The ultimate facepalm moment. Like...I don't have words.

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by kalimus

But to enforcing it, which is my BIGGEST argument against legalizing it is the proof... how much time and money do you think would be wasted? A cop arrests someone or tickets someone for doing <insert whatever> while they were high. Or an employer fires someone because it's against company policy to be high at work (an issue with Cali's recent prop). That accused person goes to court, says "I wasn't high at the time, I have allergies, or I didn't sleep last night, or had an eyelash in my eye <or any other red eye excuse> and that's why they I'm being accused. PROVE that I was high at the time". You can't. When the day comes however, that you CAN with the same reliability as alcohol, the pro-smokers will have lots more of my support. I suspect quite a bit of other support as well.

Here's the thing. I don't think you need to prove that they are on alcohol or pot or anything else.

What they need to do is prove you are driving erratically or in an unsafe manner. Regardless of what drug you are on, what cellphone you are texting on, what burger you are eating...all of these things are distracted or unsafe driving.

Cops have cameras in their car. They can only pull you over if they suspect you are driving unsafely. There are so many other things we can increase the penalties for that have nothing to do with whether or not or what drugs they might be on. Driving impaired/tired/erratically is illegal already. So why aren't we enforcing THAT?

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

I'll use achohol as the example here, but marijuana would be pretty much the same.

Do you think drunk driving would go down if we introduced prohibition again? Do you think people would stop drinking? Marijuana use is already widespread. There would be more users if it was legalized, but I don't think it'd change the statistics for those that use pot & drive currently.

People didn't stop drinking back when we did prohibition...and there aren't any statistics for drunk driving back in the days of prohibition...but I'm pretty sure it would be as big an issue if alcohol was illegal.

I pray prohibition nevers comes back, but yes, I think drunk driving cases would reduce if prohibition were re-introduced.

Would there still be DUI's? Of course. People are too stupid for there not to be.

You are correct that even if alcohol was straight up banned from being made, sold, and consumed and severe penalties were enacted to punish anyone with a drop of alcohol in their bloodstream, people would still find a way to get their hands on it. And because people would still find a way to get their hands on it, there would still be drunk drivers.

But you can't honestly believe the drunk driving numbers wouldn't be curtailed by a significant amount.

Originally Posted by Hammer St. James

Please allow me to address some issues to your post:
The THC LD50 (lethal dose to kill 50% of subjects) for rats is 42 Mg/Kg of body weight. Recalculating this for a 165 lb. human would equate to 670 bong hits or 100 joints. I never in my entire life have met anyone capable of such a feat; wealthy or indigant.

Please produce your data on the "typical" pot smoker's income. I am very intrigued to peruse such information. Do you per chance also hold the other demographics pertaining to these individuals as well?

In regards to deaths post THC consumption via "stupid crap" that people do. Once again, I beg of you to produce hard factual evidence to this staement.

It's wonderful that other's share their opinions and it's interesting to debate subjective ideas - on the other hand, facts don't lie and when you can substantiate your statements with factual evidence then the topic arrives undebatable. Until then, your point is moot.

If I may be so bold to quote George Clinton: "Free your mind and your ass will follow".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thc#Toxicity

Look, we're not in a high school debate team. I'm obviously not going to convince anyone here that legalizing pot is a bad idea. All I can do is offer my opinion on why it's a bad idea, and you can do with that what you will.

I do not think smoking pot can kill you. In order for pot to kill you, you would need to smoke an ass-load of it. Even if a pot-smoker was a trillionaire, they would probably never smoke enough in one day for the THC toxicity to kill them. The point I was trying to make is that pot-smokers would probably never smoke enough to kill themselves from THC toxicity because they prize their precious plant more than any alcoholic prizes a single beer, regardless of income level.

While it's true that no one has died strictly from smoking pot, the study I mentioned earlier shows that there were 279 deaths where marijuana was listed as a "secondary suspect (contributing to death)." This says to me 279 individuals during that time period smoked pot, and then went and did something else while they were high that lead to their death.

There's my evidence of "stupid crap." And here's a pdf where you can review it:

link Page 3

Sidenote: I find it funny that the evidence I'm using to prove a point is the same evidence a pro-legalization group is using to prove theirs

Originally Posted by Brutal SS

There's a lot of "reefer madness" propaganda mentalities still out there, and without a shred of evidence to support their position. In fact, it's still the majority opinion despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

I don't condone the intake of any substance, and I personally don't have a dog in the fight, but the arguement from those who oppose have nothing left but, "Well, it's against the law."

