Driving whilst high

[JCat]

Its simple. Maybe if you are a chronic user of MJ you might hit your "sweet spot" and drive better than being sober. I agree MJ is not as bad as alcohol or pain pills or any other types of medication.

BUT . . . the fact still remains that any level of impairment could potentially cause a lapse in situational awareness which could cause the driver to be unable to respond to a surprise event.

Just trying to make sure I'm understanding clearly here ... are you suggesting I should never be allowed to drive? Or should it be ok for me to drive? After how many hours? (because I highly doubt, that after 12, or even 24, I would pass the current limits being proposed)

If I can pass a roadside sobriety test, and I am obviously not impaired, but lets say they smell cannabis on my clothes from many hours earlier, or even the day before, and I get a new cop that just really doesn't like cannabis or something, so then I fail the saliva and/or blood test, then I should suffer tens of thousands of dollars in expenses, lose my license for a year, and if the same thing happens again I go to jail for a month minimum and the rest gets even worse? Maybe I lose my job because I depend on my vehicle for transportation or simply because I went to jail? I have to move away from my family to get another job so I can only see them once a month or so ... so then I likely lose my family ... or I don't get a job and lose the house, am unable to support my family ... and on and on. Oh yeah ... and this would be for me having vaped a bowl maybe a day earlier ... seems reasonable

I agree there should be limits ... but the punishments should also fit the crime (which they don't currently) ... and the limits can't be insane. The current alcohol limits, one can have a couple drinks and then be 100% fine 4 hours later. Basically avg person processes 1 drink out in 2 hours so that your BAC is basically zero. This is clear, and reasonable. Someone can have 4 drinks starting at 8pm the night before and be perfectly fine by 4am (maybe a little later as they didn't finish all 4 drinks at once ... especially if they want a BAC of zero ... gender and weight are also factors of course)

 

[JoeKickass]

Until they make a genuine cannabis breathalyzer or saliva test that gives a number readout, they're going to keep getting away with cannabis *in any amount*= DUI

Politicians like numbers, but of course personal tolerance for cannabis is going to throw that way off too...



In reality, we'd probably have a better society if cops just looked for the bad driving and ticket for failure to drive properly, people on cell phones and road ragers are the most dangerous drivers I see!

 

[Krazy]

you can not prove that driving while impaired actually increases situation awareness and the ability to respond to surprise events.

You have already framed it as "driving whilst impaired". You have yet to provide a link to anything showing that responsible, acclimated, low dose, medical use IS impairment.

 

[t-dub]

Just trying to make sure I'm understanding clearly here ... are you suggesting I should never be allowed to drive? Or should it be ok for me to drive? After how many hours? (because I highly doubt, that after 12, or even 24, I would pass the current limits being proposed)

If I can pass a roadside sobriety test, and I am obviously not impaired, but lets say they smell cannabis on my clothes from many hours earlier, or even the day before, and I get a new cop that just really doesn't like cannabis or something, so then I fail the saliva and/or blood test, then I should suffer tens of thousands of dollars in expenses, lose my license for a year, and if the same thing happens again I go to jail for a month minimum and the rest gets even worse? Maybe I lose my job because I depend on my vehicle for transportation or simply because I went to jail? I have to move away from my family to get another job so I can only see them once a month or so ... so then I likely lose my family ... or I don't get a job and lose the house, am unable to support my family ... and on and on. Oh yeah ... and this would be for me having vaped a bowl maybe a day earlier ... seems reasonable

I agree there should be limits ... but the punishments should also fit the crime (which they don't currently) ... and the limits can't be insane. The current alcohol limits, one can have a couple drinks and then be 100% fine 4 hours later. Basically avg person processes 1 drink out in 2 hours so that your BAC is basically zero. This is clear, and reasonable. Someone can have 4 drinks starting at 8pm the night before and be perfectly fine by 4am (maybe a little later as they didn't finish all 4 drinks at once ... especially if they want a BAC of zero ... gender and weight are also factors of course)

I will respond to you my friend and to clear up some misconceptions. I NEVER said I was in favor of roadside sobriety checks, saliva checks, or anything of the kind. This is what you folks assumed after reading my posts, but I NEVER said that . . .

I have also not walked back my position either, I have merely clarified it as the discussion has evolved.

