<p>Stepping into a car with an impaired drive condones driving while impaired. I condoned it when I sat in the car with friends who were stoned, and BeB did the same but with alcohol. My point is stoned drivers present less of a risk than drunk drivers, and that as long as you can pass a field sobriety test, you should be allowed to drive. I would not drive with someone who I felt could not pass a field sobriety test, because I do not condone dangerous drivers, because four of my friends could have died because two of my friends decided to drive drunk. They couldn’t walk straight but they thought they could drive, and they both totaled their cars and walked away from the crash unharmed. I would not drive with someone who was drunk, period. Stoned I would because it’s proven that it does not hurt driving performance.</p>
<p>Stoned I would because it’s proven that it does not hurt driving performance ~ Tiff90</p>
<hr>
<p>No, you are wrong. As I mentioned previously, weed inhibits the nervous systems from sending messages to your brain, which reduces your reflexes and coordination. So, unless you think that reflexes and coordination aren’t important when driving, then it’s impossible to say that driving while stone doesn’t hurt driving performance.</p>
<p>Regardless, why is everyone putting words into my mouth and lying about arguments I never made.</p>
<p>I never said driving stoned was more dangerous that driving drunk, in fact, I said that it was more than likely less dangerous. However, just because it’s less dangerous than alcohol, doesn’t make it safe and certainly should it it be allowed to drive on.</p>
<p>I also never said anything about banning alcohol or whether or not I think marijuana shoudl stay banned - so if you are going to debate with me, at least direct your comments to statements I’ve made and not make things up.</p>
<p>I heard about the Mt Lebo thing the day it happened. I don’t need to read about it again. The guy ran a stop sign. Plenty of people do that while sober. People, however, do not swerve uncontrollably while sober. I’m not really going to talk about it. I could post a at least 100 stories of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, but I don’t think providing a sad story is really relevant or in any way supports an argument. </p>
<p>Just bc he fails a DT for weed does not mean he was high when the accident occurred. That’s a huge assumption to make. ~ Tiff90</p>
<hr>
<p>I’m not making assumptions.</p>
<p>[Cops:</a> ‘Burnt Marijuana’ Odor On Driver In Mt. Lebo Mom’s Death - Pittsburgh News Story - WTAE Pittsburgh](<a href=“http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/24112433/detail.html]Cops:”>http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/24112433/detail.html)</p>
<p>"On Thursday morning, Channel 4 Action News’ Bob Mayo picked up a copy of the criminal complaint that Mt. Lebanon police filed with the local district judge. In that paperwork, police make the following claims about Cope:</p>
<p>Several officers noticed that “the odor of burnt marijuana was detected on Cope’s person and from the vehicle.” </p>
<p>Cope made statements that he had smoked marijuana earlier. </p>
<p>Police gave Cope a field sobriety test at the accident scene. </p>
<p>After testing Cope, one officer said he believed the Mt. Lebanon man “was under the influence of a drug to a degree that he was incapable of safe driving due to his diminished balance and coordination.” </p>
<p>Police said Cope agreed to go for a blood test at St. Clair Hospital. Results of a lab analysis on his blood sample are not yet complete."</p>
<hr>
<p>Now tell me how I am making assumptions?</p>
<p>The cops smelled marijuana on him, he stated he had smoke marijuana - and he then failed a sobriety test.</p>
<p>If marijuana doesn’t affect your ability to drive, how come he failed a sobriety test? Grow up.</p>
<p>^ Chill. All I meant was that in America, people are innocent until proven guilty. But ultimately, I don’t think whether or not he actually had pot in his system is ANYONE’s point.</p>
<p>^^^^ Not true.</p>
<p>Tiff90 said I was making assumptions thinking he was high when the accident happened. Yet, he failed a sobriety test - so if he wasn’t impaired at the time of the accident, why did he fail the field test?</p>
<p>Obviously, the person making assumptions would be Tiff90.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>??? you were the one who pulled a sob story about the mother being killed by a stoned driver in the first place:
Your contradictions are almost painful to read.</p>
<p>Pulling random generalizations out of thin air seems to be a strategy of yours. People do not swerve uncontrollably while sober? As you would so eloquently put it: tell that to Nelson Faucheux, who along with his parents was killed by a SOBER driver that ‘swerved uncontrollably’ and hit their car, killing them all.
[Kenner</a> driver booked in Interstate 10 wreck that killed musician, parents | NOLA.com](<a href=“http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/02/kenner_driver_booked_in_fatal.html]Kenner”>Kenner driver booked in Interstate 10 wreck that killed musician, parents)</p>
<p>^^^^ I’m not the one who said stoned drivers don’t swerve.</p>
<p>Either way, if the kid hadn’t been driving impaired, more than likely the accident would have been prevented.</p>
<p>I don’t think what I said was a random generalization. The kid was driving stoned, blew a stop sign and ran over a lady pushing a baby stroller - killing her, and nearly killing two young children.</p>
<p>Sounds like you got your posters confused - I didn’t post that above quote, tiff90 did.</p>
<p>you just said yourself that “plenty of people do that sober” too.</p>
<p>can you defend your argument without contradicting something else you’ve said in this thread?</p>
<p>^^^^ Dude, go back and read the post again - the quote you are citing was made by Tiff90 - not me.</p>
<p>Go back and read post #57 - made by Tiff90, that’s the quote you are citing.</p>
<p>So drop the smug attitude until you can read.</p>
<p>Experiment8 = silliest person on this thread.</p>
<p>silliest? I clearly misinterpreted the way they were quoting; I’ll certainly concede to that, and say that any attack I made based on those misinterpreted quotes were wrong. But “silly” is the misinformed attitude a lot of people have here about things they obviously have no knowledge or experience about beyond the sensationalized and blatantly wrong information that’s been indoctrinated into them. Anyone should be able to point to some actual research to support the claims they’re making here, but I guess it’s hard when you’re stating your own opinions as fact. I guess I’m missing the naivety that is almost required to be a regular to these threads, so you guys have fun.</p>
<p>^^^ What evidence do you want?</p>
<p>I don’t think even you would deny that being high affects motor skills, reflexes and coordination, or would you?</p>
<p>If you don’t, then you should agree that driving stoned is dangerous.</p>
<p>And, if being high didn’t affect those functions, how come people who are high fail sobriety tests?</p>
<p>I’m not making a high v. drunk argument - because I know the dangerous of drinking just as well. But to imply that it is some how safe to drive stoned is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Well, it just seems to me that misattributing a quote to a person which contradicts an actual quote of theirs and then creating arguments from that is silly.</p>
<p>Gotta love the pot heads who think driving high is somehow safe. </p>
<p>If/when weed is legalized, expect to see a campaign as hard and as unforgiving as the one against drunk driving.</p>
<p>"Gotta love the pot heads who think driving high is somehow safe. "
^
Once again, READ THE STUDIES. They conclude driving high does not impair drivers, and that people actually drive more cautiously and slow down. Are you calling people on here potheads? I don’t think anyone said they smoked on this thread. I think that comment was a bit ignorant. Also, can you please cite where anyone on here said that driving high is safe? I believe the argument is driving stoned is not as bad as driving drunk. It’s a bit closed minded to ignore information people present then label them as potheads. </p>
<p>BeB
He admitted to smoking, but he did not say he was stoned. Correct? Even if he was stoned, 1 instance of a crash is not enough evidence to support your argument. Like I said, please direct me to studies that conclude driving stoned is more dangerous than driving drunk, and that driving stone significantly impairs drivers. If you can’t find, then you should accept the studies as fact. Don’t keep getting snippy if you aren’t going to present facts other than a sad story. </p>
<p>Experiment8
"Anyone should be able to point to some actual research to support the claims they’re making here, but I guess it’s hard when you’re stating your own opinions as fact. I guess I’m missing the naivety that is almost required to be a regular to these threads, so you guys have fun. "
Once again, READ THE LINKS I POSTED before blasting people on here incoherently. I offered four links to studies showing that stoned drivers are not only not as bad as drunk drivers and actually slow down and drive safer. Don’t sit there and say I’m not throwing facts to you. Take the time and read all the posts and links before throwing yourself into a debate. I think you are confused as to who is saying what, maybe you should re read everything before you get involved.</p>
<p>Who cares if it’s more or less safe than driving drunk? Is driving with my nose safer than driving with my ears? </p>
<p>They’re both mind-altering drugs - period.</p>
<p>He admitted to smoking, but he did not say he was stoned. Correct? Even if he was stoned, 1 instance of a crash is not enough evidence to support your argument. Like I said, please direct me to studies that conclude driving stoned is more dangerous than driving drunk, and that driving stone significantly impairs drivers. If you can’t find, then you should accept the studies as fact. Don’t keep getting snippy if you aren’t going to present facts other than a sad story. ~ Tiff90</p>
<hr>
<p>For the last time - the kid failed a sobriety test. Do you understand that? If he wasn’t high, why would he fail the test? What is it you don’t understand? What isn’t sinking in?</p>
<p>What dots aren’t you putting together?</p>
<p>If Marijuana doesn’t affect driving skills, how come you can fail a sobriety test (balance, walking) when you are high?</p>
<p>NOBODY SAID MARIJUANA IS MORE DANGEROUS THAT ALCOHOL!!! BUT JUST BECAUSE IT’S NOT AS DANGEROUS DOESNT MEAN ITS SAFE!</p>
<p>For the last time - stop making up arguments that I haven’t proposed.</p>
<p>Like I said, please direct me to studies that conclude driving stoned is more dangerous than driving drunk, and that driving stone significantly impairs drivers. ~ Tiff90</p>
<hr>
<p>Again, as previously stated I (nor anyone in this discussion) has said it’s more dangerous than alcohol. So can you just drop it?</p>
<p>However, just because it’s less dangerous than alcohol, doesn’t mean it’s safe.</p>
<p>[Marijuana</a> And Actual Driving Performance](<a href=“http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm]Marijuana”>Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance)</p>
<p>“The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance (cf. Smiley, 1986). Standard deviation of lateral position in the road-tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC’s adverse effects. This is because road-tracking is primarily controlled by an automatic information processing system which operates outside of conscious control. The process is relatively impervious to environmental changes but highly vulnerable to internal factors that ■■■■■■ the flow of information through the system. THC and many other drugs are among these factors. When they interfere with the process that restricts road-tracking error, there is little the afflicted individual can do by way of compensation to restore the situation. Car-following and, to a greater extent, city driving performance depend more on controlled information processing and are therefore more accessible for compensatory mechanisms that reduce the decrements or abolish them entirely.”</p>
<p>“Although THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program, one can still easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have a dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver’s information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. Because these possibilities are real, the results of the present studies should not be considered as the final word. They should, however, serve as the point of departure for subsequent studies that will ultimately complete the picture of THC’s effects on driving performance.”</p>
<p>[Marijuana</a> /Alcohol Driving Study – DOT HS 808 939](<a href=“http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Misc/driving/Marijuana%20-Alcohol%20Driving%20Study%20--%20DOT%20HS%20808%20939.htm]Marijuana”>Marijuana /Alcohol Driving Study -- DOT HS 808 939)</p>
<p>"In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has “slight” effects on driving performance (Robbe & O’Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects’ performance was more affected than their predecessors’. The present subjects showed impaired car following performance after THC 100 1lg/kg whereas the previous ones were not impaired by doses up to 300 1lg/kg. In the present study, road tracking performance after 200 ~g/kg was worse than the performance after 300 ~g/kg in the previous study. We believe that these differences are attributable to the groups’ respective experience with THC smoking and to driving under the influence of THC. The present group was less experienced and probably had not developed the same degree of behavioral tolerance as their predecessors. Yet all of the individuals in both groups admitted to having occasionally driven under the influence of THC before entering the studies. Thus, the new data seem no less representative of how drivers normally operate under the influence of THC. The addition of these data to those previously collected merely broadens the range of reactions that might be expected to occur in real life. That range has not been shown to extend into the area that can rightfully be regarded as dangerous or an obviously unacceptable threat to public safety. Alcohol present in blood concentrations around the legal limit (0.10 g/dl) in most American States is more impairing than anything subjects have shown after THC alone in our studies. As mentioned, medicinal drugs have had worse effects on psychiatric patients’ driving performance in other studies employing the same test procedures. If not blatantly dangerous, however, the effects of THC alone in this study were certainly more than slight. They were of sufficient magnitude to warrant concern. Drivers suffering the same degrees of impairment as the present subjects did after THC alone would be less than normally able to avoid collisions if confronted with the sudden need for evasive action. They would probably also be more likely to fall asleep during prolonged vehicle operation. In short, while the effects of THC alone in doses up to 200 1lg/kg might be categorized as “moderate” in the tests, they could easily become “severe” under exceptional circumstances. </p>
<p>The subjects’ reactions to combined use of alcohol and THC are another matter. Drivers suffering the same degrees of impairment as the present subjects did after THC and alcohol, combined, would be exceedingly dangerous. Their impairment would be a serious threat to their own safety, and perhaps to the general driving public as well. The simultaneous consumption of low to moderate doses of alcohol and THC, rendered the present subjects incapable of safe driving for several hours thereafter. That they were able to safely"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You said it by stating that weed doesn’t really negatively affect the driver:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065210028-post43.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065210028-post43.html</a></p>
<p>Also, that was an incorrect statement since one of the articles that you posted states that marijuana does have negative consequences which worsen with an increasing dosage, while some impairments seem to only begin with higher doses.</p>
<p>Stay away from drugs, kids.</p>