• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Weed has negliable effects on driving

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
31,295
Reaction score
34,709
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I dunno dude, I've never driven high. But haven been high more times then I can count. There's no ****ing way I'd trust myself behind the wheel of a car.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Driving while under the influence of marijuana should be illegal. It's just too dangerous.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,490
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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. 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.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I’m not making the point that weed is awesome and ingestion should be mandatory (that’s Caine :mrgreen:). 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).

I’ll accept external validity criticisms saying that stoners outside of lab conditions are less likely to maintain their vigilance, but you’ve all got to concede the fact that smoking weed does not always cause noticeably impaired driving.

Awesome! said:
Why not flying then too? Would you want pilots and air traffic contollers baked while you are in transit?

You think washing your hands is a good idea? Would you want a surgeon to have his hands dripping lather while he’s opening up your skull?

Wee! Building up and tearing down strawmen is so much fun!
 
Last edited:

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
25,496
Reaction score
9,569
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?

-"By contrast, studies have also reported that drivers engaged in the simultaneous use of both cannabis and alcohol can increase their risk of accident compared to the consumption of either substance alone." For those that use, do you ever combine with alcohol?

Seems the report showing the effects of one joint may not show the effects of use in the real world. IMO, I doubt people smoke "just one". Thats like a drunk telling the officer, but I only had one beer.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Then how come you're so befuddled?

/thread


=D
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Marijuana Raises Risk of Fatal Car Crash

I think I prefer to err on the side of caution - while I don't mind legalization of marijuana, I feel that, just like drinking and texting while driving, it's nothing but a mere distration and will dull the senses.

What I find amusing is how every new generation that comes along acts like they are the first to discover pot and its affects,...... and how it makes them act like they have just discovered the (expletive omitted) fountain of youth.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
What I find amusing is how every new generation that comes along acts like they are the first to discover pot and its affects,...... and how it makes them act like they have just discovered the (expletive omitted) fountain of youth.

It IS new, isn't it?
They had weed 200 years ago?
Did Christ smoke it? WWJD? *thinking*

:rofl :mrgreen:

I smoked it a few times years back - I didn't drive while under the influence - and I didn't notice a change in the way I perceived things at all. I was unaware that it actually affected me at all.
However, if I drink I can tell when the alcohol kicks in.

Just based on my personal very limited experience - smoking pot seemed far less detrimental than drinking. Heck, even my anemia-symptoms can be far more invasive than the a bit of tuke. (Yes, I shouldn't drive when low on B12 and Iron - talk about feeling drunk and being high).
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It IS new, isn't it?
They had weed 200 years ago?
Did Christ smoke it? WWJD? *thinking*

:rofl :mrgreen:

I smoked it a few times years back - I didn't drive while under the influence - and I didn't notice a change in the way I perceived things at all. I was unaware that it actually affected me at all.
However, if I drink I can tell when the alcohol kicks in.

Just based on my personal very limited experience - smoking pot seemed far less detrimental than drinking. Heck, even my anemia-symptoms can be far more invasive than the a bit of tuke. (Yes, I shouldn't drive when low on B12 and Iron - talk about feeling drunk and being high).

In my view "impaired is impaired" I don't really give a rat's posterior what the root cause is other than if was caused recreationally or not.

In the US,... we are supposed to be free to do whatever we want right up to the point where our actions infringe upon the rights of another.

I believe that the case is easily made that recreational drug use has a significant affect not only on the user but also on those in the immediate area of the user.

That (to me) makes the user liable for any charges that can be made and defended.

Beyond that,... I don't have much more of an opinion on any of it.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,229
Reaction score
14,235
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It seems declaring that weed has negligible effects on driving is purely wishful thinking.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I’m not making the point that weed is awesome and ingestion should be mandatory (that’s Caine :mrgreen:). 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).

I’ll accept external validity criticisms saying that stoners outside of lab conditions are less likely to maintain their vigilance, but you’ve all got to concede the fact that smoking weed does not always cause noticeably impaired driving.

CaptainCourtesy is correct. These lab settings aren't very helpful for determining what would happen in reality.
 

Djoop

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
683
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well maybe it will become interesting when MJ users start causing traffic accidents. They usually cause less accidents because they tend to consume less alcohol.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
My problem with smoking and driving isn't that it's necessarily any worse than drinking and driving, it's that it's very difficult to measure and quantify. One of the biggest deterrents to drunk driving is that the police have a tool that lets them accurately and immediately measure how drunk the driver is and assign punishments accordingly. How on earth would that work for weed?
 
Last edited:

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Marijuana Smoking Associated With Minimal Changes In Driving Performance, Study Finds

…not that the minimally deleterious effects of marijuana have ever had any bearing on its legality…

2.9% THC? That sounds low. I have no dount that someone smoking highly diluted marijuana is not affected much. Just like someone having 2 beers.

