Pot Smoking May More Than Double Crash Risk

[HuckleB]

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-10-14/Pot-smoking-may-more-than-double-crash-risk/50774786/1

"Drivers who get behind the wheel after using marijuana run more than twice the risk of crashing compared to others, a new study finds.

...

In their study, Li and his co-authors assessed information from nine prior studies in six countries looking at marijuana use and motor vehicle accidents.

The studies looked at different time frames, with some assessing marijuana use as little as one hour before driving and others looking at one year or more. According to one study cited, driving skills are acutely affected for three to four hours after use.

...

Overall, the risk of a crash was almost 2.7 times higher among marijuana users than non-users, the authors found. And the response was dose-specific, the authors said. That is, the more marijuana smoked -- in terms of frequency and potency -- the greater the likelihood of a crash.

..."


--------------------------------



Yup. It's a big DUH! And yet I have mostly intelligent friends who deny this information. If they're not drinking, but "only smoking," they think they're fine to drive.

Look, I am pro-legalization. Screw the medical marijuana crap. Just legalize it, but don't tell me you should be driving after you've smoked.

:hi:

[TheWraith]

1. Yep, definitely a "no shit" moment.

Marijuana doesn't affect the brain and perception in the same ways alcohol does, but it's still serious.

[leftstreet]

2. unnhhReck

:D
Not this crap again

[elleng]

3. Saw a post to the contrary here few days ago.

[HuckleB]

9. A post that showed a legitimate study on the matter?

:rofl:

[elleng]

Yes

[HuckleB]

29. No.

[HuckleB]

30. No.

[spanone]

mighty broad statement....depends on dosage, as in all drugs.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

DOT HS 808 078 NOVEMBER 1993

MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE

CONCLUSIONS

The major conclusions from the present program are summarized as follows:

* Current users of marijuana prefer THC doses of about 300 ug/kg to achieve their desired "high".

* It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic.

* Marijuana smoking impairs fundamental road tracking ability with the degree if impairment increasing as a function of the consumed THC dose.

* Marijuana smoking which delivers THC up to a 300 ug/kg dose slightly impairs the ability to maintain a constant headway while following another car.

* A low THC dose (100 ug/kg) does not impair driving ability in urban traffic to the same extent as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04g%.

* Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these.

* Drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to under-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and do not invest compensatory effort.

* The maximum road tracking impairment after the highest THC dose (300 ug/kg) was within a range of effects produced by many commonly used medicinal drugs and less than that associated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08g% in previous studies employing the same test.

* It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.\\

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1g.htm

[HuckleB]

123. Hardly.

It appears that your only response to offer obfuscation.

It's amazing to note how people who claim to understand science only use it to support their preconceived notions.

[spanone]

257. you believe whatever you wish in your fantasy world. i offered you a link with proof.

[GliderGuider]

211. +1 Thanks! /nt

[BadDog40]

127. Here are 2 studies that suggests the risks are small

A 1993 Dept Of Transportation study:

U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993:

"This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of
driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate, where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

http://members.iowatelecom.net/sharkhaus/driving_pot_usdot1993.html


and another.....

Driving while high may not be as bad as once thought. A study conducted by Hartford Hospital and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine found that smoking marijuana has little effect on driving skills.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20007257-48.html#ixzz1b0shViDY

[elleng]

138. Thanks. The 'steady lateral position' sounds familiar.

DU 'recent' post discussed that, I think.

[HuckleB]

142. You have to go pretty far back then, to some small studies.

See science tends to work on the abundance of evidence, not on prelimiinary studies. The use of preliminary studies to defend, apparently, a right to drive while using marijuana is what makes some parts of the legalization movement similar to the anti-vax movement. That's just off base. Pure and simple.

[demosincebirth]

4. Really?

[Rageneau]

5. This "study" is a load of crap!

Follow the link and you'll find absolutely NO support for the premise stated. IOW, there is absolutely nothing at the link that says what this headline says it does.

Just more bullshit Drug War propaganda.

[HuckleB]

13. I followed the link, and there is plenty to back it up.

This has nothing to do with anything but reality.

Cut the crap.

If you smoke and drive, don't rant about the "drug war," because you don't care about the drug war.

[leftstreet]

16. What about this statement from the article:

Most of their studies pointed to a very strong bad effect of marijuana on driving, but there are other studies out there that actually go the other way."

[HuckleB]

22. I love it when folks try to use a single line, as it means everything.

As noted, even in this article, those studies are small and poorly designed at best.

ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO TELL US THAT YOU THINK MARIJUANA USE DOES NOT IMPAIR DRIVING?

If so, then cite the studies.

Thanks!

[leftstreet]

25. Driving while impaired is already illegal. Doesn't matter what you're fucked up on

FFS

[HuckleB]

26. That's great.

And it has nothing to do with the OP or what you've posted so far.

Why is that?

[FrodosPet]

95. When you are so effin baked you can't even remember

When you are so effin baked you can't even remember where you are going, you are NOT a better driver than when you are not.

I'm not saying this as some blue nosed prohibitionist - just as someone who's been so effin baked that he couldn't remember where he was going. I think back on the times I got the Indica sleepies while driving, and I am amazed that I am alive and didn't kill someone.

"Reefer Magicalness" is just as bad as "Reefer Madness".

[Rageneau]

115. Smoking pot has no negative effect on driving.

And saying stuff like: "Come on, you HAVE to admit it does, because we FEEL that it must," changes nothing.

The only evidence that marijuana impairs driving is based on "truthiness" like the crap this link leads to -- not on science or fact.

This matter HAS been scientifically studied, though, and the existing science says MJ (alone) does NOT impair drivers. In fact, the test evidence says that MJ actually IMPROVES driving. Use the Google and see if I'm not correct. Should take you less than 20 seconds to find it -- if you care what the truth is.

The only 'evidence' that pot is bad for driving comes from amalgmations of contrived drug warrior rhetoric citing flimsy, incomplete 'facts' that, upon close inspection, wind up proving absolutely nothing.

Follow the OP's link. Read what's there carefully and you'll discover that there isn't a single sentence in that link that outright SAYS marijuana is bad for driving.

