|
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. |
Huh, there is an app for testing impairment; but not a gov't approved one, just new ones developed and with some research and testing being done.
https://www.druidapp.com/
anyone ever used it?
|
On April 22 2017 02:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:37 Necro)Phagist( wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
My problem wasn't so much with the law but with the penalty. If you can prove they were stoned out of their minds and a danger to others than throw the book at them give them everything under the sun as a punishment. But if they have pot in their system but weren't high it's extremely unfair to punish them in the same category as the former.
|
Canada11355 Posts
What if someone smokes weed heavily every day (after all daily driving is complete)?
That person, on his or her way to work the next day, will almost certainly test positive on any test even though they had not smoked for over 12 hours. Even after a full day sober I'm sure there would be a high chance to test positive on the next day for someone who smokes enough.
Are false positives such as these acceptable collateral damage?
|
On April 22 2017 02:46 opisska wrote:
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.
The problem with self driving cars is another pandoras box of issues and "rushing" tword them sounds like a terrible situation waiting to happen.
On April 22 2017 02:47 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:43 Sermokala wrote:On April 22 2017 02:37 Necro)Phagist( wrote: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:
[quote]
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. My problem wasn't so much with the law but with the penalty. If you can prove they were stoned out of their minds and a danger to others than throw the book at them give them everything under the sun as a punishment. But if they have pot in their system but weren't high it's extremely unfair to punish them in the same category as the former.
And your argument is valid but needs to be balanced for the real world where it needs to be applied fairly at the same time. .
On April 22 2017 02:47 Fecalfeast wrote:
What if someone smokes weed heavily every day (after all daily driving is complete)?
That person, on his or her way to work the next day, will almost certainly test positive on any test even though they had not smoked for over 12 hours. Even after a full day sober I'm sure there would be a high chance to test positive on the next day for someone who smokes enough.
Are false positives such as these acceptable collateral damage?
And the answer is yes beacuse there isn't an fair way to determine whos a heavy smoker and whos a light smoker. The same argument was made about alchohol and no one did anything to change the system for the functioning alcoholics.
|
|
|
On April 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Millions of medicinal cannabis users would have their days/lives stopped in their tracks. Like on tons of medications it says "_______ may impair your thinking or reactions. Avoid driving or operating machinery until you know how this medicine will affect you. Dizziness or severe drowsiness can cause falls or other accidents." If you can do that with synthetic heroin I think we can do it with cannabis.
The Draconian idea is dumb which I think is self evident.
EDIT: Appears I skipped the page when this point was brought up, but Kwark are you confiscating everyone's car who takes opiates and or mood altering drugs that lead to increased suicide or sleep aids known to cause people to drive while asleep?
|
On April 22 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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? Millions of medicinal cannabis users would have their days/lives stopped in their tracks. Like on tons of medications it says "_______ may impair your thinking or reactions. Avoid driving or operating machinery until you know how this medicine will affect you. Dizziness or severe drowsiness can cause falls or other accidents." If you can do that with synthetic heroin I think we can do it with cannabis. The Draconian idea is dumb which I think is self evident. EDIT: Appears I skipped the page when this point was brought up, but Kwark are you confiscating everyone's car who takes opiates and or mood altering drugs that lead to increased suicide or sleep aids known to cause people to drive while asleep?
Many of those are not legal to drive on, even if they're medically prescribed. You are definitely not supposed to drive while taking opioids, would probably get prosecuted if you got in an accident while taking medically prescribed Oxy.
|
A timely observation to the topic of driving: I am legally allowed to drive despite my neurological condition (which I am not legally obliged to tell about to anyone relevant to driving). For the last couple of days, I can't reliably control one leg, yet I could go outside ... well rent a car, because mine is in repair ... and drive. I won't because I like to live, but I could. One could blankly forbid anyone with MS from driving, but a lot of people have absolutely no problematic symptoms most of the time and such a ban would make their already mildly miserable lives much worse. The symptoms may appear out of the blue, very fast however, so even issuing people with MS with general assessment of their state would be mostly meaningless. Well but then, plenty of conditions that you don't know about beforehand may jump on you while driving ...
