DUI Thread

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
The difference between driving drunk vs driving while high is that the alcohol impairs your motor skills while cannabis does not. Have you ever watched the police videos of when the give they give drunks roadside sobriety tests? The drunks cannot walk a straight line, recite the alphabet, etc.. while a person under the influence of weed could pass all of those tests. Its not about what some law says, its about needlessly endangering others lives. When I see a drunk on the road swerving all over I don't hesitate to follow him and report the asshole.
Try to comprehend if you can that the law doesn't care if you think people can drive fine on weed.

Comparing a guy who is high to a guy who is smashed is the same as comparing a guy with a light beer buz to a guy who is smashed. Can you not see that the two arguments are exactly the same? You say a guy can drive fine while high, I say a guy with a light buz can drive fine - it's the same thing.

The IMPORTANT part is that the law makes no such distinction.

Let me repeat that - The IMPORTANT part is that the law makes no such distinction.

You are even DUI a week after smoking a joint! Why is this not sinking in?
 

Cloud City

New Member
There is no comparing the effects of cannabis to alcohol. :wall:If you got pulled over because you were drunk and could not drive in a straight line and then failed a sobriety test you probably deserved to get a DUI. :dunce:
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Effects of marijuana on human reaction time and motor control.

Kvålseth TO.
In this research were analyzed the effects of marijuana on human reaction time and on performance for motor responses involving both linear and rotary serial arm movements aimed at a target. A total of six experienced marijuana users served as subjects and three drug conditions (dose levels) were used, i.e., 0, 6.5, and 19.5-26.0 mg delta9-THC. The results showed that (a) (simple and complex) reaction time was not significantly affected by marijuana or by the interaction between drug conditions and the amount of information transmitted during the task, (b) linear movement time was significantly reduced after smoking marijuana, while rotary movement time was not significantly affected, (c) interaction between drug conditions and task complexity was insignificant in the case of both linear and rotary movements, and (d) error rates for the two types of motor movements increased significantly and especially for linear movements as the dose level increased.

PMID: 600655 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]




Ur reflexes slow down.... the higher the thc, the slower the reflex.
 

Cloud City

New Member
Effects of marijuana on human reaction time and motor control.

Kvålseth TO.
In this research were analyzed the effects of marijuana on human reaction time and on performance for motor responses involving both linear and rotary serial arm movements aimed at a target. A total of six experienced marijuana users served as subjects and three drug conditions (dose levels) were used, i.e., 0, 6.5, and 19.5-26.0 mg delta9-THC. The results showed that (a) (simple and complex) reaction time was not significantly affected by marijuana or by the interaction between drug conditions and the amount of information transmitted during the task, (b) linear movement time was significantly reduced after smoking marijuana, while rotary movement time was not significantly affected, (c) interaction between drug conditions and task complexity was insignificant in the case of both linear and rotary movements, and (d) error rates for the two types of motor movements increased significantly and especially for linear movements as the dose level increased.

PMID: 600655 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



Do you even read what you post? It says right there that "reaction time was not significantly affected by marijuana"!!!!!!!!!:wall:
 

joemomma

Well-Known Member
Your a lot better off calling a cab. It's better for you, your driving record, insurance rates and not to mention everyone else on the road. As for .08 not affecting people your forgetting different people have different tolerences, I get buzzed pretty damn easy, I'd be fairly drunk at .08 so I just don't drive. Don't drive when your drinking. It's really easy to do.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
but linear movement was greatlt affected..... meaning that operating a vehicle while stoned is not as safe as being sober.... but that would require you possessing some common sense.
 

Cloud City

New Member
but linear movement was greatlt affected..... meaning that operating a vehicle while stoned is not as safe as being sober.... but that would require you possessing some common sense.



You're trying to compare spam and tomatoes. That lame ass study you posted said marijuana had little if any effect on reflexes. So don't try to tell me about the effects of weed being similar to alcohol, you can't fool me.. Shit. I've probably thrown better buds in the trash than you'll ever smoke.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
You're trying to compare spam and tomatoes. That lame ass study you posted said marijuana had little if any effect on reflexes. So don't try to tell me about the effects of weed being similar to alcohol, you can't fool me.. Shit. I've probably thrown better buds in the trash than you'll ever smoke.
Either way you are still going to jail!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get it?

And while reaction time may not be slowed your attention is clearly impaired by weed. Like I said, I have been in the car with people who were high and had to warn them about 2 red lights in a row.

But this isn't a debate about what is worse. It's a thread about Draconian law enforcement and Government propaganda.

If people are so damn frightened that some guy is going to leave the bar with 3 beers in him and kill them they ought to stay home and wrap themselves in bubble wrap. The world is a dangerous place and shit happens - get over it.

Like I said, I'll take my chances with the drunks over the cops any day.
 

Cloud City

New Member
The only way to get a DUI for weed is if you drive around smoking it and that is not what I am advocating here. And I've been in a car with a driver who had just finished drinking a glass of water and I had to warn him when he didn't use his mirrors and almost hit a car while making a lane change.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Try to comprehend if you can that the law doesn't care if you think people can drive fine on weed.

Comparing a guy who is high to a guy who is smashed is the same as comparing a guy with a light beer buz to a guy who is smashed. Can you not see that the two arguments are exactly the same? You say a guy can drive fine while high, I say a guy with a light buz can drive fine - it's the same thing.

The IMPORTANT part is that the law makes no such distinction.

Let me repeat that - The IMPORTANT part is that the law makes no such distinction.

You are even DUI a week after smoking a joint! Why is this not sinking in?

see, they have these things called "field sobriety tests". if you are "unimpaired" then you will pass and can go on your merry way. :bigjoint:

they don't test your BAC until you FAIL the field sobriety test.

:sleep:
 

SlikWiLL13

Well-Known Member
youve never gotten road head before have you lol


id love to see some one say no to that
ever gotten into an accident you didnt see coming? i prefer not to have my weiner bit off AND get banged around in my car at the same time.

no road head for me.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
see, they have these things called "field sobriety tests". if you are "unimpaired" then you will pass and can go on your merry way. :bigjoint:

they don't test your BAC until you FAIL the field sobriety test.

:sleep:
100% wrong. Despite being a violation of your Constitutional rights, cops will pull you over based on being well dressed and groomed at 2am (evidence of having been at a bar or social occasion). They will have determined that you have been drinking before even approaching the vehicle. They will then make up 3 indicia of intoxication whether it is there or not, such as glassy eyes and odor of intoxicants. Then they ask you to perform so called tests which are really an interrogation designed to trick you into incriminating yourself.

If you ask for a lawyer which is another Constitutional right they will get all bent out of shape and begin threatening you. They will then make up more lies and arrest you for having the nerve to excises your Constitutional rights and they will lie to the judge in order to obtain a warrant to draw blood. If they then find any illegal substance in your blood you are hosed. They might even charge you with possession as well.

Then when you go to court, there will be a bunch of brainwashed sheep like yourself on the jury who will ignore the fact that your rights were violated and convict you.

In the end, either you agree with the law the way it is written or you don't. If you do, you must aside from not drinking, refrain from driving for up to a month until all THC is out of your system assuming you smoke pot.

Since most of you smoke weed and probably drive every day, most of you are guilty of DUI every day. I fail to see how people who commit a DUI every time they get behind the wheel can lecture others about it. I believe they call that hypocrisy.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
wow, sounds like a nightly thing for you. :clap:






100% wrong. Despite being a violation of your Constitutional rights, cops will pull you over based on being well dressed and groomed at 2am (evidence of having been at a bar or social occasion). They will have determined that you have been drinking before even approaching the vehicle. They will then make up 3 indicia of intoxication whether it is there or not, such as glassy eyes and odor of intoxicants. Then they ask you to perform so called tests which are really an interrogation designed to trick you into incriminating yourself.

If you ask for a lawyer which is another Constitutional right they will get all bent out of shape and begin threatening you. They will then make up more lies and arrest you for having the nerve to excises your Constitutional rights and they will lie to the judge in order to obtain a warrant to draw blood. If they then find any illegal substance in your blood you are hosed. They might even charge you with possession as well.

Then when you go to court, there will be a bunch of brainwashed sheep like yourself on the jury who will ignore the fact that your rights were violated and convict you.

In the end, either you agree with the law the way it is written or you don't. If you do, you must aside from not drinking, refrain from driving for up to a month until all THC is out of your system assuming you smoke pot.

Since most of you smoke weed and probably drive every day, most of you are guilty of DUI every day. I fail to see how people who commit a DUI every time they get behind the wheel can lecture others about it. I believe they call that hypocrisy.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
should have called a cab. :dunce:


someone i know recently got one coming home from the lake. had his kid in the car. FELONY child endangerment charges.

how do you explain to your exwife that you killed her son? he's lucky.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
should have called a cab. :dunce:


someone i know recently got one coming home from the lake. had his kid in the car. FELONY child endangerment charges.

how do you explain to your exwife that you killed her son? he's lucky.
Oh see, now that is just the kind of hyperbolic bullshit the cops hope for.

It's more along the lines of having to explain to your wife that some sadistic dick cop turned a fun day on the lake into a major legal headache that is going to cost you your job and bankrupt your family.

But anyway, why don't you fess up and tell us why it is OK for you to DUI every time you get behind the wheel.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Oh see, now that is just the kind of hyperbolic bullshit the cops hope for.

It's more along the lines of having to explain to your wife that some sadistic dick cop turned a fun day on the lake into a major legal headache that is going to cost you your job and bankrupt your family.

But anyway, why don't you fess up and tell us why it is OK for you to DUI every time you get behind the wheel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/8332105.stm
Crash children's plea to driver


Mr Bridges bought a house in the Dordogne in 2005

Two children who died in a car crash in France had pleaded with a former policeman not to drive because he had been drinking, an inquest jury heard.
Bethany Lowe and Gabriella Dyer, both 10, said they should drive rather than Bethany's step-father, Keith Bridges.
The girls and two other people from Somerset died in the crash near Berbiguieres, southern France, in 2006.
In a narrative verdict, the jury found it was caused by Mr Bridges driving at excess speed after drinking alcohol.
Mr Bridges was more than double the UK drink-driving limit when the crash occurred, the court in Taunton had been told.
Mr Bridges' wife Julia-Anne, 43, and Gabriella Dyer's father Andrew, 41, died along with the two girls after Mr Bridges' Cherokee Jeep left the road and hit trees on 7 June 2006.
Three other passengers were injured.
Too small
Anthony Fuller, who had hosted a get-together that day attended by the Bridges and Dyer families, told the inquest that Bethany and Gabriella had told him that all the adults had drunk too much to drive.
He said: "They said all the adults had far too much to drink so we will drive."
Gabriella Dyer was the daughter of one of Mrs Bridges' friends

Mr Fuller told the girls they were too small to operate the pedals of the car.
Mr Bridges had been a police inspector in Minehead. He and his family had bought the property in France in 2005.
The Dyer family, from Bridgwater, were staying at the Bridges' farmhouse at the time of the incident.
In a letter read out to the court, Mr Bridges said he thought a mechanical failure had caused the crash.
He said as his Jeep neared his home he "realised that the car was still accelerating hard and not coasting as normal" as he approached a bend.
Manslaughter charges
A French police investigation found no fault in the Cherokee and that it had been travelling nearly 20mph (32km/h) faster than the recommended speed limit for the road it was on.
The two girls were in the boot of the Jeep and were not wearing seat belts, the jury heard.
Mr Fuller said: "There was no need for those children to die because there were four responsible adults in that car and one of them, and this is difficult for me to say, acted very irresponsibly."
The court also heard from Mr Dyer's widow Tracy, who was badly injured in the crash.
Mr Fuller told the inquest that he was "haunted" by the crash scene

She said she did not doubt that Mr Bridges could drive safely that night.
Mr Bridges will appear before a French court next month on manslaughter and drink driving charges.
The jury's statement said: "The accident would not have occurred if the driver of the vehicle had not attempted to negotiate a bend at an excessive speed and his judgment moderately impaired by alcohol.
"The possibility of excessive speed being caused by the failure of the overdrive system was unlikely to have occurred."
"If all the passengers were correctly seated with seat belts fatalities may not have occurred."
After the inquest, Mr Dyer's mother, Mary, said: "We are happy that the truth has now come out and he [Mr Bridges] has to live with it."
 
Top