Hmmm, who is worse. The drunk driver behind the wheel of a car who couldn't give a fuck or the really high paranoid driver who is afraid of hitting everything in his path.

When did Hurley get a haircut?

The look on the Booze industry shill at the end of that segment was just pure awesomeness. I swear I think he shit his pants. Prolly went to go drown his sorrows with some booze.

>> ^cooolllll:

Hmmm, who is worse. The drunk driver behind the wheel of a car who couldn't give a fuck or the really high paranoid driver who is afraid of hitting everything in his path.


The drunk mofo that just puffed a J before getting into his car. The combo will straight wreck your shit before you know it. It isn't as if legalizing it is going to reduce the instance of people that consume both before driving.

I'm all for legalization, but the guy is right that no reasonable test exists for determining if someone is high while driving. There is no .08 for pot. You can either A) let that be subject to "police judgement," or B) use blood/urine/hair testing which will come back positive for up to a month since your last use. Neither of those seem like appropriate legislation on the matter.

I can't believe the PR guy tried to use the "you can't be fired for drug use unless it impacts your performance" clause as a criticism of this bill. Isn't that the most just law we could have? It's your god damned body. If your being smart with it and showing up and doing your job well, whose damned business is it what you do in your own time? As Bill Burrows said "The measure of competence is performance". Anything else should be considered irrelevant

And apparently this group called Public Safety First doesn't consider beatings, rapes and car crashes material to public safety. Don't get me wrong, I'm the biggest pisshead I know, but hypocrisy just annoys the hell out of me

Wow, Weed guy destroyed Alchy there at the end.

If this passes, I'm sure new laws will pop up to protect the masses from douchey intoxicated people and I'm sure new technologies for detecting smoking while driving will be used.

I don't see why you couldn't just sample the air content for expelled marijuana smoke and determine how old it is.

Nice ad hominem there by the marijuana proponent.

If someone is doing both then they are still drunk driving, which can be tested and prosecuted.

If they are under the legal alcohol limit then the effects of the combination will be virtually identical to someone smoking without drinking anything. Any amount of alcohol that would further impair a smoker would be illegal (and stupid) for a driver even without smoking.

It would be nice to have an on-site test for weed intoxication, but I don't think that is enough justification to continue prohibition along with all of its inherent dangers/effects. (so basically, I agree with you)

Edit: I believe there are blood tests that show THC levels, though I'm not sure how accurately they show the level of intoxication at the time of the blood draw. If nothing else, legalization will create more incentive for companies to create such tests.


>> ^bmacs27:

The drunk mofo that just puffed a J before getting into his car. The combo will straight wreck your shit before you know it. It isn't as if legalizing it is going to reduce the instance of people that consume both before driving.
I'm all for legalization, but the guy is right that no reasonable test exists for determining if someone is high while driving. There is no .08 for pot. You can either A) let that be subject to "police judgement," or B) use blood/urine/hair testing which will come back positive for up to a month since your last use. Neither of those seem like appropriate legislation on the matter.

Does anyone know the likelihood of this passing? Go California!

Someone had the munchies a few times too often.

Look. Look. Just stop, look a second.

Is it a problem in amsterdam? Sec, let me check how amsterdam is doing on the fronts of life quality, crime levels, work productivity, etc.

Oh, no it seems that they've got an amazing quality of living.

So what you're saying is it's NOT a problem in amsterdam? K.

>> ^rebuilder:

Nice ad hominem there by the marijuana proponent.


lolumad?

>> ^kymbos:

Does anyone know the likelihood of this passing? Go California!


At this point, very likely (though people can always change their minds).

Here's some polls (via Wikipedia).

There's an important update at 3:15 on the news crawl.

at 3:20 when the host brings up the 'roadside testing' concern and pro-alcohol guy counters with the argument that seemed to amount to "derp change is hard and we'll have to work harder to interpret new laws", i lol'd.

@Psychologic , I think that is exactly what the alcohol lobby is worried about, an increased incidence of "drunk driving" deaths/accidents/injuries/arrests or what have you. I think they just want to make sure that marijuana takes its fair share of the heat that will likely come from it.

Again, don't get me wrong, I puff tuff on the regular. I just don't have any illusions that there won't be at least some problems with younger adults and teenagers if pot were suddenly legalized. I agree, it does not justify prolonging prohibition, but I think there should be a better response to a legitimate concern like roadside testing than "but... but... alcohol eats babies." If the response had been more like yours, it would have been much more palatable.

According to teenagers polled, it's easier to get weed than it is to get alcohol right now and weed is still illegal. So, what exactly do you think is going to change once it's legalized?

>> ^bmacs27:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Psychologic" title="member since August 30th, 2008" class="profilelink">Psychologic , I think that is exactly what the alcohol lobby is worried about, an increased incidence of "drunk driving" deaths/accidents/injuries/arrests or what have you. I think they just want to make sure that marijuana takes its fair share of the heat that will likely come from it.
Again, don't get me wrong, I puff tuff on the regular. I just don't have any illusions that there won't be at least some problems with younger adults and teenagers if pot were suddenly legalized. I agree, it does not justify prolonging prohibition, but I think there should be a better response to a legitimate concern like roadside testing than "but... but... alcohol eats babies." If the response had been more like yours, it would have been much more palatable.

>> ^notarobot:

There's an important update at 3:15 on the news crawl.


you win

I love how it is proposed as an 'either/or' argument. As if drinking/smoking weed are mutually exclusive.

@Duckman33 :

The price.

>> ^bmacs27:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://duckman33.videosift.com" title="member since January 10th, 2008" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(43, 104, 238);">Duckman33 :
The price.


Then I'm all for it!

>> ^bmacs27:
>> ^cooolllll:
Hmmm, who is worse. The drunk driver behind the wheel of a car who couldn't give a fuck or the really high paranoid driver who is afraid of hitting everything in his path.

The drunk mofo that just puffed a J before getting into his car. The combo will straight wreck your shit before you know it. It isn't as if legalizing it is going to reduce the instance of people that consume both before driving.
I'm all for legalization, but the guy is right that no reasonable test exists for determining if someone is high while driving. There is no .08 for pot. You can either A) let that be subject to "police judgement," or B) use blood/urine/hair testing which will come back positive for up to a month since your last use. Neither of those seem like appropriate legislation on the matter.


Forehead testing strips are used by police forces in Europe. The results of these tests give a clear indication of recent consumption of cannabis and have been successfully used to convict smokers driving under the influence.

I'm sorry, I don't speak your language.

>> ^always:

>> ^rebuilder:
Nice ad hominem there by the marijuana proponent.

lolumad?