Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scandanavian War Machine]

in response to the sissys who won't get in a car with someone who's stoned from earlier:

i drive home stoned almost every night of the week and i've never had a problem. if anything, i'm more cautious so i'm much safer than normal.
also, i love driving on mushrooms. mushrooms just make me really happy and focused so driving is incredibily easy and enjoyable.
(for the record, i don't drive drunk. that's just bad news.)

as much as i advocate driving stoned, let me say this: if you're new to driving and/or smoking i wouldn't recommend it. it's sort of a strange skill that some people seem to possess and others don't so be careful because it's not for everyone.

[Ozymandias]

Oh, yeah. Some people totally possess the skill to drive drunk. They tell me it's okay they do it all the time. Never killed anyone, dangit.

Wait, hold on. Still bullshit. Even when you substitute alcohol with pot or mushrooms (jesus christ, really?).

[redglasscurls]

I sat there in DARE class in elementary school and went 'oh damn, I'll never do drugs or drink anything or get in a car with someone who drank!'
And yet here I am, smoking pot and drinking socially, and I ride in cars with people who have been drinking on a pretty regular basis.
I know the drunk driver part is unintelligent, but some of you are seriously still stuck in scare-tactic DARE-land.

[cupcakeonastick]

Or people who would rather not end up being that dude on stage in elementary school telling everyone about how he killed a kid while driving under the influence.

People are generally idiots while driving SOBER. I trust no one under the influence of anything with a frickin' CAR, of all things.

[0bsessions]

I'd say that driving stoned isn't much better than driving drunk. It can depend entirely on the user. I get wicked drained and tired when I smoke. I'd never get behind the wheel after smoking as I'd be afraid of dozing off at the wheel.

[pilsner]

stuff

Bravo, you're admitting that you're regularly committing a gross misdemeanor.  In writing.  In a medium you don't have control of.  You idiot.

RCW 46.61.502
Driving under the influence. 

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

     (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

     (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

     (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

     (2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

     (3) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person's breath or blood to cause the defendant's alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense.

     (4) Analyses of blood or breath samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, a person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more in violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows an alcohol concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug in violation of subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section.

     (5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

     (6) It is a class C felony punishable under chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW if the person is a juvenile, if: (a) The person has four or more prior offenses within ten years as defined in RCW 46.61.5055; or (b) the person has ever previously been convicted of vehicular homicide while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.520(1)(a), or vehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.522(1)(b).

How bad is a gross misdemeanor?  It's bad enough.

A gross misdemeanor is a criminal offense for which an adult could be sent to jail for up to one year, pay a fine up to $5,000 or both.

But I'm thinking that the above post is a joke.  A joke that you should probably delete.

[onewheelwizzard]

Driving after drinking is a completely different thing from driving after smoking.  There's really not much of a comparison.  Driving after drinking is a much, much, much riskier thing to do.  I've done a LOT of things that require extremely fine coordination, multitasking, and constant attention while high.  I once face planted just trying to get on a bike while drunk and sported a huge stripe on my cheek for a week.  The two forms of inebriation are completely different and drinking is FAR FAR more incapacitating.

I'd balk at driving on psychedelics, though ... if I was stranded somewhere and the only person who could drive me home was tripping (which has happened once, as I mentioned), I'd probably get in the car, but it would have to be an absolute last resort.  Biking on psychedelics is different!  I'm really comfortable on a bike and tripping makes it way more fun.  But driving, not so much.  I might learn in future years that driving on low doses is relatively OK, but it's really not something I want to stick my neck out to try.

[Ozymandias]

I sat there in DARE class in elementary school and went 'oh damn, I'll never do drugs or drink anything or get in a car with someone who drank!'
And yet here I am, smoking pot and drinking socially, and I ride in cars with people who have been drinking on a pretty regular basis.
I know the drunk driver part is unintelligent, but some of you are seriously still stuck in scare-tactic DARE-land.

