Stumble This | You should also watch “Four minutes of gameplay from GTA IV” |
Bloody Hell, you could get hi just sitting in this guys car!
LMAO at comedy law intervention.
LMAO at comedy law intervention.
smoke,smoking,car,vehicle,cop,the,obvious,smell,comedy It's Possible This Guy Was Smoking A Bit Of Marijuana...
tags:
Comments 
also, a bit hypocritically, i'm not down with the crack/coke.
"WOOHHOO!!!! a CRIME! i can't WAIT to pay more taxes to take THIS guy off the streets! Now i can let my daughter play outside the house again! Somebody call the prison and tell them to make another bed and start cooking! WOOHOOO!"
What you thought everyone in America is treated the same under the law? Get real! That is just the obvious case... Just think if a rich guy gets a speeding ticket worth $200 do you think is going to affect him the same that someone working in a minimal wage job? Or the lawyers that corporations can afford you think you can undo them as easily as they can undo you? Welcome to the lie that is America.
However, when the activity involves operating heavy machinery, I'd rather people not be overly high. A joint isn't a huge deal (like having a beer or two), but it is very possible to become too high to drive safely. Sure, you'll probably be driving at a slower speed than normal, but you also won't react as quickly so sudden situations (things running out in front of you, very busy intersections, etc).
I'd like to see a field sobriety test for marijuana. People shouldn't get arrested for possession (which I don't think should be illegal), but when you are operating dangerous heavy metal objects near other people then there should be a reasonable level of sobriety. I've been so high I could barely move before, and I know people who wouldn't hesitate to drive in that state.
I aced my first semester of calculus lit off my ass. The only drawback was, if I studied high, I had to take the test high. Could get very expensive. I'm sure physics would be the same.
I aced my first semester of calculus lit off my ass. The only drawback was, if I studied high, I had to take the test high.
Yea, one of the fun things I learned in psychology is that people do better on tests if they are in the same state of mind during the test as when they studied for the test.
Also, it's proven that weed oftentimes leads to harder drugs down the road.
This guy should do life in prison for repeat offending of sales/trafficking.
How much time should McCain do for napalming the shit out of innocent Vietnamese villagers, and bilking the taxpayers of this country out of $125 billion dollars (keating five)?
End the ridiculous drug war, and guys like him wouldn't be selling anything.
>> ^BillOreilly:This guy should do life in prison for repeat offending of sales/trafficking.
How much time should McCain do for napalming the shit out of innocent Vietnamese villagers, and bilking the taxpayers of this country out of $125 billion dollars (keating five)?
End the ridiculous drug war, and guys like him wouldn't be selling anything.
Ya, McCain was making the decisions over in Vietnam. Sounds true to me.
Excellent idea about ending the drug war-- I don't think we have enough crime in this country as it is, let's double the crackheads and methheads, it'll make for more entertaining episodes of "COPS".
TRILL.
Also, it's proven that weed oftentimes leads to harder drugs down the road.
Not true. And if it did, so what? All or nearly all drugs should be legal. Let the junkies kill themselves.
This guy should do life in prison for repeat offending of sales/trafficking.
Drug Prohibition has been a massive failure, a waste of time and money and a greater threat to our rights than the drugs themselves. While these two crewcuts are dealing with Rastaman, rapists and burglars roam free. Enough is enough.
Hmm, no fever.
Has QM's account been hacked?
Um...I agree with quantumushroom?
BillO and QM fighting? HELL HATH FROZEN OVER!
Seriously though, I also agree with QM here... Mostly. There are certain hard substances that probably shouldn't be legal in my opinion, and even softer drugs ought to be restricted due to the possibility of causing harm to others. Take legalizing weed as an example. I would still support arrests for people driving under the influence of weed, just as you'd get arrested for driving under the influence of too much alcohol.
I'd make driving on weed mandatory. srsly, a lot less people would die on the roads cause of speeding and reckless behaviour
yes and using a cross walk or jay walking would be suicide.
>> And yet George Bush is still a free man.
What you thought everyone in America is treated the same under the law? Get real! That is just the obvious case... Just think if a rich guy gets a speeding ticket worth $200 do you think is going to affect him the same that someone working in a minimal wage job? Or the lawyers that corporations can afford you think you can undo them as easily as they can undo you? Welcome to the lie that is America.
Umm yeah, rich or poor big deal. The rich guy (who 9 times out of 10 earned his money) will continue to speed and get tickets and laugh them off until they revoke his license. The poor guy cant pay a 200 dollar ticket? yeah that sucks balls. Maybe he should have thought of that when he decided to speed. So yeah, to answer your question, everyone gets treated the same under the law (politicians aside)
People around my rough area in england, usually young lads, get very drunk and go around looking for fights. They'll probably stab someone or punch someone or vandalise someone's expensive property, the victim didn't deserve it and most of them will get away scot free, occasionally they'll get caught by sheer fluke and get a slap on the wrist.
People smoking weed will usually chill the hell out, laugh their heads off at something moderately funny, eat a pizza and go to bed.
Legalise it.
Excellent idea about ending the drug war-- I don't think we have enough crime in this country as it is, let's double the crackheads and methheads, it'll make for more entertaining episodes of "COPS".
Wow, thanks for admitting you know absolutely nothing about the "war on drugs", or the prohibition movement in the US, nor do you understand the Nuremberg Military Tribunals.
I'll explain it very slowly for you. If you're a military officer and your commander gives you orders to break laws, you don't have to do it. Napalming the shit out of innocent kids was breaking the law (and every conceivable notion of morality). McSame chose to do it, and probably did it with a smile on his face. Now he condones torture.
I'm glad you've finally admitted you know so little about the issues you comment about here. It gives us all a fresh new perspective.
I just upvoted QM's comment.
>> :
McSame chose to do it, and probably did it with a smile on his face. Now he condones torture.
I don't even know how to reply to this. Sickening.
What's so wrong with his comment, anyway? John McCain was shot down while on a bombing raid. Do you really think that those raids were somehow targeting only the North Vietnamese with smart bombs? As if no civilians were massacred?
You remember the napalm scene from Apocalypse Now? That could have been McCain.
>> ^BillOreilly:
I don't even know how to reply to this. Sickening.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
And yet George Bush is still a free man.
there was a totally unscientific but funny test done on top gear where a guy's driving was measured before and after, and it was the same. can't be bothered to search for it though, too stoned.
Yeah I remember that on Fifth Gear. They had some graphic designer and put him through the paces both before and after a nice spliff. He did better after!!!
Truly refreshing, aside from the whole being a hardcore drug dealer.
So let's run through this once again:
• Me talking about John McCain = Sickening.
• John McCain napalming the shit out of innocent villagers = Heroic.
Nice logic ya got there BillO.
To the youngling who asked why he was pulled over - he made a right hand turn from the center lane. Sounds safe to me, right? I mean, I generally have multi-lane lapses in judgment when making turns.
But it's not a narcotic, huh. So ya, I'm sure drinking some caffeine could also make me turn right from the center lane. Wait, no. And it never leads to harder drugs either, so all the crack in his car must have just jumped in there. So you can cry the burglars roam free while this happened, but next time when Bob Marley kills a family of four with his driving incompetence, we'll see who is the greater evil.
Driving slower does not make you a better driver, old people drive slow that doesn't make them better drivers, some drunk people drive slow, does that make them better drivers? They drive slower in an attempt to compensate for their inability to handle the vehicle at higher speeds. Which means their reaction time is slower. And even assuming they obey all the traffic laws their decreased reaction time still puts them at risk. Being a good driver not only means obeying traffic laws, but also being alert and reactive enough to avoid accidents when other people aren't being responsible drivers, or when shit suddenly happens like a kid or dog suddenly running into the middle of the road. I can't count the number of times where alertness and quick reaction on my part has avoided an accident because of someone else's stupidity.
So I guess to sum things up, defend responsible marijuana use, but don't weaken your position's credibility with a knee jerk, never-admit-someone-smoking-pot-could-be-doing-something-wrong, defense.
Arguing he'll get an unfair sentence, compared to those who drink and drive, is also a fair point to make. But suggesting being high as fuck doesn't impair your ability to drive normally, not so convincing.
To the youngling who asked why he was pulled over - he made a right hand turn from the center lane. Sounds safe to me, right? I mean, I generally have multi-lane lapses in judgment when making turns.
Do you even fully read comments before insulting people? Yes, I asked why he was pulled over because it wasn't included in the video. This was right after I stated that driving while excessively high is dangerous. All I said was that weed shouldn't be illegal (like alcohol), even though I also said I would support a field sobriety test for marijuana.
So please, if you're going to insult someone, at least try to understand what they typed in the first place.
But it's not a narcotic, huh. So ya, I'm sure drinking some caffeine could also make me turn right from the center lane. Wait, no. And it never leads to harder drugs either, so all the crack in his car must have just jumped in there. So you can cry the burglars roam free while this happened, but next time when Bob Marley kills a family of four with his driving incompetence, we'll see who is the greater evil.
First of all, sober people do stupid shit while driving. You have zero evidence that his fuckup was because he was stoned. He may very well be %100 careless stoned or not. Don't assume.
Second, "burglars" don't commit crimes only after smoking crack. I'm sure there's just as many straight-edge criminals as there are crack/cocaine abusing CEO's.
The only way for crime&drugs to be relative is when you shove illegality in there. The prohibition created a whole slew of new crimes which was erased when it was repealed. Repeal other drug laws, sell pot at stores, and guys like this are out of work.
"hmmm? Oh, no, just my humidifier in the backseat... little flu I'm working off right now"
Also, it's proven that weed oftentimes leads to harder drugs down the road.
Uh, no. That's alcohol. Find me ONE person, who didn't use alcohol first, but used pot, and then later became a methhead or crack addict. Just one.
Try again, BO.
"stress is the number 1 killer... and the number 1 stress reliever, is cannabis."
I think everyone on here could use a lil puff puff pass to get over this whole "im gonna prove to you im right with large posts and vague examples supporting my claim" thing. Everyone, breath deep... and hold.. exhale. Its all going to be okay. Nobodies gonna change minds over a sift post so lets all move along and watch a lol cats video or something.
How much time should McCain do for napalming the shit out of innocent Vietnamese villagers, and bilking the taxpayers of this country out of $125 billion dollars (keating five)?
End the ridiculous drug war, and guys like him wouldn't be selling anything.
On Nuremberg/Vietnam
Stanley Milgram did an experiment( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ) that concluded that when ordered by a superior, 65 percent of NORMAL people, not military robots, would do intentional wrong (in the form of shocking a person who was supposedly unconscious) when ordered by superiors.
I'm not saying that this justifies the amount of collateral damage, but John McCain cannot be held accountable for orders given him.
do you get a harsher sentence if you:
steal, murder, rape, commit assault, fraud, or perjury while you are high? how about if you are drunk?
why does it matter if you cause an accident while high/drunk/stupid/a bad driver/talking on a cell phone/eating a bagel/shaving/putting on make-up/having sex while driving? why not just punish it for what it is: causing an accident.
It doesn't matter that you happen to hurt someone or don't, it matters that you're endangering lives.
Here is at least one example which proves you are incorrect:
A man has been drinking every day for 20 years, his brain has become highly resistant to the effects of alcohol. This man, at a BAC of 0.08% (legally intoxicated) can pass all sobriety tests and has an identical coordination levels and response times to a sober person. At a BAC of 0.08% he can pass all driving tests you throw at him.
Under your viewpoint, this man is "endangering lives" just because his BAC is 0.08%. How can you justify this?
Given that sober people are often convicted of reckless driving, clearly it has been proven that there are other ways aside from BAC to detect if someone is "endangering lives". So why add this ineffective and inconsistent test, when one that works already exists?
Under my viewpoint, only people who are actually "endangering lives" are convicted of reckless driving. Can you provide an example where my viewpoint breaks down?
If a person can pass every sobriety test then clearly they're not intoxicated. Intoxication requires a diminished capacity; if you're not in as full control as possible of yourself and your vehicle then you are endangering lives, and you don't need to get caught driving on the sidewalk to prove that.
If someone was pulled over, assuming it wasn't completely random, they must have been indicating in some way that their driving was reckless. Sure, maybe then you could use the smell of alcohol/drugs to warrant issuing a "coordination test" but currently, it doesn't matter if you pass the "sobriety test" or not you can still be charged with a DUI.
What should be acknowledged as the difference between reck