I've seen these studies. They are bunk, mostly because when people drive after they smoke, they are aware they are impaired, and because of this, paranoia kicks in and they drive far more carefully. This study, says something similar. If someone is driving under the influence of alcohol, knows that, and because of that fact, they drive much slower to avoid accidents, doesn't change the fact that THEY ARE IMPAIRED.
Saying a study is bunk does not make it bunk. Most, of the studies to date show that experienced users who are under the influence of marijuana are to compensate fully for their impairment, unlike alcohol. No one is arguing that marijuana does not affect psychomotor abilities. But the fact that it impairs psychomotor abilities does not make it inherently dangerous if a user is able to compensate for the effects.
Fact is, they are impaired, as all studies show, and anyone driving under the influence of anything should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
What? How could you possible come to that conclusion? Almost every study I have seen has come to the same conclusion; that marijuana intoxication can be dangerous in exceptional circumstances, but does not cause dangerous impairment in normal situations. Most culpability studies show that there is no net increase in accident responsibility in marijuana users, or that there is a very minimal one.
I'm actually confused by your statement. Do you think that people driving under the influence of alcohol but under the legal level should be arrested? Because all studies I've seen that makes that comparison has shown that marijuana users are less impaired than than alcohol users at .08 BAC, the legal level of alcohol intoxication.
IMO, I doubt people smoke "just one". Thats like a drunk telling the officer, but I only had one beer.
Depending on the weight and potency, one joint is enough to get you high and then some. Equating a joint to a beer is silly and not realistic at all.
Two things I found telling in the linked article:
- " Subjects performed the tests sober and then again 30 minutes after smoking a single marijuana cigarette containing either 2.9 percent THC or zero THC (placebo)." So for those that use marijuana, how many times do you just smoke one?
Depends entirely on the weight. This is a "news report", not a study. I can't find the study, so I can't figure out how much they actually smoked in this particular study. 2.9% is about 50% to 30% that of "average" marijuana, but the weight of the joint is key.
I'm curious how that study was conducted, as it implies many things that are greatly at odds with most of the studies that I have seen. It asserts that there were 4% non alcoholic marijuana subjects involved in accidents, but asserts that marijuana is responsible for 2.5% of all fatalities. Thus, if one is to take the summary of this study at face value, then over 62% of people who crashed under the influence of marijuana did so due to their intoxication. This is in stark contrast to the findings of the U.S. Department of Transportation and others. Even studies showing a positive correlation between usage and risk don't go that high.
It was of some interest that cannabis tended to show a negative effect on relative risk when other drug groups showed an increase. This phenomenon has also been seen elsewhere [Terhune et al, 1992; Williams et al, 1985]. The most likley reason probably relates to the over compensation of marijuana-using drivers on their driving skills. Over compensation may be caused simply by slowing down and avoiding adverse driving situations. These observations do not seem to be related to whether delta-9-THC or 11-carboxy-THC are measured in blood [Terhune et al, 1992; Williams et al, 1985].
T95 Paper
. I’m building a case stating that weed is demonstrably less pernicious than alcohol. My assertion is that the level of impairment is on par with mundane fatigue and ubiquitous medications that have drowsiness as a side effect. (both of which, like weed, can be overcome through vigilance).
