Comments on: Comments on 13864

Post number 13864

emptyage — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:25:10 -0800

Phew! It's okay to drive stoned in Idaho now. Assuming you can pass a field sobriety test, that is. To quote the attorney, "just having smoked marijuana doesn't give somebody cause to arrest you for that when driving." This seems to be a technicality, and you have to assume it's going to be overturned. If not, anyone up for a road trip to Boise?

By: danOstuporStar

danOstuporStar — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:07:14 -0800

this most certainly qualifies as good thread post to MetaFilter, for there is nothing more fresh & unusual than common sense being applied to anything marijuana-related in america. Bravo!

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:13:02 -0800

You'd have to be stoned to want to take a road trip to Boise.

By: bytecode

bytecode — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:14:38 -0800

I maintian that I drive better when I'm high. I'm more careful and I pay attention to the road, where as when I'm sober I don't pay much attention at all.

By: bondcliff

bondcliff — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:32:50 -0800

Look, man, if there's one thing I know, it's how to drive while I'm stoned. You know your perception is completely fucked so you just let your hands work the controls as if you were straight.

By: tolkhan

tolkhan — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:33:37 -0800

i think the 9th Circuit decision should stand. there's a reason states and Congress pass laws specifically defining things as narcotics and such. if the state screwed up, then they screwed up. and really, i doubt Idaho would care about going after that pot smoker except that: The circuit's decision also reverses Patzer's illegal weapons convictions. In his Chevrolet Blazer, police found four illegal homemade grenades, a sawed-off shotgun and a modified rifle with a homemade silencer. The court said that because of his unlawful arrest, authorities illegally searched his vehicle. besides, if they want to call you impaired for smoking pot, shouldn't it be like alcohol? below a specific threshold, you're ok to drive; above it, you're not.

By: tolkhan

tolkhan — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:34:04 -0800

eh, i guess pot is completely illegal and alcohol's not. ne'ermind.

By: BentPenguin

BentPenguin — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:46:55 -0800

Fair Disclosure: I burn the Rope (all the time). Fair Disclosure: I drive stoned without thinking twice about it even though I would never and have never driven while intoxicated ever. That being said, anyone who says MJ doesn't impair the skills needed to operate a vehicle hasa really good connection. I think the real issue here is that AFAIK, there is no way to prove someone is stoned other than to list symptoms like red eyes and twinkie wrappers in the car, both of which are ripe for misinterpretation owing to other causes (allergies / a liking for synthetic food). Urine tests can only show metabolites which prove some use somewhere in the alst 60 days, pretty much useless as evidence of driving while under the influence. Does anyone know exactly how they bust someone for driving while stoned? IOW, if they say I was driving stoned and I say "no I wasn't" how do they prove that I was in fact stoned at the time?

By: Mack Twain

Mack Twain — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:02:58 -0800

Using the Electric Enema, all truths will be forthcoming.

By: thebigpoop

thebigpoop — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:22:56 -0800

All truths, yes, and a whole lot more.

By: asok

asok — Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:30:18 -0800

mj does impact reaction times. therefore, it could be argued that it negatively effects the safety of a driver. i remember the bbc did a *funny* programme that involved giving various illegal drugs to people and making them drive around an obstacle course. needless to say the (foregone) conclusion was that all illegal drugs negatively impact driving skills as they effect perception. so what, say i. talking on the phone, or having a conversation with a passenger or listening to the radio all cause 'accidents' on the road as the driver's attention is divided. i believe mr bill hicks once proposed this idea: if driving on marijuana were legalised, the only crashes would be people getting rear-ended by pizza delivery vans; as the stoners would all be driving along at about 10 miles an hour, in a mellow haze. nb. a motorcyclist friend of mine was almost killed by a skag-head in a car. it was a hit and run, but as the windscreen of the car had shattered the stoopid skag head didn't get very far before hitting another vehicle (pregnant lady inside) and coming to a halt. so i am aware that drug-driving isn't all fun and games. in fact, thinking back over the years, a good proportion of the crashes that my, ahem, friends have had have been either drink or drug related. alot due to searching for a lost tape or cd whilst driving.