To reiterate most of the points I've made in this thread...
I believe that covers all of the prevailing arguments I've seen in this thread, and the points I've made up until this point.
Many good points, that I agree with more than not. I do hope you weren't driving anytime soon after writing this post. The use of #4 twice in a row would be something that I think would indicate an impairment of a level that would make driving unsafe.
Some points on your lengthy post, though. Sorry - I had to remove much of your post in quote to stay below character limit here.
1. ... "that negatively affects driving ability." How about that CAN negatively affect driving ability? Again, studies show that not ALL THC intake negatively affects ALL drivers. Too much is too much, no matter what the agitator that affects driving (THC, alcohol, cold meds, caffeine, lack of sleep, etc).
"2. Whether you feel like you are "impaired" or not, is irrelevant. People who regularly drink alcohol often feel like they are ok to drive when they aren't." I totally disagree here for THC. Alcohol and the way it affects people and their "false confidence" is in most cases different than for THC. My own personal experience over decades, anecdotal evidence provided here, and at least several studies confirm this. So, besides talking apple vs oranges (THC vs alcohol), you're assuming that most who are impaired from THC don't feel "impaired". Why - in the face of so much to the contrary?
Point 3 - yes.... totally agree. But, are the effects of low THC intake necessarily bad? Studies and many claims in this thread show the opposite.
First "4. The "lesser of two evils" argument is not a sound one, at all, and should be left out of debate, unless you are specifically debating which of two things is worse..." I don't think lesser of two evils is what has been presented here as much as "If it is legal to drive with 2 beers in you, or cold meds, or tired, etc - why shouldn't it be legal to drive with lower levels of THC after vaping a few hits?" In many cases impairment will be much less, and driving safety may actually increase - rather than decrease as it does with most of these others.
Second "4. Regardless if you are a recreational user or a medical one, you shouldn't be allowed to drive while under the influence of Cannabis..." So, even if medical users (or rec) are MORE SAFE while driving, they shouldn't be allowed to drive? If studies show this is the case (as they do) - your opinion (or others) that any level of THC recently in the bloodstream reduces safety on the roads should be taken as superior? Why?
"5. The same way two people with the same BAC can "feel" different levels of drunkenness..." Sorry... this is plain and simple bullshit. I don't know of your experiences with alcohol, and don't think you have explained them here. But, BAC has little to do with impairment from individual to individual, and often within the same individual. I explained this in more detail for myself somewhere above, but think suffice to say here that my regular drinking habits have changed several times throughout my life. I know there have been times when my BAC would be relatively low (and legal) while my impairment was much worse for driving and other motor functions. Now, typically drinking a couple days a week I would say my impairment is more in line with accepted BAC levels. A .05, legal level in most states, now is no big deal as far as impairment. When I was drinking less, .05 would leave me wobbly to walk and often ready to pass out. FWIW, you won't find me driving at .05 then or now - because I feel that either is still too impaired to drive safely - but there is a HUGE difference.
"6. Consciously trying to drive more safely due to knowing you are buzzed (whether for the safety of others or out of fear of being pulled over) is not necessarily a good thing....
& 7. Similarly to #6, the increased focus provided by a Cannabis buzz, is not one that is generally going to be beneficial to driving in the open world..."
First, again this is contrary to studies. Second, you seem pretty sure of this in the face of most people being differently affected by MJ. The cannabis buzz focus may indeed be a good thing for me (or for others) while driving. Again, why go contrary to published studies?
"8. Regardless of how used to the way Cannabis usually affects you, the fact that so many factors can cause an unexpected change in how it affects you each time, makes it unsafe to drive while under the influence..." I don't know about you, but my impairment/buzz from cannabis is pretty much the same with the same amount of the same strain from the same batch. Things can get a bit hard to predict if changing or combining strains and the amount used. Hell, this is often what makes it so fun to play with at home. But, if I have a sativa heavy hybrid, or a pure sativa (ie Sour Diesel or Candyland) that I have played with a bit already, I haven't found any differences from session to session. Two hits out of my VC, Mi or new Mist are very consistent.
...... But I hold the position that arguing that driving under the influence of MJ makes you a better driver will not help us convince the general population or our politicians that we are a community of mature and responsible adults for whom MJ should be legalized entirely.
Have you had a chance to look at those studies, yet? They do actually show less culpability for accidents in drivers who are regular users when they have used small amounts of MJ. I don't know whether such facts would help convince the general public or politicians & LEOs that MJ should be legalized, but they shouldn't be ignored - especially in the discussion here.
they got nothing except outdated reefer madness and can only say someones endorphins were more active in that high guy compared to someone that did not add cannabinoids into their biology... the " High" is the actual medicine and you go to jail because of it???
Agree entirely, and even worse, in most states (I think all but 2) you can be convicted of DUID days or weeks after your last hit as the level of THC threshold is 0 for conviction. Studies and data from those states seem to also use 0 for the threshold of considering THC as a contributing factor to traffic accidents and fatalities. So, if someone is shitfaced drunk - let's say .18 BAC - and got high a day or two before and is still showing MJ metabolites in their system - MJ would be considered a contributing factor. This can skew things quite a bit!
FYI ... someone can be charged with impaired for having too much Red Bull. If they are hopped up enough on it to show visible impairment, they can be charged and convicted.
Yes, but you can't be convicted based on caffeine - or whatever the hell else is in those things - levels in your bloodstream. Conviction would be based on impairment - which I think would be more fair and realistic no matter what is causing it.