Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

I've never been a user, but I do support legalisation.

The reason I support it even though I myself wouldn't benefit is:

- It is at least as safe as tobacco and alcohol. So even if we leave the question of what is safer on the table, I think most people would agree based on available evidence that it isn't LESS safe than those two, and they're legal.

- The "war on drugs" has been a disaster. It has actually hurt economic growth, you have too many people in jail for trivial things, you leave a black mark on their file almost indefinitely making them unable to get a [good] job, you isolate them from society, you further push people into criminality, and the benefits of it are not clear if you ignore moralist arguments.

- We gain tax money from it being legal AND drug users aren't funding pretty horrifying criminality in countries like Mexico and Columbia.

- It has been shown to help with certain medical conditions (e.g. chronic pain, PTSD, etc). And while much more research needs to be conducted, it might be easier after legalisation as the permits needed are much easier to get.

However I will say my support for legalisation dropped quite a lot after reading how lightly "weed" users take smoking and driving. A lot of them seem to do it now and don't consider it a big deal, which I take a pretty dim view of. Unfortunately there isn't a very reliable test to see if someone is under the influence of anything other than alcohol.

People who drive under the influence of any mind altering substance (be it alcohol or weed) should have their driving privileges taken away or for repeat offenders they should literally go to jail for a period. It endangers their lives and the lives of other people on or near the road.

View on HN

Agreed on the whole driving bit - but commensurately, whenever I'm in the US, I am astonished by how casually people drink and drive.

Don't think it's a stoner problem, more an inconsiderate dickhead/cultural problem.

people smoke and drive here too though

I agree. People are far too blasé about drinking and driving in the US. It also seems like the punishment is often fairly light for the first few offenses (e.g. a small ticket, no penalty points, or similar).

People from the US I've spoken to often claim this is because in some areas not having a car is pretty unworkable due to a lack of public transport or alternatives. So if driving was revoked then people could get "stranded" at home (e.g. the nearer store is a 10 minute drive away on roads with no sidewalk).

I think if they're unwilling to revoke people's driving, then waste a bunch of their time. People car much more about their time than their money, just force people to take a full day weekend class even on the first offense and make it three weeks worth or more on the second attempt (you can fine them also).

I think car-centric town and transport planning actually has a hell of a lot to answer for. Most drink driving accidents in the UK are rural. Not so many in human-scale/public transport provisioned cities - and the UK has a much bigger drinking problem than the U.S.

Also, in the US, buses equate to poverty in the minds of many, and that attitude is going to be hard to shift, so... roll on driverless cars?

I don't think punishment will put people off to any great degree. I mean - how many people do you know who have not once lamented the shit they got up to while drink? Rather the problem with impaired judgment...

Given that one silicon valley bus route pretty much act as a homeless shelter, not surprising.

If you get a DUI, even for the first time, you're going to spend at least a night in jail and rack up several thousand dollars in fines and attorney fees. I don't think first time DUI's are a felony in most of the U.S., but you're going to get points on your license and it's going to cost you long-term with insurance as well. The penalties aren't damning, but I'm not sure I'd call them "light" either. Many states also having shaming laws in place where you have to get a different colored license plate on your car if you've gotten a DUI.

You're right in that in that for most of the US, not having a vehicle is crippling. Many first-time DUI offenders have their licenses suspended but are allowed work privileges to avoid them losing their job.

Also, in my state, first-time offenders are often sentenced to either spend three days in jail or take a weekend class, so at least in Ohio, they're doing exactly what you're mentioning.

The only serious issue I see with making DUI laws somewhat more strict is knowing whether or not you're too impaired to drive. Groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving have successfully lobbied to effectively force States to reduce the blood/alcohol threshold that's often used to distinguish impairment. I really have no idea how many drinks I can have within a given time frame and still know I'm legally not considered drunk. I've heard enough instances where people test right at, or slightly below, the threshold and get arrested and they say they felt their driving wasn't impaired at all. So I am left with no choice other than to arrange other transportation, or drink what I feel is a limited enough to make me not impaired.

DUI plates are an interesting idea, but they're only used in Ohio and Minnesota - I had no idea they existed until I read your post!

> e.g. a small ticket, no penalty points, or similar

This might not be the case in other states, but in California and (I believe) Nevada, even first-time offenses are at least a night in jail and significant penalty points. License revocation is also not unheard of. Classes are pretty common.

