What's new
By:

Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

SaltyDawg said:
Yes, I know there is a point where marijuana affects driving in a bad way.
Click to expand...
That is a change from your original stance so nice job seeing the light.

Now if you want to argue where that limit is than fine. Your study says the limit is 5 ng/ml in blood. And that same study says that can be reached with one puff easily.

There's also obviously a time limit on how messed up you are and many factors go into how long that lasts. But it does exist and driving during that period is not good. And there are no ninja secret driving techniques that mitigate the effects.
 
Just to review here is the original statement: "my opinion that marijuana does not affect your ability to drive is based on facts."
 
CONAN said:
Just to review here is the original statement: "my opinion that marijuana does not affect your ability to drive is based on facts."
Click to expand...
Nice try, but typical of trollnan. Here is a quote from my first post in this thread:

SaltyDawg said:
And I also said that I think smoking way too much would affect the ability to drive, just like doing way too much of anything else will also affect the ability to drive. So no need to even go there.
Click to expand...

Click that little arrow next to my name in the quote and it will link you to the post.
 
Driving completely unimpaired >>>>> Driving with ANY impairment or possibility of impairment (2 beers, tired, texting, a few puffs of weed, cell phone glued to your ear, etc.)

Yes, let's split hairs while we figure out how impaired one could/should/might/might not be while piloting a 2000 POUND WEAPON with the potential to KILL anything it hits. Moran.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Driving completely unimpaired >>>>> Driving with ANY impairment or possibility of impairment (2 beers, tired, texting, a few puffs of weed, cell phone glued to your ear, etc.)

Yes, let's split hairs while we figure out how impaired one could/should/might/might not be while piloting a 2000 POUND WEAPON with the potential to KILL anything it hits. Moran.
Click to expand...
No need to wait while we figure it out. The study I posted says, as pointed out in a previous post:
"In blind ratings, police officers rated drivers with a BAC of 0.08% as more impaired than those who had taken moderate to high doses of cannabis, and driving instructors rated subjects with a BAC of 0.04% as impaired, while those who had consumed a dose equivalent to 7 mg of THC were rated as unimpaired."

and

"...suggests that a serum of THC concentration of 12-16 ng/ml may correspond to the same accident risk as a BAC of 0.05% [12]."

So, again, just because you aren't the exact same as someone who is totally drug free, it doesn't mean your driving is dangerous enough to make the substance illegal. High doses of marijuana tend to make people drive like someone who is still legal under the alcohol driving laws. Way under the legal alcohol limit, actually. And driving instructors were not able to detect any impairment at all.

People need to get past the generalities of saying "You are impaired, therefore your driving must be." It's not that simple. Not everything that impairs you, the person, will also make your driving more dangerous.
 
SaltyDawg said:
No need to wait while we figure it out. The study I posted says, as pointed out in a previous post:
"In blind ratings, police officers rated drivers with a BAC of 0.08% as more impaired than those who had taken moderate to high doses of cannabis, and driving instructors rated subjects with a BAC of 0.04% as impaired, while those who had consumed a dose equivalent to 7 mg of THC were rated as unimpaired."

and

"...suggests that a serum of THC concentration of 12-16 ng/ml may correspond to the same accident risk as a BAC of 0.05% [12]."

So, again, just because you aren't the exact same as someone who is totally drug free, it doesn't mean your driving is dangerous enough to make the substance illegal. High doses of marijuana tend to make people drive like someone who is still legal under the alcohol driving laws. Way under the legal alcohol limit, actually. And driving instructors were not able to detect any impairment at all.

People need to get past the generalities of saying "You are impaired, therefore your driving must be." It's not that simple. Not everything that impairs you, the person, will also make your driving more dangerous.
Click to expand...

How dangerous do we need drivers to be? Is the potential for maybe maiming someone ok, but killing someone is bad? I just can't believe the arguments going around that driving in any way impaired would in some way be considered "ok".

As far as a person being impaired but their driving not being impaired, well that is ludicrous in the extreme. I am high and find the color red so fascinating that I just want to stare at it all day, but hey, my driving might be just fine. But I will go ahead and potentially put other people at risk until the pro-weed people decide whether it impairs me or not. What?

In no way can any sane individual argue that driving under the influence of ANYTHING is as good as driving under NO influence at all. It is a stupid argument.

Really these types of arguments and discussion are what makes it hard to rally support for the pro-legalization movement. When you come across as some kind of nutjob to any rational people trying to convince people that hallucinations might, well hey they might make me a better driver, who knows? The studies haven't confirmed yet whether or not intense fixation on cheetoes is good or bad for driving or life or whatever. The arguments are so irrational it just undermines any chance of getting support for legalization. And the need to constantly defend against any and all other arguments to the contrary make you come across as double crazy. To flat out deny that the possibility of driving impaired COULD be bad and try to refute it with pro-pot "evidence" is just ridiculous. Of course driving completely unimpaired beats driving "possibly" impaired.

You gotta get some public support for the initiative or it won't happen, and taking crackpot stances on every single topic doesn't help.
 
LogGrad98 said:
How dangerous do we need drivers to be? Is the potential for maybe maiming someone ok, but killing someone is bad? I just can't believe the arguments going around that driving in any way impaired would in some way be considered "ok".

As far as a person being impaired but their driving not being impaired, well that is ludicrous in the extreme. I am high and find the color red so fascinating that I just want to stare at it all day, but hey, my driving might be just fine. But I will go ahead and potentially put other people at risk until the pro-weed people decide whether it impairs me or not. What?

In no way can any sane individual argue that driving under the influence of ANYTHING is as good as driving under NO influence at all. It is a stupid argument.

Really these types of arguments and discussion are what makes it hard to rally support for the pro-legalization movement. When you come across as some kind of nutjob to any rational people trying to convince people that hallucinations might, well hey they might make me a better driver, who knows? The studies haven't confirmed yet whether or not intense fixation on cheetoes is good or bad for driving or life or whatever. The arguments are so irrational it just undermines any chance of getting support for legalization. And the need to constantly defend against any and all other arguments to the contrary make you come across as double crazy. To flat out deny that the possibility of driving impaired COULD be bad and try to refute it with pro-pot "evidence" is just ridiculous. Of course driving completely unimpaired beats driving "possibly" impaired.
Click to expand...

I agree. On that same point I think driving under the influence of Benadryl should be illegal since it is well known to cause drowsiness, and alertness is a critical component of driving. I'm also at a loss on why the legal status of any drug or substance should take driving into account, since the theory behind driving is that you should be alert when driving and there are plenty of legal ways to decrease alertness. It's just that people concentrate on mind altering ways to not be alert as opposed to using a cell phone or eating or putting on makeup or numerous other things people do behind the wheel, yet the idea of making those precursor actions (using a cell phone in general, putting on makeup at home or in a bathroom, etc.) is absurd. Yet for some reason the idea of making intoxication by itself on certain substances is widely celebrated. I fail to see the rationale behind the latter (or more accurately, I see the rationale but don't believe it is strong).
 
LogGrad98 said:
How dangerous do we need drivers to be? Is the potential for maybe maiming someone ok, but killing someone is bad? I just can't believe the arguments going around that driving in any way impaired would in some way be considered "ok".

As far as a person being impaired but their driving not being impaired, well that is ludicrous in the extreme. I am high and find the color red so fascinating that I just want to stare at it all day, but hey, my driving might be just fine. But I will go ahead and potentially put other people at risk until the pro-weed people decide whether it impairs me or not. What?

In no way can any sane individual argue that driving under the influence of ANYTHING is as good as driving under NO influence at all. It is a stupid argument.

Really these types of arguments and discussion are what makes it hard to rally support for the pro-legalization movement. When you come across as some kind of nutjob to any rational people trying to convince people that hallucinations might, well hey they might make me a better driver, who knows? The studies haven't confirmed yet whether or not intense fixation on cheetoes is good or bad for driving or life or whatever. The arguments are so irrational it just undermines any chance of getting support for legalization. And the need to constantly defend against any and all other arguments to the contrary make you come across as double crazy. To flat out deny that the possibility of driving impaired COULD be bad and try to refute it with pro-pot "evidence" is just ridiculous. Of course driving completely unimpaired beats driving "possibly" impaired.

You gotta get some public support for the initiative or it won't happen, and taking crackpot stances on every single topic doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Typical baseless scare tactics.

Nobody acts the way you described when they smoke weed. And there have been studies done. You keep saying it hasn't been determined, yes, it actually has. Please see my last few posts where I posted and quoted some studies on the matter.

Once you get past the scare tactics, and get to actual facts here, there is nothing wrong with being impaired in some manner as long as it doesn't affect your driving.

Listening to music impairs you. Does it affect your driving? If it's way louder than most people listen to it it certainly does, but it certainly isn't enough of an issue to justify making car stereos illegal.

Sure, you can use scare tactics and say "Any impairment at all makes it less safe than no impairment at all when driving a 2000 pound weapon that kills." But then you have to consider just how much it impairs. Should we outlaw tight pants? Should we outlaw hot chicks walking or jogging? Should we outlaw hot coffee? Where do you draw the line?

As has been pointed out in studies posted, someone who takes a high dosage of marijuana still drives like someone who is well under the legal alcohol driving limit, with driving instructors not even able to detect any impairment at all.

Scare tactics talking about loving red and hallucinations and other such nonsense only trump the facts when dealing with morons who buy into scare tactics.
 
