NYC has them everywhere.
When are People Too High To Drive?
- Thread starter vta
- Start date
NYC has them everywhere.
Throwgar
Member
I've waited through a green light while I was high, and I've ordered McDonalds from a fence post about 25 feet from the intercom while I was high, but I've never had an accident while I was high. I've had a few fender benders while sober, but that's it.
G
guest456mpy
Some people I know I wouldn't let drive totally straight.
When my father grew up you didn't even need a license to drive legally.
This country is too hung up on bullshit rules!
When my father grew up you didn't even need a license to drive legally.
This country is too hung up on bullshit rules!
memphis man
Member
just imagine what the freeways will look like if 19 passes lol traffis jams from hell everyone will be doing 30 lol
when i drive after smoking i have to set the cruise control or else i will drive way to slow
when i drive after smoking i have to set the cruise control or else i will drive way to slow
I drive different now then when I WAS A KID. Now I'm much more cautious then I use to be. I have had no problems driveing while stoned but I think it was not a good decision for me to make. I dont feel driving while intoxicated under anything is a smart decision.
G
guest456mpy
On today's buys streets and highways I think that's pretty wise!
buddin_904
Member
if it passes your freeways arent going to look any different.....people are constantly driving high ALL THE TIME....and people that want to get high r going to do it whether the law permits or disallows it or not.....if 19 passes i dont think theres going to be a million people who suddenly come out of the closet and NOW decide to start smoking........
and when are you too high to drive??? NEVER....fucking duh....maybe the only legit answer is when uve smoked too much hash and cant get out of the seat your planted in, therefore you never even made it to the car anyways.....
gdbud
Member
I love to juggle while I'm medicated, So I would probably just catch the ball and go free.
Everyone here just needs to learn to juggle.
When they eat four of your brownies you tell them to eat one or maaaaaayyyybe two of...
G
grasspass
You are too high to drive when you accidentally get into the back seat of your car , instead of the front seat , when its time to leave.
GoozMan
Member
To everyone who's complaining about the current system, c'mon now, what to do expect? Government is made up of people like you and me (I teach middle school but you get my point). I don't think it's fair to label government as bad simply because it's telling us what to do, it's us telling ourselves what to do. I agree that the current system for checking BAC is flawed, and that there are other things to check for (being tired is a biggie) but we're doing the best we can with the situation handed us. I for one am glad for the 0.08 limit. I don't want a bunch of drunk idiots on the road with me because I like to live and I would like to continue doing so. Whoever said it earlier was right, there's just not a good way to test for pot yet. When there is I'm sure I'll be pissed because at this point I don't ever feel too stoned to drive, but I'll be glad for the deterrent against a bunch of overly-stoned idiots who didn't know what they were doing on the road.
Setting an arbitrary limit of .08 BAC doesn't mean that the driver is actually impaired. Plenty of hardcore alcoholics that can get to .08 and actually be less impaired than if they hadn't had a single drink that day. If you don't believe that you've never met someone so far into the booze that the DTs set in if they don't get their drinks. .08 didn't become the limit because of extensive testing on where people start to lost motor coordination. It was .10 for the longest time then MADD lobbied for it to be lowered to .08.
There was a time in the US when it was perfectly legal to drive drunk, and the per se limits were put into place to keep police and prosecutors from having to work to actually prove impairment. The BAC testing was invented out of necessity.
The Australians sure seem convinced that there's a roadside test for cannabis impairment. They don't even require any probable cause to believe someone high on cannabis. They set up random checkpoints and if you get to the checkpoint you get an oral swab, and they're not testing for metabolites either. If your oral swab is positive you get to have blood drawn to ascertain your impairment at the time of the instant offense. You also get to blow into the BAC tester and .05 gets you a DUI conviction. That would have been one can of Foster's for my beloved mother.
Christ, I've been driving stoned for more than 33 years now. How many more decades of safe driving do I have to get under my belt before the idiots will acknowledge that the loss of coordination is specific to alcohol intoxication? Back in 1982 I was stoned to the bejeezus on some really nice blond hash and got t-boned by an older lady who didn't notice that there was a light or an intersection. Cop arrested her for being high on what he speculated was likely too many Valiums. It really was amusing that he was talking to me about driving high and having just arrested this lady for DUI-d and it never seemed to cross his mind that I was totally wasted. Hell, the accident probably wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been so stoned because instead of carefully and slowly entering the intersection when I had the green light I would have just jammed the accelerator and would have been through the intersection 10 seconds before she floated through.
Oh, she got acquitted of DUI-d but convicted of 'reckless' driving. But that wasn't an unusual end to such a case at that time, even for someone who actually blew a per se drunk number. It was really knid of precious watching her testify that she shouldn't suffer any kind of conviction because she was unaware that there was a traffic signal or even an intersection.
