What would you do?

[LDB]

I fully agree truckers need to be held to the same high standard as everyone else but there's nothing else there that can be agreed with. Not worrying about "two good ole boys in a pickup truck" just because it's a smaller vehicle or it's just weed or any other reason is flat wrong. There's no argument there and it's not even worthy of debate. Illegal substances of any sort should be reported, especially in a case like this where they can leave and within minutes potentially kill an entire family.

SHAME ON ANYONE WHO SAYS TO IGNORE THIS

Leo Bricker, owner trucks 3034, 4958
OOIDA 677319
73's K5LDB
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[tallcal101]

I'm sorry,I just have not seen any scientific evidence to substatiate your argument.Just because it's illigal(as booze was for many years)does that mean that in small amounts it cause's driver impairment?Not according to the documented evidence I have read.

 

[cheri1122]

I guess my belief that those methods to beat a drug test don't work is unfounded, then? I've always considered drug tests to be an invasion of privacy, and if people can fool the tests - then it's a pointless invasion of privacy, as well. (Not to mention hypocritical - the government was documented giving amphetamines to pilots flying bombers, some of whom bombed entirely the wrong targets - it's ok for them to take speed?!)
And I believe that alcohol is a much bigger factor in unsafe driving - but no one ever gets tested for excessive alcohol intake until they demonstrate behind the wheel.
Even legal drugs, such as Benadryl for allergies, can have a very detrimental effect on perception & reaction time, if you don't fall asleep at the wheel first...
Looks to me like drug testing is another government program that targets the innocent, does nothing to solve the problem, and costs an incredible amount of money - all in the name of 'political correctness'.
Ditto for logging!
x( x(

 

[greg334]

Oh, I guess all those studies that were done by the WHO, NIH, a number of pharma companies and numerous governments just seem to be ignored with many in the media and celebrities who want to justify their meager small life.

I logged on to one of the pharmacology sites I have access to and pulled up 757 studies, papers and lectures on Cannabis alone. The funny thing is the biggest study being done is over in Amsterdam which is why the Dutch government is considering restricting drug use over there. Their early findings are rather interesting with 1.5 million users to part take in their study. Talk about a subculture that can't think or hold down a job. The thing is that because they have mass transit and many people also walk, they don't have the issue of driving and mass killings on the road.

So here are a few snippets I pulled from that site - “Cannabis produces euphoria and relaxation, perceptual alterations, time distortion, and the intensification of ordinary sensory experiences..."

"Short-term memory and attention, motor skills, reaction time, and skilled activities are impaired while a person is intoxicated. The most common unpleasant side-effects of occasional cannabis use are anxiety and panic reactions....â€

“Cannabis produces dose-related impairments in cognitive and behavioral functions that may potentially impair driving a motor vehicle or operating machinery. These impairments are larger and more persistent for difficult tasks that depend on sustained attention. The most serious consequence of acute cannabis use has been road-traffic accidents when a user drives intoxicated.â€

“Large doses of THC produce confusion, amnesia, delusions, hallucinations, anxiety, and agitation. Such reactions are rare, occurring after unusually heavy cannabis use; in most cases they remit rapidly after abstinence from cannabis. There is an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia. A prospective study of 50 000 Swedish conscripts found a dose-response relation between the frequency of cannabis use by age 18 and the risk of a diagnosis of schizophrenia over the subsequent 15 years.â€

So sixty years of studies prove without a doubt that it is rather safe to drive while intoxicated with Cannabis?

There is a reason some things are illegal.

 

[Moot]

Leo, your use of "high standard" should include the term "pun intended" or "pun not intended" depending on your point of view.

TallCall, dude, like I know you're from Californ I A but really man, you know like well I know a little about pot man and like maybe don"t you know drive or something if like you smoked some but didn't like even actually like inhale the stuff man cause maybe like thsid dyvf r ysddo bytk llem coeit tsdsodf duu d? QC did something, got a load on? gotta go down the road been real what bin laden gone dude.

