Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 281 posts

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#141

Post by [deleted] »

georgemcbay wrote: post #119
scarecrowbob wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really mess with cannabis any more, but I think that a lot of folks have strange ideas about how it affects people. If my only experience with the drug were the first couple of times in college where we were taking bong hits, then yeah, I can see why people would be shocked that you could drive in that state. It took a me a couple of years before I discovered that most of the folks (especially the folks in th…

"Pro tip: there is also a difference between having a beer with dinner and chugging vodka shots all night long. :D" True, which points to the fact that it would be useful to have a well-understood BAC-like scale for marijuana usage, especially as the drug becomes more and more legal to use. Clearly there's a difference between having one beer and driving an hour later compared to getting behind the wheel while nearly…

[deleted]

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#142

Post by ssmoot »

Retric wrote: post #113
kdamken wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all those things affect your ability to drive. You shouldn't text and drive, but people do it, etc. I would say being stoned is a lot worse than the other things you listed though: - When you're tired, you can have a cup of coffee and wake up a bit and regain some of that focus. You can't drink a red bull and suddenly be way less high. - If you send a text or two while driving, you're not paying attention to the…

Stoned is ambiguous though. Nobody thinks it's ok to drive with a BAC of 0.4 but 0.04 is generally considered legal. The question becomes what's Stoned? Detectable is not a reasonable limit nor is can't stand up.

> Nobody thinks it's ok to drive with a BAC of 0.4 but 0.04 is generally considered legal.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. I think it's reasonable to assume it's legal because most people (including me) feel it's fine. I'm much more concerned about distracted driving generally.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#143

Post by oxide »

georgemcbay wrote: post #119
scarecrowbob wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really mess with cannabis any more, but I think that a lot of folks have strange ideas about how it affects people. If my only experience with the drug were the first couple of times in college where we were taking bong hits, then yeah, I can see why people would be shocked that you could drive in that state. It took a me a couple of years before I discovered that most of the folks (especially the folks in th…

"Pro tip: there is also a difference between having a beer with dinner and chugging vodka shots all night long. :D" True, which points to the fact that it would be useful to have a well-understood BAC-like scale for marijuana usage, especially as the drug becomes more and more legal to use. Clearly there's a difference between having one beer and driving an hour later compared to getting behind the wheel while nearly…

tolerance comes into account, which is why comparing driving on marijuana and driving on alcohol is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

they're entirely, exponentially, infinitely different.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#144

Post by cooper12 »

iconjack wrote: post #126

From the comments here, it seems like people either didn't read the article, or just don't believe the study, because it pretty much says it is ok to smoke and drive. For marijuana, and for a number of other legal and illegal drugs including antidepressants, painkillers, stimulants and the like, there is no statistically significant change in the risk of a crash associated with using that drug prior to driving.

Skepticism is healthy. It's quite common for mainstream media to distill a study with tons of caveats and situational results to clickbait like "drinking alcohol means you'll live longer". Not to mention we shouldn't draw any conclusions until reading the paper itself because the article says nothing of their methodology. Lastly with things like the replication crisis and other shoddy results, I don't blame people for not being so fast to believe what common sense would tell them otherwise. [0]

Edit, case in point, caveats from the paper itself:

> While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers, these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free. The study limitations cited above, together with the findings of numerous other studies using different and complementary methods, need to be carefully considered before more definitive conclusions about drug use and crash risk can be reached.

> The findings of this study notwithstanding, the established body of scientific evidence on the subject of drug impairment indicates that in some situations, drugs other than alcohol can seriously impair driving ability.

Oh, and you really should read articles all the way through:

> So, should we all assume that we're safe to blaze one and go for a joyride whenever the whimsy strikes us? Absolutely not. There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#145

Post by sosborn »

hfourm wrote: post #96
binarymax wrote: post #92

I'm on vacation in Colorado right now, and you can point out the stoned drivers. They tend to drive slow and passive, they fear the merge, and spend lots of time stopped at stop signs making sure they really are stopped and not going to crash. The impression I have is that their judgement and reactions are definitely impaired, but in a stark contrast to the invincibility and carelessness of alcohol induced drivers.

You noticed this just on vacation eh? As a CO resident, maybe you just haven't noticed how shitty our drivers are ;)

> As a CO resident, maybe you just haven't noticed how shitty our drivers are ;)

I've lived in many places, including Colorado, and let me tell you – drivers are shitty everywhere :)

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#146

Post by serge2k »

kdamken wrote: post #42

Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high. Call an uber or something. I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. Driving is an incredibly dangerous activity on its own. Doing it when you're stoned is a stupid and risky move, and comparing it to how much more dangerous drunk driving is doesn't make it less stupid. If you'v…

> I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired

I don't know about that, I think the people who want to do that will just find another excuse. Especially potheads, who seem to be unable to acknowledge that anything exists in this world that isn't helped by pot. Driving? probably better if you do while high. Seizures? Pot is now the only accepted option man. Broken back? Here have a pot brownie.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#147

Post by dimino »

I'm going to upgrade my view of this article to linkbait title. The title should be, "THC found to not correlate with impairment in the same way that blood alcohol concentration does".

From the article:

> The study's findings underscore an important point: that the measurable presence of THC (marijuana's primary active ingredient) in a person's system doesn't correlate with impairment in the same way that blood alcohol concentration does.

The story here is that there is no "THC impairment" test like there is a blood alcohol test, not that driving while stoned is safer.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#148

Post by joesmo »

wildmusings wrote: post #93
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't what the article was saying. I do find it a bit unfair to compare daily smokers to functional alcoholics, however - there is a definite difference in the way the drugs affect folks. This was the main point of the article. A slight buzz like that of a daily smoker - or someone using for medical reasons - isn't affecting safety, but going more than that and it should be obvious. Be safe and all that. Besides…

> If you are drunk, you can get arrested in some places (indiana) for walking home - instant public intoxication charge. If you're so drunk that you'd get pulled over as a pedestrian, then you most certainly should not be driving. > Still more places don't have safe options to walk or ride bikes if you are impared. These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging. How about some personal responsibili…

"If you're so drunk that you'd get pulled over as a pedestrian, then you most certainly should not be driving."

Or you could just be walking while black (or hispanic, etc.).

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#149

Post by NOSHSHNACKERS »

dubcanada wrote: post #54
kdamken wrote: post #42

Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high. Call an uber or something. I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. Driving is an incredibly dangerous activity on its own. Doing it when you're stoned is a stupid and risky move, and comparing it to how much more dangerous drunk driving is doesn't make it less stupid. If you'v…

It's also not safe to drive while tired, on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs), while texting, while on the phone, while not looking at the road, with glasses (they could fall off and you'd be blind), with a heart condition, etc etc. I think it's safe to assume you drive very often with things that affect your driving. If pot is proven to not affect your driving to a measurable degree, then the…

how about angry - really really really angry.. that is not a good way to drive.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#150

Post by sampo »

beat wrote: post #33
mankyd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Marijuana doesn't significantly impair reflexes (as generations of musicians have shown). As an aside, is music really reliant on reflexes like this? I would assume that the beat of a song gives one plenty of forewarning as to when a melody might change. And that assumes that the rhythm of a melody doesn't put you in am altered, hypnotic state in other ways.

The original association of marijuana and music is in jazz, and playing while stoned is still as much norm as exception among jazz musicians. Jazz is a form of structured improvisation. The raw music actually isn't that complex. What's complex is trying to make a new statement with that music on the fly, while simultaneously listening closely to other musicians in the band, who are making their own statements. Done r…

> while simultaneously listening closely to other musicians in the band, who are making their own statements

Ostensibly, yes. In practice, usually only one person at a time is playing a solo over a predetermined and repeating chord progression.

Post reply on HN