I'm still not convinced this isn't an episode of Reno 911. What. The. Hell.

Oh, the endless drug war. When will it cease to be ridiculous?

And yet George Bush is still a free man.

Those cops will not hit a line or two.

If the cops found a roach in the car but you told them there wasn't anything in there, could you get away with telling them you thought they meant "Cockroaches"? Lol.

i definitely don't condone the use of marijuana while driving.
also, a bit hypocritically, i'm not down with the crack/coke.

Kinda just feel bad for the guy.

I just HATE the way the cops get excited about finding some dude's personal shit.

"WOOHHOO!!!! a CRIME! i can't WAIT to pay more taxes to take THIS guy off the streets! Now i can let my daughter play outside the house again! Somebody call the prison and tell them to make another bed and start cooking! WOOHOOO!"

>> And yet George Bush is still a free man.

What you thought everyone in America is treated the same under the law? Get real! That is just the obvious case... Just think if a rich guy gets a speeding ticket worth $200 do you think is going to affect him the same that someone working in a minimal wage job? Or the lawyers that corporations can afford you think you can undo them as easily as they can undo you? Welcome to the lie that is America.

I'd make driving on weed mandatory. srsly, a lot less people would die on the roads cause of speeding and reckless behaviour

there was a totally unscientific but funny test done on top gear where a guy's driving was measured before and after, and it was the same. can't be bothered to search for it though, too stoned.

What kind of idiot hotboxes his own car, when it's full of crack and blow? That's just dumb.

I'm all for people smoking weed. I've never seen a violent confrontation caused by it (as opposed to alcohol). Most people aren't going to ace a physics exam high, but they're not going to become overly aggressive either.

However, when the activity involves operating heavy machinery, I'd rather people not be overly high. A joint isn't a huge deal (like having a beer or two), but it is very possible to become too high to drive safely. Sure, you'll probably be driving at a slower speed than normal, but you also won't react as quickly so sudden situations (things running out in front of you, very busy intersections, etc).

I'd like to see a field sobriety test for marijuana. People shouldn't get arrested for possession (which I don't think should be illegal), but when you are operating dangerous heavy metal objects near other people then there should be a reasonable level of sobriety. I've been so high I could barely move before, and I know people who wouldn't hesitate to drive in that state.

Btw, does anyone happen to know why this guy was pulled over in the first place?

I'm all for people smoking weed. I've never seen a violent confrontation caused by it (as opposed to alcohol). Most people aren't going to ace a physics exam high, but they're not going to become overly aggressive either.

I aced my first semester of calculus lit off my ass. The only drawback was, if I studied high, I had to take the test high. Could get very expensive. I'm sure physics would be the same.

>> ^rottenseed:
I aced my first semester of calculus lit off my ass. The only drawback was, if I studied high, I had to take the test high.

Yea, one of the fun things I learned in psychology is that people do better on tests if they are in the same state of mind during the test as when they studied for the test.

What all you kids fail to mention/realize is that weed affects everyone differently, like any drug. Just because you're a wonderful driver stoned out of your mind doesn't mean everyone else is.

Also, it's proven that weed oftentimes leads to harder drugs down the road.

This guy should do life in prison for repeat offending of sales/trafficking.

>> ^BillOreilly:This guy should do life in prison for repeat offending of sales/trafficking.


How much time should McCain do for napalming the shit out of innocent Vietnamese villagers, and bilking the taxpayers of this country out of $125 billion dollars (keating five)?

End the ridiculous drug war, and guys like him wouldn't be selling anything.

Did anyone else think they were going to find Oreos and other munchies when they searched the car?

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^BillOreilly:This guy should do life in prison for repeat offending of sales/trafficking.

How much time should McCain do for napalming the shit out of innocent Vietnamese villagers, and bilking the taxpayers of this country out of $125 billion dollars (keating five)?
End the ridiculous drug war, and guys like him wouldn't be selling anything.


Ya, McCain was making the decisions over in Vietnam. Sounds true to me.

Excellent idea about ending the drug war-- I don't think we have enough crime in this country as it is, let's double the crackheads and methheads, it'll make for more entertaining episodes of "COPS".

Thank god we saved this guy from himself. He is going to be thankful these next 10-25 years, that we intervened to help him get his life back on track. He could have done some serious harm to his health or the health of other criminals with that cocaine. I mean, what would the kids he can no longer have, or the family he can no longer see, say? They would be devastated to hear he was smoking crack, luckily they can rest easy knowing he won't be doing any drugs for the next few decades.

What all you kids fail to mention/realize is that weed affects everyone differently, like any drug. Just because you're a wonderful driver stoned out of your mind doesn't mean everyone else is.

TRILL.

Also, it's proven that weed oftentimes leads to harder drugs down the road.

