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

171–180 of 281 posts

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

#171

Post by nugga »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #98
dubcanada wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

There is also a world of difference between sativa and indica. Sativa dominant strains can often leave you very 'clear headed' and active while indicas more often than not make you, like you alluded, couchlocked.

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

#172

Post by gnaritas »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #79
Carrok wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study you linked has the same error that almost all of these 'studies' have. "The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014." So they are testing the blood of deceased people, finding the presence of THC (which can remain the blood for weeks), and calling them 'marijuana-related crashes'. So quite literally by their…

The study may have flaws (as all do), but it's a whole lot more conclusive than a claim such as "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show", a statement obviously trying to imply that marijuana is somehow safe for drivers, when it's obviously not. One could compare marijuana-related accidents to any number of other dangerous activities and make it look safe in comparison. Why try and encou…

> The study may have flaws (as all do)

This isn't "a flaw", it's a fatal flaw that invalidates the study. You're missing the point; saying marijuana-related accidents is itself an invalid statement as there is not way to quantify that correctly. You can therefore not conclude anything from marijuana-related anything other than people who want to control other people are happy to use invalid statistics to try and impose their will where it isn't welcome.

> Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible?

Because it is not dangerous and irresponsible, that's your assumption, it is not a fact in evidence.

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

#173

Post by logfromblammo »

ssmoot wrote: post #129
dubcanada wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I feel like you didn't even read the article. Here's the summary of the linked study: > Differences in study designs frequently account for inconsistencies in results between studies. Participant-selection bias and confounding factors attenuate ostensible cannabis effects, but the association with MVA often retains significance. Evidence suggests recent smoking and/or blood THC concentrations 2-5 ng/mL are associated…

I believe that comparison with an over-the-counter antihistamine, such as diphenhydramine (Benadryl, Dramamine), Fexofenadine (Allegra), or Cetirizine (Zyrtec) would be more appropriate. Some of the people that I know take drugs to treat their allergies far more often than analgesics for headaches.

Here is a thought experiment. You are a passenger in a car, chained to the seat. Would you rather the driver drink shots of ethanol, smoke marijuana cigarettes, swallow antihistamine pills, or log in to Twitter/Facebook via mobile phone? Assume that you wish to minimize both risk of death and the severity of nonfatal injuries.

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

#174

Post by FireBeyond »

yolesaber wrote: post #103
jerkstate wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police have been doing field sobriety tests that don't rely on chemical detection for a very, very long time. Examples: walk a straight line, follow the light with your eyes, close your eyes and tell me when 30 seconds have passed, stand on one leg, and so on.

Yes and they are incredibly inaccurate and rely entirely on subjective judgement from the cop's perspective. Full disclosure: I have been pulled over and arrested for "driving while ability impaired" (essentially the non-alcohol DUI) When I was going to school in upstate NY, I was pulled over as I drove my friend home. The cop thought we smelled like weed (fair enough, my friend had some on him, I was sober and not h…

Agreed. I've been pulled over as the DD where I know I had a singular beer, six hours before (and I also work in EMS, and am very used to the whole 'two beers' excuse).

"Keep your head straight, follow the pen with your eyes as I move it left and right".

"Based on your eyes twitching when you got to the edge of the field of vision, I would like to breathalyze you".

Oh, look. 0.0. Perhaps my eye response was due to the fact that I was standing near your patrol car, and as I looked that way, my eyes had to adjust from 2am darkness to high intensity, strobing lights.

Unable to book me for DUI, he ticketed me for disobeying a traffic signal (which I later contested and won).

Still had the gall to tell me "You got off lucky tonight".

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

#175

Post by beat »

sampo wrote: post #150
beat wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, no. That's not jazz at all! The soloist isn't the only person improvising. The rest of the band is supporting the soloist by improvising. The chords themselves aren't simple, static devices. There is plenty of room for expression and communication. A soloist needs to be on their toes, ready for the drummer to just rework the groove for laughs. A bass player needs to catch on to some rhythmic motif the soloist is using, and be ready to drive them home when the soloist does.

Even within totally composed music, a lot of attention is required to keep timing in sync. Performing live music in a group setting requires a great deal of attention to what's going on outside your own mind.

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

#176

Post by FireBeyond »

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.

I think you're completely misreading the study. The conclusion that you quote says -nothing- about the safety of using those drugs and driving, just compares them to marijuana.

Note: those drugs come with warnings either recommending against driving or observing your reaction to the drug before driving.

Not: "you can, so, good to go".

I don't smoke. I work in EMS. I see many many positive medical and recreational uses. My partner is a recreational, daily smoker. I have no bias here.

I'm just pointing out that you're extrapolating from the quote above something that it doesn't say. No comment is made about the safety of those drug classes and driving, and indeed your extrapolation makes you as guilty of inference as you say others are:

"Well, I don't see any impact when I use those drugs and drive, so I don't see a problem".

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

#177

Post by slipperyp »

KIRO TV in Seattle did a small test of impairment on a closed course with participants using varying amounts of marijuana a few years ago around the time Washington voters were choosing to legalize pot and found similar results:

http://www.kiro7.com/news/stoned-drivers-hit-test-course/139...

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

#178

Post by dfrey »

ssully wrote: post #72
beat wrote: post #7

Alcohol has two synergetic problems for drivers... it reduces reflexes and increases confidence, simultaneously. Less capable, and more aggressive. No wonder it's so awful for drivers. Marijuana doesn't significantly impair reflexes (as generations of musicians have shown). As for judgment, it tends to make users more cautious, not more aggressive. They're not trying to get around that car in front of them to blow th…

Your pot/music comparison to show reflexes being unaffected doesn't really work when the music industry has a long history of drug abuse of all kinds, including alcohol. It's not very hard to find stories or even videos of musicians being drunk and playing great shows. It is almost a cliche to have images of legendary musicians drinking from bottles of hard liquor while on stage.

Playing music also has very little to do with reacting to unexpected events.

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

#180

Post by wildmusings »

joesmo wrote: post #148
wildmusings wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.).

Are you really blaming racism for DUIs?
Post reply on HN