Nate505 said:
I agree. On that same point I think driving under the influence of Benadryl should be illegal since it is well known to cause drowsiness, and alertness is a critical component of driving. I'm also at a loss on why the legal status of any drug or substance should take driving into account, since the theory behind driving is that you should be alert when driving and there are plenty of legal ways to decrease alertness. It's just that people concentrate on mind altering ways to not be alert as opposed to using a cell phone or eating or putting on makeup or numerous other things people do behind the wheel, yet the idea of making those precursor actions (using a cell phone in general, putting on makeup at home or in a bathroom, etc.) is absurd. Yet for some reason the idea of making intoxication by itself on certain substances is widely celebrated. I fail to see the rationale behind the latter (or more accurately, I see the rationale but don't believe it is strong).
Click to expand...
With marijuana at least, it stays in your system long after the affects have worn off. So there is no reliable way to test for how high you are. That's the crux of the debate.
 
Bronco70 said:
2 things:

1. Marijuana should be legalized.

2. Driving while high is a bad idea. Period.
Click to expand...
So it's inevitable this comes up, I guess I'll take it there...

So do you think people who legally smoke weed should have to forfeit their license to drive? Or what do you propose happens when someone gets pulled over, given a test, and marijuana is detected from 2 weeks ago? There is no way to prove if it was from 2 weeks ago or not, you're either clean or dirty.
 
SaltyDawg said:
So it's inevitable this comes up, I guess I'll take it there...

So do you think people who legally smoke weed should have to forfeit their license to drive? Or what do you propose happens when someone gets pulled over, given a test, and marijuana is detected from 2 weeks ago? There is no way to prove if it was from 2 weeks ago or not, you're either clean or dirty.
Click to expand...

Please take the time to re-read my post, then proceed to the following:

All I said was "Driving while high is a bad idea". I'm not sure how to further clarify it for you... DRIVING WHILE HIGH implies that said driver is feeling the effects of marijuana at that very moment. Testing and enforcement were not part of my statement.

There are many things you can do while you are driving that are not specifically illegal, but are distracting, and therefor irresponsible to do while operating a motor vehicle. It is incumbent on the operator to recognize that they are impaired, and act accordingly.

So I'm just gonna go ahead and stand by my statement.
 
Bronco70 said:
Please take the time to re-read my post, then proceed to the following:

All I said was "Driving while high is a bad idea". I'm not sure how to further clarify it for you... DRIVING WHILE HIGH implies that said driver is feeling the effects of marijuana at that very moment. Testing and enforcement were not part of my statement.

There are many things you can do while you are driving that are not specifically illegal, but are distracting, and therefor irresponsible to do while operating a motor vehicle. It is incumbent on the operator to recognize that they are impaired, and act accordingly.

So I'm just gonna go ahead and stand by my statement.
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to understand what you mean here. So are you saying driving while high should be legal, or illegal?

If you think it is really dangerous and kills lots of innocent people and all the rest of the scare tactics, then you probably think it should be illegal. But if you don't think it's that big of a deal, then you probably don't think it should be illegal.

Either way, with no way to test for it you can't really have marijuana legal without resolving this issue first.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I'm just trying to understand what you mean here. So are you saying driving while high should be legal, or illegal?
Click to expand...

Last time:

Driving while high is a bad idea.

That's it. That's all I said. I am not making an argument either way for the legality of driving while high. You introduced the enforcement/testing aspect, I did not. Therefor, I feel no responsibility to address that issue, since it is irrelevant in the context of my statement.
 
Bronco70 said:
Last time:

Driving while high is a bad idea.

That's it. That's all I said. I am not making an argument either way for the legality of driving while high. You introduced the enforcement/testing aspect, I did not. Therefor, I feel no responsibility to address that issue, since it is irrelevant in the context of my statement.
Click to expand...
I was only responding to your post which said marijuana should be legal, but driving while high was a bad idea. It kind of contradicts itself with no way to test if someone is actually high while driving. We can only test if marijuana is in their system or not, not if they are actually high at that particular moment.

So I guess it comes down to, which one is more important? Is legalizing marijuana more important, or is making sure people don't drive high more important?

And come on, that's a valid question if you just posted that marijuana should be legal but driving while high is a bad idea.
 
SaltyDawg said:
So I guess same questions to you...

Do you think driving while high is a bad enough idea to make it illegal? Or is it not that big of a deal?
Click to expand...
If you fail a roadside sobriety test, there ought to be some penalty, just like if you get caught driving while texting/putting on your makeup/jerking off.

Unfortunately, you can't test for THC the same way you can for alcohol...if you could, I'd be all for a similar system as is in place for drunk driving (minus the mandatory religious brainwashing at AA).
 
SaltyDawg said:
Nice try, but typical of trollnan. Here is a quote from my first post in this thread:



Click that little arrow next to my name in the quote and it will link you to the post.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you make a lot of contradicting statements then. Make up your mind and let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top