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
    0
    ·
    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
      1
      ·
      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.

      • 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?