New "Pot and Driving" Campaign

[Freeker]

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2005/11/20/1314678-sun.html

[secondtube]

Thomson has worked to combat drug-impaired driving for six years, since his 18-year-old son, Stanley, was killed in a four-vehicle collision.

The teen responsible for the crash, which seriously injured three others, admitted in court to smoking marijuana on the day of the accident.

BIGGEST EYEROLL IN THE HISTORY OF EYE ROLLS.

[AD]

Not if you're related to any one of the 4 people killed in the crash.

AD

[Guest Low Roller]

Impairment is impairment. I'm all for imposing penalties for driving on drugs.

If you defend it, then you probably do it yourself and feel threatened.

Now back to your regularly scheduled pro-pot views...

[Sheebs]

"Cannabis impairs driving skills most severely during the acute phase, which typically lasts up to an hour after smoking. This is followed by post-acute and residual phases, which can last 2-3 hours."

that 2-3 hours of residual phase, is that the phase where you have to stop at every fast food joint and hasty mart that you pass?

what a joke

Edited November 23, 2005 by Guest

[ollie]

- Canadians between the ages of 14 to 25 have one of the highest rates of pot use in the world.

Yay us!!

[Chewie]

why the eyeroll?

if he smoked up before driving it could totally affect his performance operating a vehicle...i know it's affected mine.

[Cully]

This looks like a bad campaign....I mean come on it's okay for pilots to puff down, these day everything is done by computers!!

[secondtube]

read this, from the same article, but from a lawyer, who can be trusted a helluva a lot more than the dumbass cops in this case.

"Reimer, a lawyer, successfully defended himself on marijuana charges in court. He told the court he had smoked "five huge joints" one day and was not impaired.

Reimer argued marijuana users tend to overestimate their impairment and are overly careful drivers, while drunk drivers underestimate their level of intoxication.

OPP Const. Eric Booth disputed that argument, saying the effects are the same."

[ollie]

Now back to your regularly scheduled pro-pot views...

Isn't it about time for one of your regularly scheduled posts about how much you don't like The Slip.

[TomFoolery]

That's about the first time I've ever heard anyone say that about lawyers...

Have you ever been to Killaloe? That's where the lawyer lives and where the case was. a) there's nothing you could ever hit in Killaloe other than an occasional deer. everyone else there is stoned to the tits so they're all in super mellow mood too.

[Basher]

What's the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver?

A drunk driver runs through stop signs, a stoned driver waits for the stop sign to turn green.

[YearsAlongTheSea]

I don't like the slip.

I think it's a vague line whether or not people can drive under the influence of cannibis. It all boils down to tolerance, experience, and a handful of other elements.

For me, it's fine.

For my little cousin after her first time at the age of 20? not fine.

[Del]

I don't like the slip.

That's OK, most of us don't like the Disco Biscuits...

[secondtube]

hahahaha,

nice.

[Velvet]

From the Pot And Driving website:

"Surveys conducted in Canada and in countries such as Australia have shown that driving under the influence of cannabis is rare in the general population but common among cannabis users..."

Can't argue with that!

I'm against impaired driving.

I think there should be legal limits to how high you can be while operating a vehicle. But does one toke from a regular smoker make him/her stoned? One joint? Ten joints? Until they find a way to test this sort of thing, I think we should self-regulate.

Here's a pet peeve: legal limit for alcohol is .08 (I know, they just changed the measurement somehow), so if you get stopped and tested and they find you have .05 they let you go, 'cuz you're under the legal limit, right? Wrong.

[bradm]

Not necessarily. There are two possible charges when it comes to driving while (possibly) under the influence. If you're impaired (e.g., as could be noticed due to erratic driving, or slurred speech, or failing a roadside sobriety test), you can be charged with impaired driving, regardless of why you're impaired.

Conversely, if you blow more than the legal limit of blood alcohol content (BAC), you can be charged with that, regardless of whether your driving has been affected or not.

So someone who blows 0.05, but is driving sloppily, could be charged with impaired driving, but not with having a BAC level above the legal limit.

Aloha,

Brad

[Alexis]

i'm not saying that people shouldn't drive under the influence of pot. i know i have and i've done some pretty silly things although never causing damage to my vehicle or anyone elses.

however, i WILL argue that someone, anyone, no matter what their regular usage or amount consumed is not as inebriated as someone, anyone who's blotto. i believe alcohol brings with it a higher level of intoxication than cannibis. you can't really compare it...it's apples and oranges entirely.

[deranger]

The Canadian Gov commissioned a report on the effects of cannibus on driving in the 90's. The results were that drivers under the influence tended to be SAFER drivers than the average as a result of being stoned, they were more cautious and drove slower than normal.

My school's rector had a copy of the report in his office and we all enjoyed reading how a gov commissioned report concluded that stoned drivers were AS SAFE or more so than normal drivers.

I'm not making this up - I read the damn thing, well not the whole thing but the conclusions...

Edited November 23, 2005 by Guest

[AD]

i believe alcohol brings with it a higher level of intoxication than cannibis. you can't really compare it...it's apples and oranges entirely.

Interesting two points you raise there.

AD

[secondtube]

"The Canadian Gov commissioned a report on the effects of cannibus on driving in the 90's. The results were that drivers under the influence tended to be SAFER drivers than the average as a result of being stoned, they were more cautious and drove slower than normal.

My school's rector had a copy of the report in his office and we all enjoyed reading how a gov commissioned report concluded that stoned drivers were AS SAFE or more so than normal drivers. "

any chance of finding that online?

[Velvet]

I remeber that report, but I'd still like to read it myself online.

[AD]

In some cases slow driving is pretty dangerous.

I say everyone should be completely sober to drive. It's a ton of metal under your control that can very easily seriously hurt many people if your attention wanders for even a second.

Why are people seriously fighting this campaign for safe driving?

AD

[MarcO]

In some cases slow driving is pretty dangerous.

I say everyone should be completely sober to drive. It's a ton of metal under your control that can very easily seriously hurt many people if your attention wanders for even a second.

Why are people seriously fighting this campaign for safe driving?

AD

agreed.

[Freak By Night]

a stoned driver waits for the stop sign to turn green.

I've done that before!