Best
133 Comments
Post
  • #4
    !
    I must agree that there needs to be some kind of standard as with alcohol breathalyzer's, but what and who determines the parameters for establishing what is under the influence to the point of impairment with marijuanna, that is my question, and if they just use the same ol', set up for failure, road side test, then I am against it, it will be abused and really proves nothing, except someone may have trouble reciting the alphabet backwards with someone rushing you and intimidating you along the way, I can't do that now, in my computer room sober...I must say however, I am totally against impaired driving of any type, but laws to curb DUI's must be equal, fair and consistent.
  • #56
    !
    Those alcohol breathalyzer's are a joke.. if a person has had one beer those machines show you to be drunk.. It takes several hours 4 you to blow a clean #.. will they ever get it right .

  • #65
    !
    @freaky6smurf

    And the .08 thing is also a joke... different people have different tolerances to alcohol... I'm a heavy drinker (I'd say alcoholic but I don't go to meetings (that was a denial joke)) I would blow over .08 when I wake up most mornings, but I'm not the least bit impaired...
  • #66
    !
    I agree. We do have the technology and scientist with the know how to come up with a test. Marijuana can stay in a person's system long after the affects have worn off. We're talking about days. Some shorter, some longer. It's not like alcohol. A road side test is all they have to go on. Failing the road side test and a positive test after is all we have right now. But I know we can come up with a definitive test.
  • #67
    !
    Kind of like they are sharpening both sides of their sword. 25% tax on the front end and the potential for a hell of a fine on the other end. Our government is so wise:{
  • R Load more replies

  • #30
    !
    Some research to define "impaired" is essential. We know what blood alcohol levels are reliable indicators of impairment, it's time to get the science right for THC.
  • #104
    !
    I'm still not sure why this is a pre-requisite... We already have legal THC (federally) in Marinol, we have legal opiates in Oxycontin, legal uppers, legal downers.... none of which have the equivalent of a 'breathalyzer', so I'm failing to understand why we abosultely 'need' to solve for this when it has never been an issue for the plethora of legal drugs out there, including alcohol which can get you a DUI even if you blow under the legal limit.
  • #18
    !
    These measures are a result of law enforcement losing their cash cow from busting people for cannabis. We are already starting to hear all these reports about the "drastic increase of marijuana-related traffic fatalities"... this is only because they are now attributing cannabis use to more fatal accidents, not because there are more of them... they are simply counting more of them now.(And I have no idea how they can since a test to prove impairment from cannabis at the time of an accident doesn't exist!)

    When alcohol prohibition was repealed, the same thing happened. Law enforcement had to start laying off their thugs, so they came up with new ways to create fear and generate a need for more officers, more jails, etc.

    With that said, even if the number actually has gone up some (which I doubt) that can be attributed to cannabis users enjoying their restored liberty, and it will taper down to the normal numbers in no time.

    I think law enforcement needs to focus on proving that a person was texting, eating or tired when an accident occurred. Those are still the main causes of traffic fatalities in this country...

    If cops want to make money from fines and filling up jails, they can pull over cell phone jockeys and people coming out of junk food drive-thrus!
  • #35
    !
    Yup, they have projections, mostly unpublished, of how much revenue potential these proposed laws have.

    They have stats on the number of accidents where marijuana was involved. Not a cause necessarily, but involved. Think it is something like 10% of accidents.
  • #1
    !
    HMMM.....I believe ANY impaired driver should pay the price for their indiscretion and total disregard for me and my family's (and you and your family) safety.
    These impairments include alcohol, pot, cell/text phone usage, eating, reading.......etc. You socially inept deviants require a good penalty for your injustices to your fellow man (woman and child, which might include YOUR wife and children/grandchildren).
  • #9
    !
    A great idea, but the devil's in the details. The focus in the past few decades has been on alcohol-induced impairment of driving because it's been the most common and blood-alcohol level is fairly simple and cheap to measure and therefore easy to codify.
    The other stuff is relatively new and measuring whether one is rendered unfit to drive due to weed, prescription meds, sundry distractions, and uncontrolled anger issues is more difficult. Then there are those that are just too stupid to drive, IMO about 25%.
  • #13
    !
    @RoyFloyd More like 42%+/- 5%.........I used to drive OTR. People can't drive ALL over the US, not just in your neck of the woods....I know!).
  • R Load more replies

  • #32
    !
    Legalizing Marijuana will not create an influx of impaired drivers our roads. It will not create an influx of professionals (doctors, pilots, bus drivers, etc..) stoned on the job either. This is a prohibitionist propaganda scare tactic.

    Truth: Responsible drivers don't drive while intoxicated on any substance period! Irresponsible drivers are already on our roads, and they will drive while intoxicated regardless of their drug of choice's legality. Therefore Legalizing Marijuana will have little to zero impact on the amount of stoned drivers on our roads.

    The same thing applies to people being high on the job. Responsible people do not go to work intoxicated, period. Regardless of their drug of choice's legality.
  • #78
    !
    You are leaving out the folks who must regularly take opiods for palliative care or those choosing cannibis for their ailments, and must still get around. I don't dispute at all that cannibis degrades driving performance in the least.........but, folks will still be forced to "get business done" and that will ultimately mean some impaired drivers are on the road. Frankly, Cell Phone use while driving is a much bigger threat on the roadways.
    As far as labelling folks "irresponsible", it sounds like you mistakenly believe that behavior is a reliable indicator of character. Human behavior is one of the least reliable was to assess a person's true character, morals, sense of resonsibility, etc. Behavior is just a symptom of much deeper things.
  • #111
    !
    But there are individuals out there who won't use their best judgment and get behind the wheel all stoned out. Under the influence is under the influence no matter how you slice it.

    BTW, I'm all for the legalization and recreational use of marijuana. Just don't get stoned then immediately decide to get behind the wheel and risk yourself and others while at it.
  • #14
    !
    Unless they have perfected that saliva test that will objectively show whether you have smoked within the last few hours, it won't work. You cannot train police to recognize whether someone is stoned or not. "His eyes looked bloodshot" will not cut it.
  • #5
    !
    That's why this is a Colorado proposed law.
    Don't really think the Feds will produce a federal law like this until they actually legalize pot......
  • #16
    !
    I agree with you but I'm not opposed to down the road, 48 states say to the other two... Hey, get with the program... On something like this.
  • #60
    !
    @DARSB Well cool. Just one problem, how do you justify a law about driving on an illegal substance?
    Ya'd think they'd worry 'bout legalization first, driving on it second. Kinda putting the cart way in front of the horse, doncha think.
  • #62
    !
    @stepped_in_it "Kinda putting the cart way in front of the horse, doncha think."

    Well, no. Driving while impaired is a crime no matter what the substance may be. We have settled ways to define intoxication or impairment for alcohol and prescription meds. With medical MJ legal in about half the states it's clearly time to put the scientists to work creating a chemical standard for impairment under THC.
  • R Load more replies

  • #15
    !
    Sounds fine to me. When government does something right I'll give it credit.

    1) National legal limit on driving under the influence of alcohol- We've arrived at a nice consensus and it's working nicely. No one's complaining but the drunks.

    2) National Do-Not-Call-Registry -- Great Job Government!
  • #31
    !
    I've always believed there should be a quantitative test to measure reflex and reaction times to determine impairment against a benchmark standard. There are some people I would feel more comfortable driving with when they had a 0.10 BAC, than others who were stone cold sober.
  • #19
    !
    typical politician fight like the devil to enact a law legalizing pot.... then fight like an angel to control the evils of people smoking pot and driving.... meanwhile you opened up a whole new revenue streams for lawyers and courts. bingo .payday!
  • #22
    !
    There is no reason for marijuana to be illegal. Alcohol does far more harm than pot any day of the week.

