"Driving while stoned"

[Dave_L]

The bill failed which is understandable with how it was written. The limits they were talking about were ridiculous with how marijuana works. They need to find a "real time" test for it. I always figured that was the hang up with fully legalizing it.

But looking at the smokers' replies to news articles and talking with friends that partake, it's surprising at how many justify smoking and driving. "It makes me pay more attention". Really? I'm ok with the legalization of it. I see it in the same category as alcohol for most adults. But to honestly say it "enhances" your abilities is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. How about you just put the herb down and apply yourself while sober and see the results you get?

[CroiDhubh]

Driving while under the influence is already against the law. Doesn't have to be booze. Trust me, I've written a few people for things other than driving drunk.

[rondog]

Yeah, it makes 'em pay more attention alright - to the stereo or the french fry they dropped on the floor.

[Stvros]

"People on Ludes should not drive " Seriously, driving stoned does NOT make one safer, especially with the potency available today.

[Ronin13]

Yep, too much science to back up diminished response times and impaired judgement. Drive stoned and hit something you should be prosecuted no differently than a drunk driver. No ifs, ands, or buts.

[Dave_L]

"They aren't taking your weed away. They just want to "regulate" it.". See what kind of answers you get when you say that.

[TS12000]

I know centennial gave a friend of mine a dui or driving under the influence of drugs charge about 7 yrs ago, do we really need a law like this added to the books until there is a reliable test for it beyond what we already have? I thinks not.

[Bailey Guns]

Oldie but goodie. Don't know if the same applies to weeeeed...


Well you see,it's like this...

A herd of animals can only move as fast as the slowest one.
And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first.

This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells.

Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells.
But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.

Regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

[TS12000]

Homer Simpson?

[losttrail]

"People on Ludes should not drive " Seriously, driving stoned does NOT make one safer, especially with the potency available today.

Thanks Spicoli.

[Colorado_Outback]

Thanks Spicoli.

For what?

[Big Wall]

Homer Simpson?

Cliff Claven

[asmo]

But looking at the smokers' replies to news articles and talking with friends that partake, it's surprising at how many justify smoking and driving. "It makes me pay more attention".


Yet more self-entitiled idiots who believe the world revolves around them.

[Dingo]

Carl... that bit you posted reminded me of another one:

"When we drink we become sleepy.
When we sleep we commit no sin.
When we commit no sin we go to heaven
So let's all get shitfaced and go to heaven!"

[Bailey Guns]

^^ I knew it was easier than what the preacher said.

[BigDee]

This really ties back to the same thing many on these forums have said in the past. Why do we need more laws to enforce the laws already on the books?

The way this law was written anyone who is suspected of being stoned and tests positive for marijuana can be prosecuted. A person could smoke a doobie and test positive a week later. There's nothing in the law that prevents LEO's from suspecting everyone is stoned and demanding they take a drug test.

How would you feel if the state passed a law stating anyone who tests positive at anytime for gun shot residue can be charged with illegally discharging a firearm?

[Dingo]

EXACTLY.

[Ronin13]

This really ties back to the same thing many on these forums have said in the past. Why do we need more laws to enforce the laws already on the books?

The way this law was written anyone who is suspected of being stoned and tests positive for marijuana can be prosecuted. A person could smoke a doobie and test positive a week later. There's nothing in the law that prevents LEO's from suspecting everyone is stoned and demanding they take a drug test.

How would you feel if the state passed a law stating anyone who tests positive at anytime for gun shot residue can be charged with illegally discharging a firearm?
Very good point. But there is no determining factor that is as concrete as the .08 BAH rule with alcohol for marijuana. I don't know what the current guidelines for proving in court that someone was driving under the influence of marijuana are, that is what I think they were trying to address and clarify.

[Bailey Guns]

How would you feel if the state passed a law stating anyone who tests positive at anytime for gun shot residue can be charged with illegally discharging a firearm?

Hey...if it keeps us safer from gun violence, I say go for it. We could have GSR checkpoints. Mandatory classes for those convicted of firing a gun. Gun interlocks. Where's John Morse's number...

[Ah Pook]

At least they are not using a "common sense" approach to this legislation.