Medical Marijuana Patients Admit Driving While Under Influence

January 9, 2019

  • January 10, 2019 at 11:51 am
    confused says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 2

    news flash – people who drink alcohol admit to driving within 2 hours of having a few drinks

    • January 10, 2019 at 1:38 pm
      Jack King says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 12
      Thumb down 2

      And that’s the problem with legalizing pot. There needs to be a test so that police can help curb driving will stoned. I am all for legalizing pot, but not for people driving around while high.

      • January 10, 2019 at 1:45 pm
        Peripherally concerned says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 13
        Thumb down 0

        As blood tests have been ineffective in determining degree of impairment the trend now is to do physical impairment tests in the field, much like the impairment tests used for alcohol.

    • January 10, 2019 at 5:08 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 7

      So driving high is okay with you because some people drive after drinking. Nice logic.

      • January 11, 2019 at 8:06 am
        confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 1

        straw man – i never said driving high or drunk is okay. it’s not.

        • January 11, 2019 at 3:03 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 3

          You started with strawman, and then accused someone else of strawman.

          You liberals are quite good at distractions, and saying how virtuous you are and just support freedom.

          Until gun control comes up and shows you are not about freedom.

          I will ask again: Why is the chaos of pot just something that sadly happens, affects public safety, and shouldn’t be regulated and you would never take away the ability to buy pot, whereas psychos and addicts with guns (often overlapping with those who take pot and are the addicts) should be regulated, and it’s a matter of public safety?

          I tried as hard as possible to make these two align, because the only people here who are making poor arguments, are you and the left with regards to pot and gun control.

          Every time I see it I guffaw at how oblivious you are as to how much this exposes your narcissism, which it does. This is a matter of which policy is more popular to support removing, guns, or the flower. You guys are so driven by image.

          To reiterate:

          Pot = Reduced public safety = education likely won’t work for 20 years so people will be harmed = Will always cause harm = do not regulate

          Guns = reduced public safety (though it also saves lives, pot will never save a single life and cannot be used for personal defense unless you’re throwing a potted plant at someone) = education is in place before you buy a gun, so it is a requirement unlike pot and a layer before you get one = regulate immediately.

          This is mind boggling, and the answer as to why is so obvious but you keep denying it to others and yourself. You don’t care about the people on either of these arguments. You care about what looks best. You are narcissists.

          • January 11, 2019 at 4:13 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            also kiddo – you are trying to argue with me about guns yet i said nothing at all about guns. that is a straw man argument, you hypocrite.

          • January 15, 2019 at 11:10 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            bob; you focused on one type of liberal hypocrisy, so I’ll add another. Liberals say they’re FOR freedom of speech, but not for Conservatives who they try to censor (with BOTs on IJ, for example).

          • January 15, 2019 at 11:14 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            @confused; why can’t bob use the guns issue to supplement proof of liberal hypocrisy on political issues?

        • January 11, 2019 at 3:06 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          My wording was even poor there, I mean that guns should be regulated because there exist within the demographic of gun owners psychos.

          I am not presently talking about mental health and background checks. Republicans tried to pass these changes.

          The restrictions I am talking about are say restricting to just hand guns which many democrats support, or removing what they call more dangerous guns, even though they cause the minority of deaths (hand guns cause the most).

          So it should say, why is it that those who abuse pot are a sad side effect of pot, and those who legally get a gun and abuse it, are not a sad side effect of guns, and guns must then be restricted to hand guns?

          • January 11, 2019 at 3:46 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “I will ask again: Why is the chaos of pot just something that sadly happens, affects public safety, and shouldn’t be regulated and you would never take away the ability to buy pot, whereas psychos and addicts with guns (often overlapping with those who take pot and are the addicts) should be regulated, and it’s a matter of public safety?”

            This is the wording which was poor. Upon reading my second reply it seems like I am advocating gun control. I’m having a bad day in my wording. I am not. I am pointing out inconsistencies, so now I have to clarify my clarification line by line, it’s my own fault.

            “My wording was even poor there, I mean that guns should be regulated because there exist within the demographic of gun owners psychos.”

            This should say I meant that *you believe* guns should be regulated because…

            “I am not presently talking about mental health and background checks. Republicans tried to pass these changes.”

            This can stay the same.

            “The restrictions I am talking about are say restricting to just hand guns which many democrats support, or removing what they call more dangerous guns, even though they cause the minority of deaths (hand guns cause the most).”

