired”. I postulate the shocking concept that a similar line may exist for other substances as well. You seem to prefer the one-size-fits-none approach of everyone pretending that one of the least harmful and most theraputically active substances known to man deserves to be illegal and it’s users thrown in jail.
Un-remarkably, you obviously know very little about “hardcore potheads”. I’ve yet to meet an experienced pot smoker with reservations about driving(and I know many).
Thanks for the unveiled threat, Richard. I’ll be sure to archive that in case something were to ever “accidentally” happen to me. So far I’ve skillfully avoided several accidents (caused by others) only because of my superior driving ability. I’ll let you know if I EVER cause an accident so you can come dole out some real justice. Oh wait, you’re for law-and-order. Never mind.
I attended a BIg 10 university in the early-mid 70’s. The president of the campus girlscouts who lived down the hall probably knew more ‘hardcore potheads’ than you. In addition, I’ve worked in corrections for the past 25 years, have known major dealers (federal and state level) on down to merely ‘serious pot heads’. Hell, some of 'em can barely walk when stoned.
You’ve still not brought back to the table here, any ‘data’ or evidence, just your ‘word’ as someone who (forgive me if I start laughing again) who knows people who smoke dope!!
** and that makes you? what? knowledgable? you’re claiming here that you know experienced pot smokers who have no reservations about driving. So what? I’ve known a whole boat load of folks who thought they were experienced, safe and wonderful drivers, who could drive safer drunk/stoned/under the influence than ‘x number/percentage’ out there. And it didn’t matter one bit when they got into an accident and went to prison for killing some one while driving.
Basic food for thought - no one here is attempting to keep you or your friends from your favorite amusement. What we are attempting to do is to help you stop deluding yourself that you’re safe to drive while under the influence of chemicals. The fact you keep on denying it, with all the justifications about ‘experienced pot smokers’ and ‘not as bad as drunks’ etc, makes you a menace on the road, because you apparently refuse to believe that by consuming chemicals prior to driving that you’re increasing your risks
now, simply put, by now, having had this opportunity to get to know you to some degree, I really don’t give a shit about you raising your own risks of damage.
I do however care a great deal about anyone else you may unintentionally harm while you’re busy assuring everyone you’re safe to drive.
So you’re saying you’re impressions and opinions are 30 years out of date/accquired in a corrections environment and therefore are irrelevant to our discussion of modern day society.
No, I think’s you that has yet to produce anything but hot air.
Sure, even though I’ve never said that and made statements to the contrary in this thread. You apparently refuse to believe that one can simultaneously “increase risks”, yet still be “safe to drive”. Funny that the law says different, otherwise the legal limit would be .00.
I don’t understand why I’m aggravating my repetitive-stress injury arguing with you. You’re obviously incapable of discerning anything but black and white.
Monty: sorry, no comment, as I’ve never heard/seen that phrase before.
Well I supposed I can speculate about what you’re getting at: I assume that by “wet reckless driving” you mean someone can get cited for driving recklessly under the influence of alcohol but still be under the legal limit.
And your (theoretical) point is? The law recognizes that alcohol in any quantity can be dangerous? But, if you don’t drive recklessly then being under .08 is okay. Funny how that standard doesn’t apply to other recreational drugs.
That wasn’t my question. My question was asking if you think the idea of a majority of people driving around with automatic rifles was a good idea, which was an allegory to your thinking that it’s okay for potheads to be driving around. Quit tap dancing. Answer the question.
**
Oh, “tyranny”? Oh I do love it when people throw that word around. It’s ‘tyranny’ to limit your actions when you present yourself a danger to the people around you. It’s ‘tyranny’ to oppose you because thinking like yours could get someone hurt. I had my suspicions, but I think it’s pretty clear: You don’t want to play by rules set forth by common knowledge. You don’t want to be a part of a safe society. You want to be a ‘lone wolf’. Wow. You really are something special, aren’t you? :rolleyes:
Wow, now DUI laws are tyranny. Oh please oh please oh please start an insurrection. I’d love to squash you and your little militia movement . . .
Tripler
Is spring break over yet? Isn’t school back in session?
My experience is with hundreds and hundreds of ‘serious pot heads’ dating from 1972 to present. was married to some one who worked in substance abuse rehab. Have multiple friends in rehab employment. Have other friends who have drug histories themselves. Have relatives w/drug histories. And, of course, have known quite a few related to corrections, not all. At any rate, I’ll put it up against you and your ‘folks you know’ any day of the week. Especially since the study that’s linked here discounts your contentions.
