this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Trees
6633 readers
40 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.
- Be Cool.
- I'm not kidding. Be nice to each other.
- Avoid low-effort posts
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
It impairs maybe 10% of people. They should know better than to drive and the other 90% shouldn't be held responsible for their mistake. But reduced reaction speed? Nah, THC is magical in that it's a mental stimulant that almost slows down one's perception of time, you clearly haven't heard of hackey-sack or met anybody that plays FPS games at a serious level.
This is the same argument leille used when drink driving laws came in. "I can do it fine, why do we need a law". We can't set laws based on the outliers, we have to base them on all scenarios.
Okay but law unfairly targets and exploits substance users in the first place, and you're missing my whole point- cannabis does not impair JUDGMENT, unlike alcohol. Regardless of what you think, the statistics show it is vastly safer than driving drunk. Besides that, any laws like this would be especially harmful to the average medicinal user being as THC levels fluctuate and it can stay in the body for up to months.
To add to your point: I once saw a TV show where they got drivers to smoke weed and drive a basic obstacle course, They presented stats saying drunk drivers were (iirc) 6x more likely to crash, while cannabis use was associated with a 2x higher likelihood to crash. So, while it is technically safer, it is definitely not safe.
ah yes, because television never lies or mispresents entertainment as fact. ever. 🙄
Haha, you must be so cool. Do you think everything on television is all lies, all the time? Like when a young person tells an old person about a fact they learned online, only to hear the old person gripe: "oh sure, because you read it on the internet it must true". That's one ignorant take.
I'm gonna go back to not knowing you, never talk to you again, and live a productive life. Enjoy your trolling, basement man!
You don't get special rules just because you're special. That's just not how law works.
tell that to the police or anybody in law lol
... touche.
I don't think it's reasonable to say that because only 10% of drivers are reckless, we don't get to regulate the other 90% along with them. Of course if we had some magical wand that would tell us who the reckless drivers are, then we could only target the dangerous folks, but often that's impossible.
Often the best we can do is take a look at the data and see what kind of policies would not be horribly burdensome for the general public and yet would save a lot of lives, and then we institute those.
The other part of the problem with the 10% bad drivers argument is that bad drivers change from hour to hour, and from day to day. After all, the majority of people believe that they're good drivers, right?