LOL I AM A CHILD BECAUSE I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO DIE

35% of all car related fatalities in my state are drunk drivers. It's horrifying when I drive between Socorro and Albuquerque and there's basically a cross next to the road every two miles.

I am reasonably paranoid, I think.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

Bravo, you're admitting that you're regularly committing a gross misdemeanor.  In writing.  In a medium you don't have control of.  You idiot.

you're kidding right? if everything anyone ever said on the internet was admissable in court, 90% of America would be fucked. we have this thing where we can claim to have done whatever we want as long as it can't be proven. it's pretty sweet.
ever wonder why rappers don't get arrested for singing about drugs and guns and shit? same reason.

FOR THE RECORD I HAVE NEVER DONE DRUGS EVER. YOU HEAR THAT, AMERICAN GOVERNMENT?!

there.

[0bsessions]

America's actually pretty efficient at protecting people from those minor stupidities we all commit once in a while.

For example, did you know that in some states a former employer cannot give a prospective new employer a bad reference unless authorized by the applicant? This comes in very handy if one were to, hypothetically, cuss out the boss's wife/your coworker for fucking something up. If something like that happened, your former employer couldn't legally say they fired you or why you were fired.

[redglasscurls]

I wasn't calling you a child, and I know perfectly well that driving drunk is a moronic, risky thing to do. However, I do agree with several people's posts here saying that drunk vs stoned are very different. It also varies significantly from person to person, in their general driving skill level and smoking experience.

BUT I would venture the unpopular notion that this also applies a bit to the question of driving under the influence of alcohol. People have varying tolerance levels, varying definitions of 'drunk', varying driving and decision-making skills...
I think it is a little too DARE to blanket-condemn at the same level of horror and indignation someone who has had a few drinks and decides they are safe to drive home versus someone rip-roaring drunk, or a 17-year old with 3 beers in him versus a 47-year old with the same.

[SonofZ3]

Claiming to have committed a crime does provide probable cause to be investigated for committing said crime, but that really doesn't matter when it comes to something like DUI. No police organization in the country would start an investigation into someone having claimed to have committed DUI. Now, people who claim to be routine drug dealers, or to have committed various acts of assault are pretty stupid. Here in PA there is a 12 year statute of limitations on felonies, so keeping your mouth shut about that sort of thing is smart.
I think the reason rappers aren't always investigated for claiming to have committed crimes is the fact that every time someone like that is arrested it causes a huge media storm. We all know that people with the serious cash to fight criminal charges in America get treated with kid gloves by police organizations. It sucks, but oh well.

[jhocking]

@rgc: While it is true that you're still fine to drive after having a drink at a dinner party, putting things in that way is too granular for such a dire issue. The unfortunate fact is that most people don't think in nuanced terms, only yes/no, so the important message to promulgate is that one shouldn't drink and drive.

Put another way, people who are still fine to drive deciding not to is not a problem, so in this issue it is much better to err on the side of caution in one's rhetoric.

[pilsner]

Claiming to have committed a crime does provide probable cause to be investigated for committing said crime, but that really doesn't matter when it comes to something like DUI. No police organization in the country would start an investigation into someone having claimed to have committed DUI. Now, people who claim to be routine drug dealers, or to have committed various acts of assault are pretty stupid. Here in PA there is a 12 year statute of limitations on felonies, so keeping your mouth shut about that sort of thing is smart.
I think the reason rappers aren't always investigated for claiming to have committed crimes is the fact that every time someone like that is arrested it causes a huge media storm. We all know that people with the serious cash to fight criminal charges in America get treated with kid gloves by police organizations. It sucks, but oh well.

Absolutely, but there could be an investigation if poster were to be involved in an accident.  While it's definitely not likely that a pseudonymous post like the above could come back to haunt the poster, it's far from impossible.  Given that you get nothing from posting on a forum other than the fleeting satisfaction of killing time and communicating with mostly strangers ... I'm not clear on why this is a good idea.

