|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 22 2017 01:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 00:35 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Pot is definitely more person to person in terms of impairment. Tolerance levels due vary greatly in many ways, it stays in your system longer and is detectable well after you've really come down. Making it extremely hard to regulate, I disagree wholeheartedly with Kwarks draconian law style as well. What happens if someone smokes a joint, comes down drives an hour or so later and gets pulled over for something unrelated but ends up losing their car? Absolutes like that are extremely dangerous and give far to much power to be properly used.
Pot to me seems far less dangerous in terms of impairment but we definitely can't have people blazed out of their minds driving either. Not sure how to properly regulate it, instead of walking in a straight line perhaps some sort of test to determine how much one can focus and pay attention? What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. This is an argument that will never get anywhere until you've smoked yourself and know what type of "impairment" you will get. Not everyone feels THC same, just like drinking. I personally don't see it any different than drinking coffee, or smoking a cigarette. And I definitely don't compare weed to alcohol because they're two completely different substances.
Given that you've hinted at the idea weed actually makes people better drivers, I think it's for the best that your judgments about hos it impairs driving aren't being used for public policy (hey, maybe it should be required to drive stoned!).
Caffeine and THC (and CBD, and CBN, and THCV) are also completely different substances. Why is that a better comparison?
|
United States44203 Posts
On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 00:35 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Pot is definitely more person to person in terms of impairment. Tolerance levels due vary greatly in many ways, it stays in your system longer and is detectable well after you've really come down. Making it extremely hard to regulate, I disagree wholeheartedly with Kwarks draconian law style as well. What happens if someone smokes a joint, comes down drives an hour or so later and gets pulled over for something unrelated but ends up losing their car? Absolutes like that are extremely dangerous and give far to much power to be properly used.
Pot to me seems far less dangerous in terms of impairment but we definitely can't have people blazed out of their minds driving either. Not sure how to properly regulate it, instead of walking in a straight line perhaps some sort of test to determine how much one can focus and pay attention? What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately.
What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled.
|
On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 00:35 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Pot is definitely more person to person in terms of impairment. Tolerance levels due vary greatly in many ways, it stays in your system longer and is detectable well after you've really come down. Making it extremely hard to regulate, I disagree wholeheartedly with Kwarks draconian law style as well. What happens if someone smokes a joint, comes down drives an hour or so later and gets pulled over for something unrelated but ends up losing their car? Absolutes like that are extremely dangerous and give far to much power to be properly used.
Pot to me seems far less dangerous in terms of impairment but we definitely can't have people blazed out of their minds driving either. Not sure how to properly regulate it, instead of walking in a straight line perhaps some sort of test to determine how much one can focus and pay attention? What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately.
Pretty sure you're not allowed to drive if high on opiates either. Painkillers fuck with your mind, and if your mind has been fucked with, it's a bad idea to drive. Seems pretty simple to me. If your mind is being fucked with, find an alternative mode of transport.
|
On April 22 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 00:35 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Pot is definitely more person to person in terms of impairment. Tolerance levels due vary greatly in many ways, it stays in your system longer and is detectable well after you've really come down. Making it extremely hard to regulate, I disagree wholeheartedly with Kwarks draconian law style as well. What happens if someone smokes a joint, comes down drives an hour or so later and gets pulled over for something unrelated but ends up losing their car? Absolutes like that are extremely dangerous and give far to much power to be properly used.
Pot to me seems far less dangerous in terms of impairment but we definitely can't have people blazed out of their minds driving either. Not sure how to properly regulate it, instead of walking in a straight line perhaps some sort of test to determine how much one can focus and pay attention? What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately. What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled.
But they aren't driving high is my point, pot in your blood stream =/= impaired driving. Again impaired driving is wrong, should not be done. But given how many variables and different circumstances we have, you can't have a black and white strict law that will ruin peoples lives is my only point here.
|
On April 22 2017 01:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 00:35 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Pot is definitely more person to person in terms of impairment. Tolerance levels due vary greatly in many ways, it stays in your system longer and is detectable well after you've really come down. Making it extremely hard to regulate, I disagree wholeheartedly with Kwarks draconian law style as well. What happens if someone smokes a joint, comes down drives an hour or so later and gets pulled over for something unrelated but ends up losing their car? Absolutes like that are extremely dangerous and give far to much power to be properly used.
