this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Trees

6698 readers
1 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 1 year 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
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ah yes, because television never lies or mispresents entertainment as fact. ever. 🙄

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

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!

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

You don't get special rules just because you're special. That's just not how law works.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

tell that to the police or anybody in law lol

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

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?