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

181–190 of 281 posts

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

#181

Post by mywittyname »

lukeschlather wrote: post #81
mywittyname wrote: post #43

I can't argue with this data, but I have to wonder how much tolerance/individuality plays a role in this. I know that I personally could not drive high on THC, my propensity to zone out would almost certainly result in an accident, but I (used to) have friends who drove regularly during and after partaking and I was completely confident in their abilities. Personally, I think prohibitionists/law enforcement is lookin…

The headline is simply a lie. The study basically showed that you cannot measure whether someone is stoned by testing their blood for THC. The blood test only proves they were stoned at some point in the past few weeks. The study did not show that it's safe to drive while stoned, and if you read the entire article they're fairly clear about that.

> The study did not show that it's safe to drive while stoned, and if you read the entire article they're fairly clear about that.

Which is exactly what I can't argue with. My point was in reference to the conclusion of the article, which states,

> 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.

We apparently cannot map concentrations of THC to driver impairment. Which agrees with my anecdotal experience in the matter, that the effects THC vary greatly with individuals.

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

#182

Post by mcbits »

notahacker wrote: post #154
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 actu…

So, we have "impairs key driving skills" versus "no statistically significant change in the risk of a crash". It sounds a bit like in vitro vs. in vivo results. At the end of the day, I'm more concerned about risk factors that actually lead to accidents on the roads.

Why doesn't "key driving skill" impairment from marijuana appear to increase the risk of a crash? My best guess is that stoned drivers are concerned about being pulled over and are able to compensate more than 1) someone impaired but not aware/concerned enough to compensate (e.g. tired or distracted drivers) or 2) someone worried about getting pulled over but unable to compensate as well for their impairment (e.g. drunk drivers).

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

#183

Post by mikestew »

beat wrote: post #112
yolesaber wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you think legalization will cause usage to increase? Seems to me just about anyone who would use marijuana in the first place is already using it. I don't expect an increase in consumption per capita at all.

Anecdata alert: it increased my usage, and that of my wife. From "none", because didn't need the legal hassles even if the risk was practically non-existent in the Seattle area if you had some sense, to "pretty regular use" now that it's legal in WA. By far the biggest reason for the switch was because the hassle of tracking down weed just wasn't worth the hassle. Now the store is on the way home, takes an extra five minutes to pick some up.

So legal weed is driving us all to be pot heads, right? I mean, look at us: kindly middle age couple who are nice to animals and pay their taxes, and now they're smoking that whacky weed on the weekends! Meh, we're not the ones you needed to worry about in the first place. If it ain't weed, we'd be in Woodinville on Sunday doing wine tastings and driving home after (well, we wouldn't, but I see it every weekend). Our community is much better off if instead my wife and I sit home on a Saturday night smoking a bowl and playing video games.

Are we representative? I have absolutely no idea. But surely we're not the only two people in the entire state of WA who said, after the retail stores opened, "ya know, haven't bought a 1/4 ounce in decades, but I used smoke weed back in the day and I kind of enjoyed it. Now that it's legal, think I'll swing by that new store on the way home tomorrow."

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

#184

Post by ck2 »

I've had two friends killed by drunk drivers in two different decades and I have to run on the side of the road

If you are on anything, legal or illegal that influences you, I hope you get a nice long prison sentence for driving impaired.

If you see someone step out of a bar or whatnot that is either drunk or high and goes to drive, please call the police and possibly save someone's life - you don't have to call 911, call the anonymous number for your city.

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

#187

Post by function_seven »

logfromblammo wrote: post #173
ssmoot wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Very good thought experiment. I would choose marijuana over any of the others in a heartbeat. The only exception would be if the driver is not a regular user. In that case, probably the antihistamines.

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

#188

Post by gnaritas »

dimino wrote: post #127
Davidp00 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving.

That's not what that means, though. All that says is that testing positive for marijuana doesn't provide a meaningful measurement of impairment. It does not mean pot doesn't impact your driving.

Everything impacts your driving, unless you can show that driving while high is an actual problem that needs solved (it isn't) then there's no justification for any laws about it.

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

#189

Post by selectodude »

wildmusings wrote: post #180
joesmo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I think he's blaming racism for public intox.

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

#190

Post by genericpseudo »

function_seven wrote: post #187
logfromblammo wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Very good thought experiment. I would choose marijuana over any of the others in a heartbeat. The only exception would be if the driver is not a regular user. In that case, probably the antihistamines.

Cetirizine and fexofenadine (most 2G antihistamines, in fact) have no significant sedative effect.
Post reply on HN