And the reason it doesn't say that it that is because it can't.

[HuckleB]

118. It's funny that research appears to show otherwise.

[dionysus]

238. i don't know about that. in general yes, you'll most likey be more careful and not speed. however,

i can't see someone ripping a bunch of bong hits of dank, immediately jump behind the wheel, and say it doesnt affect them. if you wait a little bit, sure. but to say it could never have a negative affect is just silly.

[tridim]

6. Smoking affects people differently.

I never drive after smoking more than a puff because cannabis puts me into a focused creative mood.

I'm sure I could suppress it enough to drive okay, but why risk it?

[HuckleB]

11. I know plenty of people who drink who say the same thing.

Try again.

[tridim]

28. Try what again? I said I don't drive while stoned.

[HuckleB]

32. I'm glad you don't.

And yet you claimed "I'm sure I could suppress it enough to drive okay."

Do you understand how ridiculous that statement is?

[tridim]

34. Pot isn't heroin.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

110. Who said "Pot is heroin?"

[BadDog40]

129. You're acting like it is

[HuckleB]

143. Goodness.

That's your response?

Really?

:rofl:

[FarLeftFist]

7. Yes, just a reminder: DON'T smoke pot then drive. Also, don't use a heat gun as a blow dryer.

[HuckleB]

112. Yup.

And yet, looking at this thread, there are many who don't understand either of those things.

[Taverner]

237. What about using rubbing alcohol instead of vodka?

:P

[WillyT]

8. JFC...

:wtf:

:banghead:

[HuckleB]

36. That's right, bang your head when reality hits.

:rofl:

[WillyT]

63. No, I Bang My Head When Teh Stupid Succeed

Sorry.

[HuckleB]

68. That might make sense if you cared about "Teh Stupid."

It appears that you're joining "Teh Stupid," in this case.

[markpkessinger]

10. I call bullshit!

Buried further down in the article is this little tidbit:

However, one expert cautioned against inferring too much from this study, which was not designed to capture cause and effect.

"We can't really say yet that marijuana increases the risk by two or three times," said Chuck Farmer, director of statistics at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Arlington, Va. "Most of their studies pointed to a very strong bad effect of marijuana on driving, but there are other studies out there that actually go the other way."

[HuckleB]

37. So this expert says that the preponderance of evidence agrees with this study.

And you "call bullshit?"

:rofl:

[Liberal_in_LA]

12. rec but you've been neg-recced to zero.

[HuckleB]

17. Yeah, it's almost as if I posted something that says vaccines prevent disease.

Somehow science is ignored when it's convenient, even by some Dems.

It's frustrating to see. Where is the balance?

[Liberal_in_LA]

24. oh oh... now you've done it!

[FarLeftFist]

14. Let me be honest. I've smoked MJ and drove a car. I became a better driver.

[elleng]

19. Post to that effect here a few days ago.

[HuckleB]

27. "Dude! I can drink a fifth of Jim Beam, and boy can I drive a straight line afterward!"

"That's my claim, and I'm sticking to it"

[elleng]

31. Means you're probably an alcoholic.

[HuckleB]

33. Perhaps. Certainly, it means anyone claiming that is an idiot.

[HuckleB]

20. Then please don't drive at all.

Thanks.

[Swede]

23. How do you know?

You may think you are a better driver.

[kestrel91316]

15. I dunno about this. I feel more "impaired" after a single beer than I do after

a few tokes.

I am sensible enough to do both in the privacy of my own home when I don't need to be driving anywhere.

[HuckleB]

18. That may be true, but that's not the point of the study.

Alcohol may be more impairing, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the reality that marijuana may also be impairing to driving.

[kestrel91316]

42. FWIW, every last person I know who wants it legalized (and that's no small number)

also wants it regulated like alcohol so there are consequences for its misuse. I concur.

But I WANT it legal. And I want alcohol to stay that way, too.

[HuckleB]

45. I stated that in the OP.

So, what's your point?

[kestrel91316]

207. If you don't want OTHER people's opinion or perspective, you perhaps

shouldn't be posting on a message board. I wasn't aware I needed your approval to express MY OWN view.

[HuckleB]

214. Is that your response whenever you push something completely baseless...

... and are called out on it?

Really?

[Fire Walk With Me]

21. Will eating a bag of Doritos bring the risk back down to normal?

[FirstLight]

41. +100

:rofl:

only if you back that up with some twinkies ;)

[Monk06]

38. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iApz08Bh53w

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I am pro-legalization and anti-impaired driving, too.

Driving requires 110% concentration and focus; not just for yourself, but because of the jackass bad drivers in the OTHER cars. That applies to texting, phone calls, fixing your makeup, flossing your teeth, or anything except being fully alert and paying attention. Not to mention sleep deprivation.

Some day soon, the cars will drive themselves, and people will be able to relax and ride as fucked up as they want. A lot of folks won't like that, but I think it can't come soon enough. Back when I was still drinking and shelling out $$$ for cab fare, I would have been all over it.

[HuckleB]

44. Yup.

And all of those people have justifications, including the marijuana smokers, as can be evidenced, sadly, at DU.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. On the flip side, to be fair, this "what about stoned drivers" is clearly a talking point for

the people who want to stop legalization.

I think the drug war, and pot prohibition, are WAY bigger problems and evils, societally, than stoned drivers are or would be even under full legalization. And I say this as someone who lost a friend to a drunk driver.

If "but but butbutbut high driving ZOMG11!!!!" is being used as an argument against legalization, I do think it's right and good to say, "yes, impaired driving is against the law and will remain so, but what we need to do with pot is LEGALIZE IT, REGULATE IT, and TAX IT. NOW. Don't change the subject."

[HuckleB]

51. Indeed.

On the other hand, if legalization is wanted, this is going to be part of the argument, and it will have to be part of the laws of legalization. If it is ignored by those who want legalization, including myself, then legalization will have even bigger road blocks to overcome.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Like I said, impaired driving is already against the law.

I don't think there are any insurmountable challenges to enforcement that would come out of a change in the legality of pot.

[HuckleB]

58. There should not be insurmountable challenges to enforcement.

But, since I've repeatedly noted that I am pro-legalization, I'm not sure what your posts have to do with, uh, well, anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. They have to do with the topic because it means we agree that the issue is already settled.

So whether or not people bring up "what about stoned drivers" as an anti-legalization argument, like I said, the issue is already settled by current laws against impaired driving.

[HuckleB]

66. Well, we do need to know what risks stoned providers provide.

That's basic.

Why is that a threat to so many?

[Warren DeMontague]

125. Because, like I said, it has come up as a big anti-legalization talking point.

You're wondering why you're getting the flak you're getting in this thread, that's why.

Now, of course, as you say, you're pro-legalization, and are NOT bringing this up as a talking point AGAINST legalization, but just, as you say, as it's own, separate issue that, you've acknowledged, doesn't really apply to the legalization argument since, as you agree, impaired driving is already against the law and enforcement wouldn't be markedly affected by a change in the legal status of pot.

So it's great that you're not using this as an anti-legalization talking point, and you've been considerate enough to remind everyone, repeatedly, how you are for legalization, of course... but the reactions you're seeing have to do with it being a common talking point against legalization in general.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rageneau]

136. True.

I am as opposed to the War on Truth as I am the War on Drugs. So I hate using the former to promote the latter.

[NYC Liberal]

223. I agree. Just because the drug war is bullshit and marijuana should be legal

doesn't mean it has zero negative effects.

Yes, there is a lot of propaganda about it, but not all of it is bullshit.

[ohheckyeah]

40. Oh please....

However, one expert cautioned against inferring too much from this study, which was not designed to capture cause and effect.

but then it says:

But other experts expressed some alarm at the findings. "At (its) annual meeting in late September, the Governors Highway Safety Association strengthened its drugged driving policy," said Jonathan Adkins, a spokesperson for the association.

"We see this as a national priority and are seeking a range of actions to address the problem comprehensively," Adkins said.

So the study wasn't designed to capture cause and effect but they stated a cause and effect anyway? What a load of BS.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Fields]

46. Bottom line: Inconclusive...

"We can't really say yet that marijuana increases the risk by two or three times," said Chuck Farmer, director of statistics at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Arlington, Va. "Most of their studies pointed to a very strong bad effect of marijuana on driving, but there are other studies out there that actually go the other way."

There are a few factors to look at when assessing a study. Like the man said, other studies point the other way.

Take my study for example. I have conducted thousands of experiments on the subject of smoking marijuana and driving a vehicle. Haven't crashed once. Yet, I have crashed numerous vehicles while under the influence of alcohol.

[HuckleB]

47. Only if one chooses to go down the road of science is just "theory."

The evidence base shows that the marijuana affects one's ability to drive. Science says, "True. But we can't state anything definitely. Yet, we do note the preponderance of evidence."

Are you choosing to ignore the preponderance of evidence in order to go with blind faith?

That's the question you have to ask yourself.

[ohheckyeah]

52. It would take blind faith to believe

in studies that they assessed but didn't actually do themselves and they don't reveal anything about.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohheckyeah]

62. Whose evidence?

You keep talking about a preponderance of evidence but I only see a study of studies - studies that aren't revealed or linked to.

What's your investment in the whole thing?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohheckyeah]

90. Seriously?

What evidence? What studies? Whose studies? In the real world evidence consists of something concrete....like the fucking studies, not just an assessment of studies which we are required to take on good faith were actually properly controlled studies.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Fields]

97. Other studies point the other way.

Not only that, but as I said, other factors must be taken into consideration.

[HuckleB]

99. That's not unusual for science.

Most studies, with big N's, show that driving after smoking is not a good idea.

[mitchtv]

48. these studies reappear every so often

a new one will appear and negate it soon.too

[HuckleB]

53. Single studies don't negate much.

The preponderance of evidence agrees with this study.

[leftstreet]

59. Can you find some studies analyzing driving habits of med marijuana users?

That would certainly be relevant here

I'd be especially curious to know how many chemo patients toke up and then think ROAD TRIP!!!1111

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

74. Can you offer any other red herrings?

:rofl:

[leftstreet]

130. You're high!

:rofl:

[EOTE]

169. Not high, just incredibly ignorant.

I'm guessing a good smoke would do the poster a world of good.

[HuckleB]

178. Yeah, that must be it.

:rofl:

[EOTE]

179. Considering that your "scientific knowledge" and "debate skills" consist entirely of smilies.

Yes, that's definitely it.

[HuckleB]

182. Uh huh.

I'm supposed spend lots of time responding to nothing with lengthy returns?

Context seems to be something you don't understand.

[EOTE]

190. You've spent plenty of time responding with snark and smileys.

You've spent zero time providing actual evidence. So it's quite clear where your maturity level is. It's OK, ignorant children parrot what others says. Informed adults can actually have a logical debate. I'm very much aware that's well beyond your abilities.

[Throd]

50. Don't drive high (on anything) and you'll be fine.

[HuckleB]

54. +1

[HuckleB]

55. +1

[RegieRocker]

159. Yep no accidents happen if your straight. Right.

[HuckleB]

167. And...

... that means it's ok to drive under the influence of anything you want, while texting and shaving?

:shrug:

[RegieRocker]

171. Do you shave and text with your eyes closed?

[HuckleB]

196. Do you?

[RegieRocker]

233. Conversation doesn't work that way. You need to answer first.

[SHRED]

60. From the report:

Analysis of individual studies indicated that the heightened risk of crash involvement associated with marijuana use persisted after adjustment for confounding variables and that the risk of crash involvement increased in a dose-response fashion with the concentration of 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol detected in the urine and the frequency of self-reported marijuana use. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that marijuana use by drivers is associated with a significantly increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle crashes.

About as vague as you can get in a "study" of this type.
11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC is a metabolite they measure. It has no psychoactive properties.

There is an actual "under the influence" test for THC developed in Switzerland I believe. It is a saliva test and is way more accurate than checking metabolites for use at sometime in the past via the urine or blood.
My guess is that the powers that be are perfectly fine with the metabolite test since it snares many more people by including what they do on their own time.
Going to the saliva test would save us taxpayers big bucks but cut into their budgets...if you know what I mean.

Looks to me more like a"reefer madness" hype.
Hype that is designed to scare the public and further their "war on drugs" budgets.

just sayin

[ohheckyeah]

65. Thank you. n/t

[SHRED]

72. ur welcome

[CreekDog]

61. It also doubles Ding Dong consumption

:think:

[Romulox]

67. OP as Drug Warrior propaganda? "this study...was not designed to capture and effect."

"one expert cautioned against inferring too much from this study, which was not designed to capture cause and effect."

[HuckleB]

69. The only propaganda being offered...

... is the propaganda that thinks such cautions are more important than what the preponderance of evidence shows.

Try again, or join the anti-science crowd.

[ohheckyeah]

73. As I asked before....

what evidence? Studies? What studies? Who did them? Who paid for them? All this 'study' is is an assessment of other studies, which we are given absolutely no information about. Anti-science? How about anti-bullshit asking us to have faith in studies that aren't even referenced?

[HuckleB]

75. In other words....

you choose to ignore the evidence provided.

Got it.

[ohheckyeah]

78. THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE.

It's a study of studies. What FUCKING STUDIES? Show me the studies and while you're at it ask yourself why is this coming out NOW? And just why are you so heavily invested in it?

[HuckleB]

83. ROTFLMAO!

:rofl:

[ohheckyeah]

93. Oh, isn't that cute?

Where are the studies? You refuse to address the issue and your little emoticon just shows that you are dodging the issue. Where is the evidence? Where are the studies? Don't know, do you?

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

102. I get it.

You want to pretend.

Keep pretending.

[EOTE]

170. In other words, you haven't provided anything even approaching evidence.

But you're way too ignorant regarding the subject to even be aware of this. And ignorant is putting it very kindly.

[HuckleB]

184. In other words, evidence does not matter to you.

[EOTE]

188. Says the ignoramus who constantly screams "evidence!" while not providing a shred of it.

Everyone here sees you for what you are. Everyone knows you haven't produced anything in terms of evidence. Simply saying that the evidence is there is not the same thing as providing it.

[HuckleB]

198. Have you written USA Today to tell them that this story is about a fictional study?

[EOTE]

208. It's a few people who are making assertions with nothing to back up their assertions.

So it's not fictional, it's just nothing approaching a study. It's to hook in scientifically illiterate people such as yourself. It's not fiction, there's simply no science there.

[HuckleB]

212. Say what?

:rofl:

[EOTE]

216. Exactly. NT

[HuckleB]

218. Oh, that is rich.

[Romulox]

79. So...the concepts of "cause and effect" aren't familiar to you?

:shrug:

[HuckleB]

87. I'm quite familiar.

Why would you ask?

[Romulox]

91. You're asserting cause and effect from studies that did not capture cause and effect.

This sounds like the intersection of zealotry and scientific illiteracy. :hi:

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

117. You don't even seem to have the basic scientific literacy to understand how "studies" work.

:shrug:

[HuckleB]

119. Says someone who has shown ZERO scientific literacy, thus fan.

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

235. What science? Please, cite the studies that this 'study' references.

BTW, this 'study' is not a study - it is a compilation of uncited studies.

Thinking this is a study is the same as believing you were a witness to a crime because you read some police reports.

[ohheckyeah]

71. Uh oh...

now you've done it. You'll be told you have no education in research and science.

[HuckleB]

76. Well, when that's shown, why shouldn't it be pointed out?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

81. Your argument is similar to the Queen of Hearts: First the Verdict, THEN the trial, eh?

:hi:

[HuckleB]

84. Only if you're ignoring, well, almost everything.

[Romulox]

86. I don't do "Faith Based" reasoning. Link to a scientific study, or it didn't happen.

:hi:

[HuckleB]

89. The article links to one, which links to several.

Whoops!

:rofl:

[Romulox]

92. Right. But the scientists aren't asserting what you Drug Warriors are. That's the problem. nt

[HuckleB]

101. "Drug Warriors."

:rofl:

Dude. You are in the wrong place.

[Romulox]

103. Right. DU is the home away from home for Drug Warriors and other fascists.

And *I* (not YOU) are the one who is out of place. :shrug:

[HuckleB]

104. In other words, your only response to science is a personal attack.

WOW!

:wow:

[Romulox]

105. Nonsense. I'm still waiting for you to digest and respond to the "cause and effect" issue.

Until such time as you engage with basic reason, there can be no meaningful discussion.

[HuckleB]

107. You don't even know what that means.

[Romulox]

113. You are very lazy, for a provocateur. Your schtick isn't even interesting.

Try just asserting that Obama support MMJ despite all evidence to the contrary. It would be MUCH more interesting than what you have to offer--a kind of mono-syllabic drone. :hi:

[HuckleB]

116. That's funny.

Thanks for the laugh!

You've offered nothing. Nada. Zero.

Yet, you make lots of BS claims.

So, who's lazy?

:rofl:

[Occulus]

225. The only link the article goes to the website of the Governors Highway Safety Association

I don't know what article you're looking at. The one I'm reading claims nine studies were involved without naming or directly referencing any of them, their participants, or their actual results.

[ohheckyeah]

82. It's only been

"shown" in the alternate universe you live in.


Why is a study that wasn't designed to show cause and effect claiming cause and effect?

[HuckleB]

85. Says the guy who lives in fantasy land.

:rofl:

[Aerows]

70. I don't even smoke pot, and I wish

people would quit talking on their damn cell phones while they drive. My family members have been in three accidents in the past 3 years, and what do all of them have in common? None of US were smoking pot, all of us were not at fault, and all of us were hit by people yapping on cell phones and not paying attention. I was driving for a fairly serious accident where I was rear-ended by a tow truck doing 60 in a 35mph zone. He was chit-chatting on his cell phone and left 100 yards of skidmarks when I used my turn signal to make a right turn into a restaurant.

Yeah, I'm concerned about pot smokers and drunks behind the wheel, but I'd also like to see people hang up their damn phones and pay attention when they drive, too. There isn't one of those three situations that is any worse than the other.

[HuckleB]

77. So do the rest of us.

Red herrings are fun but pointless.

[Aerows]

100. I'm 100% serious

I'd really like for people to shut up and drive. They can talk on their cell phones, get drunk and smoke pot when they aren't behind the wheel.

[HuckleB]

106. So am I.

And yet you can see the adamant desire of those who do not want to believe that they are putting themselves and others in danger on this very very thread.

[Romulox]

120. Is it frustrating to throw a reasoned response down a black hole?

I don't know if what the OP is doing breaks the letter of any rule, but it is truly annoying!

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rageneau]

137. That's rich, coming from you.

You have cited nothing BUT pre-conceived notions -- truthiness. You do not and cannot cite any definitive, black and white statements wherein scientist "A" puts his reputation behind a statement that says "Marijuana defiitely impairs driving, and here's the proof."

If marijuana indisputably impaired driving (as alcohol definitely does), the drug warriors would be citing that statement and the science behind it ad infinitum. But we never hear any actual "evidence." All we get is people bloviating about how "the preponderence of the evidence" proves something it does not prove.

Relying on a half-assed concept like "preponderence of the evidence" in the complete absence of any direct or specific evidence is nothing but 'truthiness.'

[HuckleB]

No, I've noted what the science shows.

I'm sorry that you want to believe otherwise, but that's your preconceived nonsense, and it's all yours.

[Aerows]

239. You know

I don't think anyone is going to argue with you in *reality* that impaired drivers are a hazard. I don't know how they could in good conscience.

My argument, however, is that stoned people, drunk people, people talking on cell phones and people that haven't gotten enough sleep are ALL hazards.

That doesn't diminish your position, it just amplifies that we need to be more careful of what we do when we get behind the wheel of a car. Isn't that your goal? That we all be more careful when we get behind the wheel of a car? Because it certainly is mine. I'd like you to wear a seatbelt, too.

[Aerows]

209. I wasn't interested in "rule-breaking" etc.

I was just sharing my own experience that I wish people would quit talking on their cell phones while they drive, too, because I've been personally affected by careless drivers too busy chit-chatting to pay attention to the road.

I mean 3 rear-ends to drivers in my family? None of those were caused by drug/alcohol usage. They were all caused by cell-phone usage. I have a cell phone, and I don't answer it when I drive. I'm not trying to be sanctimonious or anything - just pointing out that it's no better to be stone cold sober but being to busy on your cell phone to drive. I'll also be the first to point out that people who ride around without wearing their seatbelts take their life in their own hands for no good reason.

I thought this was a thread about: "Things you shouldn't do while driving".

[Romulox]

88. Notice the OP isn't engaging in any reasoned discussion? Unsubtle Flame bait. nt

[HuckleB]

94. Prove it.

The OP appears to be in support of legalization while noting that driving while under the influence does not appear to be wise, based on the preponderance of evidence. The responses appear to be emotion-based rants that ignore that reality. And yet you attack the OP?

That doesn't seem to be the wise route.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohheckyeah]

98. But yet declares himself the winner

of what I'm not sure, but the winner nevertheless.

Have a good night....I'm out of here.

[HuckleB]

109. This is not about winning.

That might one of the things that get in your way.

[JTFrog]

111. Big pharma thanks you for your contribution.

[HuckleB]

114. YOU WIN POINTLESS RED HERRING POST OF THE NIGHT!

:rofl:

[JTFrog]

128. Enjoy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

215. ...

:spray:

[Zoeisright]

122. Not surprising.

Driving under the influence is driving under the influence. Don't drink or do drugs of any kind and drive.

This is just anecdotal evidence, but two kids from my husband's school were killed in car accidents in the last three years. They were heavy pot smokers.

[HuckleB]

124. No, it's not exactly surprising.

And yet many will pull out every trick in the book to obfuscate the results.

[EOTE]

175. I figured someone of your scientific "knowledge" would consider that to be "results".

Just so you know, I knew of three people who died as a result of car crashes after consuming Little Debbie snack cakes. You need to start getting on those damned Little Debbies. They're evil, I tell ya!

[HuckleB]

180. I see that you have a little bit of knowledge.

Unfortunately, you don't enough to use it correctly.

[EOTE]

183. Please demonstrate your knowledge and credentials.

I really have all I need to know from your "debate" style, but please inform me of your scientific experience.

[HuckleB]

203. No one has bothered to enter into a debate here.

So you know nothing about my debate style.

As for credentials, you claim be quite knowledgeable, yet you've offered nothing to indicate that you know much about science, or even care about it.

Further, I don't enter into logical fallacies, as much as possible, which is what you're trying to do here.

[EOTE]

206. Your debate style is exactly this:

SCREAMING ASSERTION WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP!

Casual observer: "Ummm, can you provide any evidence to back up your assertion?"

THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE SAYS THAT I'M RIGHT! YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE!

Casual observer: "How can you say that, you haven't even provided any evidence."

THE EVIDENCE SAYS I'M RIGHT! WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE.

You're right, you haven't bothered to actually debate. But it wasn't for lack of trying. You simply don't know how to debate.

[HuckleB]

210. Get a mirror.

:rofl:

[EOTE]

213. And once again you're only capable of responding with smilies.

Thanks for proving my point.

[HuckleB]

217. And you've offered more?

:rofl:

[EOTE]

220. Ahhh, so you admit that you've provided nothing.

So what, exactly, do I need to counteract?

[frylock]

226. i bet they drank lots of water and breathed plenty of oxygen as well

[cherokeeprogressive]

131. Things that I've done while driving stoned...

I'm 50; I started smoking weed when I was about 18, and gave it up as a daily habit about five years ago. Still have the occasional toke though.

I remember a few things that happened to me more than once, heck probably dozens of times while I was stoned and driving:

Changing lanes and forgetting to turn my turn signal off.

Cranking up the tunes and then realizing I was going 20-30 over the speed limit.

Almost rear-ending someone while I was changing the cassette tape I was listening to.

Driving right past the offramp I was supposed to get off at or the street I was supposed to turn on.

Drifting over the "drunk bumps" while stuffing another bowl.

Laughing so hard while listening to Big Bambu on cassette that I drove over a curb.

I can tell you THIS though... when I drive stoned and actually pay attention to what I'm doing? I'm a much better driver.

So I guess I have to call bullshit on the study as well. Or not. Wait... What were we talking about again?

[HuckleB]

146. Anecdotes are meaningless.

I know plenty of drunks who've gotten away with driving drunk for decades. Does that make doing so right?

[cherokeeprogressive]

243. See post #285. I posted it in the wrong place.

Something I'd be MUCH more likely to do if I was stoned.

[cherokeeprogressive]

242. Maybe I should have added the sarcasm smiley?

The point I was trying to make was that I'm not as attentive as I should be when I drive stoned. Now that I'm older, I don't do it at all.

[RainDog]

132. dupe

this is a repeat of this thread, yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2125207&mesg_id=2125207

the link you followed in the article does not go to any scholarly research, btw. it goes to a USA Today page with other articles from USA Today and letters to USA Today. There are no scholarly articles noted or linked to in this piece. Just to clarify.

It's interesting that any time anyone tries to engage you in a discussion on this thread that demonstrates no hostility at all, and even when they find agreement with you, you treat them rudely. It's strange to read, honestly.

I am invested in reality and the study indicates a two hour, mostly, time of impairment. One study indicated 4 hours. But that was one in nine - an outlier in terms of research. However, the USA Today article only noted the longest impairment time and neglected to notice the more accurate, because it was consistent, 2 hour time zone. That's an example of biased reporting. but, no matter. Just to note that there's an agenda there by the choice of data to share and data to fail to share.

As noted before, a saliva test exists to demonstrate impairment within that 2 hour zone. It is in use in Australia.

We don't check for impairment unless someone has already been in an accident or has demonstrated by action that this person may be driving impaired. So, it's good to have a test that can decrease the window of detection because urine and blood tests are inaccurate to test for impairment, as demonstrated by this study.

[BadDog40]

133. I wish the OP would contribute something meaningful

Rather than :rofl: every other post. Worse debating skills I've seen in quite a while.

[HuckleB]

144. You've yet to offer anything useful.

Few other posters offered anything but ignorance of science, and the usual rants and raves based on red herrings.

You clearly don't know the first thing about basic debating skills.

[Iggo]

134. And it may not.

[HuckleB]

147. But the evidence indicates that it probably does.

[Iggo]

162. ...unless it doesn't.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Faux pas]

135. Back in my younger (read: stupider) days we all drove around as

if we had good sense. Thank heaven I grew out of that stage.

[sarcasmo]

139. Tax it and Legalize it stop the weed prohibition.

[HuckleB]

145. +1

[JuniperLea]

140. LOL

If that were the case we would have been barraged with statistics for the past 30 years and it would be as big as the drunk driving barrage.

I call bullshit.

People shouldn't drive after taking cold medication either... where's the outrage?

When potheads smoke too much, the last thing they want to do is go out driving around. That's a sure way to harsh a good vibe.

Again... bullshit.

[LanternWaste]

141. Oops... Sacred Cow time.

Oops... Sacred Cow time. Grilled, sauteed, fried or even thrown into the microwave, it's all the same, all the time-- Thou Shalt Say Nothing (Nothing I Says!) Ill About The Weed; for it is good regardless of context, is the savior of all our troubles, it slices, it dices, it makes Julian fries (which are then quite tasty afterwards....)

[HuckleB]

148. +1

[Codeine]

181. +2 nt

[DreamSmoker]

149. This is Bullspin again...

Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing.

Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.

Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

[HuckleB]

150. It's unfortunate that NORML chooses to act like an anti-vax organization when it comes to this.

Unfortunately, NORML is selecting studies that support its preconceived notions, and ignoring everything else.

That's BULLSPIN. Those of us who would actually like to see marijuana legalized, rather than simply whine about it, are frustrated by such lame tactics.

[robdogbucky]

153. More of that supposedly biased view of NORML for ya

“This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.

… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

“Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:

There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”
REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.


http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

[HuckleB]

157. Yup.

It's just like anti-vax city.

:rofl:

[robdogbucky]

155. More from that same page, care to read it?

“...In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

[HuckleB]

158. Again, small, self-selected studies are meaningless.

NORML has chosen to ignore the consensus of the evidence base. It self-selects only for studies that look at extremely tiny usage. Now why would that happen?

Showing what I've already noted over time only serves to remind me of how ridiculous NORML's stance on this matter is.

[randome]

154. 'Aware of their impairment'?

LOL. So the study admits that marijuana impairs your ability to drive.

Glad that's settled.

[Xithras]

151. I used to drive stoned regularly when I was young and stupid.

One day I was driving to a friends house stoned off my ass, and noticed that the wind was blowing some cool patterns in the hayfield I was passing. It was so cool that I pretty much forgot that I was driving...I was still looking at the blowing hay when my car hit the slight curve and went off the side of the road. I was going slow enough that it didn't hurt anyone, but have you ever seen what a car looks like after hitting a barbed wire fence and a couple fenceposts? It was driveable, but the car was trashed.

Years later I was relating the accident to a couple friends when the thought occurred to me...what if there had been a stopped car, or a pedestrian, or a bicyclist in the roadway? That accident could have been MUCH worse.

So, no, I don't support driving stoned. Pot smokers are too forgetful and too easily distracted to be driving cars.

[robdogbucky]

152. Oh, really? I think this new data is being supported more and more

every day by real studies. Of course if cannabis were legalized maybe widespread testing would prove to the industries that are fighting it and the people that are uninformed about it, that it really is a wonderful plant put here for many reasons.


Summaries
Crash culpability studies
On-Road Performance Studies
Driving simulator studies


SUMMARIES

“At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.

To date ..., seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers. Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers. Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected.


... The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. … cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.”

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.


“Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving...”

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450



For those interested, click the link and read more than allowed to cut and paste here.

[randome]

160. 'a negative impact on decision time and trajectory'

Another study refuting your own point.

And the 'that in itself' line is bullshit. That's like saying there is no PROOF that climate change is happening.

[RegieRocker]

156. I have to drink and smoke pot to tolerate most of you inept drivers

on the road. Even after a high level of consumption I am still a better driver!

[randome]

161. Yeah?

Well, I drink and smoke and shave and text in my car all at the same time! And there is no PROOF that my driving ability is impaired.

Mind you, the proof will be delivered once I've killed someone but that will be refuted as an aberration by many on this board.

[RegieRocker]

164. You're that crazy driver I see weaving all over the road!

Are you advocating making shaving, texting, and talking on phone illegal when driving? Lets add applying makeup, combing hair, reading and throw in nose picking too.

[randome]

200. That was a joke.

Maybe not clear enough.

[B Calm]

163. I haven't smoked in years, but my experience I drove the speed limit

and kept my vehicle between the lines. I was also more aware of my surroundings than when I was straight.

This study is nothing more than total bullshit!

[HuckleB]

166. So you think an anecdote outweighs actual research?

You're not saying anything that drunks haven't been telling people for 100 years, btw.

[B Calm]

173. I'm a professional driver. I drive approx. 600 miles everyday. Don't

compare alcohol with marijuana, they are not the same.

[HuckleB]

176. No, they're not the same.

That doesn't mean it's safe to smoke and drive.

[B Calm]

185. Sitting high above the ground and I see people doing much worse things. I have

stories you wouldn't believe, the last thing you should be worried about is somebody smoking a little pot and then driving.

[HuckleB]

199. So you know what everyone has ingested before driving, because you're above the ground?

Interesting.

[B Calm]

256. No, but I know when someone is getting a BJ

[RegieRocker]

191. I'm sure if MJ were legalized it would be illegal to drive while under

the influence. So what us really your point if any?

[HuckleB]

201. Well, I have a few friends who believe that driving while stoned is fine and dandy.

I suspected that there are others out there who feel the same way. I posted the story about the study because maybe someone might choose to avoid driving while stoned.

Is that wrong?

[RegieRocker]

230. No one should drive under the influence of anything period.

Maybe you could address it that way.

[RegieRocker]

186. Rational statements are not readily absorbed by anti marijuana

advocates. They simply won't accept reality.

[HuckleB]

197. Where are these anti-marijuana advocates?

:shrug:

And what do they have to do with the fact that anecdotes do not replace actual research?

[RegieRocker]

231. Just the fact you ask where they are like there are none

speaks volumes. Research is a multitude of anecdotes.

[RegieRocker]

174. Or people who text and shave while driving

[in_cog_ni_to]

168. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T! I know for a fact, that report is total

and complete bullshit.

Unrec with pleasure.

[HuckleB]

177. What an intelligent to response to information that goes against your preconceived notions.

[in_cog_ni_to]

193. Thank you. They aren't "preconceived notions." It's from EXPERIENCE.

I smoked pot for more than 25 years and not ONCE was I in a car accident while high....and I drove high all the time. EVERY DAY. Though I have had car accidents while completely non-stoned.

That report is ridiculous....probably funded by some big pharma company wanting to patent THC pills. I call bullshit when I read bullshit and your post is pure bullshit.

[HuckleB]

195. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

[frylock]

229. reading through your posts here, you wouldn't know an intelligent response..

if it was kicking your ass up and down this thread.

[negativenihil]

187. imo

being pro-legaliztion requires you to accept that it's just not right to drive intoxicated, period.

look, i'm a big stoner. but really people... if getting legalization requires us to not toke and drive, then damn it, DON'T TOKE AND DRIVE.

[RegieRocker]

192. Of course. That potent the ops motive here.

[HuckleB]

204. Yup.

What may happen in time is something similar to alcohol blood levels. It's just that the science is going to have to catch up.

Developing limits for driving under cannabis
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02009.x/full

[madokie]

189. Thats total Bullshit with a capital B

Pretty much everything I'd done for 40 years was while smoking pot. Driving cars, operating dozers, electrically wiring machines, Framing houses, trimming and building cabinets for houses, setting the forms placing concrete and finishing it, creating all kinds of toys like the one pictured here and on and on. Never once did I have an accident whether by car or by whatever I was doing.

This OP is bullshit at its smelliest

[randome]

202. No one was talking about you.

Evidence depends on more than your personal experience.

[dionysus]

246. there's a lot of things people can do, and do well stoned. but to say it doesn't affect people at

all is quite a stretch. there's a huge difference between ripping a bunch of bong hits, and immediately getting behind the wheel, then smoking, waiting a half hour or so and then driving... don't you think?

i always wait at least 30 mintues or an hour to get behind the wheel if i've been smoking a lot. of course it will vary by individual...

[HuckleB]

194. Since some folks think this is all made up, here's a short list of studies...

They're not hard to find, so I'm not sure why some people would pretend they don't exist. And, no, I'm not tracking down every study ever. That's not the point. The point is to cut the crap.

Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871603002849

Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: population based case-control study
http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1371.abstract

Developing limits for driving under cannabis
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02009.x/full

Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: a brief review
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/2/101.full?ijkey=9btUkNGEbPKfI

Is driving under the influence of cannabis becoming a greater risk to driver safety than drink driving? Findings from a longitudinal study
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457508000262

The Effect of Cannabis Compared with Alcohol on Driving
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/10550490902786934/full

The Impact of Cannabis on Driving
http://weedposts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/808-808-1-PB.pdf

[backscatter712]

205. Has anyone done a full double-blind study?

Set up a driving simulator - full car cabin with steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals, instruments, etc. that has you driving around virtual streets.

Get a bunch of test subjects.

Do a control run - everybody takes a drive while stone-cold sober, with zero MJ in their system.

Then give half of them actual joints, and half of them tobacco joins with an additive to simulate the "skunk" smell - make it so you don't know the difference between actual MJ and fake MJ.

Then have them go driving again. See how good they are at staying in their lanes, performing basic driving tasks, and not crashing into things.

Measure THC blood levels. Collect data. Do statistical number-crunching. Is there a correlation between driving errors/accidents and MJ use?

Has anybody done this?

[randome]

222. There is only one reason people smoke pot.

Because it alters your mind. If it did not, then no one would smoke it.