|
On April 22 2017 03:38 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons 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? Millions of medicinal cannabis users would have their days/lives stopped in their tracks. Like on tons of medications it says "_______ may impair your thinking or reactions. Avoid driving or operating machinery until you know how this medicine will affect you. Dizziness or severe drowsiness can cause falls or other accidents." If you can do that with synthetic heroin I think we can do it with cannabis. The Draconian idea is dumb which I think is self evident. EDIT: Appears I skipped the page when this point was brought up, but Kwark are you confiscating everyone's car who takes opiates and or mood altering drugs that lead to increased suicide or sleep aids known to cause people to drive while asleep? Many of those are not legal to drive on, even if they're medically prescribed. You are definitely not supposed to drive while taking opioids, would probably get prosecuted if you got in an accident while taking medically prescribed Oxy.
The drugs say you can drive right on them, once you know how they will affect you.
|
Can you image the millions of people that have Parkinson's driving under Kwarks law? People with Parkinson's drive, and are allowed to drive, but I'm sure most of them try not to.
|
On April 22 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 03:38 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons 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? Millions of medicinal cannabis users would have their days/lives stopped in their tracks. Like on tons of medications it says "_______ may impair your thinking or reactions. Avoid driving or operating machinery until you know how this medicine will affect you. Dizziness or severe drowsiness can cause falls or other accidents." If you can do that with synthetic heroin I think we can do it with cannabis. The Draconian idea is dumb which I think is self evident. EDIT: Appears I skipped the page when this point was brought up, but Kwark are you confiscating everyone's car who takes opiates and or mood altering drugs that lead to increased suicide or sleep aids known to cause people to drive while asleep? Many of those are not legal to drive on, even if they're medically prescribed. You are definitely not supposed to drive while taking opioids, would probably get prosecuted if you got in an accident while taking medically prescribed Oxy. The drugs say you can drive right on them, once you know how they will affect you.
I guess it depends on what drug it is? I know you can get a DUI for benzos, which seem way more tame than opioids.
|
On April 22 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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? Millions of medicinal cannabis users would have their days/lives stopped in their tracks. Like on tons of medications it says "_______ may impair your thinking or reactions. Avoid driving or operating machinery until you know how this medicine will affect you. Dizziness or severe drowsiness can cause falls or other accidents." If you can do that with synthetic heroin I think we can do it with cannabis. The Draconian idea is dumb which I think is self evident. EDIT: Appears I skipped the page when this point was brought up, but Kwark are you confiscating everyone's car who takes opiates and or mood altering drugs that lead to increased suicide or sleep aids known to cause people to drive while asleep?
Intention is relevant. Someone who takes drugs for symptom relief is actually just trying to improve their physical condition. Somebody who drives after recreational drug use is recklessly and unnecessary endangering others. It's not only the outcome that's important here.
|
On April 22 2017 03:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons 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? Millions of medicinal cannabis users would have their days/lives stopped in their tracks. Like on tons of medications it says "_______ may impair your thinking or reactions. Avoid driving or operating machinery until you know how this medicine will affect you. Dizziness or severe drowsiness can cause falls or other accidents." If you can do that with synthetic heroin I think we can do it with cannabis. The Draconian idea is dumb which I think is self evident. EDIT: Appears I skipped the page when this point was brought up, but Kwark are you confiscating everyone's car who takes opiates and or mood altering drugs that lead to increased suicide or sleep aids known to cause people to drive while asleep? Intention is relevant. Someone who takes drugs for symptom relief is actually just trying to improve their physical condition. Somebody who drives after recreational drug use is recklessly and unnecessary endangering others. It's not only the outcome that's important here.
What if he's driving for recreational purposes?
|
On April 22 2017 02:17 Acrofales 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. 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.
Driving stoned IS forbidden in the Netherlands and you can get convicted for it. They measure It by doing a blood test, for example right after you have had an accident. (I am from the Netherlands)
|
On April 22 2017 04:30 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 02:17 Acrofales 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. 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. Driving stoned IS forbidden in the Netherlands and you can get convicted for it. They measure It by doing a blood test, for example right after you have had an accident. (I am from the Netherlands)
It is indeed forbidden. I was wrong. I thought they decided not to forbid it because of the technical problems. But apparently they did go ahead with it.
|
On April 22 2017 03:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2017 03:38 ChristianS wrote:On April 22 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons 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? Millions of medicinal cannabis users would have their days/lives stopped in their tracks. Like on tons of medications it says "_______ may impair your thinking or reactions. Avoid driving or operating machinery until you know how this medicine will affect you. Dizziness or severe drowsiness can cause falls or other accidents." If you can do that with synthetic heroin I think we can do it with cannabis. The Draconian idea is dumb which I think is self evident. EDIT: Appears I skipped the page when this point was brought up, but Kwark are you confiscating everyone's car who takes opiates and or mood altering drugs that lead to increased suicide or sleep aids known to cause people to drive while asleep? Many of those are not legal to drive on, even if they're medically prescribed. You are definitely not supposed to drive while taking opioids, would probably get prosecuted if you got in an accident while taking medically prescribed Oxy. The drugs say you can drive right on them, once you know how they will affect you. I guess it depends on what drug it is? I know you can get a DUI for benzos, which seem way more tame than opioids.
Yeah basically it's the whole "you're your own guide", but blood tests aren't exactly common unless there's a reason to presume you were out of your mind on some substance, the reason alcohol and cannabis are frequently found/blamed is that they are rather odious. So regardless of whether you were under the influence, the smell is enough to trigger the blood test whereas it's a lot harder to be like "we clearly need to test this guy for benzos"
People who crash because they are high on pills have the two connected far less often, and in a funny twist are often then prescribed more of the drugs that may have caused the accident in the first place as opposed to sent to mandatory meetings and stripped of their license etc...
|
Wait, so if I'm understanding correctly, the US doesn't have just general "impaired driving" laws?
|
On April 22 2017 04:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 03:54 Nyxisto wrote:On April 22 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons 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? Millions of medicinal cannabis users would have their days/lives stopped in their tracks. Like on tons of medications it says "_______ may impair your thinking or reactions. Avoid driving or operating machinery until you know how this medicine will affect you. Dizziness or severe drowsiness can cause falls or other accidents." If you can do that with synthetic heroin I think we can do it with cannabis. The Draconian idea is dumb which I think is self evident. EDIT: Appears I skipped the page when this point was brought up, but Kwark are you confiscating everyone's car who takes opiates and or mood altering drugs that lead to increased suicide or sleep aids known to cause people to drive while asleep? Intention is relevant. Someone who takes drugs for symptom relief is actually just trying to improve their physical condition. Somebody who drives after recreational drug use is recklessly and unnecessary endangering others. It's not only the outcome that's important here. What if he's driving for recreational purposes?
not sure if that comment is tongue in cheek, but street races or any other form of reckless or useless driving shouldn't be encouraged either.
Driving itself is quite dangerous actually so you could probably make a good case to discourage car use as much as you can.
|
On April 22 2017 05:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait, so if I'm understanding correctly, the US doesn't have just general "impaired driving" laws?
they probably do. keep in mind the laws would be by state rather than federal.
there's certainly general laws against reckless driving and such. and I think there are generalized impaired driving laws.
|
A pilot from the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier safely ejected from a fighter jet, according to a statement from the Commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet.
...
The pilot ejected from his F/A-18E Super Hornet as it was on its final approach to land on the USS Carl Vinson. The Navy said the plane had been conducting "routine flight operations during a transit in the Celebes Sea." The body of water is north of Indonesia and south of the Philippines.
...
The USS Carl Vinson recently gained international attention for its location, after President Trump recently said that the U.S. was sending an "armada" toward North Korea.
gma.yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
