Befuddled_Stoner
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
- Messages
- 845
- Reaction score
- 305
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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…
Awesome! said:Why not flying then too? Would you want pilots and air traffic contollers baked while you are in transit?
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…
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…
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.
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).
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.
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…
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]
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.
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?
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.
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.
IMO, I doubt people smoke "just one". Thats like a drunk telling the officer, but I only had one beer.
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?
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
At those levels, it should be criminal. It's not about "levels"; it's about effects.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?