ADVERTISEMENT

Weed law and tailgating

If this was true when I was growing up I would have:

- Never huffed gas out of boredom
- Been roughed up by cops 2 fewer times than I have been
- Not have a general resentment toward cops
- Probably would have been less focused on drinking as a form of rebellion

Gotta say, that comment doesn't reflect well on ya.
 
What about the 14-15 year olds drinking and toking heavily at the tailgate? They have a Get out of Jail Free Card.

But they don’t need to come to the RU game.

They can do it in their own neighborhood with the same protection. Maybe in your front yard.

There are other things they could be charged with in those examples.
 
You are telling me it’s illegal with no actual consequences and that’s not a good thing? I never had a problem with any 17- 22 year old drinking at a tailgate. It’s been done by most college age kids. Some are legal age ... many not. What I did not like were the fights, the sloppy falling all over, puking all over the campus but as you said it’s illegal with no overt consequences .

You said drinking and driving. There are no changes there.

Underage drinking still has consequences, they only make more sense now.
 
You said drinking and driving. There are no changes there.

Underage drinking still has consequences, they only make more sense now.
They are going to be given a “ticket” but are police now prevented from notifying the guardians?
 
  • Like
Reactions: goru1869
Get a vape pen or some edibles, KB.
We've been doing the edibles thing for years. Some of my buds have been to Colorado more than a few times.
I'm just an old school kind of guy who always prefers to roll my own.
 
There will be a ton of underage college students drinking with 21+ college students.

Also curious, if it is on public grounds, why would a parent be allowed to give alcohol to their minor children?

Parent has a party in a park for their birthday. Can the 20 year old drink a beer there?

I do believe NJ has different rules for being in the supervision in a parent.
 
What about the 14-15 year olds drinking and toking heavily at the tailgate? They have a Get out of Jail Free Card.

But they don’t need to come to the RU game.

They can do it in their own neighborhood with the same protection. Maybe in your front yard.

Uh, ok? Seems like that's a family problem not a problem my tax dollars need to be involved with.
 
We've been doing the edibles thing for years. Some of my buds have been to Colorado more than a few times.
I'm just an old school kind of guy who always prefers to roll my own.

Always thought that you were a bong hits for Jesus type of fan. 😀
 
What can I say. When I was a teenager there was a brief period where a bunch of guys, all very respectable, tried huffing gas in the garage. And if we could have shared some beers or weed, we wouldn't have bothered. And I was caught with weed a couple of times and the local constabulary took the opportunity to toss me around some while arresting. Not my fault. And I don't love cops as a result. It is what it is.
 
Oh...Great....so now we can start smoking at Rutgers tailgates. 😎
Hell yeah! I can't wait to break out the bong w/the preschoolers in our tailgate (whose mom is a pharmacist and dad is ChemE - so you know where this gateway drug is gonna lead - woo hoo!).

Between that and @RU848789's hypnotic tailgate mixes, none of us will ever make it inside the stadium. And if RU#s decides to head into the game, I'm switching the mix to all house music and breaking out the E.

Ain't nothing but a rave, sheriff.
 
Hell yeah! I can't wait to break out the bong w/the preschoolers in our tailgate (whose mom is a pharmacist and dad is ChemE - so you know where this gateway drug is gonna lead - woo hoo!).

Between that and @RU848789's hypnotic tailgate mixes, none of us will ever make it inside the stadium. And if RU#s decides to head into the game, I'm switching the mix to all house music and breaking out the E.

Ain't nothing but a rave, sheriff.

In.
 
Won't this mean the officers find new reasons to write tickets?

This doesn't solve the problem which is the town gets the money so they see an incentive in ticketing. When I lived in cali coos seemed way less into writing tickets and I think that's cause all such money went to the state not the town..so your town writing more tickets didn't make a noticable budget change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScarletKid2008
Are you saying people under 21 might drink now?
You don't get it do you. With this law it will encourage more bad behavior by kids much younger then 21 . If my 14 year old son is caught drinking a beer with friends by the police for the first time the cop can't inform me or my wife . As his father I do have the right to know and would want to know as I hope you would feel the same about a child of yours . Now you may say the first time he can't tell us , but how long has he been doing this before he got caught ? THE cop could end up in jail for 5 to 10 years plus fines of $100,000 -$150,000 . This has disaster written all over it ! As far as an 18 year old I say if they are legal adults , bottoms up !
 
