Election may be a turning point for legal marijuana - Polidicks

[QUOTE=J Paul;51258791]The disingenuous part is to imply that "altered" always means "impaired" when it certainly does not.[/QUOTE] This is exactly the mentality people are trying to fix with the buzzed driving is drunk driving campaign. The studies will support it when they are released. Bookmark this post. Driving high will not be legal just like driving drunk. It alters your mind and your decision making ability.

[QUOTE=J Paul;51258852]habitual substance users are well-practiced[/QUOTE] What does that mean in the context of the substance's effect on the driver's ability? If the substance doesn't impair the driver's abilities, why would they need to be 'well-practiced'? You make a good argument that someone can be safe while high through practice and habit, but to me it still sounds like that habituation and practice is there to help [I]overcome[/I] the impairment. A well practiced sober driver would still be better than a well practiced high driver.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51258857]This is exactly the mentality people are trying to fix with the buzzed driving is drunk driving campaign. The studies will support it when they are released. Bookmark this post. Driving high will not be legal just like driving drunk. It alters your mind and your decision making ability.[/QUOTE] I respect your open discourse and your polite approach to the topic and our disagreement here. I look forward to such findings. I support any regulation, regulation is far better than prohibition. I just hope that these studies consider how important practice and habit are in human nature and how what works for some people might not apply to others.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51258857]This is exactly the mentality people are trying to fix with the buzzed driving is drunk driving campaign. The studies will support it when they are released. Bookmark this post. Driving high will not be legal just like driving drunk. It alters your mind and your decision making ability.[/QUOTE] I agree about driving while high, problem is there's no metric to determine how high someone is. There's no way of measuring THC without blood work. Sure they have that breath thing with a ~70% accuracy that can tell if you've smoked within the hour, but it'd be like a breathalyzer with a busted readout, guy could be 0.03, 0.09 who knows. That and breathalyzer accuracy is disputable and I've been with a friend who blew a 0.2 but was still standing and speaking pretty fine, it'll be a long road trying to figure out the tech and arbitrary limitations. Untested waters for sure

[QUOTE=J Paul;51258881]I just hope that these studies consider how important practice and habit are in human nature and how what works for some people might not apply to others.[/QUOTE] If you practiced enough I'm sure you could be an impressive driver while both drunk, high, drawing a square in the air with your right hand, keeping one eye closed and reciting digits of pi at the same time, but that doesn't change the fact that you'd be safer if you didn't do those things.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51258875]What does that mean in the context of the substance's effect on the driver's ability? If the substance doesn't impair the driver's abilities, why would they need to be 'well-practiced'? You make a good argument that someone can be safe while high through practice and habit, but to me it still sounds like that habituation and practice is there to help [I]overcome[/I] the impairment. A well practiced sober driver would still be better than a well practiced high driver.[/QUOTE] I am more alluding to the difference in feeling and experience. For some people the differences may be considered an impairment. For others it could be just minor qualitative differences, not an impairment to overcome, but different feelings for input. It's the thing that happens to me when I pick up my personal chef's knife vs when I just pick up one of the kitchen knives. It's not that my knife is any better or worse, it's just mine. It fits me like a glove. The others are no worse, just foreign, they aren't yet an extension of my arm like my personal knife is due to my lack of hours with them. I know the concept that normality and sobriety can seem "foreign" to someone may be difficult to picture, but it is a real thing. Especially with cannabis as it can be consumed damn near without moderation without affecting quality of life. So this person who's always high, who does everything high, now he has to try to be completely different while driving? Unrealistic expectations.

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;51258882]I agree about driving while high, problem is there's no metric to determine how high someone is. There's no way of measuring THC without blood work. Sure they have that breath thing with a ~70% accuracy that can tell if you've smoked within the hour, but it'd be like a breathalyzer with a busted readout, guy could be 0.03, 0.09 who knows. That and breathalyzer accuracy is disputable and I've been with a friend who blew a 0.2 but was still standing and speaking pretty fine, it'll be a long road trying to figure out the tech and arbitrary limitations. Untested waters for sure[/QUOTE] Someone was saying a saliva test. They didn't understand why those would never be allowed without a warrant. Theres no good way to field test the impairment right now that uses a minimally invasive way

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51258466]Would you have been able to drive the first time you were high? If yes, please do describe how weed does affects you - it's not that I won't believe you, but I am skeptical, and really interested to know how different it is for you: personally I wouldn't trust myself with a fucking bike while high. If not, doesn't it stand to reason that you've simply acclimated to the high and have gotten used to it? Surely, the effect that made you unable to drive then would still be there, just to a lesser degree? If there hadn't already been studies and laws regarding drinking and driving, I guarantee you there would be someone making the exact same argument as you. Of course, you have the [I]"weed doesn't affect reaction time, alcohol does"[/I] thing on your side, but surely weed affects [I]something[/I], and someone driving drunk might say [I]"yes, but it makes me drive slower, and makes me calm so I drive just fine drunk"[/I] or something to that effect. A study would be great, but until we have that I do think it's sensible to discuss it.[/QUOTE] When I smoke up, literally nothing changes but I'm happier. That's it. I react just as fact, I think just as fast, I talk just as fast, I argue just as well, nothing is impaired. I'm happy. Something that I'm never when I'm sober. [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] I don't think you should drive while high FYI though.

What I don't understand is how horses can have as much ketamine as they want but when I ask for ketamine at the doctors they give me a tampon

Well, I just want my weed

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51258702]We want studies too, but there's nothing wrong with telling you it's a bad idea when You should not be "for" driving under influence when you "get it" that it alters your cognitive abilities. You have to either dispute the arguments or admit that you're a comparatively unsafe driver when you're high, we know you want studies but it's not hard to logically deduce that it must harm your abilities to drive, it's just the extent to which it does so that's uncertain.[/QUOTE] Caffeine alters your mind, what is your point? [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51258900]If you practiced enough I'm sure you could be an impressive driver while both drunk, high, drawing a square in the air with your right hand, keeping one eye closed and reciting digits of pi at the same time, but that doesn't change the fact that you'd be safer if you didn't do those things.[/QUOTE] You have point, but experienced alcohol drinker will still be pretty much fucked up at same dose as non-experienced drinker. [QUOTE] These findings suggest that tolerance to the disinhibiting effects of alcohol might not readily develop as a result of recent, heavy drinking. [/QUOTE] Source [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22763668[/url] [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51258466]Would you have been able to drive the first time you were high? [/QUOTE] No way. [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;51257148]are people really trying to justify driving while high i have done that shit and trust me it is not something you should do, even if you think you're gonna be fine[/QUOTE] AFAIK, you americans smoke weed without tobbaco and have generally much stronger weed than us Europeans, who smoke it with tobacco. Maybe this is why our opinions are differing on how strong weed is and if it is 'okay' for driving.

[QUOTE=Fourier;51259710]Caffeine alters your mind, what is your point?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure caffeine actually [I]enhances[/I] things like reaction time, attention and reduces sleepiness. All mental alterations will have some effect, either positive or negative, and I really doubt that cannabis' effect is positive - you even agree that you wouldn't have been able to drive the first time you were high, so it's obviously an impairing effect.

So, I basically caused this argument to happen by taking a firm position on the first page of the thread, but I probably should have elaborated on that position sooner. When I said that I believe weed should be regulated like alcohol, I did not mean [I]exactly[/I] like alcohol, because that's not an appropriate way of treating two very dissimilar drugs. What I intended by that statement was, modern science considers alcohol a recreational drug that impairs you to significant degrees with ease, while tobacco is not considered a strong factor of impairment except in edge cases or extreme doses/overdoses. Unlike tobacco we regulate driving and using heavy machinery under the influence of alcohol in most western nations, and a number of legal decisions are considered invalid or questionable if made when drunk in most jurisdictions. The only [I]real[/I] similarities between tobacco and alcohol, in most Western circumstances, are restrictions against selling to minors and consumption by minors. This is a trait I think that should be kept for recreational pot law as well. Recreational cannabis will need policies adapted to its unique situation. This means defining where it is and is not acceptable to smoke (this may not be the same as where it is acceptable to smoke cigarettes). This means determining if it is legal to grow your own, and if so can you give or trade it to others, and what are the ramifications? It means determining the legal condition you are in while high (can you consent to sex while stoned?). It means determining what level of impairment means operation of a potentially-dangerous machine is criminal negligence. And this means determining some metric for impairment thresholds and determining some way of administering field sobriety tests to that metric -- what the numbers should be and how they should be figured out are things I have no fucking clue on and leave to experts to determine in their respective legal spaces. That's such a complex situation that it's not going to be solved on a message board like this. There are too many variables, including the complex chemistry of the individual user's tolerance. I hope this clears up my position and I'm sorry that it spawned spurious arguments. Can people agree on this, at least?

People thinking it's okay to drive while impaired should not have a license.

Just because some can drive fine doesn't mean others can. There are tons of people who are terrifying while driving high. Same as I'm still alert enough to drive after 4 or 5 beers but others are absolutely not. Though I can drive, I don't, because my BAC is too high for it to be legal. Intoxicated driving will always be a very arbitrary line because that's just the nature of it. [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] Also yes, if you have too much caffeine you definitely shouldn't be driving. Again, driving and tolerance are both such finicky things that no one is going to be happy where the line is drawn.

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;51258745]People who haven't driven high before shouldn't speak about impairment bullshit. Until you have experienced it first hand, you have no way of knowing how you will react. No it's not, shittalking people who do is retarded though.[/QUOTE] Really, you're going to act as if its perfectly ok to drive while high? It lowers your reaction time, ive been in cars with drivers that were high, it's not safe no matter how much you want to defend it. If you cant wait to use weed after you're done driving or cant wait til you aren't high anymore then you have a problem. plenty of drunk drivers think they were fine until they crash and get killed/kill others.

You shouldn't drive while stoned, even though its pretty easy. It's just makes things risker and fucks with your high. Tbh driving while stoned is easier than driving while sleeply which most people are waking up to their 9-5. But everybody is different. I know people who could drive stoned just fine and sometimes even better but sometimes those same people who drive okay would smoke more than their used to and say "nah man give me an hour or two im too stoned." It really depends on a lot of factors but the safest way is to drive while sober.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51260320]You shouldn't drive while stoned, even though its pretty easy. It's just makes things risker and fucks with your high. Tbh driving while stoned is easier than driving while sleeply which most people are waking up to their 9-5. But everybody is different. I know people who could drive stoned just fine and sometimes even better but sometimes those same people who drive okay would smoke more than their used to and say "nah man give me an hour or two im too stoned." It really depends on a lot of factors but the safest way is to drive while sober.[/QUOTE] You could replace "stoned" with "drunk" and smoke with drink, and it'd be just as valid -- and we still have drunk driving laws for a reason. It's just trickier to determine sobriety with weed.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51260386]You could replace "stoned" with "drunk" and smoke with drink, and it'd be just as valid -- and we still have drunk driving laws for a reason. It's just trickier to determine sobriety with weed.[/QUOTE] It's ALOT trickier. One fat blunt of some stinky greens can get you feeling alright while a joint of dry brownish weed you wasnt expecting to be strong can take you to the moon. Tolerance also play a part. First time smoking my vision was VERY altered. I wasn't the one who was driving but cars on the road was almost 2D flat-like and almost appear like they wasnt moving when they was. I havent had my vision turn like that after smoking weed regularly for the past 2-3 years but fuck me if I was driving in that state I wouldve killed somebody.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51260415]It's ALOT trickier. One fat blunt of some stinky greens can get you feeling alright while a joint of dry brownish weed you wasnt expecting to be strong can take you to the moon. Tolerance also play a part. First time smoking my vision was VERY altered. I wasn't the one who was driving but cars on the road was almost 2D flat-like and almost appear like they wasnt moving when they was. I havent had my vision turn like that after smoking weed regularly for the past 2-3 years but fuck me if I was driving in that state I wouldve killed somebody.[/QUOTE] Tolerance plays a part too with drinking. Doesn't make it any more acceptable.

I think it's best that driving while high should be illegal just to be safe. If you think you're so good at driving stoned then good for you, you'll blend into the crowd be less likely to be pulled over for reckless driving. If you're so confident then you should have no problem with sneaking past the law.

[QUOTE=cdr248;51260584]I think it's best that driving while high should be illegal just to be safe. If you think you're so good at driving stoned then good for you, you'll blend into the crowd be less likely to be pulled over for reckless driving. If you're so confident then you should have no problem with sneaking past the law.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Weed has no reason to be illegal for recreational use on your own or any allowing property, but as with every other impairing intake you should be held extremely liable when doing anything that affects others.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;51256852]I do smoke daily and I drive perfectly fine, I've never had a single accident and my ability to drive a vehicle is not impaired in the slightest. But I'm an individual and cannabis can affect people differently.[/QUOTE] Daily reminder that the first thing to go when under the effects of a mind-altering substance is your ability to objectively self-assess. Plenty of drunk drivers think they're totally okay to drive when they aren't. Plenty of habitual drunk drivers use 'it affects everyone differently as an excuse'. No, the effects of weed on driving are not the same as the effects of alcohol. That doesn't mean that justifications considered universally unacceptable for driving under the influence of alcohol are valid arguments for driving under the influence of weed.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51260883]Daily reminder that the first thing to go when under the effects of a mind-altering substance is your ability to objectively self-assess. Plenty of drunk drivers think they're totally okay to drive when they aren't. Plenty of habitual drunk drivers use 'it affects everyone differently as an excuse'. No, the effects of weed on driving are not the same as the effects of alcohol. That doesn't mean that justifications considered universally unacceptable for driving under the influence of alcohol are valid arguments for driving under the influence of weed.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that high driving is safe but when I'm high I know exactly how high I am (in contrast to being drunk, when I don't always know at any given second)

[QUOTE=phygon;51262675]I'm not saying that high driving is safe but when I'm high I know exactly how high I am (in contrast to being drunk, when I don't always know at any given second)[/QUOTE] Doesn't change the fact you're in an altered state of mind. Whether or not most people are fine driving high, if you want to sell the idea of legalization you're going to have to accept rules like SUI because there's really no way they wouldn't be implemented

[QUOTE=Punchy;51264175]Doesn't change the fact you're in an altered state of mind. Whether or not most people are fine driving high, if you want to sell the idea of legalization you're going to have to accept rules like SUI because there's really no way they wouldn't be implemented[/QUOTE] I am aware. I don't drive high (or drunk, or anything.... other than tired. I've done that a few times and it was scary as hell but there was no other option) I'm just saying that classifying "altered states of mind" into one group is silly because being high is very unlike being drunk.