I've heard that the majority of car accidents in Sweden are caused by moose. So lets get out there and kill all those dangerous mooses before they cause an accident that could be prevented!

I think what zombicyckel is bringing up is a question of morality, and not so much legality. And as we all know, morality is often a relative, grey, undefined, mooshy mass.

The stats do show the topic is up for debate. I'd never drive baked, except maybe after a hit or two of weak stuff. I don't smoke much, though, so it does effect me. Legally we are allowed to drive with a bit of alcohol in our systems. I can usually feel one been pretty well, as a barely ever drink. Same kind of thing, you're not really that much more dangerous with a beer, or a toke.

But if I can help it, I'll drive sober. It's just my choice.

It'll all be moot anyways, when cars drive themselves and accidents become an odd occurrence. Google already has this tech! When you start looking at the legal issues, it will probably be mandatory to have an auto driver. Think of if you were driving yourself, and wrecked into someone. They'd have precedent to sue, since you were being unsafe and driving yourself. Once this happens, the debate about intoxicants and motor vehicles will be over.

I for one look forward to kicking my feetsies back and chillin while my car takes me where I want to go!

Oh, and I am stoked to be a part of history. I didn't know how much attention our lil old Washington state would get, both in the nation and around the world. My vote in the 55% makes me a part of that! I still am very worried about the federalis harshin my buzz, but like it was said earlier, the ball's rollin. No stopping it now!

lol, seems I offended you. Funny how a little critical thinking can bring out the worst in people. Personally, I rather see more moose running around in the wild then humans.

Indeed, I am too stoked about this getting world wide, it has created some serious debate in sweden about decrim. among the people that is, and thats were it starts

No not offended at all actually, I don't smoke pot anymore period whether driving or sitting at home, so it's not something I can take personally. Speaking of which, your earlier statement about "When relaxed one becomes careless, all the stresses put to ease. that is the main thing cannabis does" couldn't be farther from the truth IMO. for me it is just the opposite, it increases stress and ADDS extra worries, rather than removing them and making me relaxed. And I am definitely not the only one affected this way. So you really ought to say "that's the main thing it does FOR ME".

Anyway I was just making a point about your own argument. Critical thinking is precicely what I'm trying to encourage here. If you MUST do everything possible to prevent potential accidents, then killing all the moose is just as logical as these blood tests. Even if it's only a very few times out of a hundred or whatever, that's still unacceptable right? So lets go wipe out those shaggy wandering traffic hazards before another Mercedes is needlessly dented!

Well, your making a good valid security question into meaninless comparisons. I dont see the point other for your own amusement.


Edit: I have taken enough crap in this thread. There will be no more replies

Well then IMO you're just not thinking about it very hard. It is the same principal as what you're saying, only made SLIGHTLY more silly and extreme.

Honestly it's my intention to point out the flaw in your own thinking for you here, rather than just amusing myself. If you can't see it, IMO that simply means you don't want to and so there's nothing more to be said.

Perhaps language barrier? Maybe sarcasm doesn't translate over the interwebs?

Can't we all just get along?

I get your point zombicyckel, I agree with you for the most part. Driving stoned really isn't a bright idea. To me there's a difference between being stoned and having a toke or two.

There's no need to be frustrated. It is important that we debate such issues. The liveliness of this thread proves that!

Actually I agree too, for the most part. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that people use good judgement and know their own limits. And I totally support the idea of being concerned for the safety of others, caring about other people is a good thing! But the blood test thing is taking it too far. Just like killing all the moose in Sweden is taking it too far, when simply putting up big fences along all the roads would do.

Drugs and Driving: A Compendium of Research Studies (Canada, 2007)

This study lists research of drug-impaired driving since 1999 to 2006.

Happy reading !

so none of the scientists involved in any of the studies supporting their argument were using critical thinking?

and neither were any of the posters who were opposed to you?

interesting.

I didn't read this whole thread.

But as someone who has used cannabis all day, every day for close to a decade now,
I can assert that Cannabis makes me a better, more attentive, more cautious driver.

It even provides me with an eerie ability to maintain at EXACTLY the speed limit, almost without effort, indefinitely.

Without cannabis I am more likely to speed, more likely to become distracted, more likely to get road rage.

I think the issue is one of TOLERANCE.

While I am a perfectly capable stoned driver now, I'll be the first to admit that people who have a low tolerance - which often also means younger people who are inexperienced drivers anyway - should not get behind the wheel until the effects mostly wear off.

I certainly remember being 16, driving stoned, and feeling like I was about to break the sound barrier when I was only going 30 mph...

But how could something like tolerance be taken into account in legislation? It's such an individual thing.

I agree about the tolerance thing. We should all try and be a little more tolerant.

(That was a joke)

But in all seriousness, I do agree the blood tests are a bit much. I think the purpose of them is to hopefully keep the feds away. Taking a tough stance in the beginning will show that the state does intend to be responsible about it. Hopefully, if it doesn't work out with the blood tests at the current regs, they can be adjusted. I did read, the tests actually test for THC, and not metabolites.

It's important to remember, this is new frontier! It's not going to all just work out over night, there's going to be mistakes, pissed off people, and so on. The last time weed was legal in the US, there wasn't even drinking and driving laws, so there's a bit to figure out how to fit this whole thing into the current modern situation.

I do believe it's different for everyone, and there's no point taking such a hard-line stance. People are going to do what they're going to do, and if a new law leads to better statistics then that's a positive step.

Upon becoming a father I quit smoking before driving. This was only partially for safety- I am a light smoker with a flawless driving record. Part of it was simply to avoid trouble- get pulled over for a missing taillight while reeking and it could lead to a sh*tstorm.

I think we need to look at the issue the same way we do with DMT- by being responsible cannabis users we act as emmisaries, showing that weed isn't the evil herb it's been accused of. Frankly, as much as I enjoy my weed, I've found it extremely easy- not a sacrifice at all- to not smoke and drive. Plan your day so your driving is done early, then catch your first buzz. What's so difficult about that?

actually i did mention donkeys as an alternative mode of transportation earlier lol. It sounds like a smartass (ha!) thing to say but we really should look at ways to simplify our society so we dont have to travel so much everyday.

Personally, I enjoy smoking pot, but I do feel that it affects my reaction time and therefore my driving ability, so I don't feel there is anything inappropriate about marijuana DUI's. I'm also of the mind that if you believe you function better under the influence, you likely have a dependence issue of some shape or size, but don't go getting all pouty about it. I'm not judging anyone directly.

This also doesn't mean that I've never driven after smoking pot. I have, and have never been in an accident as a result. But I do think it's a dangerous practice, and it's inherently irresponsible - because the potential is there to cause harm not just to myself, but to others as well.

Ultimately, I'm with Guyomech here; I like that this community focuses collectively on responsibly representing drug users. If I'm high and a child runs out in the street, regardless of whether the drug is a factor, if I hit them I'm going to jail. And then I've made myself a tool for those who seek more prohibition.