- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
I could see a situation where the coach may not have trusted that he was going to make it to next week due to so many failed tests.So?
I don't get how that is relevant to this conversation.
I could see a situation where the coach may not have trusted that he was going to make it to next week due to so many failed tests.So?
I don't get how that is relevant to this conversation.
Because last year a failed test couldn't lead to a suspension?I could see a situation where the coach may not have trusted that he was going to make it to next week due to so many failed tests.
I se your point. All I'm saying is that some old school dudes feel that it is detrimental to trust someone who has been in a lot of trouble too quickly. Or ever.Because last year a failed test couldn't lead to a suspension?
It all just comes down to trusting some stoner.I se your point. All I'm saying is that some old school dudes feel that it is detrimental to trust someone who has been in a lot of trouble too quickly. Or ever.
Good question.I've long been in the faction that weed should be legal but I'm curious what yall think about driving while high? Should it be the same, less, or more than a dwi?
I think it should be the same. You would be driving under the influence. Doesn't matter if it's a drug or alcohol. The point is, your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle would be impaired.I've long been in the faction that weed should be legal but I'm curious what yall think about driving while high? Should it be the same, less, or more than a dwi?
Thing is, they wouldn't. Way too complicated.I think it should be the same. You would be driving under the influence. Doesn't matter if it's a drug or alcohol. The point is, your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle would be impaired.
But how would they be able to immediately test for it like they do with alcohol? They can do a road side sobriety test, sure. But they'd still need a blood level for legal purposes. Could testing breath or blood give them that immediate result? I honestly have no idea.
It should 100% be legal but that is a different subject.It all just comes down to trusting some stoner.
I can see the rationale, mainly because it has been in place for so long.
Someone that smokes pot = Unreliable head case.
I have seen both sides of the spectrum.
This is just going to be something that society has to deal with. Either you accept, at least try to understand or just flat out reject it.
Sadly, even fucking pot is still a divisive issue.
And you know, and I know, that marijuana laws is, are and always have been a joke.
I would hope that anyone who has smoked a fucking joint would not stand in the way of making it legal.
But I think they do.
Further, it’s not that he smoked pot. He got suspended many times, was given many chances and still failed over 100 tests. ONE HUNDRED. Explain to me how he’s the victim here. Do you give employees 100 chances to follow the rules?It all just comes down to trusting some stoner.
I can see the rationale, mainly because it has been in place for so long.
Someone that smokes pot = Unreliable head case.
I have seen both sides of the spectrum.
This is just going to be something that society has to deal with. Either you accept, at least try to understand or just flat out reject it.
Sadly, even fucking pot is still a divisive issue.
And you know, and I know, that marijuana laws is, are and always have been a joke.
I would hope that anyone who has smoked a fucking joint would not stand in the way of making it legal.
But I think they do.
I think it should be the same. You would be driving under the influence. Doesn't matter if it's a drug or alcohol. The point is, your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle would be impaired.
But how would they be able to immediately test for it like they do with alcohol? They can do a road side sobriety test, sure. But they'd still need a blood level for legal purposes. Could testing breath or blood give them that immediate result? I honestly have no idea.
They have been doing that for a long time. Of course officers suck at it. I've represented a few DWI (drug intoxication) and it never really sticks when it's weed. It's hard to prove and honestly it's very hard to judge.Funny thing, I had this conversation earlier. My new employee was a cop and is married to a retired cop. I told her it should be legal and she agreed as long as there is Impairment testing.
It should be treated the same, IMO.I've long been in the faction that weed should be legal but I'm curious what yall think about driving while high? Should it be the same, less, or more than a dwi?
This. And I am in the “it should be legal even though I don’t and probably wouldn’t do it” crowd. My son was involved in a car accident a couple of weeks ago. No one seriously hurt. Person that caused the accident hit and run. Police said the cehicle smelled of marijuana from 20 feet away. Assuming that was the issue isn’t too much of a stretch. Just because someone may be more careful driving while smoking, their actions and decisions are still impaired.It should be treated the same, IMO.
The difficult part is much like Alcohol where do you cut it off? Sober people would fail many sobriety tests. They either suck at following directions, don't have great balance, or an officer will claim something is a clue or indicator that really isn't. So with alcohol we do a BAC, if you're above a .08 you're screwed and if you're below you're not. Now a first time drinker could easily be impaired below a .08 and an experience drinker might not be impaired above a .08 but that's why we have drawn this bright line. People know the rules and can judge by the amount they have drank approximately where they should fall.This. And I am in the “it should be legal even though I don’t and probably wouldn’t do it” crowd. My son was involved in a car accident a couple of weeks ago. No one seriously hurt. Person that caused the accident hit and run. Police said the cehicle smelled of marijuana from 20 feet away. Assuming that was the issue isn’t too much of a stretch. Just because someone may be more careful driving while smoking, their actions and decisions are still impaired.
Drunk folk have poor reaction time, where stoners drive at least 10 mph or more under the speed limit .Good question.
Driving high is nothing like driving drunk.
But both do classify as impaired.
I think drunk drivers are more aggressive, reckless and unpredictable.
Stoned drivers are more concerned about getting their fast food home before it gets its feelings hurt.
They might be driving slower, but their reaction times are still impaired. Not to mention their attention to the road and their surroundings.Drunk folk have poor reaction time, where stoners drive at least 10 mph or more under the speed limit .
That’s my thing. Nolan is gone so there really is no reason to bring it up in the media. He should have just gone to McCarthy privately and let that be the end of it.Yeah no reason to really say anything now. I guess everyone is human though and I can't blame him for being frustrated last year. Hell we were all frustrated. Good news is the new coaches appear poised and ready to play him so he just needs to be ready to go have a career year. It's his first chance at a complete and total season.
Hi, and welcome to the board!It's basically Leon Lett all over again.
He's so good when he plays that you just keep letting him come back after all the failed tests.