|
how me a frog posted:You clearly don't work in insurance or law... fair enough. but if there are witnesses or cameras they aren't just automatically wrong, right? trouser chili posted:There are high functioning alcoholics that could back a trailer through a slalom at .15, whereby I'm not safe at half-that reading .075, despite that being "legal" where I live. Legislation will always be imperfect, and BAC isn't the best measure of impairment. We're going to have to craft our legislation based on averages, and if that means a bunch of fuckups gently caress up the curve for the rest of everyone else, well we'll have to live with that.  i wish it was kosher to drive stoned but public policy can only be determined the way you're talking about
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Frog Act posted:fair enough. but if there are witnesses or cameras they aren't just automatically wrong, right? Prossibly not, but I can guarantee, unless it works super differently where you are, your insurance will pay exactly 0 and you will most likely end up liable to some degree because of how these things tend to work out legally. Even if you are only partially liable with a person injured you will end up owing a cool few mill if things go badly. And if a pedestrian is involved you are actually entirely hosed even it they literally ran out into the street, so yeah. Maybe just don't drive under the influence, it's very easy. how me a frog fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
I drive high all the time and I'm a safer driver than just about anyone with a cell phone, infotainment system, and valium housewives that nobody ever seems to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
HEY VAPER posted:I drive high all the time and I'm a safer driver than just about anyone with a cell phone, infotainment system, and valium housewives that nobody ever seems to complain about. Cite your sources, habitual unsafe driver. The fact that you haven't killed anyone yet isn't relevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
how me a frog posted:Cite your sources, habitual unsafe driver. The fact that you haven't killed anyone yet isn't relevant. I get better autox times when I'm smoking blunts
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
if weed makes u an unsafe driver get less pussified if ur not smoking js on the road already idk what to tell u
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
how me a frog posted:Prossibly not, but I can guarantee, unless it works super differently where you are, your insurance will pay exactly 0 and you will most likely end up liable to some degree because of how these things tend to work out legally. Even if you are only partially liable with a person injured you will end up owing a cool few mill if things go badly. i guess i feel like there needs to be some kind of precise way of determining weed intoxication, akin to BAC, so limits can be properly delineated. i feel like "under the influence" is a vague thing with pot. like, if you can drink two or three beers and legally drive, how much weed can you smoke and legally drive? however i agree with you that it is not hard to drive sober + responsibly in general and that is not too much to expect from people
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:i guess i feel like there needs to be some kind of precise way of determining weed intoxication, akin to BAC, so limits can be properly delineated. i feel like "under the influence" is a vague thing with pot. like, if you can drink two or three beers and legally drive, how much weed can you smoke and legally drive? There is no measure for THC akin to BAC that I know of because it is illegal in the first place almost everywhere. Whether or not this is a good thing is another issue. I would however hope that places which legalized it figured out a way to handle this question. Otherwise that would be grossly irresponsible by the local lawmakers. Generally any amount of "illegal substance" detected in any way is considered "under the influence" however laws are a lot different in different countries so take that as you will. It could be that while consumption is legal the framework has not changed so if you get behind the wheel and mess up you will get hosed. Which you deserve I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
define "wrong," op. ("science" indicates it is not as dangerous to drive stoned as drunk, but you are still impaired compared to someone sober.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:i guess i feel like there needs to be some kind of precise way of determining weed intoxication, akin to BAC, so limits can be properly delineated. i feel like "under the influence" is a vague thing with pot. like, if you can drink two or three beers and legally drive, how much weed can you smoke and legally drive? my local news did a thing when my state made weed legal, where they took a bunch of stoners and put them through an autocross course sober, and then with increasing amounts of weed and just about every driver either hit the same or less cones until they got to the point where they were smoking 5 grams to the face right before getting behind the wheel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
jarvis cocker posted:if weed makes u an unsafe driver get less pussified I got probated in the weed thread in TCC for saying 'yeah I like to smoke a j on a long car trip' "DWI glorification" lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
As long as you loving go. Stoners going 20 on the highway make me rage incoherently. loving GO YOU STONER SHITHEAD!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:define "wrong," op. hm. i would say it's wrong if, on the whole, doing it is statistically unsafe and if you ask yourself "how would things be if everyone did this?" and the answer is "terrible", then it is a wrong thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
the only time i use cruise control is when i'm high
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I got probated in the weed thread in TCC for saying 'yeah I like to smoke a j on a long car trip' hahahahahahahaha drat marijuana users
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:hm. i would say it's wrong if, on the whole, doing it is statistically unsafe and if you ask yourself "how would things be if everyone did this?" and the answer is "terrible", then it is a wrong thing It's not that simple as driving is already statistically unsafe at the best of times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
HEY VAPER posted:the only time i use cruise control is when i'm high It's called booze control and you use it when your coming home from the bar
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
HEY VAPER posted:my local news did a thing when my state made weed legal, where they took a bunch of stoners and put them through an autocross course sober, and then with increasing amounts of weed and just about every driver either hit the same or less cones until they got to the point where they were smoking 5 grams to the face right before getting behind the wheel. yeah virtually every stoner type person i know is as competent blazed as they are sober. sometimes better, since they don't rage out at other drivers or anything. i think the NTSB should fund a large-scae long term study of this phenomenon and enlist members of the public to participate
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
there is nothing wrong with weed+driving unless u suck already weed isn't debilitating (unless u suck already)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:hm. i would say it's wrong if, on the whole, doing it is statistically unsafe and if you ask yourself "how would things be if everyone did this?" and the answer is "terrible", then it is a wrong thing that's a pretty good definition but I think most people are loving terrible drivers and if smoking weed makes them chill out and stop being so entitled and aggressive on the road then it's a good thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
the inherent chill properties of the marijuana experience removes the rear end in a top hat tendency to be in a hurry at the expense of everyone else and therefore it is safer than driving while a dickhead
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
I learned to drive stick but had an automatic for years. Yet when nicely baked and the jams are good, I'll try to shift gears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:hm. i would say it's wrong if, on the whole, doing it is statistically unsafe and if you ask yourself "how would things be if everyone did this?" and the answer is "terrible", then it is a wrong thing then the answer is: "probably"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:As long as you loving go. Stoners going 20 on the highway make me rage incoherently. lol i be driving 10mph and i'm like "ohhhhhhhhh gently caress i'm going soooooo fast"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
ps i don't smoke weed anymore and haven't for years
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
stoners drive like normals, if u cant handle weed stay off the road
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
if your definition of "wrong" includes "is impaired and more likely to cause an accident," then yes it's wrong http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
if your definition of "wrong" includes "is impaired and more likely to cause an accident," then no it's not wrong http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
decide who you trust and just side with whatever agrees with your previous moral stance good job, you've rationalized like any decision-making adult try not to kill anyone out there!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:if your definition of "wrong" includes "is impaired and more likely to cause an accident," then no it's not wrong asians should not bbe allowed to drive
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
to be honest i think the relevant question is "is it wrong to... drive?" and the answer is "yes" because driving is outrageously dangerous to yourself and to others, no matter what the circumstances hope this helps op!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:decide who you trust and just side with whatever agrees with your previous moral stance trust no one, run over all the people
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:to be honest i think the relevant question is agree 10000%
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
that is a consistent moral stance congratulations, you're a movie villain!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
if increased chance of causing an accident is reason enough to make it illegal for a person to drive it's time to start taking licenses away from the elderly source: florida
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:to be honest i think the relevant question is whoah
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
gggiiimmmppp posted:if increased chance of causing an accident is reason enough to make it illegal for a person to drive it's time to start taking licenses away from the elderly anyone over 55 should have to re-apply for a license.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
gggiiimmmppp posted:if increased chance of causing an accident is reason enough to make it illegal for a person to drive it's time to start taking licenses away from the elderly what other metric is there though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
bet you're really high on weed right now, bc otherwise that wouldn't have blown your mind
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
I've been stoned plenty of times while driving and still pay better attention and have more spatial awareness than all the white women in giant SUVs, also in icy/snowy conditions
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:27
|
|