I am all in favor of medicinal marijuana and people's personal right to choose and for more sensible drug laws but general legalization will only lead to more careless drivers and more deaths.

[EOTE]

227. So everything that alters your mind negatively effects driving ability?

That's so ludicrous, it's hard to comment on. So caffeine also negatively effects one's driving ability? Ginko Biloba? There are some drugs which actually have a positive effect on tasks which require one's attention.

[randome]

228. No, of course not.

And yes, caffeine can negatively affect one's driving ability. I'm talking about spatial perception and motor skills. That's why people smoke pot -to alter these perceptions- and if anyone wants to, it's okay with me.

But making it legal in general will only lead to more accidents.

I am not at all comfortable with the so-called drug 'wars' or how ludicrous the sentencing process has become. But Society has said that caffeine and alcohol are legal and other drugs are not. It's not always fair but there it is.

I think most people in principle would say they want marijuana legalized but in practice...I'm not so sure.

[EOTE]

232. And caffeine can also positively affect one's driving ability.

There is zero evidence to suggest that THC negatively affects one's driving ability. The OP is no exception.

[backscatter712]

245. Alcohol alters your mind too. And alcohol DUIs kill thousands each year. Yet it's legal...

Assuming marijuana did impair driving, I'm all for enforcing marijuana DUI laws the same way that alcohol DUI is enforced.

But that's not a reason to make all marijuana illegal. The War on Drugs is far more destructive than drugs are.

[robdogbucky]

250. Double-blind with placebo? Here you go.....

Marijuana Smoking Associated With Minimal Changes In Driving Performance, Study Finds
FRIDAY, 28 MAY 2010 13:00 PRESS RELEASE AUTOMOTIVE


Hartford, CT—(ENEWSPF)—May 28, 2010 Subjects exhibit virtually identical psychomotor skills on a battery of driving simulator tests prior to and shortly after smoking marijuana, according to clinical trial data published in the March issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.

Investigators from Hartford Hospital in Connecticut and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine assessed the simulated driving performance of 85 subjects in a double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Volunteers responded to various simulated events associated with automobile crash risk — such as avoiding a driver who was entering an intersection illegally, deciding to stop or go through a changing traffic light, responding to the presence of emergency vehicles, avoiding colliding with a dog who entered into traffic, and maintaining safe driving during a secondary (in-the-car) auditory distraction. Subjects performed the tests sober and then again 30 minutes after smoking a single marijuana cigarette containing either 2.9 percent THC or zero THC (placebo).

Investigators reported that volunteers performed virtually the same after smoking cannabis as they did sober and/or after consuming a placebo. "No differences were found during the baseline driving segment (and the) collision avoidance scenarios," authors reported.

Investigators did note, "Participants receiving active marijuana decreased their speed more so than those receiving placebo cigarette during (the) distracted section of the drive." Authors hypothesized that subjects' reduction in speed on this task suggested that they may have been compensating for perceived impairment. "o other changes in driving performance were found," researchers concluded...

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php/latest-news/automotive/16666-marijuana-smoking-associated-with-minimal-changes-in-driving-performance-study-finds-




And here you go on some other research about cannabis, not limited to driving effects:


Scientists have actually known this since 1974, when the feds shut down a study at the University of Virginia when it showed conclusively that cannabinoids kill cancer.

Here are other studies for those who are interested:

Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php

Cannabinoids Inhibit Glioma Cell Invasion by Down-regulating Matrix Metalloproteinase-2 Expression
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/68/6/1945.abs...

Briefing: Cannabis compounds fight prostate cancer
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17636-briefing-ca...

Cannabis Compound May Stop Metastatic Breast Cancer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Cannabis chemicals tackle tumours
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/661458.stm




I know, I know, it's all just NORML propaganda :crazy:

[backscatter712]

251. That's what I was looking for! n/t

[Ignis]

258. Thanks for this.

[HuckleB]

219. Goodbye.

Once again, a sacred pet topic of some means that no one can discuss the topic in real world terms at DU.

It's pitiful. Still, I had fun responding to nonsense with nonsense. Thanks!

[in_cog_ni_to]

221. BYE!

:hi:

[Iggo]

234. Hey, you started it.

You get what you give, know'm say'n?

[Rex]

241. Thank you for showing your true intentions with this post.

"sacred pet topic"...please I doubt very many on DU smoke pot. Thanks for wasting everyones time with your stupid agenda. :eyes:

[Common Sense Party]

253. Has there ever been a poll?

I'd be surprised if it was less than 50% who toke.

[99th_Monkey]

224. This study does fly in the face of other prior studies showing the exact opposite. Just sayin' nt

[Taverner]

236. No, don't smoke and drive

And if you do smoke, wait at least three to four hours before getting behind the wheel

[Rex]

240. It is a narcotic, so no shit.

File this under 'no shit'.

[SomethingFishy]

244. yeah and?

Who fucking cares? The same idiots who drive drunk will drive high. Whatever.


For a person who is for legalization you have spent an inordinate amount of time singing about the evils of Marijuana.

Oh and this meta study shit? Coming up with a hypothesis and then finding studies that prove it? Very scientific. :rofl:

[Scurrilous]

247. Kick

:smoke:

[randome]

254. You just had to kick this thread to the top again,

didn't you?

[Common Sense Party]

248. Marijuana is a magical drug. It has 100% POSITIVE effects, 0 negative.

To suggest that there may be even a teensy, weensy minuscule amount of risk involved is to blaspheme against the High and Holy Order of the Green Leaf. Infidels will be punished.

[Safetykitten]

249. Yes, it's like aspirin , only better. It does everything and takes the stains out of carpets too!

[Common Sense Party]

252. New Shimmer is a floor wax!

No, it's a dessert topping!

[Safetykitten]

255. In the new "Bong" applicator!

[hughee99]

261. I should have read first

You beat me to it.

[kayakjohnny]

259. I can't believe this thread is still here.

[hughee99]

260. There are NO negative consequences to smoking marijuana,

It makes you smarter, stronger, faster, healthier, and more aware. There is no activity that it will not make you better at doing. Anyone who thinks differently is just buying into the war on drugs propaganda. :sarcasm: