The Futility and Illogic of DUI Pot Laws

[Formaldehyde]

But its a terrible logical fallacy to assume that excuses driving while stoned. It doesnt.

How about driving while incompetent? Many licensed drivers have far higher accident rates than twice the national average, yet nothing is done to remove them from the highways. Instead, their spouses frequently buy them overly large vehicles to increase their odds they will survive their next "accident" which even more greatly endangers those they hit. This is a far larger problem, yet nothing is being done to even try to resolve it.

You simply have no idea how debilitating or not casual marijuana use is. You are just engaging in sheer speculation based on fear mongering and paranoia.

The same study shows that for higher amounts the accident rate spikes to 2.21 - 2.79 times more likely of getting into an accident and increases fatality rates from accidents to 2.1x the normal likelihood.

What "study" is that? The one that keeps getting posted based on the clearly wrong press release which completely misinterprets the results of the actual study? The one that clearly states that the accident rates cannot be determined for most collisions based on the existing data?

I also wonder how they could have possibly arrived at those numbers for serious incidents where people frequently died since it is not specifically known how much of the population smokes marijuana, much less drives afterwards. Without an accurate basis for that information it would appear to be impossible to arrive at the rate of traffic collisions, serious or not.

 

[MobBoss]

How about driving while incompetent? Many licensed drivers have a far higher accident rate yet nothing is done to remove them from the highways. Instead, their spouses frequently buy them overly large vehicles to increase their odds they will survive while even more greatly endangering those they are apt to hit.

This assumes someone driving doesnt get ticketed for the accident. However, a great number do. I would imagine that if someone were that incompetent, the cost of insurance and ensuing tickets would eventually force them to stop driving. Also in many states routine accidents or moving violations can get your driving license suspended.

By asking this are you advocating harsher moving violation penalties?

What "study" is that? The one you have already posted and continue to misinterpret the findings based on a clearly wrong press release?

You're opinion. I dont think i'm misinterpreting it at all, and the story has been carried over a fairly wide swath of media, so I dont think it 'clearly wrong' either. Aside from just giving lip service as you do here, you havent been able to prove otherwise.

 

[Gucumatz]

The one that keeps getting posted based on the clearly wrong press release which completely misinterprets the results of the actual study? The one that clearly states that the accident rates cannot be determined for most collisions based on the existing data?

From the Actual study: "The risk of a motor vehicle collision while driving under the influence of cannabis was almost twice the risk while driving unimpaired (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval, P=0.0003)" The 1.75 was also at 95% confidence level and the one used by most of the media headlines - but is an edited number [Its only certain non-fatal collisions] and by definition can't be used for 100% interpretation due to its more varied pooled nature despite fairly accurate data

However any percentages of fatality and medium or higher dosages "had a pooled odds ratio that was statistically significant" and a fairly conclusive showing from every study prior of high risks of accident.

And

 

[ace99]

The EPC requires the govt treat people the same under the law, writing a law that's in conflict with other laws violates the 14th Amendment. A law that calls you a criminal for being "impaired" by pot while another law says you are legal for being more impaired by booze treats people differently.

Show me the precedent, case law, law review articles, judicial opinions, hell dissenting opinions anything that supports this, anything at all. Go on, find it I'll wait. Because I thought we were talking about real life, not the lolberterian version of "the Constitution means what I think it means!"

However, a government classification does not necessarily mean than a violation of the Equal Protection Clause has occurred. The group being singled out must be what is known as a "suspect class." As best defined by a famous footnote in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), a suspect class of people is one that is a "discrete and insular minorit[y]." These are generally groups that have been historically discriminated against. If no such group is being singled out, then the Court will likely not consider there to have been a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court may still examine the government action, but it will do so while being as deferential to the legislature as possible. This low-level standard of review is known as "Rational Basis Review," and is further explained below.

Or, as another example, in New York Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979), a New York City agency ruled that methadone users (often taken by recovering drug addicts) could not work for the transit authority. The purpose given for the law was commuter safety. As recovering drug addicts are not a suspect class, this law was given Rational Basis Review. Safety was considered a legitimate purpose and the means undertaken were rationally related to that purpose. Therefore, the law was upheld.

http://scarinciattorney.com/the-constitution/amendment-14-01/equal-protection/

(1) Drug users are not a suspect class
(2) Disparate classifications for them are subject to rational basis review
(3) Rational basis is given the greatest deference and almost always upheld unless it has to do with gays.

Thank you, thank you. I do take donations to pay my student loans.

 

[Gucumatz]

^

I actually understood the context of that image, one of the like 5 "How I met your mother" episodes I have ever watched
================

But to the point in hand - The law backs up prosecution and basic protection of society in this case. Honestly, many of the "Pro-"marijuana arguments continue to sound at best as Ace put it [By the way, I love this term - I'll keep it in mind for the future] "loberterian" and an interpretation purely on opinion rather than fact.

