Driving whilst high

[Krazy]

Elbuort19: It may have been but after 36 pages in a thread reposting it is helpfull.


My understanding that 2g a day would take weeks of abstinence to bring one under the 5mcg/l driving limit was based on a link somewhere in this thread I do believe.

 

[vaporist4LIFE]

I haven't been driving for that long in the grand scheme...about 10 years now.
Never had a crash.
Never had a ticket.
Got a citation once for a faulty headlight that I fixed and got expunged.
I drive after vaping quite often . Have for years . Imo the main threat on the road are other drivers ... I always drive defensively, watching mirrors and doing a "constant check on my surroundings .
Everyone is different and that is important to remember . I never have had problems with driving after vaping.
I don't drink .
I feel confident in saying I drive safely .

 

[kellya86]

If only there was a way to measure impairment, universally....

Nothing to do with substances in the body, but simply, are you impaired or not....
Whether it be through drink and drugs, tiredness, age, or just plain lack of driving skill...

Do you guys still have the sobriety test in the states???
It needs to be something better than this...

This would really solve alot of problems if an accurate field test could be figured out...
Like a mini simulator or something, a basic computers test, carried out on a police issue iPad...
It could test you for reaction times and peripheral vision for example...
Maybe a vr experience...
I don't know, but what I do know is that the legal limit is bullshit...
They were saying on tv last night (police interceptors) how the swap test proves that a person is unfit to drive...
This just shows that the actual police havent got a fucking clue how any of this works...

 

[vaporist4LIFE]

That would be a great notion man . However the government has the ability to twist anything to their benefit ...history has proven that .honestly I go by he native American code.or story rsther.
There's a longer version but it goes something like before the white man came we had no jails and no crime. Everyone shared everything .no one was more poor or richer than the other .
Now that sounds ridiculous huh !!
We never learn until it's too late it seems..

 

[nomadicsoul34]

That would be a great notion man . However the government has the ability to twist anything to their benefit ...history has proven that .honestly I go by he native American code.or story rsther.
There's a longer version but it goes something like before the white man came we had no jails and no crime. Everyone shared everything .no one was more poor or richer than the other .
Now that sounds ridiculous huh !!
We never learn until it's too late it seems..

Although they did organise raiding parties and ambush each other , kill or enslave or even eat their rivals.
It was not all good.

 

[vaporist4LIFE]

Although they did organise raiding parties and ambush each other , kill or enslave or even eat their rivals.
It was not all good.

Lol don't take everything literally ?
Not trying to derail thread but if you want to talk about evil things just look at the Caucasian race and some things they have done

 

[flotntoke]

My apologies if this was already posted...

Science Shows Cannabis Users Are Safe Drivers
http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2017/04/25/science-shows-cannabis-users-safe-drivers

Many thanks!! This article cites many of the older studies already discussed here, but brings to light (and gives links!! WOOHOO!) to many more recent studies that seem to have the same results.

The slant of the article is definitely biased (look at the source), but the studies are mostly from official sources. Sources I think we can safely assume were trying to show that drivers with cannabis in their systems were more dangerous drivers - but were forced to come to the conclusion that they actually aren't. May be jumping the gun here because I haven't yet gone to look at the studies themselves, but assume they are in line with all the earlier ones or that somewhere we would have heard of the big deal it would be if new studies, with new data, showed something different.

FUCKING SCIENCE!! Really bugs me to no end that many here refuse to believe it and go with their feelings, dogmatic ideals, skewed 20th century perspectives and bullshit reports that show cannabis and other drugs in people's systems after accidents - but show no data about how much, when they probably last partook, relative alcohol levels in those drivers, and other mitigating circumstances. Reminds me of those who still say climate change isn't taking place (or saying it is natural and not caused by human's activities over the past 150 years), in the face of many studies and the agreement of more than 95% of climate scientists that it is taking place at an alarming rate and directly linked to our overuse of fossil fuels worldwide.

I am definatly not safer. People should be careful when dismissing articles they disagree with and happily accepting those they want to believe in. There is a lot of garbage published.

There certainly is a lot of garbage published. Seems more in the direction that indicates drivers with THC in their systems are more dangerous in the face of repeated studies over the last 30+ years that prove contrary. Think better to go to the studies themselves that are linked throughout instead of most of the articles linked. Almost all of these studies show no real impairment, or that high drivers are better drivers as long as "buzzed" and not "stoned". Totally makes sense to me and others, but despite scientific studies, many people refuse to believe it.

