archangelz001
FIRE!!
You miss the point: impairment with THC equal to 0.08 impairment with alcohol wasn't reached until THC reached the level of 13.1, over twice what the arbitrary level is in CO.
Driving whilst high
- Thread starter bluenavey00
- Start date
MinnBobber
Well-Known Member
.............................
no, that was my point exactly
If they used the CO level for THC, the impairment would be way less than alcohol.
Using 2.5 X CO, they then get more equal impairment
archangelz001
FIRE!!
Are we saying the same thing? The CO level of 5.0 is arbitrary and misleading and doesn't represent a real level of impairment. Actual functional impairment with a blood alcohol level of 0.065 is the same with a THC level of 13.1.
EverythingsHazy
Well-Known Member
Yes, test All because of Some. I didn't say punish all, but to test them is perfectly fine.
How is testing someone to see if they can still drive at proper speeds, park the way they should, react properly to things, and not cause traffic, abusive or invasive, at any age?
Also, nobody is too busy for 2 hours every 5 years. Definitely nobody on this forum, that's for sure, or they wouldn't have time to be on a weed forum.
There is no logical reason to oppose drivers license retesting over 60, aside from people worrying that they'll fail and have their license revoked, in which case, they shouldn't be driving anyway.
Anyone who has to deal with being on the road knows that older drivers become less competent and less sharp over time, and while they might not crash more due to their slow driving, they cause traffic due to their slower thought processing.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@EverythingsHazy Im not sure why you keep repeating the same thing over again? You have made your point. You want folks to get retested at age 60 then every 5 years. Why don't you write your Senator and suggest that. It might be something that the congress and senate might want to tackle since most of them are over the age of 60.
Also you don't think folks should use cannabis and drive, I understand your position and respect that.
And you seem to have plenty of time on a "weed forum". This site is much more than just a weed forum. You should realize that yourself, I'm offended by that. Also you stated you feel that most folks that use cannabis for their illness don't really need that either. How dare you make judgements like that. That also is offensive to many that are really sick and hurting.
Also you don't think folks should use cannabis and drive, I understand your position and respect that.
And you seem to have plenty of time on a "weed forum". This site is much more than just a weed forum. You should realize that yourself, I'm offended by that. Also you stated you feel that most folks that use cannabis for their illness don't really need that either. How dare you make judgements like that. That also is offensive to many that are really sick and hurting.
Last edited:
All I can do is state my position, which strongly disagrees with yours at every turn. I certainly don't wish to waste any more of your time or mine by arguing these points further. Now if you'll excuse me ...I work three jobs over 7 days/week. It's getting late and I'm tired and still not done for the day. I'd love to contribute more of my time here in my usual spirit of sharing of what I hope can be of value to some, and I always enjoy the short breaks, but this old geezer's gotta get back to the salt mine
. Tally Ho!!!
Last edited:
EverythingsHazy
Well-Known Member
I made a survey about medical cannabis usage (with driving questions included for those who they apply to), for all who are interested. If we get enough responses, I'll post up some stats.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5GRLYX8
**Edit**
Also, no hard feelings for anyone in this thread who has been civil the entire time, regardless if I agree or disagree with you.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5GRLYX8
**Edit**
Also, no hard feelings for anyone in this thread who has been civil the entire time, regardless if I agree or disagree with you.
Last edited:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...r-a-wild-weekend/story-fneuz9ev-1227557783376
I read this last night and found it interesting. Seems like the experts have no fucking idea. It seems that at the moment all we can base our decision on is honest self-assessment. I believe that most adults are capable of doing this. Some of us feel okay driving and some of us don't and some of us don't have much choice at all (ie medical users/people in isolated areas). Whatever people decide, I don't think too many of us are heading out for a drive completely messed up and feeling unsafe...
I read this last night and found it interesting. Seems like the experts have no fucking idea. It seems that at the moment all we can base our decision on is honest self-assessment. I believe that most adults are capable of doing this. Some of us feel okay driving and some of us don't and some of us don't have much choice at all (ie medical users/people in isolated areas). Whatever people decide, I don't think too many of us are heading out for a drive completely messed up and feeling unsafe...
On the topic of self-driving vehicles: I absolutely would trust a self driving car. Nearly all accidents are caused by user error, either from distracted or impaired driving, and computers just don't make those kind of mistakes. Google has been testing its cars in california for a few years, and the ONLY accidents they've been in so far have been either someone else crashing into the self driving car (usually rear-ending) or when the "driver" of the self driving car took over and the car wasn't actually self-driving.
Your "intuition" can absolutely be replaced by actual calculation. A car can have cameras and sensors all the way around it so it can be far more aware of the road than a person ever could be. Even if a computer does end up making a mistake driving (again, which hasn't happened yet) it is far less likely than a human making the same mistake. I am thrilled for a future when people who are impaired, whether from alcohol, cannabis, sleep deprivation or anything else, can safely get home without putting others in danger.
Would I trust a plane without a pilot? Absolutely. Planes are in general much safer than cars already, and the few plane crashes I can remember in the past few years were caused by user error.
Granted, all this is years and years away since the tech is moving far faster than the legislation. The CA-imposed law that self driving cars require a sober driver ready to take over is a big problem in my opinion but I'm sure it'll be changed once self driving cars are more proven. As is, it prevents these cars from helping the people who really need them: the disabled, especially the blind. Then after all that the price has to come down to something reasonable, but I don't think that'll take as long as you'd expect since most of this is software and the hardware cost of the sensors needed isn't going to be a massive cost or anything.
As for the "mowing down children or hitting a wall" the wall is absolutely the correct choice in that scenario. The kids have no protection from the car, which will very likely kill them. The wall MIGHT kill you, but you have a better chance since you're protected by a crumple zone, seatbelts, airbags, etc. So if you hit the wall there's a much better chance that everyone survives. If you'd choose to run the kids over, sorry but that's pretty fucked up. The car isn't "deciding" to kill you, it's trying to minimize the chance of anyone losing their life.
Your "intuition" can absolutely be replaced by actual calculation. A car can have cameras and sensors all the way around it so it can be far more aware of the road than a person ever could be. Even if a computer does end up making a mistake driving (again, which hasn't happened yet) it is far less likely than a human making the same mistake. I am thrilled for a future when people who are impaired, whether from alcohol, cannabis, sleep deprivation or anything else, can safely get home without putting others in danger.
Would I trust a plane without a pilot? Absolutely. Planes are in general much safer than cars already, and the few plane crashes I can remember in the past few years were caused by user error.
Granted, all this is years and years away since the tech is moving far faster than the legislation. The CA-imposed law that self driving cars require a sober driver ready to take over is a big problem in my opinion but I'm sure it'll be changed once self driving cars are more proven. As is, it prevents these cars from helping the people who really need them: the disabled, especially the blind. Then after all that the price has to come down to something reasonable, but I don't think that'll take as long as you'd expect since most of this is software and the hardware cost of the sensors needed isn't going to be a massive cost or anything.
As for the "mowing down children or hitting a wall" the wall is absolutely the correct choice in that scenario. The kids have no protection from the car, which will very likely kill them. The wall MIGHT kill you, but you have a better chance since you're protected by a crumple zone, seatbelts, airbags, etc. So if you hit the wall there's a much better chance that everyone survives. If you'd choose to run the kids over, sorry but that's pretty fucked up. The car isn't "deciding" to kill you, it's trying to minimize the chance of anyone losing their life.
archangelz001
FIRE!!
Took the survey. Your bias is clear from the wording and choices, but it was fun anyway ;-)
So I haven't read this thread, but by the looks of this page it must have been a hoot!
Anyway, driving when your impaired isn't big or clever.
I drive stoned and I'm a safe stoned driver. If your not, don't drive stoned.
Oh, and everyone knows a nun pushing a pram is 100 points.
Anyway, driving when your impaired isn't big or clever.
I drive stoned and I'm a safe stoned driver. If your not, don't drive stoned.
Oh, and everyone knows a nun pushing a pram is 100 points.
virtualpurple
Well-Known Member
Stoned drivers, drunk drivers, high drivers...they all look the same when they arrive in my ER after a slip behind the wheel. Sure smell different though.
kellya86
Herb gardener...
@virtualpurple, are you a doctor or surgeon. Are you also an mj user.?
If so then surely you are no better than high drivers. If you have any amount of thc in your system and work on patients, surely thats the same. Putting a life at risk due to impairment.
I'm not having ago I'm in support of driving with thc in my system. I know it makes me safer. Just asking questions.
If so then surely you are no better than high drivers. If you have any amount of thc in your system and work on patients, surely thats the same. Putting a life at risk due to impairment.
I'm not having ago I'm in support of driving with thc in my system. I know it makes me safer. Just asking questions.
virtualpurple
Well-Known Member
I am a Nurse in an ER.
Yes, I am also a consumer and a MMJ patient. I don't drive under the influence of marijuana, and I don't work under the influence of marijuana just like I don't work under the influence of alcohol. I tend to only vape on my days off from work. That is mostly because I want to keep my tolerance on the lower end of the spectrum, I wouldn't really have issue with vaping before bed on work nights.
Note though that I am not really trying to cast a vote criticizing people that use cannabis and drive or work. I just find that neither act will mix with marijuana in my personal life.
I got into vaping about 1.5 years ago for headache relief and an alternative to sleep-aids for insomnia. However, I also enjoy cannabis recreationally on my off-days. I also did not begin vaping until I got a MMJ card. I had smoked pot before, but only on several occasions very sporadically for years.
I know and work with plenty of Nurses, Physicians, Surgeons, and even Police Officers that smoke or vape recreationally. As far as I know none of them do it while on the job. I could be wrong in this assumption, but I would wager that good employees that use substances prohibited at their workplace tend to be very cautious about performing well at work.
If I were in an accident tomorrow and had to go into the ER and under the knife in the OR I would be completely comfortable in the hands of the doctors and surgeons that I know use cannabis. But I also have the peace of mind of having known these people for years and seen the results of their procedures or their surgeries. Frankly I just trust that they're not going to come into work altered and start digging into people. The risks involved are a little too great when you have licensing boards and stuff like that.
I realize that some people aren't comfortable with the idea of people in health care or law enforcement using marijuana. I can understand and appreciate the concern. However, I'm of the belief that ones career shouldn't prohibit their recreational activity unless their recreational activities begin impacting their careers.
My previous comment was not in any way a vote on whether I think people should be driving while high. I just know that its never been something I've dabbled with because I wouldn't be prepared to face the personal guilt or penalties if I got into an accident while using marijuana. However, I'm not trying to measure anyone else by my yardstick. I'm glad that I'm not in a position to have to make those sorts of judgement.
My only word to people that drive while feeling the effects of marijuana is just to please be safe and exercise great caution. Life still happens and if you find yourself in an accident where another driver is at fault you may still be asked to submit to testing.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
When was the last time you had a MJ induced laughing fit?
When I first started using back when dinosaurs roamed ..... my friends and I didn't set out to mimic a Cheech and Chong movie but we ended up that way just the same. Stereotypes like billowing clouds in a car, bedroom, what have you... and Pink Floyd where the norm back then. Sometimes it was 'Wow Man, that was deep' when it wasn't.... and sometimes it was a laughing fit over something as mundane as how eating a potato chip sounded. I envy the folks who can get this high but they have no business behind the wheel after using. Same goes for anyone who encounters something so good that it can take them there.
Now I probably have one of those blessed laughing events once every year or two and because I have so much experience I could enjoy it and still be cognizant enough not to get behind the wheel. Even if I were to set out to get this high I rarely can anymore.
It's the wide ranging personal affect and experience that makes this a debate.
When I first started using back when dinosaurs roamed ..... my friends and I didn't set out to mimic a Cheech and Chong movie but we ended up that way just the same. Stereotypes like billowing clouds in a car, bedroom, what have you... and Pink Floyd where the norm back then. Sometimes it was 'Wow Man, that was deep' when it wasn't.... and sometimes it was a laughing fit over something as mundane as how eating a potato chip sounded. I envy the folks who can get this high but they have no business behind the wheel after using. Same goes for anyone who encounters something so good that it can take them there.
Now I probably have one of those blessed laughing events once every year or two and because I have so much experience I could enjoy it and still be cognizant enough not to get behind the wheel. Even if I were to set out to get this high I rarely can anymore.
It's the wide ranging personal affect and experience that makes this a debate.
kellya86
Herb gardener...
@virtualpurple I wasn't attacking or judging you. I was just curious. I would have no issue being treated by someone who had used cannabis the night before.
@His_Highness, I still get a good laughing fit even after 15 years. Last thing that done it for me was the Amy Winehouse documentary where they showed her and Pete doherty with a lunchbox full of baby mice. Its on youtube. Had me in stitches for a good ten mins. Don't know why. Was very high but not as high as them.
@His_Highness, I still get a good laughing fit even after 15 years. Last thing that done it for me was the Amy Winehouse documentary where they showed her and Pete doherty with a lunchbox full of baby mice. Its on youtube. Had me in stitches for a good ten mins. Don't know why. Was very high but not as high as them.
Last edited:
Vapor_Eyes
taste buds
I also found that article very interesting.
news.com.au said:
I'm not sure what the riders have to do with anything, and also note that this is just people involved in the accident, not necessarily causing it. Because of this the percentage of drivers on illegal drugs causing fatal accidents should be lower than 14%.
news.com.au said:
So based on these facts 33% of drivers have an illegal drug in their system and at most 14% of fatal accidents involve "high" drivers. It appears to me that the "high" drivers are safer and less than half as likely to be involved in a fatal accident than sober drivers.
The article also mentions the tests costing six million dollars and that they have not been proven to be effective in preventing accidents.
That's a lot of taxpayer money spent on something with little to show for results.
I can already hear the argument: "If you can save one child's life with that money than it is worth it."
The only problem with that argument is that you could save 60 or more child's lives by donating $6,000,000 to a children's hospital instead of using it for roadside drug testing.
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
I have heard the statement that 50% of traffic fatalities are alcohol related. Doesn't that mean 50% are not and that makes it a non factor in considering what laws to pass? I guess it means that driving no no different from the rest of our lives. Do the best you can do.
Vapor_Eyes
taste buds
The article I previously quoted stated that 1 in 300 drivers tested positive for alcohol. If 0.333 percent of drivers are causing 50% of fatalities then it is probably an issue that needs to be addressed, and data based on real world accidents supports this. That is why there are special penalties for driving after drinking too much alcohol.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
For our friends in the UK.
The new drug tests.
They enable police to instantly detect cannabis and cocaine at the roadside. Eventually it is hoped the tests will be able to recognise 14 other drugs, both legal and illegal.
But police forces are already recording alarmingly high hit rates – with most forces saying around 50 per cent of motorists they pull over are testing positive.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...failing-new-roadside-tests.html#ixzz3np7S9ez5
The figures suggest many people have been driving after taking drugs because they are convinced they can get away with it.
Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin last night said the findings, obtained by a survey of police forces, vindicated the push to make drug-driving as socially unacceptable as drink-driving.
He said: ‘I want to remove dangerous drivers from our roads, including those who think it’s acceptable to drive under the influence of drugs. The law has made it easier for police to secure convictions and will help save lives.’
The new law came in on March 2, and sets permissible limits at very low levels – bordering on ‘zero tolerance’ – for eight illegal drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy.
It also covers eight prescription drugs, typically used for insomnia or anxiety, with limits exceeding normal prescribed doses. Roadside drugalysers can detect cannabis or cocaine in the saliva, but laboratory testing is needed for other banned substances.
Motorists convicted of drug-driving face a minimum of a year’s ban, a hefty fine and up to six months in prison.
The new testing kits, pictured, were introduced in March in the wake of legislation to crack down on motorists who get behind the wheel after taking drugs
I would be curious if the test showed cannabis even if it hadn't been used that day?
The new drug tests.
They enable police to instantly detect cannabis and cocaine at the roadside. Eventually it is hoped the tests will be able to recognise 14 other drugs, both legal and illegal.
But police forces are already recording alarmingly high hit rates – with most forces saying around 50 per cent of motorists they pull over are testing positive.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...failing-new-roadside-tests.html#ixzz3np7S9ez5
The figures suggest many people have been driving after taking drugs because they are convinced they can get away with it.
Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin last night said the findings, obtained by a survey of police forces, vindicated the push to make drug-driving as socially unacceptable as drink-driving.
He said: ‘I want to remove dangerous drivers from our roads, including those who think it’s acceptable to drive under the influence of drugs. The law has made it easier for police to secure convictions and will help save lives.’
The new law came in on March 2, and sets permissible limits at very low levels – bordering on ‘zero tolerance’ – for eight illegal drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy.
It also covers eight prescription drugs, typically used for insomnia or anxiety, with limits exceeding normal prescribed doses. Roadside drugalysers can detect cannabis or cocaine in the saliva, but laboratory testing is needed for other banned substances.
Motorists convicted of drug-driving face a minimum of a year’s ban, a hefty fine and up to six months in prison.
The new testing kits, pictured, were introduced in March in the wake of legislation to crack down on motorists who get behind the wheel after taking drugs
I would be curious if the test showed cannabis even if it hadn't been used that day?
Last edited:
@CarolKing
That stuff really scares me. This kind of zero-tolerance test on cannabis essentially makes driving illegal for anyone who uses cannabis, regardless of if they are high on the road, can be prosecuted for impaired driving. It's extremely ignorant and helps nothing but the police's numbers. If you're going to prosecute high drivers, at least try to figure out a system that takes into account if they're actually high, not just if they happen to have THC in their system. We all know that's not the same thing.
That stuff really scares me. This kind of zero-tolerance test on cannabis essentially makes driving illegal for anyone who uses cannabis, regardless of if they are high on the road, can be prosecuted for impaired driving. It's extremely ignorant and helps nothing but the police's numbers. If you're going to prosecute high drivers, at least try to figure out a system that takes into account if they're actually high, not just if they happen to have THC in their system. We all know that's not the same thing.
kellya86
Herb gardener...
It's not zero tolerance there is a safe thc limit. But this sucks. I already have a friend who has lost his liscence, car and job due to this. He wasn't even high at the time. And now to get his liscence back he must pass a drugs test for 6 months. And attend a drug talking couse thing as if he was a crack head. Fucking ludicrous.
