Driving whilst high

[Vapor_Eyes]

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?

And sober people are safe... until they cause an accident. Let's ban sober drivers too.

I feel I've articulated my viewpoint well in previous posts. I am against any unsafe driving, whether sober or under the influence. I say arrest people who text while driving, or eat a Big Mac. Arrest people who drive recklessly. If someone is under the influence of cannabis and swerving, etc. they deserve a DUI. I would say the same if someone had been drinking and driving recklessly but they were under the legal limit. They would still deserve a DUI.

Maybe we should just get rid of DUIs and make Reckless Driving have the same penalties DUIs used to. That would cover all of our bases moving forward. No need to create new laws for eating, texting, or for every new mind altering substance.

Again, I feel I have articulated my feelings fairly well. I will not be discussing this further.

 

[MoltenTiger]

We need more science.
I know of two instances where people have been roadside tested minutes after smoking cannabis and have come back negative. Obviously during that time they were under the influence, but the saliva test must not be effective.
If you get blood tested after an accident, and you are a found positive for THC (which will happen if you are a frequent user and not under the effect) you will be blamed, and flawed science will be used against you.
One of my mates lost his license after being suspected of being on drugs, he was tripping/coming down off acid. The police suspected he was high, failed to find a trace with a mouth swab and so blood tested him only to ping him for cannabis which he had not had that day.
There needs to be a better test, or at least theory shouldn't outshine fact.
(Although in this example I have no opposition to the legal verdict, justice was served)

You can moderate HOW high you get, but it's still being high. Even if you don't "feel" it that much, you are still high and impaired.

And yes, if you have seizures and need a mentally impairing medicine to live comfortably, I don't think you should be allowed to drive. Yes, it sucks. But having a medical condition does suck. Not everything in life is fair and fun. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you aren't 100%, you shouldn't do it, and whatever impairments can be tested for accurately, should be banned.

No one is ever '100%'. By your logic, there shouldn't be vehicles. There are unlimited variables at work in the real world and efforts to quantify impairments are not uniformly accurate and again, are not 100%. For this reason you can't blanket ban anything ethically and that's why people will get pissed off when you claim that's a reasonable resolution.
In most places worth being, driving is a necessity. It's not a right, no way, that's why we prove competence. If cannabis is no longer illegal, then it is fair to assume it then becomes a variable. Unless you can quantify the high (which is scientifically unlikely, at least for now), you can't factually talk about a level of impairment on an individual basis. You can deduce if they have used it in the past 4weeks/6months, but not to what extent. As tests indicate that driving under the influence of cannabinoids is not inherently dangerous, users should have the ability to prove their competence in a risk managed way. Once they have proved they are competent, they have valid argument to stand on given a situation that requires one. Fault and blame is then applied to the reality of an individual's mistake and if this is caused purely by negligence that is all that needs to be said. Drugs may effect performance but they don't cause accidents. People cause accidents, be it people on drugs, people sober, people sick, people tired. It's the persons fault and not anything more. You can't avoid danger and the studies are showing that cannabis doesn't add enough to warrant concern. More studies need to be done, always, but evidence needs to exist against an idea for it to maintain negative connotation otherwise ignorance prevails.

 

[His_Highness]

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'?

The above didn't seem to shift viewpoints at all. I posed the question because I feel sympathetic toward those who 'need to' medicate and are monitoring themselves so they don't go overboard while driving. Don't get me wrong though...I'm not suggesting sympathy and a medical need trump the safety of the overall population.

The alternate side of the question posed is about the 'want to' population. Having recently changed my own 'want to' habits to not driving high I have to admit that the habit isn't the only change. The other change is that I now believe that me driving high because 'I want to' was a uncaring, selfish act when compared to those who 'need to' medicate daily.

 

[kellya86]

What about riding a motorcycle high. Your only gonna hurt yourself then.
I always find soon as I'm on a bike I don't feel high anymore anyway.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

What about riding a motorcycle high. Your only gonna hurt yourself then.
I always find soon as I'm on a bike I don't feel high anymore anyway.

Eh, you can still kill people on a motorcycle. If you want to ride it (alone) on a track while high, I wouldn't mind, but you can definitely cause a fatal automobile accident with a motorcycle.