Since the 'reefer madness' stuff has all been debunked and exposed as the propaganda that it is, that's literally the only reason remaining as to why people actively oppose it.

Has it been debunked? To take a page out of Hammer's book, show us this evidence you're talking about.

While I have no doubt that marijuana can be used medically to relieve pain or whatever else they say it can do, I highly doubt the majority of pot smokers have any kind of medical ailment that gives them a legitimate reason to possess the ganja.

People want pot legalized just so they can get high. Period. End of story.

The fact that all the pro-legalization folks try to hide their motives behind medicinal usage is laughable to me.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

Here's the thing. I don't think you need to prove that they are on alcohol or pot or anything else.

What they need to do is prove you are driving erratically or in an unsafe manner. Regardless of what drug you are on, what cellphone you are texting on, what burger you are eating...all of these things are distracted or unsafe driving.

Cops have cameras in their car. They can only pull you over if they suspect you are driving unsafely. There are so many other things we can increase the penalties for that have nothing to do with whether or not or what drugs they might be on. Driving impaired/tired/erratically is illegal already. So why aren't we enforcing THAT?

What laws support "erratic driving"? I'm aware of reckless driving, which is enforced when pulled over. You can get pulled over for erratic driving, but there are not a lot of penalties for it. Coming slightly out of your lane is considered erratic, but the most you'll get is a fail to use turn signal or something of the like. That is not the same (at least in my mind) as reckless or DUI. And out of curiousity, I tried to do some searches for the penalties associated with erratic driving.

There is distracted, which in Cali pretty much only consists of cellphone related activites.

There is reckless, which can be swerving, racing, excessive speed, or driving "carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard".

Everything that comes up for erratic however, almost always is related to DUI. And what do you need for DUI? You need to prove there is alcohol in the system (even wet reckless requires this) at the time of the stop. That can be done on the spot. So I would say yes, you DO need to prove it. It's possible I might have missed something, but I see no specific thing that I can get pulled over for except for breaking a law. Illegal U-turn, red light, things like that. They can sure prove that. I certainly think making an illegal U-turn is not even in the same league as DWI.

I agree with you that there should be bigger fines for things like texting, eating, putting on make-up, and etc. And I know people ARE getting pulled over for it. But if you don't do anything to attract the cop's attention in the first place, there is no reason for him to check you out. That's how so many people get away with it. For that matter, that's how so many people get away with DUI. They somehow manage to not do anything stupid (besides get behind the wheel), and don't hit a checkpoint.

And what about job related issues? How would you address that? Still can't prove I'm high at the time of violation.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by kalimus

And what about job related issues? How would you address that? Still can't prove I'm high at the time of violation.

Except for a lot of business have a little clause in the contract you sign upon getting hired that goes something like "We don't need a reason to fire you, we'll do it if we want to". They could also chalk it up to poor job performance on the official report, IF said influence is causing performance issues. I would hope that most people would figure it out and not get drunk or high on the job, but there's always that 10%....

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by kalimus

What laws support "erratic driving"? I'm aware of reckless driving, which is enforced when pulled over. You can get pulled over for erratic driving, but there are not a lot of penalties for it. Coming slightly out of your lane is considered erratic, but the most you'll get is a fail to use turn signal or something of the like. That is not the same (at least in my mind) as reckless or DUI. And out of curiousity, I tried to do some searches for the penalties associated with erratic driving.

There is distracted, which in Cali pretty much only consists of cellphone related activites.

There is reckless, which can be swerving, racing, excessive speed, or driving "carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard".

Everything that comes up for erratic however, almost always is related to DUI. And what do you need for DUI? You need to prove there is alcohol in the system (even wet reckless requires this) at the time of the stop. That can be done on the spot. So I would say yes, you DO need to prove it. It's possible I might have missed something, but I see no specific thing that I can get pulled over for except for breaking a law. Illegal U-turn, red light, things like that. They can sure prove that. I certainly think making an illegal U-turn is not even in the same league as DWI.

I agree with you that there should be bigger fines for things like texting, eating, putting on make-up, and etc. And I know people ARE getting pulled over for it. But if you don't do anything to attract the cop's attention in the first place, there is no reason for him to check you out. That's how so many people get away with it. For that matter, that's how so many people get away with DUI. They somehow manage to not do anything stupid (besides get behind the wheel), and don't hit a checkpoint.

And what about job related issues? How would you address that? Still can't prove I'm high at the time of violation.

Really it comes down to enforcing the bad driving behavior, and not whether you're on drugs or not. It wouldn't be that hard to up the fines and penalties for weaving in your lane, or anything else that would normally attract a cops attention that would signify someone texting or drinking or whatever.

As far as work, heck...that's easy. They can choose to drug test or not (just like now), and they don't have to worry about whether or not it was in the last 3-4 hours...just if it exists at all in your bloodstream. There's no real time element. Basically, if you fly airplanes, operate heavy machinery or other things...your employer can hold you to a zero tolerance policy...or whatever they want.

One last thing.

Right now, if you text, drink or even just glance away and hit & kill someone...sometimes it's considered an "accident", other times it's not. How about it's involuntary manslaughter if you cause an accident, regardless of whether on drugs or not...and up the penalties for that.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

Except for a lot of business have a little clause in the contract you sign upon getting hired that goes something like "We don't need a reason to fire you, we'll do it if we want to". They could also chalk it up to poor job performance on the official report, IF said influence is causing performance issues. I would hope that most people would figure it out and not get drunk or high on the job, but there's always that 10%....

Refer back to the Original Post

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

Really it comes down to enforcing the bad driving behavior, and not whether you're on drugs or not. It wouldn't be that hard to up the fines and penalties for weaving in your lane, or anything else that would normally attract a cops attention that would signify someone texting or drinking or whatever.

As far as work, heck...that's easy. They can choose to drug test or not (just like now), and they don't have to worry about whether or not it was in the last 3-4 hours...just if it exists at all in your bloodstream. There's no real time element. Basically, if you fly airplanes, operate heavy machinery or other things...your employer can hold you to a zero tolerance policy...or whatever they want.

One last thing.

Right now, if you text, drink or even just glance away and hit & kill someone...sometimes it's considered an "accident", other times it's not. How about it's involuntary manslaughter if you cause an accident, regardless of whether on drugs or not...and up the penalties for that.

Or, you could just make it more difficult to get a driver's license in the first place. Require a more comprehensive driving test to get a license, and then require driving proficiency tests every 3 or 4 years to keep your license.

If you're found to be operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license, jail time. Get caught driving under the influence of any drug - lose your license permanently.

Instantly safer roads. Just sayin.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

Really it comes down to enforcing the bad driving behavior, and not whether you're on drugs or not. It wouldn't be that hard to up the fines and penalties for weaving in your lane, or anything else that would normally attract a cops attention that would signify someone texting or drinking or whatever.

As far as work, heck...that's easy. They can choose to drug test or not (just like now), and they don't have to worry about whether or not it was in the last 3-4 hours...just if it exists at all in your bloodstream. There's no real time element. Basically, if you fly airplanes, operate heavy machinery or other things...your employer can hold you to a zero tolerance policy...or whatever they want.

So you don't see any difference is a person who takes a second to change a radio station or make a U-turn any different than a person who drives drunk? Why not just take the radio out of the car completely too? Listening to talk radio and music takes attention off the road. So does talking to passengers.

And I am with you on the work thing, because that's my employer's policy now. But partly because smoking pot is illegal. I can't be drunk at work, but they can't keep me from drinking while I'm not here. What you're suggesting is that, even if legalized, my employer could keep me from doing something that is completely legal in my own free time, and you know that won't work. Your employer has no right... ever... to keep you from doing legal activites as long as it doesn't interfere with your job. Zero tolerance policies only work for issues at the workplace. Getting baked Friday night isn't going to affect my performance Monday morning. But with your idea, they could drug test me that morning and fire me for something that had no impact on my job at all.

[CamaroSkooter]

Loopholes.

[Sales @ CAI Inc]

Originally Posted by Redemption

Bill, you win for post of the day! If I were a young cop, I would do this.

Originally Posted by Redemption

Ps, love my CAI!

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by kalimus

So you don't see any difference is a person who takes a second to change a radio station or make a U-turn any different than a person who drives drunk? Why not just take the radio out of the car completely too? Listening to talk radio and music takes attention off the road. So does talking to passengers.