[calenlass]

See, Manda, I got hit by a drunk driver at 3am the day before Christmas. They tried to pass me and didn't clear the front end of my car, and the roads were wet and I ended up spinning out across 7 lanes of traffic and smashing into the median wall. The other guy hit the wall too, but then he tried to drive off. One of my passengers ended up with a concussion, and my car was totalled.

My aunt was hit by a drunk driver when she was 19 and in college, and she was subsequently in a coma for 6 months and now she is partly paralyzed on one side of her body, has some paralyzed vocal cords, and has tunnel vision and no short term memory. Needless to say, she never graduated, and she cannot really hold down a job, either.

I could have told you before that I would never have gotten into the car with someone who was under the influence of anything, but now? Shit, if the local chapter of SADD didn't require dues I would probably join it. I have written a couple of letters to local congressmen about raising the penalties for DUI. You do not fuck around with this shit. Maybe once you get hit by someone who is enough of a dick to decide to drive drunk you'll understand where we are coming from.

[redglasscurls]

I'm very sorry for both you and your aunt Katie, the people involved should not have been driving while at that level of intoxication, and it was irresponsible with horrible consequences.
I'm just saying these people did not have a glass of wine at dinner and drive their wife home in time to get the babysitter back to her house on a school night. People should be intelligent enough to know their own limits, and if they are not, the people around them should take responsibility and keep the rest of the public safe. People who DO know their limits should be commended rather than treated like they're running around jabbing little children with AIDS needles.

[calenlass]

Drinking wine or a beer or two with dinner is not the same thing as being intoxicated. The fats affect the way the alcohol is absorbed into your bloodstream, and the mere presence of something else in your stomach slows down that absorption. Drinking with a meal does not get you drunk, at least not in the same way, and most people who drink with food are not out to get drunk anyway.

[dennis]

Yes. The operating word is "drunk". You can drink without becoming drunk.

Drunkeness is a state of impairment. Cannabis and alcohol are different drugs that act on the body in completely different ways. I think it is possible to be impaired on cannabis, but I also think it's possible to use cannabis and not become impaired.

I'm not so sure about blood alcohol thresholds for defining "drunk". There are people who can have a BAC above various legal limits and not be impaired, and people who can have one lower and be highly impaired.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure that giving patrol officer back discretion in judging DUI is a good idea, either.

[Ozymandias]

@rgc: While it is true that you're still fine to drive after having a drink at a dinner party, putting things in that way is too granular for such a dire issue. The unfortunate fact is that most people don't think in nuanced terms, only yes/no, so the important message to promulgate is that one shouldn't drink and drive.

Put another way, people who are still fine to drive deciding not to is not a problem, so in this issue it is much better to err on the side of caution in one's rhetoric.

This.

Also, what the fuck is wrong with the idea of putting other people's safety over your own desire to prove that you're okay to drive?

[öde]

If you're going to be driving, what the fuck is wrong with water? If I ever learn to drive, I certainly won't be taking a 1 ton+ machine that can go fast enough to smash all the bones in a body and wrap itself around a tree if my reactions are slowed and senses are impared, even if it's only a little.

[RedLion]

I frankly don't think it's smart to drive while under the influence of anything, but between the two, pot would be the much safer choice.

I used to see a therapist, during my angsty teen days, and when he was younger, the guy (really cool dude actually, he gave me all my recording software and we still hang out occasionally) was addicted to just about every drug under the sun, as well as an alcoholic. He managed to clean himself up, and that's why he took to being a psychologist. Anyway. The one thing he still does is weed, and he's made it clear on several occasions that he thinks the potential benefits from it--when used, safely, in moderation, and among trusted people--outweigh the potential risks. Frankly, it was a welcome reprieve for me, who had been brought up on a zero-tolerance policy and forced to go to a catholic elementary and middle school, despite me being an agnostic. This is really one of the most cognizant, insightful people I've ever met, and that he is so while using weed on a regular basis is enough reason for me to see it as nothing near the dangerous drug that it's made out to be. Yeah, it's circumstantial evidence, but sometimes that's more convincing than scientific evidence when it comes to this sort of thing.

[Patrick]

If you're going to be driving, what the fuck is wrong with water?

I know from personal experience that sometimes people will pressure the DD to drink. I know a guy who will just as quickly say "Looks like somebody's sleeping over tonight..."

[Elizzybeth]

DARE is mostly a lot of bullshit, but... they're pretty much right about peer pressure not being enough of a reason to do something stupid, like, say, drive home when drunk.  If you're the DD, you've got to hold true to your promise not to drink, no matter how many of your drunken buddies push drinks into your hands (unless, of course, you can get everyone else to take cabs instead).

I could add some sort of qualifier, like, "in my opinion" or "in most cases," but frankly I don't think they apply.  One's ability to drive while stoned is debatable.  Alcohol impairs your decision-making ability and your lowers your inhibitions, and I have known at least three drunk people who have thought they were fine to drive (people who, while sober, had claimed they would never, ever drive while drunk!) and managed to completely total their cars.  That's not debatable.

[Jimmy the Squid]

Some of my friends will regularly drive under the influence of...well anything they can get their hands on. Basically these people are idiots and I don't actually speak to them anymore. Driving while under the influence of any substance that drastically alters your brain chemistry (read: enough to slow reaction times, decrease inhibition, whatever) is a pretty stupid thing to do. I'm starting to get pretty unpopular with my drinking friends because while I haven't had a drink in about 4 years I also don't have a car and I don't know how to drive. I am essentially a waste of space at pubs and parties etc...

[pilsner]

I am essentially a waste of space at pubs and parties etc...

Now you're selling yourself short.  You could be the bringer of drinks!  Also, whatever happened to the fine art of conversation.

[Darkbluerabbit]

BUT I would venture the unpopular notion that this also applies a bit to the question of driving under the influence of alcohol. People have varying tolerance levels, varying definitions of 'drunk', varying driving and decision-making skills...
I think it is a little too DARE to blanket-condemn at the same level of horror and indignation someone who has had a few drinks and decides they are safe to drive home versus someone rip-roaring drunk, or a 17-year old with 3 beers in him versus a 47-year old with the same.

I will second this unpopular notion.  I will generally say that most people who condemn all drunk drivers have never known a person who was arrested for a DUI.  Plenty of these people will go out to dinner and have a glass or two of wine, which could possibly put them over .08 BAC, and still talk about the evils of "drunk" driving.

I might be unwise to admit this, but I have been arrested for a DUI.  I was pulled over for an expired plate (I had the new sticker in my glove box, but just hadn't gotten around to attaching it), the cop said he smelled beer and asked me to blow in a tube, and shortly thereafter I was being cuffed and read my rights.   I had been carefully following the "one drink per hour" rule and hadn't had anything in two hours.

I was pulled over while giving a friend a ride home.  I had been to his place maybe three times, but I easily knew where I was going.  My friend was tested and determined to be safe to drive.  He proceeded to get lost, in his home town of under 6000 people, driving from a main road to his own apartment that he has lived at for almost two years.   I do appreciate that he was able to drive my car legally and keep me from having to deal with an impounded car in addition to all the other crap, but his inability to find his own home makes me seriously question the accuracy of BAC in determining impairment.   

I will never say that I didn't make a bad decision.  I claim full responsibility and will be careful to the point of paranoid for the rest of my life.  However, I can say that harsher penalties (at least for a first offense), are unnecessary.  Getting a DUI is horrible, if you aren't made of money.  The fines and fees are huge to a college kid, and they take away your driver's license which makes getting to work so you can actually pay for everything twice as hard.  You have to be assessed for addiction, which leads to either rehabilitation or a five week education course, which, if you're like me and a full time student who started working full time to pay off the financial aspects, is really fun to add to your schedule.  The night I spent in jail doesn't seem like anything in the grand scheme of this, and I haven't even thought about what my insurance costs are going to be like. 

