# Bill Aims To Protect Party Bus Drivers From Second-Hand Cannabis Smoke



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/04/24/party-bus-cannabis-smoke/
State Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) has introduced Senate Bill 625, which would require buses, limousines, and cabs that allow cannabis use to provide drivers with a sealed, separate ventilated space. Drivers who test positive for marijuana could lose their commercial license.
- - - Automereged comment - - - 
"buses, limousines, and cabs"
can TNC Drivers Be far behind?

About time.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/04/24/party-bus-cannabis-smoke/
> State Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) has introduced Senate Bill 625, which would require buses, limousines, and cabs that allow cannabis use to provide drivers with a sealed, separate ventilated space. Drivers who test positive for marijuana could lose their commercial license.
> 
> "buses, limousines, and cabs"
> ...


Seeing as how states that legalized medical use saw a decline in traffic fatalities and injuries, and the fact that virtually no traffic fatalities and injuries have been attributed exclusively to marijuana use, this bill is a step in the right direction. But more needs to be done to force acknowledgement of the fact that the marijuana use simply is not even remotely a significant PRIMARY contributor to traffic violations, accidents, injuries, and/or fatalities.

This statement is consistent throughout all studies:

"In the introduction of its report, the Rocky Mountain HIDTA states that terms such as "marijuana-related" or "tested positive for marijuana" do "not necessarily prove that marijuana was the cause of the incident." The section on "Impaired Driving" also states that, when it comes to traffic fatalities, "marijuana-related" entails "any time marijuana shows up in the toxicology report [of drivers]. It could be marijuana only or marijuana with other drugs and/or alcohol.""

Since many in politics and ATF officials, and their corporate backers (primarily alcohol and tobacco manufacturers), have long held significant prejudices against marijuana and its users, the data is always bound up in epic struggles to provide and endorse truly unbiased studies and education.

I've read all of these and the same is true throughout: marijuana, when present, is very nearly always found alongside alcohol and other substances. And because marijuana lingers in a users system for months after even a single hefty bong toke it further complicates accurate data collection. This is why prohibition is so stupid: it makes it nearly impossible to collect genuinely accurate information on effects.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/unpacking-pots-impact-in-colorado/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/
https://www.codot.gov/safety/safety...ntification-id-reports/2018-problem-id-report
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving-marijuana-double-state-legalizes-drug/
THERE does appear to be a difference between medical and recreational legalization and their effects. This likely is the result of people using it medicinally being familiar with the drug whereas those in recreationally approved states have significantly more first time users partaking:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN14H1LQ
Compare the above to the spin in more traditional media:

"There is no nationally accepted method for testing drivers, and the number of drugs to test for is large. Different drugs also have different effects on drivers. And there is no definitive data linking drugged driving to crashes."

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...-spread-of-legal-marijuana-opioid-abuse?amp=1
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploa...-marijuana-legalization-traffic-accidents.pdf
Try as they might, reports like these reveal that marijuana is the bit player in traffic incidents:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN17S2P5


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

Bullshit. Stoners are the safest drivers on the road. They drive so slow and careful.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

UberAdrian said:


> Bullshit. Stoners are the safest drivers on the road. They drive so slow and careful.


Perhaps if that's the only thing in their system.

The studies I posted seem to concur, however begrudgingly. In all of them you can see how some people desperately want the narrative to say otherwise. It's utterly bizarre how extreme the prejudice against pot smokers is despite the fact that almost everything else in this world is more lethal.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

Carbuncle said:


> Since many in politics and ATF officials, and their corporate backers (primarily alcohol and tobacco manufacturers), have long held significant prejudices against marijuana and its users, the data is always bound up in epic struggles to provide and endorse truly unbiased studies and education.


The po-po where I live will not use the roadside THC testing systems available, because they are concerned about it being totally inaccurate and court cases being thrown out as a result. Can't say that I blame them either. The police are the biggest organized criminal gang on the planet besides government, and they need their bogeyman to be performing front and centre for funding purposes at budget time..

I'm in Canada and the hysteria up here from some was equivalent to the movie "Reefer Madness" when we legalized pot. Of course, the utter wholesale carnage and death that was supposed to occur everywhere, just didn't happen. In fact, it took 5 months for someone to finally be charged with DUI for using weed in the country, and as she was found not to be impaired by officers using a 12 step analysis at the police station immediately after, this will probably get thrown out of court.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...-to-challenge-roadside-testing-laws-1.5083114


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

It’s because the stop often to hug other drivers


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Seeing as how states that legalized medical use saw a decline in traffic fatalities and injuries, and the fact that virtually no traffic fatalities and injuries have been attributed exclusively to marijuana use, this bill is a step in the right direction. But more needs to be done to force acknowledgement of the fact that the marijuana use simply is not even remotely a significant PRIMARY contributor to traffic violations, accidents, injuries, and/or fatalities.
> 
> This statement is consistent throughout all studies:
> 
> ...


