Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by ae_keji » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #70

rudolf0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving while high should definitely be banned, but it kind of seems like they're making a big assumption here. >The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014. How are they ruling out the fact that since it's been legalized, more people in general are using marijuana?

> How are they ruling out the fact that since it's been legalized, more people in general are using marijuana? That's exactly the point. No one is trying to say that driving high has gotten more dangerous as a result of legalization - just that it's inherently dangerous (and a certain percentage of marijuana users are going to be driving either way), so legalization only contributes to more usage, leading to more irr…

>Also, results of this study do not indicate that drivers with detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash we re necessarily impaired by THC or that they were at-fault for the crash; the data availabl e cannot be used to assess whether a given driver was actually impaired, and examination of fault in individual crashes was beyond the scope of this study

If there was a general increase in accidents, I think you would have a point, but all this conclusively demonstrates is that there has been an increase of marijuana usage among the population of Washington. The thing about how these drug tests work, is that they do not test impairment or if someone was high at the time, but if they were high within the past few hours to days. I think you're misunderstanding, that even if there is THC in someone's bloodstream, it does not mean they are high. It is possible that none of the drivers in the study were high at the time of their crashes, and all of them smoked the day before. It is also possible that every single one was high during the collision. Due to the nature of the testing, the linked study is not very conclusive on at least what you're trying to prove from it.

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

#152

Post by ta_339393 » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

justizin wrote: post #100

Someone1234 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs) I assume you mean any medication which may impair you. There are lot's of medications which people should take before driving, like anti-seizure, antipsychotics, heart control, blood sugar control, and so on. It will typically tell you on the label if it is safe to take and operate heavy machinery. Although I'd always suggest taking it the first time while…

> There are lot's of medications which people should take before driving, like anti-seizure, antipsychotics, heart control, blood sugar control, and so on. anxiety, depression, etc... there's some overlap here, some people use cannabis to prevent/control seizures, to treat anxiety or depression, and don't feel side effects. The experience of the common person who has tried cannabis once or twice and turned away isn't…

If you have never taken ADHD stimulants before then you might experience a little bit of euphoria the first few days of stimulant therapy, due to lack of tolerance, but I doubt it would be an impairment to driving.

Source: I've been taking methamphetamine (prescribed) for ADHD for quite some time. I experienced a little euphoria the first week when I initially started treatment on amphetamines but it was nothing even close to what I would consider impairment.

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

#153

Post by kafkaesq » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

striking wrote: post #135

kafkaesq wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. Wow. So you're also a big supporter of the massive, real-time surveillance infrastructure required to make this possible, then. Don't think for a minute that those devices (which will inevitably be required in all human-driven cars... for as long as humans are allowed to drive cars, that is) won't be rep…

I think parent commenter meant a device that can check the impairment of a person's reflexes, physically, when asked. Like a breathalyzer for reflexes.

You're right; somehow I was reflexively thinking that such a device would have to be be mandatory. But the way you phrase it, it's clear that that wasn't what was being proposed.

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

#154

Post by notahacker » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

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.

From your comment, you clearly read neither the article nor the study. I mean, the article states "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" and the study itself cites plenty of other studies which have found strong positive associations between marijuana use and driving impairments.

What it actually shows is that for one particular study the increase in crashes resulting from users testing positive for marijuana (i.e. have used up to a week ago) becomes statistically insignificant when controlling for user demographics. It also threw up anomalies like a [statistically insignificant] improvement in drivers under the influence of smaller amounts of alcohol over no alcohol or drugs, so I wouldn't exactly herald it as definitive.

To argue that they "pretty much says it is ok to smoke and drive" is a grotesque distortion of the actual research.

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

#155

Post by Retric » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

ssmoot wrote: post #142

Retric wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A BAC of 0.04 is measurably impaired though. Mostly in terms of higher brain functions and reaction times making it both less obvious and often within a persons 'normal' range.

Something to remember is people generally drink late in the day. So, the accident statistics mix drinking and tired data. Tired driving makes things far worse, but it's hard to test for as accidents and being pulled over both tend to wake people up. Pot on the other hand is more often a daytime drug which is going to mess with the statistics.

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

#156

Post by bunkydoo » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

I'm a bit curious if the "any illegal drug" column includes LSD or hallucinogens. Part of me thinks most people have the common sense not to drive while on such a substance, part of me thinks there would be no way to gather data

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

#157

Post by green_lunch » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

It's studies like this that have caused people in my city to support legally driving while high. I've seen so many people that somehow think there is no effect on driving skills.

I'm all for legalization, but I will not support the potential of endangering other people.

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

#158

Post by pklausler » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

oxide wrote: post #143

georgemcbay wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

As a mathematician, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on "exponentially" and "infinitely" there.

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

#159

Post by dragontamer » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

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.

BAC exists because a test exists to easily measure it. Breathalyzers aren't perfect, but they're good enough for government work.

I think an actual blood test is the only thing we got for MJ. That's invasive, and not likely something officers will be able to do at a traffic stop.

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

#160

Post by deelowe » Mon, May 16, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #89

rudolf0 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is: They're getting this data by doing drug tests of drivers in fatal car crashes after the crash has occurred. Previously, 8% of those drivers had cannabis detected. Now, 17% have it detected. What evidence is there that the increased cannabis use is causing these crashes, considering you have to control for the fact that more people in general are using cannabis, so in almost any population (drivers in fat…

Ah, I understand what you're saying now. Still, I think it'd be a stretch to assume that none of those fatalities were actually related to the marijuana use. But I agree, it doesn't necessarily imply causation, just a correlation (which as you say, could in part be coincidental).

It's a fine assumption. We could also assume that marijuana use discourages use while under the influence due to increased paranoia. Neither have been demonstrated yet.

All we know from this is that there was a increased detection of thc for people involved in fatal accidents. The reason for this seems obvious to me and I assume it correlates with general increased use among the population. I still conject that "fatal" accidents are used here to push a particular narrative. I don't see any significance in "fatal" versus cumulative accidents or DUI arrests.

If the intent is to prove that there is an increased hazard on the road due to marijuana use, then they need to prove that it's use significantly increases this hazard AND that the rate of drivers under influence has increased. Those are two separate and independent studies.

I'm still waiting to see those studies.