Driving whilst high

hinglemccringleberry

hinglemccringleberry

Well-Known Member
TommyDee said:
NEVER FUCKING DRIVE WHILE HIGH! Simple enough? NEVER FUCKING DRIVE WHEN DRUNK EITHER but that's another thread.
You hit my car messed up, I mess you up to the highest degree the law allows. Simple enough?
That should be a very simple reply to this thread in all cases unless you are also willing to admit that risking someone else's life for your stupidity and arrogance is acceptable which is no excuse whatsoever. I have a super high tolerance and I know better.
Click to expand...
It should be simple. It's not. Drawing the line between harmless alcohol influence and being drunk and harmless marijuana influence and being high/stoned is up to the individual. Then you toss in the factor of people having varying intelligence and interpretations of intoxication, and it's anything but simple.
 
Last edited:
TommyDee

TommyDee

Vaporitor
The law made it very simple - prove your innocence after failing or refusing the sobriety test. That is when the fun begins.
 
Last edited:
Ramahs

Ramahs

Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017
TommyDee said:
NEVER FUCKING DRIVE WHILE HIGH! Simple enough? NEVER FUCKING DRIVE WHEN DRUNK EITHER but that's another thread.
You hit my car messed up, I mess you up to the highest degree the law allows. Simple enough?
That should be a very simple reply to this thread in all cases unless you are also willing to admit that risking someone else's life for your stupidity and arrogance is acceptable which is no excuse whatsoever. I have a super high tolerance and I know better.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah. As if everyone's wired exactly the same, lol . :dog:
 
biohacker

biohacker

H.R.E.A.M
I didn't mean to dig up this thread so we could all start arguing again. I dug it up because when legalization happened a lot of us here in Canada were concerned about these salivary tests and the extremely low threshold they would test for, which meant that medical users would be fucked even long after last usage. We basically concluded that it would be basically impossible to not get busted, and I recalled that @JCat was quite familiar with it all so tagged him on the current state of affairs because i've been completely out of the loop.

It was a hot topic for a minute a while back, and all over the media, but I haven't heard of lots of tickets or anything, so it just seemed weird that there was so much hype about it, and then nothing.

Like really, how many have been tested hot on the salivary test, and then brought in for a blood test? Seems like it was all just a massive scare tactic, and make work project. I think those things were like $100 a pop or something?
 
biohacker,
TommyDee

TommyDee

Vaporitor
Stay tuned. They're still wrangling this whole issue. Blood alcohol was easy. This is a tough cookie to legislate since cannabinoids are naturally occurring. At the moment, the law is being hands off to avoid looking like a new prohibition. But the heavy is still coming for the USA. Too many states are police states that take a heavy hand with the law.
 
His_Highness

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
DirtyD said:
Pretty much every time I ride. Bicycles and cannabis are a perfect pairing. Cheers! D
Click to expand...

This is true for me as well ..... except when trail riding/mountain biking on an advanced course I've never ridden before. Tried a new advanced course buzzed a few years back and it didn't go well. Back in my younger daze I wouldn't have thought twice about riding that trail high. Now ... I try to avoid real medical reasons for my use.;)
 
EverythingsHazy

EverythingsHazy

Well-Known Member
mccringleberry said:
It should be simple. It's not. Drawing the line between harmless alcohol influence and being drunk and harmless marijuana influence and being high/stoned is up to the individual. Then you toss in the factor of people having varying intelligence and interpretations of intoxication, and it's anything but simple.
Click to expand...
This is why, at this point in time, a simple "no driving under the influence of alcohol or Cannabis" is the only feasible option. We can't be wasting time and money, and risking lives, figuring out who has what level of tolerance, just so people can drive while high. There is no legitimate reason to legislate any other way with the technology/research that we currently have.

tokenknifeguy said:
I get that some can't drive high but some can. For those who can, it is no big deal. Cannabis doesn't intoxicate me, now matter how hard you want to believe.
Click to expand...
1. 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 do it safely, nobody should legally be allowed to. There is no legitimate reason strong enough to make the case for allowing buzzed driving, when it is dangerous in many situations.

2. Claims like yours, whether they are true or not, don't hold much weight. People genuinely believe false things about themselves (ex. "I drive better after a drink because I'm more relaxed" or "I smoked myself sober").
 
Gigsabits53

Gigsabits53

Well-Known Member
I will admit that I've driven high, but I dont make it a habit. I definitely will not do highway or interstate driving while high. The speeds do not give you enough time to correct.

Alcohol is similar to pot in that some people can drink more, vape more, because they have a built up tolerance. The similarities end there for the most part. There are many other factors that affect someone's level of intoxication. I think we need to keep people off the road who are intoxicated. It's really not hard to wait until you get home.

I also believe that some people may need cannabis to drive, for medical reasons. It would be similar to driving on your prescribed medication. That's an issue for smarter people than myself to adjudicate.
 
EverythingsHazy

EverythingsHazy

Well-Known Member
Alex3oe said:
If "under the influence" would be defined on a scientific base. Here these influence lasts for days if not weeks...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Alex3oe

Alex3oe

Accessory Maker
"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.
 
EverythingsHazy

EverythingsHazy

Well-Known Member
Alex3oe said:
"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.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I edited the post, since the real issue is performance, anyway.
 
ClearBlueLou

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
I know this has been and could again be a hot-button topic, and I don’t want to kick it all up again, but I do have thoughts.

Laws govern behaviors that generate injuries. Traffic laws are adequate to our needs in regard to the specific topic of driving. Stacking cannabis can happen either by targeting the cannabis use itself as the precipitating agent to the injury, or by using the legal status of cannabis to escalate the situation from a traffic accident to a crime scene.

Is there any reason for or justice in stacking cannabis as a complication in traffic mishaps? Maybe I’m just no good at this stuff, but the data does not seem to call for more concern over cannabis involvement than over dropping a lit cigarette in your lap or suddenly confronting an angry wasp: cannabis use is unlikely to provoke that kind of active crisis - unlike alcohol, where you can be “fine to drive” one minute, and ten later you are NOT fine. Reckless cannabis use is a more reasonable concern in a preventive sense: if you can’t remember how to walk straight, you’re stupid to drive and should sit back down.

I’m rambling. Point being that I think it’s an easy issue to get overwrought on, and most times we just need to remember that most times things work out. NONE of this is intended to excuse or permit or justify being stupid while operating machinery. AT ALL.
 
tokenknifeguy

tokenknifeguy

Well-Known Member
EverythingsHazy said:
1. 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 do it safely, nobody should legally be allowed to. There is no legitimate reason strong enough to make the case for allowing buzzed driving, when it is dangerous in many situations.

2. Claims like yours, whether they are true or not, don't hold much weight. People genuinely believe false things about themselves (ex. "I drive better after a drink because I'm more relaxed" or "I smoked myself sober").
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom