Driving while stoned. What would you do?

[blitz]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


So if you saw someone take a pill you would call it in?

If it was a giant novelty sized box labeled "Sleeping pills" and they were shaking it into their mouth I would. Horrible example as a pill is a complete unknown whereas weed is obvious.

Best roadside test for weed, you have to get to level 10 on Simon:

[blairtruck]

who knows how vitamins could alter your brain while driving.

[JordanEG6]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
I think smoking up then driving could be worse than drinking a couple beers. I don't smoke weed but I did a couple dozen times in high school (eventually developed an allergy, can't even wear hemp now). Sometimes I felt nothing, sometimes I got relaxed (could have driven fine), sometimes my attention span was decimated. I never really enjoyed it personally, but I learned that certain measurement of weed = certain level of high did NOT apply.

You can't make a statement on how weed impairs (or doesn't) a driver's abilities. As it is not regulated who knows what it's laced with or how potent it is. While it's admittedly been a while since I smoked it (1996) I remember about half the time there were additives of some nature. One numerous occasions I'm almost sure I bought weed laced with PCP. Then there are the strains on top of that. Some more potent than others.

Until it's regulated and sold legally it should be outright illegal to drive after smoking up as there is no way to be sure of the potency or content of a measured bit of street sold weed.

The guy OP saw may have smoked weed and PCP for all you know. Being that it's illegal and not regulated I don't trust anyone who smoked it to drive.

Judging by almost all your posts, you sound like a soccer mom desperately clinging to an argument to help put a stop to the so called 'war-on-drugs'. It's not a thinly veiled insult, it really does seem that way. It doesn't seem like you're quite in-tune with how progressive the marijuana industry is becoming. It's no longer like the 90s or 80s, where people smoked mystery drugs in high-school just to get high.

I am a regular smoker...this is false and damn near a myth. I don't know who you've dealt with in highschool, but they sound like assholes. Who laces weed? And why? I've NEVER come across 'laced' marijuana, and I'm a strain connoisseur lol. People claim to have had laced weed based off of one-off experiences where certain strains affects them.

The problem with legalizing marijuana at this point in time is misinformation and education. ESPECIALLY in conservative Alberta. People have to be RE-educated on the effects and ramifications of marijuana and not jump to conclusions on substances being laced or extremely unsafe. There are certain strains that effect individuals more so than others, it doesn't mean it's less safe and it doesn't mean it's laced. That's bullshit. These are fucking plants with flowers that you dry out, grind, and smoke. No more, no less. I'm speaking generally of course. If people wanna be dicks and lace weed for whatever reason, that's definitely on them and I have yet to come across such. But this topic on laced marijuana has been debunked a billion times. And if you don't know where exactly you get your herb from, don't smoke it.

Like stated, there are so many factors involved in smoking marijuana and tolerance level is one of them. I personally am VERY self aware when I am stoned, I know if I can or cannot drive and if I can't, I simply choose not to. There is a reason why there aren't any stoned driving commercials or "Mothers Against Stoned Driving", it's because there are no recorded accidents attributed to high driving and unlike being drunk, the user is usually self aware. It doesn't mean you should do it, but it shows that it's miles safer than driving drunk.

The point is though, to stay on topic, no body knows the drivers tolerance level, whether he has a medical card or not, or how impaired his ability to drive is. If he isn't driving recklessly, why call it in?

Taking impairment out of the question for a second, If you see a dude handing an empty bottle to his waitress, pays his bill, walks out the door and gets into his car, drive safely on his way, would you call it in? My guess would be no. Because, like 100% of the nation, we've been mentally conditioned to accept recreational alcohol use and we know the affects of alcohol and it's instilled into our culture. Countless times I've seen people walk out of bars and into their cars and no one questions a thing.

It's the same thing in this case, you saw a dude take a few hoots and be on his way. If he isn't driving dangerously, why would you call it in? IMO, it's the stigma attached to marijuana use and the propaganda shoved into our face with anti-drug laws and commercials growing up. Even if you look on government websites, they have words like "may" and "should" without any knowledge of the effects of marijuana and other drugs. I guaranteed people would rat me out to authorities for taking a few hoots of dank before getting into a vehicle, before downing a glass of beer or popping Night Time Tylenol in broad day light.

Again, I don't condone high driving, BUT judging from the answers in this thread, it seems like it's more about conducting a stoner witch hunt than reporting impaired driving.

[blairtruck]

can you get a marijuana card in alberta? are there dispensaries in alberta?

[JordanEG6]

Originally posted by blairtruck
can you get a marijuana card in alberta? are there dispensaries in alberta?

You can apply for cards through your doctor, I believe. And as far as I know, dispensaries aren't sanctioned in Canada yet. But there are a handful of licensed producers.

http://medicalmarijuana.ca/

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marih...o/list-eng.php

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by JordanEG6
Judging by almost all your posts, you sound like a soccer mom desperately clinging to an argument to help put a stop to the so called 'war-on-drugs'.

Again, I don't condone high driving, BUT judging from the answers in this thread, it seems like it's more about conducting a Stoner witch hunt than reporting impaired driving.

I've stated numerous times, legalize it, regulate it. I don't have a problem with it. Hell smoke it outside, 5 meters away from an entrance of course, and everyone can complain about pot smokers like they do about tobacco smokers.

I do have an issue with the idea of driving while high and the bundling up of the issue with pot smoker's rights. A suggestion people should not drive high is perceived as an attack on marijuana. It's not.

States that allow recreational use don't allow driving while high. The Netherlands prosecutes it the same as driving drunk.

While I believe you heavy users could drive high, you know better than I do, there is also an obvious spectrum and range of effects from person to person.

Would I rat on someone I saw drive after smoking a joint? No. Never said I would. And its a valid point that people don't rat out someone who had a beer. I was just always of the opinion that you can be too impaired to operate a vehicle while on weed.

While I would not rat someone out I think that if a driver seems impaired and are high they are deserving of the same scorn and punishment as a DUI.

But its the cart before the horse, it's not even legal in the first place and some are already fighting for their right to drive stoned. Being that it is still illegal I don't think it's responsible to trust the self governance of pot users. Not saying you pot guys are lying how you can handle your weed but it just does not meet any legal burden or test.

Step one is legalizing it and regulating it. Then develop some benchmarks and fine tune them to develop a good policy for checking for DUI. In the absence of that just don't drive stoned. I don't see the problem with that.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by blairtruck
can you get a marijuana card in alberta? are there dispensaries in alberta?

yup. LP's... they are for the most part i believe online based, biggest (from my understanding) is tweed, located in the old hershey factory in ontario

vice has a series that follows the canadian medical side of things, pretty neat

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by JordanEG6


Judging by almost all your posts, you sound like a soccer mom desperately clinging to an argument to help put a stop to the so called 'war-on-drugs'. It's not a thinly veiled insult, it really does seem that way. It doesn't seem like you're quite in-tune with how progressive the marijuana industry is becoming. It's no longer like the 90s or 80s, where people smoked mystery drugs in high-school just to get high.

I am a regular smoker...this is false and damn near a myth. I don't know who you've dealt with in highschool, but they sound like assholes. Who laces weed? And why? I've NEVER come across 'laced' marijuana, and I'm a strain connoisseur lol. People claim to have had laced weed based off of one-off experiences where certain strains affects them.

The problem with legalizing marijuana at this point in time is misinformation and education. ESPECIALLY in conservative Alberta. People have to be RE-educated on the effects and ramifications of marijuana and not jump to conclusions on substances being laced or extremely unsafe. There are certain strains that effect individuals more so than others, it doesn't mean it's less safe and it doesn't mean it's laced. That's bullshit. These are fucking plants with flowers that you dry out, grind, and smoke. No more, no less. I'm speaking generally of course. If people wanna be dicks and lace weed for whatever reason, that's definitely on them and I have yet to come across such. But this topic on laced marijuana has been debunked a billion times. And if you don't know where exactly you get your herb from, don't smoke it.

Like stated, there are so many factors involved in smoking marijuana and tolerance level is one of them. I personally am VERY self aware when I am stoned, I know if I can or cannot drive and if I can't, I simply choose not to. There is a reason why there aren't any stoned driving commercials or "Mothers Against Stoned Driving", it's because there are no recorded accidents attributed to high driving and unlike being drunk, the user is usually self aware. It doesn't mean you should do it, but it shows that it's miles safer than driving drunk.

The point is though, to stay on topic, no body knows the drivers tolerance level, whether he has a medical card or not, or how impaired his ability to drive is. If he isn't driving recklessly, why call it in?

Taking impairment out of the question for a second, If you see a dude handing an empty bottle to his waitress, pays his bill, walks out the door and gets into his car, drive safely on his way, would you call it in? My guess would be no. Because, like 100% of the nation, we've been mentally conditioned to accept recreational alcohol use and we know the affects of alcohol and it's instilled into our culture. Countless times I've seen people walk out of bars and into their cars and no one questions a thing.

It's the same thing in this case, you saw a dude take a few hoots and be on his way. If he isn't driving dangerously, why would you call it in? IMO, it's the stigma attached to marijuana use and the propaganda shoved into our face with anti-drug laws and commercials growing up. Even if you look on government websites, they have words like "may" and "should" without any knowledge of the effects of marijuana and other drugs. I guaranteed people would rat me out to authorities for taking a few hoots of dank before getting into a vehicle, before downing a glass of beer or popping Night Time Tylenol in broad day light.

Again, I don't condone high driving, BUT judging from the answers in this thread, it seems like it's more about conducting a stoner witch hunt than reporting impaired driving.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/smokin...risk-1.1216818

[jazzyb]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


So if you saw someone take a pill you would call it in?

This has to be the most moronic question ever.

High/Drunk =/ drive.

Its stupid to think that you should be on the road while under the influence of a intoxicating drugs.

I bet, most of the tards who are condoning this sort of behaviour are probably highschool dropouts and/or have been hit by a car and recieved serious brain damage.

[dirtsniffer]

whoa jazzyb is back! and spewing the same garbage..

[jazzyb]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
whoa jazzyb is back! and spewing the same garbage..

Why don't you do me a favour and follow these steps:

1) Get high

2) Start your car while sitting in the drivers seat

3) Call the cops, let them know of your location and advice them of an impaired driver and provide them with your license plate

4) When the cops roll up, do a couple laps around the block

and if so confident about being high and driving proceed to step 5

5) Adivce the cops when pulled over that your high but you can fly just right.

6) profit??

[ercchry]

Originally posted by jazzyb

5) Advise the cops when pulled over that you're high but you can fly just right.

let me fix that for you... not sure how you went wrong here, since you are so highly educated

[JordanEG6]

Originally posted by Nitro5


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/smokin...risk-1.1216818

Great article. No doubt that smoking and car accidents can be directly correlated but there isn't enough data to issue to the public that there are car accidents directly attributed to marijuana use. Otherwise, we'd see it everywhere. This article simply demonstrates that levels of THC in the blood shows a positive relationship to crash risk. But that's a good thing. It shows that they are striving for more data and actual REAL research to work towards legalization.

Plus, the article supports the need for more research because there are certain variables that they haven't accounted for yet, such as level of impairment. Levels of THC in the blood provides the researchers for calculated risk, but nothing in real time. The article can't state that these accidents are attributed to smoking weed nor is there a direct correlation to it. Smoking 3 hours before driving is iffy in my opinion. It depends how much you've smoked, level of tolerance and even strain etc. but I actually think it's a good first step in the right direction.

That being said, I will go back to the OP and the driver and his level of impairment. Call it in, if he seems too high/impaired to drive a vehicle.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
You saw some guy toss a roach.

Maybe next time, on beyond superheroes!?

Your'e right. That's exactly what I saw. Some guy smoking up in his truck, then toss the roach. And what did I do? I thought about it, then did nothing since it didn't appear to be fucking him up. Yet RY213 seems to think that even considering the issue is a no-no. He'd rather everyone turn a blind eye to everything that they see, which is stupid. This isn't a schoolyard where the worst consequence is someone may stay after school, or they'll get a bad grade. The worst consequence is someone dies, hence the whole point of my question, what would you do? I already made my choice, and I can live with it. Had the guy been driving like a drunk, I most certainly would have called it in to get him off the road before he potentially killed someone, because I would have a hard time living with conscience if I didn't do something and later that day I'm reading about a black f150 that t-boned a minivan full of kids down the road from where I live.

In my mind, the worst case scenario is knowing I could have stopped something like that, and didn't. I never ceases to amaze me how stupid people can be. Live in the NE and complain about the crime rate, yet refuse to help the police stop the criminals. Decide to stand up for what you believe in and do what's right, get mocked by people of low moral quality. You call it drama, I call it standing up for myself.

[A790]

There is so much bullshit in this thread it'd be funny were it not so frustrating.

Again, I'm a daily smoker. I fucking love the stuff. But I don't drive while high.

I don't drive while high. There's an important distinction between "buzzed" and high. I've yet to encounter anyone who is capable of driving in the same capacity as when they're sober once they've gotten high.

Take a hit or two from your vape pen and you're a regular smoker? Doubtful that you're too impaired to drive. However, that doesn't mean that it should be okay for you to do so. It's too ambiguous and hard to quantify. This is a stark contrast to booze, where it's very easy to quantify and thus legislate.

In the push for legalization we need to be very conscious of how marijuana is perceived by the non-smoking majority. Making arguments that have little, if any, data to back them doesn't offer the legalization effort any value. Spewing nonsensical rhetoric and personally attacking each other makes us all look juvenile.

Looking juvenile, by the way, is one of the stigmas that needs to be eliminated in order for legalization to really be taken seriously.

That being said, it's very clear based on the responses in this thread that there are a few of you out there that seem to think that weed has no impact on your motor skills or decision making. Of course that's false, but you'll defend your asinine position with the pretense that it isn't. No evidence to reinforce it. No studies showing your point. A very Juvenile way of approaching the subject.

So enough with the bullshit. No, you aren't as safe to drive stoned as you are sober. There are numerous studies that show the opposite, actually. However, that doesn't mean that if someone smoked a few hours ago that they aren't okay to drive now. What it does mean is that we should be placing serious consideration in our state of mind before we drive. No different than if you've had a few to drink: you need to honestly consider if you're in a state to drive safely, and if not, make alternative arrangements.

I believe that more studies and data are needed before we can even realistically approach this conversation. I can't even believe that some people think otherwise. How selfish and myopic can you be?

[ercchry]

i still dont think you can paint everyone that uses with the same brush, study A:



also... i know people who DO drive better after a couple tokes... in a measurable closed course environment, i've personally seen it time and time again.

again, habitual users... WAY about your level Cam... im not one for the recreational use of pot, but i do believe it really does help with some cases of medical use. some of the hardcore sick people medicated vs not, i'd rather see them driving while medicated. hell, its the only way some of them can physically get in a car.

all of this is the one off type thing, but i still think it has to be at least considered moving forward.

personally i cant do it. but that doesnt mean others cant

[BavarianBeast]

Originally posted by A790
There is so much bullshit in this thread it'd be funny were it not so frustrating.

Again, I'm a daily smoker. I fucking love the stuff. But I don't drive while high.

I don't drive while high. There's an important distinction between "buzzed" and high. I've yet to encounter anyone who is capable of driving in the same capacity as when they're sober once they've gotten high.

Take a hit or two from your vape pen and you're a regular smoker? Doubtful that you're too impaired to drive. However, that doesn't mean that it should be okay for you to do so. It's too ambiguous and hard to quantify. This is a stark contrast to booze, where it's very easy to quantify and thus legislate.

In the push for legalization we need to be very conscious of how marijuana is perceived by the non-smoking majority. Making arguments that have little, if any, data to back them doesn't offer the legalization effort any value. Spewing nonsensical rhetoric and personally attacking each other makes us all look juvenile.

Looking juvenile, by the way, is one of the stigmas that needs to be eliminated in order for legalization to really be taken seriously.

That being said, it's very clear based on the responses in this thread that there are a few of you out there that seem to think that weed has no impact on your motor skills or decision making. Of course that's false, but you'll defend your asinine position with the pretense that it isn't. No evidence to reinforce it. No studies showing your point. A very Juvenile way of approaching the subject.

So enough with the bullshit. No, you aren't as safe to drive stoned as you are sober. There are numerous studies that show the opposite, actually. However, that doesn't mean that if someone smoked a few hours ago that they aren't okay to drive now. What it does mean is that we should be placing serious consideration in our state of mind before we drive. No different than if you've had a few to drink: you need to honestly consider if you're in a state to drive safely, and if not, make alternative arrangements.

I believe that more studies and data are needed before we can even realistically approach this conversation. I can't even believe that some people think otherwise. How selfish and myopic can you be?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKjFiGFrcU
comments are gold haha.

[A790]

Originally posted by ercchry
i still dont think you can paint everyone that uses with the same brush, study A:

also... i know people who DO drive better after a couple tokes... in a measurable closed course environment, i've personally seen it time and time again.

again, habitual users... WAY about your level Cam... im not one for the recreational use of pot, but i do believe it really does help with some cases of medical use. some of the hardcore sick people medicated vs not, i'd rather see them driving while medicated. hell, its the only way some of them can physically get in a car.

all of this is the one off type thing, but i still think it has to be at least considered moving forward.

personally i cant do it. but that doesnt mean others cant

I use marijuana medicinally and have since 2010 (shortly after my back injury which some of you may recall I posted about).

Anyway, my point is that after smoking daily I still can't always predict how weed will impact me. Sometimes I get more stoned than I intended.

Once it's legalized/regulated it will be easier to control dosage. To me, that's the missing ingredient from this conversation because right now there is no reliable, repeatable way to regulate dosage.

As far as recreational use of pot goes... I'm a huge advocate for the use of pot period. Doesn't matter to me how or why. I run a successful business, am in great shape, etc. and I smoke daily. I don't think there are any good reasons to keep it a controlled substance. It needs to be treated very similarly to alcohol and tobacco.

However, until we have repeated demonstrations of dosages vs. driving ability, in controlled environments, I also can't and won't claim that pot doesn't impact your ability to drive. That's the point I'm trying to make.

When I have more data to reinforce that perspective, good or bad, then I'm in a position to talk about it... know what I mean?

[Nitro5]

The argument here seems to be around how chronics handle and function while high.

Our alcohol laws aren't based around how alcoholics function, so why would marihuana?

[ercchry]

^^^cause they are NOT the same thing... i thought we went over that?

Originally posted by A790



When I have more data to reinforce that perspective, good or bad, then I'm in a position to talk about it... know what I mean?

yeah im not going to even try to come up with a way to regulate usage vs driving, causes it is very complex if you are dealing with the medical side of things and recreational. too many factors, almost like there needs to be a high driving test to add an endorsement to your license