 

[Aimless Ryan]

I am definatly not safer. People should be careful when dismissing articles they disagree with and happily accepting those they want to believe in. There is a lot of garbage published.

Yeah, you don't want to be around my power chair when I'm high (particularly while I'm using the chair). Ask my walls.

 

[Baron23]

 

[Krazy]

http://www.livescience.com/59047-people-taking-adhd-medications-may-have-fewer-car-accidents.html

Study showing that ADHD people treating it with meds may be significantly safer drivers than unmedicated. Not a cannabis study but may be of interest to some.

 

[biohacker]

Interesting.... i've only tried Concerta once, but would tend to agree....FOCUS. And what does cannabis do? Allows you to get "into the zone", albeit a bit too much sometimes when you "zone out".

 

[flotntoke]

Interesting.... i've only tried Concerta once, but would tend to agree....FOCUS. And what does cannabis do? Allows you to get "into the zone", albeit a bit too much sometimes when you "zone out".

Speaking for yourself, I assume. Because again.... scientific studies show different conclusions.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

http://www.livescience.com/59047-people-taking-adhd-medications-may-have-fewer-car-accidents.html

Study showing that ADHD people treating it with meds may be significantly safer drivers than unmedicated. Not a cannabis study but may be of interest to some.

People with ADD are usually prescribed stimulants. I'm pretty sure that's on the opposite side of the spectrum as Cannabis.

Speaking for yourself, I assume. Because again.... scientific studies show different conclusions.

What are you saying that the studies show? That Cannabis doesn't get you focused, or that too much can't get you zoned out?

 

[Farid]

People with ADD are usually prescribed stimulants. I'm pretty sure that's on the opposite side of the spectrum as Cannabis.

There isn't a spectrum that applies for all people. A person with ADD will feel stimulants very different from a regular person.

 

[biohacker]

Speaking for yourself, I assume. Because again.... scientific studies show different conclusions.

Speaking for myself, at times yes, depending on tolerance. Cannabis can affect different people differently. Scientific studies mean fuck all and are quite frequently plain wrong. IMO! But after witnessing several drivers over the age of 75 today simply being a complete threat to other drivers, I honestly don't even give a shit anymore....it's a fucking mine field out there no matter what.

People with ADD are usually prescribed stimulants. I'm pretty sure that's on the opposite side of the spectrum as Cannabis.

And i'm pretty sure you would be wrong there. Certain strains can very much be used similar to stimulants. Again, it depends on the person but as someone that has ADD and has used stimulants and cannabis, it helps me indeed.

 

[Krazy]

Keep in mind that different drugs effect different people in different ways. The reason ADHD peeps take speed is to calm down, lol.

I am not specifically ADHD, aspie, schizoaffective, or any other cooky cutter. I do have much epic levels of the Krazy! Depending on circumstances I can experience things similar to any number of Dx's.

Any prescription meds are problematic for me in that I do not have a dependable responce. Coffee in the short run can perk me up a tad; however, I can drink 3 cups and nap 20 minutes later.



Edit:
That is my big problem with both the policy views of some members here and the current views of "the man" concerning driving and medical use of cannabis. Should someone drive impaired? No.

Should my responsible medical use of "whatever", something that makes me a better driver, be prohibited because it makes someone else a worse driver? No; very much NO. Should my responsible use in this regard be prohibited because the authorities don't have a yes/no road side test to weed out people that are not responsible? No. Should they be able to use a test that demonstrably does not test for impairment in any way while waiting for a magick test that works?Once again, no.

"I'm sorry for your loss" and "Thank you for your service" are meaningless buzz phrases that people use to be PC. I acknowledge this.

To people that have lost a loved one and feel that it was due to devil weed? I'm sorry for your loss. HOWEVER:

The whole "all medical use of cannabis = impaired driving. You will feel differently if/when you loose a loved one to a driver that has used cannabis in any amount in the last few weeks. Until we have a workable test we should simply use a test that does not work" does NOT wash with me.

Neither does the spin that "just because cannabis, when it impairs at all, impairs less than allergy meds, kids in the back seat, or talking on a hands free? Doesn't mean it should be allowed" Actually? Yes it does mean it should be allowed. Feel free to advocate for changes in driving laws that will prevent things that are worse. Or advocate for changes to overall impaired driving laws.

