In my opinion I don’t think that’s the right solution. I think cannabis is closer to coffee.

  • 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?

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the same argument leille used when drink driving laws came in. “I can do it fine, why do we need a law”. We can’t set laws based on the outliers, we have to base them on all scenarios.