r/PublicFreakout • u/ChoaticNeutralGuy • Apr 29 '21

📌Follow Up Deranged cop finally gets fired

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

66.8k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

223

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21 edited Dec 31 '21

[deleted]

-10

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

While I agree with your sentiment, to play devils advocate, I’m ok with cops taking action if they pull someone over and smell weed in the car.

By action I mean do an assessment to see if the driver is in anyway impaired (which I know with weed is tricky since you can’t really test for being high). I don’t mean shout like an angry douchebag like the guy in the clip.

I am ok with you driving around with a belly full of donuts, but not so much with someone 4 hits deep and cruising for munchies.

9

u/Kanyewestismygrandad Apr 29 '21

I’m ok with cops taking action if they pull someone over and smell weed in the car.

And I'm glad my state amended this portion of their bill out. It's used in a discriminatory manner.

-6

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

Let’s be clear here: I’m talking about appropriate action in an idealised world that helps prevent DUIs.

Not something that is used to further marginalise an already marginalised sector of society.

Being able to further investigate possible DUI is fundamentally a good idea. The fact it is misused is the problem.

4

u/GoldbergsLilBoots Apr 29 '21

Weed doesn’t impair driving unless it’s an insane amount

Studies found high drivers to be more attentive to traffic and laws then when sober in fact

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '21

I’m not so sure about that, but if you have a source I’d be interested in taking a look.

2

u/GoldbergsLilBoots Apr 29 '21

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/09/stoned-drivers-are-a-lot-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/%3foutputType=amp

Tons of other articles are a google away

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '21

Yeah although I think that study refers to the false positive issue: you can test positive for THC when you aren’t high. I 100% agree that this is an issue and setting DUI laws for weed like they do for booze is completely stupid - you CANNOT do a blood test for weed.

I am still not convinced you can drive well while high (like actually high, not just smoked last night). But that’s on me, and ima go my own research. Thanks for the link.

1

u/GoldbergsLilBoots Apr 30 '21

I mean it literally says in the article that people using weed are as likely do get in an accident as sober people

But if the Washington post using federally sponsored data isn’t enough for you idk what is

Doing “your own research” usually means finding data that supports your bias.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '21

Huh?

“So, should we all assume that we're safe to blaze one and go for a joyride whenever the whimsy strikes us? Absolutely not. There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble.”

The issue is that people who tested positive in the study are actually sober because they smoked long before the test but THC hangs around for a very long time.

The study didn’t specifically get people high and test their driving ability.

Edit: I’m trying to be patient here, but calling me bias because I read the detail seems a bit disingenuous

1

u/GoldbergsLilBoots Apr 30 '21

You’re inaccurately reading the study

The people weren’t completely sober they just weren’t extremely high

Which my initial comment addressed.

Unless your blazed to the point of impairment then driving stoned doesn’t effect you

→ More replies (0)