AAA Study: Blood THC Levels After Smoking Pot Are Useless In Defining 'Too High To Drive' (arstechnica.com) 455
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Blood tests that try to quantify marijuana use are in fact useless at assessing how impaired a driver is, according to a study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. The study found that people with low blood amounts of THC -- or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive component of pot -- may still act as if they're really stoned. On the other hand, some people may have THC measurements off the charts yet still act normally. The finding is critical because several states have already set legal limits for the amount of THC a person can have in their blood while driving. AAA concluded that such limits are "arbitrary and unsupported by science, which could result in unsafe motorists going free and others being wrongfully convicted for impaired driving." The conclusion echoes that of other researchers that also noted no correlation between blood THC levels and impairment. Still, there is a need to deter people from smoking pot while driving, AAA argues, as it can impair driving. It recommends that until scientifically valid measures of impairments are put into place, law enforcement should use a combination of behavior and psychological tests to assess whether drivers who use marijuana are safe to drive.
How about... (Score:5, Funny)
The officer plays an Amy Schumer skit. If the person laughs they are to high to drive.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people react differently to alcohol as well. But you have to draw the line somewhere. If we get the drunks and stoners off the road, is it really a big tragedy if a few semi-sober people are removed as well?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the same will be found with stoners, the ones that will do it are doing it already...
And, just like booze, the next crop of substance abusers will behave in a similar manner.
Uber is helping with the more affluent substance abusers, but they always had lawyers in any case.
Self driving vehicles will help both by adding more mass transit and taking idiots out of the equation... especially if AI gets good enough to de
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
But you have to draw the line somewhere.
Yeah, you measure reflexes and decision making skills, and take them off the road if they are unsafe.
But doing so would make AARP and voters mad, and we all know stoners don't bother to vote, so you make up arbitrary (and wrong) limits for chemicals, not related to the safety of the driver. Great system.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Funny)
But doing so would make AARP and voters mad
for those cases, there's static routing.
(wait, wut?)
Re: (Score:2)
There's some obvious sense in this, but I have two concerns with it. One is that I think it may be subjective, in which case police may (consciously or subconsciously) hold different groups to different standards. The other is (assuming this is used as a basis for a conviction) people could be penalised for having a bad day for some reason, without realising it is impairing their driving. For example, peo
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? You're cool with people being arbitrarily punished for a crime they didn't commit?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes they are. The concept of better 9 criminals be set free than 1 innocent person not going to jail is seen as quaint.
Yes, they'll deprive all for the sake of the few. (See firearms as an example.)
There's a certain level of risk assumed with operating a motor vehicle on a public road. I'm not suggesting that we allow unfettered access and lawlessness but I am suggesting that we honestly look at the probabilities and then make a realistic choice regarding where the lines should be drawn.
However, the id
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you seen others suggesting some sort of "final solution" for the religious?
Never, but I've heard plenty religious talk about the end of the world and smiting by destructo-Jesus
Re: (Score:2)
And that goes double for airline pilots!
Re: (Score:2)
But they DID commit a crime.
Driving under influence is a crime.
You may not agree on what constitutes "under influence", but the law have to draw a line somewhere.
Personally, I've seen drunk people drive just fine, and at the same time, sober people drive like shit.
Re: (Score:3)
constitutes "under influence"
Well for starters their should have to be some evidence that there is influence. We don't put people away for driving under the influence of Cola because there isn't any evidence it impairs driving.
Obviously being stoned does impair driving, but if blood levels don't correspond to what is going on in the brain, than justice really demands one of two options.
A zero tolerance, IE if you show any THC in the blood you could potentially be very impaired so you can't drive for days after smoking. Not unreason
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Big difference, drunk people are physically impaired (motor skills) and believe that they are more capable then they are
Stoned people are mentally impaired (panic easily, misjudge situations) and believe that they are less able to drive than they are
I would much rather live in a world full of stoned drivers than drunk drivers
And PLEASE take Anslinger's rotting penis out of your mouth for long enough to understand the failures of the war on drugs. It has derailed the lives of millions of people by limiting t
Re: How about... (Score:2)
Ive driven with some stoners... they are about as fun to drive with as someone thats sloshed....
