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

221–230 of 281 posts

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

#221

Post by duderific »

sudojudo wrote: post #205
amelius wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Deep in my memory banks I have the recollection of a song "Backwards Alphabet", maybe it was on Sesame Street or something, that would allow you to "sing" the alphabet backwards without actually having to think about it; the melody acts as a mnemonic device to go along with the "lyrics" which are just the alphabet backwards.

I wonder how a cop would react if you started singing the alphabet backwards.

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

#222

Post by giancarlostoro »

sudojudo wrote: post #205
amelius wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I can't do it sober, and I'm always sober these days. I find that test awkward.

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

#223

Post by Broken_Hippo »

maxerickson wrote: post #207
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Cool. Been living out of the country for a few years, didn't know that :D Thanks muchly. I was always hopeful that my walking home wasn't interrupted by cops and took alternate routes at times. This should have been the case years ago.

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

#224

Post by mjevans »

jeffbarr wrote: post #212
mikestew wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I used smoke weed back in the day and I kind of enjoyed it. Based on my observations at one Washington state dispensary, at least half of the customers are in their 60's or 70's. I asked the woman behind the counter about it and she told me that many of them are seeking relief from chronic pain and/or cancer treatments.

I wonder how much of the fight against such products being legal is from 'big pharma' trying to stop exactly this?

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

#225

Post by brahmwg »

yolesaber wrote: post #206
daveguy wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

Thanks for sharing your story. I share your sentiments. Have an upvote.

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

#226

Post by mjevans »

err4nt wrote: post #170
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure out what is normal for that person, though? Or what is normal to society? How do we set up a test that is fair to most folks? Can we rely on police training to be able to make accomidations (quickly) for those that are disabled, etc?

It's not per-person. There's ONE standard for driving. If for any reason (weakness, blindness, lack of reflexes, impairment, age, etc) you can't reach that bar, then in reality you can't safely drive and so you shouldn't. It really doesn't matter the age, ability, or whatever - as long as a person CAN reach the minimum requirements to drive on the road, they should be allowed to chose to do so. I don't see a need to…

Is there a standard? What standards body has decided it and where can I see it's tests enumerated?

Or do you mean the quick and dirty 'field sobriety tests' that many police offers use? I'm not aware of those being actual standards or tests so much as quick and dirty tools to justify the effort of /actual/ standards tests (BTW, I recall hearing that you should always demand the blood test over the breath tests).

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

#227

Post by civilian »

duderific wrote: post #221
sudojudo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

Deep in my memory banks I have the recollection of a song "Backwards Alphabet", maybe it was on Sesame Street or something, that would allow you to "sing" the alphabet backwards without actually having to think about it; the melody acts as a mnemonic device to go along with the "lyrics" which are just the alphabet backwards. I wonder how a cop would react if you started singing the alphabet backwards.

I don't know about you, buy my drunken singing is noticeably different than my sober singing.

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

#228

Post by Matt3o12_ »

sudojudo wrote: post #205
amelius wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Why do cops do that in America anyways? Isn't it much more secure to always use a breathalyzer. It only takes a few minutes and you can drive on. I'm also quite sure that you could train for soberty tests (if they are as "unusual" as saying the alphabet backwards) when you're drunk so the cops think you're under the legal limit.

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

#229

Post by mikestew »

mjevans wrote: post #224
jeffbarr wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I used smoke weed back in the day and I kind of enjoyed it. Based on my observations at one Washington state dispensary, at least half of the customers are in their 60's or 70's. I asked the woman behind the counter about it and she told me that many of them are seeking relief from chronic pain and/or cancer treatments.

I wonder how much of the fight against such products being legal is from 'big pharma' trying to stop exactly this?

It has crossed my mind, given the difficulty my wife had in getting a card for migraines (in summary, docs that she went to said, "no". Try some big pharma pills with terrible side effects instead.)

Though it could very well be an attempt to avoid becoming California, where the doctor next door to the dispensary will write you one up if you complain about your chronic hangnails.

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

#230

Post by gnaritas »

bnegreve wrote: post #203
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> 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.".

While the conclusion is clear, it's also misleading. No one disputes that you can get too stoned to drive, that isn't the issue that matters. What matters is whether those too stoned to drive drive anyway like they do on alcohol. Anecdotally from decades of experience I can say they don't, pot doesn't destroy your ability to judge your state of mind so there's no reason to treat it with special exceptions like we do for alcohol. Most long term smokers drive while high, but not while impaired. High != impaired just as drinking one beer doesn't destroy your ability to drive safely.

Post reply on HN