View Full Version : Colorado launches campaign to stop stoned driving
aGameOfThrones
03-07-2014, 08:36 AM
DENVER (AP) — Colorado is spending $1 million on television ads making fun of marijuana users who space out during everyday tasks — an effort to stop stoned driving.
The Colorado Department of Transportation unveiled the "Drive High, Get a DUI" campaign Thursday, the state's first effort since marijuana was legalized in 2012 to remind drivers that pot should be treated like alcohol and not used before driving.
One ad shows a spaced-out basketball player at the foul line in a playground, endlessly dribbling while his teammates wait in frustration. Another ad shows a middle-aged man who hangs a flat-screen TV and celebrates with some tortilla chips and salsa, only to see the TV crash to the floor and shatter.
The funniest ad shows a backyard griller earnestly trying to turn on his gas grill. After many futile attempts, a woman on the back deck rolls her eyes. The propane tank is missing. "Grilling high is now legal. Driving to get the propane you forgot isn't," the ad concludes.
"Enforcement is very important when it comes to impaired driving, but education is equally important," said Bob Ticer, police chief in Avon and chairman of Colorado's Interagency Task Force on Drunk Driving.
The effort from the Colorado Department of Transportation comes as Colorado struggles to keep accurate statewide records on marijuana-impaired drivers. The Colorado State Patrol just started keeping track in January, when retails sales began and the State Patrol recorded 31 marijuana-impaired drivers, out of 61 total drivers impaired by any drugs or alcohol.
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/colorado-launches-campaign-stop-stoned-driving-000247009.html
acptulsa
03-07-2014, 08:45 AM
When you have to use the enhanced revenue to buy ads to sell people on the idea that your revenue enhancement law is necessary to public safety, it probably isn't.
But buying the ads is certainly a way to get the media on your side.
I'm ready to press for a Constitutional amendment banning the government from buying any advertising at all. Wasn't Joseph Goebbels warning enough?
mrsat_98
03-07-2014, 08:53 AM
I'm ready to press for a Constitutional amendment banning the government from buying any advertising at all. Wasn't Joseph Goebbels warning enough?
It isn't personally healthy to to make such comment's, you have probably been reported.
why wont they show michael phelps winning Olympic gold?
why dont they show drunks starting a fight?
more check points fore everyone!
aGameOfThrones
03-07-2014, 09:14 AM
why wont they show michael phelps winning Olympic gold?
why dont they show drunks starting a fight?
more check points fore everyone!
if you smoke MJ you might not get to be president... ;)
CCTelander
03-07-2014, 09:17 AM
if you smoke MJ you might not get to be president... ;)
Unless, of course, you don't inhale.
Ronin Truth
03-07-2014, 10:08 AM
If the stoners are driving in the Rockies, the problems are self-liquidating over time.
DRINK
UP
AMERICA
you dumb motherfuckers...
dannno
03-07-2014, 10:50 AM
A lot of NBA players actually do play basketball high. Same with every other sport. It can improve focus.
Driving high is as or more safe than driving sober.
Washington, the only other state that has legalized recreational pot, saw more than 1,300 drivers test positive for marijuana last year — that's almost 25 percent more than in 2012.
Of those, 720 had levels high enough to lead to an automatic drugged driving conviction, though Washington officials say there's been no corresponding jump in car accidents.
Schifference
03-07-2014, 11:02 AM
When I set out to perform a task a systematic approach is utilized. I specifically remember an occasion where the garage was a mess because of all the Spring, Summer, and Fall projects. There was no need to park in the garage during those months. I started upon that task with very productive results. Major sorting. Hand tools go here, power tools there, lawn & garden someplace else. After getting underway I decided to take a couple hits of some bud, a few minutes later I found myself sorting out a pail of nails, screws, nuts & bolts. Considering the big picture sorting that bucket was not a priority. On the contrary I have worked with people that smoke pot all day and seem to function fine. I think hard core stoners function fine because it is there baseline. I have smoked pot for many years and was once a hard core stoner. I always thought that there was little benefit from smoking all the time because I hardly felt high. As an occasional user I can get pretty ripped off a hit or two. In my opinion pot definitely alters awareness & perception and I don't think its effects are universal.
Stoned drivers are safe drivers http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html
a link probably provided by dannno a few years back
tod evans
03-07-2014, 11:15 AM
Colorado launches campaign to stop stoned driving
Should read;
Colorado's government employees launch campaign to stop stoned driving in order to protect their jobs...
DamianTV
03-07-2014, 07:47 PM
Should read;
Colorado's government employees launch campaign to stop stoned driving in order to protect their jobs...
Hmm, could it be the purpose of Govt is only to validate its own existence?
Without a Society, Govt can not exist.
Without a Govt, Society CAN still exist.
DamianTV
03-07-2014, 07:48 PM
Unless, of course, you don't inhale.
(Clinton vocal accent)
I did NOT... have... intoxicating relations... with that drug... Mary Jane...
LibertyEagle
03-07-2014, 08:27 PM
why wont they show michael phelps winning Olympic gold?
why dont they show drunks starting a fight?
more check points fore everyone!
I doubt he was stoned during competitions.
LibertyEagle
03-07-2014, 08:29 PM
A lot of NBA players actually do play basketball high. Same with every other sport. It can improve focus.
Driving high is as or more safe than driving sober.
I'm sure it is specific to the individual and the quality of what is being smoked. :p
donnay
03-07-2014, 08:32 PM
They must have watched this movie one too many times...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljfdg3mPcvY
:)
phill4paul
03-07-2014, 08:37 PM
I just laugh my ass off anymore about people so proud of thier "legalization." I'm sure M.A.D.D. is gonna exploit this for a great FRN run. Salivating like dogs, they are. And the "freedom" to smoke will be eclipsed in epic proportions by the freedoms that will be lost. Huzzah! The King has thrown me a bone. What's that? There is conditions attached?
DamianTV
03-07-2014, 08:59 PM
In general, getting Drunk leads to conflicts, impairs judgement, and has a much higher propensity that pot to cause Aggression.
Drunk people tend to drive faster, Stoned people drive slow and paranoid.
So really, I think what it boils down to is if you CANT overdoese on Pot, how is it more dangerous than Alcohol?
There are a lot of factors to be considered. The methods of the law are becoming quite stupid by trying to make specific things illegal while expressing a total disregard for the spirit of the Law. It would be no different than saying it is illegal to change radio stations while driving, but you ARE allowed to adjust the volume of the radio while driving. They are far too specific.
There is another train of thought to consider. No Victim, No Crime. Drinking and driving is considered a Victimless Crime unless there is an accident. However we place varying degrees of blame depending on the circumstances. Getting in a collision is one thing, but getting in a collision while drunk or stoned is considered much worse regardless of the volume of damage. The big point here being that I dont think there needs to be any law that exists other than Property Damage. Thus, it wouldnt matter if a driver was drunk, stoned, texting, getting a blowjob, screwing with the radio, eating, smoking tobacco, sleepy, putting on their makeup, squeezing zits, or whacking off. We've all seen the stupid shit that people do while they drive. If they cause Property Damage to another by means of their driving (referred to as distracted), those people need to be responsible for their actions. These laws are on the books.
What I am seeing as a trend is that the Govt is abusing its power to create laws for financial gain based on the circumstances of distraction. If you get a ticket for eating and driving (already happening) then the state has a financial incentive to create more criminals out of ordinary people in cases where there is no Victim and thus, can be no Crime. Drunk Driving is typically against the law, but the damages caused by the victim dont go to the victim, they go to whoever issued the citation. Insurance usually pays for damages to the property.
There is a flip side to this. Making something legal does not mean that a person is going to behave responsibly. Some will, some wont. Not much can be done about that. When people choose to behave irresponsibly and smoke way too much or get shit faced drunk, they are putting others at such a degree of risk that the potential for loss of life, which can not be replaced, becomes a major issue, even if it is a Victimless Crime. A person can drive drunk a hundred times and not cause any damage at all, but all it takes is once for someone to become a permanent victim of their irresponsibility.
Personally, I get very frustrated with people that behave extremely irresponsible, and there is a part of me that is severely drawn to support the Victimless Crimes. The Libertarian side of me wants to side with No Victim No Crime, but that requires personal responsibility, which not everyone takes, and unfortunately I think is what undermines our cause. It is a big internal conflict for me, and I dont have any good responses as every solution creates a different set of problems. Allowing the Law to ticket creates an incentive for Govt abuse, but to just allow people to drive stupid puts people at severe risk.
The only thing that I can come up with is to advocate Personal Responsibility for ones actions. Not everyone will listen, but I think it is a much more inclusive way of solving problems than exchanging one set of problems for another. What you do in your car isnt my business, just please dont put people at risk. Dont put on your makeup in the car, dont drive excessively under the influence of ANYTHING, but in general, please dont drive Stupid.
Another thing that goes along with the Personal Responsibility is to offer assistance to others when they are aware they are in no condition to drive. If someone calls you at an inappropriate time and asks for a ride, I think a ride should be given depending on circumstances. Personal Responsibility for ones friends and family, and people need to offer this instead of forcing a person into a situation that once they are in, become trapped.
So which is better in your opinion? I dont know if any of my ideas are good or not, but given the choice between more Laws, less Laws, or Personal Responsibility, which would be best?
phill4paul
03-07-2014, 09:09 PM
In general, getting Drunk leads to conflicts, impairs judgement, and has a much higher propensity that pot to cause Aggression.
Drunk people tend to drive faster, Stoned people drive slow and paranoid.
So really, I think what it boils down to is if you CANT overdoese on Pot, how is it more dangerous than Alcohol?
There are a lot of factors to be considered. The methods of the law are becoming quite stupid by trying to make specific things illegal while expressing a total disregard for the spirit of the Law. It would be no different than saying it is illegal to change radio stations while driving, but you ARE allowed to adjust the volume of the radio while driving. They are far too specific.
There is another train of thought to consider. No Victim, No Crime. Drinking and driving is considered a Victimless Crime unless there is an accident. However we place varying degrees of blame depending on the circumstances. Getting in a collision is one thing, but getting in a collision while drunk or stoned is considered much worse regardless of the volume of damage. The big point here being that I dont think there needs to be any law that exists other than Property Damage. Thus, it wouldnt matter if a driver was drunk, stoned, texting, getting a blowjob, screwing with the radio, eating, smoking tobacco, sleepy, putting on their makeup, squeezing zits, or whacking off. We've all seen the stupid shit that people do while they drive. If they cause Property Damage to another by means of their driving (referred to as distracted), those people need to be responsible for their actions. These laws are on the books.
What I am seeing as a trend is that the Govt is abusing its power to create laws for financial gain based on the circumstances of distraction. If you get a ticket for eating and driving (already happening) then the state has a financial incentive to create more criminals out of ordinary people in cases where there is no Victim and thus, can be no Crime. Drunk Driving is typically against the law, but the damages caused by the victim dont go to the victim, they go to whoever issued the citation. Insurance usually pays for damages to the property.
There is a flip side to this. Making something legal does not mean that a person is going to behave responsibly. Some will, some wont. Not much can be done about that. When people choose to behave irresponsibly and smoke way too much or get shit faced drunk, they are putting others at such a degree of risk that the potential for loss of life, which can not be replaced, becomes a major issue, even if it is a Victimless Crime. A person can drive drunk a hundred times and not cause any damage at all, but all it takes is once for someone to become a permanent victim of their irresponsibility.
Personally, I get very frustrated with people that behave extremely irresponsible, and there is a part of me that is severely drawn to support the Victimless Crimes. The Libertarian side of me wants to side with No Victim No Crime, but that requires personal responsibility, which not everyone takes, and unfortunately I think is what undermines our cause. It is a big internal conflict for me, and I dont have any good responses as every solution creates a different set of problems. Allowing the Law to ticket creates an incentive for Govt abuse, but to just allow people to drive stupid puts people at severe risk.
The only thing that I can come up with is to advocate Personal Responsibility for ones actions. Not everyone will listen, but I think it is a much more inclusive way of solving problems than exchanging one set of problems for another. What you do in your car isnt my business, just please dont put people at risk. Dont put on your makeup in the car, dont drive excessively under the influence of ANYTHING, but in general, please dont drive Stupid.
Another thing that goes along with the Personal Responsibility is to offer assistance to others when they are aware they are in no condition to drive. If someone calls you at an inappropriate time and asks for a ride, I think a ride should be given depending on circumstances. Personal Responsibility for ones friends and family, and people need to offer this instead of forcing a person into a situation that once they are in, become trapped.
So which is better in your opinion? I dont know if any of my ideas are good or not, but given the choice between more Laws, less Laws, or Personal Responsibility, which would be best?
We have pretty much found out that laws are not the answer. If we look at DD we can see that a subjective number can be put on it. It started with .10. Then to .08 and will soon go to .05. Eventually it will become "zero tolerance" as they now teach in public indoctrination institutions. I think it has pretty much been seen that societal pressure brings the best result. But, there is no money to be made in that.
http://www.940golfnfun.com/images/bumper-car-1.jpg
LibertyRevolution
03-07-2014, 10:06 PM
Stoned drivers tend to be overly cautious...
How to spot the stoned drivers: They are the cars going the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws...
Dr.3D
03-07-2014, 10:09 PM
Stoned drivers tend to be overly cautious...
How to spot the stoned driver: They are the car going the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws...
They might even be going slower than the speed limit and possibly taking the wrong exit at times.
liberty2897
03-07-2014, 10:14 PM
why wont they show michael phelps winning Olympic gold?
Why don't they show Seattle Sea-hawks and Denver-Broncos?
Obviously, the drug of choice for people who aren't losers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pipTwjwrQYQ
DamianTV
03-08-2014, 02:36 AM
We have pretty much found out that laws are not the answer. If we look at DD we can see that a subjective number can be put on it. It started with .10. Then to .08 and will soon go to .05. Eventually it will become "zero tolerance" as they now teach in public indoctrination institutions. I think it has pretty much been seen that societal pressure brings the best result. But, there is no money to be made in that.
Or maybe there is.
Taxi Medallions in NY cost literally like a million bucks, but a Taxi Company for drunks is better than collisions and laws from drunk driving.
unknown
03-08-2014, 07:46 AM
When you have to use the enhanced revenue to buy ads to sell people on the idea that your revenue enhancement law is necessary to public safety, it probably isn't.
But buying the ads is certainly a way to get the media on your side.
I'm ready to press for a Constitutional amendment banning the government from buying any advertising at all. Wasn't Joseph Goebbels warning enough?
I always find it odd when I see advertisements for the US Armed Forces...
unknown
03-08-2014, 07:52 AM
Slightly off topic but do we really need a law for every driving offense? Talking on a cell phone, texting, driving while high, possibly even drinking and driving.
I mean, if you cause an accident, its already your fault, regardless of the reason. Whether youre "in a hurry" or jacked up on prescription meds.
Lets say you dont cause an accident but are swerving all over the road, in most states, they have a category called "reckless" or "careless" driving.
Am I off on this?
Spikender
03-08-2014, 07:55 AM
Slightly off topic but do we really need a law for every driving offense? Talking on a cell phone, texting, driving while high, possibly even drinking and driving.
I mean, if you cause an accident, its already your fault, regardless of the reason. Whether youre "in a hurry" or jacked up on prescription meds.
Lets say you dont cause an accident but are swerving all over the road, in most states, they have a category called "reckless" or "careless" driving.
Am I off on this?
You're not off.
All the control freaks are.
I've said time and time again to many people that I know who tell me these type of laws are a good idea that they are enforceable under existing laws and this is just all for show and power grabs. I've had varying degrees of success.
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/colorado-launches-campaign-stop-stoned-driving-000247009.html
Yet another wise outlay of your tax dollars.
Am I the only one who views this as a serious flaw in someone's fundamental world view?
fisharmor
03-08-2014, 09:52 AM
If the stoners are driving in the Rockies, the problems are self-liquidating over time.
I've been in the passenger seat racing through those mountains with a high-as-a-kite driver blasting Pork Soda in a shitty old Bronco II.
It all depends on the skill of the driver.
(Of course, it might have only seemed like we were racing... given I was high as a kite, too.)
