Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More Colorado drivers in fatal crashes positive for pot, study says
Denver Post ^ | 5/15/2014 | John Ingold

Posted on 07/11/2014 7:29:08 AM PDT by Kazan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: itssme

One way to “weed” them out.

LOL


21 posted on 07/11/2014 8:31:29 AM PDT by gdzla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
More Colorado drivers in fatal crashes positive for pot....

Whoooa! I drive a Colorado, 2011, Where do I look for the pot? I know there have been a bunch of Chevy recalls but haven't heard of this one!

Sorry, couldn't help myself :>)

22 posted on 07/11/2014 8:44:26 AM PDT by Wilum (Never loaded a nuke I didn't like)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

You can smell marijuana. It has a very strong smell. The fumes will affect people nearby. The same people who will stop everyone from smoking cigarettes stating that 2nd hand smoke will kill people around the smokers are all fine with marijuana which is known to cause the same health damage as cigarettes but will also cause brain damage.

Brain damage is what democrats are counting on.


23 posted on 07/11/2014 8:53:29 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“We either live in a free society or we live in a police state”

With no possibility of anything in between? Like having no laws against food, drugs and substances you buy that are knowingly designed to kill or to sicken you or your children? That anyone can sell anything they choose and call it anything they want and make any claim they want about it no matter what, whether it will kill you, maim you, or cause long term harm? No laws against fraud, theft or murder? Anyone can engage in reckless behavior against you or your family on the highway or anywhere else. It’s OK for your neighbor to poison your well and your livestock, or trespass and cut down all of your trees?

That’s not living free nor in a police state. That’s called anarchy and chaos.


24 posted on 07/11/2014 9:20:48 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: catnipman

Did we have anarchy before we had the WOD?


25 posted on 07/11/2014 9:27:10 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
Considering the fact that one will test positive for marijuana at least a month after smoking it, this "study" means nothing.

If you could detect alcohol for a month after having a glass of wine then we would be comparing apples to apples.

26 posted on 07/11/2014 9:32:48 AM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I don't see in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution where the federal government was given any power over drugs at all.

It's in that same section where they have power over Anthrax, Nerve Gas, and Nuclear Material. You know, the DEFEND THE NATION section.

27 posted on 07/11/2014 9:44:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
No. Drugs are and should be subject to the police powers of the States. Not the federal government.

The others you list are recognized weapons of war that cause mass casualties.

/johnny

28 posted on 07/11/2014 9:52:15 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Marko413

Anyone here on FR have any information as to the current auto insurance rates in Colorado?

I would think that every single auto insurance company would have to raise their rates over this issue.

How many Colorado companies are now screening for drugs versus their Workmen’s Comp insurance???


29 posted on 07/11/2014 10:01:28 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: minnesota_bound
The fumes will affect people nearby.

Just looking at pot will turn you into a fiend - or a bat.

30 posted on 07/11/2014 10:46:22 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
Apparently neither the article poster nor many commenters read as far as the third sentence:

"But the data the researchers use does not reveal whether those drivers were impaired at the time of the crash".

31 posted on 07/11/2014 10:48:18 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdzla

LOL


32 posted on 07/11/2014 11:17:29 AM PDT by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
No. Drugs are and should be subject to the police powers of the States. Not the federal government.

The others you list are recognized weapons of war that cause mass casualties.

/johnny

You haven't really studied drugs much, have you?

33 posted on 07/11/2014 12:12:52 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
I’m not a doper or a libertarian, but it’s a little early too early to make any hard and fast conclusions. In five years we’ll have a better idea of the effects of legalization.

Regarding Marijuana, that' s a sensible position. Regarding the harder stuff, the jury's already in on that.

34 posted on 07/11/2014 12:15:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I'm very familiar with federal government over-reach. The feds didn't feel a need to regulate drugs for over 100 years in this country. Even when there were so many addicts after the Civil War.

You want to stretch the Constitution to let the feds do whatever YOU want them to do. It doesn't work that way. Police powers are STATE powers. And have been for most of the nation's history.

/johnny

35 posted on 07/11/2014 12:23:32 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I'm very familiar with federal government over-reach. The feds didn't feel a need to regulate drugs for over 100 years in this country. Even when there were so many addicts after the Civil War.

Yeah, do you know what this is?

You want to stretch the Constitution to let the feds do whatever YOU want them to do. It doesn't work that way. Police powers are STATE powers. And have been for most of the nation's history.

No stretching needed. Drugs are an existential threat to a nation, and so it is within the mandate of the Defense of the Nation to prohibit and and interdict them.

36 posted on 07/11/2014 12:42:42 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Are more people driving under the influence of marijuana now that marijuana is legal? That might be a logical outcome of just having it no longer being a crime.


37 posted on 07/11/2014 12:45:58 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Drugs fall under the police powers of the State. The federal military should NOT be used.

Always have been until recently. I don't give a damn what you think has changed.

You want control at the federal level over drugs, get a constitutional amendment, like for alcohol prohibition.

Under your 'existential threat' theory, anything can be under the control of the feds and the military.

/johnny

38 posted on 07/11/2014 12:50:20 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Drugs fall under the police powers of the State. The federal military should NOT be used.

Disagree. They are often extra national in origin, and no state agency can deal with this.

Always have been until recently. I don't give a damn what you think has changed.

I don't think anything has changed. I think the Federal government has always dealt with extra national threats that have the power to kill millions of American citizens.

What I do think is that you do not comprehend that chart I showed you. It explains why drugs weren't a problem until they started becoming a problem, at which point we banned them, and thereby prevented a massive problem.

You want control at the federal level over drugs, get a constitutional amendment, like for alcohol prohibition.

Sure. Right after we get a constitutional amendment to ban nerve gas.

Under your 'existential threat' theory, anything can be under the control of the feds and the military.

Anything which will kill millions, yes. Harmless stuff that doesn't hurt anyone? No. Marijuana may be harmless, but the harder stuff is definitely not.

I have known several people who killed themselves with that crap. Two of them left behind infant children.

39 posted on 07/11/2014 1:02:51 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Take away their license to drive forever if they are this stupid and pot-headed.


40 posted on 07/11/2014 1:07:14 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson