Anonymous wrote:
plenty of kids die from smoking weed, buying weed, selling weed,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep on marching with the myth that weed is harmless:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/well/live/driving-while-high-marijuana.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/teen-was-driving-100-mph-before-fatal-nj-crash-cops-say/ar-AA1davOX

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-19/where-pot-became-legal-car-crash-deaths-rose-study

https://www.app.com/story/news/local/courts/2022/06/21/prosecutor-nj-woman-caused-fatal-crash-while-high-marijuana/7694999001/

https://www.today.com/health/driving-while-high-marijuana-causing-spike-fatal-accidents-t91746

https://abc7chicago.com/dui-driving-while-high-for-marijuana-crash/5867855/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/marijuana-impaired-driving/807/

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/gwinnett-county/driver-accused-being-high-marijuana-says-it-was-victims-fault/5FX442ISNVE4LCTZ7PTQDJFP5M/

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/teen-sentenced-for-deadly-crash-driving-while-high/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/smoke-and-mirrors-driving-while-on-marijuana-doubles-ones-chances-of-a-serious-car-crash/


I'm so glad it will now be even more of a complete S show on our roads with tons of morons driving everywhere while high. Our progressive overlords have also made it impossible to pull over and arrest people for driving while hugh due some completely asinine concepts of 'justice'. It is already completely shocking how much weed you can smell on your car while simply driving around the roads and highways all over this region at all days and times. It's not just Friday nights, but even on Sunday and Monday mornings just driving around local roads and even on major highways like 95, 495, and 270 you can get weed smoke smell in your car from other cars hot boxing while driving. It's truly absurd how much addiction their is to weed, and now we are letting the flood gates open.

Politicians will have a TON of blood on their hands due to traffic deaths caused by impaired drivers high on weed. Mark my words.

\

What? It should be legal to smoke marijuana and illegal to drive under the influence. Oh wait, that is the law. Those people all drove illegally.

You it is illegal to drive be while high, but then vote in progressive morons who make it impossible for police to pull over, arrest, and jail people for smoking marijuana while driving because it is some kind of asinine concept of restorative justice.


All of these morons will absolutely have blood on their hands when people die because driving while high on weed is now becoming extremely prevalent at all times of day and all days of the week. Americans have a goddamn addiction to weed and so many clowns can't even go to work on a Monday morning without blazing at 730 AM. You smell weed everywhere while driving on local roads and major highways. It's disturbing the number of people who are out there every day driving while high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is why it reminds me of the gun control debate. Both cases have a side saying I want what I want, regardless of who is hurt, and you can’t try to regulate it or restrict the most hazardous forms.

Sorry, guns kill, cannabis doesn't. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Once again, nobody said you had to like cannabis legalization. Just deal with it.

If somebody has a fatal accident while driving under the influence of cannabis, the person isn’t any less dead than if it was an alcohol related crash or a gunshot. Why are you opposed to establishing a standard, like we established decades ago for alcohol, in an effort to reduce fatalities from drunk driving?

There is a standard. If a police officer can articulate a suspicion that you are impaired by observing your actions then they can investigate and then arrest you if you are impaired. Maryland has also started to train their officers on roadside tests that detect cannabis impairment.

No one is going to trust police officers to carry this out. They will still unfairly target URM. I don't see how that can be upheld in court. "this officer with 5 hours of marijuana training said he was high!" Are road side tests for drinking held up in court?

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of legalizing weed is so that the idiots who smoke in their cars don’t go to jail. How else would a cop know you are in possession?
And when was the last time, in MC, that you have seen a cop pull anyone over?
Our current government is off their rockers to legalize without being to enforce when someone is driving high, the smell which never goes away is bothering people, and now more kids being able to access it. I am all for dumbing down society but what they should have legalized was gummies. Not skunk. At this point, I will not feel so bad smoking cigarettes in public. Why should I care anymore what effect it has on others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is why it reminds me of the gun control debate. Both cases have a side saying I want what I want, regardless of who is hurt, and you can’t try to regulate it or restrict the most hazardous forms.