Source: former California Highway Patrol employee. I processed a lot of arrest reports for drunk drivers.

Same as in Australia. People go out of their way to report booze buses, and complain about police pulling them over when they are speeding / drunk.

At least you have DUI road checkpoints (even in daytime) and stricter licensing regimes.

We're just bad drivers in general, regardless of our level of intoxication. Texting. Dancing (I see this frequently). The number of elderly people who drive who shouldn't be is mind boggling.

I'm of a mind that its actually way too easy to obtain a drivers license in this country. For example; my mother took my uncle to get his drivers license renewed. Why she did is beyond me because he has early stage dementia. He couldn't understand the written test so the lady at the DMV just had my mom fill it out for him! Not even our own government cares whether we're qualified to drive!

> The number of elderly people who drive who shouldn't be is mind boggling.

Is this supported by any research? Road traffic accident statistics show too many young people. So, older people might be safer drivers.

Of course, there are a few people with dementia or visual impairment who shouldn't be driving but it's interesting that it's ok to suggest that older people are risky drivers when that doesn't appear to be true.

Older drivers (85+) are generally extremely risky per mile. "On the per-mile basis, the death rate of target drivers aged 85 and older is nearly triple that of drivers aged 16 to 17"

https://aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/OlderDriverRis...

They drive fewer miles, but even still their far more risky than teenagers. "The per-driver death rate of target drivers aged 85 and older is nearly double that of target drivers aged 16 to 17 (Rate Ratio [RR] 1.93, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.66–2.24) and is over six times that of drivers aged 50 to 59 (RR 6.25, CI 5.48–7.14)."

Also of note, new drivers of any age are generally more risky than experienced ones of that same age. So, a large chunk of the teenage hit would happen even if you banned people <20 from driving.

I'm not sure about your takeaway from that link. In the Summary:

"For example, the results of this study suggest that if a randomly-selected driver in his or thirties and a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older were to drive equal numbers of miles, the older driver would be over 1500% more likely than the younger driver to be responsible for and die as a result of a crash, and about 220% more likely than the younger driver to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist.

However, drivers in their thirties drive approximately 217% more miles on average than drivers aged 85 and older do. Without statistical adjustment for what occurs naturally, a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older is about 720% more likely than a randomly selected driver aged 30 to 39 to die in a crash, but only about 0.8% more likely to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist, over the course of a year."

I haven't gone back to review what the author means exactly by "statistical adjustment for what occurs naturally"

These statistics get very tricky as older people are more likely to die in an identical crash causing identical trauma. Older drivers drive at different times of day, have different passenger profiles, and drive different cars.

However, in the end 85+ year old drivers are simply less safe than 16 year old drivers. The issue is quantifying how much less safe they are.

I guess I am confused then about the statement that "[Seniors 85+ are] only about 0.8% more likely to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist, over the course of a year." Through some sort of statistical interpretation.

Thank you! That changed my mind.

I was in the vehicle with a new 30 something driver when they made a large input to the wrong pedal and put the vehicle through a wall.

Ford F-150 had some minor damage to the bumper, the brick wall had major damage for the width of the vehicle (I think any modern pickup would fair similarly).

Old people are more accident prone than middle-aged drivers, and the numbers back that up. However, young drivers are just as likely to be involved in a fatal accident as old drivers.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/10/teenager...

Accidents per road mile has to be off the chart. Most of the time the accidents are minor, but not always.

>but it's interesting that it's ok to suggest that older people are risky drivers when that doesn't appear to be true.

Ageing impairs one's ability to drive. It's not controversial because our bodies break as we age. Everyone knows that.

I would question the claim that Americans are bad drivers in general. Compared to driving I've seen in other countries (particularly India, China), even the worst drivers I've seen in America aren't so bad. And the worst drivers in America I know personally are not actually Americans but internationals.

Maybe we are generally worse compared to other western countries but my experience suggests the prevalence of driving in America puts our skills among the best. If someone has data which suggests otherwise please share.

There are different driving cultures and becoming proficient in one style might look like bad driving to someone from another culture.

The amount of damaged cars and stationary objects and injured people in bad-driving countries belies that particular nugget of cultural relativism.

Is cross-country crash data available?

True, this certainly skews my impression of driving in other countries. However, some of the examples I recall can not possibly be good driving in any culture (like making a ten point U-turn when there is ample room to make a single turn, or failing to park in a large spot after several attempts).

I'd definitely say American drivers, as a whole, are less prepared for and take too lightly the responsibility of driving a car. It is far too easy to get a license in this country: My test consisted of me, at sixteen years old, going around a suburban block with very little traffic at about 35 miles an hour, followed by a brief parallel parking test (a test I consider far less relevant than, say, being able to merge on a busy freeway at high speed). To qualify for this test, I only had to purchase an online driving course and fill out forms claiming that my parents had been me with me while I drove - none of which required time with a trained instructor.

Contrast this with China - one of the countries that you listed as an example of having bad drivers - where to obtain a license you need to pay the equivalent of a few thousand USD for a rigorous driving course in an isolated area (you can't even drive on the road before you have your license; learner's licenses do not permit you to drive on public roads). After this, you are still under some limitations until a year after you've obtained the license.

In addition to this, the more aggressive driving culture of China involves many more vehicles jostling for smaller spaces than would be the case in America. The skill and spatial awareness of the vehicle necessary to cope with this sort of environment is far greater than that needed to deal with even the most demanding driving environments of America.

We are definitely more laid-back and polite in driving than China (and I would prefer that any day) but more skillful? I highly doubt that.

The skill and spatial awareness of the vehicle necessary to cope with this sort of environment is far greater than that needed to deal with even the most demanding driving environments of America.

One day, I lucked out and found street parking near the convention center in Houston. I had to drive forwards then back into the unmarked space, which was obscured from view by the angle. I make sure to leave a good three feet of space from the car behind, and observe that there's space behind that car too. A few hours later, we come back to the car, and there's a woman in the car behind on the phone complaining about being "parked in."

(What's more, if you cranked up the stereotype dial when you imagine the scene, you'd be pretty accurate. No pickup truck, though. It was one of those Chrysler 300 style cars.) [heavy sigh]

EDIT: Contrast the above with what I observed in Sligo, Ireland, taking the bus to see some archaeological site. At this one bus stop on those twisty little roads, the mother and her child getting off the bus had to back up and flatten against the wall while the driver maneuvered out of this one bend in the road. If the driver had been wrong by a foot and a half -- and mind you, this is a full sized city bus -- he would've crushed them against the wall. Apparently, this was a regular occurrence!

Anyone who thinks Americans drive poorly/without care ought to take a trip to somewhere like Vietnam. Holy crap, that's a free for all.

I think that it is not that Americans are worse drivers, but bad drivers have more chances of having a car in America. In other places you have more alternatives, and bad drivers usually prefer these other alternatives. In the US, you must drive if you want to move.

Saying whether one country's drivers are better or worse is baseless and pointless. But the rules and customs of driving do tend to be more strict in some of the countries you mentioned.

i.e. in China, if you're 60 years or older, you need to pass yearly medical exam to show that you're fit to drive.

I think there are a couple of things with this.

The legal limit in most of the US (0.08 BAC) is actually pretty high, so you can legally drink and drive. For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7. So most drinking and driving you might have seen probably isn't (at least legally).

The second main reason is probably because there is no good mass transit. Most other countries either have the local pub you can walk to or some subway you can take - there's no 20min drive to meet somewhere.

> For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7.

If you were to test his blood. Breathalyzers work differently and this guy would not pass one.

Can you get hit with a DUI without a blood test result in the U.S.?

Breathalysers pretty much only give largely inaccurate results when you still have alcohol residue in your throat or mouth. If you rinse out or wait a moment, they'll probably fall in line with blood tests.

I believe you get taken to the station and then given a blood test.

Where I live, refusing either results in a guilty verdict.

The legal limit is only when arresting the driver is mandatory. If, in the judgement of the officer, you are impared, he can arrest you at 0.00.

A BAC of 0.08 is not high at all.

"Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher."

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-...

Percentage of people in accidents at a given BAC is the wrong stat to look at. You need to look at _chance of accident_ at a given BAC, v. at 0 BAC.

And at 0.08, you're chance of accident is 393% of that when sober. 0.07 is 322%.[1]

1. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alc... (Table 8)

Why? Ratios mean nothing out-of-context. So, you look at Table 8 and tell me what are the chances of having an accident at BAC 0.00 in hard numbers. Because if the chance of an accident is infinitesimal, then I'm not worried so much about infinitesimal-times-four.

True, it would be better if it weren't set with BAC 0 = 1, but this is certainly more meaningful than share of accidents. Neither of the stats we used provide probability of an accident. Mine are relative probability for one behavior v. the other; yours are confounded by the unreported number of people engaging in each behavior.

Here's my real point. I believe, and I'm not alone, that the 0.08 limit is unnecessarily and arbitrarily low, and has more to do with neo-temperance hysteria than sound judgment.

There is a central divide in alcohol use and an individual's response to it. Barring young people inexperienced with alcohol (and lacking a fully developed frontal lobe), most people drink a bit, feel tipsy, and then decide that they need to sober up. They're self-aware, responsible, and careful. That's their response to alcohol.

But another segment of people have a completely different response to alcohol. They have a couple of drinks, feel a sense of euphoria, and want to drink and drink and drink some more. These people are alcoholics. They may be very high-functioning — able to hold down a job and all — but they respond both physically and psychologically in a fundamentally different way.

The first group might get behind the wheel, if they judge that they feel alright, and drive home as carefully as they can. The second group — now drunk — will get behind the wheel and drive recklessly, exceeding the speed limit, blasting the radio, taking turns too fast and so forth. The first group might be at BAC 0.05 or 0.08, or even at 0.10, but taking all due precautions. It's not ideal, but it's a far cry from the second group, now at 0.15 or 0.2 or 0.3 (which takes some practice as you know, since unpracticed drunks would be passed out at this BAC), who are now whipping down the road. The first group occasionally has "too much to drink." The second group is blasted every Friday and Saturday night, and sometimes every happy hour.

It's this second group that is causing the lion's share of the tragedies we see on the roadways. The shame of it is that our whole culture has to suffer because of this. A person who is no real threat to his fellows and who may very well be guilty of no other infraction at the time can have his life ruined by over-zealous prosecution.

I think we would do well to reconsider the problem and what we're tying to solve, rather than simply getting MAD(D) about such things and patting ourselves on the back for making things "tougher," year after year.

The groups aren't as dichotomized as you describe. I would consider myself part of the first group except that I do drink for the euphoria. I occasionally drink, period (rare social occasions), but when I do I'll want at least 6+, and I'll be sure to have a place to rest or a ride home. I even have a breathalyzer. Your definition of an alcoholic is off.

For clarification I wasn't saying that it's 'too high', but just that it allows for more drinks than people think.

If the parent commenter was a European who doesn't drive that much and was surprised about how Americans drink and drive, they're usually not aware of how many drinks effect BAC and what the laws are.

I'm American, and I think it's neither. It's more that in almost all of the country, the alternatives to drinking and driving work so badly that it's a better option, even with the risks. I think we're positively pathological about it in a way - we're all about punishment and stricter penalties, but nobody cares about making the alternatives suck less.

I drink pretty frequently, and I go to a lot of effort to never drive drunk. I don't think I've ever met a designated driver in person, but I've met a lot of people who talk about how they drink and drive home drunk anyways. Public transit is mostly nonexistent and unreliable, and most of what there is doesn't run at night. Taxi service is also either nonexistent or may take the better part of an hour outside of major city centers. Walking is also a practical impossibility outside of major city centers. Meanwhile, there are so many people driving a little drunk that you're probably safe enough as long as you aren't the one obviously swerving all over the road.

If we actually care about the issue, why don't we make better alternatives instead of creating a situation where it's painful to not drive drunk, and then act all outraged when people do it.

As an American, I don't drive drunk, and I don't find it painful. Drink somewhere close to home, call a cab. If I can get drunk at a bar, which will costs me $50+, I can certainly afford a $5-10 cab ride.

That said, I've heard that in Japan, it's the bar's responsibility to get you home safely. They take it very seriously, but you pay extra at the club to account for it.

Most of America doesn't have cab service available though, however things like Uber and Lyft are changing that.

I've never lived anywhere without cab service. I'm currently in a town with 35k residents and we have a few cab companies, though we do have a big tourist draw.

That said, I hadn't considered that possibility. In that case I'd be making plans to be picked up, or I'd be staying in.

Can I just ask what you mean by "drink and drive": specifically, drink how much?

One of the interesting thing about moving from the US to Ireland was that it went from being acceptable to have a couple of beers and then drive, to people maybe having one mid-strength Guinness, if that (some reasonable exception for parties where you were hanging out for several hours). I find I prefer it here. Also, it's worth noting the limit for your first two years of having a licence is 0.02%, and they require 12 hours of behind the wheel training (when I got my Californian licence there was no requirement, as I was 18).

Ireland has some of the more dangerous roads in Europe, and yet it's still about half as dangerous as the US, depending on your preferred metric.

Caveat - I live in Dublin. I understand people are a little more accepting of a couple drinks in the country.

> drive under the influence

The research about Marijuana's impact on driving is inconclusive, but there are indications that it might have no negative impact (for the most recent example: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1667...) and even that it might reduce risks of crashes.

As a result, it's unfortunate that it's apparently socially acceptable to assume without question that marijuana has a negative impact on driving. New research could still demonstrate that it does not, just as new research has been strongly suggesting that our other assumptions are likely flawed. If marijuana is found to not be dangerous for drivers, then it will very unfortunate that we've promoted yet another misconception about it due to unchecked assumptions.

No. Just, no. Speaking from my own experience, and that of my friends, marijuana can make you a shittier driver. I very much doubt the current scientific consensus is that marijuana in general makes you a better driver. It is possible that there are some strains with a certain cannabinoid ratio that has a minimal impact (like low in THC), but there are other strains that have a major impact.

You are responding to a post with a link to research by countering with anecdotal evidence. The parent also never said that "the current scientific consensus is that marijuana in general makes you a better driver". That's a total distortion of the comment was saying.

I, for one, think we should be open to actually studying the topic instead of baselessly and unscientifically concluding that driving under the influence of marijuana is equally as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol.

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

Nor is it evidence

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the claim that it's "unfortunate" for people to assume, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, that drugs associated with impaired cognitive function probably don't mix with activity as potentially lethal as driving.

Especially since the balance of the evidence you've linked to appears to support that assumption.

It's not as if "there is at least some level of marijuana use incompatible with driving" is exactly an extraordinary claim; the burden of proof for establishing parameters for a "safe" level of high whilst in control of a vehicle really ought to sit with proponents of smoking and driving.

Put another way, jumping to the conclusion that driving under the influence of marijuana isn't safe isn't likely to kill people if it's incorrect.

That position depends on the assumption that criminalization is benign. However, it's entirely possible that criminalization harms more lives and creates a greater strain on society than the act itself, as has very likely been the case with the broader criminalization of marijuana.

Defaulting to the position of criminalization regardless of the evidence, particularly in this context given the history and impact of existing marijuana policy, will likely perpetuate the creation of flawed policy.

Empirically, driving under the influence of marijuana makes one safer by dialing back their willingness to take risk. Empirically, I'd rather be a passenger to stoner a than someone past their 60s, in their teens or recently emigrated from a non driving country. More research needs to be done before we can make any conclusions but research to date hasn't shown it to be a problem [0]. I actually dread legalization because it's only a matter of time before some legislator decides to "crack down" on the menace that is stoned drivers.

http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review...

Totally ancedotal - I have a friend who who gives me a lift and I feel more comfortable as a passenger when they are stoned. Their attention span is low.

"There have been numerous studies in which the effects of marijuana have been assesed on performance in driving simulators and even a few studies conducted in city traffic. Much to everyone's surprise, the results of many of these studies revealed only relatively small impairments in driving skills, even after quite large doses of the drug. Several of the early studies showed no impairment at all, but as driving simulators grew more sophisticated and the tasks became more complex and demanding, impairments were observed, for example in peripheral vision and lane control. Marijuana users, however seem to be aware that their driving skills may be impaired and they tend to compensate by driving more slowly, keeping some distance from the vehicle ahead and in general take fewer risks (Smiley, 1986). This is in marked contrast to the effects of alcohol, which produces clear impairments in many aspects of driving skill as assesed in driving simulators. Alcohol also tends to encourage people to take greater risks and drive more aggresively" (Iversen, 2008, p.95)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Marijuana-Leslie-L-Iversen/d...

Now personally I do not think it is at all a good idea to drive when stoned, but I do not consider it anywhere near as dangerous as driving when drunk.

Same goes for a lot of other drugs. I'd rather get in a car with someone driving on LSD than on alcohol. They might think the other cars are penguins, but their reaction time if the penguins get too close is still going to be reasonable.

