you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 6 months ago (37 children)

The only issue I have with weed, and most other drugs, is that you can't easily test for them in a person's system, meaning that you can't know if someone's driving under the influence. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if not for the fact that we have have such a car centric society. I don't like people endangering other people just for a buzz.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    You can easily test if they're in someone's system with a saliva test, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Blood test is better for weed. It's only detectable for 12h vs 24h with saliva.

    But levels of THC aren't really correlated with impairment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    12 to 24h seems good (maybe even too long imho) in the context of driving a car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Not when the levels have no bearing on intoxication.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    The same applies to alcohol to some degree. We as a society need to set some limits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    No, it doesn't. BAC is directly related to impairment, even with chronic drinkers.

    The problem is that THC tests check for the metabolite that THC is broken down into, not actual THC. Alcohol tests check for actual alcohol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    I hear you. The saliva test isn't perfect, but it's something.

    Where I live only a doctor is allowed to draw and test your blood, which is tough to do at the side of the road during a traffic stop. They need a lab for that. So a saliva test is much more viable in that context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Can you hook a saliva test to a car's ignition system to only allow sober people to start the car?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They have mouth swabs they use now that can tell for smoking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Those can't be used on the road and can't be integrated into a car's startup system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    They can be used when pulled over just like a breathylyzer (although this is the law in my state and I'm in USA all places may not have the same rules) but I do see what you are saying about hooking it up to the car like the breath machines.

    Man, someone could potentially make a lot of money to be the first ones to roll that out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Imagine being so car brained that you base personal freedom around it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think this is "car brained". They're not saying anything around public transit, just that we need to have a test for DWI and weed. People shouldn't be jailed for 30 years regardless of the presence of the test or not, but we do still need some other test. Otherwise I guarantee that "don't drive while baked" will be the next infomercial you see in a few years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Missing the point a bit, we shouldn't base legalization around if people are going to drive their cars on a substance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    100% agreed. Like I said I think it should be legal regardless, the punishments are way too severe for what it is. But on a completely different note, we do still need the tests. I love drinking and I love smoking, but there are rules of the road, and one of those is "don't drive the death machine with impaired judgement".

    But yes you're right, the legality shouldn't be based on if "but what if they drive". I'm more saying "if you do some life-disregarding level ignorant" shit you're still getting in trouble.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

    I honestly ......... for calling me "car brained". That insult hurt me more than any other I've received. I want to protect pedestrians and cyclists from people driving cars under the influence. I want to limit driving people's freedom to make life better for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    That's honestly a very odd reaction, for what it's worth I meant it lightheartedly.

    Of course I think pedestrians and cyclists also deserve safety.

    I would like to point out however that a majority of incidents are drunk drivers who do not already have a device like that in their car, so it's a tad bit absurd to indicate your hard line for legalization is that when it would only apply after the fact anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Sorry, that was too rude, I just got really upset... It's odd, I've never really gotten angry at internet comments until now.

    I just wanted to point out my single issue with weed, which is more an issue with car centric infrastructure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Sorry for making you angry!

    Yeah, it's hard, it's not like you're wrong that driving while baked is more dangerous then sober, but to your point I think the way our infrastructure is built where pedestrians are an afterthought if thought about at all, definitely contributes to make it even more dangerous.

    I wish we had more walkable/bike-friendly locations, it's just not super likely given how large the US is

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Nothing you said was rude. In fact everything you said was correct on all counts. I think the other person was just joking

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I edited my comment. I said that I despised them and said "fuck you". Not that bad, but I changed it to be a little less abrasive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    thank you for explaining, I was a little confused about the exchange until I read this. I think the edit was valid and a positive but I just wish there was an edit history for better context sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Eh, you can still do a blood test in conjunction with a field sobriety test. Its not as cut and dry as something like alcohol, but to be honest it really shouldn't be anyways considering how much more dangerous driving while drunk is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Blood THC levels aren't indicative of impairment. Even high levels are only weakly associated with impairment in occasional users, and there's no correlation in regular users.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    You sound either like someone who has never smoked, or smokes way too much 😁

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment