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

251–260 of 281 posts

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

#251

Post by spacemanmatt »

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…

5ng/ml is absolutely ridiculous. 5ng/ml is down in the noise of even a very sensitive test, and waaaay under the noise floor for more common EMIT tests. That's a law meant to let a prosecutor throw anyone under the bus when he wants to.

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

#252

Post by ams6110 »

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…

Look, honestly most cops have better things to do than arrest a person walking home from a bar and not bothering anyone. Yeah public intoxication is a thing and there are a few dick cops who will, but for the most part you don't have to worry about it. The cops around here don't arrest for public intox or even weed possession anymore because they know it will get bargained down to a fine and maybe court supervision (though if you are causing other problems or being an asshole they might). This is firsthand from a local cop. They just have a lot more serious things to worry about.

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

#253

Post by spacemanmatt »

_acme wrote: post #236
mjevans wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think blood alcohol content counts as an objective standard.

BAC is only a legal standard, not a physiological standard.

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

#254

Post by spraak »

ams6110 wrote: post #244
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…

Cops can tell if you're stoned. It's not that difficult. It's not like they never see it.

Yeah, but the poster above us talking about the degree to which someone is stoned, not just true/false. Relying purely on human judgement is not a good idea for something like that. Especially considering all of the abuses police commit already. If all they need to do is judge you're too stoned without any quantifying test, that's not good.

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

#255

Post by dragonwriter »

spraak wrote: post #254
ams6110 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops can tell if you're stoned. It's not that difficult. It's not like they never see it.

Yeah, but the poster above us talking about the degree to which someone is stoned, not just true/false. Relying purely on human judgement is not a good idea for something like that. Especially considering all of the abuses police commit already. If all they need to do is judge you're too stoned without any quantifying test, that's not good.

IIRC, in most jurisdictions, that's all they need to do with alcohol to arrest. Blood/breath results are additional evidence which will aid with conviction, since there is an prima facie legal limit as well as a prohibition on driving while impaired do to alcohol regardless of BAC, but most jurisdictions also prohibit driving while impaired with any substance, whether or not that substance is one for which a prima facie limit has been established.

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

#256

Post by zzz157 »

Matt3o12_ wrote: post #228
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...

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.

Because is you fail a "field sobriety test", it doesn't matter if you fail a breathalyzer, you get arrested for DUI/DWI anyway. So they do the field sobriety test first, then the breathalyzer after, so they have two chances of having a reason to arrest you.

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

#257

Post by MAGZine »

nostrebored wrote: post #231
MAGZine wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Driving is not a right, driving is not something everyone should be able to do. I think I would be a sub par driver, and so I don't drive. I pay more money to live in the city close to public transit. I don't say "it will probably be ok" and endanger other drivers, and this would be especially true if I actually needed pot to function. While it is true that driving is not a right, this is an extremely narrow view.…

If your lifestyle makes you a danger to others, then you need to change your lifestyle. If that implies moving to a large city, then that trumps your desire to remain in a small municipality. I think that many people are sub-par drivers, and that's why you see the horrible rates of accidents that you do today. The point is not penalizing the behavior after it's happened, it's deterring it before it does. Informed leg…

> If your lifestyle makes you a danger to others, then you need to change your lifestyle. If that implies moving to a large city, then that trumps your desire to remain in a small municipality.

Sorry—desire? Some people may chose to live in small municipalities, some don't chose. Some are forced to by their way of life (e.g. consider the people who grow your food).

I don't live in a small municipality. I'm merely pointing out the fact that your way of life is merely one way of living and is totally ignorant of the reality of many other people's experiences.

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

#258

Post by zzz157 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #233
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...

Yeah, I've heard that it's supposed to be a gotcha, and the "actual" test is that only drunk people will attempt it, while sober people will, allegedly, refuse to try. Because refusing to obey a police officer who's considering arresting you is such a sober decision.

But I know my alphabet backwards. If sober, and I state it perfectly, will they think I'm drunk?

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

#259

Post by c22 »

_acme wrote: post #234
yolesaber wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there any scientific evidence suggesting that marijuana treats depression or schizophrenia in any meaningful way? I don't believe so, which would suggest that you've merely been lucky not to have had additional episodes; for the safety of yourself and others, I would suggest you seek real, professional treatment and medication for your schizophrenia before you hurt yourself or someone else.

I don't know about the science behind it, but as a teenager and young adult I had numerous episodes in and out of mental institutions and was diagnosed by various professionals as bipolar, schizophrenic, or borderline personality disorder. I tried several antidepressants and "mood stabilizers" some of which never worked and some that worked but with side effects I couldn't accept. During this period of my life I was definitely occasionally a danger to myself and others.

About 10 years ago, as an adult never having tried any illicit substances, I started using cannabis and found marked improvement in my mood and focus. Since then, smoking weed every few days, I have had zero "episodes", I am happy most of the time, am in a stable long-term relationship with a new child and am generally a productive member of society.

I have tried to research scientific studies that explain these results but have always found the corpus lacking. I think these interactions definitely deserve more exploration.

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

#260

Post by [deleted] »

_acme wrote: post #234
yolesaber wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there any scientific evidence suggesting that marijuana treats depression or schizophrenia in any meaningful way? I don't believe so, which would suggest that you've merely been lucky not to have had additional episodes; for the safety of yourself and others, I would suggest you seek real, professional treatment and medication for your schizophrenia before you hurt yourself or someone else.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN