Driving whilst high

[EverythingsHazy]

What about someone with mild hearing loss, they won't be able to hear sirens, horns, etc. Should they be able to drive? Colorblind people may have trouble seeing traffic lights or brake lights. Less intelligent people may not be able to remember all of the traffic laws as well, should they be able to drive?

They shouldn't be allowed to drive either. If you can't hear sirens and horns, can't differentiate colors which is the method used to direct traffic, and/or can't remember traffic laws, you are a nuisance on the road. How is that even up for debate?

 

[Farid]

Again, using an example of a worse option (being elderly and a bad driver) is not reason for justifying driving high.

I'm comparing myself to a 50 year old. Hell a 40 or 30 year old even. I'm in the prime of my life, and I think I am more than capable of operating a vehicle safely. I could be a better driver than you for all we know.

After the above statement though, I'm done engaging with you. Calling color blind people a nuisance. I'm red green color blind as well...

 

[Crohnie]

Being an odd bird, I've never had a driver's license. No one should drive while they're impaired. But one does have to take into account that the "side effects" of any medication tend to lessen significantly over time. Crohnie's own dear mother never stopped drinking a day in her life and yet, her 50 year driving record was absolutely spotless with the exception of 1 ticket for running a stop sign. In 50 years, she never had even the tiniest accident, not even a fender bender! She never even came close to having an accident. She was the exception. That doesn't make it right. But if I were forced to make a choice between riding in a car with the same driver drunk or high, I would pick the high driver every time.

 

[ZC]

DUI laws are problematic because they can lead to abuse by the police and don't always stop bad driving. Maybe a cop is having a bad day, sees you leaving the dispensary, and pulls you over because your taillight is out. They smell marijuana, you get tested and busted. You were driving perfectly safe, and may even be sober, but the cannabis is in your system. The only one who benefits is the police and judicial system. The streets are no safer for your arrest. Meanwhile as you're being handcuffed a car full of sober teenagers recklessly speeds by. This is the scenario I fear becoming more and more common as cannabis is legalized.

Let's focus on unsafe drivers as a society. I'm all for someone getting ticketed for eating a Big Mac while driving if they are being reckless, swerving, not paying attention, etc. And if someone has consumed too much cannabis to drive safely I don't want them on the road either.

This is a great post, and I strongly agree with this part. The current DUI laws for cannabis are terrible. Driving with THC in your system is not the same as driving with active THC and even some active THC doesn't necessarily mean you're impaired. The police use these laws to their advantage in a way that benefits only them and the private prison system. We undoubtedly need reform in these laws. It would be difficult to come up with a new standard we agree on, but the current laws need to change.

They shouldn't be allowed to drive either. If you can't hear sirens and horns, can't differentiate colors which is the method used to direct traffic, and/or can't remember traffic laws, you are a nuisance on the road. How is that even up for debate?

Deaf people drive can perfectly safely and hearing is very secondary and while helpful, is not required for safe driving.

Colorblind people also drive perfectly safely, they have to look at which position the light is in rather than what color. That's part of why the red light is always on top and the green light is always on the bottom.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

I'm comparing myself to a 50 year old. Hell a 40 or 30 year old even. I'm in the prime of my life, and I think I am more than capable of operating a vehicle safely. I could be a better driver than you for all we know.

And I'm not talking about getting high. I'm talking about driving in general, you seem to think I'm always high because I'm on medications...

Poor driving due to age related issues usually doesn't affect 30-40 year olds. A lot of times middle aged people are much better drivers than young people because they have more experience, and much better than the elderly due to having their senses intact. It's when the reflexes start to deteriorate, vision starts to fade, hearing gets lost, and thought processing becomes much slower, that people become worse drivers. At that point, they should be taken off the road.

I don't think you are always high, but when we are talking about driving high, in a thread about driving high, it makes sense to think that your posts have to do with driving high.

------

I do agree that marijuana metabolites should not be enough to deem a person high, tho. Just because you fail a drug tests for weed, doesn't mean you were high when you took it.

 

[His_Highness]

The thing I like about your posts are that you offer insight...keep it up! They actually make me think and not get defensive.

Thanks for the kind words!

I wonder if my viewpoint might change if I had a illness that required me to use all day, every day. I hope I never have to find out.

The closest I've come to day to day pain was when I recently fell off my high horse and landed on my soap box in another thread.

There is an aspect to this topic that we should all be aware of....general liability insurance. There came a point when my Mom was too old to drive. She lost control of the car in a parking lot and clipped a woman getting out of her car. The woman who got hit had a son who was a lawyer. The lawyer was offered a good settlement by the insurance company but when he found out my Mom had some assets worth trying to tap he declined the offer and they went to court. A judge ended up hearing the case and told the son he was a fool to decline the first offer, he was off base to begin with and since the original offer had expired, he would have take the new, lower offer. Point I'm trying to make is - that lawyer would have had a field day if my Mom were proven high and not just elderly.

Lets be careful out there....

 

[Frogman]

It would be difficult to come up with a new standard we agree on, but the current laws need to change.

Well put

 

[Crohnie]

Throughout the course of my life, I've ridden my bike in every state imaginable...ah youth! When drunk, I pretty much lost my balance and fell down. Another time, on an opiate painkiller, well...I never did that again. Biking while high....never had the slightest accident. The big difference? I rarely drank or had to take opiates, so I wasn't used to their effects.

 

[Farid]

I don't think you are always high, but when we are talking about driving high, in a thread about driving high, it makes sense to think that your posts have to do with driving high..

You believe that being on medications constitutes being high, and thus those on medications should not be able to drive. You are the one who keeps insisting that any consumption of cannabis constitutes being high.

I am saying that if you use a drug every day, you stop getting high from it. That's why the Dr. tells you not to drive on a new drug until you are used to its effects. That's also why people take tolerance breaks, because cannabis stops getting them high.

 

[Vapor_Eyes]

They shouldn't be allowed to drive either. If you can't hear sirens and horns, can't differentiate colors which is the method used to direct traffic, and/or can't remember traffic laws, you are a nuisance on the road. How is that even up for debate?

Unfortunately you fell right into my trap. I was hoping nobody would take that bait. I was trying to give examples of legal impairment and illustrate the slippery slope of banning impaired drivers. I was sincerely hoping nobody would suggest taking away the right to drive from those groups.

I was talking about mild hearing loss, but the law says completely deaf people are allowed to drive. Deaf people actually had to fight hard for this right in the early 1900s because they were perceived as less capable even though the facts showed the opposite. Sound familiar?

I mentioned less intelligent people not remembering all the traffic laws. I personally don't know all of the traffic laws, and when you take a drivers test they don't test you on every single law, nor are you required to get a perfect score. You are allowed to miss a few questions.

I doubt anyone on this forum knows every traffic law in their city and state. As an example of a little known traffic law, in many states it is legal to turn left at a red light if you are turning onto a one way street. In some places this is only legal if you are already on a one way street. Do you know the exact law in your state?

Intelligence is the slipperiest slope of all. Person A with an IQ of 100 might not want people with an IQ under 90 to drive. But compared to Person B with an IQ of 120, Person A would be considered "impaired".

 

[EverythingsHazy]

You believe that being on medications constitutes being high, and thus those on medications should not be able to drive. You are the one who keeps insisting that any consumption of cannabis constitutes being high.

I am saying that if you use a drug every day, you stop getting high from it. That's why the Dr. tells you not to drive on a new drug until you are used to its effects. That's also why people take tolerance breaks, because cannabis stops getting them high.

No, I believe that being on THC (or any other psychoactive cannabinoid) constitutes being high. The degree may vary, but by the time you are feeling anything at all, you are definitely high.

Unfortunately you fell right into my trap. I was hoping nobody would take that bait. I was trying to give examples of legal impairment and illustrate the slippery slope of banning impaired drivers. I was sincerely hoping nobody would suggest taking away the right to drive from those groups.

I was talking about mild hearing loss, but the law says completely deaf people are allowed to drive. Deaf people actually had to fight hard for this right in the early 1900s because they were perceived as less capable even though the facts showed the opposite. Sound familiar?

I mentioned less intelligent people not remembering all the traffic laws. I personally don't know all of the traffic laws, and when you take a drivers test they don't test you on every single law, nor are you required to get a perfect score. You are allowed to miss a few questions.

I doubt anyone on this forum knows every traffic law in their city and state. As an example of a little known traffic law, in many states it is legal to turn left at a red light if you are turning onto a one way street. In some places this is only legal if you are already on a one way street. Do you know the exact law in your state?