When I set out to perform a task a systematic approach is utilized. I specifically remember an occasion where the garage was a mess because of all the Spring, Summer, and Fall projects. There was no need to park in the garage during those months. I started upon that task with very productive results. Major sorting. Hand tools go here, power tools there, lawn & garden someplace else. After getting underway I decided to take a couple hits of some bud, a few minutes later I found myself sorting out a pail of nails, screws, nuts & bolts. Considering the big picture sorting that bucket was not a priority. On the contrary I have worked with people that smoke pot all day and seem to function fine. I think hard core stoners function fine because it is there baseline. I have smoked pot for many years and was once a hard core stoner. I always thought that there was little benefit from smoking all the time because I hardly felt high. As an occasional user I can get pretty ripped off a hit or two. In my opinion pot definitely alters awareness & perception and I don't think its effects are universal.
I generally only smoke when my wife and kids are out of town, and it goes like this.
I have a bunch of plans in my head about all the stuff I'm going to do out in the workshop.
I come home from work and spark up.
Then, as I'm on my way out to the shop, I notice the entire house is a freakin' train wreck. So I have to stop, look at the clock, and tell myself "You need to clean this place up for 20 minutes before you can go mess around."
Then I get out to the shop, and I notice the entire shop is a freakin' train wreck.....
So I get that too, obsessing about things that normally don't matter when sober, but it hits me differently because sober I'm ok with a higher level of train wreckage.
I think driving is the same way.... if I'm sober and driving the speed limit or rolling around in traffic, I'm usually doing something else to occupy my mind, like fooling around with my phone. If I'm sober and doing 10-15 above and threading through traffic, then the phone goes away because I need to concentrate.
But whenever I've driven high I spend the same kind of effort driving the speed limit.
I can kind of see the statists' argument here, because it might look like I'm having to concentrate a lot harder to perform mundane tasks.
But it's not that at all. It's that the mundane tasks become enough to occupy me, when they're usually not when I'm sober.
The guy who is endlessly dribbling the ball isn't "spaced out", he's in bottomless thought. Maybe he's fascinated by the way the tiniest movements of his fingers deflect the ball to a different vector. Or maybe he's acutely aware of the fact that he has a mechanical pump in his chest ultimately making the movement of his body possible and wondering whether this particular portion of the finite number of beats it has in it is best spent playing this game. Either way, he's figuring shit out.
Whenever I've driven high, it has never, ever, ever not immediately billboarded across my brain that I could very easily die in an instant or be dragged off to a rape cage for what I'm undertaking.
Maybe other people don't figure that shit out the same way.... but it sure seems like they do, from everything I hear other people say about it.
I just laugh my ass off anymore about people so proud of thier "legalization." I'm sure M.A.D.D. is gonna exploit this for a great FRN run. Salivating like dogs, they are. And the "freedom" to smoke will be eclipsed in epic proportions by the freedoms that will be lost. Huzzah! The King has thrown me a bone. What's that? There is conditions attached?as a fellow from the home of the Sounders and Huskies, I thought a lot about what approval of this initiative would create. it's been 16 months and it doesn't look like i'll be legally able to buy weed here for another 5 or 6. not surprised bureaucratic bumblef#cks would make it this way.
the one thing that trumped the concerns about so much being bad in this law was the message "we" were sending. discussions on decriminalization worldwide and nationwide now tend to point to "Colorado and Washington" as examples.
Go Sounders. Obaflips all afternoon.
TomKat
03-08-2014, 06:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIqbo2phXdo
DamianTV
03-08-2014, 06:19 PM
I saw a news piece that said that wearing Flip Flops while driving was just as dangerous as driving either Drunk or Stoned. Lets see how many pick up on that. Of course, Im sure that if it is picked up by anyone the solution to be expected would be to ban Flip Flops.
69360
03-08-2014, 06:24 PM
I don't really have a problem with this. The amount spent is small vs. the amount they take in from legalization. I'm fine with legalization but I'd rather people do not drive high.
PaulConventionWV
03-08-2014, 07:35 PM
I wish governments would stop acting like they actually care about us. It's so demeaning listening to them campaign for our health and safety, then turn around and take everything we have and demand that we thank them.
DamianTV
03-08-2014, 07:39 PM
If a person were to ask the State, the State would claim to be the source of moral behavior amongst the individuals as well. Point is, Dependancy is a Chain of Obedience.
PaulConventionWV
03-08-2014, 07:46 PM
I doubt he was stoned during competitions.
The race isn't won at the finish line. The race is won in the months preceding the race, meaning it takes a lot of dedication and commitment to train at that level of competition, things which he obviously had, despite using marijuana.
PaulConventionWV
03-08-2014, 07:57 PM
Slightly off topic but do we really need a law for every driving offense? Talking on a cell phone, texting, driving while high, possibly even drinking and driving.
I mean, if you cause an accident, its already your fault, regardless of the reason. Whether youre "in a hurry" or jacked up on prescription meds.
Lets say you dont cause an accident but are swerving all over the road, in most states, they have a category called "reckless" or "careless" driving.
Am I off on this?
Nope. How else is the government going to collect sufficient revenue to keep waging their wars on the people? See, it serves two purposes: funding their tyranny, and perpetrating their tyranny. They get your money AND they get to oppress you just to remind you who you have to answer to.
kcchiefs6465
03-08-2014, 08:09 PM
I don't really have a problem with this. The amount spent is small vs. the amount they take in from legalization. I'm fine with legalization but I'd rather people do not drive high.
Other people don't have a problem with taxing you, either.
I guess so long as they get 50.1% of the vote, all is well in America.
(until two hundred years pass and every damn thing is regulated, taxed, and government controlled)
PaulConventionWV
03-08-2014, 08:21 PM
I don't really have a problem with this. The amount spent is small vs. the amount they take in from legalization. I'm fine with legalization but I'd rather people do not drive high.
...which they will do regardless of whether it's legal or not.
The kicker for me, however, is the facade of "safety." Not only is it perfectly safe, but the campaign itself is a farce in that the government doesn't care about your safety. They care about the revenue and the power, that's it.
Besides, why would you care if people drove high? How does it affect you?
pcosmar
03-08-2014, 08:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNqv85coyTw
"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all."
Malcolm Reynolds
Schifference
03-08-2014, 09:12 PM
I think that liberty is a wonderful concept and each of us should be able to do as we please so long as we do not harm others or their property. I think some sort of a commitment to responsibility is important. I think the consequences associated with using any mind altering substance or any distraction for that matter needs to be scrutinized when there is an increased risk to cause harm. A totally shit faced individual sitting in their recliner is harming no one. A stoned person driving themselves on a bicycle poses a greater threat. Stoned person driving their auto yet a higher threat. What about stoned person driving a bus full of school kids?
kcchiefs6465
03-08-2014, 09:25 PM
I think that liberty is a wonderful concept and each of us should be able to do as we please so long as we do not harm others or their property. I think some sort of a commitment to responsibility is important. I think the consequences associated with using any mind altering substance or any distraction for that matter needs to be scrutinized when there is an increased risk to cause harm. A totally shit faced individual sitting in their recliner is harming no one. A stoned person driving themselves on a bicycle poses a greater threat. Stoned person driving their auto yet a higher threat. What about stoned person driving a bus full of school kids?
A person smoking marijuana is no greater danger than anyone else on the road. If they were qualified to drive the bus in the first place, I'd have no problem with them driving "stoned" (that is, "high" on marijuana). That might sound "radical" to many people but I can assure you they've not met the people I have, nor do they have the real world experiences I do. At best, they'll quote fear mongering ticks and offhanded remarks about how marijuana impairs driving. At worst I'll be labeled insane (ha).
I'd only say that you would be surprised at who smokes marijuana. While I don't advocate smoking marijuana before operating dangerous machinery, countless people do so daily without incident. The one that has an incident, though the incident isn't usually even proven to be caused by marijuana, (that is, accidents happen), are pimped by the media and social planners as the means to justify their increasing power grabs. And the road to hell is paved (allegedly) with good intentions. You end up with per se DUI laws with absurdly low thresholds imprisoning people who have not smoked in days, for being intoxicated. It is utterly fascist and a free society ought to reject it. (even one paying lip service to being a free society)
Schifference
03-08-2014, 09:37 PM
I too have extensive experience regarding drug use. I think it affects people differently. Some people do drugs and that is their normal baseline functioning status. Others take one or 2 tokes and get all fucked up. I know several heroin addicts. If you did not know they were using you would not be able to notice it. They use to be normal. So I agree with you that some people function fine while stoned or on whatever drug. I think tolerance has a lot to do with that. I would not want to drive immediately after a couple of hits of some good weed. An hour or 2 later no problem. I disagree with the bus driver being stoned. He/she is not hired to drive a bus of school kids high.
A person smoking marijuana is no greater danger than anyone else on the road. If they were qualified to drive the bus in the first place, I'd have no problem with them driving "stoned" (that is, "high" on marijuana). That might sound "radical" to many people but I can assure you they've not met the people I have, nor do they have the real world experiences I do. At best, they'll quote fear mongering ticks and offhanded remarks about how marijuana impairs driving. At worst I'll be labeled insane (ha).
I'd only say that you would be surprised at who smokes marijuana. While I don't advocate smoking marijuana before operating dangerous machinery, countless people do so daily without incident. The one that has an incident, though the incident isn't usually even proven to be caused by marijuana, (that is, accidents happen), are pimped by the media and social planners as the means to justify their increasing power grabs. And the road to hell is paved (allegedly) with good intentions. You end up with per se DUI laws with absurdly low thresholds imprisoning people who have not smoked in days, for being intoxicated. It is utterly fascist and a free society ought to reject it. (even one paying lip service to being a free society)
LibertyEagle
03-08-2014, 09:40 PM
A person smoking marijuana is no greater danger than anyone else on the road.
My own personal experience says what you just said is BS. lol
dannno
03-08-2014, 09:42 PM
I don't really have a problem with this. The amount spent is small vs. the amount they take in from legalization. I'm fine with legalization but I'd rather people do not drive high.
It doesn't matter what you think, low to moderately stoned drivers are as safe or more safe than sober drivers. If somebody eats an 8x hash brownie before they drive, well, that's probably not a good idea.. especially if it is hitting them as they are driving. But that is no excuse to target responsible and safe drivers for absolutely no reason.
dannno
03-08-2014, 09:43 PM
My own personal experience says what you just said is BS. lol
So you got high and drove one time?
fisharmor
03-08-2014, 09:48 PM
My own personal experience says what you just said is BS. lol
I agree, between fumbling with the lighter and the shotgun, the person smoking marijuana on the road is probably actually steering with his knees.
kcchiefs6465
03-08-2014, 09:57 PM
My own personal experience says what you just said is BS. lol
Well my personal experience says that I've driven countless tens of thousands of miles without incident. I've rode with others countless thousands of (probably) miles without incident as well. In fact, virtually every person I knew at a point in my life, drove "high" daily. They weren't arrested or put in jail nor did they ever get in accidents. In fact I've seen some amazing vehicular feats. (i.e., things I could hardly, if ever, have done sober)
Truth be told, prescription medications, of which are legal to drive under (to a certain extent, that is, UNTIL THEY BREAK A LAW) are more troublesome. I've know people high off different pills, ditch bound or in accidents. And they were charged. Reckless driving is an offense.
The crux of the issue relies on what is the role of the government. Wearing sandals, sleepy drivers, the minimally distracted, those legally given varieties of pills.. I mean, sure it is a risk (much, much moreso than smoking marijuana and driving). Where is the line drawn? At seat belt checkpoints and forcible blood withdraws? I know you don't advocate this but let's be real, this busy body mentality of preventing every accident (car, or otherwise) has led to a bureaucracy hardly describable. It's absurd.
I understand some people may smoke and not be able to fully function. Generally speaking, as along with alcohol, they are the "weekend warriors", or worse, the holiday partyers.
Why should I be punished for them, absent committing any crime? Slippery slope is evident. Look at where we are now.
fisharmor
03-08-2014, 09:58 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIqbo2phXdo
For the metric impaired, 9/10 of a gram (the point where they all started making mistakes, and coincidentally also the point where they all agreed they shouldn't be driving) is pretty much an entire nickel bag.
That's easily four times the amount of pot than three people would smoke in a sitting.
kcchiefs6465
03-08-2014, 10:35 PM
I too have extensive experience regarding drug use. I think it affects people differently. Some people do drugs and that is their normal baseline functioning status. Others take one or 2 tokes and get all fucked up. I know several heroin addicts. If you did not know they were using you would not be able to notice it. They use to be normal. So I agree with you that some people function fine while stoned or on whatever drug. I think tolerance has a lot to do with that. I would not want to drive immediately after a couple of hits of some good weed. An hour or 2 later no problem. I disagree with the bus driver being stoned. He/she is not hired to drive a bus of school kids high.
Of course, optimally I don't think a bus driver should be high. I just do not doubt the occurrences of such a scenario are so minimal and absurd, that creating draconian statutes to ensnare all, as a means to combat that, is not foolish, at best. At worst it is a scheme to maintain a system of control, approved by moral busy bodies, who think everyone else's business is their own. It is a system of revenue collection and forced labor. It is a business.
And of course simply driving high is not a crime. Accepting that it is, is accepting a notion of crimes against the state. 'Slippery slope' would be mild considering what is evident, today.
LibertyEagle
03-08-2014, 10:36 PM
Sorry guys, I'm not going to applaud the person who drives stoned any more than I would applaud someone who drove drunk. But, I do agree that the law should only be involved if the driving is erratic or if an accident occurs.
kcchiefs6465
03-08-2014, 10:47 PM
Sorry guys, I'm not going to applaud the person who drives stoned any more than I would applaud someone who drove drunk. But, I do agree that the law should only be involved if the driving is erratic or if an accident occurs.
That's good enough for me.
I agree with you, dangerous driving habits should be discouraged on an individual and family level.
Schifference
03-08-2014, 11:27 PM
That's good enough for me.
I agree with you, dangerous driving habits should be discouraged on an individual and family level.
Me Too! I think we should own Our Liberty by Being Responsible!
Giuliani was there on 911
03-09-2014, 01:00 AM
Everyone here seems to be extremely pro marijuana. Honestly I think a lot of you are just parroting things you've heard before. Contrary to what you guys think marijuana isn't harmless. It's effects aren't all positive with no negatives. Not everyone reacts to Marijuana the same way. Sure for some people marijuana makes them really focused and calm at the same time but for other people marijuana makes them tired, spaced out, and unable to focus. Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.
kcchiefs6465
03-09-2014, 01:03 AM
Everyone here seems to be extremely pro marijuana. Honestly I think a lot of you are just parroting things you've heard before. Contrary to what you guys think marijuana isn't harmless. It's effects aren't all positive with no negatives. Not everyone reacts to Marijuana the same way. Sure for some people marijuana makes them really focused and calm at the same time but for other people marijuana makes them tired, spaced out, and unable to focus. Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.
And for that, preemptive of any crime, they should be incarcerated.
So sayeth Giuliani, so sayeth the Law.
Cabal
03-09-2014, 01:15 AM
Everyone here seems to be extremely pro marijuana. Honestly I think a lot of you are just parroting things you've heard before. Contrary to what you guys think marijuana isn't harmless. It's effects aren't all positive with no negatives. Not everyone reacts to Marijuana the same way. Sure for some people marijuana makes them really focused and calm at the same time but for other people marijuana makes them tired, spaced out, and unable to focus. Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.
For many, and perhaps even most, it isn't about being pro-cannabis or against cannabis, it's about being pro-liberty.
tod evans
03-09-2014, 02:19 AM
Everyone here seems to be extremely pro marijuana. Honestly I think a lot of you are just parroting things you've heard before. Contrary to what you guys think marijuana isn't harmless. It's effects aren't all positive with no negatives. Not everyone reacts to Marijuana the same way. Sure for some people marijuana makes them really focused and calm at the same time but for other people marijuana makes them tired, spaced out, and unable to focus. Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.
I smoked weed for decades and base my opinions on personal experience.
What is it exactly that you base your rhetoric on?
chudrockz
03-09-2014, 05:58 AM
They might even be going slower than the speed limit and possibly taking the wrong exit at times.
The difference between that and the drunk driver is that the stoned driver, upon learning that s/he done took the wrong exit, goes something like this: "Awwwwwwww............. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck........................... . I, just,,, took,,,, the ............ wrong ........... exit." Then they laugh for awhile, and eventually find their way back to where they're going.
The drunk goes "SHITWRONGEXIT!!!!" Followed by zooooooooomzzzzoooom and run over six pedestrians and four road signs frantically getting OFF said wrong exit.
chudrockz
03-09-2014, 06:00 AM
As an aside, I had a brief conversation with an elderly woman yesterday at lunch at my county GOP convention (I was a delegate, as always). She took note of this story, and was just agast at the "unforeseen consequences" of legalization. She honestly acted like she thought no one had ever driven stoned before in human history, till they legalized pot, and now EVERYONE was doing it.
