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

Reason ^ | June 28, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[OmahaFields]

If the point is to make the penalties for smoking marijuana more severe, let's have a debate about that, instead of pretending the issue is traffic safety.

Does the fact that one has smoked marijuana, in fact, make his ability to behave rationally questionable?

[stands2reason]

No.

[OmahaFields]

No.

The very fact that someone smokes a joint to distance him from reality knowing that his act could land him in trouble makes his act irrational. Should irrationl people be allowed to drive?

[elkfersupper]

Should irrationl people be allowed to drive?

Irrational people drive every day.

You nearly have to be irrational to strap yourself into a 2-ton contraption and move at speeds that would vaporize a boiled egg, among other contraptions weighing from 250 to 180,000 pounds, risking arrest and confiscation of your net worth every second.

[stands2reason]

Are you saying only people who act rational 100% of the time should be allowed to drive?

Good luck with a test for that.

[neverdem]

Um, isn't marijuana use illegal there?

I haven't kept up with the thread, but I thought the question was impairment. If it's not a question of actual impairment, what about the metabolites of prescription drugs and their potential adverse effects?

[OmahaFields]

Are you saying only people who act rational 100% of the time should be allowed to drive?

I never said anything like that? Did you get your posting techiniques from 101 Ways to Distort"?

[OmahaFields]

I haven't kept up with the thread, but I thought the question was impairment.

No. The issue is that ingesting marijuana is illegal. Nothing about impairment.

[OmahaFields]

You nearly have to be irrational to strap yourself into a 2-ton contraption and move at speeds that would vaporize a boiled egg, among other contraptions weighing from 250 to 180,000 pounds, risking arrest and confiscation of your net worth every second.

Maybe that is what makes some smoke?

[neverdem]

No. The issue is that ingesting marijuana is illegal.

What is your solution, mandatory urinalysis without cause?

[elkfersupper]

Maybe that is what makes some smoke?.

Absolutely not.

It's what makes some want to regulate others' behavior, when it would be simpler to just avoid unpleasant situations and company.

[stands2reason]

You described those who do a particular irrational thing - smoke a joint-- to be irrational people. I made the conclusion that you believe anyone who does an irrational thing once is considered irrational. I guess I was wrong.

Is there a certain class of irrational actions that by performing once cause a person to be considered irrational, or is it just smoking that joint? Of course, there are bigtime irrational events that will get you thrown in jail because of the damage they cause and we can rightly call the doers irrational, (like the preacher's wife who shot her husband over money problems) but is the act of smoking a joint the equivalent? Please clarify.

[OmahaFields]

You described those who do a particular irrational thing - smoke a joint-- to be irrational people.

And you consider risking your future and your families future for a trip to la la land a rational action?

[stands2reason]

How is smoking a joint risking you or your families' future?

[OmahaFields]

How is smoking a joint risking you or your families' future?

I stand to reason. Not all decisions to smoke are based on reason, some are just done in ignorance.

[tpaine]

Neverdem:

I haven't kept up with the thread, but I thought the question was impairment.

No. The issue is that ingesting marijuana is illegal. Nothing about impairment.

The issue is; can ingesting marijuana lead to an 'impairment' days later, justifying a 'Driving While Impaired' charge?

But then, some here are to impaired to argue the point rationally.

[Eagle Eye]

IN MICE....or didn't you actually read what was in your link?


Sheesh...

[Eagle Eye]

The Interstate Commerce Clause should be subordinate to the ammendments, right?

[OmahaFields]

If you go back to the law, the legislative intent was not concerned with impairment.

[OmahaFields]

MCL 257.625(8) does not require intoxication, impairment, or knowledge that one might be intoxicated; it simply requires that the person have “any amount” of a schedule 1 controlled substance in his or her body when operating a motor vehicle.