Legalized marijuana linked to rise in car crashes.

[JB]

I think it's irresponsible and naive to assume that everyone is the same and no everyone is fine to drive at .0799, but miraculously loses the ability at .08.

Like I said above, every has different limits. You should not be ok with being bound by mine and I should have to be bound by anyone else's.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody has ever said that though. It’s a low threshold where the roads are safer if nothing higher than that exists.

Clearly you have never had a loss at the hands of this, because saying you shouldn’t be bound by the same rules because YOU believe you are fine is exactly why so many deaths occur each year over people being idiots.

 

[OGputtnfool]

Nobody has ever said that though. It’s a low threshold where the roads are safer if nothing higher than that exists.

Clearly you have never had a loss at the hands of this, because saying you shouldn’t be bound by the same rules because YOU believe you are fine is exactly why so many deaths occur each year over people being idiots.

Many people die from unimpaired people "being idiots", too. Should we outlaw idiots? That would be tough.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[JB]

Many people die from unimpaired people "being idiots", too. Should we outlaw idiots? That would be tough.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

OMG on that note I’m out. Pretty much par for the course.

The idea that you think it’s okay because you think you’re fine sums it up for me.

 

[OGputtnfool]

Nobody has ever said that though. It’s a low threshold where the roads are safer if nothing higher than that exists.

Clearly you have never had a loss at the hands of this, because saying you shouldn’t be bound by the same rules because YOU believe you are fine is exactly why so many deaths occur each year over people being idiots.

For the record, I said YOU shouldn't be bound by other people's limitations, too. No one should. This isn't about me, it's about everyone's personal freedom.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[OGputtnfool]

OMG on that note I’m out. Pretty much par for the course.

The idea that you think it’s okay because you think you’re fine sums it up for me.

Go back and reread.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Sean]

Nothing "causes" auto accidents besides plain incompetence.

I don't care if you eat, smoke, put on makeup, pick your nose, and drink a beer all while driving a manual transmission. If you can manage, then more power to you. Everyone has different limits. I shouldn't be bound by someone else's limits just as you shouldn't be bound by mine.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You can be a good driver and still get in an accident. And, if you are impaired in some way that just increases the chances. Therefore, it behooves society to have rules in place that punish those who get an accidents while impaired, or those who are impaired while driving.

 

[Space Bandito]

Most of the discussion in this thread, along with the original article in reference sums up why I have an issue with widespread legalization of marijuana. Wanna smoke in your home? Fine by me. However, The issue we've seen here since the legalization of marijuana for medical use many years ago is simply that people don't regard it as an impairing substance.

I frequently see people walking down the street smoking or driving in their cars with a joint in their mouth. I'm sure it does provide some benefits, but just because it's safe in some aspects does not mean it's safe in ALL aspects. Too many "enthusiasts" seem to be on the page that it's completely harmless, without taking into the account the damage they may do to their surroundings when the substance is used irresponsibly.

And while I'm sure someone will chime in and say "it is illegal to drive whilst smoking or whilst stoned." You're right. That's not the issue. The issue is the lack of education and information regarding the action. There will always be people who drive drunk, but there are a lot more people these days who will think twice before doing so because we know the consequences. I don't think that a lot of recreational pot smokers understand that there are indeed consequences. It may be harmless to your body (save for your lungs) but it's not harmless to the mom walking down the street with her baby while you're cruising along in happy land.

 

[OGputtnfool]

Do you think anyone has ever driven "impaired" without injuring anyone?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[OGputtnfool]

You can be a good driver and still get in an accident. And, if you are impaired in some way that just increases the chances. Therefore, it behooves society to have rules in place that punish those who get an accidents while impaired, or those who are impaired while driving.

Why not just punish those who actually do something that causes others harm? If they're not harming anyone else, then what's the problem?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[SquirrelyDave]

Why not just punish those who actually do something that causes others harm? If they're not harming anyone else, then what's the problem?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Because everyone thinks “it won’t happen to me” but then it does and someone has killed someone. So the laws are in place and enforced heavily to prevent the loss of life.

If you want to drive around hammered or buzzed or anything else that’s fine. Do it in a different society. Otherwise put your selfish ass in a cab or an Uber or walk the hell home.

Also advocating for allowing people to drive under the influence is nothing more than low level trolling designed to stir up a response. Well done you got me, and it will be the last time.

 

[OGputtnfool]

Because everyone thinks “it won’t happen to me” but then it does and someone has killed someone. So the laws are in place and enforced heavily to prevent the loss of life.

If you want to drive around hammered or buzzed or anything else that’s fine. Do it in a different society. Otherwise put your selfish ass in a cab or an Uber or walk the hell home.

Also advocating for allowing people to drive under the influence is nothing more than low level trolling designed to stir up a response. Well done you got me, and it will be the last time.

Nope, not trolling. I believe if you appropriately punish those who actually affect others negatively, then society will police itself accordingly. Punishing or restricting an entire group because of what "might" happen is counterproductive.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[OGputtnfool]

Ok, someone take this challenge, please.

Place the following in the order of most severe deserved punishment.

• 1 - Driving while above the legal limit (>.08 BAC or equivalent for other substance)
• 2 - Driving barely below the legal limit (.07-.0799 BAC or equivalent for other substance)
• 3 - Operator responsible for vehicular collision while "impaired" (>.08 BAC or equivalent for other substance) NO INJURIES
• 4 - Operator responsible for vehicular collision while "impaired" (>.08 BAC or equivalent for other substance) FATALITY INVOLVED
• 5 - Operator responsible for vehicular accident while below legal limit (.07-.0799 BAC or equivalent for other substance) NO INJURIES
• 6 - Operator responsible for vehicular accident while below legal limit (.07-.0799 BAC or equivalent for other substance) FATALITY INVOLVED
• 7 - Operator responsible for vehicular collision with a BAC (or equivalent) of 0 NO INJURIES
• 8 - Operator responsible for vehicular collision with a BAC (or equivalent) of 0 FATALITY INVOLVED

No need for personal attacks like earlier. Let's just have a civil discussion.

 

[GolferGal]

So you think it's ok to drive 100 mph in a school zone with kids crossing the street because YOU believe you are such a good driver that you can navigate that without any issue? So there is no need to have speed limits, or school zones?

People cannot police themselves, that's called anarchy, and it's why we have laws, rules and regulations. Otherwise everyone would do what they think is best for or benefits them. That is not a world I want to live in.

 

[OGputtnfool]

So you think it's ok to drive 100 mph in a school zone with kids crossing the street because YOU believe you are such a good driver that you can navigate that without any issue? So there is no need to have speed limits, or school zones?

People cannot police themselves, that's called anarchy, and it's why we have laws, rules and regulations. Otherwise everyone would do what they think is best for or benefits them. That is not a world I want to live in.

Where did I say I thought it was ok?

You think people would do that if the penalty for hitting a child in a school zone was death?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[GolferGal]

You think people would so that if the penalty fornhittimg a child in a school zone was death?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I swear I don't mean this to be demeaning, but you have so many typos in there I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you please repost.

 

[OGputtnfool]

I swear I don't mean this to be demeaning, but you have so many typos in there I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you please repost.

Gotta love phone typing.

Just 3 typos. They're fixed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[GolferGal]

Gotta love phone typing.

Just 3 typos. They're fixed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I am still not following. The whole point everyone is making is that we need rules and regulations, that's why we have laws that say you cannot go 100 in a school zone. You are basically proving the point we are all making, that people are less likely to do something if there is a major consequence for it, and there needs to be regulations on what/how/where/when we are allowed to do things.

 

[OGputtnfool]

I am still not following. The whole point everyone is making is that we need rules and regulations, that's why we have laws that say you cannot go 100 in a school zone. You are basically proving the point we are all making, that people are less likely to do something if there is a major consequence for it, and there needs to be regulations on what/how/where/when we are allowed to do things.

Not sure what's so hard to follow.

I advocate reducing regulation on things that don't affect others, but increasing consequences on actions that do affect others.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[GolferGal]

Not sure what's so hard to follow.

I advocate reducing regulation on things that don't affect others, but increasing consequences on actions that do affect others.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But someone's actions do affect others. Jim Bob knows that drinking a few beers and driving is illegal, so he makes sure he has a DD or takes an Uber before he decides to go out for the night, or because he has had a few beer vs. Jim Bob who knows there are no regulations to his blood alcohol level, so as long as he "thinks" he won't get in an accident after a few beers then there is no reason he should try to find another alternative to get around, he can just get in the car and drive. Sadly, he's more impaired than he "thinks", runs a red light and now a family of 4 is dead. And you are totally cool with that?

Let's just say we will never agree here.

 

[OGputtnfool]

But someone's actions do affect others. Jim Bob knows that drinking a few beers and driving is illegal, so he makes sure he has a DD or takes an Uber before he decides to go out for the night, or because he has had a few beer vs. Jim Bob who knows there are no regulations to his blood alcohol level, so as long as he "thinks" he won't get in an accident after a few beers then there is no reason he should try to find another alternative to get around, he can just get in the car and drive. Sadly, he's more impaired than he "thinks", runs a red light and now a family of 4 is dead. And you are totally cool with that?

Let's just say we will never agree here.

Where did I say I was "cool" with that?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[T0AD]

Do you think anyone has ever driven "impaired" without injuring anyone?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

99% of the time. I think the # of smokers and tokers is far higher than some realize and most of them drive every day of their lives and never have an accident. I could go into some "I know people that......" stories but won't. But I will summarize it to say I know of NO ONE that has ever had a wreck because they were high.Or even had a wreck period, now that I think of it.

 

[Boone]

Or maybe they just didn't notice.

'Hey - did you hear something?'.
'What?'
'Me neither...'

Driving stoned or buzzed or drunk (regardless of what you are using)? Most of us have done it at one time or another. But arguing it's not stupid and reckless?

Well - it's stupid and reckless

 

[GolferGal]

Where did I say I was "cool" with that?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You are ok with someone deciding on their own how much is too much. Because there is no regulation on how much is too much, that person didn't make any plans ahead of time to make sure not to drive. So they drove and then killed a family of four. You may not be cool with a family dying, but you were ok with that person making the decision on their own to drive, because they know there are no rules for driving after few beers unless they hurt someone, and in their mind they weren't impaired.

So as far as I am concerned you are cool with someone deciding on their own how much is too much, therefore if they kill someone you are ok with that too. Let the person decide if they are drunk, rather than the law telling them .08 will get you in jail, whether you get in an accident or not. My point is having some regulations make a person think twice, and that alone can save lives, so I am 10000% for it.

I agree there are some really antiquated rules and regulations in this country, but regulating how much a person should drink before operating a vehicle is not one of them. So let's agree to disagree here.

 

[Chisag]

The issue is the lack of education and information regarding the action. There will always be people who drive drunk, but there are a lot more people these days who will think twice before doing so because we know the consequences. I don't think that a lot of recreational pot smokers understand that there are indeed consequences. It may be harmless to your body (save for your lungs) but it's not harmless to the mom walking down the street with her baby while you're cruising along in happy land.

... I tried to stay out of this because it really boils down to those that know what they are talking about through personal experience and education and those that just have opinions. I am guessing you would probably be surprised at the number of intelligent, very professional, caring and certainly responsible people that use marijuana. I notice your handicap is "beer" and I would MUCH rather recreational pot be legal than recreational alcohol because the majority of users are more responsible than drinkers that have one too many (or more) at a party, dinner, etc. Fox news, etc love to paint a picture of Spicolli types that are so stoned they can't function on almost any level. Sure, there are some of those out there but they more likely to be in front of their video games in their parents basement than on the road. There are many, many more that do the equivalent of having one beer and driving. Many people suffer mild anxiety and one beer or a tiny bit of pot help them tremendously.

... For many out there a small responsible amount sativa sharpens their focus and they perform much better than without. I have seen this in golf as well as driving where they are calmer and more relaxed and certainly someone that did not know they had used pot would have no idea they had used anything and would probably be shocked to find out they did. "But ... but ... but they are dressed so nice, played great golf, carried on intelligent conversation and didn't order Dorito's from the cart girl?!?" Not to mention too many illnesses to list here that are helped tremendously by marijuana.

... And many of the same people that don't want pot legalized and demonize it are perfectly fine with the NRA*. Do I really need to pull up gun deaths vs marijuana deaths by any means in the US to see just how silly anti marijuana sounds? (*I use this as an example only and certainly not to start a futile debate about guns that has never changed anyone opinion on either side of the issue.)

 

[OGputtnfool]

You are ok with someone deciding on their own how much is too much. Because there is no regulation on how much is too much, that person didn't make any plans ahead of time to make sure not to drive. So they drove and then killed a family of four. You may not be cool with a family dying, but you were ok with that person making the decision on their own to drive, because they know there are no rules for driving after few beers unless they hurt someone, and in their mind they weren't impaired.

So as far as I am concerned you are cool with someone deciding on their own how much is too much, therefore if they kill someone you are ok with that too. Let the person decide if they are drunk, rather than the law telling them .08 will get you in jail, whether you get in an accident or not. My point is having some regulations make a person think twice, and that alone can save lives, so I am 10000% for it.

I agree there are some really antiquated rules and regulations in this country, but regulating how much a person should drink before operating a vehicle is not one of them. So let's agree to disagree here.

The question in post #64 didn't just apply to school zones. It applied to many things. Feel free to answer it, if you dare.