Considering impairment of psychomotor skills, divided attention, lane tracking and cognitive functions, I'd say there just might be a connection between those and the wreck.
But what causes more accidents? Driving high or drunk? Drunk by a mile......and if you want to take that further, texting cause 6 times more accidents than drinking and driving. What field sobriety tests are there for texting?
phone records with a time date stamp.
By your own admission you never smoked pot, so you are a panic freak who has no idea what it is about. Your basis of understanding the effects of pot are probably from movies like Reefer Madness. Other than alcohol, the only other thing I have used that made me feel unsafe for using heavy equipment was.......
Where did I say "never"? You presume much. I won't go into detail, because I don't have that sort of time at the moment, nor am I going to list my past sins on some website, but between my own experiences and a great deal of family dysfunction, including an ex wife, I stopped drinking alcohol and doing anything but caffeine and tobacco decades ago. The people I used to hang out with back when are mostly dead, except for a couple who made the same choice I did. Having lived with a stoner for a few years, and cleaned up a lot of messes after her, either you are a hardcore loadie or you likely don't know this sh*t like I do.
One thing I did notice, though. Virtually everyone stoned, doing whatever, thinks they are doing a far better job than they are. There are a few exceptions who seem to do well despite being high. But then, an uncle drove his pickup regularly with a .4 BAC, and was stopped with a .46 (legally dead, for most folks). He was an exception, though. Most people with half that blood alcohol content are not people I would ride with.
Ambien, a prescription drug I used very briefly after a medical issue. Where is your concern about prescription drugs? There are no real tests for them yet far more people are driving around experiencing those effects.
Blood tests will show levels of prescription drugs in a person's system. They aren't being legalized for recreational use, and Marijuana just became a prescription drug in seven more states, so that all falls apart.
Yet the test for Marijuana is inconclusive as to intoxication unless the results are negative. (Remember Marijuana, the topic of this thread?)
You on the other hand are worried that Cheech and Chong are engineering your Amtrak train.
Damned straight, skippy! I want the driver of anything heavier than I am to be alert, aware, and fully competent. That is the level of expertise I am paying for.
Like I said in my original post, we have a bunch of inexperienced people (You) running around with their panties in a bunch about a topic they know nothing about. I have no time for hypothetical dangers. There are enough real things going on to occupy my time.
Nice rant, which still doesn't change a thing. You presume that because I disagree with you, that I don't know what I am talking about. That is sheer folly on your part.
Your NORMLcy bias is showing.
I am just seeking a way to determine when someone is too effing high to drive, a way to quantify 'safe' levels of consumption. You are attacking me, when I would think someone who is pro-pot would agree that establishing a test and a 'safe' level of consumption would simplify the whole law enforcement thing, and maybe help keep a few people too loaded off the road when they shouldn't be there.
You argue there is no danger, even though the majority of studies indicate there is--or did you even look through the study the article you provided referenced? The article that cherry picked one statement and ignored a preponderance of results indicating the statement is not supported, in the same study?
Now, the topic is pot. If policy is going to be established, how about basing it on something verifiable and repeatable, like, Ya know, science or something?