Pot to me seems far less dangerous in terms of impairment but we definitely can't have people blazed out of their minds driving either. Not sure how to properly regulate it, instead of walking in a straight line perhaps some sort of test to determine how much one can focus and pay attention? What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. This is an argument that will never get anywhere until you've smoked yourself and know what type of "impairment" you will get. Not everyone feels THC same, just like drinking. I personally don't see it any different than drinking coffee, or smoking a cigarette. And I definitely don't compare weed to alcohol because they're two completely different substances.
This is a forum full of millennials. Pretty sure most people here have lit up a jonko or two. Saying "you can't know until you experienced it" isn't going to get you very far as an argument.
|
On April 22 2017 02:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 01:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 00:35 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Pot is definitely more person to person in terms of impairment. Tolerance levels due vary greatly in many ways, it stays in your system longer and is detectable well after you've really come down. Making it extremely hard to regulate, I disagree wholeheartedly with Kwarks draconian law style as well. What happens if someone smokes a joint, comes down drives an hour or so later and gets pulled over for something unrelated but ends up losing their car? Absolutes like that are extremely dangerous and give far to much power to be properly used.
Pot to me seems far less dangerous in terms of impairment but we definitely can't have people blazed out of their minds driving either. Not sure how to properly regulate it, instead of walking in a straight line perhaps some sort of test to determine how much one can focus and pay attention? What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. This is an argument that will never get anywhere until you've smoked yourself and know what type of "impairment" you will get. Not everyone feels THC same, just like drinking. I personally don't see it any different than drinking coffee, or smoking a cigarette. And I definitely don't compare weed to alcohol because they're two completely different substances. Can we on the fly test these people on their individual effects? No? Then we need a global one. Stop thinking in a world of perfect knowledge and compliance. Think practically for just a moment...
I mean you live in the Netherlands, how is the driving over there? What's the percentage of people you think could be driving impaired? I live in South FL, where I can safely say we have the worst drivers in the US. On top of the worst drivers, I can safely assume more than half are on some type of substance that impairs their ability to drive. People are going to do it whether there is laws in place or not. The whole point is how can you safely say a person is too impaired to actually drive? When is that limit? Can you even use the argument for cannabis? Because how "high" is high for driving?
|
On April 22 2017 02:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately. What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled. But they aren't driving high is my point, pot in your blood stream =/= impaired driving. Again impaired driving is wrong, should not be done. But given how many variables and different circumstances we have, you can't have a black and white strict law that will ruin peoples lives is my only point here.
That's an entirely reasonable stance to take. Too bad we're back where we started with the difficulty of measuring how stoned you are at the time of driving. Which, btw, is the main reason driving stoned is not forbidden in the Netherlands. They tried a few times. And the police actually is allowed to pull you over for driving unsafely (if that's the case), but not for driving while stoned.
|
United States44203 Posts
On April 22 2017 02:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately. What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled. But they aren't driving high is my point, pot in your blood stream =/= impaired driving. Again impaired driving is wrong, should not be done. But given how many variables and different circumstances we have, you can't have a black and white strict law that will ruin peoples lives is my only point here.
You say they're not driving high. That's not accurate. They're deciding for themselves that they're not impaired because you've turned driving while impaired into a colossal grey area in which the potentially impaired individual is expected to themselves assess their own level of impairment, as if that weren't both contradictory and also a pretty huge conflict of interest.
My proposed system is simple. If you've gotten high that day, don't drive. Couldn't be simpler. Everyone knows before they get in the car whether they're breaking the law. Yours is "if you're potentially impaired then assess your own level of impairment and if you find yourself to not be impaired then start driving and if it turns out you got it wrong then you're driving while impaired which most of the time won't result in you getting caught so keep on doing it until you either get a DUI or crash".
If there was an impairment test we could put in cars it would make this all much simpler. But there isn't and for whatever reason you think the lack of an accurate impairment test means that we should forgo the test for potential impairment that we do have (whether or not you got high) and replace it with a self assessment.
|
On April 22 2017 02:11 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 01:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 00:35 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Pot is definitely more person to person in terms of impairment. Tolerance levels due vary greatly in many ways, it stays in your system longer and is detectable well after you've really come down. Making it extremely hard to regulate, I disagree wholeheartedly with Kwarks draconian law style as well. What happens if someone smokes a joint, comes down drives an hour or so later and gets pulled over for something unrelated but ends up losing their car? Absolutes like that are extremely dangerous and give far to much power to be properly used.
