rydabent

Since pot is now legal in Colo has it become more hazardous to ride a bike in Colo? They already have drunk drivers, and fools using cell phones while driving, now they will have pot impared drivers. IMO this is a huge safety issue.

Comments?

FBinNY 

It's about 350 miles from Lincoln, Nebraska to the Colorado state line. So, unless you're planning on a long ride you should be OK.

OTOH it remains to be seen what the impact of the legalization of Marijuana on road safety in Colorado will be. I doubt it'll make things safer, bt whatever the effects are, it'll affect everybody, motorists, pedestrians and cyclists alike.

Other than that, I don't see it as fodder here.

Robert C

The whole legalization movement has always worked under the premise that this will not be a problem. It has never been made clear why it will not be a problem, the responses seem to fall into two categories: The first is that there is already impaired driving; so, somehow more of it wont be a problem. (Not much of a response, but it is frequently made) The second is that pot smokers normally do so at home (however, the legalization movement will probably change this).

Yes, I see it as a problem, add to it that the substance is not as easly tested for. If course, th eproblem can also be addressed not by looking at the substance; but, by looking at the cities. With walkable cities there would be no need to drive while impaired as there would be no need to drive. However, in the world we have; yes, there is no way that it will do anything but increase the number of impaired driving incidents (and no, I do not consider them to be accidents, there are the predictable results of dangerous activity).

B. Carfree

If you are saying it's not worth discussing or considering, then I disagree. Even with simple tests for alcohol levels, we have a huge drunk driver problem in this country. There is no correspondingly simple roadside test for MJ intoxication. In fact, there is no blood level of metabolites that automatically triggers a DUII like there is for alcohol. Worse yet, some of the metabolites also interfere with motor skills and they stay in the blood for quite a long time. As someone who already avoids riding during peak alcohol hours, I'm concerned about never being able to avoid intoxicated drivers if, as expected, most western states follow the lead of CO. (And yes, I do ride in CO from time to time in the course of visiting relatives who live there, so I do at least occasionally have skin in this game.)

That said, legalizing pot won't stop me from riding. I support legalizing many drugs, including MJ, but we really need to do a better job of keeping people from driving impaired.

-=(8)=-

People who would drive under the influence always have been anyway.
Nothing will change.

rydabent

Not only for all the cyclist that live in Colo, but what about all the cross country cyclist that use the Adventure cycling route thru Colo.

Personally I am hoping for laws and tests that can be developed immediately to single out pot users that drive under the influence. I also hope that the courts immediately come down VERY hard on those pot smoking and driving as an example to others. I would hope for loss of drivers license and impounding of cars.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO EXCUSE FOR IMPARED DRIVING!!!!!!!

mconlonx

What are the statistics regarding MJ impaired driving right now...?

Hint: they won't go up. If it is ever trumpeted in the media, that there is a problem with MJ-impaired driving, be sure to note how they do not reference past figures...

For instance. In ME, high school kids have about as much access and use as much marijuana as they do cigarettes and alcohol, also prohibited to them at their age. Q: How will legalization/regulation change such figures? A: They won't.

Looigi

Impairment from weed is much different than impairment from alcohol. It's still impairment, but I'm much less concerned about it.

genec

No doubt there will be some issues as some people will just refuse to use their intoxicants wisely... no matter what they chose to use. On the plus side pot users tend to drive slow and ploddingly... but they can miss a red light or "forget" to stop as much or more as anyone else.

genec

Good point... about the only thing that changes for pot users is whether they will be busted or not. (they've been out there all along) I've read that busts of younger pot users is actually supposed to climb. But only time will tell.

FBinNY 

Yes, and you should wear your helmet. Am I the only one tired of your simplistic, sanctimonious pronouncements?

This is an issue the people of Colorado decided for themselves. If you feel it creates an unacceptable hazard to you, the solution is simple, stay out of Colorado. Stop telling other people how to live, especially when it has no direct bearing on you.

In any case, this isn't a bicycle issue. It's a social policy issue, and belongs in the P&R forum, not here.

Chicago Al 

+1

Actually + 11 (I had a special modification done so it goes that high)

This is yet another example of someone looking for something to be offended by.

I suppose in the depths of winter there are not enough kids on the lawn to yell at.

(I know some, probably the OP, will be offended by that comment, too, but that is just because I AM NOT PC AND YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT!!! )

mconlonx

It is no more dangerous in CO to ride a bicycle than it was before weed was legalized and regulated.

Find a state which has legalized medical marijuana. Look at statistics for arrests based on MJ impairment while driving, before and after MMJ was legalized. Is there a difference...?

What's the difference in motor-vehicle/bicycle accidents where MJ was cited at cause for impairment on the driver's part, in Portugal before and after all drugs were legalized?

I don't know these stats, don't figure I need to waste my time looking them up -- if rates of MJ impaired driving went up in any of these situations, I'm sure foes of legalized weed would have trumpeted them by now.

But, Rydabent, since you posted the OP, perhaps you have these figures at hand to back up your statement that this is "a huge safety issue"?

rydabent

Any impared driving is a huge issue for cyclist especially. A car weight close to 4000 pounds a cyclist with bike 200 pounds give or take.

CommuteCommando

If forced to choose between a road with a hundred known potheads and a hundred known drunks, I'll take the potheads. The problem is in the testing. Since traces remain for weeks after some one has "sobered up", where do we set the threshold? This is an important question, and continuing the prohibition is not the answer.