We need more science.
No one is ever '100%'. By your logic, there shouldn't be vehicles. There are unlimited variables at work in the real world and efforts to quantify impairments are not uniformly accurate and again, are not 100%. For this reason you can't blanket ban anything ethically and that's why people will get pissed off when you claim that's a reasonable resolution.
In most places worth being, driving is a necessity. It's not a right, no way, that's why we prove competence. If cannabis is no longer illegal, then it is fair to assume it then becomes a variable. Unless you can quantify the high (which is scientifically unlikely, at least for now), you can't factually talk about a level of impairment on an individual basis. You can deduce if they have used it in the past 4weeks/6months, but not to what extent. As tests indicate that driving under the influence of cannabinoids is not inherently dangerous, users should have the ability to prove their competence in a risk managed way. Once they have proved they are competent, they have valid argument to stand on given a situation that requires one. Fault and blame is then applied to the reality of an individual's mistake and if this is caused purely by negligence that is all that needs to be said. Drugs may effect performance but they don't cause accidents. People cause accidents, be it people on drugs, people sober, people sick, people tired. It's the persons fault and not anything more. You can't avoid danger and the studies are showing that cannabis doesn't add enough to warrant concern. More studies need to be done, always, but evidence needs to exist against an idea for it to maintain negative connotation otherwise ignorance prevails.

By my logic, if you aren't 100% because you are sleepy, nauseous, high, dizzy, old, etc., you should OPT to not drive. The impairments that can be tested for, should be tho. Just because you can't ban all dangers and accurately test for them, doesn't mean you should let them all slide.

While you can't "blanket ban" things without people getting upset (like prohibition of alcohol, or the illegality of weed), you most certainly CAN ban things during certain situations, such as being high while driving, or carrying liquids onto airplanes. It's not illegal to do those things normally in most places, but when it can be dangerous (note the word CAN), it is banned, and rightfully so. If that upsets some people, it's just too bad. Not everything goes 100% the way everyone would want.

Drugs may effect performance but they don't cause accidents. People cause accidents, be it people on drugs, people sober, people sick, people tired. It's the persons fault and not anything more.

So alcohol doesn't cause accidents either? That's just ridiculous, because it definitely does. Without being drunk, a lot of drunk accidents wouldn't have happened, which means it is the cause.

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

What I don't get, is why so many people feel like they NEED to be high for the couple hours that they'll be driving. I seriously only believe that less than 1% of cannabis users NEED to be high while driving, and unfortunately, I also don't believe those few should be allowed to drive. Everyone else saying they drive high on here, is saying it either helps, or makes it more fun, or whatever, but not providing a reason why they NEED it., and if you don't NEED it, then you shouldn't even question it, imo. Safety > comfort/preference.

 

[RUDE BOY]

EverythingsHazy I'd say for sure your not a medical user and your clueless, you seem Hazy on the fact that medicating does not always equate to getting high. Until you can accept that, all anyone else has to say to you is mute.

You already put forth some very strange concepts here on who should be allowed to drive. For one from your posts it seems to me you think only younger people in 100% perfect health should drive and the rest of us walk.

Your the only person on earth I've ever wished could walk in my shoes for a week and be sick as fuck and in pain from the time you wake until you sleep at night, maybe then you'll learn some of us use herb to function through life and not to get fucked up.

 

[syrupy]

What I don't get, is why so many people feel like they NEED to be high for the couple hours that they'll be driving. I seriously only believe that less than 1% of cannabis users NEED to be high while driving, and unfortunately, I also don't believe those few should be allowed to drive. Everyone else saying they drive high on here, is saying it either helps, or makes it more fun, or whatever, but not providing a reason why they NEED it., and if you don't NEED it, then you shouldn't even question it, imo. Safety > comfort/preference.

One thing that might help is to check the pantry for munchies BEFORE vaping.

 

[grokit]

"Judge not, that ye be not judged"

~ Matthew 7:1​

Interpretation: We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody else. Even if you're not religious they're words to live by, like the golden rule

 

[RUDE BOY]

"Judge not, that ye be not judged"

~ Matthew 7:1​

Interpretation: We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody else. Even if you're not religious they're words to live by, like the golden rule

So true, and it's yet so hard to put in practice in our day to day lives. ... So I know i'm Judged regularly.

 

[syrupy]

"Judge not, that ye be not judged"

~ Matthew 7:1​

Interpretation: We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody else. Even if you're not religious they're words to live by, like the golden rule

That sounds great as a personal philosophy, but in society we need laws & judgments, don't we? I don't drink & drive, so does that mean I shouldn't expect others to do the same?

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative.

 

[grokit]

That sounds great as a personal philosophy, but in society we need laws & judgments, don't we?

