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

#271

Post by skuunk1 » Tue, May 17, 2016, 12:31 AM UTC

The title seems misleading. People with marijuana in their bloodstream != stoned drivers. Marijuana use is detectable for a long time past the point of impairment and the data only reflects that they HAVE used marijuana vs being stoned at the point of driving.

Maybe instead of breathalysers and drug detection kits we should have standardised attention/reaction tests to determine if someone is safe to drive (you could probably even run them on a tablet). This would also weed out (pun intended) tired drivers.

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

#272

Post by bsder » Tue, May 17, 2016, 12:39 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #113

kdamken wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all those things affect your ability to drive. You shouldn't text and drive, but people do it, etc. I would say being stoned is a lot worse than the other things you listed though: - When you're tired, you can have a cup of coffee and wake up a bit and regain some of that focus. You can't drink a red bull and suddenly be way less high. - If you send a text or two while driving, you're not paying attention to the…

Stoned is ambiguous though. Nobody thinks it's ok to drive with a BAC of 0.4 but 0.04 is generally considered legal. The question becomes what's Stoned? Detectable is not a reasonable limit nor is can't stand up.

> Nobody thinks it's ok to drive with a BAC of 0.4 but 0.04 is generally considered legal.

Unfortunately, even 0.04 can get you arrested in California.

The BAC limit is simply when the DMV automatically pulls your license. You can be convicted of DWI/DUI at any BAC in California.

Now, you aren't likely to get pulled over at BAC less than 0.05, but if you do get pulled over, you can still get convicted for it.

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

#273

Post by sokoloff » Tue, May 17, 2016, 1:38 AM UTC

saganus wrote: post #105

wildmusings wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is terrible. Marijuana is not comparable to anything you can buy over the counter. Unless you chug a bottle of cough syrup and then drive, which is just as illegal as driving drunk or stoned.

Actually I think there are a lot of things over the counter that affect you more than marijuana. Have you taken Dramamine (the regular drowsy version)? If I take 1 pill I can sort of keep awake but I wouldn't try to drive unless it was an emergency. Taking 2 pills makes me so drowsy that I would not drive safely by any chance. Those are the recommended dosages by the way, so no need to consume the whole bottle or box…

Agreed. I'm a pretty big guy, and one Benadryl is like getting shot in the ass with a tranquilizer dart. (I think the dosage is "1-2".)

No way would I drive after that.

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

#274

Post by sokoloff » Tue, May 17, 2016, 1:47 AM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #45

mywittyname wrote: post #43

I can't argue with this data, but I have to wonder how much tolerance/individuality plays a role in this. I know that I personally could not drive high on THC, my propensity to zone out would almost certainly result in an accident, but I (used to) have friends who drove regularly during and after partaking and I was completely confident in their abilities. Personally, I think prohibitionists/law enforcement is lookin…

>> I can't argue with this data, but I have to wonder how much tolerance/individuality plays a role in this. A ton. Someone who only drinks a couple times a year and drives home drunk from a wedding or something and isn't used to it is a lot more unsafe than someone who goes to happy hour every day and drives home all the time like that.

Maybe on a per-event basis, but probably not on an annual basis.

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

#275

Post by nostrebored » Tue, May 17, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

MAGZine wrote: post #257

nostrebored wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poi…

You're very rarely forced to do anything in life. My family has been in small farm agriculture for multiple generations.

Coincidentally they don't smoke pot and drive, because they're not inconsiderate, life endangering assholes.

My point still stands, that if you choose to take treatment that impairs your ability to drive, then you shouldn't drive. If driving is important to you, you should choose other treatment if you can. If you can't, then you shouldn't drive.

