Marijuana and Driving

Off Topic
81

[quote]KAS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
I’m not debating the validity or effectivness of the whole “War on Grugs”. Obviously they’ve lost the plot in some cases, but not on this issue.

It’s not about controling every aspect of what people do with their own bodies. It’s the potential impact that it has on other people. In this case killing someone on the roads.

Yes, there are alot of similarities between alcohol and marijuana. Even if marijuana was legal they could still do you for DUI.

And most accidents involve the use of ALCOHOL, even if other drugs are found on the scene. The glaring problem with this is THE LIE. Someone who has THC in their system doesn’t necessarily have to be driving under the influence. Since when is it ok to lie on people just to get an extra conviction? I guess “morals” only last up to a certain point, huh?

I’m not saying alcohol isnt a problem, of course it is. But why should we ignor this one.

What lie? They meet the legal definition, so there are no false charges. Just another coniquence to breaking the law. Why is it that people think they have the right to choose the consiquences of their actions? Some States are in the process of passing laws to suspend the drivers licences of high school drop outs. It’s the same sort of thing. It’s a deterant.

And you think it’s moral to to use illegal drugs? [/quote]

Morality has nothing to do with it. It is not immoral to use an arbitrarily illegal substance. As a general matter, anyone over the age of 5 should realize that illegal does not necessarily mean immoral. And legal does not mean moral. But all of that is besides the point.

The legal definition in this case is bogus. It does not punish people who are acutally impaired and a threat on the road. Instead, it punishes people who have used an illegal substance. It’s just subterfuge and a way to get someone for using marijuana that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to get.

The law should be remained. ‘Driving While Having Used an Intoxicating Substance But No Longer Being Effected Whatsoever By That Substance’ law. And while they are at it, they should apply to every single drug prescription or otherwise that leaves metabolites but isn’t actively effecting the driver. If they wanted to be fair.

82

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
KAS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
I’m not debating the validity or effectivness of the whole “War on Grugs”. Obviously they’ve lost the plot in some cases, but not on this issue.

It’s not about controling every aspect of what people do with their own bodies. It’s the potential impact that it has on other people. In this case killing someone on the roads.

Yes, there are alot of similarities between alcohol and marijuana. Even if marijuana was legal they could still do you for DUI.

And most accidents involve the use of ALCOHOL, even if other drugs are found on the scene. The glaring problem with this is THE LIE. Someone who has THC in their system doesn’t necessarily have to be driving under the influence. Since when is it ok to lie on people just to get an extra conviction? I guess “morals” only last up to a certain point, huh?

I’m not saying alcohol isnt a problem, of course it is. But why should we ignor this one.

What lie? They meet the legal definition, so there are no false charges. Just another coniquence to breaking the law. Why is it that people think they have the right to choose the consiquences of their actions? Some States are in the process of passing laws to suspend the drivers licences of high school drop outs. It’s the same sort of thing. It’s a deterant.

And you think it’s moral to to use illegal drugs?

Morality has nothing to do with it. It is not immoral to use an arbitrarily illegal substance. As a general matter, anyone over the age of 5 should realize that illegal does not necessarily mean immoral. And legal does not mean moral. But all of that is besides the point.

The legal definition in this case is bogus. It does not punish people who are acutally impaired and a threat on the road. Instead, it punishes people who have used an illegal substance. It’s just subterfuge and a way to get someone for using marijuana that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to get.

The law should be remained. ‘Driving While Having Used an Intoxicating Substance But No Longer Being Effected Whatsoever By That Substance’ law. And while they are at it, they should apply to every single drug prescription or otherwise that leaves metabolites but isn’t actively effecting the driver. If they wanted to be fair.[/quote]

How can you say people who’ve smoked weed are not a danger on the road? And heaven forbid they punish soneone for using an illegal substance! And yes, you can call the law whatever you want, as long as it’s enforced.

Anywho, we’re just going in circles here. I think I’ll just agree to disagree on this one. It’s been fun.

Prof. and jsbrook, you’ve been very worthy opponants.

83

[quote]KAS wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
KAS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
I’m not debating the validity or effectivness of the whole “War on Grugs”. Obviously they’ve lost the plot in some cases, but not on this issue.