Pot to me seems far less dangerous in terms of impairment but we definitely can't have people blazed out of their minds driving either. Not sure how to properly regulate it, instead of walking in a straight line perhaps some sort of test to determine how much one can focus and pay attention? What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. This is an argument that will never get anywhere until you've smoked yourself and know what type of "impairment" you will get. Not everyone feels THC same, just like drinking. I personally don't see it any different than drinking coffee, or smoking a cigarette. And I definitely don't compare weed to alcohol because they're two completely different substances. Given that you've hinted at the idea weed actually makes people better drivers, I think it's for the best that your judgments about hos it impairs driving aren't being used for public policy (hey, maybe it should be required to drive stoned!). Caffeine and THC (and CBD, and CBN, and THCV) are also completely different substances. Why is that a better comparison?
I'm just using it because people like to compare alcohol with weed, and those two are also completely different substances. And I don't think it makes better drivers, I've mentioned a couple of times that not everyone can do it, especially if you smoke a couple joints before driving. But I know people who've said they just drive better because they're more aware/focused, less accidents while stoned than not being stoned.
|
On April 22 2017 02:20 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2017 01:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. This is an argument that will never get anywhere until you've smoked yourself and know what type of "impairment" you will get. Not everyone feels THC same, just like drinking. I personally don't see it any different than drinking coffee, or smoking a cigarette. And I definitely don't compare weed to alcohol because they're two completely different substances. Given that you've hinted at the idea weed actually makes people better drivers, I think it's for the best that your judgments about hos it impairs driving aren't being used for public policy (hey, maybe it should be required to drive stoned!). Caffeine and THC (and CBD, and CBN, and THCV) are also completely different substances. Why is that a better comparison? I'm just using it because people like to compare alcohol with weed, and those two are also completely different substances. And I don't think it makes better drivers, I've mentioned a couple of times that not everyone can do it, especially if you smoke a couple joints before driving. But I know people who've said they just drive better because they're more aware/focused, less accidents while stoned than not being stoned.
I mean there's no point comparing any drug to any other then because they're all "completely different substances." But wrt impaired driving weed seems more comparable to alcohol than caffeine, in that weed demonstrably impairs your driving as a mind-altering substance, while caffeine is much less clear (there might be some negative effect from caffeine, although I'd bet it also prevents a lot of accidents in morning traffic).
|
On April 22 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
[quote]
I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately. What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled. But they aren't driving high is my point, pot in your blood stream =/= impaired driving. Again impaired driving is wrong, should not be done. But given how many variables and different circumstances we have, you can't have a black and white strict law that will ruin peoples lives is my only point here. You say they're not driving high. That's not accurate. They're deciding for themselves that they're not impaired because you've turned driving while impaired into a colossal grey area in which the potentially impaired individual is expected to themselves assess their own level of impairment, as if that weren't both contradictory and also a pretty huge conflict of interest. My proposed system is simple. If you've gotten high that day, don't drive. Couldn't be simpler. Everyone knows before they get in the car whether they're breaking the law. Yours is "if you're potentially impaired then assess your own level of impairment and if you find yourself to not be impaired then start driving and if it turns out you got it wrong then you're driving while impaired which most of the time won't result in you getting caught so keep on doing it until you either get a DUI or crash". If there was an impairment test we could put in cars it would make this all much simpler. But there isn't and for whatever reason you think the lack of an accurate impairment test means that we should forgo the test for potential impairment that we do have (whether or not you got high) and replace it with a self assessment.
Couple things here,
1. Impairment with pot is a colossal grey area that is the problem.
2.Expecting people to not drive a whole day for just smoking a joint is laughable
3. My point is you can't cover every situation with one umbrella here, so having a law like the one you suggest that could ruin innocent peoples lives is absolutely ridiculous.
|
I think this is the best article I can bring up:
Cruising On Cannabis: Clarifying The Debate
While it is well established that alcohol consumption increases accident risk, evidence of marijuana's culpability in on-road driving accidents and injury is far less clear. Although acute cannabis intoxication following inhalation has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment is seldom severe or long lasting.[19-20] (By contrast, virtually no published research exists assessing the oral ingestion of cannabis edibles on psychomotor performance). In closed course and driving simulator studies, marijuana's acute effects on psychomotor performance include minor impairments in tracking (eye movement control) and reaction time (break latency), as well as variation in lateral positioning (weaving), headway (drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them), and speed (drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation).[21] Notably, these impairments in performance are more likely to be manifested in driver simulator tests than in assessments of actual on-road behavior, where changes in performance are consistently nominal.[22] For example, A 2001 study evaluating the impact of marijuana intoxication on driving proficiency on city streets among sixteen subjects reported essentially no differences in subjects' driving performance after cannabis administration, concluding: "Performance as rated on the Driving Proficiency Scale did not differ between treatments. It was concluded that the effects of low doses of THC ... on higher-level driving skills as measured in the present study are minimal."[23] Similarly, a 1993 trial funded by the United States National Highway Traffic Association (NTHSA) evaluated subjects' driving performance after cannabis inhalation in high-density urban traffic. Investigators reported, "Marijuana ... did not significantly change mean driving performance."[24]
http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-and-driving-a-scientific-and-rational-review
|
On April 22 2017 02:20 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2017 01:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 00:48 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean what happens? That's the situation the law is meant to prevent by stopping people from doing it. Saying "well surely your draconian law will punish people who smoke a joint and drive an hour later" is somewhat missing the point. Those are the people I'm trying to punish. I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. This is an argument that will never get anywhere until you've smoked yourself and know what type of "impairment" you will get. Not everyone feels THC same, just like drinking. I personally don't see it any different than drinking coffee, or smoking a cigarette. And I definitely don't compare weed to alcohol because they're two completely different substances. Given that you've hinted at the idea weed actually makes people better drivers, I think it's for the best that your judgments about hos it impairs driving aren't being used for public policy (hey, maybe it should be required to drive stoned!). Caffeine and THC (and CBD, and CBN, and THCV) are also completely different substances. Why is that a better comparison? I'm just using it because people like to compare alcohol with weed, and those two are also completely different substances. And I don't think it makes better drivers, I've mentioned a couple of times that not everyone can do it, especially if you smoke a couple joints before driving. But I know people who've said they just drive better because they're more aware/focused, less accidents while stoned than not being stoned.
And again your avoiding the question that defeats your argument.
How do we judge this vague limit that changes per person?
|
United States44203 Posts
On April 22 2017 02:28 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 02:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately. What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled. But they aren't driving high is my point, pot in your blood stream =/= impaired driving. Again impaired driving is wrong, should not be done. But given how many variables and different circumstances we have, you can't have a black and white strict law that will ruin peoples lives is my only point here. You say they're not driving high. That's not accurate. They're deciding for themselves that they're not impaired because you've turned driving while impaired into a colossal grey area in which the potentially impaired individual is expected to themselves assess their own level of impairment, as if that weren't both contradictory and also a pretty huge conflict of interest. My proposed system is simple. If you've gotten high that day, don't drive. Couldn't be simpler. Everyone knows before they get in the car whether they're breaking the law. Yours is "if you're potentially impaired then assess your own level of impairment and if you find yourself to not be impaired then start driving and if it turns out you got it wrong then you're driving while impaired which most of the time won't result in you getting caught so keep on doing it until you either get a DUI or crash". If there was an impairment test we could put in cars it would make this all much simpler. But there isn't and for whatever reason you think the lack of an accurate impairment test means that we should forgo the test for potential impairment that we do have (whether or not you got high) and replace it with a self assessment. Couple things here, 1. Impairment with pot is a colossal grey area that is the problem. 2.Expecting people to not drive a whole day for just smoking a joint is laughable 3. My point is you can't cover every situation with one umbrella here, so having a law like the one you suggest that could ruin innocent peoples lives is absolutely ridiculous.
How is it absurd to expect people to not drive later in the day after getting high? I'm just not getting this. Why is it ridiculous to ask that people get high later in the day or make alternate arrangements for transportation? Serious question, spell it out for me. Why is that such an impossible and unreasonable expectation to have for people?
|
On April 22 2017 02:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:28 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 02:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
[quote]
It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people.
Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately. What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled. But they aren't driving high is my point, pot in your blood stream =/= impaired driving. Again impaired driving is wrong, should not be done. But given how many variables and different circumstances we have, you can't have a black and white strict law that will ruin peoples lives is my only point here. You say they're not driving high. That's not accurate. They're deciding for themselves that they're not impaired because you've turned driving while impaired into a colossal grey area in which the potentially impaired individual is expected to themselves assess their own level of impairment, as if that weren't both contradictory and also a pretty huge conflict of interest. My proposed system is simple. If you've gotten high that day, don't drive. Couldn't be simpler. Everyone knows before they get in the car whether they're breaking the law. Yours is "if you're potentially impaired then assess your own level of impairment and if you find yourself to not be impaired then start driving and if it turns out you got it wrong then you're driving while impaired which most of the time won't result in you getting caught so keep on doing it until you either get a DUI or crash". If there was an impairment test we could put in cars it would make this all much simpler. But there isn't and for whatever reason you think the lack of an accurate impairment test means that we should forgo the test for potential impairment that we do have (whether or not you got high) and replace it with a self assessment. Couple things here, 1. Impairment with pot is a colossal grey area that is the problem. 2.Expecting people to not drive a whole day for just smoking a joint is laughable 3. My point is you can't cover every situation with one umbrella here, so having a law like the one you suggest that could ruin innocent peoples lives is absolutely ridiculous. How is it absurd to expect people to not drive later in the day after getting high? I'm just not getting this. Why is it ridiculous to ask that people get high later in the day or make alternate arrangements for transportation? Serious question, spell it out for me. Why is that such an impossible and unreasonable expectation to have for people?
Because 1 joint does not impair you for an entire day. And situations can arise after smoking where you need to get somewhere in a hurry, and with your proposed law these people while not impaired would be risking their cars just to drive. My whole point this entire time has been that your proposed draconian law is not practical and potentially way to harsh on people who wouldn't deserve it.
Impaired driving should be dealt with harshly, but with pot the grey area is to large for such a wide sweeping harsh penalty. It needs to be more case by case and situational, you can't just say he had pot in his system at some point that day therefore fuck him he looses his car.
|
On April 22 2017 02:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:20 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 22 2017 02:11 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2017 01:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:22 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:18 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:02 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
[quote]
I think you missed my point, my point was that these people aren't really high anymore and not impaired but tests will still detect pot in the blood etc. Therefore causing an innocent person to lose their car. Couldn't they just not get high if they plan to drive anywhere and if they do get high and suddenly need to go somewhere use an alternate method of transport? I'm just not getting who the innocent victim of this is meant to be. If it's the guy who gets high, decides that he's probably fine to drive and gets behind the wheel, well, I'm actually okay with that guy getting fucked. It's unreasonable to have people put their entire day on hold to smoke a single joint though. Hence why I disagree with the premise here. We need to find a reasonable way to judge this. I agree if they are high and driving fuck em, but if they just have pot in their blood but aren't high anymore they shouldn't be getting screwed over. Absolutes like that in Law are dangerous for one and easily abused to begin with, not to mention can screw innocent people. Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. This is an argument that will never get anywhere until you've smoked yourself and know what type of "impairment" you will get. Not everyone feels THC same, just like drinking. I personally don't see it any different than drinking coffee, or smoking a cigarette. And I definitely don't compare weed to alcohol because they're two completely different substances. Given that you've hinted at the idea weed actually makes people better drivers, I think it's for the best that your judgments about hos it impairs driving aren't being used for public policy (hey, maybe it should be required to drive stoned!). Caffeine and THC (and CBD, and CBN, and THCV) are also completely different substances. Why is that a better comparison? I'm just using it because people like to compare alcohol with weed, and those two are also completely different substances. And I don't think it makes better drivers, I've mentioned a couple of times that not everyone can do it, especially if you smoke a couple joints before driving. But I know people who've said they just drive better because they're more aware/focused, less accidents while stoned than not being stoned. And again your avoiding the question that defeats your argument. How do we judge this vague limit that changes per person?
But if we can't judge it, what do we do? If someone got high the night before, they can drive the next day because they slept? What if they only got like 6 hours of sleep? 4? Does sleeping allow someone to drive, but being awake for that long does not?
|
On April 22 2017 02:37 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:34 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 02:28 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 02:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately. What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled. But they aren't driving high is my point, pot in your blood stream =/= impaired driving. Again impaired driving is wrong, should not be done. But given how many variables and different circumstances we have, you can't have a black and white strict law that will ruin peoples lives is my only point here. You say they're not driving high. That's not accurate. They're deciding for themselves that they're not impaired because you've turned driving while impaired into a colossal grey area in which the potentially impaired individual is expected to themselves assess their own level of impairment, as if that weren't both contradictory and also a pretty huge conflict of interest. My proposed system is simple. If you've gotten high that day, don't drive. Couldn't be simpler. Everyone knows before they get in the car whether they're breaking the law. Yours is "if you're potentially impaired then assess your own level of impairment and if you find yourself to not be impaired then start driving and if it turns out you got it wrong then you're driving while impaired which most of the time won't result in you getting caught so keep on doing it until you either get a DUI or crash". If there was an impairment test we could put in cars it would make this all much simpler. But there isn't and for whatever reason you think the lack of an accurate impairment test means that we should forgo the test for potential impairment that we do have (whether or not you got high) and replace it with a self assessment. Couple things here, 1. Impairment with pot is a colossal grey area that is the problem. 2.Expecting people to not drive a whole day for just smoking a joint is laughable 3. My point is you can't cover every situation with one umbrella here, so having a law like the one you suggest that could ruin innocent peoples lives is absolutely ridiculous. How is it absurd to expect people to not drive later in the day after getting high? I'm just not getting this. Why is it ridiculous to ask that people get high later in the day or make alternate arrangements for transportation? Serious question, spell it out for me. Why is that such an impossible and unreasonable expectation to have for people? Because 1 joint does not impair you for an entire day. And situations can arise after smoking where you need to get somewhere in a hurry, and with your proposed law these people while not impaired would be risking their cars just to drive. My whole point this entire time has been that your proposed draconian law is not practical and potentially way to harsh on people who wouldn't deserve it. Impaired driving should be dealt with harshly, but with pot the grey area is to large for such a wide sweeping harsh penalty. It needs to be more case by case and situational, you can't just say he had pot in his system at some point that day therefore fuck him he looses his car.
You can't have an arbitrary and vague law on the book and expect it to be enforced well by cops or defended by lawyers. You need a clear standard and clear penalty for breaking that standard.
|
United States44203 Posts
On April 22 2017 02:37 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:34 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 02:28 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 02:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2017 01:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Put their entire day on hold? All I'm asking them to do is not operate complex and heavy machinery around other people at high speeds after getting high. That's not an unreasonable burden. Under what circumstances would someone's entire day be put on hold by having to abide by that? Again missing the point here. As I Said before the tests for pot make it detectable AFTER you're no longer actually high. So they could smoke a joint in the morning, come down and after lunch want to go out but still have pot technically in their blood. I don't want anyone high driving, that is fucking awful, I'm just saying unless we get a better test to determine whether someone is actually high you can't put in laws like this. How about they don't smoke a joint in the morning if they need to go for a drive in the afternoon? Would that really be them putting their whole day on hold? You're presenting this as an unacceptable burden to place on pot smokers but I really can't see how it is. I mean the burden you described in your example consists of either getting high in the afternoon, making your own lunch, ordering in lunch or going out for lunch using an alternate form of transportation. My scenario was vague sorry. Okay how about people who are in chronic pain and need to smoke to ease it, but also need to still work and get to work? You wake up take a few puffs, not enough to be high out of your mind but enough to ease your pain? What if you smoked in the morning and an emergency comes up in the afternoon, you need to get somewhere asap but now you'e worried about whether you'll test positive even though your not high? There are to many variables to have a clear cut draconian law and punishment as you suggest imo. It should of course be illegal but the punishment should vary on a degree and should fit the crime more appropriately. What do you mean how about those people? Get the bus. It sucks if your disability means that you can't drive legally but that doesn't mean we should abolish driving laws. I mean your argument is essentially "these driving safety laws would mean that people they deem unsafe wouldn't be able to drive, that unfairly singles out people whose disability means that they would never be deemed safe to drive". You don't have a right to drive. If your disability renders you unfit to drive then you don't get to demand that everyone overlook that and let you drive anyway just because you're disabled. But they aren't driving high is my point, pot in your blood stream =/= impaired driving. Again impaired driving is wrong, should not be done. But given how many variables and different circumstances we have, you can't have a black and white strict law that will ruin peoples lives is my only point here. You say they're not driving high. That's not accurate. They're deciding for themselves that they're not impaired because you've turned driving while impaired into a colossal grey area in which the potentially impaired individual is expected to themselves assess their own level of impairment, as if that weren't both contradictory and also a pretty huge conflict of interest. My proposed system is simple. If you've gotten high that day, don't drive. Couldn't be simpler. Everyone knows before they get in the car whether they're breaking the law. Yours is "if you're potentially impaired then assess your own level of impairment and if you find yourself to not be impaired then start driving and if it turns out you got it wrong then you're driving while impaired which most of the time won't result in you getting caught so keep on doing it until you either get a DUI or crash". If there was an impairment test we could put in cars it would make this all much simpler. But there isn't and for whatever reason you think the lack of an accurate impairment test means that we should forgo the test for potential impairment that we do have (whether or not you got high) and replace it with a self assessment. Couple things here, 1. Impairment with pot is a colossal grey area that is the problem. 2.Expecting people to not drive a whole day for just smoking a joint is laughable 3. My point is you can't cover every situation with one umbrella here, so having a law like the one you suggest that could ruin innocent peoples lives is absolutely ridiculous. How is it absurd to expect people to not drive later in the day after getting high? I'm just not getting this. Why is it ridiculous to ask that people get high later in the day or make alternate arrangements for transportation? Serious question, spell it out for me. Why is that such an impossible and unreasonable expectation to have for people? Because 1 joint does not impair you for an entire day. And situations can arise after smoking where you need to get somewhere in a hurry, and with your proposed law these people while not impaired would be risking their cars just to drive. My whole point this entire time has been that your proposed draconian law is not practical and potentially way to harsh on people who wouldn't deserve it. Impaired driving should be dealt with harshly, but with pot the grey area is to large for such a wide sweeping harsh penalty.
There are two potential tests here. I am advocating a test for potential impairment. The individual asks themselves if it is possible that they might be impaired, using the test of whether or not they have been using drugs. If yes, they don't drive. You are advocating a test for actual impairment that asks the potentially impaired individual to ask themselves if they think they might be impaired, a test that is by definition broken.
My test is overly conservative. Your test isn't actually a test because an impaired individual is by definition incapable of accurately assessing their own impairment.
You are making the argument that the undue hardship caused by my overly conservative test (which again, I'm just not seeing, if you need to drive somewhere can't you just get high afterwards) somehow justifies the scrapping of my overly conservative test and replacing it with your cardboard cutout of a test that tells anyone, regardless of impairment level, to go ahead and drive.
An impairment test that relies upon the impaired individual to themselves assess their own impairment isn't a test. What you're advocating for is nothing less than telling everyone, regardless of impairment, to go ahead and drive and work out who was and was not impaired after the crash.
|
I linked a pretty decent article with a lot of citations a couple post top. The last line is probably one of the best ones. Another reason why self driving cars will either A) go bad, or B) do well... A lot of super impaired users will be behind those wheels. What do you do then?
|
I think I once counted it but I sadly don't remember the results, but it was certainly in high hundreds - the amount of people I have seen driving, during my years as a notorious hitchhiker. The main takeaway from this part of my life is that there are lots of people out there that shouldn't be driving at all, even though it's probably totally legal for them - I guess probably the sampling is uneven, because the lunatics are more likely to pick a hitchhiker, but it was one hell of an existentional proof. People who don't pay attention at all, who eat, read maps and even watch TV (lorry drivers). People who have problems locating the pedals every time they need them. People that are outright mentally disabled and confused. People unaware of the basic rules. Yeah, we know that alcohol really hurts behind the wheel, so it makes sense, but if the effects of the pot seem unclear even in some studies linked above, why go so harshly after it? We should rather rush towards self-driving cars and have this solved once for all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
