Drug War

California Braces for an Unstoppable Onslaught of Stoned Drivers and Employees

|

Opponents of Proposition 19, California's marijuana legalization initiative, are falsely claiming it would allow people to drive while stoned. In a June Sacramento Bee op-ed piece, Bishop Ron Allen of the Greater Solomon Temple Community Church warned:

If this proposed initiative passes, California drivers will be able to operate a car while under the influence of marijuana.

The initiative states smoking marijuana while driving is impermissible, but it would be perfectly legal to smoke or ingest marijuana immediately prior to driving.

And because marijuana stays in the body so long, police officers will have virtually no way to prove if someone just ingested marijuana 10 minutes ago or 10 hours ago. Unlike with alcohol, there is no current test to show the level of marijuana intoxication. All authorities can currently do is test for the presence of marijuana. If this initiative passes, it is perfectly fine to have marijuana in your system at any time—even while driving a school bus, taxi or light-rail train.

This week a Pasadena Star-News editorial picked up the same theme:

The ballot sponsors "forgot" to prescribe an action level for driving under the influence. This poorly written law would release chaos on the CHP and other law enforcement agencies. How can they test a driver when there's no standard?

In fact, Prop. 19 does nothing to change California's law against driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Like most states, California defines DUID as operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug other than alcohol. You are deemed to be DUID if "your physical or mental abilities are impaired to such a degree that you no longer have the ability to drive with the caution characteristic of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances." Unlike with alcohol, there is no "per se" rule that says you are presumed to be impaired if a test shows that the concentration of the drug in your blood exceeds a predetermined threshold. To make its case, the prosecution has to present evidence of impairment along with evidence of drug consumption. We can argue about whether this is a good standard; it seems pretty reasonable to me, although it might make sense to set drug-specific blood thresholds based on evidence tying them to impaired driving ability. Either way, this is the standard that the California legislature picked for all drugs other than alcohol, whether legal or illegal. The same complaints that Bishop Allen and the Pasadena Star-News (along with other newspapers) raise in opposition to legalizing marijuana suggest that all potentially driver-impairing drugs, ranging from over-the-counter antihistamines to oxycodone, should be banned to prevent traffic accidents.

Fifteen states have adopted a "zero tolerance" per se standard for marijuana and other illegal drugs. Under that standard, which the Obama administration wants other states to copy, a driver is presumed to be impaired if any amount of a prohibited substance can be found in his body. Allen inadvertently makes the case against this approach when he notes that traces of marijuana can be found in a pot smoker's body long after the drug's effects have worn off. This fact, combined with the scientifically unjustified distinction between legal and illegal substances, shows that "zero tolerance" DUID laws are a way of punishing drug users (through license suspension, fines, and jail time) in the guise of public safety.

Similar issues are raised by workplace drug testing. Here are the relevant provisions of Prop. 19:

This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of…any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety….

No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act…Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

The Los Angeles Daily News complains that Prop. 19 "precludes workplace drug testing by saying that employers can address only 'consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee.' And what does impairment really mean, anyhow?" While businesses should be free to adopt whatever drug policies they deem appropriate, any sensible, cost-conscious employer, unconstrained by the government's arbitrary pharmacological distinctions, surely would ask what impairment means and what drug testing accomplishes. If, as in the case of marijuana, a positive urinalysis result is not a reliable indicator of on-the-job use or impairment, what exactly is the point, other than penalizing pot smokers qua pot smokers? Assuming that Prop. 19 imposes a requirement that drug testing have some relationship to safety or job performance (and I'm not sure it does), it would be objectionable on libertarian grounds, but it would hardly translate into "a clear right to smoke on the job," as the Daily News claims. A rule against smoking pot in the workplace, like a rule against drinking in the workplace, can easily be justified by reasonable job-related concerns.

NEXT: Waiting for the Man

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Stoned, texting, government drivers.

    1. It’s Pot Wednesday at H&R!
      [cough]
      “Eeeer!”

    2. Every day in America, there are millions of people driving while high on weed.

  2. Most people that will smoke pot are doing so already.

    Is the opposition scare game. Just like states giving CCW permits will turn them into the wild west.

