this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
71 points (89.9% liked)

Trees

6752 readers
61 users here now

A community centered around cannabis.

In the spirit of making Trees a welcoming and uplifting place for everyone, please follow our Commandments.

  1. Be Cool.
  2. I'm not kidding. Be nice to each other.
  3. Avoid low-effort posts

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In my opinion I don't think that's the right solution. I think cannabis is closer to coffee.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kttnpunk 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I would argue cannabis, especially of the average potency and in moderation, doesn't impair most EVERYDAY users any more than a cigarette might (those things spike your blood pressure and dehydrate you fast!!) but I just especially have to object to treating high driving exactly the same. As another user stated, the statistics are very clear. To quote a friend's dad "If you can't drive and smoke weed, you can't drive."

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As someone who has ingested a lot of weed, strong disagree. I don't know how anyone who has experienced being high can say they are not impaired. That's a mind blowing statement to me.

I definitely wouldn't say it impairs you in the same way being drunk does, but I also wouldn't say driving high is the same as driving sober. And if you are driving high you really need to cut that shit out. All it takes is one time where your reaction time is slightly decreased and it could be catastrophic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I would say it really depends on person, tolerance, strain, etc. The issue with DUIs for THC intoxication is that it's practically impossible to prove that someone is under the influence definitively like you can with alcohol. Even without a shred of evidence a breathalyzer will tell you if someone is over the legal limit, there is no equivalent with marijuana.

[–] Candelestine 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we engineered our roadways around the idea that people would be operating with a reduced reaction speed than normal, this would be fine. But we didn't, everything is designed to be safe for normal operation.

Most isn't good enough. If it impairs 10% of people, and increases fatalities even a little bit, it should be a DUI, unless there is some kind of medical exemption or something.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

So many functional alcoholics can drive seemingly perfectly fine, but letting people drive drunk is still incredibly stupid. Just because you have a high tolerance or whatever doesn't mean you should be allowed to drive while stoned, regardless of if it's just as impacting as being tired or whatever justification people use.