Colorado launches campaign to stop stoned driving

[speciallyblend]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Those people would definitely be wreckless behind the wheel.

Gotta wonder if the Ghoul realizes the accuracy of his pun.......


Thanks to Pete for highlighting it!

 

[69360]

...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]

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]

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]

How about just saying, hurting people and causing property damage should stay illegal and leave it at that?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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]

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]

Yes, there shouldn't be specific laws about the specific reason someone causes damage.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?