It’s not about controling every aspect of what people do with their own bodies. It’s the potential impact that it has on other people. In this case killing someone on the roads.

Yes, there are alot of similarities between alcohol and marijuana. Even if marijuana was legal they could still do you for DUI.

And most accidents involve the use of ALCOHOL, even if other drugs are found on the scene. The glaring problem with this is THE LIE. Someone who has THC in their system doesn’t necessarily have to be driving under the influence. Since when is it ok to lie on people just to get an extra conviction? I guess “morals” only last up to a certain point, huh?

I’m not saying alcohol isnt a problem, of course it is. But why should we ignor this one.

What lie? They meet the legal definition, so there are no false charges. Just another coniquence to breaking the law. Why is it that people think they have the right to choose the consiquences of their actions? Some States are in the process of passing laws to suspend the drivers licences of high school drop outs. It’s the same sort of thing. It’s a deterant.

And you think it’s moral to to use illegal drugs?

Morality has nothing to do with it. It is not immoral to use an arbitrarily illegal substance. As a general matter, anyone over the age of 5 should realize that illegal does not necessarily mean immoral. And legal does not mean moral. But all of that is besides the point.

The legal definition in this case is bogus. It does not punish people who are acutally impaired and a threat on the road. Instead, it punishes people who have used an illegal substance. It’s just subterfuge and a way to get someone for using marijuana that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to get.

The law should be remained. ‘Driving While Having Used an Intoxicating Substance But No Longer Being Effected Whatsoever By That Substance’ law. And while they are at it, they should apply to every single drug prescription or otherwise that leaves metabolites but isn’t actively effecting the driver. If they wanted to be fair.

How can you say people who’ve smoked weed are not a danger on the road? [/quote]

Why is someone who smoked weed a week ago and then drives a car a danger on the road? They are no longer high at all. Neither is someone who was drunk a week ago. But this law punishes people who smoked a week ago who are no longer impaired while driving while a DUI does not punish people who were drunk a week ago and are no longer impaired.

84

[quote]KAS wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:
KAS wrote:
You are under the influence if you meet the legal definition thereof, which in this case meens having THC in your system. That means you are under the influence. No false charges or “lies” there.

In this case it can mean having absolutely no trace of a psychoactive substance in your body.

This is like finding a receipt for beer from two weeks ago, and determining that person is drunk right now.

Yes, it can if that was the legal definition, but it’s not. It spesifically says THC.

No, that example is just stupid. You could just give them a breath test.[/quote]

It makes just as little sense as this law does, and it’s basically the same idea. KAS, are you one of the legislators responsible for this travesty? What is with you? I can’t stand potheads in general, but this “law” is total horsecrap.

85

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
KAS wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
KAS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KAS wrote:
I’m not debating the validity or effectivness of the whole “War on Grugs”. Obviously they’ve lost the plot in some cases, but not on this issue.

It’s not about controling every aspect of what people do with their own bodies. It’s the potential impact that it has on other people. In this case killing someone on the roads.

Yes, there are alot of similarities between alcohol and marijuana. Even if marijuana was legal they could still do you for DUI.

And most accidents involve the use of ALCOHOL, even if other drugs are found on the scene. The glaring problem with this is THE LIE. Someone who has THC in their system doesn’t necessarily have to be driving under the influence. Since when is it ok to lie on people just to get an extra conviction? I guess “morals” only last up to a certain point, huh?

I’m not saying alcohol isnt a problem, of course it is. But why should we ignor this one.

What lie? They meet the legal definition, so there are no false charges. Just another coniquence to breaking the law. Why is it that people think they have the right to choose the consiquences of their actions? Some States are in the process of passing laws to suspend the drivers licences of high school drop outs. It’s the same sort of thing. It’s a deterant.

And you think it’s moral to to use illegal drugs?

Morality has nothing to do with it. It is not immoral to use an arbitrarily illegal substance. As a general matter, anyone over the age of 5 should realize that illegal does not necessarily mean immoral. And legal does not mean moral. But all of that is besides the point.

