Slashdot Mirror
Federal Study: Marijuana Use Doesn't Increase Auto Crash Rates
An anonymous reader writes: After the legalization of marijuana in multiple states around the U.S., many are worried about a corresponding uptick in car crashes as people drive while under the influence of pot. But according to a new federal study (PDF) commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, those fears seem unfounded. They report that after adjusting for other factors (people who tend to drive after using marijuana also tend to be more crash-prone in general), there was no statistically significant increase in crash rates by drivers who tested positive for the drug. It's still a bad idea to drive high, but driving drunk is far, far worse: "One substance was shown to have a major influence on crashes: alcohol. The study confirmed the enormous danger of drinking and driving, even after age and sex adjustment: drivers with a 0.05% blood-alcohol level were found to be twice as likely to be in a crash. For a person weighing 180 to 190 pounds, that could be a single can of beer, glass of wine, or shot of liquor. At 0.08% (two drinks), the likelihood is quadrupled, and at .20% (four drinks or more), the risk is higher by 23 times."
The problem is you're using logic and science to argue with people who still believe bullshit WOD propaganda like the "gateway drug" theory.
They're not interested in facts, statistics, or scientific evidence. Like fundamentalist religion people, they've made up their mind and anything that disagrees with their predisposition is a "lie".
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Not that I care about legalisation either way because it's a past time I view as entirely pointless and don't need any kind of drug whether alcohol, tobacco or whatever else to pretend I'm happy, but this:
"They report that after adjusting for other factors (people who tend to drive after using marijuana also tend to be more crash-prone in general)"
So by adjusting out people who drive whilst high on marijuana by declaring that they'd have crashed anyway they've managed to show no difference in crash rates?
No fucking shit.
The problem here is that some people will interpret this as if it was OK to smoke and drive.
You should avoid all drugs when you drive, including nicotine. Even if it keeps you sharp the cigarette itself is a distraction.
As much as you need your caffeine fix, don't try to juggle a coffee cup and a smartphone while driving.
Studies more than 40 years old have always consistently shown this, including one I read as a young boy long ago, that showed professional race drivers after mild marijuana intoxication had IMPROVED lap times, though this edge dropped off at higher intoxication levels. Trying to point stuff like this out over the decades had jerkwads accusing me of the most awful things. Whatever I just don't care anymore. Marijuana being illegal while alcohol is not is insanity by definition, but most people are dumb animals and our world is run by sociopaths and there's nothing I can do about it.
According to in depth research performed on several subjects throughout the 1960s and 70s, being paranoid makes you drive slower, while lowered inhibitions tend to increase driving speed.
And loud music was the original "gateway drug".
Gently reply
For real , this is exactly what happens :
..
Alcohol : makes you a moron
Weed : makes you a really paranoid moron
People on alcohol lose their hand eye coordination and tend to step on the gas
People on weed do not lose all of the hand-eye and because of the paranoia , unkowingly drive slowly . That's it
sotally tober .
The rate of use of marijuana while driving is still statistically -- and radically -- low.
What planet did you say you were from?
As it happens, males and young drivers have higher crash rates than females and older drivers; they're also more likely to be marijuana users. And once these factors are corrected for, "the significant increased risk of crash involvement associated with THC...is not found."
Unfortunately I'm afraid the rate of driving stoned is probably not as low as we would like to think.
Also, it's less your tax money supporting these drugs, and more of these drugs supporting your state's tax base.
Marijuana does not impair a persons motor skills or reflexes.
A drunk driver is dangerous because they are likely to lose control of their car.
A stoned driver is not nearly as dangerous: they can control their car, and react to danger, just fine. The most likely mistake a stoned driver will make is to miss their exit because Stairway to Heaven is on the radio.
"The rate of use of marijuana while driving is still statistically -- and radically -- low."
Out of the hundreds and hundreds of people I've known over the years to use marijuana....all but maybe 2 drive while high. It is a LOT more common than you think. The "roll n toke" is a very common thing because it's much more difficult to get pinched smoking a doobie while driving around. You don't think it's common because you don't see it.....those that do it, see it all over the place. I can point out someone smoking while driving just about every single time I go out on the road now.
In 15+ years of being immersed in marijuana sub-culture the ONE thing I've learned is that smoking doesn't affect your driving...at least no worse than taking some cold medication would affect it.
Whenever inaccuracies are reported as fact, it makes the rest of the information less credible.
FWIW, I condone neither drunk nor stoned operation of a motor vehicle. Sober drivers are distracted enough with ubiquitous cellphone use, eating and talking, putting on makeup, turning around to correct backseat children, et al.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
You no math good, do you?
As a fellow anonymous poster, I'd like to confirm the above.
You really have been indoctrinated well into your system.
So in a scenario where your government decides to declare red lolipops as a drug
You will prevent your children from having lolipops because they are drugs.
That's how pathetic your idea that it is a drug. Based on what is it a drug? Your governments decision?
I believe your government still believes beating women is ok in some states... so if you move to that state, will you adopt that policy as well? Or will you let your own brain do it's thinking for a change?
Those totally sober people who should have never been given a fucking driving license in the foist place ...
and in other news, anti-texting laws don't decrease accidents, red-light cameras create more rear end crashes zzzzzz ! oops, sorry, nodded off there for a minute.
If you have statistics that state differently, please cite them. Even the study discussed in the article disputes what you're suggesting.
To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
While I'm inclined to also be suspicious of the study and fear people getting the wrong idea that it's ok to drive under *any* impairment, I do find one portion of your comment bizarre:
It's disappointing to see my tax money going to support the use of either.
I'm scratching my head at this sentiment over a study that was probably extraordinarily cheap compared to how much tax money goes towards enforcement and incarceration to fight the use of marijuana.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Fine, go ahead and mark me down.
I'd like to see two tiers. 0.05 and 0.08 and above for BAC. With different punishments for both. Maybe 0.05 a civil infraction, but something still.
Also, crashes don't factor in missing someone, but almost hitting them, right?
The study that is the basis for the article mentioned THC detected in about 7% of evening crashes and 9% of weekend crashes. Sounds like a lot of MJ smoking and driving to me.
I suppose it really is to much to ask that people Read The Fucking Study...
In a nutshell, this study collected drug use data from 3095 drivers involved in crashes and 6190 matched control drivers. THC was detected in 234/3095 crash involved drivers, vs 379/6190 controls. That sample size is plenty. If you think otherwise, please explain why you think the studies' methodology is statistically underpowered.
The biggest caveat is probably that THC testing can be positive even if the drug use was days or weeks ago. I'm not aware of a test that, like BAC, can detect whether someone is high as balls right now. That makes the conclusions a bit weaker, but we can still conclude that people who frequently use marijuana are not riskier drivers than anyone else, and blood THC testing is not a measurement of impairment.
This study from 1993 (mentioned earlier probably) shows that this was already known to federal authorities, but was probably swept under the rug or willingly ignored by legislators for obvious reasons.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/2...
None of this is a surprise to potheads. Being stoned in the driver's seat makes you MORE cautious and attentive to everything outside the vehicle, not less. It's the exact opposite of being drunk in the driver's seat.
It is an impossible distinction to make when attempting to determine who is a hazard on the road under the influence, and who is not.
It is "much more difficult to get pinched smoking a doobie while driving around". Hogwash. As a regular smoker, you are probably not aware how long the smell lingers inside your vehicle and on your clothes, but you should be aware that you are quite vulnerable to random search by LEOs in your vehicle driving down the road.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
What chart are they getting their information from - the pre-teen's guide to Vodka?
0.05 is the *peak* BAC in a woman weighing less than 100lbs. At 190lbs, man or woman, you're only half way there (0.02-0.025).
And 0.20 - holy shit, you're well into the "wasted" range and probably are going to have troubles getting the key into the ignition by yourself. For that 180-190lb person, that's shotgunning a .375 flask of Vodka on an empty stomach. Maybe by "four drinks" the poster meant "Four doubles, as made by Bill Cosby at a fraternity hazing initiation"
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
IMO, there's not enough samples to produce this study. The rate of use of marijuana while driving is still statistically -- and radically -- low. As use becomes normalized (in other words, accepted), you'll see abuse while driving to increase as well.
But, let's say what this is really trying to do: push the Legalization activist agenda. Sorry, pot is as much a drug as meth. So is alcohol. It's disappointing to see my tax money going to support the use of either.
Please do some research next time.
There is tons of samples for studies like this, I know you probably think it's taken from 2 guys in colorado. And not having been an ongoing debate with considerable resarch going into it over decades. There are other places to study this than america and get a few more samples, but I guess that doesn't count in your little perfect bubble world where you probably think codein and caffein are good for you, but are scared of all the "bad drugs", or you are in fact part of the "anti-legalization ageda pushers"...
Okey, so you want to see alcohol removed from the shops then I guess? Since that is considered by "all" to be a lot more dagerous than coffee, which again can be more dangerous than pot. And above all those you have codein, xanax, valium, etc.
I guess we're just going to ignore the documented benefits of: reducind breast canbcer, reducing prostate cancer, relieveing pain in "hard to regulate areas, like the eye, jaw(and bone pain in general), increased apetite and energy for chemo patients, increased energy and reduced pain for recovering addicts(for strongs things like heroin).
And that's not even mentionion all you can do with non-drug hemp, which is still banned for farming in the US, even though it could replace half the industry with better quality items and safer for the enviroment(they've spent yeears now, to develop a "biodegradable plastic" they could use safely, while they all know hemp has been able to do that for decades...
I'm starting to think you're either, doctor, paper factory owner, or similar, since you're so against it..
IMO, there's not enough samples to produce this study. The rate of use of marijuana while driving is still statistically -- and radically -- low. As use becomes normalized (in other words, accepted), you'll see abuse while driving to increase as well.
But, let's say what this is really trying to do: push the Legalization activist agenda. Sorry, pot is as much a drug as meth. So is alcohol. It's disappointing to see my tax money going to support the use of either.
So you don't agree with the conclusions or methodology of a study the results of which don't fit your political agenda.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
The study is relatively meaningless because it wasn't collecting data about people who were HIGH on marijuana, but people who tested positive for having consumed it at some point. It could have been many hours ago or even days ago.
The conclusion reached by the horrible article is outright wrong and doesn't even have face validity. In fact, it is actually irresponsible and could cause society great harm by spreading possibly wrong information about the dangers of driving while altered.
I believe we should test this, in the real world. Get 30 to 100 people. Setup a course with fake cars and such. Have them all drive it without anything in their system. Then get them drunk and do it again. Then when they are sober, let them smoke pot, and do it again. Then once that is clear have them drink and smoke pot, and go yet again. Then for fun, do it with someone who is just smoking a cig while driving. Compare the results.
> It is "much more difficult to get pinched smoking a doobie while driving around".
There was an implicit "[more difficult] than smoking a pipe" that makes AC's post much more sound. Hence his invocation of "roll n toke."
> It is an impossible distinction to make when attempting to determine who is a hazard on the road under the influence, and who is not.
Except that this study is saying that those under the influence of cannabis are much less dangerous than those under the influence of alcohol. So we can make that distinction.
> Sorry, pot is as much a drug as meth. So is alcohol. It's disappointing to see my tax money going to support the use of either.
ITT I learned that science has an agenda.
This study does not study what you probably assumed that it study.
The study you expect is. How is the likelihood of a crash altered by using MJ. This study actually studies those involved in crashes and looks at THC, alcohol and other drugs. How many people taking MJ simply avoid driving completely? If 1 out of 2 avoid driving in this condition, this study under reports the accident risk by a factor of 2.
It does refer to several studies that measure impairment based on MJ usage and comments that the impairment in clearly seen in a number of ways.
Also, some THC is not the best measure of the effect of THC. Maybe moderate use has a relaxing effect that actually improves driving by reducing risk taking behavior even if it simultaneous impairs reaction time and judgment while more THC allows the negative effects to outweigh the positive.You would never know in this study.
Given that MJ usage is so widespread, an honest and comprehensive study would be a lot more useful than studies like this one. since MJ is legal now in some places, why not have a real study with various ages, levels of THC, etc. and spend some time in driving simulators. By and large I know people will take recreational drugs and it does not affect me. But I would like to keep them off the roads if this means they are driving while impaired.
In Colorado they use a spit test that measures active THC, or they're supposed to anyway.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Once I got in a car crash after a dinner in which I had two glasses of wine. I wonder what my BAC was, although I never got the chance to find out cuz I woke up in the hospital. Presumably if it was above .08 I would have woken up handcuffed to the bed.
Stop giving advice about motorcycles when you never drove one, mkay?
Hint: You don't "balance" a motorcycle. It balances you and there's little you can do about it. Go faster than, say, 20mph and you will not be able to de-balance it other than by force-turning the handlebar apruptly (which takes considerable strength at "even faster" speeds).
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
I'm more upset at my tax dollars being used to fight the use of something as harmless as pot. Meth and pot are not in the same league, to claim otherwise shows how poor your grasp on reality is.
I will agree that the medicinal marijuana argument is a bit of a "camel's nose' strategy as is the let's make everything out of hemp!" -- but in terms of addiction, societal and bodily harm -- the fact that the biggest 'risk' to pot use is a legal one; is telling.
Marijuana is transforming into a legal social drug. Is it a good idea, based on this one interpretation of one study, to condone toking and driving as a safe practice?
What say you?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
But, let's say what this is really trying to do: push the Legalization activist agenda.
As if that were a bad thing...
In my country (especially its bigger cities) it's almost a weekly occurence that a marijuana-growing operation gets busted. Sometimes big (hundreds of plants), often small (a few dozen plants). Typically this involves a half dozen to a dozen police officers and related personel, driving up to a house and seizing all product, plants, and equipment used to grow the plants. Which likely takes the better part of the day, meaning that's a whole bunch of cops not out on the street looking for real criminals. Product, plants and equipment are usually destroyed, which is capital destruction regardless what you think of marijuna.
If it's a regular house, and happens to be a rented one owned by a housing corporation, the people involved may face eviction from their house. Which has a decent chance of steering them towards a homeless / criminal path with a much, much higher cost to society than that marijuna-growing operation ever had.
Of course that doesn't stop us from criminally proscecuting those growers, which taxes already-overburdened justice system. If 'successful', people may get fines which they have 0 chance of paying since money shortages are a common reason to start a marijuana-growing operation in the first place. In severe cases they may even be locked up, and thus will be non-productive members of society for the duration. Once released, it will be much harder for them to find a regular job, again increasing the chances they embark on a career-criminal path (with asociated costs to society). All these things increases stress between the people involved & their significant others, family, friends and so on. Which helps to increase incidents of domestic violence, homicide, you name it.
Note that all the above is cost to society, mostly paid for using tax money, innocent bystanders footing the bill, etc.
As Europeans, I'm happy to say we tend to be more 'enlightened' in topics like these, and focus more on the practical issues. For example, many marijuana-growing setups tap electricity illegally somewhere. Which is a problem both from safety and economic perspective.
What would legalization do here? Simple: remove the bulk of those costs from the picture. Read: less burdened justice system, more cops out on the street, fewer people evicted from their home, etc. Increase marijuana use? Yeah, probably - a little. It's not hard to get hold of some weed, and those who want to use it will anyway, so legalization wouldn't change much on that front. Why doesn't it happen? Mostly because of an almost religious crusade of people like you, which (imho) are the real obstacle in improving the situation.
Sorry, pot is as much a drug as meth. So is alcohol.
Wrong again. You mention 3 very different substances, with very different properties, and very different problem sets attached. Yes there may be some overlap, but basically: apples and oranges.
You should be able to easily figure this out. Each glass should be equivalent to 1 ounce of ethanol. Figure out how long it was from the first consumption to car crash, assume 1 oz of ethanol is processed by your liver an hour, and you should have a pretty good working estimate, based on your weight.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Maybe no increase in accidents but a much higher incident of "dude, you missed that exit (turn, address, city...) again!"
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
this is a good point. it was over the course of a big dinner, and I'm a big guy, like 14 stone. So it probably wasn't a factor. On the other hand, the popo were concerned about the empty bottle of Xanax they found in the car. I don't see why, it was empty!
The biggest caveat is probably that THC testing can be positive even if the drug use was days or weeks ago.
This is something I mentioned above, that the study does not appear to account for level of THC. It seems that any amount is counted as a person under the influence, unless I missed it.
You're about the 5th person to have this problem understanding the article.
There is statistical overlap between the two groups mentioned: a) those who tend to drive after using marijuana, and b) those who tend to be more crash-prone in general, however, they are not the same group.
Group b (those who tend to be more crash-prone in general) consists of males and young people, and especially young male drivers.
Group a (those who tend to drive after using marijuana) also consists *in part* of males and young people.
You correct for the overlap between the two groups by looking at the part of group b who *aren't* also part of group a. The increased rate of crashes in that subset can't be attributed to marijuana, so you can isolate that from the overlapping group, any statistical increase left after that adjustment can be attributed to marijuana intoxication. After isolating the common factor, and accounting for it, there was *no* statistically significant increase left to attribute to marijuana in the marijuana-using population of the study.
"They report that after adjusting for other factors (people who tend to drive after using marijuana also tend to be more crash-prone in general)"
Wait. As an adjustment, you took out the thing you were looking for and then claimed you couldn't find it?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Is alcohol a drug? Yes
Is nicotine a drug? Yes
Is pot a drug? Yes
Is meth a drug? Yes
Is coke a drug? Yes
Is a lollipop a drug? No
I don't need the government to tell me. I believe pot should have the same legal standing and requisite controls as booze. So, I support the notion that legalization of pot should happen. But your analogy doesn't work. Also, you state that you 'believe' it is still legal to beat women in some states. I don't 'believe' that to be true. Regardless, that has little bearing on the subject at hand. Notice, in my response to your comment, I have not attacked your character or in any regard attempted to insult you. Make a counter to my opinion without being insulting and I'll consider it. Note: Not AC
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
It will never be anywhere near the level of drunk driving. We could do the whole prohibition thing all over again and there would still be more drunk drivers on the road than there would be high drivers. Your average drunk driver will get on the freeway and drive home from the club 3 towns over without a second thought, while your average high driver knows they're impaired and will avoid situations requiring high speeds (like the freeway) at all costs; and that's to say nothing of the fact that they'll be too lazy for a long trip. Store on the corner? Sure. McDonalds down the road? Probably. Anywhere that'll keep them on the road for more than 5min at a stretch? Nah.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I vilify Marijuana because it smells really awful.
So long as you smoke it where that scent doesn't regularly affect your neighbors, though, let's just look at studies--like this one--to decide whether and where it's acceptable to use.
My $0.02
Based on this one study, alone? No. Factoring in a similar study done in the UK, and many years of personal experience, including first-hand use, friends, and family, including being in the car with my dad after he toked when I was a kid, yes. I've never been in an accident involving a high driver, despite being in the car with one about as often as I've been in a car with a sober driver; I've never been in a car with a drunk driver, but I've been involved in multiple alcohol-related accidents. Note that I'm not counting incidents that have occurred with *me* behind the wheel, as that would require such data to exist; accident-free driver here.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"The data showed that 7.6% of crash-involved drivers tested positive for marijuana or THC, versus 6.1% of the control group. In raw terms, that would suggest that marijuana was associated with a 25% increased chance of crashing. But it's not that simple: the figures have to be adjusted for other factors possibly contributing to crash risk, including the driver's gender and age."
So their control group wasn't representative of the "young male" population.
Their "young male" correlation is also subject to a VERY large p-value (0.65), which is a problem in itself. The chart showing the "Adjusted Odds Ratios Between Drug Class Use and Crash Risk (Adjusted for Demographic Variables: Age, Gender And Race/Ethnicity)" is notable for some VERY high p-values.
The rest of the paper considers a p-value of 0.05 to be significant: a value of 0.65 falls into "we don't even believe this ourselves" territory.
Actually, the highest risk is from using a cell phone, or even having a cell conversation while driving, even if hands off. Texting is even worse.
Alcohol is pretty bad though.
PUT DOWN THE PHONE!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
An interesting article from Car & Driver magazine, June, 1980.
The conclusion?
"The test is over. It's obvious our subjects are as high as they're going to get. It is also obvious—and a little disappointing—that their driving abilities as determined by our two tests have not been particularly impaired, have not shown dramatic deterioration."
Visit the link for more details, including comments by an assistant research scientist specializing in drugs and their effects on driving at the Highway Safety Research Institute in Ann Arbor. (Hint -- the Car & Driver results are consistent with other tests.)
From what I remember from school health class. The rule of thumb is 0.02 up for every drink, and 0.02 down for every hour after the first hour. So 0.08 would be 5 drinks over two hours. That would make 0.20 something like 11 drinks over 2 hours or 12 drinks over 3 hours.
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
It doesn't seem to take into account DUI/DWI charge rates. The hope being that a DUI/DWI charge that is not involving an accident likely prevented one. Seems like a pretty major flaw.
I'd had a brownie at an all-day outdoor concert, and at the end of the day it had been long enough that I felt like I'd sobered up and was ready to drive home. (Reminder, kids, edibles don't always deliver their effects upfront or at a steady rate.) Driving through the city was just fine, no problems with red lights or distraction or pedestrians (which there were lots of near the concert, as well as randomly in other parts of the city on my way to the freeway. It's probable that streetlights also helped, but I was fine.) Driving on the freeway was %#$#$ing terrifying! Lights zooming by at high speeds in the other lanes, in contrast to the dark spaces when nobody was around traffic speeding up and slowing down (for real, in addition to my head speeding up and slowing down, which made it tough to keep my speed consistent with the other drivers, though I mostly succeeded.) It was somewhere that getting off the freeway and taking local roads home wasn't really an option. Got off the freeway near home, local streets and streetlights, fine again, except I was still paranoid. Not doin' that shit again.
The US has made air travel a really hostile process, mostly on purpose. But especially when they started banning taking liquids on the planes, my reaction was "ok, guys, you need to allow us to use marijuana in the smoking lounge instead." (Edibles don't have the same getting-caught risks, but they can last too long unless you're flying cross-country or overseas. Vaporizer sounds about right.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
(or related agency) published a detailed study on this subject in the late 90s.
as far as i remember i found this report on The Well, but i have since lost track of the file, and if anyone knows about it, i would really appreciate a chace to study it again.
the report was notable, as i remember, because it actually went so far as to suggest that weed makes better drivers - basically because they are more relaxed and therefore more likely to make the correct decisions in an emergency.
Is a lollipop a drug? No
the correct answer is not no, but sometimes
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
key being "from childhood" I dont see anyone advocating children start using
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
doing anything based on one study is a bad idea. however there has not been any studies that show me beyond a reasonable doubt that it should be illegal. while there are studies going all the way back to 76 by the NIH (that was burried) that shows it was harmless, along with every study since.
now you might bring up the skitzo study, well that study only showed if you are predisposed to becoming skitzo, you are more likely to get it sooner if you use. (NOT that it causes it)
Or you might want to bring up the study that says people who use starting at a young age have learning issues. well to that I say we shouldnt be giving it to the kids so that study is pointless, no one is advocating that.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The study studied the effect of all drugs on accident rates, but for some reason slashdot readers only want to discuss the section about marijuana. Are slashdot readers pot heads?
Shifting your balance is how you turn a motorcycle at anything about parking lot speeds.
Wow. If that's how you ride, try counter-steering sometime. It will blow your mind.
Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.
Ok, well not entirely irrelevant.
Many of these posts talk about how driving ability, that is, the ability to navigate a course while drunk or stoned, is not imparied by M.J. except at large doses (unlike alcohol which can make it hard to even go on all-fours in a straight line; I know that for a fact).
So what. Sure, alcohol significantly impairs motor skills and reaction times, but the real problem with alcohol is how it impairs judgement.
While a youngster I did drive wasted. I made an conscious effort to drive as carefully as possible so as to get home, and much more carefully than is my natural inclination.
My experience was that most people I knew lost all common sense when drunk. When they were sober, they would not do the things that I did while I was sober (some would not even ride with me to go get a burger, at least not in my race car), but while drunk they would try anything and even in the rain.
I just don't see that judgement problem with stoned people. I cannot speak from personal experience; I never did toke.
People I knew seem to pretty much drive stoned the same way they did while straight.
Those that drove like my mom when they were straight drove like my mom when they were stoned.
Those that drove like they were trying to get home to beat a diarhea attack when straight drove like that when stoned.
My crazy redneck friends didn't get mellow when they started smoking. They just turned into stoned assholes.
Anyway, I think the whole thing of doing tests on motor-skills while driving is nearly pointless.
Crashes occuring due to insufficient skills are rare compared to numb-skullery.
The real problem with people is that they get into crashes due to their poor judgement. Not watching the road ahead, fooling with the radio, reading the newspaper, fooling with their lunch, trying to one-hand text while driving where children are playing and so on.
In my observations, I don't believe that marijuana affects judgement in the way that alcohol does; it's not even close. If we are going to let people self-medicate, then I believe marijuana is a superior choice.
However, in my experience as a school teacher , something must be done to keep it (any recreational drug) out of the hands of teenagers and children. It is very obvious that many of them lack the ability to control their usage, and they seem to often become damaged in their mental abilities in a way that does not seem to happen to the adults that I knew that started later in life.
I would really really want the children problem solved. I also think that with M.J. legalized, we can do a better job of keeping it away from kids.
We used to do a much better job of keeping alcohol away from teenagers, but I think people have gven up.
pot is as much a drug as meth. So is alcohol.
I know right, after some kid shot up 4 joints last week he went on a rampage and killed his dog. it was horrible.
oh wait, that never happened
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They simplified the analysis because it was secondary to their point. They were reporting on a study, not writing a textbook.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It's not pleasant walking through a bad area and seeing a bunch of filthy people laying around in a drug induced stupor, from alcohol or other.
Putting millions of people in steel and concrete prisons -- out of sight, out of mind -- because the puritans don't want little johnny or susie to see it is a crime against humanity.
Some people can handle drugs, some can't. That's why we should have treatment, not terror.
Ending the drug war would crush the criminal black markets and also the abuse of many self-defense products.
Test subjects underwent sex and age adjustment, but were still dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol.
it amazes me to meet people who think they can sound intelligent when talking about drug policy and not even mention addiction
addicts don't just hurt themselves, they become zombies that we have to take care of
this is where you lecture me that all of the problems about drugs has to do with uptight prudes and dumb laws. not at all anything to do with, gee, i dunno, fucking addiction maybe?
or where you lecture me that we should just let people rot away in the street so they alone suffer for the consequences of their actions. because we're all sociopaths
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you look closer at the conclusions made from the study, essentially it's the same thing as having someone swallow a teaspoon of wine so it registers in their blood, and then saying "Drivers with alcohol in their blood are perfectly safe to drive". While they flaunt dosage dependence from alcohol, it is conveniently omitted from marijuana. Disappointing to see a supposed intellectual community like Slashdot post this without examination. There IS such a thing as being "too stoned to drive". It is a common observation and also rational to assume that increasing the dose of the drug will create increased impairment. Here are some studies which came with far less politically correct conclusions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
just because the kids are, does not mean people pushing for legalization are pushing for them to use.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It is "much more difficult to get pinched smoking a doobie while driving around". Hogwash. As a regular smoker, you are probably not aware how long the smell lingers inside your vehicle and on your clothes, but you should be aware that you are quite vulnerable to random search by LEOs in your vehicle driving down the road.
I live in Australia where pot use isn't demonised and getting caught with pot attracts a fine at worst.
I've never met a stoner who smokes in their car and I've met a lot of stoners. Most wont even drive after getting stoned. Also, the smell of pot doesn't linger as long as the smell of cigarette smoke and it doesn't deaden your sense of smell in the same way.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Have you ever ridden on a motorcycle?
Yes.
Shifting your balance is how you turn a motorcycle at anything about parking lot speeds
Unless you counter steer, you can turn by leaning your body and hence moving the center of gravity, yes. That however is not something where you actively keep the balance so as not to fall over, as the person i originally replied to seemed to imply.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
So what would you consider a suitable sample size for a scientific analysis? I mean you could've used your time to suggest a better method, but instead chose to try and politicise the matter...
Eh? Ride at 100mph and then just go to sleep and see if the bike still balances you.
As a fat guy, I call that "dirty pool!" ;)
Eh? Ride at 100mph, shift into neutral and jump off the bike and see what it does. Hell, you can try this at lower speeds with a bicycle, the difference is just that the motorcycle is way, way more stable.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
If moderately addicting and inebriating, like alcohol: legal. If easily addicting but not inebriating, like nicotine: legal (you can still hold a job/ relationship). If inebriating but not easily addictive, like marijuana: legal (you can use the drug, then choose not to later).
Only when you combine addictiveness and inebriation, like meth, coke, heroin, do you have a problem.
I quite like this idea of yours. What struck me about your comment was how clearly alcohol made your point for you.
If - as you suggest - addictiveness intersecting inebriation equals problems, then alcohol (at only 'moderately addictive' on your scale) should actually be thought a lot more dangerous than it currently is. So it follows that as alcohol inebriates alongside even a mild amount of addictiveness, the drug should be giving us significant societal problems.
Oh wait.. alcohol is causing us real issues. I wonder how it would compare with meth in terms of its societal damage due to the very familiar, widespread nature of the drug. I think alcohol punches above its weight when compared with harder drugs with high marks in both columns.
I say this as someone who favours prohibition only for the drugs you mention: meth, coke, heroin and any others that fit the profile of those three. That said, as a drinker, I would find it hard to raise a cogent argue against someone who wanted alcohol on that shortlist.
Do we need to have a frank conversation with ourselves as to the perceived difference between the social drugs we consider normal and safe and their taboo counterparts?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
In Nancy's defense, all her cult makes you do is to "just say no"...
Sugar is, in fact, a drug.
yeah an x-y plot of inebriation vs/ addictiveness is a good shorthand way to think of drugs because people will say accurate but misleading things like "nicotine is more addictive than heroin!" (but it doesn't leave you unable to work/ have a relationship)
the one-two punch of being inebriated and addicted is what makes a few drugs radioactive. just inebriating you without addictiveness or addicting you without inebriation is not really a problem. because you can still work and have relationships. inebriating you and addicting you blots out the world, and that is how you lose your job and your loved ones. so that's the "sweet spot" that means a drug should be verboten, that the costs of prohibition are less than the costs of the drugs themselves
alcohol has such a profile that it can only be considered moderately addictive and inebriating. which does, indeed, as you say, make it more dangerous than a casual understanding of drugs makes it. certainly more dangerous than marijuana, lsd (which should require a babysitter though, if made legal), psilocybin, mdma, etc. but not meth, heroin, coke, etc. alcohol is the "gateway" drug in a new meaning here of being on the edge between less harmful and truly life destroying drugs
i think the most important thing is that people who want to talk about drugs in blanket therms: whether for legalizing everything or legalizing nothing besides caffeine, are completely wrong. every single drug is different, and every single drug needs it's own social/ medical/ legal approach. anyone who wants to legalize everything or legalizie nothing is someone who is demonstrating ignorance or ideological extremism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Eventually it falls over. Yet if a person were on it, it doesn't. See how it works now?
That's because the driver is keeping it at velocity, not actively balancing it. If you lock the accelerator grip in place and repeat the suggested experiment, the bike will /not/ fall over. It will eventually hit something and shatter into pieces.
I can't believe that you need to have this explained to you.
I get that you're not into physics, and much less into riding motorcycles, but anyway here's something to think about:
1. Think about how a motorcycle moves when it is perfectly upright.
2. Think about how a motorcycle moves when it is slightly leaning to the side
3. Recall the concept of inertia
4. Reason about in which directions forces act an object that is making a turn (hint: it's a direct result of the aforementioned inertia)
5. Think really hard.
6. Think about whether this gives a system which tends to be self-stabilizing, or self-destabilizing.
Or, even simpler:
1. Think about why people who ride motorcycles have to *lean into* a corner in the goddamn first place.
Good luck.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Had AC said 'sugar' I would have had to modify my statement. You are technically correct but that is a distinction without a difference. And, splenda.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
That's because the driver is keeping it at velocity, not actively balancing it.
If by keeping it at 'velocity' it is also being 'balanced', then the rider (not driver) is the entity responsible for keep it upright. See how it works now? I'm well aware of the forces at work, I have a degree in the stuff, I've also been riding motorcycles for 30 years. Ultimately the rider is what keeps the bike upright, and a lack of the right controls will eventuate in the the bike no longer being upright.
So you're just pointlessly nitpicking, fair enough.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
I'm guessing the irony of this comment is lost on you...
I'm guessing you have not a faint idea what this branch of the discussion originally was about.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Of course. It started with you nit-picking, and ended with you telling others not to nit-pick.
Sure. Except there was no nitpicking. OP said/implied "Don't jump on a bike high, you might fail to balance it". Answer is: one of the least likely accidents following riding a bike high would be to (simply) tip over mid-ride due to not being able to balance it.
Next thing I know, you're nitpicking about how technically every action which directly or indirectly keeps a bike upright is "balancing". While true and pedantic in a lovely way, what you said is useless.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
I'm guessing the irony of this comment is lost on you..
<)))><
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!