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

#91

Post by mirimir » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

squidfood wrote: post #61

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…

The key point in the article is actually the tests used. THC stays in the body long (days/weeks) after you're no longer impaired. If a breathalyzer test on Tuesday picked up the beer you had last Saturday, there'd be no correlation between that test and accidents, either. (and no one would approve of using such a test for law enforcement).

Yes, this is a key problem with the study. THC metabolites are cleared very slowly. Testing positive indicates that you used marijuana within a week or two. It doesn't mean that you're stoned.

For alcohol, a comparable test might look at long-term changes in liver biochemistry associated with alcohol consumption. In that case, there probably wouldn't be any correlation with accident rates.

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

#92

Post by binarymax » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

I'm on vacation in Colorado right now, and you can point out the stoned drivers. They tend to drive slow and passive, they fear the merge, and spend lots of time stopped at stop signs making sure they really are stopped and not going to crash. The impression I have is that their judgement and reactions are definitely impaired, but in a stark contrast to the invincibility and carelessness of alcohol induced drivers.

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

#93

Post by wildmusings » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #52

kdamken wrote: post #42

Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high. Call an uber or something. I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. Driving is an incredibly dangerous activity on its own. Doing it when you're stoned is a stupid and risky move, and comparing it to how much more dangerous drunk driving is doesn't make it less stupid. If you'v…

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 responsibility? Society isn't responsible for enabling people's drinking. If you can't get home without driving, then don't drink (or if it's a long visit, have only one or two, at the beginning).

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

#94

Post by TallGuyShort » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

kdamken wrote: post #42

Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high. Call an uber or something. I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. Driving is an incredibly dangerous activity on its own. Doing it when you're stoned is a stupid and risky move, and comparing it to how much more dangerous drunk driving is doesn't make it less stupid. If you'v…

Agreed. I think the value of results like this is to challenge selection biases. I have family in Colorado where marijuana was recently legalized, an action I support despite never smoking it nor having desire to. They're worried about the legalization resulting in everyone driving high, and they constantly cite 1 incident where someone rear-ended a cop while high. It's illogical to take anything from a single incident simply because it was relevant enough to make headlines and ignore all the other different incidents that don't make headlines because there's nothing novel about them.

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

#95

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #86

dubcanada wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not safe to drive while tired, on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs), while texting, while on the phone, while not looking at the road, with glasses (they could fall off and you'd be blind), with a heart condition, etc etc. I think it's safe to assume you drive very often with things that affect your driving. If pot is proven to not affect your driving to a measurable degree, then the…

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.

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by hfourm » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

binarymax wrote: post #92

I'm on vacation in Colorado right now, and you can point out the stoned drivers. They tend to drive slow and passive, they fear the merge, and spend lots of time stopped at stop signs making sure they really are stopped and not going to crash. The impression I have is that their judgement and reactions are definitely impaired, but in a stark contrast to the invincibility and carelessness of alcohol induced drivers.

You noticed this just on vacation eh?

As a CO resident, maybe you just haven't noticed how shitty our drivers are ;)

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

#97

Post by mbrameld » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

binarymax wrote: post #92

I'm on vacation in Colorado right now, and you can point out the stoned drivers. They tend to drive slow and passive, they fear the merge, and spend lots of time stopped at stop signs making sure they really are stopped and not going to crash. The impression I have is that their judgement and reactions are definitely impaired, but in a stark contrast to the invincibility and carelessness of alcohol induced drivers.

How do you verify your assumptions?

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

#98

Post by scarecrowbob » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

dubcanada wrote: post #54

kdamken wrote: post #42

Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high. Call an uber or something. I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. Driving is an incredibly dangerous activity on its own. Doing it when you're stoned is a stupid and risky move, and comparing it to how much more dangerous drunk driving is doesn't make it less stupid. If you'v…

It's also not safe to drive while tired, on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs), while texting, while on the phone, while not looking at the road, with glasses (they could fall off and you'd be blind), with a heart condition, etc etc. I think it's safe to assume you drive very often with things that affect your driving. If pot is proven to not affect your driving to a measurable degree, then the…

I don't really mess with cannabis any more, but I think that a lot of folks have strange ideas about how it affects people.

If my only experience with the drug were the first couple of times in college where we were taking bong hits, then yeah, I can see why people would be shocked that you could drive in that state. It took a me a couple of years before I discovered that most of the folks (especially the folks in their 50s - 60s I hang out with) really are just getting a little bit at a time.

It's possible (and I think for many long-term users, more normal) to have only enough to modify your mood and outlook on events without becoming glued-to-the-couch high.

Pro tip: there is also a difference between having a beer with dinner and chugging vodka shots all night long. :D

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

#99

Post by maxerickson » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #91

squidfood wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key point in the article is actually the tests used. THC stays in the body long (days/weeks) after you're no longer impaired. If a breathalyzer test on Tuesday picked up the beer you had last Saturday, there'd be no correlation between that test and accidents, either. (and no one would approve of using such a test for law enforcement).

Yes, this is a key problem with the study. THC metabolites are cleared very slowly. Testing positive indicates that you used marijuana within a week or two. It doesn't mean that you're stoned. For alcohol, a comparable test might look at long-term changes in liver biochemistry associated with alcohol consumption. In that case, there probably wouldn't be any correlation with accident rates.

Blood tests can directly measure THC. The article seems to be talking about such tests.

The problem is that there is not a well established mapping between THC levels and impairment. It isn't even clear if such a mapping can be done.

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

#100

Post by justizin » Mon, May 16, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #83

dubcanada wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not safe to drive while tired, on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs), while texting, while on the phone, while not looking at the road, with glasses (they could fall off and you'd be blind), with a heart condition, etc etc. I think it's safe to assume you drive very often with things that affect your driving. If pot is proven to not affect your driving to a measurable degree, then the…

> on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs) I assume you mean any medication which may impair you. There are lot's of medications which people should take before driving, like anti-seizure, antipsychotics, heart control, blood sugar control, and so on. It will typically tell you on the label if it is safe to take and operate heavy machinery. Although I'd always suggest taking it the first time while…

> There are lot's of medications which people should take before driving, like anti-seizure, antipsychotics, heart control, blood sugar control, and so on.

anxiety, depression, etc...

there's some overlap here, some people use cannabis to prevent/control seizures, to treat anxiety or depression, and don't feel side effects.

The experience of the common person who has tried cannabis once or twice and turned away isn't necessarily anything like the experience of someone who benefits from it.

You wouldn't say that a person with ADHD shouldn't drive on ADHD meds, but for anyone else, that would be effectively like driving on cocaine.

Some people should, in fact, not be driving while not under the influence of cannabis or another treatment for conditions that could make them unsafe drivers.