There was a time in the US when it was perfectly legal to drive drunk, and the per se limits were put into place to keep police and prosecutors from having to work to actually prove impairment. The BAC testing was invented out of necessity.
The Australians sure seem convinced that there's a roadside test for cannabis impairment. They don't even require any probable cause to believe someone high on cannabis. They set up random checkpoints and if you get to the checkpoint you get an oral swab, and they're not testing for metabolites either. If your oral swab is positive you get to have blood drawn to ascertain your impairment at the time of the instant offense. You also get to blow into the BAC tester and .05 gets you a DUI conviction. That would have been one can of Foster's for my beloved mother.
Christ, I've been driving stoned for more than 33 years now. How many more decades of safe driving do I have to get under my belt before the idiots will acknowledge that the loss of coordination is specific to alcohol intoxication? Back in 1982 I was stoned to the bejeezus on some really nice blond hash and got t-boned by an older lady who didn't notice that there was a light or an intersection. Cop arrested her for being high on what he speculated was likely too many Valiums. It really was amusing that he was talking to me about driving high and having just arrested this lady for DUI-d and it never seemed to cross his mind that I was totally wasted. Hell, the accident probably wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been so stoned because instead of carefully and slowly entering the intersection when I had the green light I would have just jammed the accelerator and would have been through the intersection 10 seconds before she floated through.
Oh, she got acquitted of DUI-d but convicted of 'reckless' driving. But that wasn't an unusual end to such a case at that time, even for someone who actually blew a per se drunk number. It was really knid of precious watching her testify that she shouldn't suffer any kind of conviction because she was unaware that there was a traffic signal or even an intersection.
Interesting story and information, Pythaglio. Thank you for it. However, I disagree with your conclusions. Depth perception, coordination impairment, and generalized short-term intellectual, decision-making capacities are diminished significantly for almost all smokers. "...the loss of coordination is specific to alcohol intoxication?" Come on now...
The enforcement of "stoned driving" is tricky and complicated. But in general, I support very harsh punishments for those who choose to put me and my family in direct risk by making the decision to drive impaired. I appreciate that cannabis affects people differently, just like Tylenol and alcohol. Some people are genuinely not too shabby at driving drunk, just as you may be OK driving high. How should we deal with this? Have cops make "he seems OK" judgment calls? No thank you. You need a definitive line. That means some people who are probably not too fucked up will have to bite the bullet, wait a few more hours, and completely and totally sober up before they get behind the wheel, even if it's not completely necessary in order for them to be a reasonably safe driver. I'm OK with that.
The enforcement of "stoned driving" is tricky and complicated. But in general, I support very harsh punishments for those who choose to put me and my family in direct risk by making the decision to drive impaired. I appreciate that cannabis affects people differently, just like Tylenol and alcohol. Some people are genuinely not too shabby at driving drunk, just as you may be OK driving high. How should we deal with this? Have cops make "he seems OK" judgment calls? No thank you. You need a definitive line. That means some people who are probably not too fucked up will have to bite the bullet, wait a few more hours, and completely and totally sober up before they get behind the wheel, even if it's not completely necessary in order for them to be a reasonably safe driver. I'm OK with that.
I only ride my dirt bike stonned or I use to 
We had so much fun back then. Did not hurt as much when we hit the dirt.
We had so much fun back then. Did not hurt as much when we hit the dirt.
i just dont like to drive stonned,to much shit to worry about i like just kickin back at home.I dont like the whole idea of cops wanting to perform tests 1st the only thing they can do is do the physical sobriety test where they have you walk in a straight line ect plus its open to interpratation by the officer,if hes had a bad day he just may say screw it and arrest ya.2nd if they perform tests on us for smoking how about the people on perscription drugs or OTC stuff like tussin yup its illeagle if you dont have a script but your good if you decide to pop 5 perc's and you got a script? dosnt make sense.ultimatley they can just say you under the influence as a broader term or a DUI so what would the point be if its going to have the same sentence/punishment as a drunk driver,is it to descriminate against us just for the sake of being assholes and putting us through some shit or are they reserving a special punishment for us?
Wow, I guess I'm in fantasy land about my driving abilities when high. But fortunately it seems my auto insurance company is licensed to do business in my fantasy land. Really old man I think I can state with certainty that after 33 years and never being found 'at fault' in a collision and only a couple of lame traffic violations for technical violations of the law that my driving is at least slightly above average. I do admit that I spend an inordinate amount of time stopped at stop signs and patiently waiting for it to change change to green so I can proceed.
Something that people seem to forget is that there are 2 separate types of potheads.
Type # 1 hasn't had very much experience with cannabis, and probably not much experience driving a vehicle. I refer to people in this cohort as neophytes.
Type #2's definitely have a lot of experience with consuming cannabis, and probably also have lots of experience driving a vehicle on the highways and byways of their home country.
Type #1 is a menace to the community and needs to be taken off the road. This is an opinion based on my life experience for the first couple of years of me getting high. I'll freely acknowledge that it was just stupid luck that kept me from getting a DUI-m or causing mayhem on the highway when I went out driving in that frame of mine. I fully recommend that neophytes avoid driving a car.
Type #2 are not any kind of a problem at all.
Wow, I've just had a flashback to 1979 or 80 when I was out driving around totally stoned and was exploring the rural areas of SW Virginia. I turned on a gravel road to see where it went. A few hundred yard and around the curve I saw a huge hog was laying in the middle of the road. It freaked me out as I was thinking it was an animal that exists in a parallel universe or from an alien planet. I had no clue that hogs got that large.
I'm actually so sure of my driving abilities when high that I have no problem with keeping or even increasing the penalties for DUI-m though I'd very much like to see the authorities develop a video game to determine actual impairment. I doubt that mom's going to care very much if her little Timmy was run over by a drunk or a pothead or someone who falls asleep from exhaustion. Developing this video game also assures that if they invent a new intoxicant in the future we won't need to invent a new bodily function test to measure impairment caused by the new drug. Per se convictions for DUI based on the amount of some arbitrary amount of a mind altering drug or even alcohol a bullshit. Above I mentioned the chronic, heavy duty alcoholics who are deprived of booze are actually more of a menace to the road if they go out 'sober' than if they just get a bad case of the fuckits and knock back 1/2 dozen shots before driving. Yes, if my surgeon was such an alcoholic, and he's the only person with the surgical training to perform my needed surgery I would prefer this guy to take a couple of shots so he won't end up seeing all manner of spiders and insect coming out of my body when he makes his first incision.
I do refuse to drive if I'm feeling too impaired which happens most often when I misjudge the edibles. One day last year I ate some cookies on my way home. Traffic accident fouled up the roads and I knew I'd never make it home before peak onset. I slept sitting up for 16 1/2 hours in a Wal-Mart.parking lot that day.
Something that people seem to forget is that there are 2 separate types of potheads.
Type # 1 hasn't had very much experience with cannabis, and probably not much experience driving a vehicle. I refer to people in this cohort as neophytes.
Type #2's definitely have a lot of experience with consuming cannabis, and probably also have lots of experience driving a vehicle on the highways and byways of their home country.
Type #1 is a menace to the community and needs to be taken off the road. This is an opinion based on my life experience for the first couple of years of me getting high. I'll freely acknowledge that it was just stupid luck that kept me from getting a DUI-m or causing mayhem on the highway when I went out driving in that frame of mine. I fully recommend that neophytes avoid driving a car.
Type #2 are not any kind of a problem at all.
Wow, I've just had a flashback to 1979 or 80 when I was out driving around totally stoned and was exploring the rural areas of SW Virginia. I turned on a gravel road to see where it went. A few hundred yard and around the curve I saw a huge hog was laying in the middle of the road. It freaked me out as I was thinking it was an animal that exists in a parallel universe or from an alien planet. I had no clue that hogs got that large.
I'm actually so sure of my driving abilities when high that I have no problem with keeping or even increasing the penalties for DUI-m though I'd very much like to see the authorities develop a video game to determine actual impairment. I doubt that mom's going to care very much if her little Timmy was run over by a drunk or a pothead or someone who falls asleep from exhaustion. Developing this video game also assures that if they invent a new intoxicant in the future we won't need to invent a new bodily function test to measure impairment caused by the new drug. Per se convictions for DUI based on the amount of some arbitrary amount of a mind altering drug or even alcohol a bullshit. Above I mentioned the chronic, heavy duty alcoholics who are deprived of booze are actually more of a menace to the road if they go out 'sober' than if they just get a bad case of the fuckits and knock back 1/2 dozen shots before driving. Yes, if my surgeon was such an alcoholic, and he's the only person with the surgical training to perform my needed surgery I would prefer this guy to take a couple of shots so he won't end up seeing all manner of spiders and insect coming out of my body when he makes his first incision.
I do refuse to drive if I'm feeling too impaired which happens most often when I misjudge the edibles. One day last year I ate some cookies on my way home. Traffic accident fouled up the roads and I knew I'd never make it home before peak onset. I slept sitting up for 16 1/2 hours in a Wal-Mart.parking lot that day.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Ulu's Growstorys V3.5 | 0.5m² 170w | diverse Strains und Kreuzungen- Latest: Der Kommissar
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Ulu's Growstorys V3.5 | 0.5m² 170w | diverse Strains und Kreuzungen
- Latest: Der Kommissar
