Cannabis is legal

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sure but again that's the question, how do you test for it, and if its a blood screening you have a right to refuse the screening.

An article in the globe and mail that talks about an increase in fatal accidents in the States with legalized dope where drivers tested positive for THC, which goes counter to your argument,

Let me ask you a question? IF its only that your driving tired, do you want people operating motor vehicles under the influence of a drug that makes them tired and maybe inattentive?

The one big thing for me in terms of legalization is the laws around driving.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle26947558/

That just means more people who got into fatal accidents had THC in their system. Which only implies that they had smoked sometime in the recent past. Note that the amount of fatal accidents didn't increase.

That's a good article though.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by polak

If you had a bunch of stoners causing accidents while ripped I think you'd hear about it?

I think the fact that you don't hear about it is either:

A) They don't cause accidents on a regular basis
B) Cops can't tell they're impaired and if you can't tell that someone is impaired in a situation like that (heavy, detail oriented conversation with police) I think it's debatable if they're actually impaired.

I mean wouldn't you expect to hear about THC levels in toxicology reports from stoners causing serious accidents?

I'm not saying they cause accidents on the regular, but DUIs do not always result in accidents. It's driving under the influence, not crashing under the influence.

I'll admit to driving stoned. I'm not proud of it, but I've done it. I don't think it really affected my driving, but if I got pulled over and charged with a DUI I'd have no grounds for complaint. I'm also someone that uses it regularly and can function. If we as regular users preach that it's okay to do, those who are not might, and those who are not probably cannot, espeically their first few times.

Thus, until there is a proper way to measure intoxication by THC, it shouldn't be allowed at all. There's also no way of knowing the dose of THC you've ingested unless its an edible (a carefully made one at that). How many puffs equal intoxication? For whom? Who can control themselves and who cant? You can't break something like this down into subsets of people who can or can't do something. It's either able to be used or not. As an avid user, I vote not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Matata

My point is that there are great number of things that impair to an equal or more severe degree than driving stoned and as such, the current laws are sufficient, we don't need anything new. People who are afraid that a smokey wave of death will soon be flooding the highways are jumping at shadows.

That's what Undercover is arguing, not to create some separate system of laws for it, but to be able to effectively test and handle it in the same way as impaired driving. You can have similar laws and consequences but a big part of this is that they have to define what Impaired is (if it matches the liquor laws in Alberta) then its pretty much a two tier system.

So like I said at the start, if the Liberal's are going to legalize this by August 20th of next year then they will have to define what impaired is, then they can match the punishments in a similar way.

I mean pretty much as it stands in Alberta, if a cop pulls you over and suspects that you're high, they can probably tow your car and write you a summons if they mirror the current impaired driving laws.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by polak

When is the last time there's been any story about someone getting a DUI for weed?

I guess "Man gets DUI after giggling in a McDonalds drive thru for 15 minutes" doesn't get the same level of press.

I guess that means getting stoned and driving is safe?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by steve9981

Although I don't get super stoned and drive I do want to point out there is a massive difference between drinking and driving and being stoned and driving and I will say that from personal experience, not random opinion.

Originally Posted by Matata

My point is that there are great number of things that impair to an equal or more severe degree than driving stoned and as such, the current laws are sufficient, we don't need anything new. People who are afraid that a smokey wave of death will soon be flooding the highways are jumping at shadows.

My post was in response to Steve, who doesn't get "super stoned" and drive.

It was a comment on the "culture" (for want of a better term) of some users.

Matata, what I have yet to hear is if there are sufficient road side tests.

[polak]

Oh I'm definitely not saying that I'm a fan of people who drive after smoking. Quite the opposite. I don't know how people handle it, the paranoia must be legit.

I'm just saying that I'm not sure that the concerns that Stoned drivers are going to become some big problem are founded on anything besides a lack of understanding. People equate it to drinking when the effects are so much different. All of the things that cause people to drive after drinking like over-confidence and underestimating their impairment are opposite when you smoke marijuana (from my experience). It's almost like a safety net. You're very aware that you're not in good shape to do certain things.

But then again like you said, some people feel perfectly fine driving stoned, my original point was that it doesn't seem like these people are getting caught very frequently, either by checkstops or getting caught driving poorly or causing an accident. So either they're driving and behavior is actually fine like they claim even though they smoked or the police is choosing not tell us about all of the Marijuana related DUI's for some reason. If you consider my first point in this post I think that leads me to believe it's the former. People who smoke know in what shape they are and what they can and can't do.

But this is all just anecdotal experience from myself and people I know. Maybe I'm out to lunch and someone will come here with figures demonstrating that there are lots of Marijuana related DUI's and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

[Fuzz]

I have a great article from the Herald about 20 years ago. Headline "Pot makes driving safer." See if I can find it...

[Matata]

There's a whole galaxy of mind altering pharmaceuticals out there, should each one get it's own specialized testing procedure? People have been trying to come up with a weed breathalizer for a long time and are no where close to a practical solution. Should legalization be stopped until this mythical weed breathalizer comes to fruition? It seems like an odd thing to get hung up when the most likely result of legalization is a decline in traffic accidents and fatalities.

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ject-1.3902829

Toronto police say they plan today to begin testing two types of roadside screening devices that are designed to detect the recent presence of certain drugs in motorists.