    With that being said, driving under the influence is not an option.
  • #25
    !
    @Now_What I actually don't disagree with that... its just funny that this guy fouggt to have it legalized ... I wonder why he didn't foresee these problems and include remedies in his original legislation...
  • #26
    !
    @bsking ..... actually I don't wonder why... it's the same old Washington mindset so he can go back and say I fought for your side.... and then turn to the other guy and say I fought for your side too.

    .... kind of like I was for the bill before I was against the bill. the old washington two step
  • #110
    !
    While not entirely the same, you would still be under the influence after smoking a bowl just like you would be after having consumed a beer or three. The penalties should be the same. If you go and get high or drunk, then get behind the wheel, you automatically become a clear and present danger to society.
  • #82
    !
    While I understand the need to hold cannabis users to the same standard as drinkers where public safety is concerned, the only way to be fair is to come up with a test that shows positive within a couple of hours of use. As it is, the best test is the relatively new saliva test, but that will show positive for someone who has used cannabis within the last couple of days, and may not be currently under the influence.
  • #43
    !
    -- a poor argument; the laws don't work very well, but to some extent, and more to the point, they are politically popular, because the ignorant cannot imagine of dealing more effectively with the fact that people like to drink and socialize, and criminalizing the most wasted drivers is the socially-sanctioned response.
  • #44
    !
    @rdbchase well of course, you throw a law in there and promise strict supervision and punishment and all the "world is ending" worry warts will hop on board with it.
  • #87
    !
    Well, we do have to stay at the utmost top of the "mass incarceration of citizens" list of all countries in the world. What's that you say, you're poor, a person of of color, AND you were driving stoned? Three strikes and you are out. Welcome to the Big House, fellow American.
  • #57
    !
    Just another example of trying to lock people up to fill the gap for those that now won't be. Hypocrisy and lunacy from the same person.
  • #6
    !
    All impaired driving should have stiff penalties.
    Including text/cell phone,'script use/abuse, pot, alcohol, reading, eating.......etc.
    If you don't agree, then that next Big Mac eating, newspaper reading, hydrocodone using, "OK" texter just might be the one who runs a red light and T-Bones you or your family member.
    I NOT OK with that..........
  • #12
    !
    @Food4thoughts Agree. I'll bet a dime to a dollar this congressman takes a prescription drug that says "Can cause drowsiness".
    Damn "gateway drug" and "reefer madness". <sic>
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #126
    !
    Unfortunately and unlike alcohol, every person has a different response to cannabis. That is why the states have their own tests for IMPAIRMENT on ANY substance or lack of sleep for decades. We all KNOW what impaired looks like. In CO before the unscientific limit of 5 nano was passed after being killed 6 times, the state had a 96% conviction rate of DUID drivers. 96% conviction rate! And accident fatalities DECREASED 9% in both CO and Montana ten years AFTER the voters legalized medical marijuana.

    Factors that make ANY across the board THC 'impairment' level moot are:

    1. How often a person consumes
    2. How much a person weighs
    3. Sex of the person
    4. Body fat

    The first hit of cannabis takes you to your peak THC level and the second hit does not increase it. Your level decreases over the next 3 hours but daily users will never be under the 5 nano limit that was taken from a UK study that examined using BOTH cannabis and alcohol in combination, not cannabis alone. We know small amounts of alcohol impair w/o any pot.

    And car insurance company's are finding "Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers Than Non-Marijuana Users, New Study Shows " http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb937...
  • #118
    !
    I absolutely agree with it! Just because marijuana is legal in some states doesn't give people the right to operate automobiles or other motor vehicles under the influence of it. Driving while impaired is still driving while impaired, which is totally irresponsible.
  • #127
    !
    No body wants impaired drivers. there is no evidence that marijuana use impairs drivers. Having it in ones blood does not equal impairment, just like having deadly sugar in ones blood doesn't prove sugar caused impairment.
  • #131
    !
    @KathleenC

    I have to disagree with the idea that marijuana doesn't impair driving. It's really not a good idea to get behind the wheel of a car or any other motor vehicle when one is stoned out and their judgement is impaired. Wait for the effects of the marijuana to wear off first, before getting behind the wheel of a car.
  • R Load more comments...
Post