Intelligence is the slipperiest slope of all. Person A with an IQ of 100 might not want people with an IQ under 90 to drive. But compared to Person B with an IQ of 120, Person A would be considered "impaired".

I'm surprised fully deaf people can drive. It seems very dangerous to me. Probably more so than being slightly high on cannabis.

I know you said "mild hearing loss" which is why I specified if you can't hear sirens/horns. If you just don't have great hearing, you can probably drive just fine. Everyone has varying levels of hearing, but most horn and sirens and such, can be heard by almost everyone within reasonable range.

As for intelligence, I don't think you should be cut off based on your IQ, since that doesn't show your driving intelligence at all. However if you fail your test because you don't remember the laws they ask you about, or you break the laws and get caught, you should not be allowed to drive.

Also, there's a lot of space between not knowing every single driving law, and not remembering enough to drive safely.


But, seriously, again..... Just because there are worse options, doesn't mean that others should be legal as well. It doesn't even mean that the currently legal ones should be allowed either.

 

[RUDE BOY]

I have a bottle of a legally prescribed schedule II controlled substance in front of me. There is a warning label that says:

"This drug may impair the ability to operate a vehicle, vessel (E.G. Boat), or machinery. Use care until you become familiar with its effects."

Yeah, that's as strong of a warning as I've ever seen, always ends with something similar too your "use care UNTIL you become FAMILIAR with it's effects.

I've never read a warning label that stated "DON'T EVER operate a vehicle, vessel or operate machinery while using this medication"


All said though I do not condone driving while 'stoned' or as some say while 'Fucked-up'. I micro dose my herbs these days 'cause I need to function during the day and can't be impaired.

I don't know but maybe anyone who's not a medical user can't understand that after a decade or more of daily medical use(not balls to the wall getting fucked up kinda use) that I am in no way "impaired" unless I wanna over do it and go there.

Even so Just feeling a little High does not necessarily mean your actually "Impaired".

 

[Vapor_Eyes]

But, seriously, again..... Just because there are worse options, doesn't mean that others should be legal as well. It doesn't even mean that the currently legal ones should be allowed either.

You're going to have a hard time gaining support for that position. I can't imagine a bill passing that bans driving for deaf people, let alone anyone with any impairment.

It's not about "worse options". The point is we could all be considered "impaired" in some way. I guarantee if I knew you I could find some sort of mild impairment, and someone else who probably means well would not want you to drive.

Unfortunately, driving is very dangerous. There would still be car accidents even if there were no drivers with any impairment at all.

Zero tolerance sounds great on paper but it is unrealistic, unenforceable, and offers little added safety.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

I don't agree with the notion of getting "high as shit" while do.riving. Or driving in the car while simultaneously getting fucked up.

I've done it, in my youth. Bong rips on the freeway. Snorting pills off a cd case. It's incredibly irresponsible and wreckless and while 99% of the time, nothing is going to happen (I've never been in an accident under the influence or when I was being "wreckless"), it's pretty rude and irresponsible to the people you're sharing the roadway with. I trust that they aren't getting blitzed behind the wheel, so I feel I should contribute to a safer roadway and not get blitzed behind the wheel.

Now, I have to go do some errands in a bit, and go to the doctors office. Leaving in about 20 minutes. I'm prepping myself a dab now. No qualms at all with indulging a bit and feeling "high" but if its at the level where you can't operate a vehicle safely, its no bueno.

And the actual act of getting high while simultaneously operating a vehicle used to be something I was OK with, but in my older age is something I have drastically shifted my views from. I'll get high before I leave. I get high when I get there. Most of the time, I can wait the trip out.

For longer trips, I'll take edibles. And I usually wasn't the one driving on long trips, so I'd get a little high as a passenger. While its a slippery slope when you start making exceptions, I feel there can be a bit more leeway driving on the highway and getting high. If you were taking a cross state trip for instance, maybe you need to get high in that 5 hour trip. I would suggest going to a rest stop to toke up, but I would consider that person driving and getting high a bit more "safe" than someone doing city driving while also getting high. Driving on the highway for long periods of time...pretty boring and pretty easy/safe to do.

Lets just say that when I was burning with people and driving, I never really felt unsafe driving on the highway at 60-70 and getting high, but I would get nervous going 35 and having to be in a specific lane at a specific time and narrow streets in the city.