Why do you think they call it mariyanna marijaun maryjae DOPE

 

[tallcal101]

Congratulations Greg,you never fail.You have once again wasted your time on a bunch of facts that have nothing to do with the specific subject at hand.
If you will respond to the exact topic,the rlationship between automobiles fatalities and the use of cannabas sativa,in the United States,I would be most happy.
Your reponse is a little like blaming Clinton for the multitude of poor choices(many impeacable)that W has and is making.
The fact is ,Greg,those two country boys could just as easly stopped at a tavern,had two beers,been legally sober,thrown their beer cans in the back of their pick up and are just "two good ol' American boys"havin" fun.
They could actally be in a wreck,kill a family,and not be charged with an alcohol realted death as a result of their blood alcohol level being under the minimum.Way to go beer lobby!!
Now,you tell me how you can conclude that these boys, taking a couple puffs and driving are anymore,or less,a danger then if they had two beers and were legally "only a little drunk".
If you see a civilian have two beers in a restraunt, are you going to go call the cops and report a suspected drunk driver?
I don't encourage anyone to drive under any set of circumstance's where there is even a slim chance of a problem.
I'm just suggesting that it may be a little over reactive to start calling the police on two individuals who may or may not be indulging
(how do you know what it smells like if you have never smoked it)who are not bothering anyone.What if they were drinking and getting ready to drive,does that warrent a call to the police?

 

[tallcal101]

Moot my man!
A very wise person told me many years ago(not a Californian,I believe he was Michigan guy)that all substance's we a stupidity contest (with yourself).You can choose to win the contest or loose the contest.
I know many looser's,and a few winners.The problem is,many in the looser catagory think they are winners!You know,I just do it when I'm not driving,or I just use it for relaxing etc,etc ,etc
I say get high on life!
Sorry to disappoint,being from California and all.I'm out,the winter surf is up and I'm there.

 

[greg334]

Tallcal101

I think you missed the point, you said you saw no scientific evidence about cannabis right? Well I posted facts that have been compiled from sixty years of research, not a waste of time – where’s yours?

If you want to be political, the congress with the president backing their efforts created most of the drug laws in the 30’s/40’s under FDR, 50’s under Ike and the most reaching laws were created under LBJ, funny isn’t it?

Also I find it funny that the subject at hand was about the use of cannabis and driving. Driving does take some skill, it takes some concentration and takes some intelligence, all of which the use – any use – of drugs, alcohol or even aspirin has some effect on these three things if abused.

I am not pointed fingers at anyone here, but I find the pro-drug crowd a bunch of ignorant immoral fools who have no clue.

With that said, you suggest that it may be a little over reactive if I would call. No not at all because you have to start somewhere and when you, a family member or even one of your drivers is hurt or killed, than you may wonder if someone could have just called would it have helped?

 

[cheri1122]

>Tallcal101
>
>I think you missed the point, you said you saw no scientific
>evidence about cannabis right? Well I posted facts that have
>been compiled from sixty years of research, not a waste of
>time – where’s yours?
>> It appears to me that it's you who missed the point - TC said he saw no scientific evidence to substantiate the claim that marijuana, in small amounts, causes driver impairment, not that he saw none at all. And I'd want to see the research myself, befor deciding whether it's credible, because "research" can be slanted to "prove" opposites, if the sponsors have an agenda. I really think that if small amounts of marijuana were at fault in even a small number of traffic accidents, it would be very well publicized - but it isn't.
>If you want to be political, the congress with the president
>backing their efforts created most of the drug laws in the
>30’s/40’s under FDR, 50’s under Ike and the most
>reaching laws were created under LBJ, funny isn’t it?
>> The earliest laws regulating drugs were largely a reaction to things like cocaine in CocaCola, opium & heroin in "tonics" - all of which were freely available, and accessible even to children. This clearly needed to be stopped. I don't see why the LBJ years would be considered "funny" - the sixties are when it began to seem that public use of drugs, including hallucinogenics, was cool - it wasn't, and still isn't. Private use, however, has been a factor in some of the best music, writing, & creative thinking produced in the world. (Just like gay people - if you only knew, some of the names would knock your preconceived notions for a loop)
>Also I find it funny that the subject at hand was about the
>use of cannabis and driving. Driving does take some skill,
>it takes some concentration and takes some intelligence, all
>of which the use – any use – of drugs, alcohol or even
>aspirin has some effect on these three things if abused.
>> As I said in my last post, Benadryl is a known danger, as is any form of distraction, (like kids misbehaving, a mind preoccupied with anger or worry, little or no command of the English language, etc). But the number one danger is ALCOHOL - and nobody gets tested for that, until they demonstrate impaired driving. Only in the area of illegal drugs are we required to prove our innocence, with absolutely no indication of guilt beforehand! That's politics - at the worst.
>I am not pointed fingers at anyone here, but I find the
>pro-drug crowd a bunch of ignorant immoral fools who have no
>clue.
>> That's an opinion you are entitled to express, & I, for one, am glad that you do. (Express your opinion, I mean)
>With that said, you suggest that it may be a little over
>reactive if I would call. No not at all because you have to
>start somewhere and when you, a family member or even one of
>your drivers is hurt or killed, than you may wonder if
>someone could have just called would it have helped?
>> Again: My immediate reaction to the question, was that we have a moral obligation to report potentially impaired drivers, and I haven't changed my mind about that - road safety is a major concern for me. I just think that illegal drugs contribute about one millionth as much to accidents as do behaviors & drugs that are legal, ordinary, & quite acceptable. That's something that needs changed.

 

[tallcal101]

Cherri,good post.
I was going to go into the histroy of how drugs became criminilized,but felt this might not be the appropiate place to do so.I,like everyone else on this forum,am subjected to drug tests on the spur of the moment.Never failed and don't ever expect to.So I hope you don't think I'm speaking for the "drug"side.I'm not.
But the rational side,perhaps.
What we know for sure is drinking and driving is a statistical fact.Major killer,readly available to all,with a very strong lobby in Washington.Drink and drive in most states equates to a big problem.Drink at home,abuse the family,kick the dog,make fool of yourself,perfectly legal(unless you hurt someone physically)(mental abuse,still legal)
Smoke pot,generally speaking,get stupid,watch TV,go to sleep.No history of violence,not much dog kicking,not much abuse(perhaps some inadvertant ignoring).But not a good idea to get in the car,or a truck and drive.
But I regress,the law states that you CAN get in the car and drive as long as you are " under"the legal limit of booze in your blood.This is insanity.If it's OK to turn in the boys smoking a joint,why arn't you calling the cops if you observe a person in a restraunt drinking 2 beers?You know he is going to leave,and will be driving,but because it's pot,a different standard is assumed to be protocal.I sure as hell don't drive after 2 beers.
Drugs destroyed a generation,booze has brought down empires,and parinoia and suspicion of fellow citizens builds walls of seperation.
Just be consistant,rink 2 beers in front of me and get in the car,I'm calling the cops.
Smoke a joint in front of me in a rest stop,I'm calling the cops.
Anythings less borders on hypocracy.

 

[greg334]

Cheri, Talcll101

I agree with both of you with a couple exceptions, but I think I am trying to give some facts, not be on the other side of the subject. Just to tell you this is an emotional subject for me with my experience working with groups that help people try to get their lives back together (thanks for the forced public service my school made all of us do in the 70's) and seeing friends who part take of a little recreational use just unravel their lives to the point of no return.

As for the studies, yea things can be skewed to show anything but a lot of studies are done by very pro-drug countries and the findings were sad, you have to search for them but they are there.

As for laws, well there weren’t any national laws until 1906, before that SF and Virginia City were really the first to enact laws prohibiting some drugs before the trun of the century. In 1906 The Pure Food and Drug Act came into existence and this is where things started. The other laws, The Harrison Tax Act, Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act and the Heroin Act did little to do much because it really didn’t address the personal use of the drugs. I know that Warner-Lambert still marketed Heroin and other drugs for personal use in 1928. I pointed out that FDR (saint of the democrats), Ike (hero of the world and a lack luster president) and LBJ (another anointed democrat) all supported and signed into law bills that actually prohibiting a lot of drugs for personal use. There are others, but TalCall101, you brought up Clinton and W.