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

#276

Post by Symmetry » Tue, May 17, 2016, 2:30 AM UTC

webXL wrote: post #219

Symmetry wrote: post #41

I remember an article on this in New Scientist back in the 90s that went into a lot more depth. A study showed that while alcohol impaired multiple aspects of driving skill marijuana mostly impaired just time judgement. And stoned drivers tended to overestimate their level of impairment and slow down while drunk drivers tended to underestimate how impaired they were. They actually found that drivers who were moderate…

Right, there's more involved than just the impairment itself. I was just about to ask if this had something to with stoned drivers driving more carefully just to avoid harsher penalties for possession. Data from states where pot is legal would be interesting.

In this case the subjects were given substances in a lab and then used a driving simulator.

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

#277

Post by geierdmtr » Tue, May 17, 2016, 3:52 AM UTC

yolesaber wrote: post #269

geierdmtr wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i feel you. I had an accident and called the police. got arrested, jailed and beaten by guards. first they claimed i was drunk (i dont drink). i could not not stand on one leg for 30 seconds. after brethalizer showed 0 they claimed i was on drugs. got jailed for 2 nights. blood test came back negative for everything 40 days later. they retested it and found wellbutrin and xanax in my blood, my prescription meds. xana…

I'm sorry to hear that. That's just god awful. The pursuit of "justice" in this country can make you really sick to your stomach sometimes. I hope everything turns out well for you, my friend.

thank you.. all you can do is go through a situation in a case like that and don't get discouraged.

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

#278

Post by MAGZine » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:51 AM UTC

nostrebored wrote: post #275

MAGZine wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 poi…

You're very rarely forced to do anything in life. My family has been in small farm agriculture for multiple generations. Coincidentally they don't smoke pot and drive, because they're not inconsiderate, life endangering assholes. My point still stands, that if you choose to take treatment that impairs your ability to drive, then you shouldn't drive. If driving is important to you, you should choose other treatment if…

> You're very rarely forced to do anything in life. My family has been in small farm agriculture for multiple generations.

> Coincidentally they don't smoke pot and drive, because they're not inconsiderate, life endangering assholes.

Then there's a good chance that they consume liquor and get behind the wheel instead. I know a lot of farmers, and this is a pretty universal truism.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything but people generally don't feel compelled to uproot their lives/livelihood because someone far away is trying to tell them what's good for them. Because especially in farm communities, drinking and driving is most likely to cause endangerment to yourself, not others. Not much to hit on grid roads.

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

#279

Post by _acme » Tue, May 17, 2016, 8:16 PM UTC

zzz157 wrote: post #266

_acme wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depression, yes; see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/06/marijauna-depressio... . There is no scientific evidence to suggest that OP has "just been lucky". There is also no evidence to suggest that OP is a threat to him/herself or anyone else; they simply noted that they had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Also, Bupropion is an anti-depressant, not an anti-psychotic. And Xanax is a strong Benzodiaz…

Could you clarify what you found ridiculous in my comment? I don't need to present scientific evidence that he's a potential harm to himself or others; anyone who is depressed or schizophrenic is potentially such a threat. The evidence that he's just been lucky is that despite not treating his illnesses with modalities proven to provide treatment, he hasn't had a severe depression or schizophrenic episode. Also, you still haven't provided any peer-reviewed research suggesting that marijuana is useful for treating depression, anxiety or schizophrenia; was that an oversight or is it unavailable? My understanding is it's unavailable, again suggesting that because he's not actually treating his illnesses with medications that can actually be of benefit, he's simply been lucky while smoking pot that he hasn't had any severe issues, like suicidal or homicidal ideation. Clearly you have a pot-slanted viewpoint, but just because you believe in the healing powers of a random plant with thousands of chemicals in it, doesn't mean any one or more of those chemicals is actually supported by scientific evidence as being a treatment for depression, anxiety or schizophrenia as compared to legitimate medications.

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

#280

Post by voidz » Sun, May 22, 2016, 10:33 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #217

voidz wrote: post #46

Get off your high horse.

Please don't be personally abusive, even when a comment is annoying. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11706682 and marked it off-topic.

Sorry. It was intended as a bad pun.