The Man is always hassling me.
That’s just what I was thinking. Taking the word of someone whose perceptions have been altered sounds like a bad idea to me. It’s like all those people who think other people have trouble driving and talking on the cell phone, but they do it just fine. No, you don’t.
I think the difference is that people that use pot will make these claims whether they’re high or not. I’m fully aware of what I am and am not capable of while using it, and I’m equally aware of what those limitations are and were once I’m sober.
Right now I’m sitting at work, sober as can be, and will tell you that there are times when not only am I ok to drive while high - but I’m a better driver. At the same time, I’ll say that when I’m REALLY high, like smoking after a long break away from it, that I should be nowhere near any kind of heavy machinery and nor would I want to since I’ll be busy melting into my sofa elbow deep in a bag of Chicago Mix.
Very different from alcohol where I could sit here and say “Yep, I know that’s a bad idea and I’d never drive or text ex-girlfriends at 2AM. That’s crazy.” But get a few sloe-gin fizzes in me, and my opinions on my ability to do those things change in a hurry.
The problem is you are equating being a better driver with being more careful and cautious because you know you are high. And you may be right. But chances are your reaction time is much worse and you can’t even tell. And others might not be as careful as you and you won’t be able to react. Or that deer might be in the road. Or a van full of nuns.
I am surprised that would invoke an image of a 14 year old as they don’t drive at all. I do get your point but I have heard it from the mouths of actual “grown-ups”.
And thank you for the judgmental commentary on my acquaintances. I will definitely take that under advisement and then bin it because being exposed to a a mere grain of a whole person doesn’t make for a sound assessment of character.
If I was driving stoned, seeing a van full of nuns might be the greatest thing that had ever happened to me.
I miss smoking pot terribly. That is all.
What a twerp :rolleyes:
Taking bemusing shots at an OP’er does not prove a damned thing.
Grow the fuck up and stop smoking pot while behind the wheel. It’s really that simple.
One of your cites is from USA Today and another is from Fox News.
You’ve already lost.
Some people have a really cartoonish idea of what being stoned is like.
Just sayin’
Not hardly. I will be delighted to find identical cites covering the same stories using news sources you approve of.
Please, since apparently you are the arbiter of Approved News Sources on the Dope- instruct me and I will provide new cites for the same events.
Fair?
:dubious:
High Times. Or maybe something by Cheech & Chong. But first I have to finish this doobie and eat a box of Screaming Yellow Zonkers.
**Cartooniverse **- As a former EMT, could you tell me how many pot smoking drivers you DIDN’T have to scrape off the highway?
Only a stoner would ask a question that breathtakingly stupid.
People’s tires blow out. People sneeze in the bright sunlight and swerve across the double stripes into someone. A cat runs out and a driver swerves out of instinctive reaction. Bad things happen when people drive a car. We all accept the risks and responsibilities of using a car at speeds on the roadway.
What I not only do not accept but roundly decry as immaturely irresponsible us the use of pot and/ or alcohol while behind the wheel.
It’s also a very poor argument to try to make to see if I’ll say, " Gee- I bet it was no more than 15-20% of all traffic fatalities! No problem there. Who cares about those injured or killed- they’re a small percentage ! "
Putzes.
ONE dead due to smoking pot while driving is too many.
I think this thread is demonstrable proof that people pick better message board handles while baked. You have to admit, Marconi and Cheese & Ayatollah Yawuntz are more clever than your average username.
Only a “straight” as naive as you would think that was a dumb question.
I’m asking, for every person you scraped off of the highway due to pot smoking (and I’m curious as to how you determined this bit of forensics while doing said scraping), how many people drove by safely while not crashing, and how would know how would that ratio compare to sober drivers. The truth is you have no fucking clue and are just spouting outdated Nancy Reagan nonsense like you’re auditioning for the next installment of Reefer Madness.
Look, I don’t think people should drive of they’re too stoned to do so, but if I had to choose, I’d rather a driver be a bit high instead of drunk or textin or putting on makeup.
The only link that seemed acceptable was the first one so I looked at the study in the BMJ, and doesn’t really prove anything.
Of course I’m cherry picking but here are some quotes from that study:
"Fewer case-control and cohort studies have looked at cannabis consumption and collision risk, and their results have been inconsistent.5 25 26 27 More than half of these studies have suggested that cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of traffic collision,21 23 28 and the remaining studies have found no association or a decreased risk of collision.29 30 31 32 33 Researchers have also used a variant of case-control designs, often known as culpability studies.34 Culpability studies include drivers involved in collisions, separated into those who were responsible for the collision and those who were not. The premise of these studies is that, if cannabis use increases collision risk, the drug should more likely be detected in drivers judged to be responsible for their collision. However, culpability analyses have also produced mixed results.35 36 37 38 39
Therefore, a lack of consensus exists on whether the risk of motor vehicle collisions is elevated or lowered when drivers have recently consumed cannabis. Furthermore, very few robust studies on this subject are generalisable to situations in the real world. An up to date systematic review is necessary to integrate the existing evidence on the role of cannabis use on collision risk, not only from a public policy and programme perspective, but also in view of the current gaps in scope and quality of literature and methodology."
“We included studies that assessed motor vehicle collisions, defined by the World Health Organization as “a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury, occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving vehicle.”40 Motor vehicles included cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, light or heavy trucks, buses, motorcycles or scooters, all terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles. Collision outcomes included single or multiple vehicles, which might have led to injuries or death, and could be measured via administrative data or self report.”
Not to mention that THC can stay in your system for a very long time, this is not included in the study. That is to say that they may have smoked days or weeks before the accident.
And just to let you know, the charges were dropped against the guy in the last link.
Ayatollah Yawuntz is downright hilarious! 
Well, looks like you’ve quoted a whole block of text from the study’s intro that describes the inconclusivity of previous work. That’s that, I guess!
Oh, wait! Maybe you should take a little peek at the rest of the study? In particular, the parts where the researchers discuss the results of their investigation? It may prove slightly more instructive than reading the first three paragraphs of background information and calling it a day.
As far as I know, there’s currently no THC threshold below which psychoactive effects are known to be insignificant. The stuff may very well continue to affect your reflexes for quite a while after your last toke. Anecdotally, after short periods of daily use, I myself experience a kind of mental “fog” that can take a couple days to clear up.
Thankfully, I don’t drive. Nasty habit, that. 