• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should driving during or right after smoking pot be legal?

Should driving during or right after smoking pot be legal?


  • Total voters
    57
So, try hindering traffic when you're stone cold sober and see how that works out for you. Bad driving is illegal, sober or not.

I'm not a supporter of "spot checks" but if you drive suspiciously, sure, a test would be appropriate just as they do with alcohol.




So even if you don't bounce off a curb, nail a parked car or swerve into oncoming traffic, you think hindering traffic in general, even in the right lane many states have minimum speeds, is not a concern?

Do you think tests should be developed similar to the breathalizers and States to set limits of 'intoxication' for on the spot checks?
 
Let me put my two cents in.

I am a professional driver by trade. I don't drive as near as much as I used to as I run a business and only pinch hit now and again. However I am willing to bet that I have put on more miles backwards then most of you going forwards. The average professional over a 20 year career will put about 2.5 million or more miles on. I have 15 years of driving experience and no accidents. I used to instruct new drivers. I was a safety evaluator for major company. I am stating these facts so that you have an idea how much driving and experience I have under my belt. I AM an expert in these type matters.

Driving impaired is a bad idea. Its simply put a matter of perception time, and reaction time. That's pretty much it. If you ingest something that tends to alters those negatively YOU ARE IMPAIRED and ARE a danger to those around them. If you are tired YOU ARE IMPAIRED. There's very little that helps with perception or reaction. The military has some go pills that simply allow you to LONGER without sleep unimpaired. Those however are restricted to military personnel on active combat duties. I digress. It is NOT a good idea to drive stoned or otherwise impaired, you WILL increase your chances of being in an accident. You have to remember YOU are NOT the only one on the road, there are other people and you have to interact with them with very little if any communication in very short durations. Impairment shortens the time you PERCIEVE a threat and REACT to a threat, now reaction times and perception times are divided by most times by two or more because that's how many drivers involved are reacting and adjusting to their perceptions. Most people have very little, very rudimentary proper driving instruction and a whole lot of basic experience were they have ingrained a lot of habits that are detrimental to perceptions and reactions. When you add impairment it makes things that much worse. Now people can drive impaired successfully and do everyday, however your chances of having an incident are by an order of magnitude increased greatly. Which leads to this, impairment while driving even if you are tired has LEGAL implications if you DO get into an incident. Most if not all those implications are not to the advantage of the impaired driver. And that may cost you your money and or your freedom.

I am very libertarian in my views. I am trained and have trained people in how to drive in a adverse driving environment, so my safety I know how to deal with, as well as my families as they are trained well. So I don't particularly care if you are on the road impaired and will deal with it if you are with me. I don't believe there should laws regarding impairment except when you get into an accident. All that said, I highly suggest to you NOT to drive impaired whether by substance or lack of sleep, its a MUCH less expensive way to drive.
 
It's not that there isn't any, its that such reports are rarely, if ever, reported. I personally know someone who was killed due to someone high on pot and driving. They were not driving slow. In fact they were speeding. From what I gathered the guy was so high that he couldn't feel his extremities unless his attention was directly brought to those extremities. So his foot was probably pressed down harder than he realized due to an improperly placed drivers seat. (ie seat was too close to the front for his size) He was also driving a stolen vehicle. Though in his defense he hadn't realized that it wasn't his vehicle in his drug induced state. The owner had left the keys in the ignition and the car was the same make/model/paint job as the drivers car. So it was kind of understandable that the driver had gotten in it. I've made that mistake myself a couple of times and I wasn't even drunk or high but completely sober. But it was also that sobriety that made me realize I wasn't in my car because the inside didn't have the same items in it. And I'm not the only one that happens to. Someone got into my car thinking it was his before also..at least until he got inside lol.

Anyways you might be thinking how I know all these details...all I can say is I live in a small town and in small towns word spreads quickly when something major happens.

Bwhahaha! Thanks for the rumor. (I personally like the disclaimer that tries to explain why you know all this stuff, nice try) You got something wrong though THC does not make your extremities numb, that would be cocaine.
 
So, try hindering traffic when you're stone cold sober and see how that works out for you. Bad driving is illegal, sober or not.

