Quote History Quoted:
The problem is people "get both." So when you imply you've never investigated a fatal collision involving marijuana impairement I wonder if you are just inexperianced or worse.
View Quote
Oh they do, do they?
I've never nailed anyone for being both drunk *AND* high in a fatality behind the wheel. Hell, I've never actually seen that in practice. In my experience, it's either one or the other and I've never actually seen with my own eyes a fatality that MJ was the specific cause of the accident. If you've worked one, by all means, post what you saw, and what the medical people told you, and case outcome because I'd love to hear it.
Your use of that logicbomb as a reason to keep the status quo is laughable at best. By that same logic, you shouldn't have a gun because people drink and shoot all the time and tend to do stupid shit, so it's the "Get Both" argument.
Now if you want to make the argument that weed is what caused an accident, you're going to have to do better than that. Upwards of twenty days after someone smoked MJ they can get nailed DUI if they got into an accident and their blood test (And there *WILL* be a blood test) comes back positive. Did the residual THC in their bloodstream cause the accident or just that they made a mistake? As it stands at the moment they're studying how much THC in the blood will be the legal limit, but at this time there's no set standard aside from zero tolerance.
Furthermore, even if they were actually stoned during the operation of the motor vehicle, they're still driving better than someone that's drunk.
And lastly, the numbers simply don't back up anything you're insinuating. Last time I checked there are just about as many potheads as there are drinkers, yet the proportion of DUI fatalities attributed directly to alcohol is a thousand times of that to accidents attributable to MJ.