TLDR: Don't go overboard while medicating before you drive. If you're currently driving, should wait to get medicated until you reach your destination.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

You're going to have a hard time gaining support for that position. I can't imagine a bill passing that bans driving for deaf people, let alone anyone with any impairment.

It's not about "worse options". The point is we could all be considered "impaired" in some way. I guarantee if I knew you I could find some sort of mild impairment, and someone else who probably means well would not want you to drive.

Unfortunately, driving is very dangerous. There would still be car accidents even if there were no drivers with any impairment at all.

Zero tolerance sounds great on paper but it is unrealistic, unenforceable, and offers little added safety.

So where do you draw the line? I know people who claim to be able to drive while tripping on psychs, or who drive on coke. They can argue the tolerance issue as well. Should "just a little" meth be allowed while driving?

High driving being illegal shouldn't even matter to the people who think they are perfectly fine drivers while high, because they will probably do it anyway, and they shouldn't be recognizable by the police. If they get pulled over for something, who's to say that being high wasn't a contributing factor?

 

[Farid]

Should "just a little" meth be allowed while driving?

It is. Desoxyn, prescription methamphetamine HCL can be taken by those prescribed it, and they are legally allowed to operate a vehicle vessel or machine. Same goes for morphine.

 

[grokit]

I know people who claim to be able to drive while tripping on psychs, or who drive on coke. They can argue the tolerance issue as well. Should "just a little" meth be allowed while driving?

Tripping like hallucinating?
I would definitely draw the line there, but I don't think you hallucinate from psych meds at least not re-uptake inhibitors. As far as just a little meth here's some ritalin/add drugs no difference.

 

[ZC]

High driving being illegal shouldn't even matter to the people who think they are perfectly fine drivers while high, because they will probably do it anyway, and they shouldn't be recognizable by the police. If they get pulled over for something, who's to say that being high wasn't a contributing factor?

It actually matters a lot to the people who think they're perfectly fine high drivers, because if they are involved in an accident and then drug tested, they'll likely be found liable even if they weren't actually at fault in the accident.

 

[Vapor_Eyes]

So where do you draw the line? I know people who claim to be able to drive while tripping on psychs, or who drive on coke. They can argue the tolerance issue as well. Should "just a little" meth be allowed while driving?

High driving being illegal shouldn't even matter to the people who think they are perfectly fine drivers while high, because they will probably do it anyway, and they shouldn't be recognizable by the police. If they get pulled over for something, who's to say that being high wasn't a contributing factor?

You can get pulled over for a taillight that is out or other issues that have nothing to do with being high. I've been pulled over because the police claimed I fit a "description" of a car they were looking for. I was doing nothing wrong and the cops were reasonable, so nothing occurred. However, a different cop could have decided to be a hard ass and test me and I could have received a DUI.

And it is legal to drive on "just a little" meth, as long as it is legally prescribed. There is actually a prescription methamphetamine used for adhd and obesity called Desoxyn. It's rarely prescribed but Adderall is a brand name for amphetamine, a close relative to meth which is very commonly prescribed.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Fair enough. The meth thing is kind of funny. I forgot about those types of legal drugs haha.


As for cannabis, I never stated that it is impossible to drive well while experiencing its effects. I just don't think it is wise to assume that just because you are comfortable with it, you are also just as efficient and quick.

Also, not everyone who smokes and drives is good at it, so I rather it be illegal altogether than legal at all. It isn't necessary for >99.9% of cannabis users to be high all of the time, let alone while driving.

When it comes down to driving, I rather a small group of people be inconvinienced vs one person being killed as a result of being "fair". Yes that includes myself.

Not everyone is fit to drive, and if you aren't, efforts should be taken to make sure you don't. If you get away with driving while tired, old, half blind, buzzed, high, tweaked, dumb, etc., you got lucky. It doesn't mean that it's a smart thing to do.

As a cannabis user (yes significantly medical as well, but not "needed" [another point I was making that it can be uncomfortable to be sober sometimes but I wouldn't drive high]) know I rather everyone, or even every cannabis user, on the road with me to be sober vs high.
Sure some would be safe either way, but some wouldn't be safe high, and I don't want that mix to be legal.

 

[His_Highness]

Fair enough. The meth thing is kind of funny. I forgot about those types of legal drugs haha.


As for cannabis, I never stated that it is impossible to drive well while experiencing its effects. I just don't think it is wise to assume that just because you are comfortable with it, you are also just as efficient and quick.

Also, not everyone who smokes and drives is good at it, so I rather it be illegal altogether than legal at all. It isn't necessary for >99.9% of cannabis users to be high all of the time, let alone while driving.

When it comes down to driving, I rather a small group of people be inconvinienced vs one person being killed as a result of being "fair". Yes that includes myself.

Not everyone is fit to drive, and if you aren't, efforts should be taken to make sure you don't. If you get away with driving while tired, old, half blind, buzzed, high, tweaked, dumb, etc., you got lucky. It doesn't mean that it's a smart thing to do.

As a cannabis user (yes significantly medical as well, but not "needed" [another point I was making that it can be uncomfortable to be sober sometimes but I wouldn't drive high]) know I rather everyone, or even every cannabis user, on the road with me to be sober vs high.
Sure some would be safe either way, but some wouldn't be safe high, and I don't want that mix to be legal.

Playing devil's advocate here so please don't attribute this to taking sides.... but my curiosity is peaked....Does anyone's viewpoint change if the restriction to driving high is only pointed at those who don't need to medicate? In other words....if you need to medicate 24/7 there's an aspect of in order to live: 'I need to medicate, I need to get to work, see a doctor, go grocery shopping, etc.' This is self-preservation. So my question is does the debate change if you are a 'want to' versus 'need to'?

 

[ZC]

Playing devil's advocate here so please don't attribute this to taking sides.... but my curiosity is peaked....Does anyone's viewpoint change if the restriction to driving high is only pointed at those who don't need to medicate? In other words....if you need to medicate 24/7 there's an aspect of in order to live: 'I need to medicate, I need to get to work, see a doctor, go grocery shopping, etc.' This is self-preservation. So my question is does the debate change if you are a 'want to' versus 'need to'?

For me, no, it doesn't change. Impairment is impairment. One of my friends is legally blind. They can see basic shapes but detail is hard for them. Their life is incredibly inconvenienced by the fact that they can't legally drive because of this. But that's life. Their inconvenience is not worth the safety of others. If you need a drug that impairs you from driving or are otherwise have a condition that prevents you from driving safely, then sorry but you should not be on the road. It's certainly a hard life to survive without driving and requires lots of life changes for some people, but none of that takes priority over safety. Driving can easily cost you or those around you your lives.

 

[Alan Partridge]

If you don't like it...complete the puzzle...
F_C_ _O_!

FACTION?

 

[Vapor_Eyes]

Playing devil's advocate here so please don't attribute this to taking sides.... but my curiosity is peaked....Does anyone's viewpoint change if the restriction to driving high is only pointed at those who don't need to medicate? In other words....if you need to medicate 24/7 there's an aspect of in order to live: 'I need to medicate, I need to get to work, see a doctor, go grocery shopping, etc.' This is self-preservation. So my question is does the debate change if you are a 'want to' versus 'need to'?

As far as I'm concerned it's all about safety. Even recreational users should be allowed to drive under the influence responsibly and within reason.

In other words, the same way alcohol and prescribed medications are treated.

 

[syrupy]

As far as I'm concerned it's all about safety. Even recreational users should be allowed to drive under the influence responsibly and within reason.

In other words, the same way alcohol and prescribed medications are treated.

I don't follow you. People under the influence of cannabis or other things should be allowed to drive as long as they are being safe? The problem is, everyone is safe, until they cause an accident or hit a bystander. We're supposed to wait for each person to F&&K up before caring? How is that safety oriented?

Playing devil's advocate here so please don't attribute this to taking sides.... but my curiosity is peaked....Does anyone's viewpoint change if the restriction to driving high is only pointed at those who don't need to medicate? In other words....if you need to medicate 24/7 there's an aspect of in order to live: 'I need to medicate, I need to get to work, see a doctor, go grocery shopping, etc.' This is self-preservation. So my question is does the debate change if you are a 'want to' versus 'need to'?

I don't see how that would change anything. If I get run over I'm just as dead/injured with a medical user as a recreational one. It would be odd to break a law and then claim, well I needed to do this, medically, so forgive me.