Should driving stoned be regulated?

[Dogmeat]

I mean, I'm going to have to go with whatever the study concludes. If it's not actually detrimental to driving, then it's not a problem. If it is, it is.

[Radiatia]

It's a serious issue regardless of legality.

For example in New Zealand where it's not legal (until next year when people inevitably vote for it yet), there is a concerted ad campaign targeting drug drivers with a focus being on the fact that it's unsafe to drive while high.

[Bluelight-R006]

Yes it is. Over 10,000 cases were sent to court in England and Wales in 2018.

Aye, so it's surprising that this is even a question in America.

People like to have fun instead of think of the damage they may create, I’d say.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Some of our users probably believe women should be stoned for driving.

[SD_Film Artists]

On top of the fact that I drive a VW Bus so everyone assumes I'm driving stoned all the time...

That reminds me there's someone with a VW camper with a large logo on the side saying 'VW since 1937' and I think- I wonder what was happening in Germany in 1937... '

As John Oliver said- "it's generally a good idea that companies with links to Nazi Germany should avoid nostalgia"

[SD_Film Artists]

Aye, so it's surprising that this is even a question in America.

People like to have fun instead of think of the damage they may create, I’d say.

I thought that's what boring politicians are for; bringing in boring yet safe laws.

[Bombadil]

Yes it is. Over 10,000 cases were sent to court in England and Wales in 2018.

Aye, so it's surprising that this is even a question in America.

I don't think it's legal in the UK so prosecutions would come under driving under the influence of illegal substances. If it was legal you'd have to make separate legislation much like alcohol. Minimum THC level, and what of the implications of essentially collecting DNA evidence without cause.


These and other issues..

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Do they still give military pilots methamphetamine?

[Bluelight-R006]

People like to have fun instead of think of the damage they may create, I’d say.

I thought that's what boring politicians are for; bringing in boring yet safe laws.

In this time, I doubt boring Politicians are a common sight.

[Kubra]

Definitely, I've been stoned enough to know that there's no way I can drive. But I've also been lightly buzzed and fine.
The problem with weed is pretty much detection of how much is too much. Even alcohol is super grey when it comes to that, because it's something fairly abstract.

[Kubra]

Do they still give military pilots methamphetamine?

Yeah, despite the friendly fire incident back in 2003 they pinned on the dexies.

[Kowani]

I want to make a Dr. Stone joke, but I don’t think anyone will have seen it...

[The Apollus]

We had a campaign about this in South Australia a couple of years ago. Yes, its stupid. Yes, it should be illegal. Yes, driving too slowly is still a road hazard - theres a reason golf buggies aren't allowed on mainstream roads.

His names Nibbles, he's the guy, who does stupid stuff when he gets high

[Caracasus]

It looks like (going by the evidence) that driving while stoned is less dangerous than driving while drunk. That's hardly surprising really seeing as being drunk tends to make people stupidly confident.

However it's obviously dangerous, so yeah probably should be illegal. The only trouble would potentially be when it comes to testing someone. I could be way out on this, but isn't it the case that it's a lot harder to pinpoint when someone smoked and how much is in their bloodstream than drinking?

[United New England]

People have the right to choose what goes into their body.

People don’t have the right to choose to drive after taking drugs with the possibility of killing others.

This counts as driving under influence, anyways.

I agree.

[The New California Republic]

The only trouble would potentially be when it comes to testing someone. I could be way out on this, but isn't it the case that it's a lot harder to pinpoint when someone smoked and how much is in their bloodstream than drinking?

Taking Scotland as an example on the drinking front, the limits are now so low that having any drink in your system while driving is going to get you arrested. Proving when someone drank their last drink is irrelevant as far as a prosecution goes, and it's the same for drugs.

So the drugs test in the UK is similar. If the swab test detects any illegal drugs then you'll be arrested for drug driving.

[Caracasus]

The only trouble would potentially be when it comes to testing someone. I could be way out on this, but isn't it the case that it's a lot harder to pinpoint when someone smoked and how much is in their bloodstream than drinking?

Taking Scotland as an example on the drinking front, the limits are now so low that having any drink in your system while driving is going to get you arrested. Proving when someone drank their last drink is irrelevant as far as a prosecution goes, and it's the same for drugs.

So the drugs test in the UK is similar. If the swab test detects any illegal drugs then you'll be arrested for drug driving.

Isn't that going to be a bit of a problem if (or let's face it when) it is legalised though? I thought the problem was that the trace chemicals that drug tests pick up on identify cannabis use up to a month after you smoked.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Do they still give military pilots methamphetamine?

Yeah, despite the friendly fire incident back in 2003 they pinned on the dexies.

So is driving a car on amphetamines illegal in the US?

[Ethel mermania]

There has been some very unscientific testing done by folks who are more or less professional drivers. The results were fairly muddy.


https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a ... d-feature/

[Ethel mermania]

Yeah, despite the friendly fire incident back in 2003 they pinned on the dexies.

So is driving a car on amphetamines illegal in the US?

Not if they are prescribed.

[The New California Republic]

Taking Scotland as an example on the drinking front, the limits are now so low that having any drink in your system while driving is going to get you arrested. Proving when someone drank their last drink is irrelevant as far as a prosecution goes, and it's the same for drugs.

So the drugs test in the UK is similar. If the swab test detects any illegal drugs then you'll be arrested for drug driving.

Isn't that going to be a bit of a problem if (or let's face it when) it is legalised though? I thought the problem was that the trace chemicals that drug tests pick up on identify cannabis use up to a month after you smoked.

There are tests that only pick up on it up to several hours after taking cannabis:

This saliva test detects the Δ9-THC, which is the molecule of cannabis that can be found specifically in the mouth. The smoke of a marijuana cigarette is full of this molecule. This smoke will contaminate the oral cavity during smoking a joint, and it leaves a trail for several hours. Note: this test detects the same marijuana salivary traces as those sought in the screening carried out at the roadside by the police forces. So this is a true innovation in testing saliva, and not a simple modified urine test.

https://www.narcocheck.com/en/saliva-dr ... -test.html

So a positive test will indicate that a person is still under the influence. It won't detect it if the person smoked da herb more than a few hours ago.

[Bombadil]

So people are ok with DNA collection without arrest or court order?

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Isn't that going to be a bit of a problem if (or let's face it when) it is legalised though? I thought the problem was that the trace chemicals that drug tests pick up on identify cannabis use up to a month after you smoked.

There are tests that only pick up on it up to several hours after taking cannabis:

This saliva test detects the Δ9-THC, which is the molecule of cannabis that can be found specifically in the mouth. The smoke of a marijuana cigarette is full of this molecule. This smoke will contaminate the oral cavity during smoking a joint, and it leaves a trail for several hours. Note: this test detects the same marijuana salivary traces as those sought in the screening carried out at the roadside by the police forces. So this is a true innovation in testing saliva, and not a simple modified urine test.

https://www.narcocheck.com/en/saliva-dr ... -test.html

So a positive test will indicate that a person is still under the influence. It won't detect it if the person smoked da herb more than a few hours ago.

I wonder if it works with spice.

[The New California Republic]

So people are ok with DNA collection without arrest or court order?

What? What DNA collection?

[The New California Republic]

There are tests that only pick up on it up to several hours after taking cannabis:


So a positive test will indicate that a person is still under the influence. It won't detect it if the person smoked da herb more than a few hours ago.

I wonder if it works with spice.

An alternative urine test is available for synthetic cannabinoids.

Caveat: it works for 2 to 3 days after consumption, so it cannot be used to tell if the person is still "under the influence".