People who drive under the influence of any mind altering substance (be it alcohol or weed) should have their driving privileges taken away

Caffine and most painkillers fall into this definition. I'd rather just replace the ignition system with a short driving game that you have to complete to start the car.

Or replace the need for an active driver at all. Seems like we're already flirting with this scenario with the lane-assist, adaptive cruise control etc.

The question then becomes, if an active/traditional "driver" is not needed, can the occupants be intoxicated?

Yeah, the inherent advantages of self-driving cars look set to moot these debates within the next decade.

I'd rather just replace the ignition system with a short driving game that you have to complete to start the car

I've heard there are cars with a breath analyzer connected to the ignition. A driving game would hopefully pick up more than alcohol, so I like that idea. Unfortunately, I suspect many drunk drivers will just do what they do with the current systems and have their sober girlfriend pass the test for them.

have their sober girlfriend pass the test for them.

Good point. It needs some form of seat sensor that turns the engine back off if the person in the driving seat changes.

Even that's not enough, though; the girlfriend might just lean over from the passenger seat. This is based on third hand information I've heard, not on anybody I actually know.

There is no breath analyzer for pot, or for other drugs, and the only tests available give results that aren't directly related to impairment. ie: A habitual user who isn't impaired can test the same as a casual user who is.

There's an extremely extremely rough utilitarian analysis that says that the largest positive effect in QALYs added comes from fewer road traffic deaths due to people substituting away from driving while drunk to driving while stoned. See section IV of http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha...

Obligatory cynicism: The point of the "War on Drugs" is to perpetuate the "War on Drugs." It's a jobs program, a funding program, and serves government's natural desire to grow and control. From this point of view the program has probably been pretty successful.

"People who drive under the influence of any mind altering substance (be it alcohol or weed)"

How bout coffee, energy drinks, cold medicine, most prescribed prescription medicines have some blurb about possible mental effects, tea, kava, nodoz caffeine pills, numerous herbal products ... We only complain about certain psychoactive drugs, and not others. Theres no logic behind it aside from residual cultural Puritanism, so looking for non cavalier logical behavior is likely to be fruitless.

Also it varies by state, and there are quite effective tests for THC, and we've got megatons of state laws on the books WRT inattentive and distracted and negligent driving that cover it quite well. Finally we have endless nuisance laws such that all of us are always criminals all the time that can be selectively enforce by cops on pot smokers, much as "driving while black" has been criminalized in certain areas.

Like yourself, I don't smoke (gives me an awful headache) but given the total net effect of prohibition, my kids are more likely to be killed as innocent bystanders in a shootout than killed by a stoned driver, so I'd prefer the lower risk. On the assumption that use patterns would change significantly with legalization (I'm still not going to smoke, my grannie still isn't going to smoke, its based on the "logic" that if abortion is legal nobody would ever have children, ever, which is pretty laughable). This logic is often seen in hyper-authoritarian areas. I live in a free area where cops won't drag me out of my house and shoot me if I paint polka dots on my house, of course nobody acts like that, but people who live in hyper authoritarian areas always under some HOA jackboots assume all humans would uncontrollably paint their houses purple polkadots unless the stormtroopers keep order under violent force.

There is definitely logic behind it: anything that impairs one's driving can result in a DUI. Commercially available egogenics (caffeine) do not impair one's driving under typical doses.

Most of the studies I've seen on caffeine and driving have only focused on drivers who were already sleep deprived. Are there any that focus on it's effects on otherwise well-rested subjects?

I would agree with you they shouldn't be doing it, but I would disagree that's it's anywhere near the equivalent to drinking and driving. People who drink and drive (assuming not to the point of being blackout drunk) tend to drive more aggressively. People who get high and drive, if nothing else, are a danger to others for driving too slow and being too cautious.

I don't think it's a good idea to drive around a 2,000+ lbs pile of metal while in any kind of altered state, but I'd take someone high over someone drunk or extremely tired any day of the week.

> any mind altering substance (be it alcohol or weed) should have their driving privileges taken away

Such a blanket statement without any science backing is without merit. Even phrase "mind altering" is suspect as substances that increase mental focus, reaction time, and clarity all (probably) benefit driving ability.

Many substances are "mind altering". Nicotine, Caffeine, Endorphin (from exercise e.g.), even just sugar. Also, mental states; sleep-deprived, agitated, depressed.

> Unfortunately there isn't a very reliable test to see if someone is under the influence of anything other than alcohol.

I heard a lot of noise almost a decade ago about impairment testing. The idea is not to test for a specific drug, or a specific amount of a drug, but rather to test the ability of the person to react to situations. There isn't a lot of material out there about it, but it was highly praised at the time (in the info I came across) because it gets closer to the question that we really want to be answered: does this person currently have the ability to safely perform the task at hand? It removes the stigma of particular substances from the equation and also gives you the ability to test someone who is "drug-free" but also stayed up all night and may not be as able a driver (or machinist, or nurse) as usual.

That was all a while ago, and I have yet to hear more or read any in-depth studies about the practice. Does anyone know if new research has been done?

It also would presumably discriminate against entire swaths of people (think old folks, potentially disabled drivers, etc).

Not that I think anyone incapable of driving should be, but any impairment test would flunk certain groups of 100% sober people working at their best ability (not sleep-drunk, either).

If they're unable to pass the impairment test they shouldn't be driving. If grandpa is too old to drive and can't maintain his lane in traffic anymore, a police officer giving him an impairment test and failing him is not discrimination.

I didn't mean to use discriminate in the PC sense of the word. Simply meant that those groups of people will fail.

I agree with your conclusion.

I think taking away the driving privilege of tons of old people is going to cause a stir, that's all. And more importantly, we don't have "old age checkpoints," and you don't go to jail if you're old and fail some kind of ability test while sober.

Stoners driver safer than most sober people, your opinion is ill informed and based on alcohol, which is a vastly different drug.

Do you have source to backup this claim ? I found it quite doubtful.

Read this thread, plenty are posting exactly those sources. Yes, I exaggerate when I say most sober people, my point was that they're safer than many normal drivers like old people or teenagers or tired people or texters, etc. More to the point, it's not alcohol, so those wanting to treat it as such and calling it DUI need to show evidence that it impairs driving. You can't simply assume it does. Pot is not alcohol, it does not impair your decision making in that way.

The idea that people should be given DUI's for driving while having THC in their system is quite simply baseless idiocy from those who simply want to treat it like alcohol which it is not. People drive around daily on prescription drugs far more dangerous to their driving abilities than a little pot and you don't hear anyone up in arms about them. The demonetization of marijuana is simple idiocy from the uneducated fools who want to continue the failed drug war or who swallowed the propaganda without demanding evidence of the bogus claims continually made.

It's my estimate, as a non-user, that someone would drive much better under the influence of marijuana than alcohol, especially at the extremes.

It's also my estimate that many drivers at .08 BAC or under the influence of marijuana are far superior drivers than some other drivers who are 100% sober.

So why isn't the line drawn based on driving ability or driving performance rather than mental state?

I can see some obvious reasons: you can measure BAC and it's pretty hard to objectively measure driving ability. But the point stands--BAC is not a measure of actual driving ability, rather a measure of personal impairment.

Edit: for dumbness.

Driving under the influence is dangerous because it affects your judgement and your reaction times - much like driving while tired. The danger is not as present in familiar, safe conditions, but when something unexpected happens that puts you in a potentially dangerous situation. If you are driving under the influence your decision-making is impaired and you are more likely to make the wrong decision and be involved in an accident. So perhaps there are some people who drive better under the influence than others who are sober, but that says nothing about their ability to react to dangerous situations.

> So why isn't the line drawn based on driving ability or driving performance rather than mental state?

Reckless/careless driving is a traffic violation that can result in loss of license.

Okay, so rephrase my post to this:

I'm sure there's some segment of the population (A) that is so bad at reacting to dangerous situations that the people who are best at it (B) still outperform (A), despite (B) being under the influence.

You just shifted "driving" to "reacting to dangerous situations." The point holds.

Reckless / careless driving is a seldom-issued traffic violation, probably often in conjunction with DUI. It does not cover "the old man who can't pass a sobriety test when sober."

Revoking the license of everyone who drives while impaired seems unworkable given its prevalence and the necessity of driving in the States:

1. Since so many people do it and will continue to do it, you essentially create a lottery situation; just as now, very few are caught, whereas the vast majority will evade punishment, and they know it, therefore the problem persists.

2. People who have their licenses revoked still have to get places, therefore they continue to drive and accept the fact of additional penalties.