    1. Outstanding point. Every attempt to portray gun-carriers as seething cauldrons of homicidal rage due to CCW laws has been shown to be absolutely untrue.

      I read some criticism of Prop 19 earlier this week from a California police chief. His assumption was that legalization would lead to cheaper pot, which would cause poor people to want to buy pot INSTEAD of food. So, naturally, they would have to resort to crime to continue to buy pot. However, I think that it’s probable that the legalization of marijuana will result mainly in increased tax revenue and increased Doritos consumption.

    2. Blood in the streets!

  3. Unlike with alcohol, there is no current test to show the level of marijuana intoxication.

    Gee I wonder why. I’m sure the tech is out there; if it became commercially available it would blow a major bitching point right out of the water.

    The patent for it was probably bought out by Big PharmaCopAlcohol and mothballed.

  4. Semi-threadjack

    I’m looking to get out of evil fucked up California. I’m thinking of moving to Omaha, NE. Can anyone tell me how Omaha is as far as business restrictions and nanny laws? Is there a site that ranks these things by state or city?
    I appreciate any help, Thanks.

    1. Omaha, NE is still within the US and thus within the reach of the FOOs(*). Move to Costa Rica and renounce your citizenship.

      (*)FOO = Friend of Obama.

      1. I pitty da FOO!

    2. I cannot recommend living where cornhuskers dominate, but Iowa is not a bad place to put down roots.

      1. Thanks, we were considering Des Moines too. What makes Iowa better than Nebraska?

        1. It’s not Nebraska 😉

          Actually, I have nothing negative to say about NE, just about expatriot cornhuskers.

        2. Can’t say too much about Des Moines.

          I live in the eastern part of the state. I have a new 4,000 sq ft house (including finished basement and garage) on 1 1/6th acres valued at $335K. I expect anything close to Des Moines would be 10-20% higher for the equivalent.

          We sufferred no collapse of housing prices and employment has been mostly stable. If you’re an engineer, I can definitely point to you a good opportunity.

          1. I’m a carpenter actually. Yeah Iowa had about 6 or 7 Iowa cities pretty high on the list. How nannyish do they get back there?

            1. moderate — we’re all so fucking moderate here 😉

              They just passed a non-smoking law covering businesses, restaurants, etc a year or so ago.

              The cities can have some nanny-ordinance, but the counties are still the wild-west 😉 Heavily dominated by “farm” culture where people mostly take care of themselves or help the neighbors when they need it. There certainly is an adiction to federal ag subsidies, but that comes with a fair amount of contempt for government busy-bodies.

              The democratic party governer (culver) is about to get dumped by a former 5-term (I think) republican (branstad) that is creaking his way out of retirement (he is leading by 19 points in the last poll).

              There are no seriously big metropolitan areas (no chicago or st louis) that seems to breed deep corruption of local governments.

              I built a new house 5 years ago. Never had a single problem with an inspection.

              As a carpenter, would would want to live near, but not in, one of the bigger cities. Live in the county, have as big a shop as you want. Drive to lots of build sites within 30 to 40 miles easy.

              Stay around, but not in Des Moines. Try the Iowa City / Cedar Rapids corridor. Council Bluffs or Souix City maybe, but I know almost nothing of those areas.

              1. Thanks, I’ll see what I find around Des Moines.

        3. No to Des Moines. Try Newton. Or Cedar Rapids.

          1. Thanks. What are those preferences based on? We’re mostly concerned with money.

          2. Some of this will seem trivial to someone mired in CA, but here goes:

            The Des Moines metro area is by far the most congested for traffic and distances travelled. The lower population density in Iowa allows/requires people to spread out. Des Moines metro, including a dozen or more bedroom communities, probably extends 20 miles or more from city center. {rediculously small comparied to the greater Phoenix area where I used to live, but you’ll find that a 20 mile drive to work in a blizzard is no fun}

            Land/home prices will be significantly higher than the second tier “cities” like Newton or Cedar Rapids.

            You can stay away from the college towns (Iowa City and Ames) unless you actually work for one of the U’s. Some of the highest home prices in Iowa.

            The second tier cities tend to be dominated by one or two major employers, but there will be ample employment opportunities from small to medium size businesses.

            Des Moines and all the second tier cities are surrounded by little towns that used to be mostly self-contained but are now turning into bedroom communities for the larger cities. I live 15 out from the city limits of one of those second tier citties and it is almost all cornfields between here and there, but starting to fill up with developments.

            The quality of the schools has clearly fallen since I was a lad, but Iowa still has some of the best in the nation.

            The single biggest downfall for Iowa is the quadrennial circus that follows Iowas caucuses (that and Tom Harkin, but he will eventually die).

            1. Thanks that helps even more.

    3. If you’re moving to NE, make it Lincoln, not Omaha.

      1. Yeah, I saw that Lincoln ranked 5. What makes it better in your opinion?

  5. In my experience, the only problem with driving while high is that you forget where you’re going.

    1. I waited for a stop sign to turn green once.

      1. Damn, I do that completely sober.

    2. Thank god for voice navigation telling me where to go and when to turn.

  6. the prosecution has to present evidence of impairment along with evidence of drug consumption.

    OMG, you mean pigs would have to WORK at getting a prosecution? They’d have to actually develops evidence? What fuck were all those years of law school for but to prepare a case?
    But prosecutors are some of the more lazy fucks. Yeah we have parasites like that Wolk guy, but I think he has actually gone to trial.
    Prosecutors are fucking lazy. They don’t like to go to trial. And when they do, they love that they have to prove mens rea. They have strict liability on their side. How much more fucking intellectually lazy can you get?

    1. They won’t have to actually work for a conviction while the concept of “testilying” exists.

  7. the prosecution has to present evidence of impairment along with evidence of drug consumption.

    OMG, you mean pigs would have to WORK at getting a prosecution? They’d have to actually develops evidence? What fuck were all those years of law school for but to prepare a case?
    But prosecutors are some of the more lazy fucks. Yeah we have parasites like that Wolk guy, but I think he has actually gone to trial.
    Prosecutors are fucking lazy. They don’t like to go to trial. And when they do, they love that they have to prove mens rea. They have strict liability on their side. How much more fucking intellectually lazy can you get?

    1. DON’t have to prove mens rea. Sorry, I screwed the pooch on that one [but not under the influence of marijuana.]

      1. Why should they have to prove mens rea? It is an outdated concept, if it can be proven you broke a law, you are guilty. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

        1. Unless you’re a cop.

        2. HAVING TO PROVE CRIMINAL INTENT MEANS LESS PEOPLE IN PRISONS NOT THAT SUSAN BENEFITS FROM MORE PEOPLE IN PRISONS ITS JUST THAT THE LAW IS THE LAW.

        3. Susan,

          The reasoning behind this is that if you commit a criminal act, you must intend to commit that act in order for it to be criminal.

          For instance, if someone puts a gun to your daughters head, and says ‘if you dont rob this bank we’ll blow her head off’, the person robbing the bank would commit actus reas (a criminal act) without mens rea (intent to commit said act). It is an essential protection of our liberties.

          However if you intend to commit an act, without knowing the said act is criminal, you still have mens rea (intent) in committing that act, and thus it is still a criminal offense.

  8. I have driven stoned many times, and it was never a problem. Now, driving while on shrooms, you may think that the shadows flashing through the woods are something sinister, and get distracted. But I handled it pretty well.

    1. How many of them did you manage to take out?

      1. ALL OF THEM.

        1. Funny thing is, the shadows left tree shaped dents. Crazy, huh?

    2. Those shadows are often confused with a fairy with boots dancin’ with a dwarf.

    3. I want to say there have been studies that have found driving while stoned much less dangerous than driving while drunk. My experiences have proven this to be true. Being stoned tends to focus the mind. The real problem with drinking and driving is that drinking takes away some people’s judgment. Drunks thing they are invincible. Really drunk drivers really will drive 110 the wrong way up an on ramp. A stoned driver would never do any such thing.

      We hear all of the time about people being killed by drunk drivers. Yet, marijuana is used by millions of people. And I cannot think of a single incidence where someone stoned has killed anyone. I googled it and came up with a single case in Canada from 2008.

      1. Being stoned tended to greatly decrease my sober aggressiveish driving tendencies. Also, since driving stoned usually meant I had a dugout on me, I tended to be very focused on “zero-pretense” driving. Lastly, since driving stoned with a dugout on me often meant I was trying to sneak a one-hitter, I tended to maintain large following distances to avoid being spotted.