Wiki- cannabis
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), "the amount of THC present in a cannabis sample is generally used as a measure of cannabis potency."[38] The three main forms of cannabis products are the herb (marijuana), resin (hashish), and oil (hash oil). The UNODC states that marijuana often contains 5% THC content, resin "can contain up to 20% THC content", and that "Cannabis oil may contain more than 60% THC content.".[38]

Plus its taken in using the crudest and most uncontrolled method: smoking.

How large where the cigerettes? How much volume did they inhale? How many puffs? How long did they hold it in?

This study has an EXTENSIVE number of methodological problems.

On a side note: I can personally attest to the dangers and stupidity of driving high. You are impaired, just differently than alcohol. How much is used, your tolernace, metabolism, health, etc obviously makes a difference
 

Awesome!

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
260
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You think washing your hands is a good idea? Would you want a surgeon to have his hands dripping lather while he’s opening up your skull?

Wee! Building up and tearing down strawmen is so much fun![/QUOTE]

I don't know. Maybe if a study came out supporting that surgeons with hands dripping lather while they are opening skulls in surgery is not that harmful, I may consider it.
 

First Thought

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
6,218
Reaction score
1,859
Location
DFW, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?

-"By contrast, studies have also reported that drivers engaged in the simultaneous use of both cannabis and alcohol can increase their risk of accident compared to the consumption of either substance alone." For those that use, do you ever combine with alcohol?

Seems the report showing the effects of one joint may not show the effects of use in the real world. IMO, I doubt people smoke "just one". Thats like a drunk telling the officer, but I only had one beer.

Your comparison of one joint to one beer is pretty amusing, but not very effective. One joint is enough for multiple individuals to partake and feel intoxicated. The same cannot be said of a beer(unless you give it to children :) )
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My problem with smoking and driving isn't that it's necessarily any worse than drinking and driving, it's that it's very difficult to measure and quantify. One of the biggest deterrents to drunk driving is that the police have a tool that lets them accurately and immediately measure how drunk the driver is and assign punishments accordingly. How on earth would that work for weed?

The way it works in many states already is that any amount of Marijuana in the blood proves that they had been using.
Of course, the difference is you can't get a conviction just based upon the fact that someone had marijuana in their blood, it has to be supported with
A. Tests and Observances of Impairment.
B. A reason as to why you believed that marijuana was the impairing substance.

If you have all of this, then you should have enough to build a strong case against someone.

However, with marijuana smokers, this rarely happens.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,490
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I’m not making the point that weed is awesome and ingestion should be mandatory (that’s Caine :mrgreen:). 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).

I’ll accept external validity criticisms saying that stoners outside of lab conditions are less likely to maintain their vigilance, but you’ve all got to concede the fact that smoking weed does not always cause noticeably impaired driving.

No. I will not concede that. Not anymore than I will concede that drinking alcohol ALWAYS causes noticibly impaired driving. It depends on amount, strength, person, and many other factors. Fact is that both substances impair... that is what they are designed to do. THAT is something you must concede.



You think washing your hands is a good idea? Would you want a surgeon to have his hands dripping lather while he’s opening up your skull?

Wee! Building up and tearing down strawmen is so much fun![/QUOTE]
 

Christopher

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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
 
Last edited:

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,490
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.

No, it's bunk because it IS bunk. Just because a user believes that they can compensate for the effects does not make it so. Users get paranoid about their behavior, recognizing that they are impaired. Folks who drink alcohol can do the same thing. Not all people who drink get pulled over or commit some crime or offense... same as those who use marijuana. Doesn't change the fact that they are both impaired and have a reduced ability to drive.



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.

And studies I've seen show the exact opposite as does accident data. Impairment decreases ones ability to function both in a psychomotor and a decision-making way. This is really simple biology.

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.

Studies have made determinations when ones impairment affects ones driving. At those levels, it should be criminal. It's not about "levels"; it's about effects.
 

Christopher

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No, it's bunk because it IS bunk. Just because a user believes that they can compensate for the effects does not make it so. Users get paranoid about their behavior, recognizing that they are impaired. Folks who drink alcohol can do the same thing. Not all people who drink get pulled over or commit some crime or offense... same as those who use marijuana. Doesn't change the fact that they are both impaired and have a reduced ability to drive.

I want to make sure I understand your argument. If person takes substance X, and as a result impairs their reaction time by 5%, but as a result greatly improves their focus and concentration, would they be worse off? Biologically you're probably right, but if you take the psychological aspect into account, you get a different answer.

And studies I've seen show the exact opposite as does accident data. Impairment decreases ones ability to function both in a psychomotor and a decision-making way. This is really simple biology.

Can I see some of these studies? Do they take poly-drug use into account?

At those levels, it should be criminal. It's not about "levels"; it's about effects.

You've lost me here. Do you agree that alcohol intoxication impairs driving even when below the legal limit? Do you believe driving under any level of intoxication that causes driving impairment should be illegal?
 
Top Bottom