Driving whilst high

[howie105]

Laws and regulations are often written and enforced to cover the lowest common denominators, broadest of situations and for ease of processing, it sucks but that's life. If one chooses to avoid enforcement then don't be the common denominator, avoid the obviously sketchy situations and be ready to deal with the legal implications of an act if you fail.

 

[TommyDee]

Thanks for putting it nicely @howie105 Indeed those are the facts. There may be a fine line between being impaired and being under the influence. Being impaired and driving is risking other people's safety. Being under the influence is a legal measure. Lawmakers made the law thus. Advocacy changes laws. This law won't change much and I've been doing cannabis long enough to know I like the law as it is but could use a few tweaks in the case of non-motorized vehicles.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

And your logic of "so if some people can't do it safely, nobody should legally be allowed to." is vastly inferior. I know people who are sober and can't drive safely, so we should make driving illegal because some people can't do it safely? You then have people who die while hiking by doing stupid stuff or getting lost, so should we go ahead and making hiking illegal? Airplane crashes happen, so we should make riding in an airplane illegal, since some planes end up crashing?

Your rebuttal is weak, inferior, and quite embarrassing. Also where does smoking weed affect my coordination? I can still play sports at a high level, so obviously my coordination is fine. Being high on weed is vastly different from an intoxicant like alcohol. Also if you can't recognize that there are different levels to the weed high, and the experienced daily users aren't affected from weed like those who are lightweights and hardly ever use, then you are just being ignorant.

Instead of using ad hominem comments, why don't you try to break down my post and reply to the individual premises/conclusions? Is the goal to be insulting and to gain 'likes', or to have an intellectual discussion that may somehow benefit society?

Also, using a strawman created from a cherry picked fragment of a sentence, is just a waste of time. I never said, that in every case, if some people can't do something safely, that activity should be illegal, and I do not agree with that statement. I did, however, say that "making any law that would apply differently to different people based on their personal opinion of their drug tolerance level is a terrible idea, so if some people can't [drive while high] safely, nobody should legally be allowed to." This is further explained, below. It's also not the only reason for my position. Other supporting premises are also provided below.


1. In the case of driving while high, the "some people" who can't safely do so, very likely vastly outnumber the "some people" who can't safely hike. Also, good luck flying a plane without ample, supervised training, under a professional, meant to ensure that you are capable of doing so, while maintaining an an acceptable level of public safety. Furthermore, even those who may be capable of driving safely while high, can quickly become people who cannot, as Cannabis tolerance is highly variable, and is influenced by a multitude of factors.

2. In the case of driving while high, the "some people" would also be putting others' lives at risk. That isn't nearly the same situation with hiking while high. If you want to get stoned and go on a hike, or mountain bike ride, I wouldn't say that the law should penalize you. I wouldn't advise you to do it, and may advise against it, but if you were to crash, you'd likely be the only one who gets severely hurt or killed. It would be your fault, and your life lost. If you are driving and you crash, that isn't the case. You could take the lives of multiple innocent people. It would still be your fault, but the lives taken could easily include others.

3. Making a law about driving while high, based on people's personal opinions of their drug tolerances is not at all scientific. It's also not feasible, because almost nobody would admit that their accident was caused by their being high, rather than blaming it on something else. If you were to crash while high, your opinion shouldn't have any bearing on the legal consequences that you should face.

4. There is currently no legitimate, scientific reason to legalize driving while high. People liking driving while high, and/or thinking they can do so without putting anyone else at risk, doesn't count as a legitimate reason. People like to do a lot of things that are ill advised, and worthy of being illegal.

5. Laws should be made to benefit the majority of people, not a select few.

Therefore, if there is no proof that the majority of people are capable of driving while high, and doing so with at least the same level of safety and capability as the average, sober driver who was legitimately tested and given permission to drive (a license), there is no worthwhile reason to legalize driving while high.

If anyone can provide actual, scientific evidence proving that it is safe for the majority of people to drive while high, I would be open to changing my opinion on the matter, as my stance has nothing to do with my personal preference or relationship with Cannabis. Until then, however, I will continue to err on the side of caution, and to support legislation that does so, especially when there is a potential loss of innocent lives at stake.

If they can find a blood, saliva, or breath measurement which, at a certain level, produces negative driving performance results, in people without tolerance, it would be reasonable to use that as a guideline for setting the limit.

This would be close to, if not ideal.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

And your logic of "so if some people can't do it safely, nobody should legally be allowed to." is vastly inferior. I know people who are sober and can't drive safely, so we should make driving illegal because some people can't do it safely? You then have people who die while hiking by doing stupid stuff or getting lost, so should we go ahead and making hiking illegal? Airplane crashes happen, so we should make riding in an airplane illegal, since some planes end up crashing?

Your rebuttal is weak, inferior, and quite embarrassing. Also where does smoking weed affect my coordination? I can still play sports at a high level, so obviously my coordination is fine. Being high on weed is vastly different from an intoxicant like alcohol. Also if you can't recognize that there are different levels to the weed high, and the experienced daily users aren't affected from weed like those who are lightweights and hardly ever use, then you are just being ignorant.

He certainly considers himself informed. Maybe he is, but he is hardened on this. Very ‘my way or fight me’.

How odd for a cannabis consumer or advocate...

I did, however, say that "making any law that would apply differently to different people based on their personal opinion of their drug tolerance level is a terrible idea, so if some people can't [drive while high] safely, nobody should legally be allowed to." This is further explained, below. It's also not the only reason for my position. Other supporting premises are also provided below.

There seems to be a great deal you leave out, that is specifically keyed to personal assessment of fitness to perform, that also involve adaptation. Learning to drive a stick-shift put me in a genuine altered state, but gradually came to incorporate it into my sense of driving. Same thing with caffeine and driving, with nose sprays, with a great many things as I say.

The ability to operate in the world today *at all* depends on the ability to accurately assess our ability to perform. Sleep. Everything we breathe, everything we eat, everything we drink, everything that happens to us, and life doesn’t stop to let us sit with folded hands while we wait for the clock to tick. WE ADAPT. We ALL adapt. To food and to hunger, to love and to anger, to being late, to being alone too long, to not being alone enough, to taking vitamins, to being sick, we adapt. We have to, and we have to be good enough at it for our lives not to collapse. And that means we adapt to being high, too, and being high does not exempt us from being able to catch a baby or put out a fire or avoid an accident...

JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

Your approach is akin to limiting adults to a range of behaviors and activities suitable to middle-schoolers. EVERYONE who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle assesses their own fitness to drive. Right or wrong in their assessment, they do. We can not and should avoid trying to punish people for being wrong, but for endangering others and causing harm...and singling out one factor - cannabis - to hold accountable seems political, not logical, not supported by research.

I think you make a much better case for not letting teenagers drive.

1. In the case of driving while high, the "some people" who can't safely do so, very likely vastly outnumber the "some people" who can't safely hike. Also, good luck flying a plane without ample, supervised training, under a professional, meant to ensure that you are capable of doing so, while maintaining an an acceptable level of public safety. Furthermore, even those who may be capable of driving safely while high, can quickly become people who cannot, as Cannabis tolerance is highly variable, and is influenced by a multitude of factors.

I mean no disrespect, truly, but you’re talking outta *somebody’s* ass: flying a commercial jet is absolutely NOT what we’re talking about and would *absolutely* involve a a different, professionally specific assessment, for which said individual would absolutely be held responsible. No “ADD EXTRA WHACK FOR CANNABIS” without one for Halcion, coffee, pregnancy, depression, Benadryl, a bad day at work, a bad fight with spouse.... Really. And the best part is you think it’s “very likely” we should single out cannabis use to penalize.

2. In the case of driving while high, the "some people" would also be putting others' lives at risk. That isn't nearly the same situation with hiking while high. If you want to get stoned and go on a hike, or mountain bike ride, I wouldn't say that the law should penalize you. I wouldn't advise you to do it, and may advise against it, but if you were to crash, you'd likely be the only one who gets severely hurt or killed. It would be your fault, and your life lost. If you are driving and you crash, that isn't the case. You could take the lives of multiple innocent people. It would still be your fault, but the lives taken could easily include others.

O Kay. Here’s a problem. You’re lost in a guilt-trip about “some people”? And you’re tripping real hard trying to fix it by hammering on something that *might* be “very likely”? I flatly disagree with you as to this likelihood. I do not know why you’re hyperventilating over this, but you should stop.

You sound in effect like you’re terrified of people (like you?) because you’re SURE there must be something awful in there - in them and in you - and the waiting for it to emerge seems to be getting to you. “IF” will always be a factor. There’s no way around it.

and there’s no reason for it, but “if...”

3. Making a law about driving while high, based on people's personal opinions of their drug tolerances is not at all scientific. It's also not feasible, because almost nobody would admit that their accident was caused by their being high, rather than blaming it on something else. If you were to crash while high, your opinion shouldn't have any bearing on the legal consequences that you should face.

Yeah, but actual data and actual real-world experience will always out weigh baseless fears.

4. There is currently no legitimate, scientific reason to legalize driving while high. People liking driving while high, and/or thinking they can do so without putting anyone else at risk, doesn't count as a legitimate reason. People like to do a lot of things that are ill advised, and worthy of being illegal.

I really have to consider the possibility that you’re an intentional troll, trying to work the hippies into saying something that can itself be twisted, or make responsible cannabis use seem impossible to those who want it to be impossible for everyone.

turn it back: there is NO legitimate scientific reason to consider that cannabis is a meaningful factor in vehicular events. Come up with a testable hypothesis, design experiments to test it, run those tests, evaluate the results and tell us there’s a valid health and safety reason it was banned in the first place.

