[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

Some of the laws are better than others.

For instance, 'per se' drug laws where you get a DUI for having any detectable amount of THC are stupid, but I don't think that's a reason not to legalize marijuana, its just a reason to revamp the DUI laws.

That's what I thought. Now, we're getting somewhere. So how many ppm of THC do you thing should constitute driving while impaired?

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by series1811

That's what I thought. Now, we're getting somewhere. So how many ppm of THC do you thing should constitute driving while impaired?

I don't have an offhand answer, I think the issue should be researched by an unbiased party and guidelines created.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

I don't have an offhand answer, I think the issue should be researched by an unbiased party and guidelines created.

Wouldn't you think we would have that research by now? We do, it's just a political hot potato for the reasons I stated.

So, you do see the problem?

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by series1811

Wouldn't you think we would have that research by now?

I'm sure such research is out there, however, getting the gov. to pay attention to it and adopts its lessons is another story entirely.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

I'm sure such research is out there, however, getting the gov. to pay attention to it and adopts its lessons is another story entirely.

Well, then you finally see my point.

So, now that we are back to where we started, how do you keep people from driving while impaired after marijuana use?

[hamster]

Originally Posted by series1811

Yeah, but how do you enforce it? THC stays in the bloodstream for as long as over three weeks because it is fat soluable. And, marijuana use proponents usually claim that blood tests shouldn't be used for DWI and marijuana for that reason (otherwise, marijuana users couldn't legally drive for three weeks after using and they don't like that).

Simple: If someone is driving erratically, field sobriety test.

If someone causes an accident and is suspected to be under the influence test their blood and throw the book at them if they are proven to be.

Really no different than drunk driving enforcement. BTW there are literally hundreds of prescription drugs that are currently legal and have some remnants remain in the system for weeks as well. Enforcement of driving under the influence is the same for all.

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by series1811

So, now that we are back to where we started, how do you keep people from driving while impaired after marijuana use?

"The same way it is currently enforced, duh."

Or better still, revamp the laws.

We just had this entire conversation dude.

[Averageman]

This is going to drive the Insurance Companies nuts.
I'm sure we will all pay higher premiums because of it.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

"The same way it is currently enforced, duh."

Or better still, revamp the laws.

We just had this entire conversation dude.

Yes, we did. If you had just admitted you didn't have a clue in the first post, it would have been okay. I already knew the answer.

[TBO]

Yup

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by series1811

Yes, we did. If you had just admitted you didn't have a clue in the first post, it would have been okay. I already knew the answer.

I'm not sure how naming two potential courses of action (that I didn't see you rebut in any way) equates to not having a clue, but you're free to jump ship from the thread I guess if that's what you want to do.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

I'm not sure how naming two potential courses of action (that I didn't see you rebut in any way) equates to not having a clue, but you're free to jump ship from the thread I guess if that's what you want to do.

What's your answer to the problem?

Tell somebody to come up with a solution.

Great answer.

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by series1811

What's your answer to the problem?

Tell somebody to come up with a solution.

Great answer.

I would like actual scientists to perform the research and provide their interpretation of it, yes.

You have officially jumped ship, as that is one of the most laughable attempts to grasp at straws I have ever seen.

[TBO]

... And yet so many dispute the science of current laws, because they don't suit their world view/wants.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

I would like actual scientists to perform the research and provide their interpretation of it, yes.

You have officially jumped ship, as that is one of the most laughable attempts to grasp at straws I have ever seen.

And, you think that's how it's going to be determine? No politics involved?

How old are you?

[hamster]

Originally Posted by series1811

What's your answer to the problem?

Tell somebody to come up with a solution.

Great answer.

You are conflating the issues of driving under the influence and legalization of a substance. It just isn't feasible to expect there to be a test for every single substance someone could potentially be intoxicated with.

How do officers currently handle people driving while on prescription medication?

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by series1811

And, you think that's how it's going to be determine? No politics involved?

How old are you?

The imperfectness of our legislative process is not a reason not to legalize marijuana, nor a reason to give up on improving current DUI law.

