You steal a camera during MY Workshop? Fuck you, you piece of messed-up shit !

[Malthus]

Except it really doesn't because the "impairment" is not significant enough to make accidents any more likely.

Stoned people produce far less accidents, on average, than drunk people. That is not because the impairment of being stoned isn't significant - smoke enough pot, and it certainly is significant: it is perfectly possible for the average person to get so stoned that simple mobility shows impairment.

Rather, unlike the booze, stoned people tend not to lose the ability to judge their own performance - hence, "compensating". The person who has had a few drinks tends to think they are "just fine" to drive; the person who smoked a joint thinks "my goodness, I'm high". If they drive (and they are more likely to choose not to), they will go out of their way to be careful - even over-compensating.

It isn't that they aren't impaired. Get someone *really* high and force them to drive - and the results would not be pretty. But really high people know they are really high and mostly do not *want* to drive - as opposed to your average boozer's "scuse me ossifer. I mean oskafer. Waddya mean drunk I am?"

The net result is that stoned people cause fewer accidents than drunks - but that doesn't mean it isn't impairing. If the element of choice is removed, you'd see more problems. For example: if your job is to work with heavy machinery, it isn't a good idea to get high at work, because you may not have the choice whether to operate the machinery or not.