Homesteading Forum banner
21 - 40 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
You missed the point. There is no way of knowing if a driver is impaired if the police don't respond.

Here's an article about the increase in accidents in states where marijuana was legalized.

Why do police need to respond to fender benders? I think it would be easy to extrapolate that anything that we don't like is responsible for an increase in accidents. That there is an increase in accidents is a given. Not only through population growth, but population aging. It is very well documented that age impacts driving ability. Flexibility, eyesight, reaction time, medication interactions, cognitive impairment all team up to make old people drive as if they just took drugs (some of them did).

All the people that I know well, who use marijuana regularly are very safe and responsible. They know when they are impaired, and know when to quit to avoid impairment if it conflicts with their driving abilities. This would include an architect, a funeral director, a bank manager, a couple of retired vets, and a smattering of tradesmen (plumbers etc.) They smoked before it was legal, and they don't smoke any extra because it is legal.

Straight up addicts are a different deal. A lot of meth users like to smoke weed to come down, if they need to go somewhere for instance, say show up to court. A lot of people seem to get caught up on the fact that marijuana might be present in some situations that it totally was not responsible for creating.

I also know a guy, used to be a LEO, who chances are, had marijuana been legal, and not had such a negative stereotype, he could have treated his chronic back pain with some weed instead of drinking until his beer gut made it worse. At which point he switched to prescription pain killers, and eventually heroin and meth, throwing away his career, family, friends, and eventually taking his own life. Was there some weed there toward the end, maybe, but too little and too late.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,246 Posts
@barnbilder, I have said before that people who smoke marijuana for medical conditions are not the problem. It is the person who takes so many hits behind the wheel that the car is full of smoke. The problem people are the ones who have to have a joint between home and Walmart. You don't drive the streets I do, you don't smell the odor coming from passing cars. If you want to see it for yourself come to Columbus and drive around on the west side. Do some people watching at any of the west side Columbus Walmarts.

As for the study, I didn't write the parameters. I posted the results of the study. If you have a problem with their data you need to take it up with them.

In some cities police respond to fender benders. Accidents result in traffic tickets for which drivers are fined. Those fines bring revenue to the court system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
I drive streets every day with cars going from the projects to walmart full of smoke. Not really any more than before it was legal though. See more traffic issues from the elderly Subaru drivers that stop on the on ramps to look both ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
512 Posts
Ohhh, I'm such a bigot!!!!
i actually prefer to NOT be around stoners.😁😂🤣
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,979 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,979 Posts
Impaired driving is impaired driving. The legality of the substance is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I've been hit by a drunk driver before. My son, 3 years old at the time, was with me. Fortunately he was fine. Didn't stop me from beating that guy senseless after pondering the "what ifs" and the fact that the guy was hammered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danaus29

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
So if we have a substance that's presence is hard to test for, and we don't test for it because the cops didn't show up, we can accurately determine that it is responsible for accidents that were so minor the cops didn't show up. Got it.

Driving under the influence is driving under the influence, true, not responsible in any case. Under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, prescription medication, distraction, age, sleep loss no difference. Some people are responsible and some are not.

But honestly I don't see marijuana being responsible for the type of accidents we see from other causes. Sure your reaction time can be increased, but you are going to be acutely aware of it and maybe even concerned, and probably correct for it in a very meticulous fashion. Rather than a drinker barreling down the road cleaning out both ditches and ignoring intersections and oak trees, I see a pot smoker being more laser focused on staying precisely between the lines, their ability to do so being impaired, but the focus causing them to correct, and at some point with enough inebriation they are going three miles per hour. With heavy enough use they might stop and take a nap, or to look for snacks, and perfectly organize the change in the console, but I just don't see the careless abandon, blackout drunk, wild careening at a high rate of speed associated with alcohol use. When I hear things about the dangers of marijuana on our roadways, it sounds an awful lot like a strawman argument. A random statistic, and a very predictable one, an increase in accidents, can just be blamed on a group of people we don't like, and don't understand because we don't like them.
 

·
I love boobies
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
So if we have a substance that's presence is hard to test for, and we don't test for it because the cops didn't show up, we can accurately determine that it is responsible for accidents that were so minor the cops didn't show up. Got it.

Driving under the influence is driving under the influence, true, not responsible in any case. Under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, prescription medication, distraction, age, sleep loss no difference. Some people are responsible and some are not.

But honestly I don't see marijuana being responsible for the type of accidents we see from other causes. Sure your reaction time can be increased, but you are going to be acutely aware of it and maybe even concerned, and probably correct for it in a very meticulous fashion. Rather than a drinker barreling down the road cleaning out both ditches and ignoring intersections and oak trees, I see a pot smoker being more laser focused on staying precisely between the lines, their ability to do so being impaired, but the focus causing them to correct, and at some point with enough inebriation they are going three miles per hour. With heavy enough use they might stop and take a nap, or to look for snacks, and perfectly organize the change in the console, but I just don't see the careless abandon, blackout drunk, wild careening at a high rate of speed associated with alcohol use. When I hear things about the dangers of marijuana on our roadways, it sounds an awful lot like a strawman argument. A random statistic, and a very predictable one, an increase in accidents, can just be blamed on a group of people we don't like, and don't understand because we don't like them.
As a retired medic who associated with LEOs and talked about our experiences, I can tell you that the dangers to the imbibers and others are exponentially higher with alcohol than MJ. Not just for driving, but for everything. Yet, the DC parasites don't try to take the people's guns because they bought a bottle of whiskey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,171 Posts
So if we have a substance that's presence is hard to test for, and we don't test for it because the cops didn't show up, we can accurately determine that it is responsible for accidents that were so minor the cops didn't show up. Got it.