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
On a related note : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] :D
Re: How about... (Score:4)
According to my cop customers they would rather have 10 potheads rather than one drunk on the road for one simple reason...stoners tend to drive too slow and speed is what kills.
I've gotten to hear what a single drunk can do on the road...it ain't pretty as they tend to fly low and with their slow reaction time? Its a bloodbath waiting to happen. The potheads? They tend to find them doing 35 in a 55 and are too paranoid about their driving to do any stunts or try to outrun the cops like the drunks will often do.
So if given the choice? I'd rather be a little late to an appointment because some pothead was driving slow than see some drunk weaving all over the road at 90 MPH + heading my way.
Why make a choice at all? Both are dangerous so both should be illegal. Want to get fucked up? Fine - but take a taxi or don't move.
Re: (Score:3)
So if given the choice? I'd rather be a little late to an appointment because some pothead was driving slow than see some drunk weaving all over the road at 90 MPH + heading my way.
Why make a choice at all? Both are dangerous so both should be illegal
[citation needed]
Re: How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lane discipline (or a lack thereof) is responsible for most accidents, which is why law enforcement's obsession with speeding is so obnoxious. The fact that police would rather be sitting on the side of the road clocking for speeders (because it's easy and hard to contest in court) and ignoring all of the inattentive drivers changing lanes without looking or signaling, failing to yield the passing lane and encouraging passing on the right, and so on is a damn shame.
Re: How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I didn't already post in this discussion, I'd mod you up. If they are actually concerned about safety, the guy going 55 in the left most of 6 lanes of traffic while everyone else is doing 65 is the one causing the most danger. If you're adamant about people going the speed limit, it's still the ones tailgating, cutting off other drivers, failing to signal, and intentionally blocking other drivers from changing lanes that cause the most problems.
It seems to me the majority of traffic problems/jams are the fault of the drivers and not just traffic volume... people left-lane bombing (entering onto the highway and pushing their way all the way to the left lane, despite the fact traffic is not flowing at top speed anyway), people right-lane bombing (trying to pass in front of people who were already waiting to exit to the right); every lane change when traffic is already moving slowly, not being in the lane you need to be in before traffic slows. Those right lane bombers slow every lane they pass through to get to the right lane - cumulatively f#@king up the flow of traffic badly, causing 6 lanes of traffic (in my case) to become slow and go because of a single popular exit. The most blatant example of people causing the problem is gridlock. There's just simply no excuse to enter the intersection unless you are certain you can clear it before the light changes.
It will never get better until it's mandatory that all cars be self driving. The flow of traffic (and the danger caused both by people changing lanes abruptly and without signaling, and the ones actively tailgating to not allow people to change lanes) will never improve unless and until everyone is actually on the same page.... and that will never happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone going 35 in a 55 with no hazards on can be ticketed by a police officer for reckless driving whether they are drunk, stoned, or sober. Given that road fatalities have dropped dramatically in states where marijuana is legalized is it really needed to catch people at checkpoints who aren't actually driving in an impaired fashion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
LOL
Look, I smoked my fair share. And either you haven't, or you've smoked so much you're blind to its effects.
THC can cause hallucinations. Tracers. It'll literally put you to sleep (kinda like passing out on alcohol.) It'll also make you think you are doing something you're not. (ie moving when you're not, or not moving when you are.)
Like someone drinking a small amount of beer, we're not worried about someone who hasn't consumed enough to not be impaired. We are concerned with drunk drivers, and seri
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact there have been some studies that show stoned drivers slow down enough to fully compensate for their impairment, and so are no more likely than a sober driver to cause an accident (though they might be annoying to get stuck behind.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Informative)
And even if they do cause an accident, they are going at a much slower speed than your typical drunk driver would be making the accident far less severe.
Re: (Score:2)
Which causes accidents!
Just like when some a-hole does not understand the on ramp is for accelerating and pulls out 20ft in front of you on the inner state doing 35, (because there was no room for you to move left). I have nearly rear ended people who have done that. Going 30mph slower than what everyone else is doing, in places where it isn't expected is just as dangerous.
Look if you are going to cut someone off at least try to be going at a somewhat similar velocity.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's no room for me to move left and I'm encountering a merge / on ramp, I simply slow down gradually and let the guy entering in. It's safer and less stressful to treat it like a zipper and assume the guy trying to enter will move into the unoccupied space.
That said, I've found that when driving down south this confuses people (the guy entering actually slows down to go behind me!). Must be a regional thing...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I try to be nice and let people in. If traffic is moving at 75 and you are stuck in the right lane and you see someone on the ramp, yes I think you should slow down to the posted speed or so (usually 65-70mph) maybe even 10mph below the posted rate to let them in.
They should also show some courtesy by attempting to reach a speed as near to what traffic is doing at which they can still panic stop on the should if they must. I don't expect them to redline it, but I should not have to warp my break r
Re: (Score:3)
First, learn the definition of lying. Second, learn that that isn't the sort of accusation a civilized person tosses around ligghjtly.
Then, read this [washingtonpost.com] and this [livescience.com].
As for your links, the first uses a common dodge when you want to put your thumb on the scale. It measures involvement rather than attribution. Sor example, a sober trucker's brakes fail and he runs over a motorcyclist stopped at a traffic light. If the motorcyclist had any amount of THC in his system, it is counted as involving a driver with THC in
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer a world with neither.
There are enough people with impairment anyway; disease, mental problems, age related deficiencies, adrenaline junkies...
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention the perhaps biggest danger: impatient people, who think shaving a minute off wherever they're going is more important than safety and traffic rules.
Re:How about... (Score:4, Interesting)
The statistics are in, there has been a massive reduction in road fatalities in Colorado since legalizing marijuana. There is a massive hype because it is more common for there to be thc in the system of someone involved but the test indicates whether someone used marijuana within the last 30 days not whether or not they are intoxicated now.
The summary indicates AAA suggests a combination of behavioral and psychological tests. I suggest simply looking for signs of reckless driving and ticketing anyone engaging in reckless driving without regard for the underlying cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, not to troll. can you link to the source for " The statistics are in, there has been a massive reduction in road fatalities in Colorado since legalizing marijuana "
If it's government sponsored, that would indicate possible nationwide adoption for the future IE: the pitch is, "stoners not on the road, stoned at home, happy not to drive and pollute the air. think of all the kids lives saved "
Anyone got Uber stats about usage increase in Colorado to help correlate, validate, or disprove the above
I mean, st
Re:How about... (Score:5, Informative)
Here is an article on the subject from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
Here is source data:
https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/fatal-crash-data-city-county
Re:How about... (Score:5, Funny)
SUPER STAR ... now that's what I call kicking ass and citing sources
Re: (Score:2)
But you won't find government sources for those of any kind because the DEA controls the only source of legal marijuan
Re:How about... (Score:5, Informative)
REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation.
REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.
“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”
REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.
“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.
There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”
REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.
“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.
… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”
REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.
“
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any war on has to fail. Because you cannot wage a war against an idea or a problem. War on terror, war on drugs, war on poverty, war on sanity... ok, that last one pretty much worked out.
This isn't a military campaign where you can succeed by throwing ammo at something or someone 'til it croaks. Ideas may be bulletproof, but problems are simply so intangible that you cannot simply bomb them away.
You have to solve them. But that requires thinking instead of beating something.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to set the cutoff somewhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You need to set the cutoff somewhere (Score:5, Informative)
long time alcoholic reaction times might still be reasonably ok even when way over the limit
Not really. What happens is that long time alcoholics become practiced at compensating for lousy reaction times.
Re:You need to set the cutoff somewhere (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah well, I wish they would practice on their side of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
on their side of the road.
Hey! I am always make sure that my tires are making that "Brrrt, brrrt, brrrt." signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well, I wish they would practice on their side of the road.
That no good if you're too drunk. I mean - there's no telling how many lines you're actually seeing. So, don't try to stay between the lines - just pick one and stick to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Do NOT do this.
When you drive drunk, and are so drunk that you truly have a hard time seeing, then just close one eye. It actually works. I had a drunken buddy share that kernel of wisdom with me. I have no idea how I never got an OUI or caused an accident - no infractions since a speeding ticket in something like 1975 and zero at-fault accidents ever - and I drive a whole lot more than most.
So, yeah... Do NOT do that. I learned my lesson without any actual repercussions but I drove drunk more often than I
Re:You need to set the cutoff somewhere (Score:5, Informative)
Alcoholics are a mess at everything - very sad to watch it happen.
Re:You need to set the cutoff somewhere (Score:5, Informative)
Yea, but blood alcohol limits had a LOT of science behind them before they became law. There is very good evidence showing reaction times are impaired a minimum of 50% at what are now legal blood limits even in the most tolerant drunk.
The first person with the money to fight one of these blood THC levels is going to win because the limit is entirely arbitrary and there is in fact no evidence whatsoever that THC impairs reaction time. They'd have as much luck trying to convict someone for having whipped cream in the blood. You can thank that DEA level 1 classification for that as no one has been able to do any real research on cannabis. In time we will find out but the only reason the courts allowed blood alcohol to be used against you was because there was a TON of research and good hard science documenting the connection between blood alcohol and reaction time.
The legislature can't make something legal to consume being in your blood illegal to drive unless they can demonstrate that it impairs your ability to drive. People have forgotten all the effort it took to get the courts to let blood alcohol content be actionable. Blood alcohol took almost a decade of court wrangling before it was eventually allowed as evidence of impairment. Hell maybe the supreme court will allow it because the most of the court loves jacked booted thugery but IMO the government should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance impairs your driving ability to make it illegal to be on it while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why not. They can make up any rules they want for the privilege of driving...
Have to pass tests with arbitrary questions about laws, not driving skill (what does that color curb mean?)
Have to be a certain age (why not a year lower, or higher)
Have to have your papers in order
etc.
If it is not based on sex, race, creed, etc... it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but blood alcohol limits had a LOT of science behind them before they became law.
And also a bunch of dead and severely injured people and drunk drivers in accidents serving as evidence. even with that, alcohol limits changed over the years. It makes it tougher for defining pot limits because there are a lot less of those incidents.
Re:no science behind BAC limits (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad that I'm not the only one that sees MADD as a neo-prohibition organization. As much as people claim that breathalyzer tests demonstrate intoxication I thought I'd be able to find plenty of evidence to support this. All I could seem to find is a lot of people giving identical BAC levels and their effects on the body but with no citations. This leads me to believe that if there was a study then it must be very old since these numbers did not seem to change with the age of the articles I found and the numbers are so pervasive that it seems no one has bothered to question them.
What I also found was ample evidence that roadside BAC testing is terribly inaccurate and is so poorly regulated on how it should be tested that people have successfully challenged such testing in courts. This is much like how people challenge speeding tickets by showing the radar speed detectors have been poorly maintained and rarely checked for accuracy. There is very little or no regulation on BAC testing for law enforcement.
I believe that if the charge is for intoxication then test for intoxication. Having the suspect try to touch their nose, balance on one foot, or recite the alphabet on camera seems like a much better test of driving ability than BAC levels. But then MADD lobbied for the laws to be changed that its not intoxication that they are testing for, it's BAC. Which brings me back to what I found before, I've found it difficult to find a study that correlates BAC levels to one's ability to drive.
Personally, I don't care if your BAC is 100%. If you can drive the speed limit, keep in your lane, signal your turns, etc. then bottoms up. Also on a personal note I believe it wasn't drunk driving laws that reduced drunk driving deaths, it was the realization by the public that driving drunk is not funny any more. It's no longer "cute" to have a pint too many and drive home.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence following up with a blood test before you get a ticket, or is your local law enforcement too incompetent for that or you are just totally unaware if they follow up or not?
Re: (Score:2)
The laws where I live do not require a blood test for an arrest or conviction, merely the affirmation of a law enforcement officer. Refusing the test is assumed to be an admission of guilt.
I do not know how vigorously these cases are enforced but the way the law reads it is exceedingly easy to convict.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be armed, but it doesn't seem to be making you very free does it?
Re: (Score:2)
Silly acrobatic tests or tongue twisters do not test for that either. How much alcohol is in the blood is as close as we can currently get.
Having a law against it and the associated social stigma is probably the major cause of that attitude shift.
