Impaired to drive STONED???

[a mongo frog]

I'm sure none of these people intended to get high and kill anyone..

Marijuana playing larger role in fatal crashes
As more states are poised to legalize medicinal marijuana, it's looking like dope is playing a larger role as a cause of fatal traffic accidents.

Columbia University researchers performing a toxicology examination of nearly 24,000 driving fatalities concluded that marijuana contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010, tripled from a decade earlier.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/06/09/marijuana-accidents/10219119/

MARIJUANA
-
MAJOR CAUSE OF
INJURY ACCIDENTS
the leading cause of death for young
people.
By Roger Morgan, Exec Director, Coalition for A Drug
-
Free California
Marijuana is the illicit drug used most often (70%) by drivers who drove after drug
use and is a
major factor why motor vehicle crashes are
the leading cause of death for American young
people
(NHTSA, 2000)
http://www.drugfreecalifornia.org/PDF/trafficaccidents.pdf

Pot-related fatalities up
Marijuana use once caused one-third, or about 33%, of drugged driving deaths in Colorado. However, drugged-driving fatalities caused by marijuana use crossed the 50% mark in 2010 — the year dispensaries started to take off in this state. In 2011, marijuana use was cited as the cause of 56% of drugged driving deaths.

About 85% of drivers killed in collisions in Colorado have their blood tested for alcohol and drugs. In 2011, 51% of those dead drivers who tested positive for any impairing substance, tested positive for drugs. The remainder tested positive for alcohol, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. Driving impairment because of drug use is no longer a fringe problem. It is becoming dominant.
http://smartcolorado.org/marijuana-causing-more-drugged-driving-deaths/



I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

i don't believe any of that shit. you love the cops or what? there pinning that shit on people. think about what your saying.

 

[sheskunk]

i don't believe any of that shit. you love the cops or what? there pinning that shit on people. think about what your saying.

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled
SEATTLE (CBS Seattle) – According to a recent study, fatal car crashes involving pot use have tripled in the U.S.

“Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, and co-author of the study told HealthDay News.

Researchers from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health gathered data from six states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia – that perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car accidents. This data included over 23,500 drivers that died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/






Have fun killing babies.

 

[dbkick]

Wiped out an audi that blew thru a stop sign due to ice at the intersection he was on his brakes till he FINALLY came to a stop right in the middle of the road.Me being stoned and on my game ,i planned to slide around behind him because surely he could see stopping wasn't an option, him being sober and not on his game did not see it that way. So I cut hard left which would hopefully leave me room to miss him but seriously hit some curb and shit , didnt happen like that since going left in front of him became my front rim in his hardtop. Unless they chopped the top that car was done. Me stoned , him sober.
Then there was the time I was stoned and had to stand on the brakes of a 4900 pound truck to avoid rear ending suddenly stopped traffic .
I got that done and me and my passenger had a good laugh just to hear this thump in my rear end. Compacts must not have as good of brakes.

 

[a senile fungus]

When my tolerance is up I don't feel that I am impaired one single bit to drive a car. To intensely focus on a spread sheet to do a P&L statement, yes.

The reality is that my ability to react quickly to a sudden road hazard is slightly impaired, as is yours.

Some folks who partake are affected more than others.

We can't have laws to allow me or you to have some level while others get a lower limit.

It has to be the same for all. Although the impairment isn't as severe as alcohol, it still exists, and when you're piloting a multi thousand pound vehicle that can take the lives of others, you do not have the right to diminish your ability to operate it at the expense of increased risk to others. However small.

We, the weed movement, need to get behind the punishment for driving impaired on it. Failing to do so, or worse still arguing that it be allowed will only give stoners a bad name and hinder the movement.

I understand that my ability to quickly react to road hazards is affected by marijuana, of course it is. But who are you or anyone to tell me that I'm too impaired until a level of impairment has been standardized? Also what constitutes impairment? Is it distraction from the road, like cellphone/radio use while driving? Or physically impairing oneself, like smoking cigarettes while you drive with <0.08% BAC?

As I said before, I do not advocate impaired driving; but I also don't advocate treating all levels of impairment the same. Using that reasoning, no impairment at all should be allowed, be it from caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, or any range of legally prescribed pharmaceuticals. Shoot, even driving under the influence of sleep deprivation (<6hrs per night for a few nights) can mimick a BAC of 0.1%, or over the legal limit. So sleep deprivation can affect my reaction times more than marijuana can, but I don't see checkpoints to determine my level of awareness while I'm driving.

