- To test how different, I'm carrying. It's less than 1 ounce — a legal amount under state law. Really, it's just a bud. But it's sitting right here in my cup holder, in plain sight, and it feels weird having it there. Especially because I'm on my way to meet some state troopers with drug-sniffing dogs.
I haven't driven high in a good while. I don't even own a car these days, but when I did, it would happen occasionally. I'll never forget the time I filled my car up with gas and forgot to put the nozzle back into the holster at the station. I drove away and brought the whole hose with me. Fortunately there is a fail-safe breaking mechanism designed for that exact accident - made specifically for idiots like me. I realized instantly what I had done because I could feel and hear the hose snap. It was loud too! So without telling the clerk inside, I just put the nozzle back on the pump and drove off. Couldn't believe he didn't notice. I would have loved to have seen the next guy try to pump gas at that station, not knowing that it wasn't connected. Don't drive stoned people!
Man I cannot believe they actually wrote a blood test for THC into the law. How is that even going to work? It's not. I would guess that 90 percent of the people with a negative opinion about driving while high have never done it. I'm not particularly an advocate of it, but on the list of things you can do that make your driving more dangerous, "smoking a bowl" is a hundred places below "play with your gps," or "dig around in the backseat for something." Period.
You make driving while high sound like a good idea. From what I've read it seems two things happen: drivers become more cautious (good) and reaction times are longer (bad). But it's better than booze I suppose. Plus if I were chauffeuring people around then I'd prefer them baked rather than drunk.
When an arrest makes headlines, those headlines had better better read: "One toke over the line?"
The issue with level of impairment is interesting; I don't think anyone would defend habitual drinkers should be able to drink more before being prosecuted for driving under the influence. I don't see how it should be any different for THC unless it's significantly more subjective.
>> I don't think anyone would defend habitual drinkers should be able to drink more before being prosecuted for driving under the influence. I would defend exactly that (in a sense). In an ideal world, the traffic-stop test would measure impairment alone - from any cause (i.e. sleepiness or injury as well as substance use or abuse, of all kinds). Not impaired? No prob. The old physical walk-the-line tests are the closest thing I know of, to a real impairment-measuring test.
It's too subjective with booze or pot. There is no doubt that there are people that are far better equipped to handle either, but proving that is rather difficult. My wife's friend Niki is drunk after one glass of wine. I'd be fine with b_b driving me around after a full glass of bourbon, but I don't think Niki could even stand after that.