Yes, that's why we have laws and judges.
We should let them do their job, and help them to do it well.
These guidelines are for everybody else.
Laws and judges aren't perfect.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Yes, that's why we have laws and judges.
We should let them do their job, and help them to do it well.
These guidelines are for everybody else.
Laws and judges aren't perfect.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged"

~ Matthew 7:1​

Interpretation: We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody else. Even if you're not religious they're words to live by, like the golden rule

Us discussing this topic is helping them to do their jobs more efficiently, Would you rather them be the only ones making judgments, and everyone else's opinion just be silenced?

So far, nobody has said anything about high drivers being bad people. They've only said that high driving is bad. Yea, it's a judgment, but who's to say people can't discuss something they feel is important? If people can opt to drive high, others can surely opt to complain about it, or make an argument against it. As long as you don't flame other people, and aren't childish/rude, it's fine.

 

[grokit]

Us discussing this topic is helping them to do their jobs more efficiently, Would you rather them be the only ones making judgments, and everyone else's opinion just be silenced?

Yes, and no. These two concepts are not mutually dependent

 

[CarolKing]

Folks are going to differ on this subject. Why don't we just decide to make our own decision regarding whether we are competent enough to drive. It's obvious folks are not going to agree on this subject. I respect everybody else's opinion regarding this.

It's a hot button issue. That's great that everyone is so passionate about this.

 

[archangelz001]

A study that collates many studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/

"Marijuana has a measureable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills..."

http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

 

[MoltenTiger]

@EverythingsHazy

So alcohol doesn't cause accidents either?

I don't believe it does, I think it's drunk people.
For the most part I agree with you, and I think most people would agree with you fully.
All I'm saying is, from my experience and from what I've observed - there doesn't seem to be many if any serious accidents caused by someone intoxicated only by cannabinoids.
More science should be done to see if that's true or if it's unsafe at all.

Personally speaking and as a daily user, I find it enhances driving with negligible negative effect. I don't feel endangered behind the wheel, my passengers feel safe, I feel confident and am prepared to have that challenged. I don't at all have a need to drive high and in many situations I make sure I won't be (for work or some unfamiliar roads) but I enjoy driving, and I enjoy it even more after a toke.

More importantly, many people today use cannabis medicinally and one day soon many more across the planet will too. You can't expect a percentage of people to just stop driving, it's really not appropriate to do that. Isolated areas do have necessity for driving, it is unsafe to remove a basic privilege from capable people.
If it's being issued as medicine I think you are within your rights to continue to live a normal life.
I will continue to feel just as safe on the road. Further studies I think could agree with this.

A stoned license is a fun idea but ultimately it would be best to just stop testing at all and judge from the state of the person driving at the time of the act. If they're driving dangerously, they can be booked as such. Otherwise it's of no concern.
As it stands though, it's complete bullshit that you could be found to be the cause of an accident when all you did was use cannabis within the last 4 weeks. That's wrong.

EDIT: I think it's worth adding that I'm a daily user and because of this I have a fairly high tolerance. If this wasn't the case, which has been the case before, I wouldn't be as comfortable driving dank. Being constantly under the effects of cannabis compared to more normal use is drastically different.

 

[His_Highness]

A study that collates many studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/

"Marijuana has a measureable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills..."

http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

There was a common statement in the above articles: Impairment occurs and seems to be compensated by the user via less risk taking. I have a feeling that this statement is not going to help the on-going debate any more than it has previously. The person who's opinion leans toward not driving high will say 'see, impairment is occurring'. The person who's opinion leans toward driving high will say 'see, driving high isn't causing accidents because the driver is compensating for the affect of the impairment'.

The question I have is: If the impairment, minor or major, is compensated for by driving slower and with more care.....what happens when something on the road occurs too quickly for the impaired to compensate?

I also found it interesting that the articles backed up what many of the more 'long term use' folks stated as their own experience such as less aggressive driving. Very cool to see the studies back up the personal experiences like that.

It was also noted that the age of the user and length of experience with MJ also changes the impairment level which has also been mentioned in this thread. This brings to mind another question for me....does a T-break change the equation? This is definitely not a one size fits all situation.

 

[WeedyGirl1979]

I can only speak for personal experience. I've ridden with people I didn't know (ah, high school), new drivers, drivers that drunk as they drove (yes, I've made Really Bad Decisions) and stoned drivers and sleep-deprived drivers to the point that they missed a whole state that they were behind the wheel for- none of this is good, and all of them impaired. As for me, and yes, TMI, there are certain times that I feel like I'm a danger behind the wheel. My mind doesn't feel like mine, and I find myself making rookie mistakes- tailgating/switching lanes too abruptly, having to slam to stops- distracted driving at its finest. I'm not in a MMJ state, but considering I use to combat lots of anxiety, I'm sure I'd qualify.
All this to say I put my money where my mouth is. I have passengers with me at times. Most of those people are licensed drivers themselves that I trust wouldn't let me drive if I was unable. Or plain wouldn't get in the car- I don't force people to ride with me.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

@EverythingsHazy
I don't believe it does, I think it's drunk people.

But people can't be drunk without alcohol... That's similar to the guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yea, people WITH guns kill people. Of course nothing by itself without human interaction can cause a human accident/tragedy, but if it raises the percentage of something bad happening, it qualifies as a cause.

I don't believe high driving is anywhere near as bad as drunk driving, for people with high cannabis tolerances. I just don't believe relativity should be used as justification. Driving while fucked up on some hard drugs is worse than diving on alcohol, but that doesn't mean drunk driving should be legal. There's always something worse.


I just don't believe there are enough people who NEED to be high all the time, including while driving, to support making it legal. Far more people are going to abuse that freedom, and drive fucked up, without any medical NEED. Even those who are serious medical users can usually go a few hours sober, since a lot of cannabis' beneficial effects last longer than the high, anyway. As for the ones who can't function somewhat normally while sober, I don't trust cannabis to be precise enough to allow them to drive on. It's very easy to get much higher than you expected, off of the same amount of herb, due to a ton of different factors. If you were given pure THC, it'd be easier to judge, but still not super precise.

As for high trips being more fun? They definitely can be. I would be comfortable cycling high on a relatively empty road, or a trail, but I wouldn't be comfortable strapping my niece to the back of my bike in a baby seat, and taking the same trips. If I have a little disorientation or mishap due to being high, I'm prepared to handle hurting myself, not someone else.

 

[MoltenTiger]

@EverythingsHazy
But people know the stats on drink driving, we know that the risks are high and if you've ever driven drunk you should realise that even if you're in denial it feels like a bad thing to be doing. If an impairment can be compensated for then it no longer becomes a real impairment, or it at least negates concern. Drinking doesn't offer this, cannabis does.
The problem with cannabinoids is that it's hard to quantify the effect produced in the system. We have successfully developed a system for alcohol which gives a roundabout limit of consumption but there is no equivalent here. Instead all we can test for looks for illicit substance and it can be found after a 4 week break (3 hours since use isn't going to cut it).
And so, it's not that people should be somehow promoted to drive under the effect, but that people who aren't, aren't able to be judged to be (just by being an active user).
Basically it should be treated like the medicine it is, instead of the 'recreational drug' it also works as. Medicine can still be used as evidence against you in a fatality, even if it was used recreationally.

At the end of the day, it just comes down to the driver - you wouldn't feel comfortable driving your niece around under the effects of cannabis? Great, don't do it. I would totally feel comfortable doing this, but, I wouldn't feel as comfortable being intoxicated pointlessly infront of my family and so the option won't arise. But at any point, a blood test could prove otherwise.
If you drive, you have to be prepared for everything. Crashes rarely hurt one person. If you find you are disorientated or are causing mishaps because of something then by all means stop doing that. That's simply not the case with me and everyone I've known or have heard about driving after using only cannabis. All the anecdotal evidence is suggesting is that some people aren't as suited to it while some have no issue. Unfortunately though, common sense isn't the law.

 

[kellya86]

This isn't getting anywhere. As @CarolKing said, people are just gonna disagree on this, so let's just agree to disagree. And that's that.

 

[JCat]

There's no need to live up to your username and flame me.

If you have very bad vision, you are banned from driving. Why should having a problem that impairs brain function be any different?

Just because driving in pain or while nauseous, might be worse, doesn't mean driving high should be allowed.

Also, most people can take something else that isn't psychoactive, to help lessen the symptoms for a couple hours when they need to drive.

***Edit***

Agreed. Great post.

You know what ... guess I should quit my 2 jobs, lose my house, and go on disability and become a burden to society. (As that's my situation if I stop using cannabis) ... so if I stop taking my medicine, I will be a burden to society and unable to work, and if I keep taking my medication I will be unable to drive and will not be able to work ...

... for someone who doesn't want to attack anyone, not sure what you are doing ... I feel your posts are quite ignorant and insulting (but in case its not clear I don't mean to attack or insult you by saying this, so that should make it ok) ... and FYI ... my addiction counselor (not for cannabis), seemed to think it was perfectly safe to consume cannabis in reasonable limits and drive.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

You know what ... guess I should quit my 2 jobs, lose my house, and go on disability and become a burden to society. (As that's my situation if I stop using cannabis) ... so if I stop taking my medicine, I will be a burden to society and unable to work, and if I keep taking my medication I will be unable to drive and will not be able to work ...