?The unending Stoner Chatty Cathy Story?

T L : D R



UberAdrian said:


> Bullshit. Stoners are the safest drivers on the road. They drive so slow and careful.


*GUESS which is the stoned Uber driver*​


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

yeah, i agree that pot smoking drivers are less likely to cause a crash as they usually drive slower and more carefully and are less distracted but i do think their response time is also slowed dramatically making them less likely to avoid an accident caused by everyday douchbag drivers.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> ?The unending Stoner Chatty Cathy Story?
> 
> T L : D R
> 
> ...


The unending propagandist quips from a guy who obviously didn't read even one of the studies or articles I posted.

If you don't take the time to evaluate the research you lose by default. You do that a lot, I've noticed.

And you didn't provide a link confirming the driver in the video was stoned. Not that it matters much because the studies confirm that such a driver is an extreme outlier and almost certainly had some other substance in their system.

You lose this round as well.

How about an actual argument you can support with a robust body of evidence?

We'll wait. Maybe.


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

> GREEN BAY - A 17-year-old Greenleaf boy admitted to smoking marijuana prior to a crash that killed two people in the town of Glenmore on Monday, a prosecutor says.


https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2016/07/13/charges-not-ready-owi-deaths/87037788/


> While at the hospital, Gibson "admitted to detectives that she smoked marijuana on the day of the collision but could not provide an exact time," according to court paperwork.


https://www.azfamily.com/suspect-in...cle_7fa5826b-7cc5-5c4b-aef2-eddda1cefd05.html


> Driver who smoked marijuana, then blocks later struck and killed pedestrian, gets nearly 4 years


https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2016/05/driver_who_smoked_marijuana_th.html
But then, there are probably more accidents with people who doesn't use marijuana.


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

People who haven't ingested THC don't know what being "high" really is. They think it makes you crazy and do silly things. Uh, no. That's what pharmaceutical meds and alcohol do to you. THC just relaxes you. Being relaxed and driving is not dangerous. I get paranoid though because I start wondering why the world is so messed up. So I pref NOT being high now because the kind of relaxation I get from THC is not helpful to me.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

amazinghl said:


> https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2016/07/13/charges-not-ready-owi-deaths/87037788/
> https://www.azfamily.com/suspect-in...cle_7fa5826b-7cc5-5c4b-aef2-eddda1cefd05.html
> https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2016/05/driver_who_smoked_marijuana_th.html
> But then, there are probably more accidents with people who doesn't use marijuana.


Did you even read these articles?

In the first two there is no mention of other substances like alcohol. What's more is that in both the drivers were speeding excessively, which is usually not common behavior of stoned drivers who tend to go slower when only high. The perp in the first article is 17 and he just flew through a stop. His age group is one of the most dangerous on the roads, even when sober. It's not known when in the day he got high or if it was even a factor. The second article details the fact that the woman responsible didn't have a drivers license. It is also not known when she had gotten high. She made no effort to brake and was going nearly twice the speed limit.

The third article mentions that the victim ran out into the street against a "don't walk" light because she was late for a train.

All three articles are excellent examples of sloppy journalism that jumps to conclusions without enough supporting evidence.

Was pot the primary contributing factor? Based on the information provided it doesn't appear to be. Without the results of toxicology reports we don't know.

Given that there are many who are just chomping at the bit to find any evidence that pot is so dangerous reportage like this is going to be a problem.

The fact is that pot will be a primary contributor in some cases as more and more people get accustomed to legal weed. But given how many people have been smoking pot regularly for decades and that no hard evidence links pot use to traffic accidents, injuries and fatalities there simply is no significant correlation.

Cell phones are killing tens of thousands yearly. Pot will never even come close. More people are and will always be killed by drivers doing almost anything other than being stoned.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Uber Driver Dave Chapelle may not agree...


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> The unending propagandist quips from a guy who obviously didn't read even one of the studies or articles I posted.
> 
> If you don't take the time to evaluate the research you lose by default. You do that a lot, I've noticed.
> 
> ...


Stoned Boomers love to pontificate.

Neo-Luddites Screaming on the street corners in their tinfoil hates.
Anything to avoid the four letter word: W O R K


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> Stoned Boomers love to pontificate.
> 
> Neo-Luddites Screaming on the street corners in their tinfoil hates.
> Anything to avoid the four letter word: W O R K


Man, they're really scraping the bottom for paid trolls.

You're neither funny, original, witty, or smart. Hell, you don't even qualify as a smart-ass.

Luddites were/are opposed to tech that gets rid of their jobs, so your equivalency in this regard is as false as your girlfriend's teeth.

Your tinfoil "hate?" About as intimidating as a tinfoil tiger.

And my parents are Boomers, brain trust, not I.

The next time you fly a paper plane make sure you're sitting in it.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

beebob said:


> State Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) has introduced Senate Bill 625, which would require buses, limousines, and cabs that allow cannabis use to provide drivers with a sealed, separate ventilated space.


Follow the money, what custom coach manufacturer is pushing this bill?



Carbuncle said:


> Seeing as how states that legalized medical use saw a decline in traffic fatalities and injuries, and the fact that virtually no traffic fatalities and injuries have been attributed exclusively to marijuana use,


FAKE NEWS! Stoned on weed is driving under the influence and has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Ever attend a DUI checkpoint? LOL


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> Follow the money, what custom coach manufacturer is pushing this bill?
> 
> FAKE NEWS! Stoned on weed is driving under the influence and has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Ever attend a DUI checkpoint? LOL


Prove it.

Read the links I posted.

Ignore them and concede defeat.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

Swathdriver said:


> Stoned on weed is driving under the influence and has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Ever attend a DUI checkpoint?


You don't know that, nor does anyone else, because they don't keep stats. Never have, until legalization started.

And, if they did, and they were true, it would have been a different story trying to get legalization started.

It's 6 month later here in Canada and the media are being forced to report that there is no crisis and that nothing untoward has happened since weed became legal. No late night 7/11 robberies in the junk food aisle, no cases of stomach hernias from uncontrolled laughter at comedy shows, etc. Worst of all though, no motor vehicle issues to speak of. The blood and gore on our roads as envisioned by Madd (and the the po-po) never materialised.

Chicken Little indeed.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Prove it.
> 
> Read the links I posted.
> 
> Ignore them and concede defeat.


T L : D R ?

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/legalized-marijuana-linked-sharp-rise-car-crashes-n921511
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/marijuana-driving-accidents-bn/index.html
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05...-tragedies-in-other-cannabis-friendly-states/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ates-legal-marijuana-studies-show/1693567002/
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fatal-car-accidents-involving-marijuana-have-tripled-in-u-s--32314
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/12/28/512201.htm
https://www.newsweek.com/states-legalized-marijuana-increasing-car-crashes-1176914
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro...s-with-legal-recreational-marijuana-iihs-hldi
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...crashes-up-in-states-where-marijuana-is-legal
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...crashes-up-in-states-where-marijuana-is-legal


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

beebob said:


> Stoned Boomers love to pontificate.
> 
> Neo-Luddites Screaming on the street corners in their tinfoil hates.
> Anything to avoid the four letter word: W O R K


People don't even know what the definition of work is. Real work is using your God given spirit to do good to others. Everything else is pointless motion.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

https://faculty.washington.edu/ceweber/HMW_marijuana_traffic.pdf
Early Evidence on Recreational Marijuana Legalization and Traffic Fatalities
Benjamin Hansen∗† University of Oregon, NBER, IZA
Keaton Miller∗ University of Oregon
Caroline Weber∗ University of Oregon


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

Citing a faulty study the same time in 4 different links might look impressive, but it does nothing to support your position, In fact, the study even says "reports do not prove there’s a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists"...........now having said that, the IIHS doesn't have any vested interest whatsoever in pushing the position you do, now do they ?

ROTFLMAO !!!!


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

ANT 7 said:


> Citing a faulty study the same time in 4 different links might look impressive, but it does nothing to support your position, In fact, the study even says "reports do not prove there's a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists"...........now having said that, the IIHS doesn't have any vested interest whatsoever in pushing the position you do, now do they ?
> 
> ROTFLMAO !!!!


What about the 8 other links Professor?
Reading is fundamental

ROTFLMAO = boomer 55+YO


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

itsablackmarket said:


> People don't even know what the definition of work is. Real work is using your God given spirit to do good to others. Everything else is pointless motion.


I us my g-d given spirit to help my landlord, T Mobil, ConEd, & NY water


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

beebob said:


> T L : D R ?
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/legalized-marijuana-linked-sharp-rise-car-crashes-n921511
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/marijuana-driving-accidents-bn/index.html
> ...


From inside your links: *"The new reports do not prove there's a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists " *lol thanks.

People do crazy shit all the time. Just because they have cannabis in their system does mean there's even so much as a correlation let alone a causal effect. If we wanted to play that game, we could easily show a link between tylenol and car crashes. I bet loads of crashed people have tylenol in them. I bet they have all kinds of things in them. Lets outlaw all driving on medication!

The only valid point that has been raised is that it decreases your reaction times which makes it more difficult to avoid an accident when other people are being stupid. This however, is mitigated by the slower driving etc. It balances out.

Obviously it's best to drive sober, but driving stoned is not comparable to driving drunk.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

UberAdrian said:


> From inside your links: "The new reports do not prove there's a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists "


"MY LINK" ???
are u high?
NBC News

Never Smoke Post & Drive


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

beebob said:


> "MY LINK" ???
> are u high?
> NBC News
> 
> Never Smoke Post & Drive


Ya you linked it, therefore it's your link and their article. English FTW!

Why shouldn't one smoke and post?


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> T L : D R ?
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/legalized-marijuana-linked-sharp-rise-car-crashes-n921511
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/marijuana-driving-accidents-bn/index.html
> ...


Not surprised that you didn't actually read your sources, none of which are government agency studies. You went nearly exclusively with mainstream media channels while I used three government studies and one from AAA.

This is why you should actually READ your sources:

"Harkey cautioned there are limits to what the studies show. There is a "correlation," reflecting the fact that crashes rose once pot became legal, but that is not the same as "causation," he added, meaning other, unseen factors could be at work.

That could help explain why earlier studies have often conflicted over the effects of marijuana on highway safety. One, released by the University of Colorado in 2014, showed a surge in fatalities involving stoned drivers. But a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Virginia a year later found no clear increase in risk."

What's also rather comical about you not reading any of your own sources is that most of them are redundant, literally parroting the same information, in some cases nearly word for word.

Bravo for that.

The CNN article states that other substances were present so pot was not the sole or even primary cause.

You should have read your Mercury News article:

"Traffic collisions with an injury and a cannabis-only DUI arrest: 7
Traffic collisions with a death and a cannabis-only DUI arrest: zero"

"Traffic collision with property damage and a cannabis-only DUI arrest: 9
Traffic collisions with an injury and a cannabis-only DUI arrest: 7
Traffic collsions with a death and a cannbis-only DUI arrest: zero"

These studies also fail to include changes in population relative to neighboring states. Colorado, and Washington have seen steady population increases that outpace the rise in traffic accidents by percentage.

When comparing these studies regarding population, legalization, and traffic your arguments (and these articles) become considerably more foggy and problematic:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/estimates-national-state.html
https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-states-with-the-most-car-accidents.html
You're terrible at this, rookie.



itsablackmarket said:


> People don't even know what the definition of work is. Real work is using your God given spirit to do good to others. Everything else is pointless motion.


?



beebob said:


> What about the 8 other links Professor?
> Reading is fundamental
> 
> ROTFLMAO = boomer 55+YO


Your 8 other links parrot one another almost verbatim. And every single one of them concede that almost none of the accidents are attributable exclusively to marijuana use. Not one of them can attribute even a single fatality or serious injury exclusively to pot use.

You basically posted the same information several times. Yeah, brilliant.

The HG link was obscenely speculative and failed to prove any exclusively direct correlations.

Everyone here knows you didn't read a single page of the 43 page PDF of the university study.

Again, of all the factors contributing to traffic accidents marijuana use is not in any way shape or form a significant sole contributor. Even your own sources prove it.

Rookie.



ANT 7 said:


> Citing a faulty study the same time in 4 different links might look impressive, but it does nothing to support your position, In fact, the study even says "reports do not prove there's a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists"...........now having said that, the IIHS doesn't have any vested interest whatsoever in pushing the position you do, now do they ?
> 
> ROTFLMAO !!!!


This clown isn't even reading his own sources. He's just going off the highly misleading and click-baity headlines.

100% clown shoe, this guy.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Not surprised that you didn't actually read your sources, none of which are government agency studies. You went nearly exclusively with mainstream media channels while I used three government studies and one from AAA.
> 
> This is why you should actually READ your sources:
> 
> ...


Professor, I supply the info while supporting neither side.
I am neutral.
You know, what U shift in to "N" and floor it
while stoned


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

And the fact that he brought up "God" in one of his posts totally throws him out the window IMHO. 

Once you start backstopping arguments with religion you've lost the debate.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> Professor, I supply the info while supporting neither side.
> I am neutral.
> You know, what U shift in to "N" and floor it
> while stoned


You kid no one. Your position is clear.

You're terrible at gaslighting. You show your tells in blinking neon.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> You kid no one. Your position is clear.
> 
> You're terrible at gaslighting. You show your tells in blinking neon.


......more driver pontification.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

If you're not 100% coherent, you should be barred from driving "professionally," especially if you have passengers in your vehicle. 

The question isn't whether or not you're driving slower, the question is whether or not you're driving IMPAIRED. Slow may work in some situations, but driving slow on the interstate when others are doing 70/80 makes you a danger, regardless of how careful you may believe you are. 

