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

201–208 of 208 posts

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

#201

Post by digikata »

Retric wrote: post #118
digikata wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about your takeaway from that link. In the Summary: "For example, the results of this study suggest that if a randomly-selected driver in his or thirties and a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older were to drive equal numbers of miles, the older driver would be over 1500% more likely than the younger driver to be responsible for and die as a result of a crash, and about 220% more likely than the youn…

These statistics get very tricky as older people are more likely to die in an identical crash causing identical trauma. Older drivers drive at different times of day, have different passenger profiles, and drive different cars. However, in the end 85+ year old drivers are simply less safe than 16 year old drivers. The issue is quantifying how much less safe they are.

I guess I am confused then about the statement that "[Seniors 85+ are] only about 0.8% more likely to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist, over the course of a year." Through some sort of statistical interpretation.

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

#202

Post by mariodiana »

lkbm wrote: post #192
mariodiana wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's my real point. I believe, and I'm not alone, that the 0.08 limit is unnecessarily and arbitrarily low, and has more to do with neo-temperance hysteria than sound judgment.

There is a central divide in alcohol use and an individual's response to it. Barring young people inexperienced with alcohol (and lacking a fully developed frontal lobe), most people drink a bit, feel tipsy, and then decide that they need to sober up. They're self-aware, responsible, and careful. That's their response to alcohol.

But another segment of people have a completely different response to alcohol. They have a couple of drinks, feel a sense of euphoria, and want to drink and drink and drink some more. These people are alcoholics. They may be very high-functioning — able to hold down a job and all — but they respond both physically and psychologically in a fundamentally different way.

The first group might get behind the wheel, if they judge that they feel alright, and drive home as carefully as they can. The second group — now drunk — will get behind the wheel and drive recklessly, exceeding the speed limit, blasting the radio, taking turns too fast and so forth. The first group might be at BAC 0.05 or 0.08, or even at 0.10, but taking all due precautions. It's not ideal, but it's a far cry from the second group, now at 0.15 or 0.2 or 0.3 (which takes some practice as you know, since unpracticed drunks would be passed out at this BAC), who are now whipping down the road. The first group occasionally has "too much to drink." The second group is blasted every Friday and Saturday night, and sometimes every happy hour.

It's this second group that is causing the lion's share of the tragedies we see on the roadways. The shame of it is that our whole culture has to suffer because of this. A person who is no real threat to his fellows and who may very well be guilty of no other infraction at the time can have his life ruined by over-zealous prosecution.

I think we would do well to reconsider the problem and what we're tying to solve, rather than simply getting MAD(D) about such things and patting ourselves on the back for making things "tougher," year after year.

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

#203

Post by nitrogen »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #84
nitrogen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather just replace the ignition system with a short driving game that you have to complete to start the car I've heard there are cars with a breath analyzer connected to the ignition. A driving game would hopefully pick up more than alcohol, so I like that idea. Unfortunately, I suspect many drunk drivers will just do what they do with the current systems and have their sober girlfriend pass the test for them.

have their sober girlfriend pass the test for them. Good point. It needs some form of seat sensor that turns the engine back off if the person in the driving seat changes.

Even that's not enough, though; the girlfriend might just lean over from the passenger seat. This is based on third hand information I've heard, not on anybody I actually know.

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

#204

Post by boyaka »

mariodiana wrote: post #202
lkbm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's my real point. I believe, and I'm not alone, that the 0.08 limit is unnecessarily and arbitrarily low, and has more to do with neo-temperance hysteria than sound judgment. There is a central divide in alcohol use and an individual's response to it. Barring young people inexperienced with alcohol (and lacking a fully developed frontal lobe), most people drink a bit, feel tipsy, and then decide that they need to…

The groups aren't as dichotomized as you describe. I would consider myself part of the first group except that I do drink for the euphoria. I occasionally drink, period (rare social occasions), but when I do I'll want at least 6+, and I'll be sure to have a place to rest or a ride home. I even have a breathalyzer. Your definition of an alcoholic is off.

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

#205

Post by eloff »

mod wrote: post #181
eloff wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the science that says it drops your IQ seems to have been poorly done. Smokers are dumber in general, but that may well say more about their socioeconomic backgrounds. However, I personally wouldn't risk it. Do you know what I would pay to raise my IQ by a half-dozen points? I seriously considered taking Ritalin at one point, to see if it might give me a boost (actually I still haven't ruled it out, just she…

What's the risk? I mean, it's not going to permanently lower your IQ, or reduce your ambition, correct? And if it does, what's the benefit you get in return? Does lowering your ambition make you happier, for instance? Why did you shelve ritalin? Does it have risks as well? Do you know why you prefer not to risk iq/ambition but you're potentially okay with risking whatever ritalin can be a detriment to? I ask all this…

Just because much of the science has flaws does not mean that the effect is temporary, we don't really know what the long term effects might be. But even assuming it had no bad long term effects on the brain, if one were a regular user then it would regularly drop your intelligence and motivation, which itself is a disadvantage. This is no different than drinking regularly.

I may be more keenly aware of this than people in the US, but life is a global competition for resources, and it's unwise to squander your competitive edge.

Ritalin probably has more risks, I've not decided that it's worth the tradeoff yet.

I guess the core of your question is a deeper one about life, happiness, and the tradeoffs we make. I think the answer to that is different for everyone. Life is short and without intrinsic meaning. You have to focus on what gives it value for you, which is likely very different from the next person. For me, I enjoy creating things, and I feel most alive when in the zone churning out code. Most other people probably enjoy activities that are more social.

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

#206

Post by gonehome »

mariodiana wrote: post #135
gonehome wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are a couple of things with this. The legal limit in most of the US (0.08 BAC) is actually pretty high, so you can legally drink and drive. For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7. So most drinking and driving you might have seen probably isn't (at least legally). The second main reason is probably because there is no good mass tran…

A BAC of 0.08 is not high at all. "Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher." http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-...

For clarification I wasn't saying that it's 'too high', but just that it allows for more drinks than people think.

If the parent commenter was a European who doesn't drive that much and was surprised about how Americans drink and drive, they're usually not aware of how many drinks effect BAC and what the laws are.

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

#207

Post by techpeace »

benologist wrote: post #198
techpeace wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think labelling me as "very short-sighted" because we might one day, in the future, hypothetically reach THC intake levels that are considered lethal is a bit much. We aren't there yet, and even with the technologies you mentioned, we aren't even close. You would need to ingest a third your bodyweight (conservatively) all at once to kill yourself[1].

Physiologically, you would lose motor function long before you were able to kill yourself. So maybe in 2056 if somebody produces a machine that lets you take in 50kg of THC in a single hit, don't use it.

[1]: http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm

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

#208

Post by techpeace »

DanBC wrote: post #125
techpeace wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you reference a study that makes that claim? I've never heard that before.

There are a couple listed here; some are from pro-cannabis campaigners. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?question... Erowid has a nice chart. See benzene. https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml The british pro-drug site has a summary of some research: http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.php This UK National health service "behind the headlines" report looks at one stud…

Thanks!
Post reply on HN