Author Topic: Reefer Madness  (Read 1962 times)

Vecanti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #75 on: April 26, 2010, 06:51:44 AM »
If it's not as impairing as being drunk, then it's 100% safe?  :roll:

What's funny is in Oregon they have banned "holding your cellphone" while driving.  So you have to use a handsfree device.

Problem is even myself, and I've seen people waiting at a red light miss that it has already turned green for example, get more distracted trying to get a wired handsfree headset untangled and plugged in when the phone rings or people messing with their bluetooth headsets of bluetooth speaker phone devices trying to get them to work. 

People seem way more distracted trying get these things to function, drive, AND talk as opposed to just talking and driving. 

I think that law took us backwards.  Either let people talk or don't.  This handsfree thing is more dangerous in my opinion.  Would be interesting to see real data on it.



Arkhan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14142
  • Fuck Elmer.
    • Incessant Negativity Software
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #76 on: April 26, 2010, 06:52:30 AM »
yeah, but a lot of times that shit ends up being thrown out in court because the officer who caught you don't show up, and then they have no numerical data to back up how toasted you were...

so it's the word of mouth of an non present officer, and then you get off on a technicality, etc.

kind of stupid, but thats the way it goes around here sometimes.

one time someone got out of a DUI + huge accident because before they tested the guys blood for alcohol, they used alcohol prep pads to prepare the area, and it was argued that it contaminated the reading. -_-

lol


What's funny is in Oregon they have banned "holding your cellphone" while driving.  So you have to use a handsfree device.

Problem is even myself, and I've seen people waiting at a red light miss that it has already turned green for example, get more distracted trying to get a wired handsfree headset untangled and plugged in when the phone rings or people messing with their bluetooth headsets of bluetooth speaker phone devices trying to get them to work. 

People seem way more distracted trying get these things to function, drive, AND talk as opposed to just talking and driving. 

I think that law took us backwards.  Either let people talk or don't.  This handsfree thing is more dangerous in my opinion.  Would be interesting to see real data on it.

Some cities have that law here by me too.  They did a study that showed that a lot of people lack the coordination to hold the phone, focus on the talking, and the driving all at once, and thats why they banned it.

Some people DO actually possess the coordination to do it, but most don't....

a hands-free setup, assuming you're not messy, lets you press button and talk while still focusing on the road.

It becomes about the same as having a passenger to talk to.

now, if you are one of those people who tangles all your wires, throws shit all over the car, and fumbles around with everything while driving, .... it isn't going to work out for you, lol.  :)
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 06:56:00 AM by Arkhan »
[Fri 19:34]<nectarsis> been wanting to try that one for awhile now Ope
[Fri 19:33]<Opethian> l;ol huge dong

I'm a max level Forum Warrior.  I'm immortal.
If you're not ready to defend your claims, don't post em.

ceti alpha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3831
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #77 on: April 26, 2010, 07:15:49 AM »
The problem with dope testing is that THC stays in your system for months. So, even you took a small toke at some party three months ago you would still test positive for marijuana.


"Let the CAW and Mystery of a Journey Unlike Any Other Begin"

RoyVegas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #78 on: April 26, 2010, 07:31:56 AM »
I don't think any states have set a THC blood level, but they rather leave it up to the officer to determine if you are impaired, much like they do in absence of a breathalyzer.

Which is always risky because then there is a lack of proof other than the officers experience with impared individuals and Dept. training.  Lawyers could have a field day with that.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 07:43:44 AM by RoyVegas »
All is well. :)

Arkhan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14142
  • Fuck Elmer.
    • Incessant Negativity Software
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #79 on: April 26, 2010, 07:41:31 AM »
yeah man lawyers eat that shit up like free cake
[Fri 19:34]<nectarsis> been wanting to try that one for awhile now Ope
[Fri 19:33]<Opethian> l;ol huge dong

I'm a max level Forum Warrior.  I'm immortal.
If you're not ready to defend your claims, don't post em.

Necromancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21355
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #80 on: April 26, 2010, 08:53:43 AM »
yeah, but a lot of times that shit ends up being thrown out in court because the officer who caught you don't show up, and then they have no numerical data to back up how toasted you were...

so it's the word of mouth of an non present officer, and then you get off on a technicality, etc.

kind of stupid, but thats the way it goes around here sometimes.

It's not a stupid technicality, it's the Bill of Rights.  The Sixth Amendment allows the accused to confront the witnesses against them, so even if a breathalyzer test was given, the officer must show up for trial.

Which is always risky because then there is a lack of proof other than the officers experience with impared individuals and Dept. training.  Lawyers could have a field day with that.

Not really.  The officer's judgment is only used in the field to determine if a blood test is warranted, so it's no riskier than with booze where the officer's judgment must be relied upon to determine if there's probable cause to administer a breathalyzer/blood test or even to pull 'em over in the first place.
U.S. Collection: 97% complete    155/159 titles

Keranu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9054
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #81 on: April 26, 2010, 09:31:51 AM »
But driving under the influence of marijuana makes the driver take caution rather than take risks like alcohol influence does. Marijuana doesn't affect motor coordination nearly as bad as alcohol does either.

If it's not as impairing as being drunk, then it's 100% safe?  :roll:
I never said it was you sneaky robot devil :D !
Quote from: Bonknuts
Adding PCE console specific layer on top of that, makes for an interesting challenge (no, not a reference to Ys II).

RoyVegas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #82 on: April 26, 2010, 09:32:19 AM »
yeah, but a lot of times that shit ends up being thrown out in court because the officer who caught you don't show up, and then they have no numerical data to back up how toasted you were...

It doesn't work that way everywhere.  I can tell you that here in Vegas the officer HAS to show up to court or face disciplinary action.

Not really.  The officer's judgment is only used in the field to determine if a blood test is warranted, so it's no riskier than with booze where the officer's judgment must be relied upon to determine if there's probable cause to administer a breathalyzer/blood test or even to pull 'em over in the first place.

I do agree with your point 100%  I meant more towards the aspect that since a blood test would pick up the THC if you had smoked ANY time recently.  I'm no expert on THC, I'm just going off what Ceti said a few posts ago. 

So let's say for examples sake you smoked weed 2 days ago and yesterday you got pulled over for a DUI.  You were just overly tired, eyes were red and showed similar characteristics of being high.  Officer thinks your high and arrests you.  They get a blood test and THC shows up in your system from two days ago.  It would appear as if you were driving high when you wern't.  I would think at that point it would be the officers word/experience vs. your word.  Your lawyer could just say "Yes judge, he is a pothead which is why he came up positive but the night in question he was just overly tired".

A blood test for THC can tell you if they used but not when they used so wouldn't that make it easier to argue in court?
All is well. :)

Necromancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21355
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #83 on: April 26, 2010, 10:11:42 AM »
I believe it's zero tolerance, Roy; if you have it in your system, you're guilty.  Underage drinking is much the same way - if they detect any amount, you're f*cked.
U.S. Collection: 97% complete    155/159 titles

RoyVegas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2010, 10:24:25 AM »
I believe it's zero tolerance, Roy; if you have it in your system, you're guilty.  Underage drinking is much the same way - if they detect any amount, you're f*cked.

That would be pretty interesting.  I can see them using the blood test to prove they used drugs at some point, but they still wouldn't be able to link it to the driving..

Either way it will be interesting to see how things REALLY go in the future.
All is well. :)

Arkhan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14142
  • Fuck Elmer.
    • Incessant Negativity Software
Re: Reefer Madness
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2010, 10:54:38 AM »
I believe it's zero tolerance, Roy; if you have it in your system, you're guilty.  Underage drinking is much the same way - if they detect any amount, you're f*cked.

yes, this could go poorly if dope smoking is legalized.  People will toke up, a week later crash their car, and test positive even if they're clean, just because the cop was "suspicious" about it.

[Fri 19:34]<nectarsis> been wanting to try that one for awhile now Ope
[Fri 19:33]<Opethian> l;ol huge dong

I'm a max level Forum Warrior.  I'm immortal.
If you're not ready to defend your claims, don't post em.