FBinNY 

Colorado has done the entire country a massive favor. We now have a laboratory where we can study the effects of legalizing marijuana, the ability to manage it, and the negative consequences. Other states considering similar changes in their laws can take a wait and see approach to see how it plays out there, without worrying about the impact in their jurisdictions.

Spld cyclist

Impaired drivers are never a good thing, but I'm a little less worried about drivers high on MJ than drunk. This may sound silly, but it's my personal experience....

In college we used to play hacky sack a lot. For those not familiar with the game, basically a few people stand in a circle and kick a little bean bag thingy back and forth to each other, trying not to let it touch the ground. (Like soccer, you can basically use any part of your body except for hands/arms). My friends and I found that trying to play hacky sack drunk was absolutely hopeless. We would have extended runs of people whiffing every it came to them, kicking it entirely in the wrong direction, letting it fall to the ground without anyone trying to get it, etc.

In contrast, we could have quite a good game of hacky sack when we were high. Not as good as when we were unimpaired, but motor skills were not fried anywhere near the amount that alcohol would do.

Now, I'm sure that MJ impairs judgement and there is no way that anyone should be driving high. However, if I had a choice between sharing the road with a drunk driver and one on MJ, I would take the one on MJ.

I live in Massachusetts, where we largely decriminalized MJ several years ago. Penalties for possession are now limited to a fine rather than jail, except for large quantities. After that went into effect, there didn't seem to be an explosion in MJ use and I haven't heard of any high drivers killing people. I have no doubt it has happened, but if it was a huge problem I think I would have heard of it.

howeeee

exactly

jon c. 

Can't see it being a significant problem.

catonec 

+100

Marijuana does not effect your vision or make you passout like alcohol does. at least thats what Ive heard.

manapua_man

Not sure what you mean by not as easily tested for. It's pretty easy to have your employees tested. Unless you're talking about figuring out if someone was smoking 20min ago?


That said, IMO most of the people who are going to smoke are already doing it anyway, so no real change.

CommuteCommando

I'll own up. I am 58 years old. If you polled everyone who came of age in the US in the seventies, most will tell you they never tried it. Half of them will be lying. A very few will tell you it is a miracle drug that will cure all the worlds ills. They are lying to themselves.

It has some valid medical uses. I doubt that it cures cancer as some claim. Some claim it is an anti depressant. I can tell you most emphatically from personal experience this is not true. With out going into gory details, I firmly believe that it can be dangerous when taken in combination with certain prescription anti-depressants.

It is a depressant. Alcohol is a depressant. Both act differently to depress certain brain activities. As said before, alcohol depresses motor skills much more than weed does. Alcohol depresses inhibitions on aggressive behavior. Cannabis inhibits control over our thoughts and analytic processes, causing the goofy/imaginative state that can result in uncontrolled laughter, leading to the anti depressant myth. I know of no one who has blacked out on pot.

Prohibition is the cause of crimes attributed to cannabis and other drugs. For this reason I also support the decriminalization of all drugs, though have problems with sale for profit of any of it, including reefer.

I was, and still am, strongly in favor of legalizing the cultivation, but not sale of cannabis. Any one can do it. They don't call it weed for nothing. Keeping the profit motive out of it would do a lot of good.

Heroin, crack, meth? Give it to addicts for free, get them into treatment, and screw the cartels.

rydabent

One question I simply dont understand is why people want to smoke pot or tobacco. Both will give you lung cancer, which is a horribel way to die. As far as booze or beer is concerned, I might drink a 6 pack in a years time at parties. I simply see no value in being out of control. Pot, beer, booze, and tobacco is a total waste of money and all of them can kill you in way or another.

FBinNY 

Yes, from this post and the similar "I don't understand....." sentiment expressed on the helmet thread, it's absolutely clear that you are too narrow minded to understand why anyone would ever make a choice different from those you make for yourself.

This puts you in the same category as those who simply don't understand why anyone would want to ride a bicycle.

IMO it's very simple -- if you want to preserve your freedom of choice, you have to accept and respect the freedom of choice of others, especially when those choices are different from yours. Nobody wants or needs your approval or understanding, but we do want to be spared your sanctimonious "I don't understand...." BS.

Robert C

When testing if someone is Driving while Under the Influence then it is necessary to test for recent use and the level of impairment, and to test quickly; not some test that takes a day to send to some lab and tells if the person used two weeks ago. This is a very different test than an employment test. What a person did twenty minutes before driving is more significant to the immediate safety of others on the road than what they person did two weeks ago while sitting on the couch and watching bad movies.

To say that making a formerly illegal substance legal will have no impact on its usage ignores both the lessons of the past and human nature. To say that the legality of an act has no impact whatsoever on the behavior of a person when that person is a person that also may be interested to using marijuana is in interesting statement. However, I reject your claim that all people interested in, or otherwise willing to use, marijuana are amoral sociopaths, while non-users are not.

If your claim were correct it would open the door for a simple test for overall criminal nature. However, I do not believe that such a test can ever be developed because I reject the idea that criminal nature is binary; rather it is a point on a continuum. As such, I reject your idea that the criminality of the act is not factored into the cost of an act by people interested in, or otherwise willing to use, marijuana; further, I do hold that the cost of an act is part of the decision process in determining whether or not to engage in an act, such as smoking.