What needs to be defined is a maximum level of safe or responsible impairment, which may prove difficult with marijuana given the multitude of ways that the multitude of strains can affect each individual, not to mention the many of modes and methods of ingestion.

Perhaps a no-tolerance policy is best for the time being, but reversing such a prohibitory stance would be difficult. A line certainly needs to be drawn, but where to start is the question especially considering our general lack of knowledge/research into the matter and of course the tedium of legal matters...




All this is my stoned ramblings... Who the fuxk knows what I even just said. Some of it may even make sense...

 

[SmokeyDan]

I understand that my ability to quickly react to road hazards is affected by marijuana, of course it is. But who are you or anyone to tell me that I'm too impaired until a level of impairment has been standardized? Also what constitutes impairment? Is it distraction from the road, like cellphone/radio use while driving? Or physically impairing oneself, like smoking cigarettes while you drive with <0.08% BAC?

As I said before, I do not advocate impaired driving; but I also don't advocate treating all levels of impairment the same. Using that reasoning, no impairment at all should be allowed, be it from caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, or any range of legally prescribed pharmaceuticals. Shoot, even driving under the influence of sleep deprivation (<6hrs per night for a few nights) can mimick a BAC of 0.1%, or over the legal limit. So sleep deprivation can affect my reaction times more than marijuana can, but I don't see checkpoints to determine my level of awareness while I'm driving.

What needs to be defined is a maximum level of safe or responsible impairment, which may prove difficult with marijuana given the multitude of ways that the multitude of strains can affect each individual, not to mention the many of modes and methods of ingestion.

Perhaps a no-tolerance policy is best for the time being, but reversing such a prohibitory stance would be difficult. A line certainly needs to be drawn, but where to start is the question especially considering our general lack of knowledge/research into the matter and of course the tedium of legal matters...




All this is my stoned ramblings... Who the fuxk knows what I even just said. Some of it may even make sense...

Your point is mostly centered around your first couple of paragraphs, which can be boiled down to this....

1) My reaction time is reduced by smoking, thus I am impaired by it.

2) How can you tell me what level of impairment is acceptable since there has yet to be a standard developed.


So ill try...

The law will have to borrow from alcohol laws. Currently dui laws are at .08 BAC.

So what does it take to get to that BAC? A couple of beers for an average person is usually more than enough if consumed in an hours time to make someone over the legal limit.

I don't know about you, but I can't really even tell I've drank anything at all after just two beers.

So it would seem the alcohol laws are set up to preclude any legal operation at any amount of impairment.

How many times have you seen someone say "I just want a head change so I'm only going to take one hit."

Marijuana and alcohol are markedly different in their affects. It takes a significant amount of alcohol to get us impaired. It takes a very small amount of weed to change our abilities.

Going on, continued use of both substances has different affects. Keep drinking and it won't be long before you can't walk. Yet one can smoke a tremendous amount of weed and maintain most of their ability.

So, I think any recent consumption of marijuana should prohibit one from legally operating a car. After all, it only takes one hit for a head change, and the legal goal seems to be to prohibit any impairment.

 

[a senile fungus]

Your point is mostly centered around your first couple of paragraphs, which can be boiled down to this....

1) My reaction time is reduced by smoking, thus I am impaired by it.

2) How can you tell me what level of impairment is acceptable since there has yet to be a standard developed.


So ill try...

The law will have to borrow from alcohol laws. Currently dui laws are at .08 BAC.

So what does it take to get to that BAC? A couple of beers for an average person is usually more than enough if consumed in an hours time to make someone over the legal limit.

I don't know about you, but I can't really even tell I've drank anything at all after just two beers.

So it would seem the alcohol laws are set up to preclude any legal operation at any amount of impairment.

How many times have you seen someone say "I just want a head change so I'm only going to take one hit."

Marijuana and alcohol are markedly different in their affects. It takes a significant amount of alcohol to get us impaired. It takes a very small amount of weed to change our abilities.

Going on, continued use of both substances has different affects. Keep drinking and it won't be long before you can't walk. Yet one can smoke a tremendous amount of weed and maintain most of their ability.

So, I think any recent consumption of marijuana should prohibit one from legally operating a car. After all, it only takes one hit for a head change, and the legal goal seems to be to prohibit any impairment.

I don't drink alcohol, one shot and I won't drive. One beer I can feel myself slurring words slightly. I know my own personal limits, I'm a lightweight and consume accordingly.

Similar with cigarettes, they give me an intense head high, I couldn't drive like that.

