Driving-while-stoned videos help fuel momentum of THC driving bill

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

BTW, you keep repeating "permissible inference defense." That's incorrect. The permissible inference is the JURY's. They're permitted to infer that you're under the influence if you test to their bullshit standard. You, then, are put into a situation of being required to prove yourself innocent. Just think about that. How would one prove one was not impaired at the time one was tested? it's bullshit, and for the DA, it amounts to a PER SE limit, because only rich people are going to have any way to cast reasonable doubt on the inference. The rest of us, will be forced to suck it.

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

I figured as much. People who hate stoners just needed to see stoners behind the wheel. They didn't have to listen to the content, indicating that 5ng/ml isn't jack shit. Gee thanks stoners and haters...this patient is probably going to get nabbed for "driving impaired" some day when he's not even close to impaired, because some of you wanted to be cute, and others of you wanted to punish those being cute.

Evan James

and you only really act retared when you first get high

Evan James

all my freinds smoke and drive. theres more problems with your adverge drunk then us stoners

Chelly Serna

pretty sure if you've gotten too high at home, you're sitting on the couch watching TV, and you barely have enough motivation to order pizza, let alone get in the car and drive.

Suni Daze

BULLSHIT !! This chick is a TARD !! And NO STUDY should be gathered from her .

Matt Leising

Bs study

Skid Jarrett Gilmore

Most drivers in Cherry Creek/Glendale area drive just as badly, so what's the point?

John Anthony Gadd

heavy tokers can go days without smoking and still flunk this test.

Peace Will Win

give me a break.

Kendall Thiessen

If you ask me, they used people that had never smoked. Smoking a little bit and driving is way less dangerous than most of the texting/phone call people on the road.

Chris Nigro

5 ng is WAY too low.

4johnqpublic

are you f'ing kidding me? did you watch the original from KIRO? It CLEARLY shows the participants driving with out impairment at 4 times the legal limit of 5 nanograms. CBS4 misled viewers by editing the video. In the original the fails don't occur until AFTER the participants had smoked nine tenths of a gram of grade A weed. Everyone should light up CBS4 for the lack of ethics and integrity in their report.

Pete

2 Like

Like most THC driving tests, failure takes place at a level of impairment that would leave most real world stoners happily sitting on the couch with zero desire to drive anywhere. Beware of impairment driving tests, they are set up to achieve failure!

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Pete ... the VOTERS have SPOKEN! ... they have declared that Driving under the INFLUENCE of Marijuana shall be ILLEGAL! ... they set NO MINIMUM standard to define INFLUENCE, so their clear legislative intent was to outlaw ANY level if INFLUENCE.

Stoners fucked themselves with A64!

Paula Abolafia

lol bitches don't know bout my HIGH driving standards

jhaul21

i used to smoke weed everyday at my job i had a 50 mile commute and i would smoke on the way, at lunch, and on the ride home. my job was driving a truck around for the water department turning street valves and mowing their acre well properties, never had any incidents

YourNeighborCarl

I couldn't drive through that sober

Monkey

3 Like

I thought the video showed that even occasional smokers drive fine at 4 times the 5/ng limit, and one heavy user drove fine at well over 20/ng. It illustrates 5/ng is too small of a measurement to imply impairment, and that different drivers are impaired at significantly different levels. I would say this video will be used against the bill, not for it.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

2 Like

@Monkey ... too bad the stupid stoners who wrote and promoted A64 didn't include an factually objective standard in the amendment, instead of simply mandating that DUI-m shall remain illegal, and they throwing all the MMJ patients to the anti-drug wolves and law enforcement goons who now get to set whatever standard they want.

Who knew that surrendering total control of marijuana to the same Big Government anti-marijuana politicians and law enforcement thugs who've been running the drug war for the last 40+ years would turn out badly ??

LOL!

orson

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay @Monkey

It is too bad but I don't find it funny unless I look at it in a laugh instead of crying kind of way. I can laugh at most of the entrepreneurial recreational bullshit because it doesn't afftect me (sorry monkey) but this duim crap completely fucks every legitimate medical marijuana patient for sure and probably even the casual rec user. But irresponsible stupid stoners NEED regulation...the one thing they have in common with the legislators. It's all over but the crying....and jail time.

Jon Wirtz

1 Like

If anything, it shows you have to get so fucking high for it to begin to alter your driving. This only shows the ridiculousness of it being illegal (pot).

David Kotzebue

1 Like

Is there a breathalyzer for pot?

Nick Valadez

I think the point was that the veteran smoker was a better high driver than the "occassional" users. So like anything, practice makes perfect.

Adam Wade Mayo

Dude Ive been so stoned driving I forgot where I was, this is total bullshite!!

orson

1 Like

@Adam Wade Mayo

If you forgot where you were you shouldn't have been driving buddy. This driving bill is for people like you. The goverment feels the need to regulate those that are incapable of regulating themselves. Reasonable people who use marijuana responsibly are going to lose their right to drive legally because you and other stupid stoners don't see a problem driving totally wasted, even when you are aware that you are wasted. Fucking stoners!

