Drugalyser "zero tolerance for some drugs"

[Mailmonkey]

I drive stoned all the time. always.

But I don't get "stoned". I've been smoking weed for 25 years, daily for over 20 years.

When I started smoking I couldn't imagine how anyone could drive stoned.

Now a spliff is a fag to me.

As crackhead said, even if I went a week without smoking I'd still probably fail the test.

 

[gayorstraight]

But just because you don't feel stoned doesn't mean you aren't.

Plus your ability to drive will almost certainly be impaired whether you perceive it to be or not.

As someone further up the thread mentioned, I doubt anyone here has had their driving tested when sober to compare the differences when stoned/high/whatever.

People should probably be a little more honest with themselves and stop trying to justify their selfish and idiotic actions.

Driving is the most dangerous form of transport, why make it worse. Just adding in my bit of harm reduction.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Semantics.

You said 'I didn't say it was ok'. I'll rephrase my question: Why do you condone what you consider to be 'not ok'?

I think you're just avoiding the question

I didn't say it was not ok.

Haha. I never gave my opinion, but... how can I condone it? Because I smoke weed every day so if I could drive I would inevitably have to drive with enough THC in my system to fail the test. I can hardly condemn others for something I would definitely do myself.

 

[gayorstraight]

I didn't say it was not ok.

Haha. I never gave my opinion, but... how can I condone it? Because I smoke weed every day so if I could drive I would inevitably have to drive with enough THC in my system to fail the test. I can hardly condemn others for something I would definitely do myself.

You wouldn't 'inevitably have to drive' at all. You would be choosing to. Like you choose to smoke weed every day.

 

[parttime crackhead]

I still can't condemn other people for making a choice that I would also make.

I wonder if all the other daily, or maybe even weekly, drug users on here choose not to drive at all. Does anyone know the time it takes for particular drugs to be clear enough of your system to pass this test? That would be interesting.

 

[knock]

I've only ever had car or motorbike accidents while stone-cold sober. I don't tend to drive fucked but if I'm honest I've done it a few times. I don't like doing it though.

Passengers are the no 1 cause of accidents IME.

 

[Mailmonkey]

Cannabinoids can take 28 days to clear, specially if you're a fat cunt crackhead

You don't get me GoS, I don't drive "stoned", but i drive during/after a morning spliff, and all day. Nobody ever knows I am stoned (except i smell of weed(and pirate fish and dmt and cider)).

The only time I've ever crashed has been when on an unintended enforced 36-48 hour break from weed. I've smoked it so long I get on edge without it (possibly like someone without nicotine) , hence I was taking bends faster then I should have, skidded on mud, wrote off my own car, and caused 7k's worth of damage to the ambulance.

I'm not saying anyone should, I'd probably been smoking daily for 5 years or more before i considered driving.

The biggest point though, is even IF someone is not stoned, or under the influence, they may wwell test positive from a weekend smoke=o, lose license, lose job etc.

As long as you drive sensibly, normally etc, yu won't get stoppped. If you're stoned to the point of impairment, you might get stopped for driving like a twat, in which case you deserve to be prosecuted.

 

[Josair]

LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) 1 microgram per litre

lol. assuming LSD distributes evenly in all tissues (which is probably not true), a guy weighting 80 kgs would be allowed to drive a couple of hours after having taken a weak blotter. But I suppose that a good percentage would be actually bound to 5HT receptors, so basically everyone is allowed to drive under the influence of acid?

 

[gayorstraight]

You're saying you not stoned but yet you note you become on edge without it. This suggests that smoking weed does have an effect on you, therefore you're under the influence, therefore you shouldn't be driving imo.

Just because you smoked daily for more than 5 years before driving doesn't mean you're 'qualified' to 'drug-drive' imo.

 

[Cornishman]

I know people who can drive whilst high on ketamine.
The skill involved must be immense.

 

[RLP]

The thought of that makes me feel sick.

 

[knock]

You're saying you not stoned but yet you note you become on edge without it. This suggests that smoking weed does have an effect on you, therefore you're under the influence, therefore you shouldn't be driving imo.

Just because you smoked daily for more than 5 years before driving doesn't mean you're 'qualified' to 'drug-drive' imo.

Your logic is a bit flawed. If I have a headache and take paracetamol I am under the influence of paracetamol. But it's a good thing and I can drive better under the influence.

Being under the influence of a drug does not necessarily imply impairment.

If I am dependent on an opiate I need to be under the influence to operate normally.

I'm not saying that this is actually the case for cannabis, but it's flawed logic to say "under the influence = impaired". Which is what I assume you mean by "shouldn't be driving".

 

[gayorstraight]

Your logic is a bit flawed. If I have a headache and take paracetamol I am under the influence of paracetamol. But it's a good thing and I can drive better under the influence.

Being under the influence of a drug does not necessarily imply impairment.

If I am dependent on an opiate I need to be under the influence to operate normally.

I'm not saying that this is actually the case for cannabis, but it's flawed logic to say "under the influence = impaired". Which is what I assume you mean by "shouldn't be driving".

I see what you're saying but I'm not talking about paracetamol, I'm talking about cannabis.

The issue is a complex one but as a rule I don't think people should take drugs and then drive. Surely it's better to be safe than sorry?

Maybe opiate addicts shouldn't drive, taking into account your argument. In withdrawal - not in the right state of mind to drive. With opiates in their system - again, not in the right state to drive.

It's no one's right to be able to drive. For example, my cousin has epilepsy and isn't allowed a licence. Plus her medication for the epilepsy may affect her ability to drive. If she and others like her are not allowed to drive, why should people who have taken drugs be any different?

 

[knock]

Yes, whether someone should be allowed to drive is a social decision, as it carries social risks. I agree.

The exact criteria we use could be more scientific than this proposal, though. Maybe Mailmonkey really can drive perfectly well under the influence of cannabis. If he could prove it, then it would seem reasonable to allow it. But we don't have the systems in place to carry out such tests and many people would be alarmed. He needs to drive for his job, though, and I don't know why he's always on cannabis, maybe he's self medicating. Our medical system is not perfect either.

We don't have the best social structures and people take the initiative and do things to get by all the time. Such choices are a sort of by-product of sub-standard healthcare and working arrangements.

 

[gayorstraight]

Yes I believe a better system is needed. Agreed. I also think it has to start somewhere

 

[Ismene]

I wonder who the better driver would be a - a carful 40 year old who'se had a spliff or an 18 year old stone cold sober driving at 70mph, 2 feet from someones back end.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Surely, we just ban everyone under 25? Stats speak for themselves. Go for it I say.

The facts:

In the UK only one in eight driver licence holders is aged 25 or under, yet one in three drivers who die is under 25.
(Figures obtained Driving Standards Agency’s press office, 2008) (2007 statistics from the Department for Transport and Police Service for Northern Ireland 2008)
One in five new drivers is involved in a crash in their first year of driving.
(DSA, Learning to Drive: a consultation paper 2008)
Young male drivers have higher crash rates than young female drivers.
(Night-time Accidents, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, 2005)
Young drivers are more likely to thrill seek from driving fast and cornering at high speed than older drivers.
(Young Driver Attitudes, S. Stradling, M. Meadows DfT, 2001)
Government statistics show that male drivers under 25 have the highest incidence of failing a breath test after being involved in a road crash in which someone was injured.
(Table 2f, Road Casualties Great Britain 2004 DfT, 2005)
Research shows that the already high crash rate for 16-19-year-olds driving alone is greatly increased when passengers are present. The more passengers, the greater risk of a collision.
(Doherty, S.T.; Andrey, J.C.; and MacGregor, C. 1998. The situational risks of young drivers: the influence of passengers, time of day, and day of week on accident rates.)
Young drivers have a higher proportion of crashes (many of which are single-vehicle) in the evenings and early mornings.
(Novice driver accidents and the driving test, G Maycock, TRL, 2001)
Of fatalities, only one-third of young drivers and one-fifth of young passengers were restrained.
(MCCarrt AT & Northrup VS (2004) Factors relating to seat belt use among fatally injured teenage drivers).

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

can someone get stoned and point a car at gayorstraight please

 

[Mailmonkey]

He needs to drive for his job, though, and I don't know why he's always on cannabis, maybe he's self medicating.

I'm only self-medicating in the same way that tobacco smokers self-medicate. It's just a constant, a daily habit.

I don't think I'm particularly unusual, I think a lot of long term smokers are like me. I'm sure there are plenty of people on here who drive "stoned" (with cannabis in system)

for the record, I wouldn't consider driving after more than a pint of shandy, because i can feel that I'm a bit slower, a bit less responsive.....

 

[Marmalade]

can someone get stoned and point a car at gayorstraight please

It's actually refreshing to see her holding her own on a topic with a bit of depth for once, without an 'amazeballs' in sight ... and hardly any huge generalisations either. Nice going really, maybe *gheyorstrayte* is capable of having individual thoughts afterall.