並べ替え:
新着
注目トップ論争中

news 内の WompaStompa_ によるリンク Study: Blood THC levels after smoking pot are useless in defining “too high to drive”

[–]demand-science [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think before we get the lawyers involved, let's get the scientists involved. Right now, few people want to talk about the fact that legit scientific studies have not indicated that high driving is an actual problem at all.

A cop is not a scientist. Worse yet, he's clearly begging the question with using the fact that he has arrested people for driving high to justify driving high being illegal, which is circular and logically fallacious.

news 内の WompaStompa_ によるリンク Study: Blood THC levels after smoking pot are useless in defining “too high to drive”

[–]demand-science 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But, that's the thing with pot: it does not significantly impair judgement, and, if it does, it goes in the opposite direction towards more cautiousness. Drunkenness increases impulsive, dangerous behavior in almost everyone. If I eat a cookie and get too stoned to drive, I won't drive. I have never woken up and though "man, I had a cookie and drove myself home; what was I thinking?" But, and I am ashamed of this, I certainly have thought a few times "man, I had four beers and drove home. I should have hung out for another hour or two to sober up a bit more." We don't need strict liability from driving high like we do for driving drunk because it just doesn't compare to the danger nor the frequency.

I feel strongly that if we pursue the science from the perspective of public good and health, the conclusion will be: by the time people are too high to drive (which is likely pretty high), they will make the decision not to drive 9 times out of 10, which is not true with alcohol. Therefore, the best way to handle it will be like prescription drugs: it's not strictly illegal to do, but anything you do illegal while high is still illegal. I think making driving high strictly illegal is the epitome of today's emotion-based lawmaking. It's a solution without a problem, just like the drug war itself.

news 内の WompaStompa_ によるリンク Study: Blood THC levels after smoking pot are useless in defining “too high to drive”

[–]demand-science 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I also have ADHD, and I use medical pot every single day. It's better than Adderall. I definitely driver better high, just as I do most things better (except being an out of control, high-energy, low-focus spazz of course).

My main problem with the whole debate, as a medical user, is that it is not grounded in science. There is little scientific evidence that getting high makes you universally a poor driver, especially once you are used to it. That's the problem. Tons of people take prescription drugs and drive, but we're having a debate over that one: there is no test, and unless you are obviously impaired, you probably won't get into trouble. Why should pot be different?

Regardless, I want a scientifically rigorous process before we start making it illegal per strict liability to drive high. If I am safer when driving high than someone at 0.08 BAC, then I should be allowed to fucking drive. Simple as that. Old people don't all drive better than that, and they can still drive. We don't prevent everyone who drives poorly from driving. Maybe if I have 4 cups of coffee and drive, I am terrible. But, it's not illegal in-and-of-itself. The only reason alcohol and driving is so bad is that: - Impairment is similar across all people (does not seem to be true for pot). - It impairs judgement as well as reaction time (pot does not impair judgement). Drunk people are more impulsive and make more risky decisions. High people, on the whole, do not. - We have sufficient scientific evidence of what makes a good threshold, and the standard is based in scientific evidence.

Far, FAR too many people just scream: JUST DON'T DRIVE IF YOU WANT TO GET FUCKED UP. Well, what if I use it for actual medicine that makes me a better driver and calmer person over all? We need a discussion rooted in solid science not emotional bullshit spouted by ignorant know-it-alls.