Toddler handed cops drugs after mom was pulled over: police

a reply to: howtonhawky

I don't believe for one second that the toddler just all of a sudden dug underneath the seat and dragged out mom and dad's hooch without the cop asking "Did mommy or daddy hide anything? Can you show me? We're the good guys and just want to help! You wont be in any trouble."

I've witnessed cops in action. Some are good, some are bad- but none of them are above enlisting the trusting nature of children.

a reply to: TinySickTears

I got you.

I am saying they should forget about the thought of mj impairment and when they find a person to be driving erratically or showing signs of impairment they simply need to test for booze and pills cause the mj is not the cause of bad driving or impairment.

A person can be completely sober and smoke one then drive on the road all day long just fine but add a beer or a pill then there will be issues often resulting in injury.

a reply to: TinySickTears

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is why we cannot have nice things. Look, I'm pro legalization. If someone wants to smoke a joint, they should be allowed to do so... RESPONSIBLY. This ridiculous noise that being high isn't a detriment to safe driving the way being above a 0.08 BAC is is, frankly, a vapid position to take. If you're stoned, you're cognitive functions are impared. Let's be honest adults here, pot isn't a performance enhancing drug, it's a downer. Your rights end at the point they impact the rights of another and the right to drive on the public road system without dealing with people driving under the influence is more important than your perceived/desired/non-existent right to jump behind the wheel of your car after toking it up. Plan ahead, smoke smart, your defense of DUI is one of the reasons the herb hasn't been decriminalized.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: TinySickTears

I got you.

I am saying they should forget about the thought of mj impairment and when they find a person to be driving erratically or showing signs of impairment they simply need to test for booze and pills cause the mj is not the cause of bad driving or impairment.

A person can be completely sober and smoke one then drive on the road all day long just fine but add a beer or a pill then there will be issues often resulting in injury.

BULLSH1T

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: TinySickTears

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is why we cannot have nice things. Look, I'm pro legalization. If someone wants to smoke a joint, they should be allowed to do so... RESPONSIBLY. This ridiculous noise that being high isn't a detriment to safe driving the way being above a 0.08 BAC is is, frankly, a vapid position to take. If you're stoned, you're cognitive functions are impared. Let's be honest adults here, pot isn't a performance enhancing drug, it's a downer. Your rights end at the point they impact the rights of another and the right to drive on the public road system without dealing with people driving under the influence is more important than your perceived/desired/non-existent right to jump behind the wheel of your car after toking it up. Plan ahead, smoke smart, your defense of DUI is one of the reasons the herb hasn't been decriminalized.

i am not disagreeing with any of this.
like i said in an earlier post though i think we need to define what under the influence is?

we do not have the luxury of the same kind of testing that we do with alcohol.
so when is a person under the influence?

if i burn one and then drive 5 minutes later am i under the influence?
what about 1 hour?
3 hours?

much different for edibles of course.

fortunately they can have a person who is suspect of being hit with a DUI blow and then basically determine right now if they are over a specified limit.
we do not have that with marijuana so how do we define that?

1 of the major reasons it has not be legalized or at least decriminalized everywhere is people still believe propaganda like you can get a contact high.
this is a problem

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Got proof?

I understand that when confronted with truth it is sometimes hard to handle.

Perhaps some self testing is in order.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: TinySickTears

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

.

Cannabis and alcohol acutely impair several driving-related skills in a dose-related fashion, but the effects of cannabis vary more between individuals than they do with alcohol because of tolerance, differences in smoking technique, and different absorptions of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana.

marijuana smokers tend to compensate effectively while driving by utilizing a variety of behavioral strategies.

Epidemiological studies have been inconclusive regarding whether cannabis use causes an increased risk of accidents; in contrast, unanimity exists that alcohol use increases crash risk.

Although cognitive studies suggest that cannabis use may lead to unsafe driving, experimental studies have suggested that it can have the opposite effect. Epidemiological studies have themselves been inconsistent, and thus have not resolved the question.

i mean your own article does not give much weight to your position but i do not entirely disagree with you.

but again, what is under the influence? when are you under the influence?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Got proof?

I understand that when confronted with truth it is sometimes hard to handle.

Perhaps some self testing is in order.

read my post above though. from the article he posted

Because of both this and an increased awareness that they are impaired, marijuana smokers tend to compensate effectively for their impairment by utilizing a variety of behavioral strategies such as driving more slowly, passing less, and leaving more space between themselves and cars in front of them.

of course impairment can happen but it is not even in the same league as alcohol.

can someone give me their opinions on when a person is under the influence?
just in your opinion.

if a person smokes 1 joint of decent stuff with another person how long are they under the influence for before it is acceptable for them to drive?

a reply to: TinySickTears

I can tell you that a few years ago the dps decided to let stoners on the same coarse that they teach drunk driving lessons. You know they make you drink a beer and then get behind the wheel on a closed coarse and then repeat until you fail the coarse by hitting cones.

It did not work on the stoners. so they tried to design a new coarse that most people could not pass while sober.

Epic fail and it happened in Colorado around 2014 or so. So they completely dropped the idea of smoking and coarses in favor of just a law that says they can prosecute you if they so choose..

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Got proof?

I understand that when confronted with truth it is sometimes hard to handle.

Perhaps some self testing is in order.

We will have to see how you handle the truth for us to see how well you understand, ya?

time.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.bmj.com...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

srry I do not dive into random links without some type of description.

Nothing personal.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
i mean your own article does not give much weight to your position but i do not entirely disagree with you.

but again, what is under the influence? when are you under the influence?

Here's the issue... all of us know "that guy" the lifelong heavy drinker who walks straighter, drives straighter, and is more coherent when he's downed a few glasses of vodka than he is when he's stone cold sober. We also know a LOT of people who are 100% functional at 0.08 BAC. The law, however, is set to the scale of probabilities. Novice drinkers may experience significant cognitive effects after a single drink, particularly dependent on what they drink. Similarly, we all know a weed lightweight or two who are couch locked after a one-hitter while we similarly know "that guy" who burns through a forest a day and gets more done than anyone else in the squad.

At this point, we can't tailor the law to individuals...

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: burdman30ott6

srry I do not dive into random links without some type of description.

Nothing personal.

Then we are at an impasse. You asked for proof, I provided proof, do with it as you wish.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: TinySickTears
i mean your own article does not give much weight to your position but i do not entirely disagree with you.

but again, what is under the influence? when are you under the influence?

Here's the issue... all of us know "that guy" the lifelong heavy drinker who walks straighter, drives straighter, and is more coherent when he's downed a few glasses of vodka than he is when he's stone cold sober. We also know a LOT of people who are 100% functional at 0.08 BAC. The law, however, is set to the scale of probabilities. Novice drinkers may experience significant cognitive effects after a single drink, particularly dependent on what they drink. Similarly, we all know a weed lightweight or two who are couch locked after a one-hitter while we similarly know "that guy" who burns through a forest a day and gets more done than anyone else in the squad.

At this point, we can't tailor the law to individuals...

but there is a level for alcohol. i am not saying tailor the law to everyone.

with alcohol it is .08.

but what is it with marijuana?

i am asking your opinion. not scientific facts. just trying to talk.

so when dealing with marijuana in your opinion when is a person over the limit on what is acceptable to drive and what is that limit?

cause as of now we dont have a test or a scale.

all we hear is under the influence of marijuana. i do not know what that means.

do you

lets use a hypothetical.

there is a person. lets call him LargeHealthyDryEyes

he smokes every day. has for years.
edibles too
vapes too

when is LargeHealthyDryEyes under the influence to where it is not acceptable to drive?

we do not know this cause we do not have a scale or a test but i am just interested in your opinion on this hypothetical person.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Agree, there simply is no definitive test to determine impairment.
It is not remotely the same as alcohol.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: TinySickTears

Agree, there simply is no definitive test to determine impairment.
It is not remotely the same as alcohol.

there is no test period.
is it something that cant be done or just has not been done?

i am no braniac but humans built a #ing particle collider. i think they can probably test thc concentrations.

seems a bit unfair for i dont know, 150 million Americans.
there are test and guidelines for people so they can reasonably enjoy alcohol and know where they stand when it comes to driving.
people like me get no such courtesy.

we are either under the influence or we are not.


that is not cool

a reply to: TinySickTears

I don't know the answer. I think the first step to determining an answer is honesty. We have to be honest enough to acknowledge that use and possession of the substance shouldn't be criminalized but mature and responsible enough to also acknowledge that there needs to be some regulations about when and where it can be safely used. Then the same type of extensive testing that was done to reach the 0.08 BAC limits needs to be conducted to establish a legal limit/concentration of THC for drivers. There will be outliers, and whatever limit is established will cause some to guffaw while not being strict enough for others, but that's life.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Legalized MJ is a new thing in a world which previously had a zero tolerance policy in place. The law didn't need to prove how high a driver was previously, only that there was THC in their system. The new laws will necessitate new testing mechanics and I'm confident we will see an on-demand, fairly comprehensive breath test soon. I did hear last year that CA now has a mouth swab test that police can perform on the roadside which tells them pot was used within 3 hours of the swab, but I do not know how accurate or precise the test itself is.

As far as I am concerned, as a person who supports decriminalization, I view it as being a "just don't smoke and drive" thing. I don't understand why that's such a huge beef for some. Baby steps, ya? It's just now becoming de-stigmatized, no reason to push for allowances that are truly the worst nightmares of the fear mongering assholes who kept it illegal via scare tactics and hyperbolic "think of the children" scenarios for the past 4+ decades.

a reply to: TinySickTears

THC is only one part of the equation, there are many other components in MJ, then you get to the various strains..which all have differing amount of all these components, and how they interact with each other.
I'm in Canada, so this is a hot topic with legalisation around a month away.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Don't smoke and drive is something I can agree with. The problem though, is any of the roadside screening devices they are talking about using here can give you a false positive, I think the false positive rate is 30%..I don't know how they can go forward with it.
Law firms are already to challenge it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yep ya see

THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN WAY, IS BETTER THAN THE WAY WE HAD!!!