If the law was set up to preclude impairment at any level then the standard would be no tolerance, that's only fair for everybody. You might feel OK to drive after a few drinks in an hour but I'm not after one so fair is no tolerance.

But the law isn't set up to preclude impairment at any level, the law is set up to include a tolerated level of impairment; a happy place of responsibility within impairment.

What needs to be stressed is recognition of one's own personal level of impairment and respect and regard for one's own health and that of the general public. So, public health and awareness versus straight out prohibition.

People need to be responsible for their actions. But that's never gonna happen in 'merica so maybe a completely prohibitory stance on driving under the influence is necessary...

Sorry if I'm a horrible person to have a back and forth with. I know I'm flip flopping my stance around a bit but I'm kind of thinking as I type and like I said I'm stoned

 

[SmokeyDan]

I don't drink alcohol, one shot and I won't drive. One beer I can feel myself slurring words slightly. I know my own personal limits, I'm a lightweight and consume accordingly.

Similar with cigarettes, they give me an intense head high, I couldn't drive like that.

If the law was set up to preclude impairment at any level then the standard would be no tolerance, that's only fair for everybody. You might feel OK to drive after a few drinks in an hour but I'm not after one so fair is no tolerance.

But the law isn't set up to preclude impairment at any level, the law is set up to include a tolerated level of impairment; a happy place of responsibility within impairment.

What needs to be stressed is recognition of one's own personal level of impairment and respect and regard for one's own health and that of the general public. So, public health and awareness versus straight out prohibition.

People need to be responsible for their actions. But that's never gonna happen in 'merica so maybe a completely prohibitory stance on driving under the influence is necessary...

Sorry if I'm a horrible person to have a back and forth with. I know I'm flip flopping my stance around a bit but I'm kind of thinking as I type and like I said I'm stoned

No the back and forth with you is a significant improvement over the usual suspect.

You're right, placing the legalities at no tolerance will result in some people being prosecuted who were for all intents and purposes ok to drive.

But so has alcohol BAC at .08 because most people don't report feeling impaired at that level.

Just like anything else, one can build tolerance to alcohol and it takes a higher BAC to buzz them.

Native Americans are notorious for being easy drunks, the Russians are notorious for drinking a lot.

If i had to choose an Indian with a BAC of .06 or a Russian with a BAC of .1 I would think the Indian is likely to be more impaired.

But trying to codify this into law would be extremely complex and insanely difficult to enforce or administer.

Due to the one hit head change of pot, any recent consumption should make it illegal to drive. There is an add campaign right now "buzzed driving is drunk driving" well likewise, head changed driving is stoned driving.

That is the most responsible stance.

And the rights of parents to have the roads free of impaired drivers are more important than your (or my) right to smoke and drive.

 

[UncleBuck]

anyone ever tried driving on whippits? i have.

mushrooms too. coke, meth, xanax and a few others.

 

[earnest_voice]

a breathalyzer does the same thing and a cop can't just make up what he "perceived".

got a DUI when i was 18, court-appointed lawyer for all of us indigent folks told us all to never submit to one. offer breath or blood instead. roadside sobriety tests are just an evidence collection mechanism for cops and in no way required of anyone, ever.

back then i can understand surely these days road side breathalyzer is the standard and if a positive reading is recorded then it's off to the docs for a blood draw.

i can't see the point in the walk a straight line, touch your nose etc

 

[UncleBuck]

i can't see the point in the walk a straight line, touch your nose etc

even if you do it perfectly on their dashboard cam and everything, they will still say they saw you stumble, or shake, or lose balance, or make a mistake. allows them to act as judge jury and executioner.

never submit to one.

 

[UncleBuck]

that said, i once took one of those when i was 16. some fellow motorist saw my friends and i smoking and called in a tip.

they ran me and my buddy through one of those and said either of us were safe to drive. we were both completely stoned at the time.

so i guess some cops do use them in the interest of public safety rather than to simply screw you.

 

[a senile fungus]

No the back and forth with you is a significant improvement over the usual suspect.

You're right, placing the legalities at no tolerance will result in some people being prosecuted who were for all intents and purposes ok to drive.

But so has alcohol BAC at .08 because most people don't report feeling impaired at that level.

Just like anything else, one can build tolerance to alcohol and it takes a higher BAC to buzz them.

Native Americans are notorious for being easy drunks, the Russians are notorious for drinking a lot.

If i had to choose an Indian with a BAC of .06 or a Russian with a BAC of .1 I would think the Indian is likely to be more impaired.

