Feds test how stoned is too stoned to drive

^ Glad that we can agree!

And cannabis is a stimulant that is quite gentle physically for me as well, but it has psychedelic properties that make it way better than "regular" stims, for my purposes. I see trails and get into a get into a very trippy headspace, making connections between apparently unrelated ideas. Timewarp as well. I just love it. <3
 
I'm exactly the same when it comes to weed. Hyper charged, can't sleep, body refuses to eat. I usually avoid smoking anytime after 6pm if I want any chance of a restful nights sleep.

As pole driver mentioned they have saliva testing here in Australia. They are very unreliable, with plenty of false positives and negatives. They are used as a first screen roadside, and are normally set up next to a dedicated drug bus that then takes a blood sample of the positive tests to to analysed in a lab. In theory you should be fine 8 hours, I'd rarely want to be tested under 4-5 hours. It is zero tolerance but not considered a criminal crime rather a driving misdemeanour and you face a fine and lose of licence points.

I have known guys who have tested positive, admitted they smoked the night before and have been let off because it is obvious they are not under the influence. You need a compassionate cop for this though, something I think you will find in extremely short supply in the US.
 
slimvictor said:
^ Very interesting.
I have two things I want to say.

First, I am affected by cannabis in almost exactly that same way you describe. I cannot possibly hope to sleep, I don't want to eat, I gain tremendous energy, etc. I also have the hyper-focus, racing thoughts, etc. I have met (only online) few people who even seem to believe this, let alone experience it, so I am happy to have read your post, BlueBull! :D

Second, I wonder about your reasoning and conclusion that field sobriety tests would not work for you. Maybe if the danger of racing thoughts + hyper-focus + nervousness + hyperactivity is truly high, you will fail the field sobriety test. Maybe if you can pass that test, you are (marginally) safe to drive. Maybe not, but I am sure that many people permanently experience similar symptoms (i.e. that 's just the way their brains are wired), and there are probably no tests that prevent them from driving. We allow them to drive en masse, so to give up on the field sobriety tests because you (and I) get that way when high might not make sense.

I understand your point - that field sobriety tests might not catch every single person who is not in key condition to drive - but I think that the alternatives, such as testing saliva or blood THC levels, or giving up on testing at all, would be far worse.
Click to expand...

I really think it's got more to do with the cannibinol mixture of the bud at least for me anyway. Some weed makes me giggly, spaced out, muchies and some makes me focused, not hungry etc.
 
One Thousand Words said:
Unless every single dealer I have met has miraculously sold me the same strain in the past 25 yr then I doubt it is that.
Click to expand...
Same for me. Sativa-dominant strains do stimulate me more, but whatever strain I smoke, whatever other form of THC/CBD I ingest, in whatever quantities, I feel stimulation. But I'm getting a bit off-topic here, I will perhaps make a thread about this in CD later on, if there isn't one already
 
PriestTheyCalledHim said:
If someone has smoked, vaporized, or consumed cannabis then they should not be driving at all.
Click to expand...

There are degrees of impairment when it comes to cannabis, just like there are with alcohol, and the law should take this into account, and not assume that because someone tests positive for a drug, they must necessarily be incapable of driving safely, although I accept that it is a valid justification to perform a field sobriety test, and require a blood sample.
 
PriestTheyCalledHim said:
If someone has smoked, vaporized, or consumed cannabis then they should not be driving at all.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, there is a safe limit of alcohol that people can consume and get behind the wheel, why should cannabis be any different? Generally speaking, for a regular user, the effects of cannabis are milder than the effects of getting drunk off of alcohol. Cannabis by its nature makes people a little prone to paranoia, which generally leads to more cautious driving when a driver is under its influence. Alcohol tends to have the opposite effect, it makes people think they can do stupid things and get away with them.

I am by no means suggesting that people should be able to be stoned out of their gourd and get behind the wheel, but to say people cannot consume cannabis and then drive at all makes no sense to me.

What about medicinal users? If people can take a prescribed benzo or an opioid and get behind the wheel, why is it not okay for someone who is prescribed cannabis to do the same? Do you believe cannabis to cause more impairment than Xanax or OxyContin?
 
I think that cannabis can cause any amount of impairment,depending on dose, experience level, etc.
If I eat a gram or two of weed, I will be tripping balls, like LSD or mushrooms.
If I take a small hit, I won't feel much.

The truth is, the amount and effects are different for everyone. So it seems really hard to set rules in place that are designed to cover everyone.
I tried opium twice, but never felt "messed up" mentally in the way that weed takes me away from consensus reality.

Instead, field sobriety tests could be better in measuring how affected a person is.
 
slimvictor said:
I think that cannabis can cause any amount of impairment,depending on dose, experience level, etc.
If I eat a gram or two of weed, I will be tripping balls, like LSD or mushrooms.
If I take a small hit, I won't feel much.

The truth is, the amount and effects are different for everyone. So it seems really hard to set rules in place that are designed to cover everyone.
I tried opium twice, but never felt "messed up" mentally in the way that weed takes me away from consensus reality.

Instead, field sobriety tests could be better in measuring how affected a person is.
Click to expand...

You could say the same of any drug in regards to dose and experience.

I think in theory field sobriety tests to determine impairment are better than drug testing, but realistically that places a huge burden on both Law Enforcement and to a lesser, but still significant extent, the person being tested. I don't know how things go where you are, but where I live the Police set up stations on the road to breathalyze and/or drug test motorists for hours at a time on main roads. Without doubling the geographic size, as well as Police numbers in attendance, they could not Police the intoxication of close to as many drivers by performing field sobriety tests. I also think field sobriety tests are open to subjective opinion and abuse.

Setting a legal drug limit may not be ideal in that, some small population will still be able to take drugs and drive impaired legally (but obviously if they are caught driving dangerously or breaking road rules would be punished accordingly), but for the sake of realistic enforcement and making the roads fairer and safer in general, I believe it is a more logical approach.

I should also add, I don't believe most people intend to drive in a state they believe is too messed up to drive, which is a problem with drugs like alcohol and benzodiazepines, which often leave the user feeling much less impaired than they actually are. Conversely, cannabis tends to induce a worrysome and paranoia inducing effect where the user is acutely aware of just how intoxicated they are and much less likely to get behind the wheel if they are not up to it, even if they happen to be a light weight who could do so without worry of failing a drug test for the legal limit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top