turbo1889

Before I say this I want to clearly state that I am not a pot head and I think that particular drug causes some kind of cumulative brain damage that makes people dumber then they already are (I'm fairly cynical about human intelligence anyway). I do have an occasional alcoholic drink, never before or during the operation of an automobile, limit of only one drink for a pedal bicycle and not during or immediately before riding (Yes, I will admit riding home on my bike after having a single hard lemonade with me meal when I eat out at a particular Asian restaurant that serves it and it goes so well with spicy curry dishes).


How about we quite trying to isolate only specific slices of acts of negligence in the operation of potential dangerous machines in public around other innocent people and just attack that whole category for what it is instead of nit-picking at it? I mean seriously what does it matter how exactly you are being criminally negligent when you run someone down with a mutli-ton high speed bullet on wheels? Shouldn't we just address the act and the carnage it causes directly instead of nit-picking on exactly all the different ways people choose to be selfishly negligent and irresponsible with dangerous machines in public around other innocent people that result in death, injury, or destruction of property? Who really cares whether you were drunk, stoned, text-ing, making out, or just plain old not paying attention behind the wheel or the handlebars that results in you killing an innocent person due to your negligence in your duty to safely operate a dangerous machine around other innocent people.

We need to quit caring as to how exactly you went about committing the dastardly deed and address what you did. Lets cut out all the noise and all the excuses and just get down to business and apply some very basic simple (unfortunately not so common) sense.

genec

Not one response to my comment that drinking alcohol often occurs in bars and requires later transportation, where as MJ use often occurs at home and requires no transportation...

FBinNY 

I did most of my drinking while living in downtown NYC. One beauty of that NYC lifestyle is that we have 24hr mass transit, and plenty of cabs, so there's never a need to drive drunk.

CommuteCommando

I believe it was actually a majority of the voters in Colorado who did it.

FBinNY 

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

Chicago Al 

Details, details. At least he did not blame it on 'the bureaucrats' as is his usual habit.

AdrianFly

If the country didn't have stupid people our "market driven economy" would completely collapse.

You must embrace the stoopid, the ignorant.. the fools. You must cherish them.

To be free is to have the freedom to be as stupid as you can possibly be.. and then be proud of it while looking down and laughing at the highly intelligent foolish types.


Everyone must embrace their "inner idiot".

genec

But indeed you did need transit when drinking... hence my point.

Feldman

I'm really hoping that a side effect of legal weed in WA and CO may be that those states revise the rights of drivers in DUI cases--it's long overdue to separate motor vehicle operators from protections of the US Constitution. The word "automobile" appears nowhere in the bill of rights; if people want their civil rights they don't have to drive. Police should be allowed to use impaired drivers as an outlet for any physically abusive instincts they might posses.

Feldman

Good point--and a reason that auto theft and vandalism ought to be legal within the confines of bar and tavern parking lots.

FBinNY 

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. You're "people don't have to drive" rational for suspending the constitution can be applied to anything. Let's keep trying to find a proper balance between the private and public interests. Not saying it's easy, but the minute we give up, we might as well just tear up the constitution, and employ enough police to maintain the kind of order that people seem to want.

Feldman

Naahh; intoxicated drivers aren't people--why treat them like they are?

FBinNY 

For the simple reason that the same sentiment may be expressed about any group, or conduct we don't like. We protect the rights of those we abhor to ensure that ours are likewise protected.

I-Like-To-Bike

Do really want to raise your blood pressure by responding to rants from electronic know-nothings, logically challenged, and/or lunatics?

FBinNY 

Not really, but this one didn't raise my blood pressure. In any case, sometimes the only way to avoid blood pressure spikes is to stay off the A&S forum and leave it to the crazies. This is nothing compared to the heckling I'm getting here from a water sports enthusiast in a neighboring state.

TheBoiler

I live in Colorado

I do not smoke but I do like the odd beer.

From my observation if you are under 21 MJ is easier to get than beer.

The question supposes there will be a massive increase in users, I have not spoken to anybody who has started because it is legal. I have heard that the legal price is 3x the street price, the supposition is that the legal shops will eventually once the initial interest has died down only be interest to Tourists.

It is a non issue, nothing changed much. The only ones interested were the Feds and now even they have backed out.

turbo1889

Point I was trying to make in my post at the top of the page (and maybe I should have stated it outright at that time) is that some people may actually drive more safely when on pot. Supposedly, for the majority of users its supposed to mellow you out and "slow you down". For some of the drivers I've seen that might actually be a good thing.

An angry vicious speed demon crazy person trying to deliberately run you off the road for daring to actually use the road as another legal but slower road user vs. the same person mellowed out on pot that is content to just drive along slowly behind you until they can pass. Which would you prefer?

Yes, for some other people it might effect them differently, might make some violent and make others not care or even know what they are doing and just run you down. I realize all of that.

My point is, beyond whether they are driving responsibly and safely or not, does the rest really matter? If they have to be drugged out to drive safely then I would prefer them drugged out, if they have to be cold sober and clean as a whistle to drive safely then I would prefer them that way. That's what I care about as a more vulnerable user of the public roadways.

AdrianFly

If you roll up a doobie, puff a fattie or hit the bongie then Reverend Adrianfly strongly encourages you to do it in the privacy of your own home and stay in there until you are sober once again.

No cycling, operation of machinery nor motor vehicles on public roadways. Not cool man.

Devices that measure levels of THC intoxification are in development.

CommuteCommando

When I was younger, smoking weed was a pretty social thing. You did it with friends. Considering that most of my friends did it, It's not surprising that I assumed "everyone did it". This is why it surprised me when the Reagan years rolled around that so many of my contemporaries turned hard to the right and got all on beard with the "War on Drugs".

I no longer smoke the stuff, and neither do most of the people I knew way back when who did. This should expose the myth that many subscribe to that it is addictive. The bottom line is that if they legalized it here in CA, myself, and some of my former stoner buddies may occasionally indulge. There will probably be an increase in others who never tried it who will, but I seriously doubt that pot use will skyrocket.

shipwreck

An old joke goes that "a drunk will blow through a stop sign, a stoner will sit and wait for it to turn green..."

bbbean 

Because, after all, we know NO ONE ever drove stoned before the new law, right? Obviously, since pot is now legal, the very first thing thousands of people will do is smoke a joint and drive. Clear as mud.

turbo1889

That is exactly what I was referring too. I'm not for anything that messes you up in the head, but if you must get messed up in the head better that direction then the other direction.

rydabent

And the up side of getting drunk or stoned out of your mind is???

shipwreck

Understand that this is nothing against you personally, but inebriation does act somewhat as a filter from people who feel the need to ask such questions in a judgmental manner. A self perpetuating situation, its true.

Some people don't care as much for how they perceive reality as you must. And no amount of head shaking holier than thou-ness will change that as its been true for a long time, and will no doubt be true far into the future.

personally I would rather have a stoned driver behind me than a drunk one, or one that was tweaking, or going on the nod, or with a nose full of coke, pipe full of meth, on LSD or shrooms, bath salts, Oxy, or Percocet. And guess what dude, All of them are out on the road, and most of them are on the phone, lighting a cigarette, programing a gps, messin with their stereo.

Making pot legal won't make a dint in those statistics.

The most dangerous scenario with a stoned driver behind you is if they have a bag of Funyuns and a big gulp in their lap, with a mad case of the munchies and cotton mouth. That would make the act of driving the actual distraction.

ngateguy

I do not want to burst your bubble, but there are stoned bikers in every state. Whether it is legal or not.