Sorry, guns kill, cannabis doesn't. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Once again, nobody said you had to like cannabis legalization. Just deal with it.

If somebody has a fatal accident while driving under the influence of cannabis, the person isn’t any less dead than if it was an alcohol related crash or a gunshot. Why are you opposed to establishing a standard, like we established decades ago for alcohol, in an effort to reduce fatalities from drunk driving?

There is a standard. If a police officer can articulate a suspicion that you are impaired by observing your actions then they can investigate and then arrest you if you are impaired. Maryland has also started to train their officers on roadside tests that detect cannabis impairment.

No one is going to trust police officers to carry this out. They will still unfairly target URM. I don't see how that can be upheld in court. "this officer with 5 hours of marijuana training said he was high!" Are road side tests for drinking held up in court?

Most DUIs plead out. I doubt DUIs for marijuana will be any different. The reality is that someone actually had been smoking, they’re an idiot to go to trial assuming that a jury won’t believe the officer. Any competent attorney will tell them that.

What kind of "proof" will a cop even have? Red eyes? I have smoked and then hung out with my wife and parents, I promise you none of them know I'm high. I don't think a cop would either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep on marching with the myth that weed is harmless:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/well/live/driving-while-high-marijuana.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/teen-was-driving-100-mph-before-fatal-nj-crash-cops-say/ar-AA1davOX

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-19/where-pot-became-legal-car-crash-deaths-rose-study

https://www.app.com/story/news/local/courts/2022/06/21/prosecutor-nj-woman-caused-fatal-crash-while-high-marijuana/7694999001/

https://www.today.com/health/driving-while-high-marijuana-causing-spike-fatal-accidents-t91746

https://abc7chicago.com/dui-driving-while-high-for-marijuana-crash/5867855/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/marijuana-impaired-driving/807/

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/gwinnett-county/driver-accused-being-high-marijuana-says-it-was-victims-fault/5FX442ISNVE4LCTZ7PTQDJFP5M/

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/teen-sentenced-for-deadly-crash-driving-while-high/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/smoke-and-mirrors-driving-while-on-marijuana-doubles-ones-chances-of-a-serious-car-crash/


I'm so glad it will now be even more of a complete S show on our roads with tons of morons driving everywhere while high. Our progressive overlords have also made it impossible to pull over and arrest people for driving while hugh due some completely asinine concepts of 'justice'. It is already completely shocking how much weed you can smell on your car while simply driving around the roads and highways all over this region at all days and times. It's not just Friday nights, but even on Sunday and Monday mornings just driving around local roads and even on major highways like 95, 495, and 270 you can get weed smoke smell in your car from other cars hot boxing while driving. It's truly absurd how much addiction their is to weed, and now we are letting the flood gates open.

Politicians will have a TON of blood on their hands due to traffic deaths caused by impaired drivers high on weed. Mark my words.

\

What? It should be legal to smoke marijuana and illegal to drive under the influence. Oh wait, that is the law. Those people all drove illegally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is why it reminds me of the gun control debate. Both cases have a side saying I want what I want, regardless of who is hurt, and you can’t try to regulate it or restrict the most hazardous forms.

Sorry, guns kill, cannabis doesn't. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Once again, nobody said you had to like cannabis legalization. Just deal with it.

If somebody has a fatal accident while driving under the influence of cannabis, the person isn’t any less dead than if it was an alcohol related crash or a gunshot. Why are you opposed to establishing a standard, like we established decades ago for alcohol, in an effort to reduce fatalities from drunk driving?

There is a standard. If a police officer can articulate a suspicion that you are impaired by observing your actions then they can investigate and then arrest you if you are impaired. Maryland has also started to train their officers on roadside tests that detect cannabis impairment.

No one is going to trust police officers to carry this out. They will still unfairly target URM. I don't see how that can be upheld in court. "this officer with 5 hours of marijuana training said he was high!" Are road side tests for drinking held up in court?