The legal definition in this case is bogus. It does not punish people who are acutally impaired and a threat on the road. Instead, it punishes people who have used an illegal substance. It’s just subterfuge and a way to get someone for using marijuana that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to get.

The law should be remained. ‘Driving While Having Used an Intoxicating Substance But No Longer Being Effected Whatsoever By That Substance’ law. And while they are at it, they should apply to every single drug prescription or otherwise that leaves metabolites but isn’t actively effecting the driver. If they wanted to be fair.

How can you say people who’ve smoked weed are not a danger on the road?

Why is someone who smoked weed a week ago and then drives a car a danger on the road? They are no longer high at all. Neither is someone who was drunk a week ago. But this law punishes people who smoked a week ago who are no longer impaired while driving while a DUI does not punish people who were drunk a week ago and are no longer impaired.
[/quote]

I’m not sure about all states, but in Pa. they give you a field sobriety test. If you fail, they either draw blood or do breathalyzer testing. Most people would prefer blood. I also think they don’t automatically test for pot, but I could be wrong.

However, scrips, pot, benadryl, booze, can all get you a dui. Riding a lawnmower, bike, or boat will get you a dui with all the same hassles, if you’re caught of course.

The point everyone is missing is that politicians come up with dumb laws to make it look like they’re doing something useful. Personally, we’d be a lot better off if they just showed up stoned and ate doritos than actually trying to be useful. that’s usually when the problems start.

86

[quote]KAS wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:
KAS wrote:
You are under the influence if you meet the legal definition thereof, which in this case meens having THC in your system. That means you are under the influence. No false charges or “lies” there.

In this case it can mean having absolutely no trace of a psychoactive substance in your body.

This is like finding a receipt for beer from two weeks ago, and determining that person is drunk right now.

Yes, it can if that was the legal definition, but it’s not. It spesifically says THC.

No, that example is just stupid. You could just give them a breath test.[/quote]

That is the “legal” definition. You can have no psychoactive chemicals in your body and be considered under the influence. Drug tests for cannabis look for the metabolites, the processed waste basically. So, as it stands, you can be stone cold sober and be legally considered high. This is absolutely retarded. And here you are, defending the law. When laws go against common sense, they foster distrust and disregard for the government that enacted the laws. This law makes no sense.

And you’re all for extra punishment for doing something illegal? How about revoking your license for letting your grass get too high? You should cut it you law-breaking bastard! Or we could not slow down if we see someone run across the street. I mean, they’re jay-walking, so hitting them with a car is a just consequence of doing something illegal.

87

As I said. Just going in circles here. Just re-read my previous replies.

And it’s not that I think it’s a perfect law or solution. Some of your concerns are valid, but you are just taking things to the extreme.

I still support the idea.

I’ve spent way too much time on this already. I’m out.

88

I am glad you are in new zealand kas. We have enough stupid people in the USA, if you were here, you would probably run for office and get a law past that checks peoples shit for digested alcohol, and charge them with that.

The EVIDENCE does not match the CHARGE, which causes a law to be invalidated.
The charge is Driving under the influence. THC is not an influence, it is a metabolite. THC does not influence you. It is a stamp that proves you smoked weed, but it does not prove that you are being influenced by it. That would be like a cop walking up, and seeing a guy iwth a beer gut, and then charging him with dui, because he has drank alcohol at some point in his lifetime.

I really really hate the fact that people in my apartment building have to worry about break ins, but prisons are filling up with drug related offenses.

It also really sucks that I see homeless people walking down the street, and their are fat, middle aged, clueless people, mostly men, that think that by cutting out as many personal freedoms as they can they will make America a better place. Quite frankly, I think I would have liked things better back when senators could carry guns on congress floor and drink during session.

89

This is exactly how terrorists and radical groups are born. U.S govt. sticking it’s gigantic pinochio nose where it has no buisness and it will always come back to bite them in the ass.

90

Its already happened. Just heard from a friend, that his buddy was pulled over leaving ann arbor michigan area, stopped in another suburb. He legally passed the breathalyzer for alcohol, but was taken in for a THC test. Promptly failed and cited for a DUI. He had not smoked in two days.

Just went down this weekend. Fuckin A