Legalize it!

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

As far as people saying weed should remain illegal because there isn't a way to test drivers for it, I respond to that by asking: is there a way to test to see if a truck driver is too tired to be driving; is there a way to test to make the Claritin and percocet that an old lady just took impair her driving; how can you test to see if someone got into an accident because they were looking at street signs or something stupid like that?
Personally, I don't think people should drive when they're high but I absolutely do not buy the argument weed should stay illegal because cops can't test drivers for it.

This seems like a weak protest, AMD. You're saying that since we don't test tired truck driver's or drugged out old ladies then we should also not test for all people who are high? There will be truck drivers and old ladies that will be in that group that are tested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. Truck driver's are regular everyday people like you and me and old ladies who have glaucoma may use it to relieve their ailments.

That line of reasoning also seems to indicate that we should also just do away with breathalizer's. How else is a police officer going to have scientific evidence that a person is under the influence of a motor-skill inhibiting or hallucinogenic drug other than testing for it?

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

This seems like a weak protest, AMD. You're saying that since we don't test tired truck driver's or drugged out old ladies then we should also not test for all people who are high? There will be truck drivers and old ladies that will be in that group that are tested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. Truck driver's are regular everyday people like you and me and old ladies who have glaucoma may use it to relieve their ailments.

That line of reasoning also seems to indicate that we should also just do away with breathalizer's. How else is a police officer going to have scientific evidence that a person is under the influence of a motor-skill inhibiting or hallucinogenic drug other than testing for it?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't test people to see if they're DWHigh, nor am I saying that people who do cause accidents while high shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I don't see how this line of thinking has anything to do with getting rid of breathalizers, because they're a proven method of proving that a driver is too impaired to be behind the wheel.
Hell, if they develop a test to see if drivers were high they should use it. For now, they should probably just use the standard roadside test (walk the line; touch your nose; etc) that they use for drunk drivers.

What I am trying to say is that I find the whole "you can't test drivers to see if they're high, so weed should remain illegal" argument to be rather weak. What I meant by my examples is that there is no test to see if (for instance) a trucker caused an accident because he'd been on the road too long and he was too tired, or that the old lady on allergy meds was just as out of it as if she just took a couple hits off a bong. To me, these are very similiar to DWH and they also can't be tested for.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I'm not saying that we shouldn't test people to see if they're DWHigh, nor am I saying that people who do cause accidents while high shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I don't see how this line of thinking has anything to do with getting rid of breathalizers, because they're a proven method of proving that a driver is too impaired to be behind the wheel.
Hell, if they develop a test to see if drivers were high they should use it. For now, they should probably just use the standard roadside test (walk the line; touch your nose; etc) that they use for drunk drivers.

What I am trying to say is that I find the whole "you can't test drivers to see if they're high, so weed should remain illegal" argument to be rather weak. What I meant by my examples is that there is no test to see if (for instance) a trucker caused an accident because he'd been on the road too long and he was too tired, or that the old lady on allergy meds was just as out of it as if she just took a couple hits off a bong. To me, these are very similiar to DWH and they also can't be tested for.

Okay, I gotcha. My whole contention is ensuring that the roads do not get any more dangerous than they already are. It's a safety concern I have for family. I, as an individual, am not all that particularly worried about anything happening. I've always had a "devil may care" attitude. But now that I'm married and with a 20 month old I always look for any potentially dangerous situations. I can't control the actions of a drunk driver nor a person who is high (or tired or drugged out). I can try to help pass legislature that puts into effect a screening process that law enforcement can use to help keep those irresponsible f*ckups off the street.

We're not going to be able to control every possible reason why a person is impaired but we can take preventative actions to reduce the potential for an even greater number of traffic accidents.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Okay, I gotcha. My whole contention is ensuring that the roads do not get any more dangerous than they already are. It's a safety concern I have for family. I, as an individual, am not all that particularly worried about anything happening. I've always had a "devil may care" attitude. But now that I'm married and with a 20 month old I always look for any potentially dangerous situations. I can't control the actions of a drunk driver nor a person who is high (or tired or drugged out). I can try to help pass legislature that puts into effect a screening process that law enforcement can use to help keep those irresponsible f*ckups off the street.

We're not going to be able to control every possible reason why a person is impaired but we can take preventative actions to reduce the potential for an even greater number of traffic accidents.

I understand what you're saying about highway safety and I do agree 100% that people should not be driving while high; I just don't think that's a reason it should remain illegal.
That being said, even if it were legalized (or decriminalized, which is far more likely) drivers should be held accountable for DWH just like drivers are held accountable for DUI/DWI's.