I just let it go, very little to be gained attempting a correction there.
speciallyblend
03-09-2014, 06:24 AM
If the stoners are driving in the Rockies, the problems are self-liquidating over time.
stoned driving is not even close to drunk driving. The premise fails from the beginning! seems you fell for the reefer madness already by your own comment.
Stoned drivers have been shown to be more focused and drive slower(unless mixed with alcohol). If they are really stoned? They know enough to know they are and don't drive unlike drunks. what they are doing is padding their stats by labeling folks drunk and high as high.
it is all reefer madness!
tod evans
03-09-2014, 06:37 AM
The difference between that and the drunk driver is that the stoned driver, upon learning that s/he done took the wrong exit, goes something like this: "Awwwwwwww............. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck........................... . I, just,,, took,,,, the ............ wrong ........... exit." Then they laugh for awhile, and eventually find their way back to where they're going.
The drunk goes "SHITWRONGEXIT!!!!" Followed by zooooooooomzzzzoooom and run over six pedestrians and four road signs frantically getting OFF said wrong exit.
Oh come on.....
This portrayal of "drunk drivers" is just as erroneous as some portray "stoned drivers"....
Some folks are idiots regardless of what they consume, others aren't.....
chudrockz
03-09-2014, 06:45 AM
Oh come on.....
This portrayal of "drunk drivers" is just as erroneous as some portray "stoned drivers"....
Some folks are idiots regardless of what they consume, others aren't.....
Are you arguing that alcohol consumption doesn't make many people more prone to violent behavior? Never been to a bar before?
tod evans
03-09-2014, 06:49 AM
Are you arguing that alcohol consumption doesn't make many people more prone to violent behavior? Never been to a bar before?
Come on dude, I'm an over 50 biker I might know a bit about smokin'-n-drinkin'....
My position is exactly what I stated.
pcosmar
03-09-2014, 06:53 AM
Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.
Never Seen it. and Have been using since I was 17. Knew other people that were before that and I will be 57 this year.
I was also a Bodyman for over 20 tears,, and have seen more wrecks and the people that had them.
Oh and on a side note,,that particular profession requires the use of a lot of dangerous tools and an extreme attention to detail.
I have never known a Quality Shop that piss tests. We smoked on the job,, regularly.
tod evans
03-09-2014, 06:58 AM
Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.
Gotta wonder if the Ghoul realizes the accuracy of his pun.......:D
Thanks to Pete for highlighting it!
69360
03-09-2014, 07:33 AM
...which they will do regardless of whether it's legal or not.
The kicker for me, however, is the facade of "safety." Not only is it perfectly safe, but the campaign itself is a farce in that the government doesn't care about your safety. They care about the revenue and the power, that's it.
Besides, why would you care if people drove high? How does it affect you?
Why do I care? At the risk of sounding stereotypical, I'd prefer a stoned individual not to plow into my car.
It doesn't matter what you think, low to moderately stoned drivers are as safe or more safe than sober drivers. If somebody eats an 8x hash brownie before they drive, well, that's probably not a good idea.. especially if it is hitting them as they are driving. But that is no excuse to target responsible and safe drivers for absolutely no reason.
You always say that and cite some study, but impaired is impaired.
Sorry guys, I'm not going to applaud the person who drives stoned any more than I would applaud someone who drove drunk. But, I do agree that the law should only be involved if the driving is erratic or if an accident occurs.
I can agree with that. Driving drunk and stoned should stay illegal, but there is no need for checkpoints.
tod evans
03-09-2014, 07:40 AM
Driving drunk and stoned should stay illegal
I disagree wholeheartedly!
This pretext of "protecting" the public is overused by LEO's and is a primary funding source for the "Just-Us" department.
69360
03-09-2014, 10:45 AM
I disagree wholeheartedly!
This pretext of "protecting" the public is overused by LEO's and is a primary funding source for the "Just-Us" department.
What's a pretext? I don't think random roadside checks are constitutional. If all of you claim you can drive around high better than normal, you won't get pulled over for bad driving amiright?
Dr.3D
03-09-2014, 10:48 AM
How about just saying, hurting people and causing property damage should stay illegal and leave it at that?
kcchiefs6465
03-09-2014, 10:53 AM
Why do I care? At the risk of sounding stereotypical, I'd prefer a stoned individual not to plow into my car.
I'd prefer a person being tired not plow into my car.
So what?
kcchiefs6465
03-09-2014, 10:54 AM
What's a pretext? I don't think random roadside checks are constitutional. If all of you claim you can drive around high better than normal, you won't get pulled over for bad driving amiright?
Because the revenue collectors, who have quotas, never pull people over for the fuck of it.
Dr.3D
03-09-2014, 10:56 AM
Yes, there shouldn't be specific laws about the specific reason someone causes damage.
kcchiefs6465
03-09-2014, 11:10 AM
Yes, there shouldn't be specific laws about the specific reason someone causes damage.
You know they label every accident in which one was drinking to be caused by the drinking and that the person who had been drinking was at fault?
And even with that obvious bias, the best they can attribute in a country of over 100 million drivers, is 10,000 deaths annually. Never do they consider that perhaps the accidents were unavoidable. That sometimes, shit happens. Now sure, perhaps some of the cases the driver was a weekend warrior, or celebrating a holiday, they drank a pint of liquor, and they perhaps mistakenly drove up the wrong lane of the highway, colliding with someone (or otherwise being blatantly at fault for the accident and resulting tragedy). So for that, it is largely assumed and accepted, that we need police officers everywhere with campaigns targeting the plague of "drunk driving." Checkpoints and more.
It isn't that the cause of an accident should not be investigated. It is that they often times simply attribute, if one person was drinking or had marijuana in their system, it to be the cause of the accident. It is dishonest and propagandized.
115,000,000 drivers, something of 15% admitting they've "driven drunk" in the past month, with 10,000 automobile deaths annually.
Now we can get that number to zero, mind you, and for some that appears to be their goal. All we have to do is ban automobiles.
DamianTV
03-09-2014, 05:07 PM
"Own your Liberty by being Responsible"
Freedom and Responsibility go hand in hand. When one is taken away, the other is as well. As much as we want to take back our Freedom to choose to act for ourselves, we find that this often times proves to be very difficult. However, we can make some of these laws irreleveant by encouraging people to take tack Repsonsibility for thier own actions instead of creating the need for Govt to do something to modify peoples behaviors.
Dr.3D
03-09-2014, 08:42 PM
Why do I care? At the risk of sounding stereotypical, I'd prefer a stoned individual not to plow into my car.
I prefer nobody plow into my car, stoned or otherwise.
acptulsa
03-09-2014, 09:04 PM
Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.
There are people out there with tens of thousands of miles of 'wreckless' stoned driving under their belts. Many have been reckless and had wrecks while not stoned.
'Tis true, too.
Schifference
03-09-2014, 09:11 PM
I need to clarify my position on the bus driver. If the bus driver functions in a safe manor and performs his duties as expected it should not matter if he had smoked pot prior to driving. If he smokes to relieve some ailment it would not be any different than a person that takes a pain pill for chronic pain. The point is that We need to Own Our Liberty by Being Responsible!
Of course, optimally I don't think a bus driver should be high. I just do not doubt the occurrences of such a scenario are so minimal and absurd, that creating draconian statutes to ensnare all, as a means to combat that, is not foolish, at best. At worst it is a scheme to maintain a system of control, approved by moral busy bodies, who think everyone else's business is their own. It is a system of revenue collection and forced labor. It is a business.
And of course simply driving high is not a crime. Accepting that it is, is accepting a notion of crimes against the state. 'Slippery slope' would be mild considering what is evident, today.
PaulConventionWV
03-09-2014, 10:07 PM
For the metric impaired, 9/10 of a gram (the point where they all started making mistakes, and coincidentally also the point where they all agreed they shouldn't be driving) is pretty much an entire nickel bag.
That's easily four times the amount of pot than three people would smoke in a sitting.
If I ate four times the amount of cheeseburgers that 3 people would normally eat in one sitting, I would be in no condition to drive either.
PaulConventionWV
03-09-2014, 10:08 PM
Sorry guys, I'm not going to applaud the person who drives stoned any more than I would applaud someone who drove drunk. But, I do agree that the law should only be involved if the driving is erratic or if an accident occurs.
Who's applauding?
PaulConventionWV
03-09-2014, 10:09 PM
Everyone here seems to be extremely pro marijuana. Honestly I think a lot of you are just parroting things you've heard before. Contrary to what you guys think marijuana isn't harmless. It's effects aren't all positive with no negatives. Not everyone reacts to Marijuana the same way. Sure for some people marijuana makes them really focused and calm at the same time but for other people marijuana makes them tired, spaced out, and unable to focus. Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.
I strive for wrecklessness. :D
PaulConventionWV
03-09-2014, 10:17 PM
Why do I care? At the risk of sounding stereotypical, I'd prefer a stoned individual not to plow into my car.
As you should... I would prefer nobody plow into my car, but many people who are completely sober do it. I don't worry about a high person any more than I do some random jackass.
I can agree with that. Driving drunk and stoned should stay illegal, but there is no need for checkpoints.
No victim, no crime.
PaulConventionWV
03-09-2014, 10:18 PM
What's a pretext? I don't think random roadside checks are constitutional. If all of you claim you can drive around high better than normal, you won't get pulled over for bad driving amiright?
Oh, right, I forgot... If I'm not hiding anything, I have nothing to fear, right?
Schifference
03-09-2014, 10:51 PM
If you were a NASCAR or Formula racer would you smoke pot prior to the main event?
muh_roads
03-09-2014, 11:09 PM
I would trust a stoned driver over a drunk driver any day. Stoned drivers drive almost too carefully and are paranoid as fuck.
acptulsa
03-09-2014, 11:27 PM
If you were a NASCAR or Formula racer would you smoke pot prior to the main event?
No. But then if I were racing I would want to be as aggressive as all hell behind the wheel. And I wouldn't have a grandmother in a Buick parking at the end of the acceleration lane of the expressway onramp to get mad at, either.
speciallyblend
03-10-2014, 03:00 AM
looks like reefer madness is still alive and well.
pcosmar
03-10-2014, 07:47 AM
What's a pretext? I don't think random roadside checks are constitutional. If all of you claim you can drive around high better than normal, you won't get pulled over for bad driving amiright?
I never have been. Ever.
And of the two DUIs.. The first one I was not driving at all,, and the second,, I was not even close to being drunk,, And the asshole got fired over false reports.
(too late to help in my case)
I have never gotten a speeding ticket in my life,, nor any other driving infraction.
edit,
I think, ,maybe, I did get a parking ticket,, very long ago.
pcosmar
03-10-2014, 07:49 AM
I would trust a stoned driver over a drunk driver any day. Stoned drivers drive almost too carefully and are paranoid as fuck.
I am careful,, stoned or not.
Being stoned keeps me calmer when encountering the idiots out there.
The only thing I have ever been "paranoid" of is the police.
(you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you)
Remove that threat and "paranoia" disappears.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.