Castanet

maryjane48 wrote:No. We dont live in police state. Comparing booze to pot is comparing a gun to a nerf gun .look at the data . Its not even close. Drunk drivers kill thousands a day .pot. Not so much

Your in a dream world.

they also need to test for impairment by prescription drugs and impairment from lack of sleep. impairment from emotional situations can also be an issue.

Instead of testing for impaired we should test for Fitness to Drive. Similar to how workplaces should handle alcohol, drugs and prescription drugs.

There should be standard reaction times and cognitive abilities. I'm sure there are other aspects of human performance important as well.

You are either fit to drive or you are not. But some people become extremely impaired by a LOW dose of Ativan, someone else may not. We do not all metabolize things the same way.

GordonH wrote:So come July 1, highways could get that much more dangerous.

Well, I certainly hope not.
I'm choosing to believe a different scenario....delusional or not..... :)

I'm choosing to believe that it won't make any difference, or at least, a trivial difference. I don't think things will suddenly degenerate into a bunch of lawlessness and reckless behavior.

Right now, anyone who drinks and drives already does so knowing they're breaking the law and risking harm to themselves and others. But despite that knowledge, do so anyway. Similarly, anyone who smokes/ingests weed and drives already know they're breaking the law and taking the same risks of injuring themselves and others.
Those people will continue to do so, even once pot is legal. But even once pot is legal, it will have rules, no different than alcohol and tobacco. Although they may be legal, there are rules of consumption. So despite being suddenly legal, I don't think that means that the ones that currently follow responsible behavior will suddenly become irresponsible.

It's seems pretty clear that handing a condom to a teenager doesn't suddenly make that teenager go out and have sex.
If they made smoking crack legal, it doesn't mean that non drug users will suddenly decide they want to smoke it.

Making something legal doesn't change society into a raging, uninhibited, uncontrolled ocean of chaos. Those that currently behave badly will continue to behave badly, those that are responsible will continue to be responsible. At least, I sure hope so.... :)

GordonH wrote:So come July 1, highways could get that much more dangerous.

DarkMagna wrote:Well, I certainly hope not.
I'm choosing to believe a different scenario....delusional or not..... :)

I'm choosing to believe that it won't make any difference, or at least, a trivial difference. I don't think things will suddenly degenerate into a bunch of lawlessness and reckless behavior.

Right now, anyone who drinks and drives already does so knowing they're breaking the law and risking harm to themselves and others. But despite that knowledge, do so anyway. Similarly, anyone who smokes/ingests weed and drives already know they're breaking the law and taking the same risks of injuring themselves and others.
Those people will continue to do so, even once pot is legal. But even once pot is legal, it will have rules, no different than alcohol and tobacco. Although they may be legal, there are rules of consumption. So despite being suddenly legal, I don't think that means that the ones that currently follow responsible behavior will suddenly become irresponsible.

It's seems pretty clear that handing a condom to a teenager doesn't suddenly make that teenager go out and have sex.
If they made smoking crack legal, it doesn't mean that non drug users will suddenly decide they want to smoke it.

Making something legal doesn't change society into a raging, uninhibited, uncontrolled ocean of chaos. Those that currently behave badly will continue to behave badly, those that are responsible will continue to be responsible. At least, I sure hope so.... :)

How long have we been dealing with drinking & driving, still drivers continue to do so. Oh yes stoners are going to be different, if you believe that....

GordonH wrote:How long have we been dealing with drinking & driving, still drivers continue to do so. Oh yes stoners are going to be different, if you believe that....

Not what I said. You're choosing to twist my words to suit your beliefs.

Ya that is not what DarkMagna said at all. I agree with their comment. Point is people who want to smoke marijuana already are. Will the number go up a bit after legalization, who knows, look to Colorado i'm sure it will be similar.

But there will not be many more, if any, stoned drivers on the roads on July 2, 2018 than on June 30, 2018. It is a good point.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... ed-drivers

I found this very interesting and couldn't help but wonder how many people fail drug tests prior to working on camp jobs, for example, for the same reason. The part about 'criminalizing pot users when the intent was to legalize it' hits the nail on the head and I'm left wondering if they're simply creating a big mess by legalizing it now. Sounds costly, at best. What do others think and does anyone know what current procedures are for police to test for marijuana impairment?

gman313 wrote:Ya that is not what DarkMagna said at all. I agree with their comment. Point is people who want to smoke marijuana already are. Will the number go up a bit after legalization, who knows, look to Colorado i'm sure it will be similar.
But there will not be many more, if any, stoned drivers on the roads on July 2, 2018 than on June 30, 2018. It is a good point.

I don't live or drive in State of Colorado, according to MJ's numbers on tax revenue in that State everyone must be using pot now.

So using pot will not impair ones driving abilities, yes or no. If yes, what is your suggesting on being able to charge them.

GordonH wrote:

DarkMagna wrote:I'm sorry for your loss, Gordon. Thank-you
I think you may be missing the main point of this conversation. Let me give you a specific case, using myself as a test subject.
I have a medical card for marijuana. I smoke it on a regular basis......but I NEVER - and I mean NEVER, smoke it and drive. I also don't drink and drive.
But if I smoke a little tonight and then three days later get stopped for whatever reason, if the cop decides to test me, I'll test positive....even though I'm as straight as a tea drinking grandma. That's what the issue at hand is, and with it, the question of how to accurately test and gauge impairment. Arresting me for impaired driving when I have ZERO impairment (basic bad judgement excluded) isn't solving anything.

Cheers

I'm not missing the point, my point is pot smokers or other forms of ingesting. Chances are good they would get off of any charges in court. Reason being the Crown would not be able to know without a doubt when the driver had the pot, sometime before being pulled over or day before.
So come July 1, highways could get that much more dangerous.

I believe you are missing the point.

Drivers who flaunt the law, be it alcohol use, pot use, prescription drug addiction, or what have you, are already out there, and changes in the law aren't going to make any difference to their behavior.

Mostly what the changing laws are going to do is make it so that those who prefer to stay on the good side of the law, can now do so.

I'm far more concerned about the distracted driving epidemic than I am an onslaught of stoned drivers, that I doubt will materialize.

Old Techie wrote:I believe you are missing the point.

Drivers who flaunt the law, be it alcohol use, pot use, prescription drug addiction, or what have you, are already out there, and changes in the law aren't going to make any difference to their behavior.

Mostly what the changing laws are going to do is make it so that those who prefer to stay on the good side of the law, can now do so.

I'm far more concerned about the distracted driving epidemic than I am an onslaught of stoned drivers, that I doubt will materialize.

Well, until the fines for this go up high enough to actually hurt those who do this. You will continue to see cellphone users talking & texting away.

Drinking & driving, stoned or distracted all need to be nailed.... charged & fined. If there actions causes injury or dead then jail time.
If you don't like that, to damn bad. I really don't care

Apologies for my redundant link, I had not seen this and posted it in the Canada forum.

so besides not being a Dr., richard CANNING is now an "expert" in drug testing? wow, if anyone believes that I can see how easily it was for the sheep to vote for this self serving politician.........

Omnitheo wrote:Not to mention that someone under the influence could pass a cognition test that someone who’s drowsey or slow might fail.

Likewise with your cookie analogy, stoned or not I’m not gonna pass up a free plate of freshly baked cookies.

Have you seen the cookies I made the other day?
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75327

Those are all very relevant and important questions. I guess that until the LEVEL of THC can be determined in the blood stream and can be determined as to the time of ingestion prior to being tested, there should be a zero tolerance. Likewise, for example, if a forklift driver had just smoked a big fatty during coffee break and was seen giggling behind the wheel of the forklift with a man on the ground placing dunnage for him, how confident would they guy that is in the danger zone feel?

Pot being decriminalized does not mean the law around driving impaired or working heavy machinery has changed.
There may be a change in procedure as to how to determine impaired state. If a workplace has previously has a policy of random drug tests, that will continue. It is only the possession of it ( within limits, by adults, not driving impaired) that has been legalized.
If I even have eye drops in my eyes after an exam, if it impairs my vision and I cause an accident, my insurance could be void, I could be charged with being impaired, i.e. not fit at that time to drive.