        YMMW, although mine went up slightly due to driving slower and reduced acceleration and braking due to all 3 of the above reasons.

        Old patterns have returned, albeit in reduced form compared to 15 years ago, since I quit a few months ago.

        1. YMMV . . . .

    4. Similar thing happened to me while sitting on the couch while on shrooms too.

      Can’t remember if I drove on shrooms, but on lsd it was interesting. Especially in the city at night as long as you don’t hit traffic (which really sucks on lsd).

  9. I would like to ask these idiots who would rather have as your cab driver:

    The stoned guy or the guy with hip problems who takes painkillers?

    The high from marijuana isn’t anywhere near as debilitating or motor-coordination disturbing as prescription pain medication. Yet at any given time there are probably a decent percentage of people on the road under the influence of prescription pain medication.

    I will be shocked if Prop 19 passes considering the amount of error-ridden anti-drug propaganda that the media is flouting.

    1. To be fair, the idiots don’t want people in pain to have painkillers either.

  10. Jesus said to treat other people the way we would want to be treated. I know I wouldn’t want my college kid to go to jail with the sexual predators, or my parents to have their house stolen by the police, if they used a little marijuana.

    Let’s change the world. Let’s get registered and vote.

    Citizens and college students in California can register at
    w w w . sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm .
    (just fill out the form and mail it in).

    And you can request a ballot by mail at
    w w w . sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm .

    In other states, Google your state name and the phrase, voter registration. Print off the form and mail it in (or drive it down to City Hall).

    Five minutes. Register to vote. Change the world. Right now.

    Pass it on

    1. Jesus also said that voting is for chumps.

      1. Render unto Caesar. Jesus would tell you your reward is in the next world not this one. So stop worrying so much.

        1. ya but that shit aint Casear’s. It’s mine.

  11. I guess we could call all these lame arguments “green herrings.”

  12. The whole stoned drivers are going to kill us myth is a real common and cherished one in this country. I can’t tell you the number of people I have talked to about ending prohibition who have said something to the effect of “if we legalize weed, all the stoners will be out on the roads.” Like people breaking the law smoking weed now are not on the roads or everyone who does any kind of drug is a complete suicidal maniac dying to drive while stoned.

    There really is no reasoning with people on this. It is mass insanity.

    1. Like people breaking the law smoking weed now are not on the roads

      An intensive study of couch cushion indents and computer chair wear would likely prove they aren’t.

  13. Clearly, the government whips are lashing furiously on the backs of editorial boards across the state.

    1. The newspaper industry has to tow the lion in order to earn their bailout.

      1. Towing a lion more than ten feet is considered to be a violation of animal cruelty laws.

  14. To make its case, the prosecution has to present evidence of impairment along with evidence of drug consumption. We can argue about whether this is a good standard; it seems pretty reasonable to me, although it might make sense to set drug-specific blood thresholds based on evidence tying them to impaired driving ability. Either way, this is the standard that the California legislature picked for all drugs other than alcohol, whether legal or illegal.

    Before breathalyzers, the cops managed to convince juries that the accused was, in fact, driving under the influence of alcohol.

    Were breathalyzers outlawed as evidence today, cops and DAs would still be able to arrest and convict the most egregious offenders though they would no longer be able to screw over the guy who had three beers and was still driving safely.

    IOW, I don’t see the problem.

    1. They arrested and convicted people for years for DUI long before breathalyzers. Breathalyzers just allowed them to arrest people who were not particularly impaired.

      1. Yep. They’re a labor saving device for the law enforcement system and roll over innocent people as an unintended side affect.

        1. there’s an iron law about this one, I think. No, I’m just paranoid.

        2. DUIs are nothing but a money mill. If someone gets a DUI, they have to hire a lawyer. Then if they are a first time offender with a low BAC, they will plead it out and in return go to “alcohol counseling”. That means they are court ordered to pay the counseling industry. That industry makes millions off of DUIs. And the insurance companies get to collude and raise the hell out of their insurance rates even though the chances of someone found once with a low BAT of having an accident is not significantly higher than anyone else.

