Does anyone remember that old anti-pot cimmercial (about ten years ago I geuss) Where its two (hot) girls in the girls bathroom talking to each other, wondering how come they couldn’t get dates for the prom then at the very end it shows one of the girls take a hit off a joint.
Awe man that one always killed me becuase thats one of the main things I looked for in a girl when I was in school. I mean jeez how disalusioned from the truth can they get.
That word means the opposite of what you think it does, SHAKES– maybe you spent too much time with those girls in high school? 
(Just kidding-- I have some very fond memories of getting pleasantly buzzed with the girls in the drama club, myself…)
I agree, though-- who did they think that was going to convince? “Everyone knows that attractive girls who like to party are hopelessly unpopular.”
They’re not? Someone better tell the people who did that idiotic commercial with the dumb chick and the guys named ‘Rum’ and ‘Coke’.
I know others have pointed this out, but those commercials with the dumb girl and the rum and coke guys is just fucking stupid.
It’s highly unlikely that such a thing would ever happen, considering that if two stoned kids did find a gun they’d probably be so freaking paranoid about finding it that they’d shut the drawer and then spend the next three hours wondering if anybody knew they found it.
Due to large amounts of scientific testing in college I found that when one smokes copious amounts of pot, one does not desire to do anything more taxing that sit on the couch and watch the telly. Calling for pizza delivery becomes too much physical exercise.
I never managed to forget about protection, but did manage to be so stoned that at some point, we both just fell asleep. Moving took too much effort.
All through engineering school and since, a very high number of the geeks I know are both really successful and pot smokers. It is possible to work hard, make a ton of money, and like getting lit on the weekends.
If they wanted a really effective anti-pot commercial they’d show a bunch of pretty people smoking up and then taking trips to 7-11 for snack foods until they become fat and ugly. However, not even that is entirely true. Not all pot smokers get the munchies (I never did) and not all of them gain weight.
Well, I myself do not beleive that weed impairs your ability to drive. I smoke everyday while I am driving. Those weed commercials are stupid especially the one where the guy is in the drive through and run over a little girl. That is total bullshit. Legilization all they way weed is much safer than alcohol and cigarettes in my opinion. I have never been in an auto accident. Smoke weed everyday.
Killuminati, that sounds more like anecdotal evidence of state-dependent learning than an argument for non-impairment.
(Relax, I’m not suggesting that your Mississippi residence makes you a moron.)
All the debate over whether or not driving while high is good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant. Even if you did drive better while stoned, should it be legalized, there is no way that driving under its effects will be legal. You’d be facing the same DUI type charge as with alcohol, and as I understand it, there are field tests for narcotic impairments.
Yes, it’s anecdotal evidence, but it doesn’t affect the studies that prove driving under the influence of pot is no more harmful than driving sober
There are field tests that can show narcotic influence to a reliable degree? As well as showing the amount which was taken?
Absolutely, Chandeleur– it’s pitiful that so many of these little propaganda pieces seem to justify an blanket ban on recreational use of marijuana by presenting images of some circumstances where it would be ill-advised.
It wasn’t so long ago that many people used to confidently assert that they had no problem driving home after a night at the bar, and no doubt in the future people and freaky green humanoids will claim that Plutonium Nyborg has no effect on their driving abilities. It’s hard to sit still when you hear it, though.
There are other studies which unsurprisingly find that there is impairment, which you’d expect would be commonsensical. I agree that cannabis use detracts far less from driving ability than alcohol does, but that’s a long way away from saying it has no effect at all.
I may be way off here, this is anecdotal from my training. With alcohol, there is the HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) test, to check for impairment from alcohol. This is the test where you follow an object with your eyes only. I’ve heard that there is also a Vertical Gaze Nystagmus for drug use. The officer would have you follow the object up and down, vice side to side. There are other eye related clues as well. Anyway, the important thing to remember is, just with alcohol, that impairment is a crime, not just a BAC over .08. You could have one beer, have a BAC of .03, drive like an idiot, and still be arrested for DUI if the alcohol impairs your abilities.
How reliable is it? I dunno. Don’t think it matters really, as there’s no way driving while stoned will ever be legal. If pot were legalized, and the officer had evidence you were under any drug influence, that’ll probably be all they’ll need.
That’s an awesome reference Larry Mudd…
Look, if there’s one thing I can do man, it’s land when I’m stoned!
I did a little searching on the VGN, and what I found is that there isn’t any vertical or horizontal gaze nystagmus with pot. (from the first link I clicked: http://www.iupui.edu/~iutox/isdt/common_drugs_of_abuse.htm )
The VGN seems to be an indicator of inhalants and Dissociative Anesthetics. What current LE officers use to detect marijuana use aside from odor and paraphernalia, I don’t know.
Here’s what the Oregon State Police do:
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_200/OAR_257/257_025.html
Here’s one that would be fun to try when you’re stoned:
[quote]
(i) Internal Clock: Ask the person to tell you when 30 seconds has elapsed. Time the person’s estimation. *
Whoa, did I just say that out loud?
(Bit of a hijack…)
I really despise those who take cheap shots at America, but when people who live in countries with more realistic, humane drug laws than the U.S. sneer at the 30-year (and still going…) War on Drugs, it’s hard to argue.
When it comes to this issue at least, I look at countries who have - or are in the process of - experimenting with decriminalization of marijuana, such as Holland and Canada, with great envy.
And then, when we start talking about how the War on Drugs affects those people living in the coca-producing countries, it’s one of the few instances in which I’m ashamed to be American.
I am encouraged, however, that this issue is one in which “South Park Republicans” like me fall firmly in the legalization (of marijuana) camp.
(Sorry for the hijack)
I’m not saying that it has no effect at all. What I am saying, and what seveal studies have said, is that the negative effects are small enough as to be negated by the otherwise abnormally careful driving in which pot smokers tend to engage.
If that isn’t the case, how would you explain the results of the highway accident studies done by both the U.S. NHTSA and the Australians? Hard, real-life numbers are a lot more convincing than studies done in controlled environments.