Quote: AJGO @ June 30 2012, 12:55 PM BST
Naughty boy
Almost everyone I know who smokes spliff is a middle-aged male.
That these pleasant adults, who work all day and have a wee toke of an evening in front of the telly whilst I toss them off for beer money, are technically criminals is not only insulting but also quite embarrassing to a civilised society.
youre a latter day Florence Nightingale
Quote: sootyj @ June 30 2012, 12:58 PM BSTyoure a latter day Florence Nightingale
Innit. Them having to meet a dealer in the evening instead of popping into an authorised store on the way home cuts into my prossie time and means less beer for AJGO. It is a moral outrage
I don't actualy smoke anything myself by the way, legal or otherwise.
ever thought of a combined service
like those pizza places that deliver pizza and fags
Quote: Matthew Stott @ June 30 2012, 1:04 PM BSTI don't actualy smoke anything myself by the way, legal or otherwise.
in fairnessthat's because you're an android
Quote: AJGO @ June 30 2012, 1:02 PM BSTInnit. Them having to meet a dealer in the evening instead of popping into an authorised store on the way home cuts into my prossie time and means less beer for AJGO. It is a moral outrage
Quote: AJGO @ June 30 2012, 1:02 PM BSTInnit. Them having to meet a dealer in the evening instead of popping into an authorised store on the way home cuts into my prossie time and means less beer for AJGO. It is a moral outrage
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ June 30 2012, 12:44 PM BSTWould you be happy with letting a 5 year old smoke dope? If not, then why not?
Would you get in the back of a mini-cab if you knew the driver was stoned? If not, then why not?
Glibly brushing aside the dangers does not make it less harmful.
Would you let a five year old go hang-gliding? Would you get in the back of a mini-cab driven by a drunk? What is your point here - that we should criminalise hang-gliding and alcohol? If the latter I admire your principled stand.
There are tests for drunkenness, but none for stonededness, as far as I know.
no ones thought to invent a standardised but measuring level of htc shouldnt be to hard
that or seeing if they can resist proingles
Quote: DaButt @ June 30 2012, 2:07 PM BSTThere are tests for drunkenness, but none for stonededness, as far as I know.
There is no roadside testing I know of; but if a driver is stopped for driving dangerously or is in an accident, police can always have him tested if his behaviour indicates that he is stoned.
And as a punter getting into cab I am not going to ask the driver to take a breathalyser test.
But I don't see the relevance of this line of argument unless there is an assumption that legalisation will result in an increase in either use or in irresponsible use. Which might be the case, but if it is then this becomes a second order issue. You need to establish the direct consequences of legalisation, before you can argue against legalisation based on the consequential effects of those consequences.
Say what? 
As far as I know, there is no test that can prove impairment.
The guy who chewed the other guy's face off in Miami recently was found to have no drugs other than marijuana in his system, but there's no way to tell if he was high during the attack. (I'll bet he was -- talk about the munchies ...)
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#time
seems theres an unreliable saliva test. But I guess there's no current demand for knowing how stoned you are.
If it was decriminalised and stoned driving banned, as oposed to just posession.
Then the technology would catch up soon enough
If such a test were possible then it would have been invented already.
Quote: DaButt @ June 30 2012, 2:33 PM BSTAs far as I know, there is no test that can prove impairment.
Roadside testing is of saliva is used in some parts of the world, as are physical impairment testing - stand on one leg, that sort of thing.