• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Reminder: don't trip or drive drunk!

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my page long reply...

I'm not saying that I'm a better driver when I'm high, and I AM interested in hearing "counterpoint". The whole 99% thing also applies to when you're sober btw.

I definitely follow all the driving laws when I'm high and NOBODY who is in the passenger seats EVER has been concerned with my driving or has noticed anything off about it. All of my friends are confident in my driving while I'm high. Yes, it is not good to do it, but I fucking do it because I very strongly believe that I can do so safely (again, if not more so than when I'm not high). You can present all the "counterpoints" (which applies to music/melodies???) you want or all the scientific studies you want. If you find something showing that marijuana is directly correlated with car crashes/injuries, I'll acknowledge it, and it'll probably affect my opinion on the matter, but I'm not going to stop because there is no real reason for me to be worried about my high driving.

Sorry if I sound angry or if I'm ticking any of you off. I'm just gonna stop posting on this thread...
 
Last edited:
First off, I don't drive. Nor do I plan to.

I've been trying to find info regarding whether cannabis users are actually more dangerous on the road than sober people and if they are, to what degree. I think if they are not particularly dangerous, if at all, then it could be argued that some users such as medical users should be allowed to drive while high.

Below is an interesting analysis, but I don't know how reliable it is. I would appreciate anyone more research if anyone has any.

MARIJUANA USERS ARE SAFER DRIVERS THAN NON-MARIJUANA USERS
http://www.encod.org...ER-DRIVERS.html
6 April 2012

A new study released by United States auto insurance quote provider 4AutoInsuranceQuote.org shows that statistically speaking, marijuana users are safer drivers than non-marijuana users.


In a recent study, 4AutoinsuranceQuote.org, a national quote provider for online car insurance quotes, cites a strong correlation between traffic-related accidents and marijuana use. The study, which looks at statistics regarding accidents, traffic violations, and insurance prices, seeks to dispel the thought that “driving while stoned” is dangerous.

In the study, 4AutoInsuranceQuote.org points out that the only significant effect that marijuana has on operating a motor vehicle is slower driving. 4AutoInsuranceQuote.org says, while referencing a study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), that driving slower “is arguably a positive thing” and that driving under the influence of marijuana “might even make you a safer driver.” A similar study by the NHTSA shows that drivers with THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in their system have accident responsibility rates below that of drug free drivers.

In fact, a recent study shows that use of medical marijuana has caused traffic related fatalities to drop by up to nine percent in states that have legalized its use. This study, titled “Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption”, conducted by Mark Anderson and Daniel Rees in November 2011, shows that increased marijuana use amongst adults has decreased alcohol related traffic deaths in said states. This study provides solid evidence that marijuana is not only a safe substitute for alcohol, but it also makes for more safer drivers.

“Marijuana users often say that when they are high, they feel like they are driving 80 miles per hour but actually are only going 30 miles per hour,” 4AutoInsuranceQuote.org CEO James Shaffer says, “when somebody is drunk driving, on the other hand, they often feel like they are driving 30 miles per hour but are actually driving 80 miles per hour. This is what makes alcohol dangerous behind the wheel, and marijuana safe.”

As an auto insurance quote provider, 4autoinsurancequote.org says that marijuana use can also have an indirect effect on insurance rates. Because of the correlation between marijuana use and accident responsibility rates, they say, marijuana users, as a whole, can expect to see lower insurance rates than non-marijuana users.

“The hypocrisy of it all is that if you get caught driving under the influence of marijuana, you will be fined and perhaps thrown into jail. What’s worse is that your insurance rates will definitely increase due to the traffic violation,” says Mr. Shaffer, “What law enforcement agencies and insurers do not understand is that driving while high is actually a safe activity. I guess the key to safer driving is to use marijuana, but to do it under-wraps.”

4AutoInsuranceQuote.org is an auto insurance quote provider operating out of Manhattan, NY. In business since 2008, they offer free insurance quotes online to United States users. In addition, 4AutoInsuranceQuote.org releases reports and studies on the automobile and insurance industries. Recent reports released by them include “How Biking Instead Of Driving Can Help You Save On Auto Insurance,” “How Does Your Income Affect Your Insurance Rates?” and “Women Are Bad Drivers – Fact or Fiction?”
 
^^400 Bad Request when I tried to follow your source.

Wasn't trying to pick it apart, I was just curious as to how their statistics determined which drivers were marijuana users?
 
Sorry here it is. The link didn't copy through in the copy and paste.

Here is the actual study the article is referring to, more importantly though.
 
Yeaaaaahhhhh that second link is what I was really after. Thanks, brutha.
 
Jibult said:
Not saying this is conclusive by any means, but NGC did a hour-or-two-long show on how the different mainstream drugs effect heavy users in casual situations, like putting together IKEA furniture, driving, lugging a refrigerator up two flights of steps (I think that was more of a strength test for the guy all coked out, though).

iirc, the weedhead drove extremely safely and slowly-- so much moreso than usual that he actually became a detriment to the other drivers he'd hypothetically be sharing the road with (the driving test was on a closed course in a parking lot). He had everything under control that he would usually expect from behind the wheel, but he also had ridiculously slow reaction times and really terrible depth perception on the parallel park.



Doesn't matter how slow you're driving or which traffic laws you're following if you're unable to react in time to oncoming traffic and other, just as potentially deadly obstacles in front of your car.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about that disgusting propaganda where they dressed Robin Williams up as a scientist than that is just sad that you took it seriously.

The meth guy must have been tolerant, long- term abuser because I believe they claimed it made him weaker. The fact that they used an actor that many in the public know and trust instead of an actual expert should have be a dead give away to you that it was pseudo-scientific.
 
Artificial emotion said:
“Marijuana users often say that when they are high, they feel like they are driving 80 miles per hour but actually are only going 30 miles per hour,” 4AutoInsuranceQuote.org CEO James Shaffer says, “when somebody is drunk driving, on the other hand, they often feel like they are driving 30 miles per hour but are actually driving 80 miles per hour. This is what makes alcohol dangerous behind the wheel, and marijuana safe
Click to expand...

I feel like the last sentence is a mistaken inference to draw from that study. I don't think it is implied that marijuana and driving is safe per se, just that driving under the influence of weed is less dangerous then driving drunk.
 
_DankOpiAmp_ said:
If you are talking about that disgusting propaganda where they dressed Robin Williams up as a scientist than that is just sad that you took it seriously.

The meth guy must have been tolerant, long- term abuser because I believe they claimed it made him weaker. The fact that they used an actor that many in the public know and trust instead of an actual expert should have be a dead give away to you that it was pseudo-scientific.
Click to expand...



Notice I said it wasn't conclusive? It wasn't definitive? How it was on NGC, which is, above all else, an organization profiting off of entertainment?


Did you forget to dose this morning? Calm down. You don't need an expert to narrate and host an informative 30min to an hour. Fuck, man, you've heard of Morgan Freeman, right? Is every show he on pseudo-scientific, too, simply because he's also acted in movies and television prior to his appearances in non-fiction? What about comedies that show field-leading experts like Neil de Grasse Tyson? Does their presence on "non-sciencey shows" take any of the legitimacy away from the experts shown?


I don't think it does, dude. I think you watched a TV show that hit a little too close to home for whatever reason and immediately set yourself out to discredit it. That's cool, though, that's how it was for me and Ghostwriter back in the day.
 
Last edited:
Wow, cool it with the pretentious self-indulgences buddy. The purpose of the show was to show you propaganda to trick you into thinking all drugs harm your performance in the ways the most people assumed they improved them. You are being naive. You need to stop trying to be an armchair psychologist to hide your own ignorance.

Morgan Freeman has a nice voice and performs as a narrator because of this talent. He is not being dressed up as a scientist to decieve us. Whether he is speaking on fiction or non- fiction programs is not relevant, his purpose is to make the program more pleasant to listen too. I don't know why you even mentioned Neil de Grasse Tyson because he actually is an expert in the field. Wtf does him doing comedy have to do with anything? Unless he is acting as if he is the ultimate authority on comedy because he is a scientist (which he isn't) than that is irrelevant as well.
 
Did you believe he was a scientist? Because I sure didn't.

Don't be a tool.




You're sensitive to the subject matter. I get that... But you shouldn't let your biases toward anything persuade you that the truth is incorrect.



(Hint: The truth here is that you're a fucking fool if you think driving intoxicated makes you safer than your sober counterpart. Remember, that's what this thread's about-- not Robin Williams in a labcoat. Christ.... the things we focus on in this forum....)
 
Dur! You believed the propaganda he was spewing, that is what matters. No one believed he was a scientist.

Don't be a smartass/ lummox.
 
I am what I am, just as you seem to be the tool I was trying to advise you against being.

What propaganda have I parroted back to you or anyone else in this thread? I watched a show, took it for what it was and off-handedly brought it up in conversation directly related to the subject matter of the show. You watched the same show, felt like you were under assault and remembered that feeling, so when you saw my slight reference to it the tunnel vision overwhelmed you and you mistakenly believed that this thread was about NGC, Robin Williams or even that specifically mentioned show.




It's not my fault certain things fall on deaf ears for you because of the way they make you feel. That sounds more like your problem, really.
 
I am not stuck on the driving part, there were lies and bad science woven into every example on that program, God dammit man....

Again, I am just calling you an imbecile for believing propaganda. Your crude attempts to psychoanalyze me about it are just as sad. Stop projecting and accept it, the only one feeling threatened here is you.

I did not not invent the "movie star in a lab coat for propaganda purposes" reference. It was discussed in another article and I realized it was correct. I was mildly amused when watching a show about wasted people trying to compete in skill testing events. I just pondered it a little more after.

The propaganda you spewed was your very mention of the results of the program as if it was credible.
 
I didn't read anything you just posted past "not."


Go ahead, try again. Let's see if I'll read the next one.
 
Lol, what a pathetic person you are. You obviously read it you just don't have the mental capacity to respond to it effectively. Go back to your fantasy world and keep posturing as some sort wiseman. Pat yourself on the back too, congratulate yourself for such an insightful debate.

I'm assuming the man in your profile picture is your father.
 
Nope. Decided that that amount of text coming from you was a waste of time and just averted my gaze downward to this text box. I can handle 3 lines from you without hesitation, though.


Here's the problem: you thought this was a debate.

It never was and I was never trying to engage in one-- at least, not about a television show that was never presented as an answer to anything. From the moment you decided to hone in on such a trivial aspect of a single post in this thread, I was doing damage control trying to get you to shut your useless, cunt mouth. Notice how the tone of hostility increased incrementally from one post to the next? You probably didn't.... Regardless, the strategy hasn't worked yet, I'm sorry to say... but I do enjoy finding out who the less worthwhile posters around here are. 'preciate ya for that.
 
You obviously thought it was important enough to respond to multiple times but you are such a pitiful person you needed to spew self- indulgent tripe at the same time just so you could feel better about your miserable self.
 
Important enough? We're talking in my favorite forum, you're addressing me specifically, and the damn title keeps highlighting in CD every time you go to get the last word in.



Of course I'm going to reply. Isn't that what you wanted? Fuck, dude, make up your mind. If you want to stop, just stop. You don't need my permission, but I'll gladly follow suit.
 
This thread has really gone off course. In other news, I thought this video was fucking hilarious (tweakers+cars):

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top