I'm not a supporter of "spot checks" but if you drive suspiciously, sure, a test would be appropriate just as they do with alcohol.

If someone is stone cold sober and hindering traffic, then they deserve the ticket they may get. If it's due to intoxication, then it's ticket and then some. So why allow even more people to be out there, 'intoxicated', a voluntary state for most, and only recieve just a ticket?

Did you know that if a diabetic has low blood sugar, a reaction similar to being intoxicated, and they get pulled over, they can lose their license permanently? One is a voluntary situation, one is not, yet the involuntary situation carries a stiffer penalty.

Personally, I feel that intoxication, alcohol or pot, should carry an even stiffer penalty than the diabetic. Because you're voluntarily putting others at risk because judgement is impaired.

I don't care if you smoke at home, at a friends house, or someplace like a bar if it were to become legal. That's your choice. Once you take it on the road, your inflicting it on other people.
 
Maybe, but it's a much more rare occurance. People who are drunk often swerve and hit things. The only effect mj has, apparently, is causing someone to drive slow. Heck, since people tend to get more injured the greater the speed, couldn't the argument even be made that driving while high is actually safer?

Not true at all. I have had some really bad trips smoking weed, once right before driving. I had to pull over and wait for about an hour on the verge of a panic attack before I could start driving again.
 
Bwhahaha! Thanks for the rumor. (I personally like the disclaimer that tries to explain why you know all this stuff, nice try) You got something wrong though THC does not make your extremities numb, that would be cocaine.

I have been so high before that my extremities felt numb. THC also has a mild hallucinogenic effect which increases with the amount ingested. Hence, getting so high that you have a 'bad trip' which is not fun.

Cocaine doesn't make them feel numb, it makes them feel awesome, which is why cocaine is so addictive.
 
If someone is stone cold sober and hindering traffic, then they deserve the ticket they may get. If it's due to intoxication, then it's ticket and then some. So why allow even more people to be out there, 'intoxicated', a voluntary state for most, and only recieve just a ticket?

Did you know that if a diabetic has low blood sugar, a reaction similar to being intoxicated, and they get pulled over, they can lose their license permanently? One is a voluntary situation, one is not, yet the involuntary situation carries a stiffer penalty.

Personally, I feel that intoxication, alcohol or pot, should carry an even stiffer penalty than the diabetic. Because you're voluntarily putting others at risk because judgement is impaired.

I don't care if you smoke at home, at a friends house, or someplace like a bar if it were to become legal. That's your choice. Once you take it on the road, your inflicting it on other people.

I certainly agree with that last. It's how I've managed my almost five decades of driving without so much as a ticket. If I'm drinking or smoking at all, I won't be driving that day.

As to the diabetic thing, you're expected to manage your symptoms in order to maintain your driver's license. I agree somewhat that the penalties shouldn't be stiffer than drunk or stoned driving, but it has been used in the past as an excuse and the law is a reaction to that. In my view the penalty should be the same, perhaps a little less for a first and only time offence.
 
I certainly agree with that last. It's how I've managed my almost five decades of driving without so much as a ticket. If I'm drinking or smoking at all, I won't be driving that day.

As to the diabetic thing, you're expected to manage your symptoms in order to maintain your driver's license. I agree somewhat that the penalties shouldn't be stiffer than drunk or stoned driving, but it has been used in the past as an excuse and the law is a reaction to that. In my view the penalty should be the same, perhaps a little less for a first and only time offence.

People are expected to do a lot of things, but the unpredictability of hypoglycemicia, especially in Type 1, can only be manged to a degree. Most diabetics know to pull over if they feel symptoms come on and address it, but some don't even feel the symptoms. But I digress.

Rarely is an allowance made in the diabetic's case, they even want diabetics to have a specially colored driver's license. Though this can be a positive if the diabetic is incoherent, perhaps they should have a special colored license for people who drink, or smoke pot, or take other drugs and medications. *some sarcasm included*
 
I'm not sure what you are reading into my posts but as far as I can tell, we agree completely.

Being inebriated and operating a motor vehicle is and should be a crime regardless of the method of inebriation. Alcohol has a defined measurement of inebriation and I don't know how you define marijuana inebriation. But, once they figure that out, anyone driving improperly under the influence is a DUI or DWI and should be punished accordingly.





If someone is stone cold sober and hindering traffic, then they deserve the ticket they may get. If it's due to intoxication, then it's ticket and then some. So why allow even more people to be out there, 'intoxicated', a voluntary state for most, and only recieve just a ticket?

Did you know that if a diabetic has low blood sugar, a reaction similar to being intoxicated, and they get pulled over, they can lose their license permanently? One is a voluntary situation, one is not, yet the involuntary situation carries a stiffer penalty.

Personally, I feel that intoxication, alcohol or pot, should carry an even stiffer penalty than the diabetic. Because you're voluntarily putting others at risk because judgement is impaired.

I don't care if you smoke at home, at a friends house, or someplace like a bar if it were to become legal. That's your choice. Once you take it on the road, your inflicting it on other people.
 
I'm not sure what you are reading into my posts but as far as I can tell, we agree completely.

Being inebriated and operating a motor vehicle is and should be a crime regardless of the method of inebriation. Alcohol has a defined measurement of inebriation and I don't know how you define marijuana inebriation. But, once they figure that out, anyone driving improperly under the influence is a DUI or DWI and should be punished accordingly.

What I read gave the impression that you felt driving while stoned wasn't that big of a thing. To me it is, at any level of stoned. If I read it wrong, then I appologize.
 
No apology necessary. We are having a friendly discussion and misunderstandings are easily cleared up when people are respectful to each other, as we have been.


What I read gave the impression that you felt driving while stoned wasn't that big of a thing. To me it is, at any level of stoned. If I read it wrong, then I appologize.
 
Bwhahaha! Thanks for the rumor. (I personally like the disclaimer that tries to explain why you know all this stuff, nice try) You got something wrong though THC does not make your extremities numb, that would be cocaine.

Didn't say that they were numb. Just said he didn't feel them unless his attention was brought to them.

I find it funny that so many that are for Pot always deny that these things can and do happen.
 
People are expected to do a lot of things, but the unpredictability of hypoglycemicia, especially in Type 1, can only be manged to a degree. Most diabetics know to pull over if they feel symptoms come on and address it, but some don't even feel the symptoms. But I digress.

Then they shouldn't be allowed on the road, period. I'm sorry, I have compassion for them and the illness that prevents them from driving safety with any reliability (by your own admission), but that doesn't mean they should be driving if they're a heartbeat away from being deadly to everyone else.
 
Then they shouldn't be allowed on the road, period. I'm sorry, I have compassion for them and the illness that prevents them from driving safety with any reliability (by your own admission), but that doesn't mean they should be driving if they're a heartbeat away from being deadly to everyone else.

So you feel 25.8 million people should be restricted from driving? 8.3% of the population.
 
Since it appears from many arguments I've seen that pot actually has no ill or dangerous effects either to the user or any one around them and causes basically zero impairment of judgment or reflexes, shouldn't driving while high be legal? If not, why not?
Your premise is clearly purposely misconstrued, as pot most certainly has dangerous, dangerous driving-impairment side-effects, obviously.

THC would not otherwise be a federally controlled substance, again, obviously.

But then again, if you abuse too much pot, it is also clear that brain function in general becomes permanently impaired.

Such is the nature of both addiction and the damage pot causes to, among other things, corrupt and disable the mind respectively from proper functioning .. the deadly damage, as this thread easily, accurately and convincingly showed:http://www.debatepolitics.com/health-care/135971-pot-kills-w-498-a.html


Choices will be yes, no, and I don't know. Need a second to get the poll up.
The only rational choice in the poll is to ignore the poll altogether, as it is most certainly a contrivence designed to single out the pot heads on the forum.
 
I have been so high before that my extremities felt numb. THC also has a mild hallucinogenic effect which increases with the amount ingested. Hence, getting so high that you have a 'bad trip' which is not fun.

Cocaine doesn't make them feel numb, it makes them feel awesome, which is why cocaine is so addictive.

Cocaine makes you numb. ANd perhaps you have a special medical problem that you should get checked out if THC makes you numb?

And no one has a bad trip or even a trip on THC. Yes one can get really stoned but damn if your tripping on THC perhaps you dont know what real tripping is?




 
Cocaine makes you numb. ANd perhaps you have a special medical problem that you should get checked out if THC makes you numb?

And no one has a bad trip or even a trip on THC. Yes one can get really stoned but damn if your tripping on THC perhaps you dont know what real tripping is?






Cocaine does not make you numb lol. It makes the back of your throat and your sinus cavity numb, but not limbs. I bet I could drive a stock car at the Daytona 500 with cocaine.

THC does produce hallucinogenic effects.

Psychoactive classificationMain article: Psychoactive effects
While many psychoactive drugs clearly fall into the category of either stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen, cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties, perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogenic or psychedelic properties, though with other effects quite pronounced as well. THC is typically considered the primary active component of the cannabis plant; various scientific studies have suggested that certain other cannabinoids like CBD may also play a significant role in its psychoactive effects

Cannabis (drug) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also know from experience. And I've never done acid or mushrooms or mescaline so I don't know what 'real' trippin is I guess. My bad. I personally don't like to 'trip' at all.
 
Didn't say that they were numb. Just said he didn't feel them unless his attention was brought to them.

I find it funny that so many that are for Pot always deny that these things can and do happen.

I didnt deny that stoned people can be stupid and I didnt suggest that stupid people should drive vehicles. I just didnt believe your story.

Now I would have just agreed if you stated that yes it is possible to be too stoned to drive.
 
Cocaine does not make you numb lol. It makes the back of your throat and your sinus cavity numb, but not limbs. I bet I could drive a stock car at the Daytona 500 with cocaine.

THC does produce hallucinogenic effects.

Psychoactive classificationMain article: Psychoactive effects
While many psychoactive drugs clearly fall into the category of either stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen, cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties, perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogenic or psychedelic properties, though with other effects quite pronounced as well. THC is typically considered the primary active component of the cannabis plant; various scientific studies have suggested that certain other cannabinoids like CBD may also play a significant role in its psychoactive effects

Cannabis (drug) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also know from experience. And I've never done acid or mushrooms or mescaline so I don't know what 'real' trippin is I guess. My bad. I personally don't like to 'trip' at all.

Only coke heads think that they drive well on coke. ANd yes if you do enough coke you get numb in more than just the back of the throat sinuses.

And I didnt deny that THC has a Psychoactive effects but its a far cry from tripping. And you dont have bad "trips" from THC. Perhaps you were just stoned? lol
 
Only coke heads think that they drive well on coke. ANd yes if you do enough coke you get numb in more than just the back of the throat sinuses.

And I didnt deny that THC has a Psychoactive effects but its a far cry from tripping. And you dont have bad "trips" from THC. Perhaps you were just stoned? lol

Cocaine is a stimulant, of course you drive better on coke.

Hallucinogenic effects of THC can make people paranoid and also frightened. Perhaps I was just wayyyyyy too stoned lol. Though I know others who have experienced it as well.
 
It already is illegal. It's called DUI.
 
Yes, we know that. Reread the question... Should driving during or right after smoking pot be legal?

I did read it. I figured my vote and the fact it is already illegal would have clued you in. No insult, I just figured. I am an X cop so I have seen pretty bad accidents by people who were high. So hell no.
 
I did read it. I figured my vote and the fact it is already illegal would have clued you in. No insult, I just figured. I am an X cop so I have seen pretty bad accidents by people who were high. So hell no.
I figured that, but... no offense intended... it didn't add much to the conversation the way it was phrased. (Didn't look at the voting)

Anyway, I'm for legalization in a similar-to-alcohol aspect, but agree with "hell no" when associated with driving.
 
I have driven high. I will leave it to readers to determine the definition of "high," but I can state that driving "under the influence," whatever that is, is what it is and that you're kidding yourself if you think if you're high, you're not "impaired."
 
Back
Top Bottom