Here's A Headline I'm Going To Be Seeing A Lot More

[BLAZER PROPHET]

http://www.kgw.com/news/DUI-Marijuana-arrest-after-Vancouver-pedestrian-struck-killed-183932641.html

Not that I am necessarily opposed to some legalization of pot. But this just comes with it.

 

[julius]

I don't have time to read the link, but will later. And I'm not arguing one way or the other, but was the cause exclusively marijuana related, or was he (or she) intoxicated by something else too?

 

[tlongII]

The pedestrian stepped onto the street from the median. This accident had little to do with marijuana in my opinion.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Hard to say as I wasn't there. All we have to go by is the driver, so the truth may never be known.

 

[ABM]

What's more dangerous...a driver who has smoked a joint and then drives (and not preoccupied with a cellular device), or someone who is totally sober, yet incessantly checks texts in the car?

Now, no way am I advocating that it's cool to drive while stoned, but I'm hear to tell ya that, IMO, the texting issue is out of control and probably far more dangerous as a whole.

 

[MARIS61]

Sounds like either the pedestrian was drunk or committed suicide. Stepped right into traffic.

 

[BlazersFanatic]

What's more dangerous...a driver who has smoked a joint and then drives (and not preoccupied with a cellular device), or someone who is totally sober, yet incessantly checks texts in the car?

Now, no way am I advocating that it's cool to drive while stoned, but I'm hear to tell ya that, IMO, the texting issue is out of control and probably far more dangerous as a whole.

A person who smokes a joint reaction time is slowed down big time, so its the same as a sober person looking at texts. By the time they see someone standing in street its to late to react.

If this was alcohol related everyone would be up in arms how a drunk driver killed someone but since its pot many keep blaming the Pedestrian. Im not saying the ped didnt step into and try to kill himself but the immediate reaction thats its no way the weed caused the accident is silly.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

What's more dangerous...a driver who has smoked a joint and then drives (and not preoccupied with a cellular device), or someone who is totally sober, yet incessantly checks texts in the car?

Now, no way am I advocating that it's cool to drive while stoned, but I'm hear to tell ya that, IMO, the texting issue is out of control and probably far more dangerous as a whole.

Both are dangerous. As is the person who has a burger in one hand, fries on the seat beside them and always reaching for the soda (that would be me). My only point was that now weed is legal in WA, it's just another means to kill people with a car.

 

[ABM]

Both are dangerous. As is the person who has a burger in one hand, fries on the seat beside them and always reaching for the soda (that would be me). My only point was that now weed is legal in WA, it's just another means to kill people with a car.

A person who smokes a joint reaction time is slowed down big time, so its the same as a sober person looking at texts. By the time they see someone standing in street its to late to react.

If this was alcohol related everyone would be up in arms how a drunk driver killed someone but since its pot many keep blaming the Pedestrian. Im not saying the ped didnt step into and try to kill himself but the immediate reaction thats its no way the weed caused the accident is silly.

Points well taken.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

yeah the alcohol and prison system lobbyists are going to get this kind of stuff on the news more often to try and influence all the voters, that way they can keep fooling all of the mindless sheep

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

A person who smokes a joint reaction time is slowed down big time, so its the same as a sober person looking at texts. By the time they see someone standing in street its to late to react.

If this was alcohol related everyone would be up in arms how a drunk driver killed someone but since its pot many keep blaming the Pedestrian. Im not saying the ped didnt step into and try to kill himself but the immediate reaction thats its no way the weed caused the accident is silly.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ou_a_more_dangerous_driver_than_alcohol_.html

KRS-ONE.

Consider yourself educated now.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I don't necessarily think the legalization of weed had anything to do with this. Yes, weed is now legal in WA. But people were toking and driving when weed was still illegal. People drink and drive all the time.

So the people who think the law is leading to some sort of moral decay or an increased risk to these types of events ... give me real proof.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I don't necessarily think the legalization of weed had anything to do with this. Yes, weed is now legal in WA. But people were toking and driving when weed was still illegal. People drink and drive all the time.

So the people who think the law is leading to some sort of moral decay or an increased risk to these types of events ... give me real proof.

Yeah nothing has really changed. People just feed the hype.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”
― Carl Sagan

“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.
― Francis Young

“The amount of money and of legal energy being given to prosecute hundreds of thousands of Americans who are caught with a few ounces of marijuana in their jeans simply makes no sense - the kindest way to put it. A sterner way to put it is that it is an outrage, an imposition on basic civil liberties and on the reasonable expenditure of social energy.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.

“Federal and state laws (should) be changed to no longer make it a crime to possess marijuana for private use.”
― Richard M. Nixon

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

driving high is waaaaaaay less dangerous than driving drunk.

although, with most things, it's a matter of scale.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

driving high is waaaaaaay less dangerous than driving drunk.

although, with most things, it's a matter of scale.

Research says driving high is way less dangerous than driving drunk, and my own research indicates the same as well (not proud of it, but I made some poor choices in my youth).

Driving drunk, you tend to take more risks, drive a little faster, etc. Driving high, you tend to be overly cautious, drive a little under the limit, etc.

 

[jlprk]

The driver was westbound on Mill Plain when 62-year-old Donald L. Collins reportedly stepped onto the street from a median, she said.

He was dead when officers arrived. The driver remained at the scene and cooperated with police, she said.

A second driver nearly hit the man, she told KGW.

Scotty R. Rowles, 47, was arrested for DUI-Marijuana after being questioned by a drug recognition expert, she said.

Was the second driver stoned? Was the pedestrian stoned? Nowhere does the article say that drugs were found in the car.

Do we really need a 3rd driver before we blame the pedestrian?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Drug recognition expert? They must do a lot of research..

 

[3RA1N1AC]

only the most brainwashed and ignorant sheep of this world would equate the negative effects of alcohol and marijuana

 

[jlprk]

only the most brainwashed and ignorant sheep of this world would equate the negative effects of alcohol and marijuana

Either side might say that. In other words...the person who writes that could go either way.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Either side might say that. In other words...the person who writes that could go either way.

i like it when they go both ways

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

i like it when they go both ways

Brainiac goes both ways. And then some.

 

[Haakzilla]

...make sure to consider all of the "facts" about cannabis and its influence on driving, or lack thereof.

The arbitrary and non-scientific number of 5 ng/ml is completely random and has no factual basis for being so low...it was essentially pulled out of a hat. Example; somebody that used cannabis 72+ hours ago could test over 5 ng/ml. Imagine getting a DUI 3 days after you were drunk, does that even make sense?

It's a shame, but nobody should be surprised when badly written legislation results in innocent people being charged with crimes. As for the OP, see below for a better picture than the spin KGW orchestrated to fit its agenda:

According to the Vancouver Police Department, this is probably the first deadly crash involving marijuana since it became legal in Washington. The driver was not at fault, but was charged anyway, since police "believed him to be under the influence of marijuana."

The victim, a male in his 50s, was believed to have been walking back home from a grocery store and stepped out into the middle of traffic around 5:50 p.m. at East Mill Boulevard and Andresen Road on Monday, according to police.

Officials said the victim was close to two different lit and controlled intersections, "but chose to step out into the middle of traffic, which would clearly put him at fault," reports KPTV.

But because the cops at the scene of the accident "believed" driver Scott Rowles to be "under the influence of marijuana," he was charged with DUI anyway. If his blood test shows that he was over five nanograms per milliliter (5 ng/ml) THC blood level, he will be considered automatically guilty; that's the legal effect of an arbitrarily set "per se" THC limit, as unscientific and as unfair it may be.

Under I-502, the simple fact that he had THC in his blood automatically means he is "technically at fault," according to police, even though the pedestrian stepped out in front of him and he didn't have time to stop.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Imagine getting a DUI 3 days after you were drunk, does that even make sense?

repped

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I don't necessarily think the legalization of weed had anything to do with this. Yes, weed is now legal in WA. But people were toking and driving when weed was still illegal. People drink and drive all the time.

So the people who think the law is leading to some sort of moral decay or an increased risk to these types of events ... give me real proof.

So if I understand you correctly, you don't see any increased risk of a driver stoned on weed?

Well, I guess that explains a hell of a lot.

 

[Haakzilla]

So if I understand you correctly, you don't see any increased risk of a driver stoned on weed?

Well, I guess that explains a hell of a lot.

...click on my "facts" link from above for the answers you're looking for, BlazingGiants is a lot more in tune with science than your preconceived notions suggest.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

So if I understand you correctly, you don't see any increased risk of a driver stoned on weed?

Well, I guess that explains a hell of a lot.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm sorry if that's what you take from this.

There are people saying this happened because of the legalization of marijuana. There were people were driving stoned before marijuana was made legal. People choose to drive after smoking, and people choose not to drive after smoking - this was a choice people were making even before legalization. Bringing the legalization into the conversation as the reason this event happened is unfounded. I'm saying the legalization isn't necessarily going to lead to an increase in these events.

Does that make it easier for you to grasp?

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

...click on my "facts" link from above for the answers you're looking for, BlazingGiants is a lot more in tune with science than your preconceived notions suggest.

I don't think read the article I posted. It includes scientific tests. But who needs science when people have their personal opinions?

It's like arguing with the T-Pups fan yesterday. You present science/stats/facts, and people revert to their beliefs anyway. This type of thinking is why religions are so rigid and so resistant to change with the times.

 

[ABM]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm sorry if that's what you take from this.

There are people saying this happened because of the legalization of marijuana. There were people were driving stoned before marijuana was made legal. People choose to drive after smoking, and people choose not to drive after smoking - this was a choice people were making even before legalization. Bringing the legalization into the conversation as the reason this event happened is unfounded. I'm saying the legalization isn't necessarily going to lead to an increase in these events.

Does that make it easier for you to grasp?

My guess is, now that it's been legalized, there's a more than fair chance that more people will be smoking....therefore, potentially driving stoned.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

My guess is, now that it's been legalized, there's a more than fair chance that more people will be smoking....therefore, potentially driving stoned.

I dunno. If you're just now getting into smoking because it was made legal, I highly doubt (pun not intended) you're suddenly going to be comfortable driving. Sure, people do dumb things after smoking, but pot isn't that motivator to make you go do some really crazy stuff and take lots of crazy risks (speaking from experience, what I know about the drug, and what I observe about other people after they've smoked).

Most people I know don't give a damn one way or another, legal or illegal. Pot has been such a low priority for so many years. And it's part of the culture in a lot of places. I just don't see a huge difference in people's eagerness to smoke now that it's legalized.