 

[cheri1122]

Greg - I have to say that now, I'm missing your point. And it's an emotional subject for me, too - in the years I worked on the Trauma Unit at a major Trauma Center, I dealt every day with the aftermath of accidents. Most were Motor Vehicle Accidents, and in 9 out of 10 cases, the tox screen on the at-fault driver came back negative for illegal substances - but with an ETOH (alcohol) level of moderate to high. Worst of all, most were repeat offenders, so the problem was clearly not being dealt with in any effective way. It upset me then, and it upsets me still.
I did mandatory public service duty during nursing school, and I applaud the former users who are trying to straighten out thier lives - but I don't see where putting them in jail instead of developing, funding, and utilizing effective treatment programs is a very good idea. Again - since the government is building more jails, while reducing funding for treatment, I see a problem not being dealt with effectively. (BTW - if your friends lives' unraveled to the point of no return, their drug use was , by definition, way beyond "a little recreational use"!)
I can't comment on any studies, I haven't seen any lately.
The point I guess I'm missing, though, is the relevance of the laws & presidents you refer to. The law I find most unjustifiable is the one that mandates drug testing. (But not for everyone - workers get tested, but not management. Politicians don't have to submit to the invasion of their privacy either. Of course, every time legislators pass a law that says "You have to, but we don't", my immediate reaction is always gonna be "You first!" )
My point is that our entire legal system is based upon the inviolable premise of "innocent until proven guilty" - but mandatory drug tests are based upon the exact opposite supposition - and I have a problem accepting that. Testing for reasonable suspicion is valid, but anything else is an invasion of privacy, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh yeah - lest you get the wrong idea - I have never "failed" a drug test, & I don't do illegal drugs. (I admit, however, to being addicted to popcorn)

 

[Turtle]

Well, mandatory drug testing really isn't the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty." 'Guilty until proven innocent' is being flat out charged with doing drugs, and then having to go get a drug screening to prove your innocence.

Mandatory testing is more of a dragnet fishing expedition, trying to catch someone who is guilty. It's akin to emergency vehicles (aka the police) using the median in a non-emergency situation (to catch speeders). It's duck hunting from a duck blind. Be that as it may, mandatory random testing is just a really bad implementation of a good idea. Something has to be done to keep the roads safe. But what?

You have to be a special kind of stupid to drive under the influence, be it alcohol, pot, cocaine, crack, NyQuil, whatever. Yet many people are, indeed, a special kind of stupid. They'll do drugs and lie about it, so their word means little or nothing. So, the rest of us have to be inconvenienced by their lack of integrity. Random testing is silly, but it's the only viable option that anyone has come up with.

What would I do if I saw someone smoking pot in a rest area? I'd call the police in a heartbeat and not think twice about it (even though I'm still not convinced that you can make a natural plant, with essentially zero post-harvesting processing, an illegal substance. What's next? Illegally harvesting of sunlight? <snort>).

I'd also call the police if I saw someone guzzling a beer, or a 5th of vodka, or a line of coke, or sliding bullets into a snub-nosed .38. I'd report anything illegal, or anything that has a probable outcome of accident or injury. I have no problem with people doing any of these things in the privacy of their own home, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else, and aren't in a position to accidentally hurt anyone else. But, in a vehicle, in a rest area, chances are they're up to no good and something bad is likely to happen. I'll let the police make the final determination. If what they're doing is on the up and up, no harm no foul.


A couple of three years ago a guy received in the mail a $100 speeding ticket and a photograph of himself committing the infraction while travelling through downtown Toledo. He replied with a photograph of a $100 bill. The police then replied with a photograph of a pair of handcuffs. He replied back with a $100 money order.