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@orson

SSAASSD!

Umläut Sagdiyevski

Stupid "loud" people always ruin it for others.......

Jack Quinn

How about testing someone who has been on morphine for 10 years plus has smoked for longer then that girl has been alive? The results what be a lot different.

Peace Will Win

1 Like

How bout driving while drunk on fracking money, ask hick.....

Ian Erlandson

Here is a dept. of transportation study from 1993. it pretty much proves the opposite. http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

Nina Phillips

Give me a break - MMJ does not metabolize like alcohol

Ian Erlandson

Govt. wants to create new law--->lobbyists create "impartial" study---> said law is validated by study--->law is passed.

Charles Gleason

1 Like

Yes it proves we need a cannabis DUI, like alcohol, thanks A64!!

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Charles Gleason ... what part of "Driving under the INFLUENCE of Marijuana shall REMAIN ILLEGAL" don't these clueless stoners comprehend?

Zac White

People have been driving high in Colorado for decades... The police just need to get our money some how... now that they are taking a hit in the pocket with the legalization, they need to play catch up. NO EVIDENCE that driving high is dangerous to anyone! NONE! The pigs want your money and they will get it!

Luke Bochmann

if this shit passes it will just prove how fucked up our system really is and is laughable at best

John Snyder

1 Like

Reefer madness 2013!......grow up folks..its just pot....i mean..really

Michelle Anthony

more like driving stupid not HIGH wtf!! people

Emm Tee

clearly she is pushing the envelope on purpose in the last couple of drives

Derek Dwreck Wynn

Propaganda....

Matt_in_Boulder

1 Like

So, are you saying they played these videos at the legislative meetings? Based on the text of your article, I don't see any connection between those videos and the legislative actions. Your headline asserts "Driving while stoned videos help fuel momentum of THC driving bill". Nothing in the rest of the article supports that assertion.

kadargo

4 Like

@Matt_in_Boulder Further, the current proposed legilation has little to do with "driving while stoned", but rather "driving with THC in your system". Having THC in your system does not prove you are stoned. It suggests that you may be stoned, but it also could mean you were stoned last night or the night before that.

michael.roberts moderator editortopcommenter

@kadargo @Matt_in_Boulder You make an interesting distinction, kadargo. Thanks for posting.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@michael.roberts @kadargo @Matt_in_Boulder

... yes Mikey, you can use a calculator if needed.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@michael.roberts @kadargo @Matt_in_Boulder

Hey Mikey, how many eighths are in an ounce?

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Matt_in_Boulder ... Michael simply prefers to MAKE SHIT UP to hype the marijuana hysteria, which helps keep what little marijuana advertising $$ is left flowing into WW.

He's under deadline to spew a minimum amount of daily "stories" for the online blogs, hence the lack of quality and gross factual errors in many of them, compared to the print edition that allows reporters an entire week to get it right.

Like most stoners, there is little correlation between what he writes and any objective reality.

Headlines the OPPOSITE of what the story conveys? -- no problem!

Math FAILS? -- repeatedly -- no problem!

Biased and Incompetent "experts"? -- no problem!

Bad Legal Advice that lands naive readers in harms way? -- no problem!

CoreyDonahue topcommenter

4 Like

So, let me get this right we are arguing over an arbitary number and compleatly disregarding the fact that this is unconstitutional, they are sticking a needle in your arm to take your blood to prove you are guilty of a crime. Oh, but you can argue you weren´t. I think that misses the worle point, like rearanging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO WANTS TO STICK A NEEDLE IN YOUR ARM AND FORCEABLY REMOVE YOUR BLOOD TO PROVE YOU ARE GUILTY OF A CRIME IN WHICH THE STATE INVENTED AND THEN PERSUCUTE YOU FOR THIS MADE UP CRIME.

Enjouy your ¨freedom,¨ thanks A64!

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@CoreyDonahue ... to say nothing of the gross violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination that has existed in the U$A's driving/criminal laws for decades -- the laws that require a suspect (driver) to remain at the scene of the crime (accident).

Americans are so scared and clueless they willingly piss away any and every Constitutional Right ... and the government never has to even fire a shot ... the spineless voters simply Bück Dich! and give it up ... like battered wives returning home for more "love".

James

@CoreyDonahue They've been trying to do this for years and would be again if 64 hadn't passed, so to blame it on 64 isn't accurate.

CoreyDonahue topcommenter

2 Like

@James @CoreyDonahue"We were told by the people of Colorado that we have to treat marijuana like alcohol," concluded Rep. Pete Lee, D-Colorado Springs.

You sure?
Driving stoned bill clears 1st Colo. hurdle - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22669448/driving-stoned-bill-back-before-co-legislature#ixzz2ME33A9k2