I totally believe police sincerely think they can tell based on experience, but it’s false confidence.
Story time: One night on my way home I was pulled over for a broken taillight, which I truthfully told the officer I wasn’t aware of. After taking another look she gave me a warning but said, with a little lilt in her voice, “Lotta dust in there, looks like it’s been broken for a while… surprised you haven’t noticed it.” As if she “knew” I was lying, because cops have heard it all before.
I really wanted to unload on her that I was on my way home from working at my job and then taking my shift sitting in the hospital room keeping my 10-year-old daughter company until she fell asleep. She had been undergoing cancer treatments for the last 2 months. So excuse the hell outta me but there were a lot of things I’d missed lately. Like Thanksgiving. And Christmas. And apparently a broken taillight. I’ll get to it when I get to it but I can’t make any promises.
That smirky little accusing tone of voice still sticks with me after 20 years. So fuck your smug-ass attitude, Officer I Know What I Know, because no you sure as fucking hell didn’t.
Officer threatened to slam my dad on the ground in front of us all for telling him politely to have a nice day.
Officer screamed at us in high school when we called for help because someone was beating up our friend then did nothing.
Officer pulled me out of my car, threw me over the his, wrenched my hands up behind my back… Because my registration was out of date.
Field sobriety tests are about as accurate as Tarot readings.
In most jurisdictions, the police can arrest you for refusing. Some experts say that if you’re sober, it’s better to refuse and be arrested, and then find it in court.
It’s 100% what to do.
Let them arrest you on suspicion. The cost of the lawyer will be less than the DUI fines and lost income due to all of it.
“No thank you, officer. If that means I am under arrest then I am under arrest and would like to invoke my 5th amendment right at this time. I will not be answering any further questions this evening.”
🤐
Refusing a breathalyzer is expensive though thanks to implied consent. The ticket for that is a ton of points.
If you’re sober you should absolutely agree to the breathalyzer and the blood test.
It’s the field tests that are bogus.
If I refuse a field sobriety test and request s breathalyzer or blood test instead, would I still be arrested?
Yep. Defy a cop in any way and you’ll likely be arrested. You might even be charged with resisting arrest.
Drunk driving is a legitimate concern. High driving, despite the vilifying by police, simply doesn’t have even a modest fraction of the stats to back it up. And anecdotally is not remotely the same as alcohol.
Elderly driving is the conversation we don’t apparently want to have. Just because Gamgam can still get around on her own, in the house she’s lived in for 40 years, does NOT make her capable of driving a two ton piece of metal.
Their reaction speed is like a drunk person. Their decision making skills, also akin to drunk people. Elderly drivers injure and/or kill pedestrians and drivers every year, and we’re supposed to be OK with it because they’re old? Fuck no. They should be tested every year if they still want to drive, and losing their license means losing their vehicle too.
deleted by creator
Because the auto industry paid lobbyists for decades to prevent the spread of local and national rail and tram lines?
Sorry, that’s kind of an oblique answer, the direct answer is money. A few extraordinarily wealthy people made a few more people rich by sacrificing what is right and good for America, with what is convenient and enriching for them. And now all our urban areas are designed for cars instead of people, which makes them shitty and inhospitable.
As a society, we would understand better, if more of us had the ability and desire to see how other industrialized nations live, but instead we just ramrod “American exceptionalism” until lil Johnny thinks his patch of Iowa, or Alabama, or Texas or wherever is equal to, or superior to anywhere else. All without ever having to leave the state, at all. I mean, what if they don’t have FOOD there?
deleted by creator
Which is even more insulting because taxpayers subsidize farmers to grow that corn instead of food, and we now know that ethanol is not better for the environment, and actually contributes to greater environmental damage. But $$$.
Everyone should be tested periodically for reaction time and situational awareness. Every two years if you want to keep your license.
“Boo hoo! That means people won’t be able to drive if they don’t pass!”
GOOD.
It blows my mind how easy it is for drunk drivers to get back behind the wheel. Once someone has proven how overwhelmingly selfish and foolish they are, it’s unfair to everyone else to put us in that danger.
So our solution is simply to weaken civil liberties for everyone with unreasonable searches.
Ummm, if it can fuck with your perceptions when you’re high enough you shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a chunk of metal going a speed. Not enough data is no justification, even if it’s “not as bad”. I have, and I’m sure others also, personal experiences of being high as fuck and barely being able to experience the passage of time in a coherent way, feeling like your forgetting what happened 30 seconds earlier.
Field sobriety shenanigans aside, I really hope we’re not pretending like driving high is okay. Cars can kill, and you had better not be under the influence of anything that is a detriment to you driving safely.
Please, please, tell me you meant to write: “Drunk driving is a legitimate concern. High driving, despite the vilifying by police, simply doesn’t have even a modest fraction of the stats to back it up. And anecdotally is not remotely the same as alcohol. But you still shouldn’t drive under the influence of that either. Police should be required to administer scientifically accurate tests and acceptable blood contents be determined. Not field sobriety tests based on nothing.”
Because else, yikes.
So, by the logic in your argument, police should stop and perform snap cognitive tests anytime they see someone who looks over the age of 70? Or even 60- as the medical community seems broadly in consensus that cognitive decline kicks off around that point.
So perhaps the bigger question is:
Why are you OK with having elderly drivers on the road, when we know it’s only a matter of time before they aren’t capable of the necessary tasks required to safely operate a vehicle, at speed, and in dynamic environments, and yet your focus is on the hypothetical potential of marijuana impaired driving?
Per my original comment: elderly driving is the conversation we are refusing to have- and to add on, it’s because elderly drivers are not capable of self-regulating their behavior, and yet if elderly motor vehicle laws come to pass, the entire Baby Boomer generation would fall under the auspices of an elderly driver mandate for annual cognitive testing/licensure.
Apologies, I only took issue with downplaying being high and driving. Don’t get high and drive is all I’m saying here, and think your original comment seemed like you were saying it’s fine.
I’m totally with you on the elderly, you ought to need to renew you licence with a test when you get older. Because yeah, cars are deadly a f.
All good. My opinion of the average driver’s competency is not charitable either. The median sober driver is still of barely-passes-muster capability and training. As an example of absurdity: to qualify for a Washington DC license, drivers are not required to perform parallel parking in the test…in a small city where a large portion of parking is exclusively parallel.
The roads will only be “safer” when our whole society has reliable, easily accessible, and low cost public transportation options. Which should essentially render roadway-centric transportation moot for the average person.
Amen to that
Here’s my anicdotal account:
I have driven high more hours than I have driven sober. I have only ever gotten a ticket or gotten in an accident when completely sober. Despite the assumptions, so far the data points towards me being a safer driver while high on a normal amount of weed.
Are there sufficient studies out there showing fewer accidents while under the influence of weed? Or negligible effect?
Else, I’m gonna have to press X to doubt, and really would rather wait on further studies before letting you think your self-reported performance is convincing.
Weed affects your cognition, I hope we can agree on this. How adversely for driving, according to dose, that I don’t know. Though I don’t think anyone should accept people telling you “nah, it’s fine, trust me bro. I only got into an accident when I was sober!”
Cars are deadly, and you ought to be sober while operating heavy machinery.
Stop doing it until studies are done (and, they will, given how widespread it’s use is legally now), but heck, pressing all sorts of X to doubt on this turning out to be true. It affects your attention. And cars are deadly, so.
You are morally obligated to err on the side of caution here.
Stop driving high, please.
Yikes. Hecking big yikes.
I didn’t intend to imply it is the case for everyone, I was just saying that has been the experience for me. Results vary.
Nearly every medication changes your cognition—even OTC antihistamines. People should make the decisions that are best for them—know thyself.
One last time, I don’t endorse this style of living for everyone, but it works for me, and you might be surprised at the sheer number of people who operate vehicles while stoned safely.
Nearly every medication changes your cognition—even OTC antihistamines.
I don’t know what it’s like in your country, but in mine depending on the level of impact it will say on the packet, and is illegal to drive while under the influence of any medication that impacts your ability to drive safely or operate heavy machinery.
I didn’t intend to imply it is the case for everyone
People should make the decisions that are best for them—know thyself.
One last time, I don’t endorse this style of living for everyone, but it works for me
Nah, this is not okay.
I do not accept this as a reasonable way to determine what we allow as societies in terms of vehicular safety. Someone’s freedom to decide for themselves what they consider to be safe, stops at everyone else’s freedom to not be run over. I very much assert what’s safe should be determined with science and enforced with regulation/laws. Not by everyone personally deciding for themselves.
You might be surprised at the sheer number of people who operate vehicles while stoned safely.
Dosing aside (I’m not making claims on what level is safe). We have a very important saying in my industry: just because a safety event hasn’t happened yet, isn’t evidence that a practice is acceptably safe. (Paraphrased). This is literally what habitual drunk drivers who aren’t that drunk when they drive tell themselves “it’s fine”, because they haven’t had a crash and are very careful. Sure, but they’re increasing the likelihood of a crash nonetheless.
There may well be people out there who have driven high without incident, my response would be 1. Let’s quantify that first before allowing it, and 2. They do this without incident, so far.
I’m sure you’re very careful, and don’t drive too high. You may never have a serious accident. But on a societal level, that’s just not an acceptable way to determine what is acceptably safe. Who are you to say that you aren’t increasing the likelihood of harm to someone else?
Wanna decide everything for yourself? Go live in the middle of nowhere, away from everyone else, where your decisions won’t impact others.
Don’t drive high unless you can back up your claims with more than “trust me bro”.
deleted by creator
We knew when you advocated for driving high that you do drive high. You pothead losers are all the same.
You don’t know me.
What do you think of this?
https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536
Results We selected nine studies in the review and meta-analysis. Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003); we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects (I2=81). Collision risk estimates were higher in case-control studies (2.79 (1.23 to 6.33); P=0.01) and studies of fatal collisions (2.10 (1.31 to 3.36); P=0.002) than in culpability studies (1.65 (1.11 to 2.46); P=0.07) and studies of non-fatal collisions (1.74 (0.88 to 3.46); P=0.11).
Conclusions Acute cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of a motor vehicle crash, especially for fatal collisions. This information could be used as the basis for campaigns against drug impaired driving, developing regional or national policies to control acute drug use while driving, and raising public awareness.
Sci-hub link: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e536
Per your source, it states ACUTE cannabis consumption is dangerous. But the OP is using cannabis chronically which greatly impacts its effects on them.
Just like someone using an acute dose of tramadol will likely be impaired, but a person chronically on tramadol won’t be impaired. We have studies on neurons that back this up - for opioids/opiates, that’s orexin neurons, and for cannabis, it’s endocannabinoid receptors.
I understand, because it’s so dependent on the person. I wouldn’t get in a car with my mother, for instance, if she got stoned. But I’m a huge stoner, and I do it every day.
I mean, so can I in a sense – guys passed out on my couch. “Yup, he’s too high to drive.”
In seriousness, I wish they’d just bust people driving recklessly. It’s almost every day now that I’m almost side swiped by an aggressive muscle car driver; it’s driving me crazy. I don’t care what they’re on, alcohol, cocaine, meth, or just pure uncut Machismo, I need those people fucking jailed before it’s my kid on the news about getting hit and run’d.
ah yes, the police. the people with a reputation for always properly assessing every situation
I got maybe a third of the way through the article and had to stop due to rage at the police. Again.
These the same cops that mag dump because of an acorn? The same cops that “OD” if fentanyl is in the same hemisphere as themselves? The cops that lost a rifle while “raiding” an “illegal” “grow op”? Those cops?
(X)
100% nonsense.
We’ve already got plenty of peer reviewed science.
Tolerance is everything, and there’s no empirical way to measure it.
Well perhaps we’d better come up with something. Perhaps something along the lines of those “are you really awake?” alarm apps that require you to solve some puzzles, but specifically testing driving skills/reactions, before the vehicle will start.
If there was a way to determine…
“Are you so high that reality frames are kind of strobey?”
That’s the real point where THC is an issue with motor skills.
But ititerally doesn’t happen to regular users. So it’s… Amorphous
Seems to me driving does not just require adequate motor skills, it also requires adequate reactions, decision-making and observation.
The real barrier to development is that companies don’t want to be in the position of “your app cleared this person to drive and they killed my wife.”
Cobb County Police in Georgia got some bad press for this a few years back. An officer took a weekend course to certify he could tell when people were drunk or high, and then he ruined a bunch of innocent people’s lives.
TIL police have a big enough god complex they think they are doctors with no training.
You just learned that today?
As virtually anyone who has ever been to college knows: they can’t.
Sir you are too blacough high to drive.
Cops can’t even tell the difference between a cellphone and a gun
wait, are you implying that cops are filthy fucking liars???
Oh then they can come back with a fucking warrant like any other “we can tell you committed a crime”
