Driving whilst high

I've taken pharmaceuticals that have caused more harm than good to my body over the years. I don't mean illegal drugs, they were drugs that were prescribed by my physician or I was told to take.

I had used cannabis over the years recreationally. I found that cannabis helped with nerve pain and inflammation. I'm thankful that I have an alternative to something that will further damage my kidney function. My kidneys functions well until I use anti inflammatories then it goes down.

I'm not considered disabled in my terminology but trying to function and work. I work fairly close to where I live. I now work part time which helps a great deal. Thank goodness I'm not self supporting. I have a husband that still works. I will be turning 59 on my next birthday. So I'm not a 20 year old and I'm able to make decisions for myself, includining whether I'm in any condition to drive.

It seems like a lot has already been covered and talked about. It seems like a familiar tone with each post by some. Life is more difficult for some people than others. We are just trying to live the best life possible with what is available to us.

I feel I make good decisions for myself and I don't need anybody telling me how to live my life. I appreciate some of the comments by others but it's bordering on disrespectful. I'm not mentioning any names. This thread will eventually get closed if things get out of hand. Maybe that's what needs to be done, that's up to the mods to decide.

archangelz001 said:

@EverythingsHazy ... you have made your position and opinions clear. Not everyone agrees with your black and white point of view, including me. And in general I'm not supportive of stoned driving. But medicated driving that improves functionality rather than degrading functionality is what some are arguing for, along with a dose of common sense. If you had your way it seems any disability, including an age limit that might disallow me, a 68 yr old, from driving, would need to be enforced. Statistics show that 16-25 yr olds get in a much larger % of accidents. Driving functionality is a bell-shaped curve. "Good enough to pass a test" applies to the large majority of drivers, including those with disabilities, functional impairments, drug impairments, intelligence impairments, age impairments, etc.

Click to expand...

There shouldn't be an age limit, but I do believe that ever since you turned 60, you should have to retake your drivers test every 5 years to make sure your senses and reactions/thought processing time hasn't deteriorated enough to make you a nuisance on the road.

BigJohnny said:

Mate, you keep banging on about how things aren't fair and some people are at a disadvantage, which is obviously true for some people, but if Jcat can control his ailments with cannabis which means he can drive/work etc, then why shouldn't he? I blind person will never be able to see regardless of what medication they take, so bringing them into the discussion is incomparable to be honest.

Click to expand...

Ok, but someone who is blind enough to be banned from driving, but can still somewhat see enough to be capable of driving around (regardless of how dangerous it is), can use the "since I am impaired, I drive slowly and more carefully" argument, that stoned drivers are latching on to. No... They just can't drive at all.





If the mods decide to close a thread, not because of flaming, but because of disagreement on whether or not people should drive while high, then there is no point in having a forum for discussion. Forums aren't just for agreement.

EverythingsHazy said:

There shouldn't be an age limit, but I do believe that ever since you turned 60, you should have to retake your drivers test every 5 years to make sure your senses and reactions/thought processing time hasn't deteriorated enough to make you a nuisance on the road.



Ok, but someone who is blind enough to be banned from driving, but can still somewhat see enough to be capable of driving around (regardless of how dangerous it is), can use the "since I am impaired, I drive slowly and more carefully" argument, that stoned drivers are latching on to. No... They just can't drive at all.





If the mods decide to close a thread, not because of flaming, but because of disagreement on whether or not people should drive while high, then there is no point in having a forum for discussion. Forums aren't just for agreement.

Click to expand...

So are you comparing being partially sighted to being medicated?

BigJohnny said:

So are you comparing being partially sighted to being medicated?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that if the only way you can drive is while being somewhat impaired, then you shouldn't drive a all. Regardless if it is caused by taking sleep meds, pain meds, cancer meds, seizure meds, or having a sensory/motor impairment.

Sarcasm warning!!

Lord, let us all live in a perfect world where personal responsibility for making decisions is no longer needed - the state, perfect in it's insight, will make all the rules perfectly, and all we have to do is abide by them in perfect harmony.

No, Lord, save us from those who think they know better. Sheesh. Opinions are like assholes - we all have one ;-)

EverythingsHazy said:

If the mods decide to close a thread, not because of flaming, but because of disagreement on whether or not people should drive while high, then there is no point in having a forum for discussion. Forums aren't just for agreement.

Click to expand...

At this point I'd imagine the reason for closing the thread wouldn't be people disagreeing, but people arguing in circles with no new information. A lot of these posts aren't adding to the discussion anymore, they're just repeating the same points more aggressively. This forum is a place for useful discussion, but when it stops being useful what's the point?

I got rear ended yesterday. I'm fairly sure the person who hit me wasn't high, but they were on their phone. I still don't advocate driving high, but "people should get off their damn phones while driving" is a hill I'll die on. It's a rampant problem that needs to stop.

@EverythingsHazy - I'll be 60 next Spring ...I still ride my bicycle fast and hard, race motorcycle and racecar, play football and Frisbee with the bionic high schoolers, and lots more that requires all 6 senses to be in synch. Should I start taking my driver's licence exams now at 5 year intervals?

Snappo said:

@EverythingsHazy - I'll be 60 next Spring ...I still ride my bicycle fast and hard, race motorcycle and racecar, play football and Frisbee with the bionic high schoolers, and lots more that requires all 6 senses to be in synch. Should I start taking my driver's licence exams now at 5 year intervals?

Click to expand...

Yes, and if you can pass, then you should be allowed to keep your license. It's great that you can still do all of those things, but not everyone else can, too.

I don't see why anyone would be against mandatory retesting over the age of 60. The only people it would negatively affect are those who would fail, and they shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

EverythingsHazy said:

Before cannabis were you jobless, homeless, and a disabled burden to society?

There are other means of transportation aside from driving. If you need to be high all the time, then you should make an effort to be somewhere that has public transportation or disability aid available, if you must work out of your home.

Some people who have medical conditions (including poor vision) can't get their licenses because it'd be too dangerous to allow them on the road. It sucks, but that doesn't mean they should be given a free pass. They have a medical condition. That is a disadvantage. Not everything is fair. They need to find another way to make a living.

What about doctors with medical conditions? Should they be allowed to perform surgery while high, because it's the only way they can? No. They just shouldn't be surgeons. Same goes for people who have shaky hands. It's a condition, and it does prevent you from doing certain things. You can't just pretend it doesn't, when it can affect anyone aside from yourself.

I know some people who not only can't drive, but can't walk, AND can't even wheel themselves around in a chair, and they are living their lives, finding ways to get to school and work, etc.. Are they at a severe disadvantage? Yes. Should they potentially put others at risk so they can live "normally"? No.
What about some blind people I know? They can't drive themselves anywhere, regardless of what medicine you give them, and they are living decent lives, not being stuck home on disability, jobless ,and a burden to society.

My posts aren't attacking or insulting. They just aren't sugar coated, because I know the real world is full of unfairness, and that we just have to deal with our own problems, on our own, without expecting to burden society with them, and without putting others at risk. Trying to be super fair and avoid hurting feelings isn't efficient. I haven't flamed anyone, and if I have, quote me. I've just been making points that are based on logic and not emotion/personal preference.

Click to expand...

For what its worth I agree with many of your points. I'm surprised by some of the attacks against you.

From the University of Iowa
Researchers selected 18 participants—13 men and five women—between the ages of 21 and 37 who reported drinking alcohol and using marijuana no more than three times a week. After spending the night at the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics to ensure sobriety, participants arrived at NADS for six “dosing visits.”

First, participants were given 10 minutes to drink a mixed drink with alcohol or plain juice in an alcohol-rimmed glass and topped with alcohol to mimic alcohol taste and odor. The idea was to get the participants blood alcohol level to about .065 percent at the start of the simulated drive.

Next, they were given 10 minutes to inhale a placebo or vaporized cannabis using a vaporizing system designed in Germany called “Volcano Medic ™.”


A comparison of lane weaving observed in a simulated driving study between common legal drunk driving limits (BrAC) and the blood concentration of THC that produce a similar amount of lane weaving.
Once in the simulator—a 1996 Malibu sedan mounted in a 24-feet diameter dome—the drivers were assessed on weaving within the lane, how often the car left the lane, and the speed of the weaving. Drivers with only alcohol in their systems showed impairment in all three areas while those strictly under the influence of vaporized cannabis only demonstrated problems weaving within the lane.

Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana, showed increased weaving that was similar to those with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states. The legal limit for THC in Washington and Colorado is 5 ug/L, the same amount other states have considered.

