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

#201

Post by Broken_Hippo » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

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…

I don't think you understand. If you are legally drunk - blow a .08 on the test - you can get a public intoxication charge. It is that simple.

All that takes is living out of town and walking down the main route to your house and someone stopping and smelling alcohol.

It is great to put that theoretical thing in place. But people do, occasionally, mess up. I rarely went to bars because of transportation - others, not so much. Alcohol impairs judgement as, and if the options aren't there and easy to use, it is more likely that folks will drive drunk.

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

#202

Post by derptron » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

rjeli wrote: post #85

rufus-overhead wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Marijuana can impair reflexes significantly, at least for some individuals. My high school drivers education class (1979) had an electronic device used to measure brake reflex time. The device had simulated accelerator and brake pedals. A red lamp would light to signal the need to brake. I believe the average response time for most teens was around 250ms. I smoked pot nearly everyday during this period of…

I am curious, did smoking every day affect you permanently in any way? I have used cannabis recreationally a few times, and each time I feel slightly mentally impaired (slow thinking) for days afterward. It has completely scared me off from using it further.

That would be your imagination. In all my years of regular use (17 to 33) the effect has never lingered after a good night's sleep, and I feel no permanent long-term effects at all. Some people are so scared by the bullshit propaganda fed to them that they will invent reasons to be scared of pot.

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

#203

Post by bnegreve » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #48

JPKab wrote: post #3

As a full supporter of cannabis legalization, I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. Notice that I'm focusing on whether or not they are impaired, as opposed to the amount in their bloodstream. The point being that people that use cannabis regularly for medical reasons don't seem to be impaired by it at all, while newer or more occasiona…

Right now, there is none. Obviously the measurable amount isn't reliable - but that has been known to general users for years. And so much of it is personal - a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired. A regular smoker, who keeps a slight buzz and gets used to it would have very little effect most times. People around them don…

> Right now, there is none. ... a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired.

I think the article is pretty misleading but the conclusion is clear: "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.".

The problem is that the legal thresholds for THC are so low that "stone drivers" are not actually stone, making the whole federal study flawed.

Here: "Several states have passed laws attempting to define "marijuana-impaired driving" similarly to drunk driving. Colorado, for instance, sets a blood THC threshold of 5 nanograms per milliliter. But that number tells us next to nothing about whether a person is impaired or fit to drive. "

If you look at the data, "any illegal drug" is also not correlated with more accidents.

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

#204

Post by chimeracoder » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

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…

> a well-understood BAC-like scale for marijuana usage, especially as the drug becomes more and more legal to use.

That'd be tough. BAC is a meaningful metric because alcohol crosses the blood-brain barrier very easily. So, the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream is a very good predictor of the amount of alcohol acting on the brain.

THC, on the other hand, does not cross the blood-brain barrier so readily. So the problem isn't that we can't measure the amount of THC in the blood; it's that it doesn't actually tell us anything meaningful[0].

> Lots of people have a decent approximate sense of what 0.08 BAC is when it comes to alcohol consumption, but everyone who is "high" is just "high" without some sort of well-defined scale.

I actually don't think it's true that most people have an approximate sense of what .08 is. I think that most people believe they do, but most people actually have a very flawed misunderstanding of what .08 means (and doesn't mean).

You can test this out yourself! If you want to be the life of the party, buy a portable breathalyzer for about $100. When you go out, ask your friends to guess what their own BAC is (and what their friends' BAC are, based on how drunk they're acting). I bet you you'll find really large disparities between the numbers. People just aren't very good at gauging how drunk they are (or how drunk their friends are). Or, alternatively, BAC just isn't a very good measure of impairment - you can interpret this either way.

[0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12404577

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

#205

Post by sudojudo » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #23

JPKab wrote: post #3

As a full supporter of cannabis legalization, I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. Notice that I'm focusing on whether or not they are impaired, as opposed to the amount in their bloodstream. The point being that people that use cannabis regularly for medical reasons don't seem to be impaired by it at all, while newer or more occasiona…

> a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired I'm not sure if that would work in practice. As mentioned, alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things. The test should incorporate that. From another point of view, the alcohol tricks you into thinking your reflexes are still normal, while they are not. And this is the dangerous part, not the fact that your…

>alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things.

Reminds me of the "say the alphabet backwards" challenge that cops often present in sobriety tests.

Drunk: ZYX... ZYXW... wait-wait... okay, ZYXTW, ummm...

Sober: I can't do that.

Stoned: Oh whaaat? No way, man. I can't even do that sober - shit, I mean...

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

#206

Post by yolesaber » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

daveguy wrote: post #192

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…

> I'm not really sure what the solution is. Stop smoking weed? That doesn't sound at all worth the trouble.

Yes, let's just acquiesce to the whims of the state. Who cares about personal liberty or science or medicine or pharmacology?

If anything, my experience with the state and it's drug prohibition, has made me want to smoke even more weed. Fuck the hick country cops who made me recite the alphabet backwards. Fuck the school admin who revoked my scholarship. I make six figures and travel the world for my job and for my pleasure and I smoke as much weed as I want.

If I may get personal for a second, weed is the only thing that has helped with my depression and schizophrenia. I had several depressive episodes in my life, from when I was young to my late teens and spent time in a mental facility. However, since I've started smoking habitually I have not had a single episode and feel hundreds of times better than I ever have.

Was it worth all the trouble? Honestly, yes. I learned about what matters in my life and I learned to take responsibility for my choices, which means yes, I am going to keep smoking weed for as long as I want because I'd rather stay out of my depression and focused on living the best, most meaningful life I can despite whatever bylaws are forced on me.

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

#207

Post by maxerickson » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:56 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #201

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…

I don't think you understand. If you are legally drunk - blow a .08 on the test - you can get a public intoxication charge. It is that simple. All that takes is living out of town and walking down the main route to your house and someone stopping and smelling alcohol. It is great to put that theoretical thing in place. But people do, occasionally, mess up. I rarely went to bars because of transportation - others, not…

The law in Indiana was adjusted in 2012.

http://sftlawyers.com/new-indiana-public-intoxication-law-go...

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

#208

Post by beat » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:58 PM UTC

dfrey wrote: post #178

ssully wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends on the kind of music you play.

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

#209

Post by evo_9 » Mon, May 16, 2016, 7:59 PM UTC

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 disagree.

Most days when I get out of work the first thing I do is smoke with my Pax2 as I walk to my car.

I then drive home 'high'. I've done this most of my adult life. Smoking Pot and driving has zero negative effects on my driving. In fact, just as the article points out, I am more likely to drive more safely and take it easy.

Also, for what its worth, there are two types of strains - Sativa and Indica.

Indica is the type that knocks you out and makes you sit on the couch doing nothing; Sativa's, for me anyway, gives a focused, up buzz that makes me sharper and more alert.

I am a Sativa-only guy and for me smoking and then dealing with rush-hour traffic is how I prefer things. If you are saying people shouldn't smoke an indica heavy strain and then drive, I could see that argument but, in my experience, it's still safer than alcohol. But yes, generally, I would agree with that.

Sativa's though, no way, that just doesn't make sense based on my personal experience.

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

#210

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, May 16, 2016, 8:03 PM UTC

genericpseudo wrote: post #190

function_seven wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anecdotal, but I am very familiar with a counterexample. The sedative effect is not as severe or persistent as with a 1st-generation drug, but it still has a significant effect on this particular individual, if not a statistically significant effect on the general population.