Quake3World

Eraser wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:it aint gonna fuck too much with your driving ability

Yeah right. I don't believe that for a second.
Even here in the Netherlands you're gonna be fined if you drive while smoking weed.

GONNAFISTYA wrote: Believe what you want. Driving while high has the same danger-to-public level as driving while needing sleep.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Eraser wrote:Yeah right. I don't believe that for a second.
Even here in the Netherlands you're gonna be fined if you drive while smoking weed.

Believe what you want. Driving while high has the same danger-to-public level as driving while needing sleep.

Ryoki wrote:People who need sleep shouldn't be driving either by the way, a silly comparison if you wanted to make it sound like it's an ok thing to do.

Don Carlos wrote:Says the man stuck in doors clearing up ass gravy every day whilst living in fear of his heart just giving up...

Chin up bro; we will be here for you

U4EA wrote:There is actually one legitimate reason for not decriminalizing marijuana. I read this a few months ago in a discussion on Reddit.

Some of the short term effects of smoking marijuana include impairment of short-term and working memory, psychomotor coordination, and concentration. Impairments of this nature will have a negative effect on somebody if they were to then attempt driving a vehicle. Similar to alcohol by this point, sure.

The key difference here is that for alcohol, there exists a scientific metric [blood alcohol content] that corelates with the level of intoxication of the driver. Therefore, in the interest of general safety, you can set limits on acceptable BAC levels for drivers. You can accurately test BAC level while the person is intoxicated, and when sober again [BAC drops with sobriety]. Not only can you run blood tests, but police officers can also quickly and semi-accurately get an idea of whether the person needs to be brought in for blood tests by using a breathalyzer.

Contrastingly, for marijuana, there are no such tests. The presence of THC can be detectable from 3 up to 10 days after usage. There is no way to accurately and scientifically determine whether the driver was intoxicated at the time of the test. So you might have lots of intoxicated drivers later claiming that they weren't and the tests won't be able to refute that.

Although the marijuana "high" only lasts three to five hours, studies of heavy users in a locked hospital ward showed THC can be detected in the blood up to a week after they are abstinent, and the outer limit of detection time in saliva tests is not known.

[...]

Washington, however, is an exception. Because of the scientific controversy over the link between marijuana fluid levels and impairing effects, few states have set standards for stoned driving detection.

U4EA wrote:As far as I can tell, the scientific accuracy and merit of those tests is still under question.

Although the marijuana "high" only lasts three to five hours, studies of heavy users in a locked hospital ward showed THC can be detected in the blood up to a week after they are abstinent, and the outer limit of detection time in saliva tests is not known.

[...]

Washington, however, is an exception. Because of the scientific controversy over the link between marijuana fluid levels and impairing effects, few states have set standards for stoned driving detection.

The 5 nanogram limit in Washington requires a blood sample to be tested. This would be a waste of time and money for police officers compared to testing drunk drivers, where you can discard drivers who pass a breathalyser and only do blood tests to convict drivers who fail the breathalyser.