MisterFrog

Nearly every medication changes your cognition—even OTC antihistamines.

I don't know what it's like in your country, but in mine depending on the level of impact it will say on the packet, and is illegal to drive while under the influence of any medication that impacts your ability to drive safely or operate heavy machinery.

I didn’t intend to imply it is the case for everyone

People should make the decisions that are best for them—know thyself.

One last time, I don’t endorse this style of living for everyone, but it works for me

Nah, this is not okay.

I do not accept this as a reasonable way to determine what we allow as societies in terms of vehicular safety. Someone's freedom to decide for themselves what they consider to be safe, stops at everyone else's freedom to not be run over. I very much assert what's safe should be determined with science and enforced with regulation/laws. Not by everyone personally deciding for themselves.

You might be surprised at the sheer number of people who operate vehicles while stoned safely.

Dosing aside (I'm not making claims on what level is safe). We have a very important saying in my industry: just because a safety event hasn't happened yet, isn't evidence that a practice is acceptably safe. (Paraphrased). This is literally what habitual drunk drivers who aren't that drunk when they drive tell themselves "it's fine", because they haven't had a crash and are very careful. Sure, but they're increasing the likelihood of a crash nonetheless.

There may well be people out there who have driven high without incident, my response would be 1. Let's quantify that first before allowing it, and 2. They do this without incident, so far.

I'm sure you're very careful, and don't drive too high. You may never have a serious accident. But on a societal level, that's just not an acceptable way to determine what is acceptably safe. Who are you to say that you aren't increasing the likelihood of harm to someone else?

Wanna decide everything for yourself? Go live in the middle of nowhere, away from everyone else, where your decisions won't impact others.

Don't drive high unless you can back up your claims with more than "trust me bro".

I think it's generally a culture thing

Precisely, and we live in a multicultural world. No one has to eat dog, just not make moral judgements about other cultures who do. I'm my opinion.

Fair enough, this was just a convenient place to get on my soap box lol

Nah, I have personally read plenty of online outrage, and heard in person, numerous times people making moral judgements about eating dogs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's practical, or good eating. Nor am I making comment on North Korea. Just take issue with people having a go over the morality of eating dogs.

Amen to that

Are there sufficient studies out there showing fewer accidents while under the influence of weed? Or negligible effect?

Else, I'm gonna have to press X to doubt, and really would rather wait on further studies before letting you think your self-reported performance is convincing.

Weed affects your cognition, I hope we can agree on this. How adversely for driving, according to dose, that I don't know. Though I don't think anyone should accept people telling you "nah, it's fine, trust me bro. I only got into an accident when I was sober!"

Cars are deadly, and you ought to be sober while operating heavy machinery.

Stop doing it until studies are done (and, they will, given how widespread it's use is legally now), but heck, pressing all sorts of X to doubt on this turning out to be true. It affects your attention. And cars are deadly, so.

You are morally obligated to err on the side of caution here.

Stop driving high, please.

Yikes. Hecking big yikes.

Apologies, I only took issue with downplaying being high and driving. Don't get high and drive is all I'm saying here, and think your original comment seemed like you were saying it's fine.

I'm totally with you on the elderly, you ought to need to renew you licence with a test when you get older. Because yeah, cars are deadly a f.

Invading aside (which is wrong and makes sense to be mad about), may I ask why would you be mad about people eating dogs?

(Presuming here you think eating dogs is a moral wrong, beyond animals in general).

I just don't think it's cool to judge other cultures on what they eat.

I think no one should be judged for what they eat. I don't eat meat, and think in general it's nicer not to do so, for environmental and empathetic reasons, and if pressed would encourage others (not unsocilited). I dislike vegetarians/vegans who go out and tell meat eaters they're doing something morally abhorrent, and judging them.

But equally, I dislike meat eaters telling dog eaters that what they're doing is somehow worse

It isn't, and I'm sick of western society pretending like it is. Just feels icky

Here's a unpopular opinion: invading your neighbours being wrong aside, I feel like eating dog meat isn't morally any worse than eating a pigs or cows. (Assuming they're not someone's pet).

I'm vegetarian, and feel it's unhelpful and judgy to get mad at people for eating meat, I just think people give countries where dogs are eaten way too much crap. To the point I even think it's subtly racist to judge other cultures for eating dog meat (again, I think we certainly should judge Russia and North Korea for invading).

Dogs are cute, but heck cows are too, so like don't get riled up about people eating one, if you happy eating the other.

Ummm, if it can fuck with your perceptions when you're high enough you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a chunk of metal going a speed. Not enough data is no justification, even if it's "not as bad". I have, and I'm sure others also, personal experiences of being high as fuck and barely being able to experience the passage of time in a coherent way, feeling like your forgetting what happened 30 seconds earlier.

Field sobriety shenanigans aside, I really hope we're not pretending like driving high is okay. Cars can kill, and you had better not be under the influence of anything that is a detriment to you driving safely.

Please, please, tell me you meant to write: "Drunk driving is a legitimate concern. High driving, despite the vilifying by police, simply doesn't have even a modest fraction of the stats to back it up. And anecdotally is not remotely the same as alcohol. But you still shouldn't drive under the influence of that either. Police should be required to administer scientifically accurate tests and acceptable blood contents be determined. Not field sobriety tests based on nothing."

Because else, yikes.

Yeah :( Big sad, both for you as a citizen of the US (I presume), and for me, as someone under the thumb of the US's sphere of influence.

Stay safe out there next week. I'm presume it's gonna get wild.