Not to mention the fact that I also suggested, though did not prefer, the option of maintaining the status quo.

You have no argument and have sunk to name calling.

Good day.

[Cali-Glock]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

To you, maybe.

I think its a pretty obvious truth to most folks.

It is unsupportable for anyone who understands logic. There are logical arguments to be made on your side, but the one you are making is fallacious. The physical magnifications and effects of each of these drugs are very different: perhaps a case can be made that MJ is less harmful than Alcohol and another case that MJ should be legal: but your argument does not support either case.

If you want legalize MJ then how do we regulate and test for exposure over the prior 72 hours? If you dob't have such a mechanism then driving, operating heavy equipment, and many other tasks should be illegal for MJ users to perform. At a minimum, it will have to be legal for businesses (including insurance companies) to discriminate against MJ users as they pose a health and liabily exposure which would otherwise not be there.

[Cali-Glock]

Originally Posted by Averageman

This is going to drive the Insurance Companies nuts.
I'm sure we will all pay higher premiums because of it.

The data is clear: MJ users have a significantly higher incident of vegicle accidents, workplace accidents, and workplace injuries. Insurance companies already address this issue very tightly. For example some insurance companies refuse to insure companies which do not have tight pre-hire, post-hire random, for-cause, and post-accident drug testing; and virtually every insurance carrier gives preferential underwriting credit to companies who have such drug & alcohol policies/programs.

This is NOT arbitrary on the part of insurance companies, but rather it is based on experience.

[hamster]

Originally Posted by Cali-Glock

The data is clear: MJ users have a significantly higher incident of vegicle accidents, workplace accidents, and workplace injuries. Insurance companies already address this issue very tightly. For example some insurance companies refuse to insure companies which do not have tight pre-hire, post-hire random, for-cause, and post-accident drug testing; and virtually every insurance carrier gives preferential underwriting credit to companies who have such drug & alcohol policies/programs.

This is NOT arbitrary on the part of insurance companies, but rather it is based on experience.

Good, you've just pointed out why and how the free market handles problems better than government. Government needs to get out of the substance banning business.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

The imperfectness of our legislative process is not a reason not to legalize marijuana, nor a reason to give up on improving current DUI law.

Not to mention the fact that I also suggested, though did not prefer, the option of maintaining the status quo.

You have no argument and have sunk to name calling.

Good day.

I didn't say whether it should be legalized or not, I asked, how you would enforce DUI with marijuana. You said, someone will figure out something.

I asked you how old you were because I though I might taylor my explanation better if I knew your age. It wasn't an insult.

[holesinpaper]

Originally Posted by TBO

... And yet so many dispute the science of current laws, because they don't suit their world view/wants.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Funny. Now the law isn't on your side and you want to appeal to 'science.'

BS. If we went by science, then MJ would NOT be a schedule 1 drug, period. Supposedly 'Worse' than cocaine and heroin -- not as per science, but as per political edict.

Your bias is showing. Absolute, utter, BS.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

Funny. Now the law isn't on your side and you want to appeal to 'science.'

BS. If we went by science, then MJ would NOT be a schedule 1 drug, period. 'Worse' than cocaine and heroin.

Your bias is showing. Absolute, utter, BS.

I forget, what are the names of the 400 chemicals in marijuana?

[holesinpaper]

Originally Posted by series1811

I didn't say whether it should be legalized or not, I asked, how you would enforce DUI with marijuana. You said, someone will figure out something.

I asked you how old you were because I though I might taylor my explanation better if I knew your age. It wasn't an insult.

It's called "driving under the influence" and not "drunk driving" because LEO can CURRENTLY enforce impaired driving laws against MJ users.

Dur.

[/end idiotic argument]

[holesinpaper]

Originally Posted by Cali-Glock

The data is clear: MJ users have a significantly higher incident of vegicle accidents, workplace accidents, and workplace injuries.

So do MEN compared to WOMEN.

Crap, we might need to ban men from driving, for the children.