Impaired Reasoning - Should last week’s joint disqualify a pot smoker from driving today?

Reason ^ | June 28, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[Know your rights]

tallhappy gave you, as an example, the article of this thread. In the article, the author gives a link to the court case. If you read the court case, you'd see the intent of the legislature.

Even supposing the majority is correct about the intent, that's one law as versus the many laws in the pro-legalization direction that have been discussed on FR. It remains incorrect to say that overall "actual Americans are enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction."

[Know your rights]

but that's no reason to punish anyone who drives weeks after drinking.

Who's doing that?

By BenLurkin's logic, we should be.

[robertpaulsen]

"It remains incorrect to say that overall "actual Americans are enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction."

It's telling when you have to misquote a poster to defend your inanities.

tallhappy didn't say "overall" nor did he imply it. Also, he said, "actual Americans seem to be enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction" -- not "are".

And after examining this Michigan law (which you should have done before you opened your yap), it sure does seem that way to me.

[robertpaulsen]

BenLurkin stated that "marijuana impairs the user's judgment long after the "high" appears to be over". He supported that statement in a later post with cites, links, and quotes.

Now, unless you're prepared to do the same with alcohol, I suggest you just go away, troll. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[LibertarianInExile]

"The difference, of course, is that alcohol is a legal substance."

Actually, it seems to me that if they can trace a substantial enough amount of alcohol markers in your blood or bowels, they might use this kind of precedent for marijuana to extend the law to people who may have driven drunk the night before. It'd be a stretch, but the courts almost universally accept such stretches by prosecutors.

So laugh it up about the THC being illegal and those dumb potheads getting theirs, while the new WCTU tries to figure out how to make you pee into a cup instead of taking a blood or breathalyzer test. It'll be you next, Niemöller.

[winston2]

(snip)You have no idea what you're talking about.(snip)

I'm curious - Do you have any first hand experience with the effects of cannabis?

Just what are the effects of cannabis and how long after being intoxicated on cannabis should one wait before getting behind the wheel of an automobile?

Also - what is the ratio of automobile crashes caused by cannabis intoxication compared with the number of automobile crashes caused by alcohol intoxication?

It has been my experience that the level of cannabis intoxication that I enjoy doesn't inebriate me to the level of failing a sobriety test. (Known to many as "buzz".)

[Know your rights]

tallhappy didn't say "overall"

That's why I didn't put it inside the quotation marks.

nor did he imply it.

Sure, he did ... and your next quotation supports that reading:

Also, he said, "actual Americans seem to be enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction" -- not "are".

My apologies to tallhappy for the misquote; I was working from memory. But if he was referring only to this single Michigan law, "seem to be" would have been a strange choice of verb ... whereas that verb fits very well an overall claim.

At any rate, it remains the case that many more pro-legalization-directed than anti-legalization-directed laws have been discussed on FR, which suggests that there are more of the former than the latter.

[Know your rights]

BenLurkin stated that "marijuana impairs the user's judgment long after the "high" appears to be over". He supported that statement in a later post with cites, links, and quotes.

Wrong; as I said, "Those findings, if correct, show only that marijuana impairs the CHRONIC ABuser's judgment long after the "high" appears to be over. The same is true of chronic alcohol abusers".

[Celtjew Libertarian]

My question would be whether the chemicals they look for are in second-hand smoke. When I lived in East Quad at the University of Michigan, 20 years ago, just about every resident got their share of second-hand, whether they used pot or not. Unlike Clinton, I never used pot, but I did inhale....

[decimon]

Anyone notice that the threat of losing your driver's license is being used as a sword over the head of all who do not comply with any dictate of the State? Violation of divorce diktat has been recently discussed.

Driving 'privileges' have become our short hairs.

[robertpaulsen]

Your questions have nothing to do with the article or the legislation. I suggest you read both or my excellent summary in post #35.

[Jakarta ex-pat]

I'm not sure you should pull over anyone..

Whether they are wearing a seat belt, talking on an handphone, drunk, smoking pot, or having sex.

However, if they cause an accident. And especially if there are fatalities.

Throw the book at them.

presuming the reason for the accident was from the above.

[toddlintown]

"As long as it is in the doper's system that person remains impaired."

And what are you on?

[robertpaulsen]

"which suggests that there are more of the former than the latter."

It does? The subject content of posted articles on a public web forum is a reliable indicator of the types of laws being passed by our legislators??

I take back what I said before -- THIS is got to be your dumbest post. Hands down. A new low.

[robertpaulsen]

"That's why I didn't put it inside the quotation marks."

Why did you "put it" anywhere in your response?

[tpaine]

tallhappy:

Interesting that after all these years of such "REASON" by enlightened progressive open minded libertarian thinkers to weaken drug laws and normnalize drug use as legitimate and harmless, actual Americans seem to be enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction.

Go figure.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In other words, the Michigan legislature couldn't care less if marijuana is "influencing" you -- they simply don't want you driving after you smoked.
That, to me, is a valid example of "actual Americans ... enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction."
35 robertpaulsen


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Interesting that after all these years actual Americans seem to be ~against~ enacting laws that prohibit drugs & guns.

FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts



It's easy to 'figure' t-happy.. -- Most people are not authoritarian socialists like you and paulsen.

[elkfersupper]

They would have had to have had reason to pull you over in the first place.

No, they don't. They just have to "articulate" that they did.

[RobRoy]

Um, isn't marijuana use illegal there?

[elkfersupper]

actual Americans seem to be enacting laws that are going in the opposite direction.

And it is very comforting to know that we may soon have no-knock raids by militarized cops and roadblocks looking for illicit Twinkies.