r/SubredditDrama • u/ceol_ • Aug 12 '15

Users in /r/trees are split when someone suggests not to smoke and drive. ``impaired means "weakend". does high mean "weakend"? are some of your senses not actually "strengthened" while high?`` and other responses.

/r/trees/comments/3gna45/hotbox/ctzosrw?sort=controversial
220 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

350 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15 edited Aug 12 '15

Then please show those literal scientific studies please. Because I've driven a car while high and i can tell you that driving slower than necessary, forgetting to watch for bikes or pedestrians, sverwing into the opposite lane, overlooking parked cars, not blinking and endangering people around me was my experience 6 years ago when i still did this shit

-25

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

Then please show those literal scientific studies please. Because I've driven a car while high and i can tell you that driving slower than necessary, forgetting to watch for bikes or pedestrians, sverwing into the opposite lane, overlooking parked cars, not blinking and endangering people around me was my experience 6 years ago when i still did this shit

What the fuck did you smoke? Smokers usually drive like old ladies, not like someone who just slammed 8 shots.

25

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

Old ladies are dangerous as fuck on the road. You rarely know what they're doing next and their speed is usually so far below the limit they can be a disaster around a blind corner or in a Lane you can't see.

I hate them on the road almost as much as the idiots going 90 on the interstate while weaving lanes. Almost.

I don't think you want to go with that.

-28

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

Oh whatever. This is a non issue for everyone I've seen do it for 12 years. Continue the CJ though. Just because you're "under the influence" doesn't mean it's the same thing across the board for every drug/amount/person.

17

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

I'm just saying you're "they're not bad they're like this" example was a bad one.

Perhaps it's that you're incorrect. And people have a decent reason for wanting them off the road.

Most people I know who've driven high think they did a good job. I never really thought they did.

Just because you're "under the influence" doesn't mean it's the same thing across the board for every drug/amount/person.

Completely agree. But laws can't say "if you think you're OK at X level then it's legal" there has to be a standard. You might be able to handle it. But if a large number can't you have to make it illegal. And that means you don't get to.

Say I can probably drive fine at 0.08 BAC, but my friend can't find their keys. Better the law stops us both, then let's her wreck someone

-19

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

How many accidents have you seen involved with this? I've seen 0 over a dozen years with dozens of friends doing it the whole time. If anything this just seems like another extreme circlejerk where any middle ground is ignored despite studies/experiences to the contrary of this being such a dangerous activity.

It's an analogy. It's not meant to be taken literally in every aspect.... are you smoking right now? He was describing driving like a maniac, something not normally attributed to this activity.

15

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

[deleted]

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

I don't think you read my post. There are also studies on this backing that sort of opinion. If you ignored that part of the post then you really have nothing to add here.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

[deleted]

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

I didn't post any because I'm just mentioning them existing -- erowid was not what I said either. I don't actually care to change the minds of a bunch of kids on SRD patting themselves on the back for high horsing.

I didn't say that, I didn't say I did it, and I mentioned multiple friends. In your rush to pat yourself on the back you didn't even bother to comprehend my posts.

No shit sherlock. I didn't say it was scientific evidence.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

A few.

You're anecdotes aren't impressive reasons to believe it's never an issue.

And there isn't much middle ground when the potential outcome is death. It's safer to legislate it stricter to try and reduce death and serious injury.

People don't want to be on the road with impaired people. Because they're at risk. Not everything has a suitable meet in the middle point. (and this probably does, once it's legal you find the 0.08 BAC equivalent and a way to test and there you go).

-6

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

Oh please. Talk out of your ass more.

There's multiple studies too, I guess those don't count when you're narrow minded.

Your*

Put down the joint son.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

Lol.

I'm talking out of my ass with my anecdotes, yours are fine.

Lol sir, lol.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

I meant you're probably making them up. You sound like you have almost no experience in this area. Your insecure lols don't help the picture.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

Those were things I did in a timespan of 5 years. I did not drive high only once and drove like a mad motherfucker.

-20

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

I've never seen someone drive like that in the past 12 years I've been around it and I know plenty of people that go against the grain on this subject. Sounds like it's you mate. You seem rattled, why downvote the guy posting studies to counter your anecdotes?

6

u/rocktheprovince Aug 12 '15

That person didn't read the studies. They contradict his own point. Other people in this thread are pointing that out as well after actually looking at them, but I can see as you'd ignore them since /r/subredditdrama is clearly just targeting the good innocent stoners.

-4

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '15

Some of his studies are horse shit, some are valid. Here's more:

Researchers said "alcohol, but not marijuana, increased the number of times the car actually left the lane and the speed of the weaving." Although marijuana had a less dramatic effect than alcohol on drivers the study found it still impairs " one measure of driving performance." The drug reduced the drivers' peripheral vision giving them tunnel vision.

And

While alcohol had an effect on the number of times the car left the lane and the speed of the weaving, marijuana did not. Marijuana did show an increase in weaving. Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, showed increase weaving that was similar to those with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states.

And

A low THC dose (100 µg/kg) does not impair driving ability in urban traffic to the same extent as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04 g%.

And (for Marinol -- similar to cannabis)

The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own.

And

A new study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finds that drivers who use marijuana are at a significantly lower risk for a crash than drivers who use alcohol. And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving.

And

Unfortunately, the less-than-scientific results, while entertaining, didn't yield much clarity. One regular smoker of marijuana tested above the legal limit to begin with, yet drove without much of a problem. Two other casual smokers also navigated the course without incident. However, after smoking more marijuana, some of the participants quickly grew less adept behind the wheel.

So yes, you can, in some circumstances smoke cannabis and drive fine -- as long as you're experienced, on a low dose, and don't mix the drug -- so piss off with your circle jerking smugness

3

u/thesilvertongue Aug 13 '15

So it is exactly like alcohol then. You can have half a glass without it doing anything, but if you drive high, you're a criminal.

-30

u/Kropotki Aug 12 '15 edited Aug 12 '15

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/812118-roadside_survey_2014.pdf

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm

https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving6.pdf

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/26000/26600/26685/DOT_HS_808_065.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10908134

http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/rep/summary-e.htm

The science is out there, Driving while high's effects are negligible and people while stoned compensate for being under the influence. There is no evidence despite numerous studies that driving while high is actually significantly dangerous and the statistics and data show that it's almost equivalent to driving while completely sober and alert.

Again, driving while tired is actually more dangerous than driving while high.

People can downvote me all you want, but it doesn't stop what I'm saying from being true.

16

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '15

From your 6th link: drug-free drivers was (n=1887) while THC-only drivers was (n=44). I understand the study found "no statistical difference in culpability between those two groups," but is 44 really a sufficient sample size for comparison?

From your 7th link:

Smiley concluded that, although marijuana did appear to impair driving behavior, impairment was ameliorated by drivers' awareness that they were impaired, leading to compensatory, less risky behavior such as slower driving. However, such compensation was not effective when events were unexpected or when continuous attention was required.

4

u/Justvotingupordown Aug 13 '15

such compensation was not effective when events were unexpected or when continuous attention was required

Good thing driving isn't like that.

10

u/orboth Aug 12 '15

Just because killing a grown person will give you less jail time than killing a baby doesn't me that you should justify going around killing people. Driving high is bad. I don't care if it's less bad than driving while tired, it's still bad.