To be fair, NORML also states flatly, No Driving.
To be even more fair, those are weasel words. If they wanted to be absolutely clear, they would have said something more like, “…no driving while under the influence of marijuana.” But they use impaired, which we’ve already seen though a bunch of posts here is a fuzzy and pretty much impossible to define standard.
Umm, sorry? Did the state of Washington make it legal to drive stoned?
I am not advocating driving under the influence of anything. I myself wouldn’t, but I am a far better driver than most people and therefore the influence on my reaction times/harazard identifications and so on would be far more important than any amount I may slow down. Essentially I will never ever crash unless someone hits me in a very unpredictable way or I suffer catastrophic mechanical fault, if I am sober. Thus driving under the influence of something is bad for society in my particular case and therefore an unethical act.
I am not though convinced that that applies to the population as a whole when it comes to certain levels of intociation so I think we have to be very careful with the laws here. It is my understanding that the 0.08 BAC limit is basically set at very close to the level drink drivers become dangerous, which is why I like it - unfortunately in a lot of wussy countries it’s 0.05 or even 0.02, often to “send a message” - and that to me is wrong.
By the way almost all the massively serious drunk drive accidents involve people WAAYYYYY over the limit.
Or young drivers and any alcohol, which is the case here, subbing weed for booze.
:rolleyes: Or, you know, you have an accident.
Come visit me in western Pennsylvania and see how good you are at white tailed deer avoidance. Superhuman reaction time won’t help when a deer bounds from the side of the road and lands on your hood (bonnet?).