Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 208 posts

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#191

Post by Synaesthesia »

MBlume wrote: post #117

Cannabis has a ridiculously high LD50, everyone knows that. When I think "is cannabis safe" I'm not wondering if I'm one day going to smoke so much weed that I keel over dead, I'm wondering if habitual marijuana use would lower my IQ/damage my lungs/etc.

Vaporizing is healthier than smoking, or consuming it orally. It won't reduce your IQ, that's never been proven. The effects of cannabis are varied. Memory is affected, the degree to which it is affected can vary greatly and depends on the dosage, your tolerance and context. This is while on the drug.

Once your are sober, your memory functions pretty normally and isn't affected much by occasional use.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#192

Post by lkbm »

mariodiana wrote: post #183
lkbm wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Percentage of people in accidents at a given BAC is the wrong stat to look at. You need to look at _chance of accident_ at a given BAC, v. at 0 BAC. And at 0.08, you're chance of accident is 393% of that when sober. 0.07 is 322%.[1] 1. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alc... (Table 8)

Why? Ratios mean nothing out-of-context. So, you look at Table 8 and tell me what are the chances of having an accident at BAC 0.00 in hard numbers. Because if the chance of an accident is infinitesimal, then I'm not worried so much about infinitesimal-times-four.

True, it would be better if it weren't set with BAC 0 = 1, but this is certainly more meaningful than share of accidents. Neither of the stats we used provide probability of an accident. Mine are relative probability for one behavior v. the other; yours are confounded by the unreported number of people engaging in each behavior.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#193

Post by gnaritas »

mackwic wrote: post #149
gnaritas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stoners driver safer than most sober people, your opinion is ill informed and based on alcohol, which is a vastly different drug.

Do you have source to backup this claim ? I found it quite doubtful.

Read this thread, plenty are posting exactly those sources. Yes, I exaggerate when I say most sober people, my point was that they're safer than many normal drivers like old people or teenagers or tired people or texters, etc. More to the point, it's not alcohol, so those wanting to treat it as such and calling it DUI need to show evidence that it impairs driving. You can't simply assume it does. Pot is not alcohol, it does not impair your decision making in that way.

The idea that people should be given DUI's for driving while having THC in their system is quite simply baseless idiocy from those who simply want to treat it like alcohol which it is not. People drive around daily on prescription drugs far more dangerous to their driving abilities than a little pot and you don't hear anyone up in arms about them. The demonetization of marijuana is simple idiocy from the uneducated fools who want to continue the failed drug war or who swallowed the propaganda without demanding evidence of the bogus claims continually made.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#194

Post by mod »

forgotpasswd3x wrote: post #190
mod wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I don't drive drunk, and I don't find it painful. Drink somewhere close to home, call a cab. If I can get drunk at a bar, which will costs me $50+, I can certainly afford a $5-10 cab ride. That said, I've heard that in Japan, it's the bar's responsibility to get you home safely. They take it very seriously, but you pay extra at the club to account for it.

Most of America doesn't have cab service available though, however things like Uber and Lyft are changing that.

I've never lived anywhere without cab service. I'm currently in a town with 35k residents and we have a few cab companies, though we do have a big tourist draw.

That said, I hadn't considered that possibility. In that case I'd be making plans to be picked up, or I'd be staying in.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#195

Post by nedwin »

mod wrote: post #189
nedwin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done a fair bit of driving (mostly in California) and never been through a roadblock. I've also never seen any booze busses or similar. I've seen those videos too - are you saying it's unconstitutional to stop drivers to do a breathalyser?

I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm saying it's argued that it is. It's my personal belief that it's a rights violation to stop anyone without a reason if you intend to arrest them if they meet some criteria. In particular, I believe it would be a major rights violation to force everyone to do a breathalyzer at a dui checkpoint. Fortunately, they're not that extreme yet--the have to smell alcohol or suspect impairment…

Cool, thanks for clarifying.

I'm a foreigner so take this for what it's worth but my view is that if it provides significant public benefit (in reducing drink driving / dope driving accidents) that stops for the specific purpose of breath testing at DUI checkpoints then it should be something the community would support.

How that plays out is another matter.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#196

Post by jMyles »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #184
jMyles wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry - did you just change the predicate of your comment from "Except, apparently, your prose skill" to "Well, that's the problem with cognitive faults, we usually aren't aware of them" after we had responded to it? Are you serious?