Not true. And if it did, so what? All or nearly all drugs should be legal. Let the junkies kill themselves.

This guy should do life in prison for repeat offending of sales/trafficking.

Drug Prohibition has been a massive failure, a waste of time and money and a greater threat to our rights than the drugs themselves. While these two crewcuts are dealing with Rastaman, rapists and burglars roam free. Enough is enough.

::Puts back of hand to QM's forehead::

Hmm, no fever.

Has QM's account been hacked?

Um...I agree with quantumushroom?

>> ^thinker247:
Um...I agree with quantumushroom?


BillO and QM fighting? HELL HATH FROZEN OVER!

Seriously though, I also agree with QM here... Mostly. There are certain hard substances that probably shouldn't be legal in my opinion, and even softer drugs ought to be restricted due to the possibility of causing harm to others. Take legalizing weed as an example. I would still support arrests for people driving under the influence of weed, just as you'd get arrested for driving under the influence of too much alcohol.

>> ^kulpims:
I'd make driving on weed mandatory. srsly, a lot less people would die on the roads cause of speeding and reckless behaviour


yes and using a cross walk or jay walking would be suicide.

>> ^nickreal03:
>> And yet George Bush is still a free man.
What you thought everyone in America is treated the same under the law? Get real! That is just the obvious case... Just think if a rich guy gets a speeding ticket worth $200 do you think is going to affect him the same that someone working in a minimal wage job? Or the lawyers that corporations can afford you think you can undo them as easily as they can undo you? Welcome to the lie that is America.

Umm yeah, rich or poor big deal. The rich guy (who 9 times out of 10 earned his money) will continue to speed and get tickets and laugh them off until they revoke his license. The poor guy cant pay a 200 dollar ticket? yeah that sucks balls. Maybe he should have thought of that when he decided to speed. So yeah, to answer your question, everyone gets treated the same under the law (politicians aside)

"here's some crack...crack... a tube of crack... crack... crack..."

Fine with putting away dealers of hard drugs, but people smoking a bit of weed here and there are doing nothing wrong.. excess of ANYTHING is going to be bad for you, but largely weed is better for you than smoking and drinking..

People around my rough area in england, usually young lads, get very drunk and go around looking for fights. They'll probably stab someone or punch someone or vandalise someone's expensive property, the victim didn't deserve it and most of them will get away scot free, occasionally they'll get caught by sheer fluke and get a slap on the wrist.

People smoking weed will usually chill the hell out, laugh their heads off at something moderately funny, eat a pizza and go to bed.

Legalise it.

>> ^BillOreilly:Ya, McCain was making the decisions over in Vietnam. Sounds true to me.
Excellent idea about ending the drug war-- I don't think we have enough crime in this country as it is, let's double the crackheads and methheads, it'll make for more entertaining episodes of "COPS".



Wow, thanks for admitting you know absolutely nothing about the "war on drugs", or the prohibition movement in the US, nor do you understand the Nuremberg Military Tribunals.

I'll explain it very slowly for you. If you're a military officer and your commander gives you orders to break laws, you don't have to do it. Napalming the shit out of innocent kids was breaking the law (and every conceivable notion of morality). McSame chose to do it, and probably did it with a smile on his face. Now he condones torture.

I'm glad you've finally admitted you know so little about the issues you comment about here. It gives us all a fresh new perspective.

WOAH

I just upvoted QM's comment.

>> ^volumptuous:
>> :
McSame chose to do it, and probably did it with a smile on his face. Now he condones torture.


I don't even know how to reply to this. Sickening.

If you don't know how to reply to it, how could you have written "sickening" at the end?

What's so wrong with his comment, anyway? John McCain was shot down while on a bombing raid. Do you really think that those raids were somehow targeting only the North Vietnamese with smart bombs? As if no civilians were massacred?

You remember the napalm scene from Apocalypse Now? That could have been McCain.

>> ^BillOreilly:

I don't even know how to reply to this. Sickening.

Sprinkle some crack on him.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
And yet George Bush is still a free man.

This thread seems to be a twilight zone episode. QM says something that makes sense and sounds reasonable. Next thing you know Bush will admit that climate change exists.

>> ^MINK:
there was a totally unscientific but funny test done on top gear where a guy's driving was measured before and after, and it was the same. can't be bothered to search for it though, too stoned.


Yeah I remember that on Fifth Gear. They had some graphic designer and put him through the paces both before and after a nice spliff. He did better after!!!

To his credit he was very civil. And the police handled him with a lot of respect, as much as he showed them.

Truly refreshing, aside from the whole being a hardcore drug dealer.

>> ^BillOreilly: Sickening.


So let's run through this once again:

• Me talking about John McCain = Sickening.