Let me state once again for the record . . . there is NO study anywhere that shows that impaired drivers are superior in situational awareness and dealing with the unexpected events that lead to an accident.

I'm not saying you should or should not drive as you see fit, even if under the influence. What I am saying is, if you kill someone, or someone you know gets killed with intoxicants being part of the circumstance, well . . . you will think differently than you do now.

Last post . . . no more . . .

 

[CalyxSmokr]

Let me state once again for the record . . . there is NO study anywhere that shows that impaired drivers are superior in situational awareness and dealing with the unexpected events that lead to an accident.

All you need to do is measure impairment. So far we are no closer to that.

 

[nomadicsoul34]

I've listened to enough old bar flys telling me that they can handle their drink, that they are big old boys therefor the drink drive limits don't apply to them . Impairment may vary from person to person but knowing the numbers of extremely selfish and irresponsible and sometime deluded people out there can we really leave it up to individuals to decide if they are impaired? The drug driving limits are too low in my opinion but a set limit is currently the only way to police this issue and protect innocent people from those that do over indulge. How you feel and what your body are capable of are not always the same thing.

Many studies have been done and 5ng seems to be the point at which accidents increase .Playing devils advocate i guess the issue may be thc blood levels half life (thc ~1.5 to 2hrs). The speed at which thc passes from the blood means that you could have 5ng at the point of accident yet only 2ng by the time you are blood tested 1.5 hours later. Unlike alcohol there is no way to do accurate back calculations to estimate levels at the time of an accident.

I hate the idea of innocent cannabis users (like myself ) being caught out by unfair and unreasonable thc test but drug driving is a problem that costs lives and this is the best we currently have.

My grandad had one glass eye and crappy vision in the other eye but would not give up his license . He insisted that he was a good driver and if he drove slow enough he would be fine. He would point to claims that young people have more accidents than the elderly and tell me that he hadn't killed anyone so far! The car was covered in dents ! In the end his lisence was revoked after complaints from neighbour's. People live in denial because the truth is inconvenient.

 

[flotntoke]

I've listened to enough old bar flys telling me that they can handle their drink, that they are big old boys therefor the drink drive limits don't apply to them . Impairment may vary from person to person but knowing the numbers of extremely selfish and irresponsible and sometime deluded people out there can we really leave it up to individuals to decide if they are impaired? The drug driving limits are too low in my opinion but a set limit is currently the only way to police this issue and protect innocent people from those that do over indulge. How you feel and what your body are capable of are not always the same thing.

Many studies have been done and 5ng seems to be the point at which accidents increase .Playing devils advocate i guess the issue may be thc blood levels half life (thc ~1.5 to 2hrs). The speed at which thc passes from the blood means that you could have 5ng at the point of accident yet only 2ng by the time you are blood tested 1.5 hours later. Unlike alcohol there is no way to do accurate back calculations to estimate levels at the time of an accident.

I hate the idea of innocent cannabis users (like myself ) being caught out by unfair and unreasonable thc test but drug driving is a problem that costs lives and this is the best we currently have.

My grandad had one glass eye and crappy vision in the other eye but would not give up his license . He insisted that he was a good driver and if he drove slow enough he would be fine. He would point to claims that young people have more accidents than the elderly and tell me that he hadn't killed anyone so far! The car was covered in dents ! In the end his lisence was revoked after complaints from neighbour's. People live in denial because the truth is inconvenient.

Hate to keep , but unless you live in one of a few states with set levels for cannabis, DUI is when your THC blood level is >0. I know this is the case in my state. Depending on which reporting you choose to believe, THC can take at least a week or up to a month to clear your bloodstream if a chronic user. I think we can safely say with full agreement that our ability to drive 7 days after being vaped up (or up to 30!) is not impaired. This is much worse than the inaccurate determination of BAC affecting impairment with alcohol. I'd think the 5ng level is even more bullshit than the current favored .08 BAC for drunk driving based on personal experience with myself and others. Let's face it.... some people (especially if they don't indulge much) are going to be wrecked with the same amount of intake that I can barely feel (2 hits for instance). And, many of us will be starting with a base line level of THC in our blood greater than 0. So, not only are we less likely to be impaired by THC, but our level of "new" THC in our systems is going to be greater WHILE our impairment is less! This is all long before the fact that MJ affects different people much more differently than alcohol. IMO that part is really a sidebar to the discussion here, as there is currently no effective way used to determine impairment for weed or alcohol.

What has been a larger part of the discussion here is how impaired someone is after vaping a few hits. Actually there are a few studies that were linked just on the previous page that show regular users may be better drivers with a few hits in them! 5 of 9 of the studies presented come to that conclusion (and the other 4 show no increased tendency for accidents with regular users/low levels of THC). http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2005/01/11/4131

Unfortunately, the article was written in 2005 and there seems to be little research done since. I'm not usually much of a conspiracy theorist, but it seems at least part of the reason there hasn't been is because researchers came to conclusions contrary to their theories (many of the same ones espoused against lightly buzzed driving here).

You can believe that the NHTSA and other safety based testing agencies worldwide were surprised to find in all cases that there is little to no evidence to show MJ use by itself led to greater culpability for accidents, and that in fact light MJ use by regular users often lowers culpability to be involved in an accident below the level of "sober" drivers. Much of this is attributed to those drivers compensating because they know they have a buzz on, and driving slower, more cautiously, and less aggressively. I would say this is true, but is also partly because of the natural effects of MJ and only in part do to driver's over-compensation because they know they are high. If you could low-dose accurately and made that method available to all, there would probably be less drunk drivers (because they could catch a buzz with less impairment) and there would definitely be less aggressive drivers on the road - a much greater cause for accidents than THC in all studies that compare the two.

 

[biohacker]

Until there is actual Case Law, all these charges are more than likely going to get thrown out in the courts anyway, depending on actual evidence.

There are barely any resources for enforcement anyway as i've mentioned before, at least here in Canada.

With that said, I am ashamed to admit that I have driven over the legal limit more times than i'd like to admit, sometimes looking back i'm like WTF? And sometimes I "thought" I was ok, but it was just overconfidence and pride.. and I regret doing it, and never ever drink and drive anymore, in fact I rarely even enjoy an ice cold these days.

However with weed, I can't say the same thing.... i've "known" my limit, and I can think of only a few occasions where I actually was too high to drive, so I didn't. No overconfidence. Sure, perhaps my reaction time was slower, but same with when I don't sleep enough, or am talking to someone in the car or on the bluetooth. There are so many factors as have been mentioned in this thread, that I think the testing is complete BS too.

I agree that it should be unsafe driving that should be targeted, whether hopped up on pharma, weed, booze, distraction, fatigue, etc. because really getting on the road is a complete crapshoot like most things in life. Just thinking about this thread on my hike this morning I was thinking about how many people get killed by falling tree branches.

What do we expect? The system is fucked, there is little we can do about it and it's going to take at least 5+ years for Case Law and this is all a big giant experiment. It's not about the people, it's about control and dictatorship IMO.

I think I may have to sell my new car now! lol But then i'll probably get smoked by a bus!

We're all on the same side here.... even if our opinions vary, it's probably alot to do with our means of communication, but like everything in life, everyone believes what's in their heart is right. We all have different experiences, but we can at least have an open mind, because I really don't think there is a "right" answer.

 

[stressed]

i smoked and drove through my 20s. i didn't get a buzz and drive again until a few weeks ago. i don't get high and drive but i do a tiny dose, typically .05, and drive to the grocery store at 5:00 a.m. when there is hardly any traffic. again, i don't feel high, but i feel good. ready for the day.

i wouldn't want to get high and drive though. it's too much fun looking at the moon and stars.

 

[CarolKing]

I was followed by a deputy sheriff from the state cannabis store (WA state) to almost my house. I was driving on a country road with a lot of pot holes so I slowed way down. The speed limit was 50. I have a small little sporty car and I feel every single bump.

This sheriff was following too close. I was worried he was going to pull me over. Eventually I started driving the speed limited. He had me so nervous that I turned off into a store to get rid of him. I half expected that he was going to follow me into the store parking lot. He followed me for 5 miles approx. I had used cannabis early in the day but not right before I left to go shopping. I drove fine but it's nerve racking to be followed closely like that medicated or not.

With the testing like it is in some states or soon to be in Canada, there are areas we are more apt to be tested. If you live in a legal state IMO the police are more apt to test for cannabis. In my circumstance the sheriff probably would have wanted to test me for cannabis if he was being an asshole. Reasoning would be because I was buying weed. Some in law inforcement have been stewing in anger since cannabis was voted legal. Wanting to arrest a stoner for a DUI.

I felt very angry feeling like the sheriff was trying to intimate me by following so closely. I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

I get vaked and drive but I don't get VAKED and drive if you understand. I know my limits and when enough is too much.

I don't vape and drive though, or go on "burn runs" anymore. If I'm going on an extended drive (usually as passenger) we sometimes vape but even that sketches me out now adays.

 

[biohacker]

I hate this thread.....
Don't know why I still watch it....

It's so frustrating.....
Just causes conflict, and no one will ever agree on anything...
So just going round in circles upsetting each other....

YEP!!!

 

[flotntoke]

I was followed by a deputy sheriff from the state cannabis store (WA state) to almost my house. I was driving on a country road with a lot of pot holes so I slowed way down. The speed limit was 50. I have a small little sporty car and I feel every single bump.

This sheriff was following too close. I was worried he was going to pull me over. Eventually I started driving the speed limited. He had me so nervous that I turned off into a store to get rid of him. I half expected that he was going to follow me into the store parking lot. He followed me for 5 miles approx. I had used cannabis early in the day but not right before I left to go shopping. I drove fine but it's nerve racking to be followed closely like that medicated or not.

With the testing like it is in some states or soon to be in Canada, there are areas we are more apt to be tested. If you live in a legal state IMO the police are more apt to test for cannabis. In my circumstance the sheriff probably would have wanted to test me for cannabis if he was being an asshole. Reasoning would be because I was buying weed. Some in law inforcement have been stewing in anger since cannabis was voted legal. Wanting to arrest a stoner for a DUI.

I felt very angry feeling like the sheriff was trying to intimate me by following so closely. I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing.

Let's face it.... many LEO's are dicks - but fortunately not all of them. I know many who are current and retired, most of whom are great folks although we may not agree on the topic here or others. But, there are also a good many out there who became officers BECAUSE they are dicks. The worst of those IME, are the ones who wanted to be a State Trooper (or Hwy Patrol), couldn't cut it and had to settle for being a local cop or work for the sheriff's office. I generally fear both of these the most. Staties tend to be OK if you handle any situation properly.

 

[Baron23]

ok guys . . this is my last post in this thread.

If you all want to argue that a certain % of drivers are safer while medicated due to chronic use or medical problems, thats fine. But for the whole of society, the majority, Joe average if you will, you can not prove that driving while impaired actually increases situation awareness and the ability to respond to surprise events. This is what must be considered when making law and how police must interact with the public. Being sober behind the wheel, for most people, saves lives period.

This ^^.

You would not want your A-300 pilot to be high while executing a Cat 3 ILS approach into Heathrow. You would not want your cardiologist high when doing bypass surgery on your heart.

And I personally think that the bar is already set too low for driving skills in order to get a license and that there are many very bad drivers out there of both ilk....that is overly aggressive and the overly passive and afraid drivers. I don't like being on the road with them now, much less with them high.

There is NO evidence at all that marijuana enhances reaction times, general cognitive abilities, situational awareness, or hand/eye coordination. There IS some evidence to the contrary.

I personally feel that most of the folks defending driving while intoxicated on really anything to include MJ, do so just because they want to and the arguments in support seem very twisted to me in order to justify this.

 

[flotntoke]

This ^^.

You would not want your A-300 pilot to be high while executing a Cat 3 ILS approach into Heathrow. You would not want your cardiologist high when doing bypass surgery on your heart.

And I personally think that the bar is already set too low for driving skills in order to get a license and that there are many very bad drivers out there of both ilk....that is overly aggressive and the overly passive and afraid drivers. I don't like being on the road with them now, much less with them high.

There is NO evidence at all that marijuana enhances reaction times, general cognitive abilities, situational awareness, or hand/eye coordination. There IS some evidence to the contrary.

I personally feel that most of the folks defending driving while intoxicated on really anything to include MJ, do so just because they want to and the arguments in support seem very twisted to me in order to justify this.

I don't equate driving with piloting an A-300 or heart surgery. Not sure what you're driving, but I think there are major differences between these activities and tooling around in my 10 year old Accord.

There are studies (see links above) that show that there is NO correlation between MJ use and more propensity for accidents. To the contrary, there are studies that show regular users may be better drivers with a few hits in them!

Go read the studies - you know, that shit they call science - then come back and tell us why what you think (and propose here) is more correct than the studies. Sound fair? I'd really appreciate the revised explanation about the part where my arguments are very twisted (although in line with these studies) while your unbased sentiments are more correct. Thanks!

 

[biohacker]

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourcei...=UTF-8#q=colorado+increase+accidents+cannabis

FUCK THIS THREAD.

Last post . . . no more . . .

Said the smartest dude in the world!!!

 

[Baron23]

Go read the studies - you know, that shit they call science

THAT sneering aside is completely gratuitous.

Good luck and enjoy your thread. You're gonna do what you want to do anyway.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

To reiterate most of the points I've made in this thread...

1. Cannabis does slow reaction times and causes an altered state of mind/focus, that negatively affects driving ability.

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.

3. Tolerance does not necessarily equal less physical impairment. Feeling less of a buzz, or being used to it, doesn't mean that the chemicals in your body/brain aren't causing impairment. Even if you ARE experiencing less effects from a THC, that doesn't mean they are nonexistent.

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. Punching someone is much worse than slapping them, but that doesn't make slapping people acceptable. You shouldn't drive under the influence of anything that can negatively affect your driving ability, be it prescription drugs, exhaustion, alcohol, Cannabis, depression, etc.. Just because some of those things aren't punishable by law, doesn't mean everything else should be legally allowed. That's not sound reasoning. If you had to make them all legal or illegal, they should all be illegal. Nobody needs to be killed because you aren't in a safe-for-driving state of mind.

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. It doesn't make any difference if it helps you medically, or if you can't drive without it due to seizures or anything else. If you can't drive without being buzzed on Cannabis, you just shouldn't be driving (my seizures are more dangerous while driving than me being buzzed behind the wheel). What if having a drink or two helped lessen your condition? Does that mean you should be able to drive with those drinks in your system? No, it doesn't. Other people should not be put at risk so you can have the ability to get to work or travel. If you are unable to drive due to a condition that Cannabis doesn't treat, you also shouldn't be allowed to just do it anyway and risk others, because you need to support your family, or leave the house. It's an unfortunate fact that some people have diseases/disabilities, but that doesn't mean others should be made to suffer as a result. The only one who has to suffer is the one that is afflicted. It's sad, but that's not me being mean. If you are considered too close to being blind to drive, you can't just do it anyway and risk the lives of others. You're the blind person. You are the one who has to suffer. Again, that's not me trying to be cruel or uncaring. I would love for those afflicted with issues to be given help. I just don't feel like one person's disabilities should put other people in harms way.

5. The same way two people with the same BAC can "feel" different levels of drunkenness, yet still be physically impaired to the same level (not referring to the mental impairment here, but rather the biological changes that occur at each BAC level), I believe that a BTHCC (blood THC content) level that is "safe" for the average person can be agreed upon, and that that number should be enforced. Sure some people might be more or less affected by the same BAC/BTHCC level, due to other biological factors, but you can't make laws based on the exceptions. You have to make them based on the large majority average, seeing as the people who fall into that category will be the ones involved in the most situations.

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. That's using your attention/focus for trying to be extra careful, which is a distraction in itself. You aren't as aware of the entire situation when you are focused on one 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. Having tunnel vision and laser focus MIGHT help you out if you are playing a video game, or something that doesn't involve potential unexpected occurences (a child running out in front of your car, an animal jumping into the road, another car doing something dangerous, slipping on ice, etc.), but when you have the chance that something unexpected can happen and require ridiculously fast mental processing to avoid an accident, it is a hinderance. The Cannabis buzz focus is good for some things, but driving isn't one of them.

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. What if you get a split second vision flash/blur that happens sometimes? What if you get much higher than expected, or worse, much more impaired physically without feeling much more buzzed? It's usually fine in your home, but not behind the wheel. Just because it's never happened to you, doesn't mean it never will, and being behind the wheel when it does, is not a good idea.

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.

 

[invertedisdead]

you should really watch some of these hardcore stoner gamer dudes, and then tell me how delayed their reaction times are. Hand/eye coordination from using cannabis? Still apparently excellent...

Not sure why some posters in this thread make it sound like everyone forgets their own name after a puff. Vapor is a very clean focused high, certainly not loopy... IMO driving while tired is far more dangerous than driving a couple hours after a toke. Your mileage may vary?

 

[CalyxSmokr]

To reiterate most of the points I've made in this thread...

1. Cannabis does slow reaction times and causes an altered state of mind/focus, that negatively affects driving ability.

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.

3. Tolerance does not necessarily equal less physical impairment. Feeling less of a buzz, or being used to it, doesn't mean that the chemicals in your body/brain aren't causing impairment. Even if you ARE experiencing less effects from a THC, that doesn't mean they are nonexistent.

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. Punching someone is much worse than slapping them, but that doesn't make slapping people acceptable. You shouldn't drive under the influence of anything that can negatively affect your driving ability, be it prescription drugs, exhaustion, alcohol, Cannabis, depression, etc.. Just because some of those things aren't punishable by law, doesn't mean everything else should be legally allowed. That's not sound reasoning. If you had to make them all legal or illegal, they should all be illegal. Nobody needs to be killed because you aren't in a safe-for-driving state of mind.

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. It doesn't make any difference if it helps you medically, or if you can't drive without it due to seizures or anything else. If you can't drive without being buzzed on Cannabis, you just shouldn't be driving (my seizures are more dangerous while driving than me being buzzed behind the wheel). What if having a drink or two helped lessen your condition? Does that mean you should be able to drive with those drinks in your system? No, it doesn't. Other people should not be put at risk so you can have the ability to get to work or travel. If you are unable to drive due to a condition that Cannabis doesn't treat, you also shouldn't be allowed to just do it anyway and risk others, because you need to support your family, or leave the house. It's an unfortunate fact that some people have diseases/disabilities, but that doesn't mean others should be made to suffer as a result. The only one who has to suffer is the one that is afflicted. It's sad, but that's not me being mean. If you are considered too close to being blind to drive, you can't just do it anyway and risk the lives of others. You're the blind person. You are the one who has to suffer. Again, that's not me trying to be cruel or uncaring. I would love for those afflicted with issues to be given help. I just don't feel like one person's disabilities should put other people in harms way.

5. The same way two people with the same BAC can "feel" different levels of drunkenness, yet still be physically impaired to the same level (not referring to the mental impairment here, but rather the biological changes that occur at each BAC level), I believe that a BTHCC (blood THC content) level that is "safe" for the average person can be agreed upon, and that that number should be enforced. Sure some people might be more or less affected by the same BAC/BTHCC level, due to other biological factors, but you can't make laws based on the exceptions. You have to make them based on the large majority average, seeing as the people who fall into that category will be the ones involved in the most situations.

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. That's using your attention/focus for trying to be extra careful, which is a distraction in itself. You aren't as aware of the entire situation when you are focused on one 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. Having tunnel vision and laser focus MIGHT help you out if you were driving on a track with no possibility for anything unexpected to happen (a child running out, an animal jumping into the road, another car doing something dangerous, slipping on ice, etc.), but when you have the chance that something unexpected can happen and require ridiculously fast mental processing to avoid an accident, it is a hinderance. The Cannabis buzz focus is good for some things, but driving isn't one of them.

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. What if you get a split second vision flash/blur that happens sometimes? What if you get much higher than expected, or worse, much more impaired physically without feeling much more buzzed? It's usually fine in your home, but not behind the wheel. Just because it's never happened to you, doesn't mean it never will, and being behind the wheel when it does, is not a good idea.

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.

I'm more concerned with people driving tired than your one sided lecture.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

you should really watch some of these hardcore stoner gamer dudes, and then tell me how delayed their reaction times are. Hand/eye coordination from using cannabis? Still apparently excellent...

Not sure why some posters in this thread make it sound like everyone forgets their own name after a puff. Vapor is a very clean focused high, certainly not loopy... IMO driving while tired is far more dangerous than driving a couple hours after a toke. Your mileage may vary?

Yea, Cannabis-induced focus is great for gaming. Gaming and driving are completely different.

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. Having tunnel vision and laser focus MIGHT help you out if you are playing a video game, or something that doesn't involve potential unexpected occurences (a child running out in front of your car, an animal jumping into the road, another car doing something dangerous, slipping on ice, etc.), but when you have the chance that something unexpected can happen and require ridiculously fast mental processing to avoid an accident, it is a hinderance. The Cannabis buzz focus is good for some things, but driving isn't one of them.

I'm more concerned with people driving tired than your one sided lecture.

That's nice. It's also nice that we, with the intelligence capabilities most of us have, are capable of understanding that there can be more than one dangerous driving condition.

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. Punching someone is much worse than slapping them, but that doesn't make slapping people acceptable. You shouldn't drive under the influence of anything that can negatively affect your driving ability, be it prescription drugs, exhaustion, alcohol, Cannabis, depression, etc.. Just because some of those things aren't punishable by law, doesn't mean everything else should be legally allowed. That's not sound reasoning. If you had to make them all legal or illegal, they should all be illegal. Nobody needs to be killed because you aren't in a safe-for-driving state of mind.

 

[invertedisdead]

You're reaching. The discussion is hand eye coordination and reaction time. To say that gaming or driving is different is accurate, but does not dismiss the very valid coordination component which you have chosen to ignore. You're basically saying one can have incredible coordination and reaction when gaming on cannabis, but not while driving. Thats nonsense.

 

[His_Highness]

Before this thread woke up again I had pretty much stated in the thread .... I don't drive when I've just vaped. I don't equivocate on how much I vaped as to whether I'd get behind the wheel. Time is my barometer. I wait a couple hours after vaping AND I don't vape to the max if I'm driving even if I'm going to wait a couple hours. I could care less about the validity of being tested.

My opinions are based on "I gotta live with myself" and false equivalencies aside, others will have to live with their own decisions too. I asked myself the following in an effort to see where my true thoughts lie:
- Would I drive after just vaping if I were by myself. The answer was Yes.
- Would I drive after just vaping if my wife was in the car. The answer was Likely.
- Would I drive after just vaping if my grandchild was in the car. The answer was Hell No.
- Would I drive Vaked if it were an emergency like trying to get someone from my family to a hospital. The answer was Hell Yeah.

The answers to the questions above surprised me and forced me to take a good hard look at myself. I didn't like what I saw...... I was willing to risk hurting others on the road including my wife but I wasn't willing to drive my grandchild after just vaping.

I wouldn't drive my grandchild after just vaping because if something happened to him I'd never be able to live with the guilt that vaping was even a minor contributor.... I concluded that I was being selfish with other's lives and deluding myself because if I hurt someone I didn't even know driving my 4000 pound projectile, after just vaping.....I'd also never forgive myself. I stopped driving right after vaping from then on.

I've been gettin happy for over 4 decades and occasionally vaping still sneaks up on me so this is how I'm dealing with the topic. You choose your own path.....but I for one would not take it kindly if someone hurt a loved one of mine after vaping.....no matter how sure the person was that vaping wasn't even remotely part of the cause.

 

[vtac]

Since this is such a divisive topic participants need to exercise extra care in being thoughtful and respectful when posting. It would be nice if we could keep this discussion open; the topic is important and certainly one of the major challenges concerning big changes in laws. Let's try to set an example because the people who will ultimately make the laws regarding this will surely be less experienced and more biased. A scary thought.

IMO far more scientific inquiry is needed, and posters here should make more effort to clearly state opinion as opinion. Please also don't make the mistake of attempting to forcibly change anyone's mind but your own.

As @syrupy mentioned earlier on in the discussion, self-driving cars have the potential to solve all sorts of problems and that day is far closer than it was in 2015.

As usual, if this thread upsets you please don't feel the need to visit or participate. Posters who can't be respectful will likely be thread-reply-banned for a week. If you want a preemptive thread-reply-ban let me know.

Edit: biohacker - my pleasure, and I can hardly look after myself.

 

[biohacker]

@vtac, respectfully requesting a lifetime thread ban here. Thanks.

Just kidding, you have enough work to do around here babysitting children!

Unsubscribed.