I wish it were that easy. The key challenges are habituation and variable response.
A sober regular stoner could have latent cannabis in the blood sufficient to make a first time user significantly intoxicated.
2 Likes
I think thatâs a little unfair. Itâs true that the governments and lawyers benefit, but the reality is that when one is piloting 2+ tons of guided missile itâs not unreasonable to expect the pilot to be on top of his or her game.
2 Likes
This study in Nature compares startle response in habituated MDMA, habituated cannabis, and non-drug users. It shows that cannabis users have a depressed startle rate compared to both MDMA (who startle more easily) and non-drug users.
So, even though a habituated user may not âfeel highâ they still will have the latent effects of continued cannabis use, and those include a slowed response rate. Thatâs not a safe thing for driving, and it may be affecting regular users even when they just standardly use (without seeking a stronger high). This study (possibly the first of its kind) didnât test for any effect abstinence might have on response time. The time between the last dose taken and test occurred is included in the study information.
2 Likes
Years ago to prove an acquaintance wrong I submitted myself to speed test using an app that tracks how fast you can tap once the screen changes color. I actually scored higher* while stoned than when sober.
So based off of my anecdotal evidence, reaction time is not the best way to track sobriety/inebriation.
*seriously no pun intended.
1 Like
Interesting study, thanks for sharing.
Iâd like to point out that you are referring to a single trend in the study that âdisappeared in more reliable measures of startle reactivity, such as the first block of PA or the overall mean of all PAs.â
It was insignificant enough that it wasnât mentioned in the abstract, introduction, or conclusion.
Clearly you are quite interested in and/or were introduced to it by someone who had interest in demonstrating harm from regular cannabis use.
So in conclusion it has not been demonstrated that latent cannabis levels in a regular user affect performance. In fact this study does more to contradict what you claim than support it.
4 Likes
Do you know how easy it is to get a driverâs license? I do. When I got my CA license when I was 20, for whatever reason it took me three times to pass the written test. The third time was the âoral test,â where you received a piece of paper with pictures of street signs and listened to a tape recording of a person describing a street sign. The sheet had a picture of a yield sign and it would ask if it meant âstop.â If the description matched the picture, you put an âXâ for âyes.â
There are worse problems than weed out on the road, itâs just that cannabis is identifiable so therefore there must be a crime. And Iâm pretty sure driving missiles around is a special pleading.
2 Likes
I canât tell you if one joint is going to make you high to the point where you canât drive
âŚ
And if you are going to consume any amount of cannabis, donât drive.
Thatâs right, copper, you canât tell me. But since booze is the only drug I consume that significantly impairs my ability to tell how impaired my abilities are, I can say that virtually any amount of weed I consume will still leave me with more competence than >90% of the other drivers on the road.
Any sort of regulation of stoned driving that fails to take into account the vast gulf between someone whoâs stoned all the time and someone whoâs stoned for the first time, is an extremely blunt instrument.
2 Likes
Iâm not sure what you mean by that. What is inescapable, however, is that driving a car is actually serious and potentially dangerous business. In an instant you can alter or end someoneâs life forever because of your stupidity and carelessness. There may be some worse problems than driving stoned but that does not make driving stoned OK. Or driving drunk, or talking on a cell phone, or putting on make up, or shaving, orâŚ
1 Like
Youâre welcome.
If youâll go back and read the introduction, youâll find that it wasnât mentioned because the study was actually looking for information on MDMA and receptors. It wasnât a study on cannabis. The information about cannabis is incidental. I posted the study here because no other similar studies exist (and I mentioned that).
The object of this experiment was to investigate the functional status of the serotonergic system of chronic but recently abstinent users of MDMA by using measurement of PPI of ASR as a functional marker of the central 5-HT system.
I suggest you go back to the study and view the Startle Reactivity section and figure 3 - which is not the one you posted here with your pull-quote. Those two items are not related. In fact, your quote doesnât even say what you want it to appear to say at all.
Figure 3 shows the general startle reactivity measured in three variables: the initial PA trial, the first block of PA, and the overall mean of all PAs. ANOVA performed for the groups showed no significant differences in these variables. However, there was a weak trend: the initial PA trial produced less startle reaction in the cannabis group than did the MDMA group (t(31)=-1.5; p=0.15 (two tailed)) and the healthy controls (t(31)=-1.5; p=0.15 (two tailed)). This trend disappeared in more reliable measures of startle reactivity, such as the first block of PA or the overall mean of all PAs.
So itâs comparing both âcontrolâ and âcannabisâ to âMDMAâ - the group actually being tested. What you posted was differences at different volumes. The different tests show consistent results.
Last bit - Thereâs nothing wrong me with pointing out the facts about using machinery while on drugs that reduce response time on a thread about that topic. It doesnât mean Iâm out to get anyone or that I, or someone I know, has âinterest in demonstrating harm from regular cannabis useâ - thatâs just silly.
4 Likes
Marijuana THC content before ingestion is not the issue. And, in fact, your alcohol analogy doesnât even hold up - mixed drinks at a bar, restaurant, or pub can vary greatly in alcohol content depending on the bartender.
The issue is: at what THC blood level does it become dangerous to drive? This is what needs to measured scientifically.
2 Likes
Although itâs far from a perfect test, my lap times on Gran Turismo suffer a bit when Iâm really stoned.
IIRC itâs on the order of 1-2%.
3 Likes
One real hard thing is that, even with alcohol, different people have seriously different levels of impairment at the same BAC. This difference in tolerance in enormously greater with weed. In my personal experience (again YMMV), when smoking it, pretty much no matter how much I smoke, if I wait two hours, Iâm basically sober, and can do things like driving again. I donât eat it, because Iâve found that to have extremely unpredictable effects.
1 Like
Differences in individual tolerance are enormously greater than with alcohol, and they are significant with booze (I wouldnât drive at half the legal BAC limit for alcohol, personally), so thereâs no way to set a blood level. I think field sobriety tests would be a much more reasonable way to determine if someone is too impaired to drive.
2 Likes
Each to their own, but I feel you are missing out.
its virtually impossible to gauge how much of an intoxicant is in the product before consumption
Proper smokers buy a big bag⌠weâre into efficiency. The added benefit is that you know what to expect until you get the next bag, and if you get off a regular source you also have a fair ability of knowing what kind of stuff youâre getting in advance.
as most cannabis products are home made
This is a result of prohibition. The edibles you purchase in CA have a regulated dose per candy. I know because a friend of a friend took some with him to Singapore before bringing them to Australia on another flight for me to eat.
1 Like
Plus the current laws in Australia mean that if thereâs a detectable level in your system they bust you. Since I smoke most days it would literally take months (2-3) for it to fall to undetectable levels if I stopped cold turkey today (which I wont).
In one way I donât want legalisation here because it would mean the pigs have to put more resources into catching me.
4 Likes
There seems to be some popular misconception here that being high on marijuana is in any way comparable to being drunk. The two are completely different.
I should mention that here in Washington state, some of the biggest opponents to legalization were medical marijuana groups who thought that it shouldnât be legalized until the standards for âDUIsâ were adjusted. Patients were pointing out that they could take a legitimate medical dose in the evening and still get arrested for driving while intoxicated the next day.
All of this is because marijuana has been demonized for so long and intoxication arrests are a massive source of revenue for both the state and private businesses.
4 Likes
People get in accidents all the time for all sorts of reasons. Thatâs why theyâre called accidents and not on-purposes.
I donât get high anymore but Iâm afraid that now marijuana is legal where Iâm from, the law will reflect the attitude that THC is some sort of dangerous drug. Itâs not. Never was. Never will be.
Sorry to post this to you Teapot, but actually itâs just not true that the levels are standardized for edibles in the U.S. A series of tests run by The Cannbist on edibles showed that dosage was highly erratic, and not just from one company. Hereâs a quick view list of some variations.
Most often, doses are low, but occasionally, doses are high - so you never really know what youâre getting. Standardized testing for thc as an active ingredient just doesnât exist here.
2 Likes
Equally true for sober people though, innit?
5 Likes
Good to know!
My only experience with commercial edibles has been that one I described, and the product was labelled exactly as they mentioned in your post. I foolishly presumed that (since the argued case is medicine in CA) the manufacturers wouldnât be able to lie about its ingredients. I am blown away that so many of these contain laughable levels of THC. That seems like cause for legal action, since youâre getting 1/20th (or less) of what you paid for.
2 Likes
