Legalise cannabis to get more of this?

[fd3]

Once it gets legalised it will get legislated.  Which will mean methods to arrest and convict drivers under the influence.  Currently, because we don't arrest people for possession, the only thing cops can do is arrest for driving under the influence - which they cannot test or prove as there is no law related to driving on cannabis.  Hence no point as they won't convict.

[grams]

What? Drug driving is already a specific crime and roadside drug tests are standard kit.

This assumes the vanishingly unlikely chance of encountering a traffic officer of course.

[Wanlock Dod]

As already noted, it is already illegal to drive under the influence. Given the leniency afforded by the courts to dangerous drivers I would not be surprised if stoned and dangerous driving was already subject to more harsh punishments. I expect that the current situation is that testing would only be performed retrospectively after an incident, so we focus on punishment rather than prevention. Anecdotes from earlier posters suggests that this policy is perhaps not as effective at preventing stoned driving as we might hope.

Legalisation could potentially make money available to fund more testing of motorists, information campaigns aimed at discouraging stoned driving, and other associated public health campaigns. It could be a licensing requirement that suppliers didn’t provide any car parking.

There is some evidence from the US about what the effects might be like, and the analyses would seem to suggest that whilst there would probably be more accidents (perhaps about 6%), there might not be any more fatalities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/what-marijuana-legalization-did-to-car-accident-rates/?noredirect=on

It is perhaps worth noting that cannabis has been decriminalised for a long time in the country where cycling is safest, so perhaps there are better ways of ensuring the safety of cyclists.

[Jasmine]

If you don't smoke, why would you start - unless cannabis vapes became available, which I guess is possible. Personally tho I'd expect tablets to remain the drug delivery system of choice for most recreational users.

In the parts of the USA where cannabis has been legalised, vaping is one of the preferred methods. I have family in Oregon who tell me that the good thing about vaping is that it is quite standardised (per brand) so you know what sort of high you are going to get and for how long. It isn't sold in supermarkets, but in Portland there's a pot shop every 1/4 mile or so.

Personally, I don't think that legalising it would make this type of RTC more likely. There are already roadside signs to tell people not to take drugs and drive, so it's clearly recognised as an issue, regardless of whether the drugs in question are legal or not. It simply becomes equivalent to drink-driving - drinking alcohol is legal; driving under the influence is not. I'm more concerned that drink-driving is starting to lose the level of social unacceptability that it had when I was a teenager. Having a few, and then driving home seems to be considered ok now, as long as you make up some convoluted 'calculation' to justify it.

[vorsprung]

Surely if it's legalised it becomes more socially acceptable and more people (than the huge number who already do in Rochdale) will drive under the influence?

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/129449/cyclist-airlifted-to-hospital-with-serious-injuries

Yes, it would and this would lead to more accidents.  See this page https://madd.ca/pages/impaired-driving/overview/cannabis-and-driving/ for details about the Canada experience

I do not believe that the many other reasons for the legalization of Cannabis outweigh this.  The balance of risks is in favour of legalization

[lahoski]

I'm more concerned that drink-driving is starting to lose the level of social unacceptability that it had when I was a teenager. Having a few, and then driving home seems to be considered ok now, as long as you make up some convoluted 'calculation' to justify it.

This is something that bothers me also. Amongst my peers - mostly mid-twenties/thirties university educated "professionals" (well, teachers anyway) - there is probably only one person who is vehemently opposed to driving under the influence. Everyone else is prepared to push it with or without justification.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The same as with speeding or stopping for red lights. There's no enforcement and very little done to say why it's a good idea.

[ian]

Other than the brief pre-Christmas drink-driving campaign (which seems to be dying) there's really no enforcement – things are getting like the US, where it still traditional to drive home after a night out if 'you feel ok'*. Drivers don't believe they're going to crash until they do, and they're only likely to be breathalyzed after the fact, so no real deterrent effect.

*I confess, I used to, nothing extreme but it was usual to drive home after a couple of drinks. The police couldn't breathalyze you without due cause, so you had to fail a field sobriety test first.