Andrew Spurgin
The study also found that analyzing a driver’s oral fluids can detect recent use of marijuana but is not a reliable measure of impairment.


I usually wait a couple hours before driving after using cannabis or I only use a small amount before driving so I use do caution and try to make wise decision in my daily life. I am a very cautious driver and haven't gotten a ticket in over 25 years. I hope I haven't jinxed myself. I better knock on some wood. Only one ticket in my whole life.

Are there any reliable stats that show a significant risk factor increase in the 60 and over generation of licenced drivers as compared to drivers aged 20 - 50?

@CarolKing Thanks for posting that study.

It sounds to me like the study confirms what many are saying, that THC might be minor impairment but not as bad as alcohol.

I'd love to see this study redone for other factors in driving. Staying in your lane is only a small part of driving safely. How does THC effect reaction time when needing to brake quickly? How does it effect the drivers awareness of the cars around them? There are a lot of factors going on here and I wouldn't be surprised to find THC slightly inhibiting some factors but improving others.

I'd also like to see these same tests performed with heavy users instead of less than 3 times a week, to see how a higher tolerance effects these aspects of driving. Common sense says the heavy user will be less impaired than the more casual user, but I'd love to see the data on how different their performance is.

Snappo said:

Are there any reliable stats that show a significant risk factor increase in the 60 and over generation of licenced drivers as compared to drivers aged 20 - 50?

Click to expand...

Do you have anything against having to retake the drivers exam every several years? If so, what is your aversion to it? I'm asking, because I would prefer if all people were retested every several years, seeing how bad some drivers are. It would take a piece of 1 day, every 15,000 days, and would help keep the roads a little bit safer.

Young male drivers get into more wrecks ages 16 through 24. I think people shouldn't be able to get their lisence until they are 18.

I have no problem retaking my drivers lisence test at 60 and every 5 years after. I think it would bring on a lot of anxiety for people. My 91 year old mother drove until the last few months before she died. We were at the point that we were going to ask her to give up her license but didn't need to. She never got into any accidents or any tickets thank goodness. Driving was very important to my mother, she valued her independence.

Not everyone reaches the point that they need their lisence taken away at a certain age. Everyone ages differently. My mom was probably pushing it a bit though.

Should they potentially put others at risk so they can live "normally"?

Click to expand...

Driving anywhere puts many people at risk. Driving anywhere on cannabis, if used frequently, doesn't seem to add to this. It is obvious you disagree, but why? Where's your data?
I believe everyone is entitled to live as normal a life as possible. No, life isn't fair, but we can manage that. Especially in cases we are removed from, a bit of empathy goes a long way. Your baseless opinion suggests to me that if you relied on cannabis you would be arguing for it. I think anyone in that situation would be.

I genuinely doubt that driving high will ever be socially acceptable, but social acceptance is formed by popular activity and in this instance, as you suggest - it isn't.
I never feel perfectly safe in traffic, with countless distractions and risks around me. Cannabis provably is a minor risk factor due to the state it induces and the mere fact there isn't crashes caused directly by it daily when probably millions of people drive blazing. Car stereos, phones, direct sunlight, other vehicles/pedestrians, inattention and aggression are still the big risk factors when driving baked. Some of them less so than when sober, some a little more - it depends on the driver. Overall if you are living the rest of your life cannabinoiding, it is entirely negligible to be doing so while driving.
Do the math and stop promoting baseless 'logic' as reason. It is baseless and voids logic. Sorry.

EverythingsHazy said:

Do you have anything against having to retake the drivers exam every several years? If so, what is your aversion to it? I'm asking, because I would prefer if all people were retested every several years, seeing how bad some drivers are. It would take a piece of 1 day, every 15,000 days, and would help keep the roads a little bit safer.

Click to expand...

My objections to your proposal for mandatory testing of the aged 60+ every 5 years, or for all ages (now that you've just entirely changed the rules AND premise of your proposal by broad inclusion), are manifold, and will include but not be limited to the following: 1) the alleged need is not supported by competent fact or data; 2) the alleged need is not supported by a cogent body of anecdotal evidence; 3) the premise is arbitrary, capricious, and age discriminatory (i.e., 60+); 4) it is based on the same basic driving test administered to all ages that evaluates only for one's ability to remember to buckle the seat belt, insert key and start car, roll straight forward and in reverse, parallel park, drive at an appropriate speed, recognize road signs and apply signals, and stop smoothly. Such tests applied every 5 years for all drivers who have already gained this most basic skills-level of experience will do nothing to reduce traffic incidents, serious or otherwise, and only incur a great deal of burdensome inconvenience requiring undue time and recurring expense, both to the individual and the agency. After 45 years of driving one can do this test blindfolded on autopilot, in a manner of speaking. First show me the certified factual data that supports these assertions, then design a relevant and effective physio-neurolgical/cognitive function/reaction/competency battery of tests that address the proven areas of deficiency in the target poulation, then prove the efficacy of the new program, and then I will reassess my aversion. Until then, keep the State out of my busy life and wallet.

EDIT: You say: "I'm asking, because I would prefer if all people were retested every several years, seeing how bad some drivers are."
??? Test "all" because of "some" bad drivers ??? Fallacious, arbitrary, capricious, punitive, invasive, abusive, ....................................... Shall we also institute mandatory 24/7/365 alcohol blood level tests at all main road intersections because "some" drivers may be .001% over the legal limit?

Fortunately there are several 'driver-less car' developments ongoing. By the time these technologies are road worthy and cost effective.... MJ should be legal. I hope we can just sit back and 'Ok Google - navigate to the nearest dispensary' followed by 'Ok Google - activate air conditioner to 75 and add 10% Gorilla Glue vapor to air'. Hope they have MJ dispensary drive-thru's by then. But in the meantime.....

I'm 57 and would have no problem being required to take a road test at 60 and at 5 year intervals afterwards. My father and my mother both drove longer than they should have. In one case because the transition from capable to incapable happened too quickly to get in front of and in another because of plain ol' stubbornness. Genetically speaking....I'm probably predisposed to one or the other or both. Trust me folks ... If I am anything like my parents in this area .... you want me to take those tests

And since this thread seems to have digressed to the point of rehashing the same sentiments....here's mine....My opinions and realities in this area are my own and I'm basing my actions on living in my own skin and how I'd feel if say......a kid ran out in front of my car when I was driving high and I hurt the kid bad. Being high might not be the culprit but I wouldn't want to live with the question.

I'm not going to say this is the last time I'll respond to this thread because as I get older I find I repeat myself more

Yeah apparently you still will have to be sober in a driverless car. It will still be an offense to be potentially in control of a vehicle while impaired. In case you have to take control for any reason.

Is it noteworthy that they apply a common alcohol level (0.065) yet they use a THC level of 13.1 which is 2.5 times the CO THC limit??
Why not use the CO level?

kellya86 said:

Yeah apparently you still will have to be sober in a driverless car. It will still be an offense to be potentially in control of a vehicle while impaired. In case you have to take control for any reason.

Click to expand...

A little off-topic but;
Saw a little blip of a 'news' story about driverless concept cars on TV this last week and the vehicles had no occupant usable controls, no pedals or steering wheel. They looked more like a little smart car with only plush lounge chairs inside to me.

I think it's Kinda scary thinking of sitting back riding down the road in something that's 100% computer controlled, not something I'm ready or willing to do for sure.

What happens if the computer controlling the car has to decide between mowing down a group of children or driving you into a wall at speed. Somewhere written into that cars computer code is commands to kill you in certain circumstances. I don't like the idea of sitting in a box that may decide to kill me.

The pc driven car scares me but not as bad as some of these bobble headed ,lane drifting texters, drunks or new "need for speed" kids.

I actually look forward to high speed traffic merging seamlessly around me without idiots in control.

Joel W. said:

I actually look forward to high speed traffic merging seamlessly around me without idiots in control.

Click to expand...

Would you also welcome pilotless planes

@kellya86 You would not want it to make the same decision you would make? The computer can see 360, react faster than any human, and cannot be distracted. I think it will be safer once it the bugs are out. In your scenario it would have seen all of those things long before you could and react faster than you could.

In that scenario, thinking about it, there would be the same outcome. I'm sure most people would instinctively swerve the kids and hit the wall. I would just like it to be my choice. Would you happily board a pilotless plane.
Will computers really be able to ever replace the instinct and problem solving of a human. As flawed as we are, we can think outside the box. Computer can't. Yet.