Someone other than arknor please tell me I am not really reading these utterly ridiculous arguments.
Are people really this dense or desperate to prove non-existent points?
Should stoned driving be legal?
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
Someone other than arknor please tell me I am not really reading these utterly ridiculous arguments.
Are people really this dense or desperate to prove non-existent points?
Drugs are substances that change a person's physical or mental state. The vast majority of drugs are used to treat medical conditions, both physical and mental. Some, however, are used outside the medical setting for their effects on the mind. These are referred to as recreational drugsSomeone other than arknor please tell me I am not really reading these utterly ridiculous arguments.
Are people really this dense or desperate to prove non-existent points?
Drugs that affect a person's mental state, whether prescribed for a medical condition (for example, antidepressants) or taken for recreational purposes (such as alcohol and heroin), are called psychoactive drugs. Psychoactive drugs affect the way a person thinks and feels—which may also affect the way they behave. The most commonly used legal psychoactive drugs, apart from drugs taken on prescription, are alcohol and tobacco. The most commonly used illegal psychoactive drug is cannabis (marijuana).
I'm not sure how anything you just said is relevant to the bizarre comparison that smoking weed is the same as being in a bad mood. I don't know how anyone who has ever smoked weed could say it has anywhere near the same affect on you.
I think the majority of people here are in agreement that driving while stoned should be illegal.
The point some people are trying to make is that they have concerns about how the police will be able to detect the difference between being someone stoned and someone who had a smoke some time ago who is flagged as having it in their system whilst not being under the influence. If they have a reliable way of doing this then I'm not sure anyone can argue against it being illegal, but i'm not sure if that has been confirmed here or not (apologies if this has already been properly addressed and I have missed it). It could be detectable in someone who had not smoked it illegally (e.g. they were out of the country at the time they had a smoke - yes I know it's a stretch but it could happen and some people seem to have an issue with the illegality side of it as much as they do with someone having been under the influence).
The point some people are trying to make is that they have concerns about how the police will be able to detect the difference between being someone stoned and someone who had a smoke some time ago who is flagged as having it in their system whilst not being under the influence. If they have a reliable way of doing this then I'm not sure anyone can argue against it being illegal, but i'm not sure if that has been confirmed here or not (apologies if this has already been properly addressed and I have missed it). It could be detectable in someone who had not smoked it illegally (e.g. they were out of the country at the time they had a smoke - yes I know it's a stretch but it could happen and some people seem to have an issue with the illegality side of it as much as they do with someone having been under the influence).
Last edited:
yup stoners are passive and don't get road rage, not even comparable
ever watched a stoned person navigate through a crowd?
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
No, as was clear from the context of my post in relation to post I was answering.
The quote was...
My point is that there are lots of natural instances that affect your ability. Hence that quote isn't very useful.
You are, you're just a little too slow to realise it.
The point, which you are missing in spectacular fashion, is that a natural emotional state is not comparable to a narcotic-induced emotional state. He was clearly referring to being under the "influence" of something outside of your natural state. Thus, his quote still stands.
How you can not realise this, or get any sense of proper context, I will never know.
yep, and if they were in a car the queue for A&E would be around the block the amount of bumps they have.
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So I'm too thick to know what I meant? Nice ad-hominem by the way.
How was he "clearly" referring to being under the influence of drugs/drink when what he said clearly and literally just stated being under the influence of "something" and driving is not a good idea.
You're the one using interpretation here, I just replied to what he actually said.
But regardless, why is it 'not' comparable when it comes to the how they affect your driving ability. Do you have any scientific studies that show smoking a joint puts you in a demonstrably worse state to drive than being extremely upset (or other emotional state)? If not then you have no basis to make that comment and I'll assume you mean they aren't comparable solely because one affects a small number of people whilst the other one affects everyone so would be harder to regulate against.
lol
Yes, essentially. Sorry, but it's true.
It's called context, it's what sets us apart form machines and animals. Why on earth would he be talking about our natural emotional states, when the subject all the way through the thread has been about narcotics? It makes zero sense, and if you don't realise that then it is a lack of understanding that borders on autism.
Of course driving when highly emotional is not 'ideal'... but it is a natural state of mind, and if you really are comparing it to driving under the influence of narcotics, then you seriously need your head checking. It is simply ludicrous.
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Nice, not only another ad hominem attack but using a mental disability as an insult. You're one hell of a guy.
Also, your comprehension seems to be lacking here. The entire thread is not 'all about narcotics', it is about driving impairment in general. People have cited alcohol and prescription medicines as well as other things.
I'm interested in fact-based evidence, not "gut feeling" or your presuppositions based on nothing but what society 'feels' toward certain chemicals.
I'll take your above quote as an admission that you have no evidence to back up your claim that driving whilst being under emotional stress is incomparable with someone driving after smoking a joint.
You seem to be one of those people who thinks you can win a debate by simply insulting other people's intelligence and using the "everyone knows that" defence without providing any evidence to back up what you're saying whilst, fittingly, being ignorant to the existence of general ignorance.
I haven't read much of this thread but being stoned and driving I vote no.
Only tried weed once when I was drunk and that was the biggest mistake ever had my head in the toilet screwing for hours.
No idea how anyone can smoke it to be honest without feeling ****, tho the drinking before hand when I didn't try it probibly had a lot of part to play. But if people enjoy it then if got nothing against them they should be allowed to smoke it legally if they so wished.
But personally from my experience of even trying to smoke it once, I don't see how it could be safe to smoke it and drive at all, Infact Id say it's as bad as drink driving.
Keep all the fun and games like driving/smoking even sex away from doing it whilst driving.
Only tried weed once when I was drunk and that was the biggest mistake ever had my head in the toilet screwing for hours.
No idea how anyone can smoke it to be honest without feeling ****, tho the drinking before hand when I didn't try it probibly had a lot of part to play. But if people enjoy it then if got nothing against them they should be allowed to smoke it legally if they so wished.
But personally from my experience of even trying to smoke it once, I don't see how it could be safe to smoke it and drive at all, Infact Id say it's as bad as drink driving.
Keep all the fun and games like driving/smoking even sex away from doing it whilst driving.
While I agree with you that it should be illegal, I would never take evidence that comes from a news publisher as fact. All media lies to you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
I haven't read much of this thread but being stoned and driving I vote no.
Only tried weed once when I was drunk and that was the biggest mistake ever had my head in the toilet screwing for hours.
No idea how anyone can smoke it to be honest without feeling ****, tho the drinking before hand when I didn't try it probibly had a lot of part to play. But if people enjoy it then if got nothing against them they should be allowed to smoke it legally if they so wished.
But personally from my experience of even trying to smoke it once, I don't see how it could be safe to smoke it and drive at all, Infact Id say it's as bad as drink driving.
Keep all the fun and games like driving/smoking even sex away from doing it whilst driving.
Well there lies your problem you tried it once while being drunk on alcohol. It certainly can be a much more powerful effect if you are drunk also. It probably heighten your drunk feeling making you feel sick. Most users do not drink and smoke and it is a completely different feeling if done alone, which you have never done? you went balls to the wall and think that's how it effects you or anyone always but that's because you mixed it with alcohol.
That said i'm a long time user and advocate but i still believe you shouldn't drive while being high, I would never do it even if i think it boosts my performance which it can.
So dont be stupid, drive sober. I do agree better testing would need to be put in place as it could catch out a lot of sensible users who dont drive under the influence.
Last edited:
No, it really doesn't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,005
- Location
- Derby
It certainly boosts my performance.. If you know what I mean..
(Not driving obviously)