The whole "bad hombre" theory of punishing ALL cannabis using drivers just doesn't wash.

Find a way to test or prohibit impaired drivers and I am with you 100%.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

And i'm pretty sure you would be wrong there. Certain strains can very much be used similar to stimulants. Again, it depends on the person but as someone that has ADD and has used stimulants and cannabis, it helps me indeed.

Fair enough. I edited the OP to reflect the fact that it is not necessarily a pure depressant, though I don't believe it is a pure stimulant, either, regardless of strain.

--------------------------

It would be cool to have a poll, to see what everyone in this thread actually would like to be legal:
-Driving while feeling high.
-Driving 1 hour after vaping.
-Driving 2 hours after vaping.
-Driving 3 hours after vaping.
-Driving 4 hours after vaping.
-Driving 5 hours after vaping.
-Driving 6-24 hours after vaping.
-Driving >24 hours after vaping.

Would anyone here be against having a roadside hand-eye coordination machine test?

 

[Krazy]

-Driving 1 hour after vaping.
-Driving 2 hours after vaping.
-Driving 3 hours after vaping.
etc,.

None of those are indicative of impairment, or amount/strength of consumption.

I agree for generic hand/eye coordination for impairment. I would be loath to give that kind of power for road side testing to most LEOs. They could spin that to make lost of people impaired at will. With a fully veted, filmed, and blackboxed, version? That might work in the future.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Should my responsible medical use of "whatever", something that makes me a better driver, be prohibited because it makes someone else a worse driver? No; very much NO.

A better driver in comparison to what? You can't just compare to how you'd drive without it, because the lesser of two evils argument isn't a sound one, when "no evil" is an option.

What if you're an extremely anxious / "on edge" person, and believe that you drive better after drinking a bit. A lot of people believe they drive better with a bit of alcohol in their system. Should that just be left up to them, to decide? (Yes, I'm aware you can have a certain amount of alcohol in your system, but it's a set limit, not up to each individual.) *I am not saying alcohol and cannabis are equally impairing, nor am I saying that driving while experiencing the effects of either, is safe. The point of this paragraph is to ask if you think people should be left up to deciding for themselves when they are intoxicated?

Also, laws shouldn't be made in a way that certain citizens don't have to follow them. You shouldn't allow medical patients to drive while "buzzed", but not allow everyone else to do the same. The benefits that being stoned has to one person, doesn't make it ok for them to disregard the safety of others. You'd have to argue that being stoned doesn't put others in danger, and therefore, everyone should be allowed to do so.

Neither does the spin that "just because cannabis, when it impairs at all, impairs less than allergy meds, kids in the back seat, or talking on a hands free? Doesn't mean it should be allowed" Actually? Yes it does mean it should be allowed. Feel free to advocate for changes in driving laws that will prevent things that are worse. Or advocate for changes to overall impaired driving laws.

This isn't a sound argument, either. Just because one bad thing is legal, doesn't mean all bad things should be legal. They are separate issues, that should be handled separately. They don't have a direct effect on each other, and shouldn't be roped into the debate as an argument for/against each other's prohibition.

No doubt, they should all be handled, but just because someone doesn't advocate for the banning of driving on one substance, doesn't mean they can't advocate for the banning of driving on another.

None of those are indicative of impairment, or amount/strength of consumption.

I agree for generic hand/eye coordination for impairment. I would be loath to give that kind of power for road side testing to most LEOs. They could spin that to make lost of people impaired at will. With a fully veted, filmed, and blackboxed, version? That might work in the future.

I know those aren't indicative of impairment. I'm just curious what most people would pick. Everyone keeps mentioning the whole "you could've smoked x hours/days prior and get busted", so I'm curious what time limit they would be ok with you being able to get busted for, if they had to choose, or would they want driving while high to be legal.

Do you have a better way to ask the question? Not being sarcastic.

 

[DirtyD]

Driving while high - not slam shitfaced psychedelic high- but up to a 4 out of 10 can bekinda helpful, depending on a whole bunch of stuff. That's just me tho. But ive been doing it for 25 years on the reg.I'm used to it and comfortable with amounts enough to know my routine well enough. Pot head college chick( love!) Or occasional drunk business man( jst an example!) who tokes and drives it's gonna be different. For Every One.just be careful and pay attention. Puh leez. D.

 

[flotntoke]

.... You shouldn't allow edical patients to drive while stoned, but not allow everyone else to do the same. The benefits that being stoned has to one person, doesn't make it ok for them to disregard the safety of others. You'd have to argue that being stoned doesn't put others in danger, and therefore, everyone should be allowed to do so.

All of the other nonsense aside (and seems there is a good bit), who in this thread is suggesting anyone - medical or otherwise - drive stoned? I'm not, and have made the distinction many times now, and haven't seen anyone else saying so. Quite the contrary, I think ALL here (for the past month or so at least) are talking about driving under a light influence - not stoned - right?

So, just out of curiosity... why do you keep taking it back to stoned? It doesn't seem very productive to the discussion to me.

 

[CarolKing]

I think folks that have been using cannabis for many years can judge their ability to drive. You can't compare booze to cannabis. We are grown ups and will need to make good choices regarding our ability to drive.

The fact is there is no testing on a broad scale that's in place ready to test for stoned cannabis driving as of yet. The outdated testing that they have now can be kicked out of court with a good lawyer. For those that can afford that.

We seem to be saying the same things over and over again in this thread. Most of us are pretty set in our ways I think. I haven't changed my mind since this thread started. I make the correct choices for myself and others I share the road with. I'm a very careful driver and have gotten just one ticket so far in my life (knock on wood).

Sometimes we have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with impaired driving.

Edt
Driving helps to give people the ability to provide for themselves. I don't agree it could be taken away because of a faulty drug test. Not to mention costing a lot of money to be able to keep your lisence.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

All of the other nonsense aside (and seems there is a good bit), who in this thread is suggesting anyone - medical or otherwise - drive stoned? I'm not, and have made the distinction many times now, and haven't seen anyone else saying so. Quite the contrary, I think ALL here (for the past month or so at least) are talking about driving under a light influence - not stoned - right?

So, just out of curiosity... why do you keep taking it back to stoned? It doesn't seem very productive to the discussion to me.

Stoned, "buzzed" etc. I mean driving while feeling the effects of the Cannabis use, vs driving with detectable levels in your system but not feeling anything.

I didn't mean being more than "buzzed" when I said stoned. I'll edit that term to "buzzed".

 

[flotntoke]

Stoned, "buzzed" etc. I mean driving while feeling the effects of the Cannabis use, vs driving with detectable levels in your system but not feeling anything.

I didn't mean being more than "buzzed" when I said stoned. I'll edit that term to "buzzed".

OK. Thanks for clarifying.

So as a few have mentioned, we keep going around in the same circles. Maybe it would help a bit if we try to find the line of disagreement - or agreement.

Let's say I am a total asshole driver. I got shit to do and am tired of the assholes who "can't drive" (like the 75 year olds someone mentioned on previous page or habitual texters who fuck up traffic flow and slide all over the road, etc). So, I'm constantly trying to get past these inferior drivers - God knows they are pretty prevalent everywhere! I'm in and out of traffic, shifting lanes to get around, trying to cut them off and anyone who gets in my way while I do. Just a shithead aggressive driver - which I'm usually not, but have been late for important shit and been here - but I do have a friend (younger like 25 yo) who is often like this. I try not to ride with him at all, because I have to be stoned or it is way too uncomfortable!

Anyway, I'm a total jerk out there to everyone around me, and being dangerous and beyond rude in an aggressive fashion. So I take 2, hell let's go crazy and make it 3, nice hits of some Candyland (upbeat sativa that will still give you a nice chill-out) in my MVT. I chill out. I don't care about the other assholes other than to stay out of their way - and this becomes MUCH easier, because now I'm not trying to get around them as fast as I can or changing lanes coming into or taking off from traffic lights. I'm not riding up their ass flashing high-beams, or any of the rest. I'm just kicking back with some tasty tunes - much more relaxed & much less aggressive. My ADHD levels a bit and I focus on my driving, instead of all the other assholes on the road, or "why do they have to be working on this damned road now?", or whatever else.

In your view I'm still more "impaired" because I took a few hits instead of flying around on the caffeine buzz I have, or whatever chemical imbalance in the brain that makes assholes like this tick? Am I also less safe? Because this seems to be what you're saying in most, if not all, of your posts.

Or, do you feel I, and those who have to share the roads with me, are better off? That my "impairment" - though in a different direction - isn't as bad as whatever impairments I had before (be they physical, self induced through too much coffee, or just a dick)?