Everyone here knows that drugs, alcohol, even lack of sleep, makes people less safe drivers. That's the issue here.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Fozzie said:


> If you're not 100% coherent, you should be barred from driving "professionally," especially if you have passengers in your vehicle.
> 
> The question isn't whether or not you're driving slower, the question is whether or not you're driving IMPAIRED. Slow may work in some situations, but driving slow on the interstate when others are doing 70/80 makes you a danger, regardless of how careful you may believe you are.
> 
> Everyone here knows that drugs, alcohol, even lack of sleep, makes people less safe drivers. That's the issue here.


If you're going to employ Logic and Common Sense
You're Not Welcome in this "Forum"

Move Along?


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> ......more driver pontification.


Says the joker too stupid to realize he's risking his life for the cheapest fare he can "get away with."

It's wild how easy it is to trick Americans in to devaluing their existence by simply dangling the carrot of "cheap and convenient" in front of them.

The two biggest oxymorons in the American lexicon are common sense and conventional wisdom. Both are neither.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Prove it.


Nah, don't need to. Been seeing it with these eyes my whole life. Then there is the paranoia, incoherent thoughts and worst of all, brain cancer. Plenty of dead relatives because of it; same with booze.

Nowadays the stuff is so potent some folks act like they are on an acid trip, ripping off their clothes and eating people and on and on.

Debating the merits of pot is like saying running across the highway during rush hour is good for you. No, it's just dumb and dangerous.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

swathdiver said:


> Nah, don't need to. Been seeing it with these eyes my whole life. Then there is the paranoia, incoherent thoughts and worst of all, brain cancer. Plenty of dead relatives because of it; same with booze.
> 
> Nowadays the stuff is so potent some folks act like they are on an acid trip, ripping off their clothes and eating people and on and on.
> 
> Debating the merits of pot is like saying running across the highway during rush hour is good for you. No, it's just dumb and dangerous.









swathdiver said:


> Nah, don't need to. Been seeing it with these eyes my whole life. Then there is the paranoia, incoherent thoughts and worst of all, brain cancer. Plenty of dead relatives because of it; same with booze.
> 
> Nowadays the stuff is so potent some folks act like they are on an acid trip, ripping off their clothes and eating people and on and on.
> 
> Debating the merits of pot is like saying running across the highway during rush hour is good for you. No, it's just dumb and dangerous.


I've been a surfer, artist, and musician my whole life. I grew up in Hawaii and have lived all over California. My parents were raging hippies and still smoke pot today.

There's not one shred of truth to one thing you said.

The amount of pot you have to smoke to get brain cancer is obscene.

Seriously, man, just SU on this subject. You have absolute no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## swathdiver (Apr 18, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> The amount of pot you have to smoke to get brain cancer is obscene.
> 
> Seriously, man, just SU on this subject. You have absolute no idea what you're talking about.


Unfortunately I know even more than I let on, Spicoli. You guys go ahead and kill yourselves, just don't drag anyone over the cliff with you.


----------



## smarternotharder (Apr 17, 2019)

you do realize if you work 3rd shift if they're not drunk or going to get drink your just running drugs for low level dealers and running prostitutes for mis Pimps right?

less than 10% of people doing legit biz if you factor drunks as illegit which I do because aint no drunk going to the airport from the bar or club so I've actually never picked up a bar or club in 4years


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Says the joker too stupid to realize he's risking his life for the cheapest fare he can "get away with."
> 
> It's wild how easy it is to trick Americans in to devaluing their existence by simply dangling the carrot of "cheap and convenient" in front of them.
> 
> The two biggest oxymorons in the American lexicon are common sense and conventional wisdom. Both are neither.


Keep " emotionally reacting" I'm learning more about ur age affliction issues & outbursts

https://www.griswoldhomecare.com/blog/dealing-with-elderly-anger/
https://www.agingcare.com/articles/how-to-handle-an-elderly-parents-bad-behavior-138673.htm


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

This is like how everyone compares things to being “like crack” as if they’ve done crack before and know what they’re talking about. 99% of these people can’t tell the difference between a crack rock and a salt rock and they’re suddenly experts in things that are like crack.

The great irony is we had a famous crack smoking mayor here in Toronto not too long ago and he was widely regarded as one of the best mayors ever. His brother, who doesn’t do crack - is an evil moron.

Such is the cannabis debate. A lot of people regurgitating propaganda without having any actual clue what they’re talking about.

Sadly the data doesn’t exist, therefore all claims bullshit .


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> Keep " emotionally reacting" I'm learning more about ur age affliction issues & outbursts
> 
> https://www.griswoldhomecare.com/blog/dealing-with-elderly-anger/
> https://www.agingcare.com/articles/how-to-handle-an-elderly-parents-bad-behavior-138673.htm


Emotional?