• John McCain napalming the shit out of innocent villagers = Heroic.


Nice logic ya got there BillO.

If all your naive arguments are predicated on the fact the "marijuana doesn't impair your ability to drive," then you must try harder. I told you politicians-in-diapers about your shortsightedness weeks ago.

To the youngling who asked why he was pulled over - he made a right hand turn from the center lane. Sounds safe to me, right? I mean, I generally have multi-lane lapses in judgment when making turns.

But it's not a narcotic, huh. So ya, I'm sure drinking some caffeine could also make me turn right from the center lane. Wait, no. And it never leads to harder drugs either, so all the crack in his car must have just jumped in there. So you can cry the burglars roam free while this happened, but next time when Bob Marley kills a family of four with his driving incompetence, we'll see who is the greater evil.

We can just ban everything, it'll cut the arguments shorter and we don't have to worry what's bad for us anymore.

Wow, everyone is so quick to jump to this guy's defense because he was smoking weed and weed shouldn't be illegal. In most of the other weed related sifts everyone talks about how it should be legal and treated no differently than alcohol. And yet here the guy isn't using it responsibility, he was pulled over for a traffic violation, it's not like the cops have weed radar, 'ooh, ohh two blips on the weed'o'tron he's smokin a roach get him!'

Driving slower does not make you a better driver, old people drive slow that doesn't make them better drivers, some drunk people drive slow, does that make them better drivers? They drive slower in an attempt to compensate for their inability to handle the vehicle at higher speeds. Which means their reaction time is slower. And even assuming they obey all the traffic laws their decreased reaction time still puts them at risk. Being a good driver not only means obeying traffic laws, but also being alert and reactive enough to avoid accidents when other people aren't being responsible drivers, or when shit suddenly happens like a kid or dog suddenly running into the middle of the road. I can't count the number of times where alertness and quick reaction on my part has avoided an accident because of someone else's stupidity.

So I guess to sum things up, defend responsible marijuana use, but don't weaken your position's credibility with a knee jerk, never-admit-someone-smoking-pot-could-be-doing-something-wrong, defense.

Arguing he'll get an unfair sentence, compared to those who drink and drive, is also a fair point to make. But suggesting being high as fuck doesn't impair your ability to drive normally, not so convincing.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
To the youngling who asked why he was pulled over - he made a right hand turn from the center lane. Sounds safe to me, right? I mean, I generally have multi-lane lapses in judgment when making turns.


Do you even fully read comments before insulting people? Yes, I asked why he was pulled over because it wasn't included in the video. This was right after I stated that driving while excessively high is dangerous. All I said was that weed shouldn't be illegal (like alcohol), even though I also said I would support a field sobriety test for marijuana.

So please, if you're going to insult someone, at least try to understand what they typed in the first place.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
But it's not a narcotic, huh. So ya, I'm sure drinking some caffeine could also make me turn right from the center lane. Wait, no. And it never leads to harder drugs either, so all the crack in his car must have just jumped in there. So you can cry the burglars roam free while this happened, but next time when Bob Marley kills a family of four with his driving incompetence, we'll see who is the greater evil.


First of all, sober people do stupid shit while driving. You have zero evidence that his fuckup was because he was stoned. He may very well be %100 careless stoned or not. Don't assume.

Second, "burglars" don't commit crimes only after smoking crack. I'm sure there's just as many straight-edge criminals as there are crack/cocaine abusing CEO's.

The only way for crime&drugs to be relative is when you shove illegality in there. The prohibition created a whole slew of new crimes which was erased when it was repealed. Repeal other drug laws, sell pot at stores, and guys like this are out of work.

oops - sorry

.

.

anyone know how to delete duplicate comments?

.

^ LMAO!

"you been smoking?"

"hmmm? Oh, no, just my humidifier in the backseat... little flu I'm working off right now"

^ ^ ^ Apparently, I've been smoking.

>> ^BillOreilly:
Also, it's proven that weed oftentimes leads to harder drugs down the road.


Uh, no. That's alcohol. Find me ONE person, who didn't use alcohol first, but used pot, and then later became a methhead or crack addict. Just one.

Try again, BO.

Mother's breast milk leads to harder drugs down the road!

Willy Nelson said it best (and im probably gonna misquote)
"stress is the number 1 killer... and the number 1 stress reliever, is cannabis."

I think everyone on here could use a lil puff puff pass to get over this whole "im gonna prove to you im right with large posts and vague examples supporting my claim" thing. Everyone, breath deep... and hold.. exhale. Its all going to be okay. Nobodies gonna change minds over a sift post so lets all move along and watch a lol cats video or something.

>> ^volumptuous:


How much time should McCain do for napalming the shit out of innocent Vietnamese villagers, and bilking the taxpayers of this country out of $125 billion dollars (keating five)?
End the ridiculous drug war, and guys like him wouldn't be selling anything.




On Nuremberg/Vietnam
Stanley Milgram did an experiment( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ) that concluded that when ordered by a superior, 65 percent of NORMAL people, not military robots, would do intentional wrong (in the form of shocking a person who was supposedly unconscious) when ordered by superiors.
I'm not saying that this justifies the amount of collateral damage, but John McCain cannot be held accountable for orders given him.

i dont understand how someone can argue for DUI/DWI laws. why does it matter what state you were in if you cause an accident?

do you get a harsher sentence if you:

steal, murder, rape, commit assault, fraud, or perjury while you are high? how about if you are drunk?

why does it matter if you cause an accident while high/drunk/stupid/a bad driver/talking on a cell phone/eating a bagel/shaving/putting on make-up/having sex while driving? why not just punish it for what it is: causing an accident.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round. It should be the same penalty for driving while intoxicated whether or not you cause an accident, not if you cause an accident whether or not you're intoxicated.

It doesn't matter that you happen to hurt someone or don't, it matters that you're endangering lives.

^if someone is "endangering lives" that would be reckless driving, which is another traffic violation. being drunk/high does not mean you are driving recklessly, nor does it mean you are endangering lives.

Here is at least one example which proves you are incorrect:

A man has been drinking every day for 20 years, his brain has become highly resistant to the effects of alcohol. This man, at a BAC of 0.08% (legally intoxicated) can pass all sobriety tests and has an identical coordination levels and response times to a sober person. At a BAC of 0.08% he can pass all driving tests you throw at him.

Under your viewpoint, this man is "endangering lives" just because his BAC is 0.08%. How can you justify this?

Given that sober people are often convicted of reckless driving, clearly it has been proven that there are other ways aside from BAC to detect if someone is "endangering lives". So why add this ineffective and inconsistent test, when one that works already exists?

Under my viewpoint, only people who are actually "endangering lives" are convicted of reckless driving. Can you provide an example where my viewpoint breaks down?

I'm not arguing for blood alcohol standards.

If a person can pass every sobriety test then clearly they're not intoxicated. Intoxication requires a diminished capacity; if you're not in as full control as possible of yourself and your vehicle then you are endangering lives, and you don't need to get caught driving on the sidewalk to prove that.

^But blood alcohol standards are what DUI/DWI's are based on though.

If someone was pulled over, assuming it wasn't completely random, they must have been indicating in some way that their driving was reckless. Sure, maybe then you could use the smell of alcohol/drugs to warrant issuing a "coordination test" but currently, it doesn't matter if you pass the "sobriety test" or not you can still be charged with a DUI.

You've described exactly the circumstances in which it should be enforced. Someone is pulled over for another infringement, which could be quite minor, and found to be DWI.

What should be acknowledged as the difference between reckless driving and driving while impaired/intoxicated/under the influence is that in the first case your crime is specific dangerous behavior while on the road, in the second your crime is taking a car on the road that you can't ably control, which is dangerous generally. It's like a roulette wheel of mayhem - it isn't relevant what number comes up because you still chose to take a spin.

^I'm not talking about writing a ticket for it though, I'm talking about using it as probable cause to give a coordination test. If he/she fails the coordination test, they get a ticket for reckless driving--NOT a DUI/DWI. Its a really big difference. You still haven't explained my example of the guy with a 20 year old resistance.

Then they can go into court with the results of the coordination test, BAC test, and the reckless charge and if the Judge wants give him the maximum because of his BAC--fine by me. You can even increase the penalties for reckless to make it match that for a DUI, but pretending someone is reckless only because of their BAC is absolutely unconstitutional. Just because driving with a BAC > 0.08% is dangerous for some people, doesn't mean its dangerous for all people.

Likewise, if someone is pulled over for reckless driving--the fact that they are driving erratically is enough probable cause to administer a BAC/drug test. That information can be used to prosecute him de facto as if it was a DUI (if the punishment for reckless driving is the same as those for a DUI)--just let the Judge decide.

Its really not that different than your position--in both cases the penalties could be the same. We both want to reduce accidents, I am just tweaking it a little so it is constitutional.

Sobriety tests should be the primary measure of intoxication. If your guy can function at .08 that's fine, he isn't intoxicated, he shouldn't be prosecuted.

This discussion started because you seemed to be opposing any DUI law, if you're actually just against BAC standards then we're in agreement. If you don't think driving drunk is a crime in itself then we're not in agreement.

^DUI laws and BAC standards are synonymous. Thats what DUI laws are.

As far as I'm aware that's not the current legal theory; it's certainly not necessary to the concept.

But fine, we seem to agree in principle if not terms.