          Just follow the money. The breathalyzer might as well just print money.

      2. If you blow 0.08, you are significantly impaired.

        1. If you blow 0.08, you are significantly impaired.

          Maybe you’re significantly impaired at 0.08.
          If so, you would be in an extremely small minority.

  15. The marijuana laws are to protect socity, what if you are diving and some stoned driver starts seeing wierd stuff and crashes into you? By banning it we prevent this.

    1. Lame. Your trolling would be better after a bong hit or two.

    2. What if you are driving and some distracted driver is dialing his cell phone and crashes into you? By banning cell phones to prevent this.

    3. What if you are driving and some horny driver sees an attractive woman and crashes into you? By banning hot chicks we prevent this.

    4. What if you are driving and some allergic driver sneezes and crashes into you? By banning allergies we prevent this.

      1. Duh. You can’t ban allergies. You just need to ban flowers, peanuts, trees, milk, eggs, …

    5. What if you are driving and some westbound driver is blinded by the sun and crashes into you? By banning the sun we prevent this.

    6. It should also be noted that Susan’s handle links to a private corrections company NOT THAT THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO GAIN FROM PROHIBITION IT IS ALL FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

    7. Jesus, you’re not even trying.

      F-

    8. I’ve been stoned many, many times, and have never started to see weird things.

      Troll fail.

      1. Not in Susan’s defense… but I have hallucinated under nothing but marijuana. They weren’t particularly vivid and both times it was while eating marijuana that was properly prepared, never while smoking.

        1. After prop 19 that’s going to be the hard part. All these newbies trying the brownies and getting a bad trip. That of course will turn them off to pot, but there will be horror stories and emergency room visits by people who think they are dying.

    9. What if you’re driving and some other driver starts laughing uncontrollably at your lame trolling and crashes into you?

      By banning you, we prevent this.

    10. Oh wow. CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) – You’re a special breed of garbage. You people are the ones that should be behind bars!!

  16. You think cig smokers are treated badly, just watch what happens to potheads if pot is legal. It won’t be cool anymore since the taboo is gone.

    And yes, plenty of them actually believe it would allow them to smoke pot anywhere anytime.

    1. You pretty much can smoke pot anywhere, anytime.

      But you knew that, didn’t you?

      1. Of course it knew that, it’s Reality.

    2. I look forward to the day when people who smoke because they think it’s “cool” or “taboo” quit and leave more for me.

  17. The real reason that law enforcemnt community is doing the full court press to defeat this initiative is that they fear that pot will be legalized in California and not a damned thing will change.

    We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!

  18. “You are deemed to be DUID if ‘your physical or mental abilities are impaired to such a degree that you no longer have the ability to drive with the caution characteristic of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances.'”

    Considering how badly a lot of people drive when they are not under the influence (hopefully the idiot who pulled out in front of me today without signaling or noting how very close I was wasn’t chemically impaired), I’m not sure this criteria is all it’s fired up to be.

    1. A conviction for DUID requires both proof of impairment and proof that a drug was consumed.

  19. I recently visited the Stanford University archives to research the papers of George H. White who is probably the single person most responsible for making pot out to be a drug that will destroy society. He was a Bureau of Narcotics Agent in the 1920’s. Before that he was an OSS Agent in WWII. Looking at his papers 80+ years after he trotted around the globe busting opium and pot smugglers one thing is obvious. Not a damn thing has changed except for the profitability of smuggling and the cost to society by virtue of the crime bourne by the criminal gangs and cartels that trade in it.

    I believe White and his boss Anslinger’s demonizing pot has done far more damage then the plant itself. It is a very useful natural substance.

    I’m 51 and I’ve been smoking recreationally since I was 13. I’ve driven thousands of miles under the influence and if anything, it makes you more of a defensive driver.

    The fact it is illegal is asinine. I believe it is illegal because certian interests in gov’t gain economically keeping it illegal.

    If that sounds nutty of me to say to some people, it’s not as nutty as some of the things our gov’t has done in the name of protecting us, like George H. White’s stewardship at the CIA hiring prostitutes in NYC and SFO to pick up guys in bars and then take them back to apartments rented by White for sex after the prostitutes laced there drinks with LSD.