You don't get it do you. With this law it will encourage more bad behavior by kids much younger then 21 . If my 14 year old son is caught drinking a beer with friends by the police for the first time the cop can't inform me or my wife . As his father I do have the right to know and would want to know as I hope you would feel the same about a child of yours . Now you may say the first time he can't tell us , but how long has he been doing this before he got caught ? THE cop could end up in jail for 5 to 10 years plus fines of $100,000 -$150,000 . This has disaster written all over it ! As far as an 18 year old I say if they are legal adults , bottoms up !

I don’t need the police to help me with parenting.
 
Any concern that as this thing goes live there could be more cases of this type? Is there a way to test for this sort of thing similar to alcohol impairment?

Generally speaking, having been under the influence of both things, I'd prefer someone driving to not be under the influence of anything, but if I'd had to choose, I'd chose that a driver approaching me be stoned on weed over them being drunk 100 times out of 100.

Alcohol messes with people's judgement, they become much less inhibited, which is a really bad thing behind the wheel. When consumed in enough quantity to exceed the legal limit, it acts as a depressant and can cause people to fall asleep at the wheel. It starts impacting reflexes and spatial perception even without the person feeling buzzed.

Probably the most dangerous effect of weed on a person driving is that it can lead to hyper-focusing sometimes. So, the driver might focus too much on the bass line in the Hendrix song playing in the car, and be less focused on the road. But they aren't nearly as impacted in terms of reflexes or spatial perception or judgement. And they don't develop God complexes the way really drunk people often do.

I'd say, give a stoned person a breathalyzer (for alcohol level) test, and a field sobriety test to make sure they aren't under the influence of anything else. If they pass both, they aren't drunk or stoned enough to hinder their driving.
 
Generally speaking, having been under the influence of both things, I'd prefer someone driving to not be under the influence of anything, but if I'd had to choose, I'd chose that a driver approaching me be stoned on weed over them being drunk 100 times out of 100.

Alcohol messes with people's judgement, they become much less inhibited, which is a really bad thing behind the wheel. When consumed in enough quantity to exceed the legal limit, it acts as a depressant and can cause people to fall asleep at the wheel. It starts impacting reflexes and spatial perception even without the person feeling buzzed.

Probably the most dangerous effect of weed on a person driving is that it can lead to hyper-focusing sometimes. So, the driver might focus too much on the bass line in the Hendrix song playing in the car, and be less focused on the road. But they aren't nearly as impacted in terms of reflexes or spatial perception or judgement. And they don't develop God complexes the way really drunk people often do.

I'd say, give a stoned person a breathalyzer (for alcohol level) test, and a field sobriety test to make sure they aren't under the influence of anything else. If they pass both, they aren't drunk or stoned enough to hinder their driving.
So then you would be ok with someone high on weed driving into your vehicle or a family members vehicle and in that scenario maiming or possibly killing them ? Using the , “ well it’s not as bad as alcohol “ line is not acceptable. The answer is don’t drive at all until one is clear of any impairment issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goru1869
I was a voluteer riding EMT for over 20 years. I have experienced people under the influence of all sorts of substances and I can tell you that cannabis is much safer than alcohol and most other drugs when it comes to cognitive impairment. There is no doubt with me, that alcohol is by far the more dangerous substance when it comes to cognitive impairment.
 
So then you would be ok with someone high on weed driving into your vehicle or a family members vehicle and in that scenario maiming or possibly killing them ? Using the , “ well it’s not as bad as alcohol “ line is not acceptable. The answer is don’t drive at all until one is clear of any impairment issues.
Weird question. I wouldn't be "ok" with someone crashing into me, you, family members or anybody else under any circumstances.

What I'm saying is, if someone crashes into me, and I find out they were stoned on pot (but otherwise unimpaired), I would not immediately assume it was the pot that caused the accident. I'd assume it was one of the usual reasons in any accident (distracted driving, or maybe just a bad driver in general).

If they were drinking, and their BAC was pretty high, I'd know for a fact it was a factor, and I'd be irritated with them. Much less so if they were a little stoned.

I agree that it's less than responsible to be out driving under the influence of any drug, pot, alcohol, narcotic pain relievers, lack of sleep, etc. It's also probably even less responsible to be texting than any of those other things.

That's why I said that I'd give a field sobriety test. If a person passes that, then they are fit enough to drive. If not, then they aren't and the reason they aren't (could just be lack of sleep) doesn't really matter much to me.
 
I was a voluteer riding EMT for over 20 years. I have experienced people under the influence of all sorts of substances and I can tell you that cannabis is much safer than alcohol and most other drugs when it comes to cognitive impairment. There is no doubt with me, that alcohol is by far the more dangerous substance when it comes to cognitive impairment.
Exactly.