You keep on insisting ‘safer’ . Nobody cares. safer does not equal ‘safe’.
and gosh, how bout that, there’s a line that’s drawn at a certain BAL. What you’re refusing to deal with is that for anyone who’s involved in an at fault accident, you will face legal consequences. If they can prove intoxication as well, the consequences may be additional. And, of course, intoxication, failure to pass a sobriety test will, all by itself, net you consequences. For folks who drink, they’ve got a way to testing it out (testing BAL ) for those who use other drugs, if you fail the roadside test or are at fault, you will be held responsible.
you have no right to put others at risk. Neither does anyone else. Your refusal to admit that lowering your abilities raises risks for accidents is mindboggling.
Did you hear, by the way, of a recent crash in Memphis ? the van went off the road, no other vehicle involved.
1st, they are not “illegal too”. 2nd, I have no opinion on the subject of driving around with them, and 3rd what the fuck does this have to do with our discussion?? I would say that rather than me having a reading comprehension problem, you seem to have problems writing clearly.
Yes, tyranny. And my comment was in reference to our (mostly federal) governmental policies in general(and drug prohibition in specific), not specifically to the DUI laws. Here’s a definition for you.
Hmmmm… a rigor not requisite for the purposes of government. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Can you say “drug war”?
I prefer to allow reason and logic to dictate my actions. The “common knowlege” of people who can’t think for themselves I can do without thanks.
wring: sounds like you know/have experience with lots of people with DRUG PROBLEMS. That is NOT the same thing as knowing lots of people who are drug USERS. Your experience appears heavily weighted toward people who are drug ABUSERS.
Funny, I said that already. But nothing=‘safe’ so that’s a moot point.
Obviously you care, since that’s what we’re talking about here. Or rather what I’m talking about… you seem to be in a different argument.
thanks for pointing out the obvious again.
Oh, we better all stay off the road then. That’s the only way to not put others at risk.
Let me make it easy for you: Lowering your abilities raises risks for accidents. You may now resume putting words in my mouth.
Your refusal to admit the existance of the color grey is mindboggling.
Then help me out here, tadc. It’s already been proven, by the study you cited, that smoking marijuana lowers your ability to drive. Why, then, are you arguing that someone who smokes marijuana is “almost as safe” as someone who doesn’t smoke marijuana? All things being equal, the marijuana smoker has been proven to have difficulty maintaining a constant speed and staying in the proper area of the road. (The fact that you classified this as “classic drunk driver” behavior boggles the mind, frankly, since you’re making the argument that a marijuana smoker is “safer” than a drinker.)
Yes, driving is a risk, and thousands of people die every year as a result of accidents, even when they did nothing wrong. Given that, why would you willingly lower your ability to drive safely? Why knowingly increase the risk?
As an aside, I do believe it is illegal to own a fully automatic machine gun in the U.S. I think that’s what Tripler was referring to.
little one, since it is you who keeps on using the term ‘experienced pot smoker’, why are you now objecting to the addition of ‘drug abusers’ into the classification?
Let me assure you that drug abusers would all consider themselves ‘experienced’.
Or are you now claiming that of the set of all people who smoke pot, only those you define as having sufficient ‘experience’ and yet have not wavered into the area of ‘drug abusers’ have this miraculous ability to be ‘safer’ enough to drive?
seems that you’re qualifying the hell out of it.
Experienced drug user does not preclude/exclude those who are substance abusers. However, the classification of substance abusers are quite generally, considered to be ‘experienced’ drug users.
REminds me of the scene Animal House when ‘Pinto’ (or was it Boon?) discovered pot and thought he was soooooo deep.
Yep, I sure did. Seeing as how the common joint is just as against the law (oh, don’t worry, I know you’ll debate this one) as a Thompson is, you still haven’t answered my question. Should we be allowed to, or should we not be allowed to drive with something as dangerous?
**
Hmm. Well, seeing as how you are the only one seeing anything ‘tyrannical’ about anything in here, I’m sure you won’t have to be shown how most states either mirror the federal law, or revert to it. As for your ‘quote’, I have no idea where in the hell that came from, and without a concrete cite I regard it as nothing more than the rhetorical flapping of your gums. . .
**
Again, your skewed thinking loses me here. Revert to your earlier comment: “you seem to have problems writing clearly.” What requisite? Your militia is not communicating clearly. Help me out here. . .