Dude, I (and everyone else here) is laughing *AT *you.

It's hysterical how much you love to give yourself credit. You spank it in the mirror, don't you.

By all means, continue. We await your next laugh riot of unwitting self-deprecation.



swathdiver said:


> Unfortunately I know even more than I let on, Spicoli. You guys go ahead and kill yourselves, just don't drag anyone over the cliff with you.


Seeing as how you don't know ? that's a pretty low bar to set. A snail could skip over it.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Emotional?
> 
> Dude, I (and everyone else here) is laughing *AT *you.
> 
> ...


Tell us more about the skipping snail ? 
do u dream of it? eat escargot ?
How does it make u feel?


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> Tell us more about the skipping snail ?
> do u dream of it? eat escargot ?
> How does it make u feel?


I could squeeze the gasses out of a rotting corpse and get better comeback material than your self-flagellating, sorrowful soul.

You are TERRIBLE at this.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

Uber already doesn't allow marijuana use by either drivers or passengers, even in States where it's legal. This is _likely _because it's illegal Federally and they don't want to get any problems from the Feds over it.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

RDWRER said:


> Uber already doesn't allow marijuana use by either drivers or passengers, even in States where it's legal. This is _likely _because it's illegal Federally and they don't want to get any problems from the Feds over it.


Nonsense. Not only are you not required to undergo any drug testing for the job but every time legislators try to require it Uber and Lyft bribe a bunch of people and make it go away. Hell, even in Austin where the voters won a special vote to require it Uber and Lyft just bribed the governor to go against the will of the people and allow them to do whatever they want.

Meanwhile, roughly a thousand people are killed using U/L every year. Likely more but we don't know because U/L refuse to release the actual numbers and no one in government has the balls to subpoena this ?heads.

Orwell got it backwards. First, it's Big Brother (via Huxley's vision), THEN it's nuclear annihilation.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

beebob said:


> ?The unending Stoner Chatty Cathy Story?
> 
> T L : D R
> 
> ...


Someone's always willing to do things the hard way. Priceless.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

Carbuncle said:


> Nonsense. Not only are you not required to undergo any drug testing for the job but every time legislators try to require it Uber and Lyft bribe a bunch of people and make it go away. Hell, even in Austin where the voters won a special vote to require it Uber and Lyft just bribed the governor to go against the will of the people and allow them to do whatever they want.
> 
> Meanwhile, roughly a thousand people are killed using U/L every year. Likely more but we don't know because U/L refuse to release the actual numbers and no one in government has the balls to subpoena this ?heads.
> 
> Orwell got it backwards. First, it's Big Brother (via Huxley's vision), THEN it's nuclear annihilation.


And yet they will deactivate you for 48 hours due to being under the influence of a controlled substance if a passenger reports that you were smoking marijuana, whether it was true or not.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

RDWRER said:


> Uber already doesn't allow marijuana use by either drivers or passengers, even in States where it's legal. This is _likely _because it's illegal Federally and they don't want to get any problems from the Feds over it.


Yeah, in America weed is looked upon as a scourge.

Meanwhile, this hypocratic gov't subsidizes tobacco, pays farmers to produce then dump milk to keep prices artificially high.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

RDWRER said:


> And yet they will deactivate you for 48 hours due to being under the influence of a controlled substance if a passenger reports that you were smoking marijuana, whether it was true or not.


But they won't require you to take a drug or field sobriety test. The fact these companies keep getting away with this insanity proves how deeply corrupted our whole system is.

Tony West deserves to be run down by a drugged out half asleep Uber driver.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

Carbuncle said:


> But they won't require you to take a drug or field sobriety test. The fact these companies keep getting away with this insanity proves how deeply corrupted our whole system is.
> 
> Tony West deserves to be run down by a drugged out half asleep Uber driver.


They can't test you or you become an employee. They're not going to allow that.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

RDWRER said:


> They can't test you or you become an employee. They're not going to allow that.


That's not true. If you want to be a commercial independent driver you still have to submit to drug testing.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

Carbuncle said:


> That's not true. If you want to be a commercial independent driver you still have to submit to drug testing.


And that's required by law to get and maintain a commercial permit, which TNC's don't have. Uber's not going to implement it if it's not required, obviously.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

RDWRER said:


> And that's required by law to get and maintain a commercial permit, which TNC's don't have. Uber's not going to implement it if it's not required, obviously.


Perhaps you should look into why it's "not required."

Seriously, man, why are people like you so willing to buy into the BS?


----------



## Rosalita (May 13, 2018)

No one should be permitted to smoke in your car. Period. Not weed, not vaping, not cigarettes, not cigars. It's rude for the next pax to have to sit in any of those smells and have it get on their clothes. Do you also let them light up a spoon full of crack and heroin?


