I'm pretty sure any power-line noise from a memory card is dwarfed by the poor sound quality of the chip amps used on most portable audio devices.
Yes and no. If your amplifier is taking a microwatt-level signal and turning it into a milliwatt-level signal, you're also amplifying any noise by a factor of 1000 or more. GIGO comes to mind; now, your low-quality chip amp might put out garbage either way, but at least you can filter out some of the smellier stuff, if you catch my drift.
This could actually make a difference for portable devices with crap power supplies or crap/dying batteries. No jokes. Of course, proper decoupling on the SD reader circuit, and/or proper power filtering, would have the same effect. I would imagine, though, that this card, if it works as advertised, would reduce distortion and noise on lower-end (maybe not bottom of the barrel) MP3 players that lack proper decoupling and filtering; and when the price gap between the low-end and high-end players is more than the price of one of these cards (and even more than the price differential between one of these cards and the one you would otherwise be buying anyway), it may well be a viable option for the listener who bought the player they could afford and is less than thrilled with how it sounds.
Think about it, you have $99 to spend on a player, so you get what you can; a cheapie player with mediocre sound. You then scrape together $160 and grab one of these cards. If there's any merit to this card at all, if it introduces any level of internal decoupling or power filtering, above what the player already provides, that $259 expenditure may well result in sound comparable to a much more expensive player.
Or, it may be complete bullshit. I'll wait for the independent tests before ridiculing it, though; and I won't buy it either way. Well, unless I can get faster read/write speeds and. or better battery life out of my dSLR with it, which I'm sure someone will eventually test, as well, even if it's not the goal of this card.
You realize the reason they send the audio out for processing is that the TV doesn't have the processing power to do it, right? So that pretty much rules out filtering, no?
How long until networks start airing ads containing "Samsung owners, say 'Smart TV tune to Fox News' or 'Hi TV tune to Fox News' for fair and balanced coverage". For references, "Smart TV" and "Hi TV" are the two configurable activation phrases on Samsung Smart TVs and, upon hearing this from the commercial, the TV would, in theory, automatically tune to Fox News. That's what scares me most about this "feature".
The inverse is true on this end, as well. My point was: learn the difference between "high" and "stoned". By definition, a stoned person is not doing anything; your frequent medicinal user friends just take a lot more to reach that level (if they even can anymore) than you do. That's all it is. Really.
So, you, an inexperienced recreational user, are going to tell me, a frequent medicinal user, the ins and outs of doing things while high? Maybe, before you try and do that, learn the difference between being high and being stoned. For once, the Urban Dictionary definition is more accurate than Websters, which is an apt definition for "high".
You start out (incorrectly) talking about people doing things while stoned, but finished with anecdotes about people doing things while high. Flat out, if you're stoned, you're not doing *anything*; the only way you'd even be able to *think* about driving stoned is if you're toking up *while driving*. There is no other way you're going to be able to even get behind the wheel while you're stoned.
Nobody in any of your anecdotes was stoned while doing those things. I'd believe they were high, though; an early high does help most people concentrate, but, push past that at all and you quickly start losing the ability to concentrate at all; when that ability is completely gone well, then you're stoned.
Sure, I can't even think about getting off the couch to go to bed when I get stoned
Nobody else can, either; that's the point. If they can think about getting off the couch, they're not stoned. High, maybe. Not stoned.
You're reading things that weren't written, and making no sense in the process.
you don't have to be altered to have no accidents
Nobody said you did...
people have accidents all the time while sober
Nobody said they didn't...
It seems we're in agreement that #2 is the most likely case; we simply disagree about what that means. You seem to think that means the results are utterly useless, as there were variables not tested for; well, guess what... there are always untested variables. Where was exactly every atom in that piece of glass before it was struck with the hammer? Exactly which atoms of the hammer hit which atoms in the glass? How many atoms are in each shard that was generated when the hammer struck the glass? Are the neighbor-neighbor relations within each shard the same as they were before the glass shattered? Do you need to know any of that to validate a result indicating that you can break glass with a hammer? No. But those are untested variables.
It may be that this particular untested variable, whether the person was actually high, or had simply been high at some point, would have a bearing on the accuracy of the results, and I agree with you when you insist that it does. However, let's go ahead and make the assumption the study made and say that everyone who tested positive was high. Okay, now compare within each subgroup. Young drivers are X more likely to be in an accident when sober; oh, look, they're still X more likely to be in an accident when high. Male drivers are Y more likely to be in an accident when sober; oh, look, they're still Y more likely to be in an accident when high. Young Male drivers are Z more likely to be in an accident when sober; oh, look, they're still Z more likely to be in an accident when high. Well, that means we need to adjust those subgroups of the THC-positive group to compensate, and when we do that, the results for the THC-positive and sober groups are, within margin of error, the same. of A sober drivers, B% were in accidents, and of C THC-positive drivers, B% were in accidents.
Now, go ahead and remove anyone from the THC-positive group who is not high; add them to the sober group. Given that most MJ users smoke for an hour and stay high for 1-2hr, when they smoke, and an assumption of daily use, that's 2.5 high hours (1 while smoking, 1-2 after, averaged) out of a 24hr day, or 10.4167% of the time. That means those people are in the sober group 89.5833% of the time. Since we're making assumptions already, let's simplify that to 10.5% and 89.5%; but, what that means, is that 89.5% of people in the THC-positive group belong in the sober group, while the remaining 10.5% belong in a different group: high. Reasonably, they each take their accidents with them, to their respective groups.
What happens when you attribute 89.5% of the THC-positive group's size and accident count, instead, to the sober group? Well, let's first look at where we're starting: 84.0% (2600 of 3095) of the crash group tested negative for all substances, while 7.6% (234 of 3095) of the crash group tested positive for THC; 86.5% (5301 of 6190) of the control group tested negative for all substances, while 6.1% (379 of 6190) tested positive for THC. If you just look at those numbers, it appears that you are 2.5% less likely to have an accident when sober and 1.5% more likely to have an accident when high. That's incorrect, though; more or less likely than what? We have to compare within the groups to get the real numbers: 2600 of 7901 test-negative drivers were in accidents, that's 32.9%; 234 of 613 THC-positive drivers were in accidents, that's 38.2%. So, it would seem that you're actually 5.3% more likely to be in an accident when THC-positive than when negative for any substance.
We'll ignore adjusting for subgroups for now, since that's ancillary to my point. Now, let's move 89.5% of the THC-positive population into the test-negative population (thereby rendering THC-posi
No. And I don't see how anyone could logically reach that strange conclusion.
There are three possibilities.
1: Everyone who tested positive for THC was high. In this case, the test results are valid as published.
2: Some people who tested positive for THC were high and the results were skewed, as those who were not high should have been recorded as sober. In this case, there were accidents recorded as THC-related that should have been recorded as involving a sober driver, the sober accident count should be higher and the high accident count should be lower.
3: Nobody who tested positive for THC was high (the option you just stated) and all of them should have been recorded as sober. In this case, the sober accident count should be much higher and the high accident count should be zero.
While you are correct that the study did not prove that being high on MJ does not cause any additional danger, you are wrong in even pointing that out, as that wasn't the point of the study. The point of the study was to indicate whether or not there was any additional danger involved in driving high and, if there is, how it compares to driving drunk. The results indicate (note that I'm not saying prove) that, at worst, it's comparable to driving sober. Many, many, many more studies will be required before anything can be considered proven.
That said, if the study is flawed, as you seem to think (and I'll admit I agree), the only remaining possibilities would indicate that, if anything, toking and driving safer than driving sober. In all three possible scenarios, though, the result is certainly interesting and, hopefully, will lead to additional studies, each building on the work of, and learning from flaws in, those before. It will certainly be interesting to see what is proven at the end of all of that, won't it?
So, wait... The THC-positive group, you are saying, would have included both people who are sober and people who are high? So, then, if they were only including people in that group who were actually high, there would be a much smaller number of accidents in the group? Got it.
In fact, it is actually irresponsible and could cause society great harm by spreading possibly wrong information about the dangers of driving while altered.
Why yes, it could make people think it's less dangerous than it is, though your complaint seems to be that the study was making it seem more dangerous. What's the problem?
In other words; distraction. But distraction can also lead to running over pedestrians crossing the street because you were fixating on something else.
... meanwhile, farther up the page...
And driving paranoid can spread your attention when it should be focused on what's important.
God damn, people! Make up your mind! Are high drivers unsafe because the can only focus on one thing at a time, or because they can't focus on anything at all? MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MINDS!
And, for the record, spreading your attention around is precisely what you should be doing while driving. Just looking at the cars in front of you, or the cars behind you, or next to you, or in the cross traffic, or pedestrians, or cyclists, or traffic lights, or signs, or your instrument cluster, those are all dangerous behaviors, each one is as dangerous as any other form of distracted driving. We don't need a study to prove that, either; focusing on one threat out of nine is a surefire way to get bitten by one of the eight you're ignoring.
What if they see a unicorn standing in front of them while doing 75 mph on the freeway?
Then they're smoking something other than weed. Marijuana is not a hallucinogen, most stoners wouldn't be doing 75 on the freeway, let along be on the freeway at all, and why the fuck would a unicorn be standing on the freeway when they can fly?
Why do you assume people on weed don't know they're driving slowly? When I'm high is the one time I adhere to the speed limit, and I damn well do so knowingly.
Funny, it was precisely the act of scanning my surroundings that prevented me from running over a couple who tripped and fell after darting out in front of me, jaywalking 10 feet from a crosswalk. Had I been sober and focused directly on the road ahead (and the left turn I was about to make) I wouldn't have seen him carrying her reverse-piggyback while running around the corner (past the crosswalk) and guessed that he was about to run into the road without seeing me. Well, I did see him, he didn't see me until he had a foot off the sidewalk, at which point he stopped and fell on top of her (she got knocked out), but I was already swerving around him before he decided to try and run out in front of me, so the only accident was that he tripped and fell and knocked his girl out. Of course, it would've been too much hassle for him to wait at the corner until he had a walk light, and cross on the crosswalk, I'm sure. For the record, I had a green arrow for my left turn; at this intersection, when that arrow is green all other traffic is stopped, including foot traffic in all directions; and, as I stated already, he ran around the corner, past the crosswalk, and was jaywalking 10ft from the goddamn crosswalk.
Called the cops (literally 75ft from where this happened) so they could assess whether she needed an ambulance or not and generally just to report what had just happened, and stuck around. The responding officer knew I was high the moment I handed him my prescription[1]. He didn't say a word about it, other than to thank me for being an attentive and safe driver.
[1] - I'm a California resident and migraine sufferer. Even if I wasn't pro-pot, choosing between pot and other migraine treatments is simple... One isn't a hallucinogen, all of the others are. I can function on one, I can't on the others. Assuming you want to call pot evil, it's the lesser of the lot in this case. I could've been driving with a migraine, instead, and would have maybe killed two people that night.
No worries, I know how people get about polarizing subjects like this, usually the only replies on these topics are argumentative, so it was a safe assumption to make. I actually had to read your reply a couple times to make sure I hadn't misread it, myself.
Your first paragraph actually agrees with the point I was making; I think you simply misread what I wrote.
My point was that, if you are correct and they did not account for level of THC intoxication, that would mean that many of the THC-positive subjects likely were not intoxicated at all; e.g. completely sober. Those not-intoxicated but THC-positive subjects should have been recorded under the "Sober" column, which, in turn, would have painted a completely different picture, with many more "Sober" accidents and many fewer "THC-Involved" accidents.
In other words, I am agreeing with your assessment that level of intoxication is just as important for THC as it is for alcohol.
My take-away, here, is that the NHTSA did all they could to skew the testing in favor of painting pot in a negative light, while maintaining an appearance of neutrality, and the best they could do was to equate it with sobriety, within a reasonable margin of error.
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.
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.
If you are correct about that, then there would be a lot more weekend-smokers on the road during the week, who have THC in their bloodstream but haven't smoked in days and are in no way high. That would mean that many counted as THC-involved accidents would have involved *completely sober* people, indicating that the results were skewed such that it appears that sober and high drivers have roughly the same incidence of accident when the reality would be that sober drivers are actually more likely to be in an accident than high drivers.
Note that I'm not claiming that to be the case; but if you're right, well, then I guess, yes, actually, I am claiming that.
Yeah, there's a difference between driving after a drink with dinner and driving drunk, just like there's a difference between driving high and driving stoned. Only an idiot would drive stoned, though I'm not quite sure how they'd find their keys... or car, for that matter... or how they'd get off the couch in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure any power-line noise from a memory card is dwarfed by the poor sound quality of the chip amps used on most portable audio devices.
Yes and no. If your amplifier is taking a microwatt-level signal and turning it into a milliwatt-level signal, you're also amplifying any noise by a factor of 1000 or more. GIGO comes to mind; now, your low-quality chip amp might put out garbage either way, but at least you can filter out some of the smellier stuff, if you catch my drift.
This could actually make a difference for portable devices with crap power supplies or crap/dying batteries. No jokes. Of course, proper decoupling on the SD reader circuit, and/or proper power filtering, would have the same effect. I would imagine, though, that this card, if it works as advertised, would reduce distortion and noise on lower-end (maybe not bottom of the barrel) MP3 players that lack proper decoupling and filtering; and when the price gap between the low-end and high-end players is more than the price of one of these cards (and even more than the price differential between one of these cards and the one you would otherwise be buying anyway), it may well be a viable option for the listener who bought the player they could afford and is less than thrilled with how it sounds.
Think about it, you have $99 to spend on a player, so you get what you can; a cheapie player with mediocre sound. You then scrape together $160 and grab one of these cards. If there's any merit to this card at all, if it introduces any level of internal decoupling or power filtering, above what the player already provides, that $259 expenditure may well result in sound comparable to a much more expensive player.
Or, it may be complete bullshit. I'll wait for the independent tests before ridiculing it, though; and I won't buy it either way. Well, unless I can get faster read/write speeds and. or better battery life out of my dSLR with it, which I'm sure someone will eventually test, as well, even if it's not the goal of this card.
You realize the reason they send the audio out for processing is that the TV doesn't have the processing power to do it, right? So that pretty much rules out filtering, no?
How long until networks start airing ads containing "Samsung owners, say 'Smart TV tune to Fox News' or 'Hi TV tune to Fox News' for fair and balanced coverage". For references, "Smart TV" and "Hi TV" are the two configurable activation phrases on Samsung Smart TVs and, upon hearing this from the commercial, the TV would, in theory, automatically tune to Fox News. That's what scares me most about this "feature".
The inverse is true on this end, as well. My point was: learn the difference between "high" and "stoned". By definition, a stoned person is not doing anything; your frequent medicinal user friends just take a lot more to reach that level (if they even can anymore) than you do. That's all it is. Really.
You start out (incorrectly) talking about people doing things while stoned, but finished with anecdotes about people doing things while high. Flat out, if you're stoned, you're not doing *anything*; the only way you'd even be able to *think* about driving stoned is if you're toking up *while driving*. There is no other way you're going to be able to even get behind the wheel while you're stoned.
Nobody in any of your anecdotes was stoned while doing those things. I'd believe they were high, though; an early high does help most people concentrate, but, push past that at all and you quickly start losing the ability to concentrate at all; when that ability is completely gone well, then you're stoned.
Sure, I can't even think about getting off the couch to go to bed when I get stoned
Nobody else can, either; that's the point. If they can think about getting off the couch, they're not stoned. High, maybe. Not stoned.
you don't have to be altered to have no accidents
Nobody said you did...
people have accidents all the time while sober
Nobody said they didn't...
It seems we're in agreement that #2 is the most likely case; we simply disagree about what that means. You seem to think that means the results are utterly useless, as there were variables not tested for; well, guess what... there are always untested variables. Where was exactly every atom in that piece of glass before it was struck with the hammer? Exactly which atoms of the hammer hit which atoms in the glass? How many atoms are in each shard that was generated when the hammer struck the glass? Are the neighbor-neighbor relations within each shard the same as they were before the glass shattered? Do you need to know any of that to validate a result indicating that you can break glass with a hammer? No. But those are untested variables.
It may be that this particular untested variable, whether the person was actually high, or had simply been high at some point, would have a bearing on the accuracy of the results, and I agree with you when you insist that it does. However, let's go ahead and make the assumption the study made and say that everyone who tested positive was high. Okay, now compare within each subgroup. Young drivers are X more likely to be in an accident when sober; oh, look, they're still X more likely to be in an accident when high. Male drivers are Y more likely to be in an accident when sober; oh, look, they're still Y more likely to be in an accident when high. Young Male drivers are Z more likely to be in an accident when sober; oh, look, they're still Z more likely to be in an accident when high. Well, that means we need to adjust those subgroups of the THC-positive group to compensate, and when we do that, the results for the THC-positive and sober groups are, within margin of error, the same. of A sober drivers, B% were in accidents, and of C THC-positive drivers, B% were in accidents.
Now, go ahead and remove anyone from the THC-positive group who is not high; add them to the sober group. Given that most MJ users smoke for an hour and stay high for 1-2hr, when they smoke, and an assumption of daily use, that's 2.5 high hours (1 while smoking, 1-2 after, averaged) out of a 24hr day, or 10.4167% of the time. That means those people are in the sober group 89.5833% of the time. Since we're making assumptions already, let's simplify that to 10.5% and 89.5%; but, what that means, is that 89.5% of people in the THC-positive group belong in the sober group, while the remaining 10.5% belong in a different group: high. Reasonably, they each take their accidents with them, to their respective groups.
What happens when you attribute 89.5% of the THC-positive group's size and accident count, instead, to the sober group? Well, let's first look at where we're starting: 84.0% (2600 of 3095) of the crash group tested negative for all substances, while 7.6% (234 of 3095) of the crash group tested positive for THC; 86.5% (5301 of 6190) of the control group tested negative for all substances, while 6.1% (379 of 6190) tested positive for THC. If you just look at those numbers, it appears that you are 2.5% less likely to have an accident when sober and 1.5% more likely to have an accident when high. That's incorrect, though; more or less likely than what? We have to compare within the groups to get the real numbers: 2600 of 7901 test-negative drivers were in accidents, that's 32.9%; 234 of 613 THC-positive drivers were in accidents, that's 38.2%. So, it would seem that you're actually 5.3% more likely to be in an accident when THC-positive than when negative for any substance.
We'll ignore adjusting for subgroups for now, since that's ancillary to my point. Now, let's move 89.5% of the THC-positive population into the test-negative population (thereby rendering THC-posi
No. And I don't see how anyone could logically reach that strange conclusion.
There are three possibilities.
1: Everyone who tested positive for THC was high. In this case, the test results are valid as published.
2: Some people who tested positive for THC were high and the results were skewed, as those who were not high should have been recorded as sober. In this case, there were accidents recorded as THC-related that should have been recorded as involving a sober driver, the sober accident count should be higher and the high accident count should be lower.
3: Nobody who tested positive for THC was high (the option you just stated) and all of them should have been recorded as sober. In this case, the sober accident count should be much higher and the high accident count should be zero.
While you are correct that the study did not prove that being high on MJ does not cause any additional danger, you are wrong in even pointing that out, as that wasn't the point of the study. The point of the study was to indicate whether or not there was any additional danger involved in driving high and, if there is, how it compares to driving drunk. The results indicate (note that I'm not saying prove) that, at worst, it's comparable to driving sober. Many, many, many more studies will be required before anything can be considered proven.
That said, if the study is flawed, as you seem to think (and I'll admit I agree), the only remaining possibilities would indicate that, if anything, toking and driving safer than driving sober. In all three possible scenarios, though, the result is certainly interesting and, hopefully, will lead to additional studies, each building on the work of, and learning from flaws in, those before. It will certainly be interesting to see what is proven at the end of all of that, won't it?
They simplified the analysis because it was secondary to their point. They were reporting on a study, not writing a textbook.
In fact, it is actually irresponsible and could cause society great harm by spreading possibly wrong information about the dangers of driving while altered.
Why yes, it could make people think it's less dangerous than it is, though your complaint seems to be that the study was making it seem more dangerous. What's the problem?
In other words; distraction. But distraction can also lead to running over pedestrians crossing the street because you were fixating on something else.
... meanwhile, farther up the page ...
And driving paranoid can spread your attention when it should be focused on what's important.
God damn, people! Make up your mind! Are high drivers unsafe because the can only focus on one thing at a time, or because they can't focus on anything at all? MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MINDS!
And, for the record, spreading your attention around is precisely what you should be doing while driving. Just looking at the cars in front of you, or the cars behind you, or next to you, or in the cross traffic, or pedestrians, or cyclists, or traffic lights, or signs, or your instrument cluster, those are all dangerous behaviors, each one is as dangerous as any other form of distracted driving. We don't need a study to prove that, either; focusing on one threat out of nine is a surefire way to get bitten by one of the eight you're ignoring.
What if they see a unicorn standing in front of them while doing 75 mph on the freeway?
Then they're smoking something other than weed. Marijuana is not a hallucinogen, most stoners wouldn't be doing 75 on the freeway, let along be on the freeway at all, and why the fuck would a unicorn be standing on the freeway when they can fly?
I'll just leave this here. I knew where the cops were; I was driving past the cop shop.
Why do you assume people on weed don't know they're driving slowly? When I'm high is the one time I adhere to the speed limit, and I damn well do so knowingly.
Funny, it was precisely the act of scanning my surroundings that prevented me from running over a couple who tripped and fell after darting out in front of me, jaywalking 10 feet from a crosswalk. Had I been sober and focused directly on the road ahead (and the left turn I was about to make) I wouldn't have seen him carrying her reverse-piggyback while running around the corner (past the crosswalk) and guessed that he was about to run into the road without seeing me. Well, I did see him, he didn't see me until he had a foot off the sidewalk, at which point he stopped and fell on top of her (she got knocked out), but I was already swerving around him before he decided to try and run out in front of me, so the only accident was that he tripped and fell and knocked his girl out. Of course, it would've been too much hassle for him to wait at the corner until he had a walk light, and cross on the crosswalk, I'm sure. For the record, I had a green arrow for my left turn; at this intersection, when that arrow is green all other traffic is stopped, including foot traffic in all directions; and, as I stated already, he ran around the corner, past the crosswalk, and was jaywalking 10ft from the goddamn crosswalk.
Called the cops (literally 75ft from where this happened) so they could assess whether she needed an ambulance or not and generally just to report what had just happened, and stuck around. The responding officer knew I was high the moment I handed him my prescription[1]. He didn't say a word about it, other than to thank me for being an attentive and safe driver.
[1] - I'm a California resident and migraine sufferer. Even if I wasn't pro-pot, choosing between pot and other migraine treatments is simple... One isn't a hallucinogen, all of the others are. I can function on one, I can't on the others. Assuming you want to call pot evil, it's the lesser of the lot in this case. I could've been driving with a migraine, instead, and would have maybe killed two people that night.
No worries, I know how people get about polarizing subjects like this, usually the only replies on these topics are argumentative, so it was a safe assumption to make. I actually had to read your reply a couple times to make sure I hadn't misread it, myself.
Your first paragraph actually agrees with the point I was making; I think you simply misread what I wrote.
My point was that, if you are correct and they did not account for level of THC intoxication, that would mean that many of the THC-positive subjects likely were not intoxicated at all; e.g. completely sober. Those not-intoxicated but THC-positive subjects should have been recorded under the "Sober" column, which, in turn, would have painted a completely different picture, with many more "Sober" accidents and many fewer "THC-Involved" accidents.
In other words, I am agreeing with your assessment that level of intoxication is just as important for THC as it is for alcohol.
My take-away, here, is that the NHTSA did all they could to skew the testing in favor of painting pot in a negative light, while maintaining an appearance of neutrality, and the best they could do was to equate it with sobriety, within a reasonable margin of error.
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.
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.
Let's take him on a hike.
If you are correct about that, then there would be a lot more weekend-smokers on the road during the week, who have THC in their bloodstream but haven't smoked in days and are in no way high. That would mean that many counted as THC-involved accidents would have involved *completely sober* people, indicating that the results were skewed such that it appears that sober and high drivers have roughly the same incidence of accident when the reality would be that sober drivers are actually more likely to be in an accident than high drivers.
Note that I'm not claiming that to be the case; but if you're right, well, then I guess, yes, actually, I am claiming that.
What's the legal limit for pot? I thought it was 0, federally.
Some (many)
Most. The rest don't drive.
Yeah, there's a difference between driving after a drink with dinner and driving drunk, just like there's a difference between driving high and driving stoned. Only an idiot would drive stoned, though I'm not quite sure how they'd find their keys... or car, for that matter... or how they'd get off the couch in the first place.
Got any data to back that up?