Re: (Score:2)
No it can't. The evidence is quite clear and blood alcohol level correlates very well with both impairment and the inability to recognise your impairment.
Re: (Score:3)
Pupil dilation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ann ipad with a front facing camera capturing and analyzing eye movement and pupil dilation during a series of flashes and moving objects should be perfectly suitable for calculating fitness to drive.
It would work for testing whether people who may be in shock should drive too. I am pretty sure it would block most politicians from driving though. Has anyone noticed how many politicians are a bit slow to focus their eyes... as if things like sound are confusing?
Re: (Score:2)
I used to very successfully know when my friends were stoned by their pupils.
Of course, there are plenty of medical conditions (e.g. Horner's syndrome) which would cause false positives on that kind of test. Hell, it would probably have caught David Bowie.
Re:Pupil dilation? (Score:4, Insightful)
That might work if other factors were not in play. Some prescription meds will screw with your pupil dilation while not impairing you at all outside of perhaps causing your low light vision to suffer a bit. Or be better. And while a similar test might be OK in most cases we need something that shows how high you were when something happened and it needs to be free of false positives. I have no idea how to do it but it is important to avoid ruining peoples lives for doing something that is legal days or weeks prior to an accident that has nothing to do with what happened. At this time it seems that we have many people that want a test simply because they want to say they have it and false positives are not a big worry since they dont really care about the real reason for 'why' they just want to push an agenda or inflate arrest numbers, but I suppose those are kind of the same.
I dont smoke weed on the regular but I do a few times a month. And when I do its legal. And I never drive when high. The current tests would say that a legit accident (as in: shit happens, not negligence) that I was in was the result of being high despite it being false. I could of been high 24 hours prior, a week, or a month, but if some folks get their way that is the same thing as being stoned as fuck at that very moment. Insane. Do we put people away for DUI when they got ripped a few days prior but were 100% sober when they were involved in an accident?
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone noticed how many politicians are a bit slow to focus their eyes... as if things like sound are confusing?
I tend to attribute that to their age. I did a quick Google search and I see that the average age of a sitting US senator is 62 years old. People complain about how Congress is full of old rich white guys but then keep voting them into office.
Another thing I noticed is that US senators tend to largely leave office feet first. As in they tend to be in office so long that they die there and must be carried out.
Bernie Sanders is 74 years old. Hilary Clinton is 68 years old, but looks older. Donald Trump i
Re: (Score:3)
I would attribute it to them rifling through their prepared sound byte laden scripted responses to see which one will sound like they are trying to answer the question rather than just stumping, evading, or lying.
Also, as they are quite wealthy, their give-a-fuck-ometer is pegged at 0 for empathetic interest in the actual issues that affect us plebs. They need to have things scripted, vetted, and memorized so they don't sound like themselves when they answer questions in public.
Also, in the name of fairnes
Weed doesn't dilate the pupils. (Score:2)
Makes the little veins in the eyes go red, but visine takes care of that.
LSD and shrooms, those dilate the pupils. And massively fscked with my driving to the point I didn't even try.
Hey man (Score:2)
Am I driving OK? [youtube.com]
It's easy... (Score:5, Funny)
The hippie going 45 in a 65 zone is high.
The dude sitting there waiting for the stop sign to turn green is high.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that's not fair. I might be texting. Or texting AND high.
Re: (Score:3)
The dude sitting there waiting for the stop sign to turn green is high.
The dude sitting there waiting... anywhere... is dicking with his phone.
I see this ALL THE TIME.
Simpler would be zero tolerance. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for the legalization of pot nation wide, but I'm also against impaired drivers being allowed to menace the roads. Smoke to your hearts content, but don't smoke and drive.
For every complex problem... (Score:2)
If I'm not impaired, there is no justification for arresting me. Your argument would make sense if there were no safe level of consumption. Not being able to determine a safe level of consumption via a blood test is not equivalent to not being able to determine impairment. There are lots of drugs which can impair driving for which there is no blood test. Frankly there aren't a lot of good legal or moral arguments for zero tolerance here. It would be a special exception to the rules about impaired driving, a
Re:Simpler would be zero tolerance. (Score:4, Insightful)
You just made a great argument for zero tolerance.
