• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

Thoughts on the "I Drive Better High" principle

TheodoreRoosevelt, you put people at risk every time you drive at all. Period. It's a risk that the majority of people assume is worth it. Even in the US we have very lenient driving laws, and in most countries the roads are nearly lawless. You share the roads with stoned 16 year olds, blind 85 year olds, schizophrenics, autistics, deaf people, etc. You share the road with large numbers of people who have already have their licenses revoked for any number of traffic violations, or who are driving unregistered cars because they can't afford to make their cars as safe and roadworthy as required by law. Anyone can get a license without proof of ANY training, just a 10 minute proficiency test and a 10 question written test about the rules of the road. Renewal of licenses are automatic once you receive your license, even if you suddenly contract brain damage. Not having a license doesn't prevent people from driving.

If you really think people driving high is such a serious issue, then you don't understand the actual situation on the roads. Something like 10% of drivers in my state, during daylight hours, are legally drunk. I have no idea how high that number gets at night. For every marijuana-related traffic accident, there's 500 alcohol-related ones.

My point here is, the potential risk of driving under the influence of drugs, even psychedelics or opiates, is not that great when you compare it to the risk every driver assumes by sharing the roads with the general driving population.

As far as me rationalizing, what evidence do you offer? I offer you specific examples of ways in which I drive better under the influence of marijuana. I'm an aggressive driver when I'm sober, I'm a defensive driver when I'm stoned. They teach you to be a defensive driver if you take driver's education.
 
Anyone can get a license without proof of ANY training, just a 10 minute proficiency test and a 10 question written test about the rules of the roa

Not true. Widely varies with state, and many require training.

If you really think people driving high is such a serious issue, then you don't understand the actual situation on the roads. Something like 10% of drivers in my state, during daylight hours, are legally drunk. I have no idea how high that number gets at night. For every marijuana-related traffic accident, there's 500 alcohol-related ones.

I don't know if that stat is anywhere close to being accurate and fair, but whatever. I get your point.

As far as me rationalizing, what evidence do you offer? I offer you specific examples of ways in which I drive better under the influence of marijuana. I'm an aggressive driver when I'm sober, I'm a defensive driver when I'm stoned. They teach you to be a defensive driver if you take driver's education.

Your also a "reaction-time-is-slowed" driver. Seriously. I can't believe your trying to argue that it is okay to drive while high. That is rationalization. Arguing for something that you do, despite that it is clearly wrong.

Now if you said you don't have a license but it's okay for people to drive "cunted", then that would not be rationalization.

Your point is logically retarded. Your saying that because there are so many things that impair driving, ah fuck, might as well get high and join the lot.

Hey, people die every day. Why don't I just get a gun and shoot some people. After all, people die all the time.

I should go rape a girl, fuck, it happens all the time. What difference does it make if I do it, a girl is taking a risk dressing like they do every time they step outside right?

Come on. Just because other people fuck up doesn't mean you need to add to that number.

And your argument is kinda weird. Your saying it's okay to drive high because there are so many worse ways to impair your driving, but it doesn't matter because you drive better high because "your a defensive driver high"?

Am I getting that right?

There is more to driving just besides being a defensive and offensive driver. That is so silly in and of itself. How good a driver you are depends solely on how defensive you are?
 
Snorkelburge said:
Ah, coked driving is fun. Iced driving is funner. 8)
I'm normally very good at driving on either if I'm paranoia-free. Once I start getting noid though I spend so much time checking my mirrors and searching for cops I do not pay enough attention to the road in front of me. I also get easily distracted by shit going on inside the car if I'm alone on meth. (go figure)

Though if I'm on a "mission" or responsible for someone more than myself in the car I have been able to focus and drive safely (according to my passengers) under heavy influence of multiple drugs as long as one of them is meth. My girlfriend said I held it together driving 7hrs back from a music festival on meth/coke/LSD/MDMA. And for some reason I was elected the "sober-cab" driver after 6 days awake on meth having been IVing meth/heroin speedballs shortly before leaving. All went well; but I attribute my ability to focus on driving in a serious situation to the meth.
 
Haha I've definately been in situations as the guy who's been up days on meth, but elected the sober guy.

I think it may be because you actually appear sober and can control it a little better. But if anyone else knew the thoughts running through my head or what I thought I was hearing/seeing (and what I thought about that!) they would've elected someone else!

I have been in situations where this happened, and as the elect, I was able to control the situation. Fucking weird shit man, being meth'd out, being seen as the "sober" guy, and actually playing chill in weird situations (authority, et cetera).

How did they ever work out...

We should swap stories Sandbag.
 
Theodore, my reaction times have nothing to do with it. If I'm sober chances are I'm fumbling with a CD player, reading a newspaper, smoking while eating a sandwich, having a conversation while looking at the passenger, or some other such. Or maybe all of them at the same time. If someone slams on their brakes in front of me... well let's just say I've yet to get in an accident from that yet, but it's only because it's never happened to me.

If something happens that requires a sudden reaction like slamming on the brakes, I guarantee you most drivers, whether sober or high, tired or angry, are not going to have time to react even if their reaction time is 0ms because they're almost always driving too fast and too close to the rear of the car in front of them. People almost universally drive closer to the car ahead of them than their brakes are physically capable of stopping them before a collision.

My point is simply this: Driving is dangerous. Driving while high slows reaction time ever so slightly - much less than alcohol or fatigue. Reaction time has almost no bearing on vehicle safety in the USA, because almost everyone drives too fast and too close to the vehicles in front of them. In the event of a sudden and complete stop, an accident almost always occurs. I fail to see any danger being introduced to the equation by being high.

The reason alcohol and benzos are so dangerous to drive while under the influence of is not because of your reaction time to hitting the brakes or swerving when an accident happens in front of you. It's because you lose the ability to judge what speed is safe to drive at, how sharp a corner really is, you lose control of your fine motor skills and cannot drive straight, cannot tell if you're driving straight or wobbling and swerving, etc. None of these adverse effects happen when drivers use marijuana, cocaine, amphetamine, etc.

As far as shooting and raping people because it happens, I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should own a gun and you should be able to use your dick. If you want to participate in risky behaviors, that's fine. But I'm not hurting anybody by driving while high. You just think I'm elevating the risk of an accident, without offering any evidence as to the increased potential for disaster. If I was telling you I like to get high and crash into vehicles on purpose, then I'd understand what you're talking about.
 
Theodore, my reaction times have nothing to do with it. If I'm sober chances are I'm fumbling with a CD player, reading a newspaper, smoking while eating a sandwich, having a conversation while looking at the passenger, or some other such. Or maybe all of them at the same time. If someone slams on their brakes in front of me..

We all fumble around with shit, and part of being a good driver is being able to do this stuff and keep on the road. However, good drivers know that it is what causes accidents and it is something you shouldn't do.

Same with driving high. And your reaction time has everything to do with driving, it is what makes or breaks an accident from happening.

If something happens that requires a sudden reaction like slamming on the brakes, I guarantee you most drivers, whether sober or high, tired or angry, are not going to have time to react even if their reaction time is 0ms because they're almost always driving too fast and too close to the rear of the car in front of them. People almost universally drive closer to the car ahead of them than their brakes are physically capable of stopping them before a collision.

Then they are bad drivers, plain and simple. You shouldn't be so close behind someone, it is always your fault if you hit them from behind. No matter how you cut it, you always were too close to the car in front of you.

You should know better, that driving under the influence can impair your ability to react to such rare, but critical, moments.

My point is simply this: Driving is dangerous. Driving while high slows reaction time ever so slightly - much less than alcohol or fatigue. Reaction time has almost no bearing on vehicle safety in the USA, because almost everyone drives too fast and too close to the vehicles in front of them. In the event of a sudden and complete stop, an accident almost always occurs. I fail to see any danger being introduced to the equation by being high.

Oh, so it is then okay to drive high?

Come on people, that is logically retarded. There are lots of things that can impair your ability to drive. A responsible driver knows they should avoid those things, and if they do do it (ie drive drunk, high, or angry) they should not rationalize their behavior, and know what they are doing is dangerous.

Every time I change CDs, I know I am putting myself at greater risk. I take necessary precautions like give more space, try to slow down if I can, et cetera. If you take this attitude, then you will never realize what you are doing is wrong until it is too late.

As far as shooting and raping people because it happens, I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should own a gun and you should be able to use your dick. If you want to participate in risky behaviors, that's fine.

I used that example to point out how stupid and irresponsible this attitude is of "well lots of other things impair driving, so it's okay if I drive stoned". I understand. But logically, it is invalid.

People die all the time, might as well just kill someone since many people die.

People do things to impair their driving, it doesn't make a difference if I impair my driving either.

But I'm not hurting anybody by driving while high. You just think I'm elevating the risk of an accident, without offering any evidence as to the increased potential for disaster. If I was telling you I like to get high and crash into vehicles on purpose, then I'd understand what you're talking about.

Your a fool. Are you really going to change your outlook if you got in an accident high? I doubt it, you would just rationalize your behavior, probably say it was the other driver's fault or it was just a rare occasion.

Accidents are rare. But you put yourself, and others, at risk, when you drive impaired.

What your saying is completely irresponsible. You put everyone on the road at risk if you drive drunk, stoned, angry, tired, or overly-aggressive. That is why you shouldn't drive in such states.

While driving angry may not really be avoidable realistically, you can easily find a way to drive without being high. You should have a sense of responsibility to not be high before getting into a car, or just refrain from driving.

Come on man, driving high is not smart. Don't rationalize your behavior. If you drive high, fine, it happens. But don't make up excuses for it. You are doing something dumb, you put people at real risk.

Driving high is just not a good idea at all. Accidents are rare, but when you drive impaired it increases the chances of them happening, and one accident is one too many. You do not drive better high, it really does impair your driving. Just understand that what you are doing is wrong.

No matter how you cut it, driving high/drunk impairs your driving. You think it's okay because accidents are rare, but one accident is too many, and you may cause some serious problems in just one accident. It's stupid behavior to drive under the influence. And unlike being angry, you can avoid driving high simply by being responsible, and only getting high when you know you don't have to drive.

It's like getting enough sleep before work. You can get enough and all, but we all plan on getting the sleep we need before work, despite the fact we may be able to work tired. We all know working while tired is just hell.

THe problem with the driving situation is that you put people in danger.

I appreciate that you are keeping this discussion civil Coolio. I do mean to bust your balls, but I do not mean to come off as hostile or to flame you. I'm sure I am coming off that way, but I don't mean to. Thanks, and just realize I enjoi this discussion.

I disagree strongly with your attitude nonetheless though, and feel the only way to convey my meaning is sometimes with words that may come off as flames, so excuse me.
 
TheodoreRoosevelt said:
What your saying is completely irresponsible. You put everyone on the road at risk if you drive drunk, stoned, angry, tired, or overly-aggressive. That is why you shouldn't drive in such states.

I'll think about not driving in those states when they stop letting old people, young people, and people with mental or physical handicaps drive.

I for one would rather allow these people the freedom to drive, despite any risks that this freedom poses to others.
 
Coolio said:
I'll think about not driving in those states when they stop letting old people, young people, and people with mental or physical handicaps drive.

I for one would rather allow these people the freedom to drive, despite any risks that this freedom poses to others.

the point is an old person cant help being old but you can easily help whether or not youre high. its your responsibility to attempt to drive as well as you can and if you drive high you have failed at that responsibility. your argument of saying "well there are worse drivers than me out there, so i don't have to bother being responsible" is ridiculous.
 
the point is an old person cant help being old but you can easily help whether or not youre high. its your responsibility to attempt to drive as well as you can and if you drive high you have failed at that responsibility. your argument of saying "well there are worse drivers than me out there, so i don't have to bother being responsible" is ridiculous.

Couldn't have put it better.
 
alasdairm said:
from a purely logical point of view, these statements are specious at best. they are moronic.

:\

alasdair


logic doesnt apply to me. but yes, every time i have wrecked a car has been because i was being very stupid.
 
burn out said:
its your responsibility to attempt to drive as well as you can and if you drive high you have failed at that responsibility.

It's your OPINION that it's my responsibility to attempt to drive as well as I can. Not only is that not the law, it's not an opinion shared by the majority of people who drive. The only responsibility I have when driving is to not act reckless or maliciously with my vehicle. If I'm driving the speed limit and paying attention, yet stoned out of my gourd, I fail to see how that would be considered reckless.

As far as why I keep bringing up old people and handicapped people - it's because they CAN help driving. They don't have to drive any more than a drunk or high person has to drive. They're making the choice. Large numbers of them, who are unfit to drive in nearly as safe a manner as the majority of healthy and experienced drivers, decide that it's worth the risk to themselves and the rest of us to get on the road even though they can't drive in nearly as safe a manner. They don't feel that they have a responsibility to drive safely - they feel that they have a right to drive because they're adults. And I agree with them.

Yesterday I went to get the mail and the lady at the post office told me how someone around the corner hit one of their employees earlier in the day. These two 80+ year old people in a big luxury car slowly backed out of their parking space, rammed into the side of the employee's vehicle while he was in it, continued trying to reverse into his car, honked a few times, then drove off. When the police found them and pulled them over up the road both the driver and passenger both told the police they didn't know they hit anyone.

You probably think these people should have their licenses revoked and let other people drive them around for the rest of their lives. However, that's not what society as a whole thinks. These people won't lose their licenses, in fact nothing is going to happen to them at all except for their insurance premiums going up slightly. And that is why I still have some amount of faith in America.
 
Actually it is against the law to drive high. Most states don't have laws actually stating that it is illegal to be high, but all have laws against driving high.

Old people who suck shouldn't drive, what do you want me to say? Sure, they are dangerous. They shouldn't drive old, and you shouldn't drive high. Doesn't mean it won't happen or that the best of us aren't guilty of it. But we realize that when we do it - drive high or drive old - we are making a mistake. We don't try to rationalize our behavior. We know we are doing something stupid.

By knowing this, we limit this act - of driving high or old - and we plan around it, such as touring America before we hit 50, hitting the bong at the end of the day, et cetera.
 
theodore, have you refuted any of the studies that people presented to you throughout this thread?

Here's another one that I found: "THC's effects after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at BACs of 0.08 g% and were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs" http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha01206.html

It's basically compared to driving on over the counter cold medicine.
 
Last edited:
Theodore, I'm just saying I disagree. I am perfectly happy to risk my life by sharing the road with unsafe drivers, just for the freedom it affords those people. So leave your "should" and "shouldn't"'s at the door. Unless you want me to tell you that you should follow some arbitrary moral law based on my religion of choice.
 
I don't think I can drive better while high - and will never drive while very very high - but I have said that I concentrate and focus more. I NEVER speed while stoned.

As far as alcohol goes, that neither makes anyone a better driver nor increases concentration, and I don't think anyone should drive while even slightly drunk. Anyone who claims it makes them drive better is more than likely an idiot.
 
Oh yea, I totally never speed while high but whenever I get drunk..... oh man.
 
Coolio said:
Theodore, I'm just saying I disagree. I am perfectly happy to risk my life by sharing the road with unsafe drivers, just for the freedom it affords those people. So leave your "should" and "shouldn't"'s at the door. Unless you want me to tell you that you should follow some arbitrary moral law based on my religion of choice.

this is all based on opinion. theodore successfully rebbutted your argument, it is against the law to drive high. just like it is against the law to drive drunk. just because you don't see anything morally wrong with driving while ridiculously wasted doesn't mean other people can't dissagree with you. it is your responsibility to follow the law when you drive and the law says you cant drive high.
 
drew345 said:
i agree with Dilated pupils I take far fewer chances when im driving high compared to sober

I agree with drew. although not being sober might limit the performance of your driving, at least I know when I am driving under the influence I take extra caution to dot my I's and cross my T's.
 
Second that as well^

Driving piss drunk is of course not gonna work out well, but I would make the case that a relatively low level of alcohol would help keep a person less tense and panic-prone without causing significant detriment to reaction times. Being severely drug-impaired while driving may be a (very) bad idea, but panic is the #1 killer in emergency situations.

I would worry about how a person can handle their shit sober in a panic situation before I worry about whether or not they are a tick or two above the BAC limit. There are alot of factors which influence the probability of any one person causing an accident, I would make the case that alcohol/drugs are of moderate relevance at best so long they arent straight up passing out at the wheel or tryin to be stock car racer or other dumb shit.
 
burn out said:
this is all based on opinion. theodore successfully rebbutted your argument, it is against the law to drive high. just like it is against the law to drive drunk. just because you don't see anything morally wrong with driving while ridiculously wasted doesn't mean other people can't dissagree with you. it is your responsibility to follow the law when you drive and the law says you cant drive high.
The law also says it's illegal to posses, buy, make, sell drugs but hey....
 
Top