**
Don’t worry. You are doing well without my thanks.
But I do love this little gem:
I love how the scum of the earth exist to stretch this elastic clause.
Tripler
I love how you turn your dangerous habits into the political problems of a modern republic.
and I do believe you’re an ignoramus. FEDERAL LAW allows private ownership, some states(not mine) do ban it.
OKay… in my state: 1 joint = a citation, equivalent to a traffic ticket. Fully auto submachine gun (I can’t speak to the Thompson specifically, but there’s no reason why it would be excepted) = legal with appropriate federal tax stamp. Please pull your head out of your ass, look this one up and stop making such a fool of yourself. You can come over and look at (but NOT touch) my fully legal, federally registered HK-98 if you need more proof.
So, a joint is barely against the law… machine gun, not at all.
And, you fucking imbecile, I DID answer your question.
tadc, a question, since you’re gonna start insulting me without provocation: Is your user name an acronym for “the annoying dope-child”?
Argue about machine-guns all you want, sport. (Although you look ridiculous saying machine-guns are not illegal, and then mention that in some states they are.) The fact remains that smoking dope impairs your ability to drive, and in your own words can create driving behavior that mirrors “classic drunk driving.” Trying to rationalize this as being “almost as safe” as a sober driver is ignorance at its highest.
Congratulations on ducking the facts when you’re nailed to the wall, junior.
I think you are incorrect. I do not believe that there is any gray area when it comes to DWI or DUIs. If you want to debate this by saying that pot is safer to drive with in your system than alcohol or beer, then I will:
Revert you back to your original study with found pros and cons between pot and booze. No clear conslusion came out, but the study did reemphasize the fact that you should drive with neither in your system. You either mistook this to mean it’s perfectly alright to do such a thing, or you condone it. Either way, I and a few other individuals here thing you are flat wrong.
Revert you to a myriad of state laws and statutes that do not have such a grey area. Either you are under the influence of a drug or not. BALs have been set, and the police do have the right to ask permission to search your car if they deem reasonable cause that you may be driving under the influence. Should the police find evidence of illegal drugs, I’d put money on the fact that you are going to jail for either possession, trafficking, or just plain ol’ DUI.
My rant on your style:
It’s quite obvious you just want to bitch about the situation just to hear yourself bitch and whine. I have not seen a clear, logical statement regarding your position. The only thing I’ve seen you do is argue other points with vague inconsistent quotes (some of which aren’t even complete sentences) as “supporting material” and watch you get yourself worked up because you can’t quite tell us a damn thing.
I refer you to this particular situation:
I asked you where this quote came from, hoping (in vain) to get a concrete cite, and you reply:
You are getting flustered. I like that. It means you are emotionally worked up about this, and aren’t thinking about it. It shows me you can see the writing on the wall. Now who’s the one being emotionally reactive?
So, with your ‘exercise’ quote, just what the hell do you mean? What word or concept are you trying to define? Did this come from Thomas Payne pamphlet you had lying around the house, or did you (most likely) snip two sentences from a couple of lines to justify some vague thought. Hell, the thing doesn’t even make sense. It describes no word, policy, concept (such as Habeas Corpus) or anything I’ve even heard or seen in any political discussion. By this definition, I think you are saying: “exercise of power over subjects without severity. . . not necessary for the purposes of government.” Yes, I got these synonyms from your ownDictionary.Com. Please, kindly explain what you are defining, and what it has to do with DUIs.
I ask you to explain further, or I shall send this right back at you:
And frankly, while I respect your opinion and expressions of distrust for the government, I think that your whole understanding of it is pretty slight. And throwing around ‘tyranny this’ and ‘tyranny that’ without any backing evidence is pretty childish.
I know it’s cliche by now, but I have to say “I think we’re all dumber for [reading your posts]. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. . .”
End rants
I’m just about done feeding this troll. Stick a fork in him, I think he’s done too . . .
Not to be too nitpicky, but tadc has indicated that on more than one occasion, a policeman has stopped him and didn’t give him a DUI citation based on his marijuana usage. So in those instances, at least, he didn’t face any consequences for his use. (I may be remembering this wrong; perhaps he was just talking to police officers about a hypothetical situation.)
True, apparently where he’s at, his state gives him a citation. I’ve known others that would haul him in. I’m sure any prudent police officer would do a throrough search of the vehicle . . .
Tripler
I like how you threw in ‘consequences for his use’. Subtle.