"The effects of the disease can have profound effects on everyday life. As well, the recurring side effects of dizziness, dry mouth, hangovers, disorientation, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome can lead to other health problems such as depression, anxiety and poor productivity in employment. The random state of intoxication can lead to personal difficulties, and the relative obscurity of the condition can also make it hard to seek treatment."
Who in their right mind would want people suffering from this disorder on the roads? Next you'll tell us that those prone to seizures should be able to drive as well.
and then I got high (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the day, I'd cruise down Halsted with a joint in my hand, a beer between by thighs and black beauties in my blood stream with my Ramones cassette blasting. And I never had a problem with impaired driving.
Of course, there was the time I broke an axle and sheared off the entire exhaust system on my '68 Caprice while doing donuts in the snow in the mall parking lot at 3am, but it was only because I was distracted by the fact that none of the snowflakes hitting my windshield were exactly the same.
Goddamn nanny state wants to take away my right to drive fucked up. Not that I get fucked up any more. I'm too old for that now. But every so often, just for kicks, I crank up Rocket to Russia on my mp3 player and do donuts in my mobility scooter down the paper goods aisle at the Wal-Mart.
https://youtu.be/CVQfVtzFd4U [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
You might not think you were impaired but you were. Alcohol is nasty that way.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if it was a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/CVQfVtzFd4U
Oh. I thought that was a link of you doing donuts on your mobility scooter on your way to Wal-Mart. If you do that, make sure to take a video.
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/k5f3-BgtaLM [youtu.be]
No shit. (Score:2)
The study found that people with low blood amounts of THC -- or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive component of pot -- may still act as if they're really stoned. On the other hand, some people may have THC measurements off the charts yet still act normally.
This just in! The reaction of a person to a drug can vary from person to person. Also... not everyone starts with the same level of driving ability before they ingest the substance. So it's not really possible to do a fair "one size fits all" law. This goes for alcohol, too.
Re: (Score:2)
>> not everyone starts with the same level of driving ability
Funny you should mention that. Up above, I mentioned that I used to drive while very intoxicated. I never had an accident, got violated, and got my first (and only) moving violation in 1975. Yet, I drove professionally for a while (it was my MOS) and am an automotive aficionado who has taken many, many lessons and driven on-track and rallied - all strictly amateur. I've even done those things while moderately (for a drunk) intoxicated.
There
AAA study? (Score:2)
Politics of this will be used against legalization (Score:2)
I think the politics of legalization almost requires a believable and workable DUI measurement system.
One of the many false narratives against legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes is the "ZOMG, STONED DRIVERS11!!" scare tactic. The idea that if you legalize it for recreational purposes, the roads will suddenly be flooded with stoned drivers, threatening the safety, moral purity and precious bodily fluids of God-fearing Christians and their children driving down the road.
It's a scare tactic becaus
Scary (Score:2)
From the Ars article:
"55.5 percent of drug-free people passed the walk-and-turn test perfectly"
Only 55% of the sober people passed the test? That's the scary part.
Doctors with years of postgrad training (Score:4, Insightful)
... have trouble selecting and interpreting medical tests.
And it turns out cops with no medical training whatsoever are even worse. Who'd have thunk it?
Marijuana doesn't even contribute to fatalities (Score:4, Interesting)
If you read the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, you'd know that marijuana didn't even increase the risks of crashes and fatalities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014 Jan; 75(1): 56â"64.
PMCID: PMC3893634
Drugs and Alcohol: Their Relative Crash Risk
Eduardo Romano, Ph.D.,a,* Pedro Torres-Saavedra, Ph.D.,b Robert B. Voas, Ph.D.,a and John H. Lacey, M.P.H.a
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine (a) whether among sober (blood alcohol concentration [BAC] = .00%) drivers, being drug positive increases the drivers' risk of being killed in a fatal crash; (b) whether among drinking (BAC > .00%) drivers, being drug positive increases the drivers' risk of being killed in a fatal crash; and (c) whether alcohol and other drugs interact in increasing crash risk.
Method: We compared BACs for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 crash cases drawn from the U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) with control drug and blood alcohol data from participants in the 2007 U.S. National Roadside Survey. Only FARS drivers from states with drug information on 80% or more of the drivers who also participated in the 2007 National Roadside Survey were selected.
