|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 21 2017 22:13 Velr wrote:Recently I had 3-4 "regular" stoners tell me that being high doesn't impede with their driving, while they tried to play tabletennis... It was kinda hilarious  . I highly doubt its worse than being drunk. But if your really stoned your driving is clearly not as good, how should it be? It Limits your senses atleast mine. Feeling smarter/more Aware while stoned? What? I usually feel dimmed by it, I still like it but giving it "sense enhancing" perks must be some dumb joke?
I read some stuff awhile ago; iirc the effect of being stoned tends to be around equivalent to something like a BAC of .07 memory is rather rough as it was awhile ago so maybe the number was different. but it was definitely equivalent to some alcohol in the system, though far milder than having a BAC of like .2
|
I don't think it's particularly helpful to relate marijuana's effect on driving to alcohol through BAC, as one of the big problems with regulating marijuana deals in how difficult it is to measure how high a particular person is at a given time. BAC is a a fairly linear, predictable indicator that tends to only yield false positives when dealing with alcoholism or the rare mouthwash type incident. There is no such indicator relative to thc and its related compounds (hair, piss, and even buccal swabs only provide backwards glances that have very attenuated connections to test-contemporaneous cognitive functioning), which is why GH's push towards a more driving ability-centric test makes a fair bit of sense. The problem, of course, is figuring out exactly what that would look like in a practical sense.
|
If we can come up with a good driving ability test that can be field administered, great, i'm all for that. I'd be fine with putting some good research funding into developing one.
or if we can find some chemical tests for marijuana with better correlation with driving ability.
|
The Problem with BAC is that its a number that doesn't tell you anything. The Body gets used to alcohol so it learns to "behave" like it isn't drunk with a way higher BAC.
I don't drink/smoke and drive in General, so it isn't even an issue for me, but not being able to drink 2-3 glasses of wine when i am at my parents or at some after work meeting because that would make me a drunk driver is absolutely retarded.
|
BAC has its own reliability problems, for sure, as does pretty much every bioindicator, but it's certainly a lot more reliable than its marijuana alternatives.
|
On April 21 2017 22:33 Velr wrote:
The Problem with BAC is that its a number that doesn't tell you anything. The Body gets used to alcohol so it learns to "behave" like it isn't drunk with a way higher BAC.
I don't drink/smoke and drive in General, so it isn't even an issue for me, but not being able to drink 2-3 glasses of wine when i am at my parents or at some after work meeting because that would make me a drunk driver is absolutely retarded.
BAC tells you quite a bit. There's extensive research and well documented effects on varying BAC levels on the crash risk.
and your claims of body learning to "behave" seem unfounded, and at any rate the hard data is what it is.
It's retarded that a vastly well documented effect ofeven .05 BAC on substantially increased crash risk is acted upon? really, that seems more like a well thought documented empirical result. what you're saying sounds more like an ethical opinion on how risks should be weighted and what constitutes acceptable risk levels.
|
United States43953 Posts
Any system that relies upon situational assessment of impairment rather than flat prohibition is dependent entirely upon access to immediate verification of impairment before driving. If driving after one drink is illegal then a driver can immediately verify if driving is illegal before he gets behind the wheel by simply reviewing what he has had to drink. Whereas if impairment is illegal then the driver must verify whether it'd be illegal through other means which at present pretty much just consists of the impaired driver themselves assessing their own level of impairment. And even if your police force is actually pretty good about picking them up and charging them after the fact the policy of policing impairment would still lead to more impaired drivers on the road.
Personally I'd go for a draconian route. Immediate confiscation of any vehicle driven while under the influence, to be sold for funding for public transport (following the failure (or refusal to take) of a valid drug test, not just a police officer's gut feeling). I know people get around that by borrowing other peoples' vehicles, fuck them, if you gave them the keys then you're culpable, I'd still confiscate it.
It's a shitty situation because a lot of people depend on transport in order to provide for themselves and that means that removing it can have consequences that spiral out of control. If an individual is working poor and taking away their ability to drive would leave them unemployed, homeless, unable to support their family, stuck in inescapable debt and probably ultimately in jail then I can absolutely see why a judge would think that leniency is a net societal good. But DUIs, points on licenses and the rest of it don't actually stop people from repeat offending. Even taking away licenses doesn't stop people from just driving without a license. Driving while impaired has a confusing level of cultural acceptance in the US, at least compared to my experience in the UK. A fair number of people from all socioeconomic backgrounds seem to think that it's not a big deal and even if caught won't stop doing it. Take their cars.
|
On April 21 2017 22:36 farvacola wrote:
BAC has its own reliability problems, for sure, as does pretty much every bioindicator, but it's certainly a lot more reliable than its marijuana alternatives.
The BAC has issues because cannabis can stay in your system up to a month after frequent use if you decide to go up and cold turkey one day, so it's useless in trying to decide if some one is high while driving. Another thing, people that drive high, and use their phones are fucking idiots. Who ever uses their phone while driving is an idiot, and I definitely think cannabis has different effects on everyone, just like drinking. Smoking, eating cannabis is not for everyone.
|
Kwark -> I disagree with your proposal; simply because the history of civil forfeiture laws in the US has shown some very poor and sketchy results in practice.
also, that draconian laws often don't work out that well in practice (e.g. drug war)
|
United States43953 Posts
On April 21 2017 22:44 zlefin wrote:
Kwark -> I disagree with your proposal; simply because the history of civil forfeiture laws in the US has shown some very poor and sketchy results in practice.
also, that draconian laws often don't work out that well in practice (e.g. drug war)
Civil forfeiture based on gut feeling of the police where the police get to keep the money is problematic, sure. That doesn't discredit the concept though, that's a fairly obvious issue with the execution.
As for draconian laws not working as a deterrent, sure, often they don't. I'm sure some idiots would still drive drunk, despite the draconian "lose your car" rule. But they wouldn't do it again after getting caught. If getting some more drugs cost $10,000 after you were caught using them the first time then people caught using them would struggle to keep using.
|
On April 21 2017 22:42 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 22:36 farvacola wrote:
BAC has its own reliability problems, for sure, as does pretty much every bioindicator, but it's certainly a lot more reliable than its marijuana alternatives. The BAC has issues because cannabis can stay in your system up to a month after frequent use if you decide to go up and cold turkey one day, so it's useless in trying to decide if some one is high while driving. Another thing, people that drive high, and use their phones are fucking idiots. Who ever uses their phone while driving is an idiot, and I definitely think cannabis has different effects on everyone, just like drinking. Smoking, eating cannabis is not for everyone.
Most blood tests for THC that have been pitched/used in studies/regulation don't actually retain that much activity (even herb.co says so). Bar super constant heavy smokers you'll hit a few days or a week at the outside, not the month mark. It's the urine tests that last a bajillion years for the most part.
It really is the lack of blood-impairment correlation that's an issue I think.
|
Norway28788 Posts
Some people who are really habitual stoners will, unless they have smoked, feel a bit 'off'. They can be stressed, fidgety, irritable. Not good for driving. Then they get high, and the stress, fidgetiness and irritation all go away. And they think that getting high made them better, when the reality might have been that getting high so frequently made their sober state worse.
To reiterate, I really, really don't have a problem with people smoking. I actually think some degree of the perception of increased profoundness can be true, and if you're listening to music or eating food then the feeling of enhanced sensory perception makes sense to me.. But it does impair reflexes. And depending on quantities, it can make you zone out and completely lose focus. I think it's a vastly superior drug to alcohol in most ways, but specifically driving cars or other forms of operating heavy machinery is something that you should be able to wait with doing until you're no longer high. The problem that you will test positively even a long time after having smoked even if you're no longer high, that's a real problem, but I can't really see a better solution than 'make sure nobody has a reason to suspect your impairment' or something. I don't think 'well, might as well just make it totally legal' is a good way of dealing with it, at all.
|
On April 21 2017 23:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Some people who are really habitual stoners will, unless they have smoked, feel a bit 'off'. They can be stressed, fidgety, irritable. Not good for driving. Then they get high, and the stress, fidgetiness and irritation all go away. And they think that getting high made them better, when the reality might have been that getting high so frequently made their sober state worse.
To reiterate, I really, really don't have a problem with people smoking. I actually think some degree of the perception of increased profoundness can be true, and if you're listening to music or eating food then the feeling of enhanced sensory perception makes sense to me.. But it does impair reflexes. And depending on quantities, it can make you zone out and completely lose focus. I think it's a vastly superior drug to alcohol in most ways, but specifically driving cars or other forms of operating heavy machinery is something that you should be able to wait with doing until you're no longer high. The problem that you will test positively even a long time after having smoked even if you're no longer high, that's a real problem, but I can't really see a better solution than 'make sure nobody has a reason to suspect your impairment' or something. I don't think 'well, might as well just make it totally legal' is a good way of dealing with it, at all.
Meh, it's the same as a person having coffee, or smoking cigarettes. Their body developed a daily habit that without, just feels off, also a conscious thing, and how strong you are mentally. It's all really based on personal judgement, and whether that person is making the correct decision when driving. Like myself, I said I smoke and drive, but it depends on the situation. Coffee makes my stomach feel like shit, but if I smoke a bit sativa in the morning before a three hour drive, it definitely helps with my focus on the drive with out having to use the restroom three times and end up with diarrhea half way through the drive. But as I said, it depends on personal judgement, I typically take two hits off a joint, and that's enough to keep me wired for those three hours. Some people have to smoke the whole way driving, or have to smoke two joints in the morning to get going, and that's where I think a huge issue is with impairment while driving.
|
On April 21 2017 22:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 22:33 Velr wrote:
The Problem with BAC is that its a number that doesn't tell you anything. The Body gets used to alcohol so it learns to "behave" like it isn't drunk with a way higher BAC.
I don't drink/smoke and drive in General, so it isn't even an issue for me, but not being able to drink 2-3 glasses of wine when i am at my parents or at some after work meeting because that would make me a drunk driver is absolutely retarded.
BAC tells you quite a bit. There's extensive research and well documented effects on varying BAC levels on the crash risk. and your claims of body learning to "behave" seem unfounded, and at any rate the hard data is what it is. It's retarded that a vastly well documented effect ofeven .05 BAC on substantially increased crash risk is acted upon? really, that seems more like a well thought documented empirical result. what you're saying sounds more like an ethical opinion on how risks should be weighted and what constitutes acceptable risk levels.
I never said 0.05 does nothing to you. It does vastly more/less to diffrent People and thats the issue.
Imho 0.05 is basically just a trap, if you really are worried about people crashing because of alcohol go for 0.01. Well, I just abstain if i drive anyway because i like my Drivers licence and cash .
The issue with weed is, as others have pointed out, very diffrent because its hard to measure "how stoned" someone is.
Uhm, comparing a coffee (assuming normal coffee) to a few hits of a Joint (or even a full Joint and Smoking while driving, WTF?) is like having a sip of beer or drinking a glass of Whiskey... You should search help if you need that to get going...
|
On April 21 2017 23:25 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 22:38 zlefin wrote:On April 21 2017 22:33 Velr wrote:
The Problem with BAC is that its a number that doesn't tell you anything. The Body gets used to alcohol so it learns to "behave" like it isn't drunk with a way higher BAC.
I don't drink/smoke and drive in General, so it isn't even an issue for me, but not being able to drink 2-3 glasses of wine when i am at my parents or at some after work meeting because that would make me a drunk driver is absolutely retarded.
BAC tells you quite a bit. There's extensive research and well documented effects on varying BAC levels on the crash risk. and your claims of body learning to "behave" seem unfounded, and at any rate the hard data is what it is. It's retarded that a vastly well documented effect ofeven .05 BAC on substantially increased crash risk is acted upon? really, that seems more like a well thought documented empirical result. what you're saying sounds more like an ethical opinion on how risks should be weighted and what constitutes acceptable risk levels. I never said 0.05 does nothing to you. It does vastly more/less to diffrent People and thats the issue. Imho 0.05 is basically just a trap, if you really are worried about people crashing because of alcohol go for 0.01. Well, I just abstain if i drive anyway because i like my Drivers licence and cash . The issue with weed is, as others have pointed out, very diffrent because its hard to measure "how stoned" someone is. Uhm, comparing a coffee (assuming normal coffee) to a few hits of a Joint (or even a full Joint and Smoking while driving, WTF?) is like having a sip of beer or drinking a glass of Whiskey... You should search help if you need that to get going...
i think thats called a dependency at that point.
|
Tell me, what can you say thats different about coffee and weed? Both in the long run are bad for your health, both stimulants, both affect your conscious, so I don't get why we can't compare them?
Also irritable bowel syndrome is hell when you drink coffee... But I'm assuming you probably don't have IBS.
http://www.intropsych.com/ch03_states/caffeine.html
|
On April 21 2017 23:33 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 23:25 Velr wrote:On April 21 2017 22:38 zlefin wrote:On April 21 2017 22:33 Velr wrote:
The Problem with BAC is that its a number that doesn't tell you anything. The Body gets used to alcohol so it learns to "behave" like it isn't drunk with a way higher BAC.
I don't drink/smoke and drive in General, so it isn't even an issue for me, but not being able to drink 2-3 glasses of wine when i am at my parents or at some after work meeting because that would make me a drunk driver is absolutely retarded.
BAC tells you quite a bit. There's extensive research and well documented effects on varying BAC levels on the crash risk. and your claims of body learning to "behave" seem unfounded, and at any rate the hard data is what it is. It's retarded that a vastly well documented effect ofeven .05 BAC on substantially increased crash risk is acted upon? really, that seems more like a well thought documented empirical result. what you're saying sounds more like an ethical opinion on how risks should be weighted and what constitutes acceptable risk levels. I never said 0.05 does nothing to you. It does vastly more/less to diffrent People and thats the issue. Imho 0.05 is basically just a trap, if you really are worried about people crashing because of alcohol go for 0.01. Well, I just abstain if i drive anyway because i like my Drivers licence and cash . The issue with weed is, as others have pointed out, very diffrent because its hard to measure "how stoned" someone is. Uhm, comparing a coffee (assuming normal coffee) to a few hits of a Joint (or even a full Joint and Smoking while driving, WTF?) is like having a sip of beer or drinking a glass of Whiskey... You should search help if you need that to get going... i think thats called a dependency at that point.
And there's plenty of people who are dependent off coffee, what's really the difference? You can't tell me you're not dependent off of something that is outside of eating or sleeping. You're dependent off work, dependent off gaming, dependent off the government to protect you. I don't get why smoking a couple puff's in the morning is any different than any other "dependency".
|
Norway28788 Posts
On April 21 2017 23:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 23:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Some people who are really habitual stoners will, unless they have smoked, feel a bit 'off'. They can be stressed, fidgety, irritable. Not good for driving. Then they get high, and the stress, fidgetiness and irritation all go away. And they think that getting high made them better, when the reality might have been that getting high so frequently made their sober state worse.
To reiterate, I really, really don't have a problem with people smoking. I actually think some degree of the perception of increased profoundness can be true, and if you're listening to music or eating food then the feeling of enhanced sensory perception makes sense to me.. But it does impair reflexes. And depending on quantities, it can make you zone out and completely lose focus. I think it's a vastly superior drug to alcohol in most ways, but specifically driving cars or other forms of operating heavy machinery is something that you should be able to wait with doing until you're no longer high. The problem that you will test positively even a long time after having smoked even if you're no longer high, that's a real problem, but I can't really see a better solution than 'make sure nobody has a reason to suspect your impairment' or something. I don't think 'well, might as well just make it totally legal' is a good way of dealing with it, at all. Meh, it's the same as a person having coffee, or smoking cigarettes. Their body developed a daily habit that without, just feels off, also a conscious thing, and how strong you are mentally. It's all really based on personal judgement, and whether that person is making the correct decision when driving. Like myself, I said I smoke and drive, but it depends on the situation. Coffee makes my stomach feel like shit, but if I smoke a bit sativa in the morning before a three hour drive, it definitely helps with my focus on the drive with out having to use the restroom three times and end up with diarrhea half way through the drive. But as I said, it depends on personal judgement, I typically take two hits off a joint, and that's enough to keep me wired for those three hours. Some people have to smoke the whole way driving, or have to smoke two joints in the morning to get going, and that's where I think a huge issue is with impairment while driving.
Smoking weed is not the same as coffee or cigarettes. If you're a habitual smoker and you specifically smoke two hits of a sativa joint then it's like, okay, whatever, not a big deal. Just like even though drunk driving is terrible, it's not a big deal if people drink one half liter of bud light. If your argument is that smoking an amount of weed equal to less than 0.5 bac should be fine, then I'm fine with that, because that type of impairment is so negligible that it's even permitted with alcohol in most countries. But it's not an argument for that driving while high should be okay, it's an argument for two hits of a sativa joint not really making you high.
|
On April 21 2017 23:36 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 23:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 21 2017 23:25 Velr wrote:On April 21 2017 22:38 zlefin wrote:On April 21 2017 22:33 Velr wrote:
The Problem with BAC is that its a number that doesn't tell you anything. The Body gets used to alcohol so it learns to "behave" like it isn't drunk with a way higher BAC.
I don't drink/smoke and drive in General, so it isn't even an issue for me, but not being able to drink 2-3 glasses of wine when i am at my parents or at some after work meeting because that would make me a drunk driver is absolutely retarded.
BAC tells you quite a bit. There's extensive research and well documented effects on varying BAC levels on the crash risk. and your claims of body learning to "behave" seem unfounded, and at any rate the hard data is what it is. It's retarded that a vastly well documented effect ofeven .05 BAC on substantially increased crash risk is acted upon? really, that seems more like a well thought documented empirical result. what you're saying sounds more like an ethical opinion on how risks should be weighted and what constitutes acceptable risk levels. I never said 0.05 does nothing to you. It does vastly more/less to diffrent People and thats the issue. Imho 0.05 is basically just a trap, if you really are worried about people crashing because of alcohol go for 0.01. Well, I just abstain if i drive anyway because i like my Drivers licence and cash . The issue with weed is, as others have pointed out, very diffrent because its hard to measure "how stoned" someone is. Uhm, comparing a coffee (assuming normal coffee) to a few hits of a Joint (or even a full Joint and Smoking while driving, WTF?) is like having a sip of beer or drinking a glass of Whiskey... You should search help if you need that to get going... i think thats called a dependency at that point. And there's plenty of people who are dependent off coffee, what's really the difference? You can't tell me you're not dependent off of something that is outside of eating or sleeping. You're dependent off work, dependent off gaming, dependent off the government to protect you. I don't get why smoking a couple puff's in the morning is any different than any other "dependency".
Just because both substances are mildly addictive, doesn't mean they have remotely the same effect on your brain. There's a whole host of stimulants, some of which obviously impair your ability to drive, and some don't. Coffee and nicotine are examples of stimulants that don't impair your ability to drive (although they may make you feel capable of driving when you really aren't and you should pull over and nap). Cannabis and alcohol are examples of stimulants that impair your ability to drive.
E: this thread is definitely improving. Yesterday we had sub sex, and today we have stoned driving. Put that in your electable pipe and smoke it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