5. Laws should be made to benefit the majority of people, not a select few.

I absolutely agree...and they should not be made in ignorance by alarmists with agendas

Therefore, if there is no proof that the majority of people are capable of driving while high, and doing so with at least the same level of safety and capability as the average, sober driver who was legitimately tested and given permission to drive (a license), there is no worthwhile reason to legalize driving while high.

Sure, put you in charge and the trains will ALWAYS run on time.

I should be careful: in the US, that has never been a standard for anything, might be different in your country.

You simply seem determined to find a way to criminalize and inconvenience and punish cannabis use, because...you should be able to? Or something? But how about this: prove scientifically that the majority of people are incapable of driving safely with any detectable cannabinoids in their bodies. Prove it matters. Then I will take your approach seriously. While you’re at it, prove you’ve had good ideas in the past.... I’m sick of these imaginary holocausts and jihads and vendettas.

If anyone can provide actual, scientific evidence proving that it is safe for the majority of people to drive while high, I would be open to changing my opinion on the matter, as my stance has nothing to do with my personal preference or relationship with Cannabis. Until then, however, I will continue to err on the side of caution, and to support legislation that does so, especially when there is a potential loss of innocent lives at stake.

To make sure you’re up to date: laws must be justified, in this case to prevent harm: prove that cannabis use causes harm for the majority of people if you want to have that conversation. To do otherwise is to err on the side of oppression.

So far, the science is wholly against you.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Part 1:

He certainly considers himself informed. Maybe he is, but he is hardened on this. Very ‘my way or fight me’.

How odd for a cannabis consumer or advocate...

No "fight me" attitude, here. It's more along the lines of, "provide some actual substance, rather than throwing personal insults, because repeating that you feel that you can drive well while high means next to nothing".

There seems to be a great deal you leave out, that is specifically keyed to personal assessment of fitness to perform, that also involve adaptation. Learning to drive a stick-shift put me in a genuine altered state, but gradually came to incorporate it into my sense of driving. Same thing with caffeine and driving, with nose sprays, with a great many things as I say.

The ability to operate in the world today *at all* depends on the ability to accurately assess our ability to perform. Sleep. Everything we breathe, everything we eat, everything we drink, everything that happens to us, and life doesn’t stop to let us sit with folded hands while we wait for the clock to tick. WE ADAPT. We ALL adapt. To food and to hunger, to love and to anger, to being late, to being alone too long, to not being alone enough, to taking vitamins, to being sick, we adapt. We have to, and we have to be good enough at it for our lives not to collapse. And that means we adapt to being high, too, and being high does not exempt us from being able to catch a baby or put out a fire or avoid an accident...

JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

Learning to drive a stick shift did not put you in an altered state, in any way similar to taking a psychoactive drug. If you truly believe that, there's no point trying to reason with you. That's not only not scientific. It's also nonsense. Were you by any chance high while doing this learning? If so, the altered state comment would make some sense.

Comparing psychoactive drug use to everyday eating, drinking, sleeping, and breathing, is beyond ridiculous. Also, adapting to something does not mean that it no longer has any negative effects. Going by your logic, we should adapt to alcohol, like everything else, and should be confident in claiming that it doesn't have any negative effects on our ability to catch a baby, or to put out a fire, or to avoid an accident. Unfortunately, that is not the case, as nice as that may be.

Your approach is akin to limiting adults to a range of behaviors and activities suitable to middle-schoolers. EVERYONE who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle assesses their own fitness to drive. Right or wrong in their assessment, they do. We can not and should avoid trying to punish people for being wrong, but for endangering others and causing harm...and singling out one factor - cannabis - to hold accountable seems political, not logical, not supported by research.

I think you make a much better case for not letting teenagers drive.

It's not limiting adults for their own safety. I do feel minors should be restricted from doing things that can harm them, but if adults want to harm themselves, in private, I wouldn't want the law to penalize them for it, as inadvisable as self-harm may be. That said, once there is a risk of anyone's behavior affecting even one other person, it is no longer only their business, and I am fine with the law stepping in to protect the other people.

I mean no disrespect, truly, but you’re talking outta *somebody’s* ass: flying a commercial jet is absolutely NOT what we’re talking about and would *absolutely* involve a a different, professionally specific assessment, for which said individual would absolutely be held responsible. No “ADD EXTRA WHACK FOR CANNABIS” without one for Halcion, coffee, pregnancy, depression, Benadryl, a bad day at work, a bad fight with spouse.... Really. And the best part is you think it’s “very likely” we should single out cannabis use to penalize.

Saying "no disrespect", before implying that someone is talking out of their ass, is like saying "I'm not racist but...*racist comment*". If you want to be insulting, go for it, but also own up to it. Don't try to get away with throwing around rude comments without being held accountable for the lack of debate skills that they expose.

No “ADD EXTRA WHACK FOR CANNABIS” without one for Halcion, coffee, pregnancy, depression, Benadryl, a bad day at work, a bad fight with spouse.... Really. And the best part is you think it’s “very likely” we should single out cannabis use to penalize.

Once again, don't cherry pick sentence fragments, to build a terribly pointless strawman to argue against. I didn't say that I "very likely" think that we should single out Cannabis use.

Not being able to feasibly prove/regulate certain negative things, doesn't mean that we should be unable to punish people for doing other dangerous things which we can prove and regulate. If we can find a level of caffeine that causes significant impairment, I would wholeheartedly support legally punishing those who drive with such an amount in their system.

O Kay. Here’s a problem. You’re lost in a guilt-trip about “some people”? And you’re tripping real hard trying to fix it by hammering on something that *might* be “very likely”? I flatly disagree with you as to this likelihood. I do not know why you’re hyperventilating over this, but you should stop.

You sound in effect like you’re terrified of people (like you?) because you’re SURE there must be something awful in there - in them and in you - and the waiting for it to emerge seems to be getting to you. “IF” will always be a factor. There’s no way around it.

and there’s no reason for it, but “if...”

This is more nonsense and speculation. There's no guilt trip.

"Hyperventilating"? Is refraining from being insulting, like you and the guy you quoted, and then refuting every point in a respectful rebuttal "hyperventilating" in your mind? If so, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hyperventilate?s=t.

"Terrified"? "Like me"? This is actually funny. I don't and wouldn't drive while high, so I wish people were more like me in that regard. It would provide a bit of peace of mind, knowing that nobody on the road is high.

Furthermore, there is no mention of anything "awful inside them" or whatever, in my post. That's a bunch of nonsense rambling, again. Crashing and killing someone because you were high and impaired (and again...Cannabis does impair people who don't have significant tolerance levels), isn't something awful emerging from inside. It's failure to perform at a safe level due to being impaired by a drug.

If you don't think that Cannabis impairs those without significant tolerance levels, hang out with a group of people who are getting high for the first time. It's not unheard of for non-regular Cannabis users to do stupid things, or at least to lose track of what they are doing, when high, especially for the first time.

Yeah, but actual data and actual real-world experience will always out weigh baseless fears.

You're right, and the science so far shows that Cannabis' effects on driving are not as safe or nonexistent as you seem to believe:

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug identified in impaired drivers. The effects of cannabis on driving continue to be debated, making prosecution and legislation difficult. Historically, delays in sample collection, evaluating the inactive Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC, and polydrug use have complicated epidemiologic evaluations of driver impairment after cannabis use.

CONTENT:
We review and evaluate the current literature on cannabis' effects on driving, highlighting the epidemiologic and experimental data. Epidemiologic data show that the risk of involvement in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) increases approximately 2-fold after cannabis smoking. The adjusted risk of driver culpability also increases substantially, particularly with increased blood THC concentrations. Studies that have used urine as the biological matrix have not shown an association between cannabis and crash risk. Experimental data show that drivers attempt to compensate by driving more slowly after smoking cannabis, but control deteriorates with increasing task complexity. Cannabis smoking increases lane weaving and impaired cognitive function. Critical-tracking tests, reaction times, divided-attention tasks, and lane-position variability all show cannabis-induced impairment. Despite purported tolerance in frequent smokers, complex tasks still show impairment. Combining cannabis with alcohol enhances impairment, especially lane weaving.

SUMMARY:
Differences in study designs frequently account for inconsistencies in results between studies. Participant-selection bias and confounding factors attenuate ostensible cannabis effects, but the association with MVA often retains significance. Evidence suggests recent smoking and/or blood THC concentrations 2-5 ng/mL are associated with substantial driving impairment, particularly in occasional smokers. Future cannabis-and-driving research should emphasize challenging tasks, such as divided attention, and include occasional and chronic daily cannabis smokers.

-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23220273

You wanted science. You got it. Your turn.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Part 2:

No "fight me" attitude, here. It's more along the lines of, "provide some actual substance, rather than throwing personal insults, because repeating that you feel that you can drive well while high means next to nothing".

Learning to drive a stick shift did not put you in an altered state, in any way similar to taking a psychoactive drug. If you truly believe that, there's no point trying to reason with you. That's not only not scientific. It's also nonsense. Were you by any chance high while doing this learning? If so, the altered state comment would make some sense.

Comparing psychoactive drug use to everyday eating, drinking, sleeping, and breathing, is beyond ridiculous. Also, adapting to something does not mean that it no longer has any negative effects. Going by your logic, we should adapt to alcohol, like everything else, and should be confident in claiming that it doesn't have any negative effects on our ability to catch a baby, or to put out a fire, or to avoid an accident. Unfortunately, that is not the case, as nice as that may be.

It's not limiting adults for their own safety. I do feel minors should be restricted from doing things that can harm them, but if adults want to harm themselves, in private, I wouldn't want the law to penalize them for it, as inadvisable as self-harm may be. That said, once there is a risk of anyone's behavior affecting even one other person, it is no longer only their business, and I am fine with the law stepping in to protect the other people.

Saying "no disrespect", before implying that someone is talking out of their ass, is like saying "I'm not racist but...*racist comment*". If you want to be insulting, go for it, but also own up to it. Don't try to get away with throwing around rude comments without being held accountable for the lack of debate skills that they expose.

Once again, don't cherry pick sentence fragments, to build a terribly pointless strawman to argue against. I didn't say that I "very likely" think that we should single out Cannabis use.

Not being able to feasibly prove/regulate certain negative things, doesn't mean that we should be unable to punish people for doing other dangerous things which we can prove and regulate. If we can find a level of caffeine that causes significant impairment, I would wholeheartedly support legally punishing those who drive with such an amount in their system.

This is more nonsense and speculation. There's no guilt trip.

"Hyperventilating"? Is refraining from being insulting, like you and the guy you quoted, and then refuting every point in a respectful rebuttal "hyperventilating" in your mind? If so, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hyperventilate?s=t.

"Terrified"? "Like me"? This is actually funny. I don't and wouldn't drive while high, so I wish people were more like me in that regard. It would provide a bit of peace of mind, knowing that nobody on the road is high.

Furthermore, there is no mention of anything "awful inside them" or whatever, in my post. That's a bunch of nonsense rambling, again. Crashing and killing someone because you were high and impaired (and again...Cannabis does impair people who don't have significant tolerance levels), isn't something awful emerging from inside. It's failure to perform at a safe level due to being impaired by a drug.

If you don't think that Cannabis impairs those without significant tolerance levels, hang out with a group of people who are getting high for the first time. It's not unheard of for non-regular Cannabis users to do stupid things, or at least to lose track of what they are doing, when high, especially for the first time.

You're right, and the science so far shows that Cannabis' effects on driving are not as safe or nonexistent as you seem to believe:

You wanted science. You got it. Your turn.

I really have to consider the possibility that you’re an intentional troll, trying to work the hippies into saying something that can itself be twisted, or make responsible cannabis use seem impossible to those who want it to be impossible for everyone.

There are a lot of possibilities you really should consider. One of them is that your opinion in this matter may be influenced by your relationship with Cannabis. I could speculate as to the psychological forces that may be acting on your mind, leading you to your conclusion, as much as you speculated about my thought processes, but that's pointless, so I'll refrain.

turn it back: there is NO legitimate scientific reason to consider that cannabis is a meaningful factor in vehicular events. Come up with a testable hypothesis, design experiments to test it, run those tests, evaluate the results and tell us there’s a valid health and safety reason it was banned in the first place.

I covered this already, above. ^

Sure, put you in charge and the trains will ALWAYS run on time.

They might not always run on time, but the conductors will be barred from operating them while high.

You simply seem determined to find a way to criminalize and inconvenience and punish cannabis use, because...you should be able to? Or something? But how about this: prove scientifically that the majority of people are incapable of driving safely with any detectable cannabinoids in their bodies. Prove it matters. Then I will take your approach seriously. While you’re at it, prove you’ve had good ideas in the past.... I’m sick of these imaginary holocausts and jihads and vendettas.

I am in favor of federal and state Cannabis legalization for adults, on their own private property, or the private property of another consenting adult, so you're way off of the mark, yet again.

I already provided scientific evidence, while you have yet to share much of anything worth more than a stranger's opinion. Again, it's your turn, buddy.

"Holocausts and jihads"? More irrelevant terminology? Trying to provoke emotion? Nobody is talking about anything relating to either the Holocaust or any jihad, so you might want to reread the thread, to make sure you aren't accidentally replying to something you read elsewhere.

To make sure you’re up to date: laws must be justified, in this case to prevent harm: prove that cannabis use causes harm for the majority of people if you want to have that conversation. To do otherwise is to err on the side of oppression.
So far, the science is wholly against you.

So far, the science, here, is found in my post and not yours, and it's very much in agreement with what I've stated. You might want to do a bit more actual, unbiased research, before making such claims. Also, it may help to do a bit of vocabulary studying, so that you will be less likely to misuse words like "hyperventilating", or to say things like "the science is wholly against you", when such a claim is disprovable with the presentation of one piece of supporting scientific evidence.

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

TLDR:
Below is clear cut, scientific evidence for my claims. If anyone wants to provide something at least equally as scientific to argue the opposite position, feel free to do so. The floor is yours. If not, at least consider not wasting everyone's time with logical fallacies and baseless claims/speculation about other members, like myself, who are here, not to fight, but to engage in intellectual discussion with the intention of keeping as many people as possible as safe as we can.

CONTENT:
We review and evaluate the current literature on cannabis' effects on driving, highlighting the epidemiologic and experimental data. Epidemiologic data show that the risk of involvement in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) increases approximately 2-fold after cannabis smoking. The adjusted risk of driver culpability also increases substantially, particularly with increased blood THC concentrations. Studies that have used urine as the biological matrix have not shown an association between cannabis and crash risk. Experimental data show that drivers attempt to compensate by driving more slowly after smoking cannabis, but control deteriorates with increasing task complexity. Cannabis smoking increases lane weaving and impaired cognitive function. Critical-tracking tests, reaction times, divided-attention tasks, and lane-position variability all show cannabis-induced impairment. Despite purported tolerance in frequent smokers, complex tasks still show impairment. Combining cannabis with alcohol enhances impairment, especially lane weaving.

SUMMARY:
Differences in study designs frequently account for inconsistencies in results between studies. Participant-selection bias and confounding factors attenuate ostensible cannabis effects, but the association with MVA often retains significance. Evidence suggests recent smoking and/or blood THC concentrations 2-5 ng/mL are associated with substantial driving impairment, particularly in occasional smokers. Future cannabis-and-driving research should emphasize challenging tasks, such as divided attention, and include occasional and chronic daily cannabis smokers.

-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23220273

Cheers

 

[His_Highness]

I've been using herb for 4 decades without much of a break and there are times I definitely shouldn't be driving. Most of the time I even know when that time is.

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

Pretty much every time I ride. Bicycles and cannabis are a perfect pairing. Cheers! D

I'll be cruising along, not in a rush, and if I decide to stop for a little vape break, the ride afterwards is always like, "MUST. GO. 30MPH."

You would think it would be the other way around... Nope. Not when you've got a nice sativa.

 

[tokenknifeguy]

He certainly considers himself informed. Maybe he is, but he is hardened on this. Very ‘my way or fight me’.

How odd for a cannabis consumer or advocate...

Sources?

 

[mobilrog]

driving while impaired should stay illegal but if a person can pass a field sobriety test then the case should also be dropped. everyones bodies react differently to the substance and should be based as such.

 

[His_Highness]

driving while impaired should stay illegal but if a person can pass a field sobriety test then the case should also be dropped. everyones bodies react differently to the substance and should be based as such.

I like the idea but......I'm not up to speed on field sobriety tests but aren't they mostly physical? You might have to come up with a field sobriety test that also includes a more stringent test for mental capacity/acuity.

Maybe forcing the possible offender to watch a comedy routine while holding a chocolate donut and observing the result?

 

[EverythingsHazy]

driving while impaired should stay illegal but if a person can pass a field sobriety test then the case should also be dropped. everyones bodies react differently to the substance and should be based as such.

That's an interesting concept. It may be more complicated than it seems on the surface, though.

If someone gets stopped randomly, like at a checkpoint, or for any reason other than a legal violation or an accident, and it is determined that they have a blood THC content higher than the legal limit, but they pass a field sobriety test, you would want them to be left alone. Is that a correct understanding of what you said? If not, where am I confused?

What do you think about the following situations:

1. Someone gets into an accident, and is found to be above the legal limit of blood THC concentration (or whatever future measurement they find that works well), but they pass the field sobriety test.

2. Someone gets pulled over for any valid reason, other than being in an accident or endangering someone with reckless driving, or a random checkpoint stop, and it is found that they have a blood THC concentration that is above the legal limit, but they pass the field sobriety test?

3. Someone gets into an accident, and is found to be above the legal limit of blood THC concentration (or whatever future measurement they find that works well), but they pass the field sobriety test.

4. Someone gets pulled over for any valid reason, other than being in an accident or endangering someone with reckless driving, or a random checkpoint stop, and it is found that they have a blood THC concentration that is above the legal limit, but they pass the field sobriety test?

I like the idea but......I'm not up to speed on field sobriety tests but aren't they mostly physical? You might have to come up with a field sobriety test that also includes a more stringent test for mental capacity/acuity.

Maybe forcing the possible offender to watch a comedy routine while holding a chocolate donut and observing the result?

Here's some basic info on a standard field sobriety test:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines and describes the three parts of the SFST in detail:

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus

Horizontal gaze nystagmus is an involuntary "jerking" of the eyeball which happens to everyone when the eyes are rotated at high peripheral angles. When a person is intoxicated, however, the jerking of the eyes becomes more exaggerated and occurs at lesser angles.

Turning the HGN test, the officer will ask the driver to follow a moving object, such as a pen or flashlight, slowly from side to side. The officer looks to determine:​

• If the eye cannot follow the object smoothly
• If jerking is distinct when the eye is at maximum deviation
• If the angle of jerking onset is within 45 degrees

If four or more clues appear between the two eyes, the driver is likely to have a blood-alcohol content (BAC) 0.10 or greater. NHTSA research shows this test to be accurate in 77% of test subjects.


Walk-And-Turn Test

For the walk-and-turn test, the officer asks the driver to take nine steps, heel-to-toe, along a straight line, turn on one foot and return nine steps in the opposite direction.

During the test, the officer looks for seven indicators of impairment:​

• If the suspect cannot keep balance while listening to the instructions
• Begins before the instructions are finished
• Stops while walking to regain balance
• Does not touch heel-to-toe
• Uses arms to balance
• Loses balance while turning
• Takes an incorrect number of steps

If the driver exhibits two or more of the above indicators during the test, there is a 68% likelihood of at BAC level of 0.10 or higher, according to the NHTSA.​

One-Leg Stand Test

For the one-leg stand test, the officer asks the driver to stand with one foot about six inches off the ground and count by from 1,001 (one-thousand-one, one thousand two, etc.) until the officer says to put the foot down.​

During the next 30 seconds, the officer looks for these four indicators:​

• Swaying while balancing
• Using arms to balance
• Hopping to maintain balance
• Putting the foot down

If the driver exhibits two or more of the above indicators, there is a 65% chance he has a BAC of 0.10 or greater, according to the NHSTA.

If the driver fails any of the above field sobriety tests, the officer will then ask the suspect to take a breath test or a chemical test to confirm their blood-alcohol content.

-https://www.verywellmind.com/field-sobriety-test-67159​

 

[AcidFlashbang]

"A feeling of being buzzed", what shoud this mean?

You can measure the amount of THC in the blood very accurate. So please prove at which level ones skill of driving is influenced badly and set a cut off there.
But not at 1ng/mL, which may be present days or weeks after consumption.

There is no THC in your bloodstream after a few days since your last consumption. What is left afterwards is THC-COOH, which is a non-psychoactive metabolite that is stored in fat cells.

@EverythingsHazy nystagmus is such a bullshit test. My mother and brother both have nystagmus all the time and all it would take is one gung-ho cop to deny their freedom based on ignorance.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

@EverythingsHazy nystagmus is such a bullshit test. My mother and brother both have nystagmus all the time and all it would take is one gung-ho cop to deny their freedom based on ignorance.

I'm not suggesting that it is a good way to measure Cannabis impairment. I was just sharing the info because @mobilrog mentioned them.

 

[AcidFlashbang]

I'm not suggesting that it is a good way to measure Cannabis impairment. I was just sharing the info because @mobilrog mentioned them.

I didn't mean to imply your support I was just stating my opinion. Street cops are some of the worst people to interact with, especially in the US, as it seems they all carry a chip on their shoulder and contempt for anybody that's not a cop. I'm not sure why but detectives seem to actually care about stopping crime and not petty bullshit like having an 8th (detectives have let me off for that amount multiple times while street cops wrote me tickets )

 

[howie105]

I didn't mean to imply your support I was just stating my opinion. Street cops are some of the worst people to interact with, especially in the US, as it seems they all carry a chip on their shoulder and contempt for anybody that's not a cop. I'm not sure why but detectives seem to actually care about stopping crime and not petty bullshit like having an 8th (detectives have let me off for that amount multiple times while street cops wrote me tickets )

Its often a social thing with uniform cops, aside from getting busted once in the 70s (really, really sucked) I have never eaten another charge in spite of getting caught holding a number of ti times. Not saying there aren't asshole cops there are asshats in most every group, you just have to play the game.

 

[mobilrog]

That's an interesting concept. It may be more complicated than it seems on the surface, though.

If someone gets stopped randomly, like at a checkpoint, or for any reason other than a legal violation or an accident, and it is determined that they have a blood THC content higher than the legal limit, but they pass a field sobriety test, you would want them to be left alone. Is that a correct understanding of what you said? If not, where am I confused?

What do you think about the following situations:

1. Someone gets into an accident, and is found to be above the legal limit of blood THC concentration (or whatever future measurement they find that works well), but they pass the field sobriety test.

2. Someone gets pulled over for any valid reason, other than being in an accident or endangering someone with reckless driving, or a random checkpoint stop, and it is found that they have a blood THC concentration that is above the legal limit, but they pass the field sobriety test?

3. Someone gets into an accident, and is found to be above the legal limit of blood THC concentration (or whatever future measurement they find that works well), but they pass the field sobriety test.

4. Someone gets pulled over for any valid reason, other than being in an accident or endangering someone with reckless driving, or a random checkpoint stop, and it is found that they have a blood THC concentration that is above the legal limit, but they pass the field sobriety test?

as far as I know, there is no way to actually test for how impaired with marijuana you are. (https://www.duiease.com/test-for-marijuana-california/) so until something that can be proven accurate then yes, if you can pass their field sobriety test you should be allowed to walk away from a dwi. if they are driving awful you can always charge them with something else. DWI and spot checks are easy ways to make revenue for the state.

the biggest thing is that someone who micro doses never really gets overly impaired such as someone who had a slice of rum cake BUT the cannabis is still going to be detectable in their system for a while after they have stopped smoking. the system is flawed and needs to be sorted.

 

[mobilrog]

I didn't mean to imply your support I was just stating my opinion. Street cops are some of the worst people to interact with, especially in the US, as it seems they all carry a chip on their shoulder and contempt for anybody that's not a cop. I'm not sure why but detectives seem to actually care about stopping crime and not petty bullshit like having an 8th (detectives have let me off for that amount multiple times while street cops wrote me tickets )

you're lucky dude. I straight went to jail for 3 months because I got caught with a gram of weed and no bondsmen would touch me because I was hitch hiking across the country.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

I didn't mean to imply your support I was just stating my opinion. Street cops are some of the worst people to interact with, especially in the US, as it seems they all carry a chip on their shoulder and contempt for anybody that's not a cop. I'm not sure why but detectives seem to actually care about stopping crime and not petty bullshit like having an 8th (detectives have let me off for that amount multiple times while street cops wrote me tickets )

Ah, ok. Just clarifying.

as far as I know, there is no way to actually test for how impaired with marijuana you are. (https://www.duiease.com/test-for-marijuana-california/) so until something that can be proven accurate then yes, if you can pass their field sobriety test you should be allowed to walk away from a dwi. if they are driving awful you can always charge them with something else. DWI and spot checks are easy ways to make revenue for the state.

the biggest thing is that someone who micro doses never really gets overly impaired such as someone who had a slice of rum cake BUT the cannabis is still going to be detectable in their system for a while after they have stopped smoking. the system is flawed and needs to be sorted.

So in both of the situations I mentioned, you'd want the Cannabis use to be overlooked? Correct?
Same answer for the BAC violation?

 

[AcidFlashbang]

you're lucky dude. I straight went to jail for 3 months because I got caught with a gram of weed and no bondsmen would touch me because I was hitch hiking across the country.

Well it helps that I'm in a decriminalized state.

 

[Ramahs]

Well it helps that I'm in a decriminalized state.

I'm jealous!

 

[Alexis]

Guys,, up until the point of some pretty hi intoxication I believe you can drive very safely and and assuredly under the influence of kava which also does not show up on any testing and and you would never be penalised for it unless you voluntarily confessed that he felt the substance had impaired your ability to drive, and there is no way that thery would ever know that have it in your system minus your own voluntary admission.

Kava is a really great psychoactive too, if you get a good product and a variety that suits your personal tastes because there are are many different strains and cultivators similarly to cannabis with different effects profiles, some more sedating and others more "heady" in nature.....

It can take a while to get used to and appreciate the effects of copper because there is a reverse tolerance Factor to begin with whereby why you do not necessarily experience and sweats until you have been consuming it for a short while.

But personally I have to say that I am enjoying the car but equally as much as my cannabis recently and I believe I could actually switch over if needs were to be.

So I guess I'm only mentioning it here because it could be an excellent option for somebody to partake in a full and satisfactory psychoactive social experience by using kava instead of cannabis on occasions as long as one does not get excessively impaired, driving is not considered to be a problem with kava.

 

[Tranquility]

Statistically, we have a direct relationship with poor driving results and using AT ALL.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200114123521.htm

A study by McLean Hospital's Mary Kathryn Dahlgren, PhD, Staci Gruber, PhD, and their team from McLean's Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Core and the Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery (MIND) program, has found that recreational cannabis use affects driving ability even when users are not intoxicated by marijuana.

Published in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence journal, the study "Recreational Cannabis Use Impairs Driving Performance in the Absence of Acute Intoxication," finds that in addition to chronic, heavy, recreational cannabis use being associated with poorer driving performance in non-intoxicated individuals compared to non-users, the researchers linked earlier onset of marijuana use (under age 16) to worse performance....​

​

 

[His_Highness]

Statistically, we have a direct relationship with poor driving results and using AT ALL.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200114123521.htm

A study by McLean Hospital's Mary Kathryn Dahlgren, PhD, Staci Gruber, PhD, and their team from McLean's Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Core and the Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery (MIND) program, has found that recreational cannabis use affects driving ability even when users are not intoxicated by marijuana.

Published in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence journal, the study "Recreational Cannabis Use Impairs Driving Performance in the Absence of Acute Intoxication," finds that in addition to chronic, heavy, recreational cannabis use being associated with poorer driving performance in non-intoxicated individuals compared to non-users, the researchers linked earlier onset of marijuana use (under age 16) to worse performance....​

Patiently waiting to see if this causes the usual rebuttal and maybe even a suggestion that it belongs in the 'Fake News' thread......

 

[Tranquility]

Patiently waiting to see if this causes the usual rebuttal and maybe even a suggestion that it belongs in the 'Fake News' thread......

The key "rebuttal" is the same for most any such study, correlation is not causation. Perhaps it is not the cannabis that is causing the issue, but that those with the issue use cannabis.