Neither of us is saying people should get high and head for the car. They shouldn't. But also, just being stoned isn't necessarily going to be a contributory factor in an accident. It might be, if we're talking about flat-out baked. But then, such a person wouldn't pass a field-sobriety test, so it's not a problem for LEOs to detect it.

Shy of that, other than red eyes and/or dilated pupils, it can be near impossible to even know someone is a little stoned. They could easily pass a field sobriety test, memory test, focus test, whatever. Or at least, they could do those things if they could do them sober - some folks cannot.

Although not a perfect analogy at all, I tend to view cannabis as closer to caffeine than to alcohol when it comes to impairment. I wouldn't want somebody who has ingested far too much caffeine coming at me on the road either. The tendency towards overly-impulsive reactions prompted by the stimulant in caffeine can be very dangerous when behind the wheel.
 
Any concern that as this thing goes live there could be more cases of this type? Is there a way to test for this sort of thing similar to alcohol impairment?


Everyone already uses marijuana. Legalizing it won’t change much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegock and Kbee3
Exactly.

Neither of us is saying people should get high and head for the car. They shouldn't. But also, just being stoned isn't necessarily going to be a contributory factor in an accident. It might be, if we're talking about flat-out baked. But then, such a person wouldn't pass a field-sobriety test, so it's not a problem for LEOs to detect it.

Shy of that, other than red eyes and/or dilated pupils, it can be near impossible to even know someone is a little stoned. They could easily pass a field sobriety test, memory test, focus test, whatever. Or at least, they could do those things if they could do them sober - some folks cannot.

Although not a perfect analogy at all, I tend to view cannabis as closer to caffeine than to alcohol when it comes to impairment. I wouldn't want somebody who has ingested far too much caffeine coming at me on the road either. The tendency towards overly-impulsive reactions prompted by the stimulant in caffeine can be very dangerous when behind the wheel.
My experience as an EMT was over my 20 years of service I may have had to transport 10 people for weed to the hospital, of those the vast majority of them were new users and did not know what to expect from the drug and they were paranoid and hyperventilating. Every week and weekend my crew would have to transport people for consuming too much alcohol. Over my career I must have transported well over a thousand people to the hospital. The worst part of the some of the drunk people is how violent they can become if agitated. The stoners were docile but paranoid.
 
My experience as an EMT was over my 20 years of service I may have had to transport 10 people for weed to the hospital, of those the vast majority of them were new users and did not know what to expect from the drug and they were paranoid and hyperventilating. Every week and weekend my crew would have to transport people for consuming too much alcohol. Over my career I must have transported well over a thousand people to the hospital. The worst part of the some of the drunk people is how violent they can become if agitated. The stoners were docile but paranoid.
One of my kids is a professional EMT. He has mentioned how much they dislike dealing with drunks. There's that tendency towards violence for sure.

Conversely, a really stoned person (from pot) is more likely to want to share a joint and hug it out to solve problems. LOL
 
Weird question. I wouldn't be "ok" with someone crashing into me, you, family members or anybody else under any circumstances.

What I'm saying is, if someone crashes into me, and I find out they were stoned on pot (but otherwise unimpaired), I would not immediately assume it was the pot that caused the accident. I'd assume it was one of the usual reasons in any accident (distracted driving, or maybe just a bad driver in general).

If they were drinking, and their BAC was pretty high, I'd know for a fact it was a factor, and I'd be irritated with them. Much less so if they were a little stoned.

I agree that it's less than responsible to be out driving under the influence of any drug, pot, alcohol, narcotic pain relievers, lack of sleep, etc. It's also probably even less responsible to be texting than any of those other things.

That's why I said that I'd give a field sobriety test. If a person passes that, then they are fit enough to drive. If not, then they aren't and the reason they aren't (could just be lack of sleep) doesn't really matter much to me.
Not weird just being truthful . You did not answer the simple question about what if? . So what is worse driving a motor vehicle impaired by alcohol or weed and perhaps maiming or killing somebody other then yourself. Not difficult or weird and doesn’t require much but common horse sense. Would you as a parent or grand parent or relative of a victim say to the driver , “ hey it’s all good ... weed isn’t as bad as alcohol”. They are both trouble once you get behind the wheel. As long as you don’t get caught it’s all good ...right?
 
Weird question. I wouldn't be "ok" with someone crashing into me, you, family members or anybody else under any circumstances.

What I'm saying is, if someone crashes into me, and I find out they were stoned on pot (but otherwise unimpaired), I would not immediately assume it was the pot that caused the accident. I'd assume it was one of the usual reasons in any accident (distracted driving, or maybe just a bad driver in general).

