In my opinion I don’t think that’s the right solution. I think cannabis is closer to coffee.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we engineered our roadways around the idea that people would be operating with a reduced reaction speed than normal, this would be fine. But we didn’t, everything is designed to be safe for normal operation.

    Most isn’t good enough. If it impairs 10% of people, and increases fatalities even a little bit, it should be a DUI, unless there is some kind of medical exemption or something.

    • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It impairs maybe 10% of people. They should know better than to drive and the other 90% shouldn’t be held responsible for their mistake. But reduced reaction speed? Nah, THC is magical in that it’s a mental stimulant that almost slows down one’s perception of time, you clearly haven’t heard of hackey-sack or met anybody that plays FPS games at a serious level.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the same argument leille used when drink driving laws came in. “I can do it fine, why do we need a law”. We can’t set laws based on the outliers, we have to base them on all scenarios.

        • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay but law unfairly targets and exploits substance users in the first place, and you’re missing my whole point- cannabis does not impair JUDGMENT, unlike alcohol. Regardless of what you think, the statistics show it is vastly safer than driving drunk. Besides that, any laws like this would be especially harmful to the average medicinal user being as THC levels fluctuate and it can stay in the body for up to months.

          • ElmerFudd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            To add to your point: I once saw a TV show where they got drivers to smoke weed and drive a basic obstacle course, They presented stats saying drunk drivers were (iirc) 6x more likely to crash, while cannabis use was associated with a 2x higher likelihood to crash. So, while it is technically safer, it is definitely not safe.

            • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              ah yes, because television never lies or mispresents entertainment as fact. ever. 🙄

              • ElmerFudd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Haha, you must be so cool. Do you think everything on television is all lies, all the time? Like when a young person tells an old person about a fact they learned online, only to hear the old person gripe: “oh sure, because you read it on the internet it must true”. That’s one ignorant take.

                I’m gonna go back to not knowing you, never talk to you again, and live a productive life. Enjoy your trolling, basement man!

      • orcrist@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that because only 10% of drivers are reckless, we don’t get to regulate the other 90% along with them. Of course if we had some magical wand that would tell us who the reckless drivers are, then we could only target the dangerous folks, but often that’s impossible.

        Often the best we can do is take a look at the data and see what kind of policies would not be horribly burdensome for the general public and yet would save a lot of lives, and then we institute those.

        The other part of the problem with the 10% bad drivers argument is that bad drivers change from hour to hour, and from day to day. After all, the majority of people believe that they’re good drivers, right?