Driving while stoned. What would you do?

[codetrap]

So, this morning on my way into work, I could smell the weed pretty strong. Get down to the corner by the playground, and there's a guy in a black FX4 just sitting there, and the smell is really strong. As I'm approaching, he drops it into gear and starts to drive off. At the stop sign, he rolls down his window and tosses the leftover roach onto the road, blows a big cloud out the window and then does a left turn onto the main drag. I followed him to the main feeder trunk, and he drove normally, if a bit slow.

My own personal view is if you want to get stoned, more the power to you. However I'm really against driving under the influence, be it alcohol, drugs, whatever.

So, what would you do?

[BavarianBeast]

I wouldn't care :dunno:

I don't smoke the stuff but I know lots who do and there are some who say they can drive perfectly fine on it, and others who say they wouldn't get close to a car on it. If his driving implied that he was impaired, I would report it but other than that I'd just let him be on his way..

[HHURICANE1]

Would you call the cops about a drunk driver? Same thing in my books.

[mazdavirgin]

I think I would be more upset by the throwing of the butts on the ground. Fucking disgusting habit of smokers. Why do they seem to think the roadways and streets are their personal garbage dump? I don't throw garbage out of my window but flicking butts out the window is perfectly acceptable?

:guns:

[JordanEG6]

I don't understand how stoners want to see legalization at some point in our lifetime, and then use marijuana irresponsibly. That being said, I am a toker myself, and although I don't condone it and no one should ever drive stoned, it's not nearly as bad as driving drunk or even sleepy for that matter. If I actually notice impairment in his ability to drive, I would probably call it in. But under normal circumstances, I would let it go.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by JordanEG6
although I don't condone it and no one should ever drive stoned, it's not nearly as bad as driving drunk or even sleepy for that matter.

Generally speaking, I would agree with this. However, it affects everyone differently and how much impairment is deemed "acceptable"? It's really no different than someone downing 3 drinks quickly and then driving. No, they're probably not outright drunk but that doesn't mean they aren't at least somewhat more of a danger than they would have been without the booze.

Personally, I would let this go because I would imagine it is *likely* their level of impairment is low. With this said, I would not at all blame someone for calling it in.

[speedog]

Don't do drugs and lucky if I have a single drink in a month, but do know and have known many who regularly imbibe in either and IMHO, impairment is the real issue here.

I've worked with alcoholics and stoners in the past and while some might say that they can drive perfectly fine while on it, I'll call bullshit on that every time. I watched my one uncle (an alcoholic now dead from liver cancer) get into so many incredible situations while driving - luckily no one else was ever injured and the amazing thing was how it appeared he was more than capable of operating a motor vehicle, the simple fact was that he was not. He was just amazingly lucky. Same goes for alcoholics or stoners that I've worked with in the past - luck seemed to follow them around in buckets, probably the biggest issue was the reduced productivity an employer got out of these people.

Honestly, I am still amazed that people think they can operate vehicles or machinery/whatever just as effectively whether they're impaired or not - go to a party, stay sober and just watch someone who's had a few drinks or toked up and just see how affected they really are. Yeah, people can build up a tolerance but the simple fact remains that they are still impaired whether they've had 3-4 drinks or a few tokes.

Issues like codetrap described above - tough call. Personally, I'd probably grumble to myself and whomever else is in my vehicle and would probably let it slide but if I detected anything that appeared to be erratic in that person operating their vehicle, then I'd call CPS - even if that person did get home safely, a visit from the CPS might, just might, make them aware that maybe what they did wasn't right and I would like to think that a record of a called in suspect-impaired driving report might be lodged against that person's license so the next time a call is made about that person, the CPS might have more reason to react quicker.

But worst of all, if I did not call in to the CPS when there was evidence of impairment and then I watched/heard the news of this person killing or harming themselves or anyone else while impaired, man would I feel like a schmuck for not acting in the best interests of that impaired driver or anyone else that that impaired driver might encounter - that I would have difficulty living with.

[Ca_Silvia13]

What would you think the COPS are going to do? There is no road side test for marijuana. They can't prove shit unless they make him take a piss test. Even then it only proves he smoked it in the last 30-45 days.

Let it go

[BavarianBeast]

I'll just leave this here :rofl:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/q71/1463033_732193633481622_572217440_n.jpg

[pheoxs]

Doesn't matter if its beer or weed, phone the cops on them, period.

Even if they can drive in a straight line fine it doesn't mean that their reaction time is sufficient for operating a vehicle. What if they plow into someone at a cross walk? What if they hit a random parked car? What if they cause an accident? What if they crash and kill someone?

I don't give a shit if you're drunk or high, don't get behind the wheel, simple as that. Call a friend, take a taxi, etc. If you can't afford a cab ride then maybe you shouldn't be wasting your money on booze/weed.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Generally speaking, I would agree with this. However, it affects everyone differently and how much impairment is deemed "acceptable"? It's really no different than someone downing 3 drinks quickly and then driving. No, they're probably not outright drunk but that doesn't mean they aren't at least somewhat more of a danger than they would have been without the booze.

Personally, I would let this go because I would imagine it is *likely* their level of impairment is low. With this said, I would not at all blame someone for calling it in.

Pretty much this, with keeping marijuana illegal, I don't think anyone in North America has really done any proper testing to find out how badly it can/can't impair. I think it is something that needs to be done, though my guess would be the minute marijuana is legalized, politicians and police associations will push to keep the zero tolerance limit.

[Stealth22]

Originally posted by pheoxs
Doesn't matter if its beer or weed, phone the cops on them, period.

Even if they can drive in a straight line fine it doesn't mean that their reaction time is sufficient for operating a vehicle. What if they plow into someone at a cross walk? What if they hit a random parked car? What if they cause an accident? What if they crash and kill someone?

I don't give a shit if you're drunk or high, don't get behind the wheel, simple as that. Call a friend, take a taxi, etc. If you can't afford a cab ride then maybe you shouldn't be wasting your money on booze/weed.
:werd:

Impaired driving is impaired driving. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Even if he's perfectly capable of driving in that situation...maybe he's got more weed in the glovebox, and decides to light up another while driving. Then he's becoming even more impaired.

A call to CPS would, at the very least, make them pay him a visit. Even if they can't charge him with anything, he might think twice next time. Or maybe they smell/find more, and then he's under arrest for possession.

[Inzane]

Where's the data?

Has any organization compiled and released reliable data on any correlations between marijuana use and traffic accidents?

[BlueHaloGirl]

Be a snitch and report him...why it was said he followed him and he was driving fine, just slow. I'd leave it alone.
Unless you see someone clearly driving recklessly I wouldn't report it, what is CPS going to do.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Stealth22

Impaired driving is impaired driving. No ifs, ands, or buts.


Exactly. There are some over the counter medicines that state "do not drive or operate machinery while using". And then people are trying to argue about a drug that is specifically meant to impair you, and whether it is safe to use while driving or not? :banghead:

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by HHURICANE1
Would you call the cops about a drunk driver? Same thing in my books.

x2..If you're that addicted to weed that you need to toke while driving :confused:

[speedog]

Originally posted by finboy
Pretty much this, with keeping marijuana illegal, I don't think anyone in North America has really done any proper testing to find out how badly it can/can't impair. I think it is something that needs to be done, though my guess would be the minute marijuana is legalized, politicians and police associations will push to keep the zero tolerance limit.
There's probably been plenty of studies done - here's 3 interesting reads, 1 (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm), 2 (http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2014/02/01/Legalized-Impairment-and-What-Employers-Can-Do-About-It.aspx) & 3 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/too-stoned-to-drive-marij_n_3001016.html).

Now please note that I am not anti-marijuana or anti-alcohol but I do firmly believe that use of either/both will impair anyone - I remember some 30 years ago when I was working at TELUS (AGT back then) of workmates who were just plain incapable of performing their assigned duties because they were impaired by the marijuana they had just consumed (and in the workplace I'll add). Their assigned work either got done in a longer time frame when they were finally sober enough to do the work properly or someone else picked up the work a day or two later - either way, the company and their workmates were all impacted in a negative fashion because of them being impaired.

Back to the OP's situation in their initial post in this thread, what of that driver? I don't do drugs and as such, don't have any first hand personal experience with respect to how toking up in one's vehicle on the side of the road might affect my driving abilities in the ensuing 20-30 minutes or more but my suspicions are that there would be some level of impairment present.

[speedog]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Exactly. There are some over the counter medicines that state "do not drive or operate machinery while using". And then people are trying to argue about a drug that is specifically meant to impair you, and whether it is safe to use while driving or not? :banghead:

This - when I broke my back in 2005, I went home on a prescribed painkiller cocktail that was 2 - 600mg Ibuprofens, 2 - T3's with codeine and 1 Percocet and that was repeated every 4 hours for a week. I did not drive while on that mix because I certainly was not in this world for a fair chunk of those 4 hours but I fully imagine there are people out there that would've drove a vehicle.

Again, luck usually follows those people in buckets.

[Ca_Silvia13]

Being drowsy is also considered being impaired. Do you reccomend CPS setup check stops at 5am to see if everyone on the road got enough sleep?

[JordanEG6]

Originally posted by Inzane
Where's the data?

Has any organization compiled and released reliable data on any correlations between marijuana use and traffic accidents?

To my knowledge, there are no studies or recorded car accidents attributed to driving high (otherwise it'd be plastered everywhere considering the general populous' conservative movements against marijuana). And there can't be without doing on-site tests. Which is impossible.

Although I agree to an extent that impaired driving is the same, no matter what the substance, the fact is no one can really test the impairment of driver on almost any substance other than alcohol. Given tolerance level, people would be so quick to label someone as impaired with the use of a substance but it's okay for someone to be driving a vehicle as long as his BAC is below 0.08? Kinda hypocritical to me.

[J.M.]

I don't toke often but holy fuck I can't function properly when I'm stoned haha let alone get behind the wheel of a vehicle. Everyone is different though - I have friends that can function and drive like they're not even high from what I've seen.

[BavarianBeast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKjFiGFrcU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw1HavgoK9E

I've had friends claim that they drive better after a toke because their road rage is minimized and their paranoia of other drivers and surroundings increases. Not sure if I buy this or not, but this is what some claim.

[sabad66]

This guy is probably a daily smoker and has his tolerance at the point where a joint only gives him a minor buzz. He is not a threat IMO... i'd much rather have this guy on the road than someone that is tired or a 22 yr old girl that is texting and driving.

Ignore it and don't be a snitch is my personal opinion.

On the other hand if he was driving like a complete tool (never seen a stoned driver do this personally - if anything they drive slower), then call it in.

[Hallowed_point]

Just like how every alcoholic is a great driver after only a couple beers right?

[A790]

I'm a daily smoker. I do not condone driving while stoned.

People that think weed doesn't impact their ability to drive simply don't understand how weed impacts someone.

I can smoke and work all day long, but I'm not getting behind the wheel until I'm sober. The same rules apply for booze, I don't see why weed be any different.

[ercchry]

dw1HavgoK9E

coles notes: habitual smokers driver better, noobs suck

[D. Dub]

If you actually look at the research (which I have bc of my job) -- it's a pretty mixed bag, some finding very little impairment and some finding moderate.

Most importantly, absolutely nothing proves out any solid conclusions as to how much pot = driving impairment. Which is the key issue here. There is no pot "breathalyzer" to quantify impairment. So how can they ticket that :dunno:

[YCB]

who smokes joints nowadays anyway.. take a dab, and go.. no one can snitch what they don't smell.

when your drunk, you drive fast.. (I'm invincible)
when your high, you drive slow.. (I'm paranoid)

In Calgary, I rather have slow drivers I can navigate around.. sounds like everyday in the NE..

http://www.welovetheherb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Im-Not-Smoking-Any-More-But-I-Aint-Smoking-Any-Less.jpg

[a social dsease]

If I observe an individual driving in an unsafe, out-of-control, or dangerous manner I will phone it in, regardless of whether or not I had witnessed them smoke marijuana, drink liquor, text/phone etc.

If I observe an individual smoke marijuana, drink liquor, text/phone etc, but continue to operate their vehicle safely, I would not phone it in.

So to answer the OP's question, no, I would not phone it in as it sounds as though he was driving in a safe manner.

[codetrap]

Quite the mixed bag of answers. I think the only way the police could do anything is if I called it in and gave them video footage, as well as the nub for proof, all on camera.

Either way, the guy lives in my neighborhood, and I will be seeing him again. Who knows, I might just tell him I have him on video doing it, and if I see him doing it again I'll turn it over to the cops.

:devil:

[D'z Nutz]

sBjNpZ5t9S4

[LSChevelle]

I'm a bit mixed on this one. To be honest I wouldn't call it in. If he was driving badly, then I would.

Basically just have to compare it to alcohol. If I saw some guy finish a beer as I was arriving at the bar, then that guy gets in his truck and drives away without issue. I wouldn't call it in, because he doesn't appear impaired.

Now, the guy weaving in and out of two lanes on deerfoot going 140 at 3am, called in for sure.

[BavarianBeast]

Originally posted by codetrap
Quite the mixed bag of answers. I think the only way the police could do anything is if I called it in and gave them video footage, as well as the nub for proof, all on camera.

Either way, the guy lives in my neighborhood, and I will be seeing him again. Who knows, I might just tell him I have him on video doing it, and if I see him doing it again I'll turn it over to the cops.

:devil:

That will bode will for you, I'll tell you that much.

[sabad66]

http://i.imgur.com/nhmdI4F.jpg

[sabad66]

^ how i picture 50% of the people in this thread

and for the record i don't condone it or think it makes you a better driver. obviously a sober, attentive driver is the best kind of driver to have on the road. I just don't think it's worth calling in and potentially ruining a guy's life over.

[speedog]

Originally posted by LSChevelle
I'm a bit mixed on this one. To be honest I wouldn't call it in. If he was driving badly, then I would.

Basically just have to compare it to alcohol. If I saw some guy finish a beer as I was arriving at the bar, then that guy gets in his truck and drives away without issue. I wouldn't call it in, because he doesn't appear impaired.

Now, the guy weaving in and out of two lanes on deerfoot going 140 at 3am, called in for sure.
And therein lies the problem, my uncle (an alcoholic now passed away) could leave the bar with after consuming a lot of alcohol and not look impaired - 5 minutes down the road he'd black out and have an accident. Did this numerous times back in the 70-80's and wrecked so many vehicles - only one ever injured was himself, never hit any other vehicles/people.

I've seen my own brother, who regularly drinks, consume amazing amounts of scotch and not appear impaired and yet, there is no way he was not impaired. 30 ounces of scotch in one evening will leave a normal man impaired or at least it should and yet I've seen people do that and not appeared impaired.

[01RedDX]

.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
:facepalm: Oh come one.. like you've never EVERY had a evil thought in your head at any time in your life... yeesh..

Honestly, I considered calling it in and seeing it through. But then after seeing how he was driving just fine for the 5 minutes I was behind him, I thought to myself, do I really want to ruin this guys life over this?

On the other hand, he drives by the playground where my daughter plays...

There's a lot of factors at play in this. Personally, I think talking to him directly is the BEST outcome for him of all the negative paths. It give him a chance to tune the fuck up, and doesn't destroy his life in the process.

[EM2FTL]

The amount of people in here who think alcohol impairment is equivalent to marihuana is kind of stunning. What are you people, 12?

[BavarianBeast]

Originally posted by sabad66
http://i.imgur.com/nhmdI4F.jpg

This. There is a bunch of softies on this forum who should just stay at home in their living room and knit sweaters.

I would laugh my ass off at you if you claimed you were going to tattle-tail on me over something you felt I was doing wrong.

Fuck, a lot of you guys really need to find better things to with your time.

[revelations]

Honestly if I got my panties in a knot everytime I SAW someone texting while driving, smoking dope, eating, doing their make up etc .... its just too far gone now. :dunno:

However, if they are weaving around /driving without attention / near misses - and I observe the driver doing perhaps one of the above - sure I might go down to the local cop shop and fill out a witness statement and perhaps even appear in court - if it was that bad.

[blitz]

Originally posted by BavarianBeast
I've had friends claim that they drive better after a toke because their road rage is minimized

Your friends sound like assholes.



Originally posted by BavarianBeast


This. There is a bunch of softies on this forum who should just stay at home in their living room and knit sweaters.

I would laugh my ass off at you if you claimed you were going to tattle-tail on me over something you felt I was doing wrong.

Fuck, a lot of you guys really need to find better things to with your time.

Calling in an impaired driver is being a softie? Jesus, I can believe this is even a discussion.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by EM2FTL
The amount of people in here who think alcohol impairment is equivalent to marihuana is kind of stunning. What are you people, 12?


Mis-educated by American war on drugs propaganda.

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by BavarianBeast


This. There is a bunch of softies on this forum who should just stay at home in their living room and knit sweaters.

I would laugh my ass off at you if you claimed you were going to tattle-tail on me over something you felt I was doing wrong.

Fuck, a lot of you guys really need to find better things to with your time.

Not everyone is able to be as hard as you

[Tik-Tok]

Speaking of the topic, I've seen a noticeable increase in people smoking weed while driving. I used to see it once in awhile, but it's at least once a work week this year. (I do work in the NE though :rofl: )

That being said, I've never called one in because they haven't been driving like retards. I wouldn't call in someone drinking a beer either, unless they were driving like a drunk.

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Exactly. There are some over the counter medicines that state "do not drive or operate machinery while using". And then people are trying to argue about a drug that is specifically meant to impair you, and whether it is safe to use while driving or not? :banghead:

HiTempguy1, says your from Red Deer... still there? I bet you have come across your fair share of drivers smokin it up on the streets of RD hey?!?!

[googe]

maybe you guys should be calling the waaaaaambulance instead

[codetrap]

Originally posted by googe
maybe you guys should be calling the waaaaaambulance instead I see you're back with your usual level of intelligence. When people like you say things like this, it immediately puts you on the same level as those Westboro people picketing funerals. They say the same types of things to the families of the deceased.

Perhaps one day, one of these people DUI will kill someone you love, and we can all show up, shake your hand, and say, "Maybe you should call the waaabulance for your loss."

Or, maybe you could offer an intelligent opinion and back it up with a coherent thought. After all, stranger things have happened. :dunno:

[RY213]

I hate what society has become. Codetrap probably volunteered to be the hallway monitor in school. Did you snitch on your classmates for chewing gum in class too?

[blairtruck]

i drank my first coffee the other day. i was way to wired to drive using the most used drug in the world.
oh but the people who drink coffee everyday are less immune to the effects? sounds similar.

[egmilano]

From MY experience being a passenger also a smoker. Stoners drive the limit and don't roll through stop signs that's just what I've seen over the years lol my friends seem to drive a lot slower and are more alert. Some say hell no I would never drive but I notice those are the friends who get paranoid and uncomfortably high ... I normally sound like snowcat on the road, imagine snow cat stoned on his bike ...he would have no fucking videos. Wouldn't be stressing and bitching about every driver lol. I've had one run in with a hot boxed car in the check stop, thankfully the Brit only smiled and was very courteous and let me on my way, I dunno if it was the swisher he smelt over weed or I just know how to talk to cops and be respectful (no nigga moments). As for getting drowsy when stoned or wanting to pass out obviously pull the fuck over , I've been drowsy more nights driving home sober than I can even think of, the wife and I were just chatting yesterday about how for some reason if I blaze late at night I'm awake all friggin night but hey effects differ like anything else. I don't think it's a problem however if someone is not in their lane or driving dangerously of course call the cops but you smell something and they're driving perfectly get bent.

[D. Dub]

.

[C_Dave45]

So, the general consensus here seems to be;
Driving while drunk=bad
Driving while stoned=bad
So we should report them.

What about drivers who are on Rx meds? Anti-depressants, which some have derivatives of sleeping meds. What about those on pain killers? ie: Oxy.

My FIL is a teetotaler. Looks down his nose at me for even having a beer with dinner and then driving home. Yet because of his medical conditions, he regularly takes enough Oxy to knock out a horse and he drives every day. I know he's high as a kite 100% of the time. I take one small Oxy and I can barely function.
Do you phone a cop if you saw someone take a pill and then get in their car?

Our whole society seems to be turning into nothing but a bunch of picture taking, video taking snitches. Bad drivers, bad parking, lawns not cut, sidewalks not shovelled, 311-this, 311-that, someone running a red light, someone running a stop sign.

Sure, I'm all for phoning in an obvious drunk who flies past you on the shoulder of Deerfoot doing 140 and weeving in and out of traffic....but it seems to be getting a little ridiculous.

[D. Dub]

It should be.

Driving while legally impaired drunk = bad. With .05 as the LIMIT (another argument for another day)

Driving while legally impaired stoned = not confirmed yet as there is no good solid studies/testing in this area as to what the LIMIT is.

Science has to find an impairment limit with pot -- which they need to do BEFORE the courts are clogged with un-winnable impaired pot driving cases wasting our tax
money.

[RY213]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Our whole society seems to be turning into nothing but a bunch of picture taking, video taking snitches. Bad drivers, bad parking, lawns not cut, sidewalks not shovelled, 311-this, 311-that, someone running a red light, someone running a stop sign.

Sure, I'm all for phoning in an obvious drunk who flies past you on the shoulder of Deerfoot doing 140 and weeving in and out of traffic....but it seems to be getting a little ridiculous.

Truth!

[D. Dub]

Here's an interesting article. Ignore the headline, the article has some good perspectives.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/

[r3ccOs]

Originally posted by C_Dave45
So, the general consensus here seems to be;
Driving while drunk=bad
Driving while stoned=bad
So we should report them.

What about drivers who are on Rx meds? Anti-depressants, which some have derivatives of sleeping meds. What about those on pain killers? ie: Oxy.

My FIL is a teetotaler. Looks down his nose at me for even having a beer with dinner and then driving home. Yet because of his medical conditions, he regularly takes enough Oxy to knock out a horse and he drives every day. I know he's high as a kite 100% of the time. I take one small Oxy and I can barely function.
Do you phone a cop if you saw someone take a pill and then get in their car?

Our whole society seems to be turning into nothing but a bunch of picture taking, video taking snitches. Bad drivers, bad parking, lawns not cut, sidewalks not shovelled, 311-this, 311-that, someone running a red light, someone running a stop sign.

Sure, I'm all for phoning in an obvious drunk who flies past you on the shoulder of Deerfoot doing 140 and weeving in and out of traffic....but it seems to be getting a little ridiculous.

With driving, the laws are fairly unequivocal, black and white.

People can claim how they can operate to a perceived level of soberness when consuming a narcotic, but regardless of how it does or doesn't affect them, the law isn't "only applicable" to every individual's "use case".

If you're taking an Opiate, it explicitly says on the label to not operate heavy machinery, which doesn't mean, you can drive your Civic but not a F250.

If you're "stoned" which was a common term for being drunk, back in the day, you're intoxicated and should not be operating a motor vehicle.

I think because of drinking laws, I wouldn't say there are less people drinking "then" driving, but certainly less drinking & driving...

How many stories have you heard on the good "old days" where people would literally be drinking a Canadian stubby road rocket while going to the bar?

But at least the rules have forced people to conceal or limit their drinking to their own homes, bars and public venues where permitted.

While smoking weed, which consumption and possession are illegal still, is smoked in the vehicle while driving, while walking around, outside of shopping malls etc... which if anything is just as inappropriate as public drinking.

Now, I certainly am not against legalizing the Mary Jane. I think the positives surely outweight the negatives, especially when it comes to reducing a significant revenue stream for elicit illegal activities, which will immediately impact gang activities, funding for gun trades, human trafficking, prostitution and possibly terrorism.

However am I saying that legalize it and smoke it as freely as a Cigarette? No.
Even with Cigars and Cigarettes, you're supposed to be conscious of where you smoke, and at least nowadays you cannot smoke freely in enclosed public or even public places.

[googe]

Originally posted by codetrap
I see you're back with your usual level of intelligence. When people like you say things like this, it immediately puts you on the same level as those Westboro people picketing funerals. They say the same types of things to the families of the deceased.

Perhaps one day, one of these people DUI will kill someone you love, and we can all show up, shake your hand, and say, "Maybe you should call the waaabulance for your loss."

Or, maybe you could offer an intelligent opinion and back it up with a coherent thought. After all, stranger things have happened. :dunno:

Yes, silly insults are an excellent rhetorical device. What were you saying about my level? :rofl:

Nobody died, asshat.

But yeah, this has everything to do with the westboro people picketing funerals. Really dude? Are you sure it isn't you who was smoking?

[01RedDX]

.

[Graham_A_M]

What few times I ever did drive while baked, I was probably the worlds most safe driver hahaha. I knew I was baked, so I never sped, stopped two seconds for stop signs, never ran yellow lights, two hands on the wheel, full two second following distance... people were probably like... WTF? Who drives that safe? :nut: :rofl:


No Id never call it in unless they were visibly driving poorly... or unsafely.
:dunno:

[r3ccOs]

Originally posted by Graham_A_M
What few times I ever did drive while baked, I was probably the worlds most safe driver hahaha. I knew I was baked, so I never sped, stopped two seconds for stop signs, never ran yellow lights, two hands on the wheel, full two second following distance... people were probably like... WTF? Who drives that safe? :nut: :rofl:


No Id never call it in unless they were visibly driving poorly... or unsafely.
:dunno:

just like drinking like 4-5 beers after a game of hockey and being sober enough to be conscious that you will blow over the limit. no difference.

[FraserB]

Some busybody probably snitched on this guy. No one died so they should have let him keep going.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/man-charged-with-impaired-driving-6-kids-in-vehicle-1.1984312

[OneGreasyHobo]

Originally posted by FraserB
Some busybody probably snitched on this guy. No one died so they should have let him keep going.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/man-charged-with-impaired-driving-6-kids-in-vehicle-1.1984312


:confused: :facepalm:

[roll_over]

You could just post it on 311:banghead:

[A790]

Originally posted by googe
Nobody died, asshat.
Nice argument. :rolleyes:

[frizzlefry]

I think smoking up then driving could be worse than drinking a couple beers. I don't smoke weed but I did a couple dozen times in high school (eventually developed an allergy, can't even wear hemp now). Sometimes I felt nothing, sometimes I got relaxed (could have driven fine), sometimes my attention span was decimated. I never really enjoyed it personally, but I learned that certain measurement of weed = certain level of high did NOT apply.

You can't make a statement on how weed impairs (or doesn't) a driver's abilities. As it is not regulated who knows what it's laced with or how potent it is. While it's admittedly been a while since I smoked it (1996) I remember about half the time there were additives of some nature. One numerous occasions I'm almost sure I bought weed laced with PCP. Then there are the strains on top of that. Some more potent than others.

Until it's regulated and sold legally it should be outright illegal to drive after smoking up as there is no way to be sure of the potency or content of a measured bit of street sold weed.

The guy OP saw may have smoked weed and PCP for all you know. Being that it's illegal and not regulated I don't trust anyone who smoked it to drive.

[01RedDX]

.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
I think smoking up then driving could be worse than drinking a couple beers. I don't smoke weed but I did a couple dozen times in high school (eventually developed an allergy, can't even wear hemp now). Sometimes I felt nothing, sometimes I got relaxed (could have driven fine), sometimes my attention span was decimated. I never really enjoyed it personally, but I learned that certain measurement of weed = certain level of high did NOT apply.

You can't make a statement on how weed impairs (or doesn't) a driver's abilities. As it is not regulated who knows what it's laced with or how potent it is. While it's admittedly been a while since I smoked it (1996) I remember about half the time there were additives of some nature. One numerous occasions I'm almost sure I bought weed laced with PCP. Then there are the strains on top of that. Some more potent than others.

Until it's regulated and sold legally it should be outright illegal to drive after smoking up as there is no way to be sure of the potency or content of a measured bit of street sold weed.

The guy OP saw may have smoked weed and PCP for all you know. Being that it's illegal and not regulated I don't trust anyone who smoked it to drive.

Omg...you didn't just use the decades old, reefer madness myth "you never know what it's laced with", did you???? :facepalm:

Of course, all drug dealers will want to lace something that sells for $10 a gram with a product that sells for $100 a gram.

I've been smoking and buying weed since the early 70's on a regular basis. Never...EVER was weed laced with anything other than sage or tobacco. It never happens. :rofl:

Bottom line is if you're a regular smoker and you have a puff or three there's no problem driving. If Ross Rebagliati can win a gold medal after a joint..... you get the picture.
If you're an occasional smoker and take a bunch of huge draws of real potent stuff, you might want to just sit that one out.

[A790]

Originally posted by C_Dave45
Bottom line is if you're a regular smoker and you have a puff or three there's no problem driving. If Ross Rebagliati can win a gold medal after a joint..... you get the picture.
If you're an occasional smoker and take a bunch of huge draws of real potent stuff, you might want to just sit that one out.
This exactly.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Omg...you didn't just use the decades old, reefer madness myth "you never know what it's laced with", did you???? :facepalm:

Of course, all drug dealers will want to lace something that sells for $10 a gram with a product that sells for $100 a gram.

I've been smoking and buying weed since the early 70's on a regular basis. Never...EVER was weed laced with anything other than sage or tobacco. It never happens. :rofl:

Bottom line is if you're a regular smoker and you have a puff or three there's no problem driving. If Ross Rebagliati can win a gold medal after a joint..... you get the picture.
If you're an occasional smoker and take a bunch of huge draws of real potent stuff, you might want to just sit that one out.

Yes. This this an accurate measurement that society can follow to determine the inebriation of a driver. The C_Dave45 measurement specifies that you can smoke a joint a drive. Proven positive since the 70's. Especially if you use his dealer. Dude is TOTALLY solid.

:nut:

So you are saying that pot is NEVER laced with anything and that a guy seeing someone toss a dead roach then drive must have got it from the same dude that sells your aunt weed for her glaucoma.

Your argument is as retarded as the argument a functional alcoholic who is a CEO can drive because he is not an occasional drinker. Dude can totally handle it.

I don't recall Ross Rebagliati having other snowboarders come at him unexpectedly while winning that gold medal. I'm also sure he practiced a bunch. No surprises he would need to react to. Like, you know, driving on a public road.

:dunno: :dunno:

Edit: Also knew a bunch of dealers. I did enjoy acid. One time a guy got a small amount of weed laced with something. The guy I knew could not just return it with a receipt. He had to move it. So he sold it at a small markup. Said it was a good strain. It was LSD (phone edit) as I recall.

Other drivers cannot rely on the word of a smoker or a dealer. As I said, legalize it, regulate it. Then we can develop a threshold for legal burden.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by frizzlefry

who knows what it's laced with or how potent it is. While it's admittedly been a while since I smoked it (1996) I remember about half the time there were additives of some nature. One numerous occasions I'm almost sure I bought weed laced with PCP.

:rofl:

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by FixedGear


:rofl:


Though marijuana is less likely to be adulterated than hard drugs are, it still occurs, and has been reported in several countries.

In the Netherlands two chemical analogs of Sildenafil (Viagra) were found in adulterated marijuana.[3]

In 2008, 30 German teenagers were hospitalized after the marijuana which they smoked was found to have been contaminated with lead (presumably metallic lead particles), which was added in order to increase its weight.[4]

Rarely, cannabis (especially that of low quality) is laced with PCP, particularly in the United States.[5][6] However, it is not always done surreptitiously. Dealers who do so often (but not always) advertise their wares as being "enhanced" with other substances, and charge more money than they would otherwise, even if they do not say exactly what the lacing agents are. Such concoctions are often called "fry", "wet", "illy", "sherm", "water-water", "dust(ed)", "super weed", "grecodine" or other names.[citation needed]

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacing_(drugs)#Marijuana_and_Hashish)

I'm a proponent of legalizing and controlling it. That's a positive opinion for you guys no? Once you get a baseline of legally grown crops you can then develop a law around it. Until then, it's too risky to just let people smoke up and drive just because you happen to know where your weed comes from.

[dubhead]

Originally posted by r3ccOs


which if anything is just as inappropriate as public drinking.



Why is public drinking inappropriate? Sure acting like a drunk idiot in public is inappropriate but does having a glass of wine while enjoying a picnic in a public park have any affect on any body?

One of my favourite parts of Europe was being able to enjoy a drink in public though it wasn't neccesarilly legal nobody would bother you as long as you weren't acting like a tool.