If they were drinking, and their BAC was pretty high, I'd know for a fact it was a factor, and I'd be irritated with them. Much less so if they were a little stoned.

I agree that it's less than responsible to be out driving under the influence of any drug, pot, alcohol, narcotic pain relievers, lack of sleep, etc. It's also probably even less responsible to be texting than any of those other things.

That's why I said that I'd give a field sobriety test. If a person passes that, then they are fit enough to drive. If not, then they aren't and the reason they aren't (could just be lack of sleep) doesn't really matter much to me.
Very weird question. Good answer by you though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegock
Not weird just being truthful . You did not answer the simple question about what if? . So what is worse driving a motor vehicle impaired by alcohol or weed and perhaps maiming or killing somebody other then yourself. Not difficult or weird and doesn’t require much but common horse sense. Would you as a parent or grand parent or relative of a victim say to the driver , “ hey it’s all good ... weed isn’t as bad as alcohol”. They are both trouble once you get behind the wheel. As long as you don’t get caught it’s all good ...right?
In these sorts of discussions, you seem to exhibit a near-total lack of nuanced thought. If only life was as black and white as you view it.

If someone is in an accident w/me or anybody else, and all they've done is ingest a small dose of pot, then I won't be any more upset with them than I would with someone who had three cups of coffee, or someone who only got four hours sleep the night before, or someone who stopped for two beers after work (assuming they aren't so tiny that two beers is too much - I know people who get buzzed from one beer).

If someone is actually incapacitated, and they drive, then that's an entirely different story. And people become far more incapacitated far more quickly from drinking than from ingesting pot.
 
Well, considering the police now can't generate revenue off of victimless crimes like 20 year olds drinking White Claw and smoking weed, maybe they can dedicate themselves to actual problems.

It's almost like the Middlesex County Sheriff can now focus on the crime-ridden areas of NB and Perth Amboy instead of say, fining parents who let their 18 year old drink a beer with them at a tailgate.

There was a shooting off Easton Ave a few months ago. How about more investigations into that and less into plants and wine coolers? I know that'd make me feel safer.
Now can we all agree that LESS government is a GOOD THING? Not just with this issue but MOST ISSUES.
 
One of my kids is a professional EMT. He has mentioned how much they dislike dealing with drunks. There's that tendency towards violence for sure.

Conversely, a really stoned person (from pot) is more likely to want to share a joint and hug it out to solve problems. LOL
Most of the stoners we never even transported. Most of them were fine after we talked to them and told them that how they feel wasn’t permanent. LOL!
Drunk young adults were the absolute worst because 1) usually the call came in late at night or very early am, 2) the calls themselves are time intensive dealing with the drunk, taking vitals, getting them packaged for transport, now add on top of that your in a situation where there are other drunks, people on drugs who just have to get involved. It more often than not turned into a shit show.
the next morning it does not make me a happy camper that I was on a call from 1 - 4:30am and am heading to work at 6:30 am. Bonus if you had a violent encounter onthe way to the hospital.
 
Last edited:
Most of the stoners we never even transported. Most of them were fine after we talked to them and told them that how they feel was permanent. LOL!
Drunk young adults were the absolute worst because 1) usually the call came in late at night or very early am, 2) the calls themselves are time intensive dealing with the drunk, taking vitals, getting them packaged for transport, now add on top of that your in a situation where there are other drunks, people on drugs who just have to get involved. It more often than not turned into a shit show.
the next morning it does not make me a happy camper that I was on a call from 1 - 4:30am and am heading to work at 6:30 am. Bonus if you had a violent encounter onthe way to the hospital.
Not to mention when they puke all over you and the truck, which you then have to clean up.

That would be an aspect of the job I couldn't tolerate. I can deal with violent people if I have to. But I can't deal with people puking on me. LOL
 
Not to mention when they puke all over you and the truck, which you then have to clean up.

That would be an aspect of the job I couldn't tolerate. I can deal with violent people if I have to. But I can't deal with people puking on me. LOL
True that. That was the absolute worst. You could never fully get that smell out of the back of the bus.
 
Any concern that as this thing goes live there could be more cases of this type? Is there a way to test for this sort of thing similar to alcohol impairment?

Yes, they invented a THC Breathalyzer a couple years back. It's incredibly accurate.
 
What about the 14-15 year olds drinking and toking heavily at the tailgate? They have a Get out of Jail Free Card.

But they don’t need to come to the RU game.

They can do it in their own neighborhood with the same protection. Maybe in your front yard.
The ultimate “get off my lawn!”
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT