Hardly the point. The point is we should all take what steps we can to minimize risk before we get behind the wheel.
Also from your linked article:
"patients who smoke cannabis should be counseled to wait several hours before driving," and
"Epidemiological studies have been inconclusive regarding whether cannabis use causes an increased risk of accidents"
You also neglected to point out the entire section
āStudies that show impairment: Not all deficits can be compensated for through the use of behavioral strategies, however. Both alcohol and marijuana use increase reaction time and the number of incorrect responses to emergencies. Drivers under the influence of marijuana were not able to compensate for standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP, a measure of staying within lane), which increased with increasing doses of THC. This is a measure that is not subject to conscious compensatory mechanisms in the way that other aspects of driving are. Other studies have found poorer monitoring of the speedometer under the influence of marijuana, increased decision time when passing, increased time needed to brake when a light suddenly changes and increased time to respond to a changing light, or sudden sound. Drivers also crashed more frequently into a sudden obstacle on a high dose of marijuana, although this did not happen at a low dose.ā
Basically the study you cite says that the evidence is mixed and that people should err on the side of caution when it comes to driving stoned. On top of that, the study says that only regular users, who form a relatively small fraction of the total population of marijuana smokers, that are able to compensate for the cognitive impairment caused by THC. Finally, many people who get behind the wheel stoned also get behind the wheel drunk.
I was trying to think of an eloquent way of stating that.
I am very surprised at some of the nonchalant, āmy shit donāt stinkā attitudes about driving impaired. I hope I donāt meet any of you on the road. Then again people also donāt think distracted driving with their phones or tired driving is an issue either. I find it ironic how some view the risks associated with the abuse or misuse of other subjects to be unacceptable and require more regulation, but the added risks for this issue is just fine.
So, are you saying because people make mistakes even unimpaired, itās fine to go ahead and drive impaired anyway.
That explains so much.
2 Likes
Hardly the point. The point is we should all take what steps we can to minimize risk before we get behind the wheel.
You clearly missed my point. My point was anecdotal correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
You also neglected to point out the entire section
I neglected to repost the entire PDF for brevity. I pointed out the parts of the PDF study, etc. that were relevant to what I was responding to. I could counter with all the parts you neglected, but then weād just be spiraling into a pointless, false argument with each other.
Basically the study you cite says that the evidence is mixed and that people should err on the side of caution when it comes to driving stoned. ā¦ āpatients who smoke cannabis should be counseled to wait several hours before drivingā
You should probably go back, read my post and see what I was specifically responding to. Nowhere have I said nor implied that people shouldnāt err on the side of caution when partaking in marijuana especially when it comes to driving a vehicle.
Like I said, youāre venturing into a false argument with me, so Iāll just kill it dead right there.
So, are you saying because people make mistakes even unimpaired, itās fine to go ahead and drive impaired anyway.
Yep, Iām saying itās a great idea to get as stoned and as drunk as possible and join a NASCAR raceā¦ or my point is anecdotal correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Pick one.
1 Like
People will always find a way to justify their actions, even if that means cherry picking the research.
However, one somewhat valid argument I have seen is that, because there is no legal limit for THC, it seems like there is a double standard. The research does seem to support the idea that driving with a small amount of THC in your system is reasonably safe under certain conditions, but the problem is there are so many ifs.
it doesnāt really matter if being stoned is a bit safer than being drunk
Thatās a bit of weasel wording. Being stoned is vastly safer than being drunk, not just āa bitā as you say.
People will always find a way to justify their actions, even if that means cherry picking the research.
You would know.
1 Like
āIdiotic drug laws mean itās far worse for your own legal outcomes to carry weed on public transport (where you are, depending on the time and day, highly likely to encounter drug dogs) than in your car. Designated drivers are an option but stoners donāt keep the same hours as regular folk. Weāre blazing until the wee hours and the straight people arenāt gonna hang around to facilitate us getting high. Moreover if the designated driver is pulled over and people are holding then, in many parts of the world, they also put themselves at risk for no reward.ā
The drug laws are idiotic, but does that give you the right to put your personal enjoyment ahead of public safety? Also, I think you need to give āstraightā people more credit. Myself and other people I know have waited to drive stoned friends home. As for public transit, if you donāt act like an asshole then youāre probably less likely to get hassled there than you would at a random checkstop on the road.
Precautionary principle is applied to alcohol, at least to the extent we have legal BAC limits. Establishing the same for THC is more tricky because of wider individual variation in response.
I had someone tell me he thought the exact same thing when driving while tripping.
He waited for it to turn green.
It did.
1 Like
Iām picking up what youāre putting down. I should be clear and say that Iām not arguing for lighting one up before driving: Any impairment to your attention is and impairment and should be avoided - even if itās not that much of an impairment. I like your example of eating a hotdog. I donāt think I can get behind the statement that stones drivers have caused accidents though. While Iām sure itās technically true, Iād need to see damning numbers before Iād be willing to look at it that way you do.
1 Like
So your argument is that if you took 1000 stoned drivers and 1000 sober drivers, they would likely make the same number of mistakes? That driving stoned isnāt an impairment?
I am all for caution to draw causation from correlation, but it seems rather obvious that impairment would be the cause of mistakes. But I guess if being stoned isnāt an impairment in your book then I guess I see your point.
driving stoned isnāt an impairment?
Never said thatā¦ Sorry to be circular, but I should just refer you back here. And, itās a good excuse to post this cool gif.
2 Likes
That explains so much.
Says the gun nut. Deaths from accidental discharge (let alone discharge with intent) in your country likely exceed deaths from people driving stoned so I suppose that renders void all your impassioned arguments as to why you should have guns.
Thanks for playing.
2 Likes
If the relative risks of my personal enjoyment to public safety are less than that of an already established benchmark of impairment then yes - since we as a society have already had this discussion and come to the agreement that a level of impairment is legal and acceptable.
As for public transit, if you donāt act like an assholeā¦
Thanks for the implication that I must act like an asshole. The cops stand at ticket gates and walk through the stations with dogs trained to detect minute traces of drugs, so itās not just a matter of behaviour. Iāve never had a dog anywhere near my car. Iāve seen dogs on public transit many times, despite the fact I rarely use it.
1 Like
Please replace ādriverā with āpilotā and let me know how you feel about that. When you get behind the wheel you are in the position to mess with other peopleās lives in just the same way that a pilot is. If youāre OK with the pilot on your next flight being a little stoned then by all means stick by your position.
2 Likes
Meanwhile in Minnesotaā¦
Minnesota cops donāt want to legalize medical marijuana for fear they could lose millions
1 Like
Jesus tittyfucking christ, lookit grampaw pig there holding up the āparaphernaliaā. Odious creatures.
I canāt find stats on deaths due to just being stoned. DUI includes alcohol, drugs, or both. In 2010, 10,228 died from DUI crashes. In 2010 606 people died from an unintentional shooting. My guess is drugs and/or alcohol played a role in many of those.
But anyway, none of that really matters. driving impaired is a risk to be measured on its own, independently of other dangers out in the world.
1 Like
Related:
If Medical Marijuana Laws Cause A āSurge in Drugged Driving Deaths,ā Why Are Fatalities Falling?
Interesting tidbits from article:
A study published last year by the Journal of Law & Economics found that adoption of medical marijuana laws is associated with a decline in traffic fatalities, possibly because people in those states are substituting marijuana for alcohol, which has a more dramatic impact on driving ability.
Traffic fatalities fell by more than 20% nationwide during the study period, even as āmedical marijuana sales expanded.ā Between enactment of its medical marijuana law in 1996 and 2010, California saw a 31% drop in traffic fatalities. The number of traffic fatalities also fell in Hawaii and Rhode Island after they legalized medical marijuanaāby 14% and 21%, respectively.
1 Like