 

[Colonel]

I believe if you smoke pot you should be exiled from the country. And put a GPS tracker in their spine and if they cross back into the US they should be shot. Break the law, face the punishment.

 

[Formaldehyde]

From the Actual study: "The risk of a motor vehicle collision while driving under the influence of cannabis was almost twice the risk while driving unimpaired (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval, P=0.0003)" The 1.75 was also at 95% confidence level and the one used by most of the media headlines - but is an edited number [Its only certain non-fatal collisions] and by definition can't be used for 100% interpretation due to its more varied pooled nature despite fairly accurate data

However any percentages of fatality and medium or higher dosages "had a pooled odds ratio that was statistically significant" and a fairly conclusive showing from every study prior of high risks of accident.

And

So you are still quote mining by deliberately taking one sentence and one phrase out of context? You are continuing to ignore what the study actually says, including the conclusions, that I have even previously bolded to draw your attention to the fact that it states nothing of the sort?

 

[MobBoss]

So you are still quote mining by deliberately taking one sentence and one phrase out of context? You are continuing to ignore what the study actually says, including the conclusions, that I have even previously bolded to draw your attention to the fact that it states nothing of the sort?

Except he's not.

No one is arguing that alcohol and pot affect you the same. They dont. However, even if pot affects you differently than alcohol, it still impairs your driving increasing your risk of a fatal accident. The study plainly says this and you trying to downplay it as 'quote-mining' doesnt change the simple fact of it.

 

[filli_noctus]

I believe if you smoke pot you should be exiled from the country. And put a GPS tracker in their spine and if they cross back into the US they should be shot. Break the law, face the punishment.

What if it's legal in the state in which you smoke it?

 

[ace99]

What if it's legal in the state in which you smoke it?

 

[Colonel]

What if it's legal in the state in which you smoke it?

It and all other drugs including alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal. The punishment for all should be exile and death if attempted re-entry. We should incur a draft to ensure the security of the borders to be able to post a fully armed sentry every 10ft along the border and execute any who attempt to enter illegally.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Except he's not.

Hardly surprising given that you continue to deliberately misinterpret the study in exactly the same way, despite the reasons why the press release you quoted was totally misleading have been pointed out numerous times.

No one is arguing that alcohol and pot affect you the same.

Only that is essentially what you are arguing given that even massive amounts of THC in your bloodstream result in a far lower incidence of collisions than even being below the legal BAC limit, according to this very study which has yet to be properly verified by experts in the field through more research efforts to confirm or deny it.

Again, based on your own lack of experience you really have no idea how debilitating or not marijuana actually is. You just continue to perpetuate the same fear mongering and hyperbole which has characterized the propaganda effort against marijuana for the past 80 years with little or no actual basis in fact.

 

[MobBoss]

Hardly surprising given that you continue to deliberately misinterpret the study in exactly the same way, despite the reasons why the press release you quoted was totally misleading have been pointed out numerous times.

Its also been pointed out numerous times why its not misleading. Dur.

Only that is essentially what you are arguing given that even massive amounts of THC in your bloodstream result in a far lower incidence of collisions than even being below the legal BAC limit, according to this very study which has yet to be properly verified by experts in the field through more research efforts to confirm or deny it.

Immaterial to the argument since no one is arguing that THC = alcohol. Sure, alcohol is worse, but that doesnt mean we should allow people to drive while stoned. We shouldnt.

Again, based on your own lack of experience you really have no idea how debilitating or not marijuana actually is.

Are you implying that your're a huge pothead with tons of experience?

No, I havent smoke a ton, but I also disagree thats even pertinent to the topic. I've only been involved in the detection and administrative action for THC and other drugs for my entire career. I know the science in how it works, how its detected by the military, and how it affects a person. I've even visited the labs where all the samples are sent and talked with the people that do this. You know, the scientists involved. I have a bit more working knowledge of this subject that you are probably willing to acknowledge.

You just continue to perpetuate the same fear mongering and hyperbole which has characterized the propaganda effort against marijuana for the past 80 years with little or no actual basis in fact.

Hardly. All I am arguing is the very simple idea that people shouldnt drive stoned because they are at an increased risk of being in a fatal accident. Nothing unreasonable about that.

 

[Berzerker]

But its a terrible logical fallacy to assume that excuses driving while stoned. It doesnt.

But you excuse driving impaired by booze

Except over time those numbers add up, especially magnified across the number of drivers on our roads. I mean, if you want to go that route, only a small fraction of people ever drive drunk - and yet, it is responsible to have laws concerning that because of the ramifications of driving fatalities. That study indicated that you are twice as likely to get into a fatal accident than if you were driving sober. Isnt it worthwhile to have laws on the books that help eliminate road fatalities? Of course it is.

Thats true for all impaired drivers

Both glaucoma and MS can prevent you from getting a license if you are impaired enough by them.

That doesnt refute what I said, yer just pissing in the wind.

What do you mean? I'm all for laws that encourage safer driving. No double standard there.

You support a BAC of 0? And would you ban people under 21 from driving?

Except your claim of other things impairing you more than pot smoking while being legal dont really measure up. Does more study need to be done on this? Absolutely. But what we do have is that it comes as no suprise that driving while high does increase your odds of being in a fatal accident...doubles it in fact.

Guess what else nearly doubles your chance of a fatal accident - being a young male. Yup, Now, wanna bet those pot stats are skewed by young male drivers? Did you know that Mobby? Those stats you guys posted practically match the stats for single car fatalities for males 16-20. But mixing in booze paints a really nasty picture:

www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/809-050pdf.pdf

For 16-20 year olds and a BAC of .05-.079 the risk of a single car crash is over 17 times the "norm" - and you guys are complaining about less than 2?

Except that dope smokers arent a race unto themselves. I mean, how can you not see that such laws cover everyone equally?

Whats race got to do with it? Equal protection belongs to us all, and a law that calls you a criminal for pot while others are driving around more impaired treats you differently.

By your logic here laws for murder should violate the 14th Amendment because the law treats murderers differently from everyone else. Are you unable to see how flawed your logic is on this?

Thats my logic? No, I'll make my own arguments, thank you kindly If drunk murderers were being let off and pot smoking murderers were being punished, then you'd have a proper analogy.

The same study shows that for higher amounts the accident rate spikes to 2.21 - 2.79 times more likely of getting into an accident and increases fatality rates from accidents to 2.1x the normal likelihood.

That's not to say that lower amounts didn't have statistically significant rates of getting into accidents (they did). The odds of getting into an accident comparatively with the legal alcohol impairment of 0.8g/100 mL is 2.69x the likely amount. In effect showing that smoking high amounts puts Marijuana on par with being just slightly less risky as an "intoxicant" on the road, but nearly the same once you get to medium/higher doses of THC.

Not according to my link above, the legal limit for booze is far higher than 2.1 and 2.79. And I'm sure you'll agree that these stats are skewed by young male drivers. My link shows young male drivers are 1.75x more likely to have a crash and the upper limit on that risk assessment was 2.3 - and thats for "sober" drivers. The number shoots up to 17 with a BAC of .05-.08.

Now if being an 18 year old means I'm 1.75 times more likely to crash, and some stats says pot smokers are 1.75 times more likely to crash, maybe being young and inexperienced etc is the impairment and not so much the pot?

Show me the precedent, case law, law review articles, judicial opinions, hell dissenting opinions anything that supports this, anything at all. Go on, find it I'll wait. Because I thought we were talking about real life, not the lolberterian version of "the Constitution means what I think it means!"

How long has smoking and driving been a legal issue? There's gonna be precedent soon, but the courts wont uphold any semblance of equal treatment. And spare me the attitude ace 0

(1) Drug users are not a suspect class

Really? Drug users aint been facing discrimination and aint suspect? Not that equal protection belongs only to "groups". As for the link, I wouldn't be arguing for people showing up to work with a BAC of .08 either. But if they did allow it, they couldn't deny pot smokers jobs if they're proven to be less impaired.

I suggest you guys peruse that link, it really does show the hypocrisy and over all BS surrounding this issue.

 

[ace99]

Right so you're making up what you think the law is, not what it actually is. Glad we cleared that up.

They should teach Lolberterian law as a law school elective.

 

[Berzerker]

I didn't make up the 14th Amendment or the equal protection clause, if you see a problem with my argument you can either offer up a rebuttal or go away, I prefer the latter since you've failed at the former and you're just getting more obnoxious.

 

[ace99]

I've made in amply clear the 14th A and the Equal Protection Clause doesn't protect drug users because the court doesn't recognize them as a suspect class. Nor will it ever do so. The 14th A was intended to protect race based classification. It extended its reached over time to protect other groups. Drug users aren't one of them and never will be. Sorry.

 

[Berzerker]

The case you cited aint relevant, this isn't about employment for a transit system

and

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Makes no mention of race or groups, suspect or not

a law that says pot smokers are criminals for driving cars because they're "impaired" while legally allowing drinkers to drive around even more impaired constitutes unequal treatment. Thats obvious

 

[filli_noctus]

It and all other drugs including alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal. The punishment for all should be exile and death if attempted re-entry. We should incur a draft to ensure the security of the borders to be able to post a fully armed sentry every 10ft along the border and execute any who attempt to enter illegally.

Out of interest, what do you think the punishment should be for crimes that have, you know, victims? Murder, theft, name calling and the like.

Spoiler :

I'm fully aware that the drug trade has numerous victims but the act of drug taking, which appears to be the target here, is as close to a victimless crime as it is possible to be.

 

[Carras Dad]

I believe if you smoke pot you should be exiled from the country. And put a GPS tracker in their spine and if they cross back into the US they should be shot. Break the law, face the punishment.

same goes for jaywalkers...