Without bothering to take a look myself, I’d bet (because I’ve seen stuff to this effect previously) that the majority of that cannabis use coincided with other drugs, particularly alcohol.
Also, there’s an implicit assumption that the intoxicant must be the cause of the fatality… were the drivers in the studies even determined to be at fault?
Far too often, these studies have laughably dodgy methodology and are merely churned out to prop up the status quo, deflecting attention from serious risk-reduction measures to easy scapegoats that can be ‘cracked down’ on with revenue-gathering authoritarianism.
These were simply reports on the blood content of drivers involved in fatal and accident-related crashes. Like I said, this wasn’t mass publication stuff.
I agree entirely that the skillsets for coding and driving are fairly different. That point was in specific reference to the countless times I’ve heard the “we thought we were awesome, until we played it back” story (whether it be ideas, stories or music).
As I’m sure I’ve bored you with in the past, I also vouch for my ability to drive stoned. While I’d never suggest I’m a better driver when stoned (the data suggests no one is), I do think that driving stoned is easily doable for anyone who does so regularly and is, when sober, a confident sensible driver.
There are levels of being stoned at which I would prefer not to be driving, the difference between weed and alcohol being that when very stoned I KNOW I don’t want to drive but when I’m very drunk I know I SHOULDN’T drive, but rate my ability to do so anyway. I dont drive drunk because you have no self respect and no respect for others if you do since objective research shows that drunk people are shit at… well, pretty much everything but being loud.
I also believe that in the 16ish years I’ve been smoking weed there’s never been a time at which, if there was some sort of emergency, I would have been too out of it to drive if required… and I’ve been very stoned. Art school levels of stoned
The other factor that influences these sorts of studies is the comparatively high rates of marijuana use compared to other drugs.
That plus most the rest of them make you want to do pretty much everything except drive. Meth and base are probably an exception, but I don’t really know cause that end of things isn’t really my bag.*
*do not make the incorrect assumption that I won’t do your speed with you
No, but I bet it’s the sort of thing that’s cited as hard evidence in the push to be seen to be doing something.
Similarly, speeding is (or maybe was) cited as the leading cause of accidents here in Oz, simply because dumb-arse coppers routinely list ‘speed’ as a contributing factor to nearly every accident. Like, duh… if nobody moves there won’t be any collisions.
I spent several years doing harm reduction and psychoeducation with CU-Boulder students who were busted for drinking violations. Many, if not most, also smoked weed. They mostly knew better than to drink and drive, but they had no problem toking up and then driving. It was very difficult to have to keep saying “dude, I believe you that it helps you study for your exams. But studying and driving are not the same things.”
Then there were the snowboarder stoners. “Well I know I can drive because I can snowboard.” And I’d sit there thinking “OK, I know a big part of anti-snowboarder sentiment is ageism and cultural elitism, but I have been on the slopes with some of you guys and you are SCARY with the risks you take and the way you treat space around other people.” But if I went there, we’d just de-volve into arguing, so there was no point.
I mean, I’m really glad that legalization is moving forward. AND I’m really sick of the attitude that there’s no major risks or harms involved, particularly when it comes to driving.
(I’ve also seen first-hand the major negative consequences that weed dependence can have on relationships, but that’s OT for this discussion.)
And I know you said you hate this argument, but here’s where we go back to: people are ALREADY bad at evaluating their own skill level at things, and when you add subtances that change your perception and evaluation skills, that can only get WORSE.
Who here has not seen someone arguing “I’m totally fine to drive!” while obviously not - whether due to booze, sleepiness, weed, or something else?
I’m not at all opposed to people being comfortable in their own skin, that’s something important. While people may assume that I’m against legalization - I’m not. I’m all for federal clearance so that we can do things like properly regulate and label edibles. I want people to be safe. I also do believe that keeping marijuana illegal is just a way to put people in prison who don’t really belong there.
Now about driving: Unfortunately there’s already a false culture of “safety” around tokers. I hear it at all ages. I think part of it comes from the anti-establishment, anti-big pharma thing where people have decided that a “natural medicine” is “safer” than anything provided by those in charge. They then apply this double standard: Acknowledge it’s a drug, but don’t treat it with any care.
They ignore the effects that it has on them, and then put themselves - and sometimes others - at risk. They don’t realize how the high works, and how it will make them more dangerous.
Teapot doesn’t get it - just driving isn’t the problem. (Sorry Teapot, not trying to pile on ya.) You can drive, but if anything goes wrong: if you have a blowout, if you miss a light, if another car swerves toward you, if someone walks in front of your car - you’re much more likely to be unable to react in time to correct for the situation. In fact, Teapot makes the same self assessments that a drunk driver makes, but when high ignores the fact that a drug is in his system and drives anyway.
So people need to realize that THC is a drug, and like alcohol (but in a totally different way) will impair their driving skills. (That’s the first time I’ve compared the two on this page.) Cannabis is safer than alcohol for driving, but it isn’t safer than or even as safe as being sober.
One positive result and two negative results does not show “that cannabis users have a depressed startle rate compared to both MDMA (who startle more easily) and non-drug users.”
Um, I’m not “cherry picking” - that’s what you did when you pulled a quote from one part of a study and applied to another without providing the full information in context.
I correctly attributed a paragraph to the figure it represented. Later, I took the very first link from Krymsun’s supposedly “pro-high driving” links, and found that source actually said that cannabis rated as more risky than any of the other drugs they had info on - except alcohol. You can deny it all you like - but there’s plenty of data out there that says it’s not safe to be high behind the wheel.
As a cyclist who’s honed his judgement dodging cars for 30 years (10 years on a forklift probably helps too), I can testify that it’s possible to achieve a level of proficiency in traffic that looks scary to those with far less competence, but is actually safe as houses. (Well, safer, since the sub-prime scandal.)
I’ve never been in a prang, but I’ve avoided dozens.
You can’t lump booze in next to those other impairments - it’s in a class of its own due to the fact it’s a depressant that affects insight.
I just want to call out a likely flaw with the numbers based on blood tests: Cannabis tests positive for a long time, more than a month and far longer than its period of effect on a user. All the other drugs listed will test negative within a day or two of use, which tells me that when those tested positive, the driver was probably high on them while driving whereas for cannabis they may or may not have been. They may have smoked some 3 weeks prior to the accident for all anyone knows, it would still be a positive on those tests. Certainly some would have been under the influence at time of incident, but likely not all.
Puff the magic drag-on grows by a dam
And flourishes green and plentiful in a place called Vietnam
Little Jackie GI loved to smoke that stuff
And when the Sergeant wasn’t there, he’d love to have a puff
[quote]Once upon a time, three recreational users were all walking together, each on the drug of his choice. They were a speed freak, an acid tripper, and a pot head.
It happened that our merry trio came upon a door in their meanderings, a door which they decided they needed to pass through. Sadly, the door was locked.
The speed freak barked out “Kick it in! Get a sledge hammer or an axe and break it down! Now! Now! Now!”
The acid tripper intoned “No way, man, let’s all get really, really small and just float through the keyhole.”
The pot head shrugged and sat down on a curb, saying “Chill, dudes, let’s just wait here a while for someone with a key to come along and unlock it.”[/quote]
To be honest, @nox, I don’t see any manipulation or dishonesty. @catgrin is characteristically footnoted and well argued in most threads, this one is not atypical.
As I’ve not yet seen it referenced in this thread, @maggiek published her take in the NYT. Here’s a relevant pullquote that acknowledges the impairment the drug has on the body while contextualizing the public health risks.
“And there’s always somebody who says, ‘I drive better while high.’ ”
Evidence suggests that is not the case. But it also suggests that we may not have as much to fear from stoned driving as from drunken driving. Some researchers say that limited resources are better applied to continuing to reduce drunken driving. Stoned driving, they say, is simply less dangerous.
Inevitable? How do you know anything is inevitable if you’ve not tried it?
I don’t believe eating the stuff would have any effect on asthma, and some asthma sufferers claim it helps their condition (I cannot speak to this as I don’t have asthma).
