weed

[Zeddicus]

Again--and I'll type really slowly here--

1) You CAN field test for sobriety re alcohol.

2) You CANNOT field test for sobriety re pot.

Therefore, there is no reasonable way to get drivers impaired by pot off the road before they hurt, maim, or kill somebody.

And for the record, driving while under the influence or driving while intoxicated is illegal and subject to criminal prosecution in all 50 states.

well in stoners defense, i have been in a total of 3 accidents, 2 of these i was merly a passanger,all of which no one was high. yet when i went to talk my driver's test, i was 'under the influence' of marajuna. And every car crash i have heard about all have other variables beside the weed. I mean a guy takes a hit of weed with 3 of his buds in the car( how many of you got that one) and the music is turned up and lots of yelling and what have you. well it is obviosly weed! i mean come on sure those 3 factors kill thousands of young drivers but since weed happend to be there it caused it. I mean if you can't feild test someone then how is it affecting there driving, i mean sober people suck at driving to.

 

[Foxfyre]

well in stoners defense, i have been in a total of 3 accidents, 2 of these i was merly a passanger,all of which no one was high. yet when i went to talk my driver's test, i was 'under the influence' of marajuna. And every car crash i have heard about all have other variables beside the weed. I mean a guy takes a hit of weed with 3 of his buds in the car( how many of you got that one) and the music is turned up and lots of yelling and what have you. well it is obviosly weed! i mean come on sure those 3 factors kill thousands of young drivers but since weed happend to be there it caused it. I mean if you can't feild test someone then how is it affecting there driving, i mean sober people suck at driving to.

Yes, and I have a relative, now recovering from alcoholism, that drove drunk many many times for more than 20 years without having an accident. There are many many others out there who are also driving drunk who also aren't crashing their cars. And in many of those accidents that have occurred, multiple factors also likely applied.

But the fact that unimpaired (at least with controlled substances) people suck at driving too and that most people driving impaired don't crash their cars does not erase the high percentage of alcohol-related car crashes that injure, maim, and kill people every year.

Drunk driving statistics

This is why it is necessary to protect the public as much as possible by getting as many numbnuts who drink and drive off the road as possible.

Pot can impair a driver every bit as much as alcohol. When they devise a way to field test for impairment via pot comparable to field tests for alcohol impairment, then the same rules could reasonably apply.

Until then, I think the laws are reasonable just as it is reasonable for an employer to have zero tolerance for even medical marijuana on the job. And I have the right to want the drivers I share the road with to be as competent and law abiding as possible.

 

[editec]

At least three fatal car crashes and one fatal train crash have been linked to pot being a component in New Mexico in recent years. You may think being stoned on pot is less dangerous than being drunk with alcohol, but I will need more convincing on that score than what you have provided here.

Listen to the mincing way that the charge is even made:

have been linked to pot being a component

Have been linked as being a component?!

Could that possible be more vague?

In other words, meaning that maybe somebody was drinking and smoking, perhaps?

I think you are drawing a very strained conclusion suggesting that the reason pot cannot be effectively field tested (to get a stoned driver off the road) is because the driver won't be as impaired as a drunk driver.

I only know what the cops tell me, sport. Stoner pass road side drunk tests because they are not physically impared.

You'll have to provide some better support for that opinion too before it will be convincing to me. I prefer not to share the road with either drunk or stoned drivers if that is okay with you.

Tat's quite okay with me. I want every driver to be alert and straight ALL the times.

I'm not advocating smoking and driving, I'm merely responding to the charge that smoking hemp effects driving ability like alcohol does.

It doesn't, that much is apparent.

The most important causes of auto accidents are as follows: Note that marijuania is not amoung them?

What is the Leading Cause of Car Accidents?

The majority of car accidents are caused by irresponsible driving behavior. Statistics also show that 98 % of car accidents involve a single distracted driver. Some common causes include:

• Rubbernecking: Drivers slowing down their cars to watch what is going on
• Cell phones: Drivers using their commute time to make phone calls
• Driver fatigue
• Passenger distractions
• Looking at scenery
• Adjusting the radio

Rubbernecking is the leading cause of accidents and causes many traffic delays. There is also a trend to enact laws eliminating or limiting the use of cell phones in the car. When determining whether a driver was negligent, courts may look at factors such as driving above or below the speed limit, failing to signal, ignoring weather or traffic conditions, disobeying traffic signs, or driving under the influence.

What are the Other Causes of Car Accidents?




There are other causes of car accidents, including:

• Drunk driving: It is estimated that every 30 minutes, a person dies in an alcohol-related crash
• Reckless drivers: Drivers who drive recklessly or unsafely cause accidents through their aggressive driving ¿ this may come as a result of improper or excessive lane changing, speeding, or improper passing on the road
• Automobile defects: A car accident may occur because of a defect in a driver's car in such a situation, the car manufacturer or supplier may be held liable
• Poorly maintained roads
• Malfunctioning traffic signals
• Other highway defects

We can believe whatever we choose, but the facts are avialable for us to consider.

Hemp is not a cause of many accidents according to the experts who study the casues of accidents statistically

If it was really the problem some people want to think it is, the experts would have absolutely no problem quantifying that risk and announcing it to the public.

As I said before, numerous studies done in Europe indicate that stoners are actaully less agressive drivers thus making them (ironically) somewhat statistically less likely to have an accident than nonstoners.

I know, I found that finding somewhat surprising too.

 

[Foxfyre]

I will refer you to my immediately previous post Editec as I stand by that and it adequately addresses your points here.

 

[Zeddicus]

Yes, and I have a relative, now recovering from alcoholism, that drove drunk many many times for more than 20 years without having an accident. There are many many others out there who are also driving drunk who also aren't crashing their cars. And in many of those accidents that have occurred, multiple factors also likely applied.

But the fact that unimpaired (at least with controlled substances) people suck at driving too and that most people driving impaired don't crash their cars does not erase the high percentage of alcohol-related car crashes that injure, maim, and kill people every year.

Drunk driving statistics

This is why it is necessary to protect the public as much as possible by getting as many numbnuts who drink and drive off the road as possible.

Pot can impair a driver every bit as much as alcohol. When they devise a way to field test for impairment via pot comparable to field tests for alcohol impairment, then the same rules could reasonably apply.

Until then, I think the laws are reasonable just as it is reasonable for an employer to have zero tolerance for even medical marijuana on the job. And I have the right to want the drivers I share the road with to be as competent and law abiding as possible.

so i would like to start with the alcoholic uncle, now i have an uncle who has been to rehab 2 times and goes through roughly a half gallon of vodka and an 18 pack a day. Now he has been smoking since about 15. Weed does not give you withdrawls like alcohol, it does not impair you nearly as much as alcohol and that is if you consider being high as impaired. Anyone who tells you weed is just as bad as alcohol when it comes to anything, including driving a car is full of shit. Alcohol is one of the only drugs that can kill you from withdrawls, herion is also another. now as for zeroe tolernce for medicle marajuna, if my boss every tried to fire me for token up with my green card, i would take his ass to court. Only becuse its MEDICINE you dumb bitch. thats the same as firing someone for taking insilin on the job, sure if you don't smoke you most likley won't die but that does not matter, any state that has medicinal green and if you live in that state and have a green card then your employer can't fire you for carrying a bag on you, unless you work somewhere like a prison, school, so on and so fourth.

SUMMARY
-unlikley weed will cause a crash
-alcohol far worth then greenery
-medicle marjuna=MEDICENE

 

[Foxfyre]

I may be a dumb bitch but you would likely lose if you attempted to take your employer to court for a zero tolerance policy re all controlled substances. So far everybody who has tried it has lost.

I did not say that marijuana is as bad as alcohol though that could be a good subject for a separate debate. What I said is that you can be just as impaired using marijuana as you can be using alcohol. Dispute that with evidence if you can.

 

[editec]

I will refer you to my immediately previous post Editec as I stand by that and it adequately addresses your points here.

No it doesn't, Fox

In fact this statement actually turns logic on it head

Pot can impair a driver every bit as much as alcohol. When they devise a way to field test for impairment via pot comparable to field tests for alcohol impairment, then the same rules could reasonably apply.

the road test is a test of one's reaction times and balance and mental acuity. Precisely the things that are necessary to drive.

It is not an alcohol test, it is a reaction/balance, mental state test.

No hemp test is necessary just like no alcohol test is necessary to establish if those facalites are impaired.

The point of outlawing alcohol and driving is BECAUSE it CLEARLY AFFECTS THE FACILTIES NECESSARY TO DRIVE, that's why they test those facilties on the road test.

Stoners pass those tests because they are NOT SO AFFECTED.

I can't teach you how to think logically, but I can tell you that right now, as it pertains to this specific issue, your are not thinking about this issue logically.

 

[Foxfyre]

No it doesn't, Fox

In fact this statement actually turns logic on it head



the road test is a test of one's reaction times and balance and mental acuity. Precisely the things that are necessary to drive.

It is not an alcohol test, it is a reaction/balance, mental state test.

No hemp test is necessary just like no alcohol test is necessary to establish if those facalites are impaired.

The point of outlawing alcohol and driving is BECAUSE it CLEARLY AFFECTS THE FACILTIES NECESSARY TO DRIVE, that's why they test those facilties on the road test.

Stoners pass those tests because they are NOT SO AFFECTED.

I can't teach you how to think logically, but I can tell you that right now, as it pertains to this specific issue, your are not thinking about this issue logically.

Many alcoholics can be quite intoxicated and pass a manual field sobriety test. They are conditioned and self trained to 'hide' their condition. But they can't beat the breathalizer. In the case of an accident it is relatively easy to to determine the blood alcohol level of the driver. Not so with marijuana which accumulates in the system and isn't purged for up to 30 days.

You guys that are so eager for pot to be legalized can keep right on straining at gnats with convoluted logic, but the fact remains that both alcohol and pot can impair judgment and reaction time resulting in an unnecessary accident. When pot can be 'field tested' in the same way that alcohol can be 'field tested', then they can be treated equally. Right now it can't so that law enforcement can adequately protect the public.

 

[Charles_Main]

I think Dow and Dupont had more to do with making it illegal then Mexico. Industrial Hemp was a threat to their newly invented Nylon rope

It is a shame, say what you will about smoking pot, but Industrial hemp has many good used. Including as a fuel, and we do not use it mainly because people equate it with Weed. Suck since Industrial hemp is not the same as the weed people smoke.

as far as suing an employer over 0 tolerance good luck. Studies show people who smoke pot are less productive. This is why employers test for it. I having smoked it in the past agree I it does make you less productive However it clearly does not impair a person any where near as bad as drinking does.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think Dow and Dupont had more to do with making it illegal then Mexico. Industrial Hemp was a threat to their newly invented Nylon rope

It is a shame, say what you will about smoking pot, but Industrial hemp has many good used. Including as a fuel, and we do not use it mainly because people equate it with Weed. Suck since Industrial hemp is not the same as the weed people smoke.

as far as suing an employer over 0 tolerance good luck. Studies show people who smoke pot are less productive. This is why employers test for it. I having smoked it in the past agree I it does make you less productive However it clearly does not impair a person any where near as bad as drinking does.

An alcoholic or heavy drinker who has built up a high tolerance is likely to be less impaired on a drink or two than will somebody who smokes marijuane infrequently after a joint or two. In any case, impairment depends more on the quantity of the substance taken in and how it affects the individual consuming the substance than it depends on any other variables.

Probably the most comprehensive study on this that has been widely circulated among professionals is one done in France in 1985. Admittedly far more people were found to be impaired on alcohol than on pot in this study, but they were able to comprehensively test the amount of impairment produced by both. The same disparities would almost certainly show up in the USA too as alcohol is perfectly legal and readily available for those eligible to buy it while pot remains illegal for all but extremely narrow purposes.

Bottom line: smoking pot can and does impair the drivers ability to drive competently and safely.

Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study -- Laumon et al. 331 (7529): 1371 -- BMJ

 

[editec]

Many alcoholics can be quite intoxicated and pass a manual field sobriety test. They are conditioned and self trained to 'hide' their condition.

No, actually they cannot. Nice myth though. You hear it mostly from drunks. It's mostly macho bragadccio talking

But they can't beat the breathalizer.

Drunks can't beat the field test which is why they end up taking a BAC. Stoners can which is why they aren't given tests.

there's no PROBABLE CAUSE TO GIVE THEM THE TEST!

In the case of an accident it is relatively easy to to determine the blood alcohol level of the driver. Not so with marijuana which accumulates in the system and isn't purged for up to 30 days.

This is true. minuet traces of THC stay in the system for a long time. They don't really effect the person, but they're there.

You guys that are so eager for pot to be legalized can keep right on straining at gnats with convoluted logic,

Okay, I see I was right. You still can't understand how logic works. No problem.

But the fact remains that both alcohol and pot can impair judgment and reaction time resulting in an unnecessary accident.

Do they? Then why do stoners keep not being caught by the field tests?

This is where you are putting the cart before the horse, by the way.

When pot can be 'field tested' in the same way that alcohol can be 'field tested', then they can be treated equally.

If a stoner's phycial ability to stand and count and so forth isn't effected, if their balance isn't affected, if their speech isn't effected, if their reaction time isn't affected, then there were never be a field test that measures their loss of ability to drive because their driving skills aren't being dramatically enough effected that anyone will notice.

How you keep missing this obvious logical conclusion I do not understand.

Right now it can't so that law enforcement can adequately protect the public.

From what?

Stoners whose driving is not so radically effected that they are not having accidents and the cops can't tell if they're stoned?

Yeah, I don't know how the police can protect people from non-criminals committing no crimes, either.

It's a real problem all those accidents that never happen.

 

[Gungnir]

Just on personal observation, drunks always think they can beat the field test.