• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Impaired to drive STONED???

Doer

Well-Known Member
That was a ub move right there. I never said shit about legalizing drunk driving.

There is a lot wrong with the world today. Putting words in people's mouths is one of them.
Really he just asked one of his stupid, counterproductive, rhetorical Sophistries.

Hey, you were Bucked. :)
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
If it has a gas engine, it's still vulnerable to EMP. Or an electric starter, or a battery.
You don't need a starter to get this vehicle running, just strong legs and gravity. Electrical windings might induce a voltage in them, but it would not be strong enough to affect anything, a starter can handle a million volts of electricity EASILY, the voltages induced would have to be on the scale of lightning to have any physical effect at all, and even then would probably survive intact.
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
No, I am fine with them testing for impairment but not using some arbitrary number to determine whether to fine the fuck out of you and restrict your driving privileges.
Well whether it is a impairment test, or a scientific number based test, either way it would be legislating against bad behavior.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
What strawman? I am interested in his opinion based on his statement that we shouldn't legislate against bad behaviour. I'm sorry if that upsets you.
Oh you wish you upset people, so don't lie about it.

What impairment can you equate with alcohol for ganga?

My reaction times are not slowed. I can grab the falling ruler the same place stoned or not.

Can you grab a falling ruler thru your thumb and finger after 2 drinks?

No. And I can't either. So throwaway, meaningless questions are just Buck trolls. Busted.

Name a measurable impairment and stop clouding the conversation, how about?
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
I forgive your misunderstanding. You must find it hard to understand that some people are simply interested in peoples opinions on subjects and not here to just have an argument. NLX stated that we shouldn't legislate against poor decisions with regard to driving high, i was interested in whether he also believed that true with regard to drink driving, and as it turns out, it's not as black and white as simply not legislating. Hard to have a strawman argument without an argument ;) Sorry to disappoint you.

But i am also to blame, it was silly of me to post in the politics section and think that you could have a simple discussion, i always forget that unless i argue and shout racist and attack people over a differing opinion then i have no place in this subforum.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
i always forget that unless i argue and shout racist and attack people over a differing opinion then i have no place in this subforum.
There is no misunderstanding, your reply was a textbook example of a strawman argument, don't get so emotional over others letting know that your argument is a falacy and cannot be defended in any way.
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
There is no misunderstanding, your reply was a textbook example of a strawman argument, don't get so emotional over others letting know that your argument is a falacy and cannot be defended in any way.
What argument? ;) you seem to have it in your head that asking for someones opinion on a matter is an argument.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
What argument? ;) you seem to have it in your head that asking for someones opinion on a matter is an argument.
I see, you are just asking him for his opinion on a different subject because you are just so damn interested in his opinion on that other subject. I mean, he never says anywhere that he is against those laws, so why would you want an opinion on them? I guess if he said that DD laws were akin to legislating morality, then I guess I can see the relation, but why you thought he said that is beyond me. Defend it as only wanting clarification all you want, camouflage it any way you want, it's still a strawman.
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
I see, you are just asking him for his opinion on a different subject because you are just so damn interested in his opinion on that other subject. I mean, he never says anywhere that he is against those laws, so why would you want an opinion on them? I guess if he said that DD laws were akin to legislating morality, then I guess I can see the relation, but why you thought he said that is beyond me. Defend it as only wanting clarification all you want, camouflage it any way you want, it's still a strawman.
He said we shouldn't legislate against bad decisions, i asked him if that included drink driving. given that this is about stoned driving, it is a rather relevant question.

But as i said above, sorry for coming in here not intending to have an argument. It is quite apparent by how emotional you are over something that has absolutely nothing to do with you that you are here to do nothing but argue. Have a good day ;)
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
He said we shouldn't legislate against bad decisions, i asked him if that included drink driving. given that this is about stoned driving, it is a rather relevant question.

But as i said above, sorry for coming in here not intending to have an argument. It is quite apparent by how emotional you are over something that has absolutely nothing to do with you that you are here to do nothing but argue. Have a good day ;)
Why didn't you ask him if that meant laws against Heroin, or meth then or buggering your neighbors willing dog? If your going to kill someone, getting fucking plastered and hitting them with your car is a free ticket to ride.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
You can get so drunk you cannot stand up. Based on this, it is pretty obvious that you dont want a person that cannot even control basic bodily functions to operate a motor vehicle.

I can smoke pot till I get bored of smoking pot and the only effect it might have on me operating a vehicle is that I drive it slower. It still gives other people a chance to avoid me.

It is the mindset that a rule or law is going to be followed 100% and thus we are all going to be safer which is dangerous to our liberties.

If you are so worried about drunk driving why are you not trying to get rid of alcohol?? It isnt the car or the person that is the problem... (not advocating for this just pointing out the hole in the logic)
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. But we cannot use that as a justification for driving drunk, just because their are equally or more dangerous ways of driving. Just because the kid is in the backseat distracting mum, doesn't mean it's therefore fine for you to drive stoned.

My opinion will always be that if you have to be high to drive, then you shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Oh I never suggested that we go drink-driving, Im just saying theres alot of other equally dangerous things that people dont sneer at.
 

WORDZofWORDZCRAFT

Well-Known Member
i worked for a dr that did a huge percentage of the drug testing for jobs in our area.. there is definitely a way to tell if someone just smoked or if they smoked the day before. it shows up either way but there is a major difference in the levels
 

a senile fungus

Well-Known Member
i worked for a dr that did a huge percentage of the drug testing for jobs in our area.. there is definitely a way to tell if someone just smoked or if they smoked the day before. it shows up either way but there is a major difference in the levels
We would love it if you would elaborate.

Because I work around drug tests on a daily basis, and I only get a positive or a negative...
 
Top