What's new
By:

Legal Pot

Gameface said:
In my opinion .08 is too low. I know, I know...drunk drivers are worse than Hitler and no one wants to seem sympathetic to them at all. Seriously though, the penalties for being at .09 are way out of whack compared to the danger someone with a BAC of .09 poses. I think a .09 DUI should result in a fine similar to speeding and the driver should get to drive home. No kidding. At about .12 I think people should be arrested, get the $1000plus in fines, get dropped by their insurance company, lose their license for 6 months, etc. like what happens now for someone who in most cases you probably wouldn't be able to tell even had a drink.

So based on that overreaction I don't want pot heads to face DUI charges because they smoked a joint two days ago, either. I think it should come down to the filed sobriety test and the manner in which they were observed driving.
Click to expand...

Whereas I get that, scientifically .. I'd prefer a no-tolerance driving law. Just about everyone that goes out and has a couple drinks thinks they're below and has one more .. too easy to actually have too much. It's a much simpler law to say NONE.
 
Gameface said:
In my opinion .08 is too low. I know, I know...drunk drivers are worse than Hitler and no one wants to seem sympathetic to them at all. Seriously though, the penalties for being at .09 are way out of whack compared to the danger someone with a BAC of .09 poses. I think a .09 DUI should result in a fine similar to speeding and the driver should get to drive home. No kidding. At about .12 I think people should be arrested, get the $1000plus in fines, get dropped by their insurance company, lose their license for 6 months, etc. like what happens now for someone who in most cases you probably wouldn't be able to tell even had a drink.

So based on that overreaction I don't want pot heads to face DUI charges because they smoked a joint two days ago, either. I think it should come down to the filed sobriety test and the manner in which they were observed driving.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed. I'll also note that .09 is legal in some states.
 
PKM said:
Whereas I get that, scientifically .. I'd prefer a no-tolerance driving law. Just about everyone that goes out and has a couple drinks thinks they're below and has one more .. too easy to actually have too much. It's a much simpler law to say NONE.
Click to expand...

I don't think you should punish all of the people who aren't doing anything wrong, just because you want to catch the irresponsible people in the cross fire.

If you're irresponsible and you drink too much and your driving really is dangerous, then you should be arrested. If you smoke way too much weed and it makes your driving dangerous, then you should be arrested.

But if you only drank a little, or smoked a little, and you can drive just fine, then you shouldn't be arrested for driving.
 
PKM said:
Aren't we already spending the money with our war on drugs?
Click to expand...

Is there significant money to be made on taxing legal pot?

I can only imagine the amount of money we'd save, in theory, on getting a lot of these people out of prison, and
heavy pot taxes. Is it only, ahem, a pipe dream?
 
PKM said:
Whereas I get that, scientifically .. I'd prefer a no-tolerance driving law. Just about everyone that goes out and has a couple drinks thinks they're below and has one more .. too easy to actually have too much. It's a much simpler law to say NONE.
Click to expand...

I understand the zero-tolerance approach, but why single out this one unsafe driving practice and let others, like cell phone usage, slide when they are equally or even more dangerous?
 
I think it is more productive to punish the actions of the driver without necessarily making reference to a specific substance or distraction
 
Gameface said:
So we all know cell phones in use, even for a voice call, debilitate drivers more than someone who's at a BAC of 0.14, right?

https://www.distraction.gov/download/research-pdf/Comparison-of-CellPhone-Driver-Drunk-Driver.pdf

So should we ban anyone who own a cell phone from driving, or arrest people for having an "open cell phone" in the car?

Let's try to make our streets safer and quit creating boogymen to attack.
Click to expand...

This seems way extreme for you Jared. I personally know 3 people killed by drunk drivers. Their friends and family would find the boogey man comment incredibly insensitive. And yes, people are beind tried for manslaughter when killing people while texting.
 
NAOS said:
I think it is more productive to punish the actions of the driver without necessarily making reference to a specific substance or distraction
Click to expand...

There is way too much stupid in this thread. I'll duck out and leave you guys be. Cheers!
 
SaltyDawg said:
Yeah, scientific data has no place in any argument. The bible should be the only law book we need. Isn't that what the republican congressman said the other day?
Click to expand...

Please cite this "scientific data" or STFU for the sake of the rest of us that think that legalized marijuana is a good idea if it's controlled in a similar manner to alcohol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top