            This can stay the same.

            “So it should say, why is it that those who abuse pot are a sad side effect of pot, and those who legally get a gun and abuse it, are not a sad side effect of guns, and guns must then be restricted to hand guns?”

            So, my original post, the first on top, should say:

            “I will ask again: Why is it that when pot causes people to die or bad affects from mentally disturbed people, you say that it sadly happens, affects public safety, and shouldn’t be regulated and you would never take away the ability to buy pot, whereas if there are mentally disturbed people who happen to get guns, and go through the education they must and back ground checks they must (often these disturbed people overlap with and are the same disturbed people who take pot and are the addicts) guns should be regulated, some types even not allowed to be sold, and it’s a matter of public safety?”

          • January 11, 2019 at 4:14 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            sorry…this post should have been written here and not above

            also kiddo – you are trying to argue with me about guns yet i said nothing at all about guns. that is a straw man argument, you hypocrite.

          • January 15, 2019 at 11:18 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            @confused, again: why can’t bob use another issue in his example of liberal hypocrisy? Are you trying to censor him? Do you believe in the US Constitutional right, under Amendment 1, of freedom of speech? OF course, IJ mandates what speech is acceptable on their forum. But they haven’t deleted bob’s post yet. Perhaps you can ask them to censor bob? Better make a good argument to them for doing so; they’re being read by both Conservatives and Liberals.

          • January 15, 2019 at 1:27 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            he can post whatever he wants. i am not trying to censor anyone. i have never asked IJ to remove anyone’s post.

        • January 11, 2019 at 4:11 pm
          confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          i started with a straw man argument? i was not arguing with someone and i did not argue a point they did not make. i simply made a statement. take your nonsense somewhere else

          • January 11, 2019 at 4:41 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Yeah … I’m just going to put this here for confused & bob:

            “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent

            Confused made the first post on this article and therefore could not have been refuting an argument his opponent did not actually make since there was no opponent nor any other arguments when he made his post.

    • January 10, 2019 at 5:35 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 7

      No they didn’t. Alcohol makes you groggy, then sleepy. Pot makes you dumb enough to admit you drove stoned.

  • January 10, 2019 at 1:21 pm
    reality bites says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 2

    Dude – where’s my…wait; whose car is this?

  • January 10, 2019 at 1:39 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 8

    What? 51% report driving while high? How could that be? Oh yeah, all the fools in our society who have been lie about pot, who pretend THC is no big deal, people who make jokes about it while car crashes from pot using-drivers are killing people.

    What do the experts say in the article:

    “There is a low perceived risk about driving after using marijuana, but we want people to know that they should ideally wait several hours to operate a vehicle after using cannabis, regardless of whether it is for medical use or not,” Bonar said. “The safest strategy is to not drive at all on the day you used marijuana.”

    • January 10, 2019 at 3:43 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 13

      craig, Big Pot is spreading misinformation about this gateway drug. Medical always goes to Recreational Use and then they graduate to Meth and other very harmful drugs.

      • January 11, 2019 at 9:18 am
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 2

        Agent,
        You have proven over and over and over again, you know absolutely nothing about drugs. Keep talking if you hope to make those who are in favor of legalization actually come to fruition. I can’t believe how uninformed you are on this topic. By your logic and the fact that about 80% of the NBA uses MJ, where is all the meth?

        • January 11, 2019 at 11:29 am
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 5

          Planetoid, I know enough about drugs to know it is ruining America. I see the cases of tragedy all the time. By the way, are you high as you spread your disinformation on this subject?

          • January 11, 2019 at 11:47 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            Agent, Please detail the “disinformation” I am spreading. I don’t get high but I am about to sky some golf balls into the air in about 2 hours. Have to love winter golf in Iowa – it’s a consistent thing anymore.

            I agree, when someone turns to intoxicants of any kind, tragedy could ensue. Not every time, though. Not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. Same goes for weed, but you wouldn’t understand because you are all sorts of Alicia Silverstone on that subject. You’d like that movie, it has Stacy Dash in it, too. Conservatives are cool with that girl, right?

          • January 11, 2019 at 3:22 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            The levels of narcissism are so high in this one. I would ignore him, he ignores others here due to his narcissism.

            He first says where is the meth, then agrees it can lead to issues but not all the time.

            It doesn’t have to happen all the time. How often is ok? 10%? 5%? If 80% of people used it nationwide, with the numbers increasing with legalization, what happens if bad drug usage (already out of control) go up alongside it? By say 5%. Is that just an acceptable loss? I don’t think it is. Family destruction can often not be repaired. We are seeing that quite often this creates familial trends that affect traits which are linked to success, so we drag the whole economy and family down.

            “Moreover, the effects on families may continue for generations. Intergenerational effects of substance abuse can have a negative impact on role modeling, trust, and concepts of normative behavior, which can damage the relationships between generations. For example, a child with a parent who abuses substances may grow up to be an overprotective and controlling parent who does not allow his or her children sufficient autonomy.”

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64258/

            This doesn’t go over the economy, but these traits, when negative, cause children to either get into drugs themselves or not graduate, since they are linked to that.

            The family is worth protecting.

            While you may argue “alcohol has this affect as well!” and then say “pot isn’t as bad as alcohol” whether or not this is true, (and I believe in the case of pot isn’t as bad as alcohol it is not true) the affect is still there and I have seen it, whether ignorant studies try to delink it or not. My ex was an addict type personality. She probably would never have realized it if she didn’t try pot, and the other drugs would have been too hard to get. When she got into pot, it exploded, everything about her addict personality. She got into drugs, she got into porn to pay for drugs. For 3 years while I was with her, no issues. The furthest her addictive personality went was coffee. Within 3 months of trying pot we were broken up, she was into drugs, she was saying it wasn’t that bad, and she got into drugs and porn.

            Don’t tell me it doesn’t always happen. Many pornstars have this same thing happen, I might add. People used to talk about how drug users were actively linked to the porn industry, and it was harming women. These days, you guys have forgotten, and have abandoned women while championing them supposedly. So long as you say Tramp enough, it will make everything ok, right?

            Pot needs to remain a medical use only drug. People who are addicted to highs should not be given an avenue to give in to that craving. This is not a drug which isn’t harmful.

            It is about dopamine addiction for some, and for those people, it is even worse. It’s time to stop being a coward. I for one am ending my neutrality on it, I often don’t common on these types of pages, I didn’t for a long time, and I started a bit recently, the last few years. I am against pot. It should be illegal.

    • January 11, 2019 at 2:35 pm
      Oh Look, Another Opinion says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      I do not condone driving while under the influence or putting others in harms way because of your own ignorance. I also agree there is a low perceived risk surrounding cannabis, especially with how it is portrayed in current shows, music, and other pop cultures. However, the substances and drugs that preceded marijuana were perceived the same way.
      How long did it take for the majority to be well informed about the dangers of alcohol? Or cigarettes? Or even caffeine?
      How well did the prohibition of alcohol work? How many accidents have been caused by liquid courage?
      Truth has been tediously striving to eliminate teen smoking since 1998, how’s that working out 20 years later? It took almost a century till we knew how detrimental cigarettes were to our health. Why weren’t they outlawed until further studies and proper consequences were fully known?
      My OPINION, with cannabis becoming legal in more states than not, we need to focus on doing our best to educate younger generations on the negative impacts of these drugs instead of arguing its’ legality and pointing fingers. It will take time for majority of people to become well informed of its’ dangers, just like the other legal vices. Sadly.
      Ultimately, I still believe it should be up to each individual whether or not they partake. It is the abusive users that are the problem, not the substances themselves.
      Irresponsible people will make irresponsible choices. That’s just the way of the road.

      • January 11, 2019 at 2:42 pm
        rob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        you’re not going to win this one with Craig…you’re wasting your efforts.

  • January 10, 2019 at 3:43 pm
    Jim Backus says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 1

    Is anyone surprised? Will our society ever get to the point where personal freedoms are limited by personal responsibility?

    Most Commercially Licensed Drivers would be terminated for a positive test for THC, when administered under the Federally Mandated Alcohol & Controlled Substances Testing Regulations. That is a good law with good reasoning.

    Nothing like this exists for non-commercial drivers.

    • January 15, 2019 at 11:25 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 3

      There is such laws, but their ‘teeth’ aren’t very strong. Liberal courts allow violators to get off on light sentences, and they return to the roads months or years later. Technology may help (e.g. ignition switch connected to a breath tester tube), but will not be 100% effective. Keeping pot illegal is akin to a ‘breath tester’ tube in its’ effect. Legalization of recre-pot is akin to removing the tube from EVERY car’s ignition.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*