No, that was someone else's comment. Mine stands as originally posted - its tough, if not impossible, to make your own self-assessment on cognitive issues. That's why double-blind studies are the norm in biology and medicine. I have stoner friends who make the same argument and, frankly, they're completely unaware at how slow they are from a cognitive perspective and seem overly forgetful. I can't just pin this on ag…

Ahh, my apologies for accusing you.

I don't mean to sound cocky, but I can't think of a better way to say: I don't think my capacity to contribute effectively, drawing from cognitive capacity among other sources, is in question.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#197

Post by mod »

nedwin wrote: post #195
mod wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm saying it's argued that it is. It's my personal belief that it's a rights violation to stop anyone without a reason if you intend to arrest them if they meet some criteria. In particular, I believe it would be a major rights violation to force everyone to do a breathalyzer at a dui checkpoint. Fortunately, they're not that extreme yet--the have to smell alcohol or suspect impairment…

Cool, thanks for clarifying. I'm a foreigner so take this for what it's worth but my view is that if it provides significant public benefit (in reducing drink driving / dope driving accidents) that stops for the specific purpose of breath testing at DUI checkpoints then it should be something the community would support. How that plays out is another matter.

FWIW I chose not to say whether it's unconstitutional or not because it takes the supreme court to decide that. I'm entirely unqualified.

I lean the other way, and this being one of my favorite quotes probably makes me decidedly American:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

That said, I do entirely disagree with drunk driving and I want it to end. I'm just not willing to further trade my personal freedoms to accomplish it.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#198

Post by benologist »

techpeace wrote: post #105
benologist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today we have have vastly stronger, concentrated wax/oil that can be up to 99+% THC enabling much faster and bigger consumption. Weed consumption and delivery will continue to be refined, a fatal dose is "impossible" only until it is not.

A "lethal" dosage of THC would require a blood transfusion - literally replacing your blood with THC until you asphyxiated. I've heard the LD50 (the lethal dosage that would kill 50% of the population) of cannabis described as "50 pounds dropped on your head from 50 feet."

That is true with today's weed and today's consumption technology. But that is also very shortsighted.

We know that technology, along with research, have proven very beneficial for devising better drugs, better ways to consume drugs, and better ways to produce drugs.

We know that already the concept of rolling up dead flowers to smoke has been superseded by vaporizers delivering 5 - 10 times more potency without all the smoke.

We know that weed has been excluded from even basic studies, leaving much to be explored and much to learn. Alongside the studies that have not been done lies innovations and technological and scientific enhancements that have not been invented yet.

There is no reason to assume we can only ever consume very tiny volumes of weed with fire, like our ancestors 700 generations ago.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#199

Post by analyst74 »

jrells wrote: post #78
Zelphyr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're just bad drivers in general, regardless of our level of intoxication. Texting. Dancing (I see this frequently). The number of elderly people who drive who shouldn't be is mind boggling. I'm of a mind that its actually way too easy to obtain a drivers license in this country. For example; my mother took my uncle to get his drivers license renewed. Why she did is beyond me because he has early stage dementia. He…

I would question the claim that Americans are bad drivers in general. Compared to driving I've seen in other countries (particularly India, China), even the worst drivers I've seen in America aren't so bad. And the worst drivers in America I know personally are not actually Americans but internationals. Maybe we are generally worse compared to other western countries but my experience suggests the prevalence of drivi…

Saying whether one country's drivers are better or worse is baseless and pointless. But the rules and customs of driving do tend to be more strict in some of the countries you mentioned.

i.e. in China, if you're 60 years or older, you need to pass yearly medical exam to show that you're fit to drive.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#200

Post by nedwin »

mod wrote: post #197
nedwin wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, thanks for clarifying. I'm a foreigner so take this for what it's worth but my view is that if it provides significant public benefit (in reducing drink driving / dope driving accidents) that stops for the specific purpose of breath testing at DUI checkpoints then it should be something the community would support. How that plays out is another matter.

FWIW I chose not to say whether it's unconstitutional or not because it takes the supreme court to decide that. I'm entirely unqualified. I lean the other way, and this being one of my favorite quotes probably makes me decidedly American: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin That said, I do entirely disagree with drunk d…

I like that quote too.

The supreme court actually decided that it's not unconstitutional but leaves it to the states to handle enforcement.

Interesting to note that in Australia the percentage of fatal accidents involving alcohol are 12% versus 22% in California. Especially because we have a younger official drinking age of 18 and a generally higher alcohol consumption rate...

Post reply on HN