• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Driving after E?

what's wrong with preparing a little before you go out? get the money together for a taxi. between four people it works out to nothing. i can't think of a single situation where you would have to get in a car and drive it yourself. and if one idiot says "i can't afford it", you can afford drugs can't you?
 
Originally posted by number86:

Which is a more appropriate method of HM? 'We know you crazy kids like your cars' or 'Just say no'

But thats just like saying "don't take drugs, they're bad"
People know its bad, however they still take em. Just like driving. People KNOW they shouldn't. Doesn't mean they're gonna stop. I dont encourage it, but you would be pretty damn naive to think that it doesn't happen. I'm simply offering a few simple methods to help minimize any potential injury/fatality.
Click to expand...
 
I can see this area is a very sensitive subject. But I am glad that Mr Horse posted what he did, because the fact is that no matter how much we say "don't drive after a party" some ppl are going to drive home from a party. No matter how much evidence there is that it does harm it is still a CHOICE people make. Like I said before, I don't promote the decision to drive after pilling. But having some information to give to people who have put themselves in that position is definately helpful, not detrimental.
dailygrind: I'm glad you made a safe choice. Keep up the the good work
14.gif

[ 11 June 2002: Message edited by: MezZedUp ]
 
There is a huge difference between applying harm minimisation to drugs than to this topic.
IF YOU FUCK UP WITH DRUGS YOU CAN KILL ONE PERSON, YOURSELF.
IF YOU FUCK UP WHILE DRIVING YOU CAN KILL ALL THE PEOPLE IN YOUR CAR, PLUS YOURSELF, PLUS OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A CHOICE, YOU HAVE KILLED THEM.
We at Bluelight are trying to get harm minimisation promoted as the main way of dealing with the problem of drugs for the simple reason that using drugs is a victimless crime; you are making the (hopefully informed) choice so you aren't a victim. This in no way applies to driving while under the influence. I am appalled that this logic could be used.
[ 11 June 2002: Message edited by: johnboy ]
 
While I'm not disputing that people will still be driving home after being out all night, I think the problem with even acknowledging it is that I've found that a lot of people here tend to hear only the things that they want to hear. For example, if there are pages of quotes saying drugs might cause brain damage, I'll bet top dollar that the word might is the bit everyone remembers. And if someone is quoted as saying that it's "inconclusive" that drugs cause damage, then that particular part of the quote will be more likely remembered too... and these little pieces of selectively remembered data build up and are used to convince ourselves that what we're doing is OK and isn't causing us harm. It's human nature to justify things like this to ourselves in sometimes obscure ways.
The way it relates to drugs and driving, is that if someone says that "lots of people do it" then the bluelighters out that that are trying to justify their own dangerous behaviour will latch on to that one line and use that to convince themselves that they'll be OK.
So while I understand the need to try to reduce harm by detailing things that make this slightly "safer", it must still be stressed (at least on a public message board) that this is dangerous and should be avoided. What you say in private is fine because you aren't going to be influencing a wide and general audience, and if what I was saying now wasn't being written for viewing by anyone with a computer my response would probably be different. :)
 
I drive home after a night out clubbing all the time.
I guess I time it so that by the time the club closes the drugs have pretty much worn off.
I do this because it has been my experience that I am quite lucid and alert in this period.
I'd never drive whilst peaking or feeling the effects of drugs.. but after it's all over and I'm no longer feeling the effects I don't see it as a problem.
Usually I'm still alert and buzzing (as in mentally cognisan)t on the drive home which is good, if I were totally sober then I believe there is a good chance I'd be quite tired and lethargic.
A lot of the replies to this post talk about the dangers of driving under the influence.. which is not what dailygrind suggested. Rather, he suggested driving 8 hours after dropping which is a significant period of time to let elapse IMO.
 
^^ This is exactly what Pleonastic was talking about....
Don't forget to add sleep deprivation to the list of 'not driving under the influence' because, you'll still driving under the influence (not direct, but indirect influence)
 
sleep deprivation would also be a problem for the sober driver though wouldn't it? Perhaps more so because they wouldn't have taken anything to keep them alert.
I'm not bagging the concept of sober drivers in anyway, I'm just saying when I drive home from a club in the morning I tend to feel extremely alert and awake.
How long would you say is a long enough period to wait after having dropped before it being safe to drive? Thoughts?
[ 13 June 2002: Message edited by: Macksta ]
 
This is why we have been stressing, Public Transport. Or at least what I do is sleep before going out so you won't be sleep deprived and/or leave early. Nothing says you have to be out for 12 hrs or whatever :)
 
Another thing to consider is that if you drive after having dropped.. and you cause an accident that results in a drug test at the local police station, you could be charged with manslaughter whether or not the drug was the actual cause or not.
So having said that... to eliminate the liability to one's self, you should not drive as long as a drug test will show up the presence of drugs in your system. So once again the question is asked... how long will E stay at detectable levels within your body?
 
macksta i think your slightly missing the point. its not about whether a drug test will show anything up if you kill someone, its already to fucking late by then. the point is, DO NOT drive after having drugs. if you think driving 'once the effects have worn off' is acceptable then try going out for 12 hours and danceing all night then drive home at 9am. you'll most definately feel like shit and be fuckin tired....so dont try to tell us that at 9am 'after the drugs have worn off' you feel alert and lucid and able to drive, its bullshit, the drugs are still affecting you. even worse is the fact they are making you feel like your straight...you think you have all your senses functioning 110% and your fine to drive. driving like this is just as bad as driving while peaking...at least when your peaking you know your fucked...when you drive like this you have a flase sense of security...you think your fine...when actually your response time is probably one fifth of what it should be and your concentration span is about 5 seconds....
get a train.
 
randomblondeboy
I'm sorry perhaps you missed Big Trancer's post script about this thread being a no flame zone.
Please don't tell me what is or is not bullshit when it comes to my own person. You don't know anything about me or what I do at a club so I'd appreciate it if you could formulate your responses accordingly. Thanks.
The fact is I am not 'missing the point' at all. There is a legitimate secondary element to the question of 'Driving after E', which I shall try to reiterate in simpler terms.
If you are involved in an accident, and are drug tested and E is shown to be in your system.. obviously you are in deep shit. Clearly then, it is of a beneficial nature to the readers of this thread to have some idea how long it takes E to be reduced to undetectable levels within the body, so that they are aware not to drive before this occurs.. both so they can PREVENT accidents and also to reduce the liability to themselves should an accident occur.
"DO NOT drive after having drugs", is a somewhat unhelpful and vague statement that tells us nothing. I had drugs 3 weeks ago.. according to your statement I should not be driving now.. because it is AFTER having drugs.
What I am trying to determine, is HOW LONG one should not be driving after having drugs, both in terms of time lapsed allowing the negative effects of the drug to wear off, and time lapsed allowing all traces of E to be flushed from your system so you don't test positive should a drug test occur.
It's all well and good not to drive after leaving a club.. only to go to drive to work the next day, cause an accident because you were distracted by your mobile phone, get drug tested by the police and then end up in the slammer because they detected minute traces of E in you.
It's a legitimate question, related to the topic that deserves to be addressed.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Pleo: No probs I understand :) . As the mods are fond of pointing out, everyone has their own unique experiences and opinions. I was just a little galled at being told my opinion of myself based on my own intimate personal knowledge was 'bullshit'. But for sure, everyones opinion should be respected. :)
Peace.
[ 13 June 2002: Message edited by: Macksta ]
 
I've made the statements I wanted to in this thread so I'm staying out of it now... but I would like to point out that randomblondeboy didn't flame you, he just disagreed. There's a difference - a flame would be saying something agressive like "you're a dickhead" and then not backing up that claim with anything related to the topic. He backed up why he thought you were wrong, just that you don't agree... and that's fine - we've all got our opinions... :)
 
Originally posted by johnboy:
There is a huge difference between applying harm minimisation to drugs than to this topic.
IF YOU FUCK UP WITH DRUGS YOU CAN KILL ONE PERSON, YOURSELF.
IF YOU FUCK UP WHILE DRIVING YOU CAN KILL ALL THE PEOPLE IN YOUR CAR, PLUS YOURSELF, PLUS OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A CHOICE, YOU HAVE KILLED THEM.
We at Bluelight are trying to get harm minimisation promoted as the main way of dealing with the problem of drugs for the simple reason that using drugs is a victimless crime; you are making the (hopefully informed) choice so you aren't a victim. This in no way applies to driving while under the influence. I am appalled that this logic could be used.
[ 11 June 2002: Message edited by: johnboy ]
Fuckin word to that... Especially the second sentence in capitals.
I'm not touching this topic any more.
Click to expand...
 
Cabs and PT are all fine and good for most people, but for me, cabbing to and from an event would cost over $100 and I live nearly an hours walk from public transport.
My solution? I usually find someone who lives close by to go and rest up after a party. Also if I know I'm going to be driving I'll take it a lot easier at the party.
Now, I would never drive peaking, or so completely scattered that I can't think, but I will drive after a night out. However, if I ever got to the car and thought to myself that it just wasn't safe for me to be opperating a vehicle, then I would just go and sleep in a park or something.
I know it's been a helluva lot more dangerous for me to be driving home after a killer shift at work than after many parties.
That said, I fully agree with the main point of this thread, but you just can't generalise. For example, I'll sometimes have 1 beer, know I'm under 0.05, but still wont drive because I feel like I am too impared to be safely opperating a motor vehicle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top