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Rosalita said:


> No one should be permitted to smoke in your car. Period. Not weed, not vaping, not cigarettes, not cigars. It's rude for the next pax to have to sit in any of those smells and have it get on their clothes. Do you also let them light up a spoon full of crack and heroin?


According to @Carbuncle it's OK. But he does it from the driver's seat


----------



## Rosalita (May 13, 2018)

IR12 said:


> Yeah, in America weed is looked upon as a scourge.
> 
> Meanwhile, this hypocratic gov't subsidizes tobacco, pays farmers to produce then dump milk to keep prices artificially high.


This has nothing to do with harshing your buzz. It has everything to do with why any ride share driver, taxi, or bus driver would allow anyone to smoke anything in their vehicle? Pot is legal, so what? You're not lighting up in my car. Cigarettes are legal, too. So what, you're not smoking them in my car. Cigars are legal. So what, you're not smoking one in my car, either. And you're not lighting up a pipe or vaping. And no you cannot light up that spoon full of heroin and shoot up in my car, either. And no you cannot have an open container of alcohol in my state in the car, either. Day-um! Buy a VW mini van and drive yourself!


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Rosalita said:


> This has nothing to do with harshing your buzz. It has everything to do with why any ride share driver, taxi, or bus driver would allow anyone to smoke anything in their vehicle? Pot is legal, so what? You're not lighting up in my car. Cigarettes are legal, too. So what, you're not smoking them in my car. Cigars are legal. So what, you're not smoking one in my car, either. And you're not lighting up a pipe or vaping. And no you cannot light up that spoon full of heroin and shoot up in my car, either. And no you cannot have an open container of alcohol in my state in the car, either. Day-um! Buy a VW mini van and drive yourself!


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

Rosalita said:


> This has nothing to do with harshing your buzz. It has everything to do with why any ride share driver, taxi, or bus driver would allow anyone to smoke anything in their vehicle? Pot is legal, so what? You're not lighting up in my car. Cigarettes are legal, too. So what, you're not smoking them in my car. Cigars are legal. So what, you're not smoking one in my car, either. And you're not lighting up a pipe or vaping. And no you cannot light up that spoon full of heroin and shoot up in my car, either. And no you cannot have an open container of alcohol in my state in the car, either. Day-um! Buy a VW mini van and drive yourself!


Count on @beebob to rip ?? for the entire ride, filling your cabin with a stench that makes sulfur pits jealous, causing you see pink elephants and green giraffes playing Twister on meth, inducing the migraine from Hades, in the hopes he can watch you puke a rainbow of moldy Skittles until you pass out so he can steal your seat covers, that he'll drape over his naked stick figure of a body while he dances in the mirror to bad ABBA covers by polka bands.

Kid's got some weird fetishes.

I think he needs to get stoned.


----------



## Michael1230nj (Jun 23, 2017)

UberAdrian said:


> Bullshit. Stoners are the safest drivers on the road. They drive so slow and careful.


Very true we need more crack heads out there.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Carbuncle said:


> Seeing as how states that legalized medical use saw a decline in traffic fatalities and injuries, and the fact that virtually no traffic fatalities and injuries have been attributed exclusively to marijuana use


That's because when you're stoned you feel like you're racing along at 100mph, whereas in reality you're doing 20 and holding everyone up behind you. Allegedly.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> That's because when you're stoned you feel like you're racing along at 100mph, whereas in reality you're doing 20 and holding everyone up behind you. Allegedly.


In nearly all traffic fatalities and injuries speed is the primary component. Going too slow almost never kills anyone.

Maybe it should be the law that everyone drive with at least a little THC in their system??‍♂?



beebob said:


> @Carbuncle the Angry Driver
> 
> https://www.griswoldhomecare.com/blog/dealing-with-elderly-anger/


Yeah, it wasn't funny the first time you posted it.

Kid, at 50 I'm doing things you've never been physically or psychologically capable of in your life.

I may look older than you but you're the one acting like a cranky, bitter old man.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> In nearly all traffic fatalities and injuries speed is the primary component. Going too slow almost never kills anyone.
> 
> Maybe it should be the law that everyone drive with at least a little THC in their system??‍♂?
> 
> ...


Right, funny the first time.
And now you're even OLDER and more prone to angry ? outbursts

???????


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

When I smoke a blunt I know for a fact that I won’t get into an accident, I don’t get off the couch unless it’s for some munchies.


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> Right, funny the first time.
> And now you're even OLDER and more prone to angry ? outbursts
> 
> ???????


?


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

There is this too, but hey, who reads facts...

_Forty-four percent of fatally injured drivers tested for drugs had positive results in 2016, the Governors Highway Safety Association found, up more than 50 percent compared with a decade ago. More than half the drivers tested positive for marijuana, opioids or a combination of the two.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...e-with-spread-of-legal-marijuana-opioid-abuse_


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

UberLaLa said:


> There is this too, but hey, who reads facts...
> 
> _Forty-four percent of fatally injured drivers tested for drugs had positive results in 2016, the Governors Highway Safety Association found, up more than 50 percent compared with a decade ago. More than half the drivers tested positive for marijuana, opioids or a combination of the two.
> 
> https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...e-with-spread-of-legal-marijuana-opioid-abuse_


I would seriously question the source.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

peteyvavs said:


> I would seriously question the source.


I know you would...


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

UberLaLa said:


> There is this too, but hey, who reads facts...
> 
> _Forty-four percent of fatally injured drivers tested for drugs had positive results in 2016, the Governors Highway Safety Association found, up more than 50 percent compared with a decade ago. More than half the drivers tested positive for marijuana, opioids or a combination of the two.
> 
> https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...e-with-spread-of-legal-marijuana-opioid-abuse_


I already posted that link. The article points out that testing for marijuana is problematic because it remains in your system for a month or longer after a single use. Even very light and infrequent smokers will test positive. Also, testing for marijuana in relation to driving is a more recent phenomenon and can't compare itself to data that was either spotty or missing altogether.

You guys have GOT to stop being so lazy and actually read these reports.

You also need to check population growth in the states mentioned. In nearly every state in the studies the rate of population growth outpaced the uptick in accidents.

To date, there has been virtually no traffic deaths attributed exclusively to marijuana use.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Carbuncle said:


> ...
> 
> *To date, there has been virtually no traffic deaths attributed exclusively to marijuana use.*


Gets the DP HaHa of the Day!


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> I already posted that link. The article points out that testing for marijuana is problematic because it remains in your system for a month or longer after a single use. Even very light and infrequent smokers will test positive. Also, testing for marijuana in relation to driving is a more recent phenomenon and can't compare itself to data that was either spotty or missing altogether.
> 
> You guys have GOT to stop being so lazy and actually read these reports.
> 
> ...


Reminder meemaw @Carbuncle : early bird senior special dinner $8
330pm to 430pm


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

UberLaLa said:


> Gets the DP HaHa of the Day!


Keep cracking yourself up, FredPool.

Find me a study that points to a traffic fatality in which marijuana was the only substance present in a person's system and was verifiably the sole cause of the incident.

Good luck.

Peanuts kill hundreds annually.

More people die in traffic accidents BY FAR from eating while driving, working dials on the control panel, getting their foot stuck, looking at billboards, hooting at chicks, and damn near everything else.

Cell phone use while driving is killing tens of thousands annually in the US alone.

But let's demonize pot because MAYBE it's killed someone on the road.

You're usually pretty on point on this forum. Not this time.



beebob said:


> Reminder meemaw @Carbuncle : early bird senior special dinner $8
> 330pm to 430pm


Everyone at that table cracks better jokes than you.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

Carbuncle said:


> Keep cracking yourself up, FredPool.
> 
> Find me a study that points to a traffic fatality in which marijuana was the only substance present in a person's system and was verifiably the sole cause of the incident.
> 
> ...


*The only Crack is in ur Pipe*


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

beebob said:


> *The only Crack is in ur Pipe*


Those are the jokes my friends told in high school.

In the 80's.


----------



## beebob (Apr 9, 2019)

The guide to @Carbuncle do u have a @Carbuncle in your life? Help is on the way ??????

https://www.griswoldhomecare.com/blog/dealing-with-elderly-anger/


Carbuncle said:


> Those are the jokes my friends told in high school.
> 
> In the 80's.


More like 1880s


----------



## Carbuncle (Mar 29, 2019)

Fozzie said:


> If you're not 100% coherent, you should be barred from driving "professionally," especially if you have passengers in your vehicle.
> 
> The question isn't whether or not you're driving slower, the question is whether or not you're driving IMPAIRED. Slow may work in some situations, but driving slow on the interstate when others are doing 70/80 makes you a danger, regardless of how careful you may believe you are.
> 
> Everyone here knows that drugs, alcohol, even lack of sleep, makes people less safe drivers. That's the issue here.


I'm not advocating for people driving under the influence of anything but if you're allowed to drink alcohol in your spare time you should definitely be allowed to smoke pot in your spare time.

Alcohol is one of the top five most destructive substances in use. It does more harm to the brain than nearly everything else, including heroin.


----------



## Tnasty (Mar 23, 2016)

I think it comes down to if they were ever good drivers to begin with.


----------