The testing is part of a pilot project on drug impaired driving that runs until the spring of 2017 and it will test how well officers are able to use the devices on drivers under different weather conditions. The project involves testing saliva.

No charges will be laid in the project, even if drivers and passengers test positive for drugs, Toronto police said on Monday.

Const. Clint Stibbe, spokesperson for the Toronto Police Service, said if drivers show signs of impairment, they will not be asked to take the test. Instead, they will be arrested if the impairment is by alcohol. He said officers have to make an assessment before administering a test to determine impairment.

Interesting, so there are steps in place.

[polak]

Now all my ads on CP are about DUI Lawyers....

[Coach]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Matata, what I have yet to hear is if there are sufficient road side tests.

There isn't yet.

Originally Posted by polak

Oh I'm definitely not saying that I'm a fan of people who drive after smoking. Quite the opposite. I don't know how people handle it, the paranoia must be legit.

I'm just saying that I'm not sure that the concerns that Stoned drivers are going to become some big problem are founded on anything besides a lack of understanding. People equate it to drinking when the effects are so much different. All of the things that cause people to drive after drinking like over-confidence and underestimating their impairment are opposite when you smoke marijuana (from my experience). It's almost like a safety net. You're very aware that you're not in good shape to do certain things.

But then again like you said, some people feel perfectly fine driving stoned, my original point was that it doesn't seem like these people are getting caught very frequently, either by checkstops or getting caught driving poorly or causing an accident. So either they're driving and behavior is actually fine like they claim even though they smoked or the police is choosing not tell us about all of the Marijuana related DUI's for some reason. If you consider my first point in this post I think that leads me to believe it's the former. People who smoke know in what shape they are and what they can and can't do.

I think a large factor is where these activities take place. Currently there aren't places where you go smoke and party like there is for booze. Most people who are smoking pot are doing it at their own house, or that of a friend. You likely don't need to drive anywhere until you come down anyways, if at all. People who are stoned tend to move as little as possible, so yes, they are probably only every driving as far as their closest drive thru. Whereas with booze, every Friday and Saturday night you have 1000's of people flooding out of bars drunk looking for ways to get home. It stands to reason that there's just a larger percentage of people who are driving drunk than stoned, likely farther, and more likely through unfamiliar places.

And yes, I do believe that the effects of alcohol are much more of a driving impairment than the effects of weed. But they are both affecting your brain.

Originally Posted by Matata

There's a whole galaxy of mind altering pharmaceuticals out there, should each one get it's own specialized testing procedure?

For sure. And I am not comfortable with people driving on those either. Everything that goes into pharamceutical circulation probably should have a tet for impairment, yes. If one person is going to jail for drinking and driving, I want the same for people who are pill popping and driving.

[FireGilbert]

Great news! I might need to consider a move back to Canada...

Interesting to see all the debate on driving while impaired. I'm not sure how legalisation will change this as it already is a problem that should have been taken care of years ago. Just give the police those saliva drug testing kits which they can use if there is suspicion of driving under the influence of any drug. They can only detect marijuana up to 2-24 hours after use so you will only get busted if you are still under the influence.

[Azure]

About bloody time.

[puffnstuff]

Pretty sure the roadside test should be the officer stands in front of you, they hold out a cookie. If you reach for it, you fail.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Aren't there systems now that will basically grow a plant for you with very little intervention? Like, you pop a seed in the one plant green house, fill with water/fertilizer, plug it in and in a month or two you have bud?

Ah, here is the device:
https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/22/le...-in-your-home/

https://www.getleaf.co/faq

You may not want to browse at work...Doesn't say how long it takes.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Now that they have legalized it, maybe they can come up with some that doesn't smell like crap.

What the hell happened to weed? It sure didn't smell this way 15-20 years ago?

It doesn't all smell like crap at all.....different strains will smell different ways...you'll distinctively know its marijuana yes, but it can range from fruity to citrusy, to earthy or pungent.

[TheFlamesVan]

I think the population in general is too hung up on the DUI aspect of this.... I get it but, I was given Percocets for a broken jaw and those really messed me up. Are there roadside tests for the (I'm assuming would be much larger) population of people driving on prescription drugs? That scares me more to be honest.

[CroFlames]

Canopy Growth Company (WEED) stock is soaring.

Might as well jump on board and take advantage of the hype methinks.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

I think the population in general is too hung up on the DUI aspect of this.... I get it but, I was given Percocets for a broken jaw and those really messed me up. Are there roadside tests for the (I'm assuming would be much larger) population of people driving on prescription drugs? That scares me more to be honest.

As posted earlier in this thread, yes there are road side tests for general impairment. You can be charged with impaired driving for any number of reasons including prescription drugs, illness, or even being tired. Anything that impairs your ability to safely drive can technically lead to a charge.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What happens if there is an accident and you get stuck on the freeway for an hour? Like drinking, don't do it without an escape plan. I don't drive myself to a bar, why would you "start the clock" before you know you won't need to drive? Adult decisions, people.

You're absolutely correct, and that's precisely why I would never do it. I understand the argument that it's much safer than being drunk, but it's odd to equate it with being sleepy or distracted which cause way too many unnecessary fatalities already.

This is a problem that will need to be solved, and there's money in it for whoever does it. I have little doubt we'll have something shortly. The argument could be made that legalization shouldn't happen until we have one, but I can't help but feel this method will generate results much faster.