Driving drunk is a bad thing.  I can agree with that.  But in my opinion the legal system surrounding it is flawed.  Harsher punishments, at least for first time offenders, won't help anything.  I had no idea what kind of shit I'd have to deal with for a DUI, because I sure didn't say "hmm, I drive around wasted a lot so I should really learn what the punishments are for these things."  First timers are usually honest mistakes of not knowing what .08 means.  People with second, third, and more, on the other hand, deserve strict punishments, although I think the current approach of "jump through these hoops and we'll say you're not a problem drinker" should be revised to focus on individual rehabilitation, not paying a certain dollar amount and meeting some requirements.  Based on my experience, if you get more than one of these bitches you are clearly very addicted and need some real intervention, because seriously, after all this shit I don't think I'll get near a car if I've used mouthwash in the last 24 hours. 

This might be tl:dr, but I've been debating making this post since the topic was brought up. 

[a pack of wolves]

Sorry, but driving after you've had a few drinks is incredibly stupid. I know plenty of people who are fine after three pints and you wouldn't be able to tell that they'd been drinking, but none of them would be dumb enough to drive a car afterwards. The alcohol will be impairing their reaction times and it's going to have an effect on their decision making abilities. They might not be so fucked that they're going to just weave off the road but if something surprising were to happen they won't react as well as if they hadn't had a few drinks. When you're driving the safety of other people relies on you being able to react swiftly and sensibly. If anything at all is impairing your ability to do that (you're tired, upset, or you've had a couple of drinks) then you shouldn't be doing it.

Darkbluerabbit, when you mention the "one drink per hour" rule are you referring to how long it takes for alcohol to get out of your system? Because I always understood that to be one unit of alcohol per hour, and very few drinks are only one unit (a pint of average beer is about 2 I think).

[Switchblade]

what Pack of Wolves said.

I am pretty much ALWAYS the designated driver, because I know I can trust myself to be true to my promise. There's been a grand total of one occasion where one of my mates tried to press a drink into my hand and said "you can handle one, dude". he kept pressing even when I turned him down, so eventually I just upended the damn thing over his head and told him he was being stupid.

It did the trick. He thought it was funny as fuck, too.

[pilsner]

Interestingly enough, there have been a few instances of bars getting their liquor licenses suspended for trying to compel designated drivers to drink (the "everyone in the bar must have a drink" rule).  I forget I which jurisdiction but I believe it was in New York state.  So pressuring DDs isn't unheard of, but it's a legal (and moral) no-no.

[0bsessions]

That's rather odd and I've never encountered a bar like that. Shit, in NH, most bars will give the designated driver free soda!

[pilsner]

I'm not surprised you've never encountered it given that the bars in question are probably shitholes that no one who wanted beer other than swill would ever go to, and given that the practice gets your bar's liquor license suspended (which means you could be bankrupted if you don't have a lot of operating capital lying around).  Also, it wouldn't surprise me if NH was one of the states where the bar can be liable if they permit a clearly drunk patron to drive home and they get into an accident.  In which case, it's in the bar's best interest to make DDs as comfortable as possible so the other patrons can get hammered without them worrying.

Not every state has these laws though.

EDIT: This apparently happened in Florida as well.

[0bsessions]

NH is one of those places where you pretty much absolutely have to have designated drivers. There's really barely even a semblance of any kind of mass transit (Shy of a couple limited bus systems in Nashua, Concord and Manchester that don't really run much past ten PM anyway) and so few cities that you can't really walk home from the bar either. If you go out, you drive there or pay like $20-30 each way for a cab.

[pilsner]

For sure.  I'm surprised that the "Dial a DD" programs that are popular in Europe, Japan and Korea aren't more popular in the US (outside of LA and the Hamptons, where apparently lots of people use them).  I guess people don't want strangers messing with their rides or the population is dense enough or something.

It's not really an issue in Manhattan for obvious reasons.

[Darkbluerabbit]

Darkbluerabbit, when you mention the "one drink per hour" rule are you referring to how long it takes for alcohol to get out of your system? Because I always understood that to be one unit of alcohol per hour, and very few drinks are only one unit (a pint of average beer is about 2 I think).

Oh, it's clearly a very ineffective rule.  My problem was that I was following a guideline for an average person, and I am a pretty small person so those suggested amounts don't directly apply to me.  It seems so obviously dumb in retrospect, but at the time I thought I was being smart. 

Believe me, I am the first to admit that I was fucking stupid.  When I describe the circumstances of my arrest, I'm not making excuses, I'm trying to emphasize just how easy it can be to get a DUI.  Maybe it's different in other areas, but where I live (a city too small for reliable mass transit in beer-soaked Wisconsin) it's pretty normal to drive after a couple of drinks, and most people who do so have no idea that they could be considered legally drunk if they were to get stopped, which could be for any reason.  People around here need to be better educated about the issue, but since they don't think of what they are doing as "drunk" driving, they just don't pay attention. 

We do have bars around here that let designated drivers drink soda on the house, which is a pretty nice offer.

[Lines]

I always make sure that the person who says they will be DD actually holds up to their word. If they don't, I take their keys and sober myself up if I'd had something, because I usually don't drink much anyways. I don't really see why others should pressure the DD or that they should give into it, at least not around here as public transport is decent.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

yeah, pressuring the DD into drinking is a real bitch move. i don't know who does that but that's ridiculous.

luckily, this doesn't come up in my life often because i don't drink much these days and all the bars are in walking distance of several friendly houses to crash at anyway, and anywhere we might go that's not within walking distance is usually a friends house where we can stay so it works out pretty good.

[Liz]

I always play DD and don't cave to offers for drinks, but that's because I don't drink to begin with. So I will always be the DD, and I am ok with that.

[jhocking]

The only time I've been DD I did have one drink but we were gonna be at this party several hours. Eventually we just decided to crash there and leave the next morning, and I proceeded to get shitfaced. So really, it was pretty pointless for me to be DD.

That said, I'd make a good DD now, since the most I've had to drink at one time in a couple years is a glass of white wine, and I go a couple months between that even. Only a DD is unnecessary when I go out  because I live in the middle of a big city, so it's not like we need to drive home from the bar. Also, I have no friends.

[pilsner]

Someone needs a cuddle

[Liz]

Pick me!

[Patrick]

Also, whatever happened to the fine art of conversation.

Fuck that shit. Also: Hey, can I have cuddles too?

The solution to people always wanting to cop out of being DD: don't get a license. It's what I've been doing.

[öde]

I'm trying to emphasize just how easy it can be to get a DUI.

It's not that hard, unless you're too drunk to get into/start the car.

[idiolect]

@rgc: While it is true that you're still fine to drive after having a drink at a dinner party, putting things in that way is too granular for such a dire issue. The unfortunate fact is that most people don't think in nuanced terms, only yes/no, so the important message to promulgate is that one shouldn't drink and drive.

Put another way, people who are still fine to drive deciding not to is not a problem, so in this issue it is much better to err on the side of caution in one's rhetoric.

This.

Also, what the fuck is wrong with the idea of putting other people's safety over your own desire to prove that you're okay to drive?

Yeah, that.


Also, while we're throwing around anecdotes -- years ago, I was in a car with a stoned driver and he was driving like a complete asshole, because in his stoned state he thought it would be HI-LARIOUS to zoom around little residential streets yelling immature things at people's houses, and then he got into an accident and immediately fled the scene also because he was stoned (he was terrified of the cops figuring out he was stoned, and he still had pot on him), and it was awful.  The end!

Oh wait, one more:  Once a group of friends and I were going on a roadtrip.  It was known beforehand among our group that some of us were regular pot smokers, but others were not, and so we agreed amongst our group that no one would "bring anything" with them, both out of simple courtesy to those who were uncomfortable with it as well as concern about getting in trouble with the law somehow.  In the middle of the night, while we're doing 80 down the highway in the middle of nowhere rural America in our old beat up (read: suspicious looking) college-kid-road-trip-van, the guy in the back of the van suddenly lights up, with no warning to any of us at all, and as we're rolling down the windows to let the smoke out and asking him what the fuck, he coolly tells us that it's "no concern of yours."  My point is, experiences like this are what make me really doubt that pot is totally fine -- it might not give you cirrhosis of the liver, but it sure does turn people into entitled assholes sometimes.

[0bsessions]

There's something you either never thought of or are completely ignoring here:

Unless he was high BEFORE you got in (Which by the virtue of you guys being on the highway already, I doubt), the dude in the van was being an utter cunt BEFORE he got high.

So many people bitch about pot and what it does to people without taking into account that in pretty much all of these cases, the people were useless assholes BEFORE they started smoking pot. I don't know a single person who's become "addicted" to pot that, in retrospect, wasn't a pretty awful person before they started. I do know plenty of people who I simply do not like to drink around because booze changes them.

[Patrick]

the dude in the van was being an utter cunt BEFORE he got high.

THIS.

The tl;dr: Pot doesn't affect your inhibitions. Alcohol does. If you smoke pot, it doesn't release your inner douchebag, but when you drink, he comes out full-force and takes over.

[redglasscurls]

Personally, both bring out the person who laughs at stupid shit and falls asleep early...

[Boro_Bandito]

I can't sleep while high, I'm too busy making myself and those around me laugh like idiots. Seriously, when I'm stoned and talking to a stoned audience, I might as well be on a roll at the Apollo. I'm sure people who are sober looking in on the situation see a completely different story.

[idiolect]

*sigh*

I never said that he was an asshole because of being intoxicated off of that exact joint he was smoking in the van.  What I was suggesting, and honestly, what I really do believe to be true, is that he was *generally* more of a jerk after he started smoking up every day, and he was especially a jerk *about* pot.  This isn't directly related to whether he was in fact intoxicated at that very moment or not, but does speak to whether or not pot has a negative effect on your life. 

In any case, does anyone want to also tell me that the guy driving the car in the other story would have gotten into the accident anyway if he were sober?  I mean, you can say that, you can say it a whole bunch of different ways and argue all the nuances therein if you're so inclined, but it still won't be true. 

[0bsessions]

Simply speaking, you're wrong. I'm willing to bet either you didn't know the guy very well before he started smoking or you've never really thought about what he was like before/are so jaded towards pot that you refuse to believe he's not a cunt of his own volition. I am so confident in this statement that I am willing to guarantee you that you are 100% bullshit wrong on this without ever having even met the dude myself.

As far as the car crash, well, no one was arguing that then, but yeah, I think I would. All those stories you heard about as a kid about people smoking pot and thinking they were Superman? So much shit. Yes, pot impairs you. If the dude dozed off at the wheel and crashed, I'd believe it. Pot doesn't make you drive around like an idiot, being an idiot makes you drive around like an idiot. The latter part where he fled the scene only had to do with pot in the vague sense that he was aware he was going to get busted. If the dude got caught, he would have most definitely gotten some serious shit heaped on him. I'm pretty sure the dude would've gotten in the same accident with or without the pot since the guy sounds like an utter tit.

My diagnosis? You don't have the slightest real knowledge of pot. You seem to be utilizing decades worth of propaganda that school and G.I. Joe PSAs grind into you in order to rationalize the fact that you seem to just have piss poor judgment when it comes to who you associate with and would rather blame a plant than admit it. Stop hanging out with morons and twats and this problem will go away.

[jhocking]

you seem to just have piss poor judgment when it comes to who you associate with and would rather blame a plant than admit it. Stop hanging out with morons and twats and this problem will go away.

Your debating skills are amazing.