Results: For both sober and drinking drivers, being positive for a drug was found to increase the risk of being fatally injured. When the drug-positive variable was separated into marijuana and other drugs, only the latter was found to contribute significantly to crash risk. In all cases, the contribution of drugs other than alcohol to crash risk was significantly lower than that produced by alcohol.
Conclusions: Although overall, drugs contribute to crash risk regardless of the presence of alcohol, such a contribution is much lower than that by alcohol. The lower contribution of drugs other than alcohol to crash risk relative to that of alcohol suggests caution in focusing too much on drugged driving, potentially diverting scarce resources from curbing drunk driving.
Re: (Score:3)
why a functional test can't be administered to detect impaired drivers.
Because a person's baseline reaction times vary too much due to many other factors. Like age, experience, genetics, etc. It's not too difficult to judge alcohol (or pot) impairment if you know what that person's baseline is. But if you apply an absolute cutoff line to the impaired/no impaired decision, you will catch too many people who are just plain slow. And many of these people have powerful lobbying organizations to back them up. I'm not taking on the AARP.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, we're talking about pot. It doesn't matter how slow your reaction time is if you're driving at 5 MPH down the shoulder with your windows down and your blinkers on.
Re: (Score:2)
that happened to my friend becky.
and you know what happened to her. everyone knows.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, you either are or are not fit to drive. The reason you're unfit to drive hardly matters. If that's not important enough to put in place, why not just go all the way and drop DUI laws?
If you fear the AARP, set the levels so they can pass them.
How about you set your trolling level to 0? (Score:2, Informative)
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Danish driver was convicted [hoejesteret.dk] forDUI after sharing a smoking area with marijuana smokers. In Denmark, the acceptable level is the detection limit, and blood tests are really really effective for marijuana. He was sentenced to lose his license for 3 years and 6 months.
However, it is worth noting that the police had stopped him for suspected drunk driving, and then decided to do a drug test since the alcohol level was below the legal limit and he seemed to be impaired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how about 0 (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, wait, do you know why alcohol and marijuana have an effect on the body? It's because the body is receptive to it's presence. Have you thought about why the body is receptive to these substances? It's because the body produces these same substances on its own.
This line of reasoning is flat out wrong in general. Plenty of receptors in the human body will react to many different molecules, including many that do not normally exist in the body but may have other molecules with similar shapes (or even just similar in one part that sticks out from the molecule).
Ethanol is a pretty simple chemical and appears in a lot of places in biology, including human metabolism. However, the CB1 and CB2 receptors that respond to THC are not in the body because the body has THC, but because of endocannabinoids like AG2 and others. And the body doesn't react the same, as different endocannabinoids will affect the two different receptors in a different ratio and affect additional receptors that THC doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The absurd rush to legalize marijuana will just add to those numbers.
I seriously doubt that. Lots of people that drink would switch to marijuana instead, and all those issues with alcohol would go away for most of them. Marijuana is a much safer intoxicant. It creates none of the health problems associated with alcohol abuse, and it kills no one, while many people die of alcohol poisoning every year.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the fact that it doesn't kill anyone is no longer true. We've finally had a few idiots die of marijuana overdose by injecting 10 ml of hash oil directly into their veins. The real cause of death was stupidity but, they were technically marijuana deaths.
Marijuana deaths? (Score:2)
Citation needed, if you would. Injecting 10mL of any oil into your bloodstream is probably not a good idea, but the LD50 studies I've read put the level somewhere north of 130 mg/kg of pure THC (citing Rosencrantz 1983 [google.com]). Hash oil is potent, but it's unlikely to be better than 60% THC at best, and the higher the potency, the less suitable it would be for injection, since THC is basically a resin. As far as I have been able to determine, hash oil has a density about the same as water, so all told the average
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's put that number in perspective. Every year, there are 2.6 million deaths in the United States, or about 26 million over that ten-year pe
Re: (Score:2)
police spending too much time chasing after bootleggers
You're delusional if you think that was the only problem caused by prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is legalizing it next year - this is confirmed and not just wishful thinking. They're in the process of drafting the legislation which has a metric ton of support.
Re: (Score:2)