Autolex wrote: sooo, a stoner runs over a little kid. how does the cop tell if he is currently seeing starfish in the sky, just a little high, or smoked last week? orr.... is it all just going to be DUI (of anything). as in visibly impaired?
You can tell because he would only be going about 7 miles per hour.
ReverendDexter wrote: My favorite joke: "What does a hippy say when he stops smoking pot? Man, this music sucks!"
That's awesome.
(looks around furtively, checks statute of limitations)
I have an old friend who is a cokehead. He is nuts for the stuff, it's a constant battle for him every day. I haven't seen him in a few years but mutual friends tell me he's staying clean. He and I did some one day and ya know what? Other than an increased heart rate, I didn't have any real effects. We were both snorting the same stuff on the same day but with dramatically different results.
That was several years ago and I've not tried it again since. The disparity in our reactions seems to indicate that different people are affected in vastly different ways by the same substance. So maybe there could be a link to mental problems in some people who use pot but not others.
The recent human genome mapping project indicates that we all share 99.9% of our DNA. That vital .1% appears to be responsible for a lot of our differences, including possibly drug reactions which could very well include pot.
The points against legalization so far are:
So, I will address these, in order:
Jensenman wrote: ...The disparity in our reactions seems to indicate that different people are affected in vastly different ways by the same substance. So maybe there could be a link to mental problems in some people who use pot but not others....
I believe that is well know already. I once new someone who had tried coke... it put him to sleep!!!! I suspect he has some sort of (mild) form of a manic personality. With such cases (as with ADD kids) stimulants can actually have an opposite affect than to "normal" people.
Yes, generalization is usually not a good idea...
walterj wrote: - crime is a seperate issue that we already have laws for. Negligence is still negligence, DUI still DUI (which is really just negligence packaged for municipal profiteering). The difference is that you would take people out of prison who were guilty of imbibing and hurting noone and replace them with the same people who would have committed the crime drinking a 6 pack or popping a fistful of perk and driving. People who don't think or care about you don't change because they smoke weed - they just drive slower :)
The one really valid point I've heard on this, is the question of determining a DUI for marijuana. It's easy to determine a DUI for alcohol, because you can test BAC quickly and easily. If alcohol is in your system, it's effecting you. When it's done effecting you, it will have left your system.
Marijuana chemicals remain in your system for an extended period of time, even after the effect of the drug has worn off. There is no good way to quantifiably test someone for how much they are under the influence of marijuana.
If they cause an accident, that will be easy to prosecute. But it might be more difficult to prosecute someone for a DUI.
aircooled wrote: I believe that is well know already. I once new someone who had tried coke... it put him to sleep!!!! I suspect he has some sort of (mild) form of a manic personality. With such cases (as with ADD kids) stimulants can actually have an opposite affect than to "normal" people.
I had a friend with ADHD whose body reacted to chemicals in weird ways like that. Alcohol did not get him drunk. But he could suffer from alcohol poisoning.
If he had a bunch of caffeine and sugar it would make him lethargic, groggy, and giddy. I have seen him get "drunk" on snickers and Coca-Cola.
walterj wrote:Autolex wrote: sooo, a stoner runs over a little kid. how does the cop tell if he is currently seeing starfish in the sky, just a little high, or smoked last week? orr.... is it all just going to be DUI (of anything). as in visibly impaired?You can tell because he would only be going about 7 miles per hour.
I have this friend who drives REAAAALLY carefully while stoned. Not so much when he has a few 7 & 7's in him. (shiftyeyes)
An interesting point got over-looked on "testing." In the state of Georgia, (as I would guess is the case in most states,) you can refuse to do a field-sobriety test, and refuse to "blow" (breathalizer,) of course, this gets you a "Go directly to jail" card, where you'll eventually be tested, but you're not stacking up evidence against yourself by taking a test that's designed to make you fail.
Anyway, short of MANDATORY field sobriety tests, how would a cop (or the state) test for impairment due to use of marijuana or other drugs?
EDIT: Just saw Salanis's post along the same lines.
HiTempguy wrote:Generally pot smoker smoke FAR less than a cig smokerThanks for providing YOUR "opinion" on that point, how about some fact with it?
Let's say i hypothetically smoke a bowl a day, most hypothetical people would consider me a "heavy user". Even smoking that much it nowhere near approaches the amount of cigarettes i used to smoke (1/2-1 pack a day).
Given the option i would most definitely hypothetically purchase my goods from a reputable legal source.
As with any other drug, be it caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc. you will have people that abuse it, these people tend to be the vocal minority.
And seriously, if i want to come home, smoke a bowl and watch Star Trek after work, why shouldn't i be allowed to? Who am i hurting?
Salanis wrote: The one really valid point I've heard on this, is the question of determining a DUI for marijuana. It's easy to determine a DUI for alcohol, because you can test BAC quickly and easily. If alcohol is in your system, it's effecting you. When it's done effecting you, it will have left your system. Marijuana chemicals remain in your system for an extended period of time, even after the effect of the drug has worn off. There is no good way to quantifiably test someone for how much they are under the influence of marijuana. If they cause an accident, that will be easy to prosecute. But it might be more difficult to prosecute someone for a DUI.
This is why it is a separate issue from legalization... I hear what you are saying but its the same problem we have now... people still smoke weed, take painkillers, leave the bar hammered and so on. The 'fallout' argument is bogus because the problem exists right now and is dealt with every day by law enforcement.
Salanis wrote: ....Marijuana chemicals remain in your system for an extended period of time, even after the effect of the drug has worn off. There is no good way to quantifiably test someone for how much they are under the influence of marijuana....
I would think you would have to do a straight "impairment" test. Test the person to see if they can perform tasks that show that they are capable of driving. If it is a good measure, then it doesn't matter what you are on.
As a side point, using BAC to measure impairment is actually potentially very false. You can have a high BAC (say hours later) and have very little impairment, while you can be absolutely sloshed (drink quickly when dehydrated and hungry) and still be under the BAC limit.
PubBurgers wrote: As with any other drug, be it caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc. you will have people that abuse it, these people tend to be the vocal minority.
Sugar isn't a drug.
Salanis wrote:PubBurgers wrote: As with any other drug, be it caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc. you will have people that abuse it, these people tend to be the vocal minority.Sugar isn't a drug.
But it is a key ingredient in one of my most favored drugs... IPA.
walterj wrote: But it is a key ingredient in one of my most favored drugs... IPA.
Off topic: If you can, track down some Big Daddy IPA. Best hops I've ever tasted.
any molecule that can affect blood and brain chemistry is a drug. some are more potent than others.
o2 is a drug?
^^ Ain't that the truth. Sugar level can most definitely affect blood and brain chemistry and under the right conditions in certain people it can lead to short term behavior best called odd. I know because I'm one of them. All that needs to happen is for me to eat a light dinner, then the next morning eat a jelly donut. 
I have learned to stay away from those things. It's weird that coke had little to no effect but a sugar buzz makes me nutty for a little while.
Caffeine doesn't exactly make me energetic, but it makes me much more optimistic.
would think you would have to do a straight "impairment" test. Test the person to see if they can perform tasks that show that they are capable of driving.
See my post on the last page. Again, "Field Sobriety" tests are optional in Georgia. I would assume the same is true for the rest of the country, and I'd like to keep it that way. Plenty of sober, law-abiding citizens have been locked up for DUI's because they voluntarily took a test that was designed to make them fail.
Quick! Stand on your left leg and recite your ABC's backwards, stop at the letter "J," switch feet, recite the ABC's forward starting from the letter "F" while rubbing your stomach!
WalterJ brings up an interesting point though. How are we testing for the use of Painkillers, Mushrooms, Pot, etc. now?
Personally, I'd be OK with a Gran Turismo competition, racing against the arresting officer. The accused gets to pick the track. Seriously.
Also, how does the impairment of marijuana compare to that of alcohol? Should it be treated the same as driving under the influence of alcohol?
poopshovel wrote: Personally, I'd be OK with a Gran Turismo competition, racing against the arresting officer. The accused gets to pick the track. Seriously.
yeah, then basically, as long as I can still see, I will not get a dui!
MitchellC wrote: Also, how does the impairment of marijuana compare to that of alcohol? Should it be treated the same as driving under the influence of alcohol?
There is no question that it impairs you, but the difference between mj and alcohol is how self aware you become. The main reason why stoned drivers generally drive so slow and attempt to be careful is paranoia. They are aware of their state of mind, and (over)compensate for it.
It's much more common for a drunk person to exclaim they are not drunk, but I've never met a stoned person that didn't admit to being stoned.
It's really tough to explain. I would really be interested in a Mythbusters-style auto-x test. Six drivers of similar experience level and body styles, 2 sober, 2 with x number of drinks in them, and 2 who smoked the same amount of marijuana. I would then like see them take road tests that have cone spotters who randomly, yet consistenly toss cones in front of their moving vehicles. These cones would get tossed at the same points on the track, but no drivers get to watch the other drivers prior to their run.
Mythbuster! Hell, sounds like something to add to the next Challenge!
I have heard it said that marijuana does not directly impair driving skills significantly. You do not lose coordination or reaction time to the degree you do with alcohol.
However, your attention and ability to multi-task becomes very limited. If there is a distraction that you turn your attention to, you will be completely unaware of what the car is doing, and not realize that your attention is so limited. Also, you will not be as likely to notice upcoming hazards directly outside your point of focus.
But I will reiterate that I do not know much about this subject.
I think the test of relative impairment would be a valuable one. Add "talking on a cellphone" to the list.
captainzib wrote:MitchellC wrote: Also, how does the impairment of marijuana compare to that of alcohol? Should it be treated the same as driving under the influence of alcohol?There is no question that it impairs you, but the difference between mj and alcohol is how self aware you become. The main reason why stoned drivers generally drive so slow and attempt to be careful is paranoia. They are aware of their state of mind, and (over)compensate for it. It's much more common for a drunk person to exclaim they are not drunk, but I've never met a stoned person that didn't admit to being stoned. It's really tough to explain. I would really be interested in a Mythbusters-style auto-x test. Six drivers of similar experience level and body styles, 2 sober, 2 with x number of drinks in them, and 2 who smoked the same amount of marijuana. I would then like see them take road tests that have cone spotters who randomly, yet consistenly toss cones in front of their moving vehicles. These cones would get tossed at the same points on the track, but no drivers get to watch the other drivers prior to their run.
This has already been done. Here's an Aussie test:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/driving2_4.htm
One of their conclusions:
"Very importantly our city driving study showed that drivers who drank alcohol overestimated their performance quality whereas those who smoked marijuana underestimated it. Perhaps as a consequence, the former invested no special effort for accomplishing the task whereas the latter did, and successfully. This evidence strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. "
You'll need to log in to post.
