G
greenmatter
colorado was trying to pass a law that made it so you got a DUI if you were over 5 nano not to long ago. none of the assholes who sponsored the bill could give any reasons for the number 5 being used, but they were all about passing the law. the only thing that stopped them was one of the reporters from Westword sitting on camera for about 20 hours (so we could all be sure he was not smoking) and then take a blood and or piss test (not sure which) ....... i don't recall what his numbers were, but he was WAY over the 5 nano after not smoking for an extended period of time.
i have no problems whatsoever being told i am not allowed to drive while i am high, but i do have an issue or 3 with getting a DUI when i am not driving stoned. they need to find a way to tell IF i am stoned NOW before they start passing laws against smoking and driving.
i have no idea what my levels are, but i would be willing to bet that i could stop smoking today and still be over the "magic 5" for several days.
I AM NOT SUPPORTING DRIVING AND SMOKING ........ but i say again, if texting and driving cause as many accidents as smoking and driving, why not give them a DUI too?
i have no problems whatsoever being told i am not allowed to drive while i am high, but i do have an issue or 3 with getting a DUI when i am not driving stoned. they need to find a way to tell IF i am stoned NOW before they start passing laws against smoking and driving.
i have no idea what my levels are, but i would be willing to bet that i could stop smoking today and still be over the "magic 5" for several days.
I AM NOT SUPPORTING DRIVING AND SMOKING ........ but i say again, if texting and driving cause as many accidents as smoking and driving, why not give them a DUI too?