Quote:

---

LongStrangeTrip said:

Quote:

---

...this is nothing more than academic dick-stroking.

---

Thank you for posting that. It needed said.

Quote:

---

h4x354x0r said:
Cannabis use: the least relative risk of almost all activities. Enforcement/punishment: arrest, felony charges, avg. 5 yrs prison sentence, debilitating financial penalties, and more.

---

Quote:

---

The Influence said:

Quote:

---

h4x354x0r said:
Cannabis use: the least relative risk of almost all activities. Enforcement/punishment: arrest, felony charges, avg. 5 yrs prison sentence, debilitating financial penalties, and more.

---

Do you have any links to back that up? In WI you get in the same trouble for driving under the influence cannabis as you do for alcohol or other drugs. The severity of the penalties dependent on how many prior DUIs you have on your record. Your also pretty inaccurate with your ideas of what happens to a drunk driver charged with a DUI. In quite a few states I know for a fact the penalty includes jail after the first offense. Come on man lets stick to facts instead of obscuring the facts to fit your argument.

---

Quote:

---

The Influence said:
Do you have any links to back that up?

---

Quote:

---

h4x354x0r said:

Quote:

---

The Influence said:
Do you have any links to back that up?

---

Please, stop playing dumb with questions like that. I already provided a link that allows you to access the research, in the post just above the one you responded to. Heck, links are cheap, here it is again: Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

Everything on that web page is properly referenced to the actual research publications. Others have chimed in and posted additional links, as well. Review the research for yourself, and crunch the numbers for yourself. Extra points if you can manage not to skew your own math with your own apparent prejudice.

I live in Missouri, home of Anheuser-Busch Brewing. Alcohol laws and enforcement are very lax in my state, while cannabis laws are enforced with violent SWAT team home invasions, and 1st time offense penalties averaging 3-5 years in prison. Even if I were grossly exaggerating (which I'm not, at least for my state), the relative punishments would still be egregiously disproportional.

I posted: "...maybe some jail time for repeat offenders."
You replied: "...the penalty includes jail after the first offense."

And those two statements are fundamentally different, how? Or did you actually mean to say ON the first offense?

The rub here is, that for first offenses, at least in my state, charges are often bargained down to something besides an actual DUI/BAC, as long as the person pays hundreds of dollars to attend one of those "driver education" classes. Sometimes people wind up with several alcohol offenses before they are charged with their first true DUI or BAC violation, before they end up seeing any jail time. But I concede this does vary from state to state.

Finally, until you post at least as many links as I have (just one!), to prove *your* point, I've already one-upped you on "proof." Considering that my one link actually references 13 research studies, I've actually 13-upped you on "Proof."

Time for you to "prove" your own assertions, I think.

---

Quote:

---

DebuteMachine said:
Look, me and a few other posters have posted links disproving the "smoking gun theory" that MJ impairs your ability to drive. The truth is there also seems to be evidence that MJ makes you drive better. So there's that; inconclusive.

---

Quote:

---

The Influence said:" A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” "

I pulled that out of your link. Notice how they said drivers with cannabinoids in the blood? How long can marijuana remain in the average marijuana consumers system? For 30 days easy, it does not state that these paticipants were directly under the influence of marijuana. It also says that it does cause impairment, but not to the extent alcohol does. I never claimed that it did impair someone as much as alcohol, but that I don't agree with any kind of impaired driving.

---

Quote:

---

DebuteMachine said:
As far as the prohibition thing goes, I really feel MJ could be (and should be) used all the time. Sure it can helps chemo-therapy, AIDs and HIV sufferers, ect. No one mentions that it can help you fall asleep, or help you gain some weight! I'm against prohibition, but I'm also in the train of thought that MJ should be used by everyone. Yes, even kids through baked goods if they so desire. Smoking is not for children...

This is where our differences come in. You still seem to think MJ is stigmatic or something, just by the way you are acting over this whole driving thing. And to be fair, I would submit to a field test if I was asked to, I thought that was a great idea.

"Walk in a straight line? Sure officer, watch I can even do it with my eyes closed!"

So anyways, props for that idea. I think it's legit.

---

Quote:

---

DebuteMachine said:
If you want to end prohibition why is it okay to make it illegal to smoke and drive? Like I've said, using your cell phone is worse than being high, and that's probably something you do even though you claim to be morally above smoking and driving.


"DRIVERS ON CELL PHONES ARE AS BAD AS DRUNKS

UTAH PSYCHOLOGISTS WARN AGAINST CELL PHONE USE WHILE DRIVING"
http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/062206-1.html

---

I like to enjoy a few beers but I don't agree with drunk driving. You sure like to assume alot. I absolutely don't drive and use my phone. Matter of fact I don't barley use my cell phone anyways. Did you not read the above post? I said and I quote "And lastly, I would have no problem with someone that can pass a field sobriety test (as I have stated before) just like with alcohol, if you can't pass one you don't belong on the road. I really don't see you logically arguing that? "

Quote:

---

DebuteMachine said:
To me it's just a non issue, but I see that it would bother some other people more. But if we are both on a general consensus a field test would be the route of action, then there's not much else to say. Word up man.

---

I said in the begining of the thread I think the same laws should apply to driving high as driving drunk. If you can prove your not impaired then carry on down the road.

Quote:

---

The Influence said:
If you can prove your not impaired then carry on down the road

---

Quote:

---

h4x354x0r said:

Quote:

---

The Influence said:
If you can prove your not impaired then carry on down the road

---

Which should bring this argument full circle. You share roadways with stoned drivers all the time. You have for years. It creates very, very few problems. Billions of stoned driving miles do indeed prove: the impairment is minimal and virtually everyone carries on down the road.

I am not advocating getting high and driving. I agree in principle that cannabis regulation should be similar to alcohol regulation. But cannabis is so incredibly much safer overall - both directly in terms of ingestion, and causally from impairment - that penalties and regulations should be substantially less than those for alcohol.

What I am doing rationally assessing the risk, and concluding that cannabis impairment in drivers is the least of my worries. And, I ride a bicycle for my primary transportation; I have a lot to lose by being wrong.

What I am doing is weighing the small additional risk and the damage that stoned driving presents, against the immense violence and damage that cannabis prohibition causes. The "ZOMG! Stoned Driver are SOOOO dangerous!" lies and propaganda are repeatedly used to justify the prohibition. The original article was clearly bullshit propaganda with misleading statistical mumbo-jumbo to justify continuing cannabis prohibition, and I'm still calling it out as such.

Sorry, I'm not a purist. This is the real world. I'm perfectly willing to choose the "evil" of stoned driving OVER the evil of cannabis prohibition.

I guess you just want your weed to stay illegal?

---

Quote:

---

Alan Rockefeller said:
The level of chemicals in a persons body is a poor indicator of how they will react on the road.  I think we should test for impairment, not for specific drugs.

Reaction time is easy to measure.  The officer can drop a yardstick, and the driver grabs it as soon as they can.  The distance it fell is measured.  This is a quantitative measure of how quickly people can react to dangerous situations on the road.

If a test like this was implemented, millions of sober elderly people would be arrested for DUI, and the younger stoners would go free.  Drunk drivers of all ages would be fucked, but only if they were actually impaired.

---

This.

Also just speaking from personal experience, I've found that I'm a better driver when I'm stoned, mostly because I'm aware of my condition and can compensate for it, and partly because I'm paranoid that I'll get pulled over for performing a traffic violation so I obey more rules of the road, don't speed, etcetera.  On the other hand, my memory gets shot when I'm fairly high so I always forget how to get to my destination. 

Quote:

---

h4x354x0r said:
I'm glad The Influence gets my point, and I'm sorry I don't quite seem to get his.

I've gone back and reviewed the posts, and it seems the only place we differ is that The Influence seems to advocate a zero tolerance policy for cannabis-impaired driving, while I don't.

There seems to have been some shift on The Influence's part during the debate, from "you shouldn't drive at all if you're high" - a zero USE tolerance - to a "you shouldn't drive if you're impaired" - a zero IMPAIRMENT tolerance.

Which brings us back to the problem of measuring impairment. I can play Hacky Sack on a professional level when I'm "impaired," and if given any kind of balance / coordination test, I'd fucking blow it away no matter how stoned I was. That doesn't mean I'm OK to drive.

My personal experience was that being high while driving around town seemed mildly distracting, but for long-distance highway driving, it (with a little music) really helped me focus, concentrate, and enjoy what would have otherwise been a rather boring task. So, for me, there wasn't even a single answer about "impairment." It depends.

We've had MMJ long enough that we've actually got some fairly good data on actual accident statistics. 4 of 7 states saw a statistically significant decrease in traffic accidents compared to non-MMJ states; the other 3 showed no increase. This is not because cannabis makes people better drivers; it's because cannabis displaces more risky behaviors (mostly alcohol use).

A zero-tolerance mindset is one of the primary tools of prohibition propaganda, and does absolutely nothing to forward an agenda of safety. A more tolerant mindset for cannabis, OTOH, has a real, positive, measurable effect on safety because it allows people to freely choose far less risky behaviors. I believe we need to gravitate towards leniency and tolerance until all risk displacement benefits have been realized.

---

Quote:

---

The Influence said:
Ok and I'm not saying it impairs your ability, but I truly believe it impairs enough peoples ability that it's safer to apply the same laws to it as drinking and driving. If you were to do a real study and get the results to say that marijuana makes drivers more attentive and react faster then you might change my opinion. But I know a lot of smokers that I won't get in a car with again, and others I really wouldn't want on the road.

---