Driving under the influence is driving under the influence, true, not responsible in any case. Under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, prescription medication, distraction, age, sleep loss no difference. Some people are responsible and some are not.

But honestly I don't see marijuana being responsible for the type of accidents we see from other causes. Sure your reaction time can be increased, but you are going to be acutely aware of it and maybe even concerned, and probably correct for it in a very meticulous fashion. Rather than a drinker barreling down the road cleaning out both ditches and ignoring intersections and oak trees, I see a pot smoker being more laser focused on staying precisely between the lines, their ability to do so being impaired, but the focus causing them to correct, and at some point with enough inebriation they are going three miles per hour. With heavy enough use they might stop and take a nap, or to look for snacks, and perfectly organize the change in the console, but I just don't see the careless abandon, blackout drunk, wild careening at a high rate of speed associated with alcohol use. When I hear things about the dangers of marijuana on our roadways, it sounds an awful lot like a strawman argument. A random statistic, and a very predictable one, an increase in accidents, can just be blamed on a group of people we don't like, and don't understand because we don't like them.
The more fundamental problem is that we approach these situations, from a law & order standpoint, from the wrong direction. Why is driving impaired illegal in the first place?

It doesn’t matter if someone is drunk, high, distracted, incompetent or stupid. As a society, we don’t care about that. What we want to prevent is people being injured by the negligence of other drivers and, just like we do with so many other things, we try to legislate what we see as some of the causes of that thing, limiting the rights of the people who most likely will never do the thing we were really trying to legislate away.

Prosecution and punishment should be reserved for those who actually harm others, not those who only did something that someone else happens to think may hurt others in certain circumstances. Trying to legislate away modes rather than outcomes just results in us all losing Liberty.
 

·
I love boobies
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
The more fundamental problem is that we approach these situations, from a law & order standpoint, from the wrong direction. Why is driving impaired illegal in the first place?

It doesn’t matter if someone is drunk, high, distracted, incompetent or stupid. As a society, we don’t care about that. What we want to prevent is people being injured by the negligence of other drivers and, just like we do with so many other things, we try to legislate what we see as some of the causes of that thing, limiting the rights of the people who most likely will never do the thing we were really trying to legislate away.

Prosecution and punishment should be reserved for those who actually harm others, not those who only did something that someone else happens to think may hurt others in certain circumstances. Trying to legislate away modes rather than outcomes just results in us all losing Liberty.
I rarely find myself in 100% agreement with you... but yes: no victim, no crime
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
In 4 of the accidents in which I was not at fault the police refused to respond. How can a cop determine if a person is impaired if they do not respond?
While exchanging information/ interacting with the the other drivers involved in those accidents, did you observe any impairment or detect the smell of MJ waffling from their vehicle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
The more fundamental problem is that we approach these situations, from a law & order standpoint, from the wrong direction. Why is driving impaired illegal in the first place?

It doesn’t matter if someone is drunk, high, distracted, incompetent or stupid. As a society, we don’t care about that. What we want to prevent is people being injured by the negligence of other drivers and, just like we do with so many other things, we try to legislate what we see as some of the causes of that thing, limiting the rights of the people who most likely will never do the thing we were really trying to legislate away.

Prosecution and punishment should be reserved for those who actually harm others, not those who only did something that someone else happens to think may hurt others in certain circumstances. Trying to legislate away modes rather than outcomes just results in us all losing Liberty.
Very well said. Think of the open bottle laws. What can it possibly hurt for a guy to knock back a cold one while his friend drives him around. If his friend can't be responsible and refrain from borrowing a sip, deal with him as he is pulled out of the ditch. Don't just ruin it for everybody. Let's face it, open container laws are just one of those, "we can't get a charge to hold up in court but we know they are guilty" type laws.

If somebody tokes to get themselves spiritually prepared to deal with walmart while they are a mile out, what difference should it make to someone that smells it. It's not likely to take hold until walking in the store. It's effects are likely to be gone before completing the shopping list. Another toke on the way home and it kicks in when the netflix stops buffering. Not likely to cause any problems that can't be solved by people minding their own business.

Know that if you experience anxiety from smelling marijuana smoke when you drive through town, that anxiety puts you at a higher risk of being in an accident. Luckily there are things you can take to help you with your anxiety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,171 Posts
Very well said. Think of the open bottle laws. What can it possibly hurt for a guy to knock back a cold one while his friend drives him around. If his friend can't be responsible and refrain from borrowing a sip, …
Back that up one step. Why do we want to prevent the driver from having a beer in his cup holder, rather than a cup of coffee or soda? As a society, does a driver drinking a beer while he’s driving harm us in some way?

Why is there a penalty for drinking a beer on the way home from work, and why is it the same as driving while drunk? Why is the penalty for driving drunk higher than the penalty for actually causing an accident while stupid (yet sober)?
 

·
I love boobies
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
Back that up one step. Why do we want to prevent the driver from having a beer in his cup holder, rather than a cup of coffee or soda? As a society, does a driver drinking a beer while he’s driving harm us in some way?

Why is there a penalty for drinking a beer on the way home from work, and why is it the same as driving while drunk? Why is the penalty for driving drunk higher than the penalty for actually causing an accident while stupid (yet sober)?
It was legal to have an open drink (not being drunk of course) in my rural part of Colorado into around 2003, and here in Montana until around 2008.

The Montana MADD rep got fired for speaking against the open container law. He said something like Montana is the state where distances between towns are measured I number of beers. The home office was not happy
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,246 Posts
While exchanging information/ interacting with the the other drivers involved in those accidents, did you observe any impairment or detect the smell of MJ waffling from their vehicle?
No, not those. That was years before mj was commonly used here. The one the police did respond to, the at-fault driver was unusually calm. The responding police did not make him do a sobriety test, unfortunately. He was calm as could be, despite his car being inoperable.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,246 Posts
So if we have a substance that's presence is hard to test for, and we don't test for it because the cops didn't show up, we can accurately determine that it is responsible for accidents that were so minor the cops didn't show up. Got it.

Driving under the influence is driving under the influence, true, not responsible in any case. Under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, prescription medication, distraction, age, sleep loss no difference. Some people are responsible and some are not.

But honestly I don't see marijuana being responsible for the type of accidents we see from other causes. Sure your reaction time can be increased, but you are going to be acutely aware of it and maybe even concerned, and probably correct for it in a very meticulous fashion. Rather than a drinker barreling down the road cleaning out both ditches and ignoring intersections and oak trees, I see a pot smoker being more laser focused on staying precisely between the lines, their ability to do so being impaired, but the focus causing them to correct, and at some point with enough inebriation they are going three miles per hour. With heavy enough use they might stop and take a nap, or to look for snacks, and perfectly organize the change in the console, but I just don't see the careless abandon, blackout drunk, wild careening at a high rate of speed associated with alcohol use. When I hear things about the dangers of marijuana on our roadways, it sounds an awful lot like a strawman argument. A random statistic, and a very predictable one, an increase in accidents, can just be blamed on a group of people we don't like, and don't understand because we don't like them.
Come drive around the west side of Columbus in the summer. You'll see it for yourself.

Just like drinkers, I have nothing against mj users. I used to hang out with the stoners in high school. They were less judgy and a whole lot nicer than the rest of the ahs in that city. Just stay off the road if you want to smoke or drink.

You can say you don't believe people under the influence of marijuana don't cause accidents all you want, but saying it doesn't make it true. It happens. I could post links but you won't believe it anyway because in your mind mj users are responsible people who would never drive while high. Not all users are responsible, just like not all users are irresponsible.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,930 Posts
Screw it! Why have any traffic laws at all? Let's just careen down the road as fast as we want to go with nothing but a few feet of distance and a yellow line (maybe) between us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
Back that up one step. Why do we want to prevent the driver from having a beer in his cup holder, rather than a cup of coffee or soda? As a society, does a driver drinking a beer while he’s driving harm us in some way?

Why is there a penalty for drinking a beer on the way home from work, and why is it the same as driving while drunk? Why is the penalty for driving drunk higher than the penalty for actually causing an accident while stupid (yet sober)?
Absolutely. No reason at all a man should be punished for enjoying a beverage from the cooler a few miles from his house. I have known and resembled many horrible alcoholics in my life. A lot of them drove. Some of them were absolutely better drivers when they were drunk. All over the road sober, because they were fighting demons, not comfortable, distracted, etc. When drunk, they had a good handle on how drunk they were, could make good decisions, and allowed more following distance, were careful, etc. Somebody 17 years old that just downed way more than they needed and rushing home to beat curfew not so much, but somebody that is used to alcohol, or marijuana can make the same adjustments to their driving to accommodate their impaired reaction time as the ones that older drivers make for being old. Can't see at night, don't drive at night. Most of the alcoholics that I knew that drove regularly were on a maintenance dose, and they weren't really impaired. In terms of BAC they were probably off the charts when they woke up in the morning, but it wasn't really impairing coordination to the extent that DTs would if they were sober. That is why the whole thing is silly. You should do whatever up to the point that you fail. If you hurt someone, you should be held criminally liable. If you were drunk, or you hadn't gotten your eyeglass prescription updated as soon as you needed to, it should be considered attempted murder. But open container laws, and some random arbitrary BAC number that means different things for different people are a bridge too far in a free society.
 
21 - 40 of 72 Posts
Top