Liberals table bills to legalize pot, clamp down on impaired driving

a reply to: one4all

Dude, driving under the influence of just about anything is a bad choice and that includes marijuana.

I'm all for MJ but saying it dosent affect ones driving is just stupid, not everyone is the same.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: one4all
I dont care what kind or how much MJ you smoke or ingest...you cannot overdose fatally and you cannot become impaired like a drunk on alcohol does...not even 1/2 way as impaired......it simply does not happen.

Sorry, about 45 years of research tells me that smoking pot impairs one's decision making process, and I have always considered that to be a critical element of driving. That and the danger of putting on the tunes and ending up in Montreal.
Smoke-dope won't kill you...but stupid can, and dope makes one stupid. Even if one is doing 5 miles an hour (known to happen) driving stoned needs to be controlled.

...and please link to said 45 years of research ,because my interpretation of peer approved research is that ones decision making is ENHANCED as oppossed to impaired.

Personal research...finest kind!
Well, then do me a favour, if you are going to enter the enchanted kingdom, then drive...stay out of south-central Ontario because I don't want you on the roads around me. Stoned drivers are stupid drivers. If you can dispute that, then you ought to try a better quality pot.

In my review of others personal experience which is the legal variety I find that the anti-parasitic effects of MJ which big Pharma is struggeling to suppress are the hidden gem.....smoking MJ is the least impactfull way of using its medical benefits....using an anti-parasitic like MJ regularly allows ones body to heal itself.

IMHO others experiences are equal to your own in terms of duration of personal research....lol....but I am afraid that there are millions of people who walk around un-policed who are more stupid than the most stoned person I have ever seen...and I run into people this stupid every day everywhere.....if anything a lot of people will be asking for directions from their local police.....lol...not causing carnage and death on our roads.....lol....the millions of people floating down the road on their "nerve pills" from their Dr scares the hades out of me....stoners do not scare me at all as long as they dont smoke while they drive.

I do not support legalisation i support proper medical definition and dipensation.Under these auspices there is no cash cow available to civil and other levels of government and quasi-private enterprise no stoned-driving BS laws and no criminal records for millions of perfectly fine people.

If you could enter into a controlled legal study which do exist and pop 2x 10mg oxycodones and hit the road for some personal baseline experiences to compare to driving stoned....and then you could see OTHER PEOPLE driving the same ways....then we could talk....like I said.....I am frightened by people everywhere in life walking driving and working on their "happy pills" or "painkillers".....stoned people are the least of my worries precisely because of my personal experiences and knowledge I can share.

I say being stoned doesn not constitute impaired driving....and I also say it does impact the speed of learning and emotional development in kids....they are in no hurry and are way to mellow......exactly the effects which make the stoned driving BS story so criminal in its intents.We already know what MJ can and cannot do on a societl level....which is why we need to question why medical definition and supports and the forcing of Drs to make it EASILY ACESSIBLE have been disenfranchised by this push for legalisation.

Trump is pushing back for the reasons I am listing...as Canada will soon do....MJ will be accesable but it will be only as a widely used MEDICINE and this will happen at a MASSIVE COST to big pharma....and insurance companies owned by the same people who own the Pharma companies ....... the MJ issue is a profit issue with global impacts....because it directly undermines the Big Pharma lock on the world.

Right after we accept the anti-parasitic benefits of MJ we will also learn what cancer is...a simple mycotoxin...a simple mould....and we will learn how penicillin and cancer are related noting penicillin is a mould , just as we will learn how water additives designed supposedly to clean global water supplies actually introduce to our bodies chemicals which exponentially support the growth of parasites and cancers, as Dr Hulda Clark showed us the ways parasites attack us and how they build cancer sympathetic environments inside of us.Parasites are the single biggest killer of humans on this planet.

a reply to: one4all

Talking about personal experience is against the t&c.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: one4all

Dude, driving under the influence of just about anything is a bad choice and that includes marijuana.

I'm all for MJ but saying it dosent affect ones driving is just stupid, not everyone is the same.

It does not IMPAIR ONES DRIVING according to articles I have read....it affects our perceptions not our motor skills and central nervous system.....and the degrees are negligable for EVERYONE, although as you point out EVERYTHING IN LIFE EXISTS ON A CURVE and we each experience the degrees of this curve differently.

Its stupid to say not everyone is the same...that is a given awareness we all posess from birth....not a basis for arguement....lol.

I m not promoting driving under the influence of anything I am clearly saying that MJ at its highest levels cannot IMPAIR YOUR DRIVING ABILITIES to a criminal level or a negligent level....it has very very few commonalities with alcohol....you arent going to smoke to many bong hits get behind the wheel and drop dead doing 110km/hr on the freeway wiping out 3 families with you......like you could very well do if you doubled or tripled your "nerve pill" or 'Painkiller" prescription and overdosed while driving ,or for that matter any of thousands of pharmacuticals could do this to you.....but not MJ.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: one4all

Talking about personal experience is against the t&c.

Duly noted.Post edited.Thank you.

originally posted by: one4all
It does not IMPAIR ONES DRIVING according to articles I have read....it affects our perceptions not our motor skills and central nervous system.....and the degrees are negligable for EVERYONE, although as you point out EVERYTHING IN LIFE EXISTS ON A CURVE and we each experience the degrees of this curve differently.

Read way more...and try the studies themselves, not just articles about them.

Both Canada and the US have found a wide variation in reaction times by users, both intermittent and chronic. Some have no noticeable effect in reaction times, some have severe changes in reaction time (it even notes that some see improved reaction times).

The law has to viably protect all. If "some" will be effected detrimentally, than all must abstain prior to operation of equipment. It's great that you may not be effected, but Joe Stoned may not react like you, and I don't want to find out the hard way. Too many already do...and many of those that caused it believed the same thing you do.

I say this as a regular user that never drives while under the influence of anything.

originally posted by: one4all
...you arent going to smoke to many bong hits get behind the wheel and drop dead doing 110km/hr on the freeway wiping out 3 families with you.

No...but you can fall asleep, and create the same carnage. I'm guessing from some of the weasel-words that you don't personally imbibe on a recreational basis. Cite all the studies you want...but would you put your kids in a car driven by somebody who's 'one toke over the line'? I'm guessing no. You want somebody who's pasted driving past schools? Probably not. You wanna put on tunes, zone out, and follow the 401 to Montreal? OK, maybe.

As to talk of personal experience being a violation of the T & C, I would welcome a ruling from the Mods as this is indeed a new world. We are not indulging in stoner stories (do we have a forum for that?) but adding legitimate context to an issue that will be hotly debated in many quarters over the next little while.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: one4all
It does not IMPAIR ONES DRIVING according to articles I have read....it affects our perceptions not our motor skills and central nervous system.....and the degrees are negligable for EVERYONE, although as you point out EVERYTHING IN LIFE EXISTS ON A CURVE and we each experience the degrees of this curve differently.

Read way more...and try the studies themselves, not just articles about them.

Both Canada and the US have found a wide variation in reaction times by users, both intermittent and chronic. Some have no noticeable effect in reaction times, some have severe changes in reaction time (it even notes that some see improved reaction times).

The law has to viably protect all. If "some" will be effected detrimentally, than all must abstain prior to operation of equipment. It's great that you may not be effected, but Joe Stoned may not react like you, and I don't want to find out the hard way. Too many already do...and many of those that caused it believed the same thing you do.

I say this as a regular user that never drives while under the influence of anything.

The studies are divergent...today peer approval is not a cornered market....as it used to be......so there are no peer accepted legally challenged and defined accepted studies available from an American/Canadian consensus perspective......these issues are now going concerns in both countries which creates a void as we are discovering now.....and Countries like Africa are now also changing their laws.

Impairment and enhancement are two different things as already established pharma laws define for us all....many highly potent potentially lethal pharmaceuticals are not considered to impair ones ability to drive while used under a DR.s care and under prescription dynamics and controls....as I said I support proper medical validation and free and unhindered dispensation.....I say MJ is not the equivilant to alcohol as many wish to promote and I say there is no amount of MJ intake which will make you a dangerous driver.....it is clear that if peer approved legally vetted data saying and proving MJ use impaired ones driving to dangerous levels we would ALREADY SEE ENTRENCHED LEGESLATION....but IMHO it just so happens that many many people with enough money are clearly willing to see this issue into court of law and governments and municipalities are walking on eggshells.....because they know very well what a cash cow it is for them and that there is little to no chance of attatching alcohol similar policing and legeslation to MJ use and driving if challenged in court.....the studies do not on any level support the policing as per alcohol impaired driving laws... the lawyers know this....the doctors know this....and as we speak some governments and municipalities are trying to ride manipulated undereducated public opinions to a dynamic where we ASK them to expedite lawmaking....lol..... only we can make this happen for them by skipping due process voluntarily........IMHO there is no chance of building Impaired Driving laws based on MJ....zero.....simply because there is no available peer approved legally vetted research showing it can impair your driving abilities....and LMAO....TPTB know very well if some medical data is entered into court in an attempt to demonise MJ during a precedent setting challenge the end result will be the introduction of massive volumes of data showing positve MJ impacts which will go on the legal record and become precedents ....no way they will allow this to happen.