But trying to codify this into law would be extremely complex and insanely difficult to enforce or administer.

Due to the one hit head change of pot, any recent consumption should make it illegal to drive. There is an add campaign right now "buzzed driving is drunk driving" well likewise, head changed driving is stoned driving.

That is the most responsible stance.

And the rights of parents to have the roads free of impaired drivers are more important than your (or my) right to smoke and drive.

I think you're focusing too much on one hit head change. Think about overall effects and the scale of those effects. On a 1:1 ratio of hits off a joint vs shots of 100proof which could you handle more of?

Marijuana is much easier to titrate, or dose, due to its nearly instant effects when smoking, whereas drunk drivers can be getting more drunk as they're driving if they had a drink prior to getting behind the wheel.

Yes pot hits you more quickly, but it also has a safe and wide plateau of intoxication. Whereas with alcohol, in my experience, has a seemingly exponential curve of intoxication. There is a small area of that curve that is comfortable, anything more and good luck.



Think of it like a graph. This is a rough example. Alcohol intoxication follows the blue line, marijuana intoxication follows the dotted red line. Yes, while at (1,1) one up one over to the right, they are both at the same level technically. But anyone can see the paths they are following and that alcohol is a much slippier upward slope...

I know it isn't this cut and dry but I feel at the onset of investigation into matters like this that things should be simplified as much as possible, which is why a no tolerance policy may be best for now...

Afterthought: at the same time, we all know how poorly prohibition works so I think stressing public health and education and awareness is the best way to go, but obviously won't see immediate results going that route.

 

[earnest_voice]

I think you're focusing too much on one hit head change. Think about overall effects and the scale of those effects. On a 1:1 ratio of hits off a joint vs shots of 100proof which could you handle more of?

Marijuana is much easier to titrate, or dose, due to its nearly instant effects when smoking, whereas drunk drivers can be getting more drunk as they're driving if they had a drink prior to getting behind the wheel.

Yes pot hits you more quickly, but it also has a safe and wide plateau of intoxication. Whereas with alcohol, in my experience, has a seemingly exponential curve of intoxication. There is a small area of that curve that is comfortable, anything more and good luck.

View attachment 3216610

Think of it like a graph. This is a rough example. Alcohol intoxication follows the blue line, marijuana intoxication follows the dotted red line. Yes, while at (1,1) one up one over to the right, they are both at the same level technically. But anyone can see the paths they are following and that alcohol is a much slippier upward slope...

I know it isn't this cut and dry but I feel at the onset of investigation into matters like this that things should be simplified as much as possible, which is why a no tolerance policy may be best for now...

Afterthought: at the same time, we all know how poorly prohibition works so I think stressing public health and education and awareness is the best way to go, but obviously won't see immediate results going that route.

You nailed it, thank you

 

[a senile fungus]

You nailed it, thank you

Thank you.

Of course, the best solution to the problem of impaired drivers causing accidents is to have no tolerance for impaired drivers. Similarly the best solution for unwanted youth pregnancies is abstinence. Both are honestly the best policy, but honestly unrealistic.

The next best thing is awareness, awareness on such a level that safety becomes second nature. Maybe it is still considered unattainable to some, but I think that the public health/awareness aspect needs to be pushed; especially if marijuana is to be managed, and not prohibited in this nation.

 

[UncleBuck]

it's a little over 1 mile to the grocery store here, all 25 mph back roads through little subdivisions. i don't let my wife drive it when she's high and i give her a ride instead.

it's not because i think she'd be unsafe, but because DUIs are fucking expensive.

never had any such compunctions or cautions back in oregon because they did not have an eye towards cannabis DUIs.

 

[ChesusRice]

 

[Doer]

...nuf said!

I guess you are not familiar with the Lyric of Joe Walsh?

 

[kelly4]

I like it fine the way it is. I don't want a bunch of mouth foamers roaming the freeways here, like in CO.

The reason the drivers are so bad here is because of all the transplanted Californians...

 

[sheskunk]

The reason the drivers are so bad here is because of all the transplanted Californians...

Kiss my ass.

 

[Doer]

My stance on this has never changed, Too many stupid hippies to abuse the new de-crim, and too many do-gooders to shit up the freedom I already have by being an actual, very ill, with PTSD, patient.

Life's too short anyway. My best buddy, StoneZoner, didn't make out of routine lapo-surgery this week. Dead at 61. The weirdest things not only can happen, they do happen.

This is a breath by breath life. Enjoy it.

MMJ forever.