...and I'm willing to bet that Hundreds of others, who weren't under the influence of any drug, but subject to stress, distractions, makeup, cigarettes, looking at a street sign trying to read the name... or for whatever Other reasons, hit a pedestrian too. <br />
Sorry, but that's the kind of thing that is all-too-often oversimplified by saying a person was under the influence. Again, sorry, but it sounds like you are trying to use that as an argument against marijuana, rather than against irresponsible driving. If you are drousy from cough meds, you shouldn't drive. You are impaired. <br />
That is an issue about an irresponsible person, doing a reprehensible act... driving while impaired, and putting others at danger, no matter What the source of the impairment.<br />
Just sayin'. Please don't take it as personal criticism.
Amazing how you could come to that illogical conclusion. I stated no matter what the cause of the impairment, it was the fault of the driver. If it was a girl driver checking a guy out in a swimsuit on the side of the road, and got distracted and hit someone... it was her fault for driving distracted. Stop the car if you want to text, look, put on makeup, whatever. If you are impaired from cough meds, marijuana, alcohol, whatever... stop the car or get another driver, cause if you hit someone it is your fault. You, the driver, you are supposed to be fit to drive, or do not.
Did that clear it up for you?
Hehehe... wow, here we go again. Where, specifically, did you come up with that nonsense? I didn't excuse the pot-smoking driver for Anything. I didn't excuse Any driver from Anything, if they allow themselves to be less than an alert driver.
You need to look up the words "imply" and "infer". I implied Nothing of the sort, that the substance had nothng to do with it. You inferred that, and incorrectly so. I said, quite clearly, the driver had the responsibility to drive withOut impairment. I don't care what the impairment is... I don't want drivers out there who think they can make excuses for their actions... period.
a wonderful argument but really,u forgot your clothes!
It doesn't. What is wrong is the inappropriate use of it.....like bullets.
From a logical point of view, I would think that it would impair the driver. I can't speak from experience though, I've never used pot. I've never seen any controlled studies that measure the amount of impairment either, so when I say I would think they would be impaired, it's simply IMHO.
To me, it's all a matter of personal responsibility. If you want the Priviledge of driving, you should be sure you are in the best possible condition to drive. It's illogical to do anything which would impair that ability. If you are significantly impaired, it's irresponsible, and can potentially be criminal.
How many people have killed others while driving under the influence of alcohol?
It's pretty damned irresponsible to drive while stoned. In that sense, it's not much different than drinking and driving. A responsible person arranges for some other (safe) way to get where they are going. It doesn't say much about the legality question, however, because then we would be talking about reviving Prohibition, because there is no doubt that a great many people are killed every year thanks to drunks behind the wheel.
I just don't think that the "Should marijuana be legal?" debate comes down to driving safety. That's not to say that it's of no consequence at all, but I don't see DUI enforcement being relaxed at all anytime soon. If anything, I would expect even more DUI arrests and fines in the future, after it is decriminalized everywhere.
So what did the marijuana do?
Probably didn't roll down the windows =/