[Closed] I'm about to be screwed... the question is how hard? THC content content.

Nice data.

Curious how much of an impact a drivers emotions have on road safety...

Is a calm driver safer than an angry driver for example?

[url= http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/legal-limits-for-marijuana-dui-are-arbitrary-and-unsupported-by-science ]meh[/url]

Jive this is where we get into really difficult terrain. For example from what I have read stoned driving is similar to tired driving in terms of impairment. Angry drivers often do really dangerous things. I have seen people lose their temper and try to drive bikes off the road deliberately. What about people with poor vision? many of those on the roads.

Personally I'd like to see a lot mote traffic law enforcement and a zero tolerance policy towards any careless / reckless / dangerous driving

If you are asking me whether i would rather get in the car with someone really stoned or really pissed i pick really stoned. however i dont really want to get in the car with either or have either on the road.

Personally, like I say I have been in situations many of times with stoned drivers, so it interests me, as I do think it is different from drink driving. Not that I particularly condone it mind, personally, I wouldn't do it, but I do think we should look at it differently. I've no license, and that's alot to do with my fairly habitual use of cannabis over the last 20 odd years. I don't touch it much these days, but that's been a big factor in me never bothering to get a license. So personally I do tend towards the just don't drive approach.

Is there any stats related to traffic accidents caused by stoned drivers that you know of?

Talk with lawyer at 5pm... 😐

An old colleage recently hit a pedestrian and was regular cannabis user. Pedestrian lost a foot. There is ne excuse or justification. Ever.

captaincarbon - Member

An old colleage recently hit a pedestrian and was regular cannabis user. Pedestrian lost a foot. There is ne excuse or justification. Ever.

Was it connected? Was he impaired while driving? I'm a driver and regular masturbator but unless i'm actually *ing when I drive someone over it's not that important.

(tbh I think I drive better when *ing, I'm more relaxed)

(can't believe ****ing is swear filtered! That's ruined my poetic flow...)

There is ne excuse or justification. Ever.

I tend not to drive if I've ingested too much caffeine.. I don't feel safe

IMO there is no excuse or justification for driving whilst under the influence of caffeine, and I imagine it's use has been implicated in relatively many more rta's than cannabis

so errrrr.... what point are you trying to make?

I tend not to drive if I've ingested too much caffeine.. I don't feel safe

Seriously? Is that a joke or a troll?

I tend not to drive if I've ingested too much caffeine.. I don't feel safe

I once finished a cafetiere of strong coffee to myself at work, couldnt look at the screen or concentrate for about half an hour. Driving would have been.... interesting.

Seriously? Is that a joke or a troll?

Are [i]you[/i] a joke or a troll?
I've been pondering the question for quite some time....
C'mon, which is it?

Is a calm driver safer than an angry driver for example?

We're not emotionless robots. So unless we overcome our anxieties about self driving cars then the person in your car and the cars all around you will be human in all the best and worst senses.

The issue with impairment in relation to substance use and impairment relating to mood is your mood can change when circumstances demand it - you can stop being angry or relaxed when the circumstances unfolding in front of you demand it. If you get in a car with any substance based impairment then you can't override that - you carry that impairment into every circumstance you might encounter on that trip. Thats why you can be prosecuted and penalised for driving with that impairment in the absence of any other accident or offence - because of that relinquishment of control

Pedestrian lost a foot.

Was it connected?

So from Junkys links above cannabis and driving gives you a 2 fold increase in likelihood of crashing. However mobile phone use gives you 4 times the likelihood of crashing. So who here will admit to using their phone when driving? You are twice as impaired as a stoned driver.

maccruiskeen - Member

Not any more. for gods sake pay attention.

I shall send round your certificate of "Winning STW, 16/8/2016", forthwith

Having spent a bit of time stoned when I was younger I think those suggesting driving whilst stoned is ok are idiots.

If you smoke so much of it that you feel it doesn't affect you then you are smoking far too much. My brother is addicted to the stuff and it has caused him issues.

Why it has become almost socially acceptable is beyond me.

Can I just state for the record that I don't under any circumstances drive while under the influence of cannabis..

I wouldn't feel safe and besides, it's very difficult to exercise proper control of a motor vehicle when I'm hiding in a bedroom cupboard with a tin foil hat on, worrying that 'they' are gonna kick my back doors in at any moment

I'm fairly certain that many people are perfectly capable of going about their daily lives with THC in their bloodstream though

chestrockwall. Its not addictive. at all.

No one is condoning driving stoned - just exploring the questions around degrees of impairment and comparisons to other things that impair your driving as well as do the limits set reflect the actual impairment.

If you accept the english drink / drive limit is the right level of impairment for it no longer to be safe to drive - and at just under the limit you are impaired then for a similar level of impairment the cannabis drive limit appears set too low.

So from Junkys links above cannabis and driving gives you a 2 fold increase in likelihood of crashing. However mobile phone use gives you 4 times the likelihood of crashing. So who here will admit to using their phone when driving? You are twice as impaired as a stoned driver.

What if you're phoning your dealer to organise a purchase? Is that also 4x or 8x more likely?

chestrockwall. Its not addictive. at all.

Whether or not it's chemically addictive, it's surely psychologically addictive?

I read the first couple of pages of this thread and skimmed through the rest, and I have to say, I'm utterly aghast that some people think this is OK, and are even wishing the OP good luck!

Let's not forget, the OP has habitually broken the law; is dishonest and deceitful; and yet still expects us to believe his assertions that he was safe to drive. And he expects to believe his account of how long prior to the incident he took illegal drugs!

[sarcastic voice]Good luck convincing a judge of anything sunshine!![/sarcastic voice]

The only thing you've convinced me of is that you're of poor character and you think that you're somehow above the law... You haven't explained yet: why do you think the law doesn't apply to you? What makes you think you can pick and choose which laws you abide by??

At best, you're arrogant in the extreme; at worst (and reading your comments about what a totally awesome rider you are compared to your other pothead mates, I'm leaning towards this opinion) you're a narcissist who deserves to get hit by the book!

Rather than worrying about if a technicality will help you side-step any sort of punishment, perhaps you should look at the bigger picture and realise that you need to make some changes to your lifestyle.

tbh I think I drive better when *ing, I'm more relaxed)

Keep your mind on the driving
Keep your hands on the wheel***

You either need to have all your your fun sitting in the back seat, with Fred, or invest in some sort of hands free device.

You haven't explained yet: why do you think the law doesn't apply to you?

Isn't there something about not subscribing to laws that you don't agree with or consider to be corrupt?

Isn't there something about not subscribing to laws that you don't agree with or consider to be corrupt?

Yeah, I keep reading about people that molest kids because they think those laws don't apply to them...

Cougar - Moderator
chestrockwall. Its not addictive. at all.
Whether or not it's chemically addictive, it's surely psychologically addictive?

You haven't explained yet: why do you think the law doesn't apply to you? What makes you think you can pick and choose which laws you abide by??

Law doesn't equate to moral correctness. Drug laws are morally wrong imo. Not the driving laws(the discussion here is where they should be set, personally I tend to go with a zero tolerance approach, but you need to factor in a reliable test to prove someone is stoned that day rather than having residual thc in them, for the month after), but in general prohibition is morally sketchy on so many levels.

Drug laws are morally wrong [b]imo.[/b]

In YOUR opinion... Well then, they must be wrong eh? And those kiddy fiddlers that say the children "enjoy the attention" must be right too... 🙄

chestrockwall. Its not addictive. at all.

My brother would find it much harder to give up than booze or normal fags, both of which he has plenty of. I'd call that addicted, however you want to measure it.

I can only speak from experience. About 10 years ago, the last time I smoked any weed and just after I'd split up with an Ex I was round at my mates and had about three drags from a joint (Planning to get stoned). I had a phone call and needed to get home so thought I felt fine, had had very little weed so drove home. I was convinced I'd driven past Otley half a dozen times, had no awareness of what was going on around me and drove at about fifteen miles an hour. It scared the crap out of me and I've never touched cannabis since.

There's no justification for it what so ever.

cyclingweakly - Member
Drug laws are morally wrong imo.
In YOUR opinion... Well then, they must be wrong eh? And those kiddy fiddlers that say the children "enjoy the attention" must be right too...

Tbh, you're being ****ing stupid there. There's plenty of valid reasons why prohibition is wrong, one being that it causes more damage than it fixes. There's plenty of evidence that people like you willfully ignore. It's why there can't be a sensible discussion around this, as you end up bringing up extremely unhelpful analogies to further your ridiculous case.

Thanks cyclingweakly....

Was going to respond, but I'm guessing you've made up your mind already....

#judgejuryexecutioner

A lot of laws could be considered morally wrong, but morals are subjective and laws are not, so if you break one, you can expect to get dumped on.

Alpin, sorry mate, it's unfortunate, but I'm in the critical camp on this one. Time to take this one on the chin and maybe re-think things maybe?

Cougar - not really a thing unless you mean in the way playing bridge is addictive or sitting at your computer debating with folk is. 😉

Sorry - pedant corner. Addiction is a word with a strict meaning in healthcare but is widely used outside of healthcare in a much wider sense.

Yeah, I keep reading about people that molest kids

Hmmm, what people choose to read says an awful lot about them! 😯

cyclingweakly - I think you need a spliff or summink to chill you out.. Maybe it could help resolve your childhood issues?

[img] [/img]

willard - Member
A lot of laws could be considered morally wrong, but morals are subjective and laws are not, so if you break one, you can expect to get dumped on.

Laws are not absolute.

Prohibition of drugs has failed. Enlightened countries like the Netherlands and Portugal are taking a different approach and seeing the harm from drugs decreasing as a result.

Laws can also be morally wrong without any dispute. At the risk of invoking Godwin laws that entrench discrimination are morally wrong like requiring all people of a certain race or faith to be registered and marked - perhaps with a yellow star?

Can they have different rules for different countries in Europe (as in they only temporary ban German citizens but perma-ban people from other countries)? I guess they can as it seems they do but I'd have thought it flouted some European human rights law or something.

I'm all for legalising drugs and controlling them like alcohol or fags. Adults are big enough and ugly enough to make their own mind up.

I'm against thinking it's acceptable to drive when under the influence.

This reminds me of the thread a while back of the lad who got pulled over for doing 35 past a police car in Manchester and he was really annoyed as he admitted going past at 34 but was convinced he should be let off as "speedos always read high" he didn't get a great deal of sympathy

So, to the matter at hand - the OP has admitted to smoking shit loads of weed all the time and was worried he still had some in his system

If this was alcohol and it was the morning after a big party would anyone have any sympathy for someone who drove 2 tons of vehicle with a brain adjusting chemical sloshed around their system ? Hmm, me neither

Personally I have little sympathy with anyone who impairs themselves and drives - sorry but I hope you lose you license - you may say its a shitty attitude but YOU and only YOU decided to smoke the stuff and then decide to drive a large weapon around the roads.

Anyway I am an old fart who doesn't feel the need to take drugs or alcohol, so I am going to go and feel sanctimonious now.

One of the main factors in arguments to make any drugs legal is that the sheer number of people breaking the law means a large proportion of the population are being criminalised.

Well whoopy-f*****g-doo! The number of people viewing illegal images online is astronomical - probably beyond the comfortable comprehension of most people - so should we relax those laws too?

If not, why? What's the difference? A law is a line-in-the-sand to protect people and make society a better place. Cannabis laws protect people like me from stoners like Alpin driving large vehicles whilst impaired! They also protect us from the harmful long-term effects of psychoactive substances of questionable origin.

cycling weakly, you're describing a world where prohibition is effective and where people have a fascination of using child porn to back up their illogical conclusions. You live in some weird parallel universe, right? Your arguments have no basis in reality.

If not, why? What's the difference? A law is a line-in-the-sand to protect people and make society a better place. Cannabis laws protect people like me from stoners like Alpin driving large vehicles whilst impaired!

Stop equating pedophiles with drug users - they are worlds apart.

Clearly, those laws don't prevent it. Perhaps if drugs were legal and an education program put in place, there would be more educated people on the roads, with less THC in their system.

Prohibition of drugs actually leads to more organised crime.

Your arguments have no basis in reality.

I suppose that's the sort of comment I'd expect from a stoner... Is "LAW" too complicated for you to get your drug-addled brain around? There's no grey area when it comes to law: you either broke the law or you didn't.

You can't buy and use cannabis and then say "I didn't break the law because abc/xyz", it's absolute. You - or your legal representative - might try and mitigate, but at the end of the day, the crime is absolute. It is EXACTLY the same no matter what crime you commit - whether you drive to fast, smoke a spliff, rape your missus or download illegal images of children.

Cycling - the thing is they do not protect you. thats the point. countries with more enlightened laws have less problems with drugs and legalisation does not mean there would not still be laws against driving stoned - but it would mean that we could get better research, we could get healthcare treatment for people with problems and we could control the quality - as well as removing the market for "legal" highs which generally are much more damaging.

I'll give you a fairly easy example. In some areas of the UK 70% of all crime is drug related. ( junkies nicking stuff to pay for their habit). give the junkies their smack and lo and behold - all that crime disappears. A huge saving to society. also take away the illegality and addiction rates drop. Proven in Portugal.

Every £ spent on harm reduction / drug rehabilitation saves £10 in the criminal justice and healthcare systems.

drug prohibition causes far more harm than the actual drugs themselves. queen victoria smoked cannabis and took morphine

Just to make it clear.... I'm not expecting any sympathy here. I know that smoking drugs is against the law. Driving whilst high is wrong and I think I said that at the start.
You can argue till the cows come home as to whether or not I was fit to drive. It's a moot point. I felt I was, hence why I drove. If I still felt stoned 20 hours after a smoke then I wouldn't have.

I started this thread knowing I was going to be judged...
My real question is this: does anyone have any experience of dealing with THC levels in blood? Essentially how likely am I to be stung.

Stop equating pedophiles with drug users - they are worlds apart.

I'm not. I'm equating breaking one law with breaking another. One seems to be socially acceptable (if you take any notice of the general straw poll that is STW), and one is deemed socially unacceptable.

So it's a perfectly justified comparison to suggest that both are examples of breaking the law, and asking the question, why should one illicit sympathetic back-slapping?

Essentially how likely am I to be stung.

Sadly, I doubt likely enough!