    The rational was to see how people react to being laced with LSD and to see if it could be used as a “truth” drug. I find it funny that they couldn’t lace fellow CIA’ers for the research. No, they had to use unsuspecting U.S. citizens, U.S. military enlistees and people in hospitals.

    So, when I hear people say pot is dangerous and do-gooders in gov’t and other places are protecting us from it, I can’t help but laugh and say B.S.

    1. He was a Bureau of Narcotics Agent in the 1920’s. Before that he was an OSS Agent in WWII.

      Something off about this . . . .

      1. He was a Bureau of Narcotics Agent in the 1920’s. Before that he was an OSS Agent in WWII.

        Something off about this . . . .

        * Yes, there is. My bad. GHW was with the BON during roughly the ’20’s & 30’s.

        He made his “bones” during that time as a BON Agent busting a Chinesee heroin racket called the Hop Sing, I think the name was.

        Then he went in to the OSS in WWII.

    2. “He was a Bureau of Narcotics Agent in the 1920’s. Before that he was an OSS Agent in WWII. ”

      Whatever other things he may have accomplished, time travel is the most significant.

  20. I don’t care if someone is under the influence when they are driving as long as their driving is safe! That should be the only thing that the police should be concerned with. I have driven many times under the influence of one thing or another – but, I have the maturity to know when I’m not safe enough to drive and don’t. I think that tests that show whether or not you have a particular substance in you at some particular level should be done away with. The only thing that should matter is your level of impairedness which would be better judged with mental and physical agility tests.

    Also, I can say with absolute certainty that I, for one, am a much safer driver under the influence of marijuana as compared with alcohol! Marijuana tends to make me overly-cautious whereas alcohol tends to make me feel overly-aggressive…

  21. And this is where Harsanyi’s piece begins to make sense.

    Look how quickly this turned into ‘I can say with absolute certainty that I, for one, am a much safer driver under the influence of marijuana as compared with alcohol!’ or ‘I’ve driven thousands of miles under the influence and if anything, it makes you more of a defensive driver.’–and that’s just from the last two posts.

    You’re extolling the ‘virtues’ of DWI. That’s not a good way to make the case for legalisation(and I really want pot legalised, because that’ll pave the way for the legalisation of the good drugs).

    You can get too high to drive, just like you can get too drunk to drive.

    Be for legalisation. Be against driving while impaired(by anything).

  22. “You’re extolling the ‘virtues’ of DWI.”

    Epic. Fail.

    They are pointing out the absurdity of DUI laws.

    1. How? By saying that they’ve driven while high? By saying that you become a more defensive(safer?) driver while high?

      There are things wrong with how one is judged to be impaired–but saying that you’re a safer driver while high doesn’t put that across.

      What was that you said? Oh, yeah-

      Epic.
      Fail.

  23. Not only do will we have to put up with stoned burned-out workers but we face the prospect of being murdered as well:
    http://opposeprop19.com

    Of course the rest of the country will be put to work producing potato chips, nacho cheeze doddles and m&m’s for California’s non-functioning workforce.

    Let’s just hope they don’t make booze legal. That would juct about finish California off.

    1. Oh Charles! You are, of course, being completely rediculous! Marijuana doesn’t make anyone dangerous. Mostly, it makes them very mellow and peaceful. It is just terribly wrong to lock anyone up just for choosing a safe (compared to just about everything else out there) recreational drug.
      Noone is condoning driving while when they are in not sober enough to do so. Opposing Prop 19 is not going to make anyone safer. It will make marijuana users a lot less safer however…

    2. Charles, I just took a look at opposeprop19.com for the first time. Now I think I understand where your comments are coming from! That website is a total farce! Kind of funny actually! I just hope everyone has enough intelligence, if they check it out, to realize that…

    3. Rape too. Negroes will rape our women while they are out of their minds on marihuana if this passes.

  24. The problem with driving while stoned (at night) is that every f-ing car that gets behind you is a tailgater.

  25. To: Bishop Ron Allen of the Greater Solomon Temple Community Church. Bishop – please take the time to get your facts correct and do some real research before making stupid statements. Saying what you did about marijuana and driving is like us saying that by nature all Bishops molest children! Using your logic – that would be ok.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.