Most DUIs plead out. I doubt DUIs for marijuana will be any different. The reality is that someone actually had been smoking, they’re an idiot to go to trial assuming that a jury won’t believe the officer. Any competent attorney will tell them that.

What kind of "proof" will a cop even have? Red eyes? I have smoked and then hung out with my wife and parents, I promise you none of them know I'm high. I don't think a cop would either.

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be horrible!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is why it reminds me of the gun control debate. Both cases have a side saying I want what I want, regardless of who is hurt, and you can’t try to regulate it or restrict the most hazardous forms.

Sorry, guns kill, cannabis doesn't. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Once again, nobody said you had to like cannabis legalization. Just deal with it.

If somebody has a fatal accident while driving under the influence of cannabis, the person isn’t any less dead than if it was an alcohol related crash or a gunshot. Why are you opposed to establishing a standard, like we established decades ago for alcohol, in an effort to reduce fatalities from drunk driving?

There is a standard. If a police officer can articulate a suspicion that you are impaired by observing your actions then they can investigate and then arrest you if you are impaired. Maryland has also started to train their officers on roadside tests that detect cannabis impairment.

No one is going to trust police officers to carry this out. They will still unfairly target URM. I don't see how that can be upheld in court. "this officer with 5 hours of marijuana training said he was high!" Are road side tests for drinking held up in court?

Most DUIs plead out. I doubt DUIs for marijuana will be any different. The reality is that someone actually had been smoking, they’re an idiot to go to trial assuming that a jury won’t believe the officer. Any competent attorney will tell them that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is why it reminds me of the gun control debate. Both cases have a side saying I want what I want, regardless of who is hurt, and you can’t try to regulate it or restrict the most hazardous forms.

Sorry, guns kill, cannabis doesn't. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Once again, nobody said you had to like cannabis legalization. Just deal with it.

If somebody has a fatal accident while driving under the influence of cannabis, the person isn’t any less dead than if it was an alcohol related crash or a gunshot. Why are you opposed to establishing a standard, like we established decades ago for alcohol, in an effort to reduce fatalities from drunk driving?

There is a standard. If a police officer can articulate a suspicion that you are impaired by observing your actions then they can investigate and then arrest you if you are impaired. Maryland has also started to train their officers on roadside tests that detect cannabis impairment.

No one is going to trust police officers to carry this out. They will still unfairly target URM. I don't see how that can be upheld in court. "this officer with 5 hours of marijuana training said he was high!" Are road side tests for drinking held up in court?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is why it reminds me of the gun control debate. Both cases have a side saying I want what I want, regardless of who is hurt, and you can’t try to regulate it or restrict the most hazardous forms.

Sorry, guns kill, cannabis doesn't. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Once again, nobody said you had to like cannabis legalization. Just deal with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is why it reminds me of the gun control debate. Both cases have a side saying I want what I want, regardless of who is hurt, and you can’t try to regulate it or restrict the most hazardous forms.

Sorry, guns kill, cannabis doesn't. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Once again, nobody said you had to like cannabis legalization. Just deal with it.

If somebody has a fatal accident while driving under the influence of cannabis, the person isn’t any less dead than if it was an alcohol related crash or a gunshot. Why are you opposed to establishing a standard, like we established decades ago for alcohol, in an effort to reduce fatalities from drunk driving?

There is a standard. If a police officer can articulate a suspicion that you are impaired by observing your actions then they can investigate and then arrest you if you are impaired. Maryland has also started to train their officers on roadside tests that detect cannabis impairment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is why it reminds me of the gun control debate. Both cases have a side saying I want what I want, regardless of who is hurt, and you can’t try to regulate it or restrict the most hazardous forms.

Sorry, guns kill, cannabis doesn't. That's where your comparison falls flat.

Once again, nobody said you had to like cannabis legalization. Just deal with it.

If somebody has a fatal accident while driving under the influence of cannabis, the person isn’t any less dead than if it was an alcohol related crash or a gunshot. Why are you opposed to establishing a standard, like we established decades ago for alcohol, in an effort to reduce fatalities from drunk driving?