... for someone who doesn't want to attack anyone, not sure what you are doing ... I feel your posts are quite ignorant and insulting (but in case its not clear I don't mean to attack or insult you by saying this, so that should make it ok) ... and FYI ... my addiction counselor (not for cannabis), seemed to think it was perfectly safe to consume cannabis in reasonable limits and drive.

Before cannabis were you jobless, homeless, and a disabled burden to society?

There are other means of transportation aside from driving. If you need to be high all the time, then you should make an effort to be somewhere that has public transportation or disability aid available, if you must work out of your home.

Some people who have medical conditions (including poor vision) can't get their licenses because it'd be too dangerous to allow them on the road. It sucks, but that doesn't mean they should be given a free pass. They have a medical condition. That is a disadvantage. Not everything is fair. They need to find another way to make a living.

What about doctors with medical conditions? Should they be allowed to perform surgery while high, because it's the only way they can? No. They just shouldn't be surgeons. Same goes for people who have shaky hands. It's a condition, and it does prevent you from doing certain things. You can't just pretend it doesn't, when it can affect anyone aside from yourself.

I know some people who not only can't drive, but can't walk, AND can't even wheel themselves around in a chair, and they are living their lives, finding ways to get to school and work, etc.. Are they at a severe disadvantage? Yes. Should they potentially put others at risk so they can live "normally"? No.
What about some blind people I know? They can't drive themselves anywhere, regardless of what medicine you give them, and they are living decent lives, not being stuck home on disability, jobless ,and a burden to society.

My posts aren't attacking or insulting. They just aren't sugar coated, because I know the real world is full of unfairness, and that we just have to deal with our own problems, on our own, without expecting to burden society with them, and without putting others at risk. Trying to be super fair and avoid hurting feelings isn't efficient. I haven't flamed anyone, and if I have, quote me. I've just been making points that are based on logic and not emotion/personal preference.

 

[archangelz001]

@EverythingsHazy ... you have made your position and opinions clear. Not everyone agrees with your black and white point of view, including me. And in general I'm not supportive of stoned driving. But medicated driving that improves functionality rather than degrading functionality is what some are arguing for, along with a dose of common sense. If you had your way it seems any disability, including an age limit that might disallow me, a 68 yr old, from driving, would need to be enforced. Statistics show that 16-25 yr olds get in a much larger % of accidents. Driving functionality is a bell-shaped curve. "Good enough to pass a test" applies to the large majority of drivers, including those with disabilities, functional impairments, drug impairments, intelligence impairments, age impairments, etc.

 

[BigJohnny]

Before cannabis were you jobless, homeless, and a disabled burden to society?

There are other means of transportation aside from driving. If you need to be high all the time, then you should make an effort to be somewhere that has public transportation or disability aid available, if you must work out of your home.

Some people who have medical conditions (including poor vision) can't get their licenses because it'd be too dangerous to allow them on the road. It sucks, but that doesn't mean they should be given a free pass. They have a medical condition. That is a disadvantage. Not everything is fair. They need to find another way to make a living.

What about doctors with medical conditions? Should they be allowed to perform surgery while high, because it's the only way they can? No. They just shouldn't be surgeons. Same goes for people who have shaky hands. It's a condition, and it does prevent you from doing certain things. You can't just pretend it doesn't, when it can affect anyone aside from yourself.

I know some people who not only can't drive, but can't walk, AND can't even wheel themselves around in a chair, and they are living their lives, finding ways to get to school and work, etc.. Are they at a severe disadvantage? Yes. Should they potentially put others at risk so they can live "normally"? No.
What about some blind people I know? They can't drive themselves anywhere, regardless of what medicine you give them, and they are living decent lives, not being stuck home on disability, jobless ,and a burden to society.

My posts aren't attacking or insulting. They just aren't sugar coated, because I know the real world is full of unfairness, and that we just have to deal with our own problems, on our own, without expecting to burden society with them, and without putting others at risk. Trying to be super fair and avoid hurting feelings isn't efficient. I haven't flamed anyone, and if I have, quote me. I've just been making points that are based on logic and not emotion/personal preference.

Mate, you keep banging on about how things aren't fair and some people are at a disadvantage, which is obviously true for some people, but if Jcat can control his ailments with cannabis which means he can drive/work etc, then why shouldn't he? I blind person will never be able to see regardless of what medication they take, so bringing them into the discussion is incomparable to be honest.