Honestly, no...if you killed someone by being inattentive, whether it's from alcohol or changing the station...what difference does that make to the person you just killed?

I'd be the first one to say go after drunk drivers. I've always said penalties aren't stiff enough.

Accidents happen, and...our current system seems to think that's ok. Accidents mainly happen due to inattentiveness, and most people get a slap on the wrist, even when they kill someone because of that.

Look, I'm just saying that there are other ways to approach the issue of not being able to immediately determine if a person is high on a drug that might stay in your system a while. And, that system could also work to force people to ALSO be more attentive at the wheel. Driving is a priveledge, not a right. Have I been inattentive? Yes, one of my two accidents was caused by me, because I didn't see a car, even though I looked in that direction.

IF I had killed someone by doing that, not only would I feel guilty as hell for doing it...but I believe I would deserve to be penalized for it. Right now, you can and do get charged for involuntary manslaughter...but most people don't serve very much time for that.

As far as company drug testing, many companies already have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to drugs. I have no problems with that. There are also companies that could care less...and even let you drink on the job.

[CamaroSkooter]

Sadly, the only way to be able to prove that someone was being inattentive while driving is to have video evidence before, during, and after the collision.

Without proof like that, all you have in a collision is a he-said she-said situation.

And in this country, since you're innocent until proven guilty, as long as someone sticks to their story of "they came out of nowhere" and "I had both hands on the wheel and was fully focused on my driving" they will usually not be prosecuted for any kind of manslaughter charge.

And since you're a libertarian, I imagine the solution of Big Brother installing driver monitoring cameras in every car would be out of the question

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

And since you're a libertarian, I imagine the solution of Big Brother installing driver monitoring cameras in every car would be out of the question

I was just thinking about that, just before I got to that paragraph.

I'm not sure. Larger aircraft have black boxes that record what is happening the the ****pit.

Having something like that that perhaps stores the last 30 minutes of driving (or longer) might not be a bad idea. Something that can reproduce g-forces, direction of travel, etc.

I believe in privacy, but when you're on a public road with many other drivers...honestly, I think it might be ok to consider that you aren't driving in private. Video tech is cheap, and there are a lot of advantages to recording video. I'm pretty sure if everyone was recording what their car did, you'd get a lot less road rage & imbeciles driving like they currently do. Tough call for me...but I can see arguments both ways for it.

[CamaroSkooter]

Could you imagine being the guy that has to review the footage of buck-naked Billy Bob rear-ending the person in front of him because he was scratching his....

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

Honestly, no...if you killed someone by being inattentive, whether it's from alcohol or changing the station...what difference does that make to the person you just killed?



As far as company drug testing, many companies already have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to drugs. I have no problems with that. There are also companies that could care less...and even let you drink on the job.

I agree with it makes no difference, should the accident happen and you kill someone. But because you don't see any difference... do you listen to the radio while you drive? Do you talk to passengers? Because by that relation, you're no different than the person who drives drunk and doesn't cause an accident right? The reason I say this, is because when it comes to laws and propositions and opinions, it can be a slippery slope. By that logic, it should be illegal to listen to the radio, or have a passenger because you see them the same way. And if you get pulled over with a passenger or while having the radio on, you should also get fined and go to jail as well. Obviously I think that's extreme, but the point I'm trying to make is that if they really ARE the same, why are those things legal?

The reality is, that during a 30 minute drive, you might spend a small fraction of that time where you are just as big of a risk, where the drunk is a risk the entire time, in addition to he/she is probably messing with the radio or maybe talking with passengers.

And I know companies have zero tolerance policies now. What I was saying, is that they can enforce those because it's illegal. Some companies let you drink on the job. They can do that too because drinking is legal. But what they can't do, is make it against company policy to drink at all. What I was saying, is that should pot become legal, a company could not have a zero tolerance law like they stand, because it would infringe on your rights. At that point, to fire you for being high, they would have to prove you were high when they accused you.

I totally get where you're trying to head with your conversation and I want to agree, but I'm very wary of approaches that have a very wide open stipulation. That's a good head start to how you deny people other rights. And how I'm understanding what you're describing, is that all you are doing is trading some types of freedoms for others.

Boy I'm long winded sometimes...