Study: Marijuana Doubles the Risk of Vehicle Collisions

Not really a surprise to me, but I'm sure the burnouts and hippies will go ballistic over this.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/marijuana-nearly-doubles-risk-of-collisions/?hpt=he_c2

 

Of course smoking a blunt and driving should be restricted .

This doesn't change the fact that it should be completely legal for personal use.

 

Henry Anslinger is that you?

 

And what about people that get high in their home, but then drive on over to the 7 11 to get their slurpees and microwavable burritos? Any ideas on what to do about them?

 

Straight Edge - no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes.

 

That's funny because I am drinking a beer right now and no one is busting my door down for consumption. If I go out later and run over a telephone pole, I will most definitely go to jail. See how that works.

 

The same thing we do with people who down six packs, Vicodin. or sedatives and drive over to the 7/11 - lock them up!

How many totally drunk people have I talked to who thought they were "fine to drive"?

Hundreds.

At least no one smoking pot has tried to punch me in the nose or thrown up on my shoes!

U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse is simply trying to get a bigger budget with propaganda, and to try to stop marijuana legalization so they don't lose their jobs.

 

I have not met any marijuana supporters who think that driving under its influence should be legal.

 

Perhaps we should enforce the driving while intoxicated laws already on the books. Who would've thunk it?

 

These studies are always flawed. They give their test subjects amounts of marijuana well above what any normal human would use and then say "See! We told you it was bad!!" Like the study where they had subjects smoke 10 joints a day for ten years and then write a report that they had bad lung function. Well yeah, but the majority of smokers don't smoke 200 grand worth of weed in their lifetimes, much less a ten year stretch.

 

If they don't have the weed with them, what can the police do about it? If someone just looks stoned, police can't force a urine test on them, and that wouldn't prove when it was smoked anyway.

 

Did they do the same research on legal meds?

 

Assuming they remember.

 

A drunk runs a stop sign.

A stoner waits for it to turn green.

 

The same could be said for people under the influence of legal drugs, such as painkillers. O


Police usually have a pretty good idea if your driving under the influence.

 

The same thing we are doing people who drive drunk?

 

If you smoke enough pot to go out and get in an accident or enough that causes you to get pulled over for suspicion of DUI and the cop can't tell you are stoned, then that cop should quit because they suck at their job.

 

You really don't have a clue, do you? If a police officer suspects someone is drunk, they can prove it with a breathalyzer. If someone is driving stoned, but left their grass at home, a cop can't do anything to prove that person is under the influence.

 

they can make them do the same tests they do with drunk people. ABC's backwards, reaction time, Linewalk etc...
Also, I don't know if you have ever been around someone who has recently smoked a blunt. But it makes them smell stronger than a cigar smoker...

 

But they can't prove anything in court. They can't be charged with driving under the influence. The only way they can give a urine test is if the person is found to have the weed with them.

 

You can't force a "urine" test on some that is suspected of drunk driving either.

 

Prohibition doesn't work.

 

But if they refuse a breathalyzer, they can still be charged with drunk driving. Police can't give a drug test unless drugs are found in the car.

 

So? If they fail the reaction tests and they stink of hemp then haul their ass off in a cruiser and do a urine test at the station. It aint that hard...

 

Well that's really easy to say, but that's not the law.