If you're in with the former paragraph, I got nothing. That doesn't make sense to me and never will. If you're in with the latter, then it becomes a discussion of levels of "impairment" and which is better for me and everyone else. And, the lesser of two evils is a real one - not that there is an option of "no evils" as you say above.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

This has a few things I would like to address. Also, to preface this post...Yes, I know this isn't a perfect world.

I'm a total jerk out there to everyone around me, and being dangerous and beyond rude in an aggressive fashion.

Let's start with this one. I don't feel that a person in this state of mind/exhibiting this behavior, should be driving at all. It's reckless to do so, and reckless driving is something that should not be done. Can we agree on that?

I know that tons of people do that, but ideally, licenses wouldn't be given out to those who do so as the norm, and those who don't, would refrain from driving in such a state. It's necessarily going to ever happen, but it would be nice.

So I take 2, hell let's go crazy and make it 3, nice hits of some Candyland (upbeat sativa that will still give you a nice chill-out) in my MVT. I chill out. I don't care about the other assholes other than to stay out of their way - and this becomes MUCH easier, because now I'm not trying to get around them as fast as I can or changing lanes coming into or taking off from traffic lights. I'm not riding up their ass flashing high-beams, or any of the rest. I'm just kicking back with some tasty tunes - much more relaxed & much less aggressive. My ADHD levels a bit and I focus on my driving, instead of all the other assholes on the road, or "why do they have to be working on this damned road now?", or whatever else.

Now, for this hypothetical person, this constitutes at least a mild buzz, yes?

In your view I'm still more "impaired" because I took a few hits instead of flying around on the caffeine buzz I have, or whatever chemical imbalance in the brain that makes assholes like this tick? Am I also less safe? Because this seems to be what you're saying in most, if not all, of your posts.

Do I believe this person is more impaired? Possibly, but not necessarily. That depends a lot on just how badly you would've been driving, and just how buzzed you are.

Is he less safe? Again, possibly, but not necessarily.

I don't believe to have claimed that someone would necessarily be more dangerous on the road with a Cannabis buzz, than they would if they are suffering some affliction, be it a bad mental state or symptoms of a disease. If I did, I would like to clarify by changing that to a "possibly, but not necessarily".

Or, do you feel I, and those who have to share the roads with me, are better off? That my "impairment" - though in a different direction - isn't as bad as whatever impairments I had before (be they physical, self induced through too much coffee, or just a dick)?

Like I said in my answers to the above quote, I wouldn't rule out that this person and those around him may be better off, depending on on the levels of each form of impairment.

If you're in with the latter, then it becomes a discussion of levels of "impairment" and which is better for me and everyone else. And, the lesser of two evils is a real one - not that there is an option of "no evils" as you say above.

This is where it all comes together. While this person may be less of a danger due to using Cannabis, that doesn't automatically mean he should be driving with a buzz. The two don't just line up in an "if A, then B" manner. I personally believe that there IS a "no evil" option, of the person just not driving. If he can't drive without some form of impairment, he shouldn't drive at all.

It's very hard to put impairment on a scale, and if we managed to do so, we'd have to find a "Lv.0" baseline that would constitute safe mental/physical reaction times, environmental awareness, and behavioral choices. e would then have to determine what level would be the cutoff,

Say on this scale, the angry person was at a Lv.5 in terms of impairment, and Cannabis brought him down to a Lv.4. That's still significantly impaired. In my opinion, he shouldn't be allowed to drive. If someone who suffers random seizures is at a Lv.7 and Cannabis brings them to a Lv.4, they shouldn't be allowed to drive, either.

Again, though, without some kind of high-tech machinery, accurately putting various types of impairment on the same scale is likely going to be extremely difficult, and without that ability, we'd have to leave it up to each person. Do you really trust most people to be responsible about keeping their level of impairment down using their own judgment, or to even be correctly able to assess that? Given the judgments people make about their intoxication levels on alcohol, where they say they are fine (and often truly believe it), I don't.

For people in cities, there are always hire-a-driver options (cabs, taxis, Uber, etc.), and for those without access to those services...not everyone should be on the road. It does suck if you aren't able to drive without significant impairment, in some form or another, to be prohibited from driving at all, but when it comes down to it, driving isn't a right as much as it is a privilege.

Also, when it comes down to it...What percent of people do you believe would truly be safer/less impaired on the road, with a Cannabis buzz? I think it would be an extremely small percent, and that the vast majority would be more hindered than helped.