In summary, creating harsh penalties for everyday behavior creates new problems while solving no existing ones.

In Australia we have rolled out widespread "booze busses" which block off major roads and breathalize everyone who comes through. This + major advertising campaigns have had a significant impact on drunk driving.

I am surprised at the lack of these kinds of measures in the US - and how casually most people treat drink driving.

These booze busses have now extended to testing for marijuana and methamphetamine, though neither drug is likely to be legalized in Australia anytime soon.

There's plenty of roadblocks in the US.

It's often argued they violate the constitution--that police are stopping every car for no reason.

Police get around that by calling it a "safety check."

There's plenty of videos about how to "beat" them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmKl60VrWM

You can see from this video that the cops are clearly violating rights, and someone who knows what their rights are can stand up for themselves, so to speak.

There's another one I can't find where someone hangs a note out the window and gets waved through.

I've done a fair bit of driving (mostly in California) and never been through a roadblock. I've also never seen any booze busses or similar.

I've seen those videos too - are you saying it's unconstitutional to stop drivers to do a breathalyser?

I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm saying it's argued that it is.

It's my personal belief that it's a rights violation to stop anyone without a reason if you intend to arrest them if they meet some criteria.

In particular, I believe it would be a major rights violation to force everyone to do a breathalyzer at a dui checkpoint. Fortunately, they're not that extreme yet--the have to smell alcohol or suspect impairment afaik.

I've been stopped in approximately 8 DUI checkpoints in my ~15 years of driving. I drive significantly less miles per year than the national average here in America, if that counts for anything.

Cool, thanks for clarifying.

I'm a foreigner so take this for what it's worth but my view is that if it provides significant public benefit (in reducing drink driving / dope driving accidents) that stops for the specific purpose of breath testing at DUI checkpoints then it should be something the community would support.

How that plays out is another matter.

FWIW I chose not to say whether it's unconstitutional or not because it takes the supreme court to decide that. I'm entirely unqualified.

I lean the other way, and this being one of my favorite quotes probably makes me decidedly American:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

That said, I do entirely disagree with drunk driving and I want it to end. I'm just not willing to further trade my personal freedoms to accomplish it.

I like that quote too.

The supreme court actually decided that it's not unconstitutional but leaves it to the states to handle enforcement.

Interesting to note that in Australia the percentage of fatal accidents involving alcohol are 12% versus 22% in California. Especially because we have a younger official drinking age of 18 and a generally higher alcohol consumption rate...

>We gain tax money from it being legal AND drug users aren't funding pretty horrifying criminality in countries like Mexico and Columbia.

As a note, I remember an article somewhere about how it was meth the drug that gave more profit to drug mafias. So it'd still be a problem. The question is, bigger or smaller? I'm pretty sure there's data of the translation from marijuana users->hard drugs users.

> I'm pretty sure there's data of the translation from marijuana users->hard drugs users.

Even assuming that data is good, its an open question how much of that is causal, how much if it is "people who would use hard drugs anyway tend to stop by marijuana on the way because its more accessible", and how much of it is "people who develop relationships with illegal drug dealers through marijuana are likely to be pushed by them to other drugs at some point".

The first is exacerbated by legalization, the second indifferent to it, and the third mitigated by it, so simple correlation data doesn't really provide useful information for policy without some clear indication of why the correlation exists.

I'm pretty sure there's data of the translation from marijuana users->hard drugs users.

The data for oxygen is far more alarming.

100% of hard drug users users first started out on oxygen.

Furthermore, if nobody was allowed oxygen, all illegal drug addiction would stop.

Oxygen is the ultimate gateway drug.

DHMO is pretty bad too: http://www.dhmo.org/

Without oxygen it would just float away harmlessly.

I'm pretty sure there's data of the translation from marijuana users->hard drugs users.

It's super hard to control for endogeneity of those variables though, which would cast significant doubt on a causal interpretation of what's going on. The fact that marijuana is currently illegal means that there is an associative bias for dealers - they have access to/hang out with harder drugs/more dangerous dealers.

People drive under conditions that they shouldn't, I know kids that wont wear a seatbealt and never follow rules in general.

What I'm trying to say is that, same as with alcohol, people are still going to do it. Legalization won't change how people feel the effects of pot affect their driving.

studies have shown that people driving under the influence of marijuana are extremely careful. alcohol is complete opposite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com