Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[SaltyDawg]

Exactly what I've been saying all along. Salty has been claiming from the beginning that weed doesn't affect your driving and that if it does you can use certain techniques to mitigate it. Oh, but you won't drive anyway cuz you'll be so high you'll just hang on the couch. Yet he uses the tomato tamato post like it is just a question of semantics or some grammatical problem. Laughable.

If their driving is impaired I don't see how that would hold up in court.

So what does the 0.08% BAC limit for alcohol mean to you? Is that where the law deems someone to be legally impaired? Or are you saying they are impaired well before that 0.08% limit the law has set, so that limit will not hold up in court? I'm not following you here.

The only thing laughable here is someone who has never smoked weed in his life trying to tell everyone how weed makes you feel, with no evidence whatsoever and all the evidence posted in the thread contradicting his claims.

What GVC said was basically just semantics for what I said. If the law deems them not dangerous and not worthy of prosecution, then for all intents and purposes, their driving is not impaired. Sure you could make an argument that someone with a hangnail is technically impaired and their driving is technically impaired because of it. But I think most people would agree that the increased risk is so minimal that for all intents and purposes that hangnail alone would not impair the driving.

I stand by my claim that when the study compares a THC limit to 0.05% BAC they are saying the person is not impaired. Because legally, the person with a 0.05% BAC is not even close to reaching the limit where they can be prosecuted for being impaired.

Lets eliminate the opinions for a minute and just use facts...

Fact 1: Someone with a 0.05% BAC level is not even close to the level at which they could face prosecution. They are only roughly halfway to the legal limit, which in Utah is 0.08% and several other states have it at 0.10% BAC.

Fact 2: This study says that someone with between 7 and 10 ng/ml of THC will drive similar to someone with a BAC of 0.05%.

Conclusion based on the 2 facts above: This study is saying that between 7 and 10 ng/ml of THC is not enough to make someone drive impaired.

 

[GVC]

If you're driving with a BAC of .05%, you're probably not swerving all over the road and running people over. Yes, you'll be slower to react to things, but if you get pulled over for some offense not directly linked to driving like an idiot (say, a dead headlight or not signalling on a turn or something), and the officer has cause to administer a breathalizer test (I don't know what the legal standards are), but you only blow a .05, you're not going to face any criminal penalties.

Is this simple enough for you to understand, conan?

 

[SaltyDawg]

If you're driving with a BAC of .05%, you're probably not swerving all over the road and running people over. Yes, you'll be slower to react to things, but if you get pulled over for some offense not directly linked to driving like an idiot (say, a dead headlight or not signalling on a turn or something), and the officer has cause to administer a breathalizer test (I don't know what the legal standards are), but you only blow a .05, you're not going to face any criminal penalties.

Is this simple enough for you to understand, conan?

Even if you get pulled over for driving like an idiot, if you blow a 0.05 you won't get a DUI. You will get a wreckless driving.

Unless you are not of legal age, then any amount will get you a DUI. Maybe this is what has conan confused?

 

[GVC]

I think he gets confused trying to put his pants on in the morning.

 

[Gameface]

And while we're at it, 0.08% BAC is pretty damn low. Most people at 0.08% will show almost no signs of being drunk. We've worked our way down to 0.08% as a legal limit due to the efforts of groups like MADD and a general intolerance of ANY level of impairment due to alcohol. If I knew the driver next to me was at 0.09% BAC I wouldn't be too concerned unless they were also driving like a jack-***. I'm guessing 0.05% is the threshold when a person starts to feel any effects of alcohol at all and reaction time starts to slip. Keep in mind that different people have different reaction times going in, so a person legally drunk at 0.081% might very well still have reaction times better than your average driver, albeit lower than their normal reaction time.

Let's keep in mind that when we're talking about the lower end of the legal limit we're talking about very minor levels of impairment.

 

[GVC]

And while we're at it, 0.08% BAC is pretty damn low. Most people at 0.08% will show almost no signs of being drunk. We've worked our way down to 0.08% as a legal limit due to the efforts of groups like MADD and a general intolerance of ANY level of impairment due to alcohol. If I knew the driver next to me was at 0.09% BAC I wouldn't be too concerned unless they were also driving like a jack-***. I'm guessing 0.05% is the threshold when a person starts to feel any effects of alcohol at all and reaction time starts to slip. Keep in mind that different people have different reaction times going in, so a person legally drunk at 0.081% might very well still have reaction times better than your average driver, albeit lower than their normal reaction time.

Let's keep in mind that when we're talking about the lower end of the legal limit we're talking about very minor levels of impairment.

I don't think that would hold up in court, mush for brains!

 

[GVC]

I don't get out much, but I can say with certainty that there is at least one person I'd rather be high than not when I'm a passenger in their car.

From tail-gating, road rage *** hole to 10 under the limit, deferential smiley guy.

 

[NUMBERICA]

If their driving is impaired I don't see how that would hold up in court.

You appear to have smoked too much marijuana sub-25.

 

[colton]

Even if you get pulled over for driving like an idiot, if you blow a 0.05 you won't get a DUI. You will get a wreckless driving.

That typo made me smile. Why would they ticket you for being wreck-less? ;-)

 

[GVC]

You appear to have smoked too much marijuana sub-25.

I laughed.

 

[CONAN]

You wouldn't go to court if you blew a .05. This really isn't that hard to understand.

I don't think I've brought up alcohol this whole time. The point is the study says your driving is impaired. Kill someone while behind the wheel and blood test at the threshold they suggest and no question you are in big trouble.

 

[CONAN]

If you're driving with a BAC of .05%, you're probably not swerving all over the road and running people over. Yes, you'll be slower to react to things, but if you get pulled over for some offense not directly linked to driving like an idiot (say, a dead headlight or not signalling on a turn or something), and the officer has cause to administer a breathalizer test (I don't know what the legal standards are), but you only blow a .05, you're not going to face any criminal penalties.

Is this simple enough for you to understand, conan?

Sure, I understand that point fine. But it's not what I've been arguing at all.