As for the actuall topic if he wasn't driving dangerously I would likely leave it. Also whoever mentioned they might possibly get arrested for possession if called in is dreaming, at worst they would just have their stash taken away. I've never know anyone to be arrested for possession, and I know a lot of pot heads.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
I think smoking up then driving could be worse than drinking a couple beers. I don't smoke weed but I did a couple dozen times in high school (eventually developed an allergy, can't even wear hemp now). Sometimes I felt nothing, sometimes I got relaxed (could have driven fine), sometimes my attention span was decimated. I never really enjoyed it personally, but I learned that certain measurement of weed = certain level of high did NOT apply.

You can't make a statement on how weed impairs (or doesn't) a driver's abilities. As it is not regulated who knows what it's laced with or how potent it is. While it's admittedly been a while since I smoked it (1996) I remember about half the time there were additives of some nature. One numerous occasions I'm almost sure I bought weed laced with PCP. Then there are the strains on top of that. Some more potent than others.

Until it's regulated and sold legally it should be outright illegal to drive after smoking up as there is no way to be sure of the potency or content of a measured bit of street sold weed.

The guy OP saw may have smoked weed and PCP for all you know. Being that it's illegal and not regulated I don't trust anyone who smoked it to drive.


So you have a strong allergic reaction to weed, so everyone should live their lives based on your weird experience?

Fuck that.

Two, you NEVER EVER EVER bought pot laced with anything let alone PCP -- why in heavens name would a pot dealer give you PCP for free? Think about that. If a pot dealer laced his pot with PCP and people freaked the fuck out -- he would not be in business.

Do some real research on the topic, outside of your narrow, limited experience and then post :dunno:

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by C_Dave45



Bottom line is if you're a regular smoker and you have a puff or three there's no problem driving. If Ross Rebagliati can win a gold medal after a joint..... you get the picture.
If you're an occasional smoker and take a bunch of huge draws of real potent stuff, you might want to just sit that one out.

This seems logical.

[faiz999]

Lol so you saw someone blaze and then drive normally/slow? Is that an issue?

[Mar]

Doesn't matter, I think driving while tired is way more dangerous.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by D. Dub



So you have a strong allergic reaction to weed, so everyone should live their lives based on your weird experience?

Fuck that.

Two, you NEVER EVER EVER bought pot laced with anything let alone PCP -- why in heavens name would a pot dealer give you PCP for free? Think about that. If a pot dealer laced his pot with PCP and people freaked the fuck out -- he would not be in business.

Do some real research on the topic, outside of your narrow, limited experience and then post :dunno:

I guess you are right. We should have alcoholics as consultants for DUI thresholds that we put into law.

Listen, I don't give two shits about what you smoke or if a person smokes pot. Legalize it. I don't care. At least we can get a baseline of intoxication to a ground rule law to enforce (or exclude) a DUI.

I think everyone, potheads and non-users, can agree that you change while using it. Otherwise no one would use it. So, if you are changed, why drive? This one little thing. This one niggly little thing. I would like to think that people who alter their reactions using pot, booze or whatever would have the common courtesy to not drive. I'm pretty sure Ross Rebagliati never encountered a jaywalker on the course he practiced on 100 times.

If you skirt the issue by turning it into a "who knows drugs best" argument then I guess its pointless arguing. I'm not arguing the drug. I'm arguing the undeniable fact that your brain is different on pot than it was when you got your license. "Pot you" is not licensed to drive.

I just like my fellow drivers to be in a 100% clear state of mind. That's all. And if pot didn't do something to you then you would not smoke it. Being that I'm not a pothead does not diminish my opinion that the people I share the road with should be at 100% capacity. That's all.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by frizzlefry




I just like my fellow drivers to be in a 100% clear state of mind. That's all. And if pot didn't do something to you then you would not smoke it. Being that I'm not a pothead does not diminish my opinion that the people I share the road with should be at 100% capacity. That's all.


100% capacity? Zero tolerance? So alcohol DUI should be set at 0.00 then?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by D. Dub



100% capacity? Zero tolerance? So alcohol DUI should be set at 0.00 then?


IMO yes. And I love to drink. But thats a perfect world. And thats a documented threshold based off a consistent regulated substance. Personally I never drive after a drink. I have whats called self control. But being that booze is regulated everyone knows, in their head, how much they can drink before exceeding the threshold. And i'm fine with 0.8 being that number.

But with weed who knows? Lacing issues aside there are stronger strains than others. There is no measure we can use without regulation. So in the absence of a regulated standard we should simply ban driving after smoking weed. Just to be safe.

If you can't be curtious and not smoke up before driving then you have a serious problem. Not necessarily a drug problem but it makes you a bit of an asshole IMO.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by frizzlefry



IMO yes. And I love to drink. But thats a perfect world. And thats a documented threshold based off a consistent regulated substance. Personally I never drive after a drink. I have whats called self control. But being that booze is regulated everyone knows, in their head, how much they can drink before exceeding the threshold. And i'm fine with 0.8 being that number.

But with weed who knows? Lacing issues aside there are stronger strains than others. There is no measure we can use without regulation. So in the absence of a regulated standard we should simply ban driving after smoking weed. Just to be safe.


Wow, not big on personal freedoms are ya? Dude, you musta voted for the Harper PC's? Kidding kidding.

I don't even smoke pot, but to me individual rights trump more arbitrary rules and laws being put on the books, unless said laws are based on good science.

How do you expect to assess MJ impairment and enforce this zero tolerance? The science is really quite weak and the current MJ breathalyzer will result in a list of court challenges all the way to the Supreme I would bet -- costing taxpayers like us a a wack of money -- Fuck that.

Let's prove its dangerous and THEN make it illegal and save some money.

Why can't we figure out how to regulate pot and use science to find impairment levels, just like we did with alcohol?

[D. Dub]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Gazoo77/10409094_10203555074371979_1357171147627229151_n.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Gazoo77/media/10409094_10203555074371979_1357171147627229151_n.jpg.html)
Drugs are bad... mmmm... kay?

[r3ccOs]

I'm not with Frizzlefry, but there is no tests as quick to exactly gauge how much THC is in one's bloodstream nor how much one can "tolerate" before legally being able to operate a motor vehicle.

Smoking weed for some people is more of a lifestyle than a recreational user. Not necessarily an addition but a life choice, like Smoking or someone who frequents alcohol.

However there are 2 reasons why we don't have a 0.00% tolerance to alchohol, and its likely because of 2 factors:
#1 - hard to eliminate from what is being consumed... from entrees to desert
#2 - cultural acceptance to consume a "beverage or two" while dining, and there has been science to confirm that being under .05% leaves the consumer coherent to operate as if sober. (however that can be also a "case by case" situation should someone be Asian like me and can't even drink half a beer)
#3 Alcohol lobbyist - I'm not presuming that there is any conspiracy, but like with Tobacco, they will do their earnest to protect their lifelines through whatever means possible... whether through empirical evidence of whatever, to putting various spins against our charter of rights.

at the end of the day, until more science can prove that one can remain coherent up to a set "specific unit of" weed, this should not be up for debate.

Again I am not against smoking or legalizing weed, its just if you give an inch, people will take a mile.

Recreational consumers do it for recreation. The lifestyle smokers who are well into their 40's have recognized the benefits as applied to their day to day, to often balance stress, like those who have a nice glass of scotch or a beer every evening to take the "edge off.

Most of these people are prudent to know their limits and won't get behind the wheel, unless they are sober/coherent enough.

However if you say, SURE why not everyone... then you'll get kids, like I once was, who went through a "chronic" phase, smoking at every opportune moment, living in a constant daze, who wouldn't think twice to jump into their cars.
Luckily I was never the one driving, however the couple times I drove "real high" as a teen, just a couple of blocks to get home, and I tell you, I can remember how that felt, and no way would I ever do that again.

[blitz]

I love these "people drive on prescription drugs or when tired, so this is ok" argument. Because two wrongs make a right. :nut:

I also like how people are talking about what safe drivers they are while high, but not mentioning anything about their reaction time.

There's also a huge difference in smoking/drinking in a vehicle instead of in your house beforehand. Would I call in someone who had a beer at a restaurant and then jumped in their car? Of course not. Would I call in someone who's drinking a beer in their drivers seat at a stop light? Of course I would.

[r3ccOs]

Originally posted by blitz
I love these "people drive on prescription drugs or when tired, so this is ok" argument. Because two wrongs make a right. :nut:

I also like how people are talking about what safe drivers they are while high, but not mentioning anything about their reaction time.

There's also a huge difference in smoking/drinking in a vehicle instead of in your house beforehand. Would I call in someone who had a beer at a restaurant and then jumped in their car? Of course not. Would I call in someone who's drinking a beer in their drivers seat at a stop light? Of course I would.

I would call on the guy who's obviously sloshed and got kicked out of an establishment, who's jumping in their Metal Mulisha stickered lifeted Superduty

but this is the other psychological part of the question.
Why do people drive more cautiously when high? Its cause they "Act" more cautiously because they know driving high is illegal.

If it were legal, would the same level of "care" be applied behind the wheel?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by D. Dub

Why can't we figure out how to regulate pot and use science to find impairment levels, just like we did with alcohol?

Exactly. Agreed. But in the absence of that should we just let in run wild? I like personal freedoms. Smoke in your house, smoke in your yard. Don’t care. I just don't consider it a violation of freedom to make it illegal for someone to drive while influenced by anything.

Its not denying a freedom but rather upholding mine. The minute they hit the road their business is my business as a fellow driver. I should be free to share the road with people who are not under the influence.

There is no measurement or regulations in terms of pot. In the lack thereof we should just do nothing? I simply don't think smoking up before driving is a god given right kinda thing to be protected. Its not a basic freedom as there are others on the road. Your own home, fine. Go nuts.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
I simply don't think smoking up before driving is a god given right kinda thing to be protected. Its not a basic freedom as there are others on the road. Your own home, fine. Go nuts.

It sure isn't but arguing it's as dangerous as drinking and driving is intellectually dishonest. We do have statistics for people who drive whilst high on weed and those who drive drunk. Driving drunk is far far more serious.



Driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 — the legal limit — nearly triples the risk of crashing; a blood alcohol concentration of .10 almost quintuples it. Although drunk driving deaths have dropped by more than half since 1982, they still represent about one-third of all auto fatalities and kill about 11,000 people annually.

Interestingly, researchers have also found that states that legalize medical marijuana have fewer fatal car crashes, largely because of a decline in drunk driving. In other words, people may be substituting marijuana for alcohol — and while it’s not advisable to drive under the influence of either — the net result, when it comes to traffic deaths, could be a reduction in harm because smoking pot raises the crash risk less than drinking does.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/10/stoned-driving-nearly-doubles-the-risk-of-a-fatal-crash/

Am I arguing people should be able to drive high? No... All I am arguing for is it's dishonnest to compare driving while being high on weed with being drunk. The stats I am citing are from the US and they are definitly not favorable to weed consumption if anything the source is likely biased against weed and still they find it's safer than driving drunk.

[Mista Bob]

Wow.............. just wow.

Laced marijuana? Really? It would kind of be extremely obvious if what you bought was covered in a powder.....
It's not exactly something where you can just blend it in. You would notice immediately that there was a powdered substance added to it both on the surface of the bud and as it all falls off from movement.

Since frizzlefry clearly has never handled marijuana before aside from joints from friends, here's a picture that should explain fairly well why there isn't laced marijuana.
(edit: linked the picture, it's not technically nsfw but you probably wouldn't want a picture of marijuana buds on your screen at work).
http://www.mistabob.com/photos/stuff.jpg
Please do tell me how you lace substances into that?
Sure, a liquid like LSD could be poured onto it. But LSD is so extremely fragile it would likely be destroyed before you could even smoke it. It would also cost a small fortune to douse marijuana in anything beyond a tiny drop.
Plus there is the problem that being exposed to a flame only destroys LSD, leading to zero effects on the user.



You just can't compare marijuana's effects on driving to alcohol.
They are two completely different drugs, marijuana has a very minimal effect on your motor skills.
Where as alcohol has a major effect on your motor skills, judgement and add in extra confidence to make the problem even worse.

Or you could just look at all the studies that have been done that show how marijuana can be harmless behind the wheel. The problem is everyone looks at it like it's similar to alcohol in how it works, when that isn't even close.
How marijuana affects an individual is much more complex than just "smoked a joint" and you aren't going to understand why without experience.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by RY213
I hate what society has become. Codetrap probably volunteered to be the hallway monitor in school. Did you snitch on your classmates for chewing gum in class too? Maybe you hate society because it's so confusing for you, since it's apparent that your reading comprehension is pretty low.

Maybe all of you calling me names should actually read what I did.

[dino_martini]

Originally posted by Stealth22
Even if he's perfectly capable of driving in that situation...maybe he's got more weed in the glovebox, and decides to light up another while driving. Then he's becoming even more impaired.

I agree, if the guy tried to roll a second joint while driving, then he would be impaired. I can barely open up the flap on the lid on my Tim Horton's, let alone roll a doob, lick it, and stick it while driving. :rofl:

On a more serious note I would let it go. While I agree being under the influence of anything and driving is not good, I think smoking and driving is one of the lesser evils. Frankly people can start doing stupid things if they're driving and get agitated or angry. Heck half the prescription drug commercials on TV say you shouldn't drive after taking this drug until you know how it affects you.

What I did learn from Law Day this year from my tour of the DUI bus the cops have is that, if you were to get into an accident and say someone was seriously injured. And let's says the coos suspect you're high on marijuana. You can refuse to give a breath sample if you have been drinking and driving. But you cannot refuse to have your blood drawn if you are suspected of being high and driving and then you injure someone. Thats how the cop spun it to us, not sure if he was just trying to scare us straight. I do believe a group from BC are working on a marijuana breathalyzer

[A790]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
Edit: Also knew a bunch of dealers. I did enjoy acid. One time a guy got a small amount of weed laced with something. The guy I knew could not just return it with a receipt. He had to move it. So he sold it at a small markup. Said it was a good strain. It was LSD (phone edit) as I recall.

Other drivers cannot rely on the word of a smoker or a dealer. As I said, legalize it, regulate it. Then we can develop a threshold for legal burden.
I agree with your point (legalize, regulate, study, etc.), but I'm calling out your bullshit re: "laced" weed. You never bought laced weed. Nobody ever sold laced weed. You're full of shit.

Many people, like you, who are ALSO full of shit claim to have had experience with laced weed. Yet, every single weed smoker I know (and I know quite a few) has never seemed to be able to find the stuff. Online communities full of thousands of smokers also seem to be unable to find weed laced with anything. It's the unicorn of the uneducated, but don't feel bad because you're among thousands who believe the same bullshit. That still doesn't make it right, by the way.

It's pretty clear by my posts in this thread (and others) that I'm not a fan of a freshly-toked driver. However, like anything else, I believe the subject needs to be approached with facts and reason- not made up stories about pot laced with acid and how scary it is.

[blairtruck]

Originally posted by dino_martini




What I did learn from Law Day this year from my tour of the DUI bus the cops have is that, if you were to get into an accident and say someone was seriously injured. And let's says the coos suspect you're high on marijuana. You can refuse to give a breath sample if you have been drinking and driving. But you cannot refuse to have your blood drawn if you are suspected of being high and driving and then you injure someone. Thats how the cop spun it to us, not sure if he was just trying to scare us straight. I do believe a group from BC are working on a marijuana breathalyzer
what does the blood test prove? i had 10 joints on wing wednesday. got in an accident on friday. blood test would show up as being high. but your definitely not

[r3ccOs]

Originally posted by blairtruck

what does the blood test prove? i had 10 joints on wing wednesday. got in an accident on friday. blood test would show up as being high. but your definitely not

agreed, which is why its hard to determine the level of intoxication.

but the wrong approach would be to say, as there is a "reasonable doubt" that every weed smoking driver was not intoxicated at the time of arrest, and to legalize "high driving" would be giving a license to kill.

Its like I said above. Those who get high and drive, often drive more cautiously not because there high, but because they don't want to get caught.

If its legal, then why be cautious.

[dino_martini]

Originally posted by blairtruck

what does the blood test prove? i had 10 joints on wing wednesday. got in an accident on friday. blood test would show up as being high. but your definitely not

I didn't ask him what a blood test proved, frankly after the cop said "I don't know why we want to legalize marijuana" I stopped listening to him for the most part. What I did gather is, you can say "I'm not giving you a breath sample" if you have been drinking, but they can draw your blood without your consent. What is done with it, what it proves afterwards, that's up for debate. But the way the cop spun it was that you don't have a choice in the matter when it comes to being high and driving.

Frankly I say, legalize it, tax the shit out of it, sell me perfectly rolled joints in packs of 20-25 in regular or Bob Marley Snoop Dog size, and then throw a zero tolerance policy on smoking and driving. Stay home, order a pizza via delivery, and watch Super Troopers if you've been smoking.

Its too baD you'd have to vote for Trudeau to get weed close to legal in Canada. Fucking Harper and McKay.

[FraserB]

Legalizing it and then taxing the crap out of it seems like a good idea. Just need a test developed for it the same as alcohol so you can enforce the rules around driving. Chances are though that it won't result in some massive spike in use and it probably won't hurt workplace safety since people would still get fired for failing A&D tests.

[blairtruck]

ive smoked everyday for 10+ years. have taken multiple drug tests for work and passed them all. why should my employer say what i can do at home on my free time.
EDIT: just realized it been 15 years

[r3ccOs]

Originally posted by blairtruck
ive smoked everyday for 10+ years. have taken multiple drug tests for work and passed them all. why should my employer say what i can do at home on my free time.
EDIT: just realized it been 15 years

though I kinda agree... I don't

I'm not a rigger, but I know how dangerous site can be and have seen some of the HSE events reported.

No way would I want to be working on a well, or excavating shovels with a driver or new hand who is twitching while coming off some elicit substance, or so tired from coming back from a 4 day coked out bender.

those guys end up losing their jobs after causing a significant safety risk and on the streets in Edmonton and Calgary

[speedog]

Originally posted by blairtruck
ive smoked everyday for 10+ years. have taken multiple drug tests for work and passed them all. why should my employer say what i can do at home on my free time.
EDIT: just realized it been 15 years
Assuming what you've been smoking is marijuana, then I would dare say there's something amiss with your employer's tests. Of course there are variables at play here that could affect your employer's tests but it does seem incredulous that you can smoke everyday and not have it show up on a drug test.

[RY213]

Originally posted by codetrap
Maybe you hate society because it's so confusing for you, since it's apparent that your reading comprehension is pretty low.

Maybe all of you calling me names should actually read what I did.

Your initial reaction was to snitch, that says everything I need to know about your character.

[speedog]

Originally posted by r3ccOs


though I kinda agree... I don't

I'm not a rigger, but I know how dangerous site can be and have seen some of the HSE events reported.

No way would I want to be working on a well, or excavating shovels with a driver or new hand who is twitching while coming off some elicit substance, or so tired from coming back from a 4 day coked out bender.

those guys end up losing their jobs after causing a significant safety risk and on the streets in Edmonton and Calgary
This but the effects of marijuana consumption are different, no? My observations of marijuana users in the past in the workplace is that they just weren't able to perform the same task at expected set levels or were able to perform the task at all - this resulted in decreased productivity for the company and strained relationships in the workplace as others had to pick up the incomplete or delayed workloads.

Now I know there are many out there that will debate this to the ends of the earth but I can only go by my observations - when the guy sitting next to me who just finished having a toke can't figure out what combination of buttons and test jacks to use which he could easily do when not high says volumes. Observing this, I am glad that this same guy wasn't on TELUS' power crew at the time as his inability to perform at a certain level would've put other people's lives (and his own) at risk.

Interestingly enough, he truly believed he was operating at the same level of efficiency when high but his ability to perform tasks and acknowledgement of the real time it took to perform those tasks was so impaired because his reality at the time was in such a slowed down mode.