I certainly didn’t know that cannabis vapor left no residuals; maybe the driver was uninformed. OTOH, I frequently follow cars whose drivers are vaping, and the amount of ‘smoke’ produced looks like a scene from a Cheech and Chong movie; I would object from a purely mechanical reason, being unable to see.
From my experience, the huge cloud levels you are seeing are tobacco vapor clouds. The “vaping elite” think they are super cool by getting as big of a cloud as possible. If they are using cannabis, then they are idiots and are burning their oil too hot and losing all the benefits one gets from actual vaporization.
1 Like
As somebody who doesn’t enjoy cannabis, but who is frequently around people who do, I can categorically state this is incorrect.
I would love some sources for those literal hundreds of medical conditions.
5 Likes
I disagree wholeheartedly. People have the right to change their mind whenever they realize they’ve made the wrong choice, if anything the fear of being perceived as someone who lacks conviction causes people more often than not to stick to their guns in the face of a mistake. I’d rather see someone have the guts to say something rather than allow someone to take advantage over them because of a lapse in judgement.
7 Likes
Given that “to smoke” usually means tobacco and marijuana hasn’t been [edit: meaningfully] decriminalized in New Orleans (and it’s certainly not been legalized), it is a pretty big assumption to say he was going to smoke pot.
Although this is not so much consent as permission. If you grant permission for someone to do something and then, as soon as they start, withdraw permission, that’s dickish at best. (Because either permission was granted disingenuously or without giving the request any actual consideration.) Although not relevant here, since the driver didn’t give permission to smoke cannabis.
That the government takes a dim view of and could result in serious legal consequences for the driver - including, potentially, having the car confiscated. (Because this is a thing that happens.) If nothing else, a smell remains that would cause police and other passengers to leap to erroneous - and dangerous for the driver - conclusions.
2 Likes
Marijuana has certainly been decriminalized in New Orleans. Police can now issue a summons for possession rather than arresting an offender. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/06/new_orleans_softer_marijuana_p.html
Ouch. Sounds like a date rapists mindset if you must know.
5 Likes
In addition to everything else mentioned, “decriminalized” is not the same thing as “legal”. And even if it was, it is still illegal at the state and federal level. Plenty of people (including myself) think this is stupid, but there is no way around the fact that if you smoke pot in someone else’s car, you are breaking the law, and putting them at risk.
Also, apparently the New Orleans law in question does not apply in “drug free” zones, including schools and parks. I don’t know, but I would bet that those zones encompass the bordering streets. So if the drivers route happens to go past a park or school, all of a sudden you are back in the “criminal” territory, plus with extra bonus charges for violating a drug free zone.
2 Likes
I have never been a date rapist, although I have been a date rapee. Why do you suppose that the ethics I outlined would favor either half of that equation?
To me, consent is absolute. But it cannot be absolute if it is not given deliberately, so being a responsible actor means that one needs to negotiate the terms first. Whether it is sex, signing a contract, or jumping out of a plane. That’s the due diligence of a mature person who demonstrates agency in action instead of complaining afterwards if things don’t go well.
I’d argue that how one is perceived by others is hardly ever relevant. It is more crucial not to BE a person who lacks conviction or discipline. Because, as I said, being able to trust oneself is vital.
How does saying something preclude one from going through with it anyway? People learn best through experience, rather than abstractions and indirect accounts. So in going committing to a bad decision, one is far more likely to really know why it was erroneous, and to think more carefully next time. Obviously, not all learning curves are the same! If you leave the space station without your suit, you don’t get to try to do better next time. But when the decision is something which at worst results probably in only temporary inconvenience, committing to it might have better results than indulging in flakiness. Because what if there isn’t a second chance in the next situation?
Even setting aside arrest and ‘oh god driver is a pothead’ there is the fact it stinks the car up making it the driver’s responsibility to de-stink. It’s like someone getting told to not smoke in the car. Regardless on how cancerous it is, for the driver it’s more the fact that is kinda dificult to ompletely get out of the car and they don’t want to smell it.
As for the guy doing the smoking. Wait til after you get there or youshould have done it before. On the other hand doesn’t vaping solve this issue by making it essentially oderless for inhalants because all of the particulates are directed inside the intended user?
1 Like
[quote=“popobawa4u, post:13, topic:86333”]“
Medicinal or not…if the person was smoking a cigar, would anyone think the driver is wrong?”
Yes, but only because they already agreed to it.
[/quote]
Except they didn’t. “Smoke,” the vast majority of the time, means cigarettes. If the passenger meant something outside of the norm, he should have specified. By your argument I could ask if smoking is OK, then light up a crack pipe, or set a tire on fire, because they are all “smoke.”
4 Likes
And, pretty much anywhere, the smell of pot opens the driver up to a “probable cause” search if pulled over for any reason.
2 Likes
Or, the driver should not have assumed this before they gave permission. Who established that norm? Tobacco is normal neither for me nor cars I usually ride in. I don’t know what they or their friends might smoke (or vape). I agree that it is always better to be explicit, but they both failed this, and I don’t see either party as more responsible or exempt than the other. Relying upon implicit assumptions sounds like a recipe for guaranteed misunderstandings.
They are not going to be able to drive with a burning tire in the car whether they choose to or not, so that’s not relevant. I have been on the other side of this situation, talking with a couple of Dutch guys who proffered a joint they asked if they could smoke with turned out to be tobacco rather than cannabis.
The FIRST question I ask if somebody asks if they or we should smoke is “smoke what?” By the same token (as it were), if somebody were to offer me “a drink” I would not assume that they meant cherry juice, and if somebody were to offer me “a pill” I would not assume it was aspirin. A method of delivery is not a substance.
I guess it feels like you’re saying that once you say yes you can never change your mind, especially if more information comes to light or if it’s there has been a misunderstanding.
Also, I apologize if i brought back a bad memory for you.
1 Like
Tricky one here.
The driver is right to refuse the passengers request, but he actively allowed it.
If the passenger had lighted up without permission, i’d be 100% on the drivers side here, but he gave permission, which massively complicates things…
Overall, it’s hard to judge this. The driver has final say, but he gave permission. The driver would be a considerable arse to backtrack on that, but as the driver, that is his final call…
Morally i’d side with the passenger, safety-wise i’d side with the driver. I’d say safety trumps in this matter, even if the driver is a colossal idiot in his actions…
Let’s recast this in a different context:
“Is it OK if we make out?”
“Sure…hey, get your finger out of my ass. That is not what I thought you meant. Just, no. We are done.”
Would anyone claim that permission about ones personal space should be irrevocable, especially if there was a misunderstanding? Anyone?
The driver was entirely in their rights to say no to pot when they thought they had agreed to cigarettes.
7 Likes
Copper (but obviously brass) vaping pen available in the BoingBoing store in 3,2,1…comes with a special discount promotion coupon for uber.
6 Likes
I haven’t vaped yet, I’ve never even vamped that I’m aware of, but what of this topic?
Is magic lungs mine that can extract all of a particular thing from vapor, get me high and expel only that which not get you high?
Anyway passenger asked to “Smoke” but passenger did not “Smoke”. Passenger ejected for lying.
If the vapor has a smell, then it’s not just water vapor. It has some chemical in it that is not water.
I concur with those above that permission, once granted, may be withdrawn at any time, for any reason. In this case, the driver has plenty of good reasons and was well within his rights.