The fact is that MJ will have to have a traditionally evolving legal identity....for anyone to begin building criminal legeslation around it and this will take a very long time to entrench...and very very powerfull people do not wish MJ to be recognised nor validated nor societally accepted via introduction into the legal system in an adversarial environment.If this happens then the full and complete on the record truth about MJ will come out.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
I am glad our government is taking the time to think about this before legalization.

I would hate to see articles like this after it is legal.

Sadly, as evidenced by other posters, we probably will.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
I am glad our government is taking the time to think about this before legalization.
I would hate to see articles like this after it is legal.
Sadly, as evidenced by other posters, we probably will.

...or this: Why it's so hard to fight drug-impaired driving
But not to worry...studies say it's a piece of cake. (um...you gonna eat that?)

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
I am glad our government is taking the time to think about this before legalization.
I would hate to see articles like this after it is legal.
Sadly, as evidenced by other posters, we probably will.

...or this: Why it's so hard to fight drug-impaired driving
But not to worry...studies say it's a piece of cake. (um...you gonna eat that?)

You are so Canadian you make a Canadian feel like a visitor........lol......your personage is so very very very canadiana.....perfect example of the norm......kudos to you and thank you for your discourse and conversation and diplomacy it is refreshing.Hopefully that is a Carrot cake and no animals were harmed during its baking.....lol...pass the dutchie[pastry] on the left hand side.... :]

a reply to: InTheLight

It will get challenged, the MJ community has been pretty good on going to court and challenging.
I have no problem with a fair test..the current test is not fair or valid.

a reply to: Azureblue

Bingo..on the DUI revenue.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
I am glad our government is taking the time to think about this before legalization.
I would hate to see articles like this after it is legal.
Sadly, as evidenced by other posters, we probably will.

...or this: Why it's so hard to fight drug-impaired driving
But not to worry...studies say it's a piece of cake. (um...you gonna eat that?)

You are so Canadian you make a Canadian feel like a visitor........lol......your personage is so very very very canadiana.....perfect example of the norm......kudos to you and thank you for your discourse and conversation and diplomacy it is refreshing.Hopefully that is a Carrot cake and no animals were harmed during its baking.....lol...pass the dutchie[pastry] on the left hand side.... :]

Thanks...always nice to amuse. Here's the deal - I mentioned it earlier. We are faced with a lot of choices in life. Deciding to check out pot ought not to be a big one IMHO. As a matter of fact, Ii would go so far as to say that I distrust an individual of a certain age that has never done so, though I will allow for religious dispensation. What I don't like is the fact that currently, the decision to try pot requires one to cross the line into criminal behavior. It exposes one to new dangers, much more so than sneaking one of Dad's beers. There is a whole new set of consequences that are all out of proportion to the simple wish to catch a bit of a glint.

This new legislation changes that, though it comes with certain obligations. I think that the cost is worthwhile, the same as I approve of roadside testing for alcohol. Yes, it is giving up some rights, but the reduction in drinking and driving has provided an appropriate pay off. I won't drive stoned, nor do I wish others to. Simple as that. Test away!

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The only issue I have with the test is testing positive days after usage..not a fair test. They need to come up with better.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The only issue I have with the test is testing positive days after usage..not a fair test. They need to come up with better.

Agreed! I've wondered about just that.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

We have a Conservative leadership candidate who states that she will undo any legalization measures if she is elected.
Ha, ha, good luck getting elected!

So, you are saying the majority of Canadians are potheads?
Who would have thought?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
So, you are saying the majority of Canadians are potheads?
Who would have thought?

Let's just say that it's not unknown.

the part that gets me with these laws is how poorly they structure them. if your allowed to grow 4 plants then your going to end up with more then 30 grams unless your just very bad at taking care of plants. so u can follow one of the laws to the letter yet still find yourself out of compliance. where do u go from there aswell if u find yourself with far more then your legally allowed to have? can u sell it to a retailer? do u just start smoking like crazy to try and get it down before someone catches you? these are the things that need to be addressed imo.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The only issue I have with the test is testing positive days after usage..not a fair test. They need to come up with better.

Agreed! I've wondered about just that.

now i havent actually seen any data on this but in the US in california our police dept has said they have come up with a test that can tell if your currently stoned versus whether or not u smoked in the last month. if so hopefully this can make its way up to canada aswell
how police in CA test for marijuana dui