|
BANNED: Stoned Driving (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Euphorica |
| quote: | Originally posted by _EuG_
how about the fact that a G driver can have a couple of drinks or up to 0.08 alcohol limit...
will that mean that stoner can have a few joints before driving ??? |
errr no. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I've always been in favour of legalizing pot - but when it comes to licensed activities like driving, anything that impairs your judgment or response time (which pot does) shouldn't be allowed. Same rules as alcohol. Simple, and a very good move on Harper's part.
We're not talking about casual smokers here, we're talking about people who are potentially putting other people's lives in danger due to their carelessness - and I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how many people tell me they can drive just as well (or better - that's a laugh) on dope, it's very easy for me to tell who the likely stoners are on the road, just as it will be for police.
It's not unconstitutional because it requires probable cause. Police can't just stop random motorists and they wouldn't have the resources to even if they wanted to. It's only when you're driving 30 in the fast lane or weaving all around the road that you're going to get pulled over, and if you're driving like that, then it doesn't matter if you smoked up 3 hours ago or 3 weeks ago, you don't deserve to keep your license. RIDE programs are perhaps a different story, but let's be honest, if you do any drugs at all then you've known for years to avoid those stops.
The message is simple: if you smoke weed, don't drive. If you must drive, force yourself to pay attention and don't drive like a freaking moron. That way, none of this will affect you at all. If any of you honestly think that this will be struck down in the Supreme Court then you've got another think coming - courts are liberal on the subject of drugs, but that doesn't extend to DUI, which they've always been very strict on. |
|
|
| phlog |
| id rather someone who's hit a couple poppers behind the wheel than some spazz whos had 14 cups of coffee, a couple extra strength tylonols and a zoloft for breakfast :eyespop:. i would imagine scenarios like this are quite common. don't count on seeing regulations addressing the use of pharmacuticals while driving anytime soon though. |
|
|
| veezee |
hrm.. will just have to do K .. there is no drug test for it :)
K + driving = some fun !!!
btw, im kidding about the driving part!
Jay |
|
|
| Misanthrope |
| quote: | Originally posted by veezee
hrm.. will just have to do K .. there is no drug test for it :)
K + driving = some fun !!!
btw, im kidding about the driving part!
Jay |
:stongue:
since when do you post on ta? |
|
|
| nusty |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I agree with the idea in pricipal. There is no need for drug driving just like there shouldnt be drunk driving. But there is no clear method for testing whether you are high. They can only dtermine if drugs are in your system. Perhaps you got high 3 days ago? Drugs can stay in your system for months sometimes.
This is why i cant support this. There are too many variables involved.
Also MADD canada is involved and i personally dont like how that organization has evolved from an anti drinking and driving group to an all out anti alcohol group. |
ditto on everything.:) |
|
|
| kanaytochyo |
| A buddy of mine, once told me about how he got pulled over and was charged with DUI in Koln, since he smoked some cannabis earlier. He said they tested him right there on the spot by taking a little sweat sample from his skin and testing it in their analyzer... Guess thats what they might use over here. |
|
|
| |
Problem is drug tests are not very time sensitive. You could take a urine test and test positive for marijuana even though you may have smoked it 2 days ago.
And good luck to Harper getting this legislation passed through. I don't think he'll be in office long enough to see this happen. He's already looking like a lame duck prime minister... much like his facist American counterpart.
- Fly
Check out my Sander van Doorn interview |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by _EuG_
how will they test??? Piss? Hair? Blood? Saliva? |
Probably a piss test.
Look, it's no different that what companies are doing in labour camps across Canada; a mandatory drug test (piss test) every 30 days and that's WITH union approval across the board.
Companies need to save themselves from any liberality with work being done under the influence.
Do they know something the government doesn't?
Probably not, but it sure drives home the point that being under drug influence is NOT the same as being sober when working and/or driving.
So remember that when you're driving a 2000+ pd mass of metal and glass, hurling down the hi-way; you're literally driving a weapon and that it's a privilege, not a right to do so.
I don't see how this could ever be, "Unconstitutional"...:conf: |
|
|
| ItalianPoiSon |
how can u test if your stonned hounstly.........
ppl can juss say there tired i've told that to the cops b4 they believed me........
and wats the point ur only high for 30mins or so.....
there goin to be wasting r tax money yet again |
|
|
| ItalianPoiSon |
DONT DRINK AND DRIVE
SMOKE N FLY
I NEVER WENT TO HIGH SKOOL
Y NOT
BUT I WENT TO SKOOL HIGH |
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Probably a piss test.
Look, it's no different that what companies are doing in labour camps across Canada; a mandatory drug test (piss test) every 30 days and that's WITH union approval across the board.
Companies need to save themselves from any liberality with work being done under the influence.
Do they know something the government doesn't?
Probably not, but it sure drives home the point that being under drug influence is NOT the same as being sober when working and/or driving.
So remember that when you're driving a 2000+ pd mass of metal and glass, hurling down the hi-way; you're literally driving a weapon and that it's a privilege, not a right to do so.
I don't see how this could ever be, "Unconstitutional"...:conf: |
They can't do a piss test...that just wouldn't work.
Officer: I'm going need you to pee for me...
Stoned Kid: I'm sorry officer, I don't have to pee...
It's not like the officer can force someone to pee. Is he going to have to sit there and wait for the kid to pee, or something like that? |
|
|
|
|
