I see lots of good posts on this thread and as lwein stated in his own, everyone has their own freedom and entitlement of opinion. And with my right, I rightfully use it to reiterate this point posted prior:
lwein:
The question is, do you think that there is a "
possibility" that your reaction time will be slowed a bit in an emergency situation when you are even just a little bit high.
Now I really don't want to sound pompous so I will do my best to just ask retorical questions.
Now I think that we could split hair and such but most on here would probably conclude that they would feel much safer driving "high" rather than "drunk"? And we also did touch up on something that pisses me off just as much as stated earlier of distracted drivers like cell phone Nazis and maybe I should slapped on the wrist for still using cd's and changing those? Haha Guilty as charged. So I give you this to those of you that say you focus more on driving while high, how could not say looking in the mirror (regardless the reason) isnt a distraction? "BUT WAIT, THAT"S SOMETHING YOU DO TO CHECK FOR CARS! THAT'S NOT A DISTRACTION!"
Now please don't be offended, but I kind of see a double standard of some posts as far as what is acceptable of what to do in the car because of its possibility to be a major distraction. Do you realize that you could be smashed from the side from a driver unknowingly while you are focused on "driving"? WTF does that mean? Well, again, driving isnt just driving, its gas, brake, shift, blinkers, looking at 3 different mirrors, visual, auditory, etc, etc. So could we at least agree that "driving" really is NOT just "driving.
I did read someone post about tolerances and I do think that yes, the more frequent the use, the body adjusts and the high seems less drastic compared to the stoniness of the first trip we look back on.
Medicinal or not, I don't think anyone in
law ENFORCEment would give a care about what would require you (in your opinion) to be "high" while you drive? We can all sit here on a keyboard and type that I am better at this and better at that while I am "high" but someone, if you can, tell me what would hold up in front of a judge if you got caught under the influence that wouldn't get scoffed off as not being an excuse, but A LEGITIMATE reason to prove that you really are better at "x" when you're high compared to being less capable being sober while doing "y".
what I think has not been brought up is you really might not be high in the sky because you have a high tolerance, but if you got tested, they would go by the reading on the machine they use to test the amount of substance in your body? If only law enforcement had made such technology to just do pass/fail grade for us stoners huh? Lol "not high enough/too high" But life doesnt work that way or at least I don't think so. So I dont know if a statement like "I know how to get not too high or not too fucked up so I can't drive" is really valid at all. I am not stating that there is not a line or a gray area but I think that high is high when you start getting law involved.
So again, it's not a matter of are you a better or worse driver while high, it is how could you in anyway say that you could or couldn't have the same or better reactions of motor skills in an unexpected situation while you were high compared to you being high?
I think lwein has the same take as I have recently taken after taken a great and still going t-break. Also been a good reality check for me as too not only be thankful for my lack of any accidents or unluck occurrences. But also that I have not gotten pulled over for any other reason that might have put myself in jeopardy to possibly get a charge of driving under the influence. I think its clear after a post like this that I really dont have a plan to drive "influenced" any time soon.