3 ms·

Right, (barring the discussion about the differences in impairment between cannabis and alcohol...) those are the same type of people that think they can get aw

Right, (barring the discussion about the differences in impairment between cannabis and alcohol...) those are the same type of people that think they can get away with drinking and driving. They're arrogant, selfish people. But I don't really buy that they're sitting at home being good law abiding citizens waiting one hour for every drink or one hour for every toke before driving to Taco Bell right now, only to abandon that once it's legal.

tptacek 14y ago
No, I disagree. People think they can get away with drinking and driving because they almost overwhelmingly can get away with drinking and driving, and because the penalties for DUI conviction are routinized (they're more severe than a ticket but, barring injuries, less severe than any felony). Neither is the case for cannabis. If you're pulled over and your car reeks of weed, your car will be searched, and if cannabis turns up, everyone in the car is likely to be arrested. Your prosecution afterwards will not be routine; if you're found guilty, it is very likely to cost you your job in a way a DUI conviction isn't.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >People think they can get away with drinking and driving because they almost overwhelmingly can get away with drinking and driving The legality of cannabis does not affect the likelihood of me getting pulled over so I don't understand. Or are you saying "keeping your job and not getting a felony = getting away with it"? I mean, how many people are you imagining are cool with a DUI conviction and not a, I don't know, whatever it is if you get pulled over with weed in the car, possession+DUI?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    First offense DUI in most states isn't even a felony. It doesn't matter if your employer is "cool" about it; they're unlikely to discover it. Stipulate a fixed likelihood of being pulled over at all. You're pulled over for making the kind of mistake anyone could make, or pulled over because a traffic cop is bored or has a quota. But once you're pulled over, the likelihood of an officer detecting marijuana anywhere in the car including its passengers is far higher than the likelihood of an officer detecting alcohol intoxication in the driver. These observations are so straightforward that I feel like we might be getting argumentative just for the sake of it. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of decriminalization.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      >These observations are so straightforward that I feel like we might be getting argumentative just for the sake of it. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of decriminalization. huh? I'm not trying to argue with you. I know that you think cannabis is a net-negative and I have no desire to argue with you about that. I respect your position and know that you're in favor of decriminalization. I still do not understand what you're getting at. If I were to smoke a bowl, drink two beers and get in my car and got pulled over, I guarantee you I would be asked if I had been drinking because that would be far more present on my breath. Even if I had some weed in a grinder in my glove box. >detecting marijuana anywhere in the car including its passengers is far higher than the likelihood of an officer detecting alcohol intoxication in the driver. I have no idea how you come to this conclusion or find it obvious. Besides, I think we're just going to disagree at the core of this. I like to think that there is more keeping people from recklessly drunk-driving than a "felony" on their record or losing their job.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        I'm asked if I've been drinking virtually every time I'm pulled over (I am not an unsafe driver). I simply say "no". If I've drunk 2 beers in the last couple hours, I am driving unimpaired and won't be questioned further. But if I'm pulled over and my car reeks of weed, a bunch of things are probably going to happen. The cop is going to shine his flashlight throughout the car looking for sources of the smell. He's going to ask me to get out of the car and will probably then frisk me for his own safety. He'll ask to search the car. He'll question everyone in the car. In many states, he is likely to call for a drug dog to effect probable cause for a search of the car. My impression is that these things not only happen but happen routinely at traffic stops where cannabis is implicated; the state police have a whole infrastructure ready to go to make cannabis arrests happen, and they are higher-value stops (arrests) than traffic stops. None of these things happen during ordinary traffic stops, and unless you've been driving erratically or spilled high-proof alcohol on your clothes or have an open container, nothing else does either. The problem is that cannabis stinks (literally); it has a sticky, lingering, resinous smell. Alcohol simply doesn't generate the same evidence.
  - brc 14y ago
    Where I live, we have random breath testing units. This is where the police choose a random stretch of road and time, and pull over either the entire stream of traffic and each driver has to blow into a breathalyser, or they randomly sample traffic if there is too much, and each sampled driver has to blow. I got sampled just recently on a sunday afternoon, ironically on the way home from buying a large case of beer and wine to stock the larder for the christmas period. The testing office laughed when I pointed to it and said 'not until I get home'. In the big operations they actually have a mobile police station in a truck, and if you register over the limit in the portable device, you are taken into the 'station' and booked immediately. Since the introduction of this probably 20 years ago, the DUI rates have plummeted. Last year, over 12 million drivers were tested, which resulted in about 100,000 convictions, a rate of 0.8%. Since the introduction in the 1980s, there has been a reduction in the single vehicle, nighttime fatal accident rate of 26%, as well as an overall reduction in accidents across the board. Before the program started, fatal road accidents testing showed that the driver of the vehicle recorded a blood alcohol content of 50mg or higher (0.05) in 49% of accidents. This has been reduced to around 20% now, along with a nearly halving of fatal accidents (fatality rates are also reduced with mandatory seatbelts, increased speed limit enforcement and improvements in vehicle design). There is no argument that increased enforcement lowers the chance that a road user will be involved in a fatal accident. In any case of decriminalization, this information must be used to design an enforcement program for driving that goes along with it. There's no doubt plenty of people are driving around stoned right now - so arguably any random testing should include alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine and other drugs all in one simple test. Perhaps the technology isn't there yet, but it's one of the most effective harm minimisation strategies available.

tptacek 14y ago

No, I disagree. People think they can get away with drinking and driving because they almost overwhelmingly can get away with drinking and driving, and because the penalties for DUI conviction are routinized (they're more severe than a ticket but, barring injuries, less severe than any felony). Neither is the case for cannabis. If you're pulled over and your car reeks of weed, your car will be searched, and if cannabis turns up, everyone in the car is likely to be arrested. Your prosecution afterwards will not be routine; if you're found guilty, it is very likely to cost you your job in a way a DUI conviction isn't.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
>People think they can get away with drinking and driving because they almost overwhelmingly can get away with drinking and driving The legality of cannabis does not affect the likelihood of me getting pulled over so I don't understand. Or are you saying "keeping your job and not getting a felony = getting away with it"? I mean, how many people are you imagining are cool with a DUI conviction and not a, I don't know, whatever it is if you get pulled over with weed in the car, possession+DUI?
- tptacek 14y ago
  First offense DUI in most states isn't even a felony. It doesn't matter if your employer is "cool" about it; they're unlikely to discover it. Stipulate a fixed likelihood of being pulled over at all. You're pulled over for making the kind of mistake anyone could make, or pulled over because a traffic cop is bored or has a quota. But once you're pulled over, the likelihood of an officer detecting marijuana anywhere in the car including its passengers is far higher than the likelihood of an officer detecting alcohol intoxication in the driver. These observations are so straightforward that I feel like we might be getting argumentative just for the sake of it. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of decriminalization.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    >These observations are so straightforward that I feel like we might be getting argumentative just for the sake of it. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of decriminalization. huh? I'm not trying to argue with you. I know that you think cannabis is a net-negative and I have no desire to argue with you about that. I respect your position and know that you're in favor of decriminalization. I still do not understand what you're getting at. If I were to smoke a bowl, drink two beers and get in my car and got pulled over, I guarantee you I would be asked if I had been drinking because that would be far more present on my breath. Even if I had some weed in a grinder in my glove box. >detecting marijuana anywhere in the car including its passengers is far higher than the likelihood of an officer detecting alcohol intoxication in the driver. I have no idea how you come to this conclusion or find it obvious. Besides, I think we're just going to disagree at the core of this. I like to think that there is more keeping people from recklessly drunk-driving than a "felony" on their record or losing their job.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I'm asked if I've been drinking virtually every time I'm pulled over (I am not an unsafe driver). I simply say "no". If I've drunk 2 beers in the last couple hours, I am driving unimpaired and won't be questioned further. But if I'm pulled over and my car reeks of weed, a bunch of things are probably going to happen. The cop is going to shine his flashlight throughout the car looking for sources of the smell. He's going to ask me to get out of the car and will probably then frisk me for his own safety. He'll ask to search the car. He'll question everyone in the car. In many states, he is likely to call for a drug dog to effect probable cause for a search of the car. My impression is that these things not only happen but happen routinely at traffic stops where cannabis is implicated; the state police have a whole infrastructure ready to go to make cannabis arrests happen, and they are higher-value stops (arrests) than traffic stops. None of these things happen during ordinary traffic stops, and unless you've been driving erratically or spilled high-proof alcohol on your clothes or have an open container, nothing else does either. The problem is that cannabis stinks (literally); it has a sticky, lingering, resinous smell. Alcohol simply doesn't generate the same evidence.
- brc 14y ago
  Where I live, we have random breath testing units. This is where the police choose a random stretch of road and time, and pull over either the entire stream of traffic and each driver has to blow into a breathalyser, or they randomly sample traffic if there is too much, and each sampled driver has to blow. I got sampled just recently on a sunday afternoon, ironically on the way home from buying a large case of beer and wine to stock the larder for the christmas period. The testing office laughed when I pointed to it and said 'not until I get home'. In the big operations they actually have a mobile police station in a truck, and if you register over the limit in the portable device, you are taken into the 'station' and booked immediately. Since the introduction of this probably 20 years ago, the DUI rates have plummeted. Last year, over 12 million drivers were tested, which resulted in about 100,000 convictions, a rate of 0.8%. Since the introduction in the 1980s, there has been a reduction in the single vehicle, nighttime fatal accident rate of 26%, as well as an overall reduction in accidents across the board. Before the program started, fatal road accidents testing showed that the driver of the vehicle recorded a blood alcohol content of 50mg or higher (0.05) in 49% of accidents. This has been reduced to around 20% now, along with a nearly halving of fatal accidents (fatality rates are also reduced with mandatory seatbelts, increased speed limit enforcement and improvements in vehicle design). There is no argument that increased enforcement lowers the chance that a road user will be involved in a fatal accident. In any case of decriminalization, this information must be used to design an enforcement program for driving that goes along with it. There's no doubt plenty of people are driving around stoned right now - so arguably any random testing should include alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine and other drugs all in one